Sitting of 27 October 1954

Preamble
The House met at Hall past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BANK OF SCOTLAND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL NAVY

    Boys (Engagement Option)
    Mr. Haleasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of young sailors who, at the age of 18 years, have opted to continue their service in the Royal Navy for a further period; and the total number who became eligible to exercise such an option, during the last 12 months to the most recent convenient date.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Commander Allan Noble): There is no engagement with such an option. Presumably the hon. Member has in mind the boys of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines who enter between 15 and 16¼ years of age to serve for 12 years after reaching the age of 18. These boys have the option, on attaining the age of 18, to transfer to a shorter engagement of seven years only. The proportion who do so transfer is between 75 and 80 per cent. The total number who became eligible to transfer ender this option in the past 12 months was approximately 2,000.

    Discharge By Purchase
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many naval officers and ratings have been allowed to retire or buy their discharge; and how this figure compares with the applications received, between February, 1954, and 1st October, 1954.
    Commander Noble: One thousand and sixteen applications have been received from ratings of which 830 have been approved. One hundred and seven have been received from officers; of these, 70 have been approved.
    Brigadier Clarke: May I thank my hon. Friend for those figures? I think there has been a great improvement, and many officers and ratings will be very pleased.

    H.M. Dockyards (Staggered Holidays)
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will now consider reverting to staggered holidays in Her Majesty's dockyards.
    Mr. Burdenasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will now authorise staggered holidays to be restored in Her Majesty's Dockyards for 1955.
    Mr. Bottomleyasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will make a statement about the annual holiday period in Her Majesty's dockyards.
    Mr. J. J. Astorasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will make known the Admiralty's policy concerning holidays in Her Majesty's dockyards for next year.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Wingfield Digby): Future arrangements for holidays in Admiralty industrial establishments are now being reviewed in the light of the experience of 1954.
    Brigadier Clarke: Does my hon. Friend realise that staggered holidays were very unpopular from the point of view of the dockyard and of the city and have put everybody out of gear?
    Mr. Digby: I realise that staggered holidays have been unpopular with some people, but I do not think the information I have been given shows that they were universally unpopular. Many other things have to be taken into account, notably the efficiency of the dockyards.
    Mr. Bottomley: While recognising the necessity for consultations between the -trade unions and the Admiralty, may I ask if it is not a fact that Government policy calls for staggered holidays? Has not the officially-sponsored British Travel and Holidays Association made representations to the Admiralty suggesting a return to staggered holidays?
    Mr. Digby: There are real difficulties for us here. We are under an obligation to run Admiralty establishments efficiently. Since the additional week's holiday has been granted it is more difficult to do this with staggered holidays, as double the number would be away at any one time. We are taking all the various factors into consideration in reviewing this matter.
    Mr. Burden: Will my hon. Friend consider the position of the Medway towns quite separately from other dockyards because there is a great deal of resentment? In view of the fact that in wartime the dockyards could not be closed a whole fortnight but would have to be open, is it not wise to carry on now with staggered holidays there in such a way as they would have to do in war?
    Mr. Digby: I could not anticipate what would be necessary in war, but we have to have regard to the efficiency of the dockyards and other industrial establishments. It would be very difficult to treat Chatham differently from other dockyard towns.
    Mr. Foot: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that his statement that the Admiralty is under an obligation to run the dockyards efficiently will create lively interest and even surprise in the dockyards? Can he say when an announcement about staggered holidays will be made? Can we have an assurance that the trade unions will be fully consulted?
    Mr. Digby: Certainly the trade unions will be fully consulted. We shall make an announcement as soon as we can, but not before the meeting of the Admiralty industrial Council, which takes place on the 18th of next month.
    Mr. Astor: Is my hon. Friend aware that, whatever the decision of the Admiralty may be, it is more likely to be received favourably if announced as soon as possible? Is he aware that last year's announcement was somewhat late for people to make holiday arrangements?
    Mr. Digby: I am fully aware of that, but, as I have said, I want to have the opportunity of discussing the matter fully with the trade unions on the 18th, when we have the Admiralty Industrial Council meeting.

    W.R.N.S. (Meal Complaints)
    Mr. Stewardasked the First Lord of the Admiralty to give details of the inquiry which he has ordered into the diet of the Women's Royal Naval Service.
    Commander Noble: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to reports in the Press concerning meals of ratings of the Women's Royal Naval Service at Lee-on-Solent. I have ascertained that the complaints made were exaggerated, and could have been dealt with earlier had they been represented by the ratings in the proper Service manner. They certainly do not call for any general inquiry into the messing of these ratings, which is, I am glad to say, on a high standard.
    Mr. Steward: May I ask the Minister whether there are not catering officers employed in the Navy, in the same way as in the Army and Air Force, and is it not their duty to study the diets provided for the various personnel? May I ask whether it is not just as easy to employ women cooks as well as men cooks to serve women personnel? Are there not mess committee meetings held at various intervals in the same way as meetings were held before the war and at home stations during the war, at which such complaints as the one under discussion could be dealt with?
    Commander Noble: In answer to my hon. Friend's first point, I would say that we do attach great importance to catering in the Navy. We have a Supply captain on the Council of the Hotel and Catering Institute, and other officers are members. The matter is treated very seriously. With regard to men cooks and women cooks, there are certain establishments in the Royal Navy where there are female cooks, but that is not the case at the place that was mentioned in the Press. There are, of course, mess committees which deal with such complaints, and that is what I meant when I said that representations should have been made in the proper Service manner. As a matter of fact, the complaints from this particular place were extremely varied and sometimes very contradictory.

    British and Foreign Naval Strengths
    Major Wallasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of British and Soviet cruisers, destroyers and submarines at present in commission and in reserve.
    Commander Noble: Details of the strength of the Royal Navy in these classes of ships are given in the First Lord's statement explanatory of the Navy Estimates for the financial year 1954–55. The Soviet Navy has approximately 23 cruisers, 125 destroyers and 400 submarines in commission. The entire Soviet Fleet is maintained in full commission, and there is no reserve fleet.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Did not the Admiralty during the Recess discover some more Soviet warships, and was this part of the propaganda put up by the Admiralty and the naval vested interests against the efforts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce expenditure?
    Commander Noble: I can assure the hon. Gentleman there was no question of propaganda. There had been a leakage in another quarter on that occasion and we wished to make the position quite clear.
    Major Wall: In view of the lessons of the last war, especially with regard to surface raiders, does not my hon. and gallant Friend feel anxiety at the figures quoted? While congratulating him on the recently announced completion of three ships of the Tiger class may I ask whether that represents a decision to have a progressive programme of replacement of surface ships?
    Commander Noble: I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend approves of the recent decision to complete the three Tiger class cruisers with the most up-to-date equipment. As my right hon. Friend said a few days ago with regard to the building programme of the future, we have a guided-weapon trial ship under construction and further progress will, of course, be based on that experience.
    Major Wallasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of British and German cruisers, destroyers and submarines available for service at the start of World War II.
    Commander Noble: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Hale: When the Minister circulates those figures, can he put them in four columns: first, the ships built under the letter and the spirit of the Anglo-German Naval Treaty: second, those
    1904
    built according to the letter but not the spirit of the Treaty, like the pocket battleships; third, those built outside the terms of the Treaty and with our connivance; and fourth, those built outside the terms of the Treaty and without our knowledge?
    Commander Noble: If the hon. Gentleman desires that information he had better put down a Question.
    The particulars are as follows:

    —

    Royal Navy

    German Navy

    Available for service — September, 1939

    Cruisers (including battle-cruisers)

    61

    8

    Destroyers and escort vessels

    207

    17

    Submarines

    69

    60

    (about)

    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of British and United States cruisers, destroyers, submarines and aircraft carriers at present in commission and reserve.
    Commander Noble: Details of the strength of the Royal Navy in these classes of ships are given in my right hon. Friend's explanatory statement presented with the Navy Estimates for the financial year 1954–55. Broadly comparable information in respect of the United States Fleet is given in the Report of the Secretary of the Navy, and I am arranging to lend the hon. Member a copy of the latest edition available.
    Mr. Hughes: While expressing my gratitude to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and promising that I will peruse this document, may I ask, in view of the criticism of naval strategy made by Lord Montgomery last Friday, how many of these ships are likely to be obsolete by the time they are finished?
    Commander Noble: I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman will peruse the document which I will lend him. I hope that he will peruse it as carefully as I perused the little yellow book which he sent to me the other day. I think that the statement by Lord Montgomery very much bears out what my right hon. Friend said the other day, and That we must watch for future developments to see what type of ship we require in the Navy.

    Collingwood Sea Cadets Unit
    Mrs. Mannasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what protests he has received about the closing of the Coiling-wood Sea Cadets Unit, Glasgow; and when it is intended to reopen this unit.
    Commander Noble: None, Sir. The administration of Sea Cadet units is the responsibility of the Sea Cadet Council and not of the Admiralty. I understand, however, that it is the intention to reopen the unit as soon as questions of accommodation and local administration can be solved.
    Mrs. Mann: If I submit a document of evidence about the closing of this unit would it be submitted to the proper quarter and be considered before it is reopened?
    Commander Noble: Yes, I will certainly be prepared to do that if the hon. Lady would care to send me any communication. The Sea Cadets are run by the Sea Cadet Council, on which the Admiralty has a representative.

    Recruitment (National Service)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will dispense with compulsory National Service for naval recruitment.
    Commander Noble: No, Sir
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of the comparatively small number of National Service men who are posted to the Royal Navy by the Ministry of Labour and National Service, is not it possible to have at least one branch of the Armed Services based entirely upon voluntary recruitment; and would not it be a very good thing for morale, too? In any event, why has not the Navy tried out the system of short-term engagements, which would probably enable the voluntary principle to he fully implemented?
    Commander Noble: National Service men are essential to the Royal Navy at the moment. They have an extremely good reputation in the Navy and in the Fleet Air Arm. They do an extremely good job.

    Base, Simonstown
    Mr. Callaghanasked the First Lord of the Admiralty why he has acceded to negotiations that involve
    1906
    giving up the naval base at Simonstown, South Africa; and how he proposes to ensure that ships of the Royal Navy patrolling South Atlantic waters will continue to enjoy a safe and well-equipped anchorage.
    Commander Noble: Following upon the talks on defence matters of mutual interest that were held in September with the Minister of Defence of the Union of South Africa, a small Admiralty mission is at present in South Africa to discuss naval co-operation. No decision has been taken about the future of the naval base at Simonstown. Any decision on this, as on other questions of policy, would have to be subject to agreement between the two Governments.
    Mr. Callaghan: May we take it from that statement that the Admiralty mission which is out there is not empowered to negotiate about any alteration in the present arrangements for the holding of Simonstown?
    Commander Noble: Yes. I would certainly say that the mission out there has no power of negotiation. The discussions cover a variety of issues and, of course, the Government are not committed in any way.
    Mr. A. Henderson: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman make it quite clear that the South African Navy has full use of the base under present arrangements?
    Commander Noble: Yes. We try to give the South African Navy all the facilities it requires at Simonstown.

  SHIPBUILDING

    Orders
    Mr. Awberyasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the shipping tonnage orders cancelled during the past nine months are equal to the new orders received; what is the cause of this recession; how many of these orders were transferred abroad; and what steps he proposes to prevent a further deterioration in shipbuilding and to maintain a steady flow of output of tonnage from our shipyards during the next few years.
    Mr. Digby: Yes, Sir. Most of the tonnage cancelled was licensed in 1951 and

    1907
    1952 at a time of unprecedented demand for shipping. So far as I am aware, none of these cancelled orders has been transferred abroad and I can only assume that the ships are not now required. The order book amounts to 4·4 million gross tons of shipping, or about two years of work without making any allowance for future orders. As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Member on 11th May, 1954, a careful watch is being kept on the shipbuilding situation.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that if the withdrawal of orders proceeds in the same proportion as during the past nine months, in four years there will be nothing on the stocks except tugs and barges; and will he look into this matter.
    Mr. Digby: I think that is most unlikely. After all, the industry has two years' work ahead, which is a lot better than some other industries.
    Mr. Callaghan: Does the Minister know that ships for Russia are being built at the moment by Finland. Sweden, Holland, Belgium, I believe by Norway and certainly by West Germany, and will he take a more forthcoming view about the orders that the Soviet Minister of Trade was willing to place in this country?
    Mr. Digby: I am aware that some foreign countries are building for Russia, and that there have been some inquiries here, but I do not think that there is any action which I can take. It is a matter between the firms and the trade delegation.

    Tyneside
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many ships, and of what total tonnage, have been hooked as orders for Tyneside shipyards; and how many were cancelled during the first nine months of 1954.
    Mr. Digby: In the first nine months of 1954, licences to build four ships totalling 28,000 gross tons were issued to Tyneside shipyards and, in the same period, licences for five ships totalling 68,450 gross tons were cancelled.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Does not this reveal a very dangerous position? Is it not time that the Admiralty took a more lively interest in this and gave greater support, particularly to the question of securing orders from other parts of the world, including Russia?
    Mr. Digby: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we do take a lively interest in this question. As I have already said, we still have a large number of orders on the order books and I think that it would be a mistake to be unduly alarmed at this stage. We have had cancellations., but we have also got some new orders, many of which are for smaller ships, and this is helping the small yards, whose order books are shortest.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is not the Minister aware that there is a good deal of anxiety, and that the Admiralty is showing a great deal of complacency in giving the same sort of reply as it has now given over the last year or two? Is it not time to take a much more active line?
    Mr. Digby: I can assure the hon. Member that there is no complacency on our side. We have our Shipbuilding Advisory Committee which we can consult in this matter, and we have conversations with the Shipbuilding Conference.
    Mr. Burden: Is there anything to stop our shipyards from tendering for Russian orders and accepting orders, if their tenders are right, for ships of a cargo nature and vessels other than warships?
    Mr. Digby: There is nothing to stop our ship-builders provided that the ships are within the security limits. In fact one large order has already been obtained.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Reading
    Mr. Remnantasked the Assistant Postmaster-General the number of applicants for telephone connections on the waiting list of the Reading area for a convenient and comparable date in 1950, 1952 and 1954.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): The following are the figures for 30th September of each year, excluding applications in course of provision or under inquiry:

    1950.

    …

    …

    …

    4,457

    1952

    …

    …

    …

    5,130

    1954

    …

    …

    …

    3,633

    This improvement has been made in spite of 5,000 new applications during the past 12 months.
    Mr. Remnant: While it is pleasant to receive information about such an improvement, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that there still remain on the waiting list a number of people who have been waiting for seven years or more?
    Mr. Gammans: Yes, I am aware of that. I must inform my hon. Friend, however, that the percentage of people who are waiting in the Reading area is considerably less than the national average.
    Mr. Remnantasked the Assistant Postmaster-General the sum sanctioned for capital expenditure in the Reading area for the years 1951–52, 1952–53, 1953–54 and 1954–55.
    Mr. Gammans: Capital investment in the Reading telephone area in 1951–52 to 1953–54 was £370,000, £472,000 and £618,000 respectively. In the present year it will be of the order of £630,000.
    Mr. Remnant: Can my hon. Friend give me an assurance that this will enable the labour employed there to work overtime without exceeding the Estimates?
    Mr. Gammans: I should like notice of that question.
    Mr. Bence: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that there is a good deal of complaint among people who are rehoused when they find that they are unable to be supplied with a telephone although they have had the advantage of such a service in their former homes?
    Mr. Gammans: Much depends on the local position in the area to which they move, but we try to help these people in every possible way.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the Assistant Postmaster-General of the opinion that it is about time that a little more capital was allowed the Post Office to enable it to get on with the job of providing telephones, because at the present rate some people will not get telephones for five years?
    Mr. Gammans: If the right hon. Gentleman studies the Estimates he will see that the amount allocated for the provision of telephones has been very considerably increased during the present year.
    Mr. Beswick: Will the hon. Gentleman suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that before the Government allow the export of capital for holiday purposes he should be given more for the purpose of installing telephones?

    New Towns (Capital Allocations)
    Mr. Remnantasked the Assistant Postmaster-General to what extent particular allocations for capital expenditure on telephone services for new towns are made annually; and what steps are taken to ensure that such allocations are not diverted to other work.
    Mr. Gammans: The needs of the new towns are fully taken into account when the annual allocations of funds to telephone managers are decided, and telephone managers give priority to works in new towns. Funds so allocated are not diverted elsewhere.
    Mr. Remnant: Can I, then, give an assurance to my constituents that there is no danger of moneys allocated for the normal work in the new towns being diverted to work elsewhere?
    Mr. Gammans: When money is so allocated there is no diversion elsewhere.

    Possil and Maryhill, Glasgow
    Mr. Hannanasked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many applications for telephone service are on the waiting list, at a recent convenient date, for the Possilpark and Maryhill Exchanges of Glasgow; and how many of these have been on the list for a period of three years and over.
    Mr. Gammans: One hundred and forty-two applications are outstanding at Possil and 363 at Maryhill. Three applicants at Possil have been waiting over three years and 14 at Maryhill. In these two areas over 250 lines have been connected in the past 12 months.
    Mr. Hannan: What capital expenditure has been allocated for these areas? Will the hon. Gentleman pursue his inquiries, because I am not satisfied about the attention given to these areas according to the complaints which I get? As evidence of that, will he consider a letter which I sent him yesterday about an application made about three years nine months ago?
    Mr. Gammans: I am afraid that the subject of capital expenditure is outside the Question on the Order Paper, but if the hon. Gentleman is prepared to address another Question to me, I will certainly provide him with the information.
    Mr. John MacLeod: Will my hon. Friend say whether the delay in this case is due to shortage of money or shortage of labour?
    Mr. Gammans: I gather that the area is a widely scattered residential one, and, therefore, it is more expensive to instal telephones there than in a congested area. Another complication, which will probably please the hon. Gentleman who represents the area, is that the number of applications there has almost doubled during the last two years.
    Mr. Hannan: Will the hon. Gentleman pay attention to my request to him to pursue his inquiries, because recent answers show a great need for that? This is not a residential area but a very thickly populated industrial part of Clasgow.
    Mr. Gammans: If the hon. Gentleman is worried about the amount of money allocated, I said that if he will put a Question on the Order Paper I will certainly give him the answer.

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Reception, Morecambe and Lonsdale
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware that in Morecambe and Lonsdale the Home Service of the British Broadcasting Corporation is weak and variable; and if he will take steps to remedy this.
    Mr. Gammans: I understand from the B.B.C., that generally speaking, satisfactory reception of the North Home Service programme from Moorside Edge should be obtained in Morecambe and Lonsdale on receiving sets in good condition and using outdoor aerials. There is some interference after dark from a station in the Soviet Zone of Germany. The first list of V.H.F. stations, recently authorised, includes one at Holme Moss, and this will help the service in Morecambe and Lonsdale.
    Sir I. Fraser: As this is a hilly district, as my hon. Friend knows, will he see that some booster is provided or that the area comes high on the list for a V.H.F. station? Will he accept my assurance, I having spent seven or eight weeks there this summer, that reception of the Home Service is variable?
    Mr. Gammans: Yes, I agree. The main trouble is the station in the Soviet Zone of Germany which interferes with the reception in the area mentioned by my hon. Friend. The B.B.C. programme is to have the V.H.F. station working by the end of 1956.
    Mr. Vane: May I ask my hon. Friend to make some more local inquiries, when I think that he will find that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction—and with
    good ground? Is not his answer just a little too complacent?
    Mr. Gammans: I had not meant to be complacent. I accept that the service is had and that there is interference, but with the limited number of medium wavelengths available the only sensible and real way in which to deal with the matter is to introduce V.H.F.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Can the hon. Gentleman say when we are likely to have a further international review of these wavelengths, because some of the home services are suffering very badly indeed—especially the Welsh Home Service?
    Mr. Gammans: I agree that in parts of Wales reception of the Welsh Home Service is extremely bad. That, I think, is generally accepted. I should like notice of the question about a further conference. I cannot remember off-hand the date when the next one is due.

    Motor Vehicle Interference (Suppressors)
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will make a further appeal to motor vehicle operators and owners to fit suppressors on their engines and windscreen wipers so as to diminish interference with television reception especially having regard to the effect that arises in fringe areas.
    Mr. Gammans: Appeals are being made all the time through the B.B.C., the motoring organisations and the radio

    1913
    industry, and by displays in post offices. The Press has also co-operated. I am informed that possibly as a result of all this there is still a steady demand for suppressors to be fitted to older cars.
    Sir I. Fraser: Has my hon. Friend any figures which would show what proportion of all vehicles in Britain have suppressors and what have not? Will my hon. Friend consider broadcasting on this question?
    Mr. Gammans: With regard to broadcasting myself, that is a matter outside my control. I cannot give my hon. Friend any figures. I do not think that they are known. All I can say is that this campaign has gone on very thoroughly for a considerable time, and I think that it is producing results.
    Mr. Nally: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that, as from now on, it would be appropriate and accurate if he makes it clear that on television matters he speaks by kind permission of Mr. Maurice Winnick and his associates?
    Mr. G. Williams: Why is it not made compulsory to fit suppressors? Silencers are compulsory, and lately reflectors have been made compulsory, and yet it is not made compulsory to fit suppressors when in their absence television programmes are impaired for many people.
    Mr. Gammans: We have considered the matter, but it is no use having a regulation to make something compulsory unless one can enforce it. It is comparatively easy to enforce the regulation about silencers because one can hear if there is not a silencer. The proposal to make the fitting of suppressors compulsory would entail recruiting a corps of inspectors to go round looking at every motor car, and we do not believe that that is desirable or necessary, in view of the success which the present campaign is having.

    I.T.A. (Young People's Representation)
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what arrangements have been made for the views of young people to be represented on the Independent Television Authority.
    Mr. Gammans: This is a matter for the Independent Television Authority
    1914
    under the powers vested in them under Section 8 of the Television Act, 1954.
    Mr. Jeger: As the Authority was appointed by the Minister, will the hon. Gentleman say whether it would not be desirable to have direct representation of young people's opinions on it in view of the general agreement in countries where there is commercial television that its most harmful effects are upon young pepole?
    Mr. Gammans: If the hon. Gentleman is thinking of a committee of young people, then the Authority has power, if it thinks desirable, to set up such a committee. If he is thinking of matters which concern young people, it is mandatory under the Act that such a committee shall be set up.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: In view of the outrageous proposals that we have read today in the Press, is not the Assistant Postmaster-General of the opinion that the Independent Television Authority ought to be brought more closely under the control of this House?
    Mr. Gammans: The right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question has nothing whatever to do with the Question on the Order Paper.
    Sir T. Moore: To return to the Question and the first supplementary question, if the proposal were carried to its logical conclusion, would it not mean that young people's views should also be represented in, say, the Ministry of Education?

  POST OFFICE

    Postal Area, Poole
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Assistant Postmaster-General when he proposes that the decision to include Branksome Park, Canford Cliffs, Sandbanks and Parkstone in Poole postal district will become effective.
    Mr. Gammans: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to him on 20th October.
    Captain Pilkington: According to the elected representatives of the area, there is a majority in favour of the proposal. When the Postmaster-General received a deputation about two years ago, he said that the change would be made as soon as

    1915
    facilities were available. Am I not right in thinking that facilities are now available?
    Mr. Gammans: We have had so many complaints from the public about what we propose to do that we have asked the local authorities in the area to co-operate with us in trying to find out exactly what the people want, and they have agreed to do so. I hope that that will satisfactorily solve the problem.

    Crown Office, Wickford
    Mr. Braineasked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will now make provision for a Crown post office in the expanding town of Wickford.
    Mr. Gammans: The new Crown post office at Wickford will be started in 1956. We cannot make an earlier start because there are other even more urgent building requirements.
    Mr. Braine: While that answer is very satisfactory so far as it goes, will my hon. Friend say on what principle a Crown post office is to be authorised for the Barstaple neighbourhood unit of Basildon, which has a population of only 4,000 now, whereas Wickford, which has a population of 8,000 at the moment. must wait until 1956?
    Mr. Gammans: I would remind my hon. Friend that it is only in comparatively recent years that we have been able to allocate money for post offices at all, and, therefore, there must be some priority list.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Retired Officers (Air Ministry Letter)
    Mr. Crouchasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of officers who have responded to the letter A520210/43/AR4 which has been sent to men who have completed their engagements.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): Five hundred and twenty-five, so far.
    Mr. Crouch: Is my hon. Friend aware that the letter has given a great deal of offence to its recipients? Does he seriously expect experienced pilots who have had many thousands of hours of flying
    1916
    time to go, on the completion of their engagements, into the territorial side of the R.A.F. as non-commissioned officers and, in the event of war, have to work up to the rank which they previously held? Ought he not to withdraw the letter and send a wiser one?
    Mr. Ward: No, Sir. The letter does not invite officers to take non-commissioned rank. It invites them either to relinquish their commissions or to extend their service on the understanding that they will be given no flying training.

    A.T.C. Cadets (Flying Time)
    Dr. Kingasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will increase the flying time allowed to cadets in the Air Training Corps.
    Mr. Ward: Yes, Sir. By employing capacity available in aircraft used for training fighter control units we hope to give cadets in the Air Training Corps appreciably more air experience.
    Dr. King: I thank the Minister for that answer. I am certain that he will agree that flying time is a great incentive to the young lads. Is he aware that Southampton Air Cadets are at present getting only 20 minutes' flying time per year?
    Mr. Ward: That is not quite true. Over last year the squadron averaged about 30 minutes, which was all that we had undertaken to give until the recent concession, which should add about 7,000 flying hours a year for cadets.
    Dr. King: In view of the hair-splitting disagreement about the figures, will the hon. Gentleman assure us that he will raise the flying time not by another five minutes but by a considerable amount?

    Night Flying, Abingdon (Complaints)
    Mr. Neaveasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has considered the complaints submitted to him of noise and low flying by aircraft of Transport Command stationed at Abingdon; and whether he will take all reasonable steps to reduce such noise and disturbance to people living near the aerodrome, particularly during hours of darkness.
    Mr. Ward: We are doing all we can to reduce disturbance to local residents at night while the north-south runway at

    1917
    Abingdon is being repaired. For the time being, there will be flying on fewer nights in the week, and one exercise about which there has been particular complaint will be carried out only in the daytime. I much regret any inconvenience that has been caused, but, as my hon. Friend knows, the continuation training done at Abingdon is absolutely essential for the safety of those who fly in these transport aircraft.
    Mr. Neave: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he say when the expects the repairs to the north-south runway to be completed?
    Mr. Ward: I hope it will be about the middle of November.

  TRANSPORT

    Cars (Direction Indicators)
    Sir J. Crowderasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will consider making it compulsory for all new cars to he fitted with self-adjusting trafficators.
    The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I have invited the views of organisations chiefly concerned on whether the fitting of direction indicators should be made compulsory on motor vehicles generally, and I shall review the whole question in the light of the replies received.
    Sir J. Crowder: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that accidents may be caused if trafficators have to be put down again by hand after use? Is he aware that very often, when one is used to the self-adjusting type, they are forgotten, and as a result get broken and are then in no way satisfactory? Is he further aware that the self-adjusting trafficators cost only £1 or so more per car?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is just one of the points which it will be necessary to consider. I think the feature in this particular device to which my hon. Friend refers is what is rather agreeably called self-cancellation.
    Mr. McKibbin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in addition to the ordinary kind of trafficators, which do not always operate satisfactorily, we now have blinking trafficators as well, and that these, together with double-dipping headlights
    1918
    which do not indicate to an approaching driver whether they are dipped or not, are just making confusion worse confounded? Will he consider having a standard system of lights for front, rear and side lights?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The question of standardised headlights is a different one, but I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's views on blinking trafficators.

    Driving Examiners (Increase)
    Mr. G. Williamsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what plans he has to increase the staff of examiners for learner drivers.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have asked the Civil Service Commission to recruit by open competition sufficient new examiners to increase their number from the present level of 510 to a total of 682.
    Mr. G. Williams: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that satisfactory reply, will he bear in mind that the sooner he does it the better, because there is a long period of waiting in many districts?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I agree that the delay in testing, which is due to the increased number of applicants, is unfortunate, and it is for that reason that I am attempting to recruit more examiners.

    Night Parking
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in view of the fact that reflectors are now compulsory on all cars and that many are allowed to remain on the highway at night without additional lights and that no serious difficulties have been experienced, he will take steps to permit all cars to do so provided that they are not left in positions considered by the police as unsuitable for such purpose.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am going into this question, but I have nothing that I can say about it today.
    Mr. Peter Freeman: In view of the fact that there is only about 5 per cent. of the traffic on the roads at night as compared with daytime, and of the very great expense and inconvenience to motorists in having to purchase batteries and recharge them, will the Minister give the matter immediate and sympathetic consideration?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir; that is exactly why I am going into it at the moment.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Could the right hon. Gentleman circulate as a White Paper the number of things which he is going into and upon which he has not yet reached a decision?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It would be very much shorter than a list of those of the right hon. Gentleman after six years of his Administration.

    Passenger Service Vehicles (Private Hire)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in view of the recommendations of the Thesiger Committee in November, 1953, which would allow coach proprietors to run their omnibuses to outlying districts on certain special occasions, he will take steps to restore such facilities for the public benefit.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: So far as legislation is concerned, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the present Colonial Secretary said on this subject on 7th July. The present position is unsatisfactory, but it is not at all clear in which direction the hon. Member seeks to have it improved.
    Mr. Freeman: Is it not a fact that many residents outside the ordinary urban areas and off bus routes often have great difficulty with transport, and would it not be of great benefit to them if facilities were provided whereby coach proprietors could extend their routes on special occasions when this was demanded by the public?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have little doubt that a difficult situation now exists in this respect, but the committee to which the hon. Member refers in his Question suggested a tightening up of licences. I am not at all sure that that would achieve the object which he has in mind.

    Drivers (Defective Sight)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (1) if he will set up a committee of inquiry into the need for laying
    1920
    down a code of rules affecting motorists who need glasses for driving;
    (2) if he is aware that motorists with defective sight needing glasses are driving cars without glasses and are consequently a danger to the public; and if he will take steps to have endorsed where necessary on motor driving licences any need for glasses by the holder, and to make the wearing of them compulsory while driving a car.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am at present reviewing the question of standards of vision necessary for safe driving, following reports I have received from various expert bodies. Any question of compulsion would involve legislation.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware of the great danger to the public from men driving motor cars who are half blind? Is he aware that if a man can read a figure at 25 yards he is able to get a licence? Will not the Minister have examined every man who applies for a licence and, if it is necessary for the applicant to have glasses, endorse that fact on his licence to ensure that he wears glasses when driving his car?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The difficulty is that, under the present law, if a man passes a driving test wearing glasses I have no power to compel him to wear them when driving. That is the position under the law.
    Mr. Awbery: Is not the Minister aware that some countries compel people who use glasses to wear them when driving?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I understand that that is the law in certain countries.

    Port and Railway Charges, Cardiff
    Mr. Callaghanasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what extent the trade of the port of Cardiff has been adversely affected by the present port charges and railway rates; and if he will consult with the British Transport Commission with a view to removing these handicaps.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Questions of such charges are for the British Transport Commission, and I understand that the hon. Member has already written to the Chairman of the Commission on this subject.
    Mr. Callaghan: It is quite true. I hope to get the Minister interested, too. Is the Minister aware that Cardiff dockers are working a smaller number of turns per week than the national average, and that unemployment is resulting there? As the Minister is partly responsible for port charges, if not for railway charges, will he at least look into this aspect of the matter?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is difficult to say what proportion of the difficulty in Cardiff, which I admit, is caused by these charges. One major fact is that coal exports are much less than they were before the war, but the trade in non-coal imports and exports through Cardiff was bigger last year than it was in 1938.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is it not a fact that the port charges relate not merely to coal but to the general cargo, and that that is the trouble at the present time? Will the right hon. Genlteman reconsider whether Cardiff's port charges are not above those of other ports?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman has put that point to the Chairman of the Commission. The point is that although non-coal exports through the port could be better, they are higher than they were before the war.
    Mr. Llewellyn: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this matter is causing far more anxiety in Cardiff and throughout Wales than almost any other industrial problem, and that it has been hanging on for years? Will he try to get the British Transport Commission to get a move on?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The British Transport Commission is looking into the matter. I would not like to agree that this is a very significant factor in the general problem.

  ROADS

    Kerbing (Rural Areas)
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will consider allocating less money to the supplying of kerb stones along main roads and more money towards the widening of the said roads.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There is no separate allocation of funds for kerbing,
    1922
    but I am now considering the whole question of kerbing on roads in rural areas with regard both to economy and safety.
    captain Pilkington: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that it would be far better to set about widening the roads which need widening, and to do less kerbing?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is for that reason that I am looking into this matter, but my hon. and gallant Friend will no doubt be aware that, in certain districts and on certain ground, the kerb serves an important purpose in preventing water from getting under the road and undermining the foundations.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that the upright kerbstone is a very great source of danger, and will he not agree that these stones should be laid flat?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think there is a good deal to be said for the flat or flush kerb, rather than the upright one, from that point of view, but, as I have said, I am looking into the whole matter, and I would rather not commit myself at the moment.

    Crossroads, Poole
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he has now considered the various proposals made to him concerning the dangerous crossroads, Dorchester Road—Wimborne Road—Vicarage Road,
    in the Borough of Poole; and what action he is proposing to take.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The county council, as highway authority, has suggested that traffic light signals should be installed at this junction, and the borough council is taking a traffic count. When I have received full details of this, I will see what can be done.

    By-pass, Medway Towns
    Mr. Bottomleyasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he has a further statement to make about the proposed Rochester by-pass road.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The necessary survey work for the Medway towns bypass, of which the Rochester by-pass forms part, is virtually completed, but

    1923
    before I can decide whether to publish the scheme on the line of route proposed I must consult further with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture because of the considerable agricultural interests involved. Whatever line is proposed for this difficult route will be open to objections, and a public inquiry may be needed. It will, therefore, be some time before the line is fixed, and I can only say that I am fully aware of the importance of this project and shall hope to fit it into an early year of the road programme after the scheme is made.
    Mr. Bottomley: Can the Minister explain in what circumstances he met an unofficial deputation which included the Conservative prospective Parliamentary candidate for Rochester and Chatham? Would not a responsible Minister agree this is a procedure which should not be encouraged?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I must reserve to myself my judgment as to who comes to see me, if they wish to see me. I was influenced in respect of this particular deputation—
    Mr. Ross: I bet you were.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Wait for it—by the fact that it included the mayors of two of the boroughs concerned.
    Mr. Bottomley: I should like your protection, Mr. Speaker, in this matter. As an elected Member of this House, I extracted from the local Press a leading article and other Press comments and sent them to the Minister, asking for his observations. It was three months before I got a reply. As a Member of this House, I consider that I have not been treated properly.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No one would regret more than I any discourtesy to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will take it from me that none was intended. I will certainly look into the point which he has now made, because any personal discourtesy to him would be a thing I should regret.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Would not the Minister agree that, generally speaking, Members of Parliament on both sides of the House are the people who ought to have preferential consideration in making representations of this sort? Is it not
    1924
    open to abuse if prospective Parliamentary candidates are brought into competition with the elected representatives of the people?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman that hon. Members on both sides of the House are generally understood to have very special rights in this matter, but I cannot refuse to receive a deputation which includes the civic heads of two of the boroughs concerned simply because a prospective Parliamentary candidate is included in it.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, quite apart from the parochial irritation shown in this Question, he will have the support of industry, local authorities and road safety committees throughout the country in giving a higher priority to improvements such as the Rochester by-pass than appears to be given at the moment?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If my hon. Friend will study the terms of my original answer he will see that I acknowledge the importance of this very valuable scheme.

    Construction and Improvement Schemes
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is now in a position to provide a complete list of the major uncompleted road schemes which will be approved for completion within the first three years of the new road programme.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.
    Mr. Janner: When the Minister is thinking about what he is going to do in this matter, will he take into consideration the fact that we are paying a very much smaller percentage from taxes imposed on road users towards the improvement of the roads than is the case in any other country in the world? Will he see that something is done as speedily as possible about making the arrangements referred to in my Question?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will bear in mind the main fact to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and which is clearly set out in the document which most hon. Members received recently.
    Mr. Renton: Is it not a fact that, notwithstanding the present congestion of the

    1925
    roads, we are likely to have an increasing number of motor cars using them in future?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir.

    Pedestrian Crossing, Hatfield Peverel
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if, in view of the renewed representations made to him on behalf of the parish council, he will reconsider his decision not to allow a pedestrian crossing on the main road at Hatfield Peverel, Essex.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: For reasons which have been fully explained in letters to the hon. Member, I am afraid I cannot accede to the parish council's request.
    Mr. Driberg: But would the right hon. Gentleman agree with what seems rather an arrogant suggestion by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport in a letter to me, on 30th April last, in which he said:
    "I do not think it is right to suggest that the local people know their needs better than the Divisional Road Engineer?"
    Why should not the local people know their own needs best?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My hon. Friend is rarely, if ever, arrogant. The explanation must be that he has been associating with the right hon. Member for Battersea. North (Mr. Jay).

    High-level Bridge, Barton
    Mr. Storeyasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is now able to authorise the commencement of work upon a high-level bridge over the Manchester Ship Canal at Barton.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am afraid not, Sir.
    Mr. Storey: As my right hon. Friend seems not to be convinced by his recent visit to Barton Bridge by canal, when the bridge was open for his convenience, will he now agree to visit it by road, when it will probably be open for his inconvenience? Then perhaps he might be convinced.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As my hon. Friend recalls, I saw this bridge from the water a little time ago. There is a good
    1926
    case for it, but there is a good case for a great many other schemes which have to be fitted into the programme.
    Mr. Storey: This is the only case where the whole effect is against trade and the workers. There is no recreational suggestion, as there is in many other schemes that have been passed.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should not like to say that this is by any manner of means the only case where this important factor applies.

  CHANNEL CABLES (MAGNETIC INTERFERENCE)
  Captain Ryderasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what steps are being taken to prevent cross-channel electric cables from interfering with ships' compasses.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Experiments on the magnetic disturbances caused by submarine cables have been carried out by the British Electricity Authority together with the Departments concerned. The results of these experiments are now being studied, and the need to protect ships' compasses will be carefully borne in mind in considering any scheme for laying cross-channel electric cables.
  Captain Ryder: Will my right hon Friend do more than bear this important matter in mind?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is very important, for obvious reasons, that ships' compasses should not be adversely affected, and my hon. and gallant Friend may be reassured if he reflects that no cables can be laid below high water mark without my permission, under Section 34 of the Coast Protection Act, 1949.

  CIVIL AVIATION PASSENGER AIRCRAFT (DINGHIES)
  Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation why he has put forward proposals to interested bodies that passenger aircraft should be permitted to fly further over the sea before being under any obligation to carry lifebelts.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No proposals relating to lifebelts have been made, but the regulations on the carriage of dinghies are under review.
  Mr. Beswick: Is it not an extraordinary suggestion even to be considered, especially coming so soon after the Swissair tragedy?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: With regard to dinghies, the standard laid down in this country is a good deal higher than that laid down by the international civil aviation organisation. In the circumstances, I think it is right to look at it, but I have come to no decision on the matter.
  Mr. Beswick: Is not the Minister aware that a lot of these tragedies affect children, and that it is not easy to get children to wear lifebelts? Is it not, therefore, absolutely essential to have dinghies on these overseas flights?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is one of the points which will have to be considered, but as our standards are appreciably above those of the international body, one of whose main duties is to set standards of safety, we must look into the matter. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the point he has mentioned will be given due weight.
  Mr. Benn: Will the right hon. Gentleman look up the report of the Italian inquiry into the Hermes air crash off Sicily in 1952, in which five young children died because dinghies were not carried? Will he also look at the recommendations of that Report, which his predecessor accepted, and which included a reference to the necessity for carrying dinghies, even for short distance flights from the coast?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir.

  RIVER TAMAR CROSSING (REPORT)
  Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he has any further statement to make on the proposal to bridge the River Tamar.
  Mr. Dudley Williamsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will make a statement on the Report of the Technical Panel which was set up to inquire into the proposed new bridge over the River Tamar.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would refer both hon. Members to the reply which I
  1928
  gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. J. J. Astor) on 25th October.
  Mr. Hayman: May I ask the Minister to bear in mind that all southbound traffic into Cornwall and all traffic from Plymouth must negotiate the Torpoint Ferry, which is a real bottleneck and holds up traffic for hours at a time? Is he also aware that the whole of Cornwall regards the proposal for a bridge over the Tamar as being one of urgent priority?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I said in the Answer to which I referred, I have now to consider this Panel's recommendations in consultation with the local authorities concerned.
  Mr. Dudley Williams: As a representative of the West Country, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he can give the House any idea when he is likely to come to a conclusion on this matter, because there is a feeling in the West Country that nothing is to be done at all?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My hon. Friend knows that I have only just received the Report, and that the next step must be to consult the local authorities in the West Country about it.
  Mr. Foot: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this proposal for a high level bridge has been supported by the Plymouth City Council for many years, and that his Department has had all the details as to how the job can be done? Will he not give us some date on which he actually proposes action in the matter?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Apart from anything else, it would be most disrespectful to the local authorities concerned to do any such thing before I even start the discussions with them.
  Mr. J. J. Astor: Will my right hon. Friend say whether there is a possibility within the next 12 months of starting to implement the recommendations referred to by the Panel?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I take it that what my hon. Friend has in mind are the major recommendations with respect to construction, rather than the minor ones with respect to the amelioration of traffic conditions. I can say nothing on the major ones at present.

WEST EUROPEAN DEFENCE AGREEMENTS (FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS)
The Minister of Defence (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will make a short statement on the financial aspects of the agreements entered into at the London Conference, and formally confirmed last week in Paris. In rising for the first time in my new office, I hope I may be permitted to express my sense of the heavy responsibility which I have undertaken in following one of the great figures of the British Commonwealth and Empire, Field Marshal Lord Alexander.
There are three aspects of this matter. First, the effect of the end of the occupation. Second, the cost to our defence budget of keeping these forces in being and stationed abroad. Third, the effect on the balance of payments of their being posted outside the sterling area.
As to the first aspect, the agreements entered into in Paris mark the last and culminating stage of a policy which has been pursued by successive British Governments. When the agreements are ratified the occupation will cease and Western Germany will return to freedom and sovereignty. Naturally, this means that we cannot expect the Germans to continue indefinitely to pay for our Forces.
On the second point, the additional amount which will fall upon the defence budget in terms of money in the foreseeable future as the result of keeping our troops in Europe is not large.
Now I come to the third point—the effect on the balance of payments. Whatever we spend will, of course, have to be met in foreign currency. It is for this reason that the agreements provide that if the discharge of what we have undertaken to do puts too heavy a strain on our external finances, we can invite the N.A.T.O. Council to review the position.
Since, however, the present rate of payment by the Germans—namely, £50 million a month to all the allied Forces—continues until ratification, and since in the next 12 months' period Germany has undertaken to provide to all the Powers about £270 million, it will be seen that the financial effect will be correspondingly delayed. After the 12 months'
1930
period there are to be negotiations as to what further financial support will be forthcoming from Western German sources.
Finally, I should perhaps make it clear that the acceptance of our new commitment does not of itself impose a direct addition to defence expenditure at its present level. Our defence expenditure will continue to be determined in the light of all the political, strategic and economic factors year by year, and this new commitment will constitute one of the elements—admittedly a large and important element—for which the Government must allow in fixing the total figure.
Mr. Gaitskell: While welcoming the fact that we now have a Minister of Defence who can make statements in the House of Commons, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us rather more information in future? I should like him also to try to add a little more information this afternoon.
First, will the right hon. Gentleman say how much of the £50 million which the German Federal Government at present pays to all the allied Forces is received by our Government? Secondly, how much of the £270 million which the Federal German Government is to pay in the next 12 months will be received by our Government? Thirdly, is it the intention of Her Majesty's Government to press for a more equitable share of the burden which this new change imposes upon the Allies, or are we to be expected to take the whole strain of the reduction and eventual elimination of the German contribution?
Mr. Macmillan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the questions he has put and the courteous way in which he has put them. The answer to his first question is that in the past, of the present total of £50 million a month, about one-quarter has come to this country. It is difficult to be precise as to exactly how much of this has been spent upon cash and how much is upon capital account; as the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, some of the expenditure has been in the nature of capital expenditure for long-term capital projects; but about one-quarter is our share. The answer to the second question is the same: about one-quarter of the £270 million will be available to us during the year that follows ratification.

