Sitting of 11 November 1954

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE

    Subsidies
    Sir L. Ropnerasked the Minister of Agriculture to what extent, up to the latest convenient date, subsidies to the agricultural industry are running in excess of, or less than, the amount estimated.
    The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): I cannot yet say what, if any, Supplementary Estimate may be required.
    Mr. T. Williams: In the meantime, will the Minister look at the profits of millers and bacon factories to see how they have gained as a result of these subsidies over the past 12 months?
    Mr. Amory: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can tell me how I can see the profits of these traders, or whether he has any advice to give me on that point.

    Farm Survey, Mid-Wales
    Mr. Watkinsasked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made by the Welsh Agricultural Land Sub-Commission with the farm survey in Mid-Wales; and when a report may be expected.
    Mr. Amory: I understand that the Welsh Agricultural Land Sub-Commission is making progress with its investigations and hopes to submit a report to me within about 12 months.
    Mr. Watkins: Will the Minister ask the Sub-Commission to publish a report far sooner than that, in view of the assurance given by the Minister for Welsh Affairs in the last Welsh debate on rural depopulation? Secondly, will the recom-
    1374
    mendations be in the form of a White Paper?
    Mr. Amory: In reply to the first part of the question, the sooner the better from my point of view. But a detailed investigation is being carried out over an area of 300,000 acres, and I am sure that the Sub-Commission will not lose any time in completing its business. In reply to the second part of the question, I must wait and see what the recommendations are.

    Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics)
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps have been taken to bring to the notice of farmers the provisions of the Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) Act, 1954; and whether he will consider the desirability of issuing some simple explanatory memorandum with regard to the provisions of this Act.
    Mr. Amory: My veterinary and livestock officers, who are in constant touch with the farmers, are aware of the provisions of the Act and are in a position to advise farmers. I am considering what further publicity might be given to its provisions and am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for his suggestion.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many farmers, particularly in the more remote areas, are unaware that this new law limits the number of operations which their stockmen can carry out without an anaesthetic? Will he, therefore, intensify his publicity as soon as possible?
    Mr. Amory: I will certainly look into that point. I am very anxious indeed that all farmers concerned should know exactly what is contained in the Act.

    Pigs
    Mr. Bullardasked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made with the scheme for establishing pig-litter testing stations throughout the country.
    Mr. Amory: The Government's proposed scheme for progeny testing stations, for boars in Great Britain is under discussion with representatives of pig producers. I hope to be able to make an announcement soon.
    Mr. Bullard: Will my right hon. Friend pursue this matter as quickly as possible? There has been a rapid change in the kind of pigs demanded by the market, and this is a method by which improvement in our own stock can probably be brought about more thoroughly than by any other means.
    Mr. Amory: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said about the potential value of progeny testing, and I look forward very much to seeing these schemes in operation.
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Agriculture what assessment was made of curing capacity and what consultations took place between his Department, the farmers' unions and the pig breeders' societies, before farmers were asked substantially to increase the numbers of bacon pigs.
    Mr. Amory: No special emphasis was laid on the production of bacon pigs when the Government in recent years encouraged farmers to expand their production of pigs. Indeed, at the 1953 Review the prices of pork pigs were substantially increased to encourage production of pork. The production policy and price guarantees have been discussed with the National Farmers' Unions at each Annual Review.
    Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that his reply was not sufficient, and that it is beyond dispute that there is a completely insufficient bacon curing capacity? Does he propose to remedy a situation, which is his personal responsibility, either by having the number of pigs reduced or by increasing the curing capacity?
    Mr. Amory: I cannot agree at all with what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not know on what evidence he is so sure that the present capacity of the factories is insufficient. I would remind him that the proportion of top-grade pigs so far offered to the bacon factories is, at best, only about half of their present capacity.
    Sir H. Roper: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, if the curing capacity is expanded, the release of imported bacon will be strictly controlled in order that the market may not be spoiled?
    Mr. Amory: I am afraid that that is too hypothetical a question to answer.
    Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that many farmers are still being permitted to send only half of their pigs to the bacon factories? That, surely, is evidence of insufficient capacity?
    Mr. Amory: No, Sir. I think that the question of quality, as well as of quantity, comes into this matter.
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Agriculture (1) whether it is still the policy of his Department to increase the production of pigs for bacon;
    (2) what price revisions he will make to encourage the production of more pigs for pork.
    Mr. Amory: Now that fatstock and meat have been decontrolled, it is the policy of the Government to allow the market, as reflecting consumer demand, to determine what proportion of the pigs produced are used for bacon, for pork and for manufacturing. The price guarantees will, of course, be considered at the next Annual Review.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the pig producers of this country have lost many scores of thousands of pounds? Will he be quite specific and say whether he wants twice as many grade A bacon pigs as there are at the moment, and does he believe that it will be possible to get any more porkers than there are at the moment unless he alters the price? Can we have specific answers to those questions?
    Mr. Amory: No; the specific answers to those questions will be given by the consumer. I do not believe in detailed directions. What we have done has been to offer a guaranteed price——
    Lieut-Colonel Lipton: And ruin the pig producers as well.
    Mr. Amory: —and we must leave it to the market to decide what proportion of these pigs is required for other purposes.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the record pig population of this country at the moment is a manifestation of the success of the policy of this Government during the last three years, notwithstanding one or two minor difficulties following decontrol? Will my

    1377
    right hon. Friend not be deflected in any way from allowing the free market to dictate the demands of the consumer?
    Mr. P. Wells: Is the Minister aware that pigs in Ashford Market in Kent a fortnight ago were sold for as little as £1 apiece?
    Mr. Amory: It all depends on the size of the pig. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the market returns, I think he will find that the price of pigs for pork has been steadily improving every week.
    Mr. T. Williams: Will not the Minister agree that over the past few months there has been a definite setback to pig production because of uncertainty all over the country?
    Mr. Amory: I think that such difficulties as there have been on the re-opening of the market will grow less and less as we all have experience of the workings of the market.

    Egg Marketing Scheme
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made in the preparation of an egg marketing scheme.
    Mr. Amory: Discussions with the National Farmers' Unions have now been resumed and are continuing.
    Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the producers are eagerly awaiting the establishment of a marketing board for eggs because it will mean a more level price for them and a better quality egg for the consumer? For the first time it will enable producers to advertise the higher quality of the home-produced egg above the imported egg.
    Mr. Amory: I am anxious to enable producers to bring forward a scheme if they wish to do so.
    Mr. T. Williams: How long are the discussions likely to take before a scheme is produced?
    Mr. Amory: I cannot give an answer in terms of days or weeks but I am anxious that no time should be lost. I think that definite progress is being made in overcoming the practical difficulties that we see in allowing a board of the kind envisaged to be established.

    Wool
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Agriculture the amount of home-produced wool in 1948 and 1954.
    Mr. Amory: Production in 1953–54 is provisionally estimated at 45,600 tons in the United Kingdom compared with an estimated 33,200 tons in 1947–48.
    Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a most satisfactory answer, and proves the progress that has been made in the sheep-rearing industry during the lifetime of the present Government?
    Mr. Amory: I am quite sure that the whole House will be glad to see evidence of the steady improvement in agricultural output in the last few years.
    Mr. T. Williams: Do not the figures indicate the real value of the guarantees given in 1947 by the Labour Government?

    Meat
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Agriculture the amount of home-produced beef, veal, mutton, pork and bacon for the years ended 30th September, 1948, and 30th September, 1954.
    Mr. Amory: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The figures for 1954 show in all cases very substantial increases over those for 1948.
    Mr. Crouch: I shall look forward to seeing those figures, but is my right hon. Friend aware that it does prove the amount of progress which has been made in the last three years under the present Government?
    Mr. Amory: I think that it is a great tribute to the energy with which, in recent years, all our farmers and farm-workers have got on with the job.
    Mr. Bottomley: Will the Minister also agree that it has also been due to the policy that was pursued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams)? Further, will he assure the House that, with the abolition of bulk buying, the progress will continue?
    Mr. Amory: The right hon. Gentleman knows that very much of what the

    1379
    previous Government did in the agricultural field was done with our strong support.
    Following are the figures:

    ESTIMATED PRODUCTION OF HOME-FED MEAT (EXCLUDING OFFALS) IN UNITED KINGDOM

    '000 tons

    June to May years

    Beef and veal

    Mutton and lamb

    Pork

    Bacon

    1947–48

    478

    112

    14

    90

    1953–54 (provisional)

    637

    175

    280

    248

    NOTES:
    (1) The figures include estimated from pieces of land under 1 acre.
    (2) The available statistics do not allow the Tables to be carried forward to 30th September, 1954, but it is known that sales of sheep and lambs and of pigs between June and September have been higher this year than last year.
    (3) The figures given for pigmeat are subject to revision. Pork includes manufacturing pork.
    (4) The total of pigmeat production includes, in addition, 22,000 tons in 1947–48 and 59,000 tons in 1953–54 used neither for pork nor bacon (i.e. shrinkage and inedible parts of the carcase)

    Hill Farmers (Subsidies)
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Minister of Agriculture (1) if he will extend to hill farmers in England and Wales, such as those in the Lake District, the special subsidies granted to certain Scottish hill farmers, in view of the special difficulties that have been experienced this year;
    (2) if he is aware that hill farmers have in many cases lost their hay owing to the exceptionally wet season; and if he will consult the Hill Farming Advisory Committee with a view to ascertaining whether it will be necessary to help hill farmers, and the best way to do it during the coming winter.
    Mr. Amory: Hill farmers in England and Wales already receive under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts, subsidies similar to those available in Scotland. My Department is keeping in close touch with the problems to which my hon. Friend refers and I will bear in mind his suggestion for consultation at the right time with the Hill Farming Advisory Committee. County Committees in upland districts have been reminded of their power to purchase fodder and supply it
    1380
    to farmers on credit; and have authority, in relation to the subsidies referred to, to waive the normal condition that part of the subsidy must be spent on improvements.
    Sir I. Fraser: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the word "similar" means "the same"? Do hill farmers in England and Wales get the same amount of money?
    Mr. Amory: In England and Wales they get at least as much as the Scots.

    Land, Peacehaven (Compulsory Purchase)
    Mr. Smithersasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that two plots of building land at Peacehaven, belonging to Mr. E. B. Holdaway, are the subject of a compulsory purchase order by his Department at a price of £2 10s. each; for what purpose the land is required; and whether he will now release it so that it may be sold by the owner.
    Mr. Amory: Mr. Holdaway's plots are part of a substantial area of requisitioned land at Peacehaven which is the subject of compulsory purchase proceedings in order to ensure its full and efficient use for agriculture. As I have said in reply to recent Questions, I hope shortly to make a statement about the future of the land in this area.
    Mr. Smithers: I thank my right hon. Friend for his promise of a statement. Is he aware that Mr. Holdaway's father purchased this land in 1916, on a prospectus which I hold in my hand, which says that a freehold in Peacehaven is a better investment than money in the bank? Does my right hon. Friend think that compulsory purchase at 50s. for each plot at the end of 40 years is a result which a citizen should have to contemplate when buying freehold building plots; and will he do his best to remedy this injustice?
    Mr. Amory: I have always learned to regard prospectuses with a certain amount of caution, but I may say that, in addition to the price, which is the statutory limit I can pay in the event of compulsory purchase, I understand that Mr. Holdaway also has an admitted claim for £70 under Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act.
    Mr. T. Williams: Will the Minister get the name of the firm which produced that prospectus?
    Mr. Smithers: If the right hon. Gentlemen would like it, I will give him the prospectus, which is very well drawn up.

    Potato Harvest (Labour)
    Mr. Godberasked the Minister of Agriculture what special measures he is considering to assist in completing the potato harvest in view of the continued disastrous weather conditions, and the substantial acreage still waiting to be lifted.
    Mr. Amory: Over most of the country, under arrangements made earlier by the Ministry of Labour and National Service in consultation with my own Department and the two sides of the industry, there has been enough supplementary labour to enable the potatoes to be lifted when the weather has permitted. In a few areas the weather has caused more serious delays, and we are watching the position there to ensure that all available local labour is fully and effectively used whenever it can get on to the land.
    Mr. Godber: Will my right hon. Friend consider, if need be in consultation with the Services, the possibility of making available personnel of the Armed Forces where they can be of assistance?
    Mr. Amory: We are watching the position and, of course, that can be done already, within limits, by local arrangements. Soldiers can volunteer in their own time, and can work at other times by local arrangements. The Minister of Labour and National Service has arranged for the harvest suspension for agricultural workers to be continued from 20th November until 1st January in the North and in Scotland, to enable them to help with the very late harvest.
    Mr. G. Jeger: Is the Minister aware that many very small farmers are suffering serious loss owing to weather conditions, and to their inability to lift the potatoes before they are already rotten? Is he taking steps to prevent a potato shortage in the market in a few months' time?
    Mr. Amory: I do, of course, realise the financial effects which the weather has had on all farmers.
    Mr. Fell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at this time of year, a certain amount of labour is available in some seaside towns—and certainly in my constituency? Will he seriously consider the possibility of using some of that labour?
    Mr. Amory: I am quite sure that the employment exchanges of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service are looking into all those kinds of possibilities, but solutions have to be found on a fairly local basis here.

    Cereal Acreage
    Mr. Godberasked the Minister of Agriculture, in the light of the late season, what special consideration has been given to the difficulty of maintaining a reasonable cereal acreage for the 1955 harvest; and whether he will make a statement on his policy in this connection.
    Mr. Amory: I am aware that the late harvest has considerably curtailed autumn sowings of cereals. But it is too early to reach conclusions as to the cereal acreage in 1955.
    Mr. Godber: Does my right hon. Friend agree about the importance of maintaining a sufficiently large tillage acreage, and does he not think that there must be a substantial acreage of spring-sown corn? Will he look at the position regarding the availability of seed corn, particularly for spring wheat?
    Mr. Amory: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am quite sure that, in the interests of an efficient agriculture, it is important to maintain a high level of arable acreage. I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend said in the last part of his supplementary question.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Caenarvonshire
    Mr. G. Robertsasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons registered as unemployed in the county of Caernarvon; what percentage of the insured population of the county this represents; and how this percentage compares with that for the United Kingdom.
    The Minister of Labour and National Service (Sir Walter Monckton): The number of unemployed persons on the registers of employment exchanges in

    1383
    Caernarvonshire at 11th October, 1954, was 1,955, or 5·3 per cent. of the estimated total number of employees. The corresponding percentage for Great Britain as a whole was 1·2.
    Mr. Roberts: Is not the Minister aware that these figures prove that the level of unemployment in Caernarvonshire is three times, or more, that in the United Kingdom generally? Is he not further aware that during the coming winter these figures will be still further worsened by the fact that two maintenance depots in Llanberis and Llandwrog run by the Royal Air Force are to be closed? Will he consult the President of the Board of Trade to see if some steps can be taken before the onset of the winter to improve the employment position in Caernarvonshire?
    Sir W. Monckton: Throughout last year, and even before, I realised that the difference between Caernarvonshire and the country as a whole is of the order mentioned by the hon. Member, and I am in consultation with my colleagues, because this is a matter to which I have to give my special attention.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any particular scheme in mind, because I happen to know the area from personal experience, and I can say that there is serious concern, especially in view of the development mentioned by my hon. Friend in connection with the Royal Air Force?
    Sir W. Monckton: Specific schemes are not a matter for my Department. This is a problem for which I do not see an immediate cure, and I do not pretend to do so.

    Workers (Earnings and Living Costs)
    Mr. Fellasked the Minister of Labour the average weekly earnings of full-time agricultural workers in Britain and of industrial workers in Britain, respectively, taken over a year, to the last convenient date.
    Sir W. Monckton: The latest available information about the average weekly earnings of full-time agricultural workers and of industrial workers in Britain will be found in the September, 1954, issue of the Ministry of Labour Gazette.
    Mr. Fellasked the Minister of Labour the approximate average weekly inclusive cost of rent, food, rates, light and heat, to agricultural workers in Britain and to industrial workers in Britain, respectively, taken over a year, to the last convenient date.
    Sir W. Monckton: I regret that the information desired is not available.
    Mr. Fell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, if it were possible, it would be very helpful to have these figures, because one cannot make a sensible estimate of the difference between industry and agriculture without some such figures to go on?
    Sir W. Monckton: None of the material for comparison exists now, but it is quite possible that the 1953 household expenditure inquiry, the result of which is on its way, will produce something from which a comparison of that kind, if necessary, can be drawn.

    Ship-repairing Industry (Strike)
    Sir R. Aclandasked the Minister of Labour whether he has any further statement to make on the strike in the ship-repairing industry.
    Sir W. Monckton: I understand that the exchanges between the parties, to which reference has been made in replies to earlier Questions, are still continuing, and, in the circumstances, any further comment by me at this stage would be inappropriate.
    Sir R. Acland: Does the Minister appreciate that this strike is going on and on over a very small issue which is dividing the people concerned? If he cannot do anything at official level, is it really impossible for him or his advisers to take some action of a less spectacular kind to hasten a conclusion?
    Sir W. Monckton: I am very anxious not to take any spectacular action, and while the parties to the dispute are having exchanges, I think I had better wait until either one or other of them calls on my services, which they know are available.
    Mr. Daines: Is not the Minister aware that the men have receded quite a long way from their original position of

    1385
    "Last in, first out," and that only the pigheadedness of the employers is holding things up?
    Sir W. Monckton: I do not think I shall achieve much if I attribute blame to one side or the other.

    Docks Strike, London
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Labour to what extent the recent London docks strike was caused by the Communist Party.
    Sir W. Monckton: I would refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Final Report of the Court of Inquiry which I set up to investigate the causes and circumstances of the dispute in the London docks. I have nothing to add to what is said there.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that, in this 24-page report about the dock strike, there is only a very minor reference to the Communist Party, and that, in the summary of conclusions, there are 13 conclusions and no reference to the Communist Party at all? Does he not think there is too great a tendency in this country to avoid discussing the merits and getting at the real causes of industrial disputes by introducing the Communist Party every time? Does he not think that it is over-estimating the rôle of the Communist Party?
    Sir W. Monckton: I do not think it was I who brought up the question of the Communist Party, but I would point out that I have drawn the attention of the hon. Gentleman, and through him the attention of other hon. Members, to the specific passages in which the members of the court deal with this aspect. I think it is fair to summarise them in this way —that they do not suggest that Communists caused the dispute, but that they do suggest that they exploited it and expanded it.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Will the Minister himself consider publishing the information which he has concerning the influence of Communism in this field, so that good trade unionists may know how they are being led by the nose?
    Sir W. Monckton: A good deal of the information which I have I should prefer not to publish.

    Industrial Health Advisory Committee
    Mr. McCorquodaleasked the Minister of Labour to make a statement as to his plans for the development of industrial health services.
    Sir W. Monckton: I am glad to inform the House that, following discussions with my Ministerial colleagues and consultations with industry through the National Joint Advisory Council and with medical and other organisations, I have now decided to take steps to stimulate the further development of industrial health services in workplaces covered by the Factories Acts. These services include the provision of good environmental conditions at the place of work, of protection against industrial disease, of adequate medical and nursing supervision, and first-aid.
    To advise me on this development, I am appointing a standing Industrial Health Advisory Committee, and am inviting the appropriate industrial and other organisations to nominate members. I propose to circulate a list of these organisations in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Representatives of interested Government Departments will attend meetings of the committee.
    It is my intention, with the assistance of this committee, to carry out a review to ascertain where industrial health services most need to be extended and to promote surveys and field investigations to determine the need for preventive measures or research. The general aim will be, in close co-ordination with the preventive and curative health services provided by statutory bodies, to develop industrial health services on a voluntary basis, but I shall also consider, in appropriate cases, and after full consultation with the parties concerned, making use of my statutory powers under the Factories Acts.
    I welcome the work already done in industry, both voluntarily and under the Factories Acts, and I am sure that the further development of industrial health services fostered in this way can make a material contribution to our social and economic progress.
    Mr. McCorquodale: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for his statement, which we all welcome, may

    1387
    I ask him whether his plans have the support not only of both sides of industry but of the medical profession as well and whether he will use his best endeavours with the Leader of the House to see that we have an opportunity in due course properly to debate these matters?
    Sir W. Monckton: From the consultations I have had I think I can claim that, while there are naturally differences of view as to how this problem ought to be tackled, all the organisations concerned, including the British Medical Association, regard this as a useful step forward and have promised to co-operate.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that there is no intention to isolate the industrial health service from the National Health Service but rather to encourage the co-operation and coordination of these two services, in their very important work? Can he make a statement as to the possibility of a debate?
    Sir W. Monckton: Nothing that has been done is more than a step forward. It does not prejudice whatever may be the final way of dealing with these matters on a national basis. I look for, and I know I shall get, the co-operation of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. The matter of a debate is hardly one for me to decide, but I shall do nothing to prevent it.
    Mr. Isaacs: In carrying forward this scheme, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take care that there is adequate consultation with the joint industrial councils as well as with the established organisations on both sides of industry, and especially that contact is made with joint works committees of different kinds throughout the country, as this is the best means of getting co-operation?
    Sir W. Monckton: Yes. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I will certainly bear those points in mind.
    Following is the list:

    British Employers' Confederation.

    Trades Union Congress.

    Nationalised industries.

    British Medical Association.

    Association of Industrial Medical Officers.

    Association of Certifying Factory Surgeons.

    Royal College of Nursing.

    British Occupational Hygiene Society.

    Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    U.S. Prosecution (Assistance)
    Mr. Morleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assistance was given by his Department to the United States authorities in the prosecution of Mr. Owen Lattimore; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Wyattasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the nature of the assistance given in Britain to the United States authorities in the preparation of a legal action against Professor Owen Lattimore; and why this assistance was given.
    Dr. Kingasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assistance his Department has given the United States Government in collecting evidence against Owen Lattimore.
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to give statutory authority to the arrangement whereby the police in this country give assistance to the police of other countries in making inquiries in criminal cases.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George): I would refer the hon. Members to the answers which I gave to a series of Questions on the subject on 28th October. I would only add that I see no occasion for the introduction of legislation in the sense suggested by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Warbey).
    Mr. Morley: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that his answer to the previous Questions showed that on two separate occasions British police interrogated British publishers in order to secure evidence which could be used in the prosecution of Mr. Lattimore? Is he aware that the use of the British police to assist political persecution of this kind is very much disliked by the British public, and will he give instructions that this sort of thing is not to occur again?
    Major Lloyd-George: The hon. Gentleman will see from my answer that instructions have been given by me which I am certain will make it impossible for this kind of thing to happen again.
    Mr. Wyatt: The Minister said that this was an arrangement come to with regard to criminal cases. Surely the Metropolitan Police should have realised that it is not an ordinary part of police duty in a criminal case to ask questions of publishers to find out how many copies of a book have been published. Surely it is within the knowledge of any intelligent Metropolitan police officer that Dr. Lattimore was simply being used as a pawn in a political squabble in the United States of America. No action should have been taken in the first place.
    Major Lloyd-George: I can only repeat what I said in answer to the previous Questions, that this was treated as a routine matter.
    Mr. Wyatt: It should not have been.
    Major Lloyd-George: That may be so, but it was treated as a routine matter. As a result, an instruction was issued which I think will make it impossible for such action to happen again.
    Mr. H. Morrison: May we take it that in this case the police officers concerned did not consult the Home Office or the Home Secretary, and is it not the view of the Home Secretary that he should have been consulted? Is it now laid down clearly that in cases of this character the Commissioner, or the officer of the Metropolitan Police concerned, is required to submit the matter to the Home Office for instructions?
    Major Lloyd-George: I said in my original answer that the Home Office were not consulted in this matter at all, but I think I can say that the effect of the instructions which have been issued will be to make it impossible for this kind of thing to occur again.
    Dr. King: While welcoming the tone of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's answer, may I ask whether he is aware that his previous answers have shown that British police officers assisted in collecting evidence against a man whose only offence is that he had different views about China from other people in America? Does he not agree that that is contrary to the spirit and tradition of the Home Office?
    Major Lloyd-George: That point does not arise. The matter was treated as an inquiry into a case of perjury, but should have been referred to a higher level. I can only repeat that instructions have now been given, the effect of which will be to avoid this happening in the future.
    Mr. Warbey: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seen the excellent leading article in the "Manchester Guardian" calling attention to the difficulty of determining in regard to perjury and other cases whether these are genuine criminal cases or examples of political persecution? Would it not be better to have these matters defined in a legal document making clear the types of case in which assistance can be given and the exact procedure to be followed?
    Major Lloyd-George: I am not a lawyer, but I imagine that that would be an extremely difficult document to draw up. I think it is best to leave the matter as it is now. Any cases of this sort will be referred to the Minister.

    Aliens (Medical Treatment)
    Sir G. Lloydasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what precautions are taken by the immigration officers of his Department to check the entry of obviously ailing persons who may be presumed to be coming here for free medical treatment, even though they offer another reason for doing so.
    Major Lloyd-George: I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the entry of foreigners, as immigration officers' powers to control entry do not apply to British subjects. Any obviously ailing foreigner who seeks leave to land in the United Kingdom is referred by the immigration officer to the medical inspector appointed under the Aliens Order, and the decision as to the grant or refusal of leave to land, or as to the terms of the conditions to be imposed, is taken by the immigration officer in the light of any certificate issued by the medical inspector, and of the results of his interrogation of the alien and of any companions travelling with him.
    Sir G. Lloydasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons from abroad seeking entry to this country for free medical treatment were refused permission by the immigration officers of his

    1391
    Department in each of the years 1949 to 1953 inclusive.
    Major Lloyd-George: No separate records are kept of refusals of leave to land for this reason, but the total number is certainly small, and it is not thought that many foreigners attempt to come here solely in order to obtain free medical treatment.

    Oyster Catchers, Morecambe Bay (Investigation)
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking, on the application made under the Protection of Birds Act, for special powers to deal with an alleged excess of oyster catchers in Morecambe Bay.
    Major Lloyd-George: I am considering this application in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, who has had an investigation made. When the results of this investigation are available I will consult the advisory committee to be established under the Act about the desirability of making an order authorising action against these birds in Morecambe Bay.
    Sir I. Fraser: It grieves me very much to move against these beautiful creatures, but will my right hon. and gallant Friend nevertheless believe that there are half a million of them in Morecambe Bay, eating 10 cockles a day? [An HON. MEMBER: "Each?"] Yes, each. This is a grievous matter for the fishermen who catch cockles as well as for a great many people in Lancashire who eat them.
    Major Lloyd-George: From examination of the investigation that has been made I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend that extensive damage is done. As soon as the Act is in force on 1st December, I will consult the advisory committee.

    Air Pollution Measurements (Civil Defence Corps)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in securing the cooperation of local authorities for the purpose of providing volunteer members of the Civil Defence Corps to be trained and equipped to take special measurements of air pollution should smog conditions, similar to those experienced in 1952, occur again this winter.
    Major Lloyd-George: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on behalf of the Lord President of the Council on 2nd November. I am glad to be able to inform the House that a more than adequate number of Civil Defence volunteers has come forward and will be ready to operate from the middle of the month. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the local authorities and the volunteers concerned for their ready cooperation in this matter.
    Mr. Dodds: Can the Minister state how many have come forward for this work?
    Major Lloyd-George: I cannot give numbers but the relevant part of the answer is "more than adequate."

    Children's Comics
    Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give consideration to taking powers to place a ban on the printing and sale of horror comics, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Dartford, because of the possible ill-effect that can be caused to the morals of children and weak-minded adults.
    Sir J. Crowderasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will recommend the setting up of a Royal Commission to consider the prohibition of the publication or sale of comics and other literature which is harmful to children.
    Dr. Strossasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he has now given further consideration to the publication in this country of illustrated literature of a sadistic nature from imported matrices; and whether he will make a statement;
    (2) whether he has now given consideration to the desirability of appointing an advisory council on the problem of obscene or sadistic illustrated publications such as might be commonly seen by children; and whether he will make a statement.
    Major Lloyd-George: I am not yet ready to make any further statement on this subject, but I can assure the hon. Members that the suggestions referred to in these Questions are receiving very careful consideration.
    Mr. Dodds: Does the Home Secretary agree that public opinion has already gained a remarkable victory, in that three of the biggest British publishers have intimated that they are giving up printing these comics? But is he not aware that even if all the newsagents refused to handle horror comics, there are more than sufficient people who would be ready to carry on this profitable business, unless it is ruthlessly stamped out?
    Major Lloyd-George: I share the apprehensions of the hon. Gentleman. There is no doubt that the most effective way of dealing with this matter in the long run is public opinion. It would be much more effective because, as the House will realise, there is a difficulty about legislating on matters of this kind. With regard to the question of people refusing to handle them, I have no more to go on than the Press reports. I was glad to see from one statement that it did not appear to be a very profitable business.
    Sir J. Crowder: Has my right hon. and gallant Friend been able to get into touch with the chairman of the committee in America which is investigating the publication of these undesirable comics?
    Major Lloyd-George: No, I have not been in touch with him.
    Mr. H. Morrison: While I admit the difficulties, is it not the case that somehow the Home Office deals with extreme cases of obscene literature, and the courts pronounce upon them? Would it not be possible, either under existing law or under amended law, to be able to deal with these publications, which really are disgraceful? As some of them are imported, cannot the Board of Trade or somebody else stop their importation? Since we deal with obscene literature, on the whole I think rightly, ought we not also to deal with this beastly stuff somehow?
    Major Lloyd-George: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is something which should be dealt with. He will appreciate as much as anybody that there are difficulties. First, as I pointed out, there is the difficult question of differentiating between what is objectionable and what is not objectionable. There are four or five publications which are quite unobjectionable—one
    1394
    produced by a parson. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have looked into this carefully. Tomorrow I am meeting a deputation from the Archbishop of Canterbury, and as soon as I have considered all the representations, I hope that something will be able to be done.
    Dr. Stross: Does the Home Secretary accept that there is something to be said for the principle of trying to avoid legislation, and that a better method would be to have an advisory council which would publish its opinions from time to time and have on it representatives of other bodies and the trade? Also, is it true that, as we have read, he has been supplying the Prime Minister with horror comics? Will he tell us what reaction he has had from the Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): I asked to see some specimens some weeks ago, but I have not yet had an opportunity to examine them.
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet received the deputation from the Archbishop of Canterbury in respect of the circulation of horror comics; and whether he is now in a position to state what steps he proposes to take to deal with this problem.
    Major Lloyd-George: The deputation will be received tomorrow. I am not in a position to make any statement on the matter at present.
    Mr. Janner: Before or after receiving the deputation, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consult the Minister of Education or the Board of Trade to see what can be done, because there is very grave concern about the matter?
    Major Lloyd-George: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I share the concern. I shall be in consultation with all the appropriate people before any action is taken.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the resolution passed by the Education Welfare Officers' National Association at their annual conference earlier this year urging that the publishing and distributive trades should set up their own council to ensure that publications of every description conform to standards of decency and good taste; and if he is

    1395
    prepared to take action along these or similar lines to deal with the horror comics.
    Major Lloyd-George: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I will be interested to hear of any proposal on these lines which the trade associations concerned might see fit to put forward.
    Mr. Rankin: When the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is considering all aspects, will be consider this proposal? Will he consider it in the light of the fact that considerable quantities of comics are coming into the country via American troops? Will he get in touch with the American High Command to see what can be done to prevent comics being resold through American troops to retailers in this country?
    Major Lloyd-George: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion. I will certainly do that.

    Summer Time
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether next year he will prolong summer time for an additional three or four weeks in the autumn as was the practice a few years ago.
    Major Lloyd-George: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend the reply which I gave on 21st October to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. E. Wakefield).
    Captain Pilkington: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend consider the greatest good of the greatest number in this case, and in view of the curtailment of sunshine, fresh air and exercise for millions of people, will he change his mind?
    Mr. T. Williams: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consult the National Farmers' Union before coming to a decision?
    Major Lloyd-George: The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that I have done so. I am sure he will also not be surprised to know that there is no unanimity upon the point. Some people want the change and some do not. To make a permanent change would require legislation. There are many inconveniences, quite apart from these differences of opinion. The further north one
    1396
    goes one finds that the idea is not so attractive as it is in the south, and one has to take all opinions into consideration. There is also the very great difficulty, if changes are made year after year, experienced by those who work out timetables for the whole country.

    Polish Priest, Bradford (Disappearance)
    Captain Kerbyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department has yet succeeded in tracing the present whereabouts of Father H. Borynski, the Polish priest who vanished from his home at Bradford on the evening of 13th July, 1953; whether inquiries into his disappearance are still proceeding; and if he will make a statement.
    Major Lloyd-George: I am informed by the Chief Constable of Bradford that Father Borynski has not yet been traced but I am assured that nothing has been discovered during the extensive inquiries which have been made since his disappearance to suggest that he was the victim of foul play. Any further information which may be forthcoming will, of course, be followed up by the police.

    Grounded Polish Trawler, Norfolk
    Mr. Fellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the security measures taken in relation to the Polish trawler "Czajk," which grounded on the Norfolk coast on Saturday, 6th November.
    Major Lloyd-George: It would not be in the public interest to describe security arrangements. I have received full reports on this incident and am satisfied that all action appropriate in the circumstances was taken.
    Mr. Fell: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that some people in Norfolk are a little concerned about this matter because the trawler came ashore in the early hours of the morning when there was no gale and visibility was a mile, and she came ashore at a very remote place? Her boat was supposed to have been washed away and that came ashore six miles away also at a very remote place. There is some feeling that our security measures might be strengthened.
    Major Lloyd-George: If any suggestion is prevalent that something should have been done sooner, that is a matter for the Minister of Transport, who is responsible for the coastguards. My information is that the ship went ashore at about 1 a.m., and that the police and Customs had her under observation after seven o'clock. If there is any question of failure to report, my hon. Friend had better address a Question to the Minister of Transport.
    Mr. Fell: What was the reason for the trawler coming ashore?

    British Overseas Subjects (Immigration)
    Mr. A. Evansasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusion has been reached on the control of immigration from British overseas countries.
    Major Lloyd-George: I regret that I am not yet able to add to previous answers on this subject.
    Mr. Evans: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say when we are likely to receive the Government's conclusions?
    Major Lloyd-George: I cannot give a date but I hope to make a pronouncement soon. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is an extremely complex and difficult subject.

    Children (Public Care)
    Brigadier Medlicottasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the serious increase in the numbers of children taken into public care as the result of the break-up of families, he will consider introducing legislation to enable local authorities to provide funds for family case work directed towards this growing social problem.
    Major Lloyd-George: While local authorities already possess some powers to undertake social case work with families, the ways in which existing methods might be improved are being kept under review in consultation with the Departments concerned. I have no evidence to indicate that there is a serious increase in the numbers of children coming into public care because of break-up of families.
    Brigadier Medlicott: While appreciating the valuable work done by those engaged in the adoption of children, may I ask whether it is not a fact that over many years there has been a large increase in the proportion of children who pass out of the care of their parents although both parents are still alive? Ought we not, therefore, to be careful to pay as much attention as we can to the maintenance of family and home life?
    Major Lloyd-George: I entirely agree with the last part of my hon. and gallant Friend's supplementary question, but I can only say that my advice at the moment is that there is no evidence of any serious increase in the number of children coming under public care because of the break-up of families.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that this is a serious matter which should be dealt with in a comprehensive way to ensure that innocent people are not penalised?

  POLICE

    Interpol (U.K. Subscription)
    Mr. Fletcher-Cookeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the annual subscription from the United Kingdom to the international police organisation, known as Interpol, has doubled in the last two years.
    Major Lloyd-George: The annual subscription of this country to the International Criminal Police Commission, which had remained unchanged since 1948, has, in common with that of other member States, been doubled for 1954. Previously, two of the member States had borne a disproportionate share of the expenses of the commission, which have increased as a result of the greater use made of the organisation and of improvements in its technical equipment.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend give us a little more information about the International Police Commission? What is its statutory power, who has access to its dossiers and what sort of democratic control can be exercised over it?
    Major Lloyd-George: I cannot go into that now. This is an arrangement which is of immense value to the police of all

    1399
    member countries. In these days of quick transport I think the House will agree that it is of value to have an exchange of information between police forces for the prevention of crime.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does not experience show that this great organisation is worth every penny that is paid for it, in view of the great service which it renders to the community?

    Acquitted Defendants (Costs)
    Mr. Bullardasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will write to all police authorities requesting them not to pursue a claim for costs for contingent actions in a case where the defendant has been acquitted of a criminal charge.
    Brigadier Medlicottasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will circularise police authorities discouraging them from seeking to recover costs where criminal proceedings against an accused have failed.
    Major Lloyd-George: I am aware of a recent case which has received some publicity, but I have no authority to intervene in a matter of this kind, which is entirely one for the decision of the police authority concerned, and it would not be appropriate for me to offer any general advice to police authorities on the subject.
    Mr. Bullard: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend please reconsider this matter, because it seems to be a case where some general instruction is required? Is he aware that in the case of Mr. Fletcher, particulars of which I sent to him, after a very long time police costs were pressed to an extent which made Mr. Fletcher eventually bankrupt; and does it not seem wrong that after a man has had such an experience, and after a long time has been acquitted, he should have to undergo bankruptcy proceedings on top of all the rest?
    Major Lloyd-George: While I am naturally prepared to look at anything my hon. Friend sends me, I am bound to tell him that the question of whether an order for costs is enforced is entirely a matter for the standing joint committee in Norfolk, and it would be inappropriate for me to offer any advice to the committee.
    Mr. Ede: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us what is the practice in the Metropolitan Police, for which he is the police authority?
    Major Lloyd-George: Not without notice.
    Brigadier Medlicott: Does not this disclose a very unsatisfactory position, because it amounts to a breach of the principle that a man is deemed to be innocent until he is proved guilty, and here is a man who, in the eyes of the law, was found innocent? Is it not unsatisfactory that he should have to pay any costs at all?
    Major Lloyd-George: I am not arguing that at the moment. I am prepared to look at anything which my hon. and gallant Friend is prepared to send me. I can only say that I have no authority to intervene in a matter of this kind.

    Betting Law (Enforcement)
    Mr. Nallyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will conduct an inquiry into the circumstances under which all police authorities, whilst strictly enforcing the laws relating to betting and lotteries against religious, social and other organisations are failing to take cognisance of continued and open breaches of existing law by bookmakers and their employees.
    Major Lloyd-George: No, Sir. This matter was considered by the Royal Commission on Betting, Lotteries and Gaming, who were satisfied that the police enforced the law relating to betting to the extent which their resources allow. I have no reason to think that this is not still the case.
    Mr. Nally: Is the Minister really not aware that voluntary money-making ventures for worthy causes are being systematically closed by the same police authority which cannot, or will not, enforce the law against bookmakers, particularly in relation to street betting? Whilst appreciating the difficulties of the police, may I ask whether the Minister would not agree that it is time that the Government and the House made an honest attempt to improve a situation in which hyprocrisy is complete, corruption is not unknown, and the law is held in universal contempt?
    Major Lloyd-George: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is an extremely difficult matter. I said in answering the Question that the Royal Commission itself felt that, within their resources, the police were doing what they could. One of the difficulties has been the considerable growth in the number and size of lotteries promoted for religious, social and athletic purposes.
    Mr. Ede: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself considering bringing forward legislation to deal with the problem of these lotteries?

  WELSH AFFAIRS (DEPARTMENTAL STAFF)
  Mr. G. Robertsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of civil servants assisting him in his capacity as Minister for Welsh Affairs, their service grades and the main aspects of the work they do.
  Major Lloyd-George: The officers who assist me in my duties as Minister for Welsh Affairs, which involve no executive responsibilities, are the Permanent Under-Secretary of State, an Assistant Under-Secretary of State, an Assistant-Secretary, a Principal and an Assistant-Principal, with the appropriate clerical and typing staff. Where need arises I have, of course, at my disposal the services of specialist members of my staff.
  Mr. Roberts: How many, if any, of those civil servants devote themselves full-time to Welsh Affairs? Also, how many of those civil servants are in possession of a knowledge of the Welsh language?
  Major Lloyd-George: I could not give an answer to the first part of that supplementary question without notice, but I will certainly let the hon. Gentleman have it. With regard to the numbers who speak Welsh, I could not say without notice, apart from myself.
  Mr. Gower: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say, first, whether in a recent case, in which his colleague the Minister of Housing and Local Government was unable to find a Welshman or Welsh-speaking civil servant to take an important post, he was consulted in connection with the appointment? Secondly, could my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether
  1402
  any person on his staff, or any person on the staff of any other Department, could have taken such a post?
  Major Lloyd-George: I could not say I think that was before I took over this office.
  Mr. Callaghan: In view of the rather surprising statement that these gentlemen have no executive responsibilities, can the Minister tell us what it is they are there for?
  Major Lloyd-George: They are there to advise the Minister for Welsh Affairs, and there has been no change in the position since this Ministry was first set up. They are in close consultation with the Welsh offices of other Departments, which is a tremendous help in looking after Welsh affairs.

  CROWN LANDS ADMINISTRATION (COMMITTEE)
  Mr. Jannerasked the Prime Minister if he can yet state the names of the committee set up to examine the present arrangements for the administration of Crown Lands.
  The Prime Minister: I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this subject. One name remains to be selected and when this has been settled, letters of invitation will have to be sent out and acceptances received from all of the five proposed members. We shall go on as quickly as possible.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Prime Minister aware that there has been a not unsubstantial addition to Crown Lands as a result of a recent High Court judgment which transfers a lot of Brady slums to the Crown, and that that makes it all the more important to get this administration in full working order as quickly as possible, so that the properties can now be properly administered by their new owner, the Crown?

  INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC AGENCY
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the extent to which Her Majesty's Government in the United

  1403
  Kingdom will co-operate in the working of President Eisenhower's proposed International Atomic Agency.
  The Prime Minister: We intend to help all we can President Eisenhower's proposed International Atomic Agency irrespective of what other Governments may decide.
  Mr. Henderson: Is it the intention of the Government to take the same line as the recently announced policy of the United States Government, which is to assist other countries in the practical application of atomic research to such matters as cancer research, as well as to industry and farming?
  The Prime Minister: I think that that is a matter of some technical detail about which I might have reasonable notice.
  Mr. Beswick: Do the Prime Minister's words mean that we are now in direct relation with the Soviet and American Governments on this matter?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think it is for us to make any exceptional approach upon the matter. This has been done by the United States, and we have responded to it. Our position is well known. I do not think it is necessary for us to take any special measures.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal to state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crook-shank): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 15TH NOVEMBER—Debate on the Reports and Accounts of the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the British European Airways Corporation for the year ended 31st March, 1954, until 7 o'clock.
Motions for Addresses to continue in force for one year: Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945.
Various Defence Regulations and enactments having effect under the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947.
Motions relating to: Patents Act, 1949. Registered Designs Act, 1949.
Report and Third Reading: Pests Bill [Lords.]
TUESDAY, 16TH NOVEMBER—Debate on the Opposition Motion of Censure relating to Old-Age Pensions.
WEDNESDAY, 17TH NOVEMBER, AND THURSDAY, 18TH NOVEMBER—Debate on Western Europe on a Government Motion inviting the House to approve the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
FRIDAY, 19TH NOVEMBER— Lords Amendments: Mines and Quarries Bill.
These Amendments are expected to be received from another place today.
Mr. Rankin: Did I hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the civil aviation debate would terminate at 7 o'clock on Monday? Surely it is not right that we should be asked to deal with two Reports, the Reports of B.O.A.C. and of B.E.A.C., in only three hours. Cannot the matter be reconsidered? I could occupy the three hours myself.
Mr. Crookshank: I am sure that the whole House would be gratified at such a distinguished performance, which it would undoubtedly be, but these arrangements have been made through the usual channels, with the usual agreement.
Mr. C. Davies: Is it right that seven matters are to be taken on Monday, and that after 7 o'clock six of them will remain, one being the very important matter of the continuation of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act? Is that a matter which really can be disposed of in a few moments with five other matters which need important consideration?
Mr. Crookshank: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said "a few moments," but we do not usually have only a few moments after 7 o'clock. These are cognate matters which have always been discussed together, and normally after 10 o'clock, but by arrangement it has been decided to bring them forward to 7 o'clock for the convenience of hon. Members.
Mr. H. Morrison: Could the right hon. Gentleman oblige the House by saying whether, on Tuesday, in the discussion about old-age pensions, we may expect a fairly definitive statement from the Government about their intentions and when they propose to take action, so that the old people may know what their situation is?
Mr. Crookshank: The answer to that is quite obvious. The Opposition have put down a Motion of censure and they must wait and see what the reply to it is.
Mr. M. Lindsay: Is there any connection between the Motion of censure on old-age pensions and the by-election which is to take place next Thursday?
Mr. Crookshank: I think that everybody can draw his own deduction, including the electors.
Mr. McKay: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a Motion on the Order Paper asking for facilities to discuss the relationship of the B.B.C. to this House, and the difficulty we have in getting Questions answered and in securing opportunities to discuss day-to-day matters concerning the B.B.C.? Is he also aware of the immense amount of public feeling on Tyneside about the television broadcast of the Queen's visit? In several places where the Queen stopped for 20 minutes there was not the slightest television coverage. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider affording an opportunity for discussion of the Motion?
Mr. Crookshank: I noticed the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Miss Ward) to the Motion on the Order Paper, but there is no possibility of my finding time now to discuss that.
Miss Ward: On a point of order. As this Motion happens to be my Motion, Mr. Speaker, and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) for supporting me, may I ask the Leader of the House, as this raises a constitutional issue, whether he will find time for a discussion upon it? May I further ask him whether he is aware that great indignation has been aroused on Tyneside by the lack of opportunity to raise this matter in the House? May I have an answer to my question?
Mr. Crookshank: The only reason I did not rise immediately was that my hon. Friend prefaced her question by saying, "On a point of order".
Miss Ward: Further to that point of order, then, Mr. Speaker——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady's question was in no sense a point of order.
Miss Ward: May I ask for your guidance, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker? Is it not usual, in this House, that when an hon. Member puts down a Motion, the name of the hon. Member which is at the head of that Motion takes precedence over other hon. Members who support it? May I ask very respectfully, Sir, why my name, which stands at the head of that Motion, was not called first?
Mr. Speaker: I did not know what the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) was going to ask. I had no idea.
Mr. Usborne: With reference to the business on Wednesday and Thursday on the Paris Agreements, and while appreciating that we have two days, as this is an extremely controversial matter, may I ask whether the Leader of the House would agree to consider suspending the rule on the first day?
Mr. Crookshank: I have had no official request for that, and I should have thought that two days were enough. In spite of what the hon. Gentleman says, taking the House as a whole, it is not really a controversial matter.

WIRELESS LICENCE CHARGES
The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about radio licences.
As a result of certain recent developments, doubt has arisen as to the legality of charges made for certain classes of licence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1904, including broadcast receiving licences and mobile radio licences. The Government propose to remove any doubt there may be by introducing legislation to validate charges made on all licences under the 1904 Act. For future and current licences, the matter has been clarified in the Wireless Telegraphy AC of 1949.
Mr. Attlee: As a survivor from the very large body of former Postmasters-General who, I understand, may be affected by this judgment, I welcome this action, but I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could be a little more explicit about what the offence is, because we have not really been enlightened on what the Post Office have been doing wrong.
Mr. Gammans: This covers the action taken by successive Postmasters-General— in good faith, to a greater or lesser degree —in the past 50 years. What has brought this problem especially to the Government's notice is a lawsuit against the Post Office by a firm of engineers operating mobile cranes and other vehicles. As this case is sub judice, I had better not make any reference to it.
The point at issue is whether the Post Office is legally entitled to make a charge for private land mobile radio licences. These licences were originally issued under the 1904 Act, long before this particular type of radio service was ever thought of. An examination of the position has been made following the bringing of the lawsuit, and has raised questions as to the legality of the charges made in the last 50 years under the 1904 Act for all types of licence, including the largest type of all, which is the ordinary sound and television broadcast receiving licence.
Mr. Alport: Is my hon. Friend correct in saying that this matter is still sub judice? Can he say how this affects the question of safeguarding the channels that are available to private radio operators of this sort?
Mr. Gammans: The case is sub judice, as I said just now. In reply to the second point raised by my hon. Friend, the Bill will not affect that in any way.
Mr. Hobson: Under the 1904 Act and the 1949 Act wireless telegraphy licences have always been regarded as telegraphic licences. Does the hon. Gentleman's reply mean that there is now to be a complete division between the two?
Mr. Gammans: No, it does not mean that at all.
Mr. Hobson: What does it mean, then?
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are to have legislation on this matter. We can discuss it then.

WIRELESS LICENCE CHARGES
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House). — [Mr. Crookshank.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FOOD AND DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords]
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendment to Clause 13, page 15, line 20, and the new Clause (Food Hygiene Advisory Council) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Heathcoat Amory:"—[Dr. Hill:]
  Question amended, by adding, at the end:
  "and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 9, page 11, lines 5, 11 and 14, of the new Clause (Registration of catering premises) and of the Amendment to Schedule 2, page 41, line 12, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Frederick Willey,"—[Mr. Willey,]
  and:
  "and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 13, page 14, line 34, and Clause 13, page 15, line 10, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Mitchison,"—[Mr. Mitchison,]
  and, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  FOOD AND DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords]

    Clause 9.—(EXTENSION OF S. 14 OF PRINCIPAL ACT TO OTHER BUSINESSES.)
    3.44 p.m.
    Mr. Frederick Wiley: I beg to move, in page 11, line 5, after "premises," to insert "(other than catering premises)."
    I think it would meet the convenience of the Committee if, together with this Amendment, we took the two following Amendments, in page 11, lines 11 and 14; the new Clause "Registration of catering premises" and the Amendment to the Second Schedule. If I may anticipate the further discussions upon the Bill at a later stage, I think we can also deal generally with the question of registration.
    I do not want to be provocative in what I say now, because I hope that the Government will make a constructive response to the Amendment we now propose. In this question of registration we should first consider some of the general aspects. As was emphasised during the Committee stage, registration under Section 14 of the principal Act has worked well. During

    1409
    our earlier discussions I called attention to the fact that the medical officer of health in my constituency had reported adversely upon restaurant kitchens, snack bars and workmen's canteens, but had praised the high standard of cleanliness maintained in all premises where ice cream is manufactured, stored and sold. Everyone knows that that position obtains in every local authority area, so that the general case for registration under Section 14 of the principal Act has been made out.
    As we have also emphasised previously, the initial purpose of the Bill was to extend registration to catering trades. We feel very strongly that the Amendments which were carried at an earlier stage of our discussions were an unwarranted betrayal of this initial purpose. It was for that reason that we thought it proper to meet the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary, as we have done. We had a full discussion, and we are much obliged to the Minister for meeting us, but we are sorry that he has not seen his way to agree with the approach which was recommended by the Catering Trade Working Party.
    We are putting forward this Amendment as a new approach. I know the difficulties of making a new approach at this late stage in the Session, but that is no fault of ours. I protested on previous occasions that the Opposition had been put into an impossible position in the consideration of a Bill which we hoped would be largely non-party. That fact has not been contested; it is agreed that we have been put into these difficulties. I mention the fact now only because it has meant that we have not been able to afford the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary the opportunity we Should have wished to afford them to examine our proposals. As I said, that is not our fault.
    I also raised the question of constitutional propriety regarding this change of front. I want to explain briefly what I have in mind. It is well known, when I say that the Minister in charge of the Bill, Lord Woolton, has had a lifelong interest in that trade which the Government are seeking to exempt from the provisions of the Bill. I would again pay tribute to his distinction and eminence in that industry, but from a constitutional point of view I think the Minister is in a
    1410
    peculiar difficulty if he takes action such as this.
    I make no apology for saying again what I said on an earlier occasion, that it is a matter of some constitutional significance that the same Minister should be in charge of the campaign funds of the Tory Party. If those funds were disclosed we should of course have no complaint. I am not casting any reflection at the moment at all. I am merely concerned with constitutional propriety. The Minister in charge has had a particular interest in this industry and is also the organiser of the campaign funds of the Tory Party.
    I should have thought that it would have been the bounden duty of such a Minister when proceeding with such a matter as this to have had negotiations in open forum. That is why I have insisted time after time that we should have the minutes of any meetings that have been held that have led to this change, to the introduction of these Amendments. On this issue we should have had the fullest consultation with all the parties affected. I put this challenge to the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister. I challenge them to produce evidence of any negotiations that they have had since the Second Reading of the Bill in the House of Commons.
    When the Minister in charge is in this position it is his bounden duty, from the constitutional point of view, to conduct himself publicly and openly, and the negotiations, as they affect trade interests, should be open and known. Throughout our discussions I have appealed for information, and we have not had it.
    I wish now to refer to the Report of the Catering Trade Working Party. I do not think it is necessary for me, though if I am challenged I will do so, to read out the names of the distinguished representatives of the catering trade and food hygiene who were members of that working party. I shall not be challenged when I say that they represented all the best elements who could have advised the Minister on this problem. They dealt with the point the Parliamentary Secretary has made a good deal of, for they dealt with the classification of catering establishments. In view of their report, that should not cause the Parliamentary Secretary any special difficulty.

    1411
    These distinguished people sat for two years before they made their recommendations. I should like the Committee to ponder just what they had to consider. Their report is a unanimous report. They had to consider that there is a considerable number of establishments in which unhygienic practices are only too common. I call the attention of the Minister of Health to the fact that they remarked that all those were potential sources of infection and that their continuance constituted a definite health hazard.
    That is the problem with which the members of the working party had to deal. Unanimously they came to their conclusions contained in paragraphs 35 and 36 of their report. I make no apology for again giving them to the Committee:
    "Representatives of associations of local authorities and of their officers who gave evidence before us stressed the necessity for the registration of catering establishments."
    Does the Minister of Health feel happy about throwing overboard all that? Because that is what he is doing. They went on:
    "This view is not shared by representatives of the catering industry who, as a whole, are opposed to registration. Some members of the Working Party support the view of the industry but, after very careful consideration and subject to what is said in paragraph 36 and in Part B of Appendix II, they accept the conclusion that registration of the premises of catering establishments by the local authority is an essential administrative pre-requisite"—
    of what?—
    "of any real effort to improve hygienic conditions. Differences arose as to the type of registration to recommend. Members experienced in matters of public health, technically and administratively, are of the opinion that an appropriate form of registration is that of section 14 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938…under which registration is contingent upon a satisfactory support."
    Does the Minister of Health accept that? They went on:
    "If the local authority feels precluded from registering the premises the applicant is given an opportunity to state his case and thereafter has a right to appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction and also to a higher court. The view of other members is that if registration is to be insisted upon it should be 'by right'. This implies the possibility of registration without preliminary inspection. Only if subsequent investigation by the local authority discloses unsatisfactory conditions can steps be taken to cancel the registration, whereas the procedure of section 14 imposes some restraint upon the use of the premises. In these cir-
    1412
    cumstances, we confine ourselves to a recommendation that the premises of all catering establishments should be registered by the local authority. All premises being used for the purpose on 'the appointed day' should be deemed to be registered as soon as proper application is made to the local authority."
    That is what the working party unanimously concluded. It made its first recommendation that
    "All catering establishments should be required to register with the appropriate local authority."
    The majority of the working party, the whole of the professional people, the whole of the people from public administration, and some of those from the catering industry recommended registration without qualification. They did that because, to quote their Appendix II (Part A):
    "We consider that the public ought not to be exposed to the health risks which may be involved in the use of unsuitable premises for new catering establishments."
    The minority also recommended registration. They said:
    "…we have accepted with some reluctance that registration should be advocated as part of the administrative machinery.…"
    There is no doubt about it: they accepted it. They said:
    "Whilst registration would impose on the caterer an additional burden, if it is indeed a measure which will further the earnest desire of the industry to improve hygiene, then we submit that registration in the form of registration 'as of right' gives all that local auhority administration can require."
    Is the Parliamentary Secretary frustrating them in that? They have accepted registration provided that the Measure will improve food hygiene, provided again that registration is in the form of registration as of right. They went on to say that registration as of right meant notification to the local authority. They said that they understood registration would impose the standard code which the working party recommended should be legally enforceable, and they said that at quarter sessions level registration might be withdrawn by the local authority. In other words, I do not think it is a procedure that anyone would be very anxious to implement.
    There has been no effort to put forward even the view of the minority, who would like a procedure such as the procedure that a local authority uses to stop highways. That is all. Even the minority say they subscribe to the general conclusion that there should be registration, but they

    1413
    want a provision for withdrawal; they believe that registration should be of right, and that the local authority should proceed as it would in the case of the stopping of a highway, and have to go to quarter sessions if it wished to withdraw a licence.
    4.0 p.m.
    That was the position against which the Government introduced the Bill, giving regulation-making powers to provide for registration. Now, they have thrown it overboard. I put these specific questions to the Minister and to the Parliamentary Secretary. Who, since Second Reading, has made representations? Have there been representations from any local authority association asking for an abandonment of registration? The Parliamentary Secretary made a debating point about this providing a good deal of work for local authorities. Have they made any such representations to him? Is it not a fact that all local authorities are now pressing for registration, and will continue to press for it if the Government abandon the principle in the Bill?
    Have any of the professional bodies made representations since Second Reading saying that they do not like registration throwing overboard all the professional experts of the working party? Have any of the public health authorities made representations asking the Government to take out from the Bill the registration of catering premises? Have any of the hygiene bodies made representations, saying, "Please take out registration from the Bill. It will not work"? And will the Parliamentary Secretary answer this further question: have any of the trade associations made representations since Second Reading? If so, which trade association?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): May I relieve the hon. Member's anxiety on the point of the trade and trade associations? No representations of any kind have come to us on this issue since Second Reading.
    Mr. Willey: At least, we know now where we are. We will not dignify them by the name of "representations," because that is a technical term. Representations are matters which are minuted and on which civil servants attend. No representations have been made. Why,
    1414
    then, have the Government changed their minds?
    Dr. Hill: In due course I will deal with the reasons why the Government changed their minds. But I want to get this abundantly clear—and I am not taking advantage of the hon. Member's own word "representations": no representation, pressure, communication, in writing or otherwise, has come to us from the catering trades on this question since Second Reading.
    Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: The Parliamentary Secretary says that in due course he will come to the point. Does he recall that during the Committee stage I put this matter to him specifically and asked for an answer but none was forthcoming?
    Dr. Hill: You wait.
    Mr. Willey: We know the position, then, that officially no one wants what the Government are doing. That is progress. From whence originated the suggestion which has expressed itself to the Amendments to the Bill which have been carried? We want to know its source. At any rate, we have now reached the comforting conclusion that no official body wants this arrangement and that no professional association, from public administration or from the trade, made representations or brought any pressure to bear upon the Government.
    This confirms our worst suspicions. I felt that I was right when I raised this matter earlier, because otherwise we would have had an express refutation. But we have never had it, and we have not got it today. It is lost in obscurity.
    Mr. James Hudson: And in the Tory Central Office.
    Mr. Willey: It might have been lost upstairs, in the 1922 Committee, or in a corridor. We know that there was a Minister lurking who had particular interests in a certain industry, and he came to the conclusion which is adverse to all the examination of the Catering Trade Working Party and now, we know, not welcomed anywhere.
    To deal with the Government's proposals, we can say quite definitely—I defy the Parliamentary Secretary to deny this —that these proposals are not welcomed

    1415
    generally by those in the catering industry, who think it most unfair that they should be singled out to be subject to this police court procedure. They know—I am not speaking in political terms—that if there is what they consider to be an awkward authority, it will resort to police court proceedings. That will mean a lot of unwelcome publicity, and it will have the worst possible effect upon the good relations between the trade, the Government and local authorities that it is our purpose to obtain from the Bill. I can think of nothing worse. If the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary pursue this course, we will have the worst possible reaction upon the catering trade.
    I mentioned one of the trades that was registered under Section 14 of the principal Act. How different the catering trade will be. We will have those unfortunate headlines, which will react upon the good relations that we are trying to build up between the Department, the local authorities and the catering industry. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to think again about this proposal that came from such obscure quarters.
    What we have tried to do in our new Clause, to which the present Amendment is a paving Amendment, is to meet the anxieties of the catering trade. Unlike the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister, we on this side have taken pains to have discussion with members of the catering industry. We think that that is proper, and we have done it throughout the Bill. Throughout our discussions on the Bill, we on this side have been prepared to consult and discuss with all affected parties. To the extent that our inquiries have carried us, they have been limited again because of the way that the Bill has been pushed through Parliament at the end of the Session. But our inquiries have convinced us that the proposals of the Government are not acceptable. We are convinced that our proposals meet, as far as it is possible to meet, the apprehensions of the catering industry.
    What do we propose? We propose that the main anxiety of the catering industry should be met and that the caterers should have registration as of right; we concede that. The caterer who starts up in business would get his regis-
    1416
    tration. That might be objected to from some quarters, but we recognise that if we are to get the maximum improvement in the catering industry it is important to obtain the best co-operation and good will from that industry. So we are willing to write into the Bill—not to leave it to discretion—that in the case of the catering industry, it shall have, unambiguously, registration as of right.
    How are we to administer registration? I do not grant the catering industry's apprehensions as being justified, but we concede that the industry genuinely has apprehensions about the relations between itself and the local authorities. I think that those apprehensions are groundless, but at the same time—it is a view I have always taken about food hygiene—it is important to avoid what the Parliamentary Secretary proposes to do: that is, taking people to court. It is important to gain their good will.
    It is common ground in all the food trades, not only in the catering trades, that the food control committees did excellent work throughout the period of their existence. They had the most ticklish job to do—licensing—and they did it, by and large, without any difficulty. We have learnt from that experience, and we ask the Committee to agree with us that in this exceptional case we should follow the analogy of the food control committees and allow trader representation on the catering premises committee.
    If they have their representatives and spokesmen there, I am sure, from my knowledge of English local government, that their apprehensions will be killed. So we suggest that they should have registration as a right, and that the committee which would administer this part of the Bill when it becomes an Act, so far as catering premises are concerned, should have upon it, written down in the Bill, trade representation.
    We do not stop there. We say that we are prepared to give the Minister power to provide that the local authority shall delegate its powers to that committee. We want to allay the fears of the catering industry, and what more can we do to provide the good relations for which we are anxiously seeking—because we know that this is the only way in which we shall get better conditions—than to provide this in the Bill?

    1417
    We go further. We say to the catering industry, "We give you proof of our good faith and tell you how shocked we are by the action of the Government. We have never expressed ourselves as keen in trying to get food hygiene through the police courts. We will provide this further safeguard, that there shall be no prosecution under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, of catering establishments unless the consent is given of the Catering Premises Committee on which you have particular representation."
    What finer safeguard could there be for the catering trade than that? I am sure that the fears which the catering trade have about the proposals of the Government would be met in this way. We say, "You have now a committee of the local authority on which you have adequate representation. We concede that in some instances your fears of prosecution under the proposals of the Government are quite well-founded. It could happen. It would be unfortunate, and we will provide this safeguard against frivolous prosecutions.
    We give further safeguards. We say that we know that one of the difficulties about this is the lack of definition. You are asked to improve your premises. We provide in a further subsection all the safeguards thereby given to ensure that proper notice is given, and statutorily given, to the catering establishments of alterations which have to be made. That again is a safeguard which they feel they should have. We are not prepared to quarrel with that. On the contrary, we accept that and write it into the Bill. We say that we will make it clear that even if these provisions are not met, because we may get a small caterer who has difficulty in meeting his obligations in time, this committee, notwithstanding that notice has been given, may postpone decision of the matter. I am sure, as are my right hon. and hon. Friends, that this is a satisfactory working compromise.
    We are sure that this would obtain the co-operation of the trade. Moreover, we are sure that these safeguards provide an essential basic formula for the local authorities and the catering industries to work together. If the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary do not accept these proposals we shall be even more suspicious of the obscure quarters from whence the Government's Amendments sprung. If the Minister
    1418
    persists in throwing away this offer, I am quite sure that he will disappoint almost everyone in the catering industry. He will certainly disappoint every small caterer. He may allay the suspicions of some of the big people. I do not know whether they represent the obscure quarter because our inquiries have not been absolutely comprehensive, but we can say, subject to that exception, that our inquiries led us to the conclusion that these proposals are workable and would meet the apprehensions of the catering industry.
    Quite frankly, we do not share in these apprehensions, but we feel it to be absolutely essential to do what we can to get the good will of the catering industry if we are to improve food hygiene in catering establishments. So I hope that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will accept this Amendment as a genuine attempt to seek a solution of this question of registration of catering establishments.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: In supporting the Amendment, may I say that I am shocked by the disclosure made by the Parliamentary Secretary that there has been no consultation on these matters. I should be the first person to agree with that principle were it a question of a private interest likely to make a private advantage under a Government Measure. That was the position as regards certain interests in television; but this is an entirely different matter.
    We have, in this case, to begin with the report of the working party, which included at least three highly-important interests. One was the local authorities concerned, the second was the persons engaged in the catering establishments, and the third—and a very important one —was the persons employed in the catering industry. With none of these people has there been, on this point, apparently, any consultation.
    The position appears to be that, notwithstanding the report, the Government introduced a Bill allowing for the registration of catering premises, carried that Bill to an advanced stage, and, at the last moment, when it had already passed through one of the Houses, and had its Second Reading in this House, introduced an Amendment to remove the most important part of the Bill.

    1419
    There is no doubt that this was a working party on hygiene in catering establishments. It was not a working party on how to punish people who broke regulations. It was on the matter which is, I hope, the object of every Member of this Committee—to promote hygiene in catering establishments. It was for that reason that it came to the conclusion that registration was necessary.
    I have been looking at the Parliamentary Secretary's previous remarks in Committee, and it appears to me that the point of principle which he thinks he has found is this: that when we are dealing with hygiene in catering establishments we should prosecute the man in a police court before we allow the local authority to deal with him. I take leave to think that that kind of thing is bad and wrong both in theory and in practice. After all, this point was considered by this working party, and on page 27 of their report they consider the question of the supervision of catering establishments by local authorities and point out that they are already the enforcing authority. They refer to registration and conclude by saying:
    "…we feel sure that any clarification or tightening of the law to which this Report may give rise will lead to greater co-operation between local authority officers and the managements of commercial and other catering undertakings."
    I agree absolutely.
    Is there likely to be better co-operation between the catering trade and the local authority when the only way in which the local authority can get hygiene in the establishment is to institute a prosecution, or is there likely to be greater cooperation when it is the responsibility of the local authority to keep a register and to admit or to refuse to continue registration in that register?
    It is said that a local authority ought not to have these powers and that they will be burdensome. Let us take the burdensome point first. Will it really be easier from the local authority point of view, if, in fact, it enforces the regulations and requirements, to have to do so every time by taking proceedings, by having the local sanitary inspector kept in the court as a witness, possibly with some delay, and by having proceedings which may last for some considerable
    1420
    time; or will it be easier for the local authority to do it in the way in which sanitary requirements are usually enforced at present, by having the sanitary inspector go round to the catering establishments concerned and deal with the requirements purely on administrative lines in the first place?
    It is plain that if the local authority comes to a decision, then, under Clause 14, there is the possibility of appeal. Therefore, we are not depriving anyone of the right, if he so chooses, to have the matter tried in public in a police court and to have the whole business adjudicated upon there. All we say is that to put this kind of work upon police courts in the first instance is to put it in the wrong place and, by so doing, to increase and not to diminish the difficulties of the local authority in carrying out these requirements.
    It is said that the local authority ought not to have the power. The local authority is the body that is charged first with representing the consumers in the area. I put that point generally, but it is in that capacity that it is already the enforcing authority under the food and drugs legislation, and it is in that capacity that it does many other things too. Secondly, it is the authority which is primarily concerned with buildings and the sanitary condition of buildings in the area.
    The local authority already has power, subject to certain safeguards, to demolish a man's house. It has power to enforce wholesale rebuilding and reconstruction. Is it said that if it can do that, which after all is a fairly comprehensive power, it is yet not to be allowed to deal with a question of sanitary or hygiene requirements in the catering establishments? I find it impossible to see why a local authority qualified—allowed and supposed to be qualified—for one purpose should be thought unsatisfactory for the other.
    I come to the provisions of the new Clause which we suggest. I will not go through them at length. That has been done to some extent already. I should like to point out that we have actually gone further to meet any reasonable requirements of the catering trade than the body which inquired into the matter did. We think that we are right in so doing. We have no wish to penalise

    1421
    decent catering establishments. On the contrary, we want to encourage them and we want the co-operation of the trade as a whole, whether employers or workers in it, in enforcing in other establishments the proper standard of hygiene which already prevails in decent ones.
    It is for that reason that we have gone so far to see that the catering establishment which is suitable for the purpose gets an absolutely fair deal with no chance whatever of injustice. What are the provisions? First, let the Parliamentary Secretary remember that this is only a power to make regulations. It is expected that that power will be used but the terms of it remain within the discretion of the Ministry. It is within the discretion of the Ministry when it is making provision to make exceptions, perhaps for small farm houses on the moorlands that sell food or other commodities.
    It is left primarily to the Ministry to make the appropriate regulations in the matter but, having made them, there are certain obligations. The register must be compulsory. On the other hand, there is provision that anyone who is already carrying on business in catering premises is entitled to registration if he applies as soon as the regulations come into force. For mere administrative convenience he must apply. That is all he need do.
    The local authority has no power to refuse his application in the first instance. Having accepted it in that way, it may at a later stage—we are not tied to the precise period of one month; I think that it is a fair one, but that is as may be—wish to remove the premises. First, it must put the immediate, punctual applicant on the register. That is a protection from the point of view of the catering trade and it is obviously an administrative convenience from the point of view of the local authority.
    Next, we propose the setting up of a catering premises committee. There are precedents, not only in the food control committees to which my hon. Friend referred. If the Parliamentary Secretary will refresh his memory on the subject of education committees, he will find that they are very similar to what is proposed. They consist of a majority of representatives of the local authority and a minority of people who usually have been engaged
    1422
    in or have experience in the business of teaching and education.
    The next question is what is to happen when a caterer is required to bring his premises up to standard. We have provided the same sort of safeguards as are already given in the case of houses, with suitable modifications, and the kind of protection that is given when action is taken under Section 9 and the next following Sections of the Housing Act. The man has an opportunity to be heard. He is told what is required. He is invited to make suggestions. There is room for a compromise, there is power to postpone and to withdraw. There is everything to facilitate the sensible and the practical in dealing with a question which may vary in importance from the installation of a new sink to the rebuilding of a whole wing of the premises.
    Surely that is a far better way of dealing with the matter than that of compelling a prosecution in the police court, when there is no opportunity whatever for a proper discussion and a compromise, when the matter has been brought to a head already and the whole thing has been reduced to a trial instead of what it ought to be, a piece of administrative good sense.
    I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that I am shocked at the way in which such an eminently sensible report as we have had from the working party has been disregarded and, on this point, without consultation. I cannot believe that this kind of thing simply represents—to use a Christian name—since it does not happen to be that of the Parliamentary Secretary—a change from Philip drunk to Philip sober. I think there must be something a little more than that.
    4.30 p.m.
    I remember that there was once an overlord, as it were, hanging over the Ministries of Agriculture and Food. As an overlord, he has disappeared. I suppose it is his ghost that has spoken to the Parliamentary Secretary. I have every sympathy with the Parliamentary Secretary in his present position. He is like brave Ben Bow, one of his legs has been shot away and he is still trying to go on on the stump of the Ministry of Food. Let him not abandon hope and good sense. At the beginning he was right. If he does not trust his previous

    1423
    judgment, let him trust the opinion those who do.
    The hon. Gentleman should not listen to that ghost from another place. Let him do the right and sensible thing. Do not let him fly in the face of all the local authorities, of all the trade interests and of all common sense, and oblige people to go to the police court, which is not the right place to which to take them for this purpose. We are dealing with premises and not with people.
    Dr. A. D. D. Broughton: The Report of the Catering Trade Working Party contained recommendations about registration for catering establishments. It was obvious that the working party had given a great deal of thought to this matter. One of the recommendations suggested that registration of new businesses should be prohibited until registration had been granted. That recommendation was signed by the chairman and 12 members of the working party. The other recommendation, which suggested that there should be registration as of right, was a minority recommendation signed by eight members of the working party. The Government seem to have turned their face against registration to such an extent that I feel it would be quite hopeless to ask them to accept the majority recommendation of the working party. But I am going to plead with the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the minority recommendation for registration as of right.
    I was very alarmed by the Government's rejection of registration and their substitution of prosecutions, police court proceedings and heavy penalties, especially the penalty of closure of premises for a period which may be as long as two years. I feel that this policy of the Governments was a tactless and, indeed, a brutal way to raise standards of hygiene. It is certainly not the way in which to get the good will and co-operation of the catering industry.
    We have been surprised to hear from the Minister that there have been no consultations with the catering industry about registration since the Second Reading of the Bill. Unlike the Government, I thought it would be wise to try to obtain the views of caterers on this matter and I approached the National Caterers' Federation and asked for its opinion on
    1424
    this new policy which the Government has substituted in place of registration.
    Before I inform the Committee of the opinion of the Caterers' Federation, I should like to say a word about it. It is a federation of small caterers. It is not a federation of men who are in big business in catering, but of the men who operate unit type businesses, that is to say, men who have one, or two, or possibly three shops. The Federation has a membership of well over 5,000 caterers. As the Parliamentary Secretary well knows, the Federation was originally opposed to registration.
    Dr. Hill: And everything else.
    Dr. Broughton: We are now discussing the policy of registration to which the Federation was opposed. But now, the Federation feels gravely concerned about the Government's alternative policy. Further consideration has been given to the matter. I have been informed that, while the federation still dislikes registration, it now regards it as the lesser of two evils. Rather than approve of the Minister's policy, it is willing to accept registration, provided that there are certain safeguards. The safeguards for which it has asked are that registration shall be as of right, at least for established caterers, and that there shall be a reasonable length of time allowed after the regulations come into operation for necessary structural alterations to be made, in order that caterers may comply with the regulations. I think that if the Minister would allow a period of about six months, that would satisfy the caterers. The other safeguard for which it is asking is that there should be local catering committees on local authorities and that the trade should be represented on those committees.
    A few minutes before I came into this Chamber for this debate, I was handed an envelope. When I opened it, I found it contained a letter from the National Caterers' Federation—a copy of a letter which has been sent to the Ministry of Food. I assume that the Parliamentary Secretary will have received it this morning.
    Dr. Hill Dr. Hill indicated dissent.
    Dr. Broughton: As the Parliamentary Secretary has not received it. I shall be pleased to let him have a copy. I think

    1425
    the Committee should know what the Federation has to say on this matter.
    "The National Caterers' Federation views with apprehension the … Amendment to Clause 7 which was submitted by the Government during the Committee stage of the Bill. The greatly increased penalties, and the provision that catering premises can be closed for a period of not exceeding two years, on the application of the local authority, compels us to reassess our attitude towards registration of catering establishments, which earlier we had opposed and which is now superseded by this new Clause.
    We are now of the opinion that of the two evils registration—with certain qualifications and assurances—would be better than what is now proposed. Where, before, an offending caterer could appeal, in the first instance, to the local authority he will now be arraigned before a court and exposed to a vast amount of undesirable—and probably unwarranted—publicity. Also, it was implied that by registration caterers would be afforded a reasonable time to adapt their premises to the standards laid down by the Ministers, it is now proposed that the caterer can be disqualified and be deprived of his livelihood for a minimum period of six months."
    The letter goes on.
    "Having viewed the two proposals from every conceivable angle we are now convinced that registration, which concedes registration as of right to established caterers, affords a reasonable time to carry out structural alterations and which contains precise instructions to local authorities relating to the interpretation and the administering of the regulations, should be reinserted in the Bill."
    If the Government would accept our proposals, then I suggest that they would have the useful and loyal co-operation of the caterers in trying to raise our standard of food hygiene. If the Parliamentary Secretary will accept our Amendment to Clause 9, page 11, line 14, which makes provision for excluding the power of the local authority to refuse any application; if he will accept our new Clause relating to the registration of catering premises, then a local authority which keeps a register of such premises will have to establish a catering premises committee.
    Our Amendments do not state specifically that there should be a period of six months between the issue of the regulations and action by local authorities to ensure that they are being followed, but I feel satisfied that if the Minister would agree to that period, it could be put in the regulations.
    Mr. Mitchison: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I think he will find that in subsection (1) of that proposed new Clause
    1426
    there is a provision about time. It does not specify six months but leaves it to the Minister to fix the time.
    Dr. Broughton: Yes, I thought it would be possible for the Minister to do so and I am merely asking him to make the period six months. For the reasons I have given, I earnestly ask the Minister to accept our proposals.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. George Darling: Like my hon. Friends, I hope that the Government, even at this stage, will drop their alternative proposal to registration and will return to it. I shall support my hon. Friends with some wider arguments that have a bearing on this matter and about which I am worried. If we are to depart from the principle of registration, which is implicit in so much of the legislation dealing with standards of marketing, the conduct of food premises, the manufacturing industries, and so on; if we depart from that principle in regard to catering, there may be requests for departure from registration in some of those other industries where registration has been so successful.
    Agricultural marketing, for instance, has a bearing upon the question of the registration of catering premises. One of the results of registration in connection with agricultural marketing—indeed, one of the results aimed at in its organisation —has been to improve the quality of agricultural products. The farmers realise that improvement in the quality of milk, cattle and many products dealt with in agricultural marketing had to range further than sales from the farms if the consumer was to get a clean and pure supply of food. Therefore, the principle of registration has been carried further and has been applied to the licensing of abattoirs, dairies, meat shops and many other retailing trades dealing with the supply of food.
    Obviously, all the efforts of the farmers, and the expense to which they are put under their own marketing arrangements to improve the quality of food, would be completely vitiated unless the principle of registration, and the raising of standards through it, applied right through the food trades to the final customer. I cannot see, therefore, why that principle should be departed from in the case of the sale of cooked foods,

    1427
    which is what we are dealing with in the case of catering. As they say in a certain television programme, that principle must be kept right through to the end-product in all cases.
    When the Parliamentary Secretary was trying to persuade us to accept the prosecution procedure instead of registration as the means of raising standards in the catering trades—and very unhappy he was when making his case—
    Mr. Norman Dodds: I felt sorry for him.
    Mr. Darling: So did we all. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the purpose of registration was, first, to let the local authorities know where the caterers were, secondly, to bring registration to an end if catering establishments were not up to standard and, thirdly, to apply higher standards through the medium of registration to new premises. We agree, and that is why, in general, we want registration.
    Then the hon. Gentleman went on to criticise these good reasons for registration, and his first argument against this procedure was that keeping registers would involve a lot of work. That is nonsense. The local authorities have to keep registers now; we merely seek to extend their existing work slightly. Bakers, fish shops, dairies—practically all the other food trades in any town or city —are registered under present legislation. They have to be. All we are asking is that attached to these registers there shall be the catering premises in each town or city.
    In any case, a register will have to be kept even if the prosecution proposals are adopted. How else will the inspectors know where the premises are? Does the Minister expect them to thumb through Kelly's Directory every time they want to find out if a café should be visited or not? The hon. Gentleman then went on to say that registration ought not to be brought to an end without a prosecution, and he made a great point of that. It is precisely because we do not agree with this that we want registration adopted.
    Let us get down to practical things. I will quote from the report of the Medical Officer of Health for the City of Sheffield, dealing with the inspection of food premises. Under the Shops Acts there
    1428
    are arrangements for inspecting premises. Preserved food factories have to be inspected. Ice-cream manufacturing plants and places of sale have to be registered and inspected. There has to be a register of milk distributors. There are nearly 1,000 of them in Sheffield who have to be registered. Hundreds of milk distributors have to be visited again and again because of the "special designations" procedure in regard to the milk they sell. Fish fryers have to be registered. The report said:
    "At the end of 1953, there were 404 fish friers' premises in the City. There were five new applications for registration during the year, and after investigation registration was granted in each case."
    It is in this satisfactory way that registration works. Offensive trades have to be registered and investigated, and even pet shops and canal boats. The medical officer goes on to give a list of inspections made last year, and the number runs into thousands; then there is a very important line in the report which says:
    "Number of Cases in which Legal Proceedings taken—three."
    They are getting the standards raised, not by putting the little men into the dock as the Government wish to do, but by persuasion. At the back of that persuasion there is all the time the formal sanction that, if the premises are not brought up to the required standard within a reasonable period, registration will be taken away. We want to keep people out of the police courts wherever possible, especially in cases of this kind.
    As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said, we are here dealing with premises and not with people. The police courts are the wrong places in which to deal with premises. This desire of the Government to put little businessmen into the dock in order to get their standards raised is a form of compulsion which we on this side do not like. As my hon. Friend has said, the form of registration proposed in these Amendments and in the new Clause is quite simple. It will amount to very little more than the making out of something like the form of application for a driving licence, and no driver objects to making out a form of that kind.
    The hon. Gentleman went a little too far when he said that there was difficulty about form filling. Surely application for the registration of catering premises will

    1429
    not involve anything more than the completing of a simple form. Look at the stupid situation in which we are going to be if that procedure is not followed and if the Government insist upon their own proposal. Under the Government's proposal, a person can open a new café in quite unsuitable premises, and, as far as I can see, the local authority will be unable to prevent him from doing so. The only way in which he could be stopped would be by prosecuting him after he had started business. That seems to me to be altogether wrong.
    I am sure that if during the Committee stage the Government had not brought forward the Amendment providing for prosecution instead of registration, we should have asked for assurances about the procedure of registration in regard to catering premises. I know that I should have done so, because this was one of the things the Co-operative societies had asked me to do. There is no point in going over it all again because the assurances for which I would have asked are expressed in our Amendments and in the new Clause. We wanted the automatic registration of existing premises, and for the continuing registration to be dependent on improvements being made in cases where premises fell below the required standards.
    We were also going to ask for assurances—we did not think it necessary to put them into the Bill, and were quite prepared to take the word of the Minister in the matter—that inspectors should be instructed to give reasonable time for the people concerned to bring their premises up to the required standards. We were also going to ask whether something could be done to get the administration of registration put into the hands of a council committee, the members of which would include representatives of the trade as co-opted members. We are convinced that that is the best way of handling the problem, and the views expressed by the Caterers' Federation sustain us in that view.
    Our way of doing the job would mean that the little man would have the chance of achieving the standards we require in a reasonable space of time. All he would have to do would be to show his willingness and desire to make the required improvements, and then his registration would be continued. He would have the
    1430
    representatives of his trade on the local committee to see that he received fair play.
    I cannot help thinking, in spite of the assurances given by the hon. Gentleman about no pressure being brought to bear from any quarter upon his Ministry, that there has been indirect pressure of some sort, at any rate on the part of the big caterers. It has certainly not come from the little men. But even if I am wrong in thinking that, the impression will still be held abroad, due to the maladroit way in which the Government have handled the matter, that the big caterers and the Government are ganging up so that the big people will have the chance to put some of their small competitors out of business through the method of prosecution.
    I speak for a trade organisation which is in competition with both the big concerns and the small private caterers. We want fair competition for all, for the Co-ops. and for the other two as well, with no advantages given by the Government to any one of the three groups. Neither do we want any obstacles put in the way of any of these groups to prevent them making the progress which their initiative deserves. This has been the view of the Co-ops. for more than 100 years.
    It seems to me that the Government, whether they intend to do so or not, are proposing to interfere with the free play of competition, because it is the little men who will be kicked—not the big people— by the prosecution procedure. Under the system of registration we can give fair play to everybody, which is what we want.
    Seeing that the Government have got themselves into this awful mess by the way in which they have handled the situation, I hope that they will now take advantage of our offer to go back to the position as it existed on Second Reading. In that event, we will give them all the help they need to put the Bill into proper shape in regard to this matter of registration, and speed it on its way.
    5.0 p.m.
    Sir H. Linstead: Until the speech of the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling), It seemed to me that most of this debate had taken place in an atmosphere of almost com-

    1431
    plete unreality. It was not until the hon. Gentleman produced the conclusive argument against the adoption of the Clause which he was supporting that I felt that some element of reality had entered the Committee.
    I wish to touch on the background to the removal of registration of catering premises to which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) referred. By the time he had finished he had effectively disposed of most of the suggestions he made about pressure having been brought to bear by various commercial interests on the Ministry of Food.
    I remind the Committee of two inferences which he asked the Committee to draw. One was that a certain noble Lord, having an interest in the food business, had used his influence to have those provisions taken out of the Bill. If that assumption is to be believed, that noble Lord was extremely maladroit in what he did, because, if he had the influence which the hon. Member suggested, he surely would have used that influence to prevent the insertion of the provisions in the Bill in the first place instead of having them clumsily exposed and then withdrawn.
    Mr. Willey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Bill was prepared by the late Administration, that it went through another place without Amendment, and that it is only at this late stage that, by Parliamentary guile, it was hoped to get it through with as little discussion as possible?
    Sir H. Linstead: Is the hon. Member aware that the Bill was introduced in another place by the present Government? I shall not waste time in dealing further with the preposterous assumption which the hon. Member made. If what he said was true, those provisions would never have appeared in the Bill when it was introduced in another place, to be subsequently withdrawn.
    Mr. Dodds: Can the hon. Member then say who was responsible for them?
    Sir H. Linstead: I was just going to produce something of an answer to that question. If the hon. Member wishes to know—
    Mr. Dodds: We all do.
    Sir H. Linstead: There was a number of hon. Members of this House, such as myself, with no interest whatsoever in the catering business, who considered the Bill in the ordinary course of their Parliamentary duties. For reasons which I will shortly mention, we came to the conclusion that the Bill would be a better Bill and would achieve its objects equally effectively if those provisions were withdrawn.
    If I may draw on my own experience, there was a time when I was responsible for the enforcement of another set of Acts of Parliament in which there was a question of registered and unregistered premises. Drawing on that experience, I assure the Committee that from the point of view of enforcement and of knowing where the premises are, it matters not at all to an efficient authority whether it has a statutory list, or indeed whether it has any.
    As the hon. Member for Hillsborough said, a list has to be kept in the offices of the authority, whether or not the authority is required by Act of Parliament to keep it. The difference between having a statutory register and having one kept for convenience is simply that every year one has to renew the statutory register and has to go through the mechanical process of collecting names and addresses again, and probably a 5s. registration fee. One has to waste an enormous amount of time and manpower doing something which could be done without that machinery.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: Is the hon. Member really trying to tell the Committee that, quite spontaneously and without expert advice, he and some of his foolhardy colleagues decided to mutilate the Bill?
    Sir H. Linstead: Those are not the words I would myself choose to describe my activities.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: But are they the words that apply?
    Sir H. Linstead: As an hon. Member, I have no hesitation in advising that registration is not necessary to achieve our purpose.
    Mr. Willey: The working party reported that all these premises are potential sources of infection and that their

    1433
    continuance constitutes a definite health hazard. Is the hon. Member suggesting that a local authority with any sense of public duty will not have a record of these premises in its area? Does he suggest that any Conservative authority in an urban area will not, quite properly, take steps to know what catering premises there are in its area, when it has been reported that they are a source of food poisoning? Surely the obligation is on the local authority. The argument which the hon. Member must face is whether we should make easier the work of the local authority in knowing where the catering premises are.
    Sir H. Linstead: The hon. Member could not have done me the compliment of listening to what I was saying when he made that interruption, because I was agreeing with the hon. Member for Hills-borough that, of course, every local authority will require to keep a list of those premises. They have one at the present time for their duties under the 1938 Act, and will have one in future, whether or not by Act of Parliament.
    Mr. Willey: No obligation.
    Sir H. Linstead: There will be no obligation, but the local authority will keep a list of establishments just as it does at present.
    In order to reinforce their arguments, the supporters of the proposed new Clause have reminded the Committee that local authorities want registration. Of course they do, and of course medical officers want registration. The fact that it means more work in the office—[HON. MEMBERS: "Less work."]—to keep an annual register up to date and more people employed to do it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]—I cannot see how hon. Members imagine that registers can be kept up to date without clerks.
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Member said, "More clerks."
    Sir H. Linstead: I will merely make the point clear, that the fact that local authorities and medical officers of health support the idea of having a register is not to my mind in any sense a conclusive argument that they really need the statutory powers to do that work.
    I come to the real argument on the Amendment which was advanced by the hon. Member for Hillsborough. He
    1434
    quoted the fact that a particular local authority in the enforcement of some analogous duty had dealt with thousands of cases but in fact had only prosecuted in three. That is the element of reality which I want to emphasise in this debate. In fact, prosecutions under this Bill will be evidence that local authorities are not doing their job properly. The Bill will only succeed if there are no prosecutions, or only the very minimum of prosecutions. In this piece of legislation we are placing a weapon in the hands of the administering authorities which they can use to encourage catering establishments to observe a higher standard, without the necessity of bringing the proprietors either to the police courts or before a committee of the local authority.
    All we need to do is to give them a weapon, and the smaller the weapon that we give them, so long as it is adequate to do the job, the better. We do not need the gross, heavy weapon of the threat of withdrawal of registration by the local authority and of being put out of business. We can content ourselves with the equally serviceable but much less frightening weapon of proceedings under the 1938 Act, because there is ample provision in the Bill to enable the sanitary inspector to use his influence to educate the owner of the catering establishment to bring it up to a proper standard. [HON. MEMBERS: "In the courts."] No. I have already made it clear that no recourse to the courts is necessary.
    Mr. Darling: All the references that I took from the medical officer's report were references to regulations which involve registration. The proceedings which the medical officer and his inspectors were taking were under registration —which makes their job infinitely easier —without prosecution.
    Sir H. Linstead: But nothing that the hon. Member has said destroys the validity of what I was saying—that the Bill will succeed in its objective, not by prosecution or by bringing offenders before a committee of the local authority, but through day-by-day education by the sanitary inspectors of the proprietors of catering establishments. It is because I am satisfied that there is enough sanction at the disposal of medical officers of health and sanitary inspectors without the necessity of registration that I say that my

    1435
    hon. Friend is right in removing registration, which, like nationalisation, is after all only a word—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and recognising that the cure of the evils at which this Measure is aimed will be by education and not through the machinery of the courts.
    Mr. Darling: If all the arguments of the hon. Member for Putney are sound as they apply to the catering trades, why did he not suggest that the procedure of prosecution should apply to all food trades and rule registration out?
    Sir H. Linstead: At the moment we are discussing only this word.
    Mr. H. Rhodes: It has been suggested that small shopkeepers are not very much affected by this Bill, but I suggest that they are deeply concerned with the question of registration. Those familiar with the northern cities, particularly thickly populated areas such as the one I come from, know that it is the little shop round the corner which sells loaves of bread, a few sandwiches and a little food that will be affected by this Bill as much as any other shop, and probably more.
    In the last few years there has been a tremendous turnover in the sale of such small properties. Very often they are poor blocks of property, but they contain a shop and folks think that they can make a fortune if only they get a shop and start selling something. A lot of these people have been imposed upon and have paid more for the shop than it is worth. One reason is that people have nowhere to go to find out whether the shop is any good or not. They cannot go to the local authority and ask what are the prospects for such a shop and how much it will cost, but if this Amendment were accepted they could do so.
    A week last Saturday I received a letter from a man in a sanatorium. He is in an advanced stage of T.B. He bought one of these shops round the corner three years ago—he has now been in the sanatorium for several months. Because a canteen was started in the small factory near the shop, the employees there ceased going to the shop to buy sandwiches, bread and so on and business began to decline. The worry might have contributed to the cause of this man's T.B. for all I know. I do not know much
    1436
    about it, but I do know the man is in an advanced stage of T.B.
    He and his wife worried about the decline in their business. They did the obvious thing—started looking around to find out if the person from whom they bought the shop had sold them a "pup." They could not find the person for the very good and obvious reason that she was dead. She had died of T.B.
    The man did not write to me because of the £800 he had paid for the shop, nor about how he was to find the remainder of the money, advanced by the Halifax Building Society or from whomever it was borrowed. He wrote to me because the local authority had made a demolition order, and that demolition order expired about a week ago yesterday. I ask the Minister what we can do, while this Bill is going through to help in this direction. It is a social matter as well as a matter of premises. If there were registration it would be possible for people to inquire about such properties. I ask the 'Minister to reconsider the question of registration because an issue has to be made of all these things sooner or later, and it might as well be now.
    5.15 p.m.
    Dr. Hill: May I say at the outset that I make no complaint whatever about the late consideration of this set of proposals, for I think they are worthy of intelligent scrutiny to see if, in fact, they do stand up to certain important tests.
    I regret very much the references by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) to my noble Friend Lord Woolton. I think they were quite unnecessary and quite without foundation. After all, what was the point? A point was based on the question as to whether there had been representations from the catering trade—and the implications of what the hon. Member said were that there had been such representations and that this change had been made in response to such representations with Lord Woolton being associated with those representations. I want to assure the Committee that that is completely and utterly without foundation. I shall later answer the question of how these modified proposals came into being, but there is no foundation whatever for that suggestion.
    The challenging question was put to me of what consultations there had been or what representations had been received

    1437
    from the trade, implying that there had been such representations. When the answer was given that there were no such representations, the hon. Member's hon. Friends took their position on new ground—that it was the absence of such consultations that formed the gravamen of the charge.
    I want to get down to the essence of the series of Amendments, for there is something quite new in them. The hon. Member made play with the suggestion that these had arisen partly or largely as a result of consultations with the National Caterers' Federation. I make no complaint about that; it is a matter of history——
    Mr. Willey: I did not say that.
    Dr. Hill: The hon. Member's hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton), referred to those consultations and named the body. I am making no complaint about it, but it is only fair to record that this is a body which was bitterly opposed at the outset to the general conception of things, a body which approved regulations on the clear understanding that they could never be the subject of a prosecution. Its attitude at the outset was rather unhelpful, but if now, in consultation with the hon. Member and his friends, its attitude has become more helpful, that is all the better. The hon. Gentleman stated—[Interruption.] If it has changed its mind, perhaps others with greater wisdom can also change their minds without dark allegations being made about the theory, or purpose or motive.
    The hon. Gentleman made it clear that there were three important points in this proposal. One was the automatic registration of existing premises. That is interesting. It is something which the party opposite criticised bitterly in Committee. The hon. Member for Hills-borough called it a "sell out." The hon. and learned Gentleman called it "appalling"——
    Hon. Members: Which one?
    Dr. Hill: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison)——
    Mr. Turner-Samuels Mr. Turner-Samuels rose——
    Dr. Hill: The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) also spoke, but I did not have time to read his speech, and I thought I might
    1438
    find what I wanted in the speech of his hon. and learned Friend.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: It was not my hon. and learned Friend; the Parliamentary Secretary looked at me.
    Dr. Hill: At any rate, we should recognise greater wisdom when it comes, from wherever it may come.
    I wish to come to the second and third parts of the proposal. I think I describe it fairly when I say that it involves all local authorities concerned with the administration of the terms of this Bill, in the formation of a catering premises committee. It will be a requirement of all local authorities to create such a committee. Secondly, and here I think that it would be wise to use the actual words:
    "A local authority which has established a catering premises committee may delegate and, save in so far as the Minister may otherwise direct, shall delegate to that committee …"
    and then the subsequent words describe the functions of the authority in the matter of registration. In other words, that committee having been formed,
    "save in so far as the Minister shall otherwise direct"
    it shall have delegated to it registration functions.
    The local authority,
    "save in so far as the Minister may otherwise direct"
    is required to appoint this additional committee on which it shall have a majority. But the committee shall include representatives of the trade and the workers, and shall, unless the Minister otherwise directs, be required to determine the issue of registrations. Thirdly, it shall be the body whose consent is necessary before any prosecution is launched under the heading of catering premises.
    We have had enough argument about the merits of registration and disqualification. I wish to put this to the Committee as a local government question of some importance outwith that particular compass. As matters stand, the responsibility is firmly placed on the local authority. It shall be the duty of every local authority to carry into execution and enforce the provisions of any part of this Bill.
    I ask the Committee, quite apart from the other controversy, is it wise that in

    1439
    this respect a local authority shall be required to appoint a committee and to delegate to it the whole of its functions on the matter of registration of premises? Secondly, is it right that the permission of such a committee shall be necessary before the local authority charged with the responsibility under this Bill is free to engage in a prosecution?
    The council, meeting as a council, confronted by advice offered by a committee on which it has a majority, is unable to do what it wishes to do because it needs first of all to get the consent of a subsidiary body which it has appointed and on which it has a majority.
    Mr. Mitchison: Not only has it at least a majority, but it rests entirely with the local authority as to how large is that majority.
    Dr. Hill: I do not stress the point, but a majority is required in the composition of the committee. It often happens, as we know from experience, that a theoretical majority is not an actual majority.
    Mr. G. Darling: It is a weak argument.
    Mr. Mitchison: What is the experience of the hon. Gentleman?
    Dr. Hill: If the hon. and learned Member is asking me about by experience of local government——
    Mr. Mitchison: Yes.
    Dr. Hill: —it is as a whole-time officer in local government. But I suggest that the Committee should meet the argument in relation to the constitutional position of local authorities in this matter.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: Would the Parliamentary Secretary permit me——
    Dr. Hill: No, if the Committee will allow me, I will complete the theme of my argument——
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: It would only take a second.
    Dr. Hill: —without going into a personal recital of my local government and other experience.
    I wish the Committee to consider what this may mean in practice. Caterers, as members of the committee, would be able
    1440
    to take part in decisions about the registration of new caterers. The hon. Gentleman referred to the food control committees. He knows, as I do, that the main difficulty which arose—I wish to put it plainly without suggesting that it was a universal difficulty—was that caterer members of the committee concerned with applications for new licences often carried their weight against the licensing of new potential competitors. Is it right that the caterer members of this newly appointed committee should play a part in determining whether new registrations should be accepted?
    Mr. Willey: This is important, because I think that unwittingly the Parliamentary Secretary is casting a grave reflection upon the food control committees. He has created the impression that the caterer members put their trade interests first. I think that an unwarranted reflection. My own experience of the committees is that they were admirable and that they did a very ticklish job in a first-rate manner. I have not known a Minister of Food who failed to pay tribute to the work done by those committees. After all, there was then a combination of local authority representatives and trade interests. To suggest that the trade interests used their position to their own advantage is unwise.
    Dr. Hill: I made it perfectly plain that I did not suggest that it was a common difficulty, but it was a difficulty which arose. Should not decisions to end registrations be taken by the local authority as a whole and not by a committee including representatives of catering interests? There may be other difficulties, some of which would rarely arise—for instance, the difficulty of steps of one kind or another having to be taken against caterers who are individual members of the committee.
    5.30 p.m.
    Let us pass to the second point, that dealing with prosecution in the matter of premises. The suggestion, apparently, is that a prosecution in a matter of premises can be launched only if the consent of this committee of the local authority is obtained. This will put caterers in a special position. A prosecution can be launched for another kind of establishment on the report of the sanitary inspector to the local authority and on a decision by the local authority, but in the

    1441
    case of the catering establishment there will be this special delaying and protecting provision. I am demonstrating the implications of this proposed procedure.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels Mr. Turner-Samuels rose——
    Dr. Hill: I will not give way.
    Of course, this pleases the caterers; of course, it derives from consultation with the caterers. It delays and makes less likely prosecutions for offences. This is an important matter affecting local authorities and perhaps I may be told whether they have been consulted about it. There was time for me to make only one inquiry, which I made by telephone to the Association of Municipal Corporations. There has been no consultation with them about this proposal, which involves a requirement to establish a new committee and a new kind of procedure.
    Quite apart from the issues of consultation, is this a desirable procedure to introduce? I think it is not, because it delays and makes less likely prosecution in that small number of cases in which prosecution is desirable. I believe this is the caterers' dream, the caterers' charter. The remarkable point is this: we have been confronted by arguments that we were being weak and unwilling to grapple with this problem, but now we are being accused of being so brutal in bringing offenders to justice in the police courts that some hon. Members wish to erect this structure to prevent a local authority from itself deciding issues of registration and to prevent a local authority from itself deciding issues of prosecution without the permission of one of its committees. This would introduce a delaying procedure.
    I believe that an analysis of these proposals shows that they are open to serious difficulties and weaknesses as a method of dealing with this position, and I believe that we are back to the main controversy between registration and disqualification. I suspect that there may be many hon. Members who, while they are on the side of registration, feel that this mode of applying registration is in itself open to a number of objections.
    A good deal has been said about the change of attitude in this matter, and that change came about when we considered the representations which were made for exclusions from registration. I will give simply the example of the small
    1442
    boarding-house, the house at the seaside which at holiday time becomes a catering establishment for six or eight weeks. Other representations have been made in respect of moorland cafés. Some references were made to them in today's debate and some were made in the previous debate by the Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman).
    We examined the case which was put forward for certain exclusions from registration and we tried to find ways of separating the groups for which exemption could properly be claimed in terms of the size of the boarding-house or establishment. When we considered a method of registration which necessarily involved exclusions, particularly of certain kinds of smaller establishments where the danger might not be as small in proportion, bearing in mind the need to ensure that under certain circumstances it should be possible to close down premises whatever their size, we reached the conclusion that the important sanction behind this matter should be the power under certain circumstances to disqualify premises for use as catering premises, whatever they were.
    The second consideration which led us to our conclusion was that under the 1938 Act relatively few regulations were made or, indeed, were possible. Under this Bill there will be a wealth of new law in the form of regulations. It seems to us to be right that a local authority seeking to withdraw the registration of catering premises and so to close the business on the ground they had not observed this or that regulation, ought not to be in a position to withdraw it without being willing to take the case to the courts and, first of all, prove that an offence had been committed.
    Under the registration method, having considered the report of the sanitary inspector and having heard what the man has to say, it is possible for the local authority to withdraw the registration, subject to an appeal to a bench of magistrates. Quite apart from the possibilities of an appeal, in our view such a withdrawal of the registration should take place only when it has been proved in court that an offence has been committed. In our view a local authority should not be in a position to withdraw the registration when it is unwilling to prove the allegation in court.

    1443
    I have a good deal of sympathy with what has been said today but I would draw attention to the third consideration —the sanction behind the sanitary inspector. We all want the vast majority of his work to be done as it is under the Factory Acts by the sensible persuasion of the visiting inspector, in the knowledge that if he meets with resistance there is a sanction behind him. Under the registration system, the sanction is that if a man does not bring his premises into conformity with the standards, his registration is taken away. That is the implied sanction.
    Mr. G. Darling: Subject to appeal.
    Dr. Hill: Yes, but if a man does not come up to scratch we have power to withdraw his registration subject to appeal, under the registration procedure. That is an important sanction.
    Under the disqualification procedure, if a man does not observe the law we have the power to take him to court and, if he is convicted, to make application for his disqualification in those premises. In both cases the sanction is strong; in both cases it is easily possible for a great deal of persuasive work to be done within those sanctions. At the same time, we think it wrong for a local authority, having all the regulations—and now having the enormous number of listed and defined offences which were not available to it under the Section of the 1938 Act, which was the main legal code for this purpose—to be in such a position.
    There has been, and this House has knowingly done it, a multiplication of the offences concerned. We therefore think it right and proper to say, "if you have offended, we shall—having failed by persuasive methods to secure an improvement in your premises or your conduct —prosecute you." But only if there has been a successful prosecution can the possibility lie of an appeal to the courts to bring that to an end. I would, therefore say to the House that this is a reversal of wrongs. We are now the brutal ones, insisting on using the machinery of the law to make this Act really workable. The party opposite, after its consultations with the caterers —and I use not the offensive language which hon. Members opposite would have used of such consultations by us—has been led to regard this as a caterers' Bill.
    1444
    We believe it to be a Bill to protect the public—and we put the public first.
    Dr. Edith Summerskill: The Parliamentary Secretary has once more faced the House and presented a pathetic spectacle in his desperate attempt to defend the Government in a matter which is indefensible. We have listened to him dealing with details of administration, and avoiding the whole principle. He knows as well as I that the politician who is bankrupt of argument always depends on proving how a certain measure is unworkable because some administrative detail would not be acceptable.
    If what he said is true why is it that all the organisations which we have mentioned, the local government organisations, have not made representations on these points which he has raised this afternoon? He told us that he telephoned one local government organisation and asked whether it approved of certain principles which have been mentioned today. Did he ask whether it approved or disapproved of registration? He has already said that these local government officials would not accept registration. Did he ask them this afternoon?
    Dr. Hill: I dealt with one point—the proposal appearing on the Order Paper yesterday affecting the constitutional position of local authorities. I inquired, not what their views were but whether they had been consulted on this point. In the case of the organisation I telephoned, it said "No." There is no more to it than that.
    Dr. Summerskill: I am surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary should take the trouble to ring up about one administrative point and not ask about the main principle.
    I should like to ask another question. The Parliamentary Secretary was asked, quite rightly, whether representations have been made—another kind of representation—by the catering associations with regard to registration. The hon. Gentleman said that no catering organisation had made representations to him on the point. He also said that none of the organisations representing local government officials had done so. Has the Parliamentary Secretary met a group of hon. Members on the Government

    1445
    back benches who represent different business organisations? Have they made any representations, or can he give an unqualified "No"?
    Dr. Hill: In the course of the legitimate and proper exercise of their functions, my right hon. Friend and his predecessors have met hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    Dr. Summerskill: Then the Parliamentary Secretary has been deceiving the House.
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I think that the right hon. Lady should not use un-Parliamentary language.
    5.45 p.m.
    Dr. Summerskill: I withdraw "deceive" and suggest "misleading." I think that is a Parliamentary term.
    I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary has deliberately misled the House this afternoon. He was asked whether the catering organisations had made representations to him, and, full of wrath and indignation, he said "No." But, of course, they would not do anything so naїve. They have approached their Members of Parliament. Hon. Members opposite, I am sure—I am not criticising them for it—have also their own business interests, and we therefore have the business interests represented through the hon. Members—and they have been to see the Parliamentary Secretary. In other words, he has received representations from the business interests, and here we have the result.
    If it is thought for one moment that we on this side of the Committee are deploying doctrinaire arguments and have not sound support from those with understanding of this question, I would refer hon. Members to the setting up of the Catering Trade Working Party. I have a special interest in it because it was set up in November, 1948, when I was at the Ministry of Food. Indeed, this whole great social Measure stems, of course, from the work of previous Labour Governments. I have a list of its members before me, and I ask hon. Members on both sides to be guided, not by what the Parliamentary Secretary has said but by the Report of the Catering Trade Working Party.
    1446
    I shall not state all the names, but let me remind the House who were represented on it. The chairman was Sir William G. Savage, M.D., B.Sc., D.P.H., a former county medical officer of health. The first member was a hotel director. The second—I am advertising these firms, but nevertheless they have done a good piece of work—represented Fuller's Limited, who have multiple shops all over the country. The third member represented the Ministry of Health, and the next was a representative of the workers in the shops.
    There was a representative of the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society, who have big catering interests. Then there was a representative of the Ministry of Food. And there was also a member of the Council of the Hotel and Catering Institute. Next, the Central Public Health Laboratory. There was a county alderman of Cheshire. There was the Director of Catering Advisory Service, King Edward's Hospital Fund for London. It had a respresentative of Forte's and Co. Ltd.—a big multiple firm who know all about these questions of administration which the Parliamentary Secretary has posed this afternoon because he thinks there are hon. Members on these benches who have no knowledge of business. These businessmen were there to consider those questions.
    Then it had a representative of Strand Hotels Limited—Lyons is represented. Then follow more workers' representatives; William Hancock and Co. Ltd.—more caterers—and other health departments. Here we have an excellent committee considering all the questions that the Parliamentary Secretary has put to us this afternoon.
    Captain J. A. L. Duncan: Was there a representative of the small man?
    Dr. Summerskill: There were plenty of representatives of the small man. There were representatives of many of the trade unions who, I would remind the hon. and gallant Member, are also consumers.
    That committee worked for two years. It had 33 meetings. It called on the small man and it called on catering establishments. The report says:
    "Groups of members paid visits to catering establishments of different types, to manufacturers of catering equipment …"

    1447
    and to exhibitions and so on. They invited women's organisations to give evidence, and they also invited the local authorities.
    Here are the answers to the Parliamentary Secretary:
    "Evidence was taken from the catering trade and from associations of local authorities and of officers of local authorities."
    Yet the Parliamentary Secretary gave only a quarter of an hour of his time to explain to the House how the officers of local authorities would be extremely annoyed——
    Dr. Hill: By the Amendment.
    Dr. Summerskill: Certainly, if this catering premises committee was set up. These officers of local authorities have no doubt expressed their views on every aspect of this Measure.
    Turning to the recommendations of this powerful working party of the catering trade, I can only say that the first one was:
    "All catering establishments should be required to register with the appropriate local authority."
    There, surely, is the answer to the Parliamentary Secretary. However, now we come along with a different proposition in order to secure safeguards for all catering establishments.
    I also want to say a word to the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead), who suggested that if this Amendment was accepted, it would mean that a lot of clerical workers would be involved, while somebody else suggested that, if the proposal of the hon. Member for Putney was
    accepted, it would cause the employment of more sanitary inspectors. Of course, it would, but the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that if we had registration in addition, it would be a constant reminder to these little proprietors of dirty cafes that they have to observe certain standards of cleanliness. Registration in itself would be equivalent to a squad of vigilant sanitary inspectors, because it would be doing their work for them.
    So I must say once more that we are very disappointed. We had hoped that after all this time—we have been debating this matter since 3.30 p.m.—the Minister would have had second thoughts. Throughout the course of the discussions on this Bill, we have deployed reasoned arguments, and time after time the Minister has accepted our propositions and our Amendments. It has been quite unprecedented, and of the pages of Amendments which we put down to this Bill the Government have accepted a very large number.
    This Amendment is one of the most important of them all, and I was hoping that the Minister would have had time to think about it and would have been able to accept it, but, once more, an important public health Measure has been emasculated by the party opposite, and we shall have to divide the Committee when the time comes.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 229.

    Division No. 231.]

    AYES

    [5.54 p.m.

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Albu, A. H.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Andersen, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Champion, A. J.

    Follick, M.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Chapman, W. D.

    Foot, M. M.

    Balfour, A.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Forman, J. C.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Clunie, J.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Bence, C. R.

    Coldrick, W.

    Freeman, John (Watford)

    Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

    Collick, P. H.

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

    Benson, G.

    Collins, V. J.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Beswick, F.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Bing G. H. C.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Blackburn, F.

    Daines, P.

    Hale, Leslie

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Boardman, H.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Hannan, W.

    Bottemley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Hardy, E. A.

    Bowdon, H. W.

    Deer, G.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Bowies F. G.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Brockway, A. F.

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

    Hastings, S.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

    Messer, Sir F.

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Snow, J. W.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Holman, P.

    Monslow, W.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Holmes, Horace

    Moody, A. S.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Steele, T.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Morley, R.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Moyle, A.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Mulley, F. W.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Oswald, T.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Owen, W. J.

    Tomney, F.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

    Padley, W. E.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Palmer, A. M. F

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Jeger, Mrs Lena

    Pannell, Charles

    Viant, S. P.

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Parker, J.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech

    Paton, J.

    Weitzman, D.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Probert, A. R.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Keenan, W..

    Proctor, W. T.

    While, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.).

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

    Pryde, D. J.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Rankin, John

    Wigg, George.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Reeves, J.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Willey, F. T

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M..

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    MacColl, J. E

    Rhodes, H.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    McGovern, J..

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)

    McInnes, J

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

    McLeavy, F.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

    Ross, William

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Mr. Wallace and

    Mr. James Johnson.

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Glover, D.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Godber, J. B.

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Cole, Norman

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Colegate, W. A.

    Gower, H. R.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Arbuthnot, John

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

    Crookshank Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Barber, Anthony

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Hay, John

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Beach, Ma. Hicks

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Heath, Edward

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Birch, Nigel

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Bishop, F. P.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Black, C. W.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Hope, Lord John

    Bowen, E. R.

    Drewe, Sir C.

    Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

    Braine, B. R.

    Elliott, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Erroll, F. J.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Braithwaite, Sir Gurney

    Fell, A.

    Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

    Brown, Jack (Govan)

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

    Fletcher, Sir Walter (Bury)

    Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

    Bullard, D. G..

    Ford, Mrs. Patricia

    Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

    Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Carr, Robert

    Gammans, L. D.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Channon, H.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    1450

    1451

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Sharples, Maj. R. C.

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Shepherd, William

    Kaberry, D.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Keeling, Sir Edward

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Smyth, Brig, J. G. (Norwood)

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Neave, Airey

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Speir, R. M.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Lindsay, Martin

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Odey, G. W.

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Studholme, H. G.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Summers, G. S.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

    Longden, Gilbert

    Osborne, C.

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.

    Page, R. G.

    Teeling, W.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Partridge, E.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Perkins, Sir Robert

    Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

    MeAdden, S. J.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    McCallum, Major D.

    Pitman, I. J.

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Tilney, John

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Mackeson, Brig, Sir Harry

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig, O. L.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Redmayne, M.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Maitland Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Markham, Major Sir Frank.

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Waterhouse Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Marlowe, A. A. H

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Weilwood, W.

    Marpies, A. E.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    William, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Maudling, R.

    Russell, R. S.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Mellor, Sir John.

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Molson, A. H. E

    Scott, R. Donald

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Wills and Mr. Robert Allan.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 13.;(FOOD AND DRUGS AUTHORITIES.)
  Dr. Broughton: I beg to move, in page 14, line 34, to leave out "forty," and to insert "thirty-five."
  The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee to consider at the same time the other two Amendments to Clause 13.
  Dr. Broughton: I think that would be convenient, Sir Rhys.
  At an earlier stage my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) asked the Government if they would alter the provision in this Clause for a 40,000 population to a lower figure. In the excellent speech he made he put forward a very strong argument in favour of the reduction. We understood the Minister of Food to say that he would consider the matter.
  We raise it again at this stage. We have given further thought to the problem and are anxious that the figure should be reduced. We now ask the Minister to substitute "thirty-five
  1452
  thousand." Concern is felt on this subject in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, because Batley has a population of just over 40,000 and will not be affected adversely by the Bill, but Morley has just under 40,000 and will not be a food and drugs authority called upon to operate the Bill.
  It is a great pity, because a great deal of good work has already been done by the borough council of Morley to raise the standard of food hygiene. I have a letter here, which I have received frm the town clerk, and in which he says:
  "The local Health Department's staff have already done a very considerable amount of work in food premises within the district. They have a very wide local knowledge and are in a better position to administer the whole of the provisions of the Act than officers from outside the area."
  The precedent for the figure of 35,000 is in the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949. When that Measure came before the House, the Government of the day proposed a figure which would have robbed the two boroughs which I represent of their justices' bench, and I spoke very severely to the Government about it. I suggested that 35,000 should be accepted,

  1453
  and was very pleased that the Government agreed.
  The boroughs which Parliament has considered capable of having their own justices' bench are capable of administering the Bill. Indeed, I go so far as to say that non-county boroughs with a population between 35,000 and 45,000 are of ideal size for managing their own affairs. They are not too small and not too large. They are small enough to be very well governed and large enough to have an adequate number of capable, public-spirited men and women.
  It is true that if the figure of 40,000 were to remain in the Bill, the Minister of Health, on application made to him by a council, could allow a borough with a population of fewer than 40,000 to be a food and drugs authority for the purposes of the Bill, but I want to make sure. I do not want to leave the matter to the whim of any Minister of Health. In order that non-county borough with populations of 35,000 or more should be allowed to manage their own affairs, I ask the Government to accept the Amendment.
  Colonel Ralph Clarke: I hope that the Minister of Food will resist the Amendment, because the effect of it would be that any local authority with a population of 35,000 or more would automatically become a food and drugs authority, not only for the purposes of the principal Act, and the Bill, but for other Acts too. I believe that the county councils of this country are quite rightly very much opposed to such action being taken.
  It must be remembered that at the present time the whole re-organisation of local government is under consideration. A statement to that effect was made not so long ago by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Housing and Local Government when we were considering the Luton Bill. It seems to me to be a mistake to commit anybody to a minor change of this sort while such great legislative changes are contemplated. Certain proposals have been put forward by the County Councils' Association, and they are in the possession of the Minister.
  That body has stated that whilst the primary responsibility for these matters should be in the hands of the county councils, it agrees to the delegation to non-county boroughs, urban district councils and rural district councils to such an
  1454
  extent, if any, as may be provided by the delegation schemes. I feel, therefore, that it would be unfortunate as well as unnecessary if the Bill were changed in this way and future arrangements thereby possibly prejudiced.
  There are further arguments, but I think they can be presented in a specific case. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) will forgive me if I quote the case of that town. I understand that in 1950 Kettering approached the Northampton County Council with the request that it might support an application to the Minister for powers which are laid down under Section 64 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, and which are substantially the same as in Clause 13 of this Bill as now drafted. It wanted to become a food and drugs authority.
  The county council refused to give that support. It believed—and I personally feel that it was right—that it would be to the disadvantage of the county as a whole to set up separate organisations which would mean that, for example, two sets of samplers would be working side by side. That would be so because it would be necessary, even if these powers had been granted, for the county council samplers still to be present and to continue their work in the towns in order that they might carry out their responsibilities under the Weights and Measures Act and under the Labelling of Food Order. It obviously would mean two lots of men working on the same job and increasing the cost to the county and to Kettering.
  Also, from another point of view the county is responsible for milk sampling, and if that duty had been handed over it would have meant some complication in tracing the origin of these samples back to the farm. While it was the responsibility of the county council the duty was all under one authority and under the same officials. I understand that after receiving that advice the borough council of Kettering did not approach the Minister. Perhaps in a different way it is approaching him now.
  There is a third reason why I think this Amendment should be resisted. Anybody who has listened to these debates and appreciates the time that they have occupied will realise what a

  1455
  highly complex subject this is. A lot of the procedure relating to food and drugs is very complex, and obviously one on which there is a great variety of opinion. It seems to me that it is something which, without any reflection on the administrative capacity of the smaller local authority, is one that the sanitary inspector cannot do as well as a more highly geared and more representative body like the county council, which has a number of persons who can concentrate on the subject and who give their full time to similar matters. There are other reasons, but I will not weary the Committee with them. I hope that the Minister will resist the Amendment.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Mitchison: Those who speak for the parish pump must do so briefly. My Morley is Kettering my Batley is a future Corby. The Minister of Health is a Scot who has come to England and who, no doubt very rightly, has reached a very high position. I hope he is not small-minded on his heights and will not cause Corby, Scots as it is, to look down on Kettering as a place which cannot be and will not be a food and drugs authority.
  It seems to me to be a bad plan to have too many authorities which have part of the duties under the food and drugs Regulations, that is to say, the enforcement duties under Section 65 (2) of the 1938 Act but who have no other duties of a food and drugs authority. The position in the area of a local authority which is not a food and drugs authority is that the local authority has to enforce part of the legislation, but as it is a food and drugs authority the county council has to do the rest.
  That sort of thing ought to be reduced, and if we take an average between 30,000 or 35,000 and 40,000 we get a type of small town that will do this kind of job thoroughly well. The job is becoming under this Bill, slightly different. As was pointed out in the debate on the previous Amendment, we are imposing a number of additional requirements and rather more detailed requirements in regard to all kinds of food establishments in a town, and while the county council may be highly geared—I do not know exactly what that means—it seems to me extremely difficult for it to do the job
  1456
  in a number of places where a smaller local authority could rightly and properly do it.
  It seems to me better to have the job in the hands of the authority which is the authority concerned with housing, with the condition of houses, and which is dealing with all those other matters which come within the purview of a non-county borough than in the hands of a county council. I have a certain sentimental interest in places of that size but I am not going to talk of that again. This is a matter about which one forms an impression, one keeps it and there is not very much argument one way or the other.
  I suggest that the figure of 40,000 is rather too high, that it ought to be reduced. The figure of 35,000 has been put forward on this occasion instead of 30,000, in an appeal to the sporting instincts of the right hon. Gentleman. After all splitting the difference is not too bad, and this Amendment suggests that the difference should be split. Of course, it is not unimportant that Kettering happens to have a population of over 35,000.
  Mr. G. A. Pargiter: I hope that some Minister will one day look at the whole of this problem and its allied problems. I can well understand the desire of a small authority to take over as many functions as it reasonably can; it indicates a high civic sense. Nevertheless, there are some difficulties from the practical point of view. I attach importance, in this type of work, to the inspector not being too well known to the people whom he is inspecting, but the smaller the authority is, the more difficult it becomes for the inspector not to be well known to all the shop-keepers in the area.
  In the case of many smaller authorities, this is one of the additional functions carried out by sanitary inspectors. They are highly qualified people, and many of them can do the work quite well, but I doubt whether it is practicable when one bears in mind the modern conception of what is required of a sanitary inspector. I consider that the work can be carried out much better by a body which functions over a wide area and can switch inspectors from one district to another rather than that they should operate only within the confines of a small borough or urban district. Weights

  1457
  and measures duties are carried out by county authorities, and that is a function with which the food and drugs inspection function can be combined.
  The problem has been experienced in Middlesex, where the general view is that the function is better regarded as a county one. The importance of having a degree of special qualifications is recognised. The complaints have usually been that the county authority has not reported sufficiently to the county district. If the Minister wants to put some "teeth" into this duty, he should let the county authorities undertake the function but should insist that they satisfy the county districts that it is being properly carried out. That would be better than giving the function to smaller authorities.
  I am speaking dispassionately. I am not speaking from a county council point of view, wanting to collect jobs. I am more concerned about efficient and economical administration. The county authority has to appoint a public analyst. If the Amendment were carried, presumably the smaller authority, with the consent of the Minister, could appoint a public analyst. That would be extremely wasteful.
  During recent times there has been a considerable change in food packaging methods. To a large extent, articles of food come from large centres and are distributed over wide areas. An inspector working over a large area will find it easier to get at the source of supply than one operating in, say, a borough. That is an additional argument in favour of having the function operated over wide areas. In the old days the shopkeeper bought his goods in bulk and blended them himself, and if the mice got at them it was a local matter, but today when multiple shops and others have spread their operations over much wider areas it is much better that the function should be a county one.
  If it is felt that a county authority is not doing the job properly, the Minister should insist that it does it properly. If, however, the county authority is functioning efficiently over a wide area and has appointed highly technical people for the purpose, it is better that it should continue to carry out the function rather than that the function should be given to smaller authorities. I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friends about this,
  1458
  but I feel that, on the whole, from the point of view of efficiency, the larger authority is likely to operate better than the smaller authority.
  Mr. F. Beswick: There is another Amendment on the Order Paper which refers to the designation of a food and drugs authority. I do not expect that it will be accepted, because I understand that it is not to be called.
  The Deputy-Chairman: If the Amendment is not going to be called, it cannot be discussed.
  Mr. Beswick: Perhaps I might make a reference to it, Sir Rhys, because it has some bearing on the Amendment which we are now discussing. My Amendment proposed to give a certain amount of discretion——
  The Deputy-Chairman: I do not know to which Amendment the hon. Member is referring. We are discussing three Amendments to Clause 13. They are the only ones which can be discussed at this stage.
  Mr. Beswick: I appreciate that there are only three Amendments which are being discussed at the moment, Sir Rhys, but I wished briefly to refer to the fact that there is another Amendment on the Order Paper dealing with the same matter. I was making a passing reference to it.
  The Deputy-Chairman: There is no other Amendment beyond these three to be taken at this stage.
  Mr. Beswick: I understand that the Amendment to which I was referring is not to be called. I was only referring to it in passing, Sir Rhys. I will direct my remarks to the Amendment with which we are now dealing.
  My Amendment proposed to give a certain amount of discretion to the Minister when issuing directions under subsection (3). However, the Amendment which has been moved will have relation to the anomaly which it was felt would arise in the County of Middlesex if the powers which the Minister proposes to take under the Bill were used. The power which is required by the right hon. Gentleman to issue a direction in the case of an urban district or non-county district which, though appearing

  1459
  not to have 20,000 population in the last census figures, nevertheless becomes an area over that size according to the figures of the Registrar-General will, I feel, cover the anomaly which I had in mind in the case of Middlesex. My hon. Friends and I are prepared to accept the words proposed by the Minister as covering the anomaly. I wish to thank the Minister for listening to the argument which we advanced last week and for listening equally carefully to the representations subsequently made.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): So far during the progress of the Bill I have sat with an air of rapt attention and have not spoken.
  An undertaking was given on the Committee stage that I would look carefully into the matters raised by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick). Illustrations were given of difficulties which existed, or might exist, at Kettering, Corby and Potters Bar, and Batley and Morley have been added this afternoon.
  When the hon. and learned Member for Kettering made his latest bid in the auction that he is conducting I was not in the least surprised to find that he picked the figure of 35,000. The only thing that surprised me was that he did not choose the figure of 36,509, which I am told is Kettering's exact population at the moment. Also I have no wish either to depress or strengthen the case of the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton), who argued entirely for Morley, saying comfortingly that Batley's population was over 40,000. Actually, in the latest figures of the Registrar General for June, 1953, Batley has also got below the 40,000 mark, so that to that extent, the hon. Member's argument is, no doubt, strengthened.
  6.30 p.m.
  I am sure the Committee will agree that although these illustrations are interesting, a matter of this importance must be settled by reference to the general proposition. What we are doing in this Bill is nothing new at all. Apart from an alteration in Clause 14 and certain clarifications of the law, we re-enact Section 64 of the 1938 Act, which in this regard will disappear.
  1460
  It is quite true, and it is a fair point of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, that there is nothing sacred about the figure of 40,000, or, for that matter, 35,000. But it is also true that when this matter was discussed in 1938, a joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament took evidence from the County Councils' Association, the A.M.C., the Urban District Councils' Association, the Ministry and other bodies, and they came to the two conclusions of the 40,000 limit and the 20,000 limit, which I do not think we should lightly upset, and which are subject to various provisos.
  I listened, and I am prepared to respond, to what the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) said, that I should look again at this matter. Indeed, I am prepared to do so, but I do say that at this stage of the Bill it would be wrong if we threw over that very careful decision, unless we have evidence—and I have none—that circumstances in that respect have particularly changed since then.
  There are one or two points which I should like to make briefly, particularly in response to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering. The hon. Member for Batley and Morley said that he wanted to make sure of having this matter in the Bill, but he would not be making sure because it would be open, as happened in Middlesex, to a direction being made by the Minister of Health.
  If we take the case of Kettering, its population has been over 30.000 since 1931, and Kettering has never applied to the Minister of Health for such a direction, although we have been told by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) that certain preliminary soundings were taken, so that the door upon Kettering is not shut, if I may put it that way. The position remains as it was before, and, being between 20,000 and 40,000, if Kettering so wishes, it is open to it to apply for such a direction.
  The point which appeals to me most related to what was said about Corby and Potters Bar. Using those only as illustrations to consider the wider problem, it seems to me that a wait of 10 years from census to census is too long in the circumstances of today. There are new towns, there are vast out-county estates, and developments are going on in many

  1461
  areas very quickly. It seems to me unreasonable, therefore, not to try to meet that point if possible.
  To take the particular illustration of Potters Bar, which I know well, the merit of the hon. Gentleman's case rests on the fact that the population of Potters Bar is already not far off 20,000 and is growing very rapidly. Large out-county estates at Edmonton and Tottenham have been approved, and only in the last week or so the whole structure of its local government has been altered to take into account its prospective growth. Clearly if Potters Bar had been an urban district with only 7,000 or 8,000, and if it was going to remain so, it could scarcely be a food and drugs authority, whatever anomalies had been detected.
  It seemed reasonable, therefore, to see whether I could find a method of reducing this long gap of 10 years, and that is why I shall be putting before the Committee an Amendment—I propose to move it formally soon—standing in the name of my right hon. Friend. That will enable me to take the estimates of the Registrar-General for the mid-year, which are published early in the following year, and, if suitable, give such a direction. I can then anticipate the census, and a direction so given would continue until the next census, notwithstanding any fluctuations in population.
  I am sure that will be of some help in at least one or two of the examples that have been given. I should like to emphasise, however, that it is not given in response to individual cases. It is given because, as a result of my study of this matter, I feel that in spite of the blandishments of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, in the absence of more evidence than we have, and without representations to myself and this House from the leading associations of local authorities and professional bodies involved—to whom we have to give an opportunity to make such representations —I do not think we should upset the two major provisions of the 1938 Act.
  I have tried in this Amendment to which I have referred to meet the case of the growing town and the growing area which may well qualify in a short period of time with a population of 20,000 and, therefore, have a right to be considered to be made the subject of a direction.
  1462
  Therefore, I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, having most vigorously waved his parish pump, or whatever one does with a parish pump——
  Mr. Mitchison: Pump it.
  Mr. Macleod: —both in Committee previously, and now, will feel that, on the whole, that is the right course for us to take, and perhaps if he would not press his Amendment the Committee might agree to the Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Willey: It is proper and appropriate to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on making his maiden speech as a participant in the long discussions that we have had on this Bill. He spoke reasonably, and I should like to express our indebtedness to him for meeting us and discussing this matter. Before I am ruled out of order, I should like to add that I think it a pity that the right hon. Gentleman did not reply to the last debate, because I am sure that he would not have expressed himself with such a flagrant disregard of the facts.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment made: In page 15, line 20, leave out from "thousand," to "shall," in line 26, and insert:
  "no directions shall be given under subsection (3) of this section that the council of the borough or district shall become the food and drugs authority:
  Provided that such directions may be given if it appears from any estimate published by the Registrar General that the population is for the time being more than twenty thousand and the Minister of Health thinks it expedient that the council should become the food and drugs authority in advance of the next census.
  (5) Where immediately before the publication of any census the council of a non-county borough or urban district were the food and drugs authority for the borough or district (otherwise than in pursuance of directions given by the Minister of Health after the taking of the census and by virtue only of the proviso to the last foregoing subsection) and the population of the borough or district is shown by the census to be less than twenty thousand—

  (a) the council shall cease to be the food and drugs authority, and

  (b) any directions in force under subsection (3) of this section in respect of the borough or district."—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  New Clause.—(FOOD HYGIENE ADVISORY COUNCIL.)
  (1) There shall be constituted a Council, to be called the Food Hygiene Advisory Council, which shall consist of a chairman appointed by the Ministers and such number of other members so appointed as the Ministers may determine.
  (2) The members of the said Council so appointed shall include—

  (a) persons appearing to the Ministers to be qualified to represent the interests of the public generally in relation to matters of food hygiene and related matters,

  (b) persons appearing to the Ministers to be representative of persons carrying on any of the classes of trade or business affected by the operation in relation to food of the Food and Drugs Acts, 1938 to 1954, and

  (c) persons appearing to the Ministers to be representative of workers employed in any of the said classes of trade or business;

  and the terms of their appointment shall be such as the Ministers may determine.
  (3) The Ministers or either of them may from time to time refer to the said Council for consideration or advice such questions as they think fit, being questions relating to the Food and Drugs Acts, 1938 to 1954, as they apply in relation to food.
  (4) Without prejudice to the last foregoing subsection, where the Ministers propose to make—

  (a) any regulations under section five (labelling, marking, and advertising of food), section six (food hygiene), or section ten (licensing of vehicles, etc.) of this Act, or

  (b) any order under section nine of this Act (extension of registration),

  they shall (unless it appears to them to be inexpedient to do so having regard to the urgency of the matter) refer the proposals in the form of draft regulations or a draft order, or otherwise, to the Food Hygiene Advisory Council for consideration and advice.
  (5) The Minister may, out of moneys provided by Parliament, pay to the chairman and other members of the Food Hygiene Advisory Council, and to persons attending meetings at the request of the Council, such allowances as he may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine in respect of travelling and subsistence expenses and in respect of other expenses (if any) necessarily incurred by them for the purpose of enabling them to discharge their functions as members of the Council.
  (6) Nothing in this section shall be taken as prejudicing the effect of subsection (4) of section ninety-two of the principal Act.—[Mr. Amory.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Minister of Food (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  This Clause implements the undertaking that I gave in Committee, as a
  1464
  result of the Amendments put down on both sides of the Committee, for some kind of a council, to advise the Ministers in matters of food hygiene and so on. I think that the kind of council we are suggesting here should prove very useful and suitable. It is to consist of a chairman and members appointed by the Ministers, those members being representative of the employers and the workers in the food trades and of the public at large. The Clause will empower Ministers to put to the council, for advice, such matters as they think fit, and it requires Ministers to put to the council draft regulations dealing with labelling, hygiene, any orders extending registration, and the licensing of street traders.
  The point I want to stress is that it is not intended that this council shall in any way interfere with direct consultations with the trade on technical trade matters, which consultations go on at present as they have gone on in the past. Those consultations will go on exactly as heretofore; this will be something additional. I think that it will prove to be a useful and proper body, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will feel that it will implement fairly satisfactorily the wishes they expressed at an earlier stage.
  Mr. Willey: We are now reaching the more amicable part of our discussions, and I can say at once on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends that we accept this as an improvement upon the proposed new Clause which we put down. It will be an advantage to bring in the representatives of the public. It is not necessary for me to say more than that we accept this body and hope that it will play a very important part in the administration of the Bill. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about direct consultation, save to add that I believe that the council will in fact be able to have better consultation. It certainly will not impair it.
  The right hon. Gentleman did not mention the question of research. We raised that matter at an earlier stage, but we accepted the undertaking which he then gave that he would make a special study of research as it affected the food trades, and we are therefore not disappointed that there is no reference to it in the new Clause. We accept it, as I say, as being an improvement upon the proposals we made.
  Captain J. A. L. Duncan: My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) also raised this question, and on his behalf and on behalf of those who agree with him, I thank the Minister for moving the new Clause. I think it is an advance, and it may well be a very useful example which will help to deal with the education of traders and public alike in questions dealing with food hygiene. This matter is so complicated and has so many ramifications that this gathering together of knowledge and experience may well be of great use.
  There are, however, two questions which I should like to raise. A word of warning should be given about the danger of overlapping with existing committees, institutes and so on. For instance, if this body is going to deal with the question of pure food as well as food hygiene, we must remember that the Food Standards Committee now deals with that matter and is in close touch with the Medical Research Council, the Agricultural Research Council and other associations which deal with the food industry. If this council overlaps the Food Standards Committee it will be a disadvantage. I hope that my right hon. Friend will try to draw up terms of reference which will avoid that overlapping.
  The Clause says that:
  "The Ministers or either of them may from time to time refer to the said Council"
  certain things. Later, it says:
  "Without prejudice to the last foregoing subsection … they shall … refer"
  certain specific things to the council. That is all right as far as it goes, but is there to be a two-way traffic in this matter? Is the council required to go into certain questions in advance of the Ministers? I am referring not so much to research as to new processes and practices. Such a procedure might well be thought to be of use, although perhaps not usual in councils or committees of this kind. In the case of certain other advisory committees there is only a one-way traffic, but in this case careful consideration should be given to the question whether there should not be a two-way traffic. The council might advise the Minister on its own, as well as doing so when he wants advice. Having mentioned those two points, I welcome the new Clause.
  6.45 p.m.
  Sir Leslie Plummer: I welcome the new Clause, but I urge upon the Minister and his right hon. Friend that when they choose the men and women who are to constitute this council, they should pay special attention to biochemists and the scientific officers in the food industry who have done so much in the last two or three decades to improve the standards of cleanliness and hygiene under which so many of our foods, especially packaged foods, are produced.
  These people work with a scientific integrity in trying to raise the standards of the foods produced by the firms for whom they work. They have a special knowledge and a fine objectivity which could very properly be used by such a body as the proposed advisory council. In their long association with industry they have learned what can and cannot be done and what ought and ought not to be done, and it would be a pity if their attributes and great skill were not so used by the council. I am certain that these biochemists and scientific officers would be only too ready to give their services and advice to the Council and the Ministers concerned.
  Dr. Broughton: I rise for one moment only to seek the assurance of the Minister that the Food Hygiene Advisory Council will pay close attention to the matter of the education of food handlers. The long discussions which we have had on the Bill have shown that hon. Members on both sides regard this legislation as important and necessary in order to raise the standard of hygiene in food establishments, but I believe that the education of food handlers is even more important. I am convinced that that education can be beneficial only if it is offered and undertaken on a purely voluntary basis. I regard this matter of voluntary education of food handlers as of such great importance that I should like the Minister's firm assurance that this Council is going to pay very dose attention to it.
  Mr. Amory: It seems to me that what my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) and the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) said was very much to the point. When we come to the question

  1467
  of fixing the terms of reference of the council, I shall certainly bear in mind the questions which they have raised.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill." —[Mr. Amory.]
  Dr. Broughton: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in subsection (4), after "(extension of registration)," to insert:
  "or to publish any such code of practice as is mentioned in subsection (6) of section six of this Act."
  In our early discussions I moved an Amendment asking the Minister to include in the Bill the mention of a code of practice. We on this side have accepted the arguments put forward on Second Reading about the need of a code of practice and consider it is an important matter. The Minister said then, when I mentioned it, that he would give my suggestion further consideration. He was not then quite sure whether the code of practice should be laid down by him or by an outside body. However, whether the code is to be drawn up by the Minister or by an outside body I hope that this Amendment may be accepted.
  Mr. Amory: The hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) has thought of something that, I own, I had forgotten. It seems to me to be a very useful provision. I think it is appropriate that the code of practice should be referred to this council, and I gladly accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, thanking him for calling my attention to this matter.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in Committee and on recommittal), considered.

  New Clause.—(COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS.)
  For paragraph (a) of the proviso to subsection (1) of section eighty of the principal Act (which provides a time-limit for prosecution in certain cases) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:

  "(a) where a sample has been procured under this Act, no prosecution in respect of the article or substance shall be begun after the expiration of—

  (i) in the case of a sample of milk, twenty-eight days,

  (ii) in any other case, two months,
  1468
  beginning with the date on which the sample was procured, unless the justice of the peace before whom the information is laid, on being satisfied on oath that having regard to the circumstances of the particular case it was not practicable to lay the information at an earlier date, gives a certificate to that effect; and, if the prosecution is in respect of a sample of milk, it shall not in any case be begun after the expiration of forty-two days beginning with the said date."—[Dr. Hill.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Dr. Hill: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  On Second Reading, in response to the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) I accepted the principle that however desirable it might be to extend the interval between the taking of the sample and the commencement of proceedings in respect of other substances, it was not so necessary in the case of milk. This new Clause, which is to take the place of Clause 24, meets the point which the hon. Gentleman made, which we are glad to accept.
  Sir L. Plummer: We are very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his consideration of this matter. I am sure that the new Clause will relieve the milk producer and the milk distributor of a great deal of anxiety. I do not want to go over the ground all over again. The hon. Gentleman has made it quite clear that milk, which is perishable in three or four days, should be treated quite differently from other foods not in that category. I am convinced that the new Clause meets the point I put on the previous occasion.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause.—(CREAM SUBSTITUTES)
  1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, no person shall sell, or offer or expose for sale, for human consumption—

  (a) any substance which resembles cream in appearance, but is not cream; or

  (b) any article of food containing such a substance,

  under a description or designation which includes the word "cream (whether or not as part of a composite word).
  (2) The foregoing subsection shall not apply to the sale, or offer or exposure for sale, of any substance being reconstituted or imitation cream as defined by this section, or of any article containing such a substance, under a description or designation which identifies the substance as such, or to the sale, or offer or exposure for sale. of any substance under a

  1469
  description or designation which indicates that the substance is not for use as, or as a substitute for, cream.
  (3) In this section "reconstituted cream" means a substance which, not being cream, resembles cream in appearance and contains no ingredient not derived from milk, except—

  (a) water; or

  (b) ingredients (not added fraudulently to increase bulk, weight or measure, or conceal inferior quality) which may lawfully be contained in a substance sold for human consumption as cream;

  and "imitation cream" means a substance which, not being cream or reconstituted cream, resembles cream in appearance and is produced by emulsifying edible oils or fats with water, with or without other substances not prohibited by regulations made for the purposes of this section under section three of this Act, or added in quantities so prohibited.
  (4) For the purposes of this section, the description or designation under which a substance or article is sold, or offered or exposed for sale, shall be deemed to include the word "cream" if it includes any other word (composite or otherwise) which is calculated to lead a purchaser to suppose that the substance is or, as the case may be, the article contains either cream or a substance for use as cream.
  (5) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence.
  (6) It shall be the duty of every food and drugs authority within their area to carry into execution and to enforce the provisions of this section.
  (7) Section twenty-nine of the 1950 Act shall cease to have effect.—[Dr. Hill.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Dr. Hill: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  In Committee the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) pleaded for a re-examination and rewriting of the Clause dealing with cream substitutes. We were glad to do so because of a number of defects in it with which I need not weary the House now. This new Clause does three things. It ensures that the word "cream," whether appearing alone or as part of another word, and even if spelt differently, shall not be used unless that substance is cream or reconstituted cream or imitation cream, as defined in the Clause.
  Secondly it ensures that where the substance is either reconstituted cream or imitation cream it shall be so described. Thirdly, this applies not only to cream when sold as cream but to cream when it is sold with another substance as part of a composite article, when that substance resembles cream—as when used with strawberries and cream.
  1470
  The purpose is to secure that "cream" means cream and that where imitation cream or reconstituted cream are used they shall be so described. The substance, the food, although described by words including "cream," such as "cream of tomato" or "cream cracker," is not affected if it does not resemble cream.
  Dr. Barnett Stross: I am sure we are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary, not only for having kept their word but for having kept it so very well indeed. It must have been very difficult, finding a form of words to make it obviously a tedious job for anyone wishing to do so to deceive the public. With this new Clause as it is, I think we may rest assured that, as far as words can do anything, the public will be protected, and I am sure that we are very grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Somerville Hastings: I am afraid that I did not come into the Chamber in time to hear all the Minister's speech, and so I would ask him whether this new Clause applies to ice cream or at any rate cream of tartar.
  Dr. Hill: Not in either case, because those substances do not physically resemble cream.
  Dr. Stross: May we have it on record that "Bristol Cream" is for ever safe?
  Dr. Hill: I am not familiar with the appearance of that fluid, but if it does not resemble ordinary cream in appearance it is not covered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill" —[Dr. Hill.]
  Mr. Michael Higgs: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause in subsection (1), to leave out
  "or
  b) any article of food containing such a substance."
  The purpose of this Amendment is to deal with the sort of queries which hon. Gentlemen opposite have just been putting, and to make sure that subsection (1, b) does not do anything we would not wish to do. I have no quarrel with the first part of the new Clause, which deals with cream as such, cream that is sold

  1471
  in bottles as cream. I would support it wholeheartedly. I am, however, a little anxious about the effect of the new Clause in relation to articles of food which contain cream.
  Let us try to read subsection (1) in a straightforward way, althought that is an almost impossible way to read any part of any Bill. It would read something like this: "No person shall sell any article of food containing a substance which looks like cream in appearance but is not cream, under a name which includes the word 'cream'."
  7.0 p.m.
  A number of things have already become associated in the public mind with the word "cream," and I want to know whether the sale of those products under the name of "cream" will be a criminal offence. The House must remember that we are now dealing not with a Clause which enables the Minister to make regulations but with the operative words themselves. We cannot later alter them, except by amending legislation.
  I believe that hon. Members who have shown an interest in Bristol Cream Sherry or Highland Cream Whisky can rest secure in the knowledge that these things do not look like cream, but I have a little more doubt about the cream cracker biscuit, because presumably such a biscuit is made by mixing something and then cooking it; and after it has been mixed but before it has been cooked, it must look very much like cream. It is sold under the name of "cream," but it is not cream. I should have thought that a cream cracker biscuit which contained a mixture originally, perhaps, something rather like cream, might possibly be the cause of an offence against this Clause.
  I am not so worried about that, however, as about such things as custard cream biscuits. They have a sandwich content and there is something in the sandwich which looks like cream. What about them? Surely we do not intend to, compel people to say, when they sell such a biscuit, "custard reconstituted cream biscuit," or "custard cream substitute artificial biscuit." Some horrible expressions might arise.
  I may be told that if we buy such a biscuit from a good shop, the content in the middle of the sandwich will be solid
  1472
  and not liquid and, therefore, will not look like cream, but what about cream buns? Hon. Members must be familiar with this delightful confection which contains something which resembles cream. In some cases, if we pay a lot of money for it, then it will contain real cream; but, normally, if we go to a shop and ask for a cream bun or a cream slice we do not imagine, in the majority of cases, that we are getting dairy cream in the middle of the bun. Have we to call it a "reconstituted cream bun" or an "artificial cream slice"?
  This House will not make the decision as to whether an article is offending against the law or not; that will be decided by the courts of law. The matter ought, therefore, to be made quite clear before we part company with this Clause. Salad cream is an article which everybody knows. Nobody expects salad cream to be cream when he buys it, but it looks like cream, and if the word "cream" is used in connection with it, then it seems to me that under the Clause an offence would be committed and we should have to think of some other name for salad cream in the future. If the House is to compel everybody who calls salad cream by that name to use another name in future, I think they should be told so before we pass the Clause.
  I could mention a number of other items, such as cream milk chocolates or chocolate creams, as they are sometimes called. Nobody imagines that pure cream and nothing else is inside them. Consider "Kreemy Toffees"; I think the Clause would catch them. I do not know whether cream of tomato soup comes within the scope of the Clause. Nobody expects these commodities to contain pure cream and nothing else, and I think we should be told how they are affected by the new Clause.
  The purchaser knows perfectly well, when he asks for salad cream, that he will get not cream but something quite different; and surely we could leave the matter to Section 3 of the 1938 Act. The dividing line between guilt and innocence under that Section is what the customer himself expected when the word "cream" was used. If he expects to get cream, then it is already an offence under that Act if he does not get cream, and he is protected. If he does not expect cream, then it is not an offence under that Act

  1473
  and this Clause ought not to catch that case, either.
  We seem to be getting an awful lot of words meaning "something like cream"; we have cream itself, cream substitute, artificial cream, reconstituted cream and imitation cream, and we have seen the words "synthetic cream" on the Order Paper. There are an awful lot of ways of getting tummy ache.
  Mr. I. J. Pitman: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I will give the further example of "cream rice," which I understand is sold in great quantities, sometimes in tins. I believe it is made with nothing other than rice and milk.
  I have had considerable experience of the great difficulties in seeking even minor changes in the written language, but the difficulties there are nothing compared with the difficulties of changing the spoken language. If members of the public are accustomed to using certain designations, it is hopeless for us to expect that, as a result of our passing an Act of Parliament, they will alter those designations. If they use those designations it will be wrong for the House to seek to make the sale of a commodity, in response to such a demand, an illegal action. I hope that the Minister will meet us on the Amendment.
  Dr. Hill: In dealing with substances which resemble cream, there are some important words in the last few lines of subsection (2). The Clause does not apply
  "to the sale, or offer or exposure for sale, of any substance … under a description or designation which … indicates that the substance is not for use as, or as a substitute for, cream."
  There are two criteria to apply to the substance which is not cream in the full sense; first, whether it resembles cream, and secondly, the qualification which I just read.
  Let us apply those criteria to the various examples given. Everything depends on the example in question, but I should have thought that, in general, the cream cracker and the custard cream would not be regarded as containing a substance which resembles cream or a substance which was not covered by the proviso which I have just read. The
  1474
  cream bun, yes; let us be frank about it. It may be a bun which has as an obvious element, a substance resembling cream and the bun is described as a cream bun. It will have to be made plain, where such a substance is sold or offered for sale or exposed for sale, that the cream is cream or reconstituted cream or imitation cream.
  It is agreed that it is desirable to take this action, in general, and if we admit that, then it is extremely difficult to exclude such articles as cream buns where the substance resembles cream very closely. Salad cream would be excluded, quite clearly, by the words which I read out. The description "cream of tomato soup" could surely be regarded as one which does not suggest that it is a substitute for cream. The same applies to cream of rice and cream of tartar.
  I should be lacking in candour if I did not say that in the case of a cream bun or strawberries and cream there is a requirement to make it plain to the intending purchaser whether it is real cream or imitation cream or reconstituted cream.
  Mr. Higgs: Will the Minister agree that not only must that be made clear in such words as "these buns contain artificial cream or substitute cream or reconstituted cream," but the buns must be sold under such a designation; they must be called, for example, "reconstituted cream buns."
  Dr. Hill: That is a matter for the courts to decide. If these delicacies are unlabelled in the window, it might be sufficient if a notice appeared stating, "the cream in this establishment is reconstituted cream or imitation cream." That will be for the courts to interpret. The purpose of this Clause is to secure that, in fact, the substance in question is accurately described under one of the three headings.
  This problem arose in the beginning through margarine being described as butter. Names resembling those applied to butter were used to describe it. In France they began to use quite a different word, and there has grown up the clear distinction between the terms butter and margarine. That may well happen in these cases, and there may come into use a word which implies that a substance has no resemblance to cream in any way.
  Mr. Higgs: I think that the discussion on this Amendment has served its purpose, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. Mitchison: That is vanishing cream.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  New Clause.—(BUTTER FAT CONTENT OF MILK)
  As soon as the Minister of Health, the Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries are satisfied that it has become practicable, they shall by joint order prohibit the sale for human consumption of milk with less than three per cent. butter fat or such other higher percentage as they may from time to time by joint order prescribe.—[Mr. Pargiter.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Pargiter: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  I am sure that the House will have general sympathy with the purpose of this Clause. There are two reasons for this and the following Clause—Construction of s. 3 of principal Act. The first is on the question of public health, it being generally accepted as being desirable that the standard of the content of fat of milk shall be raised; and the second is that the food and drugs authority may carry out their duties under Section 3 of the principal Act of enforcing prohibition against the sale of milk not of the nature, substance or quality demanded.
  With regard to the question of the quality of milk and raising the standard of milk, I quote the Working Party's Report, 1953, on Quality Milk Production in which they came to the conclusion that milk of poor compositional quality is still being produced throughout the year by too many producers; and that there is no cause to be satisfied with the present level of milk quality in England and Wales and every reason for taking steps to improve it.
  Unfortunately, the working party failed to indicate ways and means by which the standard could be raised. It went on to give many reasons and excuses why the standard was not higher. That may be understandable because the working party consisted, I think, of representatives of producers and distributors with
  1476
  no representatives of either health authorities or consumers on it. So we may be excused if we think that perhaps their failure to present any positive indication of action was due to the fact that certain other interests which might have been concerned with that side were not represented.
  I do not say that I want to see 3 per cent. as a fixed standard for all time. Quite frankly, I think that the standard should be more than 3 per cent. It is already established that, generally speaking, when milk is bulked the standard is usually higher than 3 per cent. The difficulty that arises is that farmers and producers keep to the 3 per cent. standard. They have had the excuse in the past that if they can prove that milk is as the cow gave it, no matter how much it may be below 3 per cent., prosecutions will fail, and prosecutions have failed on those grounds.
  In one case, it was established that a farmer milked his cow but did not completely milk it. I understand that fore-milk, although I am not a technician on this matter—is that which is likely to be deficient so far as fat is concerned. He took the fore part of the milk out and left the other in the cow, and the excuse was that he left it there for the benefit of the calf. The prosecution failed although the farmer must have known that he was producing milk with less than 3 per cent. butter fat. The prosecution failed because the milk was as the cow gave it. There have been other instances of this kind, notwithstanding the fact that butter fat content has been as low as 2·75 per cent.— ·25 per cent. below the 3 per cent. standard.
  7.15 p.m.
  It is said that the 3 per cent. standard would mean that at some time of the year there would be a shortage of milk. I do not think that is a very good excuse when we want to bring the standard up to 3 per cent. It becomes a question of proper feeding and proper marketing, and unless some positive action is taken people who are careless in this matter will always have the advantage over the good farmer who is particularly careful to see that he gets a yield of good quality milk.
  I am sure that it would be the desire of the Minister and of this House to support those farmers and producers who are

  1477
  producing milk of the highest quality and to condemn those people who are consistently producing the milk of low quality. I hope that for those reasons the Minister will consider the possibility of taking some action on these lines.
  There are a good many other reasons which may be introduced. I mentioned the case of a farmer who deliberately left the richer part of the milk in the cow. There have been other cases where the milk has been deficient in content, and in all these cases once it has been established that it is as the cow gave it, the prosecutions have failed. I hope that the Minister will do something to strengthen this position.
  In this matter we are somewhat backward. We claim to be very progressive in certain matters, but we are far behind the United States in this matter. In the United States, they have laid down in the Model Milk Ordinance, which was issued in 1939 by the Health Service of the Federal Security Agency, a description of milk and what its solid non-fat content should be, and they fixed the milk fat content at 3¼ per cent. This ordinance is not applicable to the whole of the United States, but it has been accepted by many of the States on a Statewide basis and many communities have adopted it. The ordinance covers some 60 million population of America. If that can be done for 60 million people of America, it ought not to be impossible for us to do that with our smaller population, and with the greater degree of control of milk production which can be established in this country.
  Even in Scotland they are far ahead of England in this matter. The requirement of the Milk Marketing Board in Scotland is that the butter fat content shall be 3·4 per cent. in summer and 3·5 per cent. in winter, which indicates that Scotland is giving England a lead in this matter. It is appreciated that there may be difficulties in enforcing a standard of this kind immediately. It is a matter which would probably have to be taken in stages.
  The Ministers would have the sanctions contained in the Clause and it would be at the discretion of the joint Ministers as to when the standard should be imposed. People here who were producing poor quality milk could be given an opportunity of doing something about it, and a date could be fixed, after an examination
  1478
  of all the factories, so that there could be no question of a shortage of milk at any time. This could be left to the discretion of the Ministers. I think that if this were done at some time, it would be in the interests of the people of this country.
  Mr. Hastings: Does this proposed new Clause make it illegal for a farmer to sell skimmed milk, if it is ordered medicinally?
  Mr. Pargiter: I do not know. I will leave it to the Minister to make the necessary safeguards with regard to skimmed milk. Skimmed may now be sold if it is described as skimmed milk, and if it is described as skimmed milk it would not be covered by this new Clause, which relates to milk containing butter fat.
  Sir L. Plummer: I beg to second the Motion.
  Dr. Summerskill: I hope that the Minister will accept the new Clause. People are under the impression that we in this country drink the maximum amount of milk and that the quality is the best obtainable. That is not so, and I think that a provision of this nature is desirable. I ask the Minister to observe that my hon. Friend has worded the new Clause in such a way that there is full protection in the phrase:
  "… are satisfied that it has become practicable …"
  Therefore, there will be no great pressure upon the Minister now. The only point that I did not understand in my hon. Friend's argument was when he said that some farmers are blamed for leaving the best part of the milk in the cow. As a doctor, I have never been able to understand how one can discover if the best part of the milk is left behind.
  Mr. Pargiter: Milk comes as what is called "fore-milk," and then there is the full milk. It is the fore-milk which is likely to be deficient in fat content. When a cow is completely milked then the milk has the full fat content. It is legal to sell fore-milk. As long as one can prove that it was sold as it came from the cow that is a good defence.
  Mr. Amory: Under existing regulations, it is made a presumption that if milk contains less than 3 per cent. butter fat or 8·5 per cent. other solids it shall be

  1479
  deemed to be adulterated until the contrary is proved. The new Clause would convert that presumed standard into a fixed standard.
  The provision is right in line with our general aims. We want to bring about the kind of general improvement in milk to which the hon. Gentleman referred. From that point of view I have no objection to the proposal, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press me to accept it now because, in the state in which it is put forward, it would not fit into the Bill. There are three reasons for that. First, there is a reference to butter fat but no reference to the other solids. Secondly, no penalties are provided for. Thirdly, there is no Parliamentary control in connection with the order which is mentioned.
  These three drawbacks mean that at this stage in the proceedings I could not possibly accept the new Clause. If the hon. Gentleman had introduced it a good deal earlier, we might have discussed the matter and seen whether there was any form in which it could have been accepted.
  Mr. Pargiter: It is unfortunate that in another place it was designed to do something like this but apparently the Government were not then so forthcoming as the Minister is now. It is a pity that this did not happen in another place. In the circumstances, the arguments adduced are pretty powerful, although they are not aimed against what the new Clause tries to do. Will the Minister undertake to look at the problem with a view to introducing some enforcing regulations which cannot be so easily avoided as the present regulations? If he will do that, I will withdraw the Motion.
  Mr. Amory: I will look into the position. I will consider the present regulations and see if anything should be done.
  Mr. Pargiter: Will the Minister look at the point that it is a good defence to argue that the milk was sold in the condition in which it came from the cow?
  Mr. Amory: I will look at that. In reference to the second new Clause in the name of the hon. Gentleman, it seems to me that that is the kind of case where it ought to be left to the court to decide——
  Sir L. Plummer: On a point of order. Has my hon. Friend moved the new second Clause? I thought that we were discussing the first new Clause in his name.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman could not move the second new Clause, because it has not been selected.
  Mr. Pargiter: In view of what the Minister has said, I have no option but to leave the matter in the sympathetic hands of the Minister. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 2.—(DEFENCES AVAILABLE IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER S. 3 OF PRINCIPAL ACT.)
  Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, to leave out Clause 2.
  Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss at the same time the next Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman:
  In page 2, line 41, at end, insert:
  (3) Proceedings shall not be taken under section three of the principal Act in respect of such a breach of condition as is mentioned in sections twenty-five and twenty-six of the Food and Drugs (Milk, Dairies and Artificial Cream) Act, 1950.
  Mr. Mitchison: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The discussion can be brief. This was a rather complicated point raised at an earlier stage and the Parliamentary Secretary sent to me a full explanation of his reasons for being unable to accept the second Amendment. I agree with his reasons. I believe that he proposes to say what those reasons are, and if he will do that I give him the opportunity now.
  Mr. G. Darling: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Dr. Hill: We are now dealing with the case where an offence under the 1950 Act is dealt with, or required to be dealt with, under Section 3 of the 1938 Act, if it is covered by that section. I will not—and the hon. and learned Gentleman knows why—weary the House with the extensive arguments that I put in my letter to him, but I will give what I think is the essence of them.
  There is an offence in the case we are now examining under Section 3 of the

  1481
  1938 Act. There it is alleged that there has been sold to the prejudice of the purchaser a food or drug not of the nature, quality or substance demanded. In this case it is something that arises out of a breach of the conditions set out in the Fourth Schedule of the 1950 Act. It is argued that when there is a breach of the 1950 Act and that breach also falls within Section 3 of the 1938 Act, the former should be used.
  Our attitude is that we would find very great difficulty in saying, in respect of an offence alleged to come within Section 3, that in one case Section 3 should be used and in another it should not. The Section of the 1950 Act refers to specified areas, and it would mean that a dairyman in one area would be differently treated from a dairyman in another. Dairymen would be treated differently from butchers, grocers or anyone else. We feel that it is essential to sustain the argument that the dairymen, in respect of this matter, should not be treated differently from anyone else.
  As the hon. and learned Gentleman will remember, a particular illustration of the difficulty was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs). He said that there might be a breach or a failure to observe the conditions in a pasteurising process—a mere technical fault in a machine that led to the substance not being of the nature, quality and so on demanded. Why should that, he argued, come within Section 3, or be required to come within Section 3, of the Act of 1938? It is also true that, for example, in the butcher's machine for the manufacture of sausages the same would apply.
  Though we have considered the matter, as I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. Friend will realise, with the greatest of care, we feel that we must adhere to the position that offences in this category, of selling to the prejudice of the customer something not of the nature, substance or quality demanded, should be dealt with under Section 3, despite the difficulties that it creates in the case of the specified area.
  Mr. Mitchison: I have given the hon. Gentleman an opportunity of putting himself right, not only with me but with
  1482
  the rather puzzled dairymen. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 4.—(POWER OF MINISTERS TO OBTAIN PARTICULARS OF CERTAIN FOOD INGREDIENTS.)
  7.30 p.m.
  Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 4, line 17, after "importation," to insert "or use."
  I believe it was the bon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) to whom I gave an assurance that, in this matter of gathering information, we would take power to obtain information from those-who use, as well as those who manufacture. I feel he made a good point that there might be knowledge gained in use which the Minister might wish to have, and this Amendment is to give expression to the undertaking I gave.
  Mr. Willey: I rise only to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for meeting us on this point. He promised to look into it and has obviously been convinced that the point we made was valid.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 4, line 18, to leave out from "order," to "to," in line 21.
  In the discussion on Clause 4, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) drew attention to the way in which we were unnecessarily restricting the field from which we might draw information. He suggested the omission of certain qualifying words. We felt that in practice all the words might profitably go, and this Amendment is intended fully to meet the assurance which we gave.
  Mr. Mitchison: I am much obliged. We are always very glad on this side of the House to help the hon. Gentleman to improve a good Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 5.—(LABELLNG, ETC., OF FOOD AND DRUGS.)
  Mr. Pitman: I beg to move, in page 5, line 39, at the end, to insert:
  (3) For the purposes of the said section six no trade mark which on the day this Act is passed is registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1938, in respect of any food or drug, shall be treated as a false description of that food or drug or as being otherwise calculated to mislead as to its nature, substance or quality.

  1483
  Having just agreed to the new Clause in regard to cream, we have, in principle, got into this Bill two quite different methods of dealing with what could be described as misleading nomenclature. In the case of the substance "cream," alone we have a specific new Clause dealing with it. We have got substances other than cream, however, dealt with in Clause 5.
  I take as an example of a substance other than cream the common ocean sponge. We get the situation that describing as cream what is not cream is specifically prohibited. But, on the other hand, there is, as has been explained by the Minister, a specific protection of the use of the word "cream" as a term of art for describing that which in point of fact is not cream but is, say, cream of rice or anything of that kind.
  In the case of sponge, however, there is no prohibition of a description as sponge of what is not a true ocean sponge but say a porous rubber substance. Equally, there is no protection for the use of "sponge" as a term of art in something which has no relation whatever to an absorbent thing for washing. For instance, the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who I see in his place, gave as an example "Mitchison's angels on horseback." I am picking "Pitman's sponge fingers." A sponge finger is notoriously not made of sponge at all and nor is it a finger. Nobody going into a shop and asking for Pitman's sponge fingers would expect to get a man's fingers or a piece of sponge.
  Up and down the country a quantity of well established trade marks and trade designations are in use. The various associations for which I speak are particularly anxious there should be a protection for these established trade marks and that there should not be prosecutions under this Bill for what could be technically described as misleading designations because words in the components of those designations are in isolation, not literally true. I think it is better to deal with hypothetical cases like Pitman's sponge fingers, which may easily stand for a well known and long established trade mark.
  We could have moved and discussed this Amendment in terms to include, with existing trade marks, also future trade marks of that kind, which were to be
  1484
  accepted and registered. But, since it was considered that it might be dangerous to open a future door for people to abuse the protection which would be given by this new subsection, it was considered better to give protection only to existing trade marks and to concede the point as regards all future trade marks. It is from that point of view of only existing trade marks that this Amendment is moved.
  However, all such existing trade marks have been not really misleading, but only misleading in the sense that they have had ambiguous wording, as in my example of a sponge finger; they have not been actually misleading so as to make people buy something which they did not understand they were buying. There has, moreover, been plenty of time since 1938 to prosecute in such cases, if any, as might be on the border line of being misleading. A trade mark like "Bristol Cream" would be a bad example because it will be the new Clause which will permit that and save it from all dangers of prosecution. Let us take "Milk of Magnesia." Nobody who bought it in the past can have supposed that "Milk of Magnesia" came out of a cow. Do we want to submit to risk of prosecution in the case of milk what we have just protected in the case of cream. Ought we not to protect milk also?
  We are then seeking in this Amendment to give protection for these brand names to the legitimate trader—it is an immunity which in practice he has enjoyed for a number of years—and to make it possible for him to rest easy that he will not be prosecuted. We are giving this protection to the man who sells "Bristol Cream." Why cannot we give it to the man who sells "Milk of Magnesia"?
  Dr. Stross: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest anyone who sells "bull's eyes" to children, or "cat's tongues" to young girls, or to elderly people for that matter, will get into trouble, or have any difficulty?
  Mr. Pitman: That is precisely my point. If that is not the intention of this House, it is just as well we should make it perfectly clear that we have no such intention. In the case of cream we are going to give protection to "Bristol Cream" and cream rice. If we are doing that for cream, ought we not to do it

  1485
  in the same way for all other comparable cases as well and give to all the existing non-misleading terminologies the protection we are prepared to give under the "cream" heading?
  Mr. Higgs: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Dr. Hill: What is here suggested is a complete defence in perpetuity for all trade marks against prosecution under Section 6 of the parent Act. Under that Section it is an offence in the wrapper or container falsely to describe the food as being
  "otherwise calculated to mislead as to its nature, substance or quality …"
  On what grounds should we argue that because there is an existing trade mark it should never be possible in the future to bring action under Section 6?
  My hon. Friend in the course of his argument, agrees that it has not happened and the danger is not a real one. I want to face it on a point of proof. A trade mark under the Trade Marks Act, 1938, does not of itself provide the necessary guarantee. Scrutiny by the Board of Trade of such suggested trade marks is not precisely the same kind of scrutiny as would be needed to make such an exclusion possible. So I would say to my hon. Friend that it would be wrong, merely because a trade mark was in existence today, to exempt such a substance from a Clause which, after all, is only affected if the description is calculated to mislead.
  My hon. Friend referred to "angels on horseback." I assume he had in mind any trade mark connected with that product, but nobody would suggest that a person ordering that really expected to find on the mount an angel in protein or in any other form. I suggest we remind ourselves of the general words of the offence, words that have been there since 1938, and that we do not seek to exclude these or any other particular category of substances, because in principle it would be undesirable.
  Mr. M. Follick: The Minister is no doubt aware of the advertisement of Beecham's Pills being worth a guinea a box. Would that pass or not?
  Dr. Hill: I am not prepared to take upon myself the responsibility of the courts in that matter. The essence is not whether these Beecham's Pills have any
  1486
  effect on the human body, but whether the description falsely describes or otherwise is calculated to mislead as to the nature, substance or quality of these delicacies. I will leave the hon. Member to judge from his own experience.
  Mr. Pitman: In asking the leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment, may I just ask the Minister why he is giving perpetual protection to the word "cream" and denying it to other substances which will be subjected to perpetual risk of prosecution?
  Dr. Hill: I can assure my hon. Friend that he misconstrues what is being done in the matter of protection for cream. Now embedded in the statute is a very clear-cut definition. There is no argument that there should be a real insistence on accuracy of description, and this accuracy of description is generally required by Section 6 of the 1938 Act.
  Mr. Follick: What about shoe cream?
  Mr. Pitman: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Higgs: I beg to move, in page 5, line 45, at the end, to insert:
  Provided such regulations shall not apply to food prepared or sold with a view to consumption on the premises.
  The purpose of this Amendment is to deal with a point which was raised in Committee and in respect of which my hon. Friend promised to make researches before the Report stage. The point arises on the subsection which gives power to the Minister to make regulations for imposing requirements as to the labelling, marketing or advertising of food. We want to make sure that perhaps by accident no regulation shall inadvertently require the proprietor of a restaurant or café to set forth in detail either on the menu or in a notice in the window a recipe of all the dishes or any of the dishes that will be sold inside.
  Where we empower the Minister to make the regulations the operative words are not in the Bill but would be in the regulations, and it may well be that my hon. Friend will tell us that it is impossible to write words into the Bill which will prevent a mistake from happening and that we shall have to trust him, his successors and the House of Commons to watch the point for us.

  1487
  7.45 p.m.
  There are two separate categories of case. The first category is where the public has got hold of a name, accepted it and adopted it with the result that it is so well known that Parliament would be wasting its time to try to legislate it out of existence. No one imagines that Lancashire hotpot comes from Lancashire or that Welsh rarebit comes from Wales. It is no good compelling a cafe proprietor to disclose precisely all these things or to say in his advertisement why they are so known.
  But there is the other class of case where the proprietor of a restaurant likes to use fancy names which he invents in order to describe his dishes. Hon. Members who eat in the Members' Dining Room will know that sometimes we have chicken grande mére, which is a contradiction in terms as I understand it. Are we to prevent proprietors from describing things with names of that sort?
  A friend of mine was dining out and he was offered as a sweet puits d'amour voilé which, as I understand it, either means a veiled well of love or a well of veiled love. My French is rather restricted so I cannot tell which is correct. I hope that the regulations which may be made under this Clause will not inadvertently prevent such good old-fashioned practices as those which I have described.
  Captain Duncan: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. Mitchison: I hope the Minister will not accept this Amendment, because it ought to be a matter for the regulations. Let me give the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) a very simple instance. We all know the story of the waiter who came round with a dish and, being a Chinaman, found conversation with the person to whom he offered it a little difficult. The person in question turned round and said in a quiet tone of voice, "Quack, quack" and the waiter replied "Bow-wow." Supposing the contents of that pie had been advertised for sale in the window as dog pie, I suggest it would be rather misleading and a proper matter for control under these regulations.
  Dr. Hill: Clearly there is a presumption here that the Minister who makes regulations for imposing requirements in
  1488
  respect of the labelling, marking and advertising of food will show common sense in what he does. I think that is the basis of the answer which I must give to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs). When he raised the matter before he was anxious about the power to require the disclosure of recipes. I examined the point, taking advice, and I am assured that no power would lie to compel the disclosure of recipes.
  As the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) pointed out, the words here are far too wide. In so far as there are descriptive terms applied to any catering establishments or canteens, or whether they be notices in cafeterias or other indications of what the food is, it is right that the same considerations in labelling, marking and describing the food should apply inside and outside. It would be wrong for one consideration to apply to food that was bought and taken home and another to the same food that was bought in some café. I can assure my hon. Friend that recipes are not covered, and I think that I can say here, speaking for both sides of the House, that it is a reasonable presumption that the Minister will act with good sense in this matter of the field that is sought to be covered by legal definition.
  Mr. Higgs: With that clear statement from my hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 6.—(REGULATIONS AS TO FOOD HYGIENE.)
  Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 6, line 22, after "packaging," to insert "wrapping."
  This Amendment has been put down to meet a point made by the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) on Second Reading. In order to make clear that "wrapping" is intended, we have accepted the suggestion to add the word.
  Dr. Stross: In this matter, as in all the items on which the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary have been able to meet us, and have thus allowed us to help in making the Bill better, we are very grateful, and have pleasure in saying so.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. James MacColl: I beg to move, in page 6, line 27, after "provision," to insert:
  (a) for prohibiting in private dwelling-houses the handling and wrapping by persons residing therein of articles intended for sale for human consumption.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), in whose name this Amendment appears on the Order Paper, regrets most deeply that he has been called away and is unable to move the Amendment to which he attaches considerable importance. He has asked me to put before the House and the Minister a serious problem which has, I understand, arisen all over the country, and certainly in West London.
  It is, apparently, the custom in West London for certain sweet manufacturing firms to send out unpacked sweetmeats to be packed in private houses. Nobody would want to prevent people, very often in humble circumstances, from earning a living, but I think it difficult to imagine anything more unsuited for home work than the packing of sweets. As children are the greatest sweet eaters, any suspicion of dirt getting into them is a very serious matter.
  I believe that provision is made in the Factories Acts for such cases to be registered with the local authority and for the sanitary inspector to inspect the building. It is not at all clear what precisely are the powers of the public health authority under the Factories Acts. They have power to inspect the building, and, presumably, if the building is unsuitable they can deal with the matter. But it is much less clear what power they have for dealing with the people actually doing the work.
  One can imagine what happens in some of these cases. A contract may be made with, say, the housewife. She may be the person nominally responsible for doing the work, but what in fact often happens is that the whole family sit round the table wrapping the sweets in order to earn an honest penny. Very often some members of the family are children with dirty hands. It is quite possible to inspect the housewife and to find that she is in good health, but there is no guarantee at all that the other members of the family may not have some form of skin disease or some kind of infection which might make it most unsuitable for them to do this work.
  1490
  This problem has also arisen in the Metropolitan Borough of Paddington of whose council I am a member. We discussed this problem at our last council meeting and on both sides the general feeling was expressed that we needed more power to deal with the matter, and guidance from the Government as to precisely what our powers were for dealing with it. Quite independent of that experience, my hon. Friend the Member for Acton has had a communication from his local authority in precisely the same terms. This seems to prove that it is a growing and increasing danger.
  This Amendment seems the most sensible way of tackling the matter. The acceptance of the Amendment would give the Minister authority to make regulations, dealing with the problem as and when he finds it. It is obviously impossible to lay down in detail the precise form that the regulation should take, what restrictions should be made and what type of inspection there should be. In a varying situation like this it would be impossible to do all that by statutory enactment.
  What we can do is to empower the Minister to make regulations dealing with the problem so that when he receives, complaints from public health authorities he can deal with them by order and can give guidance to the authorities for the enforcement of these regulations.
  Mr. Mitchison: I beg to second the Amendment.
  As I read the Bill, the fact that the Minister is given power to prohibit does not oblige him to prohibit in every case. Therefore it would not make much difference if the words "or regulating" were added. If the Minister feels otherwise about that, no doubt he will say so. This seems to be a real point and one which only with difficulty can be brought within the general words of the Clause.
  Obviously some funny things are happening in Acton and Paddington, and since, in some respects, Acton and Paddington are good and progressive places, it may be that worse things are happening in some dim dark boroughs about which we have no particular information.
  Dr. Hill: I can reassure the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) that the necessary power already resides in Clause 6. Indeed, it is proposed—let us go carefully with these words—to include in the

  1491
  regulation a form of words to which I will refer in a moment. The difficulty about the proposal in its present form is that the regulations would prohibit the handling of food, wrapping and otherwise, in the living-room behind the country shop. That is done, and, in some circumstances, necessarily done. Secondly—this is quite a small point, but I think the hon. Gentleman will appreciate it—there might be a relation living in the house engaged in this work who would not be covered by this form of words.
  With that in mind we are proposing, subject to approval, to use in the regulation the following words:
  "No person shall wrap any food in a domestic living room unless such food has been prepared at or is sold or intended for sale at the premises of which the living room forms part."
  Captain Duncan: I am advised that there is a special problem here, but I am not quite sure that I follow my hon. Friend in the way in which he proposes to deal with it. After all, this Amendment suggests that duly authorised officers should enter private dwelling-houses in Acton and Paddington, or wherever this trade is being carried on.
  The penalty is not intended for the man making money out of the manufacture of these sweets, but for the poor individual sitting in his dwelling-house. Under Section 25, he is liable to a fine of £100 or six months' imprisonment. That is a very severe punishment.
  Under Section 77 of the 1938 Act, the officers are entitled to enter food premises. How are these offences going to be proved? Is it proposed that under Section 77 these authorised officers shall enter private dwelling-houses in order to ascertain whether the law is being broken and whether an offence is being committed? I think that is a very dangerous situation.
  8.0 p.m.
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me that in the old days the Englishman's home was his castle and he had the right to refuse entry to anybody. I admit that that has been broken into in certain cases, but it is a right which we ought to preserve to our utmost ability. There may be a special reason for it in Paddington and Acton,
  1492
  but there are dangers in allowing authorised officers to go into a private dwelling-house for the purpose of finding offences, which are punishable by £100 fine or three months' imprisonment. Surely the right way to deal with this matter is in some way to get at the manufacturers of the sweets, not penalise the servants of the company who may be women working part-time to make a little money on the side.
  Dr. H. Morgan: When I was in private practice I saw a great deal of this kind of work being done in people's homes, and for that reason I ask the House to approve the Amendment. We must protect people in some way against the unsupervised preparation and manufacture of food. Harm is not done deliberately, but many of these homes are not clean and many of those who indulge in small attempts at selling food have a very limited knowledge of hygiene and of how food deteriorates in certain conditions.
  I have seen in certain homes in London these little attempts at increasing income carried out in conditions under which it would be absolutely impossible to keep the ordinary home tidy and clean. I beg the House to suppress this practice. The Amendment is a very reasonable and necessary protection of the ordinary common person who buys a few articles of food occasionally from people who prepare them at home without any knowledge of food hygiene or of the manufacture of things that are intended for public consumption.
  Mr. MacColl: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan) for his support, more especially as he is a neighbour of mine in Lancashire and has shared with me membership of a Metropolitan borough council. In view of the fact that the Minister has met the proposal so generously and has promised in very clear terms that he will deal with the mischief by regulation, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Acton will approve my response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Amory: I beg to move, in page 7, line 10, at the end, to insert:
  (e) for imposing requirements as to the clothing worn by persons in such premises.

  1493
  The Amendment is moved in response to an undertaking which we gave at the end of a previous debate on Amendments relating to this subject which were proposed by the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) and hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley). I think that it meets the situation.
  Mr. Willey: We are much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for meeting us on this point. Some doubt was expressed as to whether it was covered in the Bill. We are happy that the right hon. Gentleman has met us by making explicit provision, serving the additional purpose of calling attention to the fact and giving forewarning that regulations will be made imposing requirements regarding clothing.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Dr. Stross: I beg to, move, in page 7, line 10, at the end, to insert:
  (e) for requiring the medical examination of persons engaged in preparing, handling, wrapping or delivering food where such persons have not previously been so engaged.
  The Amendment has some importance. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that it is modestly and properly framed, that it is not the type of Amendment which will give much trouble and that what influence it will have will be a good influence.
  The House will remember that we discussed an Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) on this subject. Objection was brought against it on the ground that it would mean that a large amount of special clinical work would have to be done, mainly of a bacteriological nature, on a vast number of people. It was held that the machinery would have been overloaded and that it would not have been possible to carry out the work satisfactorily.
  When I spoke on that occasion I had in mind what I have put down in the words of the Amendment, namely, that we should examine new entrants and that it should be a simple examination, but one which would remove obvious possible causes of contamination of our food such as might cause food poisoning. There is a draft Food Hygiene Regulation which declares, quite rightly, that no one must work in this industry if he or she suffers from or is a carrier of typhoid, paratyphoid, or other salmo-
  1494
  nella infection, or dysentery, or staphylococcal infection likely to cause food poisoning, that we expect people to get better before they return to work, and that they must produce a certificate to say that they are free of such infections when they return. What do we do about other matters? We have a suggested code of practice which I suggest imposes an obligation on an employee which he cannot carry out.
  It states that:
  "The proprietor or manager of a food business should, when interviewing applicants for employment, make such enquiries as he reasonably can to ascertain whether the applicant has a satisfactory medical history and whether from the standpoint of apparent personal cleanliness he is otherwise suitable for employment in the food trade. Applicants having suffered from typhoid or paratyphoid fever should not be engaged until medical approval has been given."
  That is in the code, but it is not fair. It is the family doctor who should ask such questions of a new applicant. That is why I have worded the Amendment as it stands.
  In the case of those who are working, serious illnesses are handled under regulations. All the others are catered for in paragraphs 9 to 12 inclusive in the Code, where there is an obligation on the worker to report every kind of illness from which he or she suffers and an obligation on the employer to make sure that his workpeople are not so suffering or, if they are, to take certain steps.
  That is good. We are covered for serious illnesses and minor types of illnesses. The serious illnesses are covered by the regulations and the minor ones by the code for those who are working in the industry, but we leave new entrants without knowing whether they are ill, fit or clean, save that we put into the code the requirement that the employer should take a medical history from his workpeople when he employs them. That is wrong and hardly matches the serious way in which we have been discussing the Bill. Would we strain the medical machine if, under regulations, we suggested that a new entrant must take a medical certificate from the family doctor to say that he or she is fit for employment in food handling? I do not know how many new entrants come into the industry all told, but it is not likely to be more than 30,000 or 60,000 a year.

  1495
  If the number is 30,000, that means one more examination per doctor per year, and if it be 60,000, two examinations per doctor per year, on an average.
  It would be an examination which a family doctor could make very quickly because he has records of his patients and knows them well. The Parliamentary Secretary, with his very great experience, will bear me out on this point. It should not be beyond the wit or ingenuity of his Department, or of the Ministry of Health, to frame a small form for use by the family doctor and new entrants could get this leaflet from the employer to take to their family doctors. That is the kind of thing we have in mind. Obviously people with suppurations from the ears, if pus is running from the ears, would not be suitable for such work until they had been treated and made better. A person with multiple boils, with suppurating acne of a very bad type, suffering from serious infections of a staphylococcal nature, or anyone with ringworm of the nail should not do this work until they had recovered from the infection.
  If these simple matters were attended to in the way I have suggested, I think that without any fuss or bother or interference with those working in the industry we could make certain by a simple expedient, that those entering the industry should get treatment. They would be made aware of the conditions from which they are suffering and which renders them unfit.
  Dr. Broughton: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I wish to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to some evidence in support of our case. The Parliamentary Secretary has made it necessary for me first to deal with some remarks he made earlier. He made the ridiculous accusation that we on the Opposition benches are more concerned with the welfare of the caterers than of the public. Of course that is quite fantastic. We are concerned with the welfare of the public first and foremost, but we have the good sense to realise that in order that the public shall benefit by the measures contained in this Bill there must be cooperation with the caterers. In spite of the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): This is a little wide of the Amendment.
  Dr. Broughton: I was going on to refer to a recommendation made by the caterers prior to the Second Reading of the Bill. These proposed hygiene regulations were compiled and submitted to the Minister before the Second Reading of the Bill and the Federation kindly sent me a copy. My hon. Friends and I noticed that the first recommendation was that:
  "Persons normally engaged in the handling of food shall not be known carriers of infection, shall be free from infection and be in possession of a personal hygiene certificate issued by a medical officer of health or his deputy."
  Having seen that, we put down an Amendment suggesting the medical examination of all people engaged in the handling of food. The Parliamentary Secretary rejected that Amendment, explaining that it would be impossible to have a medical examination of all people handling food because of their large numbers. We saw the wisdom of his argument and withdrew our Amendment. We have considered the matter since then and now we put it forward in this modified form.
  After the House has listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) putting our case so clearly, the Parliamentary Secretary will be bound to admit that our suggestion is a very reasonable one, which can be brought into operation without very much difficulty.
  8.15 p.m.
  Dr. Hill: All my experience and instincts, like those of the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton), are in favour of medical examination where that is appropriate. But we must ask ourselves what is likely to be gained in terms of protection of the public. I hesitate to refer to the working party that has been referred to, but it examined this matter and stated:
  "A medical examination without detailed or repeated bacteriological examinations gives no protection but merely a false feeling of security."
  If, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) fairly did, we set aside more serious conditions dealt with in the Public Health Regulations and the proposed regulations and asked

  1497
  what the examining doctor is likely to gain from the simple examination described by the hon. Member, what would be the result? It might well be that he would discover an apparent infectious condition of the kind illustrated. On the other hand, it is much more likely that the man would be perfectly fit and would get that sense of security which comes from having a certificate. Subsequently he may get an infection of one kind or another which, while the infection was on him, would render it undesirable that he should be so employed.
  Dr. Morgan: He might be a carrier.
  Dr. Hill: I am coming to that. If scrutiny on one occasion by his medical practitioner is to yield information of merit—let us face the fact—perhaps the only kind of scrutiny which will be of real value will be that in search of the carrier. I will not describe the lurid details, but the hon. Member may take it that it involves the most complicated, extensive and prolonged investigation. The argument for a simple medical examination brings me to the conclusion that it would be of relatively little value in protecting the public against those conditions which are the commonest source of danger—the common cold, infected skin and the like. It would give a sense of security quite unwarranted by the facts.
  A further point, which is more for others than for myself, is that a man otherwise acceptable for the post might be rejected on a ground quite irrelevant to his future employment. I do not want to see this kind of medical examination being used to determine whether a man should or should not be accepted for employment. That is another field of inquiry. But do not let us have an examination which would do little to provide security for the public and which might promote an entirely false sense of security.
  Mr. G. Darling: I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary would be prepared to look at this matter again, not perhaps in this form? He appears to me to have overstated the case when referring to the difficulties of a medical examination when a person is seeking a job. It is done on the railways and in quite a number of industries, although I admit that such
  1498
  examination is not so thorough as would be required in this case.
  My point is perhaps a matter of arithmetic. I am not a medical man and I may be completely wrong; but as I see it, there are one or two diseases which may be contracted by people employed in the food trade, such as tuberculosis for example, and it would be wrong for them to handle certain types of food. That would not apply in the case of fruit and vegetables but I had in mind such things as cooked foods. Perhaps it might be arranged that a periodical examination be made to weed out people suffering from an infection or disease which might make them a source of danger if they handled food.
  I wish to refer to one other point, the currency given to the complete misinterpretation of our intentions by the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) during a television programme. I hope that the very misleading statements which went out to the public will be corrected by what we are doing here and now.
  Mr. Willey: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) and also to say that there seemed to be a point in the speeches of my hon. Friends who have medical qualifications. The Parliamentary Secretary said that if he left it to his instinct he would agree with them, but if he resorted to his reasoning he could not accept their case. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to rely on his instinct. We have had his reasoning exposed so often that we would rather that he relied on his instinct which, in short, means his experience.
  I will concede at once that there may be difficulties about this specific proposal, but the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the report of the Catering Trade Working Party. In fact, the reports of both working parties emphasised the necessity for extending the provisions of the Public Health (Infectious Diseases) Regulations and that is the purpose behind this Amendment. It may be that without an Amendment it would be possible to go further along the lines we now desire, and so I will again appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to rely upon his instinct and to assure us that he is aware of the problem and the need to go wider than we have gone hitherto. Whether or not

  1499
  he goes the whole way, as my hon. Friends suggest, at any rate I hope that he will assure us that his Department is seized of the need to go wider and to provide some adequate protection.
  Dr. Hill: I have concentrated my attention specifically on the inclusion of new words, but I agree that there are loopholes in the medical examination provisions. I can give the assurance that we shall keep constantly in mind ways and means of strengthening the medical supervision so as to eliminate diseases relating to this problem, but I think that this proposal would give a false sense of security and be no solution to the problem.
  Mr. Mitchison: Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to go a little further? I agree that this proposal is put forward in a very sweeping form. But surely he is at present proposing to deprive himself of any power to order a medical examination, and is not that rash? Is it not possible that he might need some local or temporary power, according to the conditions, in some case where there might be an outbreak or an epidemic? Woud it not be wise, not necessarily to accept this Amendment, but to undertake to give himself power to require a medical examination of employees in the industry in appropriate cases? So far as I can see, it is at least doubtful if he has such power at present.
  Dr. Stross: The Parliamentary Secretary has disappointed me. I think that his arguments are wrong. I-le must forgive me for adopting this view, but we face each other day in and day out, and year in and year out, and we get to know each other fairly well. I do not think that he——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has already spoken.
  Dr. Stross: May I put it in this way, that having moved this Amendment and not feeling content with the answer——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is not the Committee stage of the Bill.
  Dr. Morgan: What about some of us?
  Dr. Stross: Am I entitled to ask a question before I make up my mind which way to use my vote? May I ask a question?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The question should have been put by the hon. Gentleman before he sat down.
  Dr. Stross: May I put the point to you, Sir, and you may consider whether I put it in my speech? The question is whether the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to look at this matter again.
  Amendment negatived.
  Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 7, line 15, after "staining," to insert "or sterilisation."
  This Amendment goes together with the Amendment in line 19, to leave out from "yards," to "any," in line 20, and to insert:
  "or which, though not unfit for human consumption, is not intended therefor;
  (g) for regulating generally the treatment and disposal of."
  This is an important though small Amendment to meet a not unimportant point. The Minister wishes to be fully empowered to make regulations regarding the sterilisation of diseased meat in slaughterhouses and knackers' yards, and we seek to deal with the position at the pet shop. In fact, if the pet shop buys fresh butchers' meat which is not stained or sterilised hon. Members will appreciate what a ready answer that may provide in certain circumstances. It is therefore proposed to make the requirement of staining or sterilising such meat at the pet shop level, otherwise it would be possible to drive a horse and cart through the regulations.
  Dr. Broughton: I believe the Amendments meet the point which some of my hon. Friends raised during Committee. The Minister has considered the speeches of my hon. Friends and accepted their recommendations, and we welcome the Amendments.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 19, leave out from "yards," to "any," in line 20, and insert:
  "or which, though not unfit for human consumption, is not intended therefor;
  (g) for regulating generally the treatment and disposal of."—[Dr. Hill.]
  Mr. Amory: I beg to move, in page 7, line 27, at the end, to insert:
  (3) In the last foregoing subsection "animals" includes poultry.

  1501
  The object of the Amendment is to enable regulations to be made requiring the ante-mortem inspection of poultry. This is in accordance with everybody's wishes, and I am sure the House will be willing to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  8.30 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): I beg to move, in page 7, to leave out lines 40 to 42.
  The object of this Amendment and the next Amendment is to fulfil an undertaking—to over-fulfil an undertaking, if that is possible—which I gave in Committee to meet criticisms justly made by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs). I thank them for drawing attention to an imperfection.
  Now that the county court has been chosen as the right tribunal to decide these matters, it has been thought more appropriate to confer the new jurisdiction by the terms of the Bill itself rather than by regulations. I hope that hon. Members will think that the proposal satisfactorily meets all their criticisms and will definitely improve the Bill.
  Mr. Mitchison: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for so fully meeting the point raised on an Amendment which I moved at an earlier stage. I congratulate him upon at last being lucid.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 5, at end, insert:
  (4) If any person who has incurred, or is about to incur, expenditure in securing that the requirements of regulations made under this section, being requirements of a structural character, are complied with in respect of any premises owned or occupied by him claims that the whole or any part of the expenditure ought to be borne by any other person having an interest in the premises, he may apply to the county court, and the court may make such order concerning the expenditure or its apportionment as appears to the court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the terms of any contract between the parties, to be just and equitable; and any order made under this section may direct that any such contract as aforesaid shall cease to have effect in so far as it is inconsistent with the terms of the order.—[The Solicitor-General.]
  Mr. Amory: I beg to move, in page 8, line 16, at the end, to insert:
  (6) The Ministers shall from time to time take such steps as they think expedient for publishing codes of practice in connection with matters which may be made the subject of regulations under this section, for the purpose of giving advice and guidance to persons responsible for compliance with such regulations.
  The Amendment takes the place of an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton). I hope he will find it satisfactory.
  Dr. Broughton: I thank the Minister for moving the Amendment, which certainly meets the point I raised earlier. I believe the Minister would have accepted my Amendment in Committee but he was not sure whether the code of practice should be issued by himself or some outside body. His Amendment contains the words:
  "The Ministers shall from time to time take such steps as they think expedient for publishing codes of practice …
  That covers my point and lets the Minister out of his difficulty.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 7.—(CATERING PREMISES.)
  Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 8, line 31, after the first "or," to insert:
  "(in the case of an offence committed in respect of premises) to."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Cooper-Key), when moving an Amendment, raised the subject of the disqualification procedure. He pointed out that it would be possible for a prosecution to be successful under one heading—perhaps a personal heading—and for disqualification to take place under another heading, one that had not been the subject of prosecution. Whatever may be thought about the disqualification principle, it seemed desirable to clear up the point, and that is what the Amendment does.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 10.—(LICENSING OF SALE OF FOOD ELSEWHERE THAN IN PREMISES.)
  Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 12, to leave out lines 23 to 36, and to insert:
  (4) If on the coming into operation of any regulations under this section in relation to any class of business, local Act provisions are in force in any district, being provisions under which persons engaged in that class of business are required to be licensed or registered, the regulations so far as they relate to that

  1503
  class of business shall not apply to that district until such date as may be appointed by an order made by the Minister upon application in that behalf made by the local authority.
  (5) Where an order is made in relation to any district under subsection (4) of this section, that order—

  (a) may repeal such local Act provisions as are mentioned in that subsection so far as they relate to that district and to the class of business in relation to which the regulations under this section have effect; and

  (b) shall provide for securing that persons licensed or registered under those provisions are, in relation to any business of the said class in which they are engaged, treated as licensed under the regulations.

  The Amendment replaces subsection (4) by two new subsections. There is no essential change in the meaning, but we think it clearer on the point of the super-session of private Acts on matters which are the subject of regulations under the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 11.—(PROVISIONS RELATING TO MILK.)
  Mr. Amory: I beg to move, in page 13, line 7, after "milked," to insert—

  (i) at any stage of a journey to or from a dairy farm,

  (ii) at a slaughterhouse or knacker's yard, or

  (iii).

  The object of this Amendment is to enable regulations to be made prohibiting the sale for human consumption of milk obtained from cows which are milked while on a journey. The Clause did not provide satisfactorily for this circumstance; some Amendments were suggested but not moved, and I think that this Amendment deals with the situation satisfactorily.
  Sir L. Plummer: The Minister is to be congratulated on this Amendment. Anyone who has seen cattle being driven to and from a sale or a market will appreciate that it is impossible to produce milk in ideal and hygienic conditions, quite apart from the fact that the animal is worried and anxious. There was a gap in the Bill, and I think it is now properly filled, for which we are grateful to the Minister.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: I subscribe to the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer). I have some
  1504
  recollection in my early days of the sort of thing happening which this Amendment seeks to prevent. I remember farmers making quite sure that no milk would be lost, and it did not matter under what circumstances the milk was produced. Under the second head relating to slaughterhouses and knacker's yards, I saw things which were even worse. I have seen cows being milked when they were waiting to be killed in slaughterhouses. I do not think anybody nowadays would say that that practice was either hygienic or desirable.
  I have much pleasure in associating myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend, and although we are getting a little tired of these compliments at this late stage of the Bill, I suppose it does no harm to exchange these little pleasantries. I am glad that the Minister is doing something to meet a very legitimate grievance, and I hope that he and the Parliamentary Secretary will follow this example later when we come to some equally important Amendments with which, of course, I cannot deal now in anticipation. All I am hoping is that this spirit which has been manifest in this connection will not be entirely absent as we proceed with these Amendments.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 13, line 10, after "registered," insert:
  "in pursuance of regulations made."—[Mr. Amory.]
  Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, in page 13, line 13, at the end, to insert:
  (e) for prohibiting the use of milk churns (whether by the persons to whom they belong or other persons) otherwise than as containers for milk, where the churns are in use for the purposes of the business of a dairyman.
  I hope that the Minister, having reconsidered this matter, will now make a further concession. As he will see, the Amendment asks only for the prohibition of the use of milk churns, and the arguments which the Parliamentary Secretary made previously as to the unenforceability of the Amendment therefore do not hold. It is quite possible to exercise a close supervision of milk churns, and by doing so we shall at least have gone some way towards avoiding the horrible practices which were referred to in the last debate.
  Dr. Hill: The right hon. Lady is quite right. We did undertake to look at this

  1505
  point. I pass over the fact that she immediately called a Division in order to induce the Committee to reach a conclusion upon that point, but it was a real point, and we are happy to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Pargiter: I beg to move, in page 14, line 6, to leave out from "collected," to the end of the subsection.
  The position under the Clause has been altered to some extent because the question of possession has been much more clearly defined, and some of the points which I raised originally have now been met. It is still open to substantial objections, however, because under Section 71 of the principal Act the defence can be put forward that some person other than the farmer or his servant adulterated the milk in question.
  In practice it is most unlikely that at any stage any such person would adulterate milk. He might break the seals and take out some of the milk, but it is not very likely that any person other than someone who has an interest in putting in water would adulterate the milk. Only under very exceptional circumstances would someone outside do so. A farm servant might, because he might want some milk to drink and might also wish to give the impression that no milk had gone, but that would be the farmer's responsibility.
  Nobody but the farmer would have such an interest in adulterating the milk, and there are some farmers who would have an interest in selling water for the price of milk. Under the present provisions it is extremely difficult to deal satisfactorily with the matter, because although the seals may have been broken the farmer can plead, "The milk was sealed when I left it." It may have been sealed in the presence of a witness, but the farmer can still break the seal, and he can put forward the defence that he did not do so. The Amendment seeks to lay responsibility very definitely upon the farmer, and it seeks to prevent anybody putting forward the defence that someone else has put water in the milk.
  Mr. G. Darling: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Dr. Hill: As the hon. Member fairly said, we have dealt with this problem to some extent by defining
  1506
  "possession" as including the churn at the end of the lane. That being so, bearing in mind that the farmer is now deemed to be in possession of a churn that may be 100 yards, 200 yards or even a mile away, we must surely allow him to put forward the defence under Section 71 (2) of the principal Act, which says:
  "It shall be a defence … to prove that the churn or other vessel in which the milk was contained was effectively closed and sealed at the time when it left his possession, but had been opened before the person by whom the sample was taken had access to it."
  As we are now deeming the farmer to have possession of something which may be out of his physical possession and view, we must surely leave that defence undisturbed.
  8.45 p.m.
  Sir L. Plummer: I do not want to disturb the harmony that is prevailing tonight, but I would appeal to my hon. Friend not to press this Amendment. He said he thought that it was extremely unlikely that anybody would seek to adulterate milk if it were collected at the proper point of collection, but let me put to him the case of a farmer supplying a retailer who is not associated with the farmer except as a customer, the farmer acting as wholesaler as well as producer.
  The retailer collects the milk. Suppose the retailer has criminal instincts and decides to water the milk. Then it would be very unfair that the farmer should be unable to plead the defence given to him in this Clause. I think that my hon. Friend's proposal puts too much on the farmer. It virtually says that he is to be responsible for the milk he supplies to the time of its acceptance by the ultimate customer, the consumer.
  He may not be distributing the milk to that customer. Somebody else may be doing it who is not his agent, and it is wrong that in those circumstances he should be held responsible for that person's misdeeds. Although I support my hon. Friend in almost everything he says, I think that in this case it would be better in the interests of justice if he took the advice of the Parliamentary Secretary.
  Mr. Pargiter: I am not at all sure that the interests of justice would be better served if there should be an unscrupulous farmer and an unscrupulous retailer, and

  1507
  in that possibility lies the difficulty. However, I appreciate the difficulty which the Amendment makes, as described by the Parliamentary Secretary and my hon. Friend, and now that possession has been defined, and as that considerably helps the purpose I had in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 12.—(CREAM SUBSTITUTES.)
  Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 14, line 11, to leave out Clause 12.
  This is consequential on our adding the new Clause with the rubric cream substitutes."
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 14.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO FOOD AND DRUGS AUTHORITIES.)
  Amendment made: In page 16, line 9, leave out "(4)," and insert "(5)."—[Dr. Hill.]

  Clause 15.—(ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN ENACTMENTS AND REGULATIONS.)
  Mr. Higgs: I beg to move, in page 18, line 4, at the end, to insert:
  Provided that a failure of a council to give such notice to the Minister or the inadequacy of a notice or a summary of the facts shall not preclude a conviction.
  I have two other Amendments down, in page 18, line 4, at the end, to insert:
  Provided that at the hearing no evidence shall be admitted as to the form or contents of the summary.
  and in line 4, at the end, to insert:
  A certificate of the Minister that the requirements of this subsection have been complied with in relation to any proceedings shall be conclusive evidence that they have been complied with in relation thereto; and any document purporting to be such a certificate as aforesaid and to be signed by or on behalf of the Minister shall be deemed to be such a certificate, unless the contrary is shown.
  They are first, second and third thoughts, all to the same purpose, and they involve two points.
  The Bill requires the prosecution to produce service of a notice. Inevitably that notice, and any documents that go with it, must be produced before the court. The defending advocate, without any regard to the merits of the case, might seek to escape the consequences of his client's defence by arguing that the notice or summary was irregular or incomplete in some way.
  1508
  The second difficulty is an even more real one. The summary is a document sent by the local authority to the Minister to inform him of the reasons why the local authority is commencing proceedings. It might be proper for a local authority to tell the Minister in that summary a number of things that it would be quite improper to tell the court.
  It might be proper to tell the Minister that the local authority was influenced by the fact that the proposed defendant had been convicted many times before for the same offence, or that a number of anonymous letters had been received. Those might be relevant considerations before commencing proceedings, but it would be very improper if the first witness for the prosecution were to tell those things to the court.
  The purpose of the Amendment is, therefore, to secure that the notice, if possible, and certainly the summary is not put in evidence. If this Amendment is not agreeable to my hon. Friend, perhaps he will find my others agreeable.
  Sir H. Linstead: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Dr. Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having made a small but very important point. We want the notice to be given to the Minister, we recognise that proof of having given the notice may be required, but we do not want a situation created in which the summary could possibly be brought into the proceedings at this stage, by defending counsel or otherwise. We think that my hon. Friend's third thoughts are best, and, indeed, we are grateful to him for the thought which he has given to the matter.
  Mr. Willey: I share the Parliamentary Secretary's view that we are much obliged to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs). This is a material point. I have certain views about his first, second and third thoughts, but if the Parliamentary Secretary feels that the third thoughts are acceptable to him, then we on this side of the House are willing to accept that Amendment.
  Mr. Higgs: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: In page 18, line 4, at end, insert:
  A certificate of the Minister that the requirements of this subsection have been complied with in relation to any proceedings shall be conclusive evidence that they have been complied with in relation thereto; and any document purporting to be such a certificate as aforesaid and to be signed by or on behalf of the Minister shall be deemed to be such a certificate, unless the contrary is shown.—[Mr. Higgs.]

  Clause 18.—(POWERS OF SAMPLING.)
  Captain Duncan: I beg to move, in page 19, line 6, at the end, to insert:
  (5) The Act of 1950 shall be amended by inserting at the end of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section thirteen the words "it shall not be made a condition of licences that sampling authorities can obtain samples free of charge."
  I had an Amendment down on Committee stage to the effect that all samples should be paid for when taken. That Amendment went too far, and this Amendment is an attempt in a more limited sphere, dealing only with milk, to put the question the other way round—namely, that it should not be made a condition of licences that sampling authorities should obtain samples free of charge. I hope that this modified approach, with a limited objective, will meet the views of the Government and will be acceptable to them, if not in legislative form at any rate in the drawing up of the regulations in due course.
  Sir L. Plummer: I beg to second the Amendment.
  This Amendment was originally down in my name and it followed one which had been moved by the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan). I was so carried away by the Parliamentary Secretary's eloquence in dealing with his hon. and gallant Friend on that occasion that I lost all sense of proportion—indeed, I lost my senses—and told the Parliamentary Secretary that he had convinced me. He had so convinced me that his hon. and gallant Friend was wrong that he drove from my mind the necessity for me to press this Amendment. I am very glad to have this opportunity to make amends for the ingenuousness and naivety on my part, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will accept this Amendment.
  Dr. Hill: I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South
  1510
  Angus (Captain Duncan) has given the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) this opportunity to recover from that excessive affability which led him not to move a proposal, the substance of which I was then in a mind to accept. This is a significant point. Why should we regard it as a condition of the licence that the sample should not be chargeable? I am glad that the point has been brought out, and if my hon. and gallant Friend will withdraw his Amendment we will propose, in rewriting the regulations in question—a task which will soon begin—to omit the condition to which he has drawn attention.
  Captain Duncan: I thank my hon. Friend for having met the point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 19.—(DISPOSAL OF SAMPLES TAKEN FOR ANALYSIS.)
  Mr. Amory: I beg to move, in page 19, line 12, to leave out from "shall," to the end of line 29, on page 20, and to insert:
  "deal with the sample in accordance with the provisions of Schedule (Provisions as to the manner in which samples taken or purchased for analysis are to be dealt with) to this Act.
  (2) The said Schedule shall apply to the purchase of samples by any person who is neither a sampling officer nor a person having the powers of a sampling officer as they apply in relation to the purchase of samples by a sampling officer; and references therein to a sampling officer shall be construed accordingly.
  (3) Any reference in the principal Act or this Act to this section shall be construed as including a reference to the said Schedule."
  This Amendment gives effect to a promise made to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) and my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir A. Bossom) that these procedural provisions would be transferred from this Clause to a Schedule.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 20, line 42, leave out from beginning, to end of line 15, on page 21.—[Mr. Amory.]

  Clause 20.—(OTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO SAMPLING, ANALYSES, ETC.)
  Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 22, to leave out lines 14 to 19, and to insert:
  (4) For subsections (3) and (4) of section sixty-nine of the principal Act there shall be substituted the following subsections:—
  "(3) The public analyst shall analyse as soon as practicable any sample submitted to him in pursuance of this section but may, in the case of a sample submitted by a person not being an officer of the food and drugs authority, demand in advance the payment of such fee as may be fixed by the authority.
  (4) If—

  (a) the office of public analyst for the area in question is vacant; or

  (b) the public analyst determines that he is for any reason unable to perform an effective analysis

  the sample shall be submitted or, as the case may be, sent by the public analyst to whom it was originally submitted, to the public analyst for some other area, and he shall, upon payment to him of such sum as may be agreed analyse the sample.
  (5) A public analyst who has analysed a sample shall give to the person by whom it was originally submitted a certificate specifying the result of the analysis; and any such certificate shall be in a form prescribed by regulations made by the Minister of Food and the Minister of Health acting jointly.
  (6) Where a sample taken or purchased by a sampling officer has been analysed by a public analyst, any person to whom a part of The sample was given under the Schedule (Provisions as to manner in which samples taken and purchased for analysis are to be dealt with) to the Food and Drugs (Amendment) Act, 1954, shall be entitled, on payment to the authority by whose officer the sample was procured of a fee of one shilling, to be supplied with a copy of the certificate given by the public analyst under the last foregoing subsection."
  This Amendment deals with two points. The first was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead), and the second by the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer). The first point raised was this. When a sample has to be sent to a public analyst in another area it shall be sent by the public analyst to whom it was first submitted. We shall be glad to accept this suggestion of my hon. Friend.
  The hon. Member for Deptford raised a series of points in connection with sampling. We feel that he sustained the point that the individual who retains the
  1512
  third part should have the right, on application, to obtain a copy of the analyst's report. This is a small but quite important change, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish us to extend it to all samples, as we have done, and not merely to milk samples. We feel that the argument which he made out was a powerful one, and although the Amendment does not meet all the points he made, I think that he will agree that it covers the most important one.
  Mr. Pargiter: The public analyst will in many cases be a whole-time paid public servant. In those cases, why should payment be made to the analyst? Should not the payment be made to the local authority?
  Dr. Hill: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the wording, he will see that payment is made to the authority.
  Sir H. Linstead: I should like to thank my hon. Friend for having made this amendment in the wording of the Bill, and to ask him if I have understood him correctly, because the wording is a little involved. I take it that the new wording is designed to secure, and does secure, that if a decision is taken that a particular public analyst cannot do the analysis and therefore the sample has to be sent to someone else, it is the public analyst who takes that decision and the public analyst who sends the sample on to his colleague.
  Sir L. Plummer: In thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for meeting the point which I raised, may I refer to the other part of the Amendment which I moved, that in the event of the analyst deciding that the sample should be analysed, the farmer would be told that it was to be analysed? I thought at the time that the Paliamentary Secretary said that he would look into that point.
  Dr. Hill: I did look into that point, but we felt that would raise a number of repercussions and that it had been sufficiently met by returning to the old periods of time.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 24.—(COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS.)
  Amendment made: In page 24, line 11, leave out Clause 24.—[Dr. Hill.]

  Clause 25.—(PENALTIES AND OFFENCES BY CORPORATIONS.)
  Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 24, line 23, to leave out "one hundred," and insert "two hundred and fifty."
  I am surprised that we have not the Solicitor-General here. I understand that he is on his way, and I hope that he has been spending his time reading the speeches which he made in Committee on the Merchandise Marks Bill, to which I called his attention when I moved a rather different Amendment at an earlier stage in our proceedings. I am in some difficulty, because I hoped that the points which I proposed to make would influence the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply. I hope that he has not made up his mind so that nothing that I say will have any effect upon him.
  I make a point which the Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate. We have expressed some concern about Clause 7, in which there is the provision that a court can make an order disqualifying a caterer from using his premises as catering premises for a period not exceeding two years. We are most anxious that this business of disqualification should not become the practice of the courts. We do not think that they are properly equipped to know the facts. If this resort to the courts is to be made we hope that reliance will not be placed upon putting a man out of business for two years. They have not got the opportunity properly to examine the matter.
  9.0 p.m.
  If the choice is merely between a penalty of £100, which is far less than the average provision of about £200 to £250 in current statutes, there is a strong temptation to resort to the disqualification. This is a new factor since we last discussed the matter in the presence of the Solicitor-General. I should have thought that because of the new Clause there was, from the point of view of practical administration, everything to be said for increasing the penalty.
  Different circumstances now obtain. We emphasise that, because Clause 7 provides for disqualification for two years, there should be a better alternative than merely a fine of £100 which is less than is provided in most statutes with which we can compare the Bill. I concede at once that there is no rhyme or reason about the penalties. It is difficult
  1514
  to compare penalty with penalty and to deduce any principle at all but, with the new conditions which obtain, there is everything to be said for having a penalty of more than £100.
  I hope that the Solicitor-General is well fortified by having carefully studied what he said on the Committee stage of the Merchandise Marks Act and that he will agree, in the light of the new factor that there is power to disqualify, that it would be better to allow the courts the alternative of imposing a fine of more than £100.
  Mr. G. Darling: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The Solicitor-General: We share with the hon. Member the desire that the penalties in these Clauses should be adequate and right, but I know that he realises that this is a difficult problem because there is no very precise measure which can be applied. I entirely agree that whatever guidance we can get from legislation in other fields is really quite useless. I looked, in courtesy to him, at what he said about merchandise marks in Committee, and I was glad to discover, as he had there declared, that it is positively confusing to look at penalties in other legislation. I respectfully agree with him.
  We have looked very carefully at the question. The difficulty is that obviously one's object ought to be to keep the maximum penalty broadly in line with the maximum penalty that this House had recently approved in legislation of this class. As the House well knows, despite the exceptions, the standard maximum fine in magistrates courts, broadly speaking, is now £100. One would want strong grounds before departing from that. Broadly, the list of exceptions covers that kind of case where one must give the magistrates power to take out the profit from transactions which are inherently profitable, such as tax evasion, or duty evasion, or trafficking in opium and jolly practices like that. There is also the broad class of exceptions where, for quite different reasons, imprisonment is not the threat it would be here—the kind of legislation which is going to deal with defendants like large corporations and offences under the Merchant Shipping Acts or civil aviation or something of that kind.
  I ask the House to think how different is this case from some of the penalties

  1515
  we have to consider in that the £100 maximum has the recent approval of this House in this field. The principal Act here is not so very old in the sense in which we are speaking. It dates to only 1938. One is surprised to notice that in the principal Act, for practices so dangerous as selling food unfit for human consumption, it is thought that a fine of £50 is enough. That was in only 1938. The Act of 1950, under the last Administration, also approved a maximum of £100 fine to be applied in practices as dangerous as selling tuberculous milk, which seems a horrible enough kind of offence.
  So I urge that essentially the £100 maximum is something which has the very recent approval of this House in this field. The hon. Member spoke about the penalty of disqualification of premises for two years. I know he will bear in mind that the penalty of a £100 fine and three months' imprisonment is for the first offence. Although I do not know the psychology of defendants in this field, I would have thought that it was a stalwart defendant who would not be deterred by that.
  I would add other considerations and one is, according to the information available to me that none of the magistrates' courts has found its powers insufficient in this field since the House so recently approved this penalty. That is a matter the House would want to take into account. Having given this the most careful consideration we feel that the effect of this would be to put the maximum penalty quite out of line with the general standard, and out of line with the penalty that the House has already approved in this field. In those circumstances, I feel obliged not to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Willey: Before I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment, I make just this final appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He has not done me the honour of studying what I said before he came. I hope he will take advantage of that and advise his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor when this Bill returns to another place that we do not share the Parliamentary Secretary's abhorrence of the catering industry. We do not share his dislike of this industry and we are anxious to avoid unnecessarily bringing it before the police court. We are anxious, also, to avoid the police courts having to
  1516
  resort to disqualifying a man from carrying on his business, except in a particularly flagrant case.
  I accept what he said about a standard fine. We have been conducting a Dutch auction and he has brought us down to this £100. But in this case there is the exceptional factor that we do not want the court to feel obliged to resort to disqualification when, in the circumstances of the case, it might be that a fine larger than £100 would better meet the case. I know he will carefully consider all I have said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 28.—(MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS RELATING TO BOARD OF TRADE AND THEIR REGULATIONS.)
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I beg to move, in page 26, line 41, after "entry," to insert:
  "and section twenty-one of this Act."
  This is really a drafting Amendment, and rectifies an accidental omission.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 32.—(INTERPRETATION.)
  Dr Hill: I beg to move, in page 28, line 11, to leave out from "any," to "shall" in line 12, and to insert:
  "place where food is supplied in the course of a business."
  This Amendment is proposed to meet a point raised during the Committee stage by the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton). He asked if the words were sufficiently comprehensive to cover all possible kinds of catering establishments. We have put in words which I am sure he will agree remove any doubt that he had, and will be useful in administration.
  Dr. Broughton: The Parliamentary Secretary is quite right. This Amendment meets the point which I made during the Committee stage, and I thank the Minister for having considered it and put down this Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 28, line 14, leave out "any catering establishment," and insert:
  "connection with any business in the course of which food is supplied."—[Dr. Hill.]

  New Schedule.—(PROVISIONS AS TO MANNER IN WHICH SAMPLES TAKEN OR PURCHASED FOR ANALYSIS ARE TO BE DEALT WITH.)
  1. The sampling officer shall forthwith divide the sample into three parts, each part to be marked and sealed or fastened up in such manner as its nature will permit, and shall—

  (a) with respect to one part of the sample comply with paragraphs 2 to 8 of this Schedule, and

  (b) deal with the remaining parts in accordance with paragraph 9 of this Schedule.

  2.—(1) If the sample was purchased by the sampling officer, he shall give the part of the sample to the vendor.
  (2) In relation to a sample purchased from an automatic machine, this paragraph shall apply as if for the reference to the vendor there were substituted a reference—

  (a) if the name and address (being an address in England or Wales) of a person stated to be the proprietor of the machine appears on the machine, to that person;

  (b) in any other case, to the occupier of the premises on which the machine stands or to which it is affixed.

  3. If the sample is of goods consigned from outside England and Wales and was taken by the sampling officer before delivery to the consignee, the officer shall give the part of the sample to the consignee.
  4.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to any sample of milk taken by the sampling officer, except to—

  (a) one in relation to which the last foregoing paragraph applies, or

  (b) any sample of cream.

  (2) If the sample was taken from a container—

  (a) having a capacity greater than six pints, and

  (b) appearing to the officer to show the name and address (being an address in England or Wales) of any person as consignor of the milk.

  the officer shall give the part of the sample to that person.
  (3) If the sample was taken from a container—

  (a) having a capacity of six pints or less, and

  (b) appearing to the officer to show the name and address (being an address in England and Wales) of any person as the person who put the milk into the container,

  the officer shall give the part of the sample to that person.
  (4) If—

  (a) neither of the two foregoing subparagraphs apply, and

  (b) the sample was taken at a dairy,

  the officer shall give the part of the sample to the occupier of the dairy.
  (5) If none of the three foregoing subparagraphs apply, the officer shall give the part of the sample—

  (a) to the occupier of the dairy from which the milk was consigned, or

  (b) if the milk was consigned from more than one dairy, to the occupier of the dairy from which it was last consigned.

  5. If—

  (a) none of the foregoing paragraphs of this Schedule apply, and

  (b) the sample was taken by the sampling officer at the request of a purchaser, or taken with the consent of a purchaser by retail,

  the officer shall give the part of the sample to the vendor.
  6. If—

  (a) none of the foregoing paragraphs of this Schedule apply, and

  (b) the sample was taken in transit,

  the sampling officer shall give the part of the sample to the consignor.
  7. If none of the foregoing paragraphs of this Schedule apply, the sampling officer shall give the part of the sample to the person appearing to be the owner of the food, drug or substance of which the sample was taken.
  8. In every case to which paragraphs 2 to 7 of this Schedule apply the sampling officer shall inform the person to whom the part of the sample is given that the sample was purchased or taken for the purpose of analysis by a public analyst.
  9. Of the remaining parts of the sample, the sampling officer shall, unless he decides not to have an analysis made, submit one for analysis in accordance with section sixty-nine of the principal Act, and retain the other for future comparison.
  10. Any part of a sample which under this Schedule is to be given to any person may be given either by delivering it to him or to his agent or by sending it to him by post in a registered packet; but where after reasonable inquiry the sampling officer is unable to ascertain the name and address of the person to whom the part of the sample is to be given, he may, in lieu of giving the part to that person, retain it.—[Dr. Hill.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Dr. Hill: I beg to move, "That the Schedule be read a Second time."
  An assurance was given to my hon. Friends the Member for Maidstone (Sir A. Bossom) and the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) that an attempt would be made to put this matter in a Schedule so that the language would be freer than is possible in the body of the Statute. This has been done without a change of meaning.
  Mr. Higgs: We are extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. It is very much simpler as set out in the Schedule and

  1519
  one can find one's place. It will be appreciated by those who administer the Bill when it becomes an Act.
  Schedule read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  First Schedule.—(APPLICATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF PRINCIPAL ACT AND THIS ACT TO NORTHERN IRELAND.)
  Amendments made: In page 33, line 12, after "Act," insert "subsection (4) of section (Food Hygiene Advisory Council) of this Act."
  In line 13, after "made," insert "or to be made."
  In page 34, line 49, after "or," insert "and the words 'or use'."
  In page 35, line 9, column 2, leave out from beginning, to "shall," in line 19, and insert "Subsections (2) and (5)."
  In line 41, at end, insert:
  Schedule (Provisions as to manner in which samples taken or purchased for analysis are to be dealt with).
  Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 2 shall not apply.
  In paragraphs 3 and 4, for references to England and Wales there shall be substituted references to Northern Ireland.
  In paragraph 9 for the words "in accordance with section sixty-nine of the principal Act "there shall be substituted the words "as if the sample had been procured under section thirteen of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875."—[The Solicitor-General.]

  Second Schedule.—(MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.)
  9.15 p.m.
  Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 36, line 40, at the end, insert:
  Section 11
  In subsection (1), for the words "The foregoing provisions relating to unsound food," there shall be substituted the words "The last two foregoing sections."
  Section 12
  For the words "an authorised officer of a local authority," there shall be substituted the words "an authorised officer of a council."
  There are two points involved here. The first is a purely drafting point, and the second is to put "an authorised officer of a council" in the same position as that
  1520
  enjoyed by "an authorised officer of a local authority."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 38, leave out lines 30 to 34.—[Dr. Hill.]
  Mr. Higgs: I beg to move, in page 38, line 43, at the end, to insert:
  "and for the words 'of any food of which' there shall be substituted the words 'of any article or substance of which'."
  If I reposed on the Front Bench, the House would probably allow me to get away with the one word "drafting," but as I am moving the Amendment from this more humble situation on the back benches, I move it in two words by saying "consequential Amendment."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In page 39, line 6, after "subsections," insert:
  "(except in paragraph (a) of the proviso to subsection (1))."
  In page 40, line 42, at end, insert:
  Section 94
  In subsections (1) and (2) for the words "a local authority" (wherever they occur) there shall be substituted the words "a council" and for the words "the authority" (wherever they occur) there shall be substituted the words "the council."
  For subsection (3) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
  "(3) For the purposes of this section, a public analyst appointed by a food and drugs authority shall be treated as being an officer of the authority whether or not he is employed whole-time."
  In page 42, leave out lines 22 to 34.
  In line 36, at end, insert:
  Section 31
  For the words "artificial cream" there shall be substituted the words "reconstituted cream as defined by section (Cream substitutes) of the Food and Drugs Amendment Act, 1954."
  In page 43, line 12, leave out from "1954," to "or," in line 14, and insert:
  "and made for the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of that section."— [The Solicitor-General.]

  Third Schedule.—(REPEALS.)
  In page 44, column 3, leave out lines 32 and 33, and insert:
  In section seventy-seven, in subsection (2), the words from "and, where the justice is satisfied" to "use in the manufacture of artificial cream," and subsection (7).
  In page 44, line 43, column 3, at end, insert "artificial cream."
  In page 45, column 3, line 12, leave out from beginning, to "thirty," in line 16, and insert "Sections twenty-nine and."
  In page 45, line 19, at beginning, insert "artificial cream'."—[Dr. Hill.]
  Bill re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendment standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Dr. Broughton, to a Clause inserted on consideration of the Bill (Food Hygiene Advisory Council) in line 24.—[Mr. Amory.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair.]

  Clause.—(FOOD HYGIENE ADVISORY COUNCIL.)
  Dr. Broughton: I beg to move, in subsection (4, b), after the second "draft," to insert "code of practice or a draft."
  The Minister has been good enough to accept an Amendment of mine relating to the code of practice, as a result of which I move this consequential Amendment.
  Sir L. Plummer: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended (on re-committal) considered.
  9.20 p.m.
  Mr. Amory: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  If the Bill to some extent lacks the attribute of glamour, perhaps it is none the worse for that. It is essentially an example of the practical and painstaking way which Parliament follows in a field which is of the very greatest importance, because it affects the health and welfare of every individual in the country. I believe that it is a progressive and forward-looking Measure. As Minister, I came along rather late in this business, after the beginning of consideration of the Bill. I have realised right through that because of that I have not been as familiar with the more technical aspects of some of its provisions as I should have wished. It has been a matter of "learn as you earn."
  The House and the Committee, however, have been tolerant, and fortunately
  1522
  the Parliamentary Secretary has shown complete mastery of the subject, as would have expected him to do. Fortunately, also, I have had the benefit of the sound knowledge of the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) and the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), a knowledge which they attained during previous manifestations when they were Ministers in Parliament. As a layman in these matters, I should like to pay humble tribute to the very wide knowledge and experience which so many hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House have shown in discussion, and also to the hard work that they have nut in during our debates on the Bill. The result of all this is that, personally, I am satisfied that a Bill which began as a good one is an even better one now.
  There are several reasons why it is important and timely that we should be considering these matters at the present time. First of all, it is important because during recent years there has been a very great increase in the practice of eating out. That has emphasised the need for the utmost cleanliness that we can obtain in the preparation of food. Then there has been the work of the food chemists, which of recent years has brought into use many new food substances and food processes. That is a matter to which the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) referred earlier. Science has also thrown much new light on the causes of food poisoning. Lastly, there is the growing awareness of people generally of the importance of the cleanliness of food as a safeguard of public health, and the raising of aesthetic standards throughout the community. Therefore, it is a right time for us to be taking a further important step forward in the development of our legal code for the purity and fitness of food for human consumption. That briefly is what the Bill does.
  No one will deny that there is plenty of room for improvement, but I am sure that the House would not like anyone to think that improvements must necessarily wait on legal requirements. Things are moving in the right direction. Many enlightened manufacturers and traders are recognising more and more the need for cleanliness and the commercial improvement that it brings to their business. There is plenty of evidence of that, ranging from the new shops which we

  1523
  see with glass-protected counters to the installation of modern sinks and hot and cold water in even small modern premises. I think that any one of us who has been across the Atlantic and visited the United States and Canada must feel that we are lagging sadly behind; the difference is very great indeed. But I believe this Bill will encourage further progress and do a lot to guide it on the right lines.
  I suppose we must not overdo things in this direction and become too scientific about our food. I think it is possible to have articles of food which are perfectly sterilised, magnificently wrapped up, but which have no nourishment whatever, no flavour and no pleasure to be obtained from eating them.
  Mr. G. Darling: Breakfast cereals.
  Mr. Amory: Too scientific descriptions of food are a drawback. I remember once being put off for quite a time from eating as much bread as ordinarily I do, through reading some advice given in a Government circular—not issued by Her Majesty's present Government—urging that I should, "maximise" my "intake of cereal filling," by which I thought was meant that I should eat more bread. I reduced my ration for quite a time.
  What we want to do is to create conditions which will encourage manufacturers, traders and all who work in food trades to prepare and handle food in a cleanly manner and we do want food of full nutritive value. I feel sure that the powers conferred by this Bill will go far to enable those objectives to be achieved. The interest the House has taken in this Bill is evidenced by the very large number of Amendments which have been put forward. There have been nearly 200, which is quite exceptional for a Bill of 30 odd Clauses. It should also be noted that well over half of those Amendments have been accepted, either during Committee stage or accepted in principle then and given effect to during Report stage. During our discussions we have talked of many things, among them Bristol-cream and cream-buns. As I have sat here ever since half-past three, either of those would have some attraction for me at present.
  I shall not refer to any of the individual provisions of the Bill because we
  1524
  have discussed them so thoroughly, but I wish to say one or two things in general. This Bill has a great deal of legislation by reference in it. That is something we all wish to avoid. Therefore, I think it will require some tidying up and the Government propose a consodidation Bill. Since this Bill repeals Section 13 of the 1938 Act it is necessary that the Food Hygiene Regulations, which have been laid in the Library in draft form, should be introduced at the same time as that Section 13 is repealed. I repeat that we plan a consolidation Bill and we plan that the consolidation Bill and the Regulations, with a few exceptions, shall come into force on the same day. We want to lose no time in that matter and we mean to lose no time. We fully expect that that will happen during the early months of next year.
  It has been said that one cannot make people good by Act of Parliament. That may be equally true of cleanliness as of Godliness—I do not know—but I believe that this Bill will go a long way in providing the legislative framework and the regulations we are proposing will fill in many of the details. When the Bill is passed, local authorities and their officers will have great responsibilities. I am sure that they, together with food manufacturers, traders and trade unions representing those who work in those trades, will all play their part to secure the smooth working of this law and the achievement of the standards of purity and cleanliness in the nation's food at which we all aim. But when one has said that it still remains true—and here I agree with the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton)—that education and the creation of the right outlook are means by which the best progress can be made.
  I am, and always have been, a firm believer that what is achieved by education and persuasion is generally more fruitful and lasting than what is achieved by compulsion. Let us do what we can individually and collectively to encourage and promote a healthy and active public opinion in these matters.
  There have been some quite lively passages during our discussion and the debate generally has been healthy. But now that those discussions are over and we can see this Bill in perspective. I believe that the whole

  1525
  House will agree that it is a sound Measure of practical reform. I hope that the House will send it on its way with the good wishes of us all and I ask this House to give the Bill a unanimous Third Reading.
  9.31 p.m.
  Dr. Summerskill: In the course of the last 10 years I have stood, either at this Dispatch Box or the other, and spoken on the Third Reading of many social Measures. I have always experienced a certain pleasure on those occasions. There has been mutual satisfaction, and generally I have observed that the House has recognised that a social Measure is divorced from party implications. When we have reached the Third Reading we have realised that the Bill has almost reached the Statute Book and will in due course be interpreted in such a manner that a large number of people will be all the better for it.
  I must say that this is an exception to the general rule, and I am sorry. The Minister is a newcomer and he has been pitch-forked into a rather technical discussion. It was clear to me that he has found himself a little out of his depth. At times I felt almost protective towards him, because he exercises a charm which almost penetrates to this side of the House. Nevertheless the passage of this Bill has been unprecedented. I cannot experience any satisfaction about it, not the satisfaction which I anticipated when in 1948 I was responsible in the Ministry of Food for initiating this Measure.
  I say that I cannot anticipate satisfaction, because I cannot foresee what is to happen in the light of the discussions. I regarded this as an important social Measure, but every stage has produced disappointment after disappointment. There has been a grudging acceptance of each Amendment. Quite rightly the Minister says that he has accepted nearly half the Amendments put down. But that is a confession of guilt. He should not be proud of that fact. He should have recognised that those Amendments ought to have been unnecessary. His Parliamentary Secretary should have advised him that the arguments advanced by my hon. Friends were unanswerable. The Minister was forced into the position of accepting Amendment after Amendment.
  My vocabulary has been exhausted in trying to find new expressions of thanks
  1526
  to apply to the Minister. I think that I must have called him "sympathetic" on at least 20 occasions, because he had accepted some Amendment which any ordinary person with no technical knowledge could not have resisted. Why is it that on this important social Measure the Minister has not been more generous? Why has he not come to the House and said, "We are in the middle of the 20th century. This provision "—some elementary provision in the field of hygiene" must be accepted"?
  I would remind the Minister that in 1954 we have debated in this House for 40 minutes whether spitting should be prohibited in places where food is prepared. I stood at the Dispatch Box and asked the Minister to accept the Amendment. He refused. Later the Parliamentary Secretary said that he would consider the form of words. I refused to accept that. Finally, when I said that we must go into the Division Lobby on the subject of spitting the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary said that they would accept the Amendment.
  On the Third Reading of a Bill I like to be mellow and tolerant and a little forgiving. I am trying to be forgiving now, but I cannot forget the debate on spitting.
  Mr. Amory: I am just wondering what the right hon. Lady would have been like if we had not agreed to it.
  Dr. Summerskill: Unfortunately, the Minister was not in the Chamber two hours ago or he would have heard what I should have been like in that event.
  This is why we are a little sceptical about the future of the Measure. I want to remind the Minister of its deplorable history. A year ago it passed through another House. Does the Minister recall that Thursday after Thursday we pressed the Leader of the House to arrange a day for its Second Reading? In the first place we were given two hours on a Friday. We resisted that. Finally, after a great deal of pressure from the back benches, we were given a whole Friday.
  On the Committee stage we had pages and pages of Amendments. They were not framed by ignorant persons from this side of the House, as has been alleged on certain occasions by hon. Members opposite. They were framed as the result of the reports of three authoritative

  1527
  committees which had been set up many years ago, committees representing every aspect of the food and catering trade. Despite those reports, we have had the wearisome business of going through Amendment after Amendment. An Amendment dealing with clean churns has been accepted today. The Parliamentary Secretary will recall that we spent 25 minutes on the subject, and, finally, I had to say that we should
  divide. We divided on the subject of
  clean churns and bottles.
  Dr. Hill: I willingly agreed to consider the point about churns. Despite that agreement, the right hon. Lady, for some reason best known to herself, decided to divide the House.
  Dr. Summerskill: Certainly.
  The Parliamentary Secretary ought to have learnt his lesson by now. He must not attempt to mislead the House. I have already shown the House how willing he is to do that. He will recall that the Amendment in which we divided dealt with churns and bottles. He has not included bottles in his new Amendment. Feeling that we had to get on with the Bill, I was prepared to accept the concession that he offered. Therefore, I have to tell him that he is wrong again.
  This is why I have to speak very strongly on Third Reading. I feel that the Government have been shamed into accepting a large number of Amendments for political reasons only. I cannot believe that they have had a change of heart; if they have, why were not some of the Amendments accepted at earlier
  stages? It appears that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have felt at the last moment that for political reasons some of the Amendments must be accepted.
  The next point on which I wish to comment is the registration of catering premises. On the question of the registration of catering premises, and the Minister's powers in Clause 6, the debate has been deplorable. It has been most unfortunate, and the time will come very soon, perhaps next year, when the public will demand that these premises shall be registered.
  It was deplorable for the Parliamentary Secretary to have to confess at the last moment this afternoon that he had had
  1528
  representations from the catering trade through an hon. Friend of his, after he had stated in this House that he had had no representations from the catering trade. This is not what we should expect in a debate on a great social Measure. I believe the Conservative Government have betrayed the best elements on their back benches in this matter.
  Finally, I have completely lost faith in the Government's good intentions with regard to this Bill, particularly with regard to Clause 6. The Minister has great powers, but unfortunately they are only permissive. It has been necessary for us day after day to press for certain of these provisions to be accepted and included in the enabling powers. How can we hope for the Minister to exercise those powers? That is why I am a little despondent and am not enjoying, as I had anticipated, the sense of achievement that one should experience in this House when finally a social Measure reaches its Third Reading. It seems now that instead of sitting back and looking for the next task, we on these benches have to remain vigilant in order to ensure that the Government will afford the people protection against adulterated and infected food.
  9.42 p.m.
  Dr. Stross: The Minister spoke of education and said a few words about our attitude to clean and nutritive food not being excessively scientific. As my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) is not in his place, perhaps I may be allowed to say that I think he should be given some credit for having initiated a certain debate in February, 1951. As he is not in the Chamber, it is for me to put on record the work that he has done since that time in providing a series of lectures which have been printed and which are used by the St. John Ambulance Association.
  I appeal to the Minister, on this question of education, to bear in mind that where food handling is concerned we should focus our efforts upon the mass of the people who are handling food. Simple knowledge very widely diffused is much more important from this point of view than technical knowledge held by only a few.
  On the question of being too scientific about food, there is another aspect. We rely upon the highly educated people to

  1529
  advise us. I fear that we are too scientific about our food in another direction; namely, that science is able to offer us almost anything we care for and many things that we know nothing about and do not care for. The Minister has taken powers, I think in Clause 4, to garner every fragment of information available, and he can store it and sift it, through the medium of his servants, or his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will have to do it. That knowledge will be as comprehensive as any existing in the world.
  As a result of that knowledge we expect some protection, but throughout all our deliberations we have noted how permissive are many of the Clauses. We urge the Minister, his right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary to bear in mind the fact that there is plenty of good will and good sense available to back up the knowledge that he is going to garner, sort out and analyse.
  There is good will from every quarter of the food manufacturing and processing trade, and also from the chemical manufacturers, and it is from them that he will obtain a great deal of information. I hope that as well as receiving it he will send out information so that everybody will be well informed; always observing certain safeguards, for we do not want to give away secrets.
  As for good sense, I do not think that our people lack it. We know that enthusiasts exist on both sides of the House. There are those who think that whatever is done with food it does not matter, that no harm will come to anybody. There are others who are so obsessed by certain aspects of the problem that one cannot easily argue with them. In 1951 we said that it was a question of education, agitation and legislation. It is fair to say that the Bill is really ours, and its possibilities are immense if it is properly handled. Everything depends upon the attitude of the Government in power and the Department concerned, but using good will and good sense we ought to go very far towards protecting our people, in the way in which my right hon. Friend mentioned, against infectious disease and adulteration.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  PHARMACY BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
TRANSPORT CHARGES &c. (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
Lords Amendments considered.
TRANSPORT CHARGES &c. (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

  Clause 3.—(APPLICATION OF CHARGES SCHEMES TO INDEPENDENT RAILWAY AND INLAND WATERWAY UNDERTAKINGS.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 38, leave out "1953" and insert "1954."
  The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment is necessitated by reason of the fact that the Transport Charges Scheme, 1954, has taken the place of the 1953 scheme since the Bill left this House.

  Clause 13.—(INTERPRETATION.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 5, leave out "1937" and insert "1947."
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This is necessary to correct the citation, so as to bring in the Act of 1947.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: How did it happen that this mistake was made originally? After all, from 1937 to 1947 is a quite considerable time. Obviously there has been some slip up somewhere, and I think the Minister should give us some explanation.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: By leave of the House I would explain that the position is that the Road Traffic (Driving Licences) Act, 1947, should in the original draft of the interpretation Clause have been included with the other Road Traffic Acts. Owing to an oversight it was not.

NATIONAL SAVINGS MOVEMENT
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]
9.53 p.m.
Mr. Cyril Osborne: I wish to raise the question of the National Savings Movement, which at present is appealing for 2 million new savers, and I want to ask my Ministerial Friends, when they arrive, if the Government are doing everything possible to assist the National Savings Movement to get those 2 million new savers. There are about 500,000 voluntary workers in the Savings Movement who, for the past 30 years, have been working unceasingly, with little thanks and no reward, for this excellent cause, in schools and universities, the trade unions, voluntary organisations, factories and businesses. I want to know if the Government are giving them all the support they possibly can.
The 2 million new savers could and should come from what are called the industrial groups. It is extraordinary that, after all these years of publicity, only 15 per cent. of the people who are employed in industry belong to savings groups attached to the works. That figure is far too low. Even in the larger firms, employing 500 men and more, where there is usually an organisation to help savings within the groups, only 36 per cent. of the employees belong to these groups.
I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary can do anything with the smaller firms, first, because in those firms the question of whether or not there will be a savings group depends largely on the attitude of the employer. If he is favourably inclined, then he can get something going. Could a special appeal be made to the employers in small firms to encourage savings groups within those works?
1532
This morning I went to the headquarters of the National Savings Movement and I learned for the first time that only a few weeks ago a new retirement savings scheme was evolved. To my surprise—I must admit that I did not know of this—the Treasury have agreed under the new retirement savings scheme that certain contributions can be made by the small employer which will rank as an expense for taxable purposes. This is a great encouragement to the small groups but it is not well known, and I appeal to my hon. Friend to do what he can to publicise this new scheme.
The amount which we are saving in this country is lamentably small. Withdrawals from the National Savings Movement in 1952–53 were £33¾ million more than the amount saved, even after allowing for accumulated interest. Last year, 1953–54, the new savings including interest, amounted to only £28¾ million, which means that on the two years we hardly broke even. These figures are pathetically small when they are compared with the huge amounts which are being paid out in the factories and works as wages and salaries.
Looking at one of the Blue Books the other day, I was surprised to see that in the last eight years, since 1946, wages in this country have increased by no less than £2,500 million per annum. That is a staggering figure, and it is the source from which we have to recruit the 2 million new savers and to obtain the savings which the country requires. Have the Government considered making a social survey to see where the extra £2,500 million has gone? It would be interesting, from a social point of view, to know how much of this extra money goes to the housewife. I wonder how many women know how much money their husbands earn. I do not believe that women today receive nearly as high a proportion of the wage packets as they received before the war.
If the Government could attempt some social survey into these facts it would help considerably. On balance, the women would be better savers than the men. When we think of the £281 million which we saved last year and remember that in the same year we spent over £2,300 million on what is called "fun and games," we realise that the figure of savings is pathetically small,

1533
even ridiculously and absurdly small, compared with what could be done. I ask my hon. Friend whether there is any way of discovering where this money goes. If not, would he consider introducing some social survey in order that we may have that information?
It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. Allan.]
Mr. Osborne: I should also like to remind my hon. Friend that of the £1,000 million put into investment savings year by year practically the whole lot is withdrawn, and that we are scarcely adding to our permanent savings at all. I am not discussing trustee savings and building society savings, I am dealing solely with the National Savings Movement. What is wanted is some inducement for the ordinary wage earner and salary earner to invest permanently against his old age.
I have given the figures of the increase in wages over the last eight years. Salaries since 1946 have gone up from £1,625 million to £2,900 million, an increase of £1,275 million per annum. We are not tapping either the extra salaries or the extra wages as we should do. I suggest that there are two reasons why we are not saving as much as we ought to.
I do not think that my hon. Friend or the Government can do anything about the first reason, why we are not, as a nation, saving as much as we should, which is because personal saving in a Welfare State becomes more and more difficult. If the social services are to cover every contingency from the cradle to the grave there is not the urge to put a bit away for a rainy day, as I was taught to do when I was a boy. If both sides of the House agree that a rainy day will never come again, and that the State will look after us should a rainy day come by accident, it is obvious that there is no inducement to save.
It seems that under the Welfare State and the social services which we now enjoy, we look after the thriftless more than the thrifty, and it is need rather than merit that gets consideration. Therefore, where we have guaranteed State help, the desire for personal help must be
1534
weakened. Under these conditions the Savings Movement is fighting a hard, difficult and almost losing battle. About that I think the Government can do very little.
The second reason we are not saving is one which my hon. Friend and the Government could and ought to do something about. The reason is that people believe more and more that it is not worth while saving because of the continuous reduction in the value of money. Inflation is the greatest enemy of saving. I know that all parties in the Western world have made up their minds never again to tolerate mass unemployment. The bitterness of the '30s and '20s have eaten into our hearts and we are determined that, come what may, we shall never have mass unemployment again, and that if it is a choice between inflation and unemployment we will choose inflation.
The hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), in one of the essays which he wrote in the "New Fabian Essays," set out very clearly that so far as he was concerned we would never again have unemployment, and that if the cure for unemployment was continuous, considerable inflation he was prepared to accept it. Last year, I had this point put to me in a rather amusing way by one of the leading American business men in Boston, Massachusetts. I accused him of selling American bonds, knowing full well that they would not be paid back at the proper value at which they had been sold. He said, "In America"—and I suppose it is true over here—"everybody likes that swollen feeling."
He put it in these terms. He said they liked to be permanently "slightly pregnant." The trade unions wanted slightly higher wages, the business men wanted slightly bigger profits, the shareholders wanted slightly bigger dividends and the tax gatherer, as represented here by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, wanted bigger taxes, despite the fact that the real wealth of the community might be the same.
Under those conditions inflation is inevitable and people naturally say, "We will not save. We will not go without. We will not forgo present pleasures in order to be paid back at about 16s. in the £." I raised this matter some years ago when I asked the right

1535
hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, a Question on 24th October, 1950. It was Question No. 56, and I got a written reply. I asked the Chancellor:
"… what is today's nominal value, including accrued interest, of a National Savings Certificate, purchased in August, 1945, for 15s.; and what is its real purchasing power allowing for the subsequent drop in the internal purchasing power of the pound."
The reply said:
"A Savings Certificate bought for 15s. in August, 1945. is now worth 17s. 7d.…"
That is, 2s. 7d. had been accrued by way of interest—
"and would now have a purchasing power in terms of 1945 prices …"
That is when the certificate was purchased—
"of about 14s. 2d."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1950: Vol. 478. c. 320.]
Therefore, the man who had been thrifty, the best type of citizen who had denied himself the pleasure of spending, not only lost all the interest which had accrued on this 15s. but he had also lost 10d. of the original capital. It is unreasonable to expect men to save in such conditions. After five years, having lent the State the money, the purchaser was worse off.
It is against that background that I make my plea that the Government should do something to safeguard the wage earner saver against inflation. It is not only the little investor who needs a safeguard. Everybody is asking for it. The big investors can look after themselves. They can buy equities, land or property and hedge against inflation.
I read the other day that the Church Commissioners, very wisely I think although a bit late in the day, have sold most of their gilt-edged securities and bought equities and done extremely well out of them. I hope that some of the poor persons will get a rise in salary as a result of the profits being made on the Stock Exchange. I read that the old age pensioners are to demand that their pensions should be tied in some way to the cost of living and that their pensions should have a stable, real value.
There are millions of wage earners who have their wages tied to the cost of living. If it can be done for these sections of the community, I beg my hon.
1536
Friend and the Treasury generally to see if some scheme can be evolved that would give to the wage earner, the little capitalist, the man whom I want to encourage to have a share in the country and in its prosperity, some safeguard against inflation.
I want to make a practical suggestion to my hon. Friend. I know that he will say that it is difficult and that he cannot give me a promise now. All I ask him to do is to go back to his officials and to think about it. I suggest that the first £500 put into National Savings Certificates should have their repayment value tied to the cost of living or to some calculation of real value as at the time the money is paid in.
I believe that the National Savings Movement would get a great deal more money, even if there were no interest at all on the certificates, if the capital could be guaranteed against inflation. That is a practical step that could be taken. I know it cannot be done tonight, but I am not asking for legislation——
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): To my mind, the point is whether the hon. Member is asking for legislation, which seemed to me to be the case. If he is, that will not be in order on the Adjournment.
Mr. Osborne: I am suggesting that my hon. Friend should go home and think about it. Whether he thinks it would be possible to legislate on these lines, or not, would be a matter for him.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If this does involve legislation—I do not know whether it does or not—the hon. Member cannot pursue it.
Mr. Osborne: I do not think this would need legislation. It could be done by the Treasury without requiring the consent of the House. This morning I went to the National Savings headquarters, and that was the idea they gave to me.
I made further inquiries to see if this idea had been tried in other parts of the world. Two instances were given to me. I was told that in France, in 1952, they had a scheme for saving for house building accounts and the Government guaranteed that, if building costs were higher when the money was drawn out, then the capital that had been lost through inflation would be replaced, provided, of

1537
course, that the capital was not drawn out until the building had been put up. I was advised that no interest was paid on the loan. That is one suggestion I would leave with my hon. Friend.
What is even more interesting is that in the same year, in Sweden, the Central Organisation of Co-operative Associations issued a 3 per cent. 20-year loan, the repayment, of course, being at par in 1972. The attraction of that loan was that up to 50 per cent. of the loan would be guaranteed against inflation. Could not something along those lines be done for the National Savings Movement? If it could, I believe there would be no difficulty in getting the extra 2 million savers and a lot of the additional £2,500 million paid in wages today as compared with 1946. In addition, we should be encouraging people to save a little on their own against old age and its difficulties.
I have reminded my hon. Friend that I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) a Question on this point. I also tackled his predecessor, the fate Sir Stafford Cripps, when, on 18th July, 1950, I put a Question to him asking if he would
"… produce a scheme whereby payment of the first £500 invested in National Saving Certificates shall be based on the cost-of-living index so as to safeguard small investors against loss of real capital through depreciation of the £ sterling …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 2034.]
I asked him that, because the previous day I asked how much the value of the £ had fallen in the preceding five years. I was told it had dropped from 20s. to 16s. It seemed to me a great scandal that the British Government was prepared to encourage this country's working men to put their money into savings certificates, to save their money, knowing full well that, within five years, the investors would have lost 20 per cent, of their capital. It is not good enough. The little man cannot protect himself against inflation.
Since we are all agreed that a continuous and gradual inflation is inevitable—because we shall never have deflation again as it would bring unemployment and we will not face that—I ask that my suggestion shall be considered. If some scheme could be brought forward, I am convinced that the National Savings Movement could attract those 2 million extra people who are wanted, and the country would benefit immensely.
Mr. H. Rhodes: I am sure that the hon. Member does not wish to discourage anyone in the Savings Movement, but he did infer that there was not very much incentive at the moment to save. I think it would be a mistake if what he has said discouraged people from saving in the local savings groups. Will the hon. Member like to correct that impression?
Mr. Osborne: If I may be allowed to do so, I should certainly like to correct it, for the last thing I wish to go out from this House is any form of discouragement to savers. I said that half a million voluntary workers were engaged in this work and I want to encourage them. That is why I am asking for this extra protection, because it would be a very fine thing if we could have these extra savers and if we could help those whom the Chairman of the Savings Movement this morning described as the very salt of the earth.
10.16 p.m.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling): My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) has raised a subject of very great importance and made a most interesting suggestion, which he has submitted once or twice before, but which he has made in rather more detail this evening. I am sure we are all glad to have an opportunity to do anything we can to assist the National Savings Movement. I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) as well as those of my hon. Friend.
Surely the National Savings Movement is one of the remarkable features of the social scene of this country, one of those voluntary movements that started in wartime. It is one of the strange things started in wartime as a temporary movement and became a permanent feature of our land. Other examples come to mind, such as different forms of taxation and forms of licensing regulations which, started in wartime, continue rather to our regret in peacetime. But the National Savings Movement was a movement started under all the difficulties, and also under all the inspirations, of war, and in which these devoted workers engage. So the movement has been carried on in peacetime conditions which invariably are more difficult than wartime, when there is the

1539
patriotic urge, the shortage of goods on which to spend money, and so on, all of which make it easier in wartime to encourage people to save than in peacetime.
It is quite an extraordinary achievement that this movement, starting in 1916, has now about 8 million in savings groups and over £6,000 million has been invested by the people of this country through it. I think something over 60 per cent. of the adult population of this country now hold some form of National Savings. Undoubtedly that could not take place without a tremendous amount of voluntary work put in by a number of people in the movement from the leaders down to the voluntary worker in the street groups, in the industrial group or in the schools. I know that everyone in this House would be glad to have the opportunity once again of paying tribute to the work that they have done.
I am particularly glad that my hon. Friend mentioned the industrial groups, because he is quite right in saying that they contribute the predominate part of the savings saved by organised groups within the National Savings Movement. I think they have done a magnificent job in recent years, and I should like on behalf of the Government to thank the employers in particular and everyone else concerned in the support that these industrial groups have given to the National Savings Movement.
My hon. Friend quoted the figure of 35 per cent., which is the percentage of members in the larger industrial units in the country who are members of savings groups. I understand their savings are at the rate of 9s. 6d. per member per week. Altogether of employed in the country 16 per cent. are members of the savings groups. That, I think, is a considerable achievement, but I am sure that more could be done. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be grateful to my hon. Friend for the support he has given to the effort to persuade employers to do even more to develop these industrial savings groups.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has recently written a letter on this subject to the President of the British Employers' Federation. I understand that some 15,000 copies of it are being distributed through employers' organisations
1540
to individual employers. I am sure that they will play a large part in this big new drive for 2 million additional savers.
Regarding what was said by my hon. Friend about the retirement savings scheme and the assisted savings scheme within industrial groups, which we are hoping to see substantially developed, in both cases these are schemes whereby an employer can contribute to a savings scheme embracing his employees and in which the employer's contribution will be treated as a trading expense, but not as remuneration in the hands of the employee or of the trust operating the scheme on behalf of the employee.
I think that the retirement savings scheme will be of particular interest to the small industrial concerns, about which my hon. Friend spoke, where the normal pension scheme is not practicable, and where a scheme like this can be of great benefit. In companies where there are pension schemes, I think that the assistance savings scheme should be of considerable interest, particularly where a large number of young women are employed, because to assist them to save for marriage and to take up family life on leaving industry is a very good idea and one which is developing, and which could be further developed at the present moment.
My hon. Friend also referred to the increase in wages in recent years in relation to the increase in savings. I think it is true to say that, if we relate the increase in savings to the increase in wages, it is a fairly small percentage. I have no accurate statistics on the point raised by my hon. Friend about how much men give their wives and how much they retain for themselves. That is rather a ticklish point on which there are no statistics. What I think is undoubtedly true, however, is that the total volume of savings has been increasing in a marked manner during the last few years. It probably started with the very big development in insurance premiums. The National Savings Movement is now showing a similar rise, and recent figures show a most encouraging increase in the rate of the accumulation of savings through the National Savings Movement.
I now turn to the point made by my hon. Friend about tying a certain proportion of National Savings to the cost-of-living index. I have no doubt that,

1541
certainly in recent years, though I must not be controversial about this, any security not tied to the cost-of-living index must have decreased in value. But that is an historical fact. I think that there are considerable difficulties in accepting my hon. Friend's suggestion. Quite clearly, we could not tie all Government securities to a cost-of-living index. If we wanted to bring inflation into economy, that would be the best way to do it.
If it is possible to single out one form of Government obligation from all the others, why not as well as National Savings Certificates, Defence Bonds and deposits in trustee savings banks, because people who have put their savings into those forms of savings have suffered equally from the rise in the cost of living as people who have invested their money in savings certificates?
Again, it is always difficult to discern whether we are talking about small savers or small savings, because everyone is entitled to put a certain amount into Savings Certificates or into Defence Bonds, and they have recently been increased. Therefore, it is not always true to say that people who hold National Savings Certificates are small savers, though essentially the Savings Certificate is the medium of saving for small savers.
Of course, we have already gone a good way towards making National Savings Certificates a very attractive form of investment. If we carry out the necessary calculations, we find that the net return on Savings Certificates is a very generous one, and, of course, it is a return free of tax. To that extent, it already has peculiar attractions as a form of investment.
There are difficulties in singling out one particular Government obligation and applying to that obligation a principle which, in practice, it will be quite impossible to apply to all Government obligations. I know that my hon. Friend has quoted the examples of France and Sweden in 1952, but I would not say that we had sufficient experience and information of either of those schemes to regard them necessarily as excellent examples for us to follow.
What would be the effect in practice of tying the cost of living to the nominal
1542
value of the first £500 of Savings Certificates? One could not make it a one-way option. I differ from my hon. Friend, because I can conceive circumstances when prices might fall. If I may say so, he was rather gloomy on this matter. I agree that the trend over a long period is almost certainly in an upward direction, but although the value of money may fall by a small fraction annually, I cannot accept his thesis that never again shall we see a period of falling prices.
If we give people the benefit of saying that if prices have gone up the nominal value of the security can be raised, we must also say that if prices fall and the value of money is increased, then the nominal value of the security should fall. A one-way option would be difficult to justify. On the other hand, a scheme of this kind operating in a downward as well as an upward direction would be of a far less attractive character.
It is difficult for any Government to accept the assumption that prices will always continue to rise and the value of money will always continue to fall. It may be possible for economists or business men or experts of various kinds to say so, but for a Government to say, "We accept and we act on the principle that the value of our money will continue to decline" would surely have a considerable effect on the confidence of the rest of the world in that particular currency. Whether one is dealing with social service benefits, Government securities, or anything else, if we start as a Government, on the assumption that the value of money will continue to decline we undermine the value of that money to a considerable extent. That is why I find it difficult in principle to accept the assumption that money will continue to fall, and therefore that the nominal value of securities should be guaranteed.
Mr. Osborne: I am not asking the Government to assume that money will fall in value, but I am saying that in case it falls in value we should protect the little man who has made small savings. If the value of money does not fall, the guarantee is not necessary.
Mr. Maudling: I though that my hon. Friend's argument was based on the assumption that inflation would continue indefinitely. That is certainly what I thought him to say. If he does not think

1543
that, then, on his thesis, one is asking people to accept securities which may become of more or less value as prices fall or rise.
We will examine very carefully and closely any suggestion which is likely to assist in encouraging national savings, particularly those advanced by my hon. Friend, who has taken a very great interest in this matter for many years. The National Savings Movement is quite essential to maintaining our industrial strength and, even more important, to maintaining the position of the United Kingdom as the main source of industrial capital for the development of the whole resources of the Commonwealth. If we do not have adequate savings in this country we cannot provide capital abroad. They are the same thing. If you and I, Mr. Speaker, save money that is our savings. If other people save money it is their capital. If we are to have industrial
1544
investment in this country and are to develop the resources of the Commonwealth we must have savings. Without the National Savings Movement and its activities we cannot hope to have the volume of savings which the country requires.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter tonight and for his continuing interest in the savings movement. We shall examine the suggestions which he has made though, for the reasons that I have given, I cannot give any optimistic forecast of the result of that examination. The more the National Savings Movement succeeds in its own objective, then inevitably the more we can look forward ourselves to the stable value of our currency in the years ahead.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes past Ten o'Clock.

AGRICULTURE
  Compound Feedingstuffs (Prices)
  Compound Feedingstuffs (Prices)
  Drainage Payments (Rating Assessments)
  Drainage Payments (Rating Assessments)
  Myxomatosis
  Myxomatosis
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Women Constables, West Riding (Recruitment)
  Women Constables, West Riding (Recruitment)
  Adoption of Children (Report)
  Adoption of Children (Report)
EDUCATION
  Sub-normal Children
  Sub-normal Children
  Village Halls
  Village Halls
  Magistrates' Court, Lydney (Pupils Visit)
  Magistrates' Court, Lydney (Pupils Visit)
  Policy Review (Circular 245)
  Policy Review (Circular 245)
  All-age Schools (Reorganisation)
  All-age Schools (Reorganisation)
  School Meals
  School Meals
  School Milk, Patley Bridge
  School Milk, Patley Bridge
  Building Programme
  Building Programme
  Further Education (Local Authority Awards)
  Further Education (Local Authority Awards)
  Administrative Memorandum No. 467
  Administrative Memorandum No. 467
  Watt v. Kesteven County Council (Judgment)
  Watt v. Kesteven County Council (Judgment)
  South Shields Technical College
  South Shields Technical College
  State Scholarships (Rates)
  State Scholarships (Rates)
  Direct Grant Schools (Grants)
  Direct Grant Schools (Grants)
  RHODESIA AND NYASALAND (IMMIGRATION)
  RHODESIA AND NYASALAND (IMMIGRATION)
  IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY
  IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (West Indies)
  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (West Indies)
  Poland, Roumania and Bulgaria
  Poland, Roumania and Bulgaria
  BRADFORD TECHNICAL COLLEGE
  BRADFORD TECHNICAL COLLEGE
  WELSH CIVIL SERVANTS (PROMOTIONS)
  WELSH CIVIL SERVANTS (PROMOTIONS)
  HOSPITALS (WAITING LISTS)
  HOSPITALS (WAITING LISTS)
  KENYA (EMERGENCY REGULATIONS)
  KENYA (EMERGENCY REGULATIONS)
  REGISTRARS OF BIRTHS (REGISTERS)
  REGISTRARS OF BIRTHS (REGISTERS)
  NATIONAL HEALTH (CHIROPODY SERVICES)
  NATIONAL HEALTH (CHIROPODY SERVICES)
  TELEVISION (I.T.A. PROGRAMME CONTRACTORS)
  TELEVISION (I.T.A. PROGRAMME CONTRACTORS)
  INDIA, PAKISTAN AND CEYLON TEA EXPORT DUTIES)
  INDIA, PAKISTAN AND CEYLON TEA EXPORT DUTIES)
  VISITING FORCES (AFFILIATION ORDERS)
  VISITING FORCES (AFFILIATION ORDERS)
  U.N. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMME
  U.N. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMME
  EX-PRISONERS OF WAR, JAPAN (COMPENSATION)
  EX-PRISONERS OF WAR, JAPAN (COMPENSATION)
  SERVICE OFFICERS (PENSIONS)
  SERVICE OFFICERS (PENSIONS)
  VERTICAL TAKE-OFF AIRCRAFT
  VERTICAL TAKE-OFF AIRCRAFT
  ROAD SAFETY (FILM)
  ROAD SAFETY (FILM)
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  RADIO LICENCES
  3.4 p.m.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to make a statement about radio licences. As a result of certain recent developments, doubt has arisen as to the legality of charges made for certain classes of licence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904,including broadcast receiving licences and mobile radio licences. The Government propose to remove any doubt there may be by introducing legislation to validate charges made on all licences under the 1904 Act. For future and current licences, the matter has been clarified in the Wireless Telegraph Act, 1949.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for that statement. Your Lordships will agree that it is essential that the Government should have the power to collect money for licences issued for the use of wireless apparatus, and if there is the slightest doubt whether or not they have this power—and there appears to be doubt, judging from what the noble Earl has said—then it should be removed by fresh legislation at the earliest possible moment. May I ask the noble Earl whether the legislation which he has foreshadowed will cover wireless transmitters as well as wireless receiving sets? I would add this: that subject, of course, to careful study of his statement, we shall certainly support the action which the noble Earl has proposed.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his very helpful remarks. With regard to the question of transmitters, yes—the legislation would cover them.

NATIONAL GALLERY AND TATE GALLERY BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: the said Amendment to be printed.
CIVIL DEFENCE (ARMED FORCES) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No.34 be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of giving precedence this day to the Mines and Quarries Bill over the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill.—(The Marquees of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the four Orders under the Sunday Entertainments Act which stand in my name on the Order Paper are all in the usual form. They are quite uncontroversial and they contain no points to which I think I ought to address your Lordships' attention. Accordingly, I beg to move the first of the four Motions standing in my name.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the County Borough of Blackburn, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Colne, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Market Rasen, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to move that this last Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Sowerby Bridge, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINES AND QUARRIES BILL
3.9 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I have it in Command from Her Majesty The Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Mines and Quarries Bill, has consented to place the interests of the Crown at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill, I should like to say one thing. It is this. I wish to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, and the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, for the assistance which they have given the Government in facilitating the passage of this Bill, and particularly for the assistance they have given to my noble friend, Lord Hawke, and myself, because with a technical and very complicated Bill of this sort we know they could have caught us out at almost every stage. Far from doing that, however, they put their long and great experience in this matter fully at our disposal. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
3.11 p.m.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his kind references to myself and to my colleague, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor. We have never regarded this as a Government Bill or one which would arouse much controversy, because it is really an excellent Bill, as I shall say later in my speech. The Third Reading of this measure in this, your Lordships' House, almost completes what I consider a gigantic task. For this Bill is a very important Bill. It is a large document
1316
of no fewer than 195 clauses and covering 134 pages. Its consideration has occupied a considerable amount of Parliamentary time, after a long period of preparation by the Minister, his Department and the draftsmen, to all of whom must be given great credit.
It is a good Bill, for it endeavours to deal with all the causes of mining accidents. It is based upon the pooling not only of the knowledge of experts, whose ideas have been sound, but also of the experience of many practical men who have spent many years of their working lives in the coal mining industry of this country. Also it is strongly supported by the National Union of Mineworkers. As I said, we do not regard it as a Government Bill but one which a united Parliament is presenting to the nation for the benefit of the mining industry, as a charter for the safety and the welfare of the miners. It is the result of our Parliamentary system at its best, and I am sure that it will be of the greatest value to mining communities when it is in operation.
It can be said that I and my noble friends Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor and Lord Lawson have a vested interest in this legislation, for we cannot forget our close association with pits and pitmen, with whom we have lived almost all our lives and whose outlook we share. I and my noble friends are pleased to know that, with others, we have taken just a small part in assisting the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House and have thereby assisted to make what I hope will be history in the mining industry. We hope that this Bill will be as successful as was the 1911 Act. I commenced to work, as did my noble friend Lord Lawson, twenty years before the 1911 Act came into operation. We saw the conditions then prevailing in the mining industry; and they were deplorable. When the manpower in the pits was no higher than it is today, the average number of fatal accidents each year was from 1,100 to 1,200, and serious accidents numbered between 5,000 and 6,000.
A good deal of improvement has taken place since that time. We are not now having, thank God! a recurrence of the heavy explosions which we had in the old days. Within a year of my commencing work a colliery within four miles of my home was blown up by an explosion, and no fewer than 250 miners

1317
were killed. Some time later, within only three miles, at the Albion Colliery at Senghenydd, there was another explosion. The loss of life at that colliery was larger than that in any colliery explosion in this country—no fewer than 420 men lost their lives at one stroke. I felt very sad at that time, because amongst that number was my old "butty" as we called him, with whom I commenced work as a boy. He used to call at my house every morning at six o'clock; he got me by the hand, took me to the working place, and he delivered me home safely between five and six o'clock at night. I hope that the days of such disasters are past. We cannot prevent accidents in the mines, but the work which has been carried out during the past twenty years, and particularly during the course of the last ten years, has greatly minimised them. In 1938 there were 858 fatal accidents; last year the number was 392—a great reduction; but it is still far too many. Of reportable serious accidents there were 3,150 in 1938 and 1,900 last year. What is rather surprising is that from 1938 to the present time accidents which disable men for more than three days (those are regarded as less serious accidents) have increased in number by over 100,000. I cannot account for that. I have asked questions of some mining men as to the reason for it and they attribute it largely to the introduction of machinery.
The figures which I have given indicate the improvement to which I have referred, and the progress which has been made. But it is significant that, even when all that has been done, one out of every three persons employed in the coal mines of this country meets with an accident which disables him for more than three days. Naturally, this causes great suffering and great loss. I read the first Report of the National Coal Board, which stated that workmen's compensation for injuries in the coal mines ran to something like £10 million a year—and that figure is negligible compared with the suffering which these accidents cause. But they also cause a loss of production, because, taking the average accident as involving six days away from work, that means a loss of something like 1½ million tons of coal during the year. We are hoping that this Bill will reduce, as I think it will, the number of these accidents. It requires the closest co- operation between officials and workmen but, given
1318
that co-operation, I am sure that we shall have the results which we expect. I will say no more about the Bill, except that, so far as I know, nearly every aspect of the cause of danger has been covered in one way or another. It is impossible to prevent all colliery accidents—that will be impossible, as long as we have coal mining. But I should like to tell the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, the Government and the Minister that South Wales is most happy about the effort which will be made, when this Bill comes into operation, to deal with this horrible dust problem. As noble Lords will know, about two-thirds of the people who suffer from silicosis and pneumoconiosis come from South Wales. We are hoping that the provisions in this Bill will prove a deterrent to that disease.
I wish to make two final points. First, we all know that before legislation can be operated regulations have to be made. I hope those regulations will not be too long delayed. It will be a tremendous job for the Department, but neither the purpose of the Bill nor the benefits it confers will be attained until the regulations are in operation. When the regulations are laid on the Table of Parliament I trust sufficient time will be allowed for their consideration. Secondly, a very important point, I should like to know what is happening over the difficulties which have arisen in relation to the inspectorate. During the discussions in another place, and indeed in your Lordships' House, attention was drawn to the inadequacy of the miners' inspectorate. Complaints were made that the type of person presenting himself is not of the right kind. There was a suspicion that the difficulty was not with the Minister nor with the Coal Board but with the Treasury, and the Minister on the Third Reading of the Bill in another place said he was then discussing the matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
May I say how pleased I am that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, is associating himself with this Bill, by speaking on Third Reading? It will be greatly appreciated. Finally let me, as one whose long life has been closely linked with the coal industry and the mining community, pay a great tribute to everyone who has had a part in the preparation and passing of this legislation—the Minister, his Department, the inspec-

1319
torate, the National Coal Board and the Members of both Houses. This is a new charter of safety which, if properly administered, should save thousands of lives which would otherwise be lost, and it will assuredly prevent great suffering from accidents which now occur. It may be the means of making work in the coal mines more attractive than it is at present. But it cannot be too strongly emphasised that the success of this legislation depends entirely upon the day-to-day application of the regulations by those whose duty that will be—the Coal Board, a sufficient and highly efficient inspectorate (who in my experience have always done an excellent job of work), the colliery managers and their officials and all the workmen, whatever job they are called upon to do in the pits. If the close co-operation which has existed between all who have contributed to bring this Bill to this stage can be passed on to those who will have the responsibility for its administration in the pits, then assuredly deaths from accidents will be greatly reduced and a new era of safety will be established in the coal mines of this country. I commend this Bill to all my comrades and colleagues who are employed in the mining industry of this country.
3.27 p.m.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, I have been extremely sorry that I could not play any part during the proceedings of this Bill so far, as I was otherwise engaged; but I should like to join with my noble friend, Lord Hall, in welcoming the passing of the Bill and paying a tribute to the Minister who is responsible for it and whom I knew in another place when he came there as quite a young man. Even then he gave a good deal of his attention to this problem. I would also thank the noble Earl who has piloted the Bill through this House. My noble friend, Lord Hall, has said almost all that can be said. The passing of the Third Reading of a Bill of this kind is an historic occasion. We remember, as Lord Hall said, that we had both been working for twenty years in the mines at the time when the 1911 Bill was passed. That gave power mainly to make regulations. I remember after my day's work, reading what were then called the Reports of the Grand Committee of the House on that
1320
measure, which was piloted through by the present Prime Minister.
But I remember much more clearly the conditions which existed when that Bill went through in 1911. My noble friend, Lord Hall has mentioned one of them. There was a mine explosion at Senghenydd in 1913. That was the peak of several years of mine explosions in this country. The miner as a rule is not very much disturbed over accidents; he steels himself to such things. He will, of course, feel sorry for his own comrades in the mine, but he will not get unduly rattled. I noticed, however, that during this period, when from 1905 to 1913 there were five of the greatest explosions ever to have taken place in this country (these were at Maypole, Hulton, Whitehaven, West Stanley and then Senghenydd), there was a profound effect not only upon the miners but upon the people of this country generally. I have sometimes said that the happenings over those five years, the tremendous impression they made and the waves of emotion which followed throughout the country, did more to influence the country towards the formation of a new Party than all the talking which some of us were then doing.
I have read the history of mining developments in the reports that have been issued from time to time, covering almost the last hundred years, and one of the things which surprises me is that in the last hundred years there have been just one hundred explosions in which more than ten lives were lost in the mines. All through those reports this fact is revealed: the difficulty there was of apprehending that ventilation was the real root of the cure of most of those great disasters. I was rather shocked to find that in the first thirty or forty years of the nineteenth century it was just a toss up whether we were going to be able to work the deep seams or not, until Sir Humphrey Davy was brought in with his lamp. They had tried all kinds of means to deal with the deeper seams. In fact, Buddle, the great mining engineer of the north, who first brought Sir Humphey Davy down to see what was happening there, goes so far as to say that they had tried decayed fish—phosphorus—at one time in the mines. It is a really dramatic story.
I make these remarks because the one thing I like about this Bill is the emphasis placed upon ventilation as well

1321
as upon coal dust. I see from Clauses 23 to 28 that there has to be a road through the workings from one shaft to another, and that it has to be not less than five feet high and at least four feet wide. That is a very great improvement, because I am sure my colleagues here would agree with the general dictum in some of the mines I have worked in—the deep mines—that "a rat could not get through the return." The returns were treated as rather negligible. It was not because the people concerned in the mines were thoughtless or heartless; they just had not the capital to improve things and they had not the same facilities for working ventilation as we have under the system of unified mining. I must say to your Lordships that this Bill, as it is today, with its assurance of ridding us of great disasters—not an absolute assurance, for nobody who knows mines would speak of an absolute assurance, but at any rate the hope of greater absence from disasters—would have been quite impossible if there had not been the unifying of the mines through national ownership. I notice now, for instance, all round my own county, that old mines that were almost forgotten and around which walls had been built are being used as an asset and an aid to ventilation, for the simple reason that there are now no barriers between ownership and no difficulty in making roads through those older mine shafts.
Incidentally, I may say that where the requirements regarding ventilation cannot exactly be met owing to some difficulty, it is usual for the Minister and the inspector to have power to make concessions and to say that the conditions shall be waived for the time being. That is necessary; anyone who knows pit work knows that that is so. I hope, however, that both Ministers and inspectors will be very careful and give a good deal of thought before they give consent to the waiving of those conditions. I am pleased to see the clauses that deal with dust, because dust is a terrible thing. Your Lordships may be surprised to know that it was only at about the time when the Senghenydd and Stanley mines and the rest of them were dealt with that it really dawned upon those concerned that coal dust could make an explosion without a light. It is an astonishing thing that throughout all the reports one reads, one finds that right through the nineteenth century the one thing the investigators were looking for
1322
was where the light started. It was only at the turn of the twentieth century that they realised that there could be what is known as a spontaneous coal dust explosion. Those who have been in the vicinity of a great fall in a mine will know of that danger. You get the enclosed space; a great area of roof falls; it reverses the air; it has the effect as though it lifted one up and suspended one in the air. Inside that small circle, in the enclosed space, all the coal dust is vibrating and is gradually scrubbing together the particles so that they make the light. It took people a long time to find that out, and that is where we in Great Britain have had to pay a big price for much of the experience in mining throughout the world. That we have done.
This is an historic day for mining in this country. I hope that the wishes that my colleague and the Minister have already expressed will be realised. There is nothing, I think, which would help more to increase the number of men and boys who want to go into the mines than the assurance that there is an absence of accidents and of disasters. It may be that this Bill, with its ventilation clauses and its dust clauses, will make a contribution to the working of deep seams, because as time goes on our destiny is going to depend on seams that, in the main, are deeper than most of the seams which are being worked now. I am sure that the only factor that tells is great knowledge and the assurance upon ventilation, which will enable us to work the, deep seams, which may be, in the coalfields which are as yet almost unexplored, 4,000 and 5,000 feet deep—much deeper than the present ones. So I give my thanks for this Bill, and hope that our good wishes are realised in the future as the result of its passing.
3.39 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, if I rise to say a few brief but very wholehearted words at this stage, I can assure your Lordships that I do so from no desire to usurp the functions of the noble Lords, Lord Selkirk and Lord Hall, on whom the main burden of conducting this Bill has fallen. But it seems fitting that on this particular Bill the Leader of the House should say a word of warm congratulation to all those concerned in the Bill on the completion of their labour. After all, it is a very important measure—as Lord Lawson said,

1323
an historic measure; and it deals with a very important section of the community.
I suppose there is no body of men in the long industrial history of this country to whom the country has owed more than those who work in the mines and in the quarries. Their work, as we know, is always strenuous, and often extremely dangerous, in more ways than one, as we have been told this afternoon in the impressive speeches from the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, and the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, to which we have just listened. And yet year after year they have continued to produce the fuel and the other materials for the industries and the private citizens of our land on which we all so greatly depend. That being so I feel that it behoves us, who represent the community in this House of Parliament, to ensure that the conditions under which miners work are as safe and as healthy as they can be made. That, of course, is the purpose of this Bill. It brings up to date, and, we all hope, improves, past enactments on this subject.
Inevitably, covering the wide ground that it does, it is an extremely bulky document; and it incorporates, as your Lordships know, the results of an immense amount of work. It has 195 clauses and five Schedules; and it is for that reason, in particular, that I feel it is the more remarkable and the more satisfactory that the Bill has had so rapid and so smooth a passage. I do not say that there has been absolute agreement on every single point but I believe that it would be absolutely true to say—as the noble Viscount, Lord Hall has already said—that there has been no Party disagreement. He, I think, said that he had not regarded this as a Government Bill. Indeed, the vast majority of the Amendments with which we have been concerned here have been non-controversial and of a purely technical character, designed only to improve the efficiency of the Bill in the light of the discussions which have taken place here and in another place. That that is true is, I think, clear from the fact that although we have had 406 Amendments there were no Divisions on the Committee stage and only one Division on the Report stage.
Moreover, this Bill has passed through the House at a speed which I imagine must have been almost a record, even for such an efficient body as your Lordships'
1324
House. That is a tribute, not only to the Parliamentary ability and the conciliatory attitude of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, who have been responsible for it, but also, if I may say so, to the helpfulness and co-operation of the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, and the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, who led the Labour Party—I will not on this occasion say "the Opposition." Those noble Lords, whom the House so greatly respects, have given your Lordships, upon this Bill, the benefit of a lifetime's experience, which we could not have had had they not been willing to assist us; and we are all most grateful to them. No doubt, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, said just now, owing to the immense complexity of the Bill, some little time is likely to elapse before the provisions are fully digested and applied by those concerned with the working of mines and quarries. But I can say to the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, who asked a question on this subject, that it is the full intention of the Government that, so far as it is praticable, these provisions should be brought into full operation as soon as possible. We greatly hope that that will be achieved within twelve months. I do not know whether I am being too optimistic, but I understand that that is the intention.
The noble Viscount also asked a question regarding the shortage of inspectors, which is, of course, a very important matter. I cannot say very much to him to-day, but I will say this. I understand that the position is that with a present staff of 151, some 30 posts remain vacant, and we are hoping very much that the renewed efforts of recruitment which are being made, aided by a substantial improvement in initial salary scales, will be successful in reducing the shortage. At any rate, in all these ways, I entirely agree with noble Lords opposite that the greatest speed that is possible must be used. We in Parliament, at any rate, have done our part; and I think we can this afternoon register our sincere satisfaction that so beneficial a measure as this has passed through your Lordships' House with the agreement of all Parties and is well on the way to the Statute Book.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.45 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I hope that I may be permitted to say a very few words on this Motion in the hope that it may save a lot of time in the long run. Your Lordships will observe that in the long Marshalled List there are no Amendments from this side of the House. I should not like it to be assumed, however, that this Bill is being received with the same unanimity as its predecessor, which we have just discussed. The reason why no Amendments to this Bill have been put down from this side of the House—and indeed, there are very few from the other side—is simply that we feel that this Bill follows so closely the English Bill upon which we had considerable discussion that the only Amendments we could put down would be those which we had already put down on the English Bill. Those Amendments, I should like to say in perfect frankness, have been fully discussed, if not with the results for which we had hoped, at any rate with certain results, and we felt that there was very little we could add to the discussion we had last week. We might have put down the same Amendments again, but presumably they would have had the same results. I did not feel that we had any fresh arguments to put forward; nor, I imagine, would the noble and learned Viscount have had any either. Therefore, it being understood that our views about the Scottish Bill are the same as those that we hold about the English Bill, we have not put down any Amendments.
I should like to be assured—and I have no doubt that we shall be—that the Amendments which appear on the Marshalled List from the Government are drafted with a view to bringing the Scottish Bill into conformity with the English one, and that if there are any special Amendments which are not applicable to the English Bill the attention of the Committee will be drawn to them. Otherwise, speaking for my
1326
noble friends and myself, we shall have very little to say at this stage of the Bill, except, perhaps, occasionally to ask for an explanation of a particular Amendment. I thought it might save the time of the House if I gave this explanation at the outset.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, I wonder whether I may be permitted to add a few words to what my noble friend Lord Silkin has just said? We are all very sorry that on the occasion of the Second Reading of this Bill, the noble Earl, Lord Home, was unable to be present owing to illness. We are glad to see that he is now back with us—I hope fully recovered. I think it was a fortunate accident that, in the absence of the noble Earl, and in the absence of noble Lords from Scotland, the Second Reading of this Bill was moved by the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, who gave a most interesting and full account of the Bill as it applied to Scotland, no doubt drawing upon his own personal experience of the country and its laws. I should like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Silkin for stepping into the breach, because, with his undoubted knowledge of the details of this complicated measure, I feel that Scotland, if not wholly pleased with the Bill, has lost nothing by his attention to it and by the able manner in which he commented upon it on behalf of noble Lords from Scotland.
3.51 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, for what he has said. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend Lord Selkirk have kindly agreed, as they took the Second Reading of the Bill, to take charge of the Bill through its Committee stage. I hope that that course will meet with the approval of your Lordships, as it certainly meets with mine. They happen to be feeling much more able than I at present to deal with town and country planning.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, in following what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, I have tried, by studying what took place on a similar Bill for England, to limit our Amendments to what are necessary and to avoid repeating what has

1327
already been discussed very thoroughly. Probably we could have put down more Amendments and the discussion could have been much longer, but I apologise if, in moving our Amendments, we say too much or not enough, or do not appear fully to understand the subject, because I think it is agreed that this Bill and what has gone before, are very difficult to follow. I should like to say only another word at this stage. In apologising for being unable to be present on the Second Reading, I would express my regret that this Government and Parliament should be unable to avoid a type of legislation which seriously concerns very many persons, a large number of whom will probably never be able to appreciate or understand in advance what concerns them. I understand that that is inevitable, but it is regrettable.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, it is greatly to be hoped that the Amendments that have been put down have not been put down just for the purpose of making this Bill conform with the English Bill. Whatever may be the views of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on this matter, I think that everyone in Scotland has the opinion very firmly that our land laws are so different from the English laws that only a separate Bill can do them justice: no mere English Bill with Application Clauses could be in any way satisfactory. Therefore I hope that the Amendments which appear on the Order Paper have been put down for the purpose of endeavouring to make a decidedly complicated Bill a little more intelligible.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, the only reason I rise is to express to your Lordships my regret at the fact that, having been asked to attend a Committee of your Lordships' House of which I am not a member outside this House, I was unable to attend the second part of the Second Reading debate and listen to the noble and learned Viscount's reply to what I said then. As I have no Amendment on the point, I should like to draw the exact point to the noble and learned Viscount's attention. In a regality burgh, if a large part of the superiority is acquired by another party, that may displace the superior from his technical position as superior of the burgh. In virtue of that technical position, he is probably a trustee of ancient
1328
trusts for public lands and other public properties. In the attack on these things in the eighteenth century, the superior was a defence of the public interest, and there have been attacks on such property since the eighteenth century. When the acquisition of a blench title is all that the local authority can properly require, it would be a pity to insist on the conveyance of superiority. It is a case which affects only a few people and I put it to the Government for their consideration, as I do not propose to move an Amendment on the subject.
3.57 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not intend to delay your Lordships for any length of time in replying to the most interesting debate we have had, but I feel that I ought to say a word in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, because he raised two points with regard to procedure. Broadly, as I informed your Lordships on Second Reading, it is our intention to incorporate into the Scottish Bill those concessions which are being given in the English Bill. I think that is the first point on which the noble Lord desired confirmation. On the second point, my noble friend Lord Selkirk and I will try to bring the attention of the House to any special points, as the noble Lord desired.
I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, said about me. With regard to the somewhat pessimistic statement of my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch, I can give him this assurance: that the whole tenor of the Amendments which we are putting in the Bill is to try to clarify the matter; and any further steps we can take in that direction, to make it sufficiently clear, if not for him who runs to read, at least for him who sits up at night with a lamp and looks at the Bill constantly, to understand, we will certainly take. I have noted the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and would remind him, if he will allow me to say so, that I anticipated it in my reply to the debate on Second Reading, so I will not pursue it to-day. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Saltoun, for elaborating his point. The difficulty that I felt on the matter was that it was rather a point which had been given away, if I may put it that way, in the Land Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845. However, I have

1329
noted it, and I assure the noble Lord that I appreciate the point he has made to-day. I think that that covers the points which have been raised in the debate and I hope your Lordships are now prepared to go into Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1 [Payments by reference to established claims]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is only drafting. It is designed to rectify a mistake and make certain that established claims are determined in terms of the revised First Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 23, leave out from ("been") to ("that") in line 24 and insert ("if those provisions had at that time had effect in relation thereto,").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Claim holdings, their areas and values, and apportionment of values between parts of areas]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment. The words in the Bill as it stands are inadequate to describe the scope of the Second and Third Schedules. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 45, leave out from ("for") to end of line 47 and insert ("treating the claim holding as divided into two or more claim holdings and extinguishing any of those holdings or reducing the value thereof.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment. Its object is to put beyond doubt that for the purpose of Part I of the Bill the value of a claim holding is its value after the operation of the Second and Third Schedules. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 14, at end insert—
("(5) References in this Part of this Act, other than in this section, to the value of a claim holding are references to the value of that holding immediately before the commencement of this Act.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Payment where development charge incurred by claim-holder or his predecessor in title (Case A)]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is designed to remove a slight anomaly in regard to the merging of interests that appears in one or two places which we shall come to later. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 38, at end insert ("or whose interest has subsequently become merged in that interest").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Payment where land compulsorily acquired or sold at price wholly or partly excluding development value (Case B)]:
(3) No payment shall be made by virtue of this section unless the transaction in question—
(b) if it was a sale otherwise than to a public authority possessing compulsory purchase powers, was effected in pursuance of a contract made on or after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, and before the eighteenth day of November, nineteen, hundred and fifty-two, or in pursuance of an option granted on or after the said first day of July and before the said eighteenth day of November,
and unless the conveyance relative to the acquisition or sale has been granted (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) before the time when an application is made to the Central Land Board for the payment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is really drafting in anticipation. The words proposed to be deleted are unnecessary, in view of the new subsection (1) proposed to be inserted in Clause 6 by the Amendment to page 11, line 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 33, leave out ("or an interest created directly out of that interest").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (3) (b), to leave out "first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-eight," and insert "sixth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is one to remedy what I feel is a substantial injustice. I have a letter from some agents

1331
in Glasgow who say that a client of theirs sold his land at its existing use value, and the contract was signed in May, 1948. The purchaser brought the land at the existing use value, and subsequently paid a development value which was exactly the same as the agreed development value on the land sold by their client. Under the Bill as it stands, they say that their client will be unable to get compensation unless the date in paragraph (b) is changed in the sense of my Amendment. They also say that this Amendment was admitted in the English Bill, and they therefore hope it will be admitted in this Bill. I feel that I have shown that if my Amendment is not passed a substantial injustice will be done, and I hope that the Government will admit the remedy. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 25, leave out ("first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-eight,") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Saltoun.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The position in regard to the point raised by my noble friend is that originally both Bills prescribed the same date—namely, July 1, 1948; and on recommittal in another place Clause 5 (3) (b), of the English Bill was amended to make the starting date the date when the English Bill received the Royal Assent—that is to say, August 6, 1947. This was done to meet cases where the contract of sale adjusted the sale price downwards, because the sale would not be completed before the appointed day, and accordingly, the purchaser would have to meet development charge on any development when the Act came into full operation, while the seller would be the one entitled to claim against the £300 million. I have listened to my noble friend, and I should like to inform him that there was nothing sinister in maintaining the date in the Scottish Bill; in fact, until he spoke there was no evidence before us, and we had no reason to think, that any such contracts were made in Scotland between the passing of the Scottish 1947 Act—namely, August 13, 1947—and its coming into full operation on July 1, 1948. That was why the English Amendment was not followed. However, in view of what my noble friend has said I should like to look at this point again, most sympathetically. Perhaps we could have an informal word about the cases, and then
1332
I will certainly sympathetically consider putting down an Amendment on the Report stage. An additional reason for leaving it for the moment is that slight difference in the date of the Royal Assent of the two Bills, which would mean some alteration to the Amendment of my noble friend. I hope that that will content him, because we are anxious only to do justice and to help people who are in this position.
LORD SILKIN: So far as I am concerned. I am in great sympathy with the principle of the Amendment. I think it was fair in the English Bill, and I think it would be fair in the Scottish Bill, too. If there are no cases, nobody is hurt and no harm can come of altering the date. On the question of the coming into operation of the Bill, I agree that the Scottish Bill came into operation a few days later. But people who were carrying out transactions, who followed the process of this Bill and acted upon it, must have known that once the English Bill had received the Royal Assent it was only a matter of days before the Scottish Bill would do so. Therefore, if anyone did act in good faith in between the coming into operation of the one Bill and the other, I do not think they should be penalised. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will see his way to "go the whole hog" and have the same date incorporated in both Bills.
LORD SALTOUN: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his reply, and, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This deals with the merging of interests that may have taken place between July 1, 1948, and the date when claims could have been made on the £300 million. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 26, at end insert—
("(7) Where an interest in land is the subject of a compulsory acquisition or sale such as is mentioned in subsection (3) of this section and—

(a) on or after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, but before the date of the compulsory acquisition or sale, another interest had become merged with that interest; and

(b) the person entitled to the interest compulsorily acquired or sold was at the date of the compulsory acquisition or sale entitled

1333
to a claim holding or claim holdings which related to either or each of the merged interests,

this section shall apply as if those interests had not merged but had been separately acquired from or sold by the person entitled to the interest acquired or sold; and the compensation payable in respect of the compulsory acquisition or, as the case may be, the sale price shall be treated as apportioned between those interests accordingly:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall prejudice the operation of the proviso to subsection (4) of the next following section.").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Supplementary provisions relating to compulsory acquisitions and to sales]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert at the beginning of the clause—
"(1) In this Act any reference to the sale of purchase of an interest in land includes a reference to the sale or purchase of such an interest by way of feu; and in relation to any such sale or purchase—

(a) the price shall be taken for the purposes of this Act to be the capital value of the feuduty, or, as the case may be, the aggregate consideration represented by the grassum and the capital value of the feuduty; and

(b) the last preceding section and section eleven of this Act shall have effect as if the interest sold were identical with the seller's whole interest in the land immediately before the sale."

The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment serves two purposes. First, it gives effect to a promise given on the Report stage in another place to consider whether the provisions of what is now Clause 69 (8) (which provides that references to the sale of an interest are to include references to conveyance of an interest by way of feu charter) could not be brought into the body of the Bill instead of being left at the tail end, where they might be missed. Secondly, it provides that for the purposes of Clauses 5 and 11 the sale or purchase of an interest in land by way of feu is to be treated as a sale or purchase of the seller's whole interest in the land, thus enabling a sale by way of feu to qualify the seller for a Case B payment, or a residual payment in a case analogous to Case B, in like manner as a sale of the seller's whole interest in the land to which the claim holding related.
I am sure that many of your Lordships are familiar with the effect of what I have just said, but may I explain it for a
1334
moment longer. A sale of an interest in land by way of feu is, in the technical terms of Scots law, a sale of the dominium utile in the land by the owner of the dominium plenum. In other words, the sale of a feu is a sale of the right to possess and develop the land subject to the terms of the feu charter, the seller receiving an annual payment and retaining the rights to secure the observance of the terms of the feu charter, including a right to "irritate" the feu and regain possession of the land in certain circumstances if the terms of the feu charter are not observed or the annual payment of feu duty is not made. As a result of this Amendment, the words proposed to be left out of the Bill in the Amendment at page 8, line 33, and the Amendment at page 8, line 77, are no longer necessary. I hope my noble friend Lord Mansfield has observed that this is, at any rate, one instance where we have borne in mind his words with regard to Scots law. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 1, at the beginning insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is not much more than drafting. It deals with dead ripe land, and means that it does not apply after sale. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 16, after ("forty-eight") insert ("and at the date of the sale the development specified in the certificate had not been completed").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 23, leave out from ("of") to ("if") in line 25 and insert ("so much of that development as had not been completed if it had been completed and").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment concerns a very complicated matter dealing with the minus restricted value. I am told that it is correct and I hope the Committee will accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 10, at end insert—
("Provided that where the whole or part of any liability or prospective liability which was

1335
or, as the case may be, would have been taken into account in calculating that restricted value had ceased to exist before the date of the compulsory acquisition or sale, the Board, or, as the case may be, the Lands Tribunal may, if they think it just and proper so to do, waive in whole or in part, as may appear to them appropriate, any reduction otherwise falling to be made under this subsection.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Payment where land disposed of by gift (Case C)]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is another consequential Amendment. We have had this before. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 21, after ("related") insert ("or another interest in which that interest had merged").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a similar Amendment dealing with minus value: it is very complicated. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 3, at end insert—
("Provided that where the whole or part of any liability or prospective liability which was or, as the case may be, would have been taken into account in calculating that restricted value had ceased to exist before the date on which the gift in question was made, the Board or, as the case may be, the Lands Tribunal may, if they think it just and proper so to do, waive in whole or in part, as may appear to them appropriate, any reduction otherwise falling to be made under this subsection.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Payments in cases analogous to Case B]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This and the following Amendments are a series of Amendments dealing with merged interests. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 14, leave out from ("related") to ("was") in line 15 and insert ("or another interest in which that interest had merged").— (The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 21, after ("if") insert ("the interest so affected, in this section referred to as").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The next three Amendments are really drafting and are designed to put the clause in a more logical order. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 15, line 39, after ("affected") insert (",being damage in respect of which compensation fell, or if the sale had been a compulsory acquisition would have fallen, to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of Part IV of the principal Act (which provides for compensation on the basis of existing use value) as applied by subsection (4) of section one hundred and thirteen of that Act;")
Page 15,line 43, at end insert (",being damage in respect of which compensation fell to be assessed in accordance with section two of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, as modified by section ten of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1948 (which limits the compensation to an amount calculated on the basis of existing use value).")
Page 16, line 13, leave out from beginning to end of line 35 and insert—
("(c) in the case of a compulsory acquisition falling within paragraph (c) of the last preceding subsection or in a case falling within paragraph (d) of that subsection, to the compensation paid or payable in respect of the damage referred to in that paragraph;
(d) in the case of a sale falling within paragraph (c) of the last preceding subsection, to the sale price in so far as it represented compensation in respect of the damage referred to in that paragraph,").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 38, leave out ("relevant interest") and insert ("interest in land to which the claim holding related").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is to cure a bad reference. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 10, leave out ("subsections (4) to (6)") and insert ("subsection (4)").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Residual payments in cases analogous to Cases A and B]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is consequential. We have had it before dealing with the merging of interests. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 21, at end, insert ("or another interest in which that interest had merged").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Payments not to exceed value of claim holdings]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is largely of a drafting character, and deals with the case where two or more payments are due in respect of one holding. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of clause and insert ("the authority determining the amount of any such payment shall apportion that amount between the different parts of the area of the claim holding in such manner as appears to that authority proper, and if the aggregate of the portions of the principal amounts of the respective payments so apportioned to any part of the area of the claim holding would, apart from the provisions of this subsection, exceed the fraction of the value of the claim holding attaching to that part of the area thereof, those portions shall be reduced rateably so that the aggregate of them is equal to the said fraction, and the said principal amounts shall be treated as reduced accordingly.
(2) Where two or more payments are (subject as aforesaid) payable in respect of the same claim holding by virtue of the last preceding section, the aggregate of the principal amounts of those payments shall not exceed the value of the claim holding or, where that value is treated as reduced in accordance with subsection (6) of the last preceding section, that value as so reduced.").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 [Application for payments under Part I]:
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved in subsection (1), to substitute "six" [months] for "three." The noble Duke said: The purpose of this Amendment is to extend the period for lodging an application for payment in respect of depreciation in land value as a result of a transaction in land between July 1, 1948, and the coming into operation of the 1953 Act. It is considered that the three months period is insufficient or may be insufficient. I cannot say whether six months is the most suitable period, or possibly twelve months, as was suggested in the similar Bill for England by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, or, I believe, an
1338
even longer period suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 27, leave out ("three") and insert ("six").—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)
LORD SILKIN: I should like to support this Amendment. The noble Duke who moved it was quite right in saying that there was an Amendment to the English Bill to increase the period to twelve months. He was not quite right, however, in saying that I took the view that it should be even longer. I said that whatever period is put in, people are bound to be late or overlook it; but I thought twelve months was better than three. Subsequently, the noble and learned Viscount drew our attention, and I think his own, to the proviso to this subsection, which gives the Board the power to extend the time in any particular case. I have considered that point, but it does not seem to me to be adequate for the purpose. It gives the Board a discretion, and while I have no doubt that the Board will exercise that discretion reasonably in general, it could give rise to a great deal of dissatisfaction if somebody put in a claim late and could give no reason except that he forgot, and the Central Land Board took the view that that was not a case where they ought to exercise discretion. Three months is not really a long time, and it seems to me that no harm will come by accepting the period the noble Duke has put down as a compromise. As a matter of fact, I have myself put down an Amendment to the English Bill with a view to discussing the matter once more, suggesting again a period of twelve months. But I would be prepared to accept six months, and if the noble and learned Viscount is prepared to "do a deal," if he accepts six months in this Bill, I would withdraw my Amendment on the English Bill asking for twelve months.
LORD SALTOUN: To anyone who has had to work the old Bill on the ground the period of six months will not seem extravagant. Therefore, I have much pleasure in supporting this Amendment.
4.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: As your Lordships are aware, landed property very often is not in one single ownership but may be in a multiple ownership or in the hands of trustees. It is often, there-

1339
fore, a matter of great difficulty to get a decision made sufficiently soon to act within the three months which the Bill at present specifies. Furthermore, I have known cases where considerable involuntary injustice has been brought about because one or more of the interests were abroad and their consent to an application could not be timeously obtained. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment will be accepted, because, although the Board is given authority in certain cases to accept applications after the prescribed period, I feel it would be much fairer to all concerned that six months should be the period rather than three months.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: If the time is too short, it could possibly result in a flood of applications being put in merely to keep the situation open. For that reason alone, if the time could possibly be extended it would save an enormous amount of confusion and clerical work.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope that all of your Lordships understand that I am not stonewalling on this Amendment merely to prevent the making of another Amendment, but as my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch was not in the House when I dealt with the argument in Committee on the English Bill—
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I listened to it carefully. I apologise for not referring to it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful that my noble friend should have read the argument. But, even so, if he will allow me, I should like to put it again, because it is a matter to which I attach great importance. I hope that your Lordships may find it worth while giving another thought to the point. The reason that I advanced for this short period was that, until the Board have made some progress with their payments, it is not possible for the Secretary of State for Scotland to get on with making compensation payments for planning restrictions. Your Lordships will appreciate that, on the structure of the Bill, the effect of Part I payments on the value of claim holdings has to be brought into account before payments can be made under Part V. I am sure that all your Lordships share my concern with regard to those who are waiting for such payments.
1340
Many of these Part V payments are due to people who have been waiting for several years for their money, and it is plainly incumbent on the Government to ensure that they are made as soon as possible. That is one aspect of the matter which certainly concerns and moves me. May I consider, for a moment, the point which has obviously concerned and moved your Lordships—that is, the possibility that someone will let the time run by or for some other reason not put in the necessary form in sufficient time. I ask your Lordships to look at subsection (1) of Clause 13 with that in mind. It first of all says that:
"A payment under this Part of this Act shall not be payable unless an application for the payment is made to the Central Land Board in such manner, within such period (not being less than three months …"
The application for the payment, as I understand it, will be made by answering some half a dozen factual questions, and that will be the only thing that is necessary within the period. I am told that it will not be a difficult matter, but then I am sure your Lordships have had in mind the next part of the subsection which says:
"… accompanied by such particulars and verified by such evidence, as may be prescribed by regulations under this section …"
I was considering, when the point comes up for the English Bill, but it applies equally to both Bills, that I should give an undertaking in this regard, which would I am sure be honoured: that that further information, the particulars and evidence, would not come within the limit of three months which has worried your Lordships. Although it would accompany the application, it would not be subject to the same limit. That, I hoped, might remove some of the forebodings that your Lordships had in mind.
The next point the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has anticipated. When I was last discussing this matter I was not able to put my finger on the proviso. I therefore said that I should like to look at the question until I could find the proviso. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, I have found it, and he has found it too, and that, as he says—and I entirely agree—gives an ad hoc right in any particular case to extend the time. Your Lordships may well say that I have made rather heavy weather of a short extension. Our experience of human nature is that mankind as a whole never acts

1341
until the last moment when it is compelled to. As your Lordships will see from the way in which I have tried to put it, the application would come in towards the end of the six months and then in certain cases there would probably be applications for further time; then there could be a delay (which I entirely agree and support) with regard to putting in the further particulars and the evidence, and we should probably, in most cases, under my noble friend's Amendment, be getting on to nine months or a year, with a consequent delay in the payments.
I am quite prepared to consider the matter again before Monday. I have heard what your Lordships have said, but I hope that you will consider my point of view also. I am most anxious about delaying these people who have been kept out of their money for years, and I should be sorry if even another few months' delay were added to their difficulties. Therefore I would suggest to my noble friend that he does not press the Amendment at this stage, on my undertaking to give further consideration to the point that has been raised. If it is some comfort to the noble Duke, may I say that there is not only his own persuasion but there is also the attractive offer put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that, if I accede to his Amendment, I shall escape trouble at a later stage of the English Bill. On these terms, I ask your Lordships to give me the indulgence of another chance to look at the matter.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I should like to consider further the information and advice given by the noble and learned Viscount. I ask leave to-day to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is to enable a quicker procedure to be adopted, to avoid double discussion on the same point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 1, leave out from ("Board") to end of line 14 and insert ("on determining any such application, to give notice of their determination to the applicant, and, if their determination includes an apportionment, to give particulars af the apportionment to any other person entitled to an interest in land which it appears to the Board will be substantially affected by the apportionment.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Cause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Effect of payments on claim holdings]:
4.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 44, leave out from ("holding") to ("the") in line 45.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment, too, is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 1, leave out from ("payment") to ("is") in line 2.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This, I think, is also drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 6, at end insert—
("Provided that if in the case of any claim holding a payment becomes payable under Case D, then, regardless of the amount of that payment, that holding shall for the purposes of the following Parts of this Act be deemed to have been extinguished immediately before the commencement of this Act.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is not much more than drafting. It is designed to ensure that where a payment is made in respect of a claim holding on account of an act or event affecting only part of the holding, it shall be debited against the fraction of the holding appropriate to that part. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 12, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
("(3)Where one or more acts or events have occurred whereby in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act one or more payments become payable in respect of a claim holding (in this section referred to as 'the parent holding') and any such act or event did not extend to the whole of the area of the parent holding, then, both for the purposes of the preceding provisions of this section and for the purposes of the following Parts of this Act—

(a) the parent holding shall be treated as having been divided immediately before the commencement of this Act into as many separate claim holdings, with such areas, as may be necessary to ensure that, in the case of each holding, either any such act or event as aforesaid extending to the area of that

1343
holding extended to the whole thereof, or no such act or event extended to the area of that holding;

(b) the value of each of the separate holdings respectively shall be taken to be that fraction of the value of the parent holding which then attached to the part of the area of the parent holding constituting the area of the separate holding;

(c) the authority determining the amount of any such payment shall apportion that amount between the areas of the separate claim holdings to which the act or event in question extended in such manner as may appear to that authority proper, and the portion of that amount apportioned to the area of any separate claim holding shall be taken to be a payment payable under this Part of this Act in respect of that claim holding.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Scope of Part II]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is designed to give slightly greater flexibility, without loss of compensation to the parties concerned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 18, at end insert—
("(3) Where, on an application for planning permission for the carrying out of new development of land to which this section applies, a planning decision is made after the commencement of this Act whereby that permission is granted (whether unconditionally or not) and the Secretary of State certifies that he is satisfied that particular buildings or works to which the application related were only included therein because the applicant had reason to believe that permission for the other development to which the application related would not have been granted except subject to a condition requiring the erection or construction of those buildings or works, then, for the purposes of this Part of this Act—

(a) the application shall be deemed to have included, in place of those buildings or works, such other development of the land on which the buildings or works were to be erected or constructed as might reasonably have been expected to have been included having regard to the other development to which the application related; and

(b) the permission shall be deemed to have been granted for the other development to which the application related subject to the condition aforesaid.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 30, after ("1932") insert ("or by virtue of any regulations made under paragraph 13 of the said Schedule (which relates
1344
to certain applications under the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935)").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Right to compensation in respect of planning decisions]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As this Amendment looks forward to another provision, may I just say two words about it to the Committee? The object of the proviso to subsection (6) of Clause 19 is to see that there is no inconsistency between the subsection and any regulations made under the provision, which come later in the Bill, for the diversion of payments (and amongst those are payments of compensation under Part II) in certain circumstances from the debtor in a heritable security to the creditor. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 4, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 6 and insert ("be without prejudice to the operation of any regulations made under section (Provision for diversion of payments) of this Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a transpositional Amendment. It is thought that this is a more logical order. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Transpose Clause 20 to after Clause 27.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21:
Compensation excluded in certain cases
(2) Compensation under this Part of this Act shall not be payable in respect of the imposition, on the granting of planning permission, of any condition relating to—
(a) the number or disposition of buildings on any land;
or in respect of any condition subject to which planning permission is granted for the winning and working of minerals.
(6) For the purposes of this section a planning decision, whereby planning permission in respect of any land is granted subject to a condition prohibiting development of a specified part of that land, shall be treated as a decision refusing the permission as respects that part of the land.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 18, leave out from ("which") to second ("or") in line 19 and insert ("consists of or includes the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land,").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.36 p.m.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "condition" where that word last occurs, and to insert:
"reasonable conditions imposed for the purposes of amenity safety or restoration of the land".
The noble Duke said: The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that a person engaged in working minerals shall not be required, without payment of compensation, to fulfil conditions which go beyond those normally required for reasons of good estate management. This Amendment has been redrafted in an endeavour to meet the Government's criticisms of a corresponding Amendment moved in Committee on the English Bill. I think it is a possibility that unreasonable conditions may, and sometimes will, be imposed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 38, leave out ("condition") and insert the said words.—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: Perhaps I may elaborate that point slightly. If I read the Bill aright (which may not be so), in the case of a gravel pit which has a footpath traversing it, it might happen that a local authority, when the pit was worked out, would require the ground for their own development and would make it compulsory on the person working the gravel pit to put down a road fit for vehicular traffic, instead of leaving just a footpath. That is the type of condition that might not be just. It is the normal practice to leave the foundations of the machinery and plant in situ in a worked-out gravel pit; but it could be the case that, before getting permission, one might be made to remove these and to grade the site in conformation to requirements totally to the benefit only of the local authority who later acquire the site. It appears that this might all be done without compensation, and it is to clarify points of this sort that this Amendment has been put down.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry for this attempt to find a more attractive and efficient form of Amendment in order to meet the difficulties that I raised, and I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Stonehaven for the examples which he gave, and which, if he will allow me to say so, bring the matter clearly to the minds of your Lordships from the aspect which he wanted to develop. I appreciate the point (if I may summarise what I understood the point to be in Lord Stonehaven's mind) that it would be possible, at any rate in theory, for the planning authority to attach conditions so stringent as to render impracticable the working of the minerals. May I deal with the matter in two stages, first saying a word to the Committee about how the Government think that this would work out in practice and, secondly, a word about the merits?
The conditions that are normally imposed on the winning and working of minerals are, of course, designed to reduce the nuisance and inconvenience to the public which such workings cause. It is not possible to give an exhaustive list of the conditions; but I have considered them, and discussed them with those who advise me in this matter—and especially on the mineral clauses, which I frankly admit are very difficult. I am told that they are not confined to conditions imposed "for the purposes of amenity, safety or restoration," though they will, of course, be included. The most common matters to be regulated by conditions include the location of the plant, the order in which the minerals are to be worked and, thirdly (a common one), disposal of waste materials. While these conditions may have an amenity aspect, that may not be the sole reason. As noble Lords will readily appreciate, the proper use of the land might well be a factor. Acceptance of the Amendment would mean that payment of compensation would have to be made for the imposition of normal working conditions. Noble Lords will not expect Her Majesty's Government to contemplate that situation.
When one turns to the wider question of what conditions would be reasonable, it should be borne in mind that the conditions referred to are attached to the grant of permission to work the minerals; and conditions of such a nature that

1347
working would be rendered virtually impossible could not, therefore, be in question. It is going beyond the realm of practice into the realm of the ultra-theoretical to say that, at the end of the story, there could be attached to the grant of permission conditions of such a nature as to make the working virtually impossible. The remedy is clear. It is always open to a mineral undertaker who is dissatisfied with conditions imposed by the local planning authority on his working to appeal to the Secretary of State, and I feel that the Secretary of State may be trusted to ensure that only necessary conditions consistent with good planning and local conditions will be imposed. At present, and for a very long period to come, it is very unlikely that any Minister of the Crown, with the economic condition of the country in his mind, would dream of upholding conditions of such a nature as would make the working virtually impossible. Whilst I absolutely agree that reasonableness, from the point of view of the mineral undertaker, is a matter which must be borne in mind, it is not the whole story. For the reasons I have tried to give to your Lordships I ask that the Amendment be not pressed.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his statement, and ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved, after subsection (3) to insert:
"(4) In any case where compensation under this Part of this Act is not payable in respect of the refusal of planning permission for any development of any land and the reason or one of the reasons stated for such refusal is that the proposed development would be premature by reference to either or both of the matters specified in paragraphs (a) or (b) of the preceding subsection and in consequence of a subsequent amendment of the development plan of the area in which the land is situated the proposed development would be contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of the said development plan as amended compensation shall be payable under this Act as if planning permission in respect of the development was refused on the date when the amended plan was approved by the Secretary of State."
The noble Duke said: The intention of this Amendment is to secure that where planning permission has been refused, on
1348
the ground that a development is premature, and subsequently such development is ruled out by reason of the amendment of a development plan for the area, compensation shall be paid. In terms of Section 4 of the 1947 Act an obligation is placed upon the local planning authority to carry out a survey of their area and to submit to the Secretary of State a report of the survey, together with the proposals and any alterations or additions to the plan which may appear necessary. In other words, the development plan is to be reviewed and brought up to date. It is understood that the clause as drafted will not preclude the making of fresh applications for planning permission after the five-yearly amendment of a development plan. If an application were again to be refused, it is understood that this would be treated as refusal of planning permission on grounds different from the refusal of the previous application, and compensation would accordingly be paid. I am not sure that the clause as drafted makes clear that this will be the position. A premature application for planning permission, though consistent with zoning proposals in the development plan, may be ruled out. It should be noted that a development plan zones various areas for development for various purposes. A change of planning policy may well result in a change of zoning of areas under the plan. This is another reason for the Amendment, so that, where development is frustrated by change of development policy, compensation should be payable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 15, at end insert the said sub-section.—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)
LORD SALTOUN: I should like to support this Amendment. It will be noted that its wording follows almost exactly the words of the title of the clause. I do not like those words. I do not like the words "if comparable development be permitted." Any two things can be compared; a mouse can be compared with an elephant. What is really meant is, I think, roughly equivalent development; but as the word "comparable" is used in the title of the clause, we have, I feel rightly, adopted it in the Amendment proposed. One does not want a man who applies for development for, say, dwelling-houses to

1349
be offered development for a factory site in a place where no factory is likely to be required. That would not be a reasonably comparable or roughly equivalent development, and that is the kind of thing my noble friend has in mind in moving this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With all respect to my noble friend Lord Saltoun, it would probably be more convenient if I gave the answer on the point on which he has just made these interesting observations when we come to Amendment Number 39, which deals with the question of reasonably comparable development.
LORD SALTOUN: I beg the noble and learned Viscount's pardon; I thought we were dealing with that Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: At the moment we are dealing with the rather different point which my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch has developed in Amendment Number 35. I hope that I may reassure my noble friend on the point he has raised. My noble friend had in mind a situation where planning permission has been refused and compensation is excluded under Clause 21, subsection (3), because the development applied for is premature in relation to the staging of the plan or the then existing deficiency in the provision of public services, and where a change in the development plan makes the development originally proposed not premature but entirely inconsistent with the provisions of the plan. My noble friend, being conscious of the difficulty (which he developed in the later part of his speech), proposes by this Amendment, that in such a case compensation should be paid automatically, where it is otherwise payable, by providing that the planning permission is to be deemed to have been refused absolutely as from the date when the Secretary of State approves the amended plan.
I appreciate the fear that is in my noble friend's mind, but I do not think that that fear has any foundation in fact I am sure your Lordships would take the view that where a development plan is so amended, it may be appropriate to pay compensation in respect of a refusal previously based on prematurity. There is no difference between the noble Duke and myself on that point. As I say, it may be appropriate to pay. But on the
1350
point that was worrying my noble friend, the mere amendment of the plan is not a sufficient test of the right to compensation, because the proposals in the development plan are nothing more than a background guide to the main character of the development acceptable in any zone or area. They are not conclusive evidence of whether or not any particular development in any particular location may appropriately be permitted. To determine that fact a separate planning application needs to be submitted and considered on its merits.
In the view of the Government, the contingency envisaged by my noble friend can readily and properly be met by the submission of a fresh application for planning permission. If a refusal results on grounds carrying a right to compensation, compensation will be payable. I think, as I say, from my noble friend's speech, that that was really the point that was worrying him: he was in doubt as to whether the compensation would still inure for the benefit of the person that his Amendment is designed to cover. As the Government understand the position, and as I understand the position, it would so inure, and the doubt as to the position which is expressed in the speech is one which has no foundation. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will consider this as not asking your Lordships to reject or asking my noble friend to withdraw the Amendment, but as a genuine expression of the fact that in the Government's opinion there are no grounds for the fear he expresses, and that the Amendment is unnecessary.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Arising out of the noble and learned Viscount's reply, may I put a concrete case to him which, to me at least, seems hardly covered by the reply? Suppose a landowner applies for planning permission for some ground which is at that time of a purely rural character for building houses or factories and that the local planning authority refuse to give permission on the ground that the proposed development is premature. Then suppose that, before sufficient time has elapsed to permit a second application to be made, the planning authority declare the land in question to be a green belt. In such a case it would not be possible for the owner to make a new application, because it would be quite useless, but would his interests be safeguarded?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I understand the matter, they certainly would. On these matters I always like to be absolutely certain. I have given your Lordships my own opinion, which I have no reason to doubt, but I would tell my noble friend at once that I will consider his specific case again and write to him upon it. I do not anticipate having to change my view, but I will make absolutely certain that my view is right.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor for his assurance, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved, in subsection (6), after "land," where that word first occurs, to insert:
"or in respect of the winning and working of minerals thereunder."
The noble Duke said: I do not think it is necessarily clear whether subsection (6) applies to the winning and working of minerals. The Amendment proposes that specific reference should be made to the winning and working of minerals so as to make it clear that if permission is refused to work part of a mineral field, compensation can be claimed. Although "development," as defined by Section 10 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, includes mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, it would assist those who have to try to understand this Bill if minerals were specifically referred to.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 28, after ("land") insert the said words.—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Here again, I can give my noble friend the assurance that his fears are groundless. The Amendment, as my noble friend has said, is designed to put beyond doubt the fact that subsection (6) will apply in a case where the development concerned is mineral development. If I may take the definitions by stages, "planning permission" is defined in the principal Act in Section 113 (1), as meaning the permission for development of land required by
1352
Section 10 of the principal Act. Then, as my noble friend pointed out, Section 10 itself defines "development" as including, among other things, mining operations in or under land. Mining operations in or under land include the winning and working of minerals. Consequently it follows that the planning decisions mentioned in subsection (6) will automatically include decisions relating to the winning and working of minerals. In fact, mineral working cases are one of the types which it is expected will most commonly be benefited by the provisions of Clause 21 (6). I hope that my noble friend will accept my assurance and that his doubts will be allayed.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I accept the assurance of the noble and learned Viscount, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I think a very similar Amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, on the Committee stage of the English Bill last week and was thoroughly explained by him, and that an assurance was given by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. I would ask if a similar assurance can be given that the point is safeguarded. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29,line 31, at end insert—
("(7) Nothing in this section shall derogate from the operation of any enactment whereby provision is made for the payment of compensation in respect of minerals left unworked for the purpose of affording support for the sewers water mains or other works of any local authority or statutory undertaker.")—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very pleased to give the assurance for which my noble friend has asked, and if I occupy too much of your Lordships' time it is only that I want the assurance to be in the clearest terms. I shall be only a moment or two in mentioning the point. The Amendment is put forward, as my noble friend explained, for the avoidance of doubt, and the other enactments which are mentioned are, I presume, those collectively referred to as the mining code, which makes provision for compensation at full market value for minerals which a mineral undertaker has full authority, including permission, to

1353
work and which are sterilised by direction of a statutory undertaker or a similar body having powers of compulsory purchase which owns the surface of the mine and considers the workings of minerals beneath will injure its undertaking.
There can be no overlapping of these provisions with the provisions of Clause 21, and no derogation of rights under these enactments. If a planning permission stipulates that a developer may not work a certain part of the area of application, he will be able to claim compensation under Clause 21 (6). No question of mining code compensation in respect of such sterilised land can arise, as the developer has no planning permission to work it. It therefore can constitute no danger to the undertaker. If, on the other hand, planning permission has been granted for an area, and the appropriate authority sterilises part of the area under the mining code provisions, then the right to compensation under the code is effective. I hope that your Lordships will excuse me for occupying a little more time, but I was anxious that my noble friend should have this assurance perfectly clear; therefore I have endeavoured to cover the ground.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: Again I express my thanks, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22:
No Compensation if other comparable development permitted
22.—(1) Compensation under this Part of this Act shall not be payable in respect of a planning decision, whereby planning permission is refused for the development of land, if, notwithstanding that refusal, there is available with respect to that land planning permission for development to which this section applies:
Provided that where such permission is available with respect to part only of the land, this section shall have effect only in so far as the interest subsists in that part.
5.3 p.m.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "development to which this section applies," and to insert, "some reasonably comparable development:". The noble Duke said: This and the next two Amendments go very much together, and I would ask whether
1354
I might discuss them at the same time. Their purpose is to remove an objection for which there appears to be no justification unless it be to limit the number of successful claims for compensation. The effect of the clause appears to be to deny compensation for the refusal of planning permission for a development of the kind specified in Clause 22 (3), if the Secretary of State undertakes, before refusing, to grant permission for some other development falling within subsection (3).
Thus a man who applies to build a house may be told that he can build something else—a factory, perhaps—or vice versa, with the result that he will be denied compensation for refusal of planning permission to build a house. It may well be that the applicant has neither the desire nor the resources to embark upon the alternative development for which he is told that permission would be granted, and there may, in fact, be no demand in the neighbourhood for this alternative development. Nevertheless, under the clause, he will have lost the right to compensation. This is a provision which might give rise to hardship, and the purpose of the Amendments is to see that compensation will still be payable unless the alternative permissible development will result in a substantially equivalent beneficial use to the applicant. On the Report stage of the Bill in the House of Commons the Government attempted to meet the situation and to improve upon the clause as at first drafted, but we are very uncertain about this matter and we consider that it is still open to objection. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 38, leave out from ("for") to end of line 39 and insert ("some reasonably comparable development").—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: An objection to this Amendment, I believe, is the possibility of a man applying for the maximum development of the land and, on refusal, obtaining development compensation when he had no intention of carrying out the development at all. I believe that that is the sort of argument which might be used against this Amendment. It seems to me, rightly or wrongly, that the local authority can always get out of that difficulty by granting the man permission for comparable development.

1355
If a man, for example, asks for permission to put up a £200,000 factory, he could be told: "You cannot have permission for that, but you can put up a £200,000 multi-storey garage," or something of that sort, which he equally does not want to put up. So, as far as I can see, everyone can play the same game. I think the Amendment helps in cases of hardship that might arise. For that reason I should like to support my noble friend.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is an example of the very difficult task of applying the principle that private interest must sometimes give way to public interest, and that although an owner is entitled to make reasonable use of his land, he is not always entitled to exploit it to the maximum. The general effect of the clause is that if an owner is given permission for development within the range specified in subsection (3) of the clause, he is not to be entitled to compensation because some other development would have been more valuable. Your Lordships will appreciate that the specified range in subsection (3) is limited to those forms of development which, on a suitable site, are likely to show a reasonably high return on the land in any part of the country. It is not suggested that the values attributable to these different types of development are even approximately equal—there may be considerable disparities—but it is suggested that they would show at least a reasonable return.
I should like your Lordships to consider what the effect of the Amendment would be. The Amendment proposes that compensation should be excluded where planning permission is given for "some reasonably comparable development." But in the Amendment to page 30, line 9, which follows shortly, and which my noble friend has rightly suggested we should discuss with this Amendment, "a reasonably comparable development" is defined as one where a beneficial use of the alternative development is substantially equivalent to that of the development for which permission was refused. Your Lordships will see reference in the definition to planning permission previously granted. That is presumably to cover the case where the original planning permission was revoked.
1356
In effect, this series of Amendments substitutes for the specified range of developments in the present subsection (3) an undefined range of developments. This would not only mean that in every case a direct comparison would have to be made between the value of the development refused and that for which permission was granted, but it would lead to difficulties in the interpretation of what was "substantially equivalent." Both of those are really difficult points. The making of the comparison between the value of the development for which permission was refused and that for which it is granted is a considerable point in itself.
Then there is the difficulty, which, believe me, has pursued lawyers down the centuries, of deciding when one thing was "substantially equivalent" to another. If I may take an example, which your Lordships may consider serious or not, this Amendment may result in compensation being paid for the refusal to allow a factory to be erected in a residential area. There would be no consideration of the circumstances: only the value at the end of the day would be taken into account. I think that would be going too far. It would be abandoning pro tanto the principle that a man, although he is entitled to reasonable development of his own land, owes some duty to his neighbours and to the community in the use of his land. As I say, the only practical way in which I can see that this Amendment would work would be on a purely arithmetical calculation of a financial return. I am sorry that I am unable to meet my noble friends, because it has been pleasant in the run of the last few Amendments to be able to dispel their fears and not to reject their suggestions, but I feel that this Amendment would be a difficult matter to introduce into the Bill. I am sorry that I cannot advise your Lordships to accept it.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: In his reply, which I must say I cannot deem very convincing, the noble and learned Viscount chose a rather extreme example of someone who wanted to build a factory in a housing area and was refused compensation. In the first place, it would not be at all reasonable for a man to seek planning permission for a factory

1357
in a housing area. I put it to the noble and learned Viscount that this is really a question of considering the amount of hardship where a person is refused permission to build a hotel or a public house on a site he has acquired, merely on the ground that the number of licences in that area is, in the view of the local authority, over-abundant for the needs of the community. Most applicants, whether individuals or private companies, are more or less limited in their industrial activities. It is no good telling a man that although he may not build a hotel on his site he has purchased he may erect a garage, because possibly he is not in the slightest degree interested in the management of a garage, an occupation of which he knows absolutely nothing. It seems to me that unless something can be done to meet this position there will be cases causing hardship where a person or body is prevented from carrying out the development he desires but is informed that he can do some other form of development of which he has no knowledge and into which he has no intention of entering. Therefore, I hope that the noble and leaned Viscount will reconsider this matter and see whether a method cannot be worked out whereby some compensation can be paid in cases of definite hardship.
LORD SILKIN: The noble and learned Viscount will remember that on the Committee stage of the English Bill an Amendment was moved, not in these terms, but directed to meet what I think all sides of the Committee would regard as a problem. If I remember correctly, the noble and learned Viscount criticised my noble friend Lord Wise for having put a "fanciful" example. I think he assumed that local authorities were reasonable and would not give permission to build a house where it is suitable to build a factory, and vice versa, and that even if the local authorities were unreasonable the Minister or Secretary of State would always be reasonable and put any unreasonableness right. In the end, I think he undertook to give further consideration to the question, and I assume he was somewhat impressed by the case that was made.
There is a case here, and although there is no doubt that it is difficult to find the correct language and the right form of administration to meet must it—I admit that—nevertheless, I do not think
1358
we ought to permit an injustice to be perpetrated in the Bill merely because administratively we do not quite see the answer to it at this moment. The injustice is that a person who legitimately seeks for permission to carry out one form of development can be given another form which is of no use to him. We need not be fanciful in our examples. Let us take the example put forward by the noble Earl opposite. An applicant wants to build a factory and is told that he cannot, but may put up a garage. A garage may be quite as profitable in that place, but the applicant does not want to become the owner of a garage. In practice, such a consent would be useless.
The difficulty about it is that if a person is told he can have something else which is of no use to him and refuses to accept, he loses the benefit of his claim. It seems quite unfair that an applicant should lose his claim merely because he is offered something which is of no use to him. The noble and learned Viscount referred to the fact that a person might ask to put up a factory on a wholly unsatisfactory site, would be refused, and then would become entitled to compensation. The answer is that he is limited by the amount of his claim. He will not get compensation for the refusal to build a factory. He already has a claim which has been assessed by the district valuer and the Central Land Board on the basis of permitted and reasonable development. I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount has had any experience of the way in which these claims are negotiated, but the district valuer does not permit claims in respect of development which would he unreasonable. He has made up his mind what is the reasonable form of development and that is the basis of compensation for loss of development value. If a claim is made for more than that and it is refused, the maximum amount that can be received is the amount of the claim. We have not any form of words before us, but I think the sort of case which the noble Duke, and the noble Earl have raised, and which we raised from this side of the House, ought to be met.
In this Bill and in the English Bill there is the expression "depreciation of value," and exactly the kind of difficult calculations which the noble and learned Viscount says would have to be made under this Amendment have, in fact, to

1359
be made in assessing depreciation of value, which is defined in later clauses. I merely throw that out as a suggestion. It seems to me that, in practice, if a man is offered something which is less valuable than he is entitled to, and he finds it necessary to refuse it, he ought to be compensated for that depreciation in the value as between what he has reasonably asked for and what he is offered. Wording to ensure that may be difficult to draft. I do not think it is difficult to assess, because the Bill contemplates already that, in certain circumstances, some such assessment will be made. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount, who I know would not wish to see an unfair clause put on the Statute Book, and in spite of the fact that he has already looked at the point and has had to refuse to do anything about it, will see whether something cannot be done to remedy this injustice.
LORD SALTOUN: If I may refer Her Majesty's Government to a decided leading case on the principle here, I would refer them to the fifth chapter of St. Matthew, the case of people who ask for bread and receive a stone.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I shall be interested to engage in a theological disquisition with my noble friend Lord Saltoun at the appropriate time, but at the moment I should like to turn to the plea which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has made to me. I have considered this point, as he was good enough to say he was ready to accept, and, like him, I find it a point of great difficulty. When one gets back to the original claim—and I follow, and have really gone through the same process of trying to consider, that stage in the matter—even then there is a difficulty as to whether the amount of the claim has been fixed on a certain type of development. Nobody knows better than the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that it is often fixed in comparison with land nearby, and often fixed with a general view of the development that would take place, and without going into the comparative types in the way which this Amendment suggests.
I think the difficulties which are suggested to be inherent in my noble friend's Amendment are real difficulties, but in view of the appeals that have been made to me (not forgetting the Biblical objurgation of my noble friend Lord Saltoun) I
1360
will certainly have another look at the matter. I always try—I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will agree with this—if I may so put it, to qualify my agreements to have a look at matters, because I do not want anyone to feel that I have bought time or prevented a Division by saying that I will have a look at something when results are not likely to ensue. I warn the Committee that this is a difficult problem. I do not think the words of my noble friend will do, but, as I say, I will have another look at the point. I cannot say to your Lordships that in my opinion the prospects of finding a solution are bright, but if your Lordships will give me latitude on these somewhat pessimistic terms, I will certainly get all my advisers together and we will see whether we can meet the point. I am afraid that I cannot go further than that, but that I am glad to do.
LORD SILKIN: May I draw the attention of the noble and learned Viscount to Clause 23, which deals with the measure of depreciation for assessing compensation? That introduces a conception of depreciation which I believe is rather new—namely, depreciation due to a planning decision. Possibly something could be done on those lines.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I would respectfully suggest to the noble and learned Viscount, in regard to what he has said, that, while we are grateful for his promise to look at the matter again, it is just as unfair to say to someone that he may develop, though in a way that is absolutely useless to him, as it is to say that he may not develop at all. Therefore, on a logical and equitable basis compensation should be payable.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps I may say a word or two in answer to my noble friend Lord Mansfield. What I am postulating is that the applicant is allowed a form of development on which he will get a reasonable return. I do not want to go on arguing the matter with my noble friend, but I should have thought that his example would be in great danger of being caught as an unreasonable decision which would not stand when it reached the Secretary of State. However, I will look into the example and read the debate carefully.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: This seems, unavoidably, to be a difficult problem to which

1361
no solution is forthcoming. I am sorry that we have not made more progress, but I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Measure of depreciation for assessing compensation]:
5.27 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: These words are unnecessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 4, leave out from ("refused") to end of line 5.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 8, after ("permission") insent ("applied for").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: These words are unnecessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 10, leave out from ("twenty-one") to end of line 12.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is to transpose Clause 23. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Transpose Clause 23 as amended to after Clause 27.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Supplementary provisions as to calculation of depreciation]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment avoids a cross-reference, and widens the provisions by ensuring that all the provisions in force are taken into account. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 15, leave out from ("Act") to ("the") in line 21 and insert ("in addition to any previous decision, account shall be taken of any further grant of, and of any undertaking to grant, planning permission, being a grant or undertaking in force immediately before").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment transposes Clause 24 into a more logical sequence. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Transpose Clause 24, as amended, to after Clause 27,—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Review of planning decisions where compensation claimed]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This new subsection is put in to ensure that when the Secretary of State is reviewing the planning decision he will have regard to the whole circumstances in doing so. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 25, at end insert—
("(5) In giving any direction under this section, the Secretary of State shall have regard—

(a) to the provisions of the development plan for the area in which the land in question is situated, or

(b) where a development plan has not by that time become operative with respect to that area, to any direction which he may have given to the local planning authority as to the provisions to be included in such a plan and to any other provisions which in his opinion will be required to be so included for securing the proper planning of that area,

so far as those provisions are material to the development of that land, and shall also have regard to the local circumstances affecting the proposed development, including the use which prevails generally in the case of contiguous or adjacent land, and to any other material considerations.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 27 to 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Recording of notices relating to compensation]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 31, leave out ("is") and insert ("has become").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Application of Part III]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 45, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 on page 39 and insert—
(""the relevant interest" means the interest acquired;

1363
"the relevant land" means the land in which the relevant interest subsists;
"the notice to treat" means the notice to treat in pursuance of which the relevant interest is acquired;").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that the provisions of Part III of the Bill, and in particular Clause 33, do not affect any interests such as that of a superior which are not interests that may be acquired compulsorily by the ordinary process of serving a notice to treat. Part III does not, therefore, affect any consideration payable to a superior in respect of the redemption of feu-duty or ground annual. The provisions affecting this are to be found in Clause 61, in part VI of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 17, after ("means") insert ("any interest in the relevant land—

(a) which could not be the subject of a compulsory acquisition, or

(b) which is").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: These words are superfluous. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 22, leave out subsection (3).—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 32, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: Before we pass this clause with the definitions in subsection (2), I should like to be allowed to say a few words, bearing in mind that on the English Bill an important Amendment was submitted, and there was discussion urging compensation for compulsory acquisition according to market value. We have not put down a similar Amendment at this stage. I do not know what discussions, if any, have taken place about that. We have just passed Amendments on the other expressions in the subsection, and I am sorry that this particular one was omitted. I should like to submit once again the observation that Parliament and the Government are not achieving a fair or final solution by their formula for compensation, and that, with further time and development, it may well be found that something nearer to
1364
the market value is more appropriate. I hope that if occasions recur, this matter will not be overlooked.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if I do not once again enter into a discussion on my own on this question of market value. I ask my noble friend to grant me this indulgence, because I have discussed the matter on two previous occasions and we have debated it in the House. I hope he will allow me to say that I shall take what he says into account, as I have taken into account the many interesting observations that have been made during the progress of these Bills. For the reasons I have already stated, I am afraid that we must on this occasion stand by the formula which we have taken in the Bill, and the defence of which I have tried to make on the two occasions to which I have referred.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 [Compensation to include unexpended balance of established development value]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 32, leave out ("the relevant land, taken as a whole") and insert ("any of the relevant land.").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This looks a fairly formidable Amendment, but I think I may say that there is no change of the basic principle. The main object is to do away with the need for a set of regulations and thus to make the Bill more self-contained. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 35, leave out from second ("to") to ("for") in page 41, line 1, and insert section thirty-five of this Act there shall be added to the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest apart from the provisions of this section—

(a) where the relevant interest is the only interest (other than excepted interests) subsisting at that time in any of the relevant land which has such a balance—

(i) if the restricted value of the relevant interest is a minus quantity, an amount equal to so much, if any, of that balance at that time as remains after the deduction therefrom of an amount equal to the minus quantity; or

(ii) in any other case, an amount equal to that balance at that time;

1365
or

(b) where the relevant interest is one of two or more interests (other than excepted interests) so subsisting, an amount equal to so much of that balance at that time as is ascertained in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule (Apportionment of Unexpended Balance of Established Development Value) to this Act to be attributable to the relevant interest:

Provided that, in a case where the relevant interest is the interest of the lessee under a lease, no payment shall be made by virtue of this section if the person entitled to the relevant interest is, at the time immediately before the service of the notice to treat, prohibited by the terms of his lease from carrying out any new development of the relevant land.
(2) Regulations made under this section shall provide").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 8, at end insert—
("(3) References in this section to the restricted value of an interest in land, in relation to an acquisition of that interest, are references to the amount which, for the purposes of Part V of the principal Act, would have been taken to be the restricted value of that interest on the appointed day if—

(a) the date of the service of the notice to treat had been appointed as the appointed day for the purposes of the said Part V;

(b) references to the seventh, day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, in subsection (5) of section fifty-eight of the principal Act (which requires values to be calculated by reference to prices current immediately before that day) were references to the date of the acquisition;) and

(c) references in the said section fifty-eight to the Third Schedule to the principal Act were references to the Schedule as amended by this Act.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 [Additional compensation for work]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a consequential Amendment to that on Clause 33. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 32, leave out from ("constructed") to end of line 34 and insert ("then, subject to the next following section, there shall be added to the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest apart from the provisions of this section").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35 [Protection for prospective purchasers]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment. There is no new point involved, but I am given to understand that there is a clerical error. At the end of paragraph (b) the line should read: "contract to the said authority" instead of "to the said council." I beg to move the Amendment in those terms.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 13, leave out from ("propose") to ("is") in line 24 and insert
("and have not been notified of any proposal of another authority, to acquire within, the next five years any interest in any land specified in the notice (in this subsection referred to as 'the specified land'), being the whole or part of the land to which the application related; and

(b) the person to, whom the notice was given has within three months of the giving the notice made a, bona fide contract for the purchase of an interest in the specified land or any part thereof and given notice of the making of the contract to the said authority; and

(c) that interest, or that interest in so far as it subsists in any pert of that land,")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment deals with a special case where a contract subsists but has not been implemented. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 38, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("Provided that—

(i) this subsection shall not have effect unless at the date of the publication or service of the first notice in connection with the acquisition such as is, referred to in paragraph (c) of this subsection, the contract mentioned in paragraph (b) thereof remains in force or has been implemented;

(ii) this subsection shall not have effect in relation to a purchase by a company from an associated company within the meaning of section forty-nine of this Act.

(3) The two last preceding sections shall not apply for the purpose of assessing any compensation to the assessment of which the last preceding subsection applies:
Provided that if the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest would, apart from this proviso, be less than it would have been if this section had not been enacted, the last preceding subsection shall not apply in the case of that acquisition.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 agreed to.
5.39 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 36 to insert the following new clause:
Additional payments in cases where no claim has been established
".—(1) If in the case of a compulsory acquisition to which this Part of this Act applies, it is shown to the satisfaction of the appropriate authority that the relevant land or some part thereof does not constitute or form part of the claim area of any established claim, but that a claim or claims in respect of one or more interests in that land, or, as the case may be, in that part thereof, would have been established if made, there shall be issued by or on behalf of the Treasury a certificate specifying—

(a) whether or not, in the opinion of the person signing the certificate, section thirty-three of this Act would have applied to the compulsory acquisition if the claim or claims aforesaid had been established; and

(b) if so, what in that person's opinion would have been the amount of the additional compensation calculated by reference to the unexpended balance of established development value of that land or that part thereof which would have been payable under that section in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest.

(2) Where an amount has been specified as aforesaid and, after taking into account all the circumstances, the appropriate authority is of opinion that it is just and reasonable that a payment should be made in addition to what would be the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest apart from the provisions of this section, there shall be added to that compensation such amount as the appropriate authority may direct, being an amount not exceeding that specified in the certificate aforesaid.
(3) In this section, the expression 'the appropriate authority' means—

(a) where the compulsory acquisition of the relevant interest by the acquiring authority requires authorisation by a single other authority, that other authority; or

(b) where the acquiring authority is a government department and the compulsory acquisition does not require the authorisation of any other authority, the acquiring authority; or

(c) in any other case, the Treasury or such other authority as the Treasury may in any case or class of cases direct."

The noble and learned Viscount said: This is the equivalent of what has been termed by your Lordships the "Pilgrim clause" in the English Bill. In other words, it is a clause to prevent the occurrence in Scotland of any such case as that of the late Mr. Pilgrim. We have discussed a clause which is analogous to that in the English Bill, and so perhaps I may deal with this with considerable
1368
brevity. Your Lordships will see that in subsection (1) of the clause, the wording is now:
If, in the case of a compulsory acquisition to which this Part of this Act applies, the appropriate authority is satisfied that the relevant land or some part thereof does not constitute or form part of the claim area of any established claim, but that a claim or claims … would have been established if made. …"
May I call your Lordships attention to the words, "If … the appropriate authority is satisfied"? Considerable anxiety was expressed by some of your Lordships that a man in the position of the late Mr. Pilgrim would have to go hunting the appropriate authority in order to secure justice on this point. The objective of the change of words is to indicate that there will be a duty on the Minister to see that anyone in that position is not only informed of his situation, but that the chance of getting the supplement is brought to his attention.
Some doubt was expressed whether there would be co-ordinated action on the part of Government Departments. May I say, at this stage, that I hope to make to your Lordships on the Report stage of the English Bill—and it can be repeated on the Report stage of the Scottish Bill—a statement laying down the procedure which Government Departments will follow in order that co-ordination may be achieved. I do not want to go into a tale which is more than twice told at this moment, but we hope that the clause will, as I say, prevent the occurrence of such unfortunate cases. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 36, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: There is just one question I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount. This new clause seems to be admirable in intention, but will the person or the body who might receive an extra payment under it have to make an application, or will it be done gratuitously, merely because the acquiring authority thinks it should be done?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That was the point with which I endeavoured to deal: that we have redrafted the clause in order to make it clear that, however and whenever the competent authority learns of it, there is a duty on the com-

1369
petent authority to see that the person gets the claim. We earnestly hope that all Departments will be administered in such a way that it is not a question of the claimant having to run after them but of their doing justice to the claimant, which is what we desire to see.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I thank my noble and learned friend.
5.42 p.m.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRYhad given notice to move, as an Amendment to the Amendment, to add to the proposed new clause:
"(4) In any case where notice to treat is served on any person in respect of the compulsory acquisition of any land which does not constitute or form part of the claim area of any established claim notice of the effect of this section shall at the same time be sent by the acquiring authority to the person on whom any such notice to treat is served."
The noble Duke said: I am not sure that my Amendment is still necessary, in view of what the noble and learned Viscount has said. My purpose was simply to secure that persons whose land is being acquired compulsorily, and where there is no established claim, shall have brought to their notice the provisions of the new clause when they receive the notice to treat. In the nature of things, it must in the majority of cases be small owners of property who are affected. Those are just the people who are most likely to suffer hardship. It is contended that it is just and reasonable that they should at least be informed of the possibility of getting an additional ex gratia payment over and above the existing use value of their land. The Amendment is of the lines of a provision which is fairly usual in local authorities' Private Acts, under which persons; required by notice of the local authority to take some action must, along with the notice requiring them to do so, be given a notice of their right to appeal. No extra burden would fall on the local authorities when acquiring land compulsorily. If the Amendment were allowed, it would afford a safeguard.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
At end of the new clause insert the said subsection.—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I should like to support my noble friend in his Amendment because it brings out the
1370
point that I was trying to make, that there are local authorities and local authorities. I am afraid that some local authorities, if there is a likelihood of their being required to pay possibly a substantial sum of money to a claimant, may be only too glad, to put it colloquially, to "sit upon" the information and not let the claimant know that he is, in fact, entitled to this extra payment.
LORD SILKIN: I think it must be realised that the new clause will have only a limited application. It applies to only a very small class of person, who had a claim but omitted, for one reason or another, to put it in and whose land was then compulsorily acquired. I cannot think that there are a great many of them. There will be, however, a great many people who have no claim and whose land is compulsorily acquired, and if you hold out the hope to large numbers of people that they may get compensation and may get an ex gratia payment when, in fact, only a very few will, it is doubtful whether you are not doing more harm than good. I do not oppose the Amendment, for it is not one about which I feel strongly, but I think that is a point that ought to be taken into consideration. For instance, if only 1 per cent. of people who are likely to be affected by a compulsory purchase order are likely to get the benefit of this payment, is it really wise to send a notice of this kind to the other 99 per cent. and lead them to hope that they may get something, with all the large amount of administrative work that will be involved upon the local authority? It is a matter for consideration. The noble Earl who has just spoken seemed to suggest that some local authorities would try to evade the obligation.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Precisely.
LORD SILKIN: I would not dispute that possibility. The noble Earl is talking of Scotland—this is a Scottish Bill—but it is possible that some will, of course. I do not see how, under the clause as it stands, the local authority comes in, except to pay. It is the "appropriate authority" that has to be satisfied. It comes to its notice that there is a person who may be affected. The "appropriate authority" is defined as the authority, as I take it, that gives the approval. And,

1371
where authorisation is required, it is the body that gives the authority. Normally, it will be the Secretary of State. The noble and learned Viscount will correct me if I am wrong, but, as I read this rather hurriedly, it seemed to me that the local authority is really given no voice in the matter. It is the competent authority or the appropriate authority who decides. If they decide that a payment shall be made, it is the local authority or the acquiring authority that makes the payment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am in the happy position of being able to go rather further than my noble friends the Duke of Buccleuch and Lord Mansfield have asked, and at the same time to meet the most substantial worry of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I did say in the Committee stage of the English Bill that I hoped to be able to make a statement on the matter at a later stage. I should be grateful if your Lordships would give me the indulgence of letting me make a formal statement on Report stage—of course, I will do it on both Bills—because a final decision on the arrangements has not yet been taken. But I can tell your Lordships what we have in mind: that is, that the confirming authority and not the acquiring authority—I think that meets the point which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has made—might notify those interested at an earlier stage in the proceedings than that of the notice to treat mentioned in the present Amendment. I think that justifies me in saying that I am going even further than my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch desired. I should like to assure my noble friend that the Government are entirely sympathetic to the purpose of the Amendment and propose to arrange for effective notification to be given at the earliest convenient stage in the acquisition proceedings, we hope at an earlier stage than the notice to treat. With regard to the extent of the cases, different views have been expressed as to their number, but I think all your Lordships have felt that it is the sort of case that ought to be dealt with, and we are seeking to deal with it. I think my noble friend's suggestion, improved, if I may be presumptuous enough to claim it, as I hope to improve it, will meet the real point, and I hope that he will not press the Amendment at this stage.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I express my thanks to the noble and learned Viscount, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.51 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment, to remove any possibility of misconception. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 25, leave out from beginning to ("for") in line 29 and insert—
("In connection with a compulsory acquisition to which this Part of this Act applies—
(a) any compensation in respect of an interest in land").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 35, leave out from ("disturbance") to ("shall") in line 36.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 [Effect of Part III on unexpended balance of established development value]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 3, leave out from ("land") to ("had") and insert ("in which the interest acquired or sold subsisted").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is consequential on changes made to the wording of Clause 33. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 10, leave out from beginning to ("for") in line 15 and insert ("unless immediately after the acquisition or sale there is outstanding some interest (other than an excepted interest) in that land to which some person other than the acquiring authority is entitled,").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is consequential on changes to Clause 33. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 20, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 29 and insert—
("(ii) if immediately after the acquisition or sale there is outstanding any such interest as aforesaid, then for the purposes of any other Part of this Act there shall be deducted from the said original balance an amount equal to any part of the relevant balance which is not, or which in the appropriate circumstances would not have been, attributable for the purposes of the said section thirty-three to any such out-standing interest").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 32, at end insert—
("Provided that in the event of a subsequent compulsory acquisition of any such outstanding interest, being a compulsory acquisition to which this Part of this Act applies, the said section thirty-three shall have effect for the purposes of assessing the compensation payable as if this subsection had not been enacted.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
5.53 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 38 to insert the following new clause:
Assessment of compensation in certain cares
".In the case of any compulsory acquisition to which any of the following provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, that is to say—

(a) subsection (2) of section twelve;

(b) subsection (4) of section seventeen; and

(c) subsection (2) of section thirty-six,

(which relate respectively to the compensation to be paid on the compulsory acquisition of closed houses, of houses subject to notices relating to the execution of works, and of houses unfit for human habitation) applies, whether by virtue of the said Act of 1950 or by virtue of any other enactment, being a compulsory acquisition to which this Part of this Act applies, the compensation payable in respect of the land or house acquired may be less than, but shall not exceed, the value, at the time when the valuation is made, of the site as a cleared site available for development in accordance with the requirements of the building regulations for the time being in force in the district; and accordingly the said provisions shall have effect, in relation to a compulsory acquisition to which this Part of this Act applies, as if the references therein to the compensation to be paid were references to the maximum compensation payable"
The noble and learned Viscount said: With the approval of the Committee, this Amendment might be discussed with the next following Amendment at page 44, line 43, because the two together give effect to an undertaking which was given on the Report stage in another place to amend the clause so as to secure that the compensation payable, apart from any unexpended balance, for the compulsory acquisition of unfit houses to which Part III of the Bill applies, will not exceed the compensation that would have been payable under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, if the "cleared site" formula in that Act had not been repealed by this clause. The new clause secures this by keeping the "cleared site" formula in being but providing that in the future (that is, in the case of compulsory acquisitions after the Bill comes into operation) the formula will have effect as if the compensation payable thereunder is the maximum compensation, under Part III of the Bill, that will be payable in the case of acquisitions for the purposes of the Housing Act, 1950, or under any other enactment, for example, Section 3 of the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, 1954, and the Fifth Schedule of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945, applying those provisions.
I might warn the Committee that there are a number of consequential Amendments—some half a dozen—which will be dealt with in time. With regard to the "cleared site," the formula will have effect only as a ceiling and not in determining the compensation to be paid. That deals with the fear expressed by the Opposition in another place and, as I say, we have given effect to the undertaking which my right honourable friend gave in regard to it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 38 insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 [Amendment of provisions of Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, relating to cleared site values]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 39.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 40 [Amendment of s. 20 of principal Act]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 34, leave out ("this Part of").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 38, after ("and") insert ("in this Part of this Act").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 41 [Recording of notices as to, and apportionment of, compensation for depreciation]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 29, leave out ("Subsections (2) land (3)") and insert ("Subsection (2)").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 [Exchequer contribution towards compensation in certain cases]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a case of revocation of permission. It is to ensure that the payment by the Secretary of State to local authorities will not exceed, on the one hand, the amount of compensation for depreciation paid by the local authority, or, on the other hand, the unexpended balance of established value. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 19, at end insert—
("Provided that the amount of any such contribution shall not exceed—

(a) the amount of the compensation for depreciation paid by the local planning authority; or

(b) the unexpended balance of established development value at the date of the making of the order of the land in respect of which that compensation was paid.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 [Recovery, on subsequent development, of compensation under s. 20 of principal Act]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 43, after ("Act") insert ("except subsection (10) thereof,").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 44 [Scope of Part V]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is to cover a case in which the wording of the clause as drafted might enable compensation to be payable in respect of land which had no claim. That is not intended, and it is avoided by the Amendment which I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 6, leave out ("holding") to ("and") in line 7.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This point we have had before. The Amendment effects a slightly more flexible arrangement in regard to compensation for development. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 14, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 17 and insert ("in relation to a claim for compensation in respect of any such claim holding so subsisting as aforesaid, any such land is referred to as "qualified land" and the claim holding is referred to as "the relevant holding".
(3) Subsection (3) of section sixteen of this Act shall have effect for the purposes of this Part of this Act as it has effect for the purposes of Part II of this Act, with the substitution for the reference to a planning decision made after the commencement of this Act of a reference to a planning decision made before the commencement of this Act.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45 [Right to compensation in respect of past planning decisions or past revocations, &c., of planning permission]:
5.57 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 21, after ("if") insert ("(a)"). —(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment concerns rather a special case, where land is sold between November, 1952, and the coming into force of this Act. In such cases, where planning restrictions have been imposed, it enables the owner to retain his claim and to get his money. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 22, leave out from ("land") to ("interest") in line 24 and insert ("or
(b) having been entitled to an interest in any qualified land at the date of the decision or order, he sold that interest (otherwise than to a public authority possessing compulsory purchase powers) in pursuance of a contract made after that date and during the period beginning with the eighteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, and ending immediately before the commencement of this Act,
and the value of that interest or of another interest which has merged therein or, in the case of an interest extending to other land, the value of that or of that other").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment deals with the case of money borrowed against a claim and the manner in which it should be dealt with when the claim is eventually made. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 39, at end insert—
("(2) A person who has become entitled to the relevant holding by virtue of the exercise of any power conferred by an assignation in security shall be entitled to such compensation as aforesaid, notwithstanding that he does not satisfy the conditions set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the preceding subsection, if the assignor would have been entitled to such compensation if he had continued to be the holder of the relevant holding.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 10, at end insert ("and in the application of the said subsection (1) in case to which paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section applies, no account shall be taken of any grant of, or undertaking to grant, planning permission made or given after the making of the contract of sale.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is rather a long Amendment, but it is consequential on Amendment No. 77 which
1378
we have agreed to, and is also consequential on the code of calculating depreciation in Clause 22. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 16, at end insert—
("Provided that, in a case to which paragraph (ii) of subsection (1) of this section applies, for the reference in the said section twenty-two to the Secretary of State's giving notice of his determination in respect of the claim for compensation there shall be substituted a reference to the making of the contract of sale.
(4) In determining for the purposes of a claim for compensation under this Part of this Act whether, or to what extent, the value of an interest in land was depreciated by such an order as aforesaid—

(a) regard shall be had to any compensation which has become payable to the person entitled to that interest in respect of that order under section twenty of the principal Act otherwise than by virtue of the proviso to subsection (1) of that section;

(b) any grant of, or undertaking to grant, planning permission made or given during the period between the making of the order and the time when the Secretary of State gives notice of his determination in respect of that claim, being a grant or undertaking which is in force at the end of that period, shall be taken into account as if it had been in force at the beginning of that period;

(c) Part VI of the principal Act shall be deemed not to have applied after the date when the order was made.

Provided that, in a case to which paragraph (ii) of subsection (1) of this section applies, no account shall be taken of any grant or undertaking made or given after the making of the contract of sale.
(5) Where the interest to which the holder of the relevant holding is entitled or, as the case may be, which he sold, is or was subject to a lease granted after the planning decision or order and on or after the eighteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, the preceding provisions of this section shall have effect as if that lease had not been granted.").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 45, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SILKIN: May I ask what is the significance of that date given, November 18, 1952? Is that the date when the present Government came into office?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That refers to the White Paper on policy.
LORD SILKIN: I thank the noble Earl.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 46 [General provisions as to amount of compensation for past planning decisions, revocations, &c.]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 29, leave out from ("if") to end of line.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is to overcome a difficulty and to avoid paying depreciation twice over. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 33, at end insert—
("Provided that where the same person is entitled to such compensation as aforesaid in respect of more than one relevant holding, or in respect of more than one interest, or in respect both of more than one relevant holding and of more than one interest, the aggregate principal amount payable to that person by way of such compensation in respect of all interests in respect of which he is so entitled in so far as they subsisted in the same land shall not exceed whichever is the less of the following amounts, that is to say—

(i) the aggregate of the amounts by which the value of each respectively of those interests in so far as it subsisted in that land was depreciated by the decision or order; or

(ii) the aggregate of the fractions of the respective values of all relevant holdings of which that person is the holder which attached to that land."—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: These next three Amendments are all purely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 50, line 34, leave out from ("If") to third ("the")
Page 50, line 36, leave out ("was") and insert ("is")
Page 50, line 41, leave out ("were and were") and insert ("are and are").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 47 [Claims for compensation under Part V, and review of past decisions and orders]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I would describe this as a tidying, rather than a drafting, Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 1, leave out from first ("of") to ("shall") in line 3 and insert ("sections twenty-five and twenty-eight of this Act").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 5, leave out ("section twenty-five of this Act") and insert ("the said section twenty-five").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is to make clear that where the Secretary of State has agreed to a revocation, that is final and there can be no more discussion or appeal in connection with it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 14, leave out ("in such a case") and insert ("the claim is in respect of a refusal of permission or of a grant of permission subject to conditions and").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 19, leave out from ("relates") to end of line 21 and insert—
("In this subsection, the reference to a decision more favourable to the applicant shall be construed—

(a) in relation to a refusal of permission, as a reference to a decision granting the permission, either unconditionally or subject to conditions, and either as respects the whole or as respects part of the land to which the application for permission related; and

(b) in relation to a grant of permission subject to conditions, as a reference to a decision granting the permission applied for unconditionally or subject to less stringent conditions.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 33, leave out subsection (5).—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48 [Payment of compensation under Part V, and supplementary provisions relating thereto]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is for adjusting recovery of payment against a claim-holder in adjusting that claim holding. It is an Amendment corresponding to one made in the English Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 29, at end insert—
("Provided that if at any time an amount becomes recoverable under section thirty-one of this Act, as applied by the subsequent provisions of this section, in respect of that compensation, then, for the purposes of Parts II and III of this Act, paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection shall have effect as from that time as if the principal amount of that compensation had been reduced by a sum equal to seven-eighths of the amount which has so become recoverable.
(3) Where in the case of any claim holding (in this subsection referred to as "the parent holding") compensation under this Part of this Act is payable in respect of the depreciation of an interest in land by one or more planning decisions or orders, and any such decision or order did not extend to the whole of the area of the parent holding, then, both for the purposes of the last preceding subsection and for the purposes of Parts II and ITI of this Act—

(a) the parent holding shall be treated as having been divided immediately before the commencement of this Act into as many separate claim holdings, with such areas, as may be necessary to ensure that in the case of each holding either any such decision or order extending to the area of that holding extended to the whole thereof or that no such decision or order extended to the area of that holding;

(b) the value of each of the separate holdings respectively shall be taken to be that fraction of the value of the parent holding which then attached to the part of the area of the parent holding constituting the area of the separate holding;

(c) the authority determining the amount of any such compensation shall apportion that amount between the areas of the separate claim holdings to which the decision or order in question extended in such manner as appears to that authority proper, and the portion of that amount apportioned to the area of any separate claim holding shall be taken to be compensation payable under this Part of this Act in respect of that claim holding.").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 31, after ("Act") insert (",except subsection (10) of the said section thirty-one,").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 49 and 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Cancellation or reduction of liability for development charges]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment relates to a special case, to deal equitably with the rights of claim-holders who have assigned their claim to the Central Land Board. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 7, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
("(4) Where, for the purposes of the Second Schedule to this Act, one or more development charges such as are mentioned in subsection (1) of this section are covered by an assignation of one or more claim holdings to the Central Land Board, and by virtue of the provisions of that Schedule one or more of those claim holdings are deemed to have been extinguished or reduced in value by reference to the unpaid balance of the charge or, as the case may be, the aggregate of the unpaid balances of the charges, as therein mentioned, a sum equal to, or to the aggregate of—

(a) the value of any such holding which is deemed to have been extinguished; and

(b) the amount of the reduction in the value of any such holding which is deemed to have been reduced in value but not extinguished,

shall be deducted from that balance or that aggregate of balances and—

(i) if that sum is equal to that balance or aggregate of balances, the charge or Charges and any liability of any person in respect thereof shall be discharged;

(ii) if that sum is less than that balance or aggregate of balances, the charge or charges, or the balance or respective balances thereof remaining unpaid at the commencement of this Act, shall be reduced by an amount, or, as the case may be, shall be reduced rateably by an aggregate amount, equal to that sum:

Provided that where paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule to this Act applies, any development charge in connection with which the claim holding in question was assigned in accordance with the arrangements mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph and any liability of any person in respect thereof shall be discharged without regard to the treatment of the claim holding in question.") —(Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is consequential on a change in Clause 54. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 15, leave out ("subsections (2) and") and insert ("subsection").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 52 and 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Recovery of certain sums from acquiring authorities]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 19, leave out ("or sale").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is also a drafting Amendment, substituting a more precise reference. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 7, leave out from ("is") to end of line 10 and insert ("by virtue of subsection (3) of section fifty-eight of this Act to be treated as apportioned to the land in which the interest acquired or sold subsisted."),—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 55 to 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Recovery, on subsequent development, of payments under s. 56 of principal Act]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The object of this Amendment is to avoid the necessity for the Central Land Board to record in the Register of Sasines cases under the War Damage scheme in which payments will never be recovered. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 21, at end insert ("or which would be so recoverable but for the provisions of paragraph (i) of the proviso to that subsection;").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 38, after ("Act") insert (",except subsection (10) thereof,").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am not going to move Amendment No. 99, but there will be another Amendment dealing differently and more satisfactorily with this matter at the Report stage.
Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment provides that industrial applicants will not require a Board of Trade certificate before they can bring forward an application to the local planning authority. They can get compensation in the ordinary way. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 58, insert the clause:
Applications for permission for industrial development
".—(1) Where, after the commencement of this Act, an application is made to a local planning authority for permission to develop land by the erection thereon of an industrial building, being an application which would, apart from this section, be of no effect by virtue of subsection (4) of section twelve of the principal Act (which provides that certain applications for such permission shall be of no effect unless it is certified by the Board of Trade that the development in question can be carried out consistently with the proper distribution of industry, the local planning authority shall consider whether, if the requirements of the said subsection (4) had been satisfied, they would nevertheless have refused the permission sought by the application either as respects the whole or as respects part of the land to which the application relates; and if they are of opinion that they would so have refused that permission, they shall serve on the applicant a notice in writing to that effect.
(2) Where a notice has been served under the preceding subsection as respects the whole or part of any land, the provisions of this Act and of sections seventeen and eighteen of the principal Act, and, where by virtue of the preceding provisions of this subsection a direction has been given under subsection (3) of section twenty-six of this Act, the other provisions of the principal Act, shall have effect as respects that land or that part thereof as if the application had been of effect and permission had been refused."—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 [Crown Land]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 20, leave out ("derives title thereto") and insert ("is, or derives title from a person who was, entitled thereto").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 61:
Consideration in respect of discharge of acquired land from feu-duty, ground annual, etc.
61.—(1) Where a public authority possessing compulsory purchase powers has compulsorily acquired or has purchased, in pursuance of a notice to treat served, or, as the case may be, a contract made, after the commencement of this Act, the dominium utile in any land, and it is necessary to determine under section one hundred and eight of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845, the amount of any consideration payable in respect of the discharge of the land from any feu-duty, or ground annual or other annual or recurring payment or incumbrance, to which that section applies (not being stipend or standard charge in lieu of stipend), or from any portion thereof, the following provisions of this section shall have effect for the purpose of such determination.
Any reference in this section to a "relevant prestation" is a reference to any such feu-duty or ground annual or other annual or recurring payment or incumbrance (or any portion thereof) relating to the land as is mentioned in this subsection.
(2) The aggregate amount of the consideration payable as aforesaid in respect of all relevant prestations (in this section, referred to as the "aggregate consideration") shall be an amount equal to the difference between—

(a) the amount of the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the dominium utile in the land, and

(b) the amount of the compensation which would have been so payable if the land had not been subject to any relevant prestation.

6.8 p.m.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: This and the following Amendment have the same object in view and I would ask that they may be discussed together. I understand there is doubt, as the clause is now drafted, whether it is limited in its operation to cases where compulsory purchase powers have been granted. As the clause is drafted, the public authority referred to must possess compulsory purchase powers, but it does not seem clear that those compulsory purchase powers necessarily relate to the interest in land mentioned in line 33 of Page 39, that is, land of which the dominium utile has been acquired. I suggest that these two Amendments make it clear that the authority to purchase the dominium utile refers to the interest in land envisaged in the clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 29, leave out "possessing compulsory purchase powers".—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend need not be troubled by this provision. This is a difficult and somewhat technical aspect of the subject, and perhaps if I set out the position as I understand it, my noble friend will have a look at it and, if necessary, pursue the matter further on the next stage. As I am at present advised, a public authority possessing compulsory purchase powers who acquire a dominium utile subject to feu-duty, on a ground annual or other payment, either by exercising their powers or by agreement (whether or not a compulsory purchase order authorising the acquisition has been confirmed) may, following the acquisition, take what is commonly described as a "schedule title" under Section 80 of the Land Clauses Act. When they have done that, they may proceed to redeem the feu-duty by compensating the superior for the loss of the right to receive the feu-duty.
As I understand the effect of my noble friend's Amendments, they would exclude from the provisions of the clause those cases where the dominium utile is acquired by agreement without the authority possessing compulsory purchase powers having had to exercise those powers. That would be unacceptable, and in any case I do not think it is what my noble friend had in mind. It would be unacceptable to us because it is hoped that many of the acquisitions of the dominium utile will be acquisitions by agreement; and, as I think everyone would agree, there is no point whatever in requiring the authority in such cases to go to the length of having to get a compulsory purchase order confirmed merely to get the benefit of the clause. I have not only pointed out that my noble friends' fears need not be entertained, but I think I have shown that his Amendments might create further difficulties. In this technical facet of our work I would suggest to him that he should not press his Amendments today, but that, if he has any further difficulty after what I have said, he should write to me, and I shall be pleased to go into the point with him before the next stage of the Bill.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I express thanks for

1387
the statement, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved to leave out all words after "thereof" in subsection (1) down to the end of the clause, and to insert:
"the Lands Tribunal shall in determining the amount of such consideration disregard the fact that the dominium utile has been acquired by a public authority possessing compulsory purchase powers."
The noble Duke said: I think it is possible that there may be an objection to the clause as drafted because it seeks to lay down a hard and fast formula for determining the amount of consideration payable on the discharge of any land from a feu-duty, instead of allowing the valuer to take into account all the relevant circumstances. It is understood that the reason for the clause is that at present, when land is acquired by a public authority and the feu has to be discharged, the Lands Tribunal, in determining the value of the feu, take into account that the vassal, being a public authority, will not default in paying the feu-duty. This may result in the value of the feu, and consequently the amount of consideration, being inflated.
The proposed Amendment seeks to meet this point and at the same time remove the objectionable provision of the fixed formula by providing that in determining the amount of consideration the Lands Tribunal shall ignore the fact that the vassal is a public authority. A precedent for the principle involved in the Amendment, of providing that certain factors shall not be taken into account in determining the amount of compensation, is to be found in Section 2 of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. I submit that the Amendment has the advantage of achieving what is the intention of the Government in one short clause, whereas the present clause consists of eight subsections. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 40, leave out from ("thereof") to the end of the clause and insert the said new words.—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I feel that there is some difficulty about this Amendment, although I recognise that
1388
my noble friend has sought to meet the view of the Government by the words
"disregard the fact that the dominium utile has been acquired by a public authority possessing compulsory purchase powers."
The purpose of the clause is to provide a basis upon which the arbiter, when called upon under Section 108 of the Lands Clauses Act, is to assess the consideration payable for the redemption of the feu-duties, ground annuals or other annual recurring payments. As I endeavoured to explain to your Lordships' House on Second Reading, it is based on the principle that the total amount payable by the acquiring authority in compensation to the owner and on redemption of any feu-duty shall not exceed the compensation which would have been payable had the land been in one ownership and free from feu-duty or other burdens.
In subsection (2) the clause provides that the "calling" of the consideration for the discharge of the land from feu-duty is to be the difference between the compensation payable for the acquisition of the dominium utile and the amount which would have been payable had the land not been subject to any "prestations," which are defined in subsection (1). Subsection (4) deals with the case where there is only one relevant prestation, and subsections (5) and (6) with the apportionment of the aggregate consideration where there is more than one such prestation. The present Amendment, in effect, provides instead that the consideration payable should be assessed by the Lands Tribunal at market value but disregarding the personal security of the acquiring authority. The difficulty about that form is that it still flies in face of the principle on which the clause is based, which I have endeavoured to explain—namely, that the total amount payable for acquisition and redemption is not to exceed the unburdened value of the land; that is, it is not to exceed what would have been the compensation payable under the Bill if the land had been in a single ownership.
That is the difficulty which we have found on the matter. Although I recognise that my noble friend has gone a good deal of the way to meet it, and I feel rather churlish in not going any way in reply, I am in that difficulty; that the gist of the clause is that the two people should not be in a better position than

1389
one person would have been. Therefore, on that principle, I am afraid that I cannot recommend my noble friend's Amendment to the House. Whether, in fact—and this I throw out as a crumb of comfort to my noble friend—at the end of the day, when you have tried to value the feu-duty or ground annual (omitting the fact, as my noble friend's Amendment does, that it has gone into the possession of a local authority who are in a sound financial position) on the basis that it is someone else who might get rid of it to a man of straw, or in some other way produce the position that it would not be paid, you would add much to the sum, I very much doubt. In fact I do not think there is a great dial between my noble friend and myself in practice, but I must, and my right honourable friend the Minister must, stand by the undertaking that the two are not to get more than the one. Therefore, I am afraid, I cannot accept by noble friend's Amendment.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I express thanks to my noble and learned friend and again ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.19 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved in subsection (2), to omit all words after "shall be," and to insert:
"determined either in the manner provided by the principal Act or by an arbiter mutually agreed upon."
The noble Lord said: This is a very important Amendment. It deals with a subject on which I have often made strong protests to your Lordships. Here is a formula for valuation, like a third form sum, put down in order to determine the value, and, as the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has said, to make quite certain that the two interests together do not get more from the local authority than would be paid to a single interest. The excuse given, I believe, is that the acquisition of the dominium utile by the local authority enhances the value of feu duties, as a personal liability of a local authority can hardly be expected ever to fail. There is very little in that argument. If you were to take the total capital value of all feus that have been irritated in the past nine years—the nine years after the war—I think you would find that in all Scotland it was very low indeed. In nine
1390
out of ten of those cases you would find that the superior had found his interest, and had not suffered any loss by the irritation. That shows that the personal liability of the vassal is really a very small consideration. There is another consideration which may lower the value of the feus—that is, if it had been known for some time previously that the local authority was about to purchase them. That will deter any other purchaser, and will entirely kill the market in those particular subjects. There is not a day-to-day market but a pretty regular market in feu-duties of every sort and kind. They are held by all sorts of trusts and people. I believe that the Church of Scotland holds quite a large number of feu-duties. No competent valuer has any real difficulty in ascertaining the true value of the feu-duties.
Consider what the Government proposal is. The Government proposal is that whatever has been paid for the dominium utile, that is a factor in calculating what is to be the redemption value of the feu-duties. But that is a thing which has taken place long before the feu-duties have come to be redeemed. They are not simultaneous transactions; one transaction is subsequent to the other. If any mistake should be made in the value of the dominium utile, the effect falls not upon the local authority that makes the mistake but upon the superior, who had absolutely nothing to do with the transaction. I do not see why, with a subject in which there is a perfectly open market and which any competent valuer can value, a superior should receive an excessive price for his feu-duties if the dominium utile has been acquired very cheaply. I do not see why he should receive an unfair and too low value for his feu-duties if the local authority has paid too much. In any case, these feu-duties are perfectly easy for a professional value to value, with very little risk of error.
Let us consider the possibilities. The owner of the subject may be a person of considerable local importance. He may be a man whose voice carries great weight in everything to do with local affairs. He may succeed in convincing the district valuer and the local authority that his property is worth more than it really is, Well, if he does so, that is their mistake.

1391
Why should they have recourse for compensation against the owner of the feu-duties? I am not saying that there is anything wrong in it. Everyone may be acting in complete and perfect good faith. The fact remains that, according to this formula, the person who has to suffer the loss is the owner of the feu-duties. It will make local authorities and other people more careless in their valuation of these subjects if they know that they do not have to pay for such mistakes. If our municipal government was not as irreproachable as it is, I would say that the clause as it is at present framed might open the way for a very improper racket. To my mind it is wrong for Parliament to pass a Bill in a form which may possibly, in other and worse times, lead to such a thing. These are the reasons which have induced me to put down this Amendment. I am not necessarily satisfied with its form; I am satisfied with its content. It seems to me quite unnecessary to have a formula of this kind when we are dealing with a subject that can be valued at any time by a competent man. I am certain that I have the whole of a very great profession behind me. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 3, leave out from (" be ") to end of line 9 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Saltoun.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I first of all point out the difficulty which my noble friend's Amendment would create, and then very briefly, out of deference to the strength and feeling with which Lord Saltoun has advanced his arguments, give a brief explanation to your Lordships of how, as I see it, this provision would work in practice. The difficulty about my noble friend's Amendment is that it leaves the price to be determined solely at the discretion of the arbiter. One serious effect of that—which the present clause deliberately avoids—might be that the arbiter would assess the compensation on the basis that the acquiring authority stood in the place of the feuar at the material time for assessing the compensation, and that their financial standing ensured payment of the feu-duty in perpetuity. The consequence of that would be that the consideration payable in respect of feu-duties secured over worthless properties would be as high as
1392
that where the properties were in first-class condition. I cannot accept that. On the other hand, I think that my noble friend is taking an unduly pessimistic view of the working of the provisions. The broad effect of these provisions is that the superior's compensation for redemption of feu-duty or a burden affecting land compulsorily acquired will generally work out like this. Taking, first of all, the example of properties in good condition, in that case it would be equal to the capitalised value of the feu-duty. In the case of slum property and undeveloped land generally it would be equal to the compulsory purchase price of the land, free of all feu-duty burdens.
May I trespass on your Lordships' kindness only because I should like Lord Saltoun to consider these cases and see whether they do not redeem his view of what we are asking. I ask him to take two cases. First, suppose that the property was a slum tenement with only a short life ahead, and, consequently, worth only £60, but subject to feu-duty of £25 per annum, and that in addition there was a Part V claim of £200. There the compensation to the owner of the dominium utile would be only a nominal sum, because the capitalised value of the feu-duty, £500, would exceed the unburdened value of the property, £60, plus the Part V claim of £200–£260 in all. The superior would get the unburdened value of the property plus the Part V claim—that is, £260 or ten years' purchase of the feu-duty. If there was no Part V claim, he would get £60, the unburdened value of the property.
Let me give a second example. Suppose the property acquired is a shop worth £3,000, subject to a feu-duty of £25 per annum and no Part V claim. The compensation to the owner of the dominium utile would be £2,500—that is, the £3,000 less the capitalised value of the feu-duty, £500. The superior would get the difference between £2,500 and £3,000—that is, £500, the full capitalised value of the feu-duty. The acquiring authority would pay the £2,500 plus £500 —that is, £3,000, the value of the property free of burden. In that case, if there was a Part V claim the amount of the claim would increase the compensation to the owner of the dominium utile and leave unaffected the consideration payable to the superior. I have

1393
taken these two examples of different kinds of property. I believe that when we consider them, we see that it is a fair and right way of dealing with this problem. I am sorry I have taken up so much time, but when someone feels on this subject as the noble Lord does, it is only right and proper that the Government should take some trouble to try and demonstrate the line they are putting forward. For the reasons I gave at the beginning of my speech, I am afraid I cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment, but I hope that when he has had a chance of reading and considering what I have said, he will find I have assuaged some of his fears.
LORD SALTOUN: I have listened carefully to what the noble and learned Viscount has said, both now and in answer to my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch. I am sorry to say that I am not persuaded by what he has said. It is difficult for me to visualise a property in Scotland worth only £60 with a feu-duty of £25 on it; but if such a property were to be found, it would be perfectly easy for a competent valuer to value it as it was before the local authority acquired it by purchase. The noble and learned Viscount's argument about the poor security for feu-duty on ground that is encumbered with slum property has not, I think, as great weight as he would place upon it. Feu-duties in Scotland are usually so low in proportion to the value of the development land that there is seldom any great difficulty. The only case I know of a feu being irritated since the commencement of the war was that of a property that was practically derelict, whose superior found his account very much in the irritation. It had paid him hands down. That shows how little value is to be put on that argument.
I came into the Chamber to-night feeling that I ought to divide the Committee on this matter. The House is not very full, and the noble and learned Viscount has received our objections with great courtesy; therefore I will not divide your Lordships on this issue to-night, but I will put an Amendment down on the next stage, and then I will divide the House on it, because, as a valuer, I feel that to some extent I have the whole profession behind me and it is time that we protested against the introduction of
1394
these formulæ into the valuation of subjects which are perfectly easily and readily valued by a competent professional valuer. I do not know why the Chartered Surveyors' Institute received its Charter, seeing that Parliament, under the guidance of successive Governments, takes so much trouble to prevent surveyors from ever having a share in the transactions that occur under them. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 61 shall stand part of the Bill?
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I think this is an appropriate time to ask the noble and learned Viscount a question which has arisen in my mind, as I have been disturbed somewhat by a remark he made in his reply on the Second Reading of this Bill. The noble and learned Viscount said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 189, cols. 1195–6):
"Obviously, the acquiring authority must be free to use the land for the statutory purposes for which it was acquired, and it would be quite wrong that any restrictive covenants enforceable by the superior should continue."
Noble Lords who are conversant with Scottish conditions will know that in the past, in at least nineteen cases out of twenty, where a landlord has parted with land to a local authority for public purposes it has been done not by outright sale but by feu, either for an appropriate annual payment or for payment of a grassum—that is, a lump sum and a nominal feu-duty. It might be so insignificant as a penny Scots payable on demand, which at the same time preserves the superiority and admittedly to some extent binds the feuar not to do certain things that would annoy the superior. It was seldom that any condition was compelled which was in any way unreasonable. I am afraid however, that if one of the purposes of this Bill is to make it impossible for a landlord ever in future to make any restrictive covenant, even of the most harmless nature, in a transaction with a local authority, we shall see a great deal more compulsory acquisition and a great deal less of the amicable bargaining which has usually taken place.
It has to be remembered that conditions in a feu charier are often not inserted for the benefit of the superior, but for the benefit of the community as a whole. If I may give one personal example, for a very nominal feu-duty my

1395
father gave a small piece of ground to a local authority. In the feu charter is a covenant that the authority was not to erect any public convenience on that ground, which was designed to be a children's playground, unless it was placed beneath the surface. A number of years later, the local authority approached me, saying that a public convenience was badly needed, and that to put it below ground would be not only extremely costly but render it liable to flooding. Not to be in any way unreasonable I waived the condition, but only when the local authority undertook to put up a building in a suitable place and of a type far different from the monstrosity which they had originally envisaged. In that case there was no personal benefit to myself but a considerable benefit to the community. That park remains to-day reasonably undisfigured by what otherwise would have been an eyesore. That is only one personal instance of something which throughout the ages has been happening and goes on happening in Scotland up to the present day. If, in future, a local authority is going to be able to insist upon outright purchase without conditions, then I submit to the noble and learned Viscount that that is going to lead to friction and ill-feeling and will do the community more harm than good.
6.40 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: I should like to add a word to what my noble friend Lord Mansfield has said, by way of a simple example. Some time ago, to my knowledge, a dweller in a well-built street erected something which was a nuisance to all his neighbours. He was a very powerful person in the community and nobody liked to take it up with Dean of Guild Court. It was felt that it would entail too much unpopularity. What happened was that the superior intervened and compelled the removal of the nuisance—and that without any bad feeling to anybody concerned. It was recognised that he was entitled to do it. That shows the value to the humble people of the system as depicted by my noble friend Lord Mansfield.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think my noble friends have much to fear in this matter. I am glad that my noble
1396
friend Lord Mansfield called attention to what I had said, but I am unrepentant on the point generally: that, if a local authority is going to acquire land (for, ex hypothesi, one on the duties that Parliament has laid on the local authority, because it could not acquire land for any other purpose), then it seems to me not unreasonable that the local authority should have freedom of use. I am sorry if unfortunate cases have occurred in the experience of my noble friend, but, as a general proposition, I do not think that that could be seriously contested. Once that is agreed to, then the principle is the one I have enunciated: that the superior and the vassal together should not get more than one person would have got if he had owned the land. I cannot remember any specific denial of that proposition in our debates. Apart from establishing that proposition, Clause 61 does not—as I tried to explain in answer to my noble friend Lord Saltoun on Second Reading, perhaps a little elliptically—alter the position under the Land Clauses Act. As my noble friend Lord Saltoun knows well, under the Land Clauses Act it was impossible to give a notice to treat to the superior, because of the judicial decisions in Scotland. I will certainly look carefully at what my two noble friends have said, but, in the limited context of this clause, I do not feel that I have done anything to encourage either vandalism or recklessness on the part of local authorities.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 [Transfer to Secretary of State of functions of Central Land Board exercisable in Scotland]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is to provide the date to be fixed for winding up the Central Land Board. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, lime 6, leave out ("the date of the making of") and insert ("such date as may be specified in").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 10, at end insert—
("(2) On the dissolution of the Central Land Board, by an Order in Council under the said

1397
section sixty-two, section one of the principal Act (which relates to that Board) shall cease to have effect.").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 63 and 64 agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 64 to insert the following new clause:
Provision for diversion of Payments
".—(1) Regulations made under this section may make prevision as to the exercise of the right to apply for a payment under Part I of this Act, or to claim compensation under Part II or Part V thereof or compensation for depreciation as defined for the purposes of Part IV of this Act and as to the person to whom any such payment or compensation, or any part thereof, is to be made or paid, and as to application of any such payment or compensation or any part thereof, in cases where, apart from this section, the right to apply for the payment or to claim the compensation, as the case may be, is exercisable by reference to—

(a) a claim holding which is subject to an assignation in security, or which was so subject at a time specified in the regulations; or

(b) an interest in land which is subject to a ground annual or a heritable security or a trust, or which was so subject at a time specified in the regulations; or

(c) an interest in land which is the interest of a vassal or a lessee.

(2) Any regulations made under this section may provide—

(a) for such conditions as may be prescribed to be attached to the making or paying by virtue of the regulations of any such payment or compensation as aforesaid or any part thereof;

(b) for the application, in a case where any payment or compensation, or any part thereof, is by virtue of the regulations to ob made or paid to a superior or to the creditor in a ground annual, of all or any of the provisions of section twenty-five of the War Damage Act, 1943 (which relates to the rights of superiors and creditors in ground annuals as to payments for war damage) subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be prescribed; and

(c) for any disputes, or any disputes of such classes as may be prescribed, arising out of the regulations to be referred to the Lands Tribunal for determination by that Tribunal."

The noble and learned Viscount said: I should like to say a few words about this new clause, and perhaps your Lordships will allow me to discuss this Amendment with Amendments Nos. 109 and 110 because the new clause com-
1398
bines the existing Clause 65 [Provision for making payments in certain cases to owners of interests other than those in respect of which they accrue], and Clause 66 [Provision as to payments in certain cases affected by trusts and heritable securities]. Both Clauses 65 and 66, in effect, provide in relation to different types of cases for the diversion of payments from the persons entitled to them under various Parts of the Bill to other persons, and their combination in one clause is primarily a matter of drafting.
The new clause, however, is more comprehensive than the clauses which are being superseded, in the following respects. First, it provides for diversions where the payments are made not in respect of interests in land but of claim holdings under Parts I and V of the Bill. Secondly, it gives a right to persons to whom a diversion might be made to apply direct for the payment where the person originally entitled to it has failed to apply. Thirdly, it provides for the reference of disputes to the Lands Tribunal. In Scotland, as the Lands Tribunal has not yet been appointed, references are in the meantime to be made to an official arbiter under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. The new clause follows the same lines as Clause 65 (1) of the English Bill, as amended in Committee, except that it covers also payments in respect of compensation in depreciation do the value of interests in land resulting from a future revocation or mollification of planning provision While these eases are few, it seems logical to provide for them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 64, insert the said new clause. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Leave out Clause 65.
Leave out Clause 66.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Provisions as to regulations]
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is not necessary to get Treasury approval for procedural regulations. I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 26, leave out lines 26 to 28.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 69 [Interpretation]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 13, at end insert—
("'compensation on the basis of existing use' means compensation with respect to the assessment of which the following provisions apply, that is to say, the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, as modified by sections forty-eight, fifty and fifty-one of the principal Act, not being compensation calculated on the basis of equivalent reinstatement or on the basis of prevailing use and excluding any compensation for disturbance or for severance or injurious affection;").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 79, line 7, leave out subsection (8).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 79, line 21, after ("reference") insert ("in this Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 70 [Minor and consequential amendments and repeals]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is to make it clear that claims and development charges are not subject to re-assessment in the terms of the amended Third Schedule of the 1947 Act. On the other hand, existing use value or restricted value, in terms of compensation under Clause 33, will be subject to assessment in the terms of the amended Third Schedule, as amended by the Second Schedule of this Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 79, line 33, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of section thirty-three of this Act,").—(The Earl of Selkirk)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The words in this Amendment were omitted by mistake. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 79, line 35, leave out from first ("of") to end of line 37 and insert ("the following provisions of that Act, that is to say section fifty-one (which relates to the assessment of compensation for the compulsory acquisition of requisitioned land), section fifty-eight (which relates to the ascertainment of development values), section sixty-six (which relates to development charges) and subsection (1) of section eighty-five (which relates to the calculation of the development value of requisitioned land).")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 1, leave out subsection (6).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
First Schedule [Modification of provisions of principal Act as to development value]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is an adjustment necessary because the compulsory purchase provisions of the 1947 Act came into operation almost a year before the appointed day. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 45, leave out ("begun but not completed") and insert ("carried out").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule [Claims assigned to Central Land Board as security for Development Charges]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The purpose of this Amendment is to set off in any one claim area all development charges due against that area. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 18, at end insert—
("(2) All assignations of claim holdings to the Central Land Board made by the same person, whether or not made at the same time, other than any assignation to which subparagraph (1) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule applies, shall for the purposes of this Schedule be treated collectively as a single assignation made at the time when the last of those assignations was made.

1401
(3) Where a development charge covered by an assignation to the Central Land Board was determined in respect of land which constitutes the whole or part of the area of a claim holding not comprised in the assignation, being a holding of which the holder is the person who would, apart from the assignation, be liable to pay the unpaid balance of the development charge, then, for the purposes of this Schedule, that claim holding shall be deemed to be comprised in the assignation.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 85, line 12, leave out from ("where") to ("and") in line 13 and insert ("an assignation to the Central Land Board comprised one or more claim holdings.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a fairly long Amendment, but I am told that it is a readjustment intended to simplify the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out paragraphs 4 and 5 and insert—
"4. Where an assignation to the Central Land Board comprised only a single holding with an area of which every part either consited of, or formed part of, the land in respect of which some development charge covered by the assignation was determined, and the last preceding paragraph does not apply, the unpaid balance of the development charge covered by the assignation, or, if more than one, the aggregate of the unpaid balances of all the development charges covered by the assignation, shall be deducted from the value of the holding, and the value of that holding shall be deemed to have been reduced accordingly as from the time of the assignation.
5.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect in the case of an assignation of one or more claim holdings to the Central Land Board to which neither of the two last preceding paragraphs applies
(2) Any claim holding comprised in the assignation with an area of which every part either consisted of, or formed part of, the land in respect of which some development charge covered by the assignation was determined shall be allocated to the development charge in question or, if more than one, to those development charges collectively.
(3) Any claim holding comprised in the assignation with an area part of which did, and part of which did not, consist of, or form part of, such land as aforesaid shall be treated as if, at the time of the assignation, the claim holding (in this sub-paragraph referred to as the parent holding") had been divided into two separate claim holdings, that is to say—
1402

(a) a claim holding with an area consisting of so much of the area of the parent holding as consisted of, or formed part of, such land as aforesaid and with a value equal to that fraction of the value of the parent holding which then attached to that part of the area of the parent holding; and

(b) a claim holding with an area consisting of the residue of the area of the parent holding and with a value equal to that fraction of the value of the parent holding which then attached to the residue of the area of the parent holding.

and the claim holding referred to in head (a) of this sub-paragraph shall be allocated to the development charge in question, or, if more than one, to those development charges collectively.
(4) Paragraph 3 or 4 of this Schedule shall then apply in relation to each claim holding, if any, allocated in accordance with the two last preceding sub-paragraphs to any development charge, or to any development charges collectively, as if the assignation had comprised only that claim holding and had covered only that development charge or those development charges.
(5) If after the application of the preceding provisions of this paragraph there remains outstanding any claim holding not allocated in accordance with those provisions, or any claim holding so allocated which has been reduced in value but not extinguished, an amount equal to the aggregate of—

(a) the unpaid balance of any development charge covered by the assignation to which no claim holding was allocated as aforesaid; and

(b) the amount, if any, by which the value of any claim holding allocated as aforesaid which is deemed to have been extinguished falls short of the unpaid balance of the development charge, or the aggregate of the unpaid balances of the development charges, to which it was so allocated,

shall be deducted from the value of the claim holding so remaining outstanding, or, if more than one, shall be deducted rateably from the respective values of those claim holdings, and the value of any such holding shall be deemed to have been reduced accordingly as from the time of the assignation."—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third and Fourth Schedules agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is the Amendment to which I referred before, making the Bill more complete and thus avoiding the making of regulations in regard to the apportionment of interests. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After the Fourth Schedule insert the following new Schedule—

FIFTH SCHEDULE

  APPORTIONMENT OF UNEXPENDED BALANCE OF ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT VALUE
  Determination of Relevant Area
  1.—(1) Where, in the case of a compulsory acquisition to which Part III of this Act applies, any area of the relevant land which, immediately before the service of the notice to treat, had an unexpended balance of established development value does not satisfy the condition set out in the next following sub-paragraph, that area shall be treated as divided into as many separate areas as may be requisite to ensure that each of those separate areas satisfies that condition.
  (2) The condition referred to in the preceding sub-paragraph is that all the interests (other than excepted interests) subsisting in the area in question subsist in the whole thereof.
  (3) Any area of the relevant land which has an unexpended balance of established development value and which complies with the condition set out in the last preceding subparagraph is in this Schedule referred to in relation to the interests subsisting therein as 'the relevant area', and the subsequent provisions of this Schedule shall have effect separately in relation to each relevant area.
  Preliminary Calculations
  2. In the case of the interest of the lessor under any lease there shall be calculated the capital value as at the time immediately before the service of the notice to treat of the right to receive a sum equal to the unexpended balance of established development value of the relevant area at that time, but payable at the expiration of the lease; and the amount so calculated in the case of any such interest is in this Schedule referred to as 'the reversionary development value' of that interest.
  Apportionment of unexpended balance between Interest.
  3. Where two or more interests, other than excepted interests, subsist in the relevant area, the portion of the unexpended balance of established development value of the relevant area attributable to each respectively of those interests shall be taken to be the following, that is to say—

  (a) in the case of the interest of the lessor under any lease, so much, if any, of the reversionary development value of that interest, as remains after the deduction therefrom of the aggregate of—

  (i) the reversionary development value of the interest of the person, if any, to whom that lessor stands in the relationship of lessee; and

  (ii)in a case where the restricted value of the first-mentioned interest is a minus quantity, an amount equal to that minus quantity;

  (b) in the case of the interest of the lessee under any lease which is not subject to a sub-lease, so much, if any, of the said balance as remains after the deduction therefrom of the aggregate of—

  (i) the reversionary development value of the interest of the lessor under the lease, and

  1404

  (ii) in a case where the restricted value of the first-mentioned interest is a minus quantity, an amount equal to that minus quantity.

  Interpretation
  4. In this Schedule the expression 'lease' does not include any lease in the case of which the interest of the lessee is an excepted interest.").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Fifth Schedule [Special classes of land for which planning permission is to be included in compensation on compulsory acquisition]:
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 89, line 39, leave out ("planning decision granting") and insert ("granting of").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is also drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 89, line 43, leave out ("said planning decision") and insert ("granting of the planning permission in question.").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Sixth Schedule [Compensation, on compulsory acquisition, for severance and injurious affection]:
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 92, line 3, leave out from first ("the") to ("or") in line 4 and insert ("relevant land").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is also drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 92, line 9, leave out ("to which the sale related") and insert ("in which the interest sold subsisted").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 92, line 28, after ("be,") insert ("of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Seventh Schedule [Enactments Amended]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential on the new clause. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 92, line 46, leave out paragraph 1.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment deals with cases in which the local authority have to pay compensation for use inferior to existing use value. This would include the unexpended balance of claim. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page, 93, line 2, at end insert—
  ("1. In section eighteen, in subsection (4), at the end there shall be added the words 'if Part III of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1954, had not been passed'.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am told that this Amendment is largely redrafting, to bring the Schedule up to date. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved
  Page 93, line 21, leave out from beginning to end of line 51 and insert—
  ("3. In the Third Schedule—

  (a) in paragraph 1 of Part I, after the words "such building)" there shall be inserted the words "and of any other building in existence at a material date, being a building erected after the appointed day";

  (b) in paragraph 2 of Part I and paregraphs 2 and 7 of Part II, for the words "on the appointed day" there shall in each case be substituted the words "at a material date";

  (c) in paragraph 5 of Part II, for the words "on the appointed day" there shall be substituted, in the first place where those words occur, the words "at a material date" and, in the second place where those words occur the words "on and at all times since the appointed day";

  (d) in paragraph 6 of Part II, for the words "on the appointed day" in the first place where they occur there shall be substituted the words "at a material date", and after the said words in the second place where they occur there shall be inserted the words "or on the day thereafter when the buildings began to be so used;

  (e) after paragraph 7 of Part II, there shall be added the following—

  PART III
  1. In this Schedule, the expression "at a material date" means at either of the following dates, that is to say—

  (a) the appointed day; or

  (b) the date by reference to which this Schedule falls to be applied in the particular case in question:

  Provided that sub-paragraph (b) of this paragraph shall not apply in relation to any building works or use of land in respect of which, whether before or after the date mentioned in that sub-paragraph, an enforcement notice served before that date has become or becomes effective.
  2. Where, after the appointed day, any buildings or works have been erected or constructed, or any use of land has been instituted, and any condition imposed under Part II of this Act limiting the period for which those buildings or works may be retained or that use may be continued is of effect in relation thereto, this Schedule not operate except as respects the period specified in that condition.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  Seventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Eighth Schedule (Enactments Repealed]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 94, line 11, leave out from the beginning to end of line 13.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 94, line 15, column 3, leave out ("and subsection (5)") and insert ("subsection (5), and in subsection (6) the words from 'or a' to 'section eighteen of this Act' and the words from 'or as' to 'said section eighteen';").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 94, line 22, column 3, leave out from ("(4)") to end of line 28.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is also consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 94, line 29, leave out lines 29 to 36.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 94, line 45, column 3, at end add ("and subsections (5) to (7).")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Eighth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  On Question, That the Bill be reported to the House with Amendments:
  6.56 p.m.
  LORD SALTOUN: We have had a great many Amendments to this Bill, of which all the Government Amendments have been passed, and on some of the Amendments moved by noble Lords on the Back Benches consideration has been promised by Her Majesty's Government. I should like to suggest to the Government that it might be better if we recommitted the Bill on the next stage, and then took the Report and the Third Reading together. There are not many Amendments, and I think Her Majesty's Government will acknowledge that we have not been very "long-winded" in arguing them. That will give noble Lords a better chance of discussing them at the next stage.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly consider the suggestion. It was not in my mind before my noble friend spoke, and I shall have to consult my noble friend the Leader of the House and others before I come to any conclusion. I do not think I can say more at the moment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is just this point. We shall have to know whether noble Lords opposite would object to taking the Report stage and the Third Reading on the same day. It may be done, but only by leave of the House.
  LORD SILKIN: What was going through my mind was that if this is a
  1408
  desirable step to take in respect of the Scottish Bill then, a fortiori, it is desirable in respect of the English Bill. I am not sure whether it would be workable to have the Third Reading on the same day as the Report stage, because there might still be some outstanding Amendments. This is a difficult Bill, and we go on hoping that we may induce the Government to make improvements as we go along. We may even be successful on the Report stage, and they may give undertakings, in which case the suggestion made would not be workable because it would not give the Government an opportunity of incorporating any Amendments in the Third Reading. I think there should be at least a day or two between the two stages. On the general question as to whether we should recommit, I think if you do this with the Scottish Bill, you certainly ought to do it with the English Bill. I personally would not object to the Third Reading being taken on the day after, but I think to take it on the same day would make discussion unrealistic.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid that, in the circumstances, we could not concur with Lord Saltoun's suggestion. I would have been glad to do so, but the time factor is a vital one, and I am afraid that the suggestion which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has made—which is quite proper for him to make—rules that out.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  House adjourned at one minute past seven o' clock.