Sitting of 26 October 1954

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

    Prefabricated Houses
    Mr. Stewardasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prefabricated houses were built in Scotland under the post-war programme; how many have since been demolished; and within what period he estimates that the remainder will be replaced by permanent brick dwellings.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): A total of 32,156 houses were built in Scotland under the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1944, and of these 46 have been destroyed or demolished. No estimate can be given of the period within which the remainder of the temporary houses will be replaced by permanent ones.
    Sir T. Moore: Would it not perhaps be wise to regard these prefabricated houses more as transit camps between the thoroughly bad homes from which the people have been taken and the admirable houses which the Conservative Government have built for them?
    Mrs. Mann: Is there not a misunderstanding in the use of the adjective? "Prefabrication" is used extensively in Scotland for permanent houses. The Weir Housing Corporation has prefabricated houses which are good for 60 years.
    Commander Galbraith: My hon. Friend was referring to the prefabricated houses as part of the temporary programme. I referred to temporary accommodation under the Act.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that although some of the temporary houses have not stood up, plenty of people have fine homes in these temporary prefabricated houses and are very happy to be in them? It is a great mistake to slander everybody's home because one or two houses have given bad results.

    Rents
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what complaints he has received in respect of increased rents for corporation and privately-owned houses in Ayr and elsewhere; and if he will make a statement on the general position.
    Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend has had no complaints from Ayr. Representations are made to him from time to time about increases in the rents of local authority and privately-owned houses, but he has no power to intervene in these matters.
    Sir T. Moore: My right hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that his answer will do much to dissipate the unscrupulous propaganda that has been put about that all increases in rents are due to the actions of the Conservative Government.
    Mr. Manuel: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Housing Acts lay down that rents should be fixed by the local authority, the Department not entering into the matter? Would not a clearer picture be obtained so far as this Question is concerned if the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) applied to the municipality, which has a host of complaints about rent increases?
    Sir T. Moore: Oh, no, they have not.

    Cumbernauld New Town
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how soon designation and draft orders will be made in respect of the proposed new town at Cumbernauld.
    Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend has discussed with Glasgow Corporation the proposal for a new development at Cumbernauld to assist in meeting

    1731
    the corporation's housing needs, and he will not be in a position to reach a decision until he receives the answer to questions he has put to them.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the areas around Cumbernauld, including Airdrie, are waiting to find out whether draft orders are going to be made, so that they may make their representations? Could he speed up these draft orders?
    Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend is doing everything he can towards that end.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that many of us have grave doubts about the principles of new towns? Can he say what area of agricultural land will be involved in this affair?
    Commander Galbraith: That is a different question from the one on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Rankin: If the hon. and gallant Member had as little land as Glasgow has for housing he would not have any doubts in the matter.
    Mr. Formanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial and administrative obligations he has asked the Glasgow Corporation to undertake in the development of the new town at Cumbernauld.
    Commander Galbraith: The questions which my right hon. Friend has under discussion with Glasgow Corporation in connection with the suggested development at Cumbernauld include matters of finance and administration, but he is not in a position to make a statement in detail until he has the views of the Glasgow Corporation on these questions.
    Mr. McInnes: Why is it necessary to discuss the financial implications with Glasgow Corporation in respect of the only new town so far suggested to deal with its overspill when London has already had eight new towns to deal with its overspill and has not been asked to make any financial contribution?
    Commander Galbraith: The circumstances are not anything like similar.

  SCOTLAND

    Fish Meal Factories, Peterhead and Avoch
    Sir R. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to give an assurance that every effort is being made to complete the construction of the Government fish meal and oil factory at Peterhead in time for the summer fishing next year.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): Yes, Sir.
    Sir R. Boothby: Thank you very much.
    Mr. John MacLeodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the proposed fish meal factory at Avoch.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The Herring Industry Board has asked for a grant of £69,000 to meet the cost of this factory, and the County Council of Ross and Cromarty has applied for a grant towards the cost, estimated at £50,000, of a new pier to serve the factory. Both applications are under consideration.
    Mr. MacLeod: Can the Minister confirm that it is not necessary to have the pier before the factory is built?
    Mr. Stewart: I think I should have notice of that rather technical question. The proposition as it stands requires both the pier and the factory, and applications for both are under active consideration.
    Mr. MacLeod: If the pier should not be forthcoming in the immediate future, can my hon. Friend confirm that it will not hinder the building of the factory?

    Slaughterhouses (Siting)
    Sir R. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive the report of the committee which has been considering the location of slaughterhouses.
    Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend hopes to receive the committee's final report by the end of the year.

    Ferry Service, Applecross (Pier)
    Mr. John MacLeodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made with the provision of a ferry

    1733
    service and pier at Toscaig, Applecross, Ross-shire.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: A preliminary survey has been made for the site of a pier and practical arrangements for operating a ferry service are being examined by the Departments concerned. There will be no avoidable delay in reaching a decision.
    Mr. MacLeod: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the people of Applecross consider that there has been far too long a delay already? Can he say when a decision will be reached, because this is an intolerable position in which these people are living and improved communications have been talked about for the last 60 years?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend will appreciate that this is a relatively small community. The cost of this operation would be very heavy, and therefore, although we want to do the right thing, it is proper that we should consider the matter with great care.
    Mr. MacLeod: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was his Department who decided that this scheme was an alternative to a road which the people really wanted and which should be built, and that his Department has agreed that this is an alternative?
    Mr. Stewart: That alternative, as my hon. Friend knows, was recommended by the Highland Panel, of which he is a member.

    Doctors (Partnerships)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that certain medical practitioners are taking assistants into partnership on payment of an agreed sum of money in compensation; and what action he will take to put an end to this practice.
    Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend is not aware of any cases of this kind. The purchase or sale of any part of the goodwill of a general medical practice in the National Health Service is an offence, and if the hon. Member has evidence of any such transactions he should report them so that prosecution may be considered.
    Mr. Rankin: I thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for that answer,
    1734
    which I hope will receive publicity, because this practice does exist. I have no particulars, and I do not know how widespread the practice is, but I hope that I can depend upon the Department to do its bit. I shall do my bit.

    Caravan Site, Maidens (Petition)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the nature of the petition he has received from the inhabitants of Maidens, Ayrshire, on the question of the establishment of a caravan camp in the village; and what was the nature of his reply.
    Commander Galbraith: The petition, which my right hon. Friend received on 19th October, protests against the decision of Ayr County Council as local planning authority to allow a permanent caravan site in the village of Maidens. He has informed the petitioners that he will consider the matter, but that he is first seeking the observations of the county council.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the inhabitants of this village are threatened with the taking away of their community centre, which was not a question before the county council? In considering the representations of the local authority, will he bear this fact in mind?
    Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend will bear all the facts in mind.

    Myxomatosis
    Major Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland which counties have been affected by the rabbit disease of myxomatosis; and what evidence he has of any rabbit developing immunity from the disease.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): Up to 25th October, there have been 86 confirmed outbreaks of this disease in all but three of the counties of Scotland. The counties so far free are Dunbarton, Roxburgh and Selkirk. My right hon. Friend has no evidence of any wild rabbits in Scotland having developed immunity to this disease, but he understands that in some parts of England a few rabbits have been found to have anti-bodies to myxomatosis in their blood.
    Mr. Prydeasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the apprehension expressed in many quarters of the danger of pollution of reservoirs and rural water supplies by the spread of myxomatosis; and if he will make a statement.
    Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend is aware of no grounds for apprehension. In their report of 16th March, 1954, the Advisory Council on Myxomatosis said that, on medical advice, they were satisfied there was no apparent risk to human health from the disease. No evidence has since been produced to warrant any different view.
    Mr. Pryde: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House what research was undertaken in Scotland before this ugly evil thing was loosed upon the countryside?

    Premature Baby Unit (Airdrie)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the infant mortality rate for the burgh of Airdrie was 46 per 1,000 live births, and compares with the figure of 31 for the whole of Scotland, and as a special premature baby unit is needed how soon this can be supplied.
    Commander Galbraith: Such a unit is already available at Bellshill Maternity Hospital, only four miles from Airdrie.
    Mrs. Mann: Yes, but surely the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that the Bellshill unit is overcrowded and that we just cannot get our mothers into it? Is he further aware that the incidence in Coatbridge is even higher than that in Airdrie, and that such a unit would serve both these burghs, which have two of the highest birth rates in Scotland?
    Commander Galbraith: The regional hospital board do not consider that a premature unit is needed at Airdrie.

    Monkland Canal
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made with Coatbridge Town Council in respect of the problem of the Monkland Canal.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: My right hon. Friend has brought the town council's
    1736
    representations to the notice of the British Transport Commission, which has informed him that the council has an option, until November, 1955, to acquire the area of the canal within the burgh and pipe the water. The question of filling in the canal seems, therefore, to be one between the council and the Commission.
    Mrs. Mann: The problem is one of money, and the cost to the council would be exceedingly high. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that was the way in which Glasgow's representations were dealt with?
    Mr. Stewart: I think the hon. Lady is right about that, but the fact remains that the matter is really one for the Council and the Commission. Financial matters will, no doubt, be considered when they arise.

    Fatstock Marketing
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the concern of the agriculture industry about the considerable profits which are being made by the expedient of moving stock which has been certified for Government guarantee from one market to another, thereby increasing the Treasury's liability; and what steps he is taking to deal with the practice.
    Mr. Snadden: My right hon. Friend is aware that there is some concern in the industry on this matter. The movement of stock is essential and, on balance, serves to reduce the overall Treasury liability provided there is no collusion. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the Government are watching very closely the operation of fatstock markets and will not hesitate to take action where there is evidence that markets are inefficient or unsatisfactory.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the agriculture industry is concerned about the leakages which have taken place in this manner and that consumers would also be concerned if they knew about it? Apprehension is felt that once again both consumers and producers will be fleeced by people coming in as middlemen and using all kinds of rackets to take advantage of otherwise assured markets for the farmers.
    Mr. Snadden: I should like to make two points clear to the right hon. Gentleman. First, there is no possibility of an animal qualifying for the Government guarantee twice over because it is marked with certain marks. Secondly, where there is any evidence of collusion—that is to say, of people getting together in order to depress prices and thereby raise the Exchequer liability—we have machinery ready to put a stop to it.

    Prescription Charges (Payments)
    Mr. Carmichaelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total financial cost to medical patients for service under the National Health Service, for the year 1953–54; and what he estimates the charges will be for 1954–55.
    Commander Galbraith: The total payments by patients in 1953–54 in respect of drugs and appliances prescribed by general practitioners were £740,000. My right hon. Friend does not expect that the 1954–55 figure will be materially different. If the hon. Member has some other item in mind, perhaps he will let me know.
    Mr. Carmichael: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman state the amount paid by old-age pensioners out of this sum?
    Commander Galbraith: I could not do that.

    Potato Harvesting (School Children)
    Mr. Carmichaelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of school children who were engaged on potato harvesting this year from Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Dundee, respectively; and the number from each authority who were from senior secondary schools and fee-paying schools, respectively.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The harvesting of the potato crop is not yet complete. The latest information is that 1,544 Glasgow children went from junior secondary schools, 108 from senior secondary schools and none from fee-paying schools. Seven hundred and thirty-nine Edinburgh children went from junior secondary schools, 46 from senior secondary schools and 537 from fee-paying schools. Three thousand, three hundred and seventy-two Dundee
    1738
    children went from junior secondary schools, 430 from senior secondary schools and four from fee-paying schools.
    Mr. Carmichael: About two years ago the Minister indicated that steps were being taken to abolish potato harvesting by children from the big towns. Can the hon. Gentleman say what progress has been made? He will understand from the figures he has given today that the great majority of children who take part in potato harvesting are those whose education will stop at 15 years of age. It is a very serious handicap to put these children to potato harvesting.
    Mr. Stewart: No child goes unless it volunteers to go, or its parents volunteer for it to go, so there is no compulsion about the matter. Secondly, I would point out that the numbers of children used in the potato fields have steadily fallen in recent years, and look like continuing to fall.
    Mr. Woodburn: Can the hon. Member say what progress has been made in finding a harvesting machine capable of dealing with Scottish soils, because this whole question hinges on the invention of such a machine?
    Mr. Stewart: I have been into this question very carefully, and I am sorry to say that we have not found such a machine. Some machines are very good for soil without stones, but the universal machine has not yet been discovered.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is my hon. Friend aware that the happiness and good health of these children as a result of this excellent work, have to be seen to be believed?
    Mr. Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that these junior schools are those causing most problems educationally, and that it is most unfair for this kind of school to have its pupils raided annually for this purpose? Can he tell us how long on an average those children are away from school, because I believe that in some cases there has been an extension for yet another three weeks?
    Mr. Stewart: It is difficult to give average figures. Some are away much less, some a week, some a fortnight. In Perth and Angus, on account of the exceptionally bad weather, the local authorities have, I think generously, extended the

    1739
    period of exemption. In the circumstances, I am afraid that we cannot do anything but use the labour of the children for the time being.
    Mr. Bence: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the Soviet Union I myself saw a potato harvesting machine which harvests potatoes efficiently in all kinds of soil? Is he really telling us that our technicians and engineers are incapable of producing such a machine? If this labour is very cheap, I can understand why certain people are not interested in an expensive machine, but do not let the hon. Gentleman try to tell us that such a machine cannot be devised, because I have seen one.
    Mr. Stewart: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not a matter of expense. The best technicians of our country are examining this problem but have not yet found a machine. If the hon. Gentleman has information about a Soviet machine, it is his duty to let us know all about it.

    Children's Comics
    Mr. Benceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take steps to prohibit the sale of United States comic papers, which are on sale in Glasgow and other cities of Scotland.
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the evil effects of certain comic papers now being sold to children and what steps he is taking to prevent or control the sale of such harmful reading matter.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Representations have been received by my right hon. Friend from a number of sources and, in consultation with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary, he is giving the matter very careful consideration.
    Mr. Bence: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we in this country are being held up to ridicule, since much excellent literature is banned from our libraries because it is said to be obscene while, at the same time, there is nothing more obscene than portraying a human being as a ghoul, as many of these comics do? It is just not understood. Would the Minister take immediate steps to stop this
    1740
    filthy literature circulating amongst the children of this country?
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister tell us to what extent he is co-operating with religious and educational bodies on this matter? Whilst we appreciate that his investigations into a solution will naturally take time, will he meanwhile make an appeal to the newsagents to stop handling this stuff?
    Mr. Stewart: As the hon. Gentleman and the House know, we are all agreed that this is dreadful literature. I have seen examples, and I think it is horrible. The question of what to do is a difficult one to answer, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that in making our present examination we shall be in contact with all the bodies from whom we expect to get help.

    Leith Town Hall (Rebuilding)
    Mr. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is yet in a position to make a statement about the rebuilding of Leith Town Hall.
    Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend expects to receive from Edinburgh Corporation shortly further information which he hopes will enable him to reach a decision on this proposal without delay.
    Mr. Hoy: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland promised me just before the Recess that he would be giving his decision very soon? Is the House now to understand that the Minister is still waiting on further information which he did not have at that time?
    Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend then informed the hon. Gentleman that the corporation was being asked for details. We are still awaiting the reply.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Leith Town Hall was bombed in one of the first bombing raids of the war? In view of the reconstruction which has taken place in other parts of the country, surely a town hall of this kind ought to get some. priority?
    Sir G. Lloyd: Why did you not do it; you had six years?
    Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend has asked for information which has not yet been forthcoming.

    Tuberculosis Treatment
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the young Sutherland woman, who is suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis and of whom he has particulars, has been waiting over a year and a half for a bed in Woodend Hospital, Aberdeen, where she will undergo an operation for resection of ribs; and, in view of the fact that this lady was first admitted to Cambusavie Hospital in November, 1950, and discharged after seven months' treatment, readmitted in March, 1952, and discharged after 15 months' treatment, if he will take immediate steps to have the operation carried out at Woodend Hospital or elsewhere.
    Commander Galbraith: Thoracic surgery facilities in the north of Scotland have, unfortunately, been very limited, and a considerable waiting list has arisen. The Scottish Branch of the British Red Cross recently put at our disposal facilities for the purpose at their Tor-na-Dee Sanatorium, and as a result my right hon. Friend expects that delays in providing treatment will be greatly reduced. The order in which patients are admitted must, however, be left to the doctors concerned to decide in the light of relative urgency on medical grounds and other material factors.
    Sir D. Robertson: Why should the north of Scotland area be segregated, as it has been in the answer of my right hon. and gallant Friend? What about Glasgow, Edinburgh, London. Leeds, and all the other places where there are skilled surgeons and beds waiting? Is it not quite wrong that this young woman should be left in the serious state she is? If an operation is necessary, it should have been done 18 months' ago.
    Commander Galbraith: I can only repeat what I have said to my hon. Friend, that the order in which patients are admitted must be left to the doctors concerned to decide in the light of other cases of urgency.
    Sir G. Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what developments he has to report regarding the provision of hospital treatment for tuberculosis.
    Commander Galbraith: The General Nursing Council for Scotland has decided that tuberculosis nursing, for a minimum of eight weeks, should, in future, be part of the training of a student nurse for State registration. This will apply to students entering training from January, 1956, unless excused for medical reasons. My right hon. Friend welcomes the Council's decision, for it will, no doubt, result in an expansion of the nursing force trained in the care of tuberculosis.
    Sir G. Lloyd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great many other people in Scotland will also welcome this most intelligent decision?
    Miss Herbison: Since the General Nursing Council has taken this decision, can we be certain that the one board in Scotland which so far has done very little about seconding nurses to this service will fall in line and ensure that at least eight weeks' training will be done in this type of nursing before going on to staff nursing?
    Commander Galbraith: It would not appear that there would be any option.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: Does the announcement mean that in future tuberculosis training will count as part of the general training of nurses?
    Commander Galbraith: Yes, Sir.

    Local Authorities (Derating Losses)
    Mr. Formanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what extra financial provisions he is prepared to make to cover loss to Glasgow Corporation of £1 million per year owing to derating.
    Commander Galbraith: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies to his questions of 13th July last, to which I cannot add at present.
    Mr. Forman: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, in answer to a recent question, he referred to the fact that the Secretary of State was awaiting the Report of the Sorn Committee and that once he had received that Report he would be able to give a decision on this question?
    Commander Galbraith: Surely the hon. Member realises that it takes some little time to assimilate all that is in that Report.

    Mentally Defective Children, Midlothian (Institutional Care)
    Mr. Prydeasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what accommodation is provided in Midlothian for institutional care of mentally defective juveniles.
    Commander Galbraith: The South-Eastern Region as a whole is served by Cogarburn Institution, Edinburgh, and Strathore Institution in Fife, which have respectively 100 and 105 patients under 16. In addition, under arrangements made by the hospital authorities, some 80 places for child and adolescent defectives in the South-Eastern Region are available in institutions run by voluntary bodies in the area.
    Mr. Pryde: Is the Minister aware that the practice of keeping these mental defectives in the home is a serious danger to domestic conditions in my constituency?
    Commander Galbraith: I am not aware of that.
    Mr. Pryde: I have already sent particulars of one case to the Minister and will send particulars of others.

    Poliomyelitis, Aberdeenshire
    Sir R. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to give full statistics of the recent outbreak of poliomyelitis in Aberdeenshire; and what action has been taken to prevent an extension of the disease.
    Commander Galbraith: The present outbreak of poliomyelitis in Aberdeenshire has affected five children in Insch, four in Old Meldrum, three in Huntly and two in Oyne. On the advice of the county medical officer of health four schools have been closed, and the cooperation of parents has been sought in keeping children away from cinemas, clubs and other such gatherings for the time being.
    Sir R. Boothby: Arising out of that answer, and in view of the fact that in this kind of situation unfounded rumours are apt to spread giving rise to unnecessary anxiety, will my right hon. and gallant Friend impress on authorities directly concerned the desirability of making the fullest possible information available to the public, both with regard to the facts
    1744
    and to any action which it is advisable that they should take?
    Commander Galbraith

    Legal Aid Scheme
    Mr. Steeleasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when it is proposed to bring into force Sections 5 and 7 of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: It is not proposed for the present to bring these sections into force.
    Mr. Steele: Could the Joint Under-Secretary tell us why not, and also why this Question is referred to him? Is he aware that I put the Question on the Order Paper to the Lord Advocate, as I was sure that the House was very anxious to know what the Lord Advocate had to say on the subject?
    Mr. Stewart: I do not know the answer to the second part of the supplementary question. The reasons why we take this view now are probably the same as those that appealed to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they introduced the Measure.
    Mr. Steeleasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the number of legal aid certificates which are being abandoned after they have been approved; and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is watching very carefully the operation of the legal aid scheme, but amending legislation is not proposed at present.
    Mr. Steele: Has the Lord Advocate drawn the attention of the Secretary of State to the fact that 12·3 per cent. of the applications were abandoned? Could we have an assurance that the reasons why the applications were abandoned are examined, and can the Minister say now whether they were abandoned because even the financial obligation on the individual was too great?
    Mr. Stewart: The report of the Society, which, as the hon. Member knows, was issued the other day, did not make all the reasons clear. Some were suggested, but I do not think that we know all the reasons at this stage.
    Mr. Steele: Will the hon. Gentleman have an examination made into the facts and find out?
    Mr. Stewart: I will consider that.

    Dentists
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how great is the shortage of dentists and school dentists in Scotland; and what steps are being taken to rectify the situation.
    Commander Galbraith: The number of dentists in general practice is sufficient to meet the current demand for treatment. If the rate of growth of the school service since 1951 continues for another five years, this will provide the 100 additional dentists still required in that service. But there has been a substantial drop in the number of students entering dental schools in the last few years. My right hon. Friend and the Minister of Health are considering with the British Dental Association how we can help to maintain recruitment to the profession at an adequate long-term level.
    Mr. Grimond: I am grateful to hear that steps are being taken to recruit more dentists. May I draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that in my constituency conservation work is badly behind and that there are very few school dentists in Orkney? Having paid a few dentists too much for a short time, is it not possible that we are now paying all dentists too little to secure recruits to the profession?

    Shetland County Rate
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the rates in Shetland are now 38s.; and if he will consider extra assistance to the county, for instance, over road grants.
    Commander Galbraith: I understand that in fixing the county rate at 33s. the county council took no account of the additional equalisation grant, estimated to be equivalent to a rate of 10s. 6d., which is likely to result from the increased local expenditure in the current year. As regards the second part of the Question, I regret that my right hon. Friend is unable to provide the council with further assistance.
    Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that, on top of the normal rate of 33s.,
    1746
    in many areas there is an extra water rate of 5s. or more? Does his answer mean that the county could reduce the rate in view of the further assistance it receives from the equalisation fund and the Government?
    Commander Galbraith: The Government are already providing grants of over 90 per cent. of the total local expenditure, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can ask for more.
    Mr. Manuel: The Minister indicated that cognizance has been taken of the contemplated rise in the rates, involving 10s. 6d. extra from equalisation grant sources. Would he inform the House what that would mean in total grants to Shetland?
    Commander Galbraith: I have not the precise figures.
    Mr. Manuel: Shall I tell the right hon. and gallant Gentleman?

    Wood-pulp Manufacture
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to the possibility of producing wood-pulp from home-grown timber; and what assistance is given to firms setting up board factories and sawmills.
    Mr. Snadden: Home-grown softwood is suitable for the production of wood-pulp, and is already being used to a limited extent for this purpose. My right hon. Friend hopes that the interest being shown by industry in the development of the pulping of home-grown timber will lead to the establishment of new pulping plants. The Government are prepared to consider assistance to projects of this kind so far as their powers and resources permit.
    Mr. Hannan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Forestry Commissioners themselves have already a financial interest in a company engaged in saw-milling and the processing of small timber? Will he ask them to consider taking similar action in respect of the making of wood-pulp?
    Mr. Snadden: The Forestry Commissioners are already in touch with certain organisations on this matter and are making available supplies of material hitherto not available because of the lack of thinnings.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that the factory which has started is greatly handicapped by slowness in obtaining supplies? Will he look into that?

    Valuation and Rating (Report)
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the Report of the Sorn Committee on Scottish Valuation and Rating; and whether he will make a statement regarding its recommendations.
    Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend is in consultation about the Report with the local authority and other interests concerned, and he is not yet in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Willis: In his consideration of this Report, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the recommendations are based on the assumption that the present system is not overloaded whereas the main burden of complaint of most people, as indicated by the Report, is that it is overloaded?
    Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend will take all these matters into consideration.

  EDUCATION, SCOTLAND

    Golspie Technical School (Entrance Examination)
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that 11 candidates who recently sat a test for entry to the commercial course at Golspie Technical School were all failed, including at least one girl from Dornoch Academy with an excellent report; and if these candidates were "ploughed" for lack of merit or lack of places.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: My right hon. Friend understands that although there were places for two or three more students in this further education course, only 12 candidates reached the required standard in the entrance test conducted by the education authority. The authority decided that none of the remaining 11 candidates could be regarded as qualified to enter in view of their performance in the test.
    Sir D. Robertson: If my hon. Friend is satisfied with that answer, I am not. Is
    1748
    it not quite ridiculous that a student who has gained 70 per cent. at Dornoch Academy, the leading school in Sutherland, as against an average of 50 per cent. for all the other students, is debarred from entering this technical school on the grounds that she is not competent? May I remind the Minister that the London County Council stated in their educational report that 78 per cent. of the students passed out into a commercial college education? Why cannot Sutherland have an equal opportunity?
    Mr. Stewart: First, this is entirely a matter for the education authority, and the Secretary of State has no power to intervene. Secondly, most of the girls, including the young woman to whom my hon. Friend has referred in particular, failed because they did not reach an adequate standard in the English dictation test which is part of the entrance examination. I am afraid that we have to accept the decision of the education authority.
    Mr. Ross: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether those extra places he told us about were left unfilled?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is asking about the 11 who failed——
    Mr. Ross: Yes, I know. Who filled the places?
    Sir D. Robertson: In view of the very unsatisfactory answer to my Question about 11 candidates, all of whom failed, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Corporal Punishment (Record Books)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many education authorities have a regulation compelling teachers to keep a record book of corporal punishment as recommended in paragraph 464 of his Department's publication, "The Primary School in Scotland."
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: No education authority has made a regulation requiring all their teachers to keep records of all corporal punishment administered. When the memorandum to which the hon. Member refers was issued, it was not intended that its suggestions should be

    1749
    enforced by regulation but that they should be brought to the notice of teachers for their guidance. This has been done, and my right hon. Friend knows that some teachers have adopted the practice of keeping records.
    Mr. Thomson: Is this not an admission from the Under-Secretary of a great disregard on the part of the Scottish local authorities of the modest recommendation made four years ago in this document; and does he not feel, quite apart from any question of the eventual abolition of corporal punishment in our Scottish schools, that we ought to try to control it much more than we do? Would the hon. Gentleman not take some lead in this matter and try to keep Scotland's educational traditions at the level at which we used to be accustomed to have them?
    Mr. Stewart: It is the old question of the extent to which the central Department should dictate to local education authorities. In this matter, as in others, we take the view that the suggestion made in the memorandum should be regarded as a suggestion rather than a command, and left to the good sense of the teachers to act upon.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does my hon. Friend not agree that we are losing all sense of proportion in this matter, and that to have a record kept of every time a child gets a couple on the pants is really too silly?
    Miss Herbison: As it is four years since this publication came into the hands of the education authorities and of the teachers, and since we on this side of the House do not believe in direction, does not the Joint Under-Secretary of State now think it advisable to send a further circular to every education authority and ask them to let every teacher in Scotland have a copy of that circular?
    Mr. Stewart: Of course, I will consider the suggestion of the hon. Lady.

    School Transport, Midlothian (Cost)
    Mr. Prydeasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total amount of money spent in 1953 on the transport of school children in the County of Midlothian.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The amount in the year ended 15th May, 1954, was £15,936.
    Mr. Pryde: Does not that indicate to the Joint Under-Secretary that it is more economical to build the necessary local schools?
    Mr. Stewart: No expenditure was incurred in transporting pupils because of local shortages of school accommodation in that area.
    Mr. Pryde: For instance, Penicuick and Dalkeith?

    School Building Projects (Advisory Teams)
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will establish a separate branch of the Education Department in which architects, administrators and inspectors will work together as a team to co-ordinate the efforts of the local authorities and quicker approval of school building projects.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: There is already in the Education Department a separate branch which has a building development team composed of architects, administrators and inspectors to give general guidance to education authorities about school building. Quicker approval of building projects is normally obtained by informal consultation between the architects, and in some areas a joint working party of technical officers and administrators has been set up by the Department and the education authority to keep the building programme under frequent review. These arrangements are working reasonably well and my right hon. Friend does not propose to change them.
    Mr. Hannan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the suggestion in this Question is one of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Estimates in their eighth Report on education? Can he say whether the frustrating and irritating delays which occurred in sanctioning of plans for schools because of plans being passed backwards and forwards between Government Departments and local authorities is now being cut down?
    Mr. Stewart: We are endeavouring ail the time to cut down any unnecessary

    1751
    red tape. I can assure the hon. Member that we are giving special attention to the matter.
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take in respect of recommendation 19 of the eighth Report of the Select Committee on Estimates that Scottish local authorities should be given the same power as English and Welsh local authorities to co-opt teachers for consultation in respect of design and planning of new schools.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: In Circular 268 of 13th June, 1953, my right hon. Friend advised education authorities to obtain advice on the planning of schools from experienced teachers. As regards the co-option of teachers to education committees, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on 26th January to the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson).

    Teachers' Pensions (Payments)
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Educational Institute of Scotland on the question of monthly payment of teachers' pensions; and what action is proposed.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: At a meeting on 17th July, the Educational Institute of Scotland made representations to my right hon. Friend about the monthly payment of teachers' pensions. He is considering these representations, but he cannot at present make any statement on the subject.
    Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman say when we are likely to have an answer, as 17th July is almost four months ago?
    Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Member is asking for a date, I am afraid I cannot give him one.

    Grove Academy, Broughty Ferry (Annexe)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when approval was granted by his Department for building an annexe to Grove Academy, Broughty Ferry; when build-
    1752
    ing was commenced; when it was originally estimated it would be completed; and what steps are now being taken to ensure completion in time for occupation in August, 1955.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The proposal was approved in principle in December, 1950. Building began in April, 1952, and the education authority estimated that it would be completed in 18 months. The labour force on the job has recently been increased.
    Mr. Thomson: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the building will be completed? Will it be ready for the next school session? Is he aware that educational development is considerably held up and that the teachers in this school are at their wits end to know how to deal with the present overcrowding?
    Mr. Stewart: It is estimated by the local education authority that the school should be ready by February next year. The Scottish Education Department can claim that it has borne a considerable part in expediting the work in recent months.

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    De-requisitioned Premises
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Minister of Works how many business and residential premises have been de-requisitioned in the three years since the present Government took office, as compared with the previous three years.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Nigel Birch): Government Departments have de-requisitioned 733 residential premises, and 1,858 other holdings during the last three years. The comparable releases for the previous three years were 2,855 and 2,966.
    Sir T. Moore: As obviously those figures cannot give a correct picture, would my hon. Friend give the relative percentages during the period?
    Mr. Birch: During the last three years we have de-requisitioned 70·5 per cent. of the outstanding properties requisitioned as opposed to 53 per cent. In fact, we are de-requisitioning nearly half as fast again as under the previous Government.

    London Builders' Conference (Restrictive Practices)
    Mr. P. Wellsasked the Minister of Works if, in view of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission's Report on the Supply of Buildings, he will insist on tenderers for Government building contracts signing the declaration of non-collusion, as recommended by the Royal Institute of British Architects.
    Mr. Birch: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) on 19th October, in which I said that discussions were taking place. Meanwhile, I do not propose to alter the declaration now in use.
    Mr. Wells: Is the Minister aware that his reply will give great disappointment to Kent County Council and many other local authorities which feel that the Minister is dragging his feet in relation to this matter?
    Mr. Birch: I said that I would make a statement as soon as I am in a position to do so.

    Atomic Energy Authority (Buildings)
    Mr. G. R. Straussasked the Minister of Works how far his Department is still responsible for the erection and maintenance of the Atomic Energy Authority's buildings.
    Mr. Birch: The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority will assume direct responsibility on 1st December next for new construction in the Industrial Group which is controlled from Risley. Arrangements are also being made for the Authority to take over responsibility for the maintenance of their buildings other than their London Headquarters offices. My Ministry will continue for the time being to be responsible for new construction in the Research and Weapons Groups.
    Mr. Strauss: What is the cause of this change? The Atomic Energy Authority previously commissioned the Ministry of Works to do all this building work and the Ministry did it exceedingly well. Now apparently it is going out of the hands of the Ministry. Has the Authority no confidence in the Ministry of Works?
    Mr. Birch: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Ministry has done exceedingly well, but all nationalised bodies, such as the Coal Board, the British Electricity Authority, the gas boards and so on, do their own building.
    Mr. Strauss: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that they do their own construction and have their own construction companies, or that when the Atomic Energy Authority want a building put up they invite contractors other than the Ministry of Works to submit estimates?
    Mr. Birch: If they are taking over responsibility for their own building, it will be for them to select their own contractors and carry out the work in the way they think it ought to be done.
    Mr. Strauss: The Ministry of Works will no longer be invited to submit estimates and plans as they have in the past and as they have done so well? If so, it will be a ridiculous situation.
    Mr. Birch: That is a matter for the Atomic Energy Authority to decide.

    Royal Parks (Car Parking)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Works whether he will make a further statement about car parking in the Royal Parks.
    Mr. Birch: I am reviewing the problem with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and the police.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: It is taking a very long time. Will the Minister give an assurance, before London traffic is brought to a complete standstill, that he will resist pressure from the Minister of Transport, although we know he is in a bit of a jam, to allow buses, lorries, vans and charabancs to park in the Royal Parks?
    Mr. Birch: All these considerations will be kept in mind.

  HOUSES, BIRMINGHAM (FLOATING FLOORS)
  Mr. Chapmanasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, (1) how many local authorities have been advised by the Building Research Station to use the

  1755
  floating floor which has proved, on the Egghill Housing Estate, Northfield, Birmingham, to be useless in soundproofing, to sink away from the walls, and to slope;
  (2) what advice the Building Research Station is now giving to the Birmingham City Council regarding removal or reconstruction of the floating floors used on the Egghill Housing Estate, Birmingham, on its recommendation; and whether he will offer to meet the costs involved.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. J. R. Bevins): In 1950, the Building Research Station published particulars of a timber floor giving improved sound insulation, and many of these floors have been used in flats constructed for local authorities. An alternative has recently been devised which gives better insulation, but at increased cost. The only complaint received has been from Birmingham, and my noble Friend is arranging for a member of the Building Research Station to look into the matter immediately.
  Mr. Chapman: In view of the enormous cost to the Birmingham City Council, will the Parliamentary Secretary, firstly, make some contribution towards the cost, since the Building Research Station approved the original recommendation? Secondly, how is it that these floors now sag; that you can walk across them and the furniture dances towards you with the vibration and that you can hear everything going on in the flats below? And how it is that the Building Research Station recommends such floors to the councils of this country?
  Mr. Bevins: I think that the House would be well advised to await the result of the examination which is to take place. After all, this is the first complaint which has been made throughout the whole country. It may well prove that the floors have been wrongly laid. Any question of compensation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
  Mr. Chapman: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the majority leader of the Birmingham City Council says that these floors have been built strictly to the specifications of the Building Research Station? In those circumstances, surely some contribution towards the cost of
  1756
  taking them away should be made by his Department?
  Mr. Bevins: Surely the right thing to do is to examine the matter, and surely it is equally plain that the Birmingham city architect thought that this design was a good one. Otherwise, it would not have been adopted in Birmingham.

  MINISTERIAL SALARY CUTS (RESTORATION)
  Mr. Rankinasked the Prime Minister if he is now prepared to restore the cut, imposed three years ago, on the salaries of Ministers of Cabinet rank, as a temporary abatement.
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister how far the acceptance by Cabinet Ministers of reduced salaries applies to the new appointments.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): On 31st October, 1951, the Government announced that the salaries of senior Ministers would be reduced "for the period of rearmament or for three years, whichever ended first." The abatements will, therefore, cease with effect from 1st November next.
  Mr. Rankin: On behalf of the Ministers concerned, may I thank the Prime Minister?
  Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that, when he commended the Judges Remuneration Bill to the House, the strongest case he produced for increasing the salary of the Lord Chancellor from £10,000 to £12,000 was that the Lord Chancellor was patriotically not going to take it? Are we to assume that this magnificent precedent will not be adopted in the case of the new Lord Chancellor?
  The Prime Minister: I think that I should like notice of that question.

  ANGLO-RUSSIAN RELATIONS
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Prime Minister in what form he has conveyed to authorities of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics his expression of willingness to meet Mr. Malenkov if agreement can be reached on an appropriate time and place.
  The Prime Minister: I have no reason to think that the Soviet authorities are in any doubt about my views on this matter, but I am not going to be drawn into discussing methods of communication.
  Mr. Warbey: As the Prime Minister announced last week, I believe for the first time, that he is willing to meet Mr. Malenkov if the appropriate time and place could be found, will he not follow the usual precedent of informing the Soviet authorities so that negotiations can take place through the usual diplomatic channels to arrange such a meeting?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think it would be advantageous in every case to disclose all the methods of communication which take place in these matters.
  Mr. Bevan: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is very difficult for the public outside to understand the situation when week after week he says in this House that he is willing to have high level talks with the Russians and, whenever they invite him to have them, he declines?
  The Prime Minister: I do not know what invitation the right hon. Gentleman is referring to.
  Mr. Bevan: The last invitation by the Soviet Union——
  Hon, Members: Which one?
  The Prime Minister: That was a general invitation to a four-Power conference——
  Mr. Bevan: What is wrong with that?
  The Prime Minister: —and at this particular stage, when the agreements reached in Western Europe have still to be ratified, I do not think the moment has been reached for a four-Power conference.
  Mr. Bevan: Is not that all the more reason why the right hon. Gentleman should accept the invitation just now? Is it not the fact that the Prime Minister of France, who is a party to the agreements recently tentatively entered into, has said that he himself sees no reason why talks should not run concurrently with the establishment of Western European Union?
  The Prime Minister: Well, Sir, whether there should be a four-Power conference, including the Soviets, is a matter which must be discussed by the Governments concerned, and the exact relation of such a very important meeting to any personal contact I may have the opportunity of making with Mr. Malenkov, that personal intervention ought not in any way to affect a general decision on the main issue.

  SCOTLAND (CONSUMER INTERESTS)
  Mr. Rankinasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the appointment of a fourth Under-Secretary of State to look after consumer interests in Scotland, in view of the increased duties which will fall on the Secretary of State for Scotland as a result of the fusion of the Ministries of Agriculture and Food.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not consider that the new duties referred to in the Question will call for the appointment of an additional Scottish Minister.
  Mr. Rankin: Is the Prime Minister aware—as I am sure he is—that a week ago he stated in the House that
  "the interests of the consumers require most careful consideration"?—[OFF ICIAL REPORT, 19th Oct., 1954, Vol. 531, c. 1034.]
  Does not he agree that those interests would be better safeguarded by placing them under the control of a Ministry specially created for that purpose, rather than assigning them to a Minister whose interests are competing with and in conflict with those of the consumer?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I do not think so. It would be curious to set up in the same Government two Ministers with absolutely opposite and conflicting objectives. It is very much better for all Ministers to concern themselves with the efficient discharge of their duties so as to secure the cheapest and most abundant supplies to the consumer, having regard to the continuance of that process and the maintenance of the industries which supply them.
  Mr. Rankin: If it is wrong to do this in a Government, why transfer the wrong on one individual?
  The Prime Minister: An individual's mind is supposed to be an entity in which all considerations are balanced one with another.
  Mr. Baldwin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the consumers of this country are fed more cheaply than the consumers in any other part of the world? Is it therefore necessary to take any further steps to protect their interests?

  WAR GRAVES (HEADSTONE ENGRAVINGS)
  Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Imperial War Graves Commission is asking for a voluntary contribution of up to £1 from the parents of Royal Air Force officers and men who were killed in action, towards the cost of engraving a personal inscription on their tombstones; and whether he will take steps to prevent similar requests being made in the future.
  The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar Question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) on 7th July last year.
  Mr. Janner: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is a very mean request and that it caused considerable pain? Will he see to it that letters of apology are sent, or some kind of apology for this very serious method of approach is offered to the relatives of these unfortunate men who were killed?
  Mr. Head: No, Sir. This subscription is entirely voluntary, and that is clearly stated. Anyone who does not wish to subscribe is under no obligation to do so.
  Mr. Janner: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this is a very mean request, whether the subscription is voluntary or otherwise? Does not he think that the people who suffered in consequence of their children being killed sustained enough damage without being subjected to this ridiculous kind of request?
  Mr. Head: I am informed by the Commission that a considerable number of parents have asked to be allowed to
  1760
  contribute towards an extra and personal inscription.
  Sir P. Spens: Will my right hon. Friend confirm my recollection, as the oldest of the War Graves Commissioners, that this practice was started very soon after the First World War, that it applies only to a special small personal inscription which an individual asks to be put on the stone in addition to the regimental details and so on, and that hundreds, indeed thousands, of them throughout the Empire have been done, that there has been hardly any complaint until the few in the last two years, and that very many relatives welcome the opportunity of being able to have something of a personal sense on the stones?

DOCK STRIKES
Mr. Alfred Robens (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Labour and National Service whether he has any further statement to make on the dock strike.
The Minister of Labour and National Service (Sir Walter Monckton): There has been little change in the situation since my previous statement to the House on Friday. About 1,000 men have gone back to work in the Port of London, but some 700 are now on strike at Manchester. Elsewhere, there is no appreciable change.
The damaging effects of this stoppage on the country's economic life, to which I referred in my previous statement, grow more serious day by day; in particular, the threat to employment in other industries is causing increasing concern.
The Court of Inquiry, which is investigating the causes and circumstances of the dispute, has, in view of the urgency of the situation, submitted to me an Interim Report. I have taken immediate steps to expedite its publication and I hope that it will be available to hon. Members tomorrow afternoon.
Mr. Robens: As this Interim Report is to be published tomorrow, would not the Minister agree that perhaps it would be as well to defer further questions and answers until we have had an opportunity to examine it?
Sir W. Monckton: I should be greatly obliged.

EAST AFRICA (SECRETARY OF STATE'S VISIT)
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a statement on my recent visit to East Africa, with particular reference to the situation in Kenya. I shall, in the near future, say something about the constitutional talks recently held in Uganda under the chairmanship of Sir Keith Hancock.
To Kenya, I brought a message of encouragement from Her Majesty's Government to all who are fighting to bring the present emergency to an end—to the troops, both those from the United Kingdom and the K.A.R., to the R.A.F., the regular Police, the Police Reserve, the Kikuyu Guard—to all the administrative and other services and those engaged in the work of freeing the Kikuyu of this deadly infection, and to all who live in the danger areas.
I saw something of the many loyal Kikuyu, and of the settlers, so many of whom came from Great Britain. No tribute is too great to the courage and determination of all, and not least the women, who are living under this awful threat. I saw, too, the leaders of the Churches, who are playing a vital part in Kenya today.
Members will already have seen reports of the review last week by the War Council of the two years' campaign. Steady progress is now being made and the gangs can no longer obtain supplies and assistance as and when required and have to fight for them. The mounting co-operation with the Government now being shown in the Reserve areas known as the Reserves and the increased strength and efficiency of the Kikuyu Guard, assisted by the security forces, is beginning to tell. As this gathers momentum the terrorists will become more vulnerable and less determined to fight on. I will not attempt to forecast the end of the emergency. The danger of outrages and terrorism still remain, as the singularly brutal murders a few days ago show.
I conceived my duty to be to help in the restoration of confidence in Kenya. I found much fear among Africans that those who had promoted a reign of terror
1762
would be allowed to return once more to areas where the loyal Kikuyu live. The measures which have proved necessary to deal with the emergency include the detention of large numbers of Kikuyu, Embu and Meru. We all regret the need for this action, but I am fully satisfied that it is necessary. Indeed, it is since "Operation Anvil" in Nairobi that the turn of the tide has come.
The Kenya authorities and all the departments concerned—prisons, community development, agriculture, health —and many devoted Christian workers, are striving with vigour and imagination for the return to a sane and civilised outlook of as many as possible of those associated with this barbarous and degrading movement and now held in detention.
I visited Manyani Camp from which, but for the typhoid epidemic, a small number of detainees would already have been released and a larger number drafted to the works camps where the main effort of rehabilitation is being made. I visited two of these works camps. I am certain that this work must be pursued with the greatest drive and determination. We must, however, face the fact that there may well remain, at any rate for a very long time to come, a hard core of fanatical Mau Mau who will be impervious to all that is done to try to help them.
It has been the possibility of the return of these to their former homes that has caused much fear among Africans. They are not only afraid of the return of the great offenders—they fear, also, that those who were the managers and organisers of Mau Mau may return. I was able to assure them that the irreconcilables will not be allowed to return and that arrangements would have to be made for these people which will ensure that this shadow is lifted from the loyal members of the tribe.
I found, too, a certain lack of confidence among some European settlers. I told them that they were in Kenya to stay and that they had nothing to fear for the security of their homes, for themselves, their families and their descendants.
I was glad, also, to see how those Asians who have made Kenya their home and have given their loyalty to the British Crown are anxious to play a constructive part in their country's affairs.

1763
I discussed with the Governor many of the urgent problems connected with the emergency and beyond. Closer administration of the Kikuyu Reserves is going ahead. Twenty-two new sub-stations each containing a district officer, a police officer and in some cases an agricultural and veterinary officer have already been established. Six are under construction and a further 18 are proposed. Two hundred and fifty-nine villages have been built and a further 124 are planned. These are sited so that each is protected by a guard post, and the greatest care is paid to security, hygiene and future expansion. Some already contain schools, dispensaries and community centres. The Home Guards now number 22,000 in 550 posts with 7,000 precision weapons.
This closer administration is having its effect on the terrorists and making their life more difficult. Three hundred and twenty-nine terrorists surrendered between the end of August, 1953, and the end of August, 1954. Between 1st September and 12th October a further 106 surrendered.
The rate of surrender is increasing and the Kenya Government, whose aim is to end the fighting, have always been ready to consider any approach for a mass surrender from gang leaders who are able to influence large numbers of terrorists into surrendering. They are using all possible means to bring this to the notice of the terrorists.
All who know Sir Evelyn Baring and have seen him at work are confident not only in his power to lead Kenya in the problems of today but never to lose sight of the future of Kenya on which the hopes of severel great races are set. The multi-racial Government introduced by Lord Chandos has been an immense stop forward. The presence of unofficial Ministers in the Government has helped to close the ranks against Mau Mau. There is very real harmony in the way in which the Council of Ministers are going about their vital tasks. I believe that the principle of multi-racial Government commands a very wide measure of acceptance in Kenya and we can all draw from this great encouragement for the future.
Mr. J. Griffiths: As one who had the privilege of visiting Kenya recently, I
1764
should like to join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the courage which has been shown by the people of all races there in these very difficult circumstances. I pay tribute particularly to those who are engaged out there. and express our good wishes to those who are about to proceed to Kenya to engage in the important work of rehabilitation.
I should like to ask the Secretary of State a few questions on his statement, first, about surrender. It seems from the information which the right hon. Gentleman has gleaned that the terrorists are now broken up into separate gangs and that they have no cohesive force. Some time ago there was a chance of a surrender which might have brought the end much nearer. Does not the Secretary of State think he ought now to consider the advisability of again proclaiming surrender terms so that surrender might be induced, rather than allowing matters to continue, which may lead to a permanent form of forestry banditry?
I should also like to ask the Secretary of State about the detention camps. There is some concern about the number of people in the detention camps. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it would not be wiser to concentrate smaller numbers of people in individual camps?
On the same point, concern has been expressed about the danger to innocent people, and we now hear from our trade unions that they are deeply concerned about the number of trade union officers who were arrested in "Operation Anvil" and about the slowness of the screening. Will the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to this point?
Finally, while I welcome and approve of what has just happened in Kenya, the emergence of a multi-racial Government, upon which the future of Kenya so much depends, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it very desirable, particularly in view of the necessity for providing an alternative leadership for Africans since they are now the only race there left without a political organisation of their own, to provide them with the means whereby they can express their political desires? Will the right hon. Gentleman now consider a proposal which, I gather, has been put before the Governor for the formation of an African political organisation so that the Africans who are in the

1765
multi-racial Government shall be on the same basis politically as the Europeans and the Asians?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will do my best very briefly to answer those most important questions.
With regard to surrender, the offer of August, 1953, remains open to individual terrorists. If it is argued that the fear of execution is a deterrent to surrender, I can say that the Kenya Government have under constant review the possibility of reducing the number of offences for which the death penalty is at present prescribed.
I wholly agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the need to break up the detention camps into smaller units or to move the people into smaller camps as speedily as possible. This would have happened at the biggest camp of all, Manyani, which I visited, but for the distressing outbreak of typhoid.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's question about the trade unions, I am anxious, as we all are, to see the growth of a responsible industrial trade union movement in Kenya. I recognise that at the time of "Operation Anvil" 45 trade union officials were held. I very much regret to say that, so successful has been the Mau Mau infiltration even into trade union circles, that of the 45, 27 have, after screening, been detained on Governor's orders, while 15 have been released, and the remaining three are being speedily investigated.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked me about an African political party. It has been our unhappy experience in Kenya that a nation-wide organisation is liable to get into the wrong hands. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!".] Yes, indeed. All efforts will be made to give guidance and encouragement to divisional or tribal organisations which can then, by a process of growth and federation, become in better days nation-wide organisations.
Mr. J. Griffiths: Since my own view is that the future of the multi-racial Government depends on the co-operation of all races, might I ask the Secretary of State whether it is not important to put the three races in the multi-racial Government on an equal footing? Will he reconsider that matter?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am very conscious of the need for equality of that
1766
kind, but I believe that a lot of responsible African opinion is behind me when I say that it is better to build from smaller foundations than to run the risk of recreating the circumstances from which we are steadily emerging. The Governor has all these points in mind.
Mr. Walker-Smith: What progress is being made or has been made in formulating the arrangements to which my right hon. Friend referred for dealing with the hard core of irreconcilable Mau Mau'? Has any estimate been made as to what their number is likely to be?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. Our policy and our view must be that we must never abandon hope of anybody and we must constantly strive to cure as many as possible of this foul disease. There will be a hard core of irreconcilables and it may be a considerable number, but I should not at this stage like to give any guess as to how many there would be. Naturally, the Kenya Government have under review possible sites where such hard core can be detained.
Mr. Hobson: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether kikuyu Home Guard posts have been established in the Kikuyu locations in Nairobi and whether the boycott of the bus services continues?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The boycott of the bus services has been broken, and the situation in Nairobi does not now justify the establishment of Home Guard posts in the Kikuyu areas. However, I should like further notice of the question.
Mr. Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the difficulties about speeding up the work of screening in the detention camps and providing rehabilitation for work has been the lack of adequate supervisory staff? Does that situation still obtain? If not, is there any special help which Her Majesty's Government can afford Kenya?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is quite true that more suitable staff are needed. The situation is a good deal better than it was, but people with the necessary experience would be most gladly welcomed. I cannot imagine a more worth-while job than to go out to help in Kenya today.
Mr. Bottomley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the only way in which we can end the troubles in Kenya is by

1767
securing the active co-operation of the Africans? Did he take the opportunity of seeing the acting President of the Kenya African Union, who proclaims his interest in political advancement for Africans but equally strongly condemns the Mau Mau movement? Ought he not to be released?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think it would be most dangerous if the Secretary of State attempted to answer about individual Kenya detention orders at this moment. I am absolutely satisfied that the Governor, the Ministers, and the War Council have all these considerations in mind.
Mr. F. M. Bennett: Can my right hon. Friend indicate how many active Mau Mau there are in the field today? Is he satisfied that the security forces that we have there are competent to deal with the Mau Mau both now and in any further action that we can expect to take in the months ahead?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir. The answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is "Yes" It is always dangerous to give an estimate, and the only estimate that I can give is that there is an active strength of about 7,000 with a possible 5.000 known as Komerera, who are fugi-
1768
tives both from justice and from Mau Mau.
Mr. Dugdale: Was the right hon. Gentleman correctly reported as having said while he was in Kenya that he was in favour of an extension of immigration of white settlers? Does he not think, as many people on both sides of the House do, that it would be extremely unfortunate to have such an extension of immigration while the present difficulties exist and, in particular, while there is a known shortage of land?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was correctly reported. In the assurances which I gave to the European settlers who are there now and to their descendants, I added also the hope that their numbers would be reinforced. I must add that no greater disservice could be done to the multi-racial society or to Kenya than to attempt to deprecate the need for further European settlement.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order There is no Question before the House.

NEW MEMBER (AFFIRMATION)
The Right Honourable Arthur Creech Jones, for Wakefield.
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FOOD AND DRUGS AMENDMENT [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, and the Food and Drugs (Milk, Dairies and Artificial Cream) Act, 1950, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenses incurred by any Minister of the Crown or Government department in consequence of the provisions of the said Act of the present Session, and

  (b) any increase attributable to the said Act in the moneys to be so provided under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948, or the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954.