1931
In answer to the third question, I think I can do no better than to repeat what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said on Monday, when the right hon. Gentleman asked him the same question, and to say—I know that the right hon. Gentleman has great sympathy with this, because he took some part in it originally—that the problem of the defence burden which each member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation ought to bear in equity is always being considered by N.A.T.O., but that the annual review is more particularly the machinery through which an attempt is made to make that share as equitable as can be arranged.
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask one further question for clarification? Do I understand from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that we have been receiving support from the Germans to the extent of about £150 million a year and that since this will be reduced by about half in the next 12 months, the additional cost falling upon us will be about £75 or £80 million a year?
Mr. Macmillan: That is a perfectly fair question and perhaps I can answer it in this way. The share which we have received is something of the order of what the right hon. Gentleman has stated. Some of it is on cash account for current expenditure, and in recent years a very large part—almost half, I think—has been on capital projects. These capital projects are continuing; there is some carry forward to cover them, for the payments we have received have been in the nature of a vote on account, although perhaps not on quite the same system as our own. Therefore, part of the money is spent in cash and part is a credit which can be carried forward towards projects still under construction. In calculating what will in future fall upon us, we have to consider only the current cash payments for maintenance and not those large amounts for capital construction which is now largely completed.
Mr. Nicholson: I am sure the whole House will understand the difficulties that face the Government in making a more specific and detailed estimate of the charges that will fall upon the Exchequer, but I am sure equally that the whole country is anxious to know what those
1932
charges will amount to ultimately. When does my right hon. Friend think that he will reasonably be able to be more specific?
Mr. Macmillan: I have tried to differentiate between the character of the charges. In so far as the costs are costs of maintaining an Army or an Air Force, they have to be paid for anyway and I do not think anyone could expect that, whatever has been the agreement, the Germans should continue for long after the occupation ends to pay for our Forces. The more serious part of it is not the payment as such but the money which we have to pay in Deutschmarks. It is the balance of payments problem which, I would say, is more difficult than the actual cost, which we could not expect the German Government to continue to pay, for our Forces.
Mr. Strachey: Will the Minister of Defence clear up an apparent discrepancy in his original statement? He said, on the one hand, that he did not think that the extra charge upon us would be large, but in the second part of his statement he evidently considered that it might offset our balance of payments. How could that be?
Mr. Macmillan: I will try my best to answer, but the right hon. Gentleman is such a learned economist that it is rather difficult. I think it is a fairly simple matter. I said that where we stationed our troops did not make very much difference to their cost in terms of money, although it might cost a little more to travel backwards and forwards. What mattered was in terms of the kind of money, that was the differentiation I tried to make. In terms of money it does not make very much difference, but in terms of the kind of money it does make a difference.
Mr. Crossman: The Minister has told us that up to now the current cost of keeping our troops in Germany has been borne by occupation funds but included in that sum there have been certain capital payments. Can he tell us the amount for capital payment and the amount for current payment, so that we may know what we have to pay on current account for our troops? Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us about German servants? We under-

1933
stand that there are about 25,000 German servants in our employ, but paid for by the Germans. What is to be our intention with regard to those people. Thirdly, does he suggest that, at the end of the occupation, the capital payment will stop altogether and that there will be no further building and construction work?
Mr. Macmillan: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that one of the advantages of these arrangements, negotiated in London and Paris by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, is that we have first the period up to the ratification. Then we have a full year's period of payment. Then we have a further payment the amount of which and the period over which it will be paid has still to be negotiated. It would be very unwise for me at this moment to try to make an estimate of what will be the actual amount involved in regard to balance of payments. In terms of money, we shall do our best to save in every possible way.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Can my right hon. Friend, broadly, indicate to the House anything about the statistics from the German point of view? Will it cost them more or less than the cost of occupation to raise 12 divisions?
Mr. Macmillan: I should require notice of that question.
Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) asked a question of history. Cannot the Minister tell us now the total amount received in any recent year from the Germans in respect of occupation costs, how much was in respect of capital equipment and how much on current account? That should be susceptible of a simple arithmetical answer.
Mr. Macmillan: It is not really as simple as that, because, with some of these payments it is a question of whether we should charge it truly to capital or current account. Some of the capital expenditure we have incurred has not been for ourselves; some of these things have been built up and handed back to the Germans, or built by the Germans for one ally and handed to another. I repeat my statement that in recent years it was something of the order—and I shall not tie myself, because of the nicety of these calculations—of half and half.
Mr. Gordon Walker: When the right hon. Gentleman says that it is unwise to give an estimate now, does that mean that the Government has not any idea of the cost that will be involved?
Mr. Macmillan: I am still saying—and I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), who is a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, sees my purpose—that in terms of money the additional cost of keeping these Forces in Germany will be very small. If one speaks in terms of the balance of payments, of course it makes a great deal of difference where we keep the troops. Now, of the sum at present spent on current account a large amount is in the hire of labour, and a large amount is in the purchase of goods and materials which we shall do our best to purchase from home. When we have to pay for them ourselves we shall make what saving we can.
Mr. Gaitskell: I confess that I still find this very obscure. In view of the obscurity, may I ask the Minister whether, at any rate, he will make an effort to put in the White Paper a good deal of the information which has been asked for this afternoon, particularly such as relates to the past? May I also ask whether this really all boils down to saying that, unless we get some rearrangement of the burden, we shall have to meet an extra cost of between £75 million and £150 million a year, according to the period of time of which we are speaking? The Germans are at present paying £150 million; eventually they are to pay nothing, and presumably that burden falls upon us. Further, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to press in the councils of N.A.T.O. for some rearrangement of the burden which otherwise will fall upon us?
Mr. Macmillan: I must repeat that the right hon. Gentleman, being a fair-minded man, has put very clearly what I tried to say, and I shall try to answer him just as fairly. I say that these agreements make no substantial additional cost in regard to British Forces unless it were supposed that the British Army and Air Forces should be permanently maintained out of German funds and that there was

1935
a permanent occupation of German territory. Therefore, the answer is no. The commitment to station them in Germany will mean that there is an addition to the amount of money to be spent in foreign currency instead of our own, and that is really the main problem that concerns us.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's question about the burden on us I will, of course, give an undertaking, because it is part of the normal procedure. In the annual review of the N.A.T.O. Powers, of which, if this goes through, Germany will now be one, we shall try to get the best equitable adjustment of the burden between the now 15 Powers who will be carrying this joint responsibility.
Mr. Nicholson: The Minister, understandably, has concentrated mainly on the balance of payments question, but what puzzles me is the extra cost to the Exchequer which falls on the British taxpayer. I am not pressing for an immediate answer, but can my right hon. Friend tell the House when he thinks he will be able to give a more specific answer?
Mr. Macmillan: I will try to answer again as I have already done. The cost falls, not as a result of these agreements in particular, and certainly not as a result of the commitment to keep Forces in Western Europe, but as a result of some part of our military expenditure having been paid by our past enemies, and which we cannot expect them to go on paying indefinitely. What the cost amounts to is extremely difficult to disentangle, because of the method by which these payments were made.
Mr. Strachey: From his last but one answer does the right hon. Gentleman now agree that whether the extra charge turns out to be £75 million or £100 million, it will fall on the British Exchequer as against the present position—it is a net addition to our own budgetary payments as well as a net addition to our balance of payments?
Mr. Macmillan: There will be over a year's delay before it happens. As I said at the end of my statement, we shall have to have regard to this consideration in fixing the total budgetary expenditure.
Mr. Wyatt: Could we not have a little more precision? The Minister has said that the total increase will not be very large. He then indicated that it will be £150 million a year, which is very large. Could he, therefore, say whether he expects the total eventual additional cost to be under £100 million or over? Could he further say whether the final increased figure is still subject to negotiation with the Germans themselves?
Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Member—I am sure unintentionally—misrepresented what I said. I said that the difference between the cost of the troops stationed and paid for in this country and their cost abroad was not very large—merely the cost of their travelling to and fro. With regard to the £150 million, I explained that a very large part of that was on capital account—perhaps nearly half in recent years. With regard to the rest of his question, since the whole of the period up to ratification is settled, the period for the year after that is settled, and the period for which German support will be given after the 18 months—or 14 months—is still subject to negotiation, it will, perhaps, explain my difficulty in making precise estimates, because an estimate would depend on the character of that negotiation.
Mr. Wade: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any comparison between the cost of the financial obligations to which he refers and the cost of the commitments into which this country had agreed to enter in the event of E.D.C. being ratified?
Mr. Macmillan: In the much narrower sphere of expenditure, I would say that there is no substantial difference in cost. The great difference was the moral effect of the commitment and the entry of Britain into Europe for the first time on this new and solid basis.
Mr. Gaitskell: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we all understand that the main additional cost falling upon us is the result of the end of the occupation? That is perfectly clear. In view of the confusion which surrounds the subject, will the right hon. Gentleman put into the White Paper as much information as he possibly can, both about the past and the future in this matter?
Mr. Macmillan: I will willingly do so, because it will perhaps make it easier for these questions to be answered.
Miss Ward: What puzzles me is why, with the exception of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, hon. Members opposite do not know the basic facts when they negotiated the original terms.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Crook-
shank.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FOOD AND DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee. [Progress, 26th October.]
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDRFW in the Chair]

  Clause 6. —(REGULATIONS AS TO FOOD HYGIENE.)
  3.52 p.m.
  Dr. Edith Summerskill: I beg to move, in page 6, line 22, at the end, to insert:
  (d) for imposing requirements as to the provision and maintenance of, or prohibiting or regulating the use of, wrapping materials or containers in which food is sold, or offered, exposed, stored or prepared for sale for human consumption.
  This Amendment follows on last night's debate, when we were dealing with Clause 6 and the various Amendments which were concerned with omissions from the regulations. I shall not keep the Committee very long on this Amendment, because I think its intention is very clear. We are very anxious—and the Minister yesterday was very sympathetic towards our intention—to repair an omission. The Parliamentary Secretary will recall that in the original regulations provision was made prohibiting the supply of wrapping paper and containers which had been used for other purposes for the wrapping of food.
  Most hon. Members know that it is the practice of certain vendors of fish, meat, and so on, to buy newspapers from houses without making any inquiry about the source of that paper. It is not an exaggeration to say that much of that paper has come from rooms where there has been a patient, perhaps a chronic patient, who needed a lot of reading material. Indeed, perhaps the fact that that house had a chronic sick person would mean that a large amount of newspaper would be collected there.
  We are anxious to protect the consumer from infection. I recall the report of a chief medical officer which revealed that the scrapings of the wallpaper over the head of a tuberculous patient six weeks after the death of that patient revealed virulent tubercle bacilli. In other words, it is possible to collect newspaper from the bedroom of a sick patient and for that newspaper to be infectious

  1939
  six or seven weeks after it has been collected.
  In the original regulations this provision was included. I am asking once more for the protection of the consumer, and I hope that the Minister will be as sympathetic as he was last night.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): The question which the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) has raised is one which is raised by a number of other Amendments, whether sufficient power is given by Clause 6 (1) to cover this point. The relevant word in that subsection is "packaging," and I am inclined to accept the right hon. Lady's view, which is implicit in what she says, that the word
  "packaging" might not ordinarily be understood to cover the process of wrapping.
  I will not weary the Committee with the details, but there are one or two other considerations in relation to the use of plastic materials which lead us to the same conclusion. We will look very sympathetically at this Amendment and its wording before the Report stage. We accept the general principles of the Amendment. This is an acceptance of the principle of such an Amendment, subject to an examination of the words. and perhaps the right hon. Lady will accept that situation.
  Mr. Frederick Willey: It may be convenient to raise this point now. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, there is a later Amendment dealing with meat and fish products. I assume that his attitude to that Amendment is the same as it is to this one, and that what he is prepared to consider is writing into the Bill powers providing that regulations may be made concerning wrapping and packaging generally.
  Dr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman must not draw me too far. I said that what is common to this Amendment and to certain others is the question whether there exists in Clause 6 (1) sufficient power to do what is required. Although at first sight "packaging" may appear to cover the kind of problem which the right hon. Lady has raised, there is, I think, doubt about it, and for that reason in view of the limitations in the ordinary understand-
  1940
  ing of "packaging," I accept the principle of adding words to meet the problem of wrapping, and I undertake sympathetically to look at the words.
  Mr. Willey: Apart from accepting the principle of what I particularly had in mind, with my eye on a later Amendment. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the general problem of poisoning and the particular problem of food poisoning relating to meat products. There is, I think, a general feeling today that the problem would largely be met if we could insist, wherever possible, upon the wrapping of meat products to safeguard those products against handling.
  Apart from accepting the principle, I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to have regard to the fact that it would be desirable to write into this Clause the express regulation-making power to regulate the wrapping of those foodstuffs.
  Dr. Hill: I am confining myself to the issue whether sufficient power exists in Clause 6 (1) to do these things. What is subsequently done by regulation will be a matter of scrutiny and challenge in the House. For the moment, I am on the point whether there is sufficient power. The right hon. Lady doubts whether the wording of Clause 6 (1) is sufficient for this purpose. I agree with her in relation to the doubt, and I have given her an undertaking that we will look sympathetically at this proposal. We shall have to study the words, for we have in mind another problem—that of plastic wrappings—and, therefore, we should like more carefully to scrutinise the words.
  Dr. Summerskill: In view of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.0 p.m.
  Mr. W. E. Padley: I beg to move, in page 6, line 22, at the end, to insert:
  (d) for imposing requirements as to the clothing worn by persons engaged in preparing, handling, wrapping or delivering food.
  This issue was discussed very briefly as a by-product of another debate yesterday. My union is very interested in the question of protective clothing for workers handling foodstuffs. Whether the existing draft of Clause 6 gives the Government adequate power was a matter of doubt

  1941
  yesterday, and a Government spokesman indicated that they might be prepared to strengthen the existing wording. All reasonably-minded persons will surely agree that when food is handled in the manufacturing industries, or the distributive or catering trades, and is not in sealed containers, the persons handling it should be provided with proper protective clothing which is capable of being cleansed.
  If one looks at the three drafts of the regulations which have been circulated, one finds that the Government are apparently not at all clear what should be done about this very simple issue. It may well be that the absence of adequate power under Clause 6 is the reason for this. The first draft of the regulations specified that clean overalls or other suitable protective clothing should be worn and should be capable of being and should be regularly cleansed.
  My only reservation is that that does not make it quite clear enough that, since this is a question of public interest, it is a charge upon the trade, and that it should be the employer's responsibility to provide and cleanse protective clothing in exactly the same way as the employer provides refrigeration plant where that is absolutely necessary in the public interest.
  If one looks at the third draft of the regulations, one ands that the Government are succumbing to most dangerous ideas. Regulation 6 (b) of Part II talks of keeping,
  "as clean as may be reasonably practicable …"
  and, as a practical trade unionist—
  The Chairman: I do not think we can discuss these regulations now. They are not before the Committee.
  Mr. Padley: They are surely implicit in the discussion, Sir Charles. I do not propose to read them at any length, but to use what appears to be the Government's intention to illustrate my argument. My point is that the third draft of the regulations refers not only to keeping clean protective clothing but also ordinary clothing, and I am sure that there will be those in certain parts of the food trade who will take that wording as a direct encouragement by the Government not to provide protective clothing.
  All we ask is that by regulation the hygienic practices of the most progress-
  1942
  sive employers in the trade should become general. As a result of pressure from the trade unions, some leading co-operative societies, multiple grocers and private traders are following these practices, but there are still some co-operative societies and multiple grocers, and countless private traders, who need statutory regulations to bring them into line with what is absolutely necessary in the public interest.
  Mr. Donald Chapman: I should like very briefly to support what has been said by my hon. Friend. As he was talking I was reminded of a story which was told to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings), who is an eminent surgeon. He told me that some 60 years ago, when he was first a surgeon, surgeons used to operate in old frock coats. In those days they used to keep in a cupboard in their hospital old frock coats which they had more or less finished with, and used to bring them out to wear when they were going to carry out an operation.
  That situation still exists in the catering trade. If one goes into many London hotels, or into restaurants throughout the country, one finds waiters wearing castoff dress suits. I should like somebody to carry out a crusade against the dirty habit of wearing old, cast-off dress suits when handling food.
  We ought to have very strongly-worded regulations on this subject. These old suits are becoming more or less an established uniform. Men seem to be much more dirty in this respect than women. I find that most women are much more proud of their personal appearance and are careful to wear clean aprons and other clothing when they serve at table, but many of the men are still condemned to cast-off clothes.
  If the Amendment is accepted, I hope that we shall make regulations which will do what America is trying to do. In that country, more and more people wear clean white cotton suits which can be sent to the laundry, and not old things whose respectable life has come to an end and Which are only occasionally sent to the dry cleaners, by which time they can almost stand up by themselves. These provisions need to be made in the form of regulations because there is no other hope of making it sufficiently well known

  1943
  that people should be more clean in these matters.
  I now find that there is practically no restaurant in Soho in which I can eat, so dirty are the clothes that people wear when serving food. I always think that, if they are rather dirty when they come to me at table, there is probably much more dirt behind the scenes. If the outside is bad I am sure that the inside is awful. I hope that there will be no difficulty about accepting the Amendment and fostering the habit of cleanliness in clothing in the catering trade.
  Dr. Hill: Yesterday, my right hon. Friend gave an intimation of his attitude to the Amendment which was moved by the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) to line 15. I can say straight away that we accept the substance of the present Amendment and will seek to insert the appropriate words in the Bill. We have some doubt about the place at which they should be inserted, but not about their substance. My answer is based on the issue whether sufficient power is contained in Clause 6 (1). Although that subsection contains a reference to "cleanly conditions and practices," we think that there is sufficient doubt to justify the acceptance of the Amendment, and we do so on that ground. We shall examine it conjointly with the one which was moved yesterday, with a view to finding the right form of words.
  Mr. Barnett Janner: I have listened very carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, and now I would ask him to remember one thing particularly, that the regulations and the code he himself has drafted are not satisfactory for ensuring that what he says he has in mind, and what I am sure he has in mind, will be brought into effect. This is an extremely important matter. It is not one that can be allowed to go by default, and it is not one that can be allowed to depend upon the whim of any Minister. It is highly important that the Bill itself should contain such provisions as will make it obligatory upon anyone concerned with the Measure to ensure that there shall be clean clothing for the people handling food.
  The position is one that can be coped with. As we have heard, there are firms and co-operatives that do carry into effect
  1944
  what we all desire, and place great emphasis on this very important matter. On the other hand, there are loopholes at the present time, and unless they are dealt with in the way we have suggested here they will remain open. I have considered the words of the Amendment very carefully, and I cannot see why they cannot be accepted. They have been very carefully chosen, and the Minister ought to accept them as they stand. I do not believe that any form of words he is likely to devise will meet the case better than these words.
  I appeal to him to keep this matter well in mind, because it is important not only from the point of view of the people served. It is also psychologically very important from the point of view of the person serving. If he is properly clothed he feels better and goes to his job with a clean mind as well as with clean hands. I think that this is one of the most important features of the Amendments we have proposed.
  Mr. Barnett Stross: I would bring anew to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary something that, I am sure, he probably knows full well, namely, that the National Caterers' Federation, when considering this matter, itself suggested words to meet this requirement:
  "That all reasonable precautions should be taken and suitable protective clothing be worn."
  The reason I mention that is that the next phrase is one with which I do not agree. The Federation went on to say:
  "The provision of such clothing should be the responsibility of the wearer, who shall ensure that it is clean and capable of being cleansed."
  I ask the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to bear in mind, when considering this matter as they have kindly promised to do, that to put the onus on the worker in this instance would be a retrograde step, and I hope they will be careful about that. I cannot sit down without saying that I find myself enjoying myself in every restaurant I ever go into in Soho.
  Mr. Willey: We appreciate the references to our drafting of this Amendment. I should have thought that it was a well-drafted Amendment, but I appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary's reasons for wanting to have a further look

  1945
  at it and asking us to take it back. I think he has given us an adequate assurance that he shares our view about subsection (V. On the face of it, there does seem to be a case for amending it along the lines we have proposed.
  4.15 p.m.
  I would make this additional point because I think there has been undue attention given to the catering business, because the provision of proper clothing for the job concerns not only the people who cater. One of the reasons we put down the Amendment was that the Meat Products Working Party included among its recommendations a recommendation that persons engaged in the preparation and handling of meat products should wear clean, washable overalls, and that people carrying meat should, in addition, wear head covers, and that the overalls and head covers should be kept clean.
  That recommendation was one of the things we had in mind when putting down the Amendment, in addition to the question of clean clothing in the catering and food trades generally, and there is a case for making provision regarding clothing and its being kept clean. Where the onus should lie is a matter we shall consider when we consider the regulations, but I share the opinion that has already been expressed, that it very properly should lie upon the persons conducting the businesses. That is the best way to enforce such regulations.
  I think my hon. Friends will be satisfied by the assurances the Parliamentary Secretary has given to the Committee, but we anticipate that it will be necessary to have some such Amendments as we have been proposing, and that he will find it so.
  Mr. Padley: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, in page 6, line 22, at the end, to insert:
  (d) for prohibiting spitting on premises where food is sold or offered exposed, stored or prepared for sale for human consumption (including any parts of such premises in which apparatus and utensils are cleansed).
  The Parliamentary Secretary has been very sympathetic to our other Amendments, but we have been equally trusting, and on this one we must be firm and
  1946
  insist that he accept this form of words and incorporate it in the Bill. It is no good his saying to me, "We will see whether we have the powers in subsection (1)."
  I would remind him of the history of the regulations. Originally, this prohibition was included in the first draft, and then it was omitted. Now we have the third draft before us and it is still omitted. Surely it is a logical assumption that, if it has been deliberately omitted on two occasions, there is little chance of the Minister emphasising the importance of this prohibition on another occasion. If he feels that it is right and proper that no person engaged in the handling of food, the preparation of food or the distribution of food, should spit, then let him embody the prohibition in the Bill today.
  I have no need to remind the Parliamentary Secretary of the danger of dried sputum. There is a warning in every bus outside the Palace of Westminster that there is a £5 penalty for spitting in a public vehicle. The people travelling in buses are not handling food, not doing anything with other people's food whereby they may transmit infection, but a traveller on a bus who happens to be an actively tuberculous person certainly is a danger to the people next to him if he spits. It is for that reason that, some years ago, it was decided that a heavy penalty should be imposed upon a person guilty of spitting in a public vehicle. That is the background to this Amendment.
  We on this side of the Committee have pleaded with the Minister for cleanliness in the food industry. As I said, the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have, so far, been sympathetic to our point of view, but here is a prohibition they should insist upon, the prohibition of spitting.
  The Parliamentary Secretary knows that I am not speaking now as a politician who is anxious to embarrass him. He knows perfectly well of those first-class and, indeed, famous medical officers of health of the Port of London Authority, of Southampton, of Brighton, with its thousands of catering establishments, and of Finsbury who, in July, spoke very strongly on this subject. Through the "Municipal Journal," they urged the Minister to do precisely what I am now asking him to do.

  1947
  Therefore, I hope that on this subject, which surely does not need to be elaborated—one does not have to be a doctor to realise the danger of allowing people who might be actively tuberculous to spit where food is being prepared—the Minister will accept the Amendment.
  The Chairman: The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings), in page 6, line 22, at the end, to insert:
  (d) for prohibiting smoking by persons engaged in preparing or serving food for sale for human consumption,
  might, I suggest, be discussed at the same time.
  Mr. Somerville Hastings: My Amendment is quite separate, I hope. Spitting is not an essential part of smoking. I object to smoking where food is being prepared, whether spitting takes places or not.
  The Chairman: I did not say that the two Amendments were connected, but they deal with the same sort of offence, and I think they might be discussed together.
  Mr. Hastings: My Amendment seeks to prohibit smoking by persons engaged in preparing or serving food for sale for human consumption. It may seem almost unthinkable that people should smoke while they are preparing food, but I have seen it, not only in catering establishments but, I am afraid, in hospital kitchens as well.
  It is not only on aesthetic grounds that I object to the practice, although there is strong objection on those grounds. I do not think any of us like to feel that when our Christmas puddings are being made cigarette ash is liable to drop into them because the people making them are smoking. However, there is a much stronger objection on health grounds. It is difficult to smoke a pipe, and impossible to smoke a cigarette to the very end, without being liable to get some saliva on one's hands, and if the saliva is infected and those hands are used for the preparation of food, the food becomes infected.
  I do not want to give the Committee unpleasant details, but I must remind hon. Members that saliva contains many germs, some being germs of disease.
  1948
  During the First World War I had charge of a ward of wounded soldiers. One of them got tonsilitis, and the disease was transferred to nearly all the occupants of the ward by means of the spoons, forks and cups which were used. That was obviously so, because directly we insisted upon the boiling of the utensils the disease stopped spreading.
  I maintain that the danger is much greater in the case of those who are preparing food because they infect with germs—sore throat germs, pyorrhœa germs and all sorts of other conditions—not only spoons and forks on which germs do not multiply but also food in which germs do multiply and in which, when kept warm, they multiply very quickly indeed. It may be said that the food is often cooked after it has been infected, but that does not in every case destroy the toxins produced by the germs.
  I urge the Minister to give very careful consideration to the Amendment. I hope I am not asking too much. According to subsection (1). the Minister may make such regulations as may appear to him to be expedient to secure the observance of various provisions, and in subsection (2) are listed some of the matters to which we ask him to give special attention. I submit that one of these matters should be not only the aesthetic question but the very real danger of smoking by those who are engaged in preparing and serving food.
  Captain J. A. L. Duncan: I object to one statement made by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings). As a confirmed pipe smoker, I protest against the suggestion that I dribble down my pipe. It is possible to smoke a pipe without dribbling and letting the saliva drop down.
  As to the general question of smoking, we are dealing with food and food manufacture, and that covers a very wide range. I do not think there ought to be such a provision in regulations which would cover everything. There are situations in which no harm is done if a man smokes a pipe; for instance, when he is looking after an electric baking oven. However, when a woman is baking cakes in an oven or making the mix, it is obvious that she should not smoke a cigarette and let the ash fall into the mixture. Therefore, conditions vary

  1949
  greatly. This matter is already dealt with in the proposed code of practice, and it seems to me that the best method of dealing with it is by way of the code.
  Mr. Willey: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has made a case against a general prohibition, but he has also said that there are circumstances in food trades and businesses in which prohibition would be proper. Will he, therefore, support us in giving the Minister power to introduce regulations? We are not seeking to impose upon the Minister the duty of making a general prohibition. We seek to give him powers to do just what the hon. and gallant Gentleman apparently desires.
  Captain Duncan: The point I was making was that the matter is already dealt with in the proposed code of practice, and, in view of the nature of the food business, I contend that that is how it should be dealt with.
  The hon. Member for Barking has forgotten one thing. Allied to the question of spitting is the question of chewing tobacco, and that comes nearer to the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill). This is a matter of education. During the last 25 years there has been an enormous change in people's habits. I hardly ever see anybody spit now, but in the old days, when many people chewed tobacco instead of smoking it, they spat everywhere. Quite apart from the health reason, that was no doubt one of the reasons for the prohibition in public vehicles.
  The right hon. Lady proposes that spitting should be prohibited throughout the food trade. I doubt whether it is a practical proposition to prohibit it everywhere. I doubt whether we could enforce such a regulation. However, I am certainly in sympathy with the idea, and I hope that by education and by the change in people's habits spitting in public will end and there will be no need for a regulation. In any case, that matter is also dealt with in the code of practice, which I hope will be generally observed in the food trade.
  Mr. Hastings: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me where I can obtain a copy of the code of practice, of which I know nothing whatever?
  Captain Duncan: From the Ministry of Food.
  4.30 p.m.
  Dr. A. D. D. Broughton: I hope that the Minister will have no difficulty in accepting the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill). Spitting is such a disgusting and dangerous practice that it really should be prohibited in all places where there is food.
  As the matter stands at the moment, reference to spitting is found in the proposed code of practice, No. 5:
  "Every person engaged in the handling of food should refrain from (a) "—
  and then, in the list of things which are covered there, is spitting.
  We feel that this is such an important matter that it should be stopped by a penalty being imposed upon anyone who is guilty of spitting where there is food. We are asking that the reference to spitting should be removed from the code of practice into the regulations. and to ensure that it will be in the regulations we should have the Amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend inserted in the Bill. Like my right hon. Friend, I feel very strongly that the Amendment should be accepted.
  I must confess that I am somewhat undecided about the Amendment which has been spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings). I entirely agree with him that smoking when preparing food is quite wrong. It is something that we deplore both on aesthetic grounds and because of the danger to the health of others, which he has explained to the Committee. If his Amendment is accepted, then the Minister will have to put a prohibition on smoking in the regulations, and anyone who is found smoking when preparing food will be subject to a very heavy penalty of, I understand, up to £100 and/or three months' imprisonment.
  If a person is smoking a cigarette or pipe while preparing food, and there is danger of the ash falling into the food, or if he is taking a pipe or cigarette out of the mouth frequently with the fingers, that should be stopped. The person who does that should be liable to penalty. But I can envisage the case in which the

  1951
  proprietor of a small café may have served his customers at lunchtime and then sat down in the kitchen to have a meal himself. After the meal, he may be enjoying a cigarette while drinking his coffee, and at the same time it could so happen that in the oven there is a joint being cooked for the next meal, so the proprietor will be smoking while preparing food, and, if a sanitary inspector came in, might find himself in trouble.
  I hope that the Minister will consider carefully the proposed Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Barking because there is substance in it, but will he also bear in mind the danger or possible dangers which I have ventured to point out to him and the Committee. While I repeat that I have some doubt in my mind as to the wisdom of the Government accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Barking, I am quite sure that the Government must, and, I am sure, they will, accept the Amendment of my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Hastings: May I ask my hon. Friend whether it would not be possible to allow for such cases as he has mentioned in the regulations, and permit these, while prohibiting generally smoking during the preparation of food?
  Dr. Broughton: Yes, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. If that were possible, I think that it would be very desirable. I hope that the Minister will consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend
  Dr. Stross: This is, of course, a very interesting subject. In the code it is not only tobacco, smoking and spitting that are suggested as being very undesirable but the chewing of gum. I am rather surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) did not put down an Amendment to provide for a regulation dealing with the chewing of gum.
  Gum cannot be chewed for an indefinite length of time without it being taken out of the mouth, thus contaminating the fingers with saliva which may well lead to the circle of events so graphically and accurately described by my hon. Friend. Leaving that aside, I think that we ought to be careful what we choose out of the things that are undesirable.
  1952
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) spoke of the problem of spitting, and I entirely agree with her. I think that it falls into quite a separate category. The National Caterer's Federation themselves think it undesirable and that it should be in the regulations, They think that smoking, the taking of snuff and the chewing of tobacco, not gum, should also be in the regulations.
  I think that spitting is in a separate category of its own. The caterers are under the impression that girls are the worst offenders. The women in the catering trades are always smoking, they say, and they are the worst culprits. I do not know whether this is true, but I do not think that it is so reprehensible as was suggested by the hon. Member for Barking.
  I wonder whether he knows of the hair-mouse test which is concerned with the biscuit industry. The standard laid down in the United States is the number of hairs from a mouse attached to the excreta, which should not be in biscuits. If he will look at that, he will be less worried about ash dropping into the mix.
  Dr. Hill: Strictly speaking, the question before the Committee is whether Clause 6 (1) gives the Minister the necessary power to make regulations relating to spitting and smoking. That is the first issue. Clause 6 (1) does give the necessary power, in its reference to cleanly practices and the like, so whether this. Amendment, particularising instances among uncleanly practices is accepted or not, it makes no difference to the position that the Minister has power to deal with this matter.
  I will refer to the right hon. Lady's main argument in a moment. I ask the Committee not to extend this particularisation where it is clear that the power is already there, because if we give too many examples in subsection (2) we shall reach the position that it may be argued that things not specifically mentioned there are things on which it is not proper for the Minister to make regulations. What the right hon. Lady is saying—and I am sure that she will agree with me in this—is, why not make spitting a punishable offence in catering premises by including it in the regulations? In fact, she is. asking for an assurance on that point.

  1953
  I agree with everything that she has said in the condemnation of spitting, though it could be added that, in general, there has been a remarkable improvement in this matter over the last 30 years. Our difficulty has been the question of how it should be done. Today, it can be made an offence. A local authority, if it cares to make a bye-law on the topic —and a number have—can make it an offence punishable by a fine of £5. I admit that such a byelaw is not included in the model byelaws that are sent to local authorities, and I think that there is a good case for putting it in.
  Should it go further still? Should we make it punishable by a fine of £100 with the option of three months' imprisonment for each spit? I do not think that the best interests of public health are served by imposing, or by seeking to make possible the imposition of so heavy a penalty. I believe that education must play a tremendous part in modifying the conduct of those who have delayed the giving up of what seems to them a relatively harmless and unobjectionable habit.
  At the same time, I recognise the point that the very fact of including spitting as an offence in the regulations gives it a strength that no byelaw would give it. We have been exploring the possibility of including it in regulations with a lesser penalty than a fine of £100 or the option of three months' imprisonment for each spit. I have every sympathy with the desire to bring spitting to an end. My only doubt is whether we should apply the big stick or a medium-sized stick, together with education.
  I give the right hon. Lady the assurance that we will include spitting in the regulations, but with modified penalties. We think that is the sensible course to adopt. It is something more than a byelaw offence, but something less than the terrible offences which are covered by the regulations. I hope that the right hon. Lady will accept that assurance as expressing our desire to do what she wants to do. At the same time, let us be reasonable in doing it.
  I cannot go all the way with the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) on the subject of smoking. I am trying to remove from my mind any prejudice that I may have by virtue of the fact that I
  1954
  am a smoker, and I am sure that he also will do the same by virtue of the fact that he is a non-smoker.
  Mr. Hastings: For the moment.
  Dr. Hill: That is a further confession of weakness.
  Let us decide whether or not we want to make it an offence for the barman to smoke in the bar where food is served. It is dreadful to think of cigarette ash dropping into one's Christmas pudding, but it does not have the slightest ill-effect on one's health. On the matter of smoking, I say that we should leave it where it is as something that can be made the subject of a byelaw by the local authorities, that we should seek to refer to smoking in the code of practice, but that we should not line it up with the large number of other offences which are worthy of condemnation and which, by inclusion in the regulations, we can deal with effectively.
  4.45 p.m.
  Dr. Summerstill: I welcome the Minister's promises, but I should be happier if he committed himself in writing. I take it that he is prepared to put this form of words into the Bill, because I am not prepared to accept anything less than that. He has been very sympathetic, but, surely, this calls for explanation if he really means what he says. If he supports me in my contention that spitting is wrong in this respect, why did he omit it from the first set of regulations, and, further, why when the first set of regulations were revised did he still omit it?
  Why does the hon. Gentleman say that it would be wrong to put everything in the Bill because it would make it rather bulky, when he has already included in it such things as the cleanliness of apparatus, furnishings, utensils, and so on? Surely, the one word "spitting" is probably even more important than two or three lines of what he has already got in the Bill. It is difficult for me to accept what he says, because evidence proves that somebody has tried to evade this, though I do not say that the hon. Gentleman is not being honest at the moment. We now demand that it shall be put into the Bill so that it can no longer be evaded.
  Sir Leslie Plummer: My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) has made a point about spitting, but I wish to make an appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary on the point of smoking. The hon. Gentleman said, quite rightly, that there had been a great deal of education during the last 25 years against the disgusting habit of spitting, and that this had had a marked effect in reducing its incidence. In the meantime, however, there has been a tremendous amount of propaganda in favour of smoking. Every youngster is appealed to at an early age to start smoking. He is appealed to on the subject in the newspapers, on the hoardings and in tobacconists' shops. He is induced to smoke because it is supposed to be a good thing to do, and, in some cases, an occupation which is even good for sore throats.
  Dr. H. Morgan: Is this propaganda?
  Sir L. Plummer: Many of the speeches which have been made today illustrate the intolerance of the smoker towards the non-smoker, and I want to make a plea for the non-smoker who finds that wherever he goes he is being encroached upon by the smoker who has come to regard it as a right that he should—
  The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The hon. Member is extending the debate rather beyond the scope of this Amendment.
  Sir L. Plummer: I will bring it within the scope of the Amendment, Sir Rhys.
  As a non-smoker, I find when I go into a place where food is being prepared or served and where somebody is smoking that it is distinctly unpleasant. I, as a non-smoker, want to be protected against that infringement of my personal comfort. I speak for many non-smokers and smokers as well.
  The Parliamentary Secretary agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), who argued that the wearing of proper protective clothing was very important, and that it has a psychological effect on the general standard of behaviour of the person working in the industry. So does smoking or spitting, or non-smoking or non-spitting. If the Parliamentary Secretary agrees that the wearing of protective clothing is good for the employee as well
  1956
  as for the customer, then it is only right and proper that action should be taken to stop people smoking while engaged in this type of work.
  If the regulations say that it is right that one should not be lax enough to wear dirty clothing when in contact with the public, then, surely, it is right that one should not smoke in the same circumstances. Therefore, it is of a pattern that we should ask that where people are in contact with food they should observe the normal decencies, should wear proper clothing, should not smoke in the faces of customers, and that, in general, there should be as aseptic a standard of behaviour as it is possible to produce.
  Dr. Hill: I think it is important that we should take a common line about the habit of smoking. I ask the Committee not to particularise in Clause 6 (2) by naming matters which are already covered. I can, however, see the case now, and I am sorry that the right hon. Lady wants it in writing. I did my best to be as forthcoming as I could and now we have agreed that it should be included in the regulations. In view of the exceptional emphasis which we lay on that rather than on the ground that it needs to be done because it is not covered by Clause 6, I accept the Amendment provided we can examine the words with a view to determining whether they are appropriate words or not.
  Dr. Summerskill: No.
  Dr. Hill: I am doing my best.
  Dr. Summerskill: Will the hon. Gentleman go a little bit further?
  Dr. Hill: I have some doubt about the words in brackets and whether, in practice, they will do what they are intended to do. I am referring to the words
  "(including any parts of such premises in which apparatus and utensils are cleansed)."
  I have to consider whether that is sufficient for the purposes of a place where they are cleaned and whether it can include the place where they are stored.
  On the other hand, if I am pressed further I would be perfectly frank with the Committee. I am anxious that we should be united in our condemnation of spitting, and if the hon. Lady presses me. then I will accept the words in their present form and look at them subsequently to see whether they need changing

  1957
  to meet any of the points I have mentioned.
  I hope that when we examine other proposals we shall ask ourselves whether they are covered by Clause 6 (1) and not seek to add everything we can think of even if the power already resides in the Clause. l hope the Committee will agree that I am seeking a way of taking a common view in condemnation and discouragement of a most undesirable habit.
  Mr. Willey: I rarely heard anyone repenting so reluctantly, We have only tried to make the Government stand by their original intention. Before the Committee leave this Amendment, I think we ought to have the full history behind it. In these regulations the Government proposed to make it an offence to spit. For some reason unknown to us the Government changed their mind. When these regulations were redrafted and the far better regulations which we welcome were brought in, we saw that the Government still wanted to protect the liberty of those people who thought it fit and proper to spit.
  This Amendment has been on the Notice Paper for a long time. If there had been any difficulty in the drafting, the Government could have put down an Amendment to improve ours. But the Government came to the Committee today unprepared to accept this Amendment. My right hon. Friend has waited a long time to get an adequate assurance. I do not want to be too ungenerous because the Parliamentary Secretary has given way, but this has reinforced the suspicion which we have already held about the Government in this Bill fully implementing their undertakings. The Bill, as has been frequently said during the course of our debates, is one which the Government found on a shelf in the Ministry of Food. It has been before Parliament for a year and at this late stage we get the Government saying that they will give way on this point.
  I know that my right hon. Friend is perhaps rather more generous than I am, and that is why I intervened. I should emphasise that we have had difficulties in improving the law relating to food hygiene. We could not have had more obstruction from the Government than we have had, and it is only in the very last moments of this Session that we are
  1958
  allowed to discuss it and to put our Amendments on the Notice Paper.
  We thought that these Amendments would have been accepted at once. We took this step to get these matters into the regulations and we have had to spend a long time to get them accepted. I say no more than this, that I hope the new Minister will appreciate the difficulties that we on this side of the Committee have had. However, I do not want to be so ungenerous as not to say that we are, of course, delighted that after these difficulties we have got an admission that it is a deplorable thing that spitting should not be accompanied by adequate penalties on people who are preparing and handling food.
  The Minister of Food (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): I am rather surprised at the line taken by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), because it seems to me rather ungracious in the circumstances. My hon. Friend has made it clear that our condemnation of spitting is absolute. We are just as determined as any hon. Member on the other side of the Committee that every possible discouragement should be given to it. The difference between us is a difference in the method to be adopted to ensure the best way of bringing it about.
  We proposed to put it into the code of practice. Now we have listened to everything that has been said this afternoon. I have been particularly impressed by the fact that every Member has clearly in his mind that this is an abominable habit and we must do everything we can to get rid of it. We have shown that we are entirely in agreement with hon. Members opposite and we have done our best to meet their particular view that this should be in the regulations. Having done that we think that it is a little unnecessary to have a paragraph in the Bill because it can be perfectly well included in the regulations.
  Again, because hon. Gentlemen felt so strongly about it—and, in particular, the right hon. Lady holds very strong views on it—we have agreed that, in the circumstances, we will make an addition to the Bill of this paragraph. I would have thought that a bouquet would have been handed to us for being as cooperative as we have been and in doing

  1959
  something which hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to have done. I feel rather pained.
  Dr. Summerskill: I am sorry that the Minister is rather pained. Surely it is I who should be pained. I was hoping, having regard to the Minister's attitude yesterday, that he would not have delayed the Committee for half an hour or more to discuss something of which he says he fully approves. Here is what the Parliamentary Secretary has done to meet us. First of all, he says he is 'sympathetic and then I tell him that I am not prepared to accept that. He then gets up and says, "We will have a different form of words." I then say I am not prepared to accept that. Then he says that if I press him hard enough he will give me everything. Why the Minister should feel pained I do not know.
  When the Parliamentary Secretary says he will accept our Amendment I want to make it clear that we understand by that that he means the whole Amendment as it is on the Notice Paper. Only such an assurance as that am I prepared to accept. On that understanding I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
  Dr. Morgan: I want to express my deep regret that I have not had an opportunity during the day of being heard on a matter of this kind which contains many medical problems in which I am interested.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed: In page 6, line 22, at end, insert:
  (d) for prohibiting smoking by persons engaged in preparing or serving food for sale for human consumption.—[Mr. Hastings.]
  Amendment negatived.
  5.0 p.m.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss together the next two Amendments to page 6, line 23.
  Mr. A. J. Champion: I beg to move, in page 6, line 23, after "securing," to insert:
  "at slaughter houses and elsewhere."
  It is true that both this Amendment and the one following relates to the Inspectorate of Food, but they cover two entirely different points. I have no objection to their being discussed together,
  1960
  provided that the Question is put separately on each after discussion.
  This Amendment has as its purpose to ensure that in the interests of public health adequate arrangements will be made by the Minister in his regulations for the inspection of meat at slaughterhouses as well as at other places, if the Minister thinks it desirable. The primary object of this Amendment is to ensure that meat is inspected at slaughterhouses. The subsection as drafted enables the Minister to make such regulations, but it is not obligatory upon him so to do. This country is one of the few Western countries where it is not obligatory upon anybody to have meat inspected in a slaughterhouse under the present law. When I found this out, it came as a considerable shock to me.
  We had in 1951 the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Meat Inspection. That Committee was set up by the Ministers of Food and Health in 1949 because they were disturbed about the position in relation to meat inspection. One of its terms of reference was
  "to consider whether inspection of home-killed meat at the place of slaughter can be made compulsory in England and Wales as it already is in Scotland…"
  The reply of that Committee to this question was clear and explicit, for it said at paragraph 65:
  "The evidence given on this point was wholly in favour of the principle that all meat for sale for human consumption should be inspected at the place of slaughter. With this we fully agree and have so recommended."
  We are now having an increase in the number of slaughterhouses under the Slaughterhouses Act, 1954, and it seems to me at this time to be especially necessary to make it abundantly clear to everyone concerned that the additional slaughterhouses which will be provided under that Act must not only conform to hygienic standards, but that they shall also be so arranged that it will be possible for meat to be inspected adequately on the premises.
  I do not think there is any doubt that meat, properly handled and efficiently inspected, is a relatively safe food. However, it is also true that it is particularly liable to disease, and a form of disease which is easily transferred to human beings. The possibilities of diseased meat finding its way to the public are always present, and consumers of meat

  1961
  are entitled to an assurance from the Government, and everyone else concerned, that in this Bill we are taking every step to ensure that inspection at slaughterhouses has not been omitted from f he safeguards which the public ought to have.
  This is an opportunity to give legislative effect to the recommendations of that important Committee to which I have made reference, and I hope that in his reply the Parliamentary Secretary will indicate that the Government are taking advantage of this opportunity to ensure that the recommendation of that Committee will be embodied in this Bill.
  Mr. Robert Crouch: I understand, Sir Rhys, that with this Amendment you are taking the one standing in my name also to page 6, line 23, namely, after "inspection," insert:
  "by a person who by virtue of subsection (1) of section one hundred of the principal Act is authorised to act in relation to the examination and seizure of meat."
  It was some few months ago that, with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), I was privileged to see the slaughterhouses and wholesale markets in five of the principal countries in Western Europe. Particularly in the northern part, we were impressed with the much higher standard of meat inspection in those countries than we have here. It is for that reason that I have put these words on the Amendment paper, because I am anxious, now we have this Bill before us, that the Minister shall be given all power to ensure that properly qualified persons inspect our meat at the slaughterhouses, and also to ensure that there is no danger of an unqualified person doing that.
  As the veterinary surgeon is the only person concerned with the animal when it is alive, he should also be one of the persons mentioned to carry out postmortem inspections. I am disturbed at the lack of inspection that is given, although I must say that, with the exception of the pig, the quality of the animals going into our slaughterhouses is definitely superior to that which goes into the slaughterhouses on the Continent. This is probably due to the adequate veterinary inspections which take place on the farm before the animals leave it.
  1962
  My Amendment, therefore, seeks to ensure that the Minister has power to include among his inspectors veterinary surgeons as well as medical officers and sanitary inspectors. I know that the medical officer is the most suitable person to see to the inspection of meat in the shop, but I believe that much more use should be made in future of the veterinary surgeon in inspecting the meat at the slaughterhouses.
  The Amendment accordingly proposes that the regulations should provide for inspection by no persons other than those who are defined as "authorised officers" for this purpose by Section 100 of the principal Act. The proviso to this definition states that
  "(a) the medical officer of health and sanitary inspector of a council shall by virtue of their appointments he deemed to be authorised officers for all the purposes of this Act;
  (b) any member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons employed by the council for the purpose of the inspection of food shall be deemed to be an authorised person for the purpose of the examination and seizure of meat under the provisions of this Act relating to unsound food;
  (c) no officer of a council other than the medical officer of health, a sanitary inspector or a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons employed as aforesaid shall be authorised to act in relation to the examination and seizure of meat;"
  I appeal to my hon. Friend to accept both Amendments.
  Dr. Hill: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) made clear what he was out to secure, and that is our objective. The lack of compulsory powers for meat inspection which he has described is a remarkable fact, but power is taken in the Bill to secure that inspection. I assure him that as soon as the personnel are available we shall tackle the problem of making it compulsory. I am entirely with the hon. Member in the need as soon as possible to make that inspection compulsory but, as matters stand, power is given in the Bill to secure the inspection of animals intended for slaughter without reference to place, that is, to secure inspection anywhere.
  I suggest, therefore, that to insert the words "at slaughterhouses and elsewhere" means precisely the same thing as giving powers for the inspection of animals, which in the present form of the Bill means inspection of animals

  1963
  wherever it may be. If the hon. Member placed his Amendment on the Notice Paper to secure an assurance about compulsory inspection, then, since powers are now given to secure inspection without limitation of place, it does not further his purpose to include the proposed words in the Clause.
  A similar consideration applies to the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch). He wanted to secure that the inspection was carried out by persons who are defined in Section 100 (1) of the principal Act and he read out the words of that subsection. That is the legal position. If inspection is made compulsory, Section 100 of the parent Act will provide the definition of the persons who will undertake the inspection. Therefore, the Government agree with what both hon. Members are out to secure but in both cases I suggest that the words proposed to be introduced are unnecessary for the purpose.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I hope I am not out of order in saying that the Parliamentary Secretary really is being rather naughty. Both these Amendments, on his own admission, would do no harm whatever. The one which refers to slaughterhouses is moved with the express object of calling attention to the fact that there ought to be inspection in slaughterhouses. The Parliamentary Secretary entirely agrees with the object. He says, quite rightly, that, strictly speaking, the Amendment does not add anything to what is in the Bill, but the Parliamentary Secretary should look at his own definition of a notice of sale in line 33 and onwards in the Bill. That states:
  "…and that the article was sold having attached thereto a notice of adequate size, distinctly and legibly printed and conspicuously visible.…"
  If the hon. Gentleman can justify every word of that extraordinary phrase as really adding something to the other words in that part of the Clause, he will perform a remarkable feat.
  Now it is suggested that every Clause and Amendment should be pruned down to the very bone and that powers should be given in a most wide and general way, Surely the decent thing to do in a case of this kind is to accept an Amendment
  1964
  which is expressly designed not to alter the Bill but to call attention to a highly important principle in which the Parliamentary Secretary believes just as much as does my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion).
  5.15 p.m.
  As to the other Amendment, what harm is done by it? We are told that from Section 100 of the principal Act one will draw the inevitable conclusion that inspection must be carried out by authorised persons. With great respect, I am not at all sure that I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary. Probably it would be said by a court that an inspection by someone who was not an authorised person was not sufficient, but what harm is there in saying, if that is what one means, that it should be an inspection by an authorised person? I cannot see what purpose is served by a refusal of this kind. I should have thought that the Amendments did no possible harm in calling attention to facts to which it is desirable to call attention and that it would be more gracious to accept the Amendments.
  Mr. James Harrison: I am sure the Minister will appreciate that if meat is to be contaminated at all the time just after the animal has been killed is the most critical time. That is why we feel that these Amendments are very valuable. While in general there is a definition in the Bill of where the inspection of meat must take place, there is no special reference to the most vulnerable period of time, that is, immediately after the animal has been killed and before the meat has been sold in the shop. It is for those reasons that we feel that the Parliamentary Secretary would be doing a good thing if he accepted the Amendments.
  Mr. Champion: I am very grateful to my hon. Friends for their support and particularly to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who said something which almost caused me to feel that this is an Amendment on which we should divide. The Parliamentary Secretary, however, went so far to meet me that in the circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Anthony Hurd: I beg to move, in page 6, to leave out lines 34 to 37.
  The Amendment has the effect of removing subsection (2, f) from the Bill. We do not see the need for a special reference to
  "…vehicles, stalls or places other than premises. …"
  at which meat may be sold. We think that the general powers which the Minister is taking in Clause 6 (1) cover any action which it may be found necessary to take to safeguard public health when meat is being sold from vehicles or stalls.
  We have in mind that in many areas, particularly in outlying areas in Wales and the North of England, and indeed in my own part of the country, we get very good service from travelling vans, owned by private firms or local co-operative stores. They serve the villagers very well. It is also the custom on market day for butchering firms to have stalls in the market place at which they give good service and introduce a further element of competition which is healthy and gives good value to the public in providing a greater choice.
  We do not want anything done by way of placing a special bad mark against that kind of trade. We do not think that it is necessary to have special reference to stalls and vehicles which distribute meat. IL is for that reason that we move the Amendment.
  Mr. Archer Baldwin: I wish to support the Amendment. I think that very often in much of the legislation of this House the needs of country people are forgotten. If this Clause remains as it is more hardship will be entailed for the country dweller, particularly the wife of the working man. In many remote districts there are travelling vans in which meat is brought round. The housewife, instead of being compelled to go five or six miles to a town to buy meat, has an opportunity of selecting a joint from the van.
  In addition to meat vans, in my area there is a very enterprising young man who has a shop on wheels in which he travels selling fish, meat and other commodities. The result is that people in such remote areas can rely on having something brought to their doorstep which otherwise they would not have a chance of buying, as it is quite impossible for
  1966
  them to make long journeys into towns, to buy fish, for instance. Anything done to prevent these vans from purveying food to country districts would he against the interests of remote areas. If we continue closing down schools, railways, and so on, remote country districts will become completely depopulated. Townspeople must remember that their wives can go to a fish shop or a butcher's shop early in the morning and select what they want. They have great advantages.
  Mr. George Darling: We do not want to see any prohibition of travelling shops of the kind which has been mentioned. Many travelling shops belonging to the co-operative societies are very much cleaner than some meat shops which I have seen and I am sure that travelling shops outside the cooperative movement are equally good.
  Here, the Parliamentary Secretary can help us. I wonder whether the removal of this subsection would give us what is wanted. I am not happy about the wording of the subsection, but I want to ensure that travelling shops are as good and clean as they can be made. They are under some handicap as obviously they cannot have running water available. We have to make provision so that some of the dirty, filthy stalls which are not in covered markets may be put out of existence. We want to he sure that if this subsection is removed the Minister will still have power to deal with the had stalls where food is contaminated, stalls which ought not to remain.
  Dr. Hill: An important point has been raised by this Amendment. This Clause deals with the prohibition and it goes too far in prohibiting the travelling shop, or the stall for the sale of hot dogs outside a football match. But there is power to regulate given by subsection (1). In the light of that complete power to deal with the problem by regulation, we are ready to accept the Amendment.
  Dr. Summerskill: I cannot accept what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. Am I not right in saying that this subsection was embodied in a Defence Regulation? I believe the words were precisely the same. That Defence Regulation, I believe, was operated without interference with the vans which I quite understand are necessary in rural constituencies. I think I am right in saying that we felt it necessary to introduce the

  1967
  Defence Regulation to protect the consumer against the unscrupulous vendor who would expose articles such as are here described, which, the Parliamentary Secretary knows, represent a breeding ground for certain germs—
  "meat, meat products or other food peculiarly susceptible to infection;"
  I want the Committee to visualise the kind of stall I have in mind—a stall exposed to the sun, exposed to flies and dust without any protection at all. On that stall these food products are offered for sale, although we know that if they are exposed to heat and bad conditions they become infected. For that reason the subsection was embodied in the Defence Regulation. So far as I remember there was no difficulty about vans going round. All we were trying to do was to protect people during the time when the Defence Regulations were in force.
  Mr. Baldwin: During the war rationing was in force and these vans did not operate.
  Mr. F. Blackburn: If this provision is left in, is it possible for meat to be delivered by vans in the country districts?
  Dr. Hill: As matters stand, power is taken to make regulations to prohibit the practice. Having the power to regulate, we think there is no need to continue to include the power to prohibit.
  As to the intervention of the right hon. Lady, I have not known of the inclusion in the Defence Regulations. That in itself would not prove a great deal, but from such advice as is immediately available to me we cannot recall it. Whether it was in or not I suggest that with these additional powers which were taken to regulate such matters there is no need to prohibit.
  Dr. Summerskill: Am I right in saying that this proposal was regulated by the three advisory committees which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, were representative of the trade and were set up before the regulations were drafted?
  Dr. Hill: The recommendation did come to us from an authoritative source. From memory, I would not be able to name it. But often we get recommendations from authoritative sources which seek to impose wide prohibitions.
  Mr, W. R. Williams: Wherever it came from, if it means that in the countryside it would no longer be possible for housewives and others to have their meat brought to them in the remote areas, I am not supporting it. I feel quite sure that many of my hon. Friends take the same view.
  As will be clear from my accent, I come from Wales. I am satisfied that in such areas this provision would mean that people would have to go without meat from Saturday to Saturday because they would not be able to go by bus, in many cases five, six, or eight miles, to the nearest town. These vans have been catering for the needs of the people in those rural areas. We would be doing a great disservice by insisting on this provision.
  It is up to us to see that the food is hygienic and not in any way contaminated; that is our responsibility. It is not our responsibility to withhold this service from the people in the rural areas who have enjoyed it for generations and who, in my opinion, are fully entitled to it. If this means prohibition, I for one shall not support it.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Mitchison: The Committee divided yesterday on the question whether this part of the Bill would oblige the Minister to do anything. Whatever the effect of that decision and I am not sure that
  it made an enormous amount of difference—the Committee definitely decided that this did not oblige the Minister to make any regulations except such as were thought expedient. It therefore seems to me that the question is, what powers is the Minister taking?
  The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) said—and I agree—that it made no difference whatever to the powers, that the powers were there anyway under the general words, and that all he objected to was the specific reference to this kind of prohibition. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams) that we should not, and I am sure that no hon. Member wishes to, prevent the sale of meat from vehicles under proper conditions. But this was not put in and recommended by competent and expert people for nothing. I suggest that what was really intended is perfectly clear, and I think that there

  1969
  has been a minor slip in the way the thing was expressed.
  If we added "regulating" here, or if we had, as we have in the next subsection, "prohibiting or regulating," everyone would agree that there would be no need to amend anything. I should not think that the hon. Member for Newbury would object to it in that form. It does not make any real difference to the powers. I am doubtful whether the words "or regulating" are necessary, but they make it clear. I would point out that when we get to the next subsection the very first words in it are:
  "Regulations under this section may make different provisions in relation to different classes of business."
  I should have thought that probably the right inference on the whole thing was that we could absolutely prohibit some classes of sale within this subsection and others would be prohibited only in certain circumstances.
  It would surely be much better to put in the words "or regulating" and to drop this Amendment on the assurance, which I feel certain the Parliamentary Secretary will give, that he will put in "prohibiting or regulating" on Report stage. Then everyone would be satisfied; both the people who do not want to see this kind of thing altogether and deliberately omitted at this stage—as if it meant the Committee were sanctioning something that they do not want to sanction—and also hon. Members who, properly and rightly, feel that we do not want to interfere with sales from vehicles, particularly in rural areas, provided that there are proper safeguards about them in the regulations.
  Mr. Willey: I wish to support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and to assuage the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams). But first I would say that it will not do to come to the Committee and say, "We will throw overboard this provision." This provision has been in this Bill for nearly 12 months. For nearly 12 months the Government have said that this is right and proper. I do not object to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) putting down an Amendment, but after the Government have defended this for 12 months, the Parliamentary Secretary
  1970
  says, "I do not see the need for this and we will drop it."
  There is a good reason for it being in, and I would remind him of that reason. As he indicated, there are authoritative recommendations about this. I accept at once on my own behalf that we have not been as vigilant as we might have been. We should have moved an Amendment "prohibiting or regulating" To assuage the fears of my hon. Friend, I would say that this does not compel the Minister to do anything. It is to enable the Minister to exercise his powers. Suppose there were a typhoid epidemic and it were believed that the typhoid was being spread in this way. Would my hon. Friend think it right and proper that the Minister should have such power?
  Mr. W. R. Williams: I should imagine that there must be ample powers under Ministry of Health regulations somewhere to provide for that. But, if some Minister wishes to introduce prohibition, he can do so under this subsection, and that is what I do not want.
  Mr. Willey: Surely my hon. Friend would agree that if the Minister proposes to exercise certain powers, it is better that the public should be aware of those powers, rather than that they should be hidden away among general powers. That is the purpose of these subsections.
  The reason for this is that it was believed that there might be circumstances in which it would be right to prohibit, and it was believed by the Government for 12 months that this was not covered by the generality of powers in subsection (1). We have here nothing to pursuade us that it is so covered. If the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied, I cannot see why we should not give him an assurance that at a later stage we will move to amend by inserting the words, "or regulating," after "prohibiting." What is wrong about this subsection? If it is unnecessary, we should have some adequate explanation from the Government. This has gone through another place and been justified as necessary. It was put in on the recommendations received from bodies which have inquired into this.
  It could be argued that every one of the provisions under subsection (2) are covered by subsection (1), but I have

  1971
  explained the purpose here. It is to make it quite clear that among the generality of powers are these specific powers. It is felt that for the sale of food from vehicles, stalls and such-like places there should be the power to prohibit and, I would suggest, "or regulate," the sale of food
  "peculiarly susceptible to infection."
  I would not for a moment doubt the good sense of the Minister. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may do so, but I do not. They have their 1922 Committee in which to express such doubts, but in open forum I express no doubt about the Minister, and I do not think the alarm of my hon. Friend is justified. I do not think that here there is any question of exercising a general prohibition. It could be done, but only by giving a general power can we give him power to act in particular circumstances which we cannot anticipate.
  Because he is a man of considerable medical reputation, I should have expected the Parliamentary Secretary to say that it is appreciated that a risk might lie here; that while those who moved this Amendment have made a fair point in saying that this is too absolute in providing only for prohibiting, he would not accept the Amendment, but that later he would move to insert "or regulating" after "prohibiting."
  Mr. Janner: May I ask the Minister why, if he was prepared to accept the Amendment, he was not prepared to tell us that food which is offered for sale in these conditions will be subject to special regulations? We should get an assurance from the Minister that he will introduce regulations covering this type of store, vehicle or stall and providing for reasonably hygienic precautions to be taken. For example, in this case he should insist on the food being covered properly, preferably by pre-wrapping and so on.
  If the Minister would give an assurance of that nature, we should be in a better position to accept the Amendment. A number of my hon. Friends are anxious to ensure that there should be no impeding of the reasonable opportunities afforded to people to purchase commodities in this way. I have a fairly wide experience of the kind of customer to whom reference has been made. As
  1972
  we are dealing with the question of clean food, we must be most cautious about the way in which we allow food to be sold. We would like the Minister to give an undertaking that certain conditions will be set down covering the sale from this type of vehicle or stall of the commodities referred to.
  Mr. G. Darling: I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary appreciates the size of the problem. Up to now, we have discussed it as a problem of the rural areas. There are far more travelling shops in the new housing estates in the big towns than there are in the rural areas. This is a far bigger problem than some hon. Members appreciate. We want to ensure that the travelling shops are of a good standard.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Dr. Stross: I beg to move, in page 6, line 43, at the end, to insert:
  (h) for prohibiting the sale of any fish for human consumption or the use of any fish in the preparation of fish products unless it has been previously washed with wholesome water.
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): Perhaps it would be convenient to consider at the same time the next four Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). They are:
  In page 6, line 43, at end, insert:
  (h) for prohibiting or regulating the sale for human consumption of any meat, meat products, fish or fish products not enclosed in a wrapper or container and the exposure of such foods without wrappers or containers.
  In line 43, at end, insert:
  (h) for imposing requirements as to the transport of meat, meat products, fish or fish products.
  In line 43, at end, insert:
  (h) for requiring that food not required for immediate consumption shall be properly stored and reasonably protected from all forms of contamination and infestation.
  In line 43, at end, insert:
  (h) for securing the proper treatment and storage of all foods which have been cooked or partly cooked and which are not required for immediate consumption.
  Also there is the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell):
  In line 43, at end, insert:
  (h) for ensuring that meat is adequately covered during all stages of transit between slaughterhouse and retail shop
  5.45 p.m.
  Dr. Stross: This series of Amendments has been put down because we know that the Minister has not thought fit to have these matters covered by the regulations although they are in the code. When we consider the proposed draft, we see that there is some cover in the regulations, in that it is stated that food:
  "… consisting of or containing meat, fish, eggs, milk (except cheese), dried milk or condensed milk shall. after cooling as aforesaid, me stored at a temperature not exceeding 50° F."
  Why has there been a change from 40° F. in the first tentative regulation to 50° F.? No doubt there is a technical explanation. It may be difficult to ask the trade to bring their products down to 40° as compared with 50°.
  These matters are of such importance that they should not be left to the code which, of course, is a purely voluntary matter. They should be in the regulations. It may be that the Minister will reply, as he has done so frequently, perhaps rightly, by referring again to Clause 6 (1) and pointing out that there powers are taken on many of these questions including:
  "… the sale of food for human consumption or the importation, preparation, transport, storage, packaging, exposure for sale…"
  and so on. We have to point out that we have no way in which to persuade him to take any specific action. The Clause says that he may do so, and then it qualifies even the word "may" by the words:
  "… as appear to them to be expedient …"
  That is the usual form and we have already discussed it.
  The trade itself would gladly accept all the matters mentioned in the Amendment. Earlier today I quoted the opinion of the National Caterers Federation. I have a document containing their views point by point on these questions. I do not think that it is necessary to read it. The Parliamentary Secretary probably has a copy. Literally every point is covered. They would accept all that we ask for here. They want cleanliness. They want goods to be decently wrapped, with no chance of infection. They want containers to be properly secured, cleansed and sterilised and they want suitable material used.
  1974
  Obviously they have looked very carefully at the report of the working party and have taken all the best advice. If that is their view, we are within our rights in urging the Ministers to accept the Amendment. I ask the Government to say that, at least, they will accept the Amendment in principle.
  Mr. Ronald Russell: The object of the Amendment in my name is to try to get provisions inserted in the Bill or the regulations to deal with the covering of meat during transit from slaughterhouses to retail shops. The manner in which carcases of meat are left completely uncovered in transit is shocking. We see them being unloaded from a van outside a market or a butcher's shop, possibly with a dust cart next to it, with the dustmen tipping dustbins into the cart and creating a cloud of dust. Something ought to be done to prevent that from happening, even though it may be rather difficult to do so. There is nothing in the Bill, nor can I find anything in the regulations, specifying the covering of meat during transport. It is high time this country improved the conditions in which meat is handled in these circumstances, even though it may take a little time for the trade to adjust itself to the change.
  Meat is not the only substance which is carried in vehicles while uncovered. Perhaps the carriage of such goods as cakes and pastries is even more dangerous because they have already been cooked and are taken into cafés ready for immediate human consumption, whereas meat has subsequently to be cooked, which I understand will kill any germs which may have been collected. I believe that all food ought to be covered during transport and should not be left open to possible contamination by germs from dust carts or any other bacteria which it may pick up.
  Dr. Broughton: The Minister should include in the regulations requirements dealing with the covering of food and should not leave them to the code of practice, which may or may not be accepted by traders. Investigations into outbreaks of food poisoning have shown that most outbreaks originated from persons touching food with dirty hands. Nevertheless, there is a considerable amount of food poisoning in the country

  1975
  arising from the contamination of food in other ways, and this is due to the fact that the food is not properly covered.
  When food is not in use it should be properly stored in order to protect it from contamination and infestation. If it is left exposed, dust is liable to fall upon it, and in the dust there are germs which can grow in the food and which can be responsible for subsequent food poisoning. When it is left uncovered, insects, particularly flies, may alight upon it and contaminate it with food poisoning germs. Mice, rats, dogs and cats can contaminate it, too. I am pleased to see that many foodshops nowadays display notices requesting people not to take their dogs into the shops, and I hope that practice will spread, but even if all dogs are kept out of foodshops, as I think ought to be the case, the food should nevertheless be covered to prevent contamination in the other ways which I have mentioned.
  Perhaps one of the greatest dangers to food which is not properly covered is that it may be contaminated by the coughs and sneezes of food handlers or customers. If food is not in use it should be kept in refrigerators, cupboards or cases. This is such an important matter that it should be in the Regulations and, in order to ensure that, I hope that the Minister will accept these Amendments.
  Mr. Baldwin: I want to support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell). The way in which meat is carried to the retail shops from the slaughterhouses is disgraceful. During the war these conditions were necessary because of the long distance from the slaughterhouses to the shops and the lack of sufficient vehicles, but we have now left that stage and I think steps should be taken to see that those conditions do not continue. In particular, offals should be brought from the slaughterhouse to the retail shop in dust-proof containers.
  It is very important that we should take such steps at present because in our discussion of recent legislation there was a strong demand from some quarters for what was called a moderate concentration of slaughterhouses. I have not been able to discover from those concerned what they meant by "moderate concentration" —whether they meant two miles or 50 miles—but I gather that they suggest a
  1976
  distance of about 15 to 20 miles from the slaughterhouse to the shop. If that is the intention, then it is more than ever essential that it should be made compulsory for those who carry food that distance to prevent contamination.
  If we have a hot summer in this country once again—and I hope we shall —the dangers which we shall face unless such steps are taken will be high. I hope my hon. Friend will see that meat is properly protected during transit from the slaughterhouses to the retail shops, whether it is transported by rail or by van.
  Mr. Blackburn: I will confine my remarks to the Amendment to which my name is attached, which includes the words,
  "for imposing requirements as to the transport of meat, meat products, fish or fish products."
  To a great extent this covers the same ground as the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell), which has been supported by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin), but it goes a little further than that Amendment; whereas that Amendment is concerned only with the covering of food, my Amendment is concerned also with the vehicles being used.
  In his reply, the Parliamentary Secretary will ask whether this point is covered by Clause 6 (1). I must admit that that subsection contains the word "transport" and that subsection 6 (4) refers to vehicles, but one of the weaknesses of the 1938 Act was that the comparable section—that is, Section 8 (1)—was too general in its terms, and I feel that subsection 6 (1) is, again, too general. We tried yesterday to make it a little more specific but were unsuccessful. Under that subsection:
  "The Ministers may make such regulations as appear to them to be expedient for securing the observance of sanitary and cleanly conditions and practices in connection with the sale of food for human consumption or the importation, preparation, transport, storage, packaging, exposure for sale, service or delivery of food intended for sale or sold for human consumption.…"
  It is very indefinite, and the terms are far too general. Indeed, the Government recognise that they are very general terms, because subsection (2) begins:
  "(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing subsection,"

  1977
  Therefore, I think that in this matter of the transport of meat, meat products, fish and fish products, it is important that we should have very definite regulations.
  6.0 p.m.
  Concerning food, it is important that we should have the most hygienic conditions right from the beginning until the food reaches the consumer, because if there is any breakdown in those hygienic conditions at any stage, whatever we may do at any other stage may be rendered nugatory. We must not only have the most hygienic slaughterhouses and regulations requiring the most hygienic conditions in retail shops, but, if we do not also insist upon hygienic conditions in transport from slaughterhouses to the retail shops, whatever we have done in other ways may be of no use whatever.
  I do not know whether other hon. Members have had complaints such as have been brought to my notice about transport at the present time. We all know that we very often had grounds for complaint under the system of control about some of the vehicles used for the transport of meat, but, since decontrol was brought about, these conditions have become far worse. Only the other day, my attention was drawn by a friend to the fact that he had actually seen meat being taken away from a slaughterhouse and placed in the boot of the butcher's motor car. My informant said that it was quite evident from the state of the boot that the motor car had been at the seaside at the weekend.
  What is happening at present is that butchers are using any vehicles they possess and putting meat into them, and it is very important that we should have regulations to provide that, where meat is transported from slaughterhouses to either wholesalers or retailers, its handling is governed by very definite regulations. Therefore, I hope that in this case the Parliamentary Secretary will not say that this point is covered in Clause 6 (1). We want something far more definite than is indicated merely by the word "transport"; we should have an assurance from the Minister that he will make definite regulations covering the transport of meat, meat products, fish and fish products.
  Mr. Norman Dodds: I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central
  1978
  (Dr. Stross) in respect of the first Amendment which he has moved, which would require that any fish for human consumption shall, prior to sale, have been washed not only in water, but in wholesome water. We are here concerned with a matter of some substance, and it is necessary to specify what is required in the regulations rather than to say that all these matters are covered in Clause 6 (1) or that they are mentioned in a code of practice.
  I should think that every housewife will, in any circumstances, wash the fish before she uses it, but I would urge the necessity for the fishmonger to wash it. I base my principal claim for this provision on the fact that this country, with its very low standards of food hygiene, is almost the only one in the world which follows the horrible practice of fish boxes being used over and over again. It is one of the very few countries in the world in which that state of affairs continues. I believe that we should see that proper precautions are taken, and I therefore ask that these matters shall be specified in the regulations.
  Mr. Janner: I am sorry that we are discussing all these Amendments together, because there is quite a lot to be said on several of them, and they are all of vital importance on the issue of clean food.
  I have endeavoured in the course of recent years to take an interest in this matter. I have raised it twice on the Motion for the Adjournment in this House, and have been assured that steps would be taken to see that the fullest regard was given to the provision of clean food. I have also brought to the notice of the Minister from time to time the very keen interest taken in the matter in my constituency by the medical officer of health. I have also seen myself in the United States the steps which are taken in order to secure the provision of food in a covered and clean condition.
  What we are asking in these Amendments is not beyond the power of enforcement. On the contrary, I have seen every one of these points covered by regulations which are in force in the United States. They differ in some States, because in some there are regulations of a much stricter nature, and they are enforceable with very severe penalties in many instances.

  1979
  May I first deal with the first of this series of Amendments? As far as I know, it is not the general practice in the fish trade always to wash fish before sale, but we must insist upon this being carried out in a more definite sense. A code of practice is only a document drawing people's attention to what they ought to do, whereas the regulations are something quite different, and I assume that the Minister proposes to enforce them. Therefore, I think that all these proposals should be put into effect by means of regulations.
  Regarding the second Amendment, which is concerned with wrappers or containers, I know the difficulty about putting it into practice, but I wonder if the Minister would be prepared to consider an alternative arrangement for hygienic storage and display; for example, covered-in shelves, refrigerated cabinets and so on? It is possible to enforce that kind of thing, and I am sure that the Minister knows that that has already been brought into effect in many large stores.
  I should also like to refer to the Amendment seeking to enforce certain requirements in regard to the transport of meat and fish. It cannot be denied that it is highly desirable that there should be a regulation to that effect. Indeed, there is already a reference to such a provision in the draft regulations. Why not make it compulsory in such a regulation drafted in accordance with the Act and quickly brought into effect? I do not see why the Minister should look so astonished—I am not suggesting anything—
  Dr. Hill: What surprises me was that the hon. Gentleman said that he knew that the power was there and then went on to suggest that the power should be altered.
  Mr. Janner: No. What is not specified in a regulation made now can be carried out at a later date by another regulation, whereas what we are anxious to see is that these regulations shall contain these provisions, irrespective of whether the Minister wants them or not. That is what we are driving at. That is the difference between what the Minister said and what we want. We want some action, since the Minister must make regulations for certain purposes.
  1980
  I think the other Amendments are also directed to what is perfectly feasible, and I hope that, when the Minister has considered them and has heard the arguments for them, he will realise that the vast majority of the people of this country are anxious that he should now define what ought to be done. It should not be left even to a chance decision of the Minister from time to time. Therefore, I hope that the Minister of Food will be able to accept these Amendments.
  Dr. Hill: The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West {Mr. Janner) reveals a misunderstanding about this position. It was proposed earlier that the word "shall" should govern both Clause 6 (1) and (2). Rightly or wrongly, the Committee decided otherwise. Had the word "shall" been included as governing Clause 6 (2), there would have been a good case for listing the various items upon which the Minister should make regulations.
  As matters stand, the Minister may make regulations which are governed in general terms by Clause 6 (1) and in more specific terms in certain respects by Clause 6 (2). I want to make it abundantly clear that the power to make regulations on any of the subjects referred to in the Amendments exists today, and whether we add these Amendments or not is immaterial. I hope that the Committee will not add these or any other words, because they are unnecessary..
  The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) came to the point which is really in people's minds when he asked, "Will the Minister use the powers which admittedly he possesses to make regulations on these various topics?" As the Committee knows, the final form of the regulations is not yet determined but the present mind is revealed under a number of headings. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) made reference, for example. to butchers' vans, the vehicles used for the transport of meat; draft Regulation 29 seeks to deal with that point. Indeed, it refers particularly to the problem which the hon. Member had in mind of the character of the floor to be used in any such van.
  I am not defending or advocating the particular form of words used. I am saying that the power exists and that these Amendments are irrelevant. Consideration is now being given to this

  1981
  matter—I admit that it is not the final form—of what should be included in the regulations.
  My right hon. Friend will give very careful consideration to the suggestions that have been made. In part it can be said that the subjects are dealt with in the draft regulations; for example, Regulations 29, 30, 24, and 6 (a) in a general sense deal with some of the points. I hope that hon. Members who have a particular interest will make their suggestions. The bodies representing trades and industries, the associations of local authorities, and other expert bodies are looking at the present draft. We shall do our utmost in the regulations to meet as best we can the various points which are put forward.
  I am not here and now guaranteeing what will be in the final regulations, because they are the subject of consultation. I sincerely ask hon. Members who have particular views to convey them to my right hon. Friend, when those views will be most carefully considered. The power exists but some Members have doubts as to whether they go far enough. This is not the moment to consider that. I ask the Committee not to add what I referred to earlier as "forms of particularization" which do not add anything to the Minister's powers, and which are irrelevant.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Willey: The Parliamentary Secretary has said that his right hon. Friend will consider any representations made to him about the draft regulations. I think he is seized of our main purpose in putting these Amendments on the Paper, which was really to suggest matters which we thought were proper to go into the draft regulations. In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, I think my hon. Friends would be satisfied and would not wish to press these Amendments to the point of writing them into the Bill.
  We are reassured to know that the final form of the regulations has not yet been determined. I hope that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will direct their attention to the HANSARD report of our discussions, and that their Department will endeavour to meet as far as possible the wishes which we have expressed in these Amendments.
  I will make one small point but I do not think it is necessary to labour it.
  1982
  In an earlier Amendment we mentioned the question of wrapping. I assume that the Parliamentary Secretary has not mentioned it because the matter is being considered in connection with a possible Amendment. That is rather different from the other matters that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
  Dr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. It seemed when I gave the assurance to the hon. Gentleman that Clause 6 (1) was possibly inapplicable.
  Mr. Willey: Yes, that is how I understand the matter. I appreciate what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. With that further assurance I hope that my hon. Friends will be willing to allow the Amendment to be withdrawn so that we may pass on to the next Amendment.
  Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order. We have had a number of references in the debate yesterday and today to certain draft regulations. These regulations have apparently been communicated to various Members of the Committee. They appear in a public document. The difficulty is that many of us, including myself, have not seen these draft regulations and are thereby impeded in the discharge of our Parliamentary duties by references which convey something to those who have seen the regulations and nothing to those who have not seen them.
  I have just listened to the Parliamentary Secretary referring to "Regulation 29" For all I know, he may be referring to regulations about the pickling of toucans, or about any other subject. I read on page 44 of Erskine May that documents of this sort should be laid on the Table of the House. This was asked for yesterday. A number of us are really at a disadvantage. May I ask what steps are going to be taken to remedy that matter? Secondly, may we have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he will not encourage this kind of thing?
  Mr. Willey: Further to that point of order. I accept some share of responsibility. The Minister has been most helpful in this regard. We have quarrelled about the contents of the regulations, but the Minister and his predecessor have not shown the slightest

  1983
  reluctance about making the draft regulations available. That was not a duty placed upon them, but from the beginning, at the time of the first discussions, they have given us the draft regulations. We have had full access to them.
  With regard to the present draft regulations, I was given a number of copies. If my hon. Friends have not received copies, it is I who have been remiss. All they need do, as I still have a few copies left, is to ask me for a copy. I should like to make it quite clear that whatever difference of opinion there may be or may have been about the contents of the draft regulations, the Department has never shown the slightest reluctance in affording us access to them.
  Mr. I. J. Pitman: Further to that point of order. If this is a convenient time—in the middle of an Amendment —to discuss the matter of the machinery of the House, I would like to say that I think that the hon. Member is taking too narrow a view of the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), because there is also the point of view of the public at large. When, if they go to the Stationery Office—
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): Is the hon. Member raising another point of order altogether?
  Mr. Pitman: No, Sir Gordon, I am extending the point about Members within this House to those who have no access to these regulations, but who—
  The Temporary Chairman: The only point is whether the Minister is bound to lay these regulations on the Table. It is quite clear that he is not so bound, and, also, that draft regulations are not really State papers in the proper sense of the term.
  Mr. Amory: I wish to say in supplementation of what was said by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) that I am, of course, most anxious that everybody should have these draft regulations. We placed copies of the previous regulations in the Library. I am not sure whether copies of the last lot are in the Library, though they will be very shortly. If there is anything more that we can do to make them more readily
  1984
  available, we shall be only too happy to do so.
  Mr. Mitchison: I, of course, completely accept your Ruling, Sir Gordon, but I wish to say that from the point of view of backbench Members it is not so important that these documents should be handed to Front Bench Members as it is that they should be laid upon the Table of the House. That is all I wish to say.
  Dr. Stross: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Dr. Broughton: I beg to move, in page 6, line 43, at the end, to insert:
  (3) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions the Ministers shall publish a code of practice regarding food hygiene in catering premises and codes of practice regarding such other classes of business as appears to them to be necessary or expedient in the interests of public health or otherwise for the protection of the public.
  When my hon. Friends and I first considered this matter of legislation with a view to trying to improve the standard of hygiene in catering establishments and food premises throughout the country—which we did about four years ago—we at once realised that it would be necessary to have regulations in addition to a Bill. There are so many points which need to be covered that we recognised that regulations would have to be made so that the Bill itself should not contain such an enormous amount of scientific material. The regulations will need changing from time to time, and it is easy for a Minister to do that, whereas it would be difficult to make the alterations in the Measure.
  We on this side of the Committee want the Bill and we want the regulations. When we had the Second Reading of the Bill, the Parliamentary Secretary informed the House—and this was the first that I had heard of it—that it was the intention of the Minister also to draw up a code of practice. The Parliamentary Secretary explained precisely why that was to be done, and we on this side of the House saw the reasonableness of his arguments and accepted his decision.
  I think that the idea of having a code of practice is an excellent one. Unlike my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), I have been fortunate in obtaining a copy of the draft

  1985
  regulations and of the draft code of practice. If, by way of example, I may quote two of the points mentioned in the code of practice, I think the Committee will agree how wise it is to have such a code rather than to put these points into regulations.
  The first is No. 4 in the code, which states:
  "New entrants to the industry should be given instruction in the principles of hygiene and all persons employed in the food trade should be encouraged to attend classes and lectures on food hygiene."
  The Parliamentary Secretary, I am sure, will realise how very pleased I was to see that that matter had been mentioned in the draft code of practice.
  However, I am sure that the Committee will agree that it should not be in the regulations, because the infringement of anything contained in regulations renders a person liable to a penalty. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary and I both agree that while education in hygiene for food handlers is extremely important, it should be on a voluntary basis, and that persons should certainly not be liable to heavy penalties for the non-fulfilment of that wise advice.
  The second point is No. 7 in the code which states:
  "All persons engaged in the preparation of food should wear a clean washable head covering which effectively covers the hair."
  That gives us another example of something that it was very wise of the Minister to mention, and I suggest that the code is the right place for it. It is most desirable that food handlers should wear a head covering, but I think it is expecting rather too much, if for one reason or another they fail to do so, that they should be liable to such heavy penalties as they would be if the matter were covered by the regulations.
  For the reasons that I have given, we on this side of the Committee warmly welcome the Government's idea of having a code of practice, though I am not quite certain whether the Minister has any authority to draw up such a code. But even if he has, I suggest that this Amendment should be accepted in order to stress the importance of the code. We are trying to be helpful to the Government in this Amendment. As I have explained to the Committee, we approve the Government's idea of a code of practice, but
  1986
  think that it should be specifically mentioned in the Bill.
  Dr. Hill: I am glad that the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) has spoken as he has done. A code is an essential part of the work that we are proposing to do. There is just one doubt, and for that reason I would ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the matter any further at this moment. It is not a doubt as to whether there should be a code. It is just a doubt as to whether it would be more effective if published by a Minister or more effective if published by others, with such help as the Minister can give.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, for many years I was the chairman of the Central Council for Health Education, which is a body that acts as the agency for local authorities in the matter of their health education work. Among those experienced in that kind of work, there is very often a feeling that when a code is a Government code it is less effective than when it is published under the aegis of some body such as the Central Council or the Royal Sanitary Institute, or one of the other many representative bodies set up for that purpose.
  It might be that the Minister is the appropriate person. The only doubt that remains—and we should like a little further time in which to consider it—is whether it should be done by direct action of the Minister or by some other body, with the Minister's blessing. Apart from that, I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Willey: I appreciate the point which the Parliamentary Secretary has made. Quite frankly, when the Catering Trade Working Party's Report came out I had some doubts about the code of practice. I thought it would be difficult to have a code without the enforcement of the regulations, but now that we have an approved code of practice as well as the regulations I think the case has been made out for it. There is quite clearly a very good case for such a code as supporting, and ancillary to, the regulations.
  As to whether it should be a Government responsibility or that of another body, I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that there should perhaps be some further time for thought. However,

  1987
  I should have thought that, having gone so far to overcome that hurdle, and having produced this code after obvious consultation with the trade, the case was made out that the Government could, in fact, bear responsibility for the code of practice. If the Parliamentary Secretary feels that, between now and Report, there should be further consultations and discussions with other bodies interested in hygiene, we would by all means accept that. I am sure my hon. Friends would not wish, in those circumstances, to press this Amendment at this stage.
  Dr. Broughton: I should have thought that a code of practice that was issued by the Minister would have been more effective than one issued by some outside body, but in view of the fact—
  Miss Irene Ward: Before the hon. Member asks leave to withdraw the Amendment—as I think he is about to do—can I not say a word on this matter, Sir Charles? I have never been allowed to speak, although I have been endeavouring to do so.
  The Chairman: If, when the hon. Member for Batley and Morley has finished his speech, the hon. Lady stands up I shall call her.
  Miss Ward: I do not want the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment before I have had my say.
  The Chairman: I shall take note of that.
  Dr. Broughton: In view of the Parliamentary Secretary's promise to look into this point, and as we shall have an opportunity to consider it further on Report, I shall, in due course, beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Miss Ward: There has been so much billing and cooing between the Opposition and the Government Front Bench that I begin to be a little alarmed, because I am very anxious to know where British Railways come in. If the Amendment is finally included in the Bill, will British Railways come under Ministerial control or be regarded as some outside body whose conduct cannot be questioned because it is not a Ministerial responsibility?
  1988
  So far as I can see, British Railways have already started a code, and if we are to have this code of practice—whether or not it is a Ministerial responsibility—I want to be quite certain that we are not to have any reduction in quality. Some time ago, British Railways were providing for people using the sleepers some perfectly loathsome little biscuits called "Dux." They were horrible little biscuits, very cheap—
  The Chairman: Whatever their name, it does not affect the Amendment, which deals with how they are produced and handled and so on.
  Miss Ward: I am just coming to the handling, which is exactly my point.
  British Railways have suddenly decided that they will handle the biscuits in a different way, so it seems to me that they have already seen the code of practice. First, on my representation, they withdrew these cheap little biscuits, and when, while we were discussing this Bill in the House of Commons, I travelled north, I suddenly found these perfectly loathsome biscuits had been put into miserable little paper bags on which were the words "Good Morning"
  I can only say that if the code of practice is to permit of British Railways putting "Good Morning" on paper bags which contain inferior biscuits, I would have preferred better-class biscuits without the paper bag and the "Good Morning" I therefore want to know whether my hon. Friend is to have any control on what British Railways do. It will give me great pleasure if he will have.
  Mr. Champion: May I ask the hon. Lady whether on the paper bags was printed "Good Morning, ducks"?
  Dr. Broughton: I now beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 7, line 10, to leave out paragraph (b).
  I am not an expert on billing and cooing, but I should like to express the hope that the Solicitor-General is to reply to this matter and break his somewhat inscrutable silence. May I also take the opportunity to say to him that, apart

  1989
  from the poisonous political views which he shares with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, I am not the only person who is very glad to see him a Law Officer?
  We all know him as a singularly happy combination of learning, good sense and courtesy, and his profession—as I dare say he himself sometimes suspects—esteems him very highly. Having said what I hope are those nice things, I can only add that I know him well enough to be quite certain that they will not have the faintest effect on his attitude to this Amendment.
  If one reads subsection 3 (b), it will be seen that it follows the subsection dealing with the Minister's regulations, and those regulations are to
  "make provision for the adjustment between owners and occupiers of the premises of expenses incurred in complying with any such requirements."
  Those are, broadly speaking, clean food requirements. Quite honestly and frankly I really do not know what it means. What does "adjustment" mean? My fear is that it is not merely a question of whether the Minister's regulations will provide some convenient means of payment if there are any pecuniary liabilities or anything like that, but that the intention is that, with the powers given in the Bill, Ministers may vary the law in the matter according to what they think to be right in regard to complying with these requirements.
  If, as at present it seems to me, that is the real proposal, I feel certain that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be the first person to admit that it is a very remarkable innovation in the law. There are, of course, legal provisions which may deal with many of these cases. In the Landlord and Tenant Act there are provisions about alterations, and there are the ordinary provisions in common law that, in a given case, there will be legal obligations as between the persons concerned, and those legal obligations, if not already known to the persons concerned, can, if necessary, be ascertained in court. Apparently they are to be adjusted. What exactly does that mean?
  When I look at the history of this business my suspicions about what is going on are aggravated. There was—indeed, until this Bill becomes law there still is—a very simple provision in Section 13 of
  1990
  the principal Act to the effect that expenses may be recovered in certain cases as a civil debt. That is an entirely different matter,
  That is a mere question of procedure, and does not affect the question whether or not they are recoverable in law. At any rate, whether it does or does not, it is a quite clear and definite provision in the Act itself, and to that, of course, no one has any objection in principle. If we were told what is to be done with these expenses and were asked to accept an appropriate provision about them, I should not be objecting, but in this case that is not what we are being asked to do. That Section is, in fact, going to be repealed.
  In the Factories Act, 1937, and in the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act, 1938, a rather similar question arose—that is to say, the question of altering or adapting premises in some way to comply with the requirements of those Acts. There was a very definite provision that the matter should go to the county court and that the adjustment or alteration of the rights of parties should be made by the county court judge under the provisions of those two Acts. The provisions are broadly similar.
  The Factories Act, under the side heading "Power of county court to modify agreements" provided:
  "If by reason of an agreement between the owner and the occupier of premises… the said owner or occupier is prevented from carrying out any structural or other alterations in the premises which are necessary to enable him to comply with the provisions of this Act… he may apply… to the county court, and the court, after hearing the parties… may make such an order setting aside or modifying the terms of the agreement as the court considers just and equitable in the circumstances of the case."
  That is an adjustment of the rights of the parties and an adjustment of the incidence of the expenses; it might be more than that, but it is, at any rate, made by the county court.
  I dare say the Solicitor-General will be able to give us some other instances, but, speaking for myself, I know of no case in which Ministers have been given a completely general power to adjust the incidence of expenses or to adjust ordinary common law rights without any indication of the lines upon which the adjustment ought to proceed. I suggest

  1991
  that this is a highly undesirable innovation, and that it ought to be replaced by something which indicates what is the right thing to do, and which further indicates that it is to be done in the open in a court and not by a brace of Ministers through regulations.
  6.45 p.m.
  Even if for some reason or another it is more convenient, or even right, to leave this matter to Ministerial decision, we ought to be given a very clear indication of what Ministerial decisions are to be in given circumstances, and it ought not to be left to a Ministerial statement here. Something ought to be put into the Bill itself to indicate the principles upon which those decisions are to be made.
  As matters stand at present, it is not at all clear that anybody is going to be heard at all. The Ministers, by regulation, may make provision for the adjustment between owners and occupiers of premises. They will be dealing with a whole variety of different rights and circumstances; it is perfectly open to them to make general decisions in the regulations, and even to give themselves power to make particular decisions, and, so far as I can see, no one can do anything about it. I hope that my suspicions are exaggerated. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to satisfy the Committee that this is a necessary and a fair provision and not the dangerous innovation which at present it appears to me to be.
  Mr. Michael Higgs: I should like to add a few words in support of what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). When I first read this paragraph (b) it filled me with considerable apprehension. The problem, as I understand it, is this. It is at its worst in the case where there is an already existing tenancy, where a landlord has let and a tenant has taken premises which may be the subject of requirements under regulations made under this Bill, before they knew that any such Bill was likely to become law.
  They will already have made their bargain. They will already have entered into a lease. Now, out of the blue, there will come to them directions to the effect, perhaps, that a kitchen has to be built on
  1992
  or, in the case of catering premises, that additional lavatories are to be built. The question is, who ought to bear the expense?
  The first thing that I do, as the hon. and learned Gentleman did, is to look to other statutes which have posed similar problems. The earliest statute which occurred to me was the Licensing Act, 1902. In that Act, for the first time, licensing justices were empowered, not by an edict in the form of a regulation which applies all over the country but when dealing with individual houses at licensing sessions, suddenly to say, "We shall not renew the licence of this house unless something is done," and to decide on different requirements for different houses.
  When that power was given to the licensing justices 52 years ago, no provision was made in that statute stating how the expense was to be shared between owner and occupier, landlord and tenant, owner and mortgagee and also in the case of all the other possible relationships which might be involved. It occurred to me that that might have resulted in litigation in a number of cases, but although I have searched diligently, I have not been able to find that the interpretation has been raised at all, except in a single case, and that a rather abstruse one on the interpretation of a marriage settlement.
  Those who have studied books on licensing law know that if there is any doubt, parties always do litigate when the cases concern licensed premises. If they have not litigated, it seems to me that the best thing that Parliament and Ministers can do is to leave landlords and tenants to reach a commonsense solution when they are required by regulation to spend money on premises, and that, by and large, they will reach a better solution in each case than we can possibly achieve in general terms.
  My hon. and learned Friend will know how complicated leases can be, particularly if they are of business premises. One can picture the difficulties that will arise in respect of a food shop or cafe which is part of a large block which includes offices, other shops, flats, staircases, entrance halls and so on. Where alterations have to be made the question will arise not only whether the landlord or the tenant should pay, but as to the

  1993
  extent to which neighbouring occupiers are affected. Alterations may be required to the building next door, above, or below.
  If we are to interfere with the ordinary course of business bargaining which goes on when such a requirement is made known, the only possible way to do so is to say that if the parties affected by such a regulation cannot agree together they must all lay their problems before some form of tribunal—the obvious one would be the county court—and say, "This is the problem; decide what is fair and reasonable between us." There are plenty of precedents for imposing such a task upon the county court; it has been done in the landlord and tenant legislation which we have dealt with this Session.
  I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will consider this question very carefully before he imposes upon Ministers the task of making regulations laying down the rules which will do justice in every one of the many hundreds of varied cases which will arise as a result of the regulations to be made under the previous paragraph.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): I hope that the Committee will allow me to depart from the matter in hand just to express my gratitude to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) for the kind personal reference he made to me. I appreciate it very much, and it would be churlish not to notice it.
  With due respect to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs), I am bound to say that, although there is a great deal in their criticism of this paragraph as it now stands, I hope that I can remove at least some of their anxieties. First, it is in no sense the intention that the Ministers should, by regulation, and quite outside the law, seek to make some decision adjusting the rights of the parties. That has never been the intention, and it is not now. The intention is that, by regulation, these problems should be handed over to a court of justice to do what that court thinks is, in the whole of the circumstances, just and equitable.
  I do not for one moment want to bind the Government to what court of justice should decide, because there is a choice
  1994
  here between a court of summary jurisdiction—which is the appropriate court under the Food and Drugs Act, 1938—and a county court, which, as both hon. Members have noticed, is the appropriate court in much modern legislation. At the moment, I should prefer the matter of the appropriate court to remain a question for discussion.
  It is always a matter of opinion how much one should—if I may avoid technical language—clutter up a statute by putting in detail. I ask the Committee to take the view that it might well be for the convenience of the public that the legislation dealing with the sorting out of the rights of parties—the question whether the owner or the occupier should bear the expense—should be grouped together in one batch of regulations. In that case they would presumably be easy to refer to.
  The real matter of challenge between the desire of the hon. and learned Gentleman and the provisions of the Bill as it now stands is, aye or no, ought the principles to be applied by the court in making the adjustment—which is a word I shall seek to explain in a moment—to be embodied in the text of the statute or in the text of regulations. I submit that this is a case where it would be quite convenient to deal with the matter by regulations.
  I submit that the word "adjustment" in this context means "apportionment of the money, plus whatever consideration has to be given to the state of contract between owner and occupier which the court may have to modify or say shall cease to have effect in so far as it is inconsistent with the terms of the court's order." One wants to see a form of words covering both factors—the distribution of
  the expense between the people concerned and the examination of, and, if necessary, change in, their contractual rights by the court, when it makes the order about the distribution of money.
  Having said those things, I should like to make a concession. I cannot accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment because it would leave this statute somewhat enucleated in this connection, but I can undertake to look at this matter very carefully before Report in order to see whether I cannot improve the form of words in a way which will make it quite clear that it is in no sense

  1995
  suggested that the rights of the parties in this matter should be settled by anyone but a court of law.
  Mr. Mitchison: I should like to say a word or two before taking a certain course. I am afraid that on one point the hon. and learned Gentleman did not satisfy me. He referred to the fact that the Bill says that the regulations
  " may… make provision for the adjustment…"
  and so on, and he advised the Committee that the word "adjustment" there involves some alteration in the legal rights of the parties. The language as it is at present simply says that the two Ministers may adjust the legal rights. That is what it comes to, and that is open to all the objections that occurred to his hon. Friend and myself. I am sure that both his hon. Friend and myself accept his statement that there is no intention that the Ministers shall do that—the intention is that the Ministers shall lay down machinery for adjustment by the appropriate court—but that intention must surely be expressed in the Bill.
  I suggested a few cases to the Minister, and if he looks at them he will find that they are very similar to the present case. There is a rather useful one in the Factory Act dealing with much the same kind of thing. I am not asking for a statement in the Bill as to what should be done. That would be open to objections. But there must be a definite statement that although the Ministers may lay down the machinery, the adjustment, if involving any alteration in legal rights—as it does—must be made by a court. I should have thought that a county court would be the most appropriate one. That is the substantial point, and that is the whole root of our objection. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman wish to interrupt?
  7.0 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General: I was only going to help the hon. and learned Gentleman. I did not make myself plain. I will give an undertaking before Report to seek for a form of words which will make it quite clear that a court of law and not some decree of the Minister is going to adjust the rights. I do not want at present to say what court of law, but I am entirely with the hon. and learned Gentleman about that.
  Mr. Mitchison: On that assurance, for which I warmly thank the hon. and learned Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Amory: I beg to move, in page 7, line 12, at the end, to insert:
  (c) provide, subject to such limitations and safeguards as may be specified, for conferring, in relation to particular premises, exemptions from the operation of specified provisions contained in regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (a) or paragraph (h) of the foregoing subsection while there is in force a certificate of the local authority to the effect that compliance with those provisions cannot reasonably be required with respect to the premises or any activities carried on there.
  This additional paragraph enables the Minister to include in the regulations dealing with premises, buildings and equipment, a provision for local authorities to grant certificates of exemption in certain circumstances; that is to say, exemption from the requirement to comply with the regulations. The circumstances in which we think that it would be a good plan to give local authorities the power to issue certificates of exemption are cases where the literal compliance with specific regulations would be unreasonable.
  The regulations will be drafted fairly widely, couched in pretty general terms, and will, for instance, deal with all food establishments or all catering establishments or all of some other category. We think that there will be cases of building and equipment where it will not be reasonable to comply literally with the regulations.
  The kind of case we are thinking of is a canteen on a building site on which a big building is going up; or, a different kind of case, a youth hostel in a rural area. Those are the kinds of cases in which it would be very difficult indeed to comply literally with the regulations, unless the regulations were watered down very much; it would be very difficult in those cases to attain the standard we want to aim at by the regulations.
  The Amendment will enable us to see that the regulations are more stringent than they otherwise would be. If we did not have any exemption at all the regulations would have to be watered down. The local authorities are the responsible authorities for these functions, and I think we should feel that it is appropriate to

  1997
  trust them to grant these certificates only in cases such as I have mentioned in which exemption would,I think, be appropriate.
  Mr. Arthur Moyle: Would this proposed exemption apply to private slaughterhouses in certain circumstances?
  Mr. Amory: I am not sure. I will find out. The exemption will be only in cases in which a local authority is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to expect the owner or occupier of the premises to comply literally with the regulations. I should not have thought myself that it could have applied to slaughterhouses, which, after all, are permanent buildings.
  Mr. Moyle: In principle, I am not quarrelling with the Minister in seeking powers oto secure exceptions, in certain circumstances, to the application of the regulations as described in this subsection. I see the difficulty with which the Minister is faced in the application of the main regulations inflexibly, and I do not quarrel at all in principle with providing for exemptions under certain safeguards, but the limitation the Minister has set upon the application of the exception from the sweep of the regulations is not expressed in the Amendment. One fear
  I have is that the issuing of a certificate by a local authority may go on recurring for a period, which would completely defeat in practice the purpose the Minister has in mind, which is to allow reasonable time for the occupiers of such premises where food is prepared, and so on, to put their houses in order before any action is taken against them for not complying with the regulations.
  I have in mind the state of many private slaughterhouses, for which exemption may be sought by means of certificates from local authorities, and although in principle the provision for a certificate may be all right, if it is issued within the very strict limitation, it lends itself to a great deal of abuse unless the Minister makes it perfectly clear that a time limit will be imposed for the operation of the limitation and that ultimately, at some reasonable date, all premises will comply with the regulation as provided for in subsection (2).
  Mr. Amory: Slaughterhouses are not covered by these particular regulations.
  Mr. Willey: We cannot be enthusiastic about this Amendment, but I think the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is far better to seek higher standards and allow for exceptions than to have regulations which provide only for the lowest common denominator. While we do not want exceptions, it is better to anticipate local authorities allowing exemptions, and at the same time to maintain high standards. On this side of the Committee we accept the Amendment and appreciate the purpose of it.
  Captain Duncan: In reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle), I would draw his attention to the Slaughterhouses Act we passed in July, from which it appears that there is no evading the byelaws when a local authority has made them and the Minister has approved them. This Clause in this Bill, therefore, cannot apply to slaughterhouses, because slaughterhouses, whether public or private, are covered by the Slaughterhouses Act
  Mr. Moyle: I was satisfied with the answer given by the Minister.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 7, line 23, at the end, to insert:
  (6) (a) For the purpose of giving advice to the Ministers in the making of Regulations and Codes of Practice under this section, there shall be constituted a council to be called the Central Food Hygiene Council;
  (b) the Council shall consist of a chairman who shall be appointed by the Ministers and of such other members as may be appointed by the Ministers to represent the interests of the different sections of the food industry and any such other interests (including those of persons employed in the industry) as the Ministers may consider to be affected;
  (c) before appointing to the Council a member to represent any such interests as aforesaid, the Ministers shall consult such bodies, if any, as appear to them to be representative of the interests concerned.
  The Chairman: With this Amendment we may also consider that in the name of the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton), in page 7, line 23, at the end, to insert:
  (6) Local clean food committees shall be established, representative of local authority, catering trade and consumer interests. to consider cases of dispute arising out of the Regulations made under this section and to report their opinion to the Central Food Hygiene Council;

  1999
  also the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey), in Clause 8, page 9, to leave out lines 31 to 35, and to insert:
  (5) Before making any orders under this section the Ministers shall consult with the Central Food Hygiene Council and such representative organisations as they think fit;
  also the new Clause (Food Hygiene Advisory Committee) in the name of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan):
  (1) There shall be constituted a committee. to be called "the Food Hygiene Advisory Committee," to give advice and assistance to the Minister in connection with the discharge of his functions under this Act and to perform any other duties allotted to them under this Act.
  (2) The provisions of the Schedule (Constitution, &c., of Food Hygiene Advisory Committee) to this Act shall have effect with respect to the constitution of the said Committee and other matters relating to the Committee.
  (3) The Minister may from time to time refer to the said Committee for consideration and advice such questions relating to the operation of this Act as he thinks fit (including questions as to the advisability of amending this Act).
  (4) The Minister shall furnish the Committee with such information as they may reasonably require for the proper discharge of their functions under this Act;
  also the new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Constitution of Food Research Advisory Council):
  (1) For the purpose of giving advice to the Ministers about the addition of any substances to food as an ingredient in the preparation of food or the abstraction of any constituent from or the subjection of food to any other process or treatment there shall be constituted a Council to be called the Food Research Advisory Council (hereinafter in this Act referred to as "the Advisory Council").
  (2) The Advisory Council shall consist of a chairman and such other members as may be appointed by the Ministers.
  (3) The Advisory Council shall appoint a person employed by them to act as secretary to the Advisory Council.
  (4) Subject to the approval of the Ministers, the Advisory Council shall have power to do all or any of the following things—

  (a) to carry on research and experiment for the purpose of giving advice in accordance with the provisions of this section;

  (b) to give financial assistance by way of grant for the carrying on of such research and experiment; and

  (c) to provide by means of publicity and advice and instruction information about such research and experiment and generally
  2000
  to make known the advice given to the Ministers in accordance with the provisions of this section;

  also the new Schedule in the name of the hon. Member for Reigate:

  CONSTITUTION, &C., OF FOOD HYGIENE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
  1. The Food Hygiene Advisory Committee (in this Schedule referred to as "the Committee") shall consist of a chairman appointed by the Minister and not less than four nor more than eight other members so appointed. At least one member of the Committee shall be a woman.
  2. The chairman and other members shall hold office for a period which, in the cases of each of the members first appointed and of any member appointed to fill a casual vacancy, shall be of such duration not exceeding five years as may be determined by the Minister, and in the case of all other members shall be a period of five years:
  Provided that any member may by notice in writing to the Minister resign office at any time and shall be eligible for re-appointment from time to time on or after the expiration of his term of office.
  3. No member of the Committee shall be capable of being elected to, or of sitting in, the House of Commons.
  4. Of the said members, other than the chairman, there shall be appointed—

  (a) one after consultation with organisations representatives of employers;

  (b) one after consultation with organisations representative of workers.

  5. If a member becomes, in the opinion of the Minister, unfit to continue in office or incapable of performing his duties, the Minister shall forthwith declare his office to be vacant and shall notify the fact in such manner as he thinks fit, and thereupon the office shall become vacant.
  6. The Committee may act notwithstanding any vacancy among the members of the Committee.
  7. The Committee may make rules for regulating the procedure (including the quorum) of the Committee.
  Mr. Willey: The new Clauses are on a rather different point, but it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we had a general discussion of the whole matter on this Amendment, if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) is satisfied with the arrangement.
  The Parliamentary Secretary will, I think, agree that we are raising a matter of some importance. He will appreciate its importance in the light of his own personal experience. We are trying by means of the Amendment to secure what is, I believe, in the minds of all in the Committee.

  2001
  We have been dealing with a Clause which gives the Minister considerable powers in the making of regulations, and my right hon. and hon. Friends believe that these regulations should be standard and commonly accepted throughout the food trades and businesses. We do not expect to see a whole host of people enforcing these regulations. We want the regulations to be standard, recognised and fully carried out. For that purpose it is essential to obtain the full cooperation of the trade and all working in the trade. Without that co-operation the regulations will be difficult to enforce and a goad deal of energy will be spent on enforcement.
  The question is how best to secure this co-operation. I hope that the Minister will not rely on consultations with the trade through its representative associations and with the employees through the trade unions. Such full consultation exists, and I believe there is a very happy relationship between the Ministry and the food trades, but when we are considering such a problem as this we ought to try to set up some recognised procedure.
  The Ministry has had a good deal of experience in these matters. There have been committees, such as the liaison committee, which have worked extraordinarily well. The fact that these committees have been in existence has meant that there has been a full understanding of the purposes of and the necessity for the regulations. The trade associations and the trade unions, on their part, have acted as the public relations officers of the Ministry in gaining the good will of the food businesses and trades and of those working in the trades.
  In order to secure this good will, it is best to have some standing machinery. For the regulations which we have been discussing at some length we should have a standing advisory committee with a constant association with the Department and constantly available to advise the Minister. If he is considering new regulations, the Minister can consult this standing committee and the trade, in its turn, through its representative associations, and the trade unions, on behalf of the employees, can constantly bring before the committee any difficulties which arise in the implementation of the regulations.
  I have had a little experience of these matters, and I know quite well that this
  2002
  sort of machinery is not welcomed by the civil servants. I believe they are quite wrong in being reluctant to welcome it, but I know that they do not welcome it. and I appreciate why. They fear a certain duality of responsibility.
  The House is in some difficulty about regulation-making powers, but even if the Government accept the affirmative procedure, the powers of review which the House can exercise over the regulations is limited, and it is far better, when we have this delegated legislation, that we should encourage the sort of approach which I have in mind. Particularly in the Ministry of Food, this sort of association has worked extraordinarily well, and that is why I hope the Minister will be able to accede to the wishes of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and set up standing machinery which will keep him in touch with the views of the food trades and at the same time will ensure that his purposes are fully understood by the trades. As a result, we shall have the full co-operation of the trades and this committee will serve as a sifting process so that we have constantly before us the common enlightened views of the food trades.
  7.15 p.m.
  The Minister has had to consider these regulations under the disadvantage of having to consult the different trade associations separately and individually. The Working Party's Report shows the advantage of getting the various interests around the table and resolving the problem there. I am sorry to harp on this subject, but I believe the Parliamentary Secretary would have had a much easier life had there been in existence the machinery which we are proposing here. He would not then have had to bargain individually and separately with the different trade associations.
  The purpose of the new Clause in the name of my hon. Friends is somewhat different. Today there is a whole range of bodies concerned with research into the questions which we have been discussing over the past two days affecting the constitution of food. There is the Ministry's own Committee, Sir John Charles' Committee, two Committees of the Medical Research Council, the Food Manufacturing Industry's Research Association and other bodies carrying out research in various industries. I do not

  2003
  complain of that, for I do not mind a multiplicity of research, but the Minister must provide the machinery for the coordination of these different fields of research.
  We must also bear in mind many of the questions which have been raised constantly during our debates on the Bill. Suggestions have been made that we should publish lists of approved additives or lists of disapproved additives. We know that in this connection different steps have been taken in different countries. We know the practice in the United States and the practice in Canada. We recognise that in this country there is a general desire to do the best that can be done in the circumstances. This food research advisory council would deal with those points.
  A host of ideas was submitted to us and we were sorely tempted to put these down as separate Amendments, each making a specific suggestion as to what might be written into the Bill. We are content to say, however, that if such a body as this is constituted and is given powers to deal with research and provide a means of advice and instruction, then rather than try to write these matters into the Bill we will accept what this Committee feels to be best in the circumstances.
  Therefore, for these reasons, I hope that the Minister will be able to say that he agrees that this is the best way of approach to the regulations, and that he will accept the principle of the Amendment. With regard to research, I hope that he will accept that there are good grounds for such a body. In dealing with many of the questions which have been discussed by the Committee and many of the fears which have been expressed outside by people interested in food hygiene, particularly on the question of the constitution of food—additives, the taking away from foodstuffs and so on—it would be better if we had such an authoritive body, and allowed that body to advise us how best to proceed.
  Dr. Broughton: I hope that when the Minister replies he will let us know that he is prepared to accept the Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has just moved. The Amendment seeks to constitute a central council for the purpose of
  2004
  giving advice to the Ministers in the matter of making regulations and codes of practice. The regulations and the code of practice will need alteration from time to time in the light of practical experience and in order to keep abreast of the advance of science.
  Undoubtedly, the Minister will receive expert advice from the officers in his Department, and they will be able to give him information about the latest scientific developments. But I would expect the Minister to welcome advice from persons who are engaged in the catering trade—advice from people who will have had practical experience in the application of the regulations.
  Yesterday, the Minister, when accepting an Amendment which had been moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill), used these words:
  " 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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th October, 1954; Vol. 531, c. 1860.]
  That, I suggest, shows that the Minister is most anxious to receive all the information that he can get on this very important matter. If a central council were to be set up, it would be able to advise and guide the Minister in the matter of amending from time to time, as necessary, the regulations and the code of conduct.
  That council, whatever its name may be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North has explained, would also consider other matters, such as publicity, and I would expect the council to give very careful consideration to the matter of the education of food-handlers in the simple principles of hygiene. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, I have been very interested in this subject of the education in hygiene of food-handlers, and I should like to see the Minister showing more interest in it. I think that a council such as we suggest would certainly direct his attention to the importance of that matter.
  I should like to say a few words on the next Amendment, which stands in my name and the name of my hon. Friends, concerning the establishment of local clean food committees. Reference has been made in our earlier discussions

  2005
  to the proposals which have been put forward by the National Caterers' Federation for hygiene regulations. It might not be out of place if I were to pay a tribute at this point to the National Caterers' Federation for the manner in which they have co-operated in this rather difficult matter of advising the Minister about making regulations.
  One of their suggestions, No. 45 (1), is that clean food committees should be established throughout the country representative of the local authorities, all branches of the catering trade and consumer interests. It goes on to say that these committees should be empowered to arbitrate in all cases of dispute arising from the application of these regulations. I do not accept that myself, and I did not put it down in an Amendment, because I felt quite sure that the Minister would not be able to agree to local committees being empowered to arbitrate in all cases of dispute.
  But when I thought about their suggestion, I came to the conclusion that there might be wisdom in the setting up of local clean food committees. After all, we already have in many towns clean food committees, generally known as clean food guilds. The first of these was born some years ago at Guildford, and since then many others have come into existence. They have performed a very useful purpose. Furthermore, there are people who have taken an active interest in the work of the clean food guilds and who are very knowledgeable about this matter of hygiene in food premises and the cleanliness of food-handlers. If local clean food committees were set up, I am sure that in many places there would come on to these committees people who already possess considerable knowledge of the subject which they would have to consider.
  While, when disputes arose between the local authority and the food traders, the committees should not arbitrate in a judicial manner, they might consider these cases and be able to advise the food traders, or advise the sanitary inspectors, thereby lessening the number of prosecutions that might otherwise arise under the regulations. I would suggest that the matters which would be considered by the local food committees should be reported to the central council, which I mentioned a moment ago. The central council
  2006
  would be kept informed of what was going on throughout the country, knowledge from the local clean food committees would be passed to the central council, who would consider it and would be able to advise the Minister on the manner in which his regulations and the code of practice were operating throughout the country.
  7.30 p.m.
  I think that the catering industry would welcome the setting up of these local clean food committees, and that food traders would be willing to serve on them. The traders would feel that they were taking a more active part in this important campaign to try to raise the standard of food hygiene. They would prefer to be in this position of responsibility rather than simply be carrying on their businesses as food traders and feeling that they were suffering under the Minister's regulations. It would give them an opportunity of co-operating with the Minister so that the standard of hygiene could be raised. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will give careful consideration to the two proposals for a central council and for local clean food committees.
  Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I shall not detain the Committee very long, because it is clear that the principle of having some form of advisory or consultative body is accepted by both sides of the Committee, and I hope that one form or another will prove acceptable to my right hon. Friend the Minister.
  As far as my hon. Friends and I are concerned, the suggestion arose from the Second Reading debate. When I heard some of the accusations that were bandied across the Floor of the House, it occurred to me that there would a better atmosphere if draft regulations or codes of practice were considered at some stage of the proceedings by an independent outside body. I call to mind that well-known and admirable statutory body, the National Insurance Advisory Committee.
  Those who have studied the workings of the National Insurance Act will, I think, agree that one of the ways in which the complicated regulations which are made under the 1946 Act and its predecessors become acceptable is because, when they come to the House, there is a concurrent report from an advisory committee outside Parliament which can con-

  2007
  sider the regulations and their acceptability and workability. I regarded this as an admirable example to be followed, and I therefore put down my new Clause. The Parliamentary draftsmanship is impeccable because mutatis mutandis I took it straight from the 1946 Act; from that angle there can be nothing wrong with it. I realise, however, that it might need some kind of change before it is acceptable to my right hon. Friend.
  The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) deals only with regulation-making powers under Clause 6 of the Bill. I and my hon. Friends have in mind a body with much wider powers. There has been mention today of the code of practice, and following out of something which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said, I feel that the body envisaged in the new Clause would be the ideal body to issue and to be responsible for the code of practice. I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) that the same body could rightly be the leader in the sphere of health education, which we want to see more widespread. I am not particular about the form of the machinery. We all have in mind the kind of purpose which we wish to see carried out, and I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will in due course have some good news for us.
  Mr. Janner: I should like to add a few words to what has been said in support of the Amendments. What has to be considered is not only the making of the various provisions in the code of practice. This is a subject to which as much publicity as possible should be given. It is most important that throughout the length and breadth of the land we should have committees which will consider not only the general issue but will consider in their own localities the particular problems arising on the question of food hygiene.
  It is very well known to Members of the Committee that the problem has been under consideration by bodies in various cities and other parts of the country. As far as I can see, there can be no reason whatever why bodies should not be established to deal with the points to which the Amendments refer. Some kind of advisory body will have to be set up so that the Minister may not only know
  2008
  what he hears casually from various sources but may also know the opinion of a cross-section of both the professional and non-professional population on this matter.
  Every section of the trade, all medical people and practically every form of organisation in the country has some interest in this matter. It is important not only that their opinions should be gathered and sorted out by a set of officials, but that representatives of the various interests who know the circumstances in their own respective fields should be available to discuss the code and to arrive at decisions which will help the Minister to produce the right kind of code.
  The Minister should welcome the setting up of a central council such as is proposed, together with the local committees and, indeed, a research council. He cannot do other than to accept the proposal. In consequence of the wideness of the subject, its tremendous importance to the health of the nation and the tremendous reactions on the general life and industry of the country if food hygiene is not observed, it is worth while to be as liberal as possible in the amount of advice that is taken. Consequently, the suggestions made ought to appeal to the Minister. I, too, do not think that we necessarily wish to adhere to the actual wording of either of the Amendments. The substance of them is important, and I hope the Minister will accept that.
  Sir Hugh Linstead: I rise to support the general principles which are being put before my right hon. Friend from both sides of the Committee. I think we all realise that in this legislation we are creating a large number of new offences and we are arming the Minister with a very large number of additional powers. We should all be pleased to feel that it will never be necessary for the Minister to use all those powers to the full and that the number of prosecutions for new offences will be reduced to a minimum.
  An indication of the success of this legislation is the smallness of the number of prosecutions which take place under it. It cannot be too often said that the real answer to the problem of food hygiene does not lie in prosecution but in education. The lazy or the slovenly

  2009
  person engaged in the food trade can always get the better of the inspector, and will only maintain standards, in the absence of inspection, through proper education.
  By this suggested advisory machinery we are making a fundamental contribution to the development of this industry. It is an extremely complicated industry, made up of a very large number of units, some large and well conducted, others extremely small and possibly more primitive. The only way in which we can get development over a large front in an industry of that kind is largely by carrying the industry and the Ministry together in partnership. I hope that this type of machinery will have that effect.
  It has been suggested that a code of hygiene might be issued by some advisory council of this kind. I think such a code ought, at the same time, to carry with it the authority of the Minister, but I see no reason why a code should not be prepared by a committee comprised of representative elements of the industry and approved by the Minister for general issue. I feel that hon. Members opposite will agree with me when I say that an advisory committee of this kind should not be limited to Clause 6, as happens to be suggested in another Amendment. Clause 5, for example should surely come within its ambit.
  Mr. Dodds: Did the hon. Gentleman say "should" come within it?
  Sir H. Linstead: Yes. I said "should" and, indeed, one would hope that we might reach a stage where an advisory committee of this kind would have the confidence of the Minister on the one side and the industry on the other, and that labelling and advertising might be presented to it by manufacturers for approval before committing themselves to the expense of launching it. In that way we should get a self-established standard by the industry which would be far more effective than statutory restrictions.
  It would be worth considering whether with such a committee there should not be developed, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton), an educational system of its own, with the possible production not only of literature but of documentary films and the possible running of advice and instruction for people in the industry,
  2010
  which would all be directed to the common object of education.
  I feel a little doubtful about supporting immediately the proposal to create local committees. I think one wants to begin at the beginning and see how the thing goes. It might be that some such development of the kind would follow. There are, of course, local road safety committees of local authorities with functions which are ill-defined but which nevertheless have a very valuable educational job to perform. Nevertheless I think we should start with the central body and see how the things grow naturally over a year or two.
  7.45 p.m.
  I should like to say a word about the proposed research association. Here again I feel some diffidence in wholeheartedly supporting the proposal. One has to remember that there are in existence already at least two bodies, the Medical Research Council and the Agricultural Research Council. Both of them have substantial functions to perform within the field of food. I am not quite sure that one is justified in creating a full-blooded food research committee or council alongside these already established bodies operating in the same field.
  I rather feel that the line of advance is through the machinery of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, because that is a Governmental body with the duty of stimulating research in industry generally, and it works by the very healthy method of encouraging industry to form its own research association. Then if it is satisfied with the quality and the work of the staff of an association, it contributes pound for pound with the industry. It is along those lines that development by the industry itself is encouraged, and it is under the aegis of the D.S.I.R. that there is likely to be found the most fruitful line of approach to the research problem.
  Dr. Stross: I agree with the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) that in all matters of this type connected with hygiene we must put education right in the forefront. My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) moved a Motion in this House in 1951 which met with general approval. He and those of us who supported him made it quite clear that we

  2011
  had three words in mind, education, agitation and legislation, legislation coming last. We have not changed our mind about it. We know that if legislation is approved before it is understood, or if it is unwelcome or is full of oppressive measures, then inevitably it must fail. However, tonight we are discussing legislation which we feel the country requires, and we want to give it the accompanying education so that it will be welcomed virtually by everybody.
  Last night I mentioned experiences in the United States, and it is quite clear that the partnership between the administration, the chemical manufacturers and the food industrialists there was not harmed at all by the kind of legislation passed in that country in 1938 on the subject of safety with drugs. Indeed, the partnership and the co-operation became closer and more pleasant as a result of a better understanding. I said last night that the situation has now arisen in the United States where the same type of legislation is going forward concerning food with chemicals added.
  I want to say a few words about the proposed food research advisory council proposed in the Amendment. We have been debating this Bill in Committee for nearly two days, and we have not yet had any assurance from the Minister, or his Parliamentary Secretary, as to what he has in mind about the practical methods he hopes to use to give the public protection.
  Even though the right hon. Gentleman is new to this phase of Parliamentary discussion, because he has not held his present position long, I am sure he will agree that the public, both here and in other parts of the world, have been used in some cases as guinea pigs during the last 20 or 30 years as a result of new substances which have been used for food processing and in food technology generally. The evidence for that is apparent when we have had to withdraw things from circulation because we have found, when they have done damage to human beings, that they are dangerous. The right hon. Gentleman will remember the withdrawing of the sweetening agent Dulcin, the use of which we had to forbid when it was found that, given experimentally in fairly large matters to animals, it caused tumours of the liver.
  2012
  How will the Minister give us protection? He has taken complete powers in this Bill, starting with the very first phrase in Clause I. Then, in Clause 4, he has taken power to get information from every food manufacturer in the country about all their processes and scientific research, giving them the guarantee that it will be kept confidential except under certain special circumstances mentioned in the Bill.
  So the Minister and his advisers are to become the repository of all known knowledge in the country upon this subject. And he is asking for this knowledge specifically for the protection of the public. If I am wrong in anything I am saying, I hope the Minister will disagree with me immediately, but I am sure that this is the purpose of the Bill. That has been the purpose of the agitation which led up to the Bill. It is the whole purpose, therefore, of the education that has been forced on to people and which has led them to understand how they suffer. So they ask for a remedy, which is a reasonable and proper thing to do.
  Yesterday we were saying that we hoped to be as fast off the mark as the United States, but tonight the time has come when someone must tell us what it is they have in mind to do. Otherwise we shall be left with this situation: the Bill passed and regulations made—and they may only be made if it is thought to be expedient. There will be no lists of prohibited chemicals published. We must now ask for assurances on what is to be done, so I am standing here to ask for this subsection with reference to research and an advisory council to advise the Minister.
  We do not know how long the right hon. Gentleman will he in charge of this phase of the work. It is not for nothing that we have seen the interest of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary throughout our deliberations. The odds are, therefore, that this piece of work will go over to them. We know there is a most efficient Medical Research Council and we want to know in what way, when this work is collated, the public is to get protection. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman replies to the debate, he will give us some reassurance on this point.
  Sir L. Plummer: I want to support something said by the hon. Member for

  2013
  Putney (Sir H. Linstead) about the necessity for education. For the last two days we have been discussing the necessity of educating the trade—that is to say, the people who are intimately concerned with the manufacture and distribution of foods of one kind and another—in improved standards of hygiene. But also we have to educate the British housewife to the necessity for improved standards of hygiene. For she, poor lass, has become brutalised over the years by the very low standard of hygiene observed in this country.
  The first problem is how to educate the housewife. There are laws of libel which make it difficult to do this; they are an inhibition on saying freely and frankly what ought to be said about the conditions in shops, markets and so on, which the British housewife has come to accept as being a normal standard. However, we all agree that this work must be done, and I cannot think of a better way of doing it than through the agency of the councils which both sides of the Committee clearly want to see established.
  I do not know whether it could be done through the clean food committees, but I should like to see an organisation having the support of the Minister, and having a statutory power which would prevent it from being hauled into court if it described a bad condition; which would be able to say to the Women's Institutes, "Here is advice to you to give to your members on what sort of standard of conditions they should demand from the shops where they buy fish, meat and other goods."
  It is by these means that we can raise the standard of hygiene in the country, and if we did it through the agencies suggested by these Amendments, we should be going a long way towards forcing traders throughout the country to adopt the methods which all of us want to see adopted.
  Mr. Dodds: By a process of elimination, Mr. Thomas, I now have no competitors wishing to take part in this debate. It is probably for my benefit that I should have heard all the other speeches, but I am now more than ever sure that it is essential I should speak in this part of the debate.
  I support the spirit of both of these Amendments, namely, that there should
  2014
  be a central council to give advice to the Ministers. I certainly do not support the two words quoted in both Amendments, "food hygiene." From nearly all the speeches that have been made one would think that this Bill only concerned food hygiene. I would draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that there is an equally important part of the Bill dealing with pure food. I will not say it is more important. but it will not help the individual who, say, gets a dose of prussic acid that all the facets of hygiene have been observed. Therefore, it would be wrong to call such a council a food hygiene council when of equal importance is the question of pure food.
  There will be much delegated legislation under this Bill, since over 350 local authorities will play a large part in carrying out the resulting regulations. Therefore it is important to have a central advisory committee. It is a simple matter for local authorities to deal with matters of ascertainable fact, such as the fat content of milk, but when it comes to other issues not so easily defined, such as labels, there may be difficulty in administering the regulations because 350 different local authorities can give them entirely different interpretations. We know from experience that over 100,000 labels were reviewed and passed during the operation of the advisory service of the Ministry of Food. They were accepted by the food manufacturers and processors and local authorities in all good faith, and this saved a lot of unnecessary legislation.
  Therefore, I advocate support of these Amendments. I hope that those who frame the wording will remember in later stages of the Bill that this is not merely a clean food Bill but, what is equally important, a pure food Bill and, in consequence, will alter the name of the proposed central food hygiene council.
  8.0 p.m.
  Dr. Summerskill: I hope that the Minister will recognise that this debate has served to focus the attention of the whole Committee on the apprehensions of certain hon. Members, which I think reflect the apprehensions of the public with regard to food which is peculiar to this century. Many of these problems would not have arisen before this century because this horrible thing "additive" a word which I do not like at all, has only come into our vocabulary comparatively recently.

  2015
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) is anxious to define pure food. Generally, when people talk about food hygiene today they speak in terms of both clean and safe food. I hope that we shall not want to quarrel over or attempt to define the terms of reference of the proposed council or committee. I object to proliferating committees. We have committees of all kinds concerned with this subject—research committees, food safety committees and so on. It seems to me that we need a co-ordinating committee which will serve to focus the attention of the country on the important aspects of food which we have debated today. Therefore, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the principle as having been discussed today and to accept the Amendment in that sense.
  Mrs. Harriet Slater: I support the views which have been put forward on these Amendments. On advisory councils, whether local or central, there should be a representative of the consumers. Several of my hon. Friends have said that the main need in a campaign for clean food is for education. That is perfectly true, but there also should be a medium through which the consumer can express his or her point of view. As my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) said, because of the law of libel, it is very difficult for an ordinary person to put into practice any complaint which he or she might have.
  If there were representatives of consumers on advisory councils they could put their views forward in an indirect way and draw the attention of the authorities to difficulties experienced in shops, catering establishments, on British Railways or wherever food is served. When one thinks of the amount of education that needs to be undertaken, and the difficulties involved, and also the difficulty of finding a medium through which the consumer can express his or her views, one hopes that when these bodies are set up consumers will be represented upon them.
  Mr. Amory: We have had a good debate on this group of proposals, but I hope that my saying that will not encourage my hon. Friends to make
  2016
  longer speeches on their Amendments. I am becoming worried by the clock. This is an important Bill and we must see that we have it passed before the end of the Session. It would be a tragedy if anything went wrong and we lost it.
  We have four proposals before us, one for a central food hygiene council, another for a food hygiene advisory committee, another for a series of local clean food committees and a fourth for a food research advisory council. I believe in consultation, and that in the case of the Government, consultations and the seeking of advice are very good foundations for good law. Therefore I believe that in principle the matter which
  we are discussing is important. The
  hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr.
  Willey) knows my Department very well. Everything that I have heard so far confirms his statement that our contacts with trade associations are close, frequent, friendly and prudent.
  The difference between the proposed central food hygiene council and the food hygiene advisory committee is broadly that the functions of the second, which is proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) would be considerably wider than those of the first. I am impressed by what the hon. Member for Sunderland, North says from his experience at the Ministry of Food—that something on those lines would fit but, as the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) said, we must be very careful not to proliferate committees.
  I agree with her in hating the word
  "additive." Cannot we have "addition "? I should think that it would mean almost everything that "additive" means. Anyhow, let us try it and see. I do not feel that the proposals for a central food hygiene council or for a food hygiene advisory committee, as they stand, are the best that we can do or are exactly right. I should like to offer to consider both, to consider their form and functions and then bring forward a suggestion at the Report stage which in all probability will provide what I believe hon. Members on both sides of the Committee wish to have.
  I am not happy that it would be a good plan to include provision for local clean food committees in the Bill, that is to say, to place an obligation on local authorities everywhere to create such

  2017
  committees. All kinds of methods have been and are being tried now to promote interest in these matters. A number of different kinds of bodies exist under the auspices of local authorities.
  I think that it would be a mistake to set up these clean food committees now because, as we all know, committees set up like that become very rigid and do not produce results to the same degree everywhere. I should like to encourage local authorities to adopt whatever method they think will produce the best results, and see how we go. It is perfectly open to local authorities to create voluntary clean food committees in an advisory capacity, if they so wish.
  The function which is proposed for them, with which I would disagree and would not think appropriate, is that they should consider disputes, presumably between a local authority and an occupier or owner. I should have thought that that was not a very good function for this kind of committee. In a case like that, a local authority has to decide whether an offence has been committed. In all the circumstances I do not feel able to support a provision in the Bill for clean food committees. In time, that kind of organisation might grow spontaneously to meet local needs.
  As to the suggested food research advisory council, nobody is keener on research generally than I am. I am quite sure that enormous advantages and dividends come from research in every field of activity. We want to do everything we possibly can to support, encourage and promote research, but I am afraid that if we include provisions for such a council in the Bill, we might cut across some of the very useful work which is going on at present. My Department is in very close touch with the Medical Research Council, which is a responsible body doing most useful work.
  There is obviously an important field to be explored here, but I do not feel that it would be right here and now to include provision for this research council until we have had a chance of further exploring this field and seeing whether a co-ordinating body is required or not. It will be perfectly easy in future to set up an advisory body for that purpose if and when we are convinced that the need is there, but I should be very sorry to cut
  2018
  across or damage the work that is being done at the present time.
  Mr. Willey: If I might respond to the right hon. Gentleman's invitation to expedite our proceedings, I would say at once that I am sure that my hon. and right hon. Friends will be satisfied with everything that the Minister has said. We are agreed in principle, and we would willingly allow the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to consider this central food hygiene council proposal and to endeavour to discover the best formula.
  On the question of clean food committees, if my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) will allow me to say so, we appreciate his enthusiasm about this, but my own experience leads me to take the same view as the right hon. Gentleman—that it
  is far better to allow these bodies to develop along their own lines in different localities, and to depend on the enthusiasm and voluntary interest of all the people affected, rather than try to bring the matter within the scope of the Bill.
  On the subject of the food research advisory council, I would say that this was a cockshy, but it is a matter to be considered very carefully. The right hon. Gentleman has his own scientific advisers, and has mentioned several committees to indicate how much good work is being done in this field, but what we would like him to do—and we appreciate his interest in research— is to review
  the various bodies at present carrying out research to see whether or not he could provide a formula to meet the desires of most people at present concerned in food hygiene. In other words, we should try to match the work that is being carried on in other countries, such as the United States, Canada and Sweden, and try to provide that the consumer here has the same safeguards and protection.
  I would readily concede that the attempts in our proposed Amendments to meet this situation may not be perfect, and, again, I am sure that my hon. and right hon. Friends will be satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that he appreciates the purpose, will consider how it can be attained and will make it one of his jobs as Minister to seek the best solution.I take it that

  2019
  what I have said is generally acceptable, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  8.15 p.m.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. Willey: Appreciating what the Minister has said, I rise again only to say that we have had a very useful discussion on the provisions of Clause 6 and that I wish only to reinforce two points.
  We appreciate that the present draft regulations are a great improvement on those which we had before us on Second Reading, and that the Parliamentary Secretary has gone a long way towards restoring the original regulations. I understand that he will consider the present draft regulations in the light of our discussion, and that, if any of us have any particular representations to make, they will be borne in mind, and we very much appreciate that.
  Mr. Amory Mr. Amory indicated assent.
  Mr. Willey: The second point is this. I understand that the code of practice is really more than a code of practice. I hope I am right about this, but, at the same time, I hope that in some regard it is a forewarning that some of the matters at present in it might be reconsidered and might, if it becomes possible later, be incorporated in subsequent regulations. In other words, I think that is a desirable concept to have. We accept the fact that some of these matters referred to in the code of practice could never become the subject of legislation, while some others might do so. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee hope to make progress with the Bill, and I hope this will be understood by all concerned, both employers and employees. If the Parliamentary Secretary could make that point clear, then, in view of the very wide discussion we have had on this Clause, I should have no other point to raise.
  Dr. Hill: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance which he seeks. On that point, he is right. Very often, it is not practicable to put something into regulations, but, in due course of time, it does become possible. I rather like his conception of the code of practice as
  2020
  being not only a piece of general advice but an intimation that it will be the intention to get as much of it as possible transferred to legislation.
  Mr. Champion: I should like to have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that subsection (2, d) of this Clause means that he proposes in the regulations to make provision for compulsory ante-mortem inspection. I think that in this country it is the exception rather than the rule that animals are inspected on the hoof before they enter the slaughterhouse, and I am firmly of the opinion that there should be this ante-mortem inspection.
  The inter-Departmental committee, to which I referred when moving an Amendment some time ago, says this in paragraph 46 of its Report:
  "The inspection of animals ante-mortem by a qualified person at the place of slaughter is important to facilitate timely recognition of sick or unthrifty animals, which should be slaughtered separately in order that their carcases and organs can be kept apart from any others. The inspector can then give them particular attention after slaughter, including the further examination of doubtful cases by laboratory methods. This is desirable since the sick or unthrifty-looking animals should be regarded as a potential source of food poisoning organisms. Ante-mortem inspection also provides an opportunity for the rejection of animals which should not have been sent to a slaughterhouse."
  The committee went on, two paragraphs later, to say:
  "We recommend, therefore, that all animals should be inspected ante-mortem at the place of slaughter."
  An hon. Member told hon. Members some little time ago that he and I, together with some other people, had had the opportunity of inspecting the provision for meat control in five European countries, Holland, Germany, France, Spain and Denmark. We paid particular attention to this matter of ante-mortem inspection. In every one of those countries, some of which would be regarded as exceptional by our standards, there were provisions for compulsory ante-mortem inspection.
  We were able to go into their slaughterhouses and lairages and watch the sick and doubtful animals being turned out for special watching. In most of the slaughterhouses we inspected, these doubtful animals were slaughtered in segregated and separate slaughterhouses so that they never came into contact with

  2021
  the animals which appeared, on the hoof, to be good sound meat.
  On this matter we prepared a report, in which we said:
  " In all countries visited, veterinary inspection of meat on the hoof—that is, the living animal—is insisted upon. That is not so in Great Britain."
  Britain lags far behind those countries in this vital matter of meat inspection and particularly of ante-mortem inspection. I hope that before we part with the Clause the Minister will give us an assurance that he intends under Clause 6 (2, d) to ensure that there is ante-mortem inspection in all the slaughterhouses of this country.
  Dr. Broughton: During our discussions on the various Amendments to the Clause many matters of interest and importance have been considered. The Minister's acceptance of many of our Amendments has definitely improved the Clause, which is very much better than when it first came before us for consideration.
  I read a few years ago in a medical journal that we have in this country one catering establishment for 200 people. I do not know what the figure is now, whether the number of catering establishments is greater or fewer, but I do not suppose there has been any vast change. It is not expected that the standard of hygiene in that large number of establishments is the same throughout. In some of them conditions are bad, whether the establishments are large or small. In a few of these, conditions are disgusting. There are others, some of which are large and some are small, where the hygiene conditions are second to none in the world. The purpose of the Clause is to raise the standard of the worst of them towards the standard of the best.
  It is very important that we should have this high standard of hygiene throughout the food industry and in the catering establishments. Many people have meals out, a habit which became prevalent during the war, partly because of rationing and partly because people, and particularly women, went out from their homes to employment. I have heard from people engaged in the catering industry that there has been no decrease in the number of meals served in catering establishments since food was derationed. We can understand how this habit of feeding out arose, but it
  2022
  appears that the habit is persisting, although conditions in the country have altered.
  Another reason for the need of a high standard of food hygiene is that this country is attractive to tourists from all over the world. There have been thousands of visitors to our shores in recent years. We welcome them and wish to show them hospitality. We desire, while they stay with us, that they should have a diet of clean and wholesome food. Without being in any way fanatical about this matter of food hygiene, I feel that for the sake of our visitors and for the sake of our own people we should have the highest standard. Food should be clean and wholesome to keep our people healthy and to decrease the incidence of food poisoning. We must discourage habits of uncleanness. I welcome the Clause, as it now leaves us, and I shall look forward to further consideration of it on Report.
  8.30 p.m.
  Dr. Stross: Very briefly, I wish to put two points to the right hon. Gentleman. The first is with reference to a discussion which we had yesterday about the medical examination of personnel. Does not the Minister think it desirable that at least those who are newly entering the catering trade and who will have to handle foodstuffs should be subject to the simple form of examination that was mentioned yesterday to see that they are in reasonably good health and conform to the normal cleanliness of the skin, ears, and so on, the sort of examination which they could get from their own family doctor? I accept that to attempt thoroughly to overhaul everybody associated with the food industry would be quite impossible, but we must make a start somewhere, and a simple form of a certificate of fitness is, I think, desirable. I should like to know what the Minister thinks about that.
  My other point is briefly this. I see that in the code it is requested that there should be reserves of glass, crockery and cutlery so as to ensure prompt replacement of chipped, cracked or bent equipment. I admit to some special pleading on this matter as a Member for the Potteries, and I am sure that my colleague the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) would also admit that we have to say that we represent the Potteries.

  2023
  We have often quite seriously discussed this matter in this House, and I think it is worth asking whether it would not have been better to deal with the matter of cracked pottery in the regulations. I will give an example of what I mean. One day in July last the hon. Lady and I were sitting in the Tea Room in this House having our tea. Suddenly, she said to me, "Look at this plate that I am using." It was very badly cracked, which shows that even first-class establishments like the Tea Room of the House of Commons are not immune from that sort of thing. When I picked up the plate, it fell to pieces in my hand. I have the pieces in my locker, if the Parliamentary Secretary would like to see them. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that the cultures which could be grown from those cracks when the plate fell to pieces in my hand would be most interesting. There are some organisms which are heat resistant, which do not require oxygen, and which can cause infection.
  I do not want to put it any higher than that. Some hon. Members who are not present at the moment often speak in lurid terms about infection from cracked pots. By no means do I go as far as they do on the subject, but it is my duty to say, and I say it sincerely and with feeling, that this matter ought to have been taken care of in the regulations.
  Mr. Chapman: I have already declared my interest in this industry, but, nevertheless, I am very pleased to see the possibility of regulations covering the industry. I have been, and am, very critical of it. Having toured the United States of America and having seen the sort of standards that apply there, I am sure that anybody going round the catering industry of this country must be thoroughly ashamed of it and anxious to clean it up.
  Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will make it clear to the public that though he can do something in the matter, they can do a lot more. As a matter of fact, I confessed last night to some cowardice on the subject. If only the rest of the public would not be like me, but would take their courage in their hands when they witness some of these worst features in catering establishments and would call for the manager and really
  2024
  tell him that they are not going to put up with it, that would help a lot.
  If only the public would be as tough as that, then the managements of such establishments would say to them, "If you do not like it just leave it, and do not pay for it." If enough people were to do that and were to sting the caterer where he felt it most—in his pocket—and if they made their complaints within the hearing of other customers, then they would be doing far more than the Minister can do by his regulations.
  Mr. John Peyton: With all that number of complaints we should starve to death.
  Mr. Chapman: That is a fine point, but even so, I hope that the Minister also will be tough with his regulations. There is no reason why he should not be, because he will have the public behind him. The Press comment alone which we have had on this Bill is enough to show that if the Minister takes his courage in both hands and sets out to clean up the industry the country will be behind him. I hope that
  he will really put this Clause into effect,
  and I can assure him that if he does the public will back him up.
  Dr. Hill: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) asked for an assurance about ante-mortem inspection. He knows that under subsection (2, d) there are powers for securing the inspection of animals intended for slaughter. As soon as may be—I have to add that qualification, for there is need for a considerable expansion of staff—those powers will be converted into regulations, and meat inspection, both ante-and post-mortem will be made a requirement.
  I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) say that he thought the examination of everyone in the food trades is impossible, and I hope that he did not vote for it in the Division last night. I said yesterday that there were 180,000 in the trade, but I meant in catering establishments. There are over a million in the food trades. I am giving thought to the question of the examination of new entrants, but compulsory examination of new entrants to an industry, with a possible implication of a certain standard to be observed, is something which raises wide repercussions and will need very considerable thought.

  2025
  The subject of cracked pots is essentially a matter of education, and it would be too early at this stage to make their use a punishable offence. Let us prepare the way by education, and then one day it may be possible to approach the problem in a more vigorous fashion. I agree with what the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) said about what the public could do to help themselves. If the public showed more courage—and it needs real courage—to indicate their dismay, and even their disgust, much would be achieved. We are determined to help things on. Whatever criticisms may have been directed to this Bill, I think it will be generally agreed that it takes us a great deal forward, and we are prepared to do all we can in that direction.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 7.—(AMENDMENT OF S. 14 OF PRINCIPAL ACT.)
  Mr. W. R. A. Hudson: I beg to move, in page 8, line 13, to leave out "their," and to insert:
  "considerations of hygiene and in particular to the."
  It will perhaps be convenient to the Committee to take this and the Amendment in the following line together. The second is merely a drafting Amendment and I can, therefore, devote my remarks to the first one.
  This is the first time I have spoken in these Committee discussions, and I must make it clear that I have an interest. Anyone who has the responsibility for preparing or distributing food must be very keenly interested in this Bill which, I am quite sure, will go a long way towards improving conditions where improvement is badly needed.
  Clause 7 seeks to amend Section 14 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. That Section provides for the registration of premises in connection with
  "the preparation or manufacture of sausages or potted, pressed, pickled or preserved food …"
  Here I should say that the present Bill later seeks to expand the range of products and processes to which the principle of legislation shall apply. Although I should be out of order were I to refer to the particular Clause, I think that we should bear that fact in mind.
  2026
  Clause 7 (3) of the present Bill gives local authorities power to revise or repeal a registration if it appears
  "that the premises or any part of the premises are otherwise unsuitable (having regard to their situation, construction or condition, or to any activities carried on therein)…"
  It is to the words "situation, construction or condition" that I wish to direct the Committee's attention. As the Clause is drawn at present, their application, unless qualified by some such words as those which I have used in this Amendment, could be very wide indeed.
  Perhaps I could give one or two rather crude examples of what I have in mind. Suppose that one takes the consideration of "situation." It might be possible to exclude from registration premises which are situated, for instance, among a number of shops or factories which might be considered to be redundant; or, if one takes the consideration of "construction," it might be possible to exclude a shop because the shop front was not properly constructed.
  I do not want to discuss the principle of restriction of either factories or of shops, but I want to point out that the considerations that I have, perhaps crudely, just described are covered by other statutes and regulations, and I think I am right in suggesting that it is not the intention of this Bill to deal with those redundancies or questions of that kind in that way.
  The question that this Amendment raises was discussed at considerable length in another place, and there is no doubt that it was felt that the intention of the Bill was to relate the question of registration purely and simply to the question of public hygiene. Therefore, I have put down this Amendment so that the Minister may make clear that that is the intention of the Bill, and I hope that he will he able to meet us by accepting this Amendment.
  If the Amendment is accepted, I think the Clause will still be wide enough even in relation to situation and such matters, because obviously it might be not in the interests of public hygiene if a shop or a factory were situated close to another factory conducting an offensive trade giving rise to dust or attracting flies; so that the Clause would be wide enough, even if it were qualified by the words that I have suggested.
  Dr. Hill: My hon. Friend has expressed what is our intention, and, in order to remove all possibility of doubt, I gladly accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 14, after "condition," insert "of the premises"—[Mr. W. R. A. Hudson.]
  Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 8, line 18, to leave out "shall," and to insert "may."
  As the law is worded, when a local authority, discovering what it believes to be a breach of the regulations, desires to take preliminary, friendly, advisory or warning action, it is obliged to issue a notice to the occupier inviting him to appear to show cause why his registration should not be cancelled. Local authorities have been much too sensible to observe the law in this respect, and it is proposed to enable local authorities to act where they regard the infringement as something not calling for a warning that the registration might be cancelled but for a warning enabling the securing of better behaviour. This does not preclude the procedure to be followed where a local authority does decide to seek to terminate a registration.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: If the Clause is now to be permissive instead of mandatory, will it mean that when consideration of these matters takes place the persons involved need not be present? As the Clause stands, the authority must serve the notice. That is why the word "shall" is used. The Amendment will completely alter the effect of the provision and may impose an injustice upon the persons concerned. Some very serious matter may be involved, and serious consequences might follow the proposed Amendment if the authority were enabled to decide upon the matter in the absence and to the prejudice of the person concerned.
  Dr. Hill: We were alive to that point. If the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) will look at Section 14 (4) of the 1938 Act. he will see that it says:
  "If a person on whom a notice is served under the last preceding subsection…"
  There cannot be the kind of action which the hon. and learned Member has in
  2028
  mind unless a notice has been served. I shall certainly look at the matter again, but we are advised that Section 14 (4) covers this point.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: If it is covered, that is all right, but under the Clause as it is proposed to be altered that would not be the case.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Captain Duncan: I beg to move, in page 8, line 20, to leave out "fourteen," and to insert "twenty-one."
  The Deputy-Chairman: I think that this and the other Amendment in line 20 can be taken together.
  Captain Duncan: This is a very small point. I notice that the hon. Member for Sunderland North (Mr. F. Wiley) is asking for even more than I am. I do not mind which Amendment is accepted. The object is to extend the time. Under the Clause as it stands at present the occupier of premises covered by the Bill has to apply to be registered or, if he is registered, has to renew his application for registration, and if the local authority is not satisfied with certain conditions it can serve a notice upon him that it intends to cancel the registration or to refuse it.
  What is required is a little more time after receipt of the notice in order that the applicant can properly consider the case before him, get his facts together, consult his legal advisers if necessary, arrange to make any requisite alteration, and carry out work or negotiate with his landlord about structural alterations, so that he may be allowed to continue his business in those premises. That is the sole object of increasing the time from 14 days to 21 days. I should, of course, be quite prepared to accept a period of 28 days if the Government felt that the other Amendment was more acceptable to them.
  Mr. Willey: I am not aware of all the processes of Parliamentary procedure. I believe that we put down our Amendment before we saw the one in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan). I anticipate that the Government will accept his Amendment. I should explain that we put down our Amendment after representations had been made by the Food Hygiene Liaison Committee. I think it

  2029
  has a case for extending the period, and that a period of 21 days is probably the right one.
  Mr. Amory: The original Act provided for one week; the Bill as it now stands provides for two; my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) proposes that it should be extended to three, and the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) has suggested four. I suggest that we should adopt a period of three weeks. We want to afford ample time in this matter. I assure the Committee that I have not merely tossed up to see which Amendment should be accepted; I believe that a period of three weeks is the most sensible.
  Mr. C. Darling: I am prepared to accept three weeks, but I should like to point out, in view of what has just been said, that one of the reasons I thought 28 days would be more suitable was that the trader who got into difficulties in this connection would have time to put things right without consulting lawyers. I think that the more we can keep the lawyers out of this business the better.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 8, line 26, at the end, to insert:
  (4) For subsection (7) of the said section fourteen there shall be substituted the following subsections:
  "(7) Nothing in this section shall be taken as requiring the registration thereunder of premises used wholly or mainly—

  (a) as catering premises, or

  (b) as a school or club;

  and paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply in relation to the sale or storage of ice cream at any premises used as a theatre, cinematographic theatre, music hall or concert hall.
  (7A) In this Act the expression "catering premises" means premises where, in the course of a business, food is prepared and supplied for immediate consumption on the premises."
  If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) agrees, it may be as well here to deal with the general issue of the proposal not to take powers to apply registration to catering premises, and in general terms the question of the alternative disqualification procedure proposed. I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I explained what is in the Government's mind in commending this change so that
  2030
  there can be a general debate and we can save time on the various other Amendments dealing with this matter.
  Mr. Willey: I think it would meet the convenience of the Committee, if,having heard the Parliamentary Secretary move the Amendment, I were to move the Amendment we have down to the Amendment. We could have the discussion on that.
  The Deputy-Chairman: That will be convenient.
  Dr. Hill: Section 14 of the principal Act empowers the extension by order of the requirement to register with the local authority. Our Amendment proposes to exclude from that proposed extension the power to register catering premises. We have looked at this matter again since the draft was put down. The hon. Gentleman may chide us with change, but this is a case of second thoughts, for reasons that I shall give to the Committee.
  What is the purpose of registration? In part, it is to give the local authority knowledge of the various kinds of establishments to be registered. Secondly—and this is an important sanction lying behind the registration—it is to make it possible to terminate registration subject to appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. That probably is the most important element in registration—the position of the local authority in being able, subject to that appeal, to bring it to an end. I want to deal with the difficulties that confront us. Thirdly, in regard to new premises, it is to insist on the observation of the regulations before actually registering the premises.
  This involves a good deal of work by the local authorities. I do not want to exaggerate it, but it involves a good deal of work in maintaining such registers and keeping them up to date. If we accept that the most important thing is for it to be possible for the registration to be brought to an end—and that threat or sanction is an important factor in ensuring conformity with the regulations—the first question that arises is this. Should it be possible for the local authority to terminate the registration, even with an appeal to the courts, without a prosecution? A local authority confronted with breaches of the regulations is able to take the matter to the court and to seek a conviction and a penalty.

  2031
  Should it be possible for a local authority, not having taken the decision to prosecute, to seek, subject to an appeal to the courts, to bring the registration to an end? Bearing in mind that the local authority is in a position to prosecute if it discovers breaches of the regulations, we reached the conclusion that it would not be right or fair to enable anybody to bring the registration to an end except after a successful prosecution.
  If that point is accepted, it brings us to the stage that the local authority as such should not be in a position, even though it be recognised that there is an appeal to the court, to take this important step of bringing the registration to an end except where a conviction has been obtained. This carries us to the second point, that if such action were to be taken only after a successful conviction, then it should be the court which is enabled in certain circumstances to add to the penalty by bringing the registration to an end.
  When we reached those conclusions it soon became apparent that the real sanction could be achieved without the procedure and the form-filling burden on local authorities and on owners of catering premises of the registration procedure. We felt that the important element did not depend on registration and that it was desirable that it should not be in the hands of the local authority but in the hands of the court, and that led us to the conclusion that it would be far better to establish a disqualification procedure after conviction and only after conviction but not necessarily after conviction, to make it possible for the courts to take the important and in some cases devastating step of disqualifying the caterer from conducting his business in those premises.
  When we come to the new Clause perhaps we may look in greater detail at the procedure involved, but for the moment the proposal is that the courts shall have power to disqualify after conviction. This means, in our view, that the registration of this kind of premises is unnecessary.
  I admit straight away that the position is not quite as strong in relation to the registration of new premises. In those cases, the local authority, being in a position to say "No," can secure observance
  2032
  of the regulations, but, at the same time, we reached the conclusion that a local authority ought not to be in a position to say "No" unless the offence or the potential offence is one which leads to a breach of the regulations and so to a prosecution.
  The right of entry remains, the regulations remain, the opportunity to prosecute remains. Indeed, it can be argued that this disqualification procedure is more formidable and more frightening than a termination of registration by the local authority. I will give one ground for saying that. When a local authority brings a registration to an end, it usually does so in private. If a local authority is considering such a step it will take care to do so in private. If, on the other hand, following conviction, the local authority proposes to ask the courts to bring the registration to an end, the matter is fought out in public and publicity attends the attempt to bring disqualification. This procedure brings greater publicity than might obtain under the registration procedure.
  I do not stress that point too much, but I want to remind the Committee that the new procedure leaves the same sanction and, in a way, it bares that sanction for all to see. The important difference is that it comes into operation only when there has been a prosecution and only at the instance of the court. It does all that we need without the very considerable burden of form-filling, the maintenance of registrations and the like.
  We want to deal with catering premises which are of a low standard. We want there to be power residing to bring these practices to an end, even if that means bringing the business to an end. But we want to ensure that the breaches of the regulations which are antecedent have been the subject of successful prosecution —that the case is proved—and the decision is made on the application of the local authority by the courts. In short, we believe that this is a better method and one which saves a great deal of work and administration yet achieves the purpose we all have in mind.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Wiley: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out "(a) as catering premises, or."

  2033
  I am sorry to say this to the Parliamentary Secretary, but he has ignored the appeal made by his right hon. Friend to expedite the proceedings of the Committee. He has wasted our time. He has not addressed his mind at all to the point which is before us.
  What the Government are doing by this Clause is to extend registration to other food trade businesses than those at present provided for in Section 14. The whole burden of the Parliamentary Secretary's argument is that he has found a better procedure than registration. Then why impose registration upon all those other trades when he has found something more definite? It is quite obvious that the Parliamentary Secretary knows that this is a sell-out. It is no good attacking registration at large, because the whole purpose of this Clause is to extend registration. The first protest which I make is that this is an abuse of Parliamentary proceedings—an absolute abuse.
  This is the main purpose of the Bill. It was nearly 12 months ago when this Bill was introduced in another place, and the first time we heard of this proposal was a hint given in the Second Reading speech, just before the summer Recess. I described the Parliamentary Secretary on Second Reading as the midwife, and I said that this Bill had very respectable parentage. I do not know if midwives are mischievous, but I have often suspected that in a nursing home some mischievous midwife might change the babies. The Parliamentary Secretary has done something far worse than that. Here is a child born last November, and before our own eyes he has emasculated the infant.
  Let me remind the Committee that it was on Second Reading that I called the attention of the House to how disturbed I was, not only by what he said, but by the way in which he said it—the shifty sort of way in which he looked over his shoulder when he was saying it. I see that he is blushing now at the thought of it, and I hope that he will not contradict me because the whole Committee sees him blushing.
  In view of his record, the hon. Gentleman knows that this is a preposterous sell-out. What did Lord Woolton say in another place when we had the Second Reading of this Bill? He said that the Bill also proposed that the present powers of registration of premises—
  The Deputy - Chairman: Is that relevant to this Clause?
  Mr. Willey: I understand that we can quote from a statement made in another place when it is Government policy. It is on a point of Government policy that I wish to make this reference to a speech in another place. This was an expression of Government policy.
  Lord Woolton said that the Bill also proposed that the present powers of registration of premises, which covers only ice-cream, sausages and certain preserved foods, should be extended to premises where food is handled or stored. There was no Amendment and no hint as the Bill went through another place to suggest that we were to have this sellout on clean food. No one from the Government back benches has moved an Amendment suggesting this. We know the views of the National Caterers' Federation about registration, but one has only to read the Federation's representations to agree at once that it conceded that it would accept registration.
  The Minister looks rather surprised. I will read from the document. The Federation said that in the case of an existing business, registration should be "as of right." Is that not accepting registration? The Federation went on to say that the principle of registration could only be effective if extended to catering trade workers. My point is that however reluctant the Federation might have been, it was accepting registration. I challenge the Government to produce the representations that have been made to them. We are not going to have legislation decided behind closed doors as some unholy compact with a section of the trade.
  The principal Act provided for the registration of ice-cream makers and the meat manufacturing industry. The Parliamentary Secretary must be the last person to suggest that that principle has not worked effectively. I could quote the report of our own medical officer of health in Sunderland, but all Members of the Committee know that the reports of all medical officers of health show that ice-cream premises have been considerably improved. There is no difficulty about taking people to court, because there is the procedure of registration. Every hon. Member knows equally well

  2035
  that the report of almost every medical officer of health complains of catering establishments.
  This Bill originated from the Catering Working Party's Report; that was how we began to think of a Bill to improve the provisions of the 1938 Act. The first recommendation of the Catering Working Party, a body representative of all sections of the trade, was that:
  "All catering establishments should be required to register with the appropriate local authority."
  Why does the Parliamentary Secretary not have the courage to say that he disagrees with all those who examined this problem, those in the trade as well as those in the professions represented on the working party? Why does he not say that what he is representing is that his genius outshone all those who spent a considerable time working upon the problem and who made that first recommendation that all catering establishments should be required to register with the appropriate local authority? Does the hon. Gentleman deny that that was the origin and purpose of the Bill?
  There is a little more to it, however, than that. The working party said:
  " Representatives of associations of local authorities and of their officers who gave evidence before us"—
  with all of whom the Parliamentary Secretary now disagrees—
  " stressed the necessity for the registration of catering establishments. This view is not shared by representatives of the catering industry, who, as a whole, are opposed to registration. Some members of the Working Party support the view of the industry but, after very careful consideration and subject to what is said in paragraph 36 and in Part B of Appendix II "—
  that is the view of representatives of the catering industry on the working party—
  " they accept the conclusion that registration of the premises of catering establishments by the local authority is an essential administrative prerequisite of any real effort to improve hygienic conditions."
  What a disgrace that the Parliamentary Secretary should let those people down.
  The members of the industry had been opposed to registration but now they say: "We, the representatives of the industry and the spokesmen for it, having considered with our fellows of the working party the whole aspect of this problem, have come to the conclusion
  2036
  that registration of catering establishments by the local authority is an essential administrative prerequisite to any real effort to improve hygienic conditions." But what is the Parliamentary Secretary doing tonight? He is stopping any real effort to improve hygienic conditions, and he knows that as well as anybody else.
  The differences which arose in the working party were about the form of registration. I want to make it clear that this was a unanimous report recommending registration, unanimous not only from the professional representatives but also from those in the catering industry. This is the unanimous recommendation which the Parliamentary Secretary, in a flippant speech, has asked us to throw overboard.
  If we turn to the appendix referred to we find that the majority report, which was signed by every member of the working party who was not associated with the catering trade and some who were associated with it, recommended that the public ought not to be exposed to the risks which might be involved in the use of unsuitable premises for new catering establishments. Therefore they recommended that registration should be provided for, and that the system under Section 14 of the principal Act should be applied to catering establishments.
  Those who produced the minority report made it quite clear that they were recommending registration but what they said was—and I quote their words exactly so that I do them no injustice:
  "While we have accepted with some reluctance that registration should be advocated as part of the administrative machinery to improve hygienic conditions in catering, we are of opinion that the legal form it should take should be "—
  as they recommend, but that those who had premises at present open should have registration as of right. If the Minister decided to accept the minority view he could still have done so under the powers provided by the Bill, but he wanted an escape.
  Shall I be quite frank with the Parliamentary Secretary? After all, no one is asking him or his Minister to undertake registration. What we are asking for is that they should be given registration powers. The Parliamentary Secretary knows full well that if there is legislation

  2037
  giving him the power public opinion will compel him to undertake registration in one form and another. But in a cowardly way he is trying to escape that responsibility. He knows that if the power remains in the Bill then, of course, the medical officers of health, the sanitary inspectors, the B.M.A. and other professional bodies and everyone interested in food hygiene will ask the Minister of Food to proceed with the registration of catering establishments.
  The Parliamentary Secretary is well aware that every local government association will ask him to proceed with registration. I would concede at once that many Conservative local authorities will be as adamant about registration as Labour authorities. It was my experience at the Ministry of Food that there were many Conservative authorities keenly interested in this matter and who pressed for the registration of catering establishments.
  9.15 p.m.
  What hypocrisy, to come down to the Committee and say, "Oh dear, we must save the local authorities this work they would have if all this were the subject of police court prosecutions," when the whole history of registration shows that there could not have been a finer piece of administration. Prosecutions have been avoided because of the friendly liaison between the local authorities and, for instance, those in the ice-cream industry.
  So this is the position: everybody, including the spokesmen of the catering industry, has asked for the registration of the catering establishments. The Parliamentary Secretary knows full well that if the power were in this Bill—as it will be if he does not get away with this Amendment—he would have to accept in the most suitable form the registration of catering premises. That is why I ask again, who has made the representations? Why should we run away because of the dirty food lobby, for that is what it is.
  There is no one of any repute in the catering industry who is afraid of registration. Most of the big people, most of the small people, with decent establishments are anxious to have registration because they do not like the unfair competition of those with dirty kitchens. It is not fair. People who set standards ought to be protected. I hope, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary will realise that this is not playing the game
  2038
  with the Committee, it is not playing the game with the public, and it is a cowardly retreat. It is a deliberate attempt to prevent the Bill achieving the very purpose for which it was introduced.
  As I say, in another place the noble Lord. Lord Woolton never gave a hint of this; we only got this when the Ministry ran into difficulties with the regulations. Well, we have put the regulations right. I will concede that we have strengthened the arm of the Parliamentary Secretary. But what a cowardly thing to ask to be in the position in which he can say, "Unfortunately, owing to a decision of the House of Commons, I cannot register." This is the biggest retreat and the most cowardly retreat which we have had in the field of food hygiene for as long as I can remember. The Minister is new to his Department. I beg him to give us an assurance that between now and the Report stage he will think again.
  Mr. Higgs: if anything were needed to persuade me that my hon. Friend is right in the proposal that he has made to the Committee, it is the speech to which we have just listened. Obviously the hon. Gentleman is bitterly opposed to the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend—
  Mr. Willey: An under-statement.
  Mr. Higgs: —yet, in all his speech there was not one word which, by any stretch of the imagination, could be taken as showing what could be done by registration which could not be done by the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend.
  Let us go back to the argument put forward by my hon. Friend at the commencement of his introduction of this Amendment. There are two purposes for which registration is necessary, and there can be only two purposes as far as I can see. The one is that the local authority and their officers may have a complete list in the office of premises which carry on a business of a certain type, so that they may know where they have to go and look for dirty food. If the argument of the Opposition is that a good sanitary inspector does not know where catering premises exist, without being told, there might be something in it. But can they really say that they do not believe that sanitary inspectors know where the cafés and restaurants are? The truth is that every good sanitary inspector knows, and

  2039
  hon. Members opposite know that he knows, every catering premises in his area.
  The only other reason there can possibly be for registration is to give the local authority power to strike off the register, as one means of closing the premises. I suspect, and I think that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) will agree that I am right, that it is for that purpose that hon. Members opposite want registration—not that sanitary inspectors may be told where the restaurants are, but that the sanitary inspectors and their committees may strike premises off the register.
  Mr. Willey: If the hon. Member asks me for my reply, I ask him first of all to deal with my essential point—that the Clause extends registration to all premises except catering premises. The reason local authorities want registration is simply that if premises are registered the local authority has the responsibility for saying that they are decent premises.
  Mr. Higgs: Does the hon. Member want any warrant of authority for the local authority greater than is contained in the Public Health Acts, the Food and Drugs Act and all the regulations under them? When armed with the regulations which are to be made under the Bill, with the powers of entry to all premises in his area which he possesses, and with his powers under the Public Health Acts, the sanitary inspector has ample warrant for making it his business to see that food premises are clean. All that the party opposite want registration for is to enable local committees of local authorities, it may be sitting in private, as advised by their officials, to have the right to close businesses by which peaple earn their living.
  The only part of the argument of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North which attracted me was that part in which he asked why, if one is not going to register restaurants and cafés, one should register the greater part of shops which are not now registered. I can visualise a line which I commend to my right hon. Friend. On one side of it would be people who sell retail and run establishments which the public can visit. On the other side would be manufacturing premises in which it would be possible
  2040
  to manufacture in a back-room and no one could see what business was being carried on.
  I should have preferred to see that cleanliness in manufacturing premises was enforced by registration and striking off the register, because I know of cases where it would have been impossible for a sanitary inspector, except by accident, to discover that manufacturing was going on in a back-room. But where the public are invited to enter and to eat or buy, I would prefer to see cleanliness enforced in the way in which we are accustomed to see it enforced—by the courts. Let us look at what registration would involve if the party opposite have their way. It would mean that every hotel and every boarding house—
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Chapman: There is no compulsion to have every hotel or every boarding house registered. It is quite possible for the regulations to specify, exactly as the Catering Wages Board specifies, what is to be called a boarding house. That Board defines it as a place of more than four bedrooms or taking more than eight guests. It is possible for the proposed regulations to specify something like that, or something bigger.
  Mr. Higgs: If there were any merit in the hon. Gentleman's argument, I would have appreciated it the more if an Amendment to give effect to it had appeared on the Order Paper; but I saw no Amendment down from the party opposite suggesting that the Minister's powers to make regulations regarding catering establishments should be limited to establishments of any particular size. In the absence of any such Amendment, I assume that it would be their desire to make all catering establishments register, and I am entitled to make that assumption. If so, it means that we shall be giving power to the Minister to compel every hotel, restaurant, café or cottage on the moors or by the sea which supplies tea to register.
  For my part, whatever hon. Members opposite think, I regard it as my duty to see that Ministers are given bureaucratic powers to do by regulation only that which is necessary, and, when they come to the House to ask for more, I shall oppose them. To compel establishments of that sort of scale to register, and to

  2041
  compel local authorities, particularly in those areas which are popular resorts, to keep the large registers which would be required, would be a large bureaucratic task which would not be worth while unless there was some real purpose in it.
  From where has my right hon. Friend obtained his precedent? It comes from a very respectable place—the Road Traffic Act, 1930, an Act of Parliament which was put upon the Statute Book by the predecessors of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen now sitting opposite. In that day, they were prepared to trust, as they were during their more recent term of office, the magistrates to disqualify the drunken driver—
  Mr. Willey: We register the vehicles.
  Mr. Higgs: We register the drivers as well, but we do not give effective power to disqualify the driver to the registration authority, but to a court of law.
  If there are two alternative methods of shutting down premises and preventing people earning their living in the way of their choice, I much prefer that which puts the matter in the hands of a court of law, and that is the basis of my support for my hon. Friend's contention, and that is why I am so strongly opposed to what was said by the hon. Gentleman opposite.
  Mr. Mitchison: I think the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) must himself be conscious of being in a bit of trouble about this. I have rarely heard a more preposterous argument than that about disqualifying drivers under the Road Traffic Act, which has no connection with the subject we are discussing today. I should have thought that if the hon. Gentleman was driven to that, there must be something very wrong somewhere.
  The trouble with the hon. Member and with the Parliamentary Secretary is that there is a unanimous Report of this Working Party recommending that all catering establishments should be registered. It is difficult, after that, to suggest that this is pure bureaucracy, that it is unworkable, that there is no reason for it or that it is sufficiently provided for by existing legislation. If the hon. Gentleman had looked at the Report, he would have found out that there had been an exceedingly thorough survey of two things —first of all, existing legislation, and, secondly, the abuses which are there in spite of existing legislation.
  2042
  It is in the light of that survey, and in order to remedy those abuses that the Working Party made this recommendation that all catering establishments should be registered. If that had happened—and that recommendation is the keystone of it—would there ever have been this Bill? It requires some very considerable defence when this sort of thing comes in at the very last moment.
  9.30 p.m.
  What struck me about the Parliamentary Secretary's speech, in addition to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey), was that this is really a provision about premises, and whether they are suitable or unsuitable. The whole speech of the Parliamentary Secretary treated it as though it were a matter of some personal offence and was solely concerned with a breach of the regulations. The essential difference between what is not to apply to catering establishments by virtue of the proposed Amendment, and what is to apply to them by virtue of the new Clause to which we are coming is that the proposed new Clause is an offence Clause.
  What is sought to be omitted is partly concerned with offences and partly with the condition of premises. I should have thought that Government supporters, who do at intervals talk about decentralisation, the virtues of local government, the freedom of local authorities and the rest of it, might have begun to say that the condition of catering premises was bound to be a matter of acute concern to any conscientious local authority.
  To suggest that a matter of that sort must first be dealt with by a number of individual prosecutions seems a sneer in the face of local government as it is conducted in this country. I would not have attributed it to the party opposite, even in its most foolish moods, and I cannot understand how a serious political party can support that attitude. What do they think local authorities are for? They may say, "You do not need any powers. The sanitary inspector "—burdened as he is with the new provisions of the Housing, Repairs and Rents Act, which are quite enough to kill him—" is supposed to know by sheer intuition what conditions are in all the catering establishments in his district." I do not pretend but that sanitary inspectors are highly competent

  2043
  people, but it is the first time I have heard it said that it is not necessary to give information to the local authority because its sanitary inspector, or whoever it may be, would know it by intuition. If we are to legislate on the intuition and all-pervading knowledge of local authorities and their inspectors, half the legislation which has proved necessary in theory as well as practice would never be on the Statute Book at all.
  If local authorities are to have responsibility they must be provided with knowledge. What is being suggested now is taking away from local authorities the general supervision, control and knowledge about the premises that would be provided by registration. It is to be done with a sniff and a sneer that it involves a lot of forms. It involves something more, the right of elected authorities in this country to see that their citizens have clean food. In catering they have the right to prevent little hole-and-corner establishments starting up without registration. It involves their right to see that existing establishments are not allowed to fall into a condition where they cannot tolerate their existence. To claim that this kind of thing can be dealt with by a number of individual prosecutions is unreal and grossly dishonest.
  The Parliamentary Secretary told us rather by a side wind, in one of those whispers over his shoulder, that there is already an appeal to the police court. Do Government supporters want every one of these cases to be adjudicated upon in court? Do they deny the right of the local authority to make what is in these circumstances a decision in the first instance? Are they so fascinated by the intricacies and expenses of the law that they can only have it done by a court?
  I think that this is one of the most disgraceful incidents in the somewhat disgraceful history of the party opposite. We have seen this sort of thing time and time again. Even in a Bill like this where one would have thought that there was enough common purpose to avoid it, and where, on both sides, we have been expressing our devotion to clean food and the right of the individual, the party opposite have contrived so to handle the matter that they sell out to part of the catering trade and then decide to do it in such a clumsy way that it is obvious to
  2044
  everyone that they are doing so. They might try to show a little more honesty. a little more public responsibility, and a little more astuteness on how to sell out to a vested interest.
  Mr. Pitman: I think that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has made one good contribution and one bad contribution. His good contribution, it seems to me, has been in putting in front of the Committee once again what my hon. Friend said from this side, that there are really two issues in this case; first, the issue of how effective the new arrangement is going to be, and, second, the position of the courts in relation to administration of the regulations by 2,000 or more local authorities.
  On the first point, there seems to he a great difference of opinion among hon. Members opposite as to whether or not all catering establishments or only the bigger ones should be registered under this Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering insisted that it should be all catering establishments regardless of their size. Another hon. Member opposite said that it should be only catering establishments of a certain size.
  I think that we on this side of the Committee are entitled to ask the question which I asked on Second Reading, which is that if we are going to have dirty food and are going to poison people. are we really being realistic in making, any differentiation in size? Admittedly, the Savoy, with its many seats and tables is more likely, if there were to be such provisions, to poison more people than the wayside cafe which displays a little notice saying, "Minerals and hot drinks."
  But what about all the private homes in this country. If the view of the hon. and learned Member opposite has any strength in it, then surely it is as applicable to every home in the country, and not only to those homes whose kitchens have to provide for the minority of our people who occasionally feed away from home. Surely, the majority which feeds at home is a far greater and more important issue than is any limited field in this respect.
  We then come to the fundamental issue as stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that we all want clean food. It is all a question of how effective the new procedure is going to be. My hon. Friend has pointed out that any catering

  2045
  establishment has to provide something which attracts the public, and if it is to be sufficiently effective to attract the public in order to carry on business it will surely attract the notice of the local authority.
  After all, the local authority can quite properly find out which are the catering establishments and can do it systematically, whereas the travelling motorist, or even the cyclist, who wants a bed for the night has to look about in a very small area in order that his necessities for that particular night may be served. If one is talking in terms of what is effective, it is just as effective for the local authority to operate in the way my right hon. Friend has suggested as to proceed by registration.
  There is then the question as to whether it is more effective to have the first shot at the offending rabbit in the courts or whether the first shot should be by way of a refusal of registration. I want again to emphasise that the real disadvantage of universal registration is that one is devolving discretion in this matter to 2,000 local authorities. It is all very well having delegated legislation from Whitehall, where one gets a responsible handling of the situation. I should not like to say that the 2,000 local authorities are all irresponsible, but I would not like to say that they are all as responsible as one would expect Whitehall to be. This question of registration, if done by 2.000 local authorities, will be only a semi-responsible job.
  Mr. Mitehison: The hon. Gentleman apears to have counted the local authorities, but has he counted the number of police courts and benches to which application could be made?
  Mr. Pitman: I have not counted the number of benches and courts, but it seems to me that the point the hon. and learned Member is making is, anyhow, a half of what is wanted, because, if it is to be done by the courts alone, it is only that number of courts, but if it is to be first done by the number of local authorities and then by the number of courts then, under his system, there are twice the number of courts that there are under mine. I would say that the point of his interjection has as little validity as his argument.
  The historical function of this House has been to put legal questions of this
  2046
  kind to the courts. I strongly commend the action of the Parliamentary Secretary in dealing with this in the way he has done, so that the matter goes directly to the court and is decided by a competent body.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: The Government side of the Committee must really try to do better than they have done up to now. Tonight they have constituted themselves a nursery for childish argument. In all the time that I have been in this House I do not think that I have listened to more puerile arguments than have recently come forth from hon. Members opposite. The Parliamentary Secretary tried to make a serious argument, and failed. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) tried to make a comic argument, and succeeded. As I followed his argument, he was not in favour of registration of catering premises, but he was, apparently, in favour of registering drunkards. His introduction of the Road Traffic Act had as much to do with the arguments which we now have to consider as has a pudding made of rice.
  9.45 p.m.
  I turn from that aspect of the matter to what is really a very serious view of the position, and that is that there is an attempt by the Government to get rid of registration, which is a very essential matter indeed in relation to the subject that we are discussing. What I did not like about the Parliamentary Secretary's argument was the way he tried to make out that, somehow or other, people were going to get greater protection, that public policy would be better served by having these matters considered by the courts rather than by having them dealt with by registration by the local authorities.
  We have with us tonight the newly-appointed Solicitor-General, and I, in company, I am certain, with everybody else, am very pleased to congratulate him. on his elevation to such a high office. But I know that he will agree that his great honour carries with it responsibilities and duties. This evening he heard the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary, who tried to develop the idea that it was more right to take the matter to the courts than to leave it to the local authorities. I put it to the Solicitor-General that that argument is contrary to every tenet of legal practice.

  2047
  In matters of this kind over a long period Acts have been put upon the Statute Book in order that the function of registration might reside in the hands of the local authorities, for one reason only; namely, that whereas the courts are unable to give supervision, the local authorities can give the supervision which is necessary in a case of this kind, through a body of inspectors. Therefore, the idea that this matter should go to the courts which have no such inspectorate is preposterous.
  I hope the Solicitor-General will intervene to tell the Committee how the courts will deal with this kind of matter. I understand that it is intended, instead of registration, to thrust the matter into litigation. It is going to the magistrates' court in the first instance. Then, I suppose, if the party is not satisfied, it will be sent to the quarter sessions; and if he is not still satisfied, it will probably be taken further, and a case will be stated either to the divisional court or wherever it ought to go, so that the whole thing will trail out, involving a considerable amount of legal expense, but missing the 'one essential thing, which is the supervision and the registration of these catering premises.
  We shall get litigation but we shall not get registration. I should like the Solicitor-General to apply his mind to this fantastic idea that this well-established method of registration should be altered and the procedure thrust into the field of litigation, with all its delay and cost. That idea cannot possibly be sustained.
  Quite apart from this extraordinary argument about leaving the matter to the courts rather than taking it to the local authorities, the major principle behind this Bill, following upon the recommendations of the report of which we have heard, is the registration of catering premises because of the moral force and effect it has upon the people who are registered, apart from anything else. I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Bromsgrove say that we did not need registration; that local authorities could supervise the establishments and send out their inspectors. That is far from the point which really matters here.
  The effect of registration is the moral suasion which it has on the people who
  2048
  are registered. It also has the effect of throwing an affirmative responsibility upon the local authority concerned. It puts a duty upon that authority to see that premises which are registered are properly carried on.
  To accept the Amendment—and it is extraordinary that it was not in the Bill as originally drafted—would create a major defect and would completely lower the value of the Bill. The catering interests, which have already emasculated the Bill, have apparently put still further pressure upon the Government and have persuaded them to put down this Amendment. It is a bad one; it ought not to be supported, and hon. Members on this side of the Committee should divide against it.
  Dr. Hill: I am accustomed to vigorous assaults from the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) —we have had many tussles during the past threee years—but I doubt whether he has ever replaced argument by vigour to a greater extent than he has tonight. Not only did he say that the Catering Trade Working Party had recommended registration, but he went on to make what, on the face of it, seems to be a particularly strong point, that the catering members of that Working Party had recommended it.
  What did they say, in Appendix 11 (Part B) to which he referred? They said that they thought that registration—and here they were referring to non-revocable registration—was a satisfactory thing, but when they came to the question whether it should be revocable, they said:
  " In our opinion the only extra power which might be required, is at quarter sessions level only, the right to withdraw registration."
  While they admitted the possibility of the withdrawal of registration, they said that it was not a matter which was appropriate for a local authority, or even a court of summary jurisdiction. They said that it was a matter to be dealt with "at quarter sessions level only "—and the words are italicised.
  Mr. Willey: Will the Parliamentary Secretary deal with the essential point of the main recommendations and kindly inform the Committee whose signatures were attached to them? Is not the first main recommendation that:

  2049
  "All catering establishments should be required to register with the appropriate local authority."
  Turning to Appendix II (Part B), let us read it as a whole. It is quite clear that certain members of the Working Party said that they recommended registration, and they explained the way in which they accepted it. They believed that there should be registration as of right.
  The point from which the Parliamentary Secretary cannot run away—[Interruption.]—he said, in effect that I misled the Committee—is that if power were contained in the Bill to make regulations about registration in the catering trade, if he so wished he could make regulations to accord with Appendix II (Part B)—in other words, to accept the minority view of the Catering Trade Working Party; but that would be registration.
  Dr. Hill: I made plain to the Committee that I was dealing precisely with the point the hon. Gentleman raised, that the catering trade representatives themselves—and he made great play with this —sought or acquiesced in registration. [HON. MEMBERS: "They did."] They did—in non-revocable registration, or, at least, in registration that was revocable only at quarter sessions. The hon. Gentleman did not deal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) pointed out, with the relative merits of these two methods. He did not deal with the relative effectiveness of these two methods. An intervention by the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) made plain to me why. If we examine the two methods in the light of his admission that he regards the method of registration as not applicable to boarding houses, small hotels and the
  like—
  Hon. Members: He did not say that.
  Mr. Chapman: The hon. Gentleman must not misrepresent what was said. There was a specific figure used by the Catering Wages Board of four rooms reserved ordinarily for guests. That suggestion affects most boarding houses and practically every hotel. The hon. Gentleman cannot now say that I was excluding boarding houses and hotels.
  Dr. Hill: But the hon. Gentleman, to put it at its lowest, contemplated exceptions from registration, the exclusion of
  2050
  the small places, and yet it could be said —and I am sure he will agree with me—that the greater need for scrutiny is in the small places. With the alternative procedure of disqualification there is no such limitation at all. I would draw his attention to that. If we are comparing the two methods, of registration with some exceptions, however modest, and the disqualification of premises as defined here, we find that the method of disqualification is more powerful than that of registration.
  Mr. Chapman: I think the difference is this, that it is difficult in the catering trade to decide when a place ceases to be mainly a business and becomes a private residence doing a little business on the side. That is where the difficulty comes. My own feeling is that if we pick out the businesses as such, and make registration applicable to them, and deal with small places taking guests and breaking the regulations the hon. Gentleman is laying down, that will clean them up. Then the businesses above that level can be regulated.
  Dr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman has made clear what is in his mind. I agreed with him when he said that the system of registration to be sensible and workable would require some exceptions. What I now say is that one argument, although I do not put it as the overwhelming argument, why this method is more effective than that of registration, is the fact that there will be no need for any such exclusions.
  The third point is that on which the greatest emphasis was laid by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Gloucester. Should these matters go to the courts? Bless my soul, the regulations which we spent a long time discussing, regulating construction, layout, equipment, cleanliness, and the provision of sanitary and washing facilities, and prohibiting the use of materials, and so on, are enforceable only through the courts. The regulations create offences for which there are penalties set out in the Bill.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels rose—
  Dr. Hill: I have been generous in giving way, and ought to go on.
  Mr. Wiley: Briefly.
  Dr. Hill: The briefer the better for the purposes of the hon. and learned Gentleman. These matters go to the courts today. We believe that a decision that involves the compulsory closure of a man's premises, the compulsory ending of his business, is a matter that falls to be determined by the courts after there has been an intervention.
  That is the main issue between us. I am not now referring to catering premises. I realise that there must be circumstances in which registration is an absolutely pre-essential in order to know where the business is being conducted. It is not necessary in this respect, and I suggest that we have put forward a method which is fairer and better and which provides a sanction which in general is as strong as, and in the respect to which I have referred is stronger than, that provided by the registration procedure. If, at the same time, it enables us to refrain from adding a burden to local authorities and to the owners of catering premises, then we wish to adopt it and, by our Amendment, we proposed so to do.
  10.0 p.m.
  Dr. Summerskill: It is a tragic spectacle to see the Parliamentary Secretary defending a piece of Conservative policy about which he has no conviction whatever. Ten years ago nothing would have persuaded him to make the speech which he has made tonight. He knows as well as I know that his peers, the medical officers of health throughout the country, would completely condemn his speech. He knows, as I have said previously, that medical officers representing the most Tory constituencies in the country—for example Brighton. with its thousands of catering establishments—condemned the Government in the strongest terms in the "Municipal Journal" for running away from the recommendations of certain authoritative committees.
  The Committee should understand that this Amendment does not stem only from the Opposition in the House. It is supported by the best elements in the catering trade. Certain committees were set up to advise the Ministry of Food in order that this Bill could be framed. I had the honour of convening those committees and, in order that the catering industry should be well represented on
  2052
  them, I invited some of the finest and most responsible people in the trade to serve on them. These committees recommended that catering establishments should be registered.
  In the course of the last two days we have debated food hygiene in its broadest aspects. If we ask any member of the public where the lowest standard of food hygiene is observed, he will tell us that it is in the small cafés, and I do not think any hon. Member will dissent from that. [HoN. MEMBERS: "British Railways."] It has been implied here that if registration were accepted it would be a hardship to the catering establishments, but of course the great majority of those establishments are run by responsible people. Registration would protect the public against the small, badly-run cafés which are started by people with very small capital, with little to lose, with no social conscience and with no interest in food hygiene.
  The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) suggested that registration would serve no useful purpose. If that argument were valid, he should have told the Committee that registration as it applies to many food establishments today has served no useful purpose, but he did not urge the Minister to de-register all those premises which the medical officers of health in this country agree should be registered.
  Mr. Higgs: The right hon. Lady does me less than justice. I suggested that we should take out from the field of registration all retail premises—
  Mr. Darling: Including milk?
  Mr. Higgs: That comes under another Act and leave registration to deal with manufacturing and storage.
  Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman probably knows that apart from retail premises there are places where food is prepared which are registered.
  Mr. Higgs: I agree.
  Dr. Summerskill: And I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that registration should continue.
  Mr. Higgs: Yes.
  Dr. Summerskill: I gave way thinking that the hon. Gentleman would differ from my proposition, but I find that he

  2053
  agrees with it. He has agreed, therefore, that registration of certain premises where food is prepared is desirable. We are saying that if that is desirable, then surely the small cafés which are a source of infection should be registered.
  I would remind the Committee that this Bill has gone through another place and that this suggestion has only recently been made. I do not think that it is an outrageous suggestion that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has made, that the Government have been subject to pressure from the catering establishments. I am sure that this will evoke jeers, but I suggest that they have given way at the last moment because a General Election is in the offing and they dare not offend all the café proprietors throughout the country. What other explanation can there be?
  Everyone in this Committee is a consumer. I think that everyone would agree that these small cafés should be registered. The hon. Gentleman asked, "What would registration do?" In my
  opinion, registration in itself is a continuous reminder to the café proprietor of his duty to the public. It is also a salutary reminder of the ultimate sanction, which is being struck off the register. That is a professional term, and it is a salutary reminder to doctors also—a continuous reminder that they must serve the public to the best of their ability. I would say that if the café proprietor were on a register and had to be re-registered every year he would have that in mind.
  Finally, I must say to the Minister that I hope that in the course of the day he has had second thoughts and even third thoughts and that he will decide that it is his duty tonight to protect the public against these dirty, unhealthy little cafés. If he does not do so, I am afraid that I must ask my hon. Friends to support our Amendment to the proposed Amendment in the Lobby.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  The committee divided: Ayes, 215; Noes, 188.

  Division No. 220.

  AYES

  [10.9 p.m.

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

  Crouch, R. F.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Crowder, Petre (Rulslip—Northwood)

  Holland-Martin, C. J

  Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Holt, A. F.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Deedes, W. F.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

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

  Digby, S, Wingfield

  Horobin, I. M.

  Astor, Hon. J. J.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M

  Doughty, C. J. A.

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

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Hughes-Hallet, Vice-Admiral J.

  Banks, Col. C.

  Duthie, W. S.

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

  Barber, Anthony

  Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

  Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E

  Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Erroll, F. J.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Fell, A.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Jennings, Sir Roland

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

  Fisher, Nigel

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Birch, Nigel

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Keeling, Sir Edward

  Bishop, F. P.

  Ford, Mrs. Patricia

  Kerby, Capt. H. B

  Black, C. W.

  Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

  Kerr, H. W.

  Bossom, Sir A. C

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

  Lambert, Hon. G

  Bowen, E. R.

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Lambton, Viscount

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Gammans, L. D.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G

  Braine, B. R.

  Garner-Evans, E. H

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Glover, D.

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

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Godber, J. B.

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

  Linstead, Sir H. N

  Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon P G T

  Cough, C. F. H.

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Bullard, D. G.

  Graham, Sir Fergus

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

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Grimond, J.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Campbell, Sir David

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Carr, Robert

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Gary, Sir Robert

  Harden, J. R. E.

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon M. S.

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Cole, Norman

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Colegate, W. A

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

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

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

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Heath, Edward

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

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

  Higgs, J. M. C.

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

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald

  Marlowe, A. A. H

  Ramsden, J. E.

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Marples, A. E.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Maude, Angus

  Redmayne, M.

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

  Maudling, R.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

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

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Tilney, John

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Turner, H. F. L

  Moore, Sir Thomas

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Turton, R. H.

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Robson-Brown, W.

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Neave, Airey

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Vosper, D. F.

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Russell, R. S.

  Wade, D. W.

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

  Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W J

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

  Wall, Major Patrick

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Schofield, Ll.-Col. W.

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Scott, R. Donald

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Odey, G. W.

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

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

  Shepherd, William

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

  Page, R. G.

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

  Wellwood, W.

  Partridge, E.

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Speir, R. M.

  Williams, Paul (Sutherland, S.)

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Pitman, I. J.

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

  Wills, G.

  Pitt, Mix E. M.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L

  Summers, G. S.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Profumo, J. D.

  Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

  Mr. Cedric Drewe and

  Raikes, Sir Victor

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Mr. Studholme.

  NOES

  Albu, A. H.

  Hannan, W.

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W)

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Hardy, E. A.

  Mort D. L.

  Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

  Hargreaves, A.

  Moyle, A.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

  Murray, J. D.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Hastings, S,

  Nally, W.

  Balfour, A.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Bartley, P.

  Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)

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

  Beattie, J.

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

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Bence, C. R.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

  Hobson, C. R.

  Orbach, M.

  Benson, G.

  Holman, P.

  Oswald, T.

  Beswick, F.

  Holmes, Horace

  Padley, W. E.

  Blackburn, F.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Palmer, A. M. F

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Pannell, Charles

  Bowden, H. W

  Hubbard, T. F.

  Parker, J.

  Bowles, F. G.

  Hudson, James (Eating, N.)

  Paton, J.

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Peart, T. F.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Hynd, H (Accrington)

  Porter, G.

  Burke, W. A.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Janner, B.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Carmichael, J.

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Rankin, John

  Champion, A. J.

  Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Chapman, W. D.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Rhodes, H.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech

  Richards, R.

  Clunie, J.

  Jones Jack (Rotherham)

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Coldrick, W.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Collick, P. H.

  Keenan, W.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Collins, V. J.

  Kenyon, C.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Paneras, N.)

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Ross, William

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lawson, G. M.

  Short, E. W.

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  dc Freitas, Geoffrey

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Deer, G

  Logan, D. G.

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Delargy, H. J

  MacColl, J. E.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Dodds, N. N.

  McGhee, H. G.

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

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  McInnes, J.

  Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  McLeavy, F.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

  Steele, T.

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Fienburgh, W.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Stross, Dr. Barnett

  Foot, M. M.

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Forman, J. C.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Marquand, Rt. Hon H. A.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Mason, Roy

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Grey, C. F.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Monslow, W.

  Timmons, J.

  Hale, Leslie

  Moody, A. S.

  Tommy, F.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B. W

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

  Morley, R.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  2056

  2057

  Usborne, H. C.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Willis, E, G.

  Viant, S. P.

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Warbey, W. N.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B

  Yates, V. F.

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

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Weitzman, D.

  Willey, F. T.

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Williams, David (Neath)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  West, D. G.

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Wallace.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

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

  Question put, "That the proposed words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 211; Noes, 185.

  Division No. 221.]

  AYES

  [10.19 p.m.

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

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Odey, G. W.

  Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Graham, Sir Fergus

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

  Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

  Grimond, J.

  Page, R. G.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Partridge, E.

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Harden, J. R. E.

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

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

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Astor, Hon. J. J.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Banks, Col. C,

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Barber, Anthony

  Heath, Edward

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Profumo, J. D

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Raikes, Sir Victor

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Ramsden, J. E

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

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Redmayne, M.

  Birch, Nigel

  Holt, A. F.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Black, C. W.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Bossom, Sir A. C.

  Horobin, I. M.

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Bowen, E. R.

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Robson-Brown, W.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

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

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Braine, B. R.

  Hughes-Hallet, Vice-Admiral J.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

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

  Russell, R. S.

  Brooman-White, R. G.

  Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

  Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

  Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

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

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Schofield, Lt.-Col. W

  Bullard, D. G.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Scott, R. Donald

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Jennings, Sir Roland

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Campbell, Sir David

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Shepherd, William

  Carr, Robert

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

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

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Keeling, Sir Edward

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Kerby, Capt. H. B.

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Kerr, H. W.

  Speir, R. M.

  Cole, Norman

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Colgate, W. A.

  Lambton, Viscount

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

  Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

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

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

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

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Summers, G. S.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

  Crouch, R, F.

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

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

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

  Davidson, Viscountess

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

  Deedes, W, F.

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Tilney, John

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Turner, H. F. L

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Turton, R. H.

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Drewe, Sir C.

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

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Vosper, D. F.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Wade, D. W.

  Eden, J, B. (Bournemouth, West)

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W)

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

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

  Wall, Major Patrick

  Erroll, F. J.

  Manningham-Buller, Rt Hn. Sir Reginald

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Fell, A.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Marples, A. E.

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Maude, Angus

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

  Maudling, R.

  Well wood, W.

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

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

  Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

  Ford, Mrs. Patricia

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

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

  Neave, Airey

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

  Wills, G.

  Gammans, L. D.

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Garner-Evans, E. H

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Glover, D.

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  Godber, J. B.

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Studholme and Mr. Legh.

  NOES

  Albu, A. H.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Hobson, C. R.

  Porter, G

  Andersen, Frank (Whitehaven)

  Holman, P.

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Holmes, Horace

  Proctor, W. T.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Houghton, Douglas

  Pryde, D. J.

  Balfour, A.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Rankin, John

  Bartley, P.

  Hubbard, T. F.

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Beattie, J.

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

  Rhodes, H

  Bence, C. R.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Richards, R.

  Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.

  Benson, G.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Beswick, F.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Blackburn, F.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Janner, B.

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Bowden, H. W.

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Ross, William

  Bowles, F. G.

  Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

  Short, E. W.

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Shurmer, P. L. E

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Burke, w. A.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Keenan, W.

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

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Kenyon, C.

  Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

  Carmichael, J.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Champion, A. J.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Steele, T.

  Chapman, W. D.

  Lawson, G. M.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Stross, Dr. Barnett

  Clunie, J.

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Coldrick, W.

  Logan, D. G.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Collick, P. H.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Collins, V. J.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  McInnes, J.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  McLeavy F.

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

  Timmons, J.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Tomney, F.

  Deer, G.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Turner-Samuels M.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Dodds, N. N.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Usborne, H. C.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

  Warbey, W. N.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Mason, Roy

  Watkins, T. E.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Mayhew, C. P.

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

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Weitzman, D.

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Mitchison, G. R

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Fienburgh, W.

  Monslow, W.

  West, D. G

  Foot, M. M.

  Moody, A. S.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Forman, J. C.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.>

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Mort, D. L.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Moyle, A.

  Wilcock, Group Capt C. A. B.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Murray, J. D.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Grey, C. F.

  Nally, W.

  Willey, F. T

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Hale, Leslie

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

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Oldfield, W. H.

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

  Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Willis, E. G.

  Hannan, W.

  Orbach, M.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Hardy, E. A.

  Oswald, T.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Hargreaves, A.

  Padley, W. E

  Yates, V. F.

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Younger, Rt. Hon K.

  Hastings, S.

  Pannell, Charles

  Hayman, F. H.

  Parker, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)

  Paton, J.

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Wallace.

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

  Peart, T. F.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Amory: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  We have made fair progress with most difficult parts of the Bill this evening. With one more half day's sitting, and with the co-operation and good will of
  hon. Members. I feel that we can hope to finish discussion of the Committee stage of a Bill in which we are all interested and which we are anxious to see on the Statute Book.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (INDUSTRIAL DISEASES)
10.29 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Ernest Marples): I beg to move,
That the Draft Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Amendment Scheme, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th October, be approved.
This Scheme provides for benefit in respect of certain industrial diseases in cases which otherwise would attract no compensation of any sort. That being so, I am informed, I hope reliably, that it is universally approved by both sides of the House and of industry. I was delighted to hear that, and as a newcomer to this Office I must confess that there was a certain amount of relief mingled with that delight.
As the Scheme is accepted by everyone, I will give only the briefest outline of its purpose. Certain people who contracted pneumoconiosis and byssinosis were not covered by the Industrial Injuries Act because they had not worked in the occupation after 5th July, 1948, when the scheme started. Nor could they get Workmen's Compensation because of various defects in the compensation schemes.
The first attack on the problem was made in the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Act. 1951, which covered only total disablement and death. To cover cases of partial disablement, the Industrial Diseases (Benefit) Act, 1954, was passed, extending the 1951 Act. The 1954 Act was an enabling Act. It enabled the Minister to formulate a scheme making the necessary administrative arrangements to pay for proved cases of partial disablement a flat rate of 20s. per week. As I understand the matter. the 20s. is laid down in the Act and cannot be varied either upwards or downwards.
Here is that scheme, laid before the House, and my right hon. Friend asks the House to approve it. All the interested parties, including the Trades Union Congress, have been consulted.
There are one or two points the House might wish me to mention. If I
2062
do not explain them as succinctly or as comprehensively as hon. Members would like, I hope that on this occasion they will forgive me. I will do my best to answer any questions during the short debate.
The main difficulty that faced my right hon. Friend was to recruit sufficient doctors to work the scheme. The doctors may have to settle anything up to 40,000 claims, which may mean 20,000 clinical examinations, nearly as many as the existing medical panels now carry out in a year. It proved difficult to recruit doctors with the special qualifications needed for this purpose. A further difficulty was that those recruited had to be given time to terminate their existing engagements.
However, the Department has now secured an additional seven doctors for full time service and some extra part-time help as well. Altogether, my right hon. Friend expects an increase of at least one-third in the medical staff. Even with this increase, it will be absolutely necessary to use the doctors' time in the most economical way, consistent with fairness.
Dr. Barnett Stross: What is the total number of doctors serving full-time and half-time?
Mr. Marples: I have given the number of additional full-time doctors. The number of part-time doctors will vary and cannot be definitely stated. I have made careful inquiry, knowing that I should have to face a critical audience of doctors—
Dr. Edith Summerskill: But a sympathetic one.
Mr. Marples: I am most grateful to the right hon. Lady. For the part-time doctors there are two methods of recruitment, and it is not possible to say how many will join the panel. The strength of the panel will be increased by at least one-third, which will be sufficient for the purposes of this scheme.
After dealing with the doctors—or the doctors dealing with me—I should like to pass to the question of the back-dating of claims. Criticism has been levelled at this aspect of the scheme, and in fairness

2063
to the House I would like to deal with. it now rather than in my reply to the debate. It has been suggested that these schemes should be back-dated to 10th March, 1952, when the original scheme for the totally disabled was introduced. I am advised that no back-dating is possible. Schemes of this sort, like other Statutory Instruments, cannot operate retrospectively unless the Act under which they are made specifically provides for this to be done. The 1954 Act does not so provide.
Mr. Leslie Hale: Does that mean that the extraordinary delay of 11 months between the passing of the Act and the introduction of this Measure means that every applicant will have lost the possibiltiy of getting 11 months compensation?
Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman is a solicitor of no mean distinction, and I am only giving the hon. Gentleman the legal advice which I have received, namely, that, whatever we may think about the merits of back-dating, legally it is not possible in this case. Nobody upholds legal opinions more firmly than does the hon. Gentleman. I repeat that these schemes, like all Statutory Instruments, cannot operate before their own commencing date unless the Act so specifies. This particular Act does not so specify. Therefore, my right hon. Friend has no option but to make the schemes within the four corners of the Act as it stands. Anything else would not be possible according to law.
Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas (The Wrekin)rose—
Mr. Marples: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be making a contribution later.
Mr. Thomas:.I should like to have one point cleared up. The Minister stated that it is not possible to back-date this scheme, as it would be necessary to conform to the provisions of the Act. Would it not be possible to amend the Act so as to provide for this back-dating?
Mr. Marples: It would be possible, but to amend the Act, an amending Bill would have to be brought to the House, which would mean further delay for
2064
everyone concerned. It is much better to have this scheme brought into operation on 11th November, which is the date on which we hope it will be brought into operation, so that people can claim from that date. If we abandon the scheme and introduce legislation to amend the existing legislation, we may have to wait several months. and I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not wish that.
My right hon. Friend has no option but to make the scheme within the four corners of the Act as it stands. Therefore, I hope the House will not expect me to go into the actual merits of backdating. Benefits will be payable from the date when the scheme comes into operation, which we hope will not be later than 11th November; I think the House will agree that that is an appropriate date. Once claims are started, a man can claim at any time if he thinks he has become partially disabled.
I should like to turn to the question of publicity for this scheme, because it is important that every man who may have a claim shall know his rights and make that claim. We will do all we can in the Department to give adequate publicity and we shall follow what we have successfully done in the 1952 scheme. A leaflet has already been prepared describing the provisions of the scheme in simple terms. It will be available in all National Insurance offices and will be sent to the trade unions concerned as well as to voluntary bodies.
A short description will be printed in Welsh for the benefit of the offices in the Welsh-speaking districts, and full notice of the scheme will be sent to the Press, national and local, as well as to the trade, medical and other journals, and to all the voluntary organisations concerned in this matter. The scheme will be the subject of broadcast both in English and, I am glad to say, in Welsh, so that Welshmen will be well catered for in this respect. We know that we can rely upon the help of hon. Members in this House in making the provisions known as widely as possible.
I should like to come to two other points with which I will deal briefly. The first is the question of delay. I am told that there will be a slight criticism because the scheme has been delayed,

2065
The Act became law on 9th March, 1954, and the draft scheme for which it provided required an affirmative Resolution. Really complicated questions had to be discussed with the Trades Union Congress, doctors had to be recruited and leave their existing engagements, and so on. My hon. Friend who, I am glad to say, is with me tonight to buttress and reinforce what meagre knowledge I have of the subject, gave warning of this when moving the Third Reading. For those reasons my right hon. Friend was not able to lay the scheme in July before the House went into recess. The next possible date was the day on which Parliament reassembled, which was 19th October. The scheme was actually laid on that day, so if there is any criticism of the delay it might be directed more against the length of the recess rather than against my right hon. Friend.
Before I sit down, I must refer to some of the men who claimed benefit for total disablement and were refused. There were some 1,200 claimants for the allowance for total disablement under the 1952 scheme, who were found to be only partially disabled. Letters have now been sent to those men and replies have been received from over 1,100. The replies will be treated as applications under this scheme, so that the men who applied for the total disablement allowance and were found to be only partially disabled will be accepted as the first applicants under this scheme.
Mr. D. J. Williams: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say that those people who were rejected as not being totally disabled will now be accepted without further medical examination?
Mr. Maples: The letters which they have sent in reply to the letters inquiring if they would like to make a claim will be accepted as their claims. Whether a claim is approved will depend on the circumstances of the individual case; the claim will not necessarily be admitted.
I am conscious that I have dealt with this subject very briefly, but I have done so for the convenience of the House at this late hour, and I feel sure that there are a number of hon. Members who have a deep knowledge of the subject who may wish to make a contribution. If I
2066
have not made myself clear, I would like later to answer any questions. With that, I express the hope that the House will give the affirmative Resolution for which my right hon. Friend asks this evening.
10.44 p.m.
Mr. Bernard Taylor: I should like, first of all, to offer my good wishes to the Parliamentary Secretary on his appointment to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. I believe that everyone on both sides realises that that Ministry is one of very great importance indeed, if for no other reason than that it touches the lives and the health of the community, and also the lives of people who are in very difficult circumstances—the aged, the sick, and those who are the victims of industrial accident and disease.
From the questions already asked of the Parliamentary Secretary, it is obvious that there is great interest in the question of pneumoconiosis and industrial diseases. I was very glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary announce that the medical whole-time staff, which, I think, was very miserable, has already been increased. There is a long waiting list, and there are the cases which will come within the ambit of the scheme to be dealt with. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend will not relax their efforts to increase still further the number of members of the pneumoconiosis boards and panels so that the examination of claimants can be expedited.
I welcome the scheme, as I think the whole House does, but there are some observations and reservations which I should like to make about it. I am much concerned about the question of delay to which the Parliamentary Secretary drew the attention of the House. It is a long time between the date the Bill was passed and 19th October. It is nearly 12 months since the Bill, which gave the Minister power to make this scheme, was introduced. We, on this side, gave that Bill our full support and blessing, and we offered every assistance to facilitate its passage into law. It became an Act of Parliament early in March, and the way was then clear for the preparation and submission to this House of the scheme now before us.

2067
Many of my hon. Friends, particularly those representing mining constituencies, have had many inquiries from would-be claimants since the Bill was introduced, and more especially since it was passed into law, and I do not think that the explanation which the Parliamentary Secretary has given about that delay is at all satisfactory. I do not think it is explicit enough, and perhaps when he comes at a later stage to answer the questions which will be put to him, he will give a better explanation of that delay. I would remind him that it has meant much to those would-be claimants, particularly as he has announced that there is to be no retrospection for benefits.
In welcoming the scheme, there are one or two disturbing features to which I would draw attention. Am I right in assuming that the "specially qualified medical practitioner" will be a member of the pneumoconiosis board? I would remind the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure he has already knowledge of it although his occupancy of his present office has been very brief, that there are other mining boards for the assessment for disability arising out of injury or industrial disease. That point needs to be made clear, because it is not as clear as it might be.
Assuming that the specially qualified medical practitioner is a member of the pneumoconiosis board, cases passed on by the administrative board will still be subject to one-doctor examination. My view is that that is a reversal of the policy which has existed since the coming into operation of the National Insurance (Industrial) Injuries Act, 1948. Since that date the assesment for disability arising either from accident or industrial disease has been decided by a board of not less than two doctors. Further, the one-man examinations carried out by the medical referee under the old Workmen's Compensation Acts was responsible for much of the irritation and frustration that then existed. I regret the proposal that examinations for the purpose of this Scheme should be conducted by only one doctor.
In the event of a post mortem examination being held to decide whether or not the person in question has died from pneumoconiosis, will the necessary
2068
examination be a one-doctor examination? No reference is made to that point.
Mr. Marples: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to cases of death and not partial disability?
Mr. Taylor: I am referring to partial disability as well as death. I should like him to make that point clear.
Now I want to say a word about retrospective benefits. The case of men partially disabled by pneumoconiosis or other prescribed industrial diseases has been under consideration for a very long time. I am not unaware that this is a problem which bristles with difficulties. In 1952 provision was made for the totally disabled in the then scheme, but the partially disabled were left out because it was felt that there were so many complications and intricacies that the matter ought to be considered further before any settlement was arrived at. This consideration has now been going on for a considerable time.
In view of those circumstances, I want the Parliamentary Secretary to consider once more—whether or not it be in the form he suggests is the only way to do it—to consider the question of antedating, at any rate to 10th March, 1952, which was the date of the coming into operation of the principal scheme, or some other date between 1952 and the date when the examination takes place, if, in the opinion of the board, the man concerned has been disabled by pneumoconiosis for some time.
As the Parliamentary Secretary said, there is a number of cases—he mentioned the figure of 12,000—of people who, under the 1952 scheme, have been referred by the administrative board to the medical boards. They have been found to have had pneumoconiosis but not to the extent that they were totally disabled. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the information he has given about the claims as far as the 12,000 are concerned. He told us they may have to go to the board again to have the degree of disability assessed under this scheme, so that in that type of case benefit will begin only from the date of operation of the scheme. I had hoped that this scheme would have provided a much earlier date than that for the partially disabled.

2069
There are many other questions which no doubt my hon. Friends want to raise, and so. because of the lateness of the hour, shall conclude by saying that, with the reservation I have made, I wholeheartedly welcome this scheme. We are coming to the end of a very long and very thorny road, but I rejoice tonight in the fact that we now for the first time see the end of the iniquitous time Limits that have for so long penalised so many people. From tonight we can say that time limits in this field of industrial disease are now things of the past. For that circumstance alone I welcome this scheme, with the reservation that I have made.
10.57 p.m.
Mr. Harold Finch: It is certainly gratifying to have before us at long last this scheme which, if the House approves it tonight, will put into operation the necessary administrative machinery to enable persons who are suspected to be suffering from pneumoconiosis to be examined by the medical board and, if certified, to be paid the £1 per week, irrespective of the date when they were last employed in the mining industry. We acknowledge that there can be no justification for refusing compensation to workmen on the ground of late diagnosis.
For many years past it was the case that men suffering the early stages of pneumoconiosis did not know they were suffering from the disease. Many of them left the mining industry. Later, with the advancement of medical science, it was ascertained that the disease from which they were suffering was pneumoconiosis. Unfortunately, it was too late. The five-year restriction clause operated against them, with the result that they were deprived of compensation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor) pointed out, this scheme now removes the last restriction that has handicapped the payment of compensation to men suffering from pneumoconiosis under Workmen's Compensation.
I am glad the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary have taken advantage of the Industrial Injuries Fund established by the Labour Government under the National Insurance Act, and that they have gone to that Fund to pay this benefit to these forgotten men
2070
of industry, as I described them some time ago. We tried in years gone by to yet the old insurance companies and colliery owners to make this payment retrospective by abolishing the five-year rule, but we failed. Now the Government have grasped the opportunity of paying this money out of the Industrial Injuries Fund.
I am sure that I am voicing the opinion of the whole House when I say that we do not want any more anomalies or restrictions. We all want the scheme to work as smoothly as is possible, and we want no more misunderstandings or arguments about what is meant. If for a few moments I strike a discordant note, it is only because I want to see this scheme work smoothly and efficiently. I know that the Minister, or the Parliamentary Secretary, would be the last to desire the creation of any misunderstanding as to what this scheme really means, but I submit that in some parts of it grievous misunderstanding is bound to arise.
In the Explanatory Note, and in Article 6, it is provided that a person who is partially disabled because of pneumoconiosis may receive unemployability allowance. We are further informed that constant attendance allowance will not apply to the partially disabled man; that is understandable, because constant attendance is only payable to the totally disabled. But Article 6 does state that unemployability allowances may be paid to the partially disabled, and the Explanatory Note also states that.
I submit that this question of unemployability allowance to a partially disabled man can be only theoretical and cannot work out in practice. People will be misled for the simple reason that unemployability allowance is payable only where a person is incapable of working; and "incapable of working" is interpreted as meaning that a man cannot earn more than £52 a year—£1 a week. What possible case is there for a man capable of doing light work being able to earn only £1 a week? The authorities have placed that interpretation on this, but, unfortunately, that does not help us in these particular cases.
The Commissioner's decision on this was made when he had before him two

2071
specific cases of men suffering from pneumoconiosis. I submit this point in the hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give consideration to it. The Commissioner readily admitted, from the evidence before him, that these two men were capable only of light work. He said that he spent many hours on one particular case because of its importance, and that concerns David J. Williams of Tonypandy, in the Rhondda. This man, 56 years of age, had spent his lifetime in the mining industry, and was seriously incapacitated.
The Commissioner, on the medical evidence, stated that it was impossible for this man to do any ordinary work; even an ordinary labouring job. But he could do sedentary work, and the Commissioner had to ask himself the question, "If he can do a sitting-down job—say, a watchman's job—he would earn more than £1 a week—then how can he have unemployability allowance?" The Commissioner had reluctantly to say that he could not have that allowance. Here are his remarks:
"This claim is near the border-line and I have not differed from the local appeal tribunal without some hesitation. In the opinion of the medical board the claimant is capable of no more than 'very light work.' This, coupled with the impression which his appearance made upon the tribunal, indicates that his capacity for work must be extremely limited. The state of his health is not the only factor to be taken into consideration. I must also consider his age, which is now 56, his education, his experience, and other relevant personal factors, but I have to consider them in relation to the question whether there is any work or type of work which he can reasonably be expected to do, not which he can reasonably be expected to get."
In South Wales, where there are many of these cases, where men are fit only for the lightest work and who are unable to get such work. The number who cannot get unemployment benefit is increasing. The House will recall that some time ago we debated the expiration of Section 62 of the Act, as a result of which a man's unemployment benefit ceased at the expiration of a period. Many of those men who are unemployed cease to be entitled to unemployment benefit. They cannot get sickness benefit because they are capable of some work. Now, for a similar reason, they cannot get the unemployability supplement. Here we have men who are entitled to
2072
only £1 a week, even though we are glad that the regulation gives them that sum. Those who are unemployed will draw nothing else unless they apply to the National Assistance Board.
The House will readily agree that this is a grievous fault. It may be that for the moment, under this scheme, the Parliamentary Secretary cannot remedy it. but I beg him to look into the matter very closely, because from the inception the intention was to follow the line of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Under that Act there was a provision that where a man was regarded as so seriously incapacitated that his sphere of employment was seriously restricted, and where he had made all reasonable efforts to get work and had failed, the learned county court judge would have power to say, "In these circumstances I must regard this man as totally disabled within the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act." I have always understood that the unemployability allowance would be treated similarly. I have always regarded this type of man as the man who would be helped the most.
It is true that many of the men concerned are in employment and will be entitled to the £1 a week because they are in lighter work. I admit that the bulk of the men are in that position. But what of the position of the men about whom we have always been concerned—that is, those who are unemployed, whose sphere of employment is limited—as the learned Commissioner pointed out in the case which I quoted—and who are left, under these regulations, with £1 and no unemployability allowance.
I invite the House to look at the Explanatory Note and Article 6, for there is an inference that these men will be entitled to unemployability allowance. I hope that, in any leaflets which are issued, the Parliamentary Secretary will not stress this question of unemployability allowance, because it would make it difficult for the trade union organisation, who want this scheme to work efficiently, if we were to be cluttered up with numbers of applications for unemployability allowance. In those circumstances, cases would once more be going to the Commissioner and men would be misled about their entitlement to unem-

2073
ployability allowance. I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to improve the wording in this connection.
The hon. Member for Mansfield referred to another point to which I wish to call attention, namely, the treatment of death cases. I hope we can get from the Parliamentary Secretary information about how these cases are to be treated. I can assure him that there is still a great deal of dissatisfaction about the way men suspected of having died from pneumoconiosis are treated, and will be treated under the scheme, if it remains as it is. In the mining industry of South Wales we had 450 deaths from this disease last year, so it is a grievous problem.
What happens is that when a man is suspected of dying from pneumoconiosis a post mortem examination is made, and a doctor gives evidence at the coroner's inquest. In a number of cases the doctor says that, in his opinion, the man has died from pneumoconiosis, or that his condition was aggravated by pneumoconiosis. A verdict is given accordingly. It is given in the local Press. The man's widow imagines that she is entitled to compensation within the meaning of this Act. Everyone is satisfied that she is going to be paid; but the case is referred to the medical board, which again is referred to in these regulations. After examination of the lungs, the board in many cases decides that the man has not died from pneumoconiosis. The poor widow has two certificates—one from the inquest, signed by the doctor stating that her husband died from pneumoconiosis, and one from the medical board stating that he did not die from the disease.
That shows the difficulty into which a widow is placed in regard to compensation. It puts into jeopardy the competence of the medical board. That competence is seriously questioned throughout South Wales. It is giving rise to discontent which need not happen if the matter were dealt with more efficiently by Her Majesty's Parliament. I have raised this matter with the Home Secretary in this House, and with the Minister for National Insurance. I had a communication from the Home Secretary, to whom I hinted this morning that I would raise this matter tonight. In fairness to him, I ought to say that he has taken the matter up and has recommended coroners to call in pathologists in these
2074
cases to try, so to speak, to put the matter upon a more even keel. But that is not solving the problem. It may even aggravate it. Some coroners are already calling in pathologists. When a pathologist of some standing says that a man has died from pneumoconiosis and the medical board says otherwise, the conflict of evidence is alarming. If this situation continues, it will give rise to a serious position in the South Wales coalfield among the miners, who view the problem with considerable concern.
I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield in directing attention to the one-man medical board. We are going back to the old referee situation. One of the reasons we cannot get the doctors for this work is that it is on an inferior basis compared with other departments. Specialists in tuberculosis clinics in South Wales have a status far higher than that of a specialist on a medical board. Doctors are not prepared to accept the work because higher salaries are offered in the Health Service.
The Minister of Fuel and Power, in the debate on Monday, spoke warmly of the miners who gave their lives to the winning of coal for the nation. Surely, in those circumstances, we ought to get the doctors for the medical boards; but as things are, we will not get them. We on this side are alarmed that unless the doctors' status is raised, each year will show a reduction in the staff of the medical boards and we will be left with one man to examine all the suspected cases of pneumoconiosis.
We have been waiting a long time for the Regulations and I do not want to delay their progress, but on behalf of the thousands of miners in the South Wales coalfield I beg the Parliamentary Secretary, with all the earnestness at my command, to look at the two problems of the question of unemployability allowance and of the treatment and methods of admission in cases where death is suspected to be due to this terrible disease.
11.17 p.m.
Mr. Tom Brown: If I spoke for one minute for each year that I have been engaged on this work, I should occupy the House for 32 minutes, but I do not propose to do that, because I have been fighting for these men since 1922 and we are now reaching the last lap of the very

2075
hard and long race we have been running. I am only sorry that we did not put on the same speed in the last lap as Chataway in his race at the White City some weeks ago.
I have every sympathy for the Parliamentary Secretary, who comes new to his present job. I hope he will be as good at it as he was in his last office. It is difficult to criticise a new man at his jab, but if the hon. Gentleman puts into it the same energy and sympathy as he showed at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, we can expect something from him.
I was surprised when the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the shortage of doctors. We have always had that experience. It has been extremely difficult to get qualified men to undertake the work of examining those who were suffering from pneumoconiosis or silicosis. It is regrettable that there are only five centres in the whole of our coalfields to which men who are suspected to be suffering from pneumoconiosis or silicosis can be sent for a good examination.
I cannot understand why in any question affecting the mining industry there is always a dearth of good men. We have the same trouble with the inspectorate. We shall not get good inspectors in the mines because we are not prepared to pay the price. We cannot get highly-qualified and specialised men to examine suffering miners because we are not prepared to pay the price. Until we make this branch of medical service sufficiently attractive, we shall not attract the best men.
I am greatly disturbed about the one-man board. We have fought against that all long the line since 1921. Nothing has given more irritation, discontent, embarrassment and upheaval in the mining industry than men being certified by a one-man board, namely, the medical referee, as fully recovered. We ought to issue a warning to the Department not to attempt to fasten these men to a one-man board. On the silicosis, pneumoconiosis and asbestosis boards there are three doctors, of whom two make the examinations. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department will not go any lower than that. There must be at least two doctors to examine these men when they are suspected of suffering from silicosis.
2076
I was rather surprised about one point. I put down in my notes that I would ask for the back-dating of payment of these claims, but the Parliamentary Secretary said that it was not permissible under the Act. I accept his word, but I would point out that we back-dated the increase in Members' salaries. If we can do that for Members of Parliament, we can do it for these injured men. It only needs the will to do it.
Like my hon Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch), I am disturbed about the Explanatory Note, which says:
"This Scheme extends the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Scheme, 1952, to cases of partial disablement as a result of pneumoconiosis or byssinosis. The benefit in such cases, which is payable out of the Industrial Injuries Fund, is a weekly allowance of twenty shillings, which may be increased where the person entitled to the allowance is unemployable as a result of the disease."
The man has to be unemployable before he can get any increase in the 20s. I wonder whether the Department has ever examined what is stated on the medical certificate issued by the pneumoconiosis board when a man is not totally incapacitated. It says:
"I hereby certify that I have examined Mr. A or B on such-and-such a date and I find that he is unable to earn full wages at his usual occupation."
It does not say that he is incapacitated. That man is therefore partially incapacitated for his pre-examination job. He cannot go back to it because he is unable to do it, and he can only get 20s. There should be a thorough examination of the wording of the certificate in order that these men may be able to get this long-overdue, elementary justice. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department to have an examination made on this point.
The next point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty referred was that of death cases. I have had considerable experience of death claims. I have known men who have been certified to be suffering from pneumoconiosis, who have been partially disabled but unable to get a certificate of complete disablement. They have received compensation over a long period. Death has then called them to their reward. A doctor has certified that the man has died from pneumoconiosis. Then there is an inquest, which is adjourned by the coroner. The lungs are sent away for a clinical and micro-

2077
scopical examination. Then there is a report from the clinic, which states that the man has not died as a result of pneumoconiosis. Yet all the time he has been receiving compensation.
That is a very disturbing matter. All hon. Members will agree that nothing causes the bereaved more anxiety, or intensifies their grief more, than to know that they have been receiving compensation for partial incapacity as a result of pneumoconiosis, which is supported by a medical certificate from their own doctor, and then, after death, when a post-mortem examination has been held, they are debarred of their right because somebody somewhere says that the man has not died as a result of pneumoconiosis.
We wish to avoid that state of affairs, and I know that all hon. Members wish to avoid any intensification of the grief and sorrow that is borne by these people after long years of suffering. I therefore plead with the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department to have a further examination of the scheme and see whether it can be improved a little in that direction.
I gathered from the Parliamentary Secretary that it will not be necessary for all those men who have so far been examined under the 1952 scheme and have not been certified to be suffering total incapacity, to make a further application. I hope I am correct in my understanding of the hon. Gentleman. I have been examining the figures of the men who have been examined under the 1952 scheme. I believe it came into operation on 10th March, and from 10th March until the latest date for which I have been able to obtain figures, which is June, 1954, there were 10,572 men examined for total disablement benefits. I am quoting from the Department's own figures. I also find that the claims that were allowed out of the total number were 3,610.
I shall not deal with the death claims. If we deduct the 3,610 from the 10,572, then approximately 7,000 men have been, I shall not say denied, but had their claims disallowed. That those 7,000 men were suffering from some degree of pneumoconiosis is as sure as night follows day, because they cannot get to the examing board until they have been certified by their ordinary doctor—and I use
2078
that word with respect—to be suspected to be suffering from silicosis. They are then passed to the pneumoconiosis board.
I am anxious that men whose claims for total disablement have been disallowed by the board should be afforded every help, because as sure as I am sitting in this House they have a high degree of pneumoconiosis. While it may be true that they are not totally disabled, I guarantee that it will be found that most of those 7,000 are suffering from the disease. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to examine those figures so that we shall be able to help those men who will come under this new scheme.
While I shall not oppose this scheme, I am totally dissatisfied with the delay. I re-emphasise the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor). I am not blaming the Parliamentary Secretary but, with the best will in the world, I cannot accept the excuse, or the apparent reason he has given for the delay. It has taken over 11 months to bring in this scheme. I make allowance for the Christmas. Easter and Summer Recesses, but I still cannot accept the delay as justifiable. The Bill which provided for this scheme was submitted to the House on 23rd November last year. We had the Christmas Recess shortly afterwards but the Bill was dealt with in Committee by 9th February. We had the Third Reading on 18th February—there was speed. From 18th February until 27th October scarcely anything has been heard.
What impressed me most was that on Second Reading, on Report, and on Third Reading every speech from both sides exhorted the Minister that speed was essential. The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather), and the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), who lives in a mining district, told the House that speed was essential if the benefits of the Bill were to reach the men. Yet we have had to wait until today. I recall what the Minister himself said. He indicated his anxiety in the speech he made on the Second Reading.
Speaking in the debate, the Minister said:
"Above all, it will give some recognition of the misfortunes that these men have suffered, and an assurance that if their condition deteriorates they and their families will be

2079
entitled to a larger measure of security than they have enjoyed hitherto."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1953; Vol. 521, c. 34.]
That was the Minister, yet we get the scheme 11 months later. If it is the Minister, if it is the Department, or if it is the Trades Union Congress sub-committees responsible for the back-room negotiations, who have by their dilatory methods been responsible for that delay, they ought to hang their heads in shame. It is a disgrace and a scandal that men who have been waiting all these years should be denied the elementary justice to which they are entitled.
We on this side, and I know hon. Members opposite who represent mining constituencies, are anxious to see that the scheme gives the fullest possible benefit to the greatest number of men. Here is an opportunity for the Minister, here is an opportunity for the Parliamentary Secretary to give these men that elementary justice. I speak strongly about this, because I live among it. I am with them every week-end, and during the recess not one day passed without a man suffering from partial disablement because of pneumoconiosis coming to ask me when the scheme to bring them relief would be introduced. I could not give an answer.
The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned publicity, and the action the Department was taking to publicise the scheme. We had that exhortation from the Minister when the Bill was introduced: we had the same exhortation in 1952. We did our best in the districts to publicise it among the men. Many of them had left the industry and moved to other areas, some had migrated overseas. I know they had difficulties because they told people responsible that they were going to friends and relatives. Men were driven from their native land by sheer force of economic circumstances and had to emigrate to get succour and relief, and here we are now dealing with these people after all these years. Governments of the past were warned.
I am not blaming the present Government: the Government were warned in 1922. They took no notice. The Government were warned in 1925, again no notice was taken. They were warned in 1946, in 1948 and in 1952. They took no notice. It is because of the policy of not taking notice by high-handed
2080
officials, and I say it with respect, but some of them are far divorced from industrial realities, that we have had to wait so long.
There were bouquets thrown and lots of praise given this week to the miners for what has been done since vesting day. But let us remember that these men who will get this elementary justice are comrades of those praised by the Minister of Fuel and Power on Monday. These schemes are full of legal jargon, and men on a sickbed will not be able to understand them. A man who has been waiting all these years will not trouble. Make it as easy as possible; help as much as possible to bring about the relief to which these men are justly entitled. If that is done the Ministry will be entitled to the eternal gratitude of a body of men who have waited so long for so little.
11.40 p.m.
Mr. Leslie Hale: I venture to intervene because I was thinking that "byssinosis" must be a naughty word; it has not yet been mentioned. The cotton industry is not without importance to Great Britain, and the suffering of the workers in that industry from that disease is just as great as that of the sufferers of silicosis and pneumoconiosis. I always listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch). my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor) with very real attention and sympathy on these matters, because I have some experience of the suffering of the men in the mining industry and know that their suffering is much greater numerically than it is in the cotton industry.
On the question of byssinosis, however, we have the additional difficulty that it was scheduled as a disease so late that there are many who do not qualify even now. It was not scheduled until 1940, and I believe that under the wretched regulations which still operate the applicant has to establish that he or she has done 20 years of work in a cotton mill —even if it is not consecutive work—in order to qualify.
I do not want to be ungenerous, and it is right to say that we all welcome this scheme, but there are some matters which cause great concern. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty talked about the

2081
unemployability allowance, and he put the point so clearly that I find I have nothing to add; but another difficulty which I have in mind is the question of casual work. Under the old and very wicked Workmen's Compensation Acts, if a man could do any sort of casual work he was not regarded as being totally disabled. That sounds reasonable enough, but it is not to those who know the circumstances. A man who has been suffering from byssinosis for many years will be advised that the best thing he can do in the summer is to get some sunshine, and go out and attempt to do some work, because this disease brings a dreadful depression and a sense of frustration, and often there are mental consequences.
Only this week-end in Dorset, I was asked a question which I was quite unable to answer, namely, to what extent a man who cannot engage in a normal and regular occupation—who is in every respect an "odd lot" on the labour market—is entitled under existing regulations to earn a little bit by doing something sensible and useful. I venture to say that the Parliamentary Secretary would be doing a very real service if he would discuss the whole question of disabled men's employment with his colleague the Minister of Labour, especially as we are told that, owing to some of the ozones blowing from Blackpool, there may be a little more money available.
The number of such men today is 140. In 1945 it was about 400. We have now got it down to a hard core of what, in Workmen's Compensation jargon, would be called "odd lots"—men who for one reason or another are not suitable either for normal full employment or Remploy employment under its existing terms. There is a Remploy factory in Oldham. However, I am unhappy about this regulation that makes the unemployed now seek to become merely profit making, that limits the amount that can be used for the unemployed.
Many people need this attention. There was a time a year or two ago when there were schemes for homework—work to be done at home. A good deal could be done in that way. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that if he wants to do something really useful, something to help humanity, something of which he can be proud, he should discuss this matter with the Minister of Labour. I have a sufficient respect for the right
2082
hon. and learned Gentleman to know that the Parliamentary Secretary would receive from him a good deal of sympathetic consideration. That is one of the things that really needs to be done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield raised the question of single medical examination, which is a very real trouble indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Ince gave figures. I asked for the figures on 7th June last year. They showed that at one period five out of six claims were rejected. On 22nd June, I raised on the Adjournment an individual case. I raised it in circumstances of some difficulty, in a running battle that eliminated the facts. It took me 29 minutes of my half hour's Adjournment debate to establish the fact that I was in order. and by the time I had established the fact that I was in order there was no time to mention the facts I desired.
It was the case of Mr. Alfred Slack. It was a simple case. He was 62 years of age. He went to a specialist in Manchester, who is. I understand, a very reputable specialist in these matters. He had 15 to 18 X-ray examinations. On the strength of those X-ray examinations he was certified as suffering from byssinosis. There was never any question of Alfred's being totally disabled. He was totally disabled by something. He was a very sick man indeed.
What happened? He was eventually visited by two men. He does not know whether one was a doctor. Naturally, he does not know. The two men came—very courteously: I am not criticising them at all. I know they are overworked. I know they are in difficulties. They were courteous; they were helpful. They took one X-ray photograph. And that was the end of that.
Really, it is not a satisfactory position. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if it is. I know that, in view of the short time he has held his present office, he may not be able tonight to answer all the questions that have been put to him. One would not expect him to be able to do so, to answer fully every question put to him, but these questions are important. There is a very real feeling of doubt growing about the efficacy of the present method of examination.
My hon. Friend raised also the point that is always a grievance in a Workmen's Compensation case where death

2083
occurs. Was the death caused directly by the accident? The answer always depends on the doctor. It always depends whether one has Dr. Brown or Dr. Jones. People do not die directly from industrial disease normally. A man's physical capacity is wasted for years by disease, and he gets worse and worse, and then, perhaps, he gets pneumonia, or influenza, Of perhaps a cold, perhaps a strain on the heart, and so that produces some final supervening effect. It depends on how the doctor frames the certificate, on how he starts it, whether it starts on the right lines or whether it starts on the wrong lines, as to whether compensation is paid or not.
Whether or not death was directly caused by disease is purely an ephemeral opinion. There is nothing certain about it. A man is affected by the disease; it undermines his health for years. I suggest the Parliamentary Secretary should look at this point. As the years go by it ceases to have a grave importance for the Treasury because fewer and fewer people are qualifying under the old scheme, but it still has a great deal of sentimental and psychological significance.
I put a point of view I have put before. I put it as an important matter. There are thousands of claimants for total disablement from byssinosis or pneumoconiosis and their claims have been examined, and quite a large number have been disallowed. They will come back again as claimants for partial compensation, and some of them will be disallowed. All of them are sick men. It is virtually true to say they are sick men suffering from some acute form of lung disease.
It is quite true to say that there are many cases where medical determination is a matter of very great difficulty. Indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary may remember that there was a great argument for years as to whether there was such a disease as byssinosis; and one has to remember that these dust diseases are very closely related. But surely the sensible way of dealing with this, if I may put what is my view, is to say that anyone disabled by a chronic disease shall be classified as entitled to the full benefits of the industrial diseases allowances.
2084
Why must we doubt everything—the medical opinions, specialists' opinions, and everything in connection with these boards? If disabled by chronic disease, then a man in this country of ours should be entitled to the full rate. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that, if he looks into the matter, he will find that it would not cost much. Let us also remember that there is a psychological reason for dispensing with the struggles and the arguments.
Having said this, I do very sincerely hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will look into this, because I believe that he could do a very important job. I say in the name of Oldham, which is still the centre of cotton spinning in this country, that I hope these old byssinosis cases will be fully recognised.
11.52 p.m.
Mr. David J. Pryde: This scheme is of peculiar interest to Scotland generally, and my own constituency in particular and, while not going into ecstacies of enthusiasm about it, I must admit that it will certainly do much to correct a very great injustice and be of benefit to a great many men in my own constituency. It may interest the House to learn that, up to recent times, the mineworkers in Scotland were held by the law of this land not to be susceptible to pneumoconiosis or silicosis while following their occupation in the mines. I hold this House responsible for that because, while a mineworker in Wales and in England could be certified as suffering from pneumoconiosis or silicosis, that could not be so in Scotland.
About 150,000 of us earned our livings in the mines of Scotland at that time and men died, and it was said that they had "gone into a decline." I was secretary of a miners' lodge in a part of Scotland where many men were off for a fortnight or more each year and I know now that many had contracted pneumoconiosis. It was only when a powerful lodge in my area took very strong action and had two bodies exhumed that the existence of pneumoconiosis was admitted.
So we have a great interest in Scotland in legislation appertaining to pneumoconiosis and silicosis; but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), I have my criticisms. The single-doctor arrangement is an absolute disaster because we are here concerned

2085
with diseases which are very difficult to diagnose; and it is just because of that that I want to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary just what alterations there will be in the medical staff in Scotland, and where it is going to be situated.
Scotland has a very wide mining area. We have collieries as far west as Campbelltown, in Argyll, as far north as the proximity of Dundee and as far east as Tranent. The Minister has done something to correct a big injustice but he should do a little more and should see that two at least of the medical profession are always present at any examination and diagnosis, because, if not, we are only going back to the old order of the medical referee.
11.56 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Williams: I hope
that the House will approve this regulation because if it comes into full effect and is administered in the best possible way, and if, in the course of the administration, the doctors who are conducting the examinations do so with an eye upon the disasters of the past so as to seek to avoid those disasters in the future, then thousands and thousands of deserving cases will receive something valuable within the next few months.
I fully appreciate that the Ministry has been faced with a difficult situation in coping with the many thousands of claims which its expects to arise once the scheme is put into effect. To deal with that situation the Ministry could have decided either to pursue a course which would lead to the recruitment of a large number of doctors so that the boards could function as boards and so that there would be more than one doctor dealing with each examination, or it could take a desperate chance and arrange for the examinations to be conducted by a specially qualified medical practitioner—by which the Ministry means a member of the medical board—in the hope that it would get through many more cases in a shorter time.
The Parliamentary Secretary should bear in mind that when my hon. Friends say we are going back to the medical referee system they are referring to something which causes the greatest apprehension on this side of the House. If there was one cause more than another which ultimately completely discredited the
2086
Workmen's Compensation system, it was the fact that the medical referee system did not work and became so completely discredited that the whole concept of Workmen's Compensation was thrown into disrepute.
With that terrible experience behind us, we naturally look with the greatest apprehension at the proposal in the scheme. In voicing that apprehension I find some hope for the efficient administration of the scheme in that very fact, because it is one thing for medical referees to be feeling their way as they deal with cases through the years and causing the most awful catastrophe as they go along, but it is another thing for individual members of these medical boards to remember that experience and to say that it will not happen again. They should say, "When we approach these cases we must do so with a double sense of responsibility, because we are doing a job which ought to be done by a medical board, and we will act on the presumption that the man will receive the benefit of every doubt which arises in his case."
I do not think that individual members of the medical board will adopt that attitude unless they are told to do so. If the Minister is to receive—as I hope he will —the warm approval of the House in the passing of the scheme, he should see that an instruction goes out to all areas where these medical men will be conducting their examinations to the effect that that is the new spirit in the Ministry in respect of these cases.
The Minister should make clear that the one thing he fears is that his hopes will be frustrated by the old, discredited medical referee system becoming established again. If the scheme is administered with that mental attitude, we shall be able to find it in our hearts on this side of the House to forgive even the delay; to forgive the anomalies to which my hon. Friends have referred, provided that the scheme works well and quickly, and brings benefit to the people about whom we are deeply concerned.
I heartily commend this scheme to the House. Regarding the delay. I would say that the National Union of Mineworkers has not been dilatory, and it has shown no lack of diligence about pressing the Minister. The Ministry at times must have wondered what was hitting

2087
it. I should like the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, to acknowledge that there were influences at work in bringing to an end this time bar. He can, I know, make such acknowledgements in most courteous terms. With the reservations which I have mentioned, I heartedly commend the scheme to the House.
12.2 a.m.
Mr. Douglas Houghton: When the Parliamentary Secretary replies I hope that he will elucidate the position of those who were examined under the principal scheme when they claimed total disablement, but were adjudged to be only partly disabled—the 1,200 to whom he referred. He said that they had been written to, that 1,100 had replied, and that their letters would be taken as applications under the amended scheme. An hon. Member on this side of the House asked the Joint Parliamentary Secretary whether these men would have to undergo a further medical examination, or whether the former examination would be enough.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, as I understood him, said that, while the letters would be taken as applications, the claims of those men were not thereby necessarily established. We would like to know whether men whose former claims for total disablement benefit were refused, but who were found to be partly disabled, will have to be medically reexamined. Fears have been expressed about single-doctor examination, but I suppose the Minister was faced with the problem of getting through this large number of cases if the traditional composition of the medical boards was required. The longer applicants had to wait for decisions on their cases the greater their anxiety, and the greater the possible hardship they might suffer.
I have assumed that this is an emergency measure: that it is not something which the Minister likes more than does anyone else. He had the choice of needing longer time to get through the cases with medical boards of traditional composition, or of reducing the time through the expedient of one—doctor examinations. When this problem was put to the Trades Union Congress and to the National Union of Mineworkers, with reluctance but nevertheless in full reali-
2088
sation of the difficulties of the Minister, they acquiesced in this arrangement. That should be said in fairness. We should understand where responsibility lies and have it clearly stated.
Responsibility for this arrangement definitely lies to some extent, in these special circumstances, with the trade unions, which have reluctantly acquiesced in this arrangement as the preferable alternative to having longer time taken to dispose of these cases by medical boards composed in the ordinary way. My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) said some hard things about those who might be responsible for the delays. Of course, his good nature and his warmhearted temperament softened the hard words that he used. He said that if the Trades Union Congress Committee or the trade unions were in any way responsible for the delays, they should hang their heads in shame.
Mr. Toni Brown: And the Department.
Mr. Houghton: My hon. Friend said that it was a scandal. Somehow, when my hon. Friend says that something is a scandal, we do not really think it is quite as bad as that, because he does not say it as if it is quite so bad. When we read his words in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow, they will seem to be fairly harsh criticism.
Upstairs, in Committee on the National Insurance (Amendment) Bill and other Measures of social legislation, I have expressed anxiety about the time that is taken and the commitments that may well be undertaken in the course of consultation with interests outside this House which the Minister concerned quite properly thinks should be consulted. I am a member of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, and I must rise to defend that council against any charges of being dilatory in discharging its duties in connection with these draft schemes.
It is a pity that hon. Members are not always kept informed, perhaps by the unions with which they should be in close touch, of action taken by the Minister to get union opinion on matters of great importance to the members of trade unions generally. If my recollection is correct, the drafts of these draft schemes were in the hands of the Trades Union

2089
Congress in June and the National Union of Mineworkers was called into consultation specially on this matter.
My contact with the discussions shows that there was no avoidable delay in dealing with the complex questions, in examining the proposals contained in the schemes and in making ready to discuss them with the Minister; and on 14th September, which is not really long ago, there was an interview between the Trades Union Congress and the Minister, and the President and the General Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers were present.
The big question discussed then was the matter which still concerns us now, and which was not disposed of satisfactorily: that is. the question of retrospection, which has worried everybody, especially in regard to those whose cases I mentioned at the beginning, who have long since been adjudged partially disabled because their claims to be totally disabled were rejected. Whether we failed fully to understand the implications of what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said on 23rd November last year. as reported in c. 103 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, when he referred to those cases and how they would be dealt with, or whether we did not fully understand that they would be left in the air all these months waiting for the settlement of claims which seemed to have been already established, I do not know. At any rate, the position is unsatisfactory.
Various suggestions have been made that the Minister could, within the authority of existing legislation, grant some retrospection if he were so minded. He is apparently advised that he cannot do that. Short of fresh legislation, it appears—if his advice is sound, as I am sure it must be—that he is estopped from granting benefits from an earlier date than that of the completion of these instruments. We must, with sadness, accept that that is the position. Nobody wishes to have further delay, even to get a measure of retrospection. We have to put up with it, I am afraid, although it has caused considerable dissatisfaction.
I hope that my hon. Friends will not take my observations amiss. It is a matter of the procedure of this House to which I confess I do not know the solution. It seems a pity, when bodies outside this House are being consulted, quite properly.
2090
that hon. Members inside this House who have special knowledge and responsibility, especially in matters of social legislation, are not taken into the confidence of the Minister at the same time. I should not think there would be any difficulty about doing that. At least we should know when things were not coming before the House that Ministers and their staffs were not idle but that those matters were, in the conventional phrase, "under active consideration"
I can only state the facts as I know them. It is only fair to the Minister and to the Trade Union Congress that hon. Members should know that these matters were dealt with as expeditiously as possible. They concern a frightfully complex subject, and this is the last attempt to clear it up. Everybody wants to see it satisfactorily completed. That discharges my responsibility in this matter.
I hope that we may now proceed, and that in spite of any reservations that we may have, we shall acknowledge the great benefit that these new measures will bring. We should delay no longer in putting them into effect. Let the good work proceed. Let us have these remaining claims dealt with as satisfactorily and as liberally as possible, sparing no effort finally to wipe the slate clean of the vast arrears of discontent and misery from one of the most dreadful diseases of our industrial life.
12.13 a.m.
Mr. Marples: I am grateful to the House for the kind reception it has given to the scheme on the whole, although there were some harsh words from the other side of the House; but they were not meant to sting.
I quite realise the apprehension which the question of one-doctor examinations causes. I come from a district not far from Ince. My own family happened to be concerned with this matter intimately, and I know that it causes immense emotional disturbance. The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) put his finger on the spot; when the Minister could not get the necessary numbers of doctors he was faced with the choice of having two doctors examining a limited number of men or one doctor carrying out each examination and so enabling all cases to be dealt with as quickly as possible.

2091
My right hon. Friend consulted fully the T.U.C. and various interested parties, and on the whole they were satisfied with the arrangements proposed.
Mr. Finch: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said, but what steps are the Government taking to get more doctors? We can go on like this year in and year out. We shall be faced with this situation again. I understand the difficulties now, but can we have an assurance for the future that more doctors will be obtained?
Mr. Marples: Seven whole-time doctors have been recruited and the medical panels are being increased by a third. That is a reasonable proportion by which to increase the panels. It is not insignificant. We must remember that when the first rush of applicants is over, there will be more doctors to go round.
I went to see the doctors in my Ministry in order to be fully acquainted with this disease. I saw some of the slides, which I could not understand, and I saw actual specimens of the lungs. I went into the matter most thoroughly, and I asked a lot of questions for quite a number of hours. I am certain that it is not a question of getting doctors in the ordinary sense of the word. It is a question of getting doctors with specialised knowledge. My right hon. Friend would be guilty of great folly if he insisted on enrolling a large number of doctors who did not have the necessary specialised knowledge to deal with these cases. I believe that the additional seven whole-time doctors, plus the part-time assistance from the specialists, will be sufficient.
The other point that I wanted to mention was the question of delay. The hon. Member for Sowerby was of help to me in this matter. There was a period when I was at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, when he was not always helpful to me. He was right in saying that conferences were taking place between the interested parties as late as September. My right hon. Friend went out of his way to tell me that he did not want to shelter behind any outside body which he had consulted. Consultations have taken place on the intricate and
2092
complicated details which it is necessary to work out.
The question of past claims was referred to by the hon. Members for Sowerby, Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor), Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and Ince (Mr. T. Brown). There were 1,200 claimants for total disablement benefit under the 1952 scheme who were found to be only partially disabled. We have written to them and replies have been received from over 1,100. These replies will be treated as applications under this scheme. Each application will be treated on its merits, but those concerned will not need another medical examination because they have already had it.
I now come to the particular point raised by the hon. Member for Mansfield. I am obliged to him for the kind and moderate way in which he took part in this debate. He dealt at some length with the question of death. My difficulty is that I think I should be out of order in dealing with that subject under this scheme because it deals with partial disablement, and death has been covered under the 1952 scheme, which stems from the 1951 Act.
Mr. B. Taylor: Men can die from pneumoconiosis, although they are only partially disabled.
Mr. Marples: I am aware of that, but the point is that the scheme which is now being discussed deals only with partial disablement.
Mr. Taylor: It deals with death as well.
Mr. Marples: If the hon. Member looks closer he will find that the 1952 scheme, which stems from the 1951 Act, deals with death, and the 1954 scheme, which follows the 1954 Act, deals only with partial disablement.
Mr. Taylor: I do not wish to harass the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, but on this important point I must draw his attention to paragraph 4 (3, c) which contains the words,
"that he has died as a result of the disease."
Mr. Marples: I agree that the particular scheme mentions death, but its provisions deal only with payments for partial disablement. Of course it mentions death. Indeed, how could this scheme,

2093
which is supplementary to and should be read with the 1952 scheme, really get by without mentioning it? Out of courtesy to the House, I have studied this matter pretty closely since I took over my new duties, and I am quite certain that this scheme deals only with moneys to be paid for partial disablement. It mentions death, but I do not think that is provides any benefits for death from pneumoconiosis.
I turn now to the question of retrospection—and here I am obliged to the hon. Member for Sowerby. My right hon. Friend is advised that, in law, no payments may be made prior to the commencement of this scheme, so whatever may be the merits or demerits of retrospection it cannot be dealt with now because it is something which would require fresh legislation.
The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch), who clearly has great knowledge of the subject, raised two points. The first was the question of unemployability supplement, and the second the question of death—which, as I have said, comes under the 1952 scheme. He had me at a disadvantage with regard to the unemployability supplement because, again, that is really dealt with under the Industrial Injuries Act, 1946. The point the hon. Gentleman raises may or may not be a good one, but it does not really affect this scheme. However, I will look into it and write to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Finch: My only anxiety is that this scheme mentions that men may get the unemployability supplement and if it goes out like that many men will apply for it who are not, in fact, entitled to it.
Mr. Marples: Whether or not they are entitled to the unemployability supplement will largely depend on the interpretation of the 1946 Act.
The hon. Member for Bedwellty also drew attention to the difficulty which arises when the coroner's verdict is that death was due to pneumoconiosis but the claim for compensation is rejected on the grounds that death was not due to that disease. That is a very real and difficult point. Consultations have taken place between the Home Office, the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, the Coroners' Society and other interested parties. A fairly unanimous conclusion
2094
was come to that certain remedial measures should be taken. As a result, a circular was sent out three yeeks ago. That, I think it will be agreed, is not a really long time to see whether or not the suggested method will produce results.
Mr. Pryde: While that may do for England and Wales, what about Scotland where there are no coroners' courts?
Mr. Marples: Oh, I would never mention north of the Tweed.
Mr. Thomas Oswald: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. It is as important to the Scottish miner as it is to his colleagues in England and Wales. In Scotland we do not have coroners' courts and we would like to know precisely what the position is to be there. Further, when there is a difference of medical opinion, is there any possibility of an independent referee being appointed to make a deter mination between those differing opinions?
Mr. Marples: I should not like to be drawn into that controversy. It was only out of courtesy that I was answering, because the whole question of death is not strictly relevant to the scheme, but as the hon. Member for Bedwellty had this in mind I was trying to answer him. Death is not dealt with under the scheme, and while the hon. Gentleman's point may be a good one he must raise it elsewhere.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ince for the kind words he uttered about me personally. No doubt I shall make mistakes, but I shall do my best. He asked about the certificate issued by the board. I should like to examine his contribution in HANSARD and perhaps I could write to him on the point he has raised about the certificate. The hon. Member for Oldham, West made a breezy intervention, including some comment about Blackpool, but the speed of his eloquence rather dazzles me at times. Under this scheme there is no limit on the earnings in addition to the sum of money granted. That is granted on medical certificate only. I hope that makes that particular point clear.
Mr. Hale: Yes.
Mr. Marples: I think I have dealt briefly with all the points raised. I will look carefully through the debate, and if

2095
I find I have not answered any hon. Gentleman fully I hope he will allow me to write to him.
Mr. Finch: Will the hon. Gentleman examine the question of unemployability allowance in relation to partial incapacity?
Mr. Marples: I will read the debate carefully. Some contributions to it were rather wide of the scheme, as I have studied it in the short period I have been at the Ministry, but I will write to anyone I have not answered satisfactorily.
Mr. Pryde: If the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is not able to state tonight how many doctors will be employed in Scotland and where they will be situated, will he let us know in future?
Mr. Marples Mr. Marples indicated assent.
Resolved,
That the Draft Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Amendment Scheme, 1954. a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th October, be approved.
12.27 a.m.
Mr. Marples: I beg to move,
That the Draft Industrial Diseases (Miscellaneous) Benefit Scheme. 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th October, be approved.
The scheme which the House has just approved extended benefits to persons partially incapacitated by pneumoconiosis and byssinosis, but the Act empowered the Minister to make a corresponding scheme for industrial diseases such as skin cancer, including mule spinner's cancer, and they are dealt with in this scheme. It is a much smaller problem numerically than the earlier one we have been discussing, and although this scheme looks large and complicated, I think it is relatively simple and brings other classes of employment into the ambit of the 1954 Act.
Mr. Hale: Js there any qualifying period of employment?
Mr. Marples: No. I hope that the House will, at this late hour, approve the scheme.
Mr. B. Taylor: I am obliged to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for
2096
his brief and important explanation of this scheme. We welcome it and are glad that at long last cancer which arises from industrial occupations is now recognised.
Mr. Hale: I feel that, as one representing the largest cotton spinning town in the world, and a town which has been in that category for more than a century, I must thank the Government for introducing this scheme. As the hon. Gentleman knows, when we discussed the Act I urged that mule spinner's cancer should be included. It is a long-standing grievance, and has been a subject raised in every election which I have fought in Lancashire. We are glad to see this done. As for cancer of the scrotum, if proper conditions are observed in the mills, if overalls are provided and the regulations about proper oil are followed, there is no need for the disease to occur. I hope the hon. Gentleman will keep his eye on this, for I shall be asking him questions about it in future. This very painful, serious and at one time very prevalent disease of the mule spinning mills—cancer of the scrotum—ought to have been included long ago, and we are very glad that at long last it has been.
Resolved,
That the Draft Industrial Diseases (Miscellaneous) Benefit Scheme, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th October, be approved.

HAREFIELD (REFUSE DUMPING)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Oakshott.]
12.30 a.m.
Mr. F. Beswick: The Parliamentary Secretary has already made a successful debut at the Despatch Box, and I am only sorry that his first Adjournment debate has been delayed until this early hour of the morning.
The constituency which I have the honour to represent, although it is so near to London, has within it two delightful villages. In Harefield we have a village green, a duck pond, and some old grass-grown quarries. The villagers often call this area "little Switzerland," and a representative of the National Council for the Preservation of Rural

2097
England has referred to it as "the Cheddar Gorge of the Home Counties." It is not without some significance that the hon. Gentleman's Department refers to this same area as "four disused chalk-pits and a derelict brickworks."
It is this area to which I want to refer. The quarries I have mentioned were acquired by a private firm of contractors who sought and were granted by the local planning authority the right to dump in them some inert material. When the permission was granted it was made quite clear that the right was restricted to the dumping of inert material, and the contractors then gave an undertaking that they would not in future seek to use the site for any other than such inert material. Despite this undertaking, they later changed their minds and asked for permission to dump household refuse in the quarries.
That permission was refused. The contractors appealed, and the Minister ordered a public inquiry to consider the appeal. Against the appeal were ranged the Uxbridge Urban District Council—generally regarded as one of the most competent, efficient and responsible of local authorities—Middlesex County
Council, the Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Valley Water Company, the Harefield Hospital Management Committee and the representatives of the villagers and the Harefield Society. Opinions were quoted from the Nature Conservancy and the National Council for the Preservation of Rural England.
Against this formidable array of objectors the contractors were able to call in support one mayor of a quite unconnected borough. There was also an expert who said that incineration was a costly process. That might have been true, although how that proved that the alternative was to dump this household refuse within 100 yards of the houses of Harefield I cannot see.
To the amazement of everyone and the complete stupefaction of many people, the Minister solemnly announced in due course that he proposed to fly in the face of all this responsible and competent local opinion and permit this refuse, collected in the Borough of Hammersmith, to be dumped in Harefield. I should like to know the information which was available to the Minister which caused him to go against this weight of evidence.
2098
The local feeling generated in the district has been considerable.
I have had scores of very indignant letters; representations have been made to the Minister, and the villagers themselves have organised protest meetings and petitions. There have been petitions to Her Majesty, and a body of Harefield people came up to London, and marched to Downing Street, headed by a piper and drums, and made representations to the Prime Minister. I am sorry and a little surprised that the Prime Minister was not moved to send one of his terse notes to the Department to request that some action should be taken in this matter.
The former Minister has said that nothing can be done, but the matter is now out of his hands, and after what was said in the Pilgrim case could or could not be possibly done, and in view of what was eventually done, one finds it difficult to accept the legal plea. If there were a will I am sure a way could be found, and I ask the Minister to direct his mind to the possibility of a loophole through which the appeal of these people could be heard.
I wonder whether a loophole could be found in the Middlesex County Act, 1944, to which reference is made in the Waters Report on sand and gravel pits, and which has a bearing on this problem. If the present law does inhibit the Minister from taking legal action, I wonder if he could not bring his persuasive powers to bear on the Hammersmith authority and suggest to it that an alternative and less offensive site could be found. The Hammersmith Council has never claimed it was essential that this site should be used. There were other firms that tendered for the contract that had alternative methods of disposing of the refuse.
One of the facts that especially angers my constituents is that the private firm which secured the contract is now making a profit at the expense of the Harefield people. If the local council, responsible to the electors and sensitive to public opinion, were using the site, things might well be different. But no. We have a situation in which the contractor outbid his competitors because he was prepared to use a site acquired for other purposes and which might well not have been considered by his competitors.

2099
I do, therefore, seriously ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider this problem, to see what he can do. If he cannot set aside or get around the decision, would he at least tighten the restrictions? Under this decision the contractor can dump up to within 100 yards of the homes of the Harefield people. Can it really be maintained that that is a reasonable standard? The Parliamentary Secretary has an interest in countryside matters. I put to him the simple, straightforward question: does he really think it is a reasonable thing to permit this dumping of this refuse within 100 yards of the residences of people? I know that tipping is to be controlled, but even when there is controlled tipping it is quite impossible to keep down the smells and other offensive characteristics of these refuse dumps.
Also, within 500 yards of this proposed site is the Harefield Hospital, a tuberculosis hospital. I cannot believe that the Minister is not really concerned at this proposal that a centre of pollution should be created within 500 yards of a tuberculosis hospital that was built there for the very reason that the atmosphere was good and clean.
I should like to go into the question of the hazards created by the transport of this material, but my time is limited. I must say that the facts on this matter seem to have been brushed aside on the ground that it had been previously agreed that 12 lorries should go to the quarries within one hour for the dumping of the inert material. I do not really see that that is a reason why 12 bigger vehicles should carry this other refuse up to the proposed site.
I cannot believe that the inspector or the Minister really knew the local situation. The lorries have to go up a narrow hill that is dangerous. There have been protests already because of the danger to children who have to climb this narrow hill to school. Now they have to dodge these other large vehicles.
Finally, if the Minister is unable to give way on this matter, I hope that he will be able to say that he will do something; that he will at least publish the report of the public inquiry so that we can see the basis upon which the Minister has made his decision? What are the overriding facts which have made the
2100
Minister fly in the face of all the evidence given at that inquiry and of the weight of responsible local public opinion?
Many people claim that it should be established procedure for the reports of these public inquiries to be published, and the Parliamentary Secretary may recall that at the conference of the National Association of Parish Councils there was a resolution on this same point and which was passed unanimously. Of course, there are arguments against it; for example, it is said that a communication between a civil servant and his Minister cannot be published. But an inspector at a public inquiry should not be looked upon merely as a civil servant: such an inquiry, the public is led to believe, is an impartial and independent body. In the earlier Housing Acts—in that of 1909. I understand—it was specifically stated that inspectors at these public inquiries should not be civil servants.
If we cannot go back to that situation, then at least if the report was published it would ensure to some extent the independence of the inspector. In some respects the report is similar to the summing-up of a judge, and the Minister is in the position of the jury which gives the ultimate verdict. If a judge's summing-up is unfair, and can be shown to be unfair, then that alone, under the law of this country, can be made the basis of an appeal to the courts; and, in my view, an incomplete or prejudiced report should also leave the way open for an appeal to the courts.
In this particular case of Harefield, unless the Parliamentary Secretary can show us reasons for the Minister's decision or give facts which have not been made public, there are citizens in my constituency, and elsewhere, for the case has attracted wide interest, who will think that the report did not adequately and fairly reflect the opinions given or record fairly the evidence which was submitted. I make no suggestion at all myself, that the inspector was anything but conscientious and a civil servant who showed the utmost efficiency and sense of responsibility. But, on the basis of the facts disclosed, the Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate why there is great disquiet. I therefore ask again, can the Minister set aside the decision, or get round it or restrict it in some way? But, in any event, if he stil

2101
declares himself to be powerless to do any of these things, well he publish the report upon the basis of which he takes up his rigid and incomprehensible stand?
12.44 a.m.
Mr. Lawrence Turner (: The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) has very clearly expressed the doubts of those who are his constituents as well as those of others of us who are concerned about this Ministry decision. I should like to support him as one who is not resident in Harefield, but a frequent visitor to it, and to say that many of us have felt extremely disturbed about the decision.
I should like to ask whether the Minister's decision is really irrevocable or whether, on one ground or another, he might agree to look at the matter again. At any rate, for those of us who are here. it would be a very special pleasure to hear the Parliamentary Secretary replying to his first debate on the Adjournment. We congratulate him on his appointment and we may well learn to fear his voice as much as we fear his pen: The hon. Member for Uxbridge has very clearly stated the whole case, and, against the advantages to the commercial concerns he has set what, in the long run, must be the more important factors—the grievances of those who live in and around this village.
Iconoclasm in any form may be both fashionable and profitable, but surely it becomes a serious matter when a small, ancient and attractive village can become the dumping ground for Metropolitan rubbish. What also concerns some of us is this apparent refusal to publish the inspector's report. We can perhaps hardly ask whether the Minister of Housing at the time saw it. We cannot recall him from the Ministry of Defence to defend, but if the county planning authorities refused this permission to dump, on what did the Minister's advisers base their advice?
Why can we not see the inspector's report resulting from what, after all, was a much—publicised public inquiry? If this is denied—and I very much hope that it will not be—then nobody can be blamed if they feel something of the chill wind which blew over Crichel Down.
We have already heard of Alderman Patrick Barry marching at the head of the villagers down Whitehall. It was
2102
one of the happier moments of our Summer Recess. They presented their case to the Prime Minister. The hon. Member for Uxbridge has already referred to that. We all agree in the House that that is the inalienable right of all Englishmen and, it would seem, of some Irishmen, too, but apart from this brave local spirit which he and others associated with him showed, I plead with the Parliamentary Secretary to give the House an undertaking that at least he will look into the matter again and see whether he can find some reprieve for what looks like being a depressed area.
12.47 a.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. W. F. Deedes): May I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) for the full note of this matter which he gave me in advance, and for the moderate way in which he so persuasively put his case?
I should like to start with a word on the general problem of which this is part. London disposes of about one million tons of refuse every year, of which 33,000 tons comes from Hammersmith. Three boroughs dispose of refuse by incineration, which is not without its disadvantages in London, and 18 boroughs use barges down the river and tip on land at the estuary. The borough of Hammersmith was unable to get a tender for a contract to dispose of refuse by barge or rail, and so had to use the road and find an accessible site. That is what leads us to the subject of the debate.
I have every sympathy with the feelings—so well expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Turner)—which are likely to be aroused, and which clearly have been aroused, in the village at the prospect of what is regarded as a rubbish dump being started on the outskirts of the village. Locally there are, I have no doubt at all, visions of one of those eyesores and affronts to other senses which are all too familiar in many parts of the country—old kettles, broken bicycles and worse, food tins and the like, open, visible and stinking. I think that is the kind of picture which many people have conjured up about this proposal.
In this instance, I think, that picture is quite illusory. I want to enter into some detail to show why that is so, and

2103
I think it is convenient for me to deal with the matter under four heads, all of which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Uxbridge—water, health, transit and amenity.
In the first place, dealing with the question of water and the suggestion that the water supply might be polluted by the seepage of effluent from these pits, that was a major issue at the inquiry and it was not skimped. When the hon. Member asks what kind of evidence came out of the inquiry which caused the Minister to uphold the decision, this is the kind of thing which I have in mind: the chief geologist of the Water Division of the Geological Survey, Dr.Buchan, sat as assessor with the inspector and he gave the proposal a clean bill in respect of water, subject to conditions to which I will refer in a moment, and there was no opposition by the water undertaking.
On the question of health, I know that the hon. Member has been making measurements on large-scale maps. So have I. The fact is that there is no statutory limit about the proximity to dwellinghouses of rubbish heaps, but there are strict conditions for a tip of this kind which are designed to cover all health considerations, including those which have been mentioned, and the proximity of a tuberculosis hospital. The hospital is, I think, at a minimum of 500 yards from any one of the sites.
It is to these conditions that I want to turn next. Let me go over some of them. First, there has to be insulation of the pits before rubbish goes in with three feet of soil as a safeguard against water seepage; layers of rubbish are not to exceed six feet in depth, and not to be uncovered at any time for more than 72 hours; each six-foot layer is to be covered by nine inches of earth or inert material; a screen of trees is to be erected between houses which look upon the prospect of this proposal; and, finally, the last layer put on the pit, the sealing layer, must be fertile so that things may be grown when the scheme closes, leaving a level site, which is an important consideration to the local authority concerned.
It has been suggested that the question of transport was brushed aside. It has not been brushed aside by me. I asked to see, and did see, today, pictures of the
2104
lorries to be used by Messrs. Drinkwater. They are modern and large, and they are closed. They are closed at, the sides, with lids on the roof. These lids will be closed during transit. That goes some way to meet the suggestion that stinking garbage is to be carried through the streets, causing offence to householders.
Regarding amenity, these chalk, pits have been compared with the Cheddar Gorge. They are said to have contained rare flora and fauna, and, more important, to have given pleasure and enjoyment to local people. It must, however, be said that the Uxbridge Urban District Council had given permission. on behalf of the Middlesex County Council, in 1952, for the pits to be filled with inert matter. That permission is still there. There is, of course, a question whether inert matter would cover household refuse, but that permission has not been rescinded. There was no hint of objection at the time the permission was given. It is fair perhaps to say that it was not known that permission had been given. Nor was there any proposal by the local authority or the planning authority to acquire the pits as a public open space. That, I think, bears upon the immediate question.
I want to mention publication of the report, which is perhaps the most difficult point. I have read this report. It is fair to mention the background that there is to publication of such reports which goes a little further than what has been said by hon. Members. Confidence between Ministers and officials is essential. To help a Minister to make up his mind important communications such as these must be full and frank. If the reports are published there is a natural temptation for the inspector to produce confidential postscripts, whereon there would he the same objection as has been raised to non-publication of a report in a case of this kind. That is the overwhelming reason for non-publication of these reports, which in this case, I assure the hon. Member, I have read.
I want now to come to an assurance, which I hope will go some way to meeting the fears of the hon. Member. The main point I wish to make is that this proposal will not involve what so many of the inhabitants fear. Much—indeed, everything—depends upon how this operation is to be carried out. The hon.

2105
Member has done a very useful service in underlining that aspect.
The hon. Member is entitled to ask what will happen if the operation falls short of the conditions laid down, which, rather than the question of proximity, is, I repeat, the real safeguard. There are two remedies. First, the local authority can take enforcement action under the Town and Country Planning Act. Secondly, the local authority may withdraw consent given under the Middlesex County Council Act, 1944. In the first case, there would be an appeal to the courts. In the second case, there would be an appeal to the Minister, who, obviously, cannot anticipate his attitude at this stage.
My right hon. Friend can, however, say that he recognises that vigilance is required and that he expects the contractor to take care to observe fully the conditions laid down. He will be very much alive to any complaints brought to him in future about the operation of this tip. I hope that the hon. Member will consider this assurance not unreasonable in the circumstances, and that it will equally bring reassurance to the village of Harefield, of whose fears we certainly do not lack appreciation.
12.57 a.m.
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I think it is right that before we conclude this debate tonight a word should be said at this stage from this side of the House that we are not content
2106
with at least one assurance which my hon. Friend the new Parliamentary Secretary has given in this matter. The question of the disclosure of inspectors' reports is a matter which will come before this House and the country in the future.
We would make it clear tonight that this must be so, for the suggestion that it is merely a question of confidence between the civil servant and the Minister is no answer whatever to the fact that justice in the future must not only be done but must be seen by the people to be done. It is for that reason that a number of us on this side of the House are here tonight for this debate that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) has opened.
The Minister comes to this matter tonight with a fresh and clear mind. I ask him to look at this problem, which cannot be brushed aside. It is one of the greatest constitutional importance to this country. We must have the opportunity to get at the facts upon which an inspector bases his inquiry and to judge for ourselves whether his report is in accordance with the weight of the evidence and not in accordance with the private opinion of that man or any other man. It is on that basis that we shall build up an administrative code of justice which will rank with any other code of justice in this country.
Adjourned accordingly at
One Minute to One o'clock a.m.

ROYAL NAVY
  Guided Missiles
  Guided Missiles
  Fareham—Lee-on-Solent Road
  Fareham—Lee-on-Solent Road
  Paid Civilian Appointments
  Paid Civilian Appointments
  N.A.T.O. (Naval Strength)
  N.A.T.O. (Naval Strength)
  H.M. DOCKYARDS (STAGGERED HOLIDAYS)
  H.M. DOCKYARDS (STAGGERED HOLIDAYS)
  SHIPBUILDING (ORDERS)
  SHIPBUILDING (ORDERS)
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (PARTY LINES)
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (PARTY LINES)
POST OFFICE
  Letter Boxes (Supply)
  Letter Boxes (Supply)
  Part-time Postmen, Caithness and Sutherland
  Part-time Postmen, Caithness and Sutherland
  TELEVISION (WORLD LINK-UP)
  TELEVISION (WORLD LINK-UP)
  WIRELESS LICENCES (CAR RADIOS)
  WIRELESS LICENCES (CAR RADIOS)
  R.A.F. PERSONNEL (EGYPT, TRIESTE AND KOREA)
  R.A.F. PERSONNEL (EGYPT, TRIESTE AND KOREA)
RAILWAYS
  Forth Bridge Incline
  Forth Bridge Incline
  Inverness-Wick-Thurso Line
  Inverness-Wick-Thurso Line
TRANSPORT
  Road Haulage Assets (Disposal)
  Road Haulage Assets (Disposal)
  Goods Vehicles (Size)
  Goods Vehicles (Size)
  Old People (Concession Fares)
  Old People (Concession Fares)
  Reflectors (Supplies)
  Reflectors (Supplies)
  Night Parking
  Night Parking
ROADS
  Construction and Improvement Schemes
  Construction and Improvement Schemes
  Angel Road Bridge, Edmonton
  Angel Road Bridge, Edmonton
  Pedestrian Crossing, Brentford
  Pedestrian Crossing, Brentford
CIVIL AVIATION
  Helicopters
  Helicopters
  Bristol Britannias (B.O.A.C. Orders)
  Bristol Britannias (B.O.A.C. Orders)
  Gatwick Airport (Development)
  Gatwick Airport (Development)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  West European Defence (Financial Commitments)
  West European Defence (Financial Commitments)
  South African Defence Talks
  South African Defence Talks
  Paid Civilian Appointments
  Paid Civilian Appointments
  DISARMAMENT (ANGLO- FRENCH PROPOSALS)
  DISARMAMENT (ANGLO- FRENCH PROPOSALS)
  UNITED NATIONS (EMPLOYEES)
  UNITED NATIONS (EMPLOYEES)
BARBADOS
  Deep-Water Harbour, Bridgetown
  Deep-Water Harbour, Bridgetown
  Over-population
  Over-population
  WEST INDIAN FEDERATION
  WEST INDIAN FEDERATION
KENYA
  Banned Publications
  Banned Publications
  Indian Congress Resolution
  Indian Congress Resolution
  Mau Mau Terrorists (Internment Camp)
  Mau Mau Terrorists (Internment Camp)
  Coffee Conferences (African Producers)
  Coffee Conferences (African Producers)
  Situation
  Situation
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Legislature (European Seats)
  Legislature (European Seats)
  Mr. Sangala (Entry Visa)
  Mr. Sangala (Entry Visa)
  Native Trust Land
  Native Trust Land
  Convicted Nationals, South Africa
  Convicted Nationals, South Africa
  NIGERIA (COMMUNISTS BAN)
  NIGERIA (COMMUNISTS BAN)
BRITISH GUIANA
  Trade Activity
  Trade Activity
  Savings Deposits and Withdrawals
  Savings Deposits and Withdrawals
  Building Trade (Employment)
  Building Trade (Employment)
  UGANDA (PRISON CONDITIONS)
  UGANDA (PRISON CONDITIONS)
  JAMAICA (IMMIGRANTS)
  JAMAICA (IMMIGRANTS)
  MALTA (DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  MALTA (DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  AFRICAN TERRITORIES (CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM)
  AFRICAN TERRITORIES (CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM)
  MALAYA (EDUCATION)
  MALAYA (EDUCATION)
  SINGAPORE (LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS)
  SINGAPORE (LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS)
BRITISH ARMY
  Courts-Martial, Kenya
  Courts-Martial, Kenya
  E1 Alamein Memorial (Relatives' Fares)
  E1 Alamein Memorial (Relatives' Fares)
  CRICHEL DOWN (TREASURY CIRCULAR)
  CRICHEL DOWN (TREASURY CIRCULAR)
  WATERPROOF COATS (TAX)
  WATERPROOF COATS (TAX)
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Pigs
  Pigs
  Slaughterhouses, Kent
  Slaughterhouses, Kent
  Eggs
  Eggs
  Australian Dried Fruit
  Australian Dried Fruit
  Dutch Canned Meat
  Dutch Canned Meat
  Wheat Removal Permit
  Wheat Removal Permit
  PENSIONS (EX-SERVICE MEN)
  PENSIONS (EX-SERVICE MEN)
SCOTLAND
  Mathematics and Science Teachers (Report)
  Mathematics and Science Teachers (Report)
  Myxomatosis
  Myxomatosis
  Deer (Close Seasons) Committee Report
  Deer (Close Seasons) Committee Report
  CANCER RESEARCH
  CANCER RESEARCH
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  LORD GLASSARY
  2.36 p.m.
  Henry James, Earl of Dundee, in the Peerage of Scotland, having been created Baron Glassary, of Glassary in the County of Argyll—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

AUSTRIAN GIRLS IN ENGLAND
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask whether Her Majesty's Government are aware of the concern felt by factory and other workers in this country at the statement alleged to have been issued by the Roman Catholic Bishops of Austria, warning Austrian girls against accepting jobs in England, and expressing concern about the moral and religious state of 10,000 Austrian girls working in England; whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to ascertain the accuracy of reports published and if such reports are accurate whether Her Majesty's Government will make representations with a view to ascertaining the alleged facts relied upon by those who issued this statement.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware of the Press reports to which the noble Lord refers. Whilst it is possible that the statement alleged to have been issued by the Roman Catholic Bishops in Austria may have caused concern to people in this country, I am not aware that any representations have been made. There was only a brief reference to this matter in a communiqué covering all the topics of spiritual welfare within Austria discussed by the Austrian Bishops at their autumn conference. I understand
726
that the reference has not been the subject of any Press comment in Austria.
Reports which appeared in certain newspapers in this country seem to have their origin in a misunderstanding of the context in which the Bishops made their reference to the moral and spiritual welfare of Austrian women employed in this country. It seems to have been the intention of the Bishops to draw attention to the shortage of priests which has so far not made it possible to assign a suitable priest to attend to the religious needs of Austrian nationals in this country. In Austria there is increasing unemployment among women, and it is understood that neither the Austrian authorities nor, indeed, the Bishops wish the recruitment of Austrian women for employment in the United Kingdom to cease. The circumstances do not seem to call for representations on the part of Her Majesty's Government.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for his reply and the general statement which he has made, which will give great satisfaction to many Roman Catholics and others who were worried about this matter? May I urge that, to the extent it is possible, representations will be made to secure Press statements in other parts of Europe, in order that there may be no discouragement of recruitment for jobs? It is reported in the morning Press that the recruitment of nurses from Italy for the hospitals at St. Albans is necessary to the interests of this country.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend. When I read the statement in our papers, it struck me that it was a serious slur upon what was going on in this country, and I am very glad to hear that that was not intended. I wish it could be withdrawn from the quarter which made it.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I certainly hope that the observations that I have made this afternoon may receive full publicity. I think it may be of use to the noble Lord if I read the official communiqué which was issued after the autumn conference of the Austrian Bishops, which took place at the beginning of October. This is what it said:
"Alarming news constantly reaches the Bishops of the moral and religious distress of

727
Austrian women who have found employment in England in great numbers—probably considerably more than 10,000"—
which is an exaggerated figure—
"in households and the textile industry. The great shortage of priests renders it difficult to make suitable clergymen available, rather, welfare efforts will be increased in the near future. Moreover, warnings should be issued by the Church against a hasty and ill-advised acceptance of foreign employment."

COMPULSORILY PURCHASED AND REQUISITIONED LAND
2.49 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT LORD TEVIOT rose to move to resolve, That it is desirable that Her Majesty's Government should establish the principle that those whose land or other property has been requisitioned or acquired for Government purposes and who have been dispossessed, shall have the right, if they so desire (save in cases of dispossession owing to bad husbandry), to resume possession of the property, which has been compulsorily taken from them, when it is no longer required for the purposes for which it was requisitioned; and, if not, that the property should be offered for sale at public auction; and, further, that the full market value of property, designated for compulsory purchase by any public authority, at the time of the service of notice of designation, shall be payable to the owner of that property at the time of the execution of the notice.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I begin by making a personal statement? As I was unable to be here on the day the House reassembled, I should like to ally myself with what was said by many noble Lords about a very old friend of mine. This is the first opportunity I have had, because of ill-health, to say how delighted I am to find the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Kilmuir, sitting on the Woolsack. I am certain that we shall have a very happy time with him as Lord Chancellor. Before I leave that subject, may I say, also, how we shall all miss our old friend who has been so charming to us for three years, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simonds.
To come now to the Motion which stands in my name, the war has been over for nine years, but we are still suffering from legislation and war-time measures which were necessary then, but
728
which I feel are quite unnecessary in peace time. I am afraid that the reason we are suffering from them, to a certain extent (I hope that noble Lords on the opposite side do not object to my saying this), is that the policy of the Socialist Government, it has always seemed to me, is to interfere with the freedom of the people of this country on every possible occasion; that has accentuated the situation in which we now find ourselves. In fact, so far as I can see, we are now living almost in a sort of Soviet State; under the sort of conditions that we should expect to find there.
LORD SHEPHERD: That is sheer rubbish.
LORD TEVIOT: No doubt the noble Lord will have an opportunity, later on, of giving his reasons why he does not agree with what I say. In my view, we must return to our people the right to live their own lives, so that merit and thrift shall be rewarded in all walks of life. That is not the case to-day, and there are many obstacles in the way of that coming about. Anybody can criticise, but I have tried in my Motion to set down a constructive view of the opinions which I hold. I want to persuade the Government to give a lead in the return to our people of a freer life. The Common Law used to protect the ordinary citizen of the country but, so far as I can make out, that is not so any more: Orders in Council simply override any protection which the Common Law used to give us. On one occasion I ventured to put down a Prayer to annul an Order in Council. But supposing that we were successful in getting an Order in Council annulled, how would that benefit us? As I understand it, an Order lays on the Table of both Houses for forty days, and then, within a day or two of its being annulled, another Order in Council is laid which says practically the same thing. So we get nowhere by annulling such an Order.
These things are deep in the minds of the people in the country. Your Lordships are aware that there is great publicity in regard to this subject. It will be known to your Lordships that I had this Motion on the Paper a considerable time ago, but I postponed it, for the reason that in another place there was to be a debate which might have gone a long way to do what I wished to be done. But that did

729
not happen. Therefore, I had to postpone the Motion until after the Recess. There are many instances, about which no doubt all your Lordships know, of what are considered injustices and hardships, owing to the present state of affairs; in fact, your Lordships will no doubt have noticed that there are few days when we do not see something of this sort in the Press.
I will not weary your Lordships with many instances, but I should like to read part of a letter which I have had from a Member of your Lordships' House, who I am sorry is not here to-day. He handed over his property to his son some years ago, and on certain of the property a Ministry had, as he puts it, "cast covetous eyes." This is what he says:
"They go ahead to-day in complete secrecy, and the owner is the last person always to be told of their intentions. Invariably I have first heard of the project through the Society for the Protection of Rural England. We then ask for information and the procedure is always the same. We are told to communicate with some office, usually in Cornwall or Wales. We are then promised further information, but of course it never comes."
That letter is from a member of your Lordships' House who is a considerable landowner I could only wish that he were here to-day to tell you about it himself. There is a further case which shows the sort of thing which happens. Certain land was requisitioned by a Government Department. The land was not used for the purpose for which it was requisitioned but, without a by-your-leave, the owner suddenly found that it had been sold to a carpet manufacturer. This sort of thing has got to stop. It is outrageous that the citizens of a free country should suffer from these conditions. So far as I can see, there are far too many tribunals, commissions, boards and committees exercising far-reaching powers over the lives of our men and women.
The Motion is in comprehensive terms and speaks for itself, and I can never see the object in talking on things that are quite plain. Now that we have an opportunity, I feel that we should deal with this matter exhaustively. I hope the Government will take a sympathetic view in regard to the present situation, and will do all they can to meet the many hardships and difficulties in which
730
so many of our citizens find themselves. As I have said, there it is set out in the Motion: that, should a property have been acquired or requisitioned, the first person who should have the right to have it back, in the event of its not being used for the purpose for which it was acquired, or if it has been used for that purpose but the use is abandoned, is the original owner. I do not think that is asking a great deal, and it seems to me that it should convey to everyone fair dealings to the citizen involved. There is another case of an aerodrome which was abandoned in the process of being built, and the original owner never got his property back. That is all I am going to say about the first part of my Motion.
I now come to the second part of my Motion referring to designation. I will say only a few words on that, because there is a noble Lord present to-day who is, I believe, to make his maiden speech, and he has something to say on this subject. However, as I have put it down, I feel I should say a word. It must be perfectly obvious to your Lordships that once your property is designated for compulsory purchase it ceases to be of any value at all in the market. Supposing that it happened to one of us here, what chance has he to sell?—none whatever. Therefore, I hope that something will be done, so that a man shall not be robbed of the value of his property because it has been designated for compulsory purchase. That is happening all over the country, mostly I think with local authorities, though I imagine that the Government could do the same if they so desired. In any other business, if you are going to take an option on anything you have to pay for it. This sort of thing must meet with the sympathy of all fair-minded men and women in the country. I hope that the Government will take this Motion seriously, and will do all they can to meet the views I have expressed. I notice that there are two Amendments to my Motion on the Order Paper. Although I do not propose to speak on those Amendments now—I understand that I shall have an opportunity after I have heard the noble Earl who is to move those Amendments—I should like to tell your Lordships that, so far as I am concerned, I do not propose to accept them. I beg to move for Papers.
3.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL had given notice of two Amendments to the Motion—the first to leave out "it is desirable that Her Majesty's Government should establish the principle that" and to insert: "the public interest in maximum food production shall remain the paramount consideration in the disposal of land acquired compulsorily by Government Departments and subject always to that consideration."; and the second to leave out all words after "auction".
The noble Earl said: In moving the first Amendment which stands in my name, I should like to say how glad I am to find that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, is well enough to address us with his usual provocativeness and strength of conviction. With your Lordships' permission, I would make one other introductory remark. This is the first debate we have had with a bearing on agriculture since the Recess, and I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, on his first Government appointment and to wish him every success in a post which always carries special responsibility when it is held by a Member of your Lordships' House. I must admit that I am disappointed that there is to be no representative of the Ministry of Agriculture taking part in this debate. At the same time, I am quite sure that the noble Earl was right in deciding not to speak until he is more firmly in the saddle. I know the complexities of the Department, and I have every sympathy with him.
Your Lordships may remember that on the last day before the Recess, I asked the Government a Question about their policy regarding the disposal of agricultural land. As the reply given on that occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was not satisfactory, from our point of view, I then said that I would raise the matter again as soon as possible after the Recess. As the Resolution of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, was already on the Order Paper at that time, I thought it would be a convenient peg, if I may so describe it without disrespect to the noble Lord opposite, on which to hang our views. This procedure will also save the time of the House, because there will be no need for a separate Motion. I think I may perhaps claim for my Amendment that it makes clearer than the noble
732
Lord's Resolution that we, at any rate, should like the Government to state much more fully than was possible in reply to a Question their reasons for this change of policy, and to explain, so far as they can at this stage, its practical implications.
The Crichel Down case was, of course, fully debated in another place before the Recess, and the Government have taken the action which they think fit in relation to this particular case. I do not propose—and in this respect I shall follow the example of the noble Lord opposite—to raise this matter again this afternoon. But what I think has not been properly discussed in either House up to now is the new policy in relation to the disposal of agricultural land precipitated by the Crichel Down case, by the Inquiry and the subsequent action of the Government in relation to Crichel Down. I use the word "precipitated," because, although the change in policy was not announced until after Sir Andrew Clark's Inquiry, I have no doubt at all—and I have little doubt that the Ministers will confirm this—that the whole problem has been under consideration by the Ministers for a long time past.
The object of the first Amendment—and I propose, if I may, to speak to both Amendments together, in order to save your Lordships' time—is to give your Lordships an opportunity to discuss a carefully considered and deliberate change of policy in relation to the disposal of agricultural land, which, of course, will have lasting effects, both on individual rights and on agriculture generally. I think your Lordships will agree, if I may start by a rather general statement, that in deciding about the disposal of agricultural land acquired under compulsory powers, any Government, whatever Government may be in power at a particular time, would have to bear two main considerations in mind. One is the interests of food production, and the other is fairness to an individual owner whose land has been taken by the State. I do not, for my part, regard these two claims as being in the least contradictory or irreconcilable; but how they are to be adjusted must always depend on the public interest, and the Government of the day have the responsibility of deciding what the public interest requires.
My main complaint, if I may express it immediately, about the noble Lord's Resolution is that it does not mention the interests of agriculture at all. I followed his speech very carefully and heard him say quite a lot, I am sure with a good deal of justification, about hard-ships and difficulties for individuals. But I did not hear him say one word about the paramount need for increased food production and the need for the consideration of agricultural interests in deciding about these matters. My complaint about Government policy is of rather the same kind. I agree, of course, that the Government, in this change of policy, recognise the importance of agricultural efficiency—a fact which seems possibly to have escaped the attention of noble Lords opposite—but it appears to me that, in spite of this recognition of agricultural interests and the part they should play in these decisions, the new policy entirely subordinates agriculture to the shibboleth of private ownership. I take it that the late Minister of Agriculture was speaking for the Government when he made the following statement in another place—I venture to read his words:
"It is no part of this Government's philosophy that the State should own or manage any land suitable for sale."
The Minister then went on to describe how this principle of Government philosophy will be applied to land at present managed by the Agricultural Land Commission, and the various modifications which it would entail in existing policy.
I must confess that I was a little surprised to find that noble Lords opposite regard themselves as members of a Government of philosophers. Hitherto, they have always blamed us for being the philosophers. We have been told again and again that we apply the principle of public ownership regardless of economic efficiency. I remember distinctly that this was the kind of objection raised by noble Lords opposite when we introduced the Bill for nationalising iron and steel. Yet now, apparently, this doctrinaire interference in industry is all right, provided that it comes from one Party. I had hoped that this policy might have been given a new slant by the new Minister of Agriculture, whose ability in other fields we all recognise to be outstanding, but his statement at the Conservative Party Conference at Blackpool seems to have been no
734
more than a simplification for a rather less sophisticated audience of the Party doctrine expounded by his predecessor in another place. May I quote two sentences from the report of the address which he gave at that Conference:
"It was against Government policy for the State to own and manage agricultural land unless there were special circumstances, and the Government believed that that job could better be done by private enterprise. They proposed to sell all agricultural land which the State was holding wherever it could sensibly be done."
The Press reported that this statement was received, not unnaturally in such a gathering, with "loud cheers," followed by "renewed cheers," and concluded by "prolonged applause."
I do not want to describe the new policy unfairly, and I hope that I shall be corrected if I unintentionally misrepresent it, but what I think it means is this. It is the intention of the Government to restore by sale to private owners all agricultural land now owned by the State, whether it has been acquired compulsorily (that is, of course, what we are dealing with, but it is part of a wider genus), or by consent, unless, as the Minister stated, there are "special circumstances" which justify its retention in public ownership. I take it that, as I have not been corrected by the Front Bench opposite, that is a correct summary of the position. The "special circumstances," into which I will not go now, were outlined by the Minister when he referred to these circumstances in the course of his speech in the Crichel Down debate in another place.
For my part, I deeply regret this doctrinaire application of private ownership to agriculture. Noble Lords opposite may deny that they are doctrinaires and say that experience has shown that private ownership is necessarily more efficient in agriculture than public ownership, but they have not produced one tittle of evidence to support this view. Do they maintain that the Agricultural Land Commission or the Commissioners of Crown Lands manage their properties less efficiently than do private landowners? If they do, I think we are entitled to know in what respects these bodies have neglected their duties. If they do not, surely the omnicompetence of private owners is just a dogma, like so many others we hear in the course

735
of political discussions. I do not believe there is any evidence that the present balance between private and public land is fundamentally wrong, or detrimental to agriculture. Indeed, the Government themselves seem to have been unaware, during the first three years of their existence, of the obliquity of holding so much land. Why did not they express their present opinion at an earlier date? They could have stated their intention of reversing the policy of managing public land after it had been approved during the time of the late Labour Government or during the period of office of its predecessor. But they did not act as soon as they had the power to act during the present Administration, nor did they pledge themselves to act in this way when they were in Opposition. I suggest that this belated conversion shows that they were satisfied with our policy until the doctrinaires in their own Party began to complain.
I am afraid that this sudden reversal of policy in relation to the disposal of agricultural land is bound to shake the confidence of farmers and to make them wonder how soon to expect a further dose of Party politics from the other side. So far as my Party is concerned, I should like to say this. We have not changed our views at all about the broad lines of agricultural policy. We still regard the essence of a sound policy, whether in relation to management or to farming, to be the largest possible increase in the production of corn and livestock. For that purpose, we believe in guaranteed markets and a reasonable stability for agricultural prices. We shall not, in any circumstances, follow the doctrinaire example of the present Government. We are not doctrinaires in any way, although we are often accused of holding such views in relation to the nationalisation of agricultural land. Whether we sell land now owned by the State or acquire land by purchase in private ownership will always depend on what we judge to be the best way of serving the public interest in food production.
I should like to comment briefly on the proposed sale of land now managed by the Agricultural Land Commission and to ask the Government, if they are able to do so, to give us a little more information. Have the Government any evidence
736
that the Agricultural Land Commission have not been managing their properties as efficiently and with as much sense of responsibility as any conscientious landowner? For example, have they received any complaints from the tenants? Have the Agricultural Land Commission been criticised by any of the county agricultural executives for bad estate management? Has any of their properties been placed under supervision? Have the Commission been operating at a loss? According to their last annual report—it is not the new one; I imagine that the new one will appear at any moment now—which goes only to March, 1953, and the statement of accounts there, the Commission did not make a profit but managed to "break even" that year. Of course, the Government will have much more recent figures but, if there is no evidence of this kind—I have asked a number of perfectly reasonable questions relating to obvious tests of the efficiency of the Agricultural Land Commission—then, surely, the decision to sell these properties cannot have been based on considerations of agricultural efficiency.
My second point is this. Was the decision to sell these properties of the Agricultural Land Commission taken after the tenants had been consulted? If they have been consulted, it would be useful to know whether most of them approve or disapprove. After all, the farmers on this land are the most important people, from the standpoint of food production. If they are dissatisfied, food production will suffer. Of course, I do not know anything about the views of the Land Commission tenants, but I would venture a guess, based on the sale of private estates of rather the same type. Most of the Land Commission's property is marginal or hill land, farmed by small men with very little capital. It is not the sort of land that is attractive as an investment, and if the small farmers have to raise a mortgage in order to buy their land, they are likely to be short of working capital and left without any cash margin to tide them over bad years. Your Lordships, many of whom own properties of this kind, will I am sure agree with this account of their position.
It was interesting to note, as I have no doubt that many noble Lords noted at the time, that when the late Duke of Devonshire's properties in Derbyshire were sold, the Derbyshire branch of the

737
National Farmers' Union protested against the high level of death duties which had obliged their owner to part with them. After all, this is perfectly natural and understandable. What a farmer, especially a small farmer, really needs of a good landlord is someone who can afford to spend money on repairs and improvements, and who has sufficient sense of responsibility when he has the money, to do so. This is exactly what the Agricultural Land Commission has been doing, so far as I am aware—although the noble Lord opposite may be able to give information that has not reached me—and has been doing very successfully since it was set up in 1948. I fear, judging from what is happening now, very generally, that any purchaser, whether he be the tenant himself or another farmer, will be unlikely to have sufficient funds to be able to equip and maintain these marginal farms at a high standard of efficiency. Most private landlords find it extremely difficult to maintain their properties at the level of efficiency at which they would like to maintain them. I am sure your Lordships would agree with that.
The next question I should like to ask the Government is whether they have yet decided how many farms are to be sold; how much land is going to be sold and whether any of the farms that are going to be sold are farms that are already improved or farms that are still requiring major improvements. I noticed in the last Annual Report that about 110,000 acres, or nearly half the land managed by the Agricultural Land Commission, consists of bare land or land in need of capital equipment. I very much hope that when the noble Earl or the noble Marquess replies, he will be able to say that land requiring major improvements will not be sold, because I am perfectly certain that the Agricultural Land Commission is in a much better position than almost any other landowner to finance such major improvements. The decision to sell was announced by the Minister in July, in his last speech, but no land has yet been put on the market. I imagine that the Government must have some idea by now of the amount of land involved.
Finally, I should like to know how soon the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Functions and Organisation
738
of the Agricultural Land Commission will be ready—the Minister announced the appointment of this Committee I think at the same time—and whether this Report will be published. I hope the Report will be published because it will help us to form a judgment about the work of the Land Commission. Your Lordships may say that I have rather emphasised the needs of agriculture. I have done so intentionally, because I am sure that many of your Lordships will put the other requirement, the need for justice to landowners, most forcibly and much more cogently than I should be able to do. But may I conclude with these words. We all want to see—and this applies to any Government—a British Government disposing of agricultural land in a way that is fair to individual landowners and in the best interests of agriculture. If noble Lords opposite, when they reply to this debate, can satisfy noble Lords on this side of the House that their new policy meets both these requirements, I shall certainly ask leave to withdraw my Amendments. My Lords, I beg leave to move the first Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Lines 1 and 2 of the Motion, leave out ("it is desirable that Her Majesty's Government should establish the principle that") and insert ("the public interest in maximum food production shall remain the paramount consideration in the disposal of land acquired compulsorily by Government Departments and subject always to that consideration of.")—(The Earl of Listowel.)
3.26 p.m.
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I am sure I am speaking for all your Lordships in saying that we are most grateful to both noble Lords for having raised these important matters. They are matters that are very much in our minds at the present moment. But both noble Lords have strayed a little far. I know that one of the great strengths of your Lordships' House is that we really have no Rules Of Order, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I adopt the only protection that Ministers sometimes can adopt, of not following noble Lords into all the extremely attractive avenues into which they have tried to lead us.
There is this essential and fundamental point that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has raised. He has raised a point of

739
conflict that I think worries us, and has worried us all through the ages—namely, the conflict between the interests of the community and the rights of the individual. On the one hand, we all know that in the past this country has misused and, to some extent, abused great areas of its land through lack of planning. Undoubtedly, there is a need for public services to be able to acquire land in a reasonable manner, in order to be able to carry out the statutory duties that have been placed upon them. There is also the question of the extent to which private owners should or should not benefit from public expense. On the other hand, there is the other side that is concerning us, I think at least as much, and it is one which certainly is concerning the noble Lord, Lord Teviot—namely, the extent to which the juggernaut of the State should be allowed to trample upon the rights of the individual. My Lords, there is the conflict, and naturally the words "Crichel Down" and "Pilgrim" essentially come into our minds as we mention this conflict. The problem must be faced, and I think we all feel that debates such as this in your Lordships' House can be of real value and of great importance and assistance to Governments who have to try to deal with such a question.
The Motion that is before us in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, deals with two separate and distinct points—first, what is to be done about land that has been requisitioned or bought compulsorily for Government purposes and is no longer needed; and secondly, the question of the price to be paid for land that is bought compulsorily. In the first part of his Motion the noble Lord referred to land which has been requisitioned—that is taken over temporarily by Government Departments—as though it were the same as land that had been bought outright. That is not the case, because requisitioned land has only been temporarily borrowed and almost always goes straight back to its former owner without question; therefore, I assume the noble Lord is mainly thinking of land that has been bought rather than requisitioned. Before leaving this question of requisitioning, may I give noble Lords figures concerning the amount of requisitioned agricultural land which has been returned? During the war, the acreage
740
of that type of land rose to about 500,000 acres. By 1949, it was down to 300,000 acres; by 1951, it was down to 60,000 acres and to-day it is 20,000 acres. In addition, about 12,000 acres have been bought outright. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will admit that these figures indicate at least some retreat from the conditions of the Soviet State.
May I come to the point which I feel really concerns noble Lords and, indeed, most of us: the very different question of the disposal of land bought for a Government purpose and no longer needed for that purpose. In principle, Her Majesty's Government agree with the noble Lord; indeed, their new policy was announced in another place on July 20. Perhaps I may briefly recapitulate what was then said. It was laid down that in future agricultural land compulsorily bought by one Government Department which can still be used for agriculture will not be transferred to another Government Department unless that other Department has compulsory purchase powers and can justify using them for buying the land. Noble Lords may at first sight be surprised that we should ever permit land to be transferred to a second Government Department after the original acquiring Department no longer needs it; but if we did not allow transfers in this very limited type of case we might have the rather absurd situation in which one Government Department would release land only for it to be at once compulsorily acquired by another Government Department. That would seem very like a cat-and-mouse game played at the expense of the unfortunate citizen in the rôle of the mouse, the cat being national and local officials who would be quite unnecessarily employed in the transaction. But where there is no fresh need justifying the use of compulsory powers such land will be sold and will generally be offered back to the former owner or his successor unless there is some proper reason against doing so. In that event, it would be sold by public auction or some other suitable method, public auction being the most likely.
I have tried briefly to explain the distinction between requisitioned land and land that has been compulsorily purchased, and also to give some broad outline of the new policy as regards land which has been bought compulsorily. There may be certain special cases where

741
the new procedure cannot apply. The noble Lord in his Motion has recognised one. I thought the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was a little unfair to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for Lord Teviot in his Motion did use the words: "save in cases of dispossession owing to bad husbandry." In general, however, it can be taken that agricultural land will be offered back to the owner unless there is some very proper reason for not doing so. That is, indeed, the policy now being pursued by all Government Departments.
Perhaps I should say something on the scope of this problem. We may not be sufficiently clear in our minds how exceptional this sort of occurrence is likely to be, particularly in the future, as we get further and further away from the war and have fewer and fewer of the relics of war—requisitions and purchases, for instance—to deal with. Government Departments buy land, as opposed to requisitioning land, only when they feel very sure that they will need it permanently. Such cases can therefore occur only where circumstances change suddenly and a Government Department finds it no longer needs some land originally purchased for permanent retention. This does not in any way affect the very important principle which the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, is bringing before your Lordships' House, but it may be useful to be clear in our minds as to the scope of the problem.
I will now turn to the second part of the Motion. First, regarding the designation of land for compulsory purchase under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, noble Lords will know that a plan has to be prepared by a local planning authority. That plan designates land as subject to compulsory acquisition for public purposes. The Minister of Housing cannot approve such a designation unless he is satisfied that the purchase is likely to take place within ten years generally or within seven years for agricultural land. That is to say, the designation procedure cannot be used to keep a threat of compulsory purchase hanging indefinitely over an owner's head. This is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, raised and which concerns a great many noble Lords. Many will feel that ten or even seven years is an extremely long time. If so, no doubt they will join the noble Lord in addressing themselves to this
742
point. Anything noble Lords say will naturally be extremely carefully considered, and although I cannot give any undertaking to introduce legislation now I should be safe in saying that we, happily, in this country do not live under the laws of the Medes and Persians. Noble Lords will want to bear in mind that it takes a very long time to plan some of these schemes, and it is also surprising how long it takes to give everyone affected by the schemes plenty of time to object at varying stages. In certain cases there are great numbers of objectors who want to intervene at different stages. Whether ten or seven years is the right period will no doubt be the subject of expressions of view by a number of your Lordships. Certainly, it would often be in the interests of owners themselves rather than of a Government Department that adequate time should be given for the making of objections. However, as I say, we shall be hearing your Lordships' views on that point.
This, I think, brings me to the question of how compensation should be assessed. That is a point which is touched upon in the second part of the noble Lord's Motion. Although many people have been worried for a long time about the uncontrolled use of land in the 19th century, I do not think it was until 1932 that the first attempt was made to control the use of land. A number of further attempts followed, working up to Lord Silkin's effort in 1947—his Town and Country Planning Act. This Act provided that land should be bought at existing use value. In theory, of course, this was the same as market value, because the Act tried to remove development value from the hands of private owners, so that all private land transactions should be based on existing use value. But, as your Lordships know, it did not entirely work like that. As the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor told us the other day in the course of his speech, we had two prices for land: one was the price paid by public authorities, and the other the price paid, as I think the noble and learned Viscount said, "under the counter."
That is the situation which this Government inherited and which we are trying to deal with in the new Town and Country Planning Bill. The noble and learned Viscount explained this fully, and

743
I do not see how I can usefully or properly add much to what he said—namely, that when the Bill becomes law, compensation for compulsory purchase will be improved from "existing use value only" to "existing use value plus the claim with interest." In addition, as the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor told us last week, a further payment will be available in certain cases where a claim under the 1947 Act could have been made but was not made. The now famous Pilgrim case was one of the "no claim" cases. People like Mr. Pilgrim fall into three groups: first, those whose land has already been bought either compulsorily or by agreement under shadow of compulsion; second, those whose land is still being bought; and, third, those whose land will be bought after the present Town and Country Planning Bill comes into operation. The new Bill will deal with those in Group 3.
For people in Group 1, I am afraid that nothing can be done, for we cannot introduce retrospective legislation. What, if anything, can be done for people in Group 2 at the time the Bill becomes law—incidentally Mr. Pilgrim was in this group—will depend largely on circumstances. One possibility is that if the process of acquisition has not gone too far, or work has not been done on the land, the local authority might start again under the new Act, and so bring the additional payment provision into play. Or, if the process has gone too far in that category, the local authority might apply to the Minister to sanction the expense of a supplementary payment. I can only assure your Lordships that applications of that character will be very sympathetically considered on their merits by my right honourable friend. As your Lordships already know, the case of Mrs. Pilgrim is being dealt with on that basis.
I am not sure that in dealing with this question of the price to be paid I am really acting as I should. After all, the subject was fully debated in your Lordships' House on the Second Reading of the new Bill only a week ago, and the Government's proposals received the full approval of the House. Of course, there remain the concluding stages of the Bill, and it would seem to me that then, rather than now, we should discuss
744
possible variations which your Lordships may feel it is necessary or proper to make. I certainly feel that I should not go any further than I have already done on that point.
Perhaps I may now deal briefly with Lord Listowel's Amendment. Let me say at once that I do not quarrel with what I think he really wants to say, but I do not like the way he said it. For that reason I am afraid we cannot accept his Amendment worded as it is. Of course, we are all agreed that we have to go on making the best possible use of our land. There is no question of our being able to let up in that direction. That is almost too obvious to need saying. But, as worded, the noble Earl's Amendment speaks of "maximum production" and "the paramount consideration." I think he is disregarding the need for making the most of our resources. He is disregarding the real problem which exists to-day in relation to our food supplies. Surely, to-day, we have to think of the cost and the quality of production as well as how much we produce, and I do not think anyone now would contend that we should work on the old war-time basis—namely, that cost did not matter and quantity was the only thing that did. Our aim then was maximum production irrespective of cost. A policy of maximum production irrespective of cost or quality would certainly not commend itself to us as the right policy for this country to follow to-day. I am afraid, therefore, that we cannot accept the noble Earl's Amendment, worded as it is.
I wish to say to him very firmly, however, that the need for efficient food production, and for making the best possible use of our land, will continue to be one of the main considerations that the Minister of Agriculture will take into account when dealing with the resale of land that has been compulsorily acquired. The noble Earl has asked me two or three specific questions about the disposal of land that is managed by the Agricultural Land Commission. As he said he is already aware, the Minister wants to sell agricultural land he owns whenever it is sensible to do so. I think I should ask the noble Earl to keep those words in his mind. The Minister hopes to