  Resolution agreed to.

FOOD AND DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords]
Considered in Committee.
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1. — 4OFF ENCE S IN CONNECTION WITH PREPARATION AND SALE OF INJURIOUS FOODS AND ADULTERATED DRUGS.)
3.52 p.m.
The Chairman: The first Amendment to page 1, line 6, and the third Amendment to line 12, both in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) should, I think, be taken together.
Mr. Frederick Willey: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, after "shall," to insert:
"add or direct or permit any other person to."
First, I should like to welcome back the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food on his recovery from an attack of influenza. May I say also that we shall expect the hon. Gentleman's full co-operation in endeavouring to improve this Bill?
This House has a very friendly regard for the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, who has suffered many transitions in the past year. We liked the right hon. Gentleman as Minister of Pensions, but then he went to the Board of Trade; since then, he has gone to the Ministry of Agriculture, and now I am
1770
not quite sure what he really is and in what capacity he is sitting on the Front Bench today. I hope that, in order to help us, he will indicate to us on each occasion when he is speaking, whether he speaks as Minister of Agriculture or as Minister of Food; otherwise, we shall be placed in some difficulty in considering the Bill, because both the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Food are referred to in it.
It is most unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman, who has the respect of all of us in this House, should be placed in this very invidious position of having to serve two masters, but I hope that, for the purpose of this Bill, he will try-to help us in our discussions by indicating whether he speaks as Minister of Agriculture or in his new responsibility as Minister of Food.
As far as the Bill itself is concerned, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman at once that we on this side of the Committee will endeavour to give him every assistance in seeing the Bill through the Committee stage, because, as we have said before, it has a very respectable parentage, our Amendments are modest ones, and we have not sought, as we might well have done, to go outside the purpose of the Bill. We know the difficulties of getting the Bill through in the present Parliamentary Session, and, therefore, we have not been as ambitious as we might otherwise have been.
At the same time, I must protest again that the Bill received its Second Reading a year ago—in November of last year. Although it has an important object which merits detailed consideration by the Committee, it comes before the House at the very last moment. At the very last minute, when we are faced with the announcement of the date upon which the present Session will end, the Government have introduced an Amendment making a very material alteration to the Bill, but we shall come to that in due course. From the Parliamentary point of view, however, I must protest that a very material reason for the Bill should have been abandoned by the Government with only a few weeks to go to the end of the Session.
To turn to the Amendment, it is a simple one. We welcome this Clause as a considerable improvement on Section I of the principal Act, but the words which

1771
we are now trying to write into the Bill apply to a Section which is to be repealed. We feel that it is not desirable to take out words which are already in the Statute, because that creates the impression that we are restricting the effect of the Act. Secondly, we think that the words in Section I serve a useful purpose and we should like to see them incorporated in Clause 1.
I appreciate that there are some difficulties about the construction to be placed on the word "permit," and that, under the Road Traffic Act, there has been a great deal of case law on the construction of that particular word. If that is the difficulty in which the Government find themselves, and if they will say they will accept the spirit of the Amendment but would like to expand it a little in view of the difficulties aroused about the construction to be placed on the word "permit," that will satisfy us. I therefore hope that the Government will indicate that this is an Amendment which They can accept.
The Minister of Food (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): I should like to thank the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) straightaway for the kind remarks which he made at the outset of his speech, and I should also like to make it clear that, unless otherwise stated, I shall be speaking as Minister of Food. Perhaps I might also be allowed to say today that I do not feel any of the symptoms of schizophrenia spreading over me.
I want also to say at the outset that I have been in my Department only a week, and that I do not claim to be the master of all the details of this extremely technical Bill. I suppose I could start to bluff my way through, but I am not good at bluff. I have not mastered the technique of bluffing, and, therefore, I am going to rely on my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who is a master of this subject, as of many others. I shall listen to the remarks made by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee, and I shall be conferring with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary from time to time. In that way, as the Bill goes through, I hope to learn a great deal more about it, because I have not had the opportunity to study it in the time at my disposal.
1772
I do not think there is anything between us on this Amendment. Our view is that the addition of the words suggested is quite unnecessary; otherwise, we wholly agree with the desire of the hon. Gentleman opposite. I am advised that under the provisions of the Magistrates Courts Act, 1952, of which I have a copy here, a person who aids and abets can clearly be prosecuted, and that any employer who either directs or permits a servant to do something which is an offence clearly renders himself liable to be charged with the offence. Of course, if an employer does direct or permit a servant to do something which is an offence, then he can also be charged under the common law relating to master and servant.
For that reason, I ask the hon. Gentleman opposite, since we shall be trying to meet his point of view as far as we can throughout the Committee stage, not to press the Amendment, because we are quite satisfied that it is unnecessary and that the words included here will bring about everything that the hon. Gentleman wishes.
4.0 p.m.
Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I confess once and for all to being a secret dairyman, that is to say, to having an indirect interest in a dairy company, although I take no part in the direction and management of the business.
I beg the right hon. Gentleman to think again on this small point. The words in our Amendment were put into the 1938 Act to cover—and they would—the kind of case which I will ask the Committee to consider. It arose in connection with a business where the servant sold food in contravention of the Act. He was employed by a one-man company. The virtual owner of the business was a man who owned nearly all the shares. He was the solitary director and he managed the whole business in the name of the company.
There was difficulty in getting him, because the employer was really the company. If there was some active aiding and abetting we could get the actual manager and the owner of the business; but what about permitting?
They have been part of the law for a very long time and if we now take them out the natural tendency will be to look

1773
for the reason. It is better to err on the side of cautious verbosity, and leave in the words.
Mr. Willey: We do not want to prolong the discussion on this point. My hon. and learned Friend has made an effective point about it. If we take the words out, the impression might be created that the provisions of the Bill are more limited than those of the Act.
I concede at once that the words are unnecessary. This could have been our view when the 1938 Bill was going through the House, but sometimes we serve a useful purpose in making clear in the legislation itself what the law is. I will not press the matter further now, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think about this matter. He says that he has had little time to do so, but we hope that he will see that from a commonsense and practical point of view it would be better to leave the words as they stand in the principal Act.
Mr. Amory: I will certainly do that; I will consider the matter again in the light of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. If this assurance is satisfactory, perhaps the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) will now withdraw the Amendment.
Mr. Willey: I am much obliged to the Minister. In view of the assurance he has given that he will look at this point again, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Norman Dodds: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, at the end, to insert:
(2) No person shall abstract or direct or permit any other person to abstract any constituent of food so as to change the nature, substance or quality of the food with intent that the food shall be sold for human consumption in its altered state without notice to the purchaser of the alteration.
The Chairman: It will perhaps be convenient to the Committee to discuss, at the same time, the related Amendments in page 1, line 21, and page 2, line 12.
Mr. Dodds: One of the main documents in the improvement brought about by the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, was the Order dealing with the labelling and
1774
the composition of food. In paragraph 2 (1) of that Order, words similar to those in my Amendment appear. It has always been understood that those words were of great importance, but it is proposed to leave them out of the present Bill.
Many people will be interested to hear the reason for dropping these words. In 1938 it was important that the words should be part of the law; in 1954, people seem to be much more food-conscious than they have ever been before and we ought to enable them to understand why these words are being taken out. The words deal with the abstraction of substances from food and if they remain in the Bill people who handle food will be much more cautious about abstracting anything, and so damaging the food. It will be made known to the world that the food can be examined. I ask the Minister to treat this Amendment with great seriousness, because these words are even more important now than they were in 1938.
The Amendment in line 21 is very similar to this Amendment. I call the Minister's attention to the provision about notice being given to the purchaser on the wrapper or container. If it is objected that this asks too much of manufacturers and processers of food, how is it possible for Canada to be so far ahead of us in matters of this sort? If the Canadians can do it, why cannot we? Is the Minister not aware of the disgust of many Canadians visiting this country when they find how far we lag behind Canada in the important question of the purity of food?
Dr. A. D. D. Broughton: The right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of Food will observe from a study of the speeches that were made on the Second Reading of the Bill that we on this side of the Committee regard the Bill as a most useful piece of legislation. My hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) and myself have been pressing the Government ever since they took office to bring forward this legislation. We want Britain's food to be the cleanest and most wholesome in the world. At this early stage in our consideration of the Bill it is safe to say that this aim is shared on both sides of the Committee.

1775
I hope that the Minister will accept these Amendments, and particularly the one in page 2, line 12, which aims at preventing wholesome food from losing the richness of its vitamins and minerals. There was a time when it was thought that human food need consist of no more than proteins, fats, carbohydrates, a little water and a pinch of common salt. It was then envisaged that the meals of the future would be taken in concentrated form. Dinner would consist of a few tablets which would be carried in the waistcoat pocket. Although the meal would not be very enjoyable, time would be saved in swallowing it. Comparatively recently it has been found in the study of nutrition that a variety of mineral salts and of vitamins is necessary for good health.
The disease of rickets has now been banished from our shores. I well remember the time when it was prevalent because children of the very poor had to be content with food of the cheapest and poorest quality. Such food was lacking in vitamins and minerals, and many of the children suffered from rickets. We are glad to see that nowadays our young people have straight limbs and strong bodies. That is a state of the nation's health which we hope will persist indefinitely. However, we must be on our guard.
Food from which vitamins and minerals have been extracted is robbed of much of its nourishment. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give careful consideration to this series of Amendments, and, if he will accept them, we shall then have taken a further step forward towards ensuring the wholesomeness of the nation's food and the protection of the people's health.
Dr. Barnett Stross: The Minister said, very modestly, that he intended to listen patiently to what was said and that he hoped to pick up some knowledge as we proceeded with the discussion of the Bill. I find myself greatly embarrassed by the fear that I may be confusing the right hon. Gentleman by stating that the Amendment in which I am particularly interested—the one which my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Dr.
Broughton) has just been discussing—is
1776
framed in such words that I cannot press its acceptance.
The reason for that, I am sure, must be obvious to the Parliamentary Secretary, because if we were to pursue an ideal in this way, then, I fear, everyone would have to eat wholemeal bread whether they wanted to or not, and that would not do for everyone in the country. I might even find that, when I went to the fishmonger and asked him to fillet a fish for me, I had forced him into a tort or crime because the calcium and the phosphorus in the bones would be deficient, although I should be all right if I bought a tin of salmon, because in that case the bones would be cooked with the fish and all the mineral salts would be there. I might not ask for sterilised milk because the tiny amount of ascorbic acid found in milk in the springtime is destroyed or diminished by sterilisation.
This Amendment has been placed on the Notice Paper so that we may get some information right at the beginning of our discussion. The information for which I want to ask falls into two parts. One can see from the wording of the Bill itself that inevitably we are taking certain things for granted. This Bill. if we are successful today and tomorrow, would be the clearest advance on the past and would match up to the present needs of our people. But it uses certain terms which I have never been able clearly to define in my own mind, such as
"the health of a person."
What is meant by the phrase in lines 9 and 10 of page 2 of the Bill which reads:
"the probable cumulative effect of articles of substantially the same composition on the health of a person consuming such articles in ordinary quantities."?
I suggest that on the question of what is health we should be given an illustration by the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary, because, by now, the Department must surely be making up its mind. We have reached the stage when we should have made up our minds as to what we mean. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will find it very difficult to do so and that, being a medical man like myself, he is handicapped in the matter, because he is only accustomed to disease and not to health in his thoughts about these matters.

1777
Perhaps we ought to go to an administrator or to a politician. The only person of whom I can think who spoke with conviction on these matters is someone who made a funeral speech over the Athenian dead. It was Pericles who made the speech some time ago, and if I may quote his definition of good health, it goes something like this:
"It is that state of moral, mental and physical well-being which enables any man to face any crisis in life with the utmost facility and grace."
That is perhaps a good illustration of what is meant by health, and I have, I think, added only one word to Pericles' definition. If the Parliamentary Secretary cannot give us the views of his Department on what constitutes good health, will he at least give us some illustration of what is meant by "cumulative effects"?
This Amendment enables me to ask the right hon. Gentleman some questions about jam. I think that we ought to get rid of jam now rather than wait until later, and that we can do it much more shortly here than was done during the discussions in another place. Everybody knows that in another place some very interesting speeches were made on the subject.
4.15 p.m.
I have often put Questions on the matter to the Parliamentary Secretary and to his right hon. and gallant Friend who is now serving in another Department. Some of us have been disturbed about the cheaper forms of jam which used to be described as "full fruit" jam. We do not now have standards of that kind. I believe they have been jettisoned. But what we have in mind is fruit pulp preserved by means of sulphur gas passed over it and stored in that way, and then the sulphur is got rid of by boiling, the pulp is sweetened and its colour is brought back by the use of an appropriate dye.
Sulphur has been used for a very long time as a preservative. The Committee will, I am sure, forgive me when I say that my first memory of it is from reading Homer, because in those days they burned sulphur after battles in order to disinfect the battlefields, and sulphur has been as good as anything else ever since. In jam making the sulphur is all boiled out of the pulp, but the thing that disturbs hon. Members on this side, and something
1778
about which we want more information, is what happens when prolonged boiling has to take place. How much of the vitamin C is destroyed? Is it all destroyed, and how does that process compare with that pursued when making home-made jam where the fresh fruit used is never sulphited? It may be that there is no difference, and, if so, the public ought to know.
The former Minister of Food once said in answer to a Question I addressed to him on the matter that the sulphiting of pulp preserves the vitamin C while the pulp is in storage. If that is so, then it is a very good thing. If, however, it is all destroyed because of the very long boiling that must follow, then it is not such a great advantage. Food manufacturers——
The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is going into rather long detail about something which is not in the Amendment before the Committee.
Dr. Stross: This is a question of the abstraction of minerals and vitamins, and this is the way in which they are abstracted and destroyed. I feel that we should get some reassurance from the Minister which will allay public unrest about the matter, because, as I have said, the subject was discussed, perhaps rather luridly, in another place. With respect, Sir Charles, I thought that I was within the bounds of order, and I promise not to be long on the point. If it be found that there is very little difference between the comparatively short boiling of fresh fruit and the prolonged boiling of sulphited pulp, then we ought to know and, after that, leave the question alone.
With regard to redyeing, one does shrink at the thought of artificial substances such as aniline dyes being used to bring back the colour to the fruit. Here I am reminded of the very beautiful piece of work now being done on frozen fruit, whereby the colour of the fruit is retained by the addition of vitamin C. That is rather a nice piece of work. An interesting point is that in discussing this with the jam manufacturers I asked them why did they not put back some of this vitamin. After all, we fortify white flour and, with the blessing of the Ministry of Health and of the Ministry of Food we are doing all sorts of things to all sorts of substances for therapeutic purposes. I

1779
asked them why the vitamin C which has gone after the prolonged boiling should not be put back.
Their answer is that to bring back the full content of the vitamin destroyed by boiling or by abstracting in this way would mean an extra penny on the pound to the customer. There might be a small additional cost in manufacture. They add that if legislation were passed asking them to do this, or if there were pressure from the Minister, they would do it. I do not dream of asking for that, but here is something which we all eat. If the Minister and his advisers think that the product can be improved by having the vitamin C restored I think that the trade would like to do it and the public would feel benefited by it. The public would certainly be no worse off because of it. I only ask the Minister to consider this matter.
When talking about cumulative effects, can we have some examples from the Ministerial bench of what they mean? Have they in mind the cumulative effect of spraying fruit with lead sprays and the cumulative effect on a child eating iced lollies? Is that what they have in mind? Is it the mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids used for bread softening and so on? As I said when I rose, I speak not to demand that this particular Amendment be accepted in these words but to ask for information.
Mr. Victor Collins: I should like to have information with reference to the application of subsection (5) to the food industry. It seems to me that, as a result of the words:
"… regard shall be had not only to the probable effect of that article on the health of a person …"
a retailer might find himself in a difficult position. One can imagine in July or August, when Derby or Grenadier apples first appear on sale, a retailer may have doubts as to the quantity of green apples it is proper to sell to small boys. That, of course, is an extreme example, but unless this particular subsection is explained and defined there may be considerable difficulty for retailers.
The Chairman: I think the hon. Member is talking about a subsection with which we are not now dealing.
Mr. Collins: I am talking about lines 8 and 9 which have already been referred to, Sir Charles.
The Chairman: We are taking four Amendments together, none of which deals with that.
Mr. Collins: Those very words have already been quoted. I understand that we are dealing with page 2, line 12——
The Chairman: No, that is the point. We are taking something after line 12—at the end.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): In moving his Amendment, the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) based his case, at the outset, on the fact that such words, in approximately the same form, already appear as Section 2 of the 1938 Act. In effect, his first question was, "Why omit it?" For a reason which I shall give to the hon. Member, Section 2 has been found to be unworkable. It defines the effects of abstracting from any food, and so on
"without notice to the purchaser of the alteration;"
At that moment, of course, there is no purchase. It subsequently emerged, as the hon. Gentleman realised, that a sale was necessary to create a purchase and so to bring Section 2 into operation. When a sale has taken place it is then possible to act under Section 3, which deals with the prohibition against the sale of any food or drug
"… not of the nature … substance … or … quality … demanded."
For that reason, therefore, Section 2 of the 1938 Act has not worked.
The significance of what the hon. Member himself now recognises is that he seeks to reinsert Section 2 of the 1938 Act—with a variation; he omits from his wording the notion of injury to the purchaser. My main answer to him, bearing in mind that practical difficulty of the operation of Section 2 of the 1938 Act, is that the approach in this Bill is first to distinguish between the additions which are injurious to health and those which are not. Additions injurious to health are banned absolutely, with or without label. There is here an absolute prohibition on an addition, subtraction, on processing, and so on, injurious to health.

1781
In the second category, additions, etc., which are not injurious to health are dealt with—a sale having taken place—in Clause 2, it being a defence, if I may quote the words:
"… for the person charged to prove that the operation in question was not carried out fraudulently, and that the article was sold having attached thereto a notice of adequate size, distinctly and legibly printed and conspicuously visible …"
In its present form, in fact, the Bill achieves what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I can assure him that we have not sought to weaken the law in this respect. We have sought to make a distinction between the addition, etc., injurious to health and that which is not injurious to health, and we have sought to deal with the additions which are not injurious to health by Section 3 of the 1938 Act—in other words, in the way which experience has shown it has been necessary so to deal with them.
The hon. Member's second Amendment is, of course, related to the first, and perhaps I need not deal with it in detail, as it is covered by the same argument.
Mr. Dodds: May I ask for an answer on the point about wrappers in that particular Amendment?
4.30 p.m.
Dr. Hill: I am not at this moment dealing with what should appear on the wrapper—we shall come to that subsequently. I am dealing with the defence against an allegation that there has been an addition, although not injurious to health.
The Amendment of the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) was dealt with kindly but firmly by his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross). It has, I am afraid, to be dealt with in that way because, as was pointed out, if it were accepted it would create so difficult a position, in prohibiting the boning of fish or the sterilisation of certain articles which would involve the destruction or abstraction of vitamin C.
The hon. Gentleman raised several other associated points. I do not think he was serious when he suggested that we should debate the proper definition of the health of a person. All I can say is that the words in their simplest form,
"the health of a person"
1782
and
"the probable cumulative effect of articles"
are in the Bill and will be for the courts to decide. I imagine that they are likely to reach a speedier conclusion than doctors who may disagree on this matter.
The hon. Gentleman referred to substances coming into the cumulative category, and one has in mind in particular coal tar dyes and lead. I will not follow the hon. Gentleman into a dissertation on vitamin C in jams and the effects of sulphur dioxide, for I feel that it would lead us beyond the scope of the debate at this moment, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is very real point in the subject that he has raised and we are considering the problem. I am particularly interested in his suggestion of the reinsertion of vitamin C and his estimate of the cost. I will see that his suggestions are considered.
I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) succeeded in making his point, but if it will save further debate let me say that what we are concerned with is to be found in Clause 4, namely, substances which are added by manufacturers to foods. We have not dared to deal with the cumulative effect of the prolonged consumption by small boys of large quantities of apples.
Mr. Collins: What is the position of a retailer of fruit when a substance has been added by way of preparation, such as in polishing apples or something like that, which happens particularly with imported articles?
Dr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman is raising a much wider question which we shall meet frequently in the course of the consideration of this Bill, and I suggest that I should deal with it as and when it arises.
I hope that the hon. Member for Dartford will accept the position that we are not in any way weakening the law, but are making it work in the light of experience.
Mr. Mitchison: I regard that as a rather remarkable and unsatisfactory reply. I have a good deal of sympathy with the Parliamentary Secretary. It is not quite certain what his functions are, but to deal with a couple of Amendments about abstracting things from food by referring solely to additions seems to

1783
me to reveal a certain perversity of intellect. I should like to call his attention to the fact that the two Amendments in which I personally am interested deal not with adding anything to anything but, if I may take him back to his school days, with the process of subtraction.
There is already in the Bill a provision about abstracting to the prejudice of the purchaser, but we are not concerned with that point in these Amendments. What we are concerned with is a rather different matter. It is honesty to the consumer. The point here is that if we take something away we may not necessarily cause the purchaser a grievous belly ache or any other chronic or acute form of ill-health, but we may be selling him something different from what he expected to get and we may be doing that under the name of the original article.
I am very glad to see the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee here—not, I hope, in his official capacity—and I think he will agree with me that this has gone a long way already. I believe it is possible to buy a thing called a "hot dog." It may be hot, but I have always understood that it was not a dog. Similarly, one can purchase and consume without undue irreverence "angels on horseback." They have no angelic character, I believe, and do not sit, in the best circles, on a horse. To these sorts of queer phrases we have gradually become accustomed. They are, I find, very confusing, and they are sometimes made worse by being turned into French or even into a kind of hybrid Anglo-Gaelic peculiar to the catering trade.
But surely what we are dealing with today is much simpler than that. People buy some perfectly well-known and ordinary thing, and if for some reason or another an essential part of it has been taken out, surely it is not altogether unreasonable to provide that they should be told so. I do not see why one should make very heavy weather of this Amendment. I would not insist upon the use of one form of language or another. The substantial point is this: is it necessary to make it a matter prejudicial to health before making it obligatory to call the purchaser's attention to the fact that something essential has been taken out of the food described?
1784
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will, for a change, do a little multiplication and think again. I hope he will consider whether it is not in line with progress to prohibit abstraction in this form without giving notice. That is all it amounts to.
Mr. Frederic Harris: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman give one example of the type of commodity to which he is referring?
Mr. Mitchison: I do not think there is any point in giving one example, for hundreds of them must be obvious to anybody. There are many examples of something being taken out of a perfectly well-known food so as to change its quality, condition, and so forth.
All we are asking is that the purchaser should be told that he is not buying what he might think he is, because he is not. I cannot see anyone objecting to the morality or the good sense of an attitude of that kind. I should have thought that the ordinary consumer is entitled to a bit more protection than he has had in the past, and a good deal more protection than he appears likely to have from the Bill as it stands.
Mr. George Darling: I was not very happy when it was decided to take these three Amendments together. The third Amendment is obviously a probing Amendment, seeking information. The first two Amendments are designed, whether adequately or ham-fistedly, to get some protection for the consumer. This is a point which we shall raise repeatedly throughout the Bill.
It is essential—it is, indeed, one of the main purposes of the Bill—to give the consumer protection against fraudulent practices and against something which might be injurious to his health. All that we are asking for here—and I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that the form of words is probably open to amendment—is an assurance from the Minister that in all these matters the consumer is to be told clearly what he is buying, and that on the labelling and the packaging there shall be no misleading advertisement or statement of any kind.

1785
In his intervention a moment or two ago, the Parliamentary Secretary said that this point was coming on later. We question that. I know the part of the Bill to which he is referring, but as we intend to raise this matter repeatedly I should like the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that we shall not be satisfied with anything less than full protection for the consumer. If a consumer goes into a shop—and there is no point in giving examples, because it may not happen at the moment but in the future I am not concerned with examples now but with what will happen in the future—and asks for an article which has a common description, he may find that, because of something that has happened in the making of the food which has resulted in some element being extracted, the description is completely misleading.
Under such circumstances, the consumer has to be protected. If a vital constituent is taken out in the course of processing, then the consumer should be told. Even if the Parliamentary Secretary thinks that the point we have in mind is fully covered, I would ask him to bear in mind that we shall look very carefully at the references to which he has hinted when we come to that part of the Bill.
Mr. Willey: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said something about the hon. Gentleman being half a Parliamentary Secretary. If he is half a Parliamentary Secretary he is a fly half. I think he gave a very good account of the position which will prevail if this Bill becomes law. He gave a lucid explanation of the effect of the Bill as it stands, but having heard my hon. Friends on the subject, too, I must say that I think they are also right.
This shows the essential difficulty of legislating by reference. It is all very well if I get the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow morning and spend an hour and a half in the Library and thus satisfy myself that the purposes sought by my hon. Friends are met by this Bill read in conjunction with the principal Act. But why should I he expected to do that? Why should any trader be expected to do that? Why should any medical officer of health be expected to do it?
I gather that there is no difference in principle on the first Amendment. I understood the Parliamentary Secretary
1786
to give my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) the assurance that his desires are being met. But they are being met in a very obscure, roundabout sort of way, which is the delight of Parliamentary draftsmen. After all, this Bill, which has in itself an important purpose to serve, calls attention to the Government's intentions about food hygiene. I should have thought for that reason that it would be far better to say at once that not only can an assurance be given that the Bill as drafted would have this effect, but to say, "We will accept the first two Amendments. We might have to redraft them, but we think it would be desirable in the first Clause of this Bill to make it quite clear that these powers reside with the Government."
From what has been said by the Parliamentary Secretary I gather that he has no objection to the first two Amendments which we are discussing together. His attention was drawn to the Canadian practice, and I would just emphasise that this business of giving notice is a very important one, not only for the public but for medical officers of health, sanitary inspectors, public analysts and such-like professional people. There should be this notice so that they can make the proper inquiries.
4.45 p.m.
In the light of that, and having agreed with what the Parliamentary Secretary said and very largely with what my hon. Friends have said, why cannot we get on with the Bill? We can by the Parliamentary Secretary saying that a case has been made out and he will accept the first two Amendments. It would be far better to avoid this complicated business of legislation by reference. A case has been made out in support of these Amendments, and in an appropriate place in the Bill the Government ought to undertake to make clear their intentions as to possessing powers to provide that where an abstraction is made and that changes the nature and the quality of the substance, then notice should be given. If the Parliamentary Secretary would do that, then we could proceed with our consideration of the Bill.
I agree that the third Amendment is a probing Amendment, and as there have been no notes of protest from behind me I imagine that the Parliamentary Secretary has satisfied the probers. But cannot

1787
he satisfy us on the first two Amendments by saying that it would be far better to make them part of the present Clause? There is no disagreement about the principle, and, therefore, I suggest that the Amendments should be accepted.
Dr. Hill: I quite appreciate the difficulty, to which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has referred, of having to refer to the parent Act. To this extent I can assure him that it is the Government's intention to introduce a consolidation Bill at the earliest possible moment.
On the point raised by the hon. Member I want to remind the House what the law now is and what will remain the law. Section 3 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, says:
"If a person sells to the prejudice of the purchaser any food or drug which is not of the nature, or not of the substance, or not of the quality, of the food or drug demanded by the purchaser, he shall, subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, be guilty of an offence."
What is provided for is the rewriting of an existing defence in Clause 2 of the Bill where it says that in such proceedings
"… it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove that the operation in question was not carried out fraudulently, and that the article was sold having attached thereto a notice of adequate size, distinctly and legibly printed and conspicuously visible, stating explicitly the nature of the operation, or was sold in a wrapper or container displaying such a notice."
That will be the law and that is a satisfactory position, bearing in mind that where anything has been done to render food injurious it is an offence without qualification, special difficulties or anything else. I submit to the Committee that the situation is satisfactory, and what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) has rightly and properly asked for has been met by the law as it is today with the Amendments that are proposed by this Bill.
Mr. Darling: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why the law is not being carried out if it is so satisfactory? Why can these people manufacture food from which important elements have been taken without informing the public?
Dr. Hill: I am not maintaining that the 1938 Act in itself is satisfactory.
Mr. Darling: That was the hon. Gentleman's argument a moment ago.
Dr. Hill: No.
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman said it was satisfactory.
Dr. Hill: I was referring to Section 3, but in my earlier remarks I referred to Section 2 of the 1938 Act and said that in working it out it had proved to be unworkable because of the difficulty of reference to a purchaser without the event of a sale being contemplated. One of the weaknesses of the 1938 Act is that Section 2 does not work.
Mr. Darling: Nor does Section 3.
Mr. Somerville Hastings: Certain substances may be taken from a food, but they do not render it injurious. Their absence reduces its nutritive quality. What about that kind of thing?
Dr. Hill: In the case of substances altered—if I may use that word to cover the whole series of changes—but not rendered injurious, it is under Section 3 of the 1938 Act as modified by Clause 2 of the Bill an offence to do it, but there is a defence provided, that what was done was not fraudulently done, and that the changes were referred to on the label. That seems to me to be reasonable.
Dr. Stross: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten another defence mentioned in Section 4 of the parent Act, namely, that
"… the addition was required for the production or preparation of the food or drug as an article of commerce in a state fit for carriage or consumption."
We are not using such terms in the Bill. Are we assuming we can have changes in basic foodstuffs if they are alterations to make them fit for carriage?
Dr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman will see from the Bill and Amendments down that we are changing the character of the defences in Section 4. The general effect will be to strengthen the law on this point.
Amendment negatived.
Sir Leslie Plummer: I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, to leave out subsection (6).
The Deputy-Chairman: It may be convenient to consider with this Amendment the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), in Clause 5, page 5, line 35, after "say," to insert:
"paragraph (b) of the proviso to section six."
Sir L. Plummer: I am sure that arrangement will be convenient. One of the purposes of the Clause is to prohibit the manufacturer from advertising any product which is, as a result of additions, to use the Parliamentary Secretary's word, injurious to the health of the purchaser. The exemption provided in subsection (6) gives a defence to persons whose habitual business it is to publish or arrange for the publication of advertisements, and the defence is that that is their habitual business. My submission is that it is in the interests of good food that that defence should not be allowed.
There are four classes of people affected. There is the advertising agent who handles the advertisement and places it with a newspaper and acts as the agent of the manufacturer; there is the proprietor of the newspaper or periodical that publishes the advertisement; there is the billposter who puts a form of advertisement on the hoardings at the request of the advertising agent at the instruction of the advertiser; and finally there will be, of course, the programme company that introduces the advertiser's announcement on the forthcoming commercial television network.
Those people would, by virtue of subsection (6), have an adequate defence in explaining that they did all this in the course of their business. This would, of course, be a defence for an unscrupulous advertising agent who, unlike the majority of advertising agents, deliberately tried to further the sale of articles that were injurious.
The Minister will not mind if I say that I am certain he is innocent of the ways in which newspapers work, and he will not mind if I give him a little information about that. The majority of advertising agents in this country are reputable and honest people, although most of them are misguided in wanting commercial television. However, I should be out of order if I were to try to pursue that matter.
1790
They are reputable and responsible people who lend themselves to the task of encouraging the sale of their clients' goods, and they take an active and detailed interest in those goods. They visit the factories, they look at the products, they study the marketing of them, they pay regard to the packaging of them. They do a very competent job in helping the sale of the goods, and no reputable advertising agent in this country would lend himself to misrepresentation or lend himself to the selling of an article that he thought injurious.
However, there is a minority of advertising agents who are not in that category at all, a minority whose interest is to make what the Americans call a "fast buck," to make as much money as they can as quickly as they can, without due regard to other considerations. Such an advertising agent has no scruple in writing copy that is misrepresentation and in helping the sale of goods, even though he does not even find out whether they are injurious or not. He simply accepts the word of the advertiser that they are not. Such an agent could go to the court and say, "It is my business to arrange this advertising, and that is my defence."
The defence provided in this subsection would encourage that class of advertising agent to continue in business, whereas we ought to be making it as difficult as possible for them to remain in business. It should be the job of an advertising agent, as indeed it is the job of a reputable advertising agent, to satisfy himself that what he is saying for his client is truthful and inoffensive.
This subsection is an encouragement to advertising agents of the lower category of dishonest advertising agents to be quite reckless, because they can advertise products they know to be injurious to health, as many of them are. Anybody who likes to delve into the advertising columns of our seamier newspapers will see that that is true. Were advertising agents encouraged not to be careful in accepting clients' advertisements, it would be a very bad thing.
Let me turn to the newspapers. The reputable newspapers of the country take very great care indeed in seeing that certain classes of advertisements, which are injurious to the pockets or the health of their readers, are not accepted. Every newspaper considers with the utmost care

1791
the details of financial advertisements and prospectuses that are offered to them. They exercise very considerable control also over advertisements for patent medicines, the sorts of things that are clearly injurious.
That sort of control should be exercised, too, over the advertisements of the classes of goods covered by the Clause. The newspapers should exercise exactly the same powers of censorship, control and examination over advertisements for foodstuffs as they do over advertisements for patent medicines and financial advertisements. Why should they not do so? Newspapers are not forced to accept advertisements. They accept them quite voluntarily. It is their business to do this, and they are surely entitled, as they must in the case of their news columns, to see to it that what they tell their readers is as true and honest a representation as they can make it.
So it should be their responsibility to see that their pages are free from advertisements of injurious products as described in this Clause, and they should pay a penalty if they fail in this respect. I know it will be said that this will be very difficult, but many of the provisions of the Bill will create difficulties, and when we are considering the public health we ought not to pay too much attention to what is said about difficulties.
5.0 p.m.
There are in existence such organisations as the Advertising Association, the Newspaper Proprietors Association and the Newspaper Society, which are very wealthy and very powerful, and it would be easy for them to set up a national committee to work in conjunction with the central food hygiene council, which some of my hon. Friends are proposing, or the food research advisory council, which is suggested by some hon. Members opposite, to provide a white list and a black list of food advertisers.
After all, the Advertising Association exists, among other reasons, to tell its members what is good and what is bad in advertising and what should and should not be accepted. The dissemination of such information, particularly if assistance were given by the Ministries of Food and Agriculture, should create no substantial difficulties which would outweigh the very definite public benefits to
1792
be obtained by the deletion of subsection (6).
Mr. Amory: I should like to say at once at this stage how we look at the matter. Clause 1 makes it an offence to advertise for sale for human consumption any food which has been rendered injurious to health by addition, subtraction, or treatment. That is right; there can be no question about it.
Our difficulty with the Amendment is that it seems to throw an unreasonable onus on the firm which is in business purely for advertising. We believe it right that the onus should he fairly and squarely on the manufacturer. We cannot see how the advertiser can in practice satisfy himself that nothing has been done to the food which will be injurious to health. In many cases it is a very technical matter indeed to assure oneself that nothing injurious has happened to food. If we are to be reasonable to the advertiser, I cannot see where in practice his sources of such information would be.
Hon. Members may say that there is an analogy between the position of the advertiser and that of a publisher in the case of libel or obscenity. However, I feel that those cases are much less technical and that the publisher is in a much better position than the advertiser would be in this instance to say whether he would be in order in going ahead.
I am sure it would be unwise—I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) will agree—. to put the onus on the advertiser, whose business it is to advertise and to receive copy from his clients. I am sure that we must concentrate upon putting the onus where it should be, on the shoulders of the manufacturer. Therefore, I am afraid that I must resist the Amendment.
Mr. G. Darling: I do not think the technique involved here is quite as clear to the Minister as it might be. Very few manufacturers provide their advertising agents with copy. It is the imaginative people in the advertising agency who think up the slogans and, very frequently, the misleading statements.
Mr. Amory: I may have used the wrong term technically. The manufacturers normally supply the advertising agents with some basic information on which the advertisers base their copy.
Mr. Darling: I appreciate that point, but if the Amendment were accepted a great deal of responsibility would then be thrown upon the publisher of the material, such as a newspaper, a television company or a billposting company, and also the advertiser. By that means we should give further protection to the consumer.
I am assuming that at least favourable consideration will be given to our proposals for the setting up of advisory councils, but whether that is so or not, some kind of advisory body will have to be provided to carry through what we are suggesting. If the Amendment were accepted, advertising agents and publishers would, in their own interests, have to go to these advisory bodies, who would have access to research departments, and ask them, "What can we say about this product that will be truthful?" This would be another attack upon the false and misleading claims which are frequently made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) said that most reputable advertising agents are perfectly honest and do not make misleading statements. But, of course, they do. Eight detergents are on the market, and all eight are advertised as being capable of washing clothes whiter than the rest. Seven of those claims must be untrue. We have the same thing about claims made on behalf of breakfast cereals. The Parliamentary Secretary might enlighten the House about the food value of breakfast cereals; that would be most interesting. Misleading claims are made. I agree that most of them are not very serious and that no one will be hurt by the false claim that a breakfast cereal has nutritive value; but other claims are made which are far more serious.
We want all the time to give the consumer the fullest protection against misleading claims, and one way to do that is to make the publisher of advertisements and the advertising agent, as well as the manufacturer, keen to ensure that only the truth is told. What is wrong with insisting that everybody in the chain of events should tell the truth? That is all that we are asking. We are putting a premium on truth, and the Government seem to object to it. Subsection (6) should be dropped and everyone making a claim would then have to make
1794
sure that the claim was truthful. That is the whole purpose of the Amendment, and I am sure that, in the light of that, the Government will accept it.
Mr. F. P. Bishop: I am glad that my right hon. Friend has not accepted the Amendment. I am sure that we all agree with what has just been said, that everyone concerned with the advertising of goods for sale should do his reasonable utmost to make sure that the advertisement is truthful. However, there is surely a limit—[Laughter]—not to the attempt to make sure that the statements made are truthful but to the obligation to be imposed upon a person who handles either goods or statements in the ordinary course of his business.
It is plainly impossible for a newspaper carrying many hundreds of classified advertisements every day to investigate detailed technical facts about the goods advertised. It is beyond the power of a publication to do that. To attempt to impose a liability like that on a publisher—I will say a word about the advertising agent in a moment—would be to expose him to something quite unreasonable, for if he attempted to comply with it strictly it would bring normal business activities almost to a standstill. It would be analogous to expecting the proprietor of a bookstall—in some cases the law has gone to the unreasonable length of appearing to require the proprietor of a bookstall to do so—to read word by word every publication that he offers for sale.
As my hon. Friend said, the newspapers—at least, the reputable ones—do their best through their own organisation to ensure that nothing which appears in their advertising columns is untrue. They should be left to carry on doing the best they can through their own organisation, and not have imposed upon them by the House of Commons a burden which it is impossible for them to carry. I am not quite sure, with regard to the advertising agent, whether this Clause gives him as much protection as he should have. I do not know what the words
"a person … received the advertisement for publication in the ordinary course of business"
mean.
Of course, the advertising agent does not normally receive the advertisement for publication. He receives facts and information supplied to him by the

1795
manufacturer of the article upon which, normally, he himself drafts the advertisement which ultimately appears. Certainly there is a duty upon him to make the utmost inquiries he can into the truth of the facts that are submitted to him.
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend, or the Parliamentary Secretary, how he explains this provision as applying to the advertising agent, who does not merely receive the advertisement for publication, but receives the facts upon which he bases the advertisement which he himself has probably drafted.
Sir L. Plummer: If the hon. Gentleman goes on to read subsection (6), he will find that it says
"or arrange for the publication of, advertisements."
It surely is the job of the advertising agent to arrange for the publication.
Mr. Bishop: In arranging for the publication of the advertisement, he receives the advertisement for publication in the ordinary course of business, and I should like to know whether this is limited to the publisher who receives the advertisement already drafted and who has merely to put it into the paper and publish it, or whether it covers also the activities of the advertising agent who may himself have some part, and perhaps a large part, in the drafting of the advertisement for publication.
Mr. Mitchison: I think that the Committee should bear in mind in regard to food and drugs legislation generally that it quite often proceeds on the basis of absolute liability apart from knowledge. Prosecutions, for instance, under Section 2 of the 1938 Act do not require knowledge by the seller. There can be a conviction without any question of knowledge, and the reason for that. I suggest, is the overwhelming importance which has always been attached to providing pure food for the public.
It seems that the position here is rather curious. If I am right—and, if not, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me—there is a very similar provision to this, referring to a person whose business it is to publish, or arrange for the publication of, advertisements, and receiving them for publication in the ordinary course of business, under Section 6 (2, b) of the 1938 Act.
1796
The position there is that protection is given, either in that case or in the case where the person concerned did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained, that the advertisement was of a misleading character. Either of these circumstances constitutes a defence. The odd thing is that that Section has, I believe, been suspended during the operation of the Defence (Sale of Food) Regulations, 1943.
In paragraph 1 (2) of these Regulations we find this:
"A person who publishes, or is a party to the publication of, an advertisement … which falsely describes any food … shall be guilty of an offence … unless he proves that' he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained that the advertisement was of such a character as aforesaid."
That is to say that, for the purpose of these Regulations, those who were responsible for drafting them chose that alternative.
The Government, for some reason or another, have rejected the alternative that was chosen by the Defence Regulations and have taken the other alternative. I should have thought that the two things together would have done no harm to anyone, but that if one had to choose there would be a great deal to be said for keeping the rather higher standard which is set under the Defence Regulations.
5.15 p.m.
I say "keeping the two together," because I feel that in food and drugs regulations it is exceedingly important that we should take every possible precaution to get pure food. It has always been recognised that we cannot convict someone without knowledge of what he is doing. That has been the whole practice in this matter, and in a few other fields, too. Therefore, it would not be at all limited in a matter of this sort to the advertising agent, who may do an incredible amount of damage.
He uses a powerful weapon. The thing which in fact he assists to spread will go very much further, and it is reasonable, I think, to make certain that he either assumes an absolute liability or, if his liability is to be limited, that there must be some sort of personal responsibility about it. I do not regard it as sufficient to say that the advertising agent or advertising person is exempt because it is his

1797
business to publish advertisements or arrange for their publication.
I do not see why he should have that quite exceptional protection. That is not the protection which he has had up to date. Under the Defence Regulations he has had to show due diligence in verifying the truth of the advertisement, and now, apparently, that is not to be the case any longer, and this curious provision is substituted.
I feel that the Government and the party opposite are being much too tender to the advertising and publishing business. I take up what the right hon. Gentleman said just now, that this is very like the law of libel in some ways. If the same sort of principle is to be allowed in the case of libels, where are we going, and does the party opposite really stand for it?
What would happen would be this. Simply because it is a man's business to publish this, that or the other and to arrange for publication, he is not to be liable for publishing a libel. Of course he is liable. It is no defence to say that it is his business to publish newspapers or even advertisements, and it is not even a defence to say that he did not know anything about it. It is sometimes impossible for a newspaper to verify every statement given to it with regard to every possible sort of person.
It is for advertisers to verify this kind of advertising, and I should have thought that, if we put this kind of liability on publishers and printers with regard to libels, it is very much more important with regard to the purity of food and the health of the public that there should be a similar liability here. Therefore, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should look again at this Amendment and consider whether he is not being altogether too kind by what he proposes in the Bill, and that he should see whether the provisions cannot be strengthened in the interests of the public and the vital importance of clean food.
Dr. Edith Summerskill: I do not want to add very much to what has already been said by my hon. Friends, who have put the case for the Amendment. I only want to add this to the Parliamentary Secretary. As he knows, we are not trying to establish a new principle today. This principle has been established before, and quite rightly. We are only asking for it to be embodied in this new Bill.
The argument put by the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop) would be relevant if we were concerned with any other commodity, but the commodity with which we are concerned this afternoon is the nation's food. What we on this side of the Committee are doing is to give adequate protection to the consumer.
I am glad to see that the Minister of Health is present; he was courteous enough, I am informed, to attend the whole of the Second Reading of the Bill in July. What we are anxious to do is to give the consumer the maximum protection. I think it would be agreed that food technology has advanced to such an extent that the consumer needs the maximum protection. Therefore, we ask that not only should the manufacturer face up to his responsibilities, but that the advertiser and the publisher also should be concerned about the commodity which they are advertising. In fact, we are asking that the consuming public should have a second line of defence.
I am surprised that the Minister has not accepted an Amendment which is, I should have thought, scientifically desirable, and desirable on the grounds of common sense, but as he has thought fit to refuse it, I must ask my hon. Friends to divide against the Government.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 222.

Division No. 216.]

AYES

15.22 p.m.

Alport, C. J. M.

Barber, Anthony

Black, C. W.

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Barlow, Sir John

Boothby, Sir R. J. G.

Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Bossom, Sir A. C.

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J

Beach, Maj. Hicks

Bowen, E. R.

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A

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

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

Boyle, Sir Edward

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Braithwaite, Sir Gurney

Baldwin, A. E.

Birch, Nigel

Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

Banks, Col. C.

Bishop, F. P.

Browne, Jack (Govan)

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

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Peyton, J. W. W.

Bullard, D. G.

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Pickthorn, K. W. M

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

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

Pitman, I. J.

Burden, F. F. A.

Hughes-Hallet, Vice-Admiral J.

Powell, J. Enoch

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Campbell, Sir David

Hurd, A. R.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L

Cary, Sir Robert

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

Profumo, J. D.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

Raikes, Sir Victor

Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

Ramsden, J. E.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

Rayner, Brig. R

Cole, Norman

Iremonger, T. L.

Redmayne, M.

Colegate, W. A.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Rees-Davies, W. R

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Johnson, Erie (Blackley)

Remnant, Hon. P.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Jones, A. (Hall Green)

Renton, D. L. M.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

Ridsdale, J. E.

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

Kaberry, D.

Robertson, Sir David

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Keeling, Sir Edward

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Crouch, R. F.

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Robson-Brown, W.

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Kerr, H. W.

Roper, Sir Harold

Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

Lambert, Hon. G.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Davidson, Viscountess

Lancaster, Col. C. G

Russell, R. S.

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Leather, E. H. C.

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Deedes, W. F.

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

Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

Scott, R. Donald

Doughty, C. J. A.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R

Drews, Sir C.

Llewellyn, D. T.

Shepherd, William

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

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

Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Duthie, W. S.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Longden, Gilbert

Snadden, W. McN.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Erroll, F. J.

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Soames, Capt. C.

Fell, A.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Spearman, A. C. M

Finlay, Graeme

McAdden, S. J.

Speir, R. M.

Fisher, Nigel

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Fletcher, Sir Walter (Bury)

McKibbin, A. J.

Stevens, Geoffrey

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

Ford, Mrs. Patricia

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Fort, R.

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

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Storey, S.

Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

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

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Studholme, H. G.

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

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

Summers, G. S.

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

Glover, D.

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Godber, J. B.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Marples, A. E.

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Gough, C. F. H.

Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

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

Gower, H. R.

Maude, Angus

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

Graham, Sir Fergus

Maudling, R.

Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

Gridley, Sir Arnold

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

Tilney, John

Grimond, J.

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Turner, H. F. L.

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Mellor, Sir John

Turton, R. H.

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Molson, A. H. E,

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Vane, W. M. F.

Harden, J. R. E.

Moore, Sir Thomas

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Hare, Hon. J. H.

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Vosper, D. F.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Wade, D. W.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Neave, Airey

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

Nicholls, Harmar

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

Wall, Major Patrick

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Heath, Edward

Nugent, G. R. H.

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony

Watkinson, H. A.

Higgs, J. M. C.

Oakshott, H. D.

Webbe, Sir H. (London & Wesminster)

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

Odey, G. W.

Wellwood, W.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

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

Williams, Rt Hon. Charles (Torquay)

Hirst, Geoffrey

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Holland-Martin, C. J.

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

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Holt, A. F.

Page, R. G.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Hope, Lord John

Partridge, E.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Wood, Hon. R.

Horobin, I. M.

Perkins, Sir Robert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hersbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Peto, Brig. C. H. M

Mr. Wills and Mr. Robert Allan.

1800

1801

NOES

Acland, Sir Richard

Hargreaves, A.

Paton, J.

Albu, A. H.

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

Pearson, A.

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Hastings, S.

Peart, T. F.

Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

Hayman, F. H.

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)

Popplewell, E.

Awbery, S. S.

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

Porter, G.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Herbison, Miss M.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Balfour, A.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Proctor, W. T.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J,

Hobson, C. R.

Pryde, D. J.

Bartley, P.

Holman, P.

Rankin, John

Beattie, J.

Holmes, Horace

Reeves, J.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Hoy, J. H.

Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

Bence, C. R.

Hubbard, T. F.

Reid, William (Camlachie)

Beswick, F.

Hudson, James (Eating, N.)

Rhodes, H.

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

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Richards, R.

Blackburn, F.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Blenkinsop, A.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Boardman, H.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Bowden, H. W.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Ross, William

Bowles, F. G.

Janner, B.

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

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

Short, E. W.

Brockway, A. F.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

Jeger, Mrs. Lena

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Skeffington, A. M.

Burke, W. A.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

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

Burton, Miss F. E.

Keenan, W.

Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

Callaghan, L. J,

King, Dr. H. M.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Carmichael, J.

Kinley, J.

Sparks, J. A.

Champion, A. J.

Lawson, G. M.

Steele, T.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Clunie, J.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Collick, P. H.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Collins, V. J.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Logan, D. G.

Stross, Dr. Barnett

Cove, W. G.

MacColl, J. E.

Summerskill, Rt, Hon. E.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

McGhee, H. G.

Swingler, S. T.

Grossman, R. H. S.

McInnes, J.

Sylvester, G. O.

Daines, P.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

McLeavy, F.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Manuel, A. C.

Timmons, J.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Tomney, F.

De Freitas, Geoffrey

Mason, Roy

Turner-Samuels, M.

Deer, G.

Mayhew, C. P.

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Delargy, H. J.

Mellish, R. J.

Usborne, H. C.

Dodds, N. N.

Messer, Sir F.

Viant, S. P.

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

Mikardo, Ian

Warbey, W. N.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Mitchison, G. R.

Watkins, T. E.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Monslow, W.

Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Moody, A. S.

Weitzman, D.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Morley, R.

West, D. G.

Fienburgh, W.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Wheeldon, W. E.

Finch, H. J.

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

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Follick, M.

Mort, D. L.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Forman, J. C.

Moyle, A.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Mulley, F. W.

Wigg, George

Gibson, C. W.

Murray, J. D.

Willey, F. T.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Nally, W.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Greenwood, Anthony

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

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

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

Grey, C. F.

Oldfield, W. H.

Willis, E. G.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Oliver, G. H.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Oswald, T.

Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

Hale, Leslie

Padley, W. E.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

Wyatt, W. L.

Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Yates, V. F.

Hamilton, W. W.

Pannell, Charles

Hannan, W.

Pargiter, G. A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hardy, E. A.

Parker, J.

Mr. Wilkins and Mr. John Taylor.

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
5.30 p.m.
Mr. John Eden: I shall not detain the Committee for very long, but I want to say a few words upon the more general question of chemical manipulation. I know that the hon. Member for Dartmouth (Mr. Dodds) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) have already raised several points in regard to this matter, particularly in the Second Reading debate on 23rd July. I am also aware that many points have been raised by several noble Lords in another place, and that the Parliamentary Secretary is well aware of the arguments which have already been propounded. In opening the debate on 23rd July, he said:
"Now that chemical substances are added to food, there is the problem that it is not easy—in many cases, it is not possible—to determine in advance what may be the long-term effects of the regular consumption of small quantities of new chemicals."—[QFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1954 Vol. 530, c. 1762.]
Now that we are tending towards increasing urbanisation and have large populations grouped in centres, the difficulty of the transportation of foodstuffs tends to lead to an increase in chemicalisation. Various chemicals are added to foodstuffs for many reasons, and this problem is daily becoming very much greater.
The Delaney Committee has estimated that about 700 chemicals are now used in foodstuffs, for a very wide range of reasons—for extending their life, colouring them, protecting them in various ways or sweetening them. Chemicals are also applied while foodstuffs are growing, in order to protect them from insect pests and diseases.
I want to stress the fact that some of these chemicals have been tested in laboratories and have been found to do considerable harm to animals there. One well-known pesticide or insecticide—D.D.T.—is used very widely in protecting growing foods from pests and diseases and is also used in homes, hospitals and other places where food is stored, in order to keep away insects. This substance is known to be very toxic and harmful to animals. It is known to occur in the fat residues of human beings as well as animals and to be thereby transmitted to animal and human milk.
In these circumstances we carry a grave responsibility for public welfare if
1804
we allow these substances to be handled very widely by people who are not sufficiently aware of the possibly dangerous consequences. We ought to try at least to understand and take note of the findings of all the various independent authorities and of the investigations which have been going on in this country, in Canada and in the United States of America. Much is known about these dangers, and I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary is well aware that they exist, yet nothing seems to be done.
So many times the criticism is thrown back upon those who speak in this way that they are either too great enthusiasts, eccentrics, cranks, or are advocating this course for a special reason. All I am saying is that we have a very grave responsibility in this matter, because there is a definite possibility that some of these harmful chemicals may be part of the cause of the increase in the incidence of certain diseases, such as poliomyelitis and cancer. I say that only because the origin of these diseases is not well known; we have still not reached the point of deciding where and how they originate.
I cannot understand why we cannot have something similar to the food and drugs administration which exists in the United States of America. If it is impossible to list the drugs which are known to be safe and which may be included in foodstuffs, can we not have a list of the drugs which are known to be dangerous? I do urge that this question be given serious consideration. I am very glad to see that the Minister of Health is here, because it seems a poor argument to say that all drugs are safe until they are proved dangerous. I should have thought it would be much safer to assume that they were all dangerous until they had been proved safe.
Dr. Stross: The hon. Gentleman said that there might be some association between insecticides and other substances which are used for agricultural purposes and certain diseases, including poliomyelitis and cancer. I would point out to him that both these diseases—though it may be best to think in terms of poliomyelitis alone—existed long before these substances were ever dreamt of, let alone manufactured. It would be a mistake to

1805
allow the hon. Member's suggestion to go unchallenged.
Mr. Eden: I merely want to point out that there has been an increase in the incidence of these diseases.
In today's "News Chronicle" there is an article headed
"Polio; Is the weather to blame?"
It is written by someone who signs himself "the Medical Correspondent" and, amongst other things, he says:
"It is known for certain that the virus of poliomyelitis is in many cases swallowed … I would counsel that at this season all fruit should be very carefully washed or peeled even if picked from the hack garden."
He is there referring to the infection of the skin of the fruit by insects while it is on the tree in the orchard. I am only throwing out the suggestion, which is worthy of investigation, that it may also possibly be due to the incidence of poisonous sprays.
To help in such an investigation there should be some kind of overseeing body, such as the food and drugs administration in the United States. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary said that it would take a long time to establish beyond doubt the safety of a substance. I agree with that view, and that it would involve more administration, which would cost money. Yet it would be wise to take time for such an investigation, to make quite sure that the drugs used in our foodstuffs are safe for human consumption before they are actually used. The Ministers concerned with health and food and agriculture have that responsibility, and they should be careful not to let this opportunity pass.
I have shortened my remarks and I have spoken as moderately as possible in the hope that we can get an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that consideration will be given to the points raised by hon. Members opposite and by myself. Whilst we welcome the Clauses in the Bill, we should welcome also specific action to regulate the use of harmful drugs in our foodstuffs.
Mr. Willey: We cannot let this Clause pass without saying that we are disappointed at the attitude of the Government to advertisers. This is becoming a serious matter. It is clear that probably the strongest lobby in the Tory Party
1806
is that of the advertisers. It has been very marked during this Session.
It is no good talking about free private enterprise and thinking that advertisers and other such people should get off scot-free. I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to look at the American and Canadian legislation on this matter. There should be a real sense of public responsibility about advertising, but one of the signs of weakness in the present Administration is the way, time after time, they give way to the advertisers' lobby.
Having said that, I commend this Clause to the Committee. Even with that blemish, it is a genuine advance on existing legislation and, as the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. John Eden) said, it deals with an important subject affecting food hygiene. I hope, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary will take the opportunity to tell us what at present is being done, and what is to be done, by the Food Standards Committee and particularly by the Metallic Sub-Committee. The work being done there is relevant to what we are discussing here and to the matter raised by several hon. Members; namely, the desirable objective of getting lists of approved and not approved substances. I think the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary is probably right. Let us have this work continued and, in the light of its results, we can take effective steps.
I have two questions to put to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food which, however, really affect the Minister of Health. Speaking on the first Amendment, I said that for obvious reasons we are not anxious to go outside the purposes of this Bill, which amends the principal Act. I wonder whether any consideration has been given to the question of the definition of drugs? I know that representations have been made by some of the professional bodies, and I ask this question in order to be reassured that at any rate the opportunity of this amending legislation has not been lost, if there should be a case for a further and better definition.
I put my second point in the same way. We were invited to put down an Amendment or a new Clause but I would invite the views of the Government at this stage, although I apologise for not having given notice of the point. Representations have

1807
been made to the effect that in the case of a dangerous drug it would be an advantage for the antidote to be printed on the label. Again, that matter does not arise from the Bill as it stands, but if there should be a suggestion that merits consideration, we should take the opportunity of legislation to deal with it.
I hope, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with these points and assure us that, in the short time between now and Report stage, the Government will see whether it would be possible, if desirable, to introduce Amendments to deal with those two points.
5.45 p.m.
Sir Hugh Linstead: One or two remarks made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) have brought me to my feet. May I ask him to be a little more precise about what he calls the "advertisers' lobby"? The suggestion apparently is that there is a group of advertisers or advertising agents who have been "getting at" hon. Members on this side of the Committee in relation to this Bill. I can only say that I have taken the closest interest in it from its introduction, and this is the first time that I have heard of any move on the part of any advertising lobby to influence the views of anyone. I think the advertising lobby resides only in the imagination of the hon. Gentleman.
Before we leave this Clause, it is desirable to point out that, as it now stands, there is a perfect defence for the public in the event of any misleading or fraudulent advertisement being published. The speeches that we have heard from the other side of the Committee rather suggested that the public is getting no protection. Yet Clause 1 makes the manufacturer—who, after all, is basically the person responsible—the defendant in any prosecution for the use of a fraudulent advertisement. So there is no question of removing fraudulent advertisements beyond the scope of being dealt with properly under the law.
The hon. Gentleman made another interesting remark about the desirability, in the case of dangerous drugs, of printing the antidote on the label. That proposal has been made from time to time and has been referred to the Poisons Board, which is the body charged with the duty
1808
of advising the Minister of Health on the labelling of poisons. I happen to be a member of that Board. On two occasions it has considered the proposition and has decided against it on the purely practical ground that in many cases the treatment for poisoning is not an antidote but a course of treatment. If, therefore, information given on a label were to be of any real value, so much would have to be given as to destroy totally the nature of the label. So the advice given to the Home Secretary twice has been that this is not practically possible.
Mr. Richard Fort: As one who has been closely connected with the chemical industry for many years, I am sure that hon. Members will forgive. me for making a protest against the unsubstantiated remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. John Eden). He has allowed his imagination to run riot in suggesting that diseases like poliomyelitis and the more complex cancer might be connected with the chemicals which are used in the food industry. The chemical industry, like everyone else concerned; is very much concerned to make sure that nothing which is added is injurious to health. All those who are engaged in the industry with whom I have spoken have welcomed the Bill, because it is contributing to the end that all reputable manufacturers of chemicals and food processes want to see, namely, better food.
My hon. Friend spoke as if things were added to food without much thought or investigation, whereas, in fact, all hon. Members who are concerned with the food industry and chemical production know that prolonged investigations are carried out by entirely independent bodies, such as the Medical Research Council and numerous committees set up by the Government. Continuous investigations are also carried out by the universities as well as by the industries concerned. All these results are correlated to make sure that nothing injurious is added to food.
Mr. Dodds: In view of the hon. Member's great knowledge of chemicals, can he deny that there are in use today 276 chemicals which have not been cleared as being safe and are being used in food?
Mr. Fort: It depends on what the hon. Member means by "being safe."
Mr. Dodds: That they will not do any harm.
Mr. Fort: There are certainly a large number which have not had the full, exhaustive tests of the United States food and drugs administration investigation. There is no proof at all, either in this country or in the United States, on the tests carried out, that these things are in any way injurious, although it is perfectly true that they have not been through the five years' or seven years' investigation which is carried out in America. The bodies concerned have done the most intensive investigation over a vast range of chemicals that are in use and I think that the medical profession is well satisfied at the present time, whatever their opinion in the distant past, that what is added to food cannot be regarded as in any way injurious to health.
Mr. John Eden: My hon. Friend made the mildly worded accusation that I probably made my remarks without having given them due consideration and that my charges were rather wild. I assure the Committee and my hon. Friend that I have given very careful consideration to what I said. I have been very interested in this question for a long time and I am personally concerned with a long-term experiment involving the use of chemicals on growing foodstuffs. I assure the Committee that many of the chemicals that are used now are absorbed and stored in the growing plant and thereby can be passed on to human consumption. I would—
The Chairman: Order. I did not call the hon. Member. I thought he wished to make a correction.
Sir L. Plummer: I do not want to widen the split in the party opposite, but I should like to make one comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. John Eden). I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will correct any impression which may go from this Committee that the use of chemicals in growing foods is automatically injurious to health. I live in the country and I am a farmer. I do not know that the incidence of poliomyelitis in the country, where artificial fertilisers and insecticides are used, is much more than in urban areas, or that we have more cancer in the country than in the towns. We must deal with this matter precisely,
1810
otherwise a development in agriculture that is absolutely essential to the welfare of the industry, in the use of insecticides, might be injuriously affected at a time when a declining agricultural population is already making things difficult.
Reference has been made to the systemic treatment of plants. The only way of killing caterpillar moth by this method is to spray cabbages with systemic poison. The cabbage imbibes the poison and is then unfit for human consumption for about six weeks. I do not know whether the period is five or seven weeks, but the responsibility is on the Ministry of Health to keep a careful watch on the systemic treatment of plants so as to ensure that there is no alteration in the effectiveness of the poison in the plant because of the mutations of plant life every generation. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to try to dispel any view that modern developments in agriculture automatically mean that we are becoming a more disease-ridden or disease-prone population.
Dr. Hill: If I may echo what the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) has just said and extend it a little more widely, I should like to say to the Committee that we must retain a sense of balance and not get into the habit of thinking that because a substance is a chemical it is necessarily harmful when added to food. The immense progress that has been made in food technology in recent years indicates the extent to which chemistry can be brought to the aid of food production. I urge hon. Members to beware of what is so temptingly easy, namely, relating a particular disease to a particular cause, without there being scientific ground for the assumption.
Do not let us be lulled into apathy, let us take proper precautions and engage in all possible investigations, but do not let us allow to develop round the word "chemical" a kind of hoodoo. After all, we are all composed of chemicals.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) referred to advertising and spoke of the advantages of or advances made in the Clause. As he knows, it rationalises and modernises the first two Sections of the 1938 Act and adds processing and the use of ingredients to the various factors which may cause food to be injurious to health. The references to offering and

1811
exposing and advertising are new. There is also the new suggestion that in interpreting the words "injurious to health" those words may be taken to include the cumulative effect of substances consumed over long periods.
Other questions put in the course of this debate suggested the publication of a white list. That may come up later in the Committee's deliberations but for the moment I believe that the Clause represents as substantial an advance as we can make. There may be a reference to the cumulative issue when we come to Clause 4, which provides machinery for obtaining the necessary information.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) referred to antidotes, a subject which may be discussed on another occasion.
In general I believe that the Committee will agree that this Clause represents a reasonable advance towards the objective we all have in mind.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2. —(DEFENCES AVAILABLE IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER S. 3 OF PRINCIPAL ACT.)
The Chairman: The first six Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) all go together. They are:
In page 2, line 23, leave out from "Act," to "it," in line 28.
In page 2, In line 29, leave out "the operation in question," and insert "the sale."
In page 2, In line 32, after "nature," insert "or substance or quality."
In page 2, In line 33, leave out "operation," and insert "food or drugs."
In page 2, In line 34, at end, insert:
"and that such person had taken all reasonable steps to bring the notice to the attention of the purchaser."
In page 2, leave out lines 35 to 41.
In page 2, line 41, at end, insert:
(3) No person shall sell or offer for sale for human consumption any food to which any substances which are not derived from vegetable or animal sources have been added or which has been processed by means of any substance which is not itself a food unless
1812
such food has attached thereto a notice of adequate size distinctly and legibly printed and conspicuously visible clearly stating the ingredients contained therein or the nature of the process and the substance used, and a person who contravenes the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of an offence under section two of the principal Act.
6.0 p.m.
Mr. Willey: So far as I am concerned, the Amendments in my name could conveniently be discussed together.
Mr. Dodds: Being a co-operator, even though I do not believe that these Amendments and the Amendment in my name go together, I will co-operate.
Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, to leave out from "Act," to "it." in line 28.
This may look a formidable list of Amendments, but their purpose is quite simple. It is to protest against what appears to us to be some rather clumsy draftsmanship. We are endeavouring to simplify the Clause. I will claim the virtue for these Amendments that the Clause, as amended by them, would be simple to comprehend—
Mr. G. Darling: It would be in English.
Mr. Willey: It would serve the purpose of the Government if the Clause were simple to comprehend. I am surprised that we have not one of the Law Officers with us on this occasion. I will call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the defects of the Clause as it stands. To take an illustration, it refers to Section 3 of the principal Act and
"the sale of food to which any substance has been added, or in the preparation of which any substance has been used as an ingredient. or from which any constituent has been abstracted, or which has been subjected to any other process or treatment, other than food thereby rendered injurious to health."
When we look at Section 3 we find that it does not deal with that, but with the prescription of quality demanded by the purchaser and goes on, in subsection (2), to deal with regulations dealing with the substance of this reference. I made some paving remarks about legislation by reference, but this makes it difficult for people who turn to the Bill to understand what is its effect. I claim no more merit for the Amendments we have put down than that they would at any rate provide a Clause which would be easily understood.

1813
If the Parliamentary Secretary does not like the Clause as it would appear with these Amendments, he should give an assurance that he will ask the Solicitor-General to have a look at it. The Solicitor-General is a new Law Officer and on occasion he has expressed himself about the wording of our legislation. We are not quarrelling with the purpose of the Clause, but it should be in language which might be better understood.
One of the Amendments is of substance, although I do not quarrel with its being considered with the others, as we shall make more progress in that way. That Amendment is to page 2, line 34, at the end, to insert:
"and that such person had taken all reasonable steps to bring the notice to the attention of the purchaser."
We know from other legislation that that is a very necessary safeguard. I can see no reason why the Parliamentary Secretary should not accept this Amendment. As it stands the Clause provides a defence if it is not done fraudulently and if there is
"a notice of adequate size, distinctly and legibly printed and conspicuously visible."
But it is possible to conceive circumstances in which even that would not be an adequate safeguard to the consumer.
Where does the panty opposite stand on this matter? I hope that someone will speak for the consumer, for the first time this afternoon, in discussing this Amendment. Why should we not have this additional precaution to safeguard the consumer? Although we make these provisions there is no reason why we should not further provide that such a person should have the onus placed on him to take all reasonable steps to bring the notice to the attention of the purchaser. I should have thought everyone in the Committee would accept this as a most reasonable Amendment and that I need not say anything more about it.
Mr. Dodds: My hon. Friend mentioned that these Amendments were similar. In speaking of the Amendment in my name, to page 2, line 41, I hope that I may put my case in such a way as to show that it is vitally important. I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary is anxious to produce a Bill which will be a big step forward even on the 1938 Act.
I cannot see why this Amendment should not be accepted. While many
1814
people would like to ban all chemicals which have not been proved to be safe, this Amendment does not ask for that to be done. It says that where they are from vegetable or animal substances there is no need to tell the purchaser, but, if they happen to come from minerals, for instance, that should be declared in such a fashion that the purchaser will be aware of what is in the article he or she is buying.
Mr. Fort: Including salt?
Mr. Dodds: If it is mineral that should be mentioned. I would not feel so definite about this Amendment as a layman but the Food Education Society, with which some of the finest medical people in the nutritional world are concerned, believes that because there are chemicals now being used which are of mineral origin and are still under a form of suspicion, it is essential that the public should be aware of any substance which derives from that source and happens to be in any goods they purchase.
Dr. Stross: Does my hon. Friend mean by "mineral" in the context he is using, artificial substances not naturally found in plants or animals?
Mr. Dodds: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who has technical knowledge of these subjects, but I would have thought that the way in which I had put it as a non-medical man clearly indicated the purport of the Amendment. If, not having medical knowledge, I have not put it as clearly as it should be put, it has now been made quite clear.
In asking that this Amendment should be given very serious consideration, I call in aid doctors other than my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross). Doctors are declaring that there is a universal weariness today and much of it is because of the development of the use of chemicals since the Second World War. Some doctors are claiming that the main trouble is that we are being pickled by chemicals. On Thursday night, in the Adjournment debate, I hope to show that this weariness has a bearing on physical fitness.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to accept this Amendment. He did not seem to be too clear on this matter and

1815
showed lack of knowledge in the Second Reading debate. He said:
"For example, in recent years dulcin, a sweetening substance, was added during the period of shortage of sugar. Experiment showed that dulcin caused tumor formation in rats. That was regarded as a strong enough suspicion to ban its use. There are other examples."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23 rd July, 1954; Vol. 530, c. 1766.]
The hon. Gentleman will remember that he gave way at that point and I asked whether he agreed, in view of the fact, for instance, that agene had been used on animals and proved harmful, that we ought to be more careful about the effect on people.
I use that example to indicate that there is nothing but doubt about many of the mineral chemicals used in food manufacture and processing. I could, of course, give examples relating to analine dyes, but I wish to follow the example of the Parliamentary Secretary and not make a point which might unnecessarily create alarm in the country about something which is not yet proved. On the other hand, I ask that we shall not be apathetic about these matters. All we are asking in this Amendment is that people who buy these goods should know in advance whether they contain any substance which is derived from other than animal or vegetable sources.
During the Second Reading debate I made the point, which was received with approval, that what is needed is not so much the creation of punishable offences, but greater facilities for educating the public. Therefore I ask that we should on that score, if for no other reason, accept the need for making this information available to the consumer. Curiosity will be created because of many of the strange names being used, and it would encourage the public to find out more about the food they buy.
I think that this would receive the support of reputable manufacturers. Many of them are concerned that others are introducing substances into foods because they are cheaper, and as a result the reputable manufacturers find themselves handicapped. I hope that this will be regarded as a vital Amendment, if we are sincere in our desire to provide pure food for the people.
Mr. Hastings: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he classifies dulcin as an animal, vegetable or mineral substance?
Mr. Dodds: I believe that it is neither animal nor vegetable, and, therefore, would have had to be declared to the public. But since it has now been banned, there is no point in asking for that.
Dr. Stross: Listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds), who put his case very well indeed, I wondered whether what he was asking for is covered in the first seven or eight lines of the Clause. My hon. Friend is asking for labelling if there has been processing or additional subtraction from the particular article or foodstuff. If that be so I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that this Amendment should be accepted or that the assurance for which my hon. Friend asks should be firmly given.
Were he present, the Minister of Health would agree that his chief medical officer has referred in his reports to the sort of thing about which my hon. Friend has spoken. There are produced substances or by-products of the high explosive industry, and in some cases the petrol distillation industry and from other sources, which provide artificial substances which are not in their molecular form known in any natural animal or vegetable substance. We have to be careful until they have been fully and adequately tested in case they may prove harmful to human beings over a prolonged period. That is why we have this Bill. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that that is the whole burden of what my hon. Friend was saying, and I hope he will accede to our request.
6.15 p.m.
Dr. Hill: I will deal with the Amendments taken collectively by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey); his claim to have rewritten the Clause with greater clarity and his request for the views of the Solicitor-General. I will, of course, seek the views of the Solicitor-General.
While I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on achieving greater clarity, I am bound to say that he has seriously damaged the Bill by what he has done. The Committee will notice that in providing

1817
a defence under Section 3 of the principal Act the hon. Gentleman has so done it as to make it possible for a person convicted of the addition, etc., which was injurious to health to have a defence that it was not fraudulent, and that he put it on the label. I know that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to do so, but that illustrates the point that greater clarity sometimes results in an important and undesirable change of meaning.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the most important point in these Amendments is contained in that Amendment which would add,
"and that such person had taken all reasonable steps to bring the notice to the attention of the purchaser."
I have given a great deal of thought to that Amendment and I have asked myself what, in fact, it would mean in terms of a sale across the counter. The product is labelled according to law. Is it the duty of the assistant to do anything? He must take all reasonable steps to bring the notice to the attention of the purchaser. Has he to say anything to the purchaser in selling the product?
We are all entitled to our own interpretation of the words. but the person making a sale in this case is the person charged, that he had not
"taken all reasonable steps to bring the notice to the attention of the purchaser"—
Mr. M. Turner-Samuels rose—
Dr. Hill: If the hon. and learned Gentleman would allow me for one moment—I am quite sympathetic to this, but I do not want a form of words which is so vague as to seem to create an intolerable burden or something which cannot easily be understood. I will look at the point again, but our first reaction is that it may prove to be exceedingly difficult to operate.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that it is a serious matter which requires careful thought. There may be in a shop, on the counter or on the shelves, hundreds or thousands of articles, and the suggestion that an assistant or the proprietor of the shop, when he sells some article from those many articles to one customer in a shop which may be full of customers, is specially to take further unspecified steps to bring the notice to the attention of the
1818
customer, is not a practical suggestion and would be merely adding another offence to the many already in existence.
The Minister would agree that the notification ought to be of such a conspicuous character that it is brought home to the person who is purchasing, but to put the onus beyond that would seem a very difficult thing to do.
Dr. Hill: It is provided that the notice shall be conspicuous. If the Amendment is withdrawn we will look at the point to see whether we can meet it. At the same time, we do not in any way commit ourselves, because of the immense difficulties which may arise. Indeed, I can see one hon. Gentleman opposite whose mind is immediately exercised in contemplating the possibilities.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the general objective of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds), but I ask him not to use such comprehensive expressions as:
"… not derived from vegetable or animal sources …."
That would seem to condemn substances which are not derived from vegetable or animal sources. It would seem by implication to approve substances which do come within those categories. Our difficulty is that some of the substances upon which we are keeping a careful watch are substances within those categories.
When we reach Clause 5, which deals with labelling requirements, I will seek to give such assurance as I can, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will avoid this omnibus classification of substances, with animal and vegetable on the one hand and those not in that category, or mineral, on the other, and with requirements in respect of one group and not in respect of the other. That generalised omnibus approach to the problem would lead to the wrong result. In considering labelling requirements, I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press for a classification which does not fit in with the facts about the harmful character of substances.
Mr. Dodds: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman pointed out that I might have given a wrong impression. I do not seek to say that all substances derived from mineral or animal sources are fit for human food. There is need to give

1819
special attention to the question of substances from mineral sources. That was the main point. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to consider the matter.
Dr. Hill: Quite apart from the considerations that I have mentioned, I hope that we shall not require the naming of substances on labels in a long and complete list, willy-nilly—salt, baking powder, and so on. We want labels not to be a long miscellany of chemical and other substances that are included because those ingredients are there. We want labels to be something that the customer can understand, something drawing attention to what the customer rightly and properly should know.
Again, I urge that we should not decide on the basis of this broad classification the list of substances to be included in the labels for fear of lumbering them up with a mass of unimportant information.
Mr. Mitchison: Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. I thought that he recognised that there was substance in the argument which was put forward and that his objection was to the language, which he found too sweeping. Is he prepared to give an undertaking that he will introduce an Amendment to meet the point the substance which I understood him to recognise?
Dr. Hill: No. I said that when we came to Clause 5 we would be considering the labelling of food and drugs and that issues about labelling could be raised. In general, it would be wrong to have this omnibus classification of substances. Labelling requirements should be considered on their merits in relation to the public interest and not in conformity with the headings mineral, animal and vegetable.
Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for what he has said. I appreciate the arguments he has made against me and I say in my own
defence that if we had succeeded with these Amendments we should have retired to the Library tomorrow morning to draft a new Clause to meet the point. We are satisfied with the assurance which has been given. In the circumstances, I do not intend to move the Amendments in lines 29, 32 and 33. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, at the end, to insert:
"and that such person had taken all reasonable steps to bring the notice to the attention of the purchaser."
We regard this as an Amendment of substance. It is all very well to provide the mechanical safeguard of the notice, but we should also place the onus on the person selling a commodity to call attention to the notice. The Parliamentary Secretary has made it clear that he cannot commit the Government. Because of that I must advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to divide the Committee so that we can express our point of view about what we regard as an essential requirement to safeguard the consumer.
Mr. F. Harris: What is the good of trying to make laws which cannot be physically carried out?
Mr. Willey: That kind of remark is a serious and unwarranted reflection upon our courts of law.
Mr. Harris: The people cannot carry out the requirements.
Mr. Willey: There are no courts better fitted to interpret the meaning of the word "reasonable" than are our courts of justice. This is the sort of point which can be wisely left to the good sense of our courts.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 214 Noes, 234.

Division No. 217.]

AYES

[6.28 p.m.

Acland, Sir Richard

Beattie, J.

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Albu, A. H.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Brockway, A. F.

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Bence, C. R.

Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

Beswick, F.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Blackburn, F.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Awbery, S. S.

Blenkinsop, A.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Bacon, Miss Alice

Boardman, H.

Burke, W. A.

Balfour, A.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G

Burton, Miss F. E.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

Bowden, H. W.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

Bartley, P.

Bowles, F. G.

Callaghan, L. J.

Carmichael, J.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Richards, R.

Champion, A. J

Jeger, Mrs. Lena

Robens, Rt. Hon. A

Chapman, W. D

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Chetwynd, G. R

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Clunie, J.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Rogers, George (Kensington. N.)

Collick, P. H

Keenan, W.

Ross, William

Collins, V. J

Kenyon, C.

Shackleton, E. A. A

Cove, W. G.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

Short, E. W

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Kinley, J.

Shurmar, P. L. E.

Grossman, R. H. S

Lawson, G. M.

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

Daines, P.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

Skeffington, A. M.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Logan, D. G

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

Davies, Harold (Leek)

MacColl, J. E

Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

McGhee, H. G

Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

McInnes, J.

Sorensen, R. W

Deer, G.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Sparks, J. A

Delargy, H. J.

McLeavy, F.

Steele, T.

Dodds, N. N.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

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

Manuel, A. C

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H A

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Mason, Roy

Stross, Dr. Barnett

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Mayhem, C. P.

Summerskill, Rt Hon. E

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Mellish, R. J.

Swingler, S. T

Fienburgh, W

Messer, Sir F.

Sylvester, G. O

Finch, H. J.

Mitchison, G. R

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

Monslow, W.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Follick, M.

Moody, A. S.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W)

Foot, M. M.

Morgan, Dr H. B W

Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

Forman, J. C.

Morley, R.

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Timmons, J.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Morrison, Rt. Hon H (Lewisham, S)

Tomney, F.

Gibson, C. W.

Mort, D. L.

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon P C

Moyle, A.

Usborne, H. C

Greenwood Anthony

Mulley, F. W

Viant, S. P.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R

Murray, J. D

Warbey, W. N

Grey, C. F.

Nally, W.

Watkins, T. E

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, S.)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon P J

Weitzman, D.

Hale, Leslie

Oldfield, W. H

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Oliver, G. H

West, D. G.

Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

Oswald, T.

Wheeldon, W. E

Hamilton, W. W.

Padley, W. E

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Hardy, E. A.

Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon W

Hargreaves, A

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Wilkins, W. A

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

Pannell, Charles

Willey, F. T.

Hasting, S.

Pargiter, G. A

Williams, David (Neath)

Hayman, F. H.

Parker, J

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

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

Paton, J.

Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

Herbison, Miss M.

Pearson, A

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

Hewitson, Capt. M

Peart, T. F.

Willis, E. G.

Hobson, C. R

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Wilson, Rt. Hon Harold (Hayton)

Holman, P.

Popplewell, E.

Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

Hoy, J. H.

Porter, G.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon A

Hubbard, T. F.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Wyatt, W. L

Hudson, James (Eating, N.)

Proctor, W. T

Yates, V. F.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Pryde, D. J.

Younger, Rt. Hon. K

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Rankin, John

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Reeves, J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

Mr. James Johnson and

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Reid, William (Camlachie)

Mr. Holmes.

Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P T

Rhodes, H

NOES

Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

Bishop, F. P.

Cole, Norman

Alport, C. J. M.

Boothby, Sir R. J G

Colegate, W. A.

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Bossom, Sir A. C.

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Bowen, E. R

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon J A

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Boyle, Sir Edward

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

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

Braithwaite, Sir Gurney

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr J M

Brooman-White, R. C.

Crouch, R. F.

Baldwin, A. E

Browne, Jack (Govan)

Crowdar, Sir John (Finekley)

Banks, Col. C

Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P G T

Deedes, W. F.

Barber, Anthony

Bullard, D. G.

Dodds-Parker, A. D

Barlow, Sir John

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Donaldson, Cmdr C E. McA

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Burden, F. F. A.

Doughty, C. J. A.

Beach, Maj. Hicks

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T (Richmond)

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Campbell, Sir David

Duncan, Capt J. A. L.

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

Cary, Sir Robert

Duthie, W. S.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Birch, Nigel

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

Erroll, F. J.

1822

1823

Fell, A.

Llewellyn, D. T.

Robertson, Sir David

Finlay, Graeme

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

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Fisher, Nigel

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Robson-Brown, W.

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Roper, Sir Harold

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Longden, Gilbert

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Ford, Mrs. Patricia

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Russell, R. S.

Fort, R.

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

McAdden, S. J.

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

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

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

Scott, R. Donald

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Garner-Evans, E. H.

McKibbin, A. J.

Shepherd, William

Glover, D.

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Gower, H. R.

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

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Graham, Sir Fergus

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Soames, Capt. C.

Gridley, Sir Arnold

Macmillan, Rt. Hon, Harold (Bromley)

Spearman, A. C. M.

Grimond, J.

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

Speir, R. M.

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Marples, A. E.

Stevens, Geoffrey

Harden, J. R. E.

Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

Hare, Hon. J. H.

Maude, Angus

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Maudling, R.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

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

Storey, S.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

Mellor, Sir John

Studholme, H. G.

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Molson, A. H. E.

Summers, G. S.

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Moore, Sir Thomas

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Heath, Edward

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Higgs, J. M. C.

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

Neave, Airey

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Nicholls, Harmar

Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

Tilney, John

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Turner, H. F. L.

Hope, Lord John

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Turton, R. H.

Horsburgh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Nugent, G. R. H.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony

Vane, W. M. F.

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

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

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

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

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Vesper, D. F.

Hughes-Hallet, Vice-Admiral J.

Page, R. G.

Wade, D. W.

Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

Partridge, E.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Hurd, A. R.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Walker-Smith, D. C.

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

Perkins, Sir Robert

Wall, Major Patrick

Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

Peyton, J. W. W.

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Iremonger, T. L.

Pitman, I. J.

Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Wellwood, W.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Powell, J. Enoch

Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Kaberry, D.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Keeling, Sir Edward

Profumo, J. D.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Raikes, Sir Victor

Wills, G.

Kerr, H. W.

Ramsden, J. E.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Lambert, Hon. G.

Rayner, Brig. R.

Wood, Hon. R.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Redmayne, M.

Leather, E. H. C.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

Remnant, Hon. P.

Mr. Richard Thompson and

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Renton, D. L. M.

Sir Cedric Drewe.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Ridsdale, J. E.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, at the end, to 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.
I am afraid that this is a lawyer's Amendment in the worst sense of the word and I move it as a lawyer and not as a secret dairyman. It concerns dairymen. In 1950, the Food and Drugs (Milk, Dairies and Artificial Cream) Act provided certain penalties for dairymen
1824
who infringed their licences in the particular matter of selling designated milk wrongly—that is to say, selling milk which was not up to the designated standard. Previously, the only sanction had been the withdrawal of the licence.
When the 1950 Act was before the House, it was quite clearly indicated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill)—and it was also indicated in another place—that these were new penalties and were the appropriate penalties for this offence.
The penalties involved, first of all, a warning—a statutory matter that occurs

1825
in the 1950 Act—and, secondly, fines increasing according to the repetition of the offence. Considerable stress was placed on this at the time, and my right hon. Friend reassured the House that there was no undue severity in the matter. On 21st February, 1949, she said that the Section which is now before the Committee
"… provides that a warning notice should be given for the first breach of the conditions and that only when the vendor has been guilty of a second offence within 12 months of the warning may he be the subject of proceedings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 1611.]
That was referred to by a number of other hon. Members, and I am sure that the Committee will take it from me that it was not only on that occasion, but on others. too.
In 1951, there was a prosecution. apparently in Lancashire, under Section (3) of the 1938 Act—that is, the principal Act that we are considering today—for something which would have been an offence to be dealt with under the Section of the 1950 Act which I have just mentioned, and the particular offence was that of selling a bottle of milk not of the quality demanded, because such milk failed to satisfy the tests for pasteurised milk.
It was, in fact, exactly what had been contemplated when the 1950 Act was introduced and for which these penalties had been prescribed. There was a conviction under Section (3) of the 1938 Act, and, of course, I am not saying that it was wrong, but it was certainly not what had been intended when the House was considering the matter in 1950.
The matter does not end there, because if we turn to the Sections of the 1950 Act to which I have been referring, we find that under Section 26, which is the second of them, a breach of the conditions, which was an offence under the 1938 Act,
"shall not render the holder of the licence guilty of an offence under the last foregoing section."—
that is to say, if he is liable to any punishment by or under any enactment other than that Section.
The result is that if there is a breach of the licence by the sale of pasteurised milk which is not up to standard, in spite of what was said in the 1950 Act and what was undoubtedly the intention of
1826
the House at the time, a dairyman cannot be prosecuted under that Act. He has to be prosecuted under the 1938 Act, because the offence can be punished under that Act, as appeared in the case of this prosecution in 1951. The result, therefore, is that the original penalty of having a licence withdrawn having been very properly stiffened in 1950, subject to certain protection which was fully intended and discussed at the time, that protection now proves quite nugatory, and, in fact, the penalty intended in 1950 is no longer appropriate.
This Amendment will have the effect that a dairyman could no longer be punished under Section 3 of the principal Act for this type of offence punishable under two Sections of the 1950 Act, and, therefore, the Amendment would restore what was undoubtedly the intention of the House at the time the 1950 Act was passed. If I may say so with very great respect to my right hon. Friend, it would also restore in this matter her political honour and the political honour of this House as well. A promise was made here in 1950, and safeguards were given, but a subsequent decision, which nobody foresaw, made these safeguards entirely nugatory and imposed a penalty which it was not intended should be imposed in. this particular case at the time. There it is. I hope the Amendment will commend itself to the Committee as only fair. I see hon. Gentlemen opposite looking anxiously at various books of reference. I hope I shall get their support and that of the Committee as a whole.
6.45 p.m.
Dr. Hill: I am sure that the Committee is grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) for his clear exposition of what he calls a lawyer's point, but the hon. and learned Gentleman may have omitted one aspect of the matter. As he put it, the law requires that, in connection with the offences listed in the Fourth Schedule of the 1950 Act, if there can be a prosecution under any other enactment, it must take place.
The particular point at issue is this. The possible offences listed in the Fourth Schedule of the 1950 Act include offences in regard to the keeping of records and the making of proper tests in connection with milk. In the case of offences of

1827
fraud, where the dairyman has mixed pasteurised and non-pasteurised milk together and called it pasteurised milk, the law now requires that that man shall be prosecuted for fraud under Section 3 of the 1938 Act, which deals with fraud. I suggest that it is, on the whole, a desirable thing that all persons who are accused of fraud should be accused under the same Section, and that dairymen in non-specified areas as well as in specified areas should be treated alike for the purpose of this Section, because the 1950 Act refers to dairymen in unspecified areas.
If we prevent these prosecutions for fraud or fail to require them, we shall be in this position. Under the 1950 Act, a man cannot be prosecuted for the first offence. He must have done it twice within 12 months in order to be prosecuted under that Section, so that I suggest that, bearing in mind that there is no such trial run for fraud under Section 3 of the 1938 Act, the Committee should think twice before providing that a fraudulent offender cannot be prosecuted in respect of the first offence.
I admit straight away that there is an argument on the other side, and it is this. If the prosecution takes place under the fraud provision—Section 3 of the 1938 Act—there cannot be in respect of that prosecution termination of the licence. If, on the other hand, there are two offences and a successful prosecution is made under the 1950 Act, there can be termination of the licence. But I suspect that the single offence of fraud that comes within the 1938 Act is unlikely to be the only offence, and, if there is any other offence under any other section or under the Fourth Schedule of the 1950 Act, the offender, provided that he has done it twice within 12 months, is liable to have his licence removed.
I have had the most unusual experience of believing the right hon. Lady to be right in this matter. To do what the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests would mean that in a specified area a dairyman could not be, or need not necessarily be, prosecuted for fraud, whereas a dairyman in an unspecified area doing the same thing could be prosecuted for fraud. Bearing in mind that, under Section 3 of the 1938 Act, there is no trial run for a fraudulent offence, I suggest that there should not be any trial
1828
run in the Bill for such a fraudulent offence. I trust that the Committee will leave the position as it is, and will not accept the Amendment.
Mr. Mitchison: It is true that Section 3 of the principal Act covers fraud in the ordinary sense of the word, but it also covers the case where pasteurised milk is not up to the required standard. The difficulty is that we cannot deal with the matter under the 1938 Act in the way which the House of Commons intended. If the Minister wants to limit the protection to certain cases and to exclude the fraudulent ones, I shall be only too happy to accept his assurance that he will look into the matter on those lines. The trouble at present is that the man who sells the wrong kind of milk because it is not up to the standard cannot be dealt with as the Act intended he should he dealt with. There is no element of fraud in the Lancaster prosecution, so far as I know.
Dr. Hill: Our contention is that with Section 3 remaining as it is, anybody who offends against the Section, whether dairyman or otherwise, in a specified area or otherwise, should be dealt with under that Section. That is the situation which now obtains. I appreciate the point of the hon. and learned Gentleman that there may be cases which could be brought within the ambit of the Section which are not fraudulent in the sense that we are discussing. Let us assume that in such marginal cases the local authority will act sensibly. Let us refrain from making a change which would have grave consequences in the sense of excluding a particular category of dairyman, not even the whole of the dairymen, from the operation of a general Clause dealing with fraudulent offences.
Mr. Michael Higgs: I and some of my hon. Friends have been concerned in the same way as is the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), and we considered the possibility of an Amendment to the same effect as the one we are now discussing. After studying the matter, we came to the view that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is right, though it may be that stronger assurances than he has so far been able to give us might be desirable.

1829
As I understand the 1950 Act, it did not purport to deal with transactions of sale. It did not fix the point of an offence at the sale of milk to a purchaser. There was nothing in Section 25 of the 1950 Act, or of the Fourth Schedule thereto, which made it an offence at the moment when milk was sold. That Act was aimed at what I may broadly describe as the drill to be followed in the dairy. It laid down the procedure to be followed in the dairy and provided the conditions in the licence to deal with the matter. It dealt also with the efficiency of machines, the keeping of records and the keeping of two different kinds of milk separately in the dairy.
The 1938 Act deals with the offence which takes place when a sale is made to the detriment of the purchaser. It is possible that where there has been a breakdown in the drill in the dairy or in the machinery of the dairy, a sale may follow which is to the detriment of the purchaser. To that extent it is possible to say that if, owing to the failure of procedure in the dairy, different kinds of milk such as pasteurised and unpasteurised get mixed, if there is a subsequent sale to a purchaser and the mistake is not found out until there is a sale to a purchaser, and if a sample is taken, that is a transgression which might be punished under either Act, either as bad drill in the dairy under the 1950 Act, or as a sale to the detriment of the purchaser under the 1938 Act.
It is in that class of case that the difficulty arises. I do not think that anyone in the Committee would wish to see a dairyman who deliberately mixed two pints of milk, tried under the 1950 Act. It would be impossible to prosecute where faulty dairy procedure took place and was found out before a sale. No one would suggest that that offence could be prosecuted under the 1938 Act. It must be prosecuted under the 1950 Act.
The difficulty arises where a sale takes place and there is a possible prosecution under the 1938 Act, but because the defect was the result of bad dairy drill it might also be prosecuted under the 1950 Act. Surely the commonsense thing is to say that where it is an innocent matter such as a mere fault in the machines which nobody could have prevented, or where it is carelessness or oversight, the
1830
1950 Act should apply. One was intended to have one free bite every year and the safeguards in the 1950 Act apply, as well as the severer consequence of repeated offences in the form of removal of licence.
In a case of that sort, the 1950 Act should be used and we would all agree that that would be reasonable. Where there has been deliberate fraud, and a dairyman has deliberately mixed two kinds of milk, pasteurised and unpasteurised, and sold them as pasteurised, anyone would agree that it should be dealt with under the 1938 Act, as was the Lancaster case.
My hon. Friend seemed to be giving some kind of assurance which probably cannot be defined in the statute but which one can see in practice and which would be followed as far as possible. We are rather in the hands of the food and drug authorities. Perhaps my hon. Friend could draw attention to the apprehensions which the dairymen have had about the consequences of the Lancaster case and try to secure that the dividing line which I have tried to explain to the Committee should be followed in practice by food and drug authorities. Then we might all feel satisfied that the right conclusion had been reached in this matter.
Mr. Mitchison: I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to look at this point of the cases where there should be prosecution under the 1950 Act and not under the 1938 Act. It is a very subtle line, so subtle that I noticed that when my right hon. Friend was making the speech to which I referred a few minutes ago she used the words, referring to the then state of the law, "If a vendor infringes the condition." She treated the matter at the time, and no doubt the House was treating it too, as one where the actual process of sale and the conduct of operations in the dairy were so closely associated that there was no material difference.
I do not want to protect the fraudulent milk dealer. What I am after is a different type of case altogether, where there has been a failure in the standard and where a man may be liable under Section 3. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would be good enough to tell me that he will look into the matter with regard to that type of case only, and I should then be more than satisfied and

1831
would at once ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would meet me to that extent. I am not asking for an undertaking.
Dr. Hill: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would appreciate an undertaking to examine this matter in relation to the narrow, restricted circumstances which have been so well described by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs). I will gladly look at the point. I am sure that neither the hon. and learned Gentleman nor my hon. Friend are suggesting that the Minister should tell local authorities what to do. Within those limitations I will look at the point, provided that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not seek the main change which his Amendment sets out.
Mr. Mitchison: I accept that entirely, and I would not go beyond that point. Having regard to what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.0. p.m.
Mr. I. J. Pitman: I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, at the end, to insert:
(3) In proceedings under the said section three it shall be a defence to prove that the food or drug in question was lawfully sold under a trade mark in response to a demand made by the purchaser with reference to the trade mark and was not inferior in nature, substance or quality to the food or drug normally sold under the trade mark:
Provided that—

(a) the trade mark as applied is used to indicate a connection in the course of trade between the food or drug and the person who is the proprietor of the trade mark or between the food or drug and a person who is registered under section twenty-eight of the Trade Marks Act, 1938, as a registered user of the trade mark; and

(b) the person who is the proprietor of the trade mark is the same person as, or a successor in title of, the proprietor on the day this Act is passed.

The origin of this Amendment lies in the fact that in Clause 2 (3) we are repealing paragraph (5) of Section 4 of the 1938 Act. That Section states that it shall be a defence to prove
"that the article supplied was a proprietary medicine and was supplied in response to a demand for that medicine."
Under the Bill at present, new prosecutions by local authorities in the case of
1832
medicines will be possible under Section 3 of the 1938 Act which were not possible before.
The first question I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary is whether the protection given to the public and to the retailer under the 1938 Act was undesirable, and, if there were any such undesirable cases, whether such undesirable cases were cases which would not now be covered by other parts of this Bill? When this Bill was introduced in another place, the repeal of Section 4 (5) was not provided for in it, and presumably, therefore, it was not thought desirable at that stage that there should be this fresh number of prosecutions of the retailer.
The Amendment, however, was moved in another place under the complete misconception that the trade accepted the repeal of that Section. In point of fact, that is the very opposite, and, therefore, it would be arguable that it would be justifiable to seek to amend the Bill by the deletion of the Amendment which was inserted in the other place. I speak for the Joint Committee of the Proprietory Association of Great Britain, the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry, the National Pharmaceutical Union, the Company Chemists Association and the National Federation of Grocers and the Provision Dealers' Association.
These bodies do not press to go as far as all that, and this Amendment does not go as far as the 1938 Act. It adopts a middle course, or what one might call a golden mean between the 1938 Act and this Bill, because, if this Amendment is accepted, it will be a defence for the retailer if he is prosecuted that the public asked for what the public got, provided that the product
"was not inferior in nature, substance or quality to the food or drug normally sold under the trade mark."
I wish to emphasise the point that the Amendment will not protect inferior goods, because that is ruled out under the Amendment. Equally, it will not protect the misleading goods because they are sold under a misleading trade name. For instance, if there were a Pitman's brand of aspirin which did not contain any aspirin at all, it would not be a defence under this Amendment, because, in point of fact, the prosecution would take place under Clause 5 owing to the

1833
fact that the whole thing would be misleading in itself.
That leaves only what are called "ethical" foods and medicines, and medicines within that ethical field which are by necessity superior by nature, substance and quality. May I give the Committee an example, first, from the past, and, secondly, an imaginary example from the future? In the past, we have had the substance known as chlorodyne, and in the future it might well be possible for a manufacturing chemist, after a great deal of research and development, to discover and market a most beneficial aureomycin whooping cough mixture. I may postulate that both products are ethical because it is only if a commodity is so beneficial that the authorities approve it and themselves copy it using the same name that the issue under this Amendment can arise at all.
It happens, and has happened, in the case of chlorodyne that the substance is considered so beneficial that it is admitted to the British Pharmacopoeia or to the British Pharmaceutical Codex with the same name. When it is so introduced, two differences occur. The first is a small difference of nomenclature. There are now two chlorodynes, one a Dr. Collis Browne's chlorodyne and another bearing the same name which is the official one in the British Pharmacopoeia. There is also a slight difference in substance. A variation is made in the formula so that there are now two versions of substance.
The Minister will no doubt turn round and say that there is no doubt that those two substances, notwithstanding their variations, are, in point of fact, the same substance. If he says that, then I think that is all the more reason for accepting this Amendment, because it will permit such minor, but only such minor, variations in the substance without danger of prosecution to the original.
If there were a substantial variation made subsequently in the substance of the original product, then there would not be protection because the words
"normally sold under the trade mark."
would prevent such a major change. Similarly, I think that the trade mark people would not allow the continuation of the trade mark for the sale of a substance which had been significantly altered.
1834
However, there will be unless the Amendment is accepted a debatable point whether two versions of a substance are the same substance. Since they are different substances, then it is possible for the local authority which is going to prosecute to suppose that the official one is the superior substance, and that the proprietary article, the manufacturers of which have done all the work in that field, is by inference an inferior article, which we know not to be the case.
All prosecutions in this field are vexatious. They take up time and cost money, and they take up the time of the courts, too. Do not let us forget that there are about 2,000 local authorities who will be in a position to instigate prosecutions under this Bill. It is very debatable whether we do not allow the Executive to exercise its discretion too much in refraining from prosecution. In other words, I think that there is a lot to be said for the fact that we give the Executive too many powers and accept on trust that it will exercise its ability to prosecute with discretion. If that is debatable in the case of Whitehall, how much more debatable is it when we have proliferated up and down the country literally thousands of local authorities upon whose discretion the whole question of the administration of this Bill will depend?
It is bad in itself, in this matter, to have the law indefinite, and if we can make it definite let us do so. It is also very discouraging to research and to the enormous capital required for the developing of any new drug of this character to have the fear that when all that money has been spent it may be found impracticable, after making the manufacture popular, to sell it in competition with the official imitation.
Finally, it is unfair to the public. After all, when the public come in and demand Dr. Collis Browne's chlorodyne, they are demanding something in which they believe because they have proved their faith in it and like to be allowed to get it without the retailer being prosecuted for supplying that for which they ask. It would be sound to discourage prosecutions by these 2,000 authorities and, if they do prosecute, it would save the time of the court to have the matter clearly covered by the Bill.
Sir Ian Fraser: I declare an interest in this

1835
matter, being a director of certain companies which manufacture and distribute branded articles or articles which are sold subject to registered trade marks. I am interested, not only for shareholders who deserve consideration, but also for very large numbers of people employed in making and distributing these products and who are very interested in the well-being of the business which many of them have spent most of their lifetime to build up.
It is a pity that the Government which passed, in this very Parliament, the Merchandise Marks Act should include in this Bill further Clauses which a great many people in the trades concerned consider vexatious, embarrassing and harassing. However, if further regulation of these profitable, popular, and I think useful, businesses must be made, then I beg of my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench to listen sympathetically and consider whether they cannot meet us by accepting this Amendment or, at any rate, by finding some words which would help to assuage the sore feelings of many of the people for whom I speak.
We do not want to multiply inquiries, prosecutions and defences. Let us remember that all these ancillary products of legislation have to be paid for out of the money made by industry. Were it not for these successful industries there would not be the taxes to pay for them at all. Branded articles, in themselves, are valuable not only to the person owning the brands and trade marks but to the public, to whom they give certainty of quality and repetition of quality in which the public have faith.
7.15 p.m.
Those are things which should be encouraged, and not discouraged by vexatious prosecutions. An established trade mark is of value to the person who owns it and to the people who have faith in it. It ought to be a piece of property which, if reasonably used, is respected by the law and not subject to whimsical, arbitrary—and sometimes malicious—attack by Tom, Dick and Harry, whether he be in Whitehall or town hall.
It is for those general reasons that I ask the Government to consider seriously the case which is now being put to them. The explanations given by my hon.
1836
Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) are within the recollection of the Committee and it would be tedious to repeat them. I will only say that in our judgment—and we have been, we think, well advised by experienced people and by learned counsel—the Bill as it stands does allow a great many people to prosecute responsible and worthy companies which are rendering a public service, for faults which, as my hon. Friend has said, are not really faults at all but a necessary part of the process of making and popularising good products.
If one is responsible for making and popularising a product, and making it so well that authority wishes to put the formula in an official code, it seems grossly unfair that that fact should lay one open to a prosecution which might stop one selling the very thing which has been produced to benefit the people as well as oneself. I do not pretend that the companies which I represent have been abused in this matter but they, as well as every other section, deserve fair treatment and reasonable conditions in which to work in order to make money and to sustain the executive of the country.
The whole of the trade concerned in making these goods which are the subject of trade marks and brands, manufacturers and wholesalers in both the drug and food businesses and all the grocers in Britain—and there are 100,000 of them—are all represented in the plea which we are making to the Government. I earnestly hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will listen.
Dr. Hill: I confess that I am a little puzzled by the statements of the misapprehensions made by my hon. Friends who have spoken to this Amendment. This clearly derives from the omission of the defence in Section 4 (5) of the 1938 Act. There have been some discussions with the pharmaceutical trade on the subject. That trade has never maintained that, where an article the subject of trade mark has deteriorated, say in store, it should not be possible to prosecute under the appropriate Section. It has never contended that and my hon. Friend does not raise the matter here.
If that is not raised, then what he seeks to ensure is that, where the substance is bought in response to a demand made by the purchaser in reference to the trade mark, that should be a defence. But

1837
there is no offence. If, in fact, the sale is made in response to a demand for so-and-so's pills or so-and-so's chlorodyne—and I wish to avoid mentioning names—there is no offence. I can appreciate the point that, where a substance is in the British Pharmacopœia and at the same time is sold separately it will then be so-and-so's cough medicine and the corresponding name for it in the Pharmacopœia. Again, if the customer asks for so-and-so's cough medicine and it is supplied there is no offence.
In any case, the Amendment does not deal with the difficulty of substances similarly named outside and inside the Pharmacopœia. I can assure my hon. Friend that if someone asks for so-and-so's preparation and gets it, there is no offence. If there is confusion as to what the purchaser asks for, where there is a substance of one sort in the Pharmacopœia and a substance of another sort which is not in the Pharmacopoeia, I suggest that it is for the courts to determine whether there is fraud or not. This is not new.
Sir I. Fraser: May I ask my hon. Friend a question on the point that he has just made? Could I put this half-factual and half-imaginary case to illustrate my point? Suppose that Dr. Brown brings chlorodyne to the notice of the public, advertises it and makes it a valuable article, which it was not before because few people were aware of it. There then comes a moment when it is put in the Pharmacopoeia. Some time later a customer asks for a bottle of chlorodyne. She does not say that she wants Dr. Brown's chlorodyne. She just wants a bottle of the good old chlorodyne which she has faith in. Could not the shopkeeper be prosecuted for not having given her the Pharmacopoeia article instead of Dr. Brown's, because the woman has not specified Dr. Brown's chlorodyne?
Dr. Hill: There has been one case—I think it was the Woolwich case—concerning Californian Syrup of Figs. A person asked for syrup of figs, and got Californian Syrup of Figs, which is a product of a different composition from the syrup of figs in the Pharmacopoeia. That is the one case, but it failed. It was held that there was no desire to deceive and no misrepresentation or fraud.
1838
One is bound to give the answer that this must depend on the circumstances. The substance of my answer is that if a customer asks for a particular preparation and gets that preparation there can be no offence. A great deal of the apprehension of my hon. Friend is misplaced, and I would urge him in the circumstances to withdraw the Amendment. I have not dealt with the second point more fully because it is not affected by the Amendment, but I do assure him that the apprehensions which he feels are not genuinely aroused by the position as it stands.
Mr. Pitman: I thank the Minister for dealing with this matter, but I think he has given me the very points which I am seeking to make. To make my first point, I think I need only read Section 3 of the 1938 Act, which says:
"If a person sells to the prejudice of the purchaser any food or drug which is not of the … substance … demanded …"
I emphasize the word "the" substance—not a substance demanded. The Parliamentary Secretary has conceded the point that there are in such cases two substances however similar, and if his point is that there can be no prosecution I would say that it is much better to state in the Bill that there cannot be a prosecution where the substances are substantially but not identically similar.
My hon. Friend also said that he wants this question to be settled by the courts. I suggest that it is very desirable that the courts should not have to deal with a point which is so very clear in the Parliamentary Secretary's mind that he can assure me that there is no ground for apprehension. If he is convinced of that, let him make the Bill clear so that it is not left to the courts but is clearly indicated to the prosecuting local authorities that they have no grounds for a prosecution, and to courts how they may decide any prosecution dealing with a substance which varies only insignificantly.
I think the Minister's choice of the phrase "cough mixture" is rather unfortunate in that lit is of a character different from "chlorodyne" or any other fanciful name. Of course, there are many different cough mixtures. The point which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) related to the case in which

1839
a new name is invented for a new substance and there is only that name. This comes about when the substance is new and is developed and the sale of the article is promoted round the new trade mark.
I speak with a declared interest in this matter and I have been approached by all the bodies I mentioned who are concerned in those cases involving substances where there are variants which differ only insignificantly: cases in which they believe that they should get the protection under the Bill and should not have to go to the court every time for such protection.
Mr. Norman Smith: I hope the Minister will not give way, because behind this Amendment and the speeches of the hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Pitman) and Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) there lies a conception which I would class as a superstition, namely, the curious idea that the popularity of branded goods is indicative of the intrinsic value of those goods.
Most people are well aware that the most important ingredients in the popularity of branded goods are, first, the scale and the efficiency of the advertising and publicity behind them, and, second, and possibly even more important, the cunning and skill with which the packaging is contrived for those goods. After all, many people are artless and credulous. The whole purpose of this Amendment is thoroughly reactionary, and I hope that the Minister will not give way.
Mr. Pitman: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that cases can arise only when the product is so popular and found so effective as to have been adopted officially by the British Pharmacopoeia using the product-name of the originator?
Mr. Smith: The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) did not know my grandmother who bought this, that or the other by reason of the package or the publicity and without any regard to testing and assessing.
Amendment negatived.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Harmar Nicholls: The Amendment in my name, in page 2, line 45, to add a new subsection (4) was not selected, but I think that the point behind that Amendment has been strengthened by the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary on the Amendment with which we have just dealt. He said that a question before a court must depend on the circumstances and that the matter must be left to the discretion of the courts.
It was in support of that point of view that my Amendment was drafted, and I hope that even at this late stage the Parliamentary Secretary can give further thought to the idea behind my Amendment.
Clause 2 (3) reads:
"Paragraphs (1) to (3) and paragraph (5) of Section 4 of the principal Act … shall cease to have effect …."
but Section 4 of the principal Act still stands. Section 4 (4) of the principal Act says:
"where the food or drug in question contains some extraneous matter, that the presence of that matter was an unavoidable consequence of the process of collection or preparation."
In those circumstances, that shall be deemed to be a defence.
I suggest that even at this late stage that we should add to Section 4—
The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is now dealing more with his Amendment than with the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
7.30
Mr. Nicholls: I am discussing the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but I am suggesting that it is not too late, on considering this Clause, for the Minister to keep in mind this particular point, and I am suggesting that as an addition to subsection (4) we should add some such words as:
"or that all reasonable precautions had been taken …."—
The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman, in discussing the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" must not discuss additions to it.
Mr. Nicholls: If I may be allowed to proceed with this point, what I am suggesting is that this Bill has still to go through various stages before it gets on to the Statute Book, and all I am saying is that it is still possible for additions and alterations to be made.
Mr. John Paton: That is when the hon. Member can move his Amendment.
Mr. Nicholls: My Amendment was not selected.
The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Member's Amendment was not selected, he must not try to get round that fact.
Mr. Nicholls: If I may, I should like to close with the suggestion that the Minister who is going to reply would find that it would help his endeavours very much indeed to have the addition I have suggested. I would say to him that he ought to leave it to the discretion of the magistrates to take into account all the evidence that is brought, and if they feel able to give an acquittal after considering that all the circumstances surrounding the case warrant it, then I think it would be in the general interest. I plead in support of that point of view the defence the Parliamentary Secretary put up a few minutes ago, that it must depend on the circumstances when they are brought to court.
Mr. Amory: I only want to say a word on Clause 2. I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, that we are not altogether happy about Clause 2, and particularly the reference back to Section 4 (4) of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, and the use of the word "unavoidable." We have considered this point fairly thoroughly, but it is a question of the possible presence of extraneous matters which is really the important issue, and we must take a serious view of that and make sure that there are fairly heavy sanctions here. I think that in all the circumstances, when my hon. Friend thinks about it, he will find that the word "unavoidable" is correct, and if we were to try to replace it with something else we should not be doing full justice to the matter.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(REGULATIONS AS TO COMPOSITION OF FOOD, ETC.)
Mr. Dodds: I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, to leave out "requiring."
I can deal with this Amendment in a few seconds because it merely asks for information. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee are wondering why the
1842
word "requiring" is in the Bill at all, and would like an explanation. It seems to us that the Minister, as well as being concerned with prohibiting or regulating the addition of any specified substance, can also require it to be added. We believe that some members of the public might not like the fact that the Ministry is requiring or instructing that some substance should be introduced. If the Parliamentary Secretary will give us an explanation of this curious wording, I am sure it would remove our doubts. We can understand the prohibition or the regulation.
Dr. Hill: It is to give the power that is necessary to make such additions as vitamins to margarine, hitherto dealt with under the Defence Regulation. That kind of power is now sought in permanent legislative form.
Mr. Dodds: In view of the very clear explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, to leave out "such," and to insert "any."
The Deputy-Chairman: With this Amendment we will also take the next two, and also that to Clause 4, page 4, line 13.
Mr. Willey: I am sure that will meet with the Committee's approval.
I want to follow the precedent set by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) in being as brief as possible, and I hope this example will be followed by those on the Government benches, because we are anxious to get on with the Bill. The purpose of this Amendment is to assist in the enforcement of these provisions. It is conceivable that it might widen the scope of the regulation-making power under paragraph (a) if the reference in the last line or two to regulating the composition of "such food" were changed to "any food."
I say at once that we are aware of the definition given in Clause 29, but if we have got a point about that we will have to raise it later when we come to that Clause. But it is conceivable that it might be better to have wider powers under certain circumstances. I am think-

1843
ing of this from the enforcement point of view. It could be that a defence would be put up that the food was not being prepared for human consumption and the circumstances were such that the Ministry might feel that they should regulate the process or treatment. It is for those reasons that I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that it is desirable to extend the provisions to a greater extent than at present.
Dr. Hill: I appreciate the hon. Member's point that some material that would be a subject of a prosecution would not be for human consumption, and that there might be an escape for a defendant who pleaded that the material was for animal consumption. But there are in Section 81 (4) of the parent Act powers dealing with the presumptions to be made where such material is found, and I would particularly direct the hon. Member's attention to subsection 4 (b). I think he will find that the necessary presumptions are there, but I will look into the point again in order to make quite sure that we are doing all that we reasonably can to prevent what the hon. Member has in mind.
Mr. Mitchison: Will the Parliamentary Secretary remember the case of the dead horse? The dead horse is, I believe, in some instances, only destined for human consumption at a comparatively late stage and it would be as well to bear that matter in mind. I doubt whether Section 81 meets that case.
Dr. Hill: I will give an undertaking to give consideration to the dead horse.
Mr. Willey: Without insisting upon the Parliamentary Secretary looking into the dead horse, I am obliged to him for making the position plain and I accept the offer he has made. In regard to Section 81 (4), I had in mind going rather further than that. It is not just a question of a presumption being made, but I think there may be circumstances in which it is undesirable to allow the preparation even though it is for animal consumption. However, in view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr. Stross: I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, at the end, to insert:
1844
Provided that no such regulation shall authorise the sale of any article which is without food value or the description of any article of food in terms which are likely to conceal its true nature and composition.
This Amendment falls into two parts. I think it must commend itself to the Committee. The first part is virtually covered word for word by subsection (2) of the Clause. The only difference is that the subsection uses the words "so far as practicable." I would not quarrel either about having the words in or having the words out, for the intention, I am sure, is there. Society cannot afford and does not want to have food that is worthless. The provision as already contained in the Clause came as a result of discussion in another place, where an Amendment was made to provide for the words to which I am now referring.
There are not many worthless foods. Therefore, I do not want to make heavy weather about this matter. By "worthless" foods I mean completely worthless. One about which we have had discussion here by Question and answer is meringues of methyl cellulose. Even that could be useful to people who wanted to eat something to make them grow thin. Perhaps it would commend itself to the Parliamentary Secretary as well as to anybody else who may want it. Obviously, however, a description that tends to deceive people is not a good thing, and, obviously, it is a waste of money to buy completely worthless food. Obviously, too, attempts are being made to prevent that sort of thing happening "so far as practicable"
We are on stronger ground, however, in the second part of the Amendment, because it refers to the description of articles of food in terms that conceal their true nature and composition. That is something any Government must be sensitive about. It is so easy to use descriptions that mislead people, and some are so used. I brought an example to the notice of the former Minister of Food, that of "selected cheese." There was some cheese that was called "selected cheese" and that was sold as such.
Dr. H. Morgan: It smelled.
Dr. Stross: The information came from Birmingham. The Medical Officer of Health at Birmingham noted it, and pointed out that it was cheese made from curd of which all the fatty substance had been taken away. The description

1845
"selected" cheese was likely to deceive people as to the quality, because "selected" means that cheese so described is better than ordinary cheese, better even than Stilton. I can imagine the words "perfection cream" used to describe a cream that is far from perfect. Perhaps this is not the time to discuss the suitable use of words, but we may reach a stage later at which we can discuss how words can be used to deceive the public.
Dr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman himself pointed out that the words in subsection (2) of the Clause go a long way to meet his point, and I think that they probably go as far as it would be reasonable to go. He will appreciate that regulations do not authorise the sale of ingredients, although by implication they may appear to do so. One thing we must carefully avoid asserting is that a food that is nutritionally worthless or an ingredient that is nutritionally worthless is necessarily without some value.
There are some very delightful foods that scientists will tell us are of no nutritional value, but, bless my soul, there are some of them that can give us considerable even if only temporary delight. There are some ingredients in food that are of no nutritional value. I doubt whether colouring matters are really of nutritional value, or whether baking powder is. I could give many examples of these things that are nutritionally worthless but not necessarily without some use in making the food more attractive to the palate and nostrils and so the better digested.
Mr. G. Darling: But surely they should not be advertised as having nutritional value. That is the point.
7.45 p.m.
Dr. Hill: I am coming to the second part about advertisement now. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) pointed out, there are two parts to this Amendment. I would draw his attention to Section 6 of the 1938 Act. It is pretty formidable in its standard, condemning anything which
"… falsely describes that food or drug, or is otherwise calculated to mislead as to its nature, substance or quality."
I would draw his attention also to the provisions about the labelling of food and drugs which we shall come to in Clause 5 So, while I agree with him that his first
1846
point is substantially met by the Amendment that was made in another place, I would point out to him that his second point may arise when we are dealing with the refinements of Section 6 of the original Act, as we shall be when we come to Clause 5 of the Bill. I have no doubt we shall have an opportunity of considering then the additional points he wishes to make.
Mr. Mitchison: I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary has another look at this Amendment, particularly the second part. What is suggested is that no regulation is to authorise the description of any article of food in terms that are likely to conceal its true nature and composition. That is not the kind of thing a regulation does, but the words in subsection (1) are extremely wide and they are extremely vague, and I should find it very hard indeed to say that we could not put into the regulations some provision which might have that effect. That is all, because that is a possibility, and as, clearly, nobody in the Committee will for one instant want anything of the sort to be done, I see no harm in putting in a restriction of this sort when it is, at any rate, an open question whether otherwise we may not have a regulation which authorises in some form or another a misdescription of an article of food.
Look at what the regulations are regulating—
"… the addition of any specified substance … the use of any such substance …"
It is just a general regulation, which does not simply say we may put in only so much of a thing and then sell the article as so-and-so, or that if we put in so much of a thing it must be called this, that and the other, or that if we put in something else it must be called something else. One can think of an infinite variety of regulations under which there could be misdescriptions not authorised in any way by regulations made by Ministers.
This type of Amendment may be made out of caution; perhaps, it may be said, out of excessive caution; but we can also say that the caution is for a good purpose and that it cannot do any harm, and that it may do some good to have in a proviso of this kind. I am not referring to the first part of the Amendment because I am inclined to agree that

1847
that has been met by the other subsection, but I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should look again at the second part of the Amendment, remembering how wide is the word "regulating" in this sort of context.
Mr. Willey: I rise to help the progress of the Bill. I agree largely with what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison); the first part of the Amendment has been met. I appreciate the difficulties of going further but, after all, this was an Amendment accepted in another place because of such points as those which have been made today. The Government have at any rate shown their good intentions in endeavouring to meet these points.
I think the Parliamentary Secretary should look again at the second leg of the Amendment. At the moment it is "Fancy calling Stork margarine," but if the Parliamentary Secretary goes on enthusiastically adding additives to margarine it may be a question of "Fancy calling margarine margarine." This Amendment concerns the possibility that one might change the nature of a substance by insisting, on medical grounds, or on nutritional grounds, on additives being added. It might be unfortunate that the old name should remain and it might be necessary to make it quite clear that we were not concealing its true nature by using a name which was no longer appropriate.
I do not press this as a matter of major importance at the moment, but this legislation will last a long time and I am sure it would not be the Government's purpose to allow these regulations to be used so that there might be a misdescription of some foodstuffs. The Parliamentary Secretary has shown an anxiety to look at these matters again and I hope that he will see whether there is any possibility of meeting this point. I agree that we have another opportunity of dealing with it on Clause 5, and in the circumstances I advise my hon. Friend not to press the Amendment.
Dr. Stross: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Amory: I beg to move, in page 3, line 37, at the end, to insert:
1848
(4) Regulations so made may provide, in relation to such cases as may be specified and subject to such exceptions as may be allowed by or under the regulations, that where any food is certified by a public analyst as being food to which the regulations apply so far as they are made under paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section that food may be treated for the purposes of section ten of the principal Act (which enables food to be seized and condemned on the order of a magistrate) as being unfit for human consumption:
Provided that nothing in any such regulations shall be taken as prejudicing the generality of the powers conferred by the said section ten.
Clause 3 empowers the Ministers of Food and Health to make regulations controlling the composition of food, and this Amendment is to enable the Ministers to provide in such regulations that food not complying with them may be treated as unfit for human consumption for the purpose of Section 10 of the 1938 Act. The Amendment is required because without it food containing prohibited preservatives or prohibited quantities of injurious metals, for instance, cannot be seized. The only thing to do is to prosecute the distributors after the food has gone into the channels of trade.
Hon. Members will, I know, be familiar with the question of oranges and the trouble over thiourea, and that is exactly the kind of case with which we want to deal here. We want to ensure that the injurious food can be seized, if necessary, at the port, and that we do not have to rely on action being taken at too late a stage. I think that hon. Members generally will feel that it is a reasonable thing to do.
Mr. Willey: We are much obliged to the Minister for that explanation. Of course, we accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill"
Mr. Willey: This is a Clause which we welcome. It gives powers to make regulations. At the moment we have the Defence (Sale of Food) Regulations, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is the Government's intention to continue the purpose of those Regulations. Once the Bill becomes law the Government will not wish to continue the powers under the Defence Regulations but will rely upon this Bill, and I ask the

1849
Parliamentary Secretary for an assurance that the purpose of those Regulations will be continued in the powers provided by the Bill.
I want to ask the hon. Gentleman two further questions. The first I have asked before but it arises again under this Clause; it is a request for an assurance that the work of the Food Standards Committee will be continued and pressed forward. It is appreciated, I think, not only by the public but by the trade, that that committee is doing excellent work. As I said in the debate on the previous Clause, its work will provide the basis for what most of us want to see in connection with additives to and subtractions from food.
The other question is rather different. Here we are all showing a keen interest in food hygiene. Can the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that there will be no economy in his establishment at the expense of the food standards division, because it would be wrong to say with one voice that we are doing all we can to promote hygiene and at the same time to allow any economy considerations to affect the excellent work which is being done.
In dealing with additives, the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned margarine. He should also have mentioned bread, because his Government are still insisting, very properly, upon calcium being put into bread. When we were in office hon. Members opposite criticised us for putting chalk in bread. I think the Parliamentary Secretary should do the service of admitting that he is very properly doing what we did.
Dr. Hill: I give the hon. Member the assurance which he requires about the Defence Regulations, and about carrying on the improvements which have been made. It is remarkable how in time of stress it becomes possible to effect improvements which are later incorporated in permanent legislation. It is proposed to continue the work of the Food Standards Committee. I am not aware of any proposal to decrease its scope. Indeed, a subsequent Clause of the Bill will show how it will be necessary to extend the kind of work and investigation which has been associated with the Food Standards Committee in the past.
1850
Dealing with the hon. Gentleman's last question, this delightfully peaceful atmosphere led me to give an example which I thought would be accepted rather than be one which might be the subject of prolonged debate.
Dr. Stross: This is perhaps the most important Clause in the Bill because of the powers which can be used under it, if the Government are so willing, in order to implement what will be an admirable Bill by the time we have finished with it. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) that to limit ourselves to the question of margarine in connection with additives is not fair to those sections of the public which are rather nervous about what are called prophylactic measures being taken on their behalf in order to improve their health. For example, there are some who are nervous about the addition of iodine. I am not nervous about it; I have been the strongest supporter of it but I recognise, and it is recognised by every authority and certainly by the Medical Research Council, that some people are sensitive to the tiniest amount of iodine, and they have to have special consideration.
I have had my doubts about the addition of chalk from the beginning, but that does not matter here. This is not the time to go into the matter, which can be discussed on a future occasion. I know the arguments, of course, both for and against. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to send me a very interesting statement of the whole of the discussion a year or two ago.
8.0 p.m.
Other people are worried about the proposed addition of flourine to their drinking water—I think with some justification—and I am not sure that we shall not be compelled to have a look at that matter again. The Housewives' League, I must assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary, are very disturbed about some of these matters, and they have been campaigning about them for some time. I may perhaps be allowed to quote a sentence or two from an issue of their magazine of 1st January of this year. The Parliamentary Secretary will then see how disturbed they are.

1851
A lady writing says this, after consultations with the Department's officers:
"We are aghast at the evidence of degeneration, physical, mental and spiritual, on every hand. Our only comfort is the knowledge that we at least are not sitting on our bottoms, but are trying to do something"—
Dr. Morgan: Surely no lady would say that.
Dr. Stross: I am quoting—
"however small and however insignificant, even if it is only baking our own good bread in the belief that a little leaven will lighten the whole lump."
I am sure the Committee will realise that it is not fair to leave these ladies in this very uncomfortable position. I think that very frequently the gist of their complaints has good common-sense behind it, and I hope that in future the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend will pay more attention to them.
I now come to the most important part of these regulations. That is the amazing power which the Minister has and which I hope he will now use to protect the public. At an earlier stage, when we were discussing Clause 1, some of us discussed the work of the Delaney Committee. I think that it may be appropriate to consider what is happening there and compare the procedure with what we are trying to do in this Bill.
In fact this Bill is running a race with our American cousins to see who is to be first with a first-class piece of legislation in order to protect ourselves. I know that in February of this year the food, drug and cosmetic journal was describing the legislation to come very shortly before Congress. I do not know whether they have yet passed it. If they have it is as a result of the decisions and the advice which has come from the Delaney Committee, and I think that hon. Members will be interested if I give shortly their four main recommendations.
They were, first, that the increase in use of chemical additives by the food manufacturing industry has created a serious public health problem. I think that we would all agree with that, and we are legislating to make sure that it does not grow to become a serious health problem in our own country.
Secondly, their existing Federal laws do not provide adequate public protection. Nor do ours. Thirdly, before a
1852
chemical is used in, or on, or as a food, it should be subjected to acute and chronic toxicity tests to ensure that so far as possible public health will not be endangered by its use. We agree on that. That is what we are going to do. Fourthly, early legislation should be introduced to provide that before any new chemical is introduced into the food industry, evidence should be submitted to the Food and Drug Administration demonstrating that the chemical is safe and produces no harmful physiological reaction. I was quoting this from the "British Food Journal" of May this year.
I think that there must be some misunderstanding in our minds, because at the end of the article we find these words, in which I think the Parliamentary Secretary will be interested. It says
"This development in the United States is the more interesting in view of the fact that the Food and Drug (Amendment) Bill, now awaiting consideration in our own House of Commons, makes provision for a system of notification of the use of chemical additives to food, which appears somewhat similar to the remedy rejected as inadequate by the Food and Drug Administration in Washington."
I think that they are wrong; at least I hope they are wrong in their criticism. I am pretty sure that they are wrong.
But what they had in mind was the fact that there was a rejection in Washington by the Food and Drug Administration of the suggestion that it was enough for the manufacturer merely to notify the Administration that they were going to use a new chemical. The Administration said, "That just won't do. You must also give us proof that you have subjected it to control and test, and when we have looked at the evidence we must be satisfied that it is safe to use"
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if I am right in belief that we have in mind throughout this Bill that no new substances are to be allowed to come into use unless they have been carefully looked at. Earlier this evening, an hon. Member opposite spoke on behalf of the chemical industry, with which he had been associated, in its defence. I am sure that in this country those associated with the food industry or the chemical manufacturers are not lacking in public responsibility. But it is right that we should, from this House, give a lead to these bodies.

1853
I think that the industry on both sides is waiting for a lead. The way in which it was put in the United States—and I think this is worth mentioning—was that there are three partners in this matter which we are discussing. There is the partnership between three sets of people which will not be broken by legislation of the type which we are now passing, but which will bring about closer cooperation. I refer to the chemical manufacturer, the food industrialist and the food and drug administration, which is ourselves, because we represent the public.
We must not under any circumstances let our cousins get ahead of us on this subject. Why should we not be first? Certainly, we must not lag behind. Our responsibility to the public makes us, I am sure, at least as eager as they are in the United States to demonstrate that public health and the public welfare come before anything else.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(POWER OF MINISTERS TO OBTAIN PARTICULARS OF CERTAIN FOOD INGREDIENTS.)
Mr. Willey: I beg to move in page 4, line 5, after "production," to insert "use."
I will do so very briefly because I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary intends to indicate that the Government will accept it. Here we are dealing with the power of Ministers to obtain particulars. The Amendment deals with the definition of a business. As the Bill stands, that would be a business which includes the production or importation of substances of any class specified in the order.
We are suggesting that this definition would be widened a little if we made the provision read: "A business which includes the production, use or importation of substances." I would emphasise that we are only giving the Minister power to make regulations. He is not obliged to make these regulations; it is a discretionary power which lies with the Minister. I think that there is a good case for widening the definition of "business," and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to indicate that he can accept such an expansion of the definition.
Dr. Hill: It is not quite as simple as the hon. Member suggested. He will appreciate that under this Clause power is given to collect information about substances that are being used, research that is being done on them and the like. Clearly the person from whom to demand that information is the manufacturer or, if the substances are manufactured abroad, the importer. The words which the hon. Member seeks to insert would make it possible to demand such information from those who are using the material.
I do not want to give an extreme example because the hon. Member is raising a serious point, but an extreme example is a bakery using a small quantity of fat extender. In order that the Minister may determine what action he can properly take power is given to require information from the manufacturer of these substances. That is the reason for limiting it to manufacture and importation and not including the word "use."
Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but I should like him to raise his sights and go a little beyond his brief. I would readily agree in ordinary circumstances and accept every word he has said, but I still feel there may be cases in which it would be desirable to get information also from people using the substances.
I cannot see why the hon. Gentleman should hesitate to accept this Amendment. It is not placing an obligation on the Minister that he must do this. This is a new provision. I accept at once the power to obtain information, and I am sure that in the obtaining of this information the Minister will get the utmost co-operation from the food trades. There is good will on this question and such information as may be available should be made available.
All I am suggesting is that the hon. Gentleman should at any rate concede that there may be circumstances in which it would be desirable to go wider than the manufacturer or the importer and to say that there may be information available in other food businesses. The trade would accept the good sense of the Minister. These regulations would be brought to Parliament. Even with a joint Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Food there is, happily, a very good association

1855
between the food trade and the Ministry of Food.
I do not think this provision would cause suspicion. No one would be upset if the power were there. We could rest assured that it would not be exercised unless there were good reasons for saying that the information obtained was incomplete and it was desired to go a little further.
Dr. Hill: I will look most sympathetically at the question of collecting information. I agree that here and there the experience of those who have used the substances may be of value. I will give the matter sympathetic consideration. I hope that, on that understanding, the hon. Member will withdraw the Amendment.
Mr. Mitchison: May I express the hope that when doing that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that one of the particular things about which we ask for information is the use of the substances? Therefore, it is not unreasonable to ask for the information from the person concerned in using them. I suggest that it is wholly unreasonable to refuse the power to ask for that information from people concerned in the use of the substances.
Mr. Willey: I think we have made some impact on the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary and, in view of the assurance given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.15 p.m.
Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, to leave out "or regulated."
This Amendment admits of no refutation. Here is a subsection to deal with getting information about substances sold for use in the preparation of food for human consumption. It is not altogether unreasonable that we should expect information about substances the use of which is unregulated, but substances which are regulated, those are ones in respect of which we want this power. I am sure that these words which the Amendment seeks to delete were put in by inadvertence and I move this Amendment with confidence.
Dr. HillIn response to the arguments of the hon. and learned Member I propose to go further and, in reference to the
1856
next Amendment, in line 7, to leave out from "section," to "to," in line 9, to say that on reflection we think we should remove the whole of the words appearing in brackets. That would leave more elbow room for the Minister. In the light of that, and the assurance that we shall seek to remove the words within brackets, perhaps the hon. and learned Member will wish to withdraw the Amendment.
Mr. Mitchison: I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to be undertaking at a later stage to move an Amendment to omit the words in the brackets.
Mr. Amory Mr. Amory indicated assent.
Mr. Mitchison: On that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, in page 4, line 28, after "to," to insert:
"or in any other way affects."
The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas): It might be convenient to consider at the same time the next Amendment in the name of the right hon. Lady, in line 28, at the end, to insert:
(d) particulars of any investigations or inquiries carried out by or to the knowledge of the person carrying on the business in question for the purpose of determining the cumulative effect on the health of a person consuming such substance in ordinary quantities.
Dr. Summerskill: This Clause is concerned with the power of Ministers to obtain particulars of certain food ingredients. I seek to strengthen the power of the Minister, and I hope he will accept the Amendment. If I were in his position I would feel, under the circumstances—the circumstances being that today so many foods have additions made to them and our whole approach in this field is exploratory, as I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree—that none of us can be dogmatic about the effects of new drugs and of some of the foods which have been adulterated. I mean adulterated in its broadest sense, not necessarily by some careless person, but by someone who believes that by making some addition he may be improving the foodstuffs. Nevertheless the effect may be injurious to health or it may affect the individual in some other way.
It is known that certain foods contain mineral oils and, while a small amount

1857
of mineral oils are not injurious, large amounts are injurious. People fear that certain foods may contain fertilisers which may be injurious, but we must recognise, while making this tentative approach to the subject, that these new materials in food may also cause changes in personality.
I put that point to the Parliamentary Secretary. I think that he will agree that certain drugs which have been used during the last few years—and which have been lauded by the medical profession and subsequently by the public as being something very wonderful and which would have an excellent therapeutic effect—have been discovered subsequently to be injurious in so far that they sometimes even affect the personality. I have an idea that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) will develop that point, but I will put it broadly in that sense.
There is no pathological effect, in so far as the expectation of life of the individual is not affected, but the condition as described in this Amendment
"or in any other way affects"
is there. The individual may be affected by something which is in the food, but he need not necessarily develop some pathological condition. That is why I am asking the Minister to accept this Amendment. When he comes to interpret this, I think that he will find it very useful, because he will be able to demand from those people making investigations into these products other information which may be useful to him.
The other Amendment deals with the cumulative effect on the health of the person. Again I would say that in the matter of foods the British are very conservative. It is possible for a family to eat similar foods every day year after year. Again I make my point, that if those foods contain some substance which has an injurious effect, or which affects the individual in some other way, then of course the cumulative effect is even worse. That is why I am asking the Minister to insert these two Amendments. I think it true to say today that there are only two foods which are free from artificial ingredients. There is fish—
Mr. Paton: What about kippers?
Dr. Summerskill: —and wild fruits. I do not know of any other food in the country which is free from artificial ingredients.
Mr. Cyril Bence: Potatoes?
Dr. Summerskill: Potatoes are subject to fertilisers. But fish straight out of the sea is not subject to artificial ingredients. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Paton) said, kippers are subject to artificial ingredients which may be extremely injurious, but I will not develop that.
To press my point, I think that I am right in saying that there are only two foods which we consume today in the 20th century which are free from artificial ingredients, fish—though it may be subject later to some process making it injurious—and wild fruits. That is why I wish to impress on the Minister that he should take the widest powers offered to him. Investigations are being made, as we know, by voluntary organisations, by research organisations, by big drug houses and by all kinds of people. They are investigating these different materials and, therefore—I was going to use the expression used just now by the Parliamentary Secretary—these Amendments would give the Minister more elbow room. I think that in this matter he should be willing to take it.
Mr. Amory: I agree with the right hon. Lady that we want to be sure that we do not exclude any future information that we may want, and we cannot know now exactly what we may want in the future. I consider that she has made out her case and I agree with her.
We do not think that the second Amendment is necessary. We consider that the powers taken under Clause 1 (5) will enable us to get this information. I agree that the British people are conservative about their food. The Parliamentary Secretary and I are both accustomed to having our evening meal at about 7.30. We do not look like getting it at that time tonight, and so we are getting rather hungry. In the circumstances I agree with what the right hon. Lady has said, and we can accept these Amendments.
Dr. Stross: The Committee. I am sure. are greatly obliged because it is true that

1859
the acceptance of these Amendments will give the Government latitude to take such steps as are necessary under contingencies which would not be covered by the term "health" alone. Powers are available in the Bill to take action but it might hamper the courts unless words such as these are added.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 28, at end, insert:
(d) particulars of any investigations or inquiries carried out by or to the knowledge of the person carrying on the business in question for the purpose of determining the cumulative effect on the health of a person consuming such substance in ordinary quantities.—[Dr. Summerskill.]
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(LABELLING, ETC., OF FOOD AND DRUGS.)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I beg to move, in page 5, line 22, after "six," insert:
"but subject to the next following subsection"
This Amendment is preparatory to the Amendment in line 25, at the end, to insert the new subsection (4). I think that it would be convenient for me to address the Committee when we reach the second Amendment, as the Amendment I have moved is merely preparatory and formal.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Higgs: I beg to move, in page 5, line 25, 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 subsection (3) of the Clause, at the end of which it is proposed to insert these words, is to give the Minister power to make regulations
"for imposing requirements as to. and otherwise regulating, the labelling, marking or advertising of food …"
The Clause is drawn in very wide terms, and in introducing this Amendment it is not the intention to detract in any way from what I imagine to be the intention of my right hon. Friend in proposing the Clause in that form. If no restriction at all were introduced, the Clause might have some rather surprising results. It is not limited to any particular kind of trade and it would apply
1860
to hotels, restaurants and cafés. It is to this that we wish to draw attention.
No doubt it is most desirable that the Minister should have power to require people who sell food in shops to disclose the contents of what they sell, but it might be considered most undesirable by many that one should compel those who sell food for consumption on the premises to publish on the menu or in advertisements on the walls the exact contents, the nature and the method of preparation of every dish which is served.
8.30 p.m.
On Second Reading we had discussion about a dish sometimes referred to as "angels on horseback" There are on the menus of catering establishments many dishes which the public have long come to regard by what might be described as fancy names. To make regulations requiring the details to be published instead of the fancy name would be to alter the way of life which has been accepted from time immemorial. I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary will be prepared to give an assurance that it is not intended to make regulations which would compel all catering establishments to publish recipes instead of menus. No reasonable person would contemplate doing that, but that is not quite the end of the duty of the House of Commons as I see it.
The power to legislate by way of regulation is one which must be given to Ministers in many connections, and I suppose that food and drugs present one of the widest fields in which it is necessary. Nevertheless, we have a duty to see that the power is as narrowly circumscribed as the case made out by the Minister allows. In other words, if it is not intended to make regulations on a special point, it is our duty to see that power to make them is not given. Therefore, it is our intention in the Amendment to avoid giving power to the Minister to make regulations on a subject on which we do not imagine that he intends to make them.
Dr. Hill: My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) made it clear that he was seeking to prevent this power being interpreted as a requirement to reveal the recipes on menus. It was never intended to do that. I realise that my hon. Friend is entitled to have that assurance. We shall seek ways and

1861
means of giving expression to it. I will look at the matter and consider whether the position can be secured.
However, my hon. Friend will appreciate that the words which he proposes would go far beyond what he said in his speech. I will examine the position to see whether there can be a specific exclusion on the point he has mentioned. and that point only. I hope, in view of what I have said, that he will withdraw the Amendment.
Captain J. A. L. Duncan: Before my hon. Friend asks leave to withdraw the Amendment, as no doubt he will, I wish to stress the last point that he made. Inevitably, in modern times, we are bound to legislate by regulation. We do not like it, but it is inevitable in the modern state. The corollary of that is that the regulating power should be circumscribed to what is necessary, and only to that.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for agreeing to reconsider whether the point can he met on Report. I reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) said about the fact that the regulating power should be as restricted as is reasonably possible. That is of constitutional importance in these days.
Mr. Higgs: In view of the assurance which has been given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. H. Straw: I beg to move, in page 5, line 25, at the end, to insert:
(4) In relation to the labelling and marking of food with respect to weight, measure and number, the last foregoing subsection shall apply with the substitution for the reference to the Ministers of a reference to the Board of Trade.
The Board of Trade has certain powers to make regulations under the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926. These powers were extended by the Defence (Sale of Food) Regulations, 1943, which were made under emergency powers. Those emergency powers are being repealed by the Bill, but under the powers that we thus had, we have made the Pre-Packed Food (Weights and Measures: Marking) Order, 1950, and an amending Order in 1951.
Those two Orders are preserved under Clause 32, but the powers to make such
1862
Orders are conferred by Clause 5 (3). The effect of the Amendment is to enable the Board of Trade to make labelling regulations concerning the weight, measure and number of articles of food. The Board of Trade is, as hon. Members will realise, the Government Department concerned with weights and measures legislation.
Mr. G. Darling: The Opposition are, of course, not opposing the Amendment, for it is very necessary, but it is also necessary to point to the confusion into which we are getting about consumer protection services.
We have the Minister of Agriculture, who is essentially a Minister in charge of production services in his work as Minister of Agriculture, dealing with the Bill as Minister of Food, and he has told us that he is not likely to have a split mind and that he can look after consumer interests as well as producer interests, which, with all due respect to him, I do not believe. Now we have the Board of Trade coming in. The Prime Minister has said that his mind is not made up about where the consumer protection services in the Ministry of Food are ultimately to go. We have not the faintest idea which Minister, when the legislation is put into force, will be primarily responsible for it.
If I might for a moment be allowed to be out of order, I suggest that we ought also to consider whether the time has not come to set up a Ministry to look after consumer interests generally, taking over the consumer interests which the Board of Trade has, the consumer interests of the Ministry of Food and some of the consumer interests of the Ministry of Health. Let us have a body in our Governmental apparatus which will at last look after the interests of the consumer and nothing else.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Willey: We are dealing here with the powers provided for the Minister regarding labelling, and what disturbs me is that, after all, if this job is to be done thoroughly, it is a question of establishment. One of the victims of the Government's move for economy was precisely the division concerned with labelling, and,

1863
in view of the importance of this Clause and of the powers which, at the moment, are being exercised under Defence Regulations, it was unfortunate that economy should have been made in this field.
It is a pity that the labelling division had to suffer, particularly as this was a field of activity in which there were very close and harmonious relations between the Ministry and the trade, and I am convinced that this sort of job can only be done in that sort of way. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will at least show some repentance about this and will assure the Committee that this matter will be regarded seriously, so that the close liaison which has existed between the Ministry of Food and the food trades will continue and that there will be no endeavour to affect this work by pursuing false ideals. This is one of the most important jobs which the Ministry has done over the past years.
I hope the Minister will reveal the intentions of the Government regarding the labelling of food and drugs by assuring as that, as far as his Department is concerned, there will be no endeavour to weaken this work by further economising at the expense of this establishment. This is an establishment which really fully justifies itself, and if we are to continue with this sort of relationship between the food trades and the Ministry, we shall get what ought to be done without resorting to police activities. This was the sort of work which was very much appreciated, and I feel that there has been some unfortunate lack of confidence in the ending of the labelling division, and that this was an unwise move.
Now the Government have put before us a Clause making permanent the provisions of the Defence Regulations and have assured us that it is the intention of the Government to use these powers in the best way in which they can be used, which is to provide the headquarters establishment with close liaison with the food trades.
Mr. Amory: I know that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) knows my Department a good deal better than I know it myself, and I can only say that when I come to look into these things I shall certainly remember what he has said on this matter.
Mr. G. Darling: The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, from our point of view, are quite right in saying that there is already provision for making sure that people do not make misleading statements in labelling, and so on, and that the publicity which they associate with their products is reasonably true. Even though provision to that end may be there, it is perfectly true that people engaged in the food and drugs trades do make misleading statements about the constitution of the goods they sell, the qualities they attach to them and also their effect.
If we are to make this Measure really effective on behalf of the general public there must be better provision for bringing offenders to book. I am not clear what procedure has to be followed when a person offends this Measure, to make him behave as he should behave under the law.
8.45 p.m.
If we are honest in our intentions to protect the consumer we should make sure that the people who offend by falsely labelling their products can be brought quickly to book and that manufacturers and traders will be afraid to make misleading statements because they will know that they can be brought quickly into court or otherwise dealt with to prevent them going on in their dishonest course.
The enforcement of the legislation ought to be reconsidered, and we ought to have in view the second point which I have made, that we should do the job so effectively that people will be afraid. They will know that they cannot get away with the misleading things of which they have so often been guilty in the past.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(REGULATIONS AS TO FOOD HYGIENE.)
Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 6, line 5, to leave out "may," and to insert "shall."
We have been itching—perhaps I should say, most anxious—to move an Amendment in these terms. We have had similar Amendments on the Notice Paper, but your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Thomas, has not selected them, suggesting that the word "may" be taken out and that the word "shall" inserted.

1865
We feel strongly that we must make the carrying out of the obligations under the Bill mandatory upon the Government. We have got along very well so far with them, and I do not want to upset the atmosphere, but we cannot be satisfied that the Government will use their utmost endeavours to carry out the duties and obligations which are placed upon them by the Bill. We have had experience of the behaviour of the Government with regard to regulations. I do not want to rake up old fires, but that was not a very happy experience. We felt that the Government withdrew largely from their original good intentions, and that if it had not been for the fact that the Bill had to go through its Committee stage we might not have secured the regulations which are now in draft form.
What assurances have we that once the Bill becomes an Act, and if the Government succeed in their intentions, the only powers we shall have will not be to move an annulment of the regulations? While we say that the action taken in this regard should be by regulation, we should make it an obligation on Ministers to make provision by way of regulation. We should define in Clause 6 the matters upon which Ministers should make regulations. After the experience which Ministers' Departments have had over the past few months, I should have thought they would welcome mandatory instructions from the House of Commons. They could then say to the people whom they find it so difficult to stand up to, "Parliament has decided that this is what we shall do."
I have always appreciated the Parliamentary Secretary's interest in these matters, and I should think that he would be anxious to accept the Amendment. Parliament should say that these are the matters about which it requires the Minister to make regulations. We accept the general argument that the form of these regulations will depend on the circumstances obtaining at the time, but there should be no question of the Minister saying that this is only a matter of "may" Parliament, after all, has had time to consider this, and it should say that it believes that under these headings regulations shall be provided.
I hope that the Minister will allow the Parliamentary Secretary to seize this lifeline so that when this Bill becomes an Act the Minister and the Department
1866
can say to those people of whom, apparently, they are most apprehensive and afraid, that it is Parliament which, in the public interest, has decided that we shall have regulations about these matters which are apparently essential to all questions relating to the hygiene of the country.
Mr. F. Blackburn: I wish to support this Amendment. If we take the usually accepted meaning of the word "may," this Clause as it stands could, to put it no higher, have no value because the Government could just please themselves whether or not they produced these regulations. In any case, even if we alter it to the word "shall," the position is not very much better because the Government still have a get-out in the words
"as appear to them to be expedient."
When, on a previous Bill, I raised the question of the words "may" and "shall," I was informed that in Parliamentary language "may" meant "shall." Surely that is nonsense. Surely, in a Parliamentary Bill we should adhere to the same interpretation of the English language as does everybody else. Therefore, if it is the accepted view of the Government that "may" means "shall," let us say "shall" and say exactly what we mean. If "may" does not mean "shall," then it is very important that we should alter the word "may" to "shall" so that the Government shall have no excuse for not carrying out the intentions of themselves and of the House.
Dr. Broughton: The purpose of this Clause is obviously to give the Minister powers to make regulations applicable to food premises in order to raise the standard of hygiene of the catering industry and of the food manufacturing trade. It is merely an enabling Clause, and the legislation becomes valueless unless it is followed by regulations. The details that have to be specified in the regulations are too numerous to be included in the Bill. Therefore, we must have regulations.
I recollect the occasion in February, 1951, when the House first debated this subject of food hygiene. At the end of a day of interesting discussion, the Motion which I was privileged to move was accepted by the House without a Division. That showed the feeling of hon. Members

1867
on this important subject. I am sure that hon. and right hon. Members on both sides still have the same amount of interest in this matter.
Since then, there has been a great deal of propaganda throughout the country. People have become more interested in hygiene. There is, generally speaking, a desire that this Bill should be brought into operation, and should become effective. As far as the clean handling of food is concerned, that can only be done by a Minister making regulations.
The Minister has very kindly let us see his draft regulations and we can assume that they will be issued in due course. I suggest, however, that these regulations will need to be revised from time to time, and future Ministers may be not just as energetic and interested as the present ones. We should, therefore, make it absolutely compulsory on Ministers to make these regulations. The National Caterers' Federation has accepted the need for them. It has gone so far as to draw up proposals which it thinks would be suitable for the Minister to bring into line with his own ideas.
We must also remember that when the subject of food hygiene came to the fore in this country, and clean food guilds were formed, one of the first things they did was to draw up their own codes of practice. I am very pleased to see the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) in his place, because he represents a constituency where, for some time, there has been a clean food guild which has done very good work and has excellent regulations of its own. I mention that in order to stress the need for these regulations. They are absolutely essential. Without them I think we might as well scrap the Bill. That being so, we should alter the word "may" to "shall" so that there shall be no doubt whatsoever that the regulations will be made.
Mr. G. Darling: During the Second Reading of the Bill there was, to put it lightly, some confusion about the manner in which the Ministry of Food was seeking the opinion and advice of the trade bodies concerned with regulations, codes of quality, and so on. During that debate the Parliamentary Secretary made it perfectly clear that there would be regulations; that the important matters would
1868
be placed in regulations, and that the less important issues and those difficult to put into regulations would go into voluntary codes of practice.
We have accepted that situation. Indeed, the regulations now proposed by the Ministry of Food—with a few Amendments—are, from our point of view, very satisfactory. The Parliamentary Secretary having made it perfectly clear that there would be regulations, we must insist that he carries out the undertaking, so to speak, which he gave; that in this Bill there will be regulations to cover the important matters which we think ought to be enforced.
We appreciate that we shall never get clean food and the clean handling of food merely by regulation. We must have a campaign of education as well, but, unless we have the minimum regulations in the Act—and have them enforced—it would be quite impossible to get any good effect from educational activities, because the things about which we are educating people will not be carried out.
It is not sufficient for the Minister to have permissive powers. We must lay upon the Ministry responsible for the administration of the Act the obligation to see that the regulations which we have been discussing, which are set out partly in Clause 6 and which will be completely in Clause 6 when our Amendments are accepted, are enforced as the minimum which will be required for a clean food Bill.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. Amory: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) that regulations are essential, and I should like to repeat that it is our definite intention to introduce regulations. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have circulated drafts.
The idea has always been accepted in the House that it is bad law to make the power to make regulations mandatory, unless the regulations are specified exactly and in complete detail. Otherwise there is this danger. What limit is there to what the Minister is expected to do? When can it be said that he has discharged his liability? How many regulations must he make? What kind of regulations? Suppose the Minister made a regulation because he had to, and then wanted to revoke it?

1869
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) put his finger on the important point when he said that even if the word "shall" was introduced, should we be very much further? I do not think we should, because it seems to me that the important words are in the first line of Clause 6:
"The Ministers may make such regulations as appear to them to be expedient …."
Those words are surely the governing consideration as to what kind of regulations are likely to result. I feel that in the circumstances it must be right to give the Minister discretion to decide whether he makes regulations, what regulations he makes and when he makes them, unless they are specified exactly in the Bill. I repeat that in this case there is no question that we intend to make regulations.
Mr. Willey: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his assurance. but we still remain not completely satisfied
I appreciate the point he has made about subsection (1), but our endeavours to amend subsection (1) cannot be argued because our Amendments have not been selected. We are, therefore, confined to the matter of the regulations which the Minister thinks expedient to introduce.
We still think that so far as those regulations go, this subsection provides the essential skeleton for them. It says that Parliament has now decided that, while discretion lies with the Minister in deciding what form the regulations may take, the regulations shall provide for these matters which we specify in subsection (2). Owing to our somewhat unfortunate experience about these regulations, I feel that I must recommend my hon. Friends to divide on this Amendment.
Question put, "That 'may' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 213.

Division No. 218.]

AYES

[9.5 p.m.

Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

Alport, C. J. M.

Duthie, W. S.

Hurd, A. R.

Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

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

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Erroll, F. J.

Hutchison, James (Sootstown)

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Fell, A.

Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H

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

Fin lay, Graeme

Iremonger, T. L.

Astor, Hon. J. J.

Fisher, Nigel

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr J. M

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Baldwin, A. E.

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Keeling, Sir Edward

Banks, Col. C.

Ford, Mrs. Patricia

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Barber, Anthony

Fort, R.

Kerr, H. W.

Barlow, Sir John

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Lambert, Hon. G.

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

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

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

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Bennett. Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Leather, E. H. C.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Garner-Evans, E. H.

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

Birch, Nigel

Glover, D.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Peterfield)

Bishop, F. P.

Godber, J. B.

Lindsay, Martin

Black, C. W.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Boothby, Sir R. J. G.

Gower, H. R.

Llewellyn, D. T.

Bossom, Sir A. C.

Graham, Sir Fergus

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

Bowen, E. R.

Gridley, Sir Arnold

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Longden, Gilbert

Braithwaite, Sir Gurney

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Brooman-White, R. C.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Browne, Jack (Govan)

Hare, Hon. J. H.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

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

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

MaCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

Bullard, D. G.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

McKibbin, A. J.

Burden, F. F. A.

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Campbell, Sir David

Heath, Edward

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

Gary, Sir Robert

Higgs, J. M. C.

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

Hill, Dr Charles (Luton)

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

Hinchingbrooke, viscount

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Cole, Norman

Hirst, Geoffrey

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

Colegate, W. A.

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Holt, A. F.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Hope, Lord John

Marples, A. E.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

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

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Maude, Angus

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Horobin, I. M.

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

Crouch, R. F.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Mellor, Sir John

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Molson, A. H. E.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

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

Moore, Sir Thomas

Doughty, C. J. A.

Hughes-Hallet, Vice-Admiral J

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Renton, D. L. M.

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Neave, Airey

Ridsdale, J. E.

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

Nicholls, Harmar

Robertson, Sir David

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Tilney, John

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Roper, Sir Harold

Turner, H. F. L.

Nugent, G. R. H.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Turton, R. H.

Oakshott, H. D.

Russell, R. S.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Odey, G. W.

Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

Vane, W. M. F.

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

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Scott, R. Donald

Vosper, D. F.

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

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Wade, D. W.

Page, R. G.

Shepherd, William

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Partridge, E.

Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Wall, Major Patrick

Perkins, Sir Robert

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Soames, Capt, C.

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Peyton, J. W. W.

Spearman, A. C. M

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Speir, R. M.

Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster).

Pitman, I. J.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Wellwood, W.

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Stevens, Geoffrey

Williams, Rt Hon. Charles (Torquay)

Powell, J. Enoch

Steward, W. A (Woolwich, W.)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Storey, S.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Prefumo, J. D.

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Wills, G.

Raikes, Sir Victor

Studholme, H. G.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Ramsden, J. E.

Summers, G. S.

Wood, Hon. R.

Rayner, Brig. R.

Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

Redmayne, M.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Remnant, Hon. P.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Sir Cedric Drewe and Mr. Kaberry.

NOES

Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

Foot, M. M.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Forman, J. C.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Awbery, S. S.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Logan, D. C.

Balfour, A.

Gibson, C. W.

MacColl, J. E.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

McGhee, H. G.

Bartley, P.

Greenwood, Anthony

McInnes, J.

Beattie, J.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Bellanger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Grey, C. F.

McLeavy, F.

Bence, C. R.

Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Blackburn, F.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Blenkinsop, A.

Hale, Leslie

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Boardman, H.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Manuel, A. C.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Bowden, H. W.

Hamilton, W. W.

Mason, Roy

Bowles, F. G

Hannan, W.

Mellish, R. J.

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Hardy, E. A.

Messer, Sir F.

Brockway, A. F.

Hargreaves, A.

Mitchison, G. R.

Brook, Dryden (Halifa x)

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

Monslow, W.

Broughton Dr. A. D. D.

Hastings, S.

Moody, A. S.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Hayman, F. H.

Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)

Morley, R.

Burke, W. A.

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

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Burton, Miss F. E.

Herbison, Miss M.

Mort, D. L.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Moyle, A.

Callaghan, L. J.

Hobson, C. R.

Mulley, F. W.

Carmichael, J.

Holman, P.

Murray, J. D.

Champion, A. J.

Holmes, Horace

Nally, W.

Chapman, W. D.

Houghton, Douglas

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Chetwynd, G. R.

Hoy, J. H.

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

Clunie, J.

Hubbard, T. F.

O'Brien, T.

Collick, P. H.

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Oldfield, W. H.

Collins, V, J.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Oliver, G. H.

Cove, W. G.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Oswald, T.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Padley, W. E.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

Daines, P.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Pannell, Charles

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Pargiter, G. A.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

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

Parker, J.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Jeger, George (Goole)

Paton, J.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Jeger, Mrs. Lena

Peart, T. F.

Deer, G.

Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

Plummer, Sir Lestie

Delargy, H. J.

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech

Popplewell, E.

Dodds, N. N.

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Porter, G.

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

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Keenan, W.

Proctor, W. T.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Kenyon, C.

Pryde, D. J.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

Rankin, John

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

King, Dr H. M.

Reeves, J.

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Kinley, J.

Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

Fienburgh, W.

Lawson, G. M.

Reid, William (Camlachie)

Finch, H. J.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Rhodes, H.

1872

1873

Richards, R.

Stross, Dr. Barnett

Wheeldon, W. E.

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E, Flint)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Swingler, S. T.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Sylvester, G. O.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Wilkins, W. A.

Ross, William

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Willey, F. T.

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Williams, David (Neath)

Short, E. W.

Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

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

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

Timmons, J.

Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Tomney, F.

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

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Usborne, H. C

Willis, E. G.

Skeffington, A. M.

Viant, S. P.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

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

Wallace, H. W,

Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

Warbey, W. N.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

Watkins, T. E.

Yates, V. F.

Sorensen, R. W.

Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Sparks, J. A.

Weitzman, D.

Steele, T.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

West, D. G.

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.

9.15 p.m.
Dr. Broughton: I beg to move, in page 6, line 6, after "layout," to insert "drainage."
When I moved an Amendment earlier the Parliamentary Secretary knew perfectly well that I was employing probing tactics, because I wanted to hear his opinion on the subject which I raised. I failed in my purpose, because he gave such a thoroughly unsatisfactory answer. In moving this Amendment I am not probing. I am hoping that the Minister will give careful consideration to it and that it will be accepted.
First, I am asking the Minister to consider the inclusion of drainage among the requirements to be imposed for food premises. The drainage of premises is sufficiently important to warrant inclusion in the Bill. He has already included construction and layout. The flow from lavatories, wash basins and sinks in properly constructed pipes to a sewer or, in country districts, to a cesspool is of great importance for hygiene, especially in food premises. I suggest that the inclusion of drainage is just as important as the inclusion of ventilation and lighting. When we are considering the drainage of premises we should also bear in mind the question of rain water falling on roofs and pavements, which should be carried away from the buildings. With imperfect drainage there is a danger of wetness and of fouling close to food.
My Amendment to line 8 seeks to insert "water supply" and I think that the inclusion of water supply among requirements for food premises is necessary because of its great importance. There must be an adequate supply of clean water for human consumption, for wash-
1874
ing food, for washing pots, pans and cutlery, for washing people's hands, for washing premises and for flushing lavatories. Food traders cannot operate without clean water, and it is so important that it should be provided in abundance that I suggest that it is worthy of inclusion among the other provisions in the Bill.
Mr. Amory: I agree with what the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) said. These are important things. I shall be glad to accept the Amendment and the further one in his name, to line 8.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: in page 6, line 8. after "lighting," insert "water supply."—[Dr. Broughton.]
Amendment proposed: in page 6, line 11, after "cleansed," to insert:
"and in which refuse is disposed of or stored." —[Dr. Broughton.]
Mr. Amory: I was not clear that this Amendment had been already proposed. It is acceptable to us with the substitution of "or" instead of "and" The word "and" does not seem to fit. If the hon. Member is willing to modify his Amendment to include "or" instead of "and" and you are willing to accept, Sir Charles, that would be acceptable to me.
Amendment agreed to.
The Chairman: The next Amendment selected, in page 6, line 14, after "premises," insert "the disposal of refuse" can be considered with the following two, in line 15.
Dr. Broughton: I beg to move, in page 6, line 14, after "premises," to insert "the disposal of refuse."

1875
I suggest to the Minister that this should be included in the Bill which should state that the Minister may make regulations for the disposal of refuse. The disposal of refuse is very important in catering establishments. If refuse is not properly disposed of it is apt to form a breeding ground for flies and the habits of flies are really disgusting. They are conveyors of food poisoning and other diseases. Refuse can also be used as food by mice and rats. If this provision were included the Minister would have to make regulations about the disposal of refuse, stating the number of dustbins needed and regulations about lids of dustbins being properly fitted and any other points which may come to his mind in connection with this matter.
Mr. Donald Chapman: I wish to refer to the Amendment standing in my name, in line 15, after "of," to insert "clothing."
I happen to own an hotel and because of this experience I looked with some interest at this Clause. It does not mention any regulations governing clothing and the cleanliness of clothing. I am surprised at that because in the draft regulations, circulated prior to the Bill, clothing was particularly mentioned. It is omitted from the Bill, that is an omission which could easily be put right.
In Britain, we are much too tolerant of dirty, food-bespattered clothes of people serving food. A couple of weeks ago on British Railways, which are doing so much to improve this part of our catering services, a man came to serve me and, so to speak, I could have had a couple of meals off his waistcoat. It had become so dirty with food that I was on the point of calling the chief conductor to ask that something should be done about it. I am angry for losing my courage and not doing so. Someone must make these complaints. I am sure that the regulations ought to include rules about the actual cleanliness of the clothing of people who are serving.
This brings me to my second Amendment. I am asking that the word "equipment" be included as well as apparatus. In the Clause, we have, "apparatus, furnishings and utensils." I have an example in mind. What about things like dishcloths? This is terribly
1876
important. Dishcloths are not really apparatus, and I do not think that they are utensils; they certainly are not furnishings. Surely there is a whole lot of minor things like that which ought to be as clean as the rest.
I had this experience. Some time ago, at Victoria Station, where we ought to have the kind of cafeteria or restaurant system which would impress people, especially Americans visiting this country, I went in for a meal in the cafeteria, and I found a man going round with a little trolley clearing up the debris after meals. My secretary was with me, and we both made a note of what happened so that I could raise the matter later. The man going round had the most filthy dishcloth I have ever seen. With it he was wiping the tables on which some people were putting bread, because people do not always put bread on a plate when there is a smooth-topped table. This man had a lovely bandaged finger as a result of a recent out, and presumably was spreading a few germs by this means, as well as by the dishcloth.
I said to him, "Why are you using a dishcloth as filthy as that." He said. "They are issued to us once a week and we have to wait for clean ones until the end of the week. I have told them about it, but they say, 'You must wait for the next issue.'" The same applies to clothing. In Britain we do not have a standard of replacing things as they become dirty. Instead, we say, "There is an issue once a week, and you have got to make it do until the next issue comes along." These things are important, because they spread disease, and I hope that they are important enough for the Government to accept these Amendments.
Mr. Percy Shurmer: I should like to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman), because it is quite easy for people to wear clean aprons or pinafores or white coats. My hon. Friend mentioned a railway station. I went into Nuneaton station a few weeks ago for a cup of tea. The woman who served me had a filthy bandage on her finger, which, I should think, had not been removed for a week. She served me, looking as if she had been wiping the floor like a charwoman, in a dirty old apron. That sort

1877
of thing is happening in a great many places.
I know that people from factories and places like Smithfield Market go into cafés to have a meal in their working clothes, hut there is no need for the tables to be wiped with dirty dishcloths which have been used for two or three days in succession without being properly washed. We are spoiling everything that we are doing with regard to protecting the food of the people unless we try to ensure that the people serving have clean hands and clothing, and, if they have injured their hands, are wearing clean bandages.
Mr. W. E. Padley: As my name appears to the Amendment which raises the question of clothing. I think that it would probably be better if I spoke on this Amendment rather than move another one later. I wish to address my remarks to the Parliamentary Secretary very briefly, because it seems to me that here is an issue about which almost all reasonable people are agreed.
The Chairman: I think it would be better if the hon. Gentleman reserved his remarks, because I propose to call his Amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Mr. Amory: There are no differences between us on this matter, and I can accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton). I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) about the importance of clean clothing, and our draft regulations deal with the cleanliness of over-clothing. I am advised that the inclusion of over-clothing is intra vires, but in order to remove doubt about the matter I am prepared to include clothing here. We are not happy about the place which the hon. Gentleman has chosen for the word, but we will see if we can find a better position in which to insert it. If the hon. Member will not press his Amendment I will see that the word "clothing" is included in some other place in the Clause.
Regarding his second Amendment. I am advised that "apparatus" properly covers "equipment," but to make absolutely sure I see no disadvantage in including the word as he suggested.
Mr. Willey: I am glad to see that the learned Solicitor-General is present, and I feel that I am expressing the view of everyone when I congratulate him on his new appointment. I am sure that he will afford us every assistance in dealing with this Bill.
I wish to ask the Minister if it would be better to accept an Amendment relating to clothing which we have later on the Order Paper. I appreciate the difficulty of dealing with clothing at this stage, because under (b) we are dealing with requirements regarding premises, apparatus and similar matters. But we have a specific Amendment down about clothing which I hope the Minister will be able to accept.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Chapman: I beg to move, in page 6, line 15, after "apparatus," to insert "equipment."
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Stross: I beg to move, in page 6, line 16, at the end, to insert:
"and in particular for imposing requirements that every sanitary convenience situate in such premises shall be supplied with water through a suitable flushing appliance."
I hope that this Amendment will be accepted. The draft regulations provide for exactly this and state why, because it is essential that every effort be made to prevent the contamination of water supplies, and therefore there has to be proper trapping and a proper system of sanitation. One is conversant with the fact that where water is not available there will have to be exceptions to this regulation. I am sure that that is provided for in draft Regulation 31, under which local authorities are able to obtain exemption in cases where it is impossible to carry this regulation into effect.
Mr. Amory: The powers granted in Clause 6 would perfectly well enable regulations to be made to require that every sanitary convenience is supplied with water through a suitable flushing appliance. That is what we want. Therefore, we do not consider that, strictly speaking, the Amendment is necessary. However, such pleasant harmony is prevailing and we are so anxious that the spirit which has become infectious should persist throughout our discussions, that, as there is no difference in

1879
principle or in intention, I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, in page 6, line 22, at the end, to insert:
(d) for requiring the medical examination of persons engaged in preparing, handling, wrap- ping or delivering food and for prohibiting such persons suffering from, or being the carriers of, infection or disease from being so engaged and for providing for the compensation of any persons so prohibited.
I hope that the Minister will be equally sympathetic to this Amendment. On Second Reading, in July, I spoke very strongly about the omission of certain provisions from the draft regulations. I am pleased to see that the Minister has had second thoughts since then and that the regulations have been strengthened considerably. Nevertheless, there are still most important omissions. The intention of the Amendment is to strengthen the regulations. It asks that those who work in the food industry should have a medical examination.
On Second Reading, the Parliamentary Secretary expressed the opinion that any person suffering from dermatitis should certainly not be allowed to handle or pack food. Hon. Members, naturally, accepted that. Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that anybody suffering from active tuberculosis equally should be excluded from the handling or packing of food. I am sure that the Minister of Health will agree. The Amendment merely asks that people who suffer from diseases which might be infectious and which might be transmitted through the food to consumers should be examined.
It might be argued that this would cost money but fortunately, thanks to a previous Labour Government, we have a free Health Service. The result is that anybody who wants a checkup can have it from his doctor without charge. I remind the Minister that any person who takes a position in the Civil Service of a minor character—a telephonist, for example—is compelled to have a medical examination before he or she is accepted. Surely, in the interests of the public the Amendment should be accepted.
The hour is getting late. The Minister has been most sympathetic. The argu-
1880
ments so far deployed must have convinced him that we are anxious to strengthen the Bill and, at the same time, to protect the public.
Mr. Padley: I speak as president of one of the trade unions most concerned in the matter. It is not my function, as a trade union leader, to enter the contest between the doctors as to which diseases render a person unfit for the handling of food. That is a medical question to be settled on medical grounds. When the draft regulations were sent to the trade unions it was significant that no trade union with workers employed in the food industries objected to them. The sole point on which representations were made related to the question of compensation.
There are two very sound grounds for explicitly providing compensation for workers who are affected by the regulations. First, it is desirable for the worker not to seek to hide such a disease, for that would be opposed to the public interest, and, therefore, to give the worker some sense of security is strongly in the public interest.
There is also the question of justice. The regulations suggested by the Minister cover typhoid and paratyphoid. I had a very difficult case to handle in my constituency two years ago. A middle-aged woman was found to be a paratyphoid carrier. She was not aware of it; it was suddenly discovered. The medical officer of health, acting under existing regulations, had to declare her unfit for certain occupations.
Very great problems arose. Was the lady entitled to sickness benefit under the National Insurance Act? Was she entitled to unemployment benefit? When she was offered employment nine miles away in light industry and declined to go, she was denied unemployment benefit. Then her entitlement to National Assistance came under dispute. When my constituent came to me, she felt a hounded and hunted creature. As a result of correspondence between myself and the Ministers of Health and National Insurance, we found ways and means of dealing with those problems.
However, the House is about to approve new legislation under which regulations will be issued, and I feel that this is the time for it to declare in a

1881
most emphatic manner that, while it is of great national importance that carriers of infectious diseases and persons with diseases which are likely to be injurious to public health should not handle foodstuffs, there should be no repetition of the hounding and hunting suffered by my constituent. Consequently, I hope that the Minister will accept the very strongly held view of the trade unions that side by side with regulations of this kind there should be explicit provision for compensation payments to the workers concerned.
Sir Frederick Messer: I consider the Amendment to be important especially in regard to dermatitis, a disease which is by no means uncommon in the confectionery industry. It can be contracted by contact with dust, oils, certain acids and flour.
The difficulty about dermatitis is that although a short time after one has contracted it every sign of it may disappear, whenever the case again comes in contact with the substance which gave rise to the infection it will break out again. Sugar may be responsible for a girl in a sweet factory having dermatitis, but if she leaves her job, there is nothing to prevent her from working in another sweet factory.
The difficulty does not end there. If a girl suffering from dermatitis washes her hands and wipes them on a towel which somebody else uses, the other person will contract the disease. There are, therefore, two sides to it. One is that it can be caught by other people, and the other is the danger arising from anybody suffering from a disease of that description using their naked hands in the manufacture of food of any sort.
I realise that this is one aspect of the matter, and that there are others. A tuberculosis contact is a danger to all those people working in association with that contact, but that particular aspect is not quite so acute as the one to which I have referred, in which the very industry itself can be responsible for the creation of the disease. I therefore support the Amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Dr. Stross: I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) on this question of transmitting dermatitis from one person to another. If my hon. Friend means
1882
industrial dermatitis, which is a disease due to an irritant, I agree that that view is commonly held, and that it results in many people who are perfectly healthy being disinclined to work with someone else who has industrial dermatitis, although we know that there is nothing contagious or infectious about it, in any case, unless there should be a secondary infection. Of course, I entirely agree that such people should not be handling food, because of the risk of secondary infection.
My right hon. Friend, in moving this Amendment, had in mind the question whether we might think in terms of two types of medical examination—a simple type carried out through the family doctor, and another where there is any suspicion or certainty that anybody has become a carrier of an infectious disease. In those few cases, there will have to be a more extensive and more careful examination before such people are given a clean bill of health. I refer to a person suspected of being a carrier of paratyphoid, in which case there would have to be a bacteriological examination, and a hospital would have to be brought into the picture. We must bear that in mind.
As far as compensation for those who are judged to be carriers of disease are concerned, I am sure we all accept the desirability of compensation to nurses who contract tuberculosis in the course of their work, and we might reasonably extend it to cover these cases as well.
Dr. Hill: I had read this Amendment in a rather different sense from the one which has just been put upon it by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), and it seems to me to make possible the making of regulations to require a medical examination of certain types of person. If we are searching for carriers of disease, that would certainly be one of the most important purposes, but it would be a most extensive examination that would be involved—a most detailed bacteriological examination. There is a principle here in requiring persons within certain categories to submit themselves to medical examination, and I can only say that I do not like it.
Before we reach a conclusion, however, let us look at the existing provisions. Whatever else may be said, this is a most important point in securing the prevention of the spread of infection in this way.

1883.
It is dealt with in public health legislation and in infectious diseases regulations, and, at the instance of a medical officer of health, a local authority can today exclude a person who, in his opinion, is suffering from, or is shown to be a carrier of, certain listed infections. That list is adequate for present purposes and can be extended if necessary.
That is the first point. If it is decided to exclude the food handler under these Regulations, that food handler is entitled to make a claim for compensation. The draft Regulations which it is proposed to make when the Bill becomes law, seek to carry that matter a little further. Regulation 8 proposes to provide—
Mr. A. J. Champion: On a point of order. I hear constant reference to draft Regulations. Are those draft Regulations generally available to the Committee? If so, where can we obtain them?
The Chairman: That is not a point of order.
Dr. Hill: I shall be glad to supply them to the hon. Member. They are items for inclusion in a code which is still the subject of consultation. It is the third draft. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has copies, and I shall be glad to let any hon. Member have a copy. I hope that the point of order will not be pressed because I want to deal with the very important point that has been raised.
It is proposed, if the Bill becomes law, to make regulations which will provide that if a person engaged in the handling of food becomes aware that he is suffering from one of a list of diseases, which can be extended for the purpose, he is to give notice of the fact to the occupier of the premises, who is required to notify the medical officer of health. That does not go the whole way which the right hon. Lady would wish but it leads us to the position that when a sufferer has made known his condition the machinery can be set going for compensation, if required to discontinue work, and, of course, for so discontinuing.
I do not pretend that this is ideal, but I suggest that the other proposal in the Amendment of medical investigation of I believe about 180,000 people engaged in
1884
these trades—a large number—means that the examination will have to be regular and repeated if it is to be of value. The examination will have to be of a detailed bacteriological kind if it is to reveal a carrier. That is something too formidable and not without its difficulties of principle. We should develop and proceed along the lines of the Infectious Diseases Regulations, modified it may well be by regulations made under the Bill.
Mr. Champion: Further to the point of order that I raised just now. The Minister has made reference to a document. Is it not the case that when a Minister makes references to a document of that sort the document is then made available to the whole Committee?
The Chairman: The Minister did not quote the document. So far as I am concerned, there is no point of order. Whether these documents are available or not I cannot answer.
Mr. Willey: The Parliamentary Secretary has given us a most disappointing reply. We appreciate that some advance has been made in the draft Regulations. We do not complain of that. The hon. Gentleman's approach to this problem is not as helpful as we expected. I do not intend to deal with the medical side of the matter but will leave that to the hon. Member. I want to put two points to the Parliamentary Secretary.
The Bill very largely arises from working parties' reports. The Meat Product Working Party Report made it one of its recommendations that the Department concerned should
"give immediate consideration to the extension of the relevant provisions of the Public Health (Infectious Diseases) Regulations, 1927, and to the infectious diseases that cause food poisoning."
The Catering Working Party made recommendations, of which No. 10 said:
"Consideration should be given to the desirability of amending the Public Health (Infectious Diseases) Regulations, 1927, … by extending their scope as far as practicable, taking account of the problem of compensation."
It considered that the regulations relating to the paratyphoid diseases and dysentery should become applicable to the various food poisoning infections and other infections which may be spread by food. In view of the specific recommendations

1885
made by both working parties, it is incumbent on the Government themselves to make proposals for this legislation.
My hon. Friends have pressed an Amendment which would give the Government power to do what both working parties have recommended, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to think again about this. As I say, both working parties made this cardinal point in their recommendations. When the Parliamentary Secretary says that there are difficulties about this, I would point out that all we are doing is to give powers. I am leaving the medical aspect to my right hon. Friend, but I should have thought that, in view of the recommendations of both working parties which examined the problem of the catering and meat products trades, the Government could accept the Amendment.
Dr. Stross: I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary really answered
the point I put to him, which is that if, for argument's sake, he cannot give way on the whole of this, why not consider the question of new entrants bringing with them a certificate of fitness upon entering industry? After all, one has to start somewhere.
Dr. Hill: With respect, fitness to enter industry is quite a different point. This is a detailed scrutiny of the man in the job, not in relation to his own physique or health, but in relation to the hazards which he may present to others.
Dr. Summerskill: In view of the unsatisfactory reply of the Parliamentary Secretary, I must ask my hon. Friends to divide the Committee.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 231.

Division No. 219.]

AYES

[9.58 p.m.

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Kenyon, C.

Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

Fienburgh, W.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Finch, H. J.

King, Dr. H. M.

Awbery, S. S.

Foot, M. M.

Kinley, J.

Balfour, A.

Forman, J. C.

Lawson, G. M.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Bartley, P.

Gibson, C. W.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Beattie, J.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

Greenwood, Anthony

Logan, D. G.

Bence, C. R.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

MacColl, J. E.

Beswick, F.

Grey, C. F.

McGhee, H. G.

Blackburn, F.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

McInnes, J.

Blenkinsop, A.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Boardman, H.

Hale, Leslie

McLeavy, F.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Bowden, H. W.

Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Bowles, F. G.

Hamilton., W. W.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Hannan, W.

Manuel, A. C.

Brockway, A. F.

Hardy, E. A.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

Hargreaves, A.

Mason, Roy

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D,

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

Mellish, R. J.

Brown, Rt. Hen. George (Belper)

Hastings, S.

Messer, Sir F.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Hayman, F. H.

Mitchison, G. R.

Burke, W. A.

Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)

Monslow, W.

Burton, Miss F. E.

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

Moody, A. S.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

Herbison, Miss M.

Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

Callaghan, L. J.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Morley, R.

Carmichael, J.

Hobson, C. R.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Champion, A. J.

Holman, P.

Mort, D. L.

Chapman, W. D.

Holmes, Horace

Moyle, A.

Clunie, J.

Houghton, Douglas

Mulley, F. W.

Collick, P. H.

Hoy, J. H.

Murray, J. D.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Hubbard, T. F.

Nally, W.

Grossman, R. H. S.

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Collins, V. J.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

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

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

O'Brien, T.

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Oldfield, W. H.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Oliver, G. H.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Oswald, T.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Padley, W. E.

Deer, G.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

Delargy, H. J.

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

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Dodds, N. N.

Jeger, Mrs. Lena

Pannell, Charles

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

Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

Pargiter, G. A.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Parker, J.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Paton, J.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech

Peart, T. F.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Keenan, W.

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Popplewell, E.

Skeffington, A. M.

Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

Porter, G.

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

Weitzman, D.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Slater, J (Durham, Sedgefield)

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Proctor, W. T.

Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

West, D. G.

Pryde, D. J.

Sorensen, R. W.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Rankin, John

Sparks, J. A.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Reeves, J,

Steele, T.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Reid, William (Camlachie)

Stross, Dr. Barnett

Wilkins, W. A.

Rhodes, H.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Willey, F. T.

Richards, R.

Sylvester, G. O.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

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

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

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

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

Willis, E. G.

Ross, William

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Timmons, J.

Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

Short, E. W.

Tomney, F.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Usborne, H. C.

Yates, V. F.

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

Viant, S. P.

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Warbey, W. N.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Watkins, T. E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Wallace.

NOES

Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

Fort, R.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Alport, C. J. M.

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Longden, Gilbert

Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Ansthruther-Gray, Major W. J.

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

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

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

Garner-Evans, E. H.

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

Aster, Hon. J. J.

Glover, D.

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Godber, J. B.

McKibbin, A. J.

Baldwin, A. E.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Banks Col., C.

Gower, H. R.

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Barber, Anthony

Graham, Sir Fergus

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

Barlow, Sir John

Gridley, Sir Arnold

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

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

Hall, John (Wycombe)

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

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Harden, J. R. E.

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Hare, Hon. J. H.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Birch, Nigel

Harris, Frederic (Croyden, N.)

Marples, A. E.

Bishop, F. P.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

Black, C. W.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Maude, Angus

Boothby, Sir R. J. G

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

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

Bossom, Sir A. C.

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Bowen, E. R.

Heath, Edward

Mellor, Sir John

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

Higgs, J. M. C.

Molson, A. H. E.

Braithwaite, Sir Gurney

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

Moore, Sir Thomas

Brooman-White, R. C.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Browne, Jack (Govan)

Hirst, Geoffrey

Nabarro, G. D. N.

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

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Neave, Airey

Bullard, D. G.

Holt, A. F.

Nicholls, Harmar

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Hope, Lord John

Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

Burden, F. F. A.

Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Campbell, Sir David

Horobin, I. M.

Nugent, G. R. H

Cary, Sir Robert

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Oakshott, H. D.

Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Odey, G. W.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

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

Cole, Norman

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

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Colegate, W. A.

Hughes-Hallet, Vice-Admiral J.

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

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

Page, R. G.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Hurd, A. R.

Partridge, E.

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

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

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

Perkins, Sir Robert

Crouch, R. F.

Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

Peyton, J. W. W.

Deedes, W. F.

Iremonger, T. L.

Pickthorn, K. W. M

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Pitman, I. J.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Doughty, S. J. A.

Keeling, Sir Edward

Powell, J. Enoch

Drewe, Sir C.

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Price, Henry (Lewisham W.)

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Kerr, H. W.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Duthie, W. S.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Profumo, J. D.

Elliot, fit. Hon. W. E.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Raikes, Sir Victor

Erroll, F. J.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Ramsden, J. E.

Fell, A.

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

Rayner, Brig. R.

Finlay, Graeme

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Redmayne, M.

Fisher, Nigel

Lindsay, Martin

Remnant, Hon. P.

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Renton, D. L. M.

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Llewellyn, D. T.

Ridsdale, J. E.

Ford, Mrs. Patricia

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

Robertson, Sir David

1888

1889

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Wade, D. W.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Roper, Sir Harold

Storey, S.

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Wall, Major Patrick

Russell, R. S.

Summers, G. S.

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Scott, R. Donald

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

Scott-Miller, Comdr. R.

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Wellwood, W.

Shepherd, William

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

Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Tilney, John

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Soames, Capt. C.

Turner, H. F. L.

Wills, G.

Spearman, A. C. M.

Turton, R. H.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Speir, R. M.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Wood, Hon. R.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Vane, W. M. F.

Stevens, Geoffrey

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

Vosper, D. F.

Mr. Studholme and Mr. Kaberry.

It being Ten o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

LEGAL AID SCHEME (EXTENSION)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]
10.8 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Skeffington: May I first offer my congratulations, which I am sure will be shared by the whole House, to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General on his appointment to his present high legal office. We all know from experience the very great talents which he will bring to bear. I suppose I can say that with some authority, because I sat opposite him for some 15 or 16 sittings of the Committee stage of the Landlord and Tenant Bill upstairs when he commended and defended with great charm and skill what I thought were some quite outrageous propositions. Nevertheless we wish the right hon. and learned Gentleman every success in his present office.
I must say, in apology to the Attorney-General, that my title for this evening's debate is not quite accurate. I make reference to bringing into operation Part
II of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949. I had overlooked the fact that the Section dealing with advice centres, which I am eager to see established, is contained in Section 7 of Part I. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that Amendment. I informed his office yesterday that I proposed to include that matter in my representations this evening.
1890
I think the Attorney-General will appreciate that there is a very widespread desire and hope that the remaining parts of this very useful Act will soon be implemented. There have been a number of indications about this recently. I notice there were four Questions yesterday on the subject, and I gather from the not very forthcoming reply that at least the matter was under earnest consideration.
Some time ago the National Council for Social Service called a conference of those interested in giving legal advice and in close touch with social problems. As a result of the conference a memorandum was prepared, which I gather went to the Lord Chancellor. It also made very urgent representations for something to be done to bring the remaining Sections into operation.
Then at the recent Labour Party Conference at Scarborough a resolution was unanimously accepted urging that these remaining Sections be brought into force. I mention it in particular not only because it was unanimously accepted, but also because it happened to be moved by the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society, which is the second largest co-operative society in the United Kingdom, with a membership of more than 360,000 persons. In their experience there is a very great need for the scheme. From such inquiries as I have been able to make, even in the serried ranks which are usually behind the right hon. and learned Gentleman but not at the moment, there is a good deal of support for something being done to bring in the remaining parts of the Act.
At present legal aid and assistance under the 1949 Act is limited to assistance in certain criminal cases and in the High Court. I know from my own limited experience, and

1891
also from information supplied to me by colleagues of mine who are much more experienced, that this scheme has worked very well, and that it has brought a large measure of justice and satisfaction to those with small and moderate incomes because proper advice and representation have been made available to them for the first time in our history.
I suppose there have been some cases of abuse, but I am told by those who administer the scheme that on investigation there has been, in fact, very little misuse indeed. Unfortunately, as in other matters, if there is a case which is open to some stricture that gets all the publicity. There was an instance not so very long ago in which I think it was the Lord Chief Justice who said that it was a case in which legal aid ought never to have been granted. It was some squabble about gifts between husband and wife. He added that that was not the fault of the certifying committee. Of course, the first criticism was reported, but the second remark was not.
In this connection we should remember that there is a safeguard in the operation of the scheme which would apply to the remaining Sections as it applies to the others. In any case where assistance is required it is subject to scrutiny and investigation by members of one or the other branch of the profession. This scheme seems to have worked very well, and is really a great safeguard against abuse.
The problem now is to get assistance for cases in the police courts and in the county courts, and to back that up with an adequate national system of advice centres throughout the country. I suppose the police courts and the county courts deal with some 98 per cent. of all litigation in the country.
The county courts are really the great social courts for masses of people. There it is that the problems of their wills, their homes, their inheritances, their nuisances and many other matters are dealt with. Of course, the police courts, apart from the other matters with which they deal, are the matrimonial courts for millions of our fellow countrymen, and yet it is precisely in those courts, where the overwhelming mass of litigation goes—those courts touching so nearly the family and
1892
the home—that there is no assistance or advice available.
Let the House just think of some of the types of cases in which, I think anyone who is familiar with them will agree, advice, and often representation, is highly desirable. Apart from the common law cases there are cases obviously affecting family life under the Married Women's Property Act, the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, the Guardianship of Infants Act, the Acts relating to adoption, and the Inheritance Act, 1938. Voluntarily and often involuntarily people are involved in cases under those statutes, and even though the sums involved may not be large the very nature of the legislation is such, it seems to me, that skilled advice is generally indispensable not only for speedy remedy but also for justice.
Then there are all the cases which arise out of accidents and the abolition of the doctrine of common employment. This has added a great deal to the litigation which is bound to arise. Some of it, I know, goes to the High Court, but a quite considerable amount can and ought to be dealt with in the county court where it could be dealt with if the remaining parts of the Legal Aid and Advice Act were in operation.
There has been a great growth of the statutory Regulations dealing with safety, which I am glad to see; but again, representation is often almost indispensable if confidence is to be created in the minds of those involved and full justice done. There is now also, of course, a whole series of actions that arise before tribunals in connection with pensions and insurance and rents. I am quite sure nobody will quarrel with me when I say that in those actions skilled advice and very often representation ought to be available.
Apart from the cases arising out of accidents and before tribunals and affecting the family, there are problems affecting the home. Everybody knows that the Rent Acts comprise one of the most complicated branches of our legal system. Judges of the Appeal Court are continually complaining that they do not understand the Acts.
I cannot remember now who it was, but one learned judge said that this complicated mass of verbiage was harrying judges to an early grave. Having regard

1893
to the average length of life upon the Bench I am not certain that the latter part of the remark is correct, but there is no doubt about the uncertainty in this branch of the law, and it does affect the homes in which the people live. If there are difficulties for judges the House will realise the need for help for the layman. These matters come before the county courts, and, as I said earlier, those are the very places where no skilled, professional assistance is available.
The Government have added very considerably to the complication of the Rent Acts by the recent Housing Repairs and Rents Act and by the Landlord and Tenant Act, which deals with relations under the leasehold law. There are certain remedies available to tenants and to landlords, and there are poor landlords as well as rich landlords. I feel that the rights of a great many of them may go by default unless help is available to them.
There are a great many people who have to be persuaded that there is nothing terrifying in going to a county court to get a matter settled. If they cannot get the expert and accurate advice that is necessary a great deal of injustice inevitably arises. I feel sure that most people will agree that that is true.
I have tried to make a calculation of the number of people who will he involved if the remaining Sections of the Act are brought into force. I am not suggesting that every one of these will be engaged in litigation, but, having regard to the income limitation on those who can apply, there are probably about 16 million people who would be entitled to benefit from advice and assistance if they needed it. I very much hope that we shall hear from the Attorney-General tonight something which will give this considerable section of the population some hope for the future.
The scheme is sometimes called free legal aid but it is not free legal aid except in a relatively small number of cases, because, according to the Schedule to the Act, people are expected to make their own contribution to the costs. That is another reason which I hope will persuade the Government to take the plunge.
At present, for the vast majority of the kind of cases which I have been discussing—family cases, matrimonial
1894
cases dealt with in the police court, the question of homes dealt with in the county courts and accidents—very little other assistance is available. I salute, as I am sure we all salute, the work which has been done in the past by what is called the poor man's lawyer and by the legal aid centres. There are only two of these centres remaining in the whole of London. They do magnificent work.
Cambridge House is one in the constituency which I represent in another place, and I know it very well. There they deal with some 4,000 cases a year, but by their rules they are not allowed to deal with any one who has an income of more than £4 a week. The two legal aid centres in London, the Mary Ward Settlement and Cambridge House, are together dealing with about 8,000 cases which come within this limited income range.
They are most deserving cases, including widows, deserted wives and unemployed persons, but they form just a fringe of the cases in which assistance ought to be made available. So highly does the L.C.C. think of their work that, although it is not a direct responsibility of the L.C.C., the council has made available some funds to keep these two centres going in the hope that it will not be too long before a national service of advice is made available.
Nevertheless, as was shown at the conference called by the National Council of Social Service, whole areas in the country have no assistance available at all. There are great towns with not a single place to which a poor litigant can go for advice. I am sure that that defect fills us all with remorse.
I am told that the cost of implementing the remaining parts of the scheme would be about £1 million—that is to say, £1 million in Government grant in addition to that contribution which the litigants themselves make according to their incomes. I do not want to make any misleading comparisons with the cost of an aircraft carrier—£12 million or whatever it may be—but is it fair to say that, with a national income of more than £12,000 million and a Budget of more than £4.000 million, £1 million which would ensure a measure of justice to a wide section of

1895
the population cannot be found? Personally, I do not think the reasons given justified the previous failure to implement the later Sections of the Act in 1949. I am certain, however, that the same excuse ought not to be put forward today.
If it is a question of deciding priorities, then I suggest that, as a first step, the legal advice centres should be introduced, because a great many of the troubles and worries which afflict these people could be solved by competent profesional advice and without litigation. A speedy decision ought to be made, because I am told that it will take three or four years to organise a system of that kind, even if a decision were given at once.
I do not know whether any other hon. Members wish to intervene, but I wish to give them time if they want to do so, and also give plenty of time to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to reply. I will, therefore, say in conclusion, and I do not want to appear pompous in saying this, that I believe that there is much in our British system of justice of which we can all be proud. Its defect has been that it has not been equally available to everyone, and has depended upon the resources and advice for which one can pay. It has been said by one famous judge, that justice is available to the public in the same way as the Ritz Hotel is available, and on the same terms. That is not in keeping with the social climate of 1954.
I hope that we shall hear that further and decisive steps will be taken to bring advice and assistance to millions of our fellow countrymen who are, at least in part, denied it at the present time.
10.27 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I should like to begin by thanking the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) for his very kind observations about myself, which I greatly appreciate. When he said that some of the Clauses of the Landlord and Tenant Bill, as it was, were indefensible, I beg to differ from him, but I do appreciate the kind things which he has said.
The hon. Member has put forward a reasoned case for the expansion of legal aid and legal advice. As I listened to him, I was not at all sure that I did
1896
not make very much the same speech as he has now made when the Government which he then supported declared that they were not prepared to implement the full provisions of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949. I was, of course, unable to support my argument by the advantage of being able to refer to what must be an almost unique incident—a unanimous resolution at the Labour Party Conference at Scarborough.
I must say—and I was interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman really agreed with me—that the announcement —I think it was in 1949—that the whole scheme could not be implemented then was a great disappointment to me. I happened to serve on the Rushcliffe Committee, and my old colleague in the Temple, Mr. Moelwyn Hughes, then a member of the Socialist Party and a Member of this House also, served on that Committee. We presented a unanimous Report, the major features of which are now embodied in the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949.
That was an interesting Measure in its passage through this House, because the members of the Committee which dealt with that Bill were united in their endeavours to try to make it the best possible workable Measure. I am not suggesting that the Government of that day were wrong, having regard to the financial position of the country at that time, in not seeking to implement all the provisions of that Act. But the hon. Gentleman, who is now pressing for the full implementation of that Measure, is clearly recognising that a considerable improvement has, in fact, taken place in the financial situation of the country since 1951.
I was asked a number of Questions about legal aid yesterday. As I said then, the case for the extension of legal aid to the county courts is strengthened by the provisions of the Housing (Repairs and Rents) Act and the Landlord and Tenant Act. Although I fear it will disappoint the hon. Gentleman, I cannot acid anything to what I said yesterday. What I said then was that the position with regard to legal aid is being closely considered by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor at the present time.
There have, of course, been isolated criticisms of the legal aid system as it has operated up till now. One must

1897
expect some criticisms when a new scheme of this character is introduced, but, by and large, I believe that the recommendations of the Rushcliffe Committee, embodied, as they are, in the 1949 Act, are on the right lines and that these teething troubles will disappear.
The hon. Gentleman made out the case for the extension of legal aid to the magistrates' courts and the county courts and also for the extension of the advice system recommended by the Rushcliffe Committee. I would agree with him in that I regard all of those as important and as constituting an important social service, but if it came to a choice between the three of them I should have thought, speaking personally, that legal aid in the county courts should have priority over the institution of the advice system.
When I say that it comes to a question of choosing between the different possibilities, one must, of course, recognise that the full implementation of the scheme will involve a substantial extra burden upon the Exchequer. One may speculate upon the extent of that burden and one may seek to estimate it, but no one can deny that it will be a substantial charge upon the Exchequer; and in determining whether the money available, if there is any money available, can be spent on the implementation of this scheme, one must have regard to the other claims upon the Exchequer.
However, if, as I say, the choice has to be made between extending legal aid to the county courts or to the magistrates' courts or to the extension of the advice centres, I should say that legal aid in the county courts should have priority. I say that because it does not seem to me to be very helpful if we institute a legal advice system throughout the country and people are advised at the centres that they should take proceedings in the county court and then there is no legal aid system available to assist them to take those proceedings.
I fully recognise that the institution of the advice centres may lead to the diminution of litigation and the settlement of a lot of matrimonial disputes. There is a strong case for the imple-
1898
mentation of the Act as a whole—there was in 1949, and there is now—but, as I say, the whole matter depends upon what the cost is estimated to be and the other claims upon the Exchequer in respect of any funds which may be available.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the great work which is being done by the voluntary organisations. I must say that it was a most unfortunate consequence of the passage of the Legal Aid and Advice Bill, and of that Measure when it became an Act not being implemented in full, that the support of these voluntary organisations declined. That is very unfortunate, and from my knowledge of their activities I should like to pay my tribute to them for the great work that they have done in the past and are doing at the present time.
I am sure that those voluntary organisations are well worthy of public support. I wish that their scope covered a greater area of the country, but when the hon. Gentleman says that there are great towns in which no person can go for legal advice, I think that he is putting the position a little bit too high. I am sure he will recognise that in our provincial cities, even though there are no centres of the kind to which he has referred, a great deal of voluntary assistance is given by the lawyers who reside in those places. One hears nothing about it, but from my own knowledge I can say that in proper cases both members of the Bar and solicitors are not reluctant to give assistance without charge.
I hope that such service will continue to be given, but I hope, too, that we shall not have to wait so very much longer before we implement the full recommendations of the Rushcliffe Committee, embodied, as they were, in the 1949 Act.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Twenty-two Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

  MILK SUPPLIES (SUTHERLAND AND CAITHNESS)
  MILK SUPPLIES (SUTHERLAND AND CAITHNESS)
BRITISH ARMY
  Helicopters
  Helicopters
  R.I.F. Depot, Omagh (Raid)
  R.I.F. Depot, Omagh (Raid)
  Stores Traffic, Sunderland (Transfer to Leith)
  Stores Traffic, Sunderland (Transfer to Leith)
  Overseas Commitments (Reduction)
  Overseas Commitments (Reduction)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Silk and Rayon Users (Tariffs Committee Report)
  Silk and Rayon Users (Tariffs Committee Report)
  Production and Distribution Censuses (Report)
  Production and Distribution Censuses (Report)
  Universal Copyright Convention (Ratification)
  Universal Copyright Convention (Ratification)
  ARTS COUNCIL (GRANTS EXPENDITURE)
  ARTS COUNCIL (GRANTS EXPENDITURE)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  Wages (Cash Increase)
  Wages (Cash Increase)
  Industrial Assurance Policies (Surrender Value)
  Industrial Assurance Policies (Surrender Value)
  AIR POLLUTION COMMITTEE (REPORT)
  AIR POLLUTION COMMITTEE (REPORT)
HOUSING
  Council Houses (Sales)
  Council Houses (Sales)
  House Purchase (Guarantee Schemes)
  House Purchase (Guarantee Schemes)
  Rent Books (Entries)
  Rent Books (Entries)
  Flood Damage Repairs (Rent Increases)
  Flood Damage Repairs (Rent Increases)
  RATING ASSESSMENTS
  RATING ASSESSMENTS
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Reorganisation
  Reorganisation
  Exchequer Equalisation Grants, Cardiff
  Exchequer Equalisation Grants, Cardiff
  Water Supplies
  Water Supplies
  COVENT GARDEN MARKET (SITE)
  COVENT GARDEN MARKET (SITE)
  PENNINE WAY (ROUTE)
  PENNINE WAY (ROUTE)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Suez Canal Zone (Situation)
  Suez Canal Zone (Situation)
  West European Defence (Military Commitments)
  West European Defence (Military Commitments)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Widows' Benefits
  Widows' Benefits
  National Assistance, Dartford and Bexley Heath
  National Assistance, Dartford and Bexley Heath
  Non-contributory Pensioners
  Non-contributory Pensioners
  EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY (BRITISH ASSOCIATION)
  EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY (BRITISH ASSOCIATION)
  GERMANY (OCCUPATION COST FUNDS)
  GERMANY (OCCUPATION COST FUNDS)
  FIREWORKS, LONDON (NUISANCE)
  FIREWORKS, LONDON (NUISANCE)
EDUCATION
  Grammar School Pupils (General Certificate of Education)
  Grammar School Pupils (General Certificate of Education)
  Size of Classes
  Size of Classes
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Livestock (Guarantee Payments)
  Livestock (Guarantee Payments)
  Tea (Price)
  Tea (Price)
  HOSPITAL BOARDS (PROPERTY PURCHASES)
  HOSPITAL BOARDS (PROPERTY PURCHASES)
EMPLOYMENT
  Older Persons (Retirement Policy)
  Older Persons (Retirement Policy)
  Port Employers
  Port Employers
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Duke of Manchester—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR
2.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government—

(1) whether it is a fact, as reported in the Press, that the Secretary of Defence of the United States has set up a Committee to study the desirability of reviewing existing laws and Governmental and international agreements affecting prisoners of war, in particular those captured by nations in the Soviet orbit, as "experience has shown certain changes appear desirable":

(2) whether, if this is a fact, Her Majesty's Government are taking any part or interest in the matter.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, it is the fact that each of the American armed Services has a committee working on these problems and the results are gradually being coordinated. Relevant aspects are being referred to the State Department and other United States Government agencies concerned. The process is far from complete and no decision has yet been reached about what changes may seem desirable. Her Majesty's Government are also studying the evidence which has been collected from returned prisoners of war who were captured in Korea. Consultation with the American authorities will probably be necessary at a later date. I should make it clear, however, that Her
602
Majesty's Government are not engaged in studying the desirability of reviewing the 1949 Prisoners of War Convention. The United Kingdom is a signatory to that Convention, but ratification awaits the enactment of legislation necessary to put into effect certain of its provisions. I am not at present in a position to say when such legislation might be introduced.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for his Answer to my Question, but arising out of it I would ask what has become of the draft of Chapter XIV which we were told two and a half years ago was being considered by the Foreign Office, all Service Departments, and the Dominions, and was going on to the United States of America. Has this review which the Americans are holding got nothing to do with that? Two and a half years is a long time and we have been told that any review of this Chapter would not appear for another year from last July, which makes three and a half years. A great number of British soldiers, sailors and airmen, and a considerable number of Dominion forces of the same rank and rating, will have been tortured, persecuted and starved, many of them to death, in the interval of time. It is high time some more drastic and active step was taken on these lines.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: To Chapter XIV of what publication is the noble and gallant Earl referring?
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: The Manual of Military Law, which we have been talking about.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am not sure that that is what we have been talking about, because the noble and gallant Earl's Question is phrased in such very wide terms that it might cover a good deal more than the exact Chapter he has mentioned. Indeed, the reply I have given him covers a wider area. The noble and gallant Earl ought to be pleased that it does—and I hope he is.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I had hoped the noble Marquess would be more to the point and would not evade my Question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.40 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, we are faced with a formidable volume of Amendments to the Mines and Quarries Bill in Committee this afternoon and on Thursday, but as the majority of them are either the result of agreement between the Parties in the course of debate in another place or are drafting or consequential Amendments, I hope we shall not find them too burdensome. It is understood there is a good deal of controversy in regard to Amendment No. 305 and that there are a number of noble Lords who wish to speak on it and who cannot be here on Thursday. It is hoped, therefore, that those noble Lords will be able to speak to-day, and that others who can be here on Thursday will speak to the Amendment on Thursday. We are prepared to sit until eight o'clock to-night in order to let those noble Lords speak. If necessary, we shall be prepared to sit late on Thursday, but we hope we may be able to complete the Committee stage by 7.30 o'clock on that day.

MINES AND QUARRIES BILL
2.41 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1.—[General Duties of mine and quarry owners]:
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): moved in subsection (1) to insert "statutory" before the word "responsibilities", where that word first occurs. The noble Earl said: In moving this first Amendment, I would offer some explanation or excuse for presenting such a fat budget this afternoon. It might be argued that Her Majesty's Government have been unduly vacillating about this Bill, but such an argument would be entirely wrong. Here we are dealing with a subject of quite unusual complexity and of infinite variety—there are not two pits in the country which are the same. The subject is pervaded through-
604
out with deep human interest and is of first-class importance to this country. For these reasons it was absolutely right that Her Majesty's Government should do everything possible to get as full a measure of agreement as they could, always provided it is in the true interests of the industry. Anyone who has seen the patience and care with which this subject was examined in another place and, in particular, by my right honourable friend, the Minister, will agree that Her Majesty's Government were perfectly right to take immense trouble in doing what they have done. While it is unusual, may I record that on this Bill the draftsmen have done a perfectly stupendous job which I think your Lordships' House would quite rightly wish to recognise.
As my noble friend, Lord Fortescue, has suggested, I can relieve noble Lords to some extent by saying that the Marshalled List of Amendments is not as formidable as at first sight appears. There are a great number of consequential Amendments from another place; there is a certain amount of re-drafting, and a number of technical mistakes have been corrected. Another batch of Amendments will give effect to undertakings which my right honourable friend has given in another place. I may say that in these Amendments every undertaking has been implemented in full measure. There are a few new points, but not very many. Having said that, I will only add that my noble friend Lord Hawke and I will go as fast or as slowly as the Committee may desire. We will try to meet your Lordships' requirements in all respects.
I think that your Lordships will have no difficulty about the first Amendment because it simply expresses more shortly, and, I believe, more clearly what is intended. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 7, after first ("of") insert ("statutory").—(The Earl of Selkirk).
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: It may be just as well to make the position of the Opposition clear at once. The Opposition are very anxious to see this Bill on the Statute Book, and we shall do everything we can to facilitate its passage. There are a number of Amendments on which noble Lords on this side may possibly feel that

605
they would like to divide the Committee, but they are not many—indeed, I may say that the number is small. The bulk of the Amendments, as the Paymaster General has suggested, relate to matters which have been discussed in another place and they are designed, in the main, simply to carry out pledges. I could, of course, get up when each of these Amendments is moved and express the thanks of noble Lords on this side, but I am going to do it once and for all on this Amendment. I shall not intervene again for this purpose—this is the only vote of thanks that I shall be expressing to-day. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and also the Minister for the way they have gone into this Bill. I think that few Ministers of the Crown have ever worked harder on a Bill than the Minister and the noble Earl have worked on this Bill. We thank them for all the Amendments now included in the Marshalled List.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 7, leave out from ("matters'') to ("written") in line 9.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The next Amendment is consequential also. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, leave out ("the owner's") and insert ("those").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment, agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Appointment and general duties and powers, of mine managers]:
LORD HAWKE: On behalf of my noble friend, Lord Selkirk, I beg to move the next Amendment. There is just a little more in this than in the last three Amendments. We intend that there should be a qualified manager before mining or quarrying operations start, but, as the Bill is drafted at present, operations would be held to start as soon as excavations are made. Now these excavations may be merely for the purpose of laying the foundations of buildings or of roads but those buildings might be held to be part of the mine or quarry.
606
We do not think that a qualified manager is necessary at that stage. We are therefore proposing to amend the Bill here and at various other points and to amend the Definition Clause to be consistent with the view that the working of a mine includes the sinking of a shaft and the working of a quarry the removal of over-burden. The effect of this Amendment will be to make it clear that a qualified manager appears when a shaft is started or when the removal of overburden is begun. We leave Clause 138 unchanged as we think it right that notice should be given at an earlier stage, when excavations for the foundations are started. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 23, leave out from ("worked") to ("unless") in line 24.—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 27, leave out ("following provisions of this Act") and insert ("said provisions ").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
2.48 p.m.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved to add to the clause:
"(4) In the appointment of managers for duty in Wales or Monmouth, among candidates equally qualified, persons having a knowledge of the Welsh language shall be preferred."
The noble Lord said: Let me at once, in moving this Amendment, express my appreciation of the fact that in Clause 142 of the Bill, dealing with the assignment of inspectors for duty in Wales or Monmouthshire, similar words appear. I appreciate very much the reason of their inclusion, but their appearance in Clause 142 has caused me to think that if there are good reasons why inspectors should be treated in this way then other officials also are entitled to the same consideration. I am satisfied that the reason which impelled the Minister of Fuel and Power to agree to Clause 142 (3) in its application to inspectors applies with equal force to, let us say, such officials as managers, under-managers and deputies.
Let me make it quite plain at once that the words "equally qualified" which appear in the Amendment and in

607
Clause 142 are the governing words, and they are words which, so far as I am concerned, no consideration will be allowed to weaken. These officials must be fully qualified. Let there be no doubt about that. But let there be no idea that I am asking for preferential treatment for those who speak Welsh in Wales. I am asking simply that, when there are men who satisfy the technical requirements, then consideration may be given to this aspect of the case. In Wales there are thousands of miners who prefer to speak the Welsh language rather than the English. In North Wales perhaps there is a bigger proportion of Welsh-speaking miners, but North Wales does not comprise a very big proportion of the Welsh coalfield. In West Wales there is a large proportion of Welsh-speaking miners and, as your Lordships know, in West Wales there is going to be one of the biggest developments in mining in this country during the next few years. This will increase the number of miners employed there, and in the main they will be Welsh speaking. If a manager, under-manager or deputy satisfies the requirements of his job and can speak Welsh, that is an additional reason why he should be considered suitable for the job. I happened to spend four years as Regional Controller in North Wales and I met on the ground many Welsh miners who could tell me in Welsh better than they could tell the manager in English about their complaints, and in many cases I acted as their interpreter. The managers in North Wales would be able to tell of that. If the manager had spoken Welsh, that would have established a better atmosphere, and a good atmosphere in the coal field does help to make a good output.
I am pleased to see the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor here. For three years he was Minister of Welsh Affairs. Few men have done more to understand the territory for which they were responsible, and I should like to tell him, in case he does not know: that few men have endeared themselves more to Wales than he has done during the past three years. I am satisfied that the noble and learned Viscount could help on this issue. There are in Wales those who clamour for a Parliament for Wales and who say that Wales will never get what she wants and will never be able to safeguard her language, literature and culture
608
until there is a Parliament in Wales. There are those in Wales who do not agree, and who think that Parliament in Westminster can give to Wales all that is required to safeguard her language, literature and culture. Your Lordships' House can help immensely, because your Lordships are interested in language, in literature and in culture. I hope the English-speaking people in Wales will not suggest that the Welsh language is of no value at all. It is not of much value to those who cannot speak it, I agree, but there are in Wales a million people who speak the Welsh language and who want to preserve their literature and culture. I cannot think of a better way of preserving the Welsh language than by seeing that where a man has all the necessary qualifications to do the job in the coal industry and can speak Welsh, he shall be preferred. It is the duty of those of us who feel that Parliament in Westminster can do for Wales all that Wales requires, to do what we can. It is no use opposing a Parliament in Wales without showing that Parliament in Westminster can do as much, and even more, for Wales than a Parliament in Wales would be able to do. I hope that your Lordships will accept this Amendment, which I bee to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 3, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
2.53 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: If the noble Earl accepts this Amendment, I hope he will exclude Monmouthshire. I do not wish to decry the value of the Welsh language, but it is not spoken in Monmouthshire. The noble Lord opposite goes to Monmouthshire often, and he knows very well that it is not the language of the county. According to the last census, 6 per cent. of the people of Monmouthshire termed themselves as able to speak Welsh. Therefore, if this requirement were accepted, 94 per cent. of the inhabitants of Monmouthshire would be at a disadvantage in their own county through not knowing a foreign language.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: May I say that the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, and I have differed before on this question of Welsh in Monmouthshire. Some of the best meetings of Welsh people that I have addressed have been in Monmouthshire.
LORD RAGLAN: In what language?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: In Welsh, and my speeches were thoroughly enjoyed. They received greater cheers than in any other part of Wales. I agree that Monmouthshire is the most English county included in Wales, but I cannot see that this Amendment, asking that consideration should be given to the fact that whether a manager who is fully qualified to do his job, can speak Welsh—
LORD RAGLAN: The point is that consideration would be given to men from outside Monmouthshire. Where there are two men with equal qualifications, one a Monmouthshire man and the other a Welshman, the Welshman would be given preference over the Monmouthshire man; and in my judgment that would be very unfair to Monmouthshire.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I presume that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, is not intending to make any present complaint?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: No.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am pleased to hear it. Then I will deal with the question as a theoretical point. May I say straight away that I have the strongest possible sympathy with what the noble Lord said, for the reason that we are living in days when the centralising influence is very strong and I feel that any way in which we can establish or maintain local traditions, such as the Welsh language, is entirely to the good. If I may say so as a Scotsman, I rather envy Wales the degree in which she has retained her language. Gaelic is rapidly decreasing in Scotland. But the National Coal Board is one organisation and it is essential that the best men should be appointed at all mines. As the noble Lord is aware, according to the agreement between the British Association of Colliery Management and the National Coal Board, appointments must be advertised over the whole country. I do not want to suggest that it would be possible, as the result of this Amendment, for every post in England and Scotland to be open to Welshmen but no post in Wales to be
610
open to an Englishman or a Scotsman—I am not suggesting that that is the noble Lord's purpose—but I think we have to watch that point. That would not be to the advantage of Wales. I am sure the noble Lord will agree that for the development of mining there must be a certain exchange of knowledge so that the best practice should be known.
The position with regard to inspectors is rather different. I think that this is a legacy of Lloyd George's 1911 Act. Of course, the inspector is appointed as a member of the staff of the Ministry and then is posted to Wales or elsewhere as the case may be. Here we are making a more or less now appointment and I think the position is not entirely comparable. What I find difficult about the noble Lord's words is that he compares a perfectly specific thing—Welsh speaking—with a quality that is quite indefinite—equal qualifications. In fact, no two men are equally qualified; everybody is slightly different. As the Amendment is worded, I feel that the emphasis on Welsh is too heavy.
I would also remind the noble Lord that behind his Amendment there is a criminal sanction. I think we want to be careful in imposing this condition when there is a criminal sanction behind it. However, I cannot believe that any body appointing men to Wales would not give consideration to this point. I cannot speak for the National Coal Board, but I think it is very improbable that they would not do so. If I may, I should like to discuss this point with the noble Lord, and with the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, to see whether we cannot find words to meet his point without imposing an undue burden on the National Coal Board and other bodies dealing with this matter. I think it would be better if this could be dealt with in one clause and not in three or four places, because technicians and all kinds of people are concerned. If the noble Lord would withdraw his Amendment, I should be grateful.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Rights of mine manager with respect to instructions given by or on behalf of owner]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 6, leave out from ("of") to ("shall") in line 8 and insert ("statutory responsibilities of his").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: This Amendment is little more than drafting. This clause gives a manager power to decline to obey orders if he thinks the safety or health of the men employed could be prejudiced. The Amendment makes it clear that he can decline to obey an order if the safety or health of any one of them is prejudiced. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 35, after ("mine") insert ("(or any of them)").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to add to the clause:
"(4) Where, in the case of such a mine as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, instructions are given and confirmed as therein mentioned, the document by which they are confirmed shall be preserved by the manager of the mine, and a copy of that document shall be preserved by the owner of the mine, in each case for twelve months after the instructions cease to be operative."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is moved to implement an undertaking given by my right honourable friend to ensure that there are special instructions issued under Clause 3, under which the manager is entitled to ask that confirmation of instructions issued to him shall be retained both by the manager and by the owner for a period of twelve months. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 48, at end insert the said sub-section.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
VISCOUNT HALL VISCOUNT HALL moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, to leave out "twelve months" and insert "three years." The noble Viscount said: May I at the outset say that we welcome the Amendment but we feel that it can be improved. Therefore, I beg to move the Amendment to the Amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend
612
Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor. What we have in mind is the preservation of the documents which may be material in claims for damages, where the period allowed for starting proceedings is three years. Some of these claims are not submitted until that period. What we are concerned with is that there should be no risk of any such documents not being made available to the court to assist them in coming to a decision. We believe this Amendment to the Amendment to be reasonable, and I hope that the Government will accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
Line 6, of the Amendment, leave out ("twelve months") and insert ("three years").—(Viscount Hall.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The document has to be preserved for twelve months after it ceases to be operative. I wonder whether there is much case for keeping it any considerable period longer than that. When we originally drafted the Bill, we did not think it necessary to put it in at all. The position is that the manager gets an instruction from a person who is not authorised, or perhaps not qualified. He is entitled under Clause 3 to say that he wants that instruction in writing, and he wants it from someone who is qualified and authorised to give it—it may be an electrician, who is not a mining engineer, or anybody else giving him an instruction. We thought that in his own interests he would keep the document as long as it was of any use to him, and I still feel that he will probably do so. We have now added "twelve months" as the period for which he must keep it. Is it likely that something will arise twelve months after it ceases to be operative, of which there was no indication before?
VISCOUNT HALL: It might well do.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Even if it does, the plaintiff in the case is entirely unpenalised, because this does not in any way remove the liability of somebody—it may be the owner, it may be the agent, or it may even be the manager. This protects the manager, but it does not in any way undermine the case of the injured man, or whoever it may be, who is bringing an action against him. So

613
far as I can see, his position remains unaltered.
VISCOUNT HALL: I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he does not consider that if documents are destroyed before the end of this period important evidence will he destroyed; and whether that will not place the claimant, whoever he might be, at a disadvantage; whereas under the Conditions of Action Provisions a case for damages can be taken within a period of three years. We feel that there is no hardship in requiring that these documents be retained for the longer period of three years. I am not a lawyer, and far be it from me to suggest that there might or might not be difficulties. However, we feel it is essential that documents should be retained for a period of at least three years.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am not going to press this point unduly, if the noble Viscount feels it is of great importance. There will be few of these documents; in fact, I think it is unlikely that there will be any. I would remind the noble Viscount that if the manager should lose the document, he is criminally liable.
VISCOUNT HALL: Within that period.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Within the three years. It is making it a criminal offence on the part of the manager to lose a document which is really only of interest to himself.
VISCOUNT HALL: Would not the same thing apply in the case of twelve months?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Yes. But you are extending it to three years, which means that the document must be kept for that period. However, if the noble Viscount feels strongly about it—I do not think anybody bringing an action would be at a disadvantage—I will certainly look at it again.
VISCOUNT HALL: I am obliged to the noble Earl. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment to the Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Qualifications of mine managers]:
LORD HAWKE: The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 17, leave out ("and").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: This Amendment is a clarification. Throughout the Bill we are amending it to say that a "direction" is in force rather than a "notice" is in force. We feel that it is better English. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 19, leave out from the beginning to ("that") in line 20 and insert ("direction, given by an inspector by notice served on the owner of the mine,").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 32, leave out ("notice") and insert ("direction").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Limitation on number of mines which a person may manage]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 7, leave, out from ("of") to ("is") in line 8 and insert ("statutory responsibilities of his").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This, too, is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 9, leave out ("upon") and insert ("on").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Under-managers]:
LORD HAWKE: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 24, leave out from ("a") to end of line 29, and insert ("direction, given by an inspector by notice served on the owner of the mine, that, on the ground of the size or condition of the mine or the system of working it being such as, in the opinion of the inspector, to render it inexpedient that it

615
should be worked unless there is at least one under-manager, this paragraph shall apply to the mine;").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: This, too, is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 8, after ("manager") insert ("thereof").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: In view of the undertaking given on Amendment 6, I shall not move the next Amendment.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Temporary appointments during vacancy in office of mine manager or under-manager]:
LORD HAWKE: This is a similar Amendment to Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 23, leave out from ("worked") to ("at") in line 24.—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 30, after ("time") insert ("is or").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
3.10 p.m.
Clause 8 [Daily supervision by mine managers and under-managers]:
LORD HAWKE: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 17, after ("who") insert ("is or").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 34, after ("either") insert ("is or").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Charge of mine where neither manager nor acting manager nor under-manager is present]:
LORD HAWKE: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 8, leave out ("of this Act").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Duties of mine managers with respect to reading of reports, &c.]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is a little more than drafting: it is really a paving Amendment to lead to a certain action which has been raised. Some documents and books have to be kept in the office of a mine, but in certain cases, particularly in regard to small mines and quarries, there is no suitable accommodation at the mine to do it. Accordingly, we are leading up to Clause 132, where we are going to say that they may be kept in such places provided by the owner as the inspector may approve. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 18, leave out ("kept at") and insert ("provided for that purpose by the owner of").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Deputies]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is really a paving Amendment to Amendment No. 27. It is moved to implement an undertaking given by my right honourable friend in another place in which he makes it quite clear that in regulations of duties of deputies, preference will be given to matters of safety and health over other duties. There is quite a lot of history behind that, but I will not bore your Lordships with it to-day. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 36, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection").—(The Earl of Selkirk).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I have already spoken about this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 39, at end insert—
("(2) Regulations having effect by virtue of the foregoing subsection shall be so framed as, in the opinion of the Minister, to secure that, in the discharge, by persons appointed for the purpose of fulfilling in relation to a mine requirements imposed by virtue of paragraph (a) of that subsection, of duties prescribed by virtue of the other provisions of that subsection, those persons shall give preference to the securing of the safety and health of the workmen employed at the mine over the securing of any other matter.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:
Duties of persons appointed by mine managers
14. It shall be the duty of the manager of every mine to ensure to the best of his ability that every person appointed by him in pursuance of the foregoing provisions of this Act, or regulations having effect by virtue of any such provisions understands the nature and scope of any duties which fall to be performed by that person, being either duties imposed by or by virtue of this Act or duties whose performance is undertaken for the purpose of attaining any of the objects mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) of the last foregoing section.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I am under the impression that in connection with this matter there may have been an oversight. An undertaking was given in another place, on this very matter-the noble Earl will find it in column 267 of the Official Report of the Standing Committee on March 4. The Parliamentary Secretary was asked:
"Will the Parliamentary Secretary, between now and Report, have a look at the particular words which specified before that this had to be done in writing, and take that into account?"
Mr. Lloyd replied:
"Yes, certainly."
The purpose of the Amendment is to lessen the ambiguity. We think that the less ambiguity the better. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 19, after ("mine") insert ("by notice, written instructions and otherwise").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am not quite clear what the noble Lord seeks here. This clause imposes a duty on the manager to ensure that, to the best of his
618
ability, all those persons employed by him understand their duty. The noble Lord says that he should do so "by notice, written instructions or otherwise."
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: "And," not "or."
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That means to say that the noble Lord wishes the instructions to be in writing?
LORD MACDONALD GWAENYSGOR: That is right.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I did not know quite how else the manager would do it. I do not think this Amendment is very practical. Does the noble Lord really think that, to understand his job, a man has to receive everything in writing? Does he really think that that is the best way to run underground work? Would not the diagrammatic description be better, or would it not be better to explain verbally what is required? I should hesitate to say that every man must have his duties explained in writing. I should have doubted whether many people wanted that.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: May I suggest that the noble Earl should look at the point again? I am speaking from experience. When a colliery official gives me an instruction, I understand it in a certain way and I carry it out in the way I understand it. He tells me later that I misunderstood and he did not intend me to do that. I want to avoid any misunderstanding, and if it is in writing it is difficult to misunderstand it.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I will certainly have a look at the point. It strikes me as being an awful lot of writing, but I will certainly have a look at it.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HAWKE: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 22, leave out ("such") and insert ("of those").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 [Notification to district inspector of appointments by mine owners]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is to enable the Minister to get particulars of qualifications when men are appointed to mines. This really applies to places where a statutory qualification is not required. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 42, leave out from the beginning to ("qualifications") in line 44 and insert ("and giving such particulars with respect to his").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Disqualification of contractors and their employees for appointment as managers, &c., of mines]:
LORD HAWKE: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 2, leave out ("or for the purpose of opening a mine").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 12, after the first ("of") insert ("subsection (1) of").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Keeping of plans]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is really the same as the Amendment I moved to Clause 10 in regard to plans. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 16, leave out from ("that") to end of line 19, and insert (",in the case of every mine, the manager thereof shall keep at the office at the mine or at such other place as may be approved by an inspector").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I do not know whether I might presume to ask that your Lordships consider Clauses 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 together. These all deal with plans—the making of plans, the manner in which information for plans
620
is obtained, the preservation of plans and geographical maps. The Amendments to all these clauses are purely drafting or, in some cases, make technical corrections. Perhaps I may give one example of the sort of technical correction. The Bill, as it stands, says that when a mine is not in operation for twelve months the plans kept by the manager are to be deposited with the Minister. But if the mine is not in operation for twelve months there may not be a manager, and then it is obviously necessary that the owner should deposit them. I do not think there is anything in the Amendments to which exception is likely to be taken, and I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to move the Amendments to Clauses 17 to 21 together.
Amendments moved—
Page 11, line 28, leave out ("them") and insert ("those workings")
Page 11, line 37, leave out ("and") and insert ("or")
Page 11, line 39, leave out the first ("the")
Page 12, line 3, leave out the second ("the")
Page 12, line 4, leave out ("of the workings")
Page 12, line 5, after ("surface") insert ("of the workings delineated on the plans")
Page 12, line 10, after ("If") insert (",in the case of any mine,")
Page 12, line 13, leave out ("a") and insert("the")
Page 12, line 14, leave out ("upon") and insert ("on")
Page 12, line 15, after ("mine") insert ("or at such other place as may be approved by an inspector")
Page 12, line 21, leave out ("by the manager") and insert ("in the case")
Page 12, line 37, leave out ("by the manager") and insert ("in the case")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Furnishing of documents and information requisite for preparation of plans]:
Amendments moved—
Page 12, line 47, leave out ("by the manager") and insert ("in the case")
Page 13, line 7, leave out ("in writing")
Page 13, line 19, leave out ("by the manager") and insert ("in the case").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 [Faulty plans]:
Amendments moved—
Page 13, line 20, after ("if") insert (",in the case of any mine.")
Page 13, line 23, leave out ("required to be")
Page 13, line 23, leave out ("a") and insert ("that")
Page 13, line 28, leave out subsections (2) to (4) and insert—
("(2) The following provisions shall have effect where a surveyor is appointed under the foregoing subsection to make a new plan, section or drawing in the case of a mine:—

(a) the owner and the manager of the mine shall afford to the surveyor all necessary facilities and information for the purpose of making the new plan, section or drawing;

(b) on the completion of the new plan, section or drawing, it shall be sent to the manager of the mine; and

(c) the cost of making the new plan, section or drawing, or such part of that cost as the Minister thinks fit, shall be recoverable by him from the owner of the mine.")—

(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 [Transmission to inspector, and preservation, of plans of abandoned mines, seams and veins]:
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 20 and insert the following new clause:
Transmission to inspector, and preservation, of plans of abandoned or disused mines, seams and veins
("20.—(1) Provision may be made by regulations—

(a) for requiring that—

(i) in the event of the abandonment of a mine or of the expiration of the period of twelve months from the time at which a mine was last worked for the purpose of getting minerals or products of minerals, the person who is the owner of the mine at the time of the happening of that event shall, within the prescribed period thereafter, send to the inspector for the district such plans of the workings in the mine at that time (being plans complying with such requirements as are imposed by or by virtue of the next following subsection) and such drawings supplementary to the plans as may be prescribed and such sections of the seams or veins worked in the mine and of the strata overlying them (being sections complying with such requirements as aforesaid) as may be prescribed;

(ii) in the event of the abandonment of a seam or vein in a mine or the expiration of the period of twelve months from
622
the time at which a seam or vein in a mine was last worked for the purpose of getting minerals or products of minerals, the person who is the owner of the mine at the time of the happening of the that event shall, within the prescribed period thereafter, send to the inspector for the district such plans of the workings in that seam or vein at that time (being plans complying with such requirements as are imposed by or by virtue of the next following subsection) and such drawings supplementary to the plans as may be prescribed and such sections of that seam or vein and of the strata overlying it (being sections complying with such requirements as aforesaid) as may be prescribed;

(b) for imposing, with respect to plans, drawings and sections sent to an inspector in pursuance of such provisions of the regulations as have effect by virtue of the foregoing paragraph, such requirements (whether with respect to the persons by whom they are to be prepared, the giving of certificates with respect thereto or otherwise) as it may appear to the Minister requisite or expedient to impose for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy thereof.

(2) Plans and sections required, by virtue of provisions of regulations having effect by virtue of the foregoing subsection, to be sent to an inspector shall be of durable material and be prepared in such form and manner as may be specified by rules made by the Minister and on a scale not less than such as may be so specified, and any such plans shall show the position, in relation to objects on the surface, of the workings delineated on the plans and record such information as may be so specified with respect to orientation, contours, boundaries, faults, workings other than those delineated on the plans and such other matters (whether similar to the matters aforesaid or not) as may be so specified.
(3) If the Minister is satisfied, on the representation of an inspector,

(a) that these has occurred, in the case of a mine, a contravention of provisions of regulations having effect by virtue of subparagraph (i) or (ii) of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section consisting of a failure to send a plan, drawing or section to an inspector within the period limited by those provisions or that, in the case of a mine, a plan, drawing or section sent to an inspector in pursuance of those provisions is inaccurate, incomplete, dilapidated or wholly or partly indecipherable; and

(b) that, in the interests of safety, it is desirable for a new plan, drawing or section to be made;

the Minister may, within six months from the expiration of that period, appoint a surveyor to make a new plan, drawing or section, and the cost of making the new plan, drawing or section, or such part of that cost as the Minister thinks fit, shall be recoverable by him from the person who was the owner of the mine at the time of the happening of the event in consequence of the happening of which the said provisions fell to be complied with.
(4) Subject to the provisions of the next following subsection, plans, drawings and sections sent to an inspector in pursuance of the said provisions or made by a surveyor appointed under the foregoing subsection shall be preserved by the Minister or by some other person under arrangements made or approved by the Minister.
(5) Where, at the time at which the working of a mine or a seam or vein therein is resumed, any plans, drawings or sections relating thereto are, by virtue of the last foregoing subsection, preserved by the Minister or by some other person (not being the owner of the mine), the owner shall, on giving not less than fourteen days notice to the person by whom the plans, drawings or sections are preserved and (where that person is not the Minister) to the Minister, be entitled to have delivered to him the plans, drawings or sections subject to affording to the Minister, if required so to do before the expiration of the notice, a reasonable opportunity of making copies of the plans, drawings or sections or of such part thereof as the Minister thinks fit.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Geological map]:
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 23, after ("mine") insert ("or at such other place as may be approved by an inspector").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 [Provision of shafts and outlets in coal, etc., mines]:
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, we now come to the clause which deals with the employment of persons below ground, saying that there must be two shafts separated by a specific distance, 45 feet, or 10 feet, in the case of mines sunk before 1888. But there are two mines in County Durham where the distance is still less. They are nearly worked out. This Amendment proposes to amend the Bill to allow them to continue until they are worked out.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 34, after ("which") insert (", except where they were sunk before the first day of January, eighteen hundred and sixty-five,").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: These are drafting or consequential Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 15, line 35, leave out ("in the case of shafts the sinking of which") and insert ("where the sinking thereof")
Page 15, line 42, leave out ("in consequence") and insert ("as a result")
Page 16, line 39, leave out ("may")
Page 16, line 40, at end insert ("may").— (Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment also is not much more than drafting. It is to say that exemptions are directed to the employment of persons rather than to the mine.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 41, leave out from ("mine") to end of line 46 and insert ("exempt from the operation of subsection (1) of this section the employment of persons below ground in the mine or in such part of the mine below ground as may be specified in the notice:
Provided that no exemption shall be granted under this subsection by the Minister or an inspector unless the Minister or the inspector, as the case may be, is satisfied that no persons employed in the mine will be exposed to undue risk in consequence of the granting of the exemption.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The next two Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 17, line 20, after ("affording") insert ("to")
Page 17, line 22, leave out from ("him") to end of line 25 and insert—
("(7) In the application of this section to Scotland, for references to a plaintiff and a defendant there shall respectively be substituted references to a pursuer and a defender.
(8) Nothing in this section shall apply to the employment of persons in a shaft or outlet or in the insets of a shaft or outlet.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Would your Lordships permit me to move that the House do now resume, in order that I may make a statement on the Dock Strike.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

THE DOCK STRIKE
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I have a statement to make to your Lordships which my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour is making in another place at this hour. The statement is as follows. There has been little change in the situation since my right honourable friend's previous statement in another place last Friday. About 1,000 men have gone back to work in the Port of London, but some 700 are now on strike at Manchester. Elsewhere there is no appreciable change. The damaging effects of this stoppage on the country's economic life, to which my right honourable friend referred in his previous statement, grows more serious day by day; in particular the threat to employment in other industries is causing increasing concern. The Court of Inquiry, which is investigating the causes and circumstances of the dispute, has, in view of the urgency of the situation, submitted to my right honourable friend an Interim Report. The Minister has taken immediate steps to expedite its publication, and I hope the Report will be available to noble Lords to-morrow afternoon.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for making this statement. The situation, I think, is such a delicate one that it is probably wiser not to ask any of the obvious questions or make any comment except to say this. As I understand it, if the men go back to work there is nothing whatever to prevent an immediate investigation and inquiry into the dispute which exists, and one cannot help wondering, in those circumstances, what it is all about and why they do not go back.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The noble and learned Earl is perfectly correct. That is the case.

MINES AND QUARRIES BILL
3.29 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 22 [Provision of shafts and outlets in coal &c., mines]:
LORD HAWKE: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 26, leave out ("Subject to the provisions of this section").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 29, after ("affording") insert ("to").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 31, leave out ("on") and insert ("to").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This deals with the minimum height for communications between shafts. As the Bill stands at present, if the inspector gives an exemption there is no limit to the height and width. Under this Amendment there must be some limit for height and width, even when exemption is given.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 on page 18 and insert:

("(a) if the Minister is satisfied that, owing to special circumstances affecting mines of coal, stratified ironstone, shale or fireclay of any class, it is inadvisable for reasons of safety or unnecessary, in the case of the communications provided as aforesaid therein or any class of those communications, for the minimum height or width, or height and width, thereof to be as great as provided by the foregoing provisions of this subsection, regulations may provide that those provisions shall have effect, in their application to those communications or that class thereof, with the substitution, for the minimum specified in the said provisions in relation to height, that so specified in relation to width or both of those minima, as the case may be, of such less minimum or minima as may be prescribed; and

(b) if an inspector is satisfied that, owing to special circumstances affecting a particular mine of coal, stratified ironstone, shale or fireclay, it is inadvisable for reasons of safety or unnecessary, in the case of all or any of the communications provided as aforesaid therein, for the minimum height or width, or height and width, thereof to be as great as provided

627
by the foregoing provisions of this subsection, he may, by notice served on the manager of the mine, direct that those provisions shall have effect in their application to those communications or to such of them as may be specified in the notice, with the substitution, for the minimum specified in the said provisions in relation to height, that so specified in relation to width or both of those minima, as the case may be, of such less minimum or minima as may be specified in the notice.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 [Limitation of number of persons to be employed at coal, &c., mines in places with single exits]:
LORD HAWKE: This is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 10, leave out ("This section shall not apply to") and insert ("Nothing in this section shall apply to the employment of persons in").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 [Limitation on number of persons to be employed at coal, &c., mines in shafts and outlets and their insets]:
LORD HAWKE: This is one of the many places where we are substituting the word "determined" for the word "specified" in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 24, leave out ("specified") and insert ("determined").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 28, leave out ("paragraph (a) of subsection (5)") and insert ("subsection (6)").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: This is little more than a drafting Amendment. It is to make quite clear that it is not the insets to which the provisions do not apply but the employment of the persons in them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 32, leave out ("individual insets") and insert ("the employment of persons in individual insets of a shaft or outlet.")—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Power of inspector to require provision of additional ways out from working faces in coal mines]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 41, leave out ("upon") and insert ("on").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 [Provision of winding and haulage apparatus]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The Amendments on Clause 28 can, with the permission of the House, be taken together. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 20, line 16, leave out ("of") and insert ("to")
Page 20, line 22, after ("case") insert (",by notice served on the manager of the mine.")
Page 20, line 33, leave out ("of") and insert ("to")
Page 20, line 39, after ("case") insert (",by notice served on the manager of the mine,").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30:
Securing of shafts and staple-pits
30.—(1) Every mine shaft and staple-pit shall, save in so far as the natural conditions of the strata through which it passes render it unnecessary (either as to the whole or as to any part thereof) so to make it, be made secure, and shall be kept secure:
Provided that in any prosecution for a contravention of this section with respect to a shaft or staple-pit, it shall be a defence to prove that at the time of the alleged contravention no insecure part of that shaft or staple-pit was in use or was the site of any operations in progress by way of driving or extending the shaft or staple-pit.
VISCOUNT HALL VISCOUNT HALL moved, after the words "render it" to insert "in the opinion of the inspector." The noble Viscount said: I move this Amendment which stands in my name and that of my noble friend, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor. This Bill, as one can see from the Amendments which are put down in your Lordships' House, had a very long Committee stage in another place, and we have been informed that the Minister there gave an undertaking that something in the nature of these words

629
would be inserted in the Bill. Our Amendment is put down just as a reminder. It may be that the matter has been forgotten, or owing to the enormous amount of work which had to be done there, it may have been overlooked. These are the words of the Minister quoted in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee at col. 361:
"Perhaps it would help the Committee if I said that between now and Report I shall examine the possibility of putting down an Amendment which would make it clear that the shafts shall be made secure unless an inspector agrees that it is unnecessary."
We think it is a reasonable Amendment. It seems to be better that the responsibility of deciding this matter should not be left at large but should be fixed upon the official who knows so much about these circumstances and in whom we have considerable confidence. We think that this Amendment is necessary and we ask the Government to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 22, after ("it") insert ("in the opinion of the inspector").—(Viscount Hall.)
LORD SALTOUN: I have listened with great interest and a good deal of sympathy to the Amendments moved from the other side, and I would have supported their last one if the noble Earl had not said that he would consider it further. Speaking humbly and not knowing anything about mines, I say that this Amendment seems to be curious, because you are substituting a matter of opinion for a matter of fact. If anything happens which shows that the shaft was not secure, then there has been a contravention of the Act, whereas if you say "in the opinion of the inspector," you have an expression of opinion, and it seems to me that you are exonerating him from any blame for anything that occurs.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not think the quotation which the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, gave indicated that there was any undertaking with regard to that matter. The Minister said he would examine it. I am sure it has been examined. This clause deals with the general duty of support, and that general duty necessarily lies on those who run the mine. I hope to convince the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, that the Amendment which he has put down here is both
630
unnecessary and undesirable. In the first place, it is unnecessary because the inspectors have the power already. Under Clause 144 we see that the inspector, if he so wishes, can demand a support of any kind to be put in the shaft which he, the inspector, considers necessary. Therefore, this is obviously a power that it is not necessary that the inspector should have.
On the other side, I would say that it is undesirable, and it is undesirable for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has expressed. What would happen would be that, before those in charge of the mine made up their minds how it should be supported, they would go to the inspector and say: "Inspector, do you approve of this?" I suggest that this proposal is entirely unsatisfactory, and I will say why. The responsibility of the owner is thereby reduced. Instead of making him responsible as a matter of fact as to whether it is unnecessary, you are putting it on to the opinion of the inspector. To my mind, you are, if anything, lowering the duty laid down in the Bill. But what is more important is that you are giving the inspector thereby some measure of administrative responsibility.
The inspector's duty, if I understand it correctly, is to inspect what other people have done, not to tell the mining industry how they should run it and how they should plan their shaft before they do so. That is the responsibility of the mining engineers, the owners, the planners and so forth. When they have done it, and only after they have done it—and they do it under very strict obligations laid down in the Act—then, and then only, the inspector says: "I think it is unsatisfactory." Some people say: "You are putting the inspector too near administrative responsibility." We have endeavoured all along to avoid that. If the noble Viscount were to press this Amendment that is the position to which he would move. I should be grateful if he would withdraw it.
EARL JOWITT: I do not pose as an expert, but, as a layman, I should like to make this observation, having regard to what has fallen from the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and from the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. I quite understand their point of view. On the other hand, is there not

631
this point of view? The primary obligation is to make every shaft secure, but there is a qualifying clause here—
"… save in so far as the natural conditions of the strata through which it passes render it unnecessary. …"
Is there not this danger if you do not have the Amendment: that people may leave a shaft insecure and say to themselves, quite honestly, "We thought it was not necessary, having regard to the conditions of the neighbouring strata"? They do not do it and there may be an accident. After the accident, all sorts of things may happen. From the point of view of safety would it not be better to have the absolute obligation, "You must make the shaft secure unless some specific individual, namely the inspector, says that the conditions of the strata suggest that you need not make it secure"? I suggest that gives less scope for matters of opinion. As things are to-day, a shaft may be left insecure because a man quite honestly thinks that the nature of the ground nearby does not render it necessary to secure it, and there may be an accident. I hope the noble Earl will look at the point again—that is all I am suggesting. The requirement, "You must make every shaft secure unless you get the express permission of the inspector," is, I suggest, something worth considering. The noble Earl has been very good all the way through in considering matters, and I hope he will look at that suggestion and bear it in mind.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I will certainly do that. My reading of the word "secure" indicates some physical support in that context, not in the sense of insecure. But I shall certainly have a look at this matter and see whether we can get the wording improved.
VISCOUNT HALL: Then I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment. I would point out that the staple-pits, as they are called, between one seam and another, are what we have particularly in mind in relation to this Amendment, and a great deal of difficulty can arise in those shafts.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 25, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Prevention of fall of articles down shafts and staple-pits]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 22, leave out ("section thirty-one of this Act") and insert ("the last foregoing section").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [General provisions with respect to construction and maintenance of roads]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved in subsection (1) (b), to leave out "reasonable convenience and safety" and insert "safety and reasonable convenience." The noble Lord said: I think this Amendment is self-explanatory. The word "reasonable" seems to qualify both convenience and safety. Roads are important not only on the surface but, still more so, underground. We do not want the term "safety" qualified at all where roads are concerned. Therefore, instead of the clause reading "reasonable convenience and safety," which could possibly mean "reasonable safety," we prefer that it should read "safety and reasonable convenience." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 16, leave out ("reasonable convenience and safety") and insert ("safety and reasonable convenience").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
LORD HAWKE: We do not read the clause in quite the same way as the noble Lord. Quite frankly, we did not think that "safety" was qualified by the addition of "reasonable"; but our objects on both sides are precisely the same, and if it gives the noble Lord pleasure we shall be pleased to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 21, leave out ("upon") and insert ("on").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35 [Height and width of travelling roads]:
3.45 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: Amendments Nos. 81 to 88 are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 24, line 2, at beginning insert ("particular")
Page 24, line 10, leave out ("upon") and insert ("on")
Page 24, line 13, after ("used") insert ("(hereinafter referred to as 'the specified height ')")
Page 24, line 18, leave out ("that so specified") and insert ("the specified height")
Page 24, line 24, leave out ("upon") and insert ("on")
Page 24, line 24, leave out first ("a") and insert ("the")
Page 24, line 26, at end insert ("(hereinafter referred to as 'the specified width')")
Page 24, line 31, leave out ("that so specified") and insert ("the specified width").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Prohibition of use of vehicles and conveyors in roads not affording free movement]:
LORD HAWKE: We now deal with the clause prohibiting the use of vehicles and conveyors in a place in which there is no proper room for them. We think that the word "used" at line 1 of page 25 is slightly ambiguous, because it might be held that a conveyor is not used if it is not running full; it might be held to be used only if it is full. Therefore, we are inserting the word "operated" in various places to make quite certain that we mean whenever it is in motion. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 1, leave out ("used") and insert ("operated").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: Amendments Nos. 90, 91, 92 and 93 are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 25, line 7, leave out ("use") and insert ("operation")
Page 25, line 11, leave out ("used") and insert ("operated")
Page 25, line 15, leave out ("the running of vehicles or the use of a conveyor") and insert ("vehicles to run or a conveyor to be operated")
Page 25, line 23, leave out ("use") and insert ("operation").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [Transport rules]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: There are a number of Amendments to Clause 37, all of which deal with transport rules. Perhaps I may discuss together Amendments Nos. 94 to 102 and also (if I may go beyond Lord Macdonald's Amendments to the Amendment), Amendments Nos. 105 to 110. All Amendment No.94 amounts to is the correction of an error. There is laid on the manager the duty of drawing up transport rules, but there is a qualification imposed by the use of the word "specifying." In some cases he does not have to specify, he has to prohibit. The Committee will notice that we propose to insert another subsection which makes it quite clear that he may prohibit such things as riding on carriages as and when he thinks fit. There is a further difficulty, in that there may be some cases where there is nothing to specify, and the word does not apply at all—for instance, if the manager has conveyors he does not specify about vehicles; if he has man haulage it is no good his specifying about underground trains. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 39, leave out ("specifying").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Amendments Nos. 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 and 101 are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 25, line 40, at the beginning insert ("specifying")
Page 25, line 41, leave out ("or conveyors run") and insert ("run or conveyors are operated")
Page 25, line 42, at the beginning insert ("specifying")
Page 25, line 45, after ("vehicles") insert ("(according as to whether they are loaded or unloaded)")
Page 25, line 47, leave out from ("mine") to end of line 48.
Page 26, line 1, at the beginning insert ("specifying")
Page 26, line 3, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
("(d) prohibiting the conveyance in roads in the mine of persons in vehicles or on conveyors except in such circumstances and in accordance with such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the rules and specifying precautions to be observed when persons are so conveyed.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I beg to move this Amendment, to which I have already referred.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, leave out lines 7 to 11 and insert—
("(2) The exercise by the manager of a mine of the power conferred by the foregoing subsection shall be obligatory for the purpose mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection and also for the purposes mentioned in paragraphs (b) to (d) thereof save in so far as an exercise of that power for those purposes could, having regard to the circumstances of the mine, serve no object, and regulations may render an exercise of that power obligatory for any other purpose for which it may be exercised.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
VISCOUNT HALL VISCOUNT HALL moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment to leave out "could" and insert "should." The noble Viscount said: We are greatly obliged to Her Majesty's Government for this Amendment, but we think it could be strengthened by the substitution of the word which I now move. In this Amendment we are dealing with one of the main causes of accidents under ground, transport vehicles and conveyors, and I would remind noble Lords of the number of accidents which occurred due to transport vehicles and conveyors during the course of last year. It is for those safety reasons that we feel the noble Earl's Amendment should be strengthened. Last year, fatal accidents under the heading of mechanical haulage, including self-acting inclines, runways, trams and couplings, totalled no fewer than 55. The reportable accidents (that is, serious accidents) numbered 450. Accidents resulting in disablement of men for more than three days due to haulage, transport, conveyors, gates and so on, were 50,500. I am sure that noble Lords, on hearing those figures, will
636
realise how important is this Amendment. The acceptance of the two Amendments to the Amendment which stand in my name would strengthen these provisions and we therefore ask Her Majesty's Government to accept them. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
In the proposed new subsection (2) leave out ("could ") and insert ("should").—(Viscount Hall.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not think there is any difference in our approach to the subject, but I feel that the noble Lord's Amendment is misconceived. The clause states that the manager, in exercising his duty, must make rules dealing with speeds of vehicles running, length of roads and other prohibitions. He will make them in so far as they serve any object. The noble Lord's Amendment to my Amendment appears slightly to reduce that in confining it to cases in which considerations of safety do not necessarily arise. If there is any object in it at all, if there is a vehicle there for which rules can be made, they have got to be made. The clause is intended not only to include every sort of case, whether safety or not, but all cases unless there is no point in their inclusion. There is no point in laying down speed in regard to horse-or man-drawn vehicles, if it does not arise. It arises only in the case of trams. The noble Lord, I imagine, would not lay down a speed for horse-drawn vehicles.
VISCOUNT HALL: Certainly I would. I have driven horse-drawn vehicles under the ground, and speed all depends upon the gradients. The speed at which horses with two trams behind them can travel down a grading is amazing. That is why it is necessary to have the Amendment to the Amendment for which we ask—indeed, if there were no other reason than that given by the noble Earl I should have thought that it would be accepted. The second Amendment is certainly much more understandable than the words inserted in the Amendment moved by the noble Earl. I am quite prepared, if it can be considered between now and the Report stage, to discuss the matter with the noble Earl, but there is a good deal of substance here, particularly in relation to what happens in roadways and tramways underground.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I quite appreciate the point made by the noble Viscount as to the speed of horses on a gradient, but presumably if the gradient were such as to require a limitation then rules would be made. But where there is no point in fixing limits for speed then it need not be done. My interpretation of the clause is simply that it does not require the making of a rule where it would serve no purpose. I should have thought the noble Viscount's Amendment provided a more restricted interpretation than that placed in the Bill; but if the noble Viscount wishes to discuss it I shall be delighted to do so.
VISCOUNT HALL: In view of the noble Earl's statement, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment to the Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 105 to 109.
Amendments moved—
Page 26, line 12, leave out ("the foregoing subsection") and insert ("subsection(1) of this section")
Page 26, line 29, leave out ("relate to the matter specified in") and insert ("have effect by virtue of")
Page 26, line 36, leave out ("or conveyors are running") and insert ("are running or conveyors are being operated")
Page 26, line 39, leave out ("relate to the matter specified in") and insert ("have effect by virtue of")
Page 27, line 8, after ("width") insert ("are").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is to meet an undertaking given in another place dealing with transport rules to ensure that those rules are available to any person who is affected. As the Bill is drafted, it requires that all rules must be displayed everywhere, though this would serve no useful purpose. We have also changed the wording relating to places where they can be conveniently read to positions in which they can be easily seen and read by the person affected. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 33, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
("( ) A copy of all transport rules for the time being in force with respect to a mine shall be kept at the office at the mine or at such
638
other place as may be approved by an inspector, and notices containing a summary of so much of any such rules as affect any person shall be kept posted at suitable places in the mine in such characters and in such positions as to be easily seen and read by him").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Provisions for securing safety of foot-passengers in roads]:
LORD HAWKE: We now come to the clause to secure the safety of foot travellers in mine roads. The next four Amendments deal with a doubt which arises about the clause as drafted. We intend that any gravity or mechanical haulage should stop if anybody wants to pass along the roads. There are minor exceptions, repair men and so on. It is not intended that human or pony controlled traction should stop. As the clause is drafted there is a possibility of doubt. It may be held that when hand-or pony-operated traction is going downhill it is operated by gravity and so get caught up by the clause. By our Amendments Nos. 111, 112 and 113 we, remove that doubt by definitely excluding hand-and pony-operation from the stopping rule. Amendment No. 114 is consequential, and No. 115 lists compactly, at the end of the clause, instead of at the beginning, persons for whom mechanical or gravity haulage does not have to stop. I beg to move that these Amendments be agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 28, line 8, leave out ("by means of gravity or mechanical power") and insert ("otherwise than by hand or by animal traction (whether or not vehicles moved by those means also run therein):—")
Page 28, line 10, leave out from ("road") to end of line 18 and insert ("otherwise than by those means, no person employed at the mine (other than an authorised person)")
Page 28, line 22, after ("road") insert ("other than vehicles moved by those means")
Page 28, line 31, after ("move") insert ("otherwise than by those means")
Page 29, line 11, at end insert—
("(3) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section the expression "authorised person" means, in relation to a length of road in a mine—

(a)an official of the mine;

(b)a person employed in connection with the running of vehicles in that length of road;

639

(c) a person engaged in, or in connection with, the carrying out in that length of road of repairs which it is necessary to carry out forthwith; or

(d) a person engaged in carrying out, by virtue of the provisions of this Act relating to workmen's inspections or of any such agreement as is mentioned in those provisions, an inspection at the mine.")—(Lord Hawke.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 [Provision of refuge holes]:
4.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The next Amendment is for the purpose of correcting a mistake. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 17, leave out ("less") and insert ("greater").—The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment emphasises that refuge holes can be big as well as small. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 19, leave out from ("holes") to ("complies") in line 20 and insert ("each of which is of such dimensions as may be prescribed and").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 41:
Safety measures relating to use of vehicles
41.—(1) So long as vehicles are used in a mine, there shall be provided, maintained and used, either in the mine or on the vehicles or both in the mine and on the vehicles, such safety devices as are necessary to prevent the occurrence of accidents due to vehicles so used running away; and every device provided in pursuance of this subsection shall be of a kind designed to assume automatically the position in which it operates for the purpose for which it is designed, save in a case where there is good reason for not providing a device of that kind.
VISCOUNT FURNESS VISCOUNT FURNESS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "prevent the occurrence of accidents" and to insert:
"minimise the risk of the infliction of bodily injury on persons."
The noble Viscount said: Clause 41 deals with safety measure relating to the use of vehicles. The purpose of this Amendment is to remove an ambiguity which it is suggested may arise owing to the use of the word "accident." Runaway switches are in common use in mines and it is feared that if this passage
640
were allowed to stand it would not be lawful to use them, because by diverting runaway vehicles they may cause accidents in a wide sense of the term. That is to say, there may be an accident in one sense although the vehicles are diverted in such a way that they will not do bodily harm to anyone. It was never intended when the Bill was drafted, I am sure, that the words should be given this wider meaning. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 33, leave out ("prevent the occurrence of accidents") and insert ("minimise the risk of the infliction of bodily injury on persons").—(Viscount Furness.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This clause, as the noble Viscount has said, deals with safety measures. I am given to understand that there are some sorts of safety measures which have been devised particularly to deal with runaway trucks and they involve the diversion of such trucks on to another track or, in some cases, shooting the truck or trucks off the rails altogether. That is a method which is resorted to only in circumstances in which there is no risk of injury to people employed in the vicinity. In those circumstances, as the noble Viscount has said, you do really incur in the technical sense an accident. The real object of the devices is to prevent bodily injury, and in these circumstances I think that the words contained in the Amendment are words which may be accepted.
EARL JOWITT: I very much hope that, if only in the interests of good English, the noble Earl will not accept these words. He has got good, robust, simple English in the Bill. There are the words "prevent the occurrence of accidents." But here in this Amendment he has some most horrible words: "minimise the risk of the infliction of bodily injury on persons." The word "minimise" is one of the most unpleasant of verbs. It has, unfortunately, gained currency nowadays. I dislike it very much. This is a supreme example of circumlocution, to substitute for "prevent the occurrence of accidents" the words, "minimise the risk of the infliction of bodily injury on persons." It seems to me that the words in the Amendment are thoroughly bad from another point of view. When you are dealing with safety, with precautions for the protection of life and limb, you want an absolute standard.

641
Here you have something which is qualified. Therefore I hope that the noble Earl will think again before he accepts this Amendment. It seems to me that it would be lowering the standard and not making the language as clear as it is in the Bill as it stands. For both those reasons I hope that the noble Earl will maintain the position which he has frequently adopted.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am sorry about the English of this Amendment, but I think, if I may say so with respect, that the noble and learned Earl is wrong in saying that we are lowering standards. What we are concerned with here is that certain types of safety devices will in fact be made illegal. It will be impossible to operate them as the Bill now stands. In some cases, in order to prevent a truck from running away and, possibly, causing serious injury to someone, you throw it off the lines. The truck then is very likely broken and so, in a sense, there is an accident. No doubt some safety devices operate in a better way, but in some cases this is the best way the desired object can be attained. It may be that better devices will be invented; but if we leave the clause as it stands, the form of device to which I have referred will become illegal.
EARL JOWITT: Can you not meet the point by substituting the word "injuries'' for "accidents"? The passage would then read: "prevent the occurrence of injuries."
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I will certainly look at that suggestion and consider it.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I am glad the noble Earl has promised to look at it again I can assure him that in discussions which we have had with men in the industry it has been made clear that they feel strongly upon the subject of this Amendment. They feel that we have in the Bill as it stands a very firm, objective standard. Neither they nor we feel that the Amendment is going to promote a better standard. So I am pleased that the noble Earl has promised to look into this matter again. In the course of his looking into it, it may be that we can be of service to him and that together we
642
can look into the whole question which is involved here.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I must make it quite clear that I think the noble and learned Earl is wrong in saying that we are lowering standards. I do not think that there is any question of that. But I will certainly look into this point and see what can be done.
VISCOUNT FURNESS: On the understanding that the noble Earl will look into it, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Provisions as to operation of winding and rope haulage apparatus when persons are carried]:
LORD HAWKE: This Amendment is for clarification. The words emphasise that there are two types of apparatus involved: the first is connected with shafts and the second with haulage. Both have to have qualified operators. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 3, leave out the second ("or") and insert ("apparatus with which a mine shaft or staple-pit is provided and no mechanically or gravity operated").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 6, after ("person") insert ("who has attained the age of twenty-two years").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: The next Amendment also is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 12, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: This is an Amendment for clarification. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 21, after ("is") insert ("below ground").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 [Charge of winding and rope haulage apparatus when persons are not carried]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 46, leave out ("at a mine") and insert ("with which a mine shaft or staple-pit is provided").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 44 to 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Duty to secure safety of roads and working places]:
4.10 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 42, leave out ("thirty-one") and insert ("thirty-three").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49 [Systematic support in coal, shale and fireclay mines]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The next four Amendments are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 33, line 20, leave out ("upon") and insert ("on")
Page 33, line 22, after ("aforesaid") insert ("with respect thereto")
Page 33, line 41, leave out ("upon") and insert ("on")
Page 33, line 41, after ("a") insert ("particular")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 50 to 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Duties of deputies in relation to support]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is drafting. I beg, to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 14, after ("of") insert ("sub-section (1) of").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 54 [Provisions as to support rules]:
LORD HAWKE: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 36, leave out ("upon") and insert ("on").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: In the new Clause 132 which we are moving, we provide that the books required to be kept by regulations made under the Bill should be kept in the mine or quarry office or any other place approved by the inspector and should be open to be inspected by employees. Here we are dealing with the support rules which do not come within the scope of the new clause, but it seems to us reasonable that they should be kept in the same way as the others. This does not in any way detract from the obligation to supply the man in charge of a district with a copy of them or to have them posted at the entrance of a district. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 5, at end insert ("or at such other place as may be approved by an inspector").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 6, after the second ("of") insert ("subsection (1) of").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 10, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 14, at end insert ("seen and").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is to meet an undertaking made in another place. It provides that support rules will be provided to every man. He will get the copy which is applicable to the part of the mine where he is working. They can be either verbal or diagrammatic. I beg to move.
Amendment Moved—
Page 36, line 15, at end insert—
("(6) It shall be the duty of the manager of every mine with respect to which support rules are for the time being in force to supply to every person employed at the mine whose duties consist of, or include, the setting or supports in accordance with a system specified in the rules, a document explaining either verbally or diagrammatically, or partly in the one way and partly in the other, the effect of the rules so far as they concern him.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 55 [Duty to provide adequate ventilation]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The Bill provides that ventilation is not adequate if there is more than one and a quarter per cent. of carbon dioxide. This Amendment gives power to the Minister, if at any time he is convinced by the medical profession that this is too high, to prescribe a lower percentage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 36, at end insert—
("or, if a smaller percentage by volume is prescribed, that smaller percentage;").—(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 37, line 15, leave out ("or") and insert (" by notice served on the manager of the mine or is").—(The Earl of selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 56 [Avoidance of danger from gas in waste]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is drafting and covers a point we have had before. I beg to move.
Amendment move—
Page 37, line 30, at end insert ("by notice served on the manager of the mine in which it is contained").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: These are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 37, line 42, leave out ("section fifty-five of this Act") and insert ("the last foregoing section")
Page 38, line 4, leave out ("said section fifty-five") and insert ("last foregoing section").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 57 [Power of inspector to require improvement of ventilation]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 13, leave out ("upon") and insert ("on").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is just a little more than drafting. In the event of had ventilation, the inspector must specifiy which of the alternative actions should be taken. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 15, after ("requiring") insert ("(according as may be specified in the notice)").—(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 38, line 19, leave out ("section fifty-five of this Act") and insert ("the said section fifty-five").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 58 [Provisions as to means of ventilation]:
LORD HAWKE: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 43, leave out ("coal mine") and insert ("mine of coal").—(Lord Hawke.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: It would be interesting to know the reason why there is this change.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is merely for consistency throughout the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: This Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 9, leave out ("coal mines") and insert ("mines of coal").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: This Amendment emphasises that the inspector's powers relate to particular mines as distinct from the Minister's powers to deal with classes of mines and mines in general. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 11, at end insert ("particular").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: The next two Amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 39, line 14, leave out ("coal mine") and insert ("particular mine of coal")
line 21, leave out ("any") and insert ("a particular").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: This Amendment covers a point we have dealt with before. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 26, after ("inspector,") insert ("given by notice served on the manager of the mine,").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 59 [Prevention of leakage of air between airways]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: These Amendments to Clause 59 stand together. They deal with the prevention of leakages between intake and return ventilation and ensure that this prevention of leakages goes up to 450 feet. In this Amendment that distance is referred to as "the relevant distance" and is supplied in Amendment No. 151. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved
Page 39, line 41, leave out from ("within") to first ("from") in line 45 and insert ("the relevant distance").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 1, leave out ("In this section") and insert—
("For the purposes of the proviso to the foregoing subsection—
(a) the expression "relevant distance" means, in relation to a working face in a mine, four hundred and fifty feet (measured from any point on that face in a straight line on any plane) or such other distance, so measured (whether greater or less than four hundred and fifty feet), as may, in
648
any particular case, be determined by an inspector by notice served on the manager of the mine; and
(b)").
—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 60 [Barometers and other measuring instruments]:
4.21 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Clause 60 deals with the provision of barometers. We have drawn things a little too tightly because, strictly speaking, there is always, inevitably, in every mine, a certain amount of carbon dioxide, which is a noxious gas. We have related the provisions of barometers in mines, other than coal mines and other than safety lamp mines, to places where there is inflammable or noxious gas in the waste. This applies to all the Amendments to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 5, leave out from ("being") to ("there") in line 6 and insert ("either a safety-lamp mine or a mine (other than a safety-lamp mine) containing any waste to which section fifty-six of this Act applies").(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 40, line 7, at end insert ("seen and")
Page 40, line 17, at end insert ("or humidity, or temperature")
Page 40, line 24, leave out ("kept at the mine for that purpose") and insert ("provided for that purpose by the owner of the mine.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 61 [Lighting]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment puts the obligation to light on the same general basis on the surface as underground. It is a little too high to say that every part above ground has got to be fully lighted, regardless of whether the only people likely to be visiting it would be carrying a torch. This does not in any way reduce the general responsibility to provide lights on the surface where people are working and would not normally be expected to carry lights. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 31, at end insert ("(account being taken, where lamps are normally carried by persons who work in or pass through any such part, of the amount of light emitted by those lamps)").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 2, leave out ("made") and insert ("having effect").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 62 [Permitted lights]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think I can conveniently take Amendments Nos. 158 to 170 together, because they are all drafting Amendments. However, I should like to draw particular attention to Amendments Nos. 163 and 168, and emphasise that we there refer to locked safety lamps, in order to make that quite clear. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 41, line 7, leave out ("coal mine") and insert ("mine of coal")
Page 41, line 11, after ("or") insert ("of.")
Page 41, line 13, after ("in") insert ("the case of")
Page 41, line 13, at end insert ("below ground therein")
Page 41, line 16, after ("ground") insert ("therein").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 19, leave out ("which") and insert ("the case of which locked").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved
Page 41, line 20, after ("used") insert ("below ground therein")
Page 41, line 24, after ("or") insert ("of ")
Page 41, line 28, after ("mine") insert ("below ground")
Page 41, line 31, after ("mine") insert ("below ground")
Page 41, line 31, at end insert ("locked")
Page 41, line 39, after ("used") insert ("below ground")
Page 42, line 13, leave out subsection (6).—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 63 to 65 agreed to.
Clause 66 [Prohibition of possession of smoking materials in certain mines and parts of mines]:
LORD HAWKE: This Amendment is consistent with redrafting in other parts of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 19, after ("inspector") insert (", by notice served on the manager of the mine,").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: We now come to something especially important—namely, the question of carrying contraband into safety-lamp mines. It is an important and difficult subject, and it is absolutely vital to the safety of the men employed. In Clause 66 we make it an offence to have smoking materials below ground, and an offence to be found with them on search when about to go below ground. We say that the search may be immediately before or immediately after going below ground. This, however, leaves two points uncovered: first of all, the physical impossibility of a total search of all the men going below ground; and secondly, the possible forgetfulness of men. We have tried to cover the first point in the Bill by the powers of the inspector to approve a system of search—a percentage or pattern, or whatever may seem right to him. The second point we can only really cover by reminding the men of their duty. There was considerable debate in Standing Committee in another place on this subject, and I think the general conclusion was that it is such an impossible subject on which to lay down hard and fast rules for every pithead that it must be left to the man on the spot to make his own arrangements. That is what we have done in the Bill. By the new subsection we make it the duty of the manager to secure that notices warning men of their obligations are placed where they can he seen. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 20, at end insert—
("(7) It shall be the duty of the manager of every safety-lamp mine and of every mine containing a safety-lamp part to secure that, at or near every place where searches are carried out under arrangements made in pursuance of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of this section, notices warning persons of their liability under subsection (1) thereof are kept

651
posted in such characters and in such positions as to be easily seen and read by persons liable to be searched.").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: The next Amendment is drafting, inasmuch as we have transferred the definitions of the safety-lamp mine and the safety-lamp part of a mine to Clause 177, to be of general application throughout the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Pages 44, line 21, leave out from the beginning to ("in") in line 29.—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 67 [Prohibition of taking into certain mines and parts of mines of articles producing flames or sparks]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The three Amendments to Clause 67 are all drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 45, leave out ("that") and insert ("any").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 2, after ("authorised") insert ("in writing").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 5, leave out subsection (3).—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 68 [Electricity and electrical apparatus]:
LORD HAWKE: This Amendment is consistent with other Amendments which have been moved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 31, leave out ("upon") and insert ("on").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 69 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Fire precautions in case of workings served by single intake airway]:
LORD HAWKE: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved
Page 46, line 45, leave out ("being a way").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: We are here dealing with the question of fire precautions in workings served by single intake airways. We provide that machinery and apparatus in those airways shall be such that they are not likely to cause fire. By these words we widen the scope of the clause, because "everything with which it is equipped is so constructed and treated" means that anything in the airway, regardless of whether it is machinery or apparatus, has to be constructed in that particular way. It may apply to using a non-inflammable belting, treatment of timber or non-inflammable brattice sheets, and so on. This is a strengthening and widening of the provision. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 4, leave out ("all machinery and apparatus therein are so constructed") and insert ("everything with which it is equipped are so constructed or treated and so").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: Here again we are dealing with rather an important point. We are still on fire precautions where there is a single air intake into the working. There was a considerable debate in another place on the question of the number of men who could be kept in that place through the fact of the shifts being changed at a particular time. The limit laid down in the Bill is 100, and it was suggested that as many as 200 might be at risk at one time in the event of certain systems of changing the shift. The Minister was pressed in various directions, but he was unable to accept any reduction in the figure of 100 as being the maximum to be employed in the circumstances specified in the clause. He did give an undertaking on Third Reading that he would reduce the figure by regulations where the shifts change at the face. By these Amendments we give emphasis to his regulating power, either for classes of mines or to deal with specific purposes. We hope that this will meet the major point of the Opposition on this particular question. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 15, leave out ("no account shall be taken of").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 17, at end insert ("shall, unless it is otherwise prescribed (either generally or in relation to any particular circumstances), be left out of account.")—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 25, leave out ("upon") and insert ("on").—(Lord Hawke).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: This Amendment is the same as we have had in many places. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 26, after ("a") insert ("particular").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 71 and 72 agreed to.
Clause 73 [Means of escape from engine rooms, &c.]:
4.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to leave out Clause 73 and to insert the following new clause:
Means of escape from rooms in which there is special risk of fire, &c.
"73. It shall not be lawful for a person to be employed at a mine in a room, chamber, or similar confined space in which, owing to the nature of any machinery or apparatus installed therein or of any materials stored therein, there is a risk of the outbreak of a dangerous fire or the escape of steam in substantial quantity or of noxious gas in a dangerous concentration, unless either such steps are taken as are necessary for the purpose of minimising the risk of his being trapped therein in any such event or the circumstances in which he is employed are themselves such as to minimise the risk of his being so trapped."
The noble Earl said: This is a new clause dealing with means of escape. We thought we had drafted a much better clause than the existing one, and I am a little disappointed that it still does not satisfy the exacting standards that noble Lords opposite appear to require. In the original clause we thought we were too dogmatic and too narrow, and we have therefore tried to widen it altogether. We have laid down general principles on which it should work, and we have extended the sphere of what we considered
654
to be dangerous. For instance, instead of giving the list of rooms which are specially mentioned in the Bill, we have put it much wider. We say, "Every chamber or similar confined space." That applies above ground or underneath. Instead of saying that there should be two exits, we say that all danger should be minimised in that respect. It seems to me that to emphasise two exits would be emphasising something that may not be so essential in some cases. What has to be considered is the whole circumstances, of which two exits is only one of the factors. I believe there may be some danger in pin-pointing it too much.
I should like to emphasise the much wider scope of this clause. We have taken out the words "highly inflammable," which were criticised in another place, and we have put in "a risk of outbreak of a dangerous fire," and also included the escape of steam or noxious gas. We think this is a more practical and comprehensive clause, and I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 73, and insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, in line 7 of the new clause, to leave out either such" and insert:
"such room, chamber, or similar confined space is provided with at least two exits, which shall be properly maintained and kept free from obstruction, affording to him adequate means of escape therefrom in case of fire and such further"
The noble Lord said: We agree that the second thoughts are better than the first. What we cannot understand, however, is that the second thoughts can even suggest leaving out two exits. I do not agree that we can over-emphasise that. Those familiar with what is involved in these things know what two exits mean under such conditions. I was hoping there would be still further thought upon this matter. This is the only bone of contention. The risk is too great in these circumstances not to have two exits. Evidently the Minister has revised his opinion that exits are necessary, but I cannot think that the new clause has done anything to do away with the necessity for two exits. That is the only bone of contention we have, and I hope the noble

655
Earl will look further into it. We consulted yesterday with the experts and, if necessary, we could have further consultations. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Line 7 of the new clause, leave out ("either such") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor).
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I can see the noble Lord's point. He is emphasising the need for two exits and he wants to pinpoint it. To be quite frank, we felt that there was danger in pinpointing it too much, because there are certain circumstances when two exits are not necessary or desirable. I will give an example. There are, I think the noble Lord agrees, certain places where in point of fact there is only one exit and the effect of opening the door is to cut all the current off; in other words you never go in; you operate from the outside. I will give another example: take an explosives store. I think everyone agrees it is better to have only one door, partly for safety reasons; I think that is the standard practice. I will give another example: you might perfectly well put two doors in juxtaposition, fully complying with the Act but serving no purpose at all. Somebody will come along and say, "Yes, we have got two doors": and yet they are useless.
I do not want to underestimate the importance of two exits. We hope they are included in the terms of the draft; if they are not, we can consider it further. We do not want to pinpoint it so that the provision of two exits seems a superficial duty under the Act and serves no purpose. We feel that in putting it in that way the noble Lord is putting emphasis where it is not quite essential. We will certainly look at the matter and see whether we can do something to bring this point out. I think the noble Lord's point comes from the 1911 Act, and we thought we had a very much better draft than the 1911 Act.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: We are grateful to the noble Earl for promising to consider this matter. Of course, a store is quite different from a place where humans are employed. His illustration might well be used for the best house in the country.
656
If something comes between the individual and the one exit and he is trapped inside, what is the use of all the improvements which have gone on the internal decorations? Where you have any person employed in engine rooms or anything of that kind, I think it is desirable and essential to have two exits. I am sure that if we could have, as we are going to have, the opportunity of discussing this matter with the noble Earl, we could easily come to some agreement upon it. We could say that where persons are employed there should be two exits to enable a person to come out in the event of anything happening between him and the other exit. We have seen too many of these accidents under ground and we think that we can persuade the Government that in certain circumstances there should be two exits.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I entirely agree with what the noble Lord said about certain circumstances. I am sure he will remember that in a case of this sort it is open to the inspector to prosecute when he considers the provision has not been implemented. That is why we drafted it in that form.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: A short time ago the noble Earl was referring to the amount of work placed on the shoulders of the inspector; please do not put this upon him. If it is deemed to be absolutely essential, why not see it is done? Again, I think we can come to an agreement upon it.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 74 [Dust Precautions]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: We are dealing here with suppression of dust, and it seems to us we are putting a little bit too much into this Bill when we say that the formation of dust must be prevented. It is quite impossible for any mining to go on without causing the formation of dust. What really matters is whether the dust gets into the air so that it is injurious to health or a possible danger because it becomes inflammable. It seems to us better to pinpoint the giving off of dust rather than the formation of dust as the important

657
thing. If the noble Lord should wonder where the general obligation to remove an accumulation of dust lies I refer him to subsection (2) (c), where the obligation is laid on the manager to clear away or render it harmless. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 12, leave out ("formation") and insert ("giving off").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 75 [Duty of mine owners and managers to seek evidence of proximity of disused workings, water-bearing strata, &c.]:
LORD HAWKE: This clause is dealing with the vital duty of both owners and managers to do their best to find out the proximity of dangerous workings or any dangerous strata to their mine. It is their duty to keep each other informed of the information they happen to receive. Our Amendment is to make the duty still more clear. It is a clarification of those duties.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 27, leave out from ("duty") to end of line 38 and insert—
("(a) forthwith after any such information as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of the foregoing subsection comes into his possession (whether in consequence of the discharge of the duty imposed upon him by that paragraph or not), of furnishing to the other particulars of the information; and
(b) forthwith after taking any steps in discharge of the duty imposed upon him by paragraph (b) of that subsection, of furnishing to the other particulars of the steps taken and of any conclusion reached as a result of taking them.")—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 76 and 77 agreed to.
Clause 78 [Powers of inspector with respect to danger from inrushes of gas, water, &c.]:
LORD HAWKE: These Amendments are all drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 51, line 19, leave out ("upon") and insert ("on")
Page 51, line 20, after ("aforesaid") insert ("with respect thereto")
Page 51, line 45, leave out ("upon") and insert ("on")
Page 52, line 1, after ("aforesaid") insert ("with respect thereto").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 79 [Withdrawal of workmen in cases of danger]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Both these Amendments are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 53, line 38, leave out from ("mine") to ("or") in line 39.
Page 53, line 40, leave out ("as aforesaid") and insert ("a safety-lamp mine").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 80 [Duty of workmen to deal with, or report, danger]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment makes sure that the managers and the under-managers are officials of the mine. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 17, leave out ("the manager, an under-manager or").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 81 [Construction and maintenance of machinery and apparatus]:
LORD HAWKE: This clause deals with the Minister's power by regulation to ensure that all appliances, machinery and so on of the equipment of a mine are of proper construction. As the clause is now drafted, it might be that the Minister had powers to make such regulations in regard to machinery and so on which was not part of the equipment of the mine. This Amendment is put down to resolve that doubt. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 40, after ("apparatus") insert ("as aforesaid").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 82 [Fencing of exposed parts of machinery]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 9, leave out ("subsection (1) of this section") and insert ("the foregoing subsection").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 82, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 83 agreed to.
Clause 84 [Air, gas and steam containers]:
LORD HAWKE: This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 27, leave out ("description") and insert ("descriptions").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 84, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 85 [Loading of cranes, &c.]:
LORD HAWKE: This clause provides that jibs, cranes and winches of the mines should be marked with their safety loads, but it does not apply to winding apparatus in shafts or to rope haulage apparatus. The redrafting makes this quite clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 9, leave out ("or rope haulage apparatus or") and insert ("with which a mine shaft or staple-pit is provided or to any rope haulage apparatus, and regulations may provide that this section shall not apply").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 85, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 86 [Construction and maintenance of buildings and structures]:
4.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT FURNESS: I beg to move this Amendment. This clause provides that
"All buildings and structures on the surface of a mine shall be of safe construction and properly maintained."
Clause 177 of the Bill defines "maintained" as "maintained in good and safe working order." I submit that it should be necessary to maintain within that narrow definition only buildings which are in use, not buildings which are derelict or abandoned. Surely all that is necessary in the interests of safety in these cases is that they should be kept in a safe condition so that they will not cause injury to passers-by. I believe that in another place the Government accepted the principle of this Amendment but wanted to reconsider the phraseology. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 13, after ("structures") insert ("in use").—(Viscount Furness.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Before the noble Earl
660
replies, I should like to say that I have been unable to find any reason for this Amendment and we have not been given any reason this afternoon, except that someone somewhere has at some time thought about it and promised to do something about it. We on this side feel—and we have discussed this at great length—that we have in the Bill as it stands a clear, definite statement that cannot be misunderstood. We think that the Amendment is inclined to introduce ambiguity where ambiguity is not very wise. We ourselves feel that Clause 86 as it stands is far better. We hope that the Minister will resist the Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I can give the noble Viscount, Lord Furness, at least some encouragement here, in that the reference in Clause 177 where "maintained" is defined as meaning "maintained in good and safe working order" ought to be omitted. I regret to say that that is an Amendment which we have not put down. In that sense, the strength of the noble Viscount's argument is perhaps pro tanto diminished. We all agree that buildings on the surface of a mine must be safe.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Absolutely.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The question that the noble Viscount is asking is: what does "maintained" mean? Does it mean to say it is a statutory obligation to keep it painted or such things as that? We certainly had not intended that meaning. We want the buildings to be safe. We will look at this point again to see whether the clause may have a wider connotation than we first thought, but, in any case, we do not think that this Amendment will do. If I may contrast, on the one hand, the words "properly maintained" with "kept in a safe condition," which the noble Viscount puts into his next Amendment, a comparison of those two makes it abundantly clear that "properly maintained" is not intended to connote a safe condition: it is intended to connote painting and all kinds of other things. So his Amendment would be wrong. It is also wrong in this sense. The noble Viscount, by his next Amendment, says that a building "if not dismantled," need not be kept safe. I do not think he intends that, but that is the effect of his Amendment. So I do

661
not think the Amendment, as it stands, will do. What I will do is to have a look at it to see whether or not there is possibly some excessive duty laid on those who maintain the buildings. I think there is a great deal in what the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, says. A clear statement is desirable, if and when it can be made.
EARL JOWITT: There is also this point. As regards the adverb "properly" before "maintained," surely, in considering whether any building or structure is "properly maintained," one has regard to all the circumstances, and that gives the noble Viscount the safeguard he wanted? I am glad that the noble Earl is to look at the point. It is important to have an absolutely crystal-clear statement about this matter. I hope that the noble Earl will adhere to his resolution to have this clause in the form in which it now stands. Perhaps something like this could be put down at a later stage.
VISCOUNT FURNESS: In view of the undertaking by my noble friend the Paymaster General, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 86 agreed to.
Clauses 87 to 89 agreed to.
Clause 90 [Penalisation of negligent acts or omissions and unauthorised removal, &c., of articles]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My right honourable friend gave an undertaking in the other place to take out the words "himself or other," because it was felt that a man who endangers his own life should not be liable. In implementation of that undertaking, I move this Amendment, though I am bound to say, in fairness, that I have considerable doubts whether it makes any difference. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 11, leave out ("himself or other").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 13, leave out ("himself or other").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 15, leave out the second ("a") and insert ("the").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The EARL OF SELKIRK: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 17, leave out the first ("the") and insert ("a").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 90, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 91 agreed to.
Clause 92:
Medical examinations
92. Provision may be made by regulations for requiring persons employed or seeking employment at mines to submit themselves for medical examination and for prohibiting the employment at a mine, either absolutely or in a particular capacity or in particular work, of—

(a) a person who upon being required to submit himself for medical examination in accordance with the regulations fails without reasonable cause to do so;

(b) a person as to whom it is determined in accordance with the regulations that, by reason of his physical or mental condition, he is unfit for such employment or for such employment in that capacity or in that work, as the case may be.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is consequential on my further Amendment. I beg formally to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 2, after ("regulations") insert ("(a)").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.2 p.m.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved to leave out "employed or." The noble Lord said: This is what I consider to be one of our major Amendments, one on which we feel very strongly indeed. As we have frequently said, we have no objection to the examination of new entrants or to debar them from employment, but we cannot accept the idea that a man who has been employed in the mines over the period of a number of years shall be subjected to examination from time to time to see whether he is still fit to carry on the work of a miner. The reason why we cannot accept that is because we know that a

663
period underground may cause a deterioration in a man's physique—he may not be the man he was ten years before, when he first joined the mining industry. But we are not prepared for those in charge of the industry to say, "As a result of working for us these last ten years, you are not as well as you were; you are not quite good enough for us. Try some other industry." That, we are not going to stand for.
We feel that this is very unfair in regard to a man who has worked in a very hard and risky industry and who, in the course of doing so, may have found his health impaired. That is where we see the danger, and it is against that danger that we want to safeguard ourselves. If a man becomes unfit for his job in the mining industry, he can, through the negotiating machinery, approach his trade union representative and ask to be given more suitable work. Frequently, if not always, where there is deterioration of that kind, a man is fixed up. But this provision is not quite the same thing: it rather opens the door, and what the men fear is that they will be told "Your health has now deteriorated—out," and that they will not be able to get in any other industry. I do not know what instructions the noble Earl has on this issue, but I hope that he will not turn it down flatly to-day, because feeling is very strong on this matter in the industry. I beg to move.
Amendment movedߞ
Page 58, line 3, leave out ("employed or").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I deal with this clause as a whole? The noble Lord and those for whom he speaks are not satisfied. I am a little disappointed, because my right honourable friend has been at considerable pains and trouble to try to meet the three points on which they wanted an Amendment to the clause as originally drafted. This clause, as originally drafted, came almost exactly out of the Coal Mines Act, 1949, which the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, commended to your Lordships in that year. That was a clause which he commended—I think very rightly, because nobody can say it has not worked well. I do not think that anybody would contend for one moment
664
that the clause as he put it forward has not worked exceedingly well, and with little or no substantial alteration we reproduced it in this Bill.
When we came to examine it in another place there were, as I understand it, three points which were made very clear. The first was that no medical examination should exclude a man absolutely from the coal industry. The noble Lord will observe that we have taken that out—no medical examination can absolutely exclude a man from the coal industry. The second thing was that there should be an appeal from the medical assessment to some other medical board. The noble Lord will observe that we have provided for that. The third thing was that a man should be given information upon which he could base his appeal. We have provided for that. I will be quite frank, and say that we really thought that we had met the essential requirements which the noble Lord had in mind. Now he has moved an Amendment. I have some doubts whether the Amendment really meets the point that he has in mind. In the first place, the noble Lord's Amendment deals with those seeking employment. I should have thought that the term "those seeking employment" would also include the case where a mine is closed down and a man comes to seek employment at some other mine—I think that is a fair interpretation.
May I take another one—the example of a man who has been sick for some period and goes back to his industry. Again, the Amendment might be brought in—I am not saying that it would, but it probably would, in each case. So I doubt very much whether this Amendment would really meet the point—
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: We are concerned with the man who has not worked previously in the coal industry.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I follow that, though I am not quite sure whether the wording covers that. But the point I have to make is that there are certain posts in the industry to-day which carry great responsibility—posts involving such people as winding engine men, haulage engine men and rescue squads. Those people have got to be of a certain standard. The noble Lord spoke on a great deal of subjects which are really

665
administrative matters between the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board, These are statutory matters, and it seems to me that in these limited spheres, particularly of responsible posts, there must be same form of examination. That applies to other industries, like aviation, the job of engine-driver, drivers of passenger vehicles, and possibly to merchant seamen of some sort. Those are equally exacting industries, and the men concerned in them have to submit to some form of examination. The noble Lord did not confine his remarks to the one point. What he was dealing with was the idea that this instrument, this statutory power, should be used by the Minister to drive people out of the industry. If there is one thing more than anything else that respective Ministers of Fuel and Power have been absolutely agreed upon, certainly for the last ten years, if not for much longer, it is that they want more people in the industry, and certainly do not want to drive anybody out. I do not think there is any real reason to believe the contrary now.
What I can say more specifically is that there is no intention to use power under paragraph (b)—that is to say, excluding anybody except those holding responsible posts at the present time. What may be required is power under (a), which deals with compulsory examination—it has nothing to do with keeping people away from the job. Noble Lords are aware of the scheme with regard to pneumoconiosis; that is on a voluntary basis. But the time may come when routine examinations of the chest may be compulsory, with the object of helping those who are fighting this disease, to see whether the precautionary measures they are taking are effective. That is one of the ways in which it will be done, by constant examination of chests. I am afraid that I must regard the noble Lord's Amendment as a direct negative of what I am putting here. I was very much hoping that it might be accepted that our Amendments represent a considerable step forward on those which the noble Lord himself recommended to your Lordships' House. The Amendment he has put down is a direct negative.
Take the question of appeal. A man entering the industry for the first time is
666
turned down; he does not want power of appeal. If a man is refused employment in this or that part of the industry when applying for the first time, he will, presumably, if he is not fit, go nowhere. All these powers are to be quite valueless. I should very much like the noble Lord to look at these Amendments as they stand—they are a considerable step forward—and consider whether, with people holding responsible positions, the Minister is really right in abrogating any power of examination in regard to people upon whom, necessarily, depend the lives of many others. It may be argued that there have been no accidents involving winding engine men, but I believe that an astonishing number have collapsed either going to or returning from their work in recent years. That represents a danger. The noble Lord must appreciate that the Minister has a right to be covered to some extent. I am quite prepared to discuss the matter further, if the noble Lord wishes, but his Amendment as it stands makes valueless the provisions made here in answer to undertakings.
VISCOUNT HALL: I should not like the noble Earl to think that we are in any way unmindful of the advantages which his Amendments will bring; but we have to face the question of compulsory medical examination as a matter of vital principle. It is an entirely new precedent.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is in the 1949 Act.
VISCOUNT HALL: I know that the noble Earl is referring to the Act of 1949, which is working well—
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am told so.
VISCOUNT HALL:—but this aspect has never been put into operation according to the information I have received; and, of course, if that aspect has not been put into operation then naturally the Act is working very well. I can quite understand why it has not been put into operation—because those who have to administer the Act realise what the Act, in its naked form and with that reference, will do. The noble Earl rightly referred to some jobs in the coal mines, winding engine men or haulage engine men, and a few others which could be well classified. I am absolutely convinced that at the present time there is not a single

667
person in the coal mines who, if he were asked to volunteer for a medical examination, would not do so. That has been so for years. In the colliery in which I was employed, if the manager had any doubt at all about the health of a winding engine man he would say, "Daniel" (or "Thomas"), "I think you should have a medical examination"; and I do not know of a single instance where that has been refused. But the noble Earl must realise that this Bill places power in the hands of the Minister to have every man in a colliery compulsorily medically examined. Is there any industry in the country where that is happening?
I can assure the noble Earl, and indeed the Coal Board, that I know the psychological effect of having doctors make these periodical examinations and what the result will be. Some of us have had experience of doctors sufficient to frighten us from doing any work at all. When I was 18 I was told that I had about two years to live, yet here I am—I will not tell you what my age is. It is true that that doctor made a great mistake and that other doctors have saved my life, so matters have balanced up. I was speaking to someone with long experience in the coal mining industry and put this question about medical examinations to him. He is still employed in the industry. He said, "I am sure that, of the middle-aged and elderly men, if they were forced into a medical examination some 50 per cent. would leave the pits." I will not put the figure as high as that. I will put it at between one-quarter and one-third—and that at a time when the coal industry is starved for men. I am sure that would be the result. If the noble Earl, and indeed the Minister himself, and the Coal Board, classified those men who are doing these important jobs, winding engine man (of course that is a key job) and some of the men driving the engines in the pit and other staple shafts, those who were responsible for the workmen's side of the mining industry would readily meet the Minister. You have that on the railways: the railway men generally know that at 60 they undergo an examination and have periodical examinations. Why have the Government put in a clause of this kind for the coal industry?
I am one of those who believe that coal is vital to the economic life of this country to-day. We read in the Press that the
668
Minister of Fuel and Power has announced that we are to import another 2 million tons of coal this year, yet here is a provision which will be disastrous if it drives out of the colliery only 5 per cent. of the men—not 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. I beg Her Majesty's Government to reconsider, first, that part of the clause which we ask should be amended, otherwise (as I am advised is the case with the 1949 Act) the power may be in the Bill but will not be operated. For heaven's sake do not put it in the Bill if we know—and I do know—that the miners would not agree to its operation or to compulsory medical examination. They have resisted it before. It has been attempted by a number of coal owners and has always been resisted; and it will be resisted again if any attempt is made to implement that part of the Act which will force compulsory medical examination upon men employed in the coal mining industry in this country.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for what he said, particularly in regard to the danger of compulsory medical examination, but I must emphasise that there is nothing new in this. This is a notable restriction of the Minister's powers compared with what existed in 1949. Provisions, details of which I have given, have, at the request of those particularly interested in the mining industry, been put in, and I honestly feel that this clause is entitled to a warm welcome. We have gone a long way to meet points which have been raised. The noble Lord's Amendment is substantially negative of the whole. The noble Lord is not complaining of medical examinations as such; a miner would probably not object to a routine examination of the chest, provided that no powers were used under paragraph (b).
VISCOUNT HALL: No; what we are objecting to is the principle. We know that thousands of men in South Wales and in other coalfields have voluntarily responded to requests to present themselves for medical examination in connection with researches into pneumoconiosis and silicosis. They have done that and they will do it again.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: By the thousand.
VISCOUNT HALL: If a person himself feels that he is suffering from either

669
pneumoconiosis or silicosis he will go to his doctor. Indeed, if he is suffering from any physical defect at all he will go. I cannot see that the psychological effect of this has been improved. Let us assume that, before anyone could sit in the House of Lords, he had to submit himself to medical examination, and that afterwards he would have to have periodical further examinations. What would the effect of that be? After all, this is the place of employment for some of us. But that sort of thing is not applied to us, and why should it be applied to the miners? I would appeal to the noble Marquess about this. I think it is a great mistake to make this compulsory. There is a compulsory medical examination on entry—that has been agreed to. But, personally, I would strongly resent that, and I would say that that is true of a lot of people. There are cases of men who haw suffered from pneumoconiosis who have been invited to go back to the pits by the colliery managers. I hope that the Government will reconsider this matter.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I appreciate very much what the noble Viscount has said. I would only emphasise that this is merely a power to make regulations. I think I am correct in saying that any regulations made must come before Parliament, and can, of course, be negatived in Parliament. So even if we accept this Bill as it stands there will be a second stage at which some detailed classification, such as the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, suggests, could readily and easily be propounded and discussed. I am glad to hear that the noble Viscount wishes to discuss this matter. I shall be glad to meet him and to give him the opportunity of doing so if the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I am quite prepared to do that. The noble Earl has made it evident that he has never been a Member of another place, and indeed he has rather surprised me by the way in which he has proceeded here. He has been discussing an Amendment that follows, and he tells us that we have not explained our attitude with regard to that Amendment. Of course not. But we shall do so. I have been looking round for the Chairman or someone else to put the noble Earl in order. We have not expressed our views
670
on the Amendment because we have not yet come to it. I can tell the noble Earl now that we shall extend a very warm welcome to his Amendment. He rather suggested that my Amendment did away with his Amendment. We do not think it does. As I say we shall extend a very warm welcome to his Amendment. In view of his undertaking I gladly withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to leave out all words after "examination and" to the end of the clause and insert:
"(b) for prohibiting the employment—

(i) in a particular capacity or particular work at all mines or at mines of any class, of a person as to whom it is determined, upon his being medically examined in accordance with the regulations, that, by reason of his physical or mental condition, he is unfit for employment in that capacity or work at all mines or at mines of that class, as the case may be;

(ii) in particular parts of, or places in, all mines or mines of any class, of a person as to whom it is so determined that, by reason aforesaid, he is unfit for employment in those parts of, or places in, all mines or mines of that class, as the case may be.

(2)Regulations made for the purpose of paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection shall be of no effect unless provision is made thereby—

(a) for the issue to a person who, upon being medically examined in accordance with the regulation, is determined to be unfit as mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) or (ii) of that paragraph, at the request of that person, of notice of the determination, stating the grounds on which it was made; and

(b) for the review, at the instance of any such person, of the determination otherwise than by the person who made it, and for conferring on the person by whom the review is carried out power to quash or vary the determination or to substitute a different determination."

The noble Earl said: I accept the rebuke of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor—I was going too far ahead. But really that matter is rather fundamental to an examination of this whole question. What we have done here is to take away the word "absolute," to give the power of appeal and to let the individual have the opportunity of knowing the grounds on which his appeal can be made. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 4, leave out from ("and") to end of line 14 and insert the said new paragraph and subsection.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
VISCOUNT HALL: May I now thank the noble Earl for this Amendment? It is a great improvement upon the original, and on behalf of the miners I express our thanks to him for it.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: I intervene in the interests of those who, according to subsection 2 (a), are "determined to be unfit." I appreciate how essential it is, as laid down in this subsection, that the person who is determined to be unfit shall be informed on what ground that determination has been arrived at, but I question the means by which the information should be conveyed to him. There may be many instances—indeed, we know from long experience in the profession that there are such instances—where considerable harm is done by an examining doctor informing the person being examined that he has found a certain condition. We have laid down certain rules of ethics for the guidance of practitioners. The rules of ethics in professions are generally laid down in the interests of the clients, not in the interests of the practitioners. I will not read in full the rule which is relevant here but if applied to this particular class of case it would read like this:
"When in the course of an examination there come to light material clinical findings, the examining practitioner with the consent of or at the request of the individual shall inform the attending practitioner of the relevant details."
Great harm may be done, psychologically and otherwise, by information being bluntly given to one who may be suffering from a serious disease. If, as appears from this Amendment, he is to be given a document stating the grounds on which the determination has been made, I think it would be unfortunate. I ask the noble Earl to reconsider this Amendment and to remember that to-day an attending doctor is available for every person in the land, without any charge. The person himself has provided the service, or rather he has contributed towards its provision. I think if the noble Earl will reconsider this—and I will furnish him with a copy of the ethical rules which have been proved by experience to be valuable—it will meet the case. We can perhaps convince him of—and I hope all sides of the House will realise it—the danger of the wording of the Amendment as it stands. Of course if the noble Earl consents to
672
reconsider this Amendment it would, I think, be a wonderful opportunity for him to choose some word other than "determination," which does not seem to me to be the most suitable word in this connection.
EARL JOWITT: I must say that I have sat here and listened with great interest to the arguments put forward by both my noble friends, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor and Lord Hall, and to those of the noble Earl with regard to this clause. Then I heard the noble Lord who has just spoken. Speaking for myself, I feel that there is substance in what Lord Webb-Johnson has said. I had not thought of it before but now I put to myself this case. Suppose a man comes to be examined and the doctor thinks he is suffering from cancer in the early stages, or something of that sort. I am sure I do not know what he ought to do. But I should like to ask what would be the applicable ethical rule. I can imagine that it might be a very cruel thing to tell a man what is wrong with him in such circumstances. Surely it would be better to arrange that information such as that should be given through his own medical man, or something of that sort, putting the onus on the medical man as to what should be said. I do not know what should be done in these circumstances, but, so far as I am concerned, I thought the noble Lord had made his point there. I gather from my noble friend Lord Hall that the miners realise there is substance in this point, and if the noble Earl were to take this Amendment back and look at it again, he would not incur any hostility from the miners in doing so. If I may, I commend what the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, has said to the attention of the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think this discussion shows the value of this House in bringing forward different points of view. In defence of the Government's proposition, I would say that this information is intended not only for medical examination, but also where there is a prohibition against doing some form of work. It is intended to be circumscribed in that sense. Moreover, we hope that in stating the grounds the medical practitioner may be as vague and uncertain as he thinks wise. But in

673
view of what the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, and the noble and learned Earl have said, I will gladly take it back and look at it. I should dislike to feel that anything we put in this Bill is in any way discordant with medical ethics, for which we have the highest regard. In these circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 92, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 93 and 94 agreed to.
5.32 p.m.
LORD HAWKE LORD HAWKE moved, after Clause 94, to insert the following new clause:
Measures against vermin
"(1) It shall be the duty of the owner of every mine to take such steps as are necessary to secure that all parts of the mine below ground are kept free from rats and mice, and provision may be made by regulations for requiring owners of mines to take steps for the destruction below ground therein of insects or any prescribed class of insect or otherwise for keeping parts of mines below ground free from insects or any prescribed class of insects.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed as excluding the application to parts of mines below ground of any of the provisions of the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act, 1949."
The noble Lord said: This is a new clause, and now we start to deal with rats and mice. The clause fulfils an undertaking given by the Minister during Third Reading in another place, and its effect is to give the mine owner, not the manager, the initiative in securing the destruction of rats and mice, without undermining the position in this matter of the local authority who have a duty under the provisions of the Damage by Pests Act, 1949. Under that Act, the local authority already have the obligation to destroy rats and mice, both above and below ground. However, that Act places no statutory obligation on mine owners to do so unless required by the local authority, although there is an obligation to report their presence. This clause refers only to underground, because on the surface the position is substantially the same as in any other industrial establishment. Of course, below ground the position is different, and although I understand there is co-operation between the Coal Board and the local authorities, we think it is better that the initiative should rest with the mine owner. It was suggested in
674
another place that we should carry this clause beyond rats and mice to include other vermin. The Minister promised to look into that suggestion and as a result he has decided to take power to make regulations in respect of insects. I understand that rats, mice and insects about run the whole gamut of the field. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 94, insert the said new clause—(Lord Hawke.)
LORD RAGLAN: I spoke in defence of English in a previous Amendment, and now I find that we are here talking about "any prescribed class of insects or otherwise." I thought that insects had achieved a classless society: perhaps species is what is meant. Then there is the word "otherwise"—I should very much like to know what is a class of "otherwise."
LORD HAWKE: I do not know whether the noble Lord would be justified in substituting "species" for "class," because I think "species" is a term of art and so would be too general. At the same time, I will read what the noble Lord has said with interest and take it up with the draftsman, to see whether the wording could not be altered to meet his views.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): I think the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, has read this Amendment wrongly. The Amendment reads:
"… to take steps far the destruction below ground therein of insects or any prescribed class of insects or otherwise for keeping parts of mines below ground free from insects or any prescribed class of insects."
I think that is the correct reading.
LORD RAGLAN: If that is so, I stand corrected.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 95 and 96 agreed to.
Clause 97 [Appointment of quarry managers]:
LORD HAWKE: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 4, leave out from ("worked") to ("unless") in line 5.—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: The following Amendments are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 59, line 7, leave out from ("thereof") to ("is") in line 8.
Page 59, line 13, leave out from ("quarry") to end of line 14.
Page 59, line 18, leave out from ("quarry") to ("over") in line 19.
Page 59, line 22, leave out from ("with") to end of line 23 and insert ("the inspector for the district and approved by him by notice served on the owner.")
Page 59, line 25, after ("shall") insert (",in the case of a quarry,")
Page 59, line 27, leave out ("do so") and insert ("withhold or withdraw it")
Page 59, line 28, leave out ("the quarry to which the approval relates") and insert ("that quarry").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 97, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 98 [General powers and duties of quarry managers]:
LORD HAWKE: This Amendment is for clarification. The phrase "any other manager of a quarry" would include a manager of any other quarry. This was not intended. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 40, leave out ("any other manager of a quarry") and insert ("a manager of a quarry who is not the sole manager thereof").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 98, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 99 agreed to.
Clause 100 [Rights of quarry manager with respect to instructions given by or on behalf of owner]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 26, leave out from ("of") to ("shall") in line 27 and insert ("statutory responsibilities of his").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 100, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 101 [Temporary appointments during vacancy in office of quarry manager]:
LORD HAWKE: This is another Amendment on the same principle as Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 7, leave out from ("worked") to ("at") in line 8.—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 101, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 102 and 103 agreed to.
Clause 104 [Duties of quarry managers and owners with respect to reading of reports, &c.]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 44, leave out ("kept at") and insert ("provided for that purpose by the owner of").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 104, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 105 agreed to.
Clause 106 [Notification to district inspector of appointments by quarry owners]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 35, after ("Minister,") insert ("of the making of the appointment and").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 106, as amended, agreed to.
5.40 p.m.
Clause 107 [Provisions for securing safe methods of working]:
LORD HAWKE: We have now come to the clause dealing with safe working in quarries. The subsection provides that there shall be no overhanging, but the proviso as drafted says that the requirement may be relaxed or suspended at classes of quarries by the Minister, or particular quarries by the inspector. As we have re-drafted it, the Minister may exempt the quarry from this requirement if he thinks it unnecessary to secure the safety of employees. By Clause 171 such exemption may be conditional. So that, although the words "relax" and "suspend" are dropped, perhaps suggesting some slackening of control, yet, in practice, the power of exemption remains the same. We are, in fact, rather splitting hairs, but the revised wording may be better received by some people. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, leave out lines 7 to 27 and insert:
("(a) if the Minister is satisfied with respect to any prescribed class of quarries, that, having regard to the system of working quarries of that class and the natural condition of the minerals thereof, fulfilment of the requirement imposed by the foregoing provisions of this subsection is unnecessary to secure the safety of persons employed there at, regulations may provide that quarries of that class or such parts thereof as may be prescribed shall be exempted from that requirement; and
(b) if an inspector is satisfied with respect to a particular quarry that, having regard to the system of working the quarry and the natural condition of the minerals thereof, fulfilment of that requirement is unnecessary to secure the safety of persons employed thereat, he may, by notice served on the owner of the quarry, exempt the quarry or such part thereof as may be specified in the notice from that requirement.") (Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 107, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 108 to 113 agreed to.
Clause 114 [Application of certain provisions of Part III of this Act]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 114 and insert the following new clause:
("114. The following provisions of this Act, namely, section seventy-three, sections eighty to eighty-two and eighty-four to eighty-eight, section eighty-nine (save in so far as it relates to transport or support rules), section ninety, section ninety-one (save in so far as it relates to persons employed below ground) and sections ninety-two, ninety-three, ninety-five and ninety-six, shall apply to quarries as they apply to mines with the substitution, for references to mines, of references to quarries and subject also to the following additional modifications, that is to say:—

(a) for references in sections eighty-two, eighty-four, eighty-eight and ninety-one to the manager there shall be substituted references to the owner and for references in section eighty-nine to the manager there shall be substituted references to any manager;

(b) the reference to winding apparatus in subsection (3) of section eighty-five shall be omitted; and

(c) for the words "on the surface of" in sections eighty-six, eighty-seven and ninety-six there shall be substituted the word "at".")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

VISCOUNT HALL VISCOUNT HALL moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, after "ninety-three" to insert "ninety-four." The noble Viscount said: I cannot claim
678
to be an expert on quarries, with which this clause deals, but I should like to move this Amendment to the Amendment, standing in my name and also that of my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor. As I understand it, Clause 94 deals with certain amenities for the miners who are employed in the pits. Those who represent the quarrymen ask that the same facilities should be extended to them, which can be done if "ninety-four" is inserted after "ninety-three." It may be convenient if I speak now to the next Amendment also.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Yes, I think so.
VISCOUNT HALL: I believe that both these Amendments to the Amendment seek to add the same provision of lavatory accommodation to quarries as is provided for coal miners. To avoid undue expense to the small quarry owner, we suggest that our proposal should apply only to quarries employing over ten people, although we should be prepared to extend this to twelve or fifteen. We feel that where there are something like a dozen or more persons employed in a quarry these facilities should be extended in a form for which these Amendments would provide. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
Line 6 of the new clause, after ("ninety-three") insert ("ninety-our").—(Viscount Hall.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am sure we agree entirely, in principle, with what the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, has said, that there ought to be provisions of this character in relation to certain quarries. However, there are already provisions by which the inspector can use his powers to insist on the provision of conveniences. The other matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the noble Viscount is that the working of quarries is different from the working of mines. A mine is normally worked continuously, but there are many quarries in outlying parts which are worked intermittently, where there may be ten or fifteen men working once or twice a year, but for the rest of the time no one is there at all. For that reason, it seems that the best way to deal with this is through the powers of the inspector. The noble

679
Viscount has said that this matter has been represented to him by the quarrymen. I should like to know whether there are any specific cases where a convenience of this sort is urgently needed, but not provided. The difficulty is that a general statutory obligation of this character seems to me to go too far, because in certain outlying places I do not think it is possible to maintain conveniences properly, as laid down by Statute. Frankly, in many cases I would rather have no convenience than the sort of convenience which might result from this. I should like to review the statutory position, and see whether quarries should be brought more into line with, perhaps, factories under the Factories Act, which in this respect I feel they more resemble than they do mines. I do not think there is any difference of opinion about this, because we obviously want to do what is right and proper, in the circumstances.
VISCOUNT HALL: With that explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment to the Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 115 [Notification of accidents]:
LORD HAWKE: This only puts the point in new words. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 21, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 24 and insert (", so soon as it comes to the knowledge of the responsible person, be given by him to the inspector for the district and the person nominated as aforesaid").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 115, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 116 agreed to.
Clause 117 [Power to apply to diseases provisions as to notification of accidents]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Page 69, line 7, leave out ("unaware") and insert ("not aware").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 117, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 118 agreed to.
Clause 119 [Site of accident or other dangerous occurrence to be left undisturbed]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to leave out Clause 119 and to insert the following new clause:
Site of accident or other dangerous occurrence to be left undisturbed
"119. Where there occurs at a mine or quarry an accident or other occurrence (being in either case one of which notice is required by this Act to be given), no person shall disturb the place where it occurred or tamper with anything thereat before—

(a) the expiration of three clear days after notification of the accident or other occurrence in accordance with this Act; or

(b) that place has been both visited by an inspector and inspected in exercise of the powers in that behalf conferred by the provisions of this Act relating to workmen's inspections;

whichever first occurs:
Provided that—

(i) nothing in this section shall prohibit the doing of anything by or with the consent of an inspector; and

(ii) in any proceedings taken in respect of a contravention of this section consisting of the doing of any act, it shall be a defence to prove that the doing of that act was necessary for securing the safety of the mine or quarry or persons thereat."

The noble Earl said: This Amendment is in fulfilment of an undertaking given by my right honourable friend in regard to the inspection of sites following accidents. The undertaking was to give the workmen's inspector the right to inspect sites, and to make disturbance of the site subject to the consent of the inspector. What we have done is to lay down that the site will remain undisturbed for three days unless visited by the inspector and the workmen's inspector at an earlier date. This, however, is subject to two considerations: first of all, essential safety of persons in the mine and, secondly, permission of the inspector to allow the site to be cleared out. I suggest that this is the practical way of dealing with the matter. Unfortunately, accidents are of a great variety of character. In some cases the site is very important; in others it is not. I think it would be ridiculous to impose an unreasonable obstruction upon the coal miner or the coal industry in getting on with the work. What we have done here is to grant for the first time a right for the workmen's inspector to visit the site before it is disturbed and, secondly,

681
the absolute discretion of the inspector to permit the clearing of the site when he thinks such course reasonable. Everyone has an interest in investigating accidents, and I am quite certain that the National Coal Board and the inspectors have a real interest in retaining the confidence of the men through the inspection of the working. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 119 and insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is an Amendment which deserves a special word of commendation. It does two things which are necessary in the coal industry. First, it raises the status of the workmen's inspector, which was very necessary because he sometimes felt that he was not anybody that mattered in the industry. It also creates amongst the workers themselves a very necessary thing—a consciousness of safety in the mines. We welcome this Amendment most heartily.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 120 [Power of Minister to require special report on accident or other dangerous occurrence]:
5.53 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: This Amendment is little more than drafting. In Clause 115 we provide for the notification of accidents causing death or serious bodily injury. Under Clause 116, where the Minister thinks that any special class of occurrence is so dangerous that notice should be given, he may order it to be notifiable under Clause 115. In Clause 120 it is not, therefore, necessary to qualify the word "occurrence" with the word "dangerous," as unless it were of the class already described as dangerous by the Minister under Clause 116 it would not be covered by Clause 120, which deals only with notifiable accidents or occurrences. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 3, leave out ("dangerous occurrence (being an accident or occurrence") and insert ("occurrence (being in either case one").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 6, leave out ("to the accident or occurrence") and insert ("thereto").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 120, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 121 [Power of Minister to direct public inquiry into accident or other dangerous occurrence]:
LORD HAWKE: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 11, leave out from ("other") to ("of") in line 12 and insert ("occurrence at a mine or quarry (being in either case one ").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a transference from the First Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 15, at end insert—
("(3) Where the Minister directs a public inquiry to be held into such an accident or other occurrence as aforesaid in Scotland, being one causing the death of any person, no inquiry with regard to that death shall, unless the Lord Advocate otherwise directs, be held in pursuance of the Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Act, 1895.").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 121, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 122 [Inspections of mines and quarries on behalf of workmen employed thereat]:
LORD HAWKE: This Amendment is consequential on the last one I moved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 38, leave out ("dangerous occurrence (being an accident or occurrence") and insert ("occurrence being in either case one").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: This Amendment is consequential on the new Clause 119. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 5, leave out lines 5 to 7.—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: This Amendment is consequential on the new Clause 132. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 24, leave out ("mine or quarry") and insert ("office at the mine or quarry or at such other place as may be approved by an inspector;").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 16, leave out ("kept at the mine or quarry for that purpose") and insert ("provided for that purpose by the owner of the mine or quarry").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 122, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 123 [Prohibition of employment below ground in certain cases]:
5.55 p.m.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"(2) From the date of the coming into operation of this Act, no female shall be employed at a mine or any work involving the getting, processing or preparation of coal unless she was in the employment of the mine on that date."
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which has received quite a lot of publicity, and we had better be quite clear as to its terms. It does not mean the total prohibition of female labour on the colliery surface—they can still remain in certain jobs there. Nor does it mean that anyone now working in jobs which will be prohibited if this Amendment were carried will cease until she wishes to cease. That needs to be made perfectly plain. Following the noble Earl's visit to Lancashire, to an area where I spent the whole of my mining life—many friends of mine reported back to me regarding his visit, a visit which was enjoyed and which they felt did a certain amount of good—it was suggested by one of the Wigan papers, I think, that some lady employed on this type of work was sorry that she was going to be sacked. She did not know at her time of life what she would turn to. Nobody will be sacked because of this Amendment. Women may continue to work on the surface as long as they wish, apart from the jobs specified in the Amendment. I hope I have made it clear that those who now enjoy working there, as they say they do, will be able to continue their employment until they decide themselves that they are going to
684
discontinue it. But I question whether women should be doing these jobs, and that is the question we have to face.
In another place I felt that there was much extraneous argument on both sides of the debate. I place great value on people seeking the jobs they want. I do not like the idea of being told, "No, you cannot apply for this or that job." I can understand the argument that that would be interfering with the freedom of choice of jobs. But in an industry like the coal industry it is necessary to some extent to restrict the freedom. You have to say that people under a certain age may not go near the pits, or that under a certain age a youth can work on the surface but not underground. A century ago we told our womenfolk that they could go underground, but now they may not. These limitations will always apply. It is a question of which type of work females ought to be doing.
I do not know how far your Lordships are acquainted with these conditions. My noble friend Lord Hall and I have had to live amongst them. Like myself, my noble friend was a Miners' Federation official and had to deal with this particular type of case. We have always resented it, but in Lancashire they took a different view in 1911. There were those who were in favour of female labour doing this kind of work and those against. In 1911, those in favour carried the day. I can quite see that the Lancashire miners and their wives to-day are not in favour of females working at collieries. Since the visit of the noble Earl I put a question to the General Secretary who accompanied the noble Earl, as I thought I had better be quite clear on this. I asked: "What is the position of the Lancashire and Cheshire area of the National Union of Mineworkers? Where do they stand now on this issue?" He assured me that there is no section of the National Union of Mineworkers which is more against women being employed on this kind of work than the members in Lancashire. So there is no division there now; they are united.
What has happened is this: other districts have been more successful. There are three districts left, and there are more women employed in Lancashire than anywhere else. Over 400 women are still employed in Lancashire—the number has come down from over 1,000 in the last few years. We feel that it is not suit-

685
able ork for women. Here again I refer to my letter from the General Secretary, who says:
"… some have to perform on heavy coal belts which could and have brought about hernia, with all its after-effects There are certain types of jobs being done by females on the surface now which we do not think should be continued."
We do not feel it is the place for them. We do not feel they should be working there, among the dust, doing that type of work. We have such a respect for our womenfolk that we do not think it is the place for them. There is one case in Lancashire which has disturbed a great many of us. A woman Member of the other place said, in regard to these accidents, that "One swallow does not make a summer." I think that was a callous thing to say, especially by a woman in the other place. There is one actual case of pneumoconiosis in Lancashire; one person, a woman, died from pneumoconiosis. If there is a possibility of contracting a dreadful disease on the surface we ought at least to safeguard our females from it. I have ascertained the name of the woman who died from pneumoconiosis—Miss Stretch.
It is considerations of that kind which concern us, plus one other. In the industry there are men below ground subject to pneumoconiosis; there are men who are recovering from the effects of injury, men who could do this work. This could be a means of enabling disabled men to find the light jobs which are recommended medically and which cannot be found elsewhere. We have seen the pros and cons, after reading the debate in another place, and speaking from our experience we still feel that female labour on such jobs, specifically in the employment to which I am referring and no other, is wrong. We want to confine our discussion to my Amendment and not get involved in female labour generally on the surface, only the work involved in the "getting, processing or preparation of coal." That is what I have in mind; only those jobs and no others.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, I thought very kindly, agreed to make visits, and they were strenuous visits for him. He travelled well in Lancashire and Scotland. I am not going to attempt to deal with the report of his visit; that he will make himself. But I do hope the Government will treat this matter
686
seriously. It is no use their telling us that some women's organisation outside the industry are concerned about the freedom of our womenfolk. There is no organisation in this country more concerned than the miners' union. We have to have a sense of responsibility in dealing with this question of women on this kind of job. As regards the noble Earl's visit, it may have confirmed the views which he expressed on the Second Reading—I hope that it did not. The Coal Board themselves are not happy on this issue. It may be said that we shall find that, bit by bit, the Coal Board will get rid of the womenfolk. But what we want is a specific provision in the Bill that womenfolk cannot be engaged. We have no objection to the women there, and they can stay there; but once they leave, no women should be engaged in their place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 30, at end insert—
("(2) From the date of the coming into operation of this Act, no female shall be employed at a mine or any work involving the getting, processing or preparation of coal unless she was in the employment of the mine on that date.")—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I say, straight away, that any Amendment on a subject like this, on which the noble Lord speaks with authority, will be, examined extremely seriously by the Government. Of that I can assure him. But what is involved here is really a head-on meeting of two great crusading movements. On the one hand, there are those who have fought for a long time to establish that nobody should be compelled for economic reasons to do undesirable work. On the other hand, there is the undertaking which we made in the Declaration of Human Rights, that everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and protection against unemployment.
VISCOUNT HALL: Even in the coal mines?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is what is declared in the Declaration of Human Rights. This is not a perfect world; I am sure the noble Lord will acknowledge that. That Declaration is regardless of sex; it applies not only to men; it applies equally to men and women. But I do not

687
propose to discuss this on the theoretical level; what your Lordships want is the facts of this case. The noble Lord has said that in some cases we do prohibit women from certain employment. We restrict their employment in certain circumstances, and we restrict the type of employment. You will see it in this Bill. For instance, women must not be employed undergound; and they must not strain themselves. I have never been quite clear why men should be allowed to strain themselves, but that is by the way. At any rate, it is a statutory offence for women to strain themselves. If a woman does lift a heavy burden she is really committing a statutory offence. We also restrict their employment at night.
The real point I want to emphasise is that whenever we restrict their employment, we do it for a perfectly specific and definite reason. I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, and, with great respect, I consider he gave no reason at all which I should say was specific as to why women should not be employed on this work. He mentioned pneumoconiosis. When anyone suffers from that dreadful disease, of course it is most unfortunate. What he did not mention was this. At the present time, under the Pneumoconiosis Benefit Scheme, which was passed by this Government, there are thirty-three women in receipt of total disablement benefits. Not one of them comes from the coal industry. Eighteen come from the pottery industry, fourteen from the asbestos industry and one from sand blasting.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: There has been one from the coal mining industry.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I agree. But are you going to exclude the women from the pottery, the asbestos and the sand blasting industries? The noble Lord greatly underestimates women. I have never heard that women wanted to be excluded from work because the danger involved is the same as it is for men. Have you ever heard women asking to be excluded from fever hospitals? Where they ask to be protected is where the danger they face is greater than for men. That is a very material difference indeed. The noble Lord asked me to go and
688
see the women working, and I have done so. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the National Coal Board for letting me see everything, and also thank the National Union of Mineworkers for meeting me there, and the very interesting conversation I had there which I greatly appreciated. I should like to make it perfectly clear that I am not an authority on the employment of women and I did not do more than visit the place for my information. I would not interfere in any way in the administration of the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers in this matter or any other.
The work consists simply in picking out stones from the coal on a moving belt, after the smaller coal has been removed. The work, as I saw it, was under cover. It was certainly noisy and it was certainly dusty; the women worked in overalls provided by the National Coal Board. There are two points at which I looked particularly: first, the amenities, whether they had proper washing facilities, canteens, rest rooms and facilities of that character; secondly, the nature of the supervision. I looked particularly to see whether there was some sort of female supervision over the women. So far as the general amenities were concerned, I was fully satisfied with what the National Coal Board provided. I understand that in the great majority of the mines concerned special regulations exist which lay down the type and nature of those amenities. I think we can rest assured that this matter is fairly well covered, so far as amenities are concerned.
With regard to supervision, although there is no standard arrangement, the actual situation prevailing in each pit I visited appeared to me to be satisfactory. Sometimes there was a surface foreman in charge, and sometimes there was someone in the canteen. I asked my right honourable friend to write to the National Coal Board to see whether in fact the arrangements were satisfactory. He has received a letter saying that the National Coal Board will undertake a survey of the arrangements at each pit and make adjustments where they are found to be necessary. This seems to me to be satisfactory. This particular act is due to the initiative of the noble Viscount, Lord Hall. But for that, the National Coal Board's attention would not have been directed to the point.

689
Now let me say a word on the views of the girls themselves, which are not unimportant. I went through seven pits, both in Scotland and in Lancashire, which employed women. The girls were absolutely unanimous that they liked their job. I think this was most important: that quite a number of them had been employed on other work and they were very strong in expressing the view that they preferred working on the picking tables. In particular, I met a woman who had been working in a mill in Lancashire. She could not work in the mill because it made her feel ill, whereas working at the table she felt Very well. She looked to me extremely well, handsome, and, in fact, bonnier than the average girl one sees walking round London. I am talking now about Lancashire and Scotland. I do not make any distinction. Then one finds mothers and daughters working at the pits; and one finds wives and husbands working at the same pit, though not necessarily together. I find it difficult to believe that, if there was something undesirable of this character, you would find that sort of thing going on. I sought to see whether there was any other reason why this work should be prohibited to women, and particularly whether the proximity of men and women together might lead to familiarity which would be undesirable. I can only say that the investigations and inquiries which I made satisfied me entirely that there was not the slightest shred of justification for any suggestion of that character.
There is, however, one matter of concern to the industry—and, to my mind, this point made by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, is a very real point—and that is the employment of older miners. I accept readily that that is a most difficult problem. It is one of which I am certain that the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board are very conscious indeed. I suggest, however, that these are problems which can be solved individually. When it comes to individual pits, with this problem and that problem, there would not, I am sure, be a great deal of difference of opinion between the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board. But that is not really an answer; it is not really a ground on which to say that women are to be excluded from this type of work. I do
690
not think there can possibly be a justification. That is essentially a matter of administration between the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board. This work is to many women most favourable from the point of view of location and hours. The hours are, of course, unusual, in the sense that they start early in the morning and finish at 2 o'clock to 2.30 in the afternoon. It is difficult for women who run their own households. This, however, is my own personal view: I wonder whether it is really in the interests of the coal industry to suggest that it is such a rough and rugged industry that it is a crime against society for any women to be encouraged to work at the pithead, however lightly. I do not think that that is a fair presentation of the coal industry, certainly as it is to-day.
I formed the opinion that these girls wanted to work there and that they were doing a job which any girl could do, if she felt like it, and I do not feel justified in interfering there. In the rather humorous way that the German has when talking of his own country, a German once said to me: "Here in Germany everything which is not permitted is forbidden." We have not got quite so far as that in this country and I do not think we need to. I feel that this is a matter which, as the noble Viscount has said, will resolve itself in detail. And when I say "resolve itself," I mean, "resolve itself to the satisfaction of everybody." I do not think that we need interfere on a statutory basis in a matter which, I suggest, is essentially administrative. I hope the noble Viscount will withdraw this Amendment.
6.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT HALL: I am sure that all noble Lords have listened to the speech of the noble Earl with a good deal of interest. It is an excellent argument for the opening of jobs underground in the pits for women. A hundred years ago, in 1842, one of the great statesmen of the country introduced legislation to prevent women and girls from being employed in the pits, and his name will always resound in the hearts And minds of miners as long as they read the history of the mining industry. If there is to be freedom for women, then why prohibit their working underground? I feel quite as strongly about this matter as I did when

691
we last discussed it in this House. I am grateful to the noble Earl for taking the trouble to visit the mines in Lancashire and some of the Scottish mines. I also, during the Recess, went back to my own mine, where there are no women employed. Indeed, out of the twenty actual mining districts in this country, there are only three where women are employed—namely, Lancashire, which employs 690, Cumberland, which employs 150, and Scotland, which employs 150. It is quite true that they are a diminishing number. That is why we are so anxious not to interfere with those women. I have no doubt that the ancestors of those women may have worked at the pithead and many of them probably worked underground, and they have just carried on that tradition in that way.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Not underground.
VISCOUNT HALL: I am referring to their ancestors. Their ancestors did in many cases.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Yes.
VISCOUNT HALL: I have met many women who worked underground. They did not work during my lifetime. They worked in their early days. Some were employed underground at the age of seven. Saving them from that is, of course, what Shaftesbury did. The noble Earl said that my noble friend gave little information or points. Whatever the noble Earl saw in Lancashire and Scotland, may I refer to some of the speeches which were made in another place when this matter was discussed, not by persons who made a casual visit and saw some of the women there but by men who have actually been employed on the screens underground for something like thirty to thirty-five years before they came to another place? We have one description by Mr. Blyton from Durham, who says:
"In Committee, it was argued that there must be freedom of employment. If there is freedom of employment… why not down the pit? Is there freedom of employment for the hangman's job?"
He goes on to say:
"This Bill does not take away women from the dirty, filthy and obnoxious jobs at the pitheads. … I cannot understand the attitude of the Government in respect of this matter."
692
Those are the words of a man who is still living near these collieries. Another very respected miner, who now sits in another place, has said:
"I happen to represent a mining constituency"—
which is in Lancashire—
"that employs most of the women. … From what I have witnessed as a practical miner, as one who has been called upon to investigate many accidents, as a miner's agent and as a lodge secretary, I must say that I can never bring my mind to think that employment on the screens for women was suitable work."
That was said by Mr. Tom Brown, from Lancashire. Then Miss Herbison, from Scotland, says:
"I shall have the support of all my honourable friends on this side of the House and of honourable Members on the other side of the House, too, to ensure that this surface work, which is most uncongenial, is no longer left for the women to do."
Here is this evidence from two of the coalfields where women are employed. I spent some time at the screens. There is not quite so much dust as there was formerly. Dust repression at the coal face has cut down the amount of dust at the screens by something like 20 to 30 per cent. But there is dust. It is dirty, it is dangerous, it is draughty and it is noisy work. Surface accidents at the collieries of this country last year were: 48 fatal accidents, 195 serious accidents and 22,300 accidents disabling workpeople for more than three days. These women have to pass over the pithead, over the pit surface, to get down to the screens. In regard to the screens themselves, and people handling machinery, loose coal and stone, there were last year four fatal accidents, 9 serious accidents, and 5,000 accidents which disabled people, men and women, for more than three days.
The Minister or Government cannot justify continuation of this kind of employment for women—indeed they are not happy about it. In the classification in this Bill, on every occasion when they are referring to youths and young persons, they bring in the women. Clause 93 says that women
"shall not be employed at a mine to lift, carry or move a load so heavy as to be likely to cause injury to that woman or young person"
Who is to stand by and judge the weight of the lift which the women are to make? The noble Earl, rightly, said that some women regard themselves as quite as strong and physically fit as men; that if

693
there is a stone on the belt passing through, and a woman and a man are there and the woman is nearer the stone than the man, we may depend upon it that she will not let it by; she will lift it out to show the man that she can do it. That is the argument which the noble Earl himself put up.
Clause 124 says that women and young persons, exclusive of intervals allowed for meals, shall not work in excess of nine hours in any one day, or forty-eight hours for the week, nor be employed continuously for a spell of more than four and a half hours without an interval of at least half an hour for a meal and rest. From what I saw on the screens, I should not like to remain at work for nine hours in that dust and filth and noise, to have half an hour at the end of four and a half hours, and then to work for another four and a half hours. Then again, Clause 125 lays down that women or young persons shall neither begin earlier than six a.m. nor end later than ten p.m., or on Saturdays two p.m.: and a female or male young person who has not attained the age of sixteen employed above ground at a mine, not later than nine p.m. That means that, where women are employed, there are girls under sixteen years of age doing this kind of work. If that is so, how many girls of that age have been driven there for economic reasons, to work at this most uncongenial, dirty and filthy work?
I have had a protest sent to me from the Status of Women Committee. They have protested against the classifying of women with young persons. Even the Government themselves do not classify women with adult males. In every classification, in every reference to classification, the women who are employed are classified, irrespective of their age, with young men under eighteen year of age, some of them under sixteen years of age. This is what the Status of Women Committee say:
"(My Committee protests against the classification of women with young persons Part VIII) and, moreover, against special protection for women which will appear to be equally necessary for men workers, for example in clause in Part III, which provides that a women shall not be employed to lift, carry or move a load so heavy as to be likely to cause her injury."
There is that fact to which the noble Earl referred—that a woman con-
694
siders herself, and perhaps rightly so, as strong and as physically fit as a man. How is legislation going to prevent her from lifting lumps of coal and stone which will injure her?
I have stated that out of twenty coal mining districts in Great Britain in only three are women employed. There is no economic problem here at all. These women are fewer than 1,000 in number. There is sufficient work at the pithead—more congenial work, such as work in canteens, work in offices, upon which girls of fifteen and sixteen can be employed, because there is a dearth of clerks. Indeed, as to the work available as a result of the women leaving, many of the men who are unable to be employed, or to follow their employment at the coal face and underground, could be put into these jobs. I should hate the thought that there is to be a continuation of this practice. This clause is the one blot on an otherwise excellent Bill, a Bill for the introduction of which the miners are indeed grateful to Her Majesty's Government. I have not met a single miner, or indeed a mining engineer, throughout the whole of my travels, who will not say that the work at the pit tops on the screens is unsuitable for women.
The National Union of Mineworkers, representing over 700,000 men, strongly presses that the continued employment of girls and women in this dirty, dusty, dangerous, uncongenial and altogether unsuitable work should be stopped. We do not want to stop those at present employed, as has been made clear to the Government by my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor. It is over forty years since the last comprehensive Miners Bill was passed. It may be that the same period will pass before another is introduced. Here is an opportunity for the Government to take that step forward which will crown the efforts of Lord Shaftesbury in 1842. By that action in 1842, Britain took a lead in establishing the respect and dignity of women. I say that Britain should now take the lead in prohibiting the employment of any more women in this work, and I maintain what I said when this matter was last discussed: that there are many jobs in a pit which are much more

695
congenial than these jobs at the screens. I beg the Government to think again and not to allow this blot to remain upon a Bill which we all welcome.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is quite clear that in certain respects we do restrict the employment of women. The reason we restrict them, for instance, from underground working, is because it was thought to injure them to do heavy work. That was the original reason, and it remains. It may be that it was unwise, for certain work purposes, to classify women with young persons, but it is only what the International Labour Office does. I should like to contrast what the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor was saying about the possibilities of anyone having to leave the mining industry for medical reasons with his readiness to throw out women, just because the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, thinks the work too uncongenial, or because a Mr. Tom Brown considers it not suitable work for women to carry out.
VISCOUNT HALL: And 700,000 miners in this country share the views of Mr. Tom Brown and myself—the noble Earl cannot minimise that.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not minimise it. I merely say that, so far as I am aware, every single woman actually engaged in this work holds a directly opposite view to that of Mr. Brown and the noble Viscount, Lord Hall. That is the position. What should the Government do? Are we really to throw these women out, as you are suggesting?
VISCOUNT HALL: We are not asking that.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, is a very humane man. If he thought these women were suffering damage he would tell them to stop now. The whole weakness of his case lies in the fact that he is not turning women away from the picking tables now. If they were really injuring themselves, the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, would not tolerate their continuing for a minute.
VISCOUNT HALL: We thought Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to compromise, as we are prepared to compromise. If we were satisfied that in the course of the next ten, fifteen or
696
twenty years it would be brought about, that would be better than allowing the practice to continue for a further forty or fifty years before other legislation might be introduced.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I, too, think it is very unlikely to last. It may be true to say that only a few women like this work; but some do. I think it fair to say that there has been no known fatal accident in recent years among women at the picking tables. I shall be very grateful if the noble Lord can see his way to withdraw this Amendment to avoid a Division.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I am sorry. I have been pleased to accommodate on previous occasions, but I cannot withdraw it, because I feel too strongly about it. We are dissatisfied and far from convinced.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 123 agreed to.
Clauses 124 and 125 agreed to.
Clause 126 [Periods of employment of male young persons over sixteen]:
6.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment touches a small point, dealing with the hours at which young male persons should work. The only effect of it is that if there is to be any variation in the limits in regard to coal mines, it will require the consent of the Minister or inspector. It is a little more than drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 9, leave out from the first ("of") to ("by") in line 12 and insert ("any mine or quarry, the responsible person, if authorised so to do, may").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The following Amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 74, line 16, after ("to") insert ("all")
Page 74, line 22, after ("to") insert ("all")
Page 74, line 27, at end insert—
("Provided that where, in relation to a mine or quarry, a direction is given under each of the foregoing paragraphs, the directions shall be void if their combined effect is to extend the period of employment of the young persons employed at the mine or quarry by more than one hour.

697
Authority for the giving of directions under this subsection may be given—

(i) in the case of all mines or quarries or mines or quarries of any class, by order of the Minister;

(ii) in the case of a particular mine or quarry, by notice served by an inspector on the responsible person.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 126, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 127 agreed to.
Clause 128 [Special temporary exception as respects coal-mines in Durham, Northumberland and Warwick]:
LORD HAWKE: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 22, leave out ("coal mines") and insert ("mines of coal").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 128, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 129 agreed to.
Clause 130 [Register of women and young persons employed]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is an Amendment that we have had a number of times before. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 21, after ("quarry") insert ("or at such other place as may be approved by an inspector").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This, too, is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 23, leave out ("age") and insert ("date of birth").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 130, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 131 agreed to.
Clause 132 [Provision, preservation and inspection of books containing reports]:
6.41 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is submitted to fulfil an undertaking given by my right honourable friend in another place. The Amendment is with regard to the keeping of books and I have mentioned the matter already. There are some workings at which there are no suitable places for keeping books and it is desirable that they should be kept somewhere else. If they were left at the place where the work is carried on
698
they might very well be stolen over the week-end. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 36, leave out Clause 132 and insert the following new clause:
Form of official books and preservation and inspection of entries therein
"132.—(1) Every book which, in pursuance of this Act or regulations, is provided by the owner of a mine or quarry for the purpose of the entry therein of any report, record or other item of information shall be in such form as the Minister may direct.
(2) Every entry made in any such book as aforesaid or a copy of that entry shall be preserved until the expiration of twelve months after the date on which it was made or such other period (whether longer or shorter) as may be prescribed for an entry of any class, and, until no longer required to be preserved, shall be kept at the office at the mine or quarry to which it relates or at such other place as may be approved by an inspector and be open to inspection by, or by a person authorised in that behalf in writing by, any person employed at that mine or quarry."—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 133 [Preservation and inspection of copies of written appointments made by mine or quarry manager]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 13, after the first ("of") insert ("subsection (1) of").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is really drafting also. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 25, leave out from ("the") to end of line 32 and insert ("office at the mine or quarry to which that appointment is referable or at such other place as may be approved by an inspector and be open to inspection by, or by a person authorised in that behalf in writing by, any person employed at that mine or quarry").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 133, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 134 [Provision of copies of this Act and other instruments]:
LORD HAWKE: In this clause we provide that there shall be suitable covered accommodation at the mine or quarry for the employees to be able to read copies of this Act and various regulations, and so on. As drafted, the clause

699
says that in this covered accommodation there "shall be provided at all times a copy of this Act," and various instruments. We do not think it right or necessary that these papers should be provided when there is no employee at work in the mine or quarry. Therefore we propose to qualify the wording of the clause with the words: "At all times at which persons are employed …" I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 33, leave out from the beginning to ("suitable") in line 34 and insert, ("At all times at which persons are employed at a mine or quarry there shall be provided thereat or near thereto").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 35, leave out ("at all times").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: The papers covered under this clause include the Act, orders, regulations, transport rules, support rules and managers' rules for conducting the mine. We think that there ought to be added to this list of papers any notices served by the inspector on the manager, such as notices of special provisions or additional requirements imposed on the manager by the inspector. The Minister gave some undertaking in Standing Committee on this point, and this Amendment is designed to fulfil that undertaking. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 38, after the second ("rules") insert (",any notice served under or by virtue of this Act by an inspector on the responsible person").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 134, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 135 [Posting of notices]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to leave out Clause 135 and to insert the following new clause:
Posting of Notices
"135.—(1) At all times at which persons are employed at a mine or quarry there shall be kept posted thereat—

(a) a notice of the name of the mine or quarry, the name and address of the owner thereof and the name or names of the manager or managers thereof;

700

(b) a notice of the name and address of the inspector for the district; and

(c) a notice specifying the situation of the accommodation provided in pursuance of the last foregoing section.

(2) Where, in the case of a mine or quarry,—

(a) regulations affecting it are made; or

(b) a notice is served under or by virtue of this Act by an inspector on the responsible person;

notice of the making of the regulations or, as the case may be, of the service of the notice (specifying the regulations or, as the case may be, indicating the general nature of the notice) shall be kept posted at the mine or quarry at all times during the period of six months next following the making or service of the regulations or notice at which persons are employed at the mine or quarry.
(3) All notices required by this section to be posted at a mine or quarry shall be posted in such characters and in such positions as to be easily seen and read by the persons employed thereat, and if a form is specified by the Minister for any such notice, it shall be posted in that form."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is to implement an undertaking given by my right honourable friend in another place. It makes one or two alterations in regard to what I describe as the posting board. If I might distinguish between Clause 134 and this clause, I would point out that Clause 134 deals with the reading room where all documents are to be available. We thought that at the side of the reading room there should be set up a board upon which any new notice of exemption or consent or any instruction should be posted, and that it should remain there for six months. We make one or two alterations by this new clause. It is intended essentially to enable attention to be drawn to any new information. I do not think there is anything else I need say with regard to this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 135 and insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is a very small matter, but we ask: Why limit the period to six months? We say there is no reason for such a limitation. Why not leave the notices in position as long as the quarry or the mine is in existence? We consider it is important that each worker shall be able to see these things from time to time. We can see no reason why the period of exhibition of the notices should be

701
limited to six months. I do not know whether the noble Earl has a good reason to give us. I beg to move my Amendment to the noble Earl's Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Line 8, of subsection (2) of the new clause, leave out from ("during") to the end of the subsection and insert ("which the regulations or notice shall affect the mine or quarry").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not seriously believe that our object in this matter is different from that of noble Lords opposite, but we have come to a diametrically opposite conclusion, and I will tell the noble Lord why. We say that if you put up a notice and it stays there as long as the mine or the quarry is in existence you will do two things. First of all, you will clutter up the notice board—and, be it remembered, it is only a notice board. We are not here dealing with the reading room, which is a covered room somewhere else. If you put up every notice dealing with exemptions and instructions and so on, you will clutter up your board. A lot of regulations will in fact be in operation the whole time a mine is in existence. We consider that this notice board ought to be for the purpose of allowing the people who are working there to learn when something new comes along. It might be a new instruction, perhaps from the inspector, or from the Minister. We think it must be confined to a few notices. All we are concerned about is to see that the up-to-date information is available as easily as possible and that everything else may be found in the reading room. We consider that that is the better way of doing it, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord would withdraw his Amendment.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: In view of the statement now made, because our points are the same, and all we want is that the workmen should know, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 136 agreed to.
Clause 137 [Periodical returns by owners]:
LORD HAWKE: The next two Amendments are for clarification. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 79, line 42, leave out from first ("of") to ("if ") in line 43 and insert ("every owner of mines or quarries")
Page 79, line 46, leave out ("mine or quarry") and insert ("mines or quarries which he owns").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
6.52 p.m.
LORD HAWKE LORD HAWKE moved to leave out subsection (2) and to insert:
"(2) No returns, statistics or other information obtained under the foregoing subsection shall, without the consent in writing of the person carrying on the undertaking to which the returns, statistics or other information relate, be disclosed except—

(a) with the consent of the Minister, to a government department for the purposes of the exercise by them of any of their functions; or

(b) in the form of a summary of similar returns, statistics or other information furnished by a number of owners of mines or quarries, being a summary so framed as not to enable particulars relating to the undertaking of a particular person to be ascertained therefrom; or

(c) for the purposes of any proceedings for an offence under this Act or any report of any such proceedings."

The noble Lord said: We come to a rather important provision. We are dealing with a clause which lays on the owners of mines and quarries the duty, if directed to do so by the Minister, to supply him with returns and statistics. As the Bill is drafted, the Minister is free to use these as he thinks fit, provided that he manages to disguise their origin in any document he publishes. We do not think this protects the suppliers of figures sufficiently, and we would go further and amend subsection (2) of the clause so that the Minister must not disclose information without the consent of the owner except where he does so to a Government Department, which requires The Minister's consent, or in a summary, so that individual information cannot be identified, or for the purpose of court proceedings under the Bill. This follows the Statistics of Trade Act, 1947. I may add that by Amendment No. 311 we propose to bring under the penalty clause the unlawful disclosure of information received under this clause. I hope your Lordships will think that this is a more reasonable protection for the suppliers of information. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 137, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 138 [Notification of beginning and cessation of certain mining and quarrying operations]:
LORD HAWKE: The next four Amendments are put forward to be consistent with the definition of mining given in Clause 175. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 80, line 12, leave out ("producing minerals") and insert ("getting minerals or products thereof")
Page 80, line 29, leave out ("producing minerals") and insert ("getting minerals or products thereof")
Page 80, line 40, leave out ("producing minerals") and insert ("getting minerals or products thereof")
Page 80, line 46, leave out ("producing minerals") and insert ("getting minerals or products thereof").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 138, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 139 agreed to.
Clause 140 [Regulations]:
LORD HAWKE: We think it more proper to speak of animals being "employed" and not "used." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 24, leave out ("used") and insert ("employed").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: This Amendment is for clarification. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 37, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: At first sight the wording of this Amendment looks formidable, but it has not a great deal of consequence. The Amendment makes it possible for the Minister to make regulations for the subdivision of a class of mine. To give an example, as the Bill is drafted at the moment he can make regulations for fire clay mines as a class but he cannot make regulations for the fire clay mines in Yorkshire, because he has no power to make regulations for the
704
subdivision of a class. I hasten to add that my example has no particular significance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 38, after ("quarry") insert (",any enactment contained in this Act authorising the making of provision by regulations with respect to mines of a specified class shall be construed as authorising the making of provision extending either to all mines of that class, to mines within any sub-division of that class or to a particular mine of that class."—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 11, leave our paragraph (b) and insert:—
("(b) grant exemptions from any of the provisions thereof or provide for the granting of such exemptions by the Minister or an inspector;").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 140, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 141 agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: This Part of the Bill deals with regulations and we thought it appropriate to bring in here the first subsection of Clause 169, which also deals with regulations. In doing so, we reproduce it in somewhat more comprehensible form and add the words:
… or varied in their application to a particular mine…."
These words make it possible for the Minister to issue general regulations from which individual mines can be exempted by special regulations. Without these words, I understand, he would have no such power. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 141, insert the following new clause:
Variation, revocation, &c., of regulations
(".—(1) General regulations may—

(a) be varied or revoked by subsequent general regulations;

(b) be rendered wholly or partly inapplicable, or varied in their application, to a particular mine or quarry by special regulations applicable thereto.

(2) Special regulations may be varied or revoked by subsequent special regulations and may be revoked by general regulations, and a provision of general regulations which revokes special regulations shall be deemed not to be a special regulation.").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 142 agreed to.
Clause 143:
General powers of inspectors
143.—(1) An inspector shall, for the purpose of the execution of this Act, have power to do all or any of the following things, that is to say:—
(d) ….

(ii) to take samples of any articles or substances found at a mine or quarry and, in the case of a mine, of the atmosphere therein; and

(iii) to take possession of any equipment or apparatus at a mine or quarry which appears to him to have caused, or to be likely to cause, danger to safety or health, and, if necessary for the purposes of the examination or inquiry, to cause the equipment or apparatus to be dismantled or subjected to any process or test, notwithstanding that the equipment or apparatus is thereby damaged or destroyed;

(2) A person who—

(b) prevents or attempts to prevent any other person from appearing before, or answering questions asked by, an inspector; or

(c) without due authority, removes from a mine or quarry, or conceals or tampers with, any equipment or apparatus of which possession has been taken by an inspector under this section; or

shall be guilty of an offence.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am informed that this Amendment is purely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 19, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
("(a) at any time (whether by day or by night) to enter a mine, quarry or central recue station and to inspect the whole or any part thereof, anything thereat and any animals employed for the purposes thereof;
(b) to make such examination and inquiry as may be necessary—

(i) to ascertain whether, so far as regards a mine, quarry or central rescue station or persons or animals employed thereat, the following are complied with, namely, the provisions of this Act, orders made thereunder and regulations, any direction, prohibition, restriction or requirement given or imposed by a notice served under or by virtue of this Act by an inspector and any condition attached to any exemption, consent, approval or authority granted or given under or by virtue of this Act by the Minister or an inspector; or

(ii) to ascertain any matter appearing to the inspector to affect or relate to the safety or health of persons employed at a mine, quarry or central rescue station or the care or treatment of animals employed thereat and in particular (but without prejudice to
706
the generality of the foregoing words) the causes and circumstances of any accident or other occurrence at a mine or quarry, being one of which notice is required by this Act to be given;").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is for clarification. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 39, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT FURNESS VISCOUNT FURNESS moved, in subsection (1) (d) (ii), after "therein" to insert:
"Provided that the result of any analysis of a sample, other than a sample of the atmosphere in a mine, taken under this section shall not be admissible as evidence in any prosecution for an alleged contravention in relation to a mine or quarry of any provision of this Act, of an order made thereunder or of regulations or a notice served under or by virtue of this Act by an inspector, unless, insofar as the nature of the sample permits the following requirements have been complied with, that is to say, the inspector taking the sample shall forthwith notify to the manager of the mine or quarry his intention to have it analysed, and shall there and then divide the sample into three parts, shall cause each part to be placed in a container which shall be sealed up and marked and shall—

(a) deliver one part to the manager of the mine or quarry,

(b) retain one part for future comparison, and

(c) if he thinks fit to have an analysis made, submit one part to the analyst;"

The noble Viscount said: This Amendment refers to the taking of samples by inspectors. It is intended to provide for owners safeguards similar to those contained in other legislation. It has been argued that many samples taken by inspectors are incapable of division. This Amendment has been drafted to limit the right of the manager to those cases where this is practicable, and excludes altogether atmospheric samples. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 13, after ("therein") insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Furness.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I do not see the need for this Amendment. To me it looks like a reflection on the inspector. I am sure that is not what the noble Viscount intends, but it does rather seem to reflect

707
on the inspector's intelligence, or at any rate indicates lack of confidence in him. For that reason, I am a little uneasy about it. I will wait and see what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has to say about the Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I believe that we had something rather similar in the Food and Drugs Act, and that there is also a clause in the Factories Act that does something like this. There is obvious fairness in what is suggested here. Particularly with regard to things like food and drugs, in relation to taking a specimen of something offered for sale, it would be reasonable to see whether it contained some undesirable substance. There is obvious fairness in this, but I wonder whether it can be applied in this way to mines, where the circumstances are quite different. In the first place, when an inspector goes in, generally he is investigating an accident, in the sense of a detective trying to find the cause. The second point I should like to make is this. It is easy to talk about specimens of such things as liquid or dust—in this case gas is excluded, though I do not know why—but in other things it is not so easy. If you are dealing with a piece of rope, or an engine, you cannot cut a piece off, because it would not do any good. With regard to liquid, if that is what the noble Viscount has in mind, I see no reason why a man should not take a sample from his own water supply. That is about the only liquid of which I know in a coal mine, although there may be others.
With regard to dust, I think the normal practice is for the owner to take specimens of dust next door to the specimen taken by the inspector. Therefore, I do not think it arises in regard to that. If we look at the remaining categories I have described, it is difficult for an inspector, when acting as a detective, to see what he can divide up. Pieces of paper, charred wood, or something of that sort, obviously cannot be divided up. Often you have a broken rope, but you cannot divide that up. It is difficult to see what could be divided up. I know that the noble Viscount may say that he has put in the words, "in so far as the nature of the sample permits," but at the moment I am doubtful whether it would apply to anything at all. I am anxious to be fair in the matter, but I
708
cannot at the moment see where this Amendment has any application. If the noble Viscount can put forward any case where it has application, we shall be pleased to consider it; but I do not think he will be able to do so.
VISCOUNT FURNESS: In view of what my noble friend the Paymaster General has said, I will withdraw this Amendment now, and perhaps between now and the next stage we can talk about it further.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The next Amendment is merely a widening of the use of words. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 14, leave out ("equipment or apparatus") and insert ("machinery, apparatus or other article whatsoever").—(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 84, line 17, leave out from ("and") to the first ("to") in line 19, and insert ("cause it").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT FURNESS VISCOUNT FURNESS moved, in subsection (1) (d) (iii) to leave out all words from "test" to the end of the sub-paragraph and to insert instead:
"but so as not unnecessarily to impede or obstruct the working of the mine or quarry, and any such equipment, if found to be without fault, shall be restored to the mine or quarry or, in the event of its destruction, its equivalent shall be supplied."
The noble Viscount said: The subsection as at present drafted is tantamount to an unqualified right of confiscation of private property, without any redress for the owner. No objection can be taken if the equipment is faulty or dangerous, but the owner should have a right to redress if it proved to be sound. There have been cases as to one of which I have given my noble friend private notice. This Amendment has been drafted so that in the event of such things occurring, the equipment should be restored to the mine or quarry, or, if it has been damaged or destroyed, it should be repaired or replaced. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 20, leave out from ("test") to end of line 21, and insert the said words.—(Viscount Furness.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I will admit straight away that the powers which we give the inspector here are fairly full. This is the question I have to examine: Is this necessary in the interests of safety or health? I think that in this matter one must rely on the bona fides of the inspector, who, after all, is an important man, and one who could not for one moment allow his honour to be tarnished in any sense of the word. Apart from the matter of Parliamentary procedure, what I am concerned with is as to whether this Amendment would act as an impediment to the inspector in making the examinations which may appear to be necessary to him; first, because he must consider whether it will impede the working of a mine; and secondly, because if he damaged equipment in the course of investigation, and then found it without fault, his department might have to find the money and so forth.
The second point made by the noble Viscount was in regard to appropriation. I must make it clear that there is no statutory right here to appropriate other people's property. What there is a right to do is to go into the mine, and take possession of property, and if any property—I say this without absolute authority, but I think I am right—were not returned by the inspector, there would be the right to proceed. The noble Viscount did notify me of a case this morning. We had heard nothing about that case in the Department until I received the noble Viscount's letter. The inspector, after all, is employed by the Minister, and if the man had a genuine complaint, why did he not write to the Minister about it? It is the first I have heard of it. Whether there is any justification in what is in the letter I cannot say. Although, point of fact, the particular machinery in question was without fault, I believe there was successful prosecution in that particular case. I personally feel that there may conceivably be a case where equipment which is perfectly all right is damaged by testing, but I think that is a very rare thing. The normal thing the inspector takes is a piece of rope or something of that character, which it is very unlikely they would want back. There is nothing the mine manager wants to know more than that his ropes are in good order. I suggest that there is not
710
much in this point. The one case which the noble Viscount gave me was superficially good, but I do not think it would bear close scrutiny. I should be grateful if he could withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT FURNESS: In view of what my noble friend has said, I of course beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think I can say that Amendments Nos. 274 to 276 are little more than drafting. If we take Amendment No. 275, there is one change. Documents which are relevant are allowed to be taken by the inspector. That is what the Amendment provides, whereas the Bill as drafted said that he may take documents which appeared to him to be relevant. We thought that went too wide, because in fact it would mean that even if he thought the mine owner's or the mine manager's letters to his wife were relevant, he could take them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 20, leave out ("the equipment or apparatus") and insert ("it").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 22, leave out paragraph (e) and insert—
("(e) to require the production of, and to inspect,—

(i) any registers, books, plans or other documents which by, or by virtue of this Act, are required to be kept; and

(ii) any other documents, being documents which are in the possession or under the control of the owner or manager of a mine or the owner or a manager of a quarry and are relevant for the purposes of an examination or inquiry under the foregoing provisions of this section;

(f) to require the manager of a mine to mark on any plan of workings in the mine produced in compliance with a requirement imposed under the last foregoing paragraph the state, as at the time of the imposition of the requirement, of those workings or of such of them as may be specified in the requirement";).—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 43, leave out ("made") and insert ("imposed").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT FURNESS VISCOUNT FURNESS moved, in subsection (2) (b), to leave out all words after the word "before" and to insert:
"an inspector or from answering any question to which an inspector may, by virtue of the foregoing subsection, require an answer; or."
The noble Viscount said: Paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of this clause goes rather far in making it an offence to prevent or attempt to prevent a person from answering any questions put by an inspector. If, however, a person were being asked questions the answer to which might be used in evidence against him, his legal representative might be fully justified in advising his client not to answer. The Amendment, therefore, limits the offence to preventing or attempting to prevent the answering of any question in respect of which the inspector has required an answer, in exercise of his power under paragraph (d) (i) of the foregoing subsection. Any such answer may not, of course, be given in evidence against the person who gave it. I hope that this Amendment may have a better fate than the previous ones which I have moved, and in that hope I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 46, leave out from ("before") to end of line 47, and insert the said words.—(Viscount Furness.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think the noble Viscount has a point here. In saying that no one may warn him not to speak, I think he was including his legal adviser, who might tell him it would be inadvisable to give evidence which might be used against him. It will be observed that the inspector, in making his investigations, is not handicapped thereby, because he may ask a person any question he may think relevant provided it is not admissible in evidence against him. Therefore, the inspector is not impeded in any way, and the man who is asked questions still receives protection.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 85, line 1, leave out ("due authority") and insert ("permission granted by an inspector").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment Moved—
Page 85, line 2, leave out ("equipment or apparatus") and insert ("machinery, apparatus or other article").(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 143, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 144 [Power of inspector to require remedy for immediate or apprehended danger]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 85, line 22, leave out ("upon") and insert ("on").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 144, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 145 agreed to.
Clause 146 [The Mining Qualifications Board]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is rather an important Amendment. It is to meet undertakings given by my right honourable friend in another place. Its effect is to take powers to increase the Mining Qualifications Board for three purposes: first, to make the views of another workman in mines available; secondly, to add two more in the event of statutory qualifications being required for metalliferous mines, and, thirdly, to add two more in the event of statutory qualifications being required for metalliferous mines and quarries. That means that the numbers of the Mining Qualifications Board can be raised from seven plus a chairman to twelve plus a chairman. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 86, line 1, leave out ("seven") and insert ("not less than seven nor more than ten").—(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 86, line 4, at end insert—
("Provided that during any period during which the holding of a certificate granted on the recommendation of the Board is a qualification prescribed by regulations having effect by virtue of Part IV of this Act, the maximum number of the members of the Board, other than the chairman, shall be twelve instead of ten and of the members of the Board two shall be persons appearing to the Minister to have experience in quarrying.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 146, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 147 and 148 agreed to.
Clause 149 [Fencing of abandoned and disused mines and of quarries]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Perhaps I may take all the Amendments to Clause 149 together—I think they are not much more than a certain readjustment to the law. It is intended to give rather better safeguards to the public under Clause 1, to which some drafting Amendments have been made. Here a duty is laid on the owners to fence all pits, other than metalliferous mines which have not been worked since 1872. The effect is to make it a statutory nuisance not to fence the mines, with the exception of metalliferous mines which have not been worked since 1872. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 89, line 15, leave out ("(whether abandoned or not) which") and insert ("which, notwithstanding that it has not been abandoned,").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I am informed that there is a misprint in the second line of paragraph (a) of the new subsection (2) and that the word "section" at the end of the line should be "subsection." I will therefore put the Amendment in the correct form.
Amendments moved—
Page 89, line 23, leave out ("producing") and insert ("getting")
Page 89, line 23, at end insert ("or products thereof")
Page 89, line 27, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) For the purposes of Part III of the Public Health Act, 1936, each of the following shall be deemed to be a statutory nuisance that is to say:—

(a) a shaft or outlet of an abandoned mine (other than a mine to which the proviso to the foregoing subsection applies) or of a mine (other than as aforesaid) which, notwithstanding that it has not been abandoned, has not been worked for a period of twelve months, being a shaft or outlet the surface entrance to which is not provided with a properly maintained device such as is mentioned in that subsection;

(b) a shaft or outlet of a mine to which the proviso to the foregoing subsection applies, being a shaft or outlet with respect to which the following conditions are satisfied, namely—

(i) that its surface entrance is not provided with a properly maintained device such as is mentioned in that subsection; and

(ii) that, by reason of its accessibility from a highway or a place of public
714
resort, it constitutes a danger to members of the public; and

(c) a quarry (whether in course of being worked or not) which—

(i) is not provided with an efficient and properly maintained barrier so designed and constructed as to prevent any person from accidentally falling into the quarry; and

(ii) by reason of its accessibility from a highway or a place of public resort constitutes a danger to members of the public.")

Page 89, line 40, leave out ("of a mine or quarry")
Page 89, line 41, after ("Act") insert ("of a mine or quarry")
Page 89, line 45, after ("owner") insert ("(as so defined)").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 149, as amended, agreed to.
7.21 p.m.
Clause 150 [Offences]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think I can say that all the Amendments to this clause are, in effect, drafting. I should perhaps mention how important this clause is as the keystone of the whole of the criminal responsibility throughout the whole Bill. To put it in simple language, the owner, agent, manager, under-manager and any persons treated as temporarily holding these positions are liable if any offence takes place. This has long been fundamental in mining legislation. The Amendments are no more than clarification and also make quite clear that contravention of any direction or prohibition given by an inspector may also be an offence. If I may I will move all the Amendments to Clause 150 together.
Amendments moved—
Page 90, line 21, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:—
("(b) a direction, prohibition, restriction or requirement given or imposed by a notice served under or by virtue of this Act by an inspector; or
(c) a condition attached to an exemption, consent, approval or authority granted or given under or by virtue of this Act by the Minister or an inspector;")
Page 90, line 29, leave out from ("of") to ("matters") in line 30 and insert ("statutory responsibilities of the owner")
Page 90, line 30, leave out ("or notice") and insert ("direction, prohibition, restriction, requirement or condition")
Page 90, line 41, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) a direction, prohibition, restriction or requirement given or imposed by a notice served under or by virtue of this Act by an inspector; or

715
(c) a condition attached to an exemption, consent, approval or authority granted or given under or by virtue of this Act by the Minister or an inspector;")
Page 91, line 5, leave out from ("of") to ("matters") in line 6 and insert ("statutory responsibilities of the owner")
Page 91, line 6, leave out ("or notice") and insert ("direction, prohibition, restriction, requirement or condition")
Page 91, line 14, leave out from the first ("of") to end of line 15 and insert ("any such contravention")
Page 91, line 23, leave out from first ("of") to ("with") in line 24 and insert ("such a contravention as aforesaid")
Page 91, line 27, leave out subsection (3) and insert
("(3) In the event of a contravention, in relation to a mine, by a person other than one mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, of such a provision as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection, being a provision which expressly imposes on that person or on persons of a class to which he belongs a duty or requirement or expressly prohibits him or persons of a class to which he belongs or all persons from doing a specified act, the person who contravened that provision, as well as the persons mentioned in the said subsection (1), shall be guilty of an offence, and in the event of a contravention, in relation to a quarry, by a person other than one mentioned in subsection (2) of this section, of such a provision as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection, being a provision which expressly imposes on that person or on persons of a class to which he belongs a duty or requirement or expressly prohibits him or persons of a class to which he belongs or all persons from doing a specified act, the person who contravened that provision, as well as the persons mentioned in the said subsection (2), shall be guilty of an offence.")
Page 91, line 46, leave out from ("of") to end of line 48 and insert—
("(a) any provision of this Act, of an order made thereunder or of regulations, being a provision which expressly imposes on the owner of the mine or quarry a duty or requirement or a prohibition; or
(b) any prohibition, restriction or requirement which, by virtue of a notice served under or by virtue of this Act by an inspector, is expressly imposed on the owner of the mine or quarry;
or of a contravention of section three or one hundred of this Act,").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 150, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 151 [Accessories]:
LORD HAWKE: This Amendment is merely correction.
Amendment moved—
Page 92, line 6, leave out ("section five of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act,
716
1908") and insert ("section two of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1954").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 151, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 152 [Supplementary provisions as to offences]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is only clarification: you contravene an instruction; you do not contravene a notice.
Amendments moved—
Page 92, line 17, leave out ("section five of this Act or a notice served thereunder") and insert ("subsection (1) of section five of this Act, of any condition attached to an approval granted under that subsection or of a direction given by a notice served under subsection (2) of that section")
Page 92, line 19, leave out ("so").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 152, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 153 agreed to.
Clause 154 [Defence available to person charged with offence not committed personally]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is consequential on Amendments to Clause 150.
Amendment moved—
Page 93, line 8, leave out from ("of") to end of line 15 and insert—
("(a) a provision of the Act, of an order made thereunder or of regulations, being a provision which expressly imposes on that other person or a person of a class to which, at the time of the contravention, he belonged, a duty or requirement or expressly prohibits him or persons of such a class or all persons, from doing a specified act; or
(b) a prohibition, restriction or requirement which by virtue of a notice served under or by virtue of this Act by an inspector is expressly imposed on that other person;
it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove that he used all due diligence to secure compliance with the provision, prohibition, restriction or requirement, as the case may be.")
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 154, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 155:
Persons not to be under liability for contraventions which it was impracticable to avoid or prevent
155. It shall be a defence in any legal proceedings to recover damages and in any prosecution, in so far as the proceedings or prosecution are or is based on an allegation of a contravention, in relation to a mine or quarry, of—

717

(a) a provision of this Act, of an order made thereunder or of regulations (not being a provision which expressly provides that a person is to be guilty of an offence) or

(b) a notice served under or by virtue of this Act by an inspector;

to prove that it was impracticable to avoid or prevent the contravention.
LORD HAWKE: This Amendment is consequential to the Amendments to Clause 150.
Amendment moved—
Page 93, line 23, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("b) a direction, prohibition, restriction, or requirement given or imposed by a notice served under or by virtue of this Act by an inspector; or
(c) a condition attached to an exemption, consent, approval or authority granted or given under or by virtue of this Act by the Minister or an inspector;").—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT FURNESS VISCOUNT FURNESS moved to leave out "impracticable" and insert "not reasonably practicable." The noble Viscount said: in moving this Amendment it is not my intention to affect in any way the safety of miners, which is, after all, the primary reason for this Bill. I ask only that, in keeping with the spirit of the Bill, we should not substantially alter the existing position. The change to "impracticable" from "not reasonably practicable" is in my submission a major change. I am no lawyer, but my dictionary tells me that impracticable means not practicable, and that differs little if at all from impossible. It removes the word reasonable and the character of reasonableness, and I should think that that word was a rather important one. Is it really reasonable, with all the meanings of that word, for that word in this connection to be left out of this part of the Bill? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 93, line 25, leave out ("impracticable") and insert ("not reasonably practicable").—(Viscount Furness.)
EARL JOWITT: Before the Minister replies, I should like to say something about this clause. May I say, incidentally, that in my experience to get to Amendment No. 305 is a record, and may I also say what a good idea it was that we started the numbering of Amendments. That was done during my term, and it is an innovation I am proud to have introduced. I very much hope that the Minister will stand to his guns on this matter and not accept the Amend-
718
ment. It is a subject to which noble Lords on this side of the House and the miners' union attach very great importance indeed. I will try to explain to your Lordships why.
The position, I think, at the present time—I will be corrected if I am wrong—is this. You here impose a code of all sorts of precautions in the interests of safety and life which the miners and managers, and so on, must carry out. But there is an escape clause: if they can prove certain things, they are then excused from the non-carrying out of those obligations. Under the Coal Mines Act of 1911, so far as criminal proceedings are concerned the obligation was precisely similar to that contained in the clause as drafted by the Government. With regard to quarries, as regards both criminal proceedings and civil proceedings, where a man may bring an action for damages, the section was precisely the same as the clause now drafted by the Government. The only exception was in the case of civil proceedings in mines. There, the section was in the form drafted by the noble Viscount opposite in his Amendment.
The question is whether, to get symmetry, we should adopt the words of the Amendment or whether we should apply the general principle which the Government applied in 1911 and have applied throughout in quarries and mines with the exception of the case of an action for damages under the Coal Mines Act. I am sure that I could not give a definition of what is "impracticable." but of this I am certain: that "impracticable" means "not practicable," and if you introduce another word and say "not reasonably practicable" you are obviously, by introducing that third word, making that which is comparatively clear more obscure. I have tried to cast about—I am glad the Lord Chancellor is here, because he has great experience of these things, and I used to have some experience—but I have net found a case reported in the books where a judge has said this, or words to this effect: "I cannot accept the excuse which is proffered by the mine owners for not observing the regulations because I do not consider that they have made out that it was not even practicable; but if the words had been 'not reasonably practicable I should have accepted it." There is no such case, so far as I know. Therefore, one has to try to consider the matter

719
on principle. I would suggest this—the Lord Chancellor will be able to look it up and check it—the strongest word of all is "impossible." I should have thought that next, coming down the hierarchy and not quite so strong as "impossible," is "impracticable"; and then, further still down the hierarchy, "not reasonably practicable." One finds that the few judges who have ever discussed these points got so confused with those terms that one cannot gain very much light or learning from their observations.
There was a very distinguished judge, Mr. Justice Maule. I looked it up this morning and I have his quotation as follows. I got this from Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, which is a book which the Lord Chancellor will know very well:
"In matters of business,"
says the judge:
"a thing is said to be impossible when it is not practicable, and a thing is impracticable when it can only be done at an excessive or unreasonable cost. A man may be said to have lost a shilling when he has dropped it into deep water, though it may be possible by means of some expensive contrivance to recover it. So if a ship sustains such extensive damage that it would not be reasonably practicable to repair her—seeing that the expense of repairs would be such that no man of common sense would incur the outlay—the ship is said to be totally lost."
There, it is to be observed that the learned judge uses more or less interchangeably all three phrases—"impossible," "impracticable" and "not reasonably practicable." I have found this further quotation. There was a regulation under the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1872, which prohibited shot-firing in a mine until the men were out of it. A manager summoned for a breach of that regulation tried to say that he could escape under the words "not reasonably practicable." But the judges said this:
"A direction that a set of affirmative and negative rules shall be observed so far as is reasonably practicable will not, unless under very special circumstances indeed, apply to the negative rules. 'It is always possible not to do that which you are forbidden to do'."
But observe that that seems to imply that it applies only to the negative rules and, even under the negative rules, it presupposes that there may be very special circumstances indeed under which you may be justified in doing that which you are forbidden to do. So far as positive
720
rules, therefore, are concerned, I should infer from that judicial observation that there may be special circumstances in which you are justified in not observing the rules.
The conclusion of the whole matter which I venture to suggest to your Lordships is this: that we ought to make this point as definite and as clear as we can; and that the word "impracticable" (or "not practicable") is obviously and certainly more definite than the phrase "not reasonably practicable," although I say at once that I have been unable—and I believe everybody else will be unable—to assign precise limits to the meaning of either phrase. I am inclined to think—indeed, I feel confident—that the word "reasonably" in the phrase enlarges the ambiguity of the exception, and not merely does it enlarge its ambiguity but it produces some slight sense of uncertainty which is not there without it.
That being so, I would very much rather the Government would adhere to their original intention. I am reinforced in that by reading the cogent arguments, which it would not be in order for me to repeat here, of the then Attorney-General in another place, where he gave clear reasons for preferring the word "impracticable" to the phrase "not reasonably practicable." I have looked up the position in the Factories Act. There is one clause, and I think only one clause, in the Factories Act, 1937, where the words "not reasonably practicable" appear, and in every other clause where this context is dealt with at all the word used is "impracticable." I suggest that the introduction of the qualifying word "reasonably" introduces an element of uncertainty in the matter of safety which will be confusing not merely to lawyers-they do not matter so much—but to workmen, managers, owners and inspectors whose duty it is to administer the law. And in that the law has to be dealt with and administered by those people, I feel that it is very important that we should have this as definite as possible.
Those are the reasons which induce me, as a lawyer, to prefer not to have this element of ambiguity introduced into the clause, but to extend to the civil remedy under the Coal Mines Act what already is the civil remedy under the Quarries Act and what is the criminal

721
position under the Mines Act to-day. Speaking merely as a lawyer on this matter, I think, for reasons I have given, that it is better not to have the word "reasonably" in. Those who know the business of the mines attach great) importance to this point because they know that this clause in the first instance is not going to be construed by lawyers at all; it is going to be a code of behaviour of people in charge of the mines. Therefore they say that it is of the utmost importance, in matters of safety and the welfare of the people, that the Bill should be as definite as possible. I am grateful to the Committee for allowing me to make my remarks now, because I cannot be here on Thursday; and for those reasons I very much hope that the Government will adhere to their original intention. We on this side of the House regard it as a matter of great moment that they shall not depart from the intention which they have expressed and to which they adhered after the Attorney-General had carefully considered the matter in another place.
7.41 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): I hope that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I follow the noble and learned Earl, because it is a point of some difficulty. I am additionally fortified in so doing because I find myself, I think, in general agreement with what he has enunciated as to the law. But may I first, for one moment, try to assuage slightly the fears of my noble friend behind me? One of his fears was that the word "impracticable" was equivalent to "impossible," and cut out any conception of reasonableness or subjectivity in considering the problem. I do not think he need entertain that fear and, if I may put it in this way, as I see the problem of interpretation, there are two negative propositions on which everyone who has considered it has agreed; first, that it has not had the effect of making the employer an insurer in this matter, and secondly, that all those who have considered the word "impracticable" have said quite clearly that it does not mean, and is not equivalent to, "impossible."
We start from these propositions, and again, so far as my researches go, everyone is agreed that there is an element of reasonableness and subjective consideration in the word "impracticable." I am
722
sure that the noble and learned Earl will agree with me that one of the most difficult, and also one of the most dangerous, activities is to try to define too closely or to apply a general matter of this kind without the facts of a particular case in front of one. Therefore, I shall, if I may so put it, be as guarded as he was in that aspect of the matter.
I think that my noble friend who moved this Amendment can take comfort front this fact. He was afraid that we are altering the words of Section 102 (8) in the Coal Mines Act, and that it would be concluded from that that we are making a wide alteration in the sense. I do not think that that applies here. As the noble and learned Earl has pointed out, in the very same section, Section 102, in the other subsection which deals with criminal matters under the Coal Mines Act, the word "impracticable" is used; and the conclusion I draw from that is that if anyone were to say "Here is an alteration in the wording of subsection (8); we must draw a very serious and profound conclusion, from that," they would rather be drawn back to look at subsection (3), and would have to say then, "We cannot take that view." The noble and learned Earl has also pointed out that in numerous other parts of the various Acts which are the parents of this Bill the phrase is used in slightly different terms, but always dealing with this problem.
What we are really trying to do here—and that is I think the nub of the matter which the noble and learned Earl stressed—is to make one provision which is clear and definite, instead of the different provisions we have had in the past; and that one provision deals with the criminal as well as the civil aspects of the matter. So I think that, from the point of view of definiteness, it is an advance to take the line that we are suggesting. I would, however, point out one fact, because I know that my noble friend who moved this Amendment and others of my noble friends are worried in this matter. So far as I can see (and I have tried to consider the various occasions when these terms have been construed), one does get this view of "impracticable" expressed over and over again—namely, that "impracticable" carries the connotation that you have to consider, on one side, the risk against which the safety precautions are instituted, and, on, the other side, the elabora-

723
tion, the labour involved and, it may be in some cases, the expense of putting up these provisions. How the scales tip must, of course, depend on what is in either side of the scale, and I do not think any of your Lordships would object to this view of the matter: that where there is danger to life or limb there will require to be a very heavy weight on the other side of the scales before they are tipped down. But there is that aspect of the matter. I cannot see that it is excluded by the dropping of the word "reasonably", and I think it is only frank that I should put that aspect of the matter before the Committee.
I come now to the other aspect—and this was implicit in the noble and learned Earl's remarks, although he did not actually propound it. I have tried, as I am sure has the noble and learned Earl, to quantify in practical terms the implications of "reasonably." I have totally failed. When one gets to that position, where as I say—and I put the point quite frankly to the Committee—there is that connotation of the word "impracticable" itself, and it is utterly impossible to quantify the difference that "reasonably" makes to the term, then I think there is a great deal to be said for taking the clear and definite course of dropping an adverb the sense of which it is impossible to define. Therefore, I would ask my noble friend not to press this matter. If there is anything in these short remarks of mine which I have not made clear, I shall of course be at his service to discuss it further, as I shall be for any Member of the Committee.
7.50 p.m.
LORD ROCHDALE: Anyone who rises to speak on this matter after the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Earl the ex-Lord Chancellor is heading for trouble. I should like to ask this question of my noble friend when he finally replies. Like other noble Lords I looked up the meaning of the word in the big Murray's Dictionary in the Library and I found that "impracticable" was described there as meaning "practically impossible." How many engineers, taking a purely practical approach to this matter, with all the knowledge and experience available to them, would be prepared sincerely to
724
admit, perhaps in retrospect, after some accident, that there were absolutely no possible steps that could have been taken, if all consideration of reasonableness had been debarred to them? They could not possibly admit that there were no practicable steps which could have been taken to avoid this or that accident.
If that is so, then, as I read this clause, even were it to mean that the output of a particular quarry or mine had to be reduced to negligible proportions—perhaps the mine even closed down altogether—it is obligatory upon the management to take those steps. That may be, in certain cases, a necessary thing: the quarry may be so dangerous that it is wiser it should not be operated. But in many cases that would not be so, and its closure would, in fact, be to the detriment not only of the management but of all employees at that mine or quarry. It is, however, quite clear that noble Lords opposite feel very strongly against this Amendment, and it is also clear to me that Her Majesty's Government will not accept it. I am sure my noble friend will appreciate the trouble that the noble and learned Earl opposite and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor have taken to deal with this matter. It was absolutely right that it should be aired in your Lordships' House, because not only do all miners, possibly, feel very strongly against it, but I can assure noble Lords that owners and managements of quarries feel equally strongly that, as the Bill now stands, it places a very serious burden upon them. Having said that, I leave my noble friend to do as he likes.
VISCOUNT FURNESS: In view of the great guns which have been brought to bear on this Amendment by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, the entire weight of the Govern-Front Bench and the entire weight of the Opposition, I must thank them warmly for the trouble they have taken over this word "reasonably," and, with the permission of my noble friend Lord Rochdale, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 155, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at five minutes before eight o'clock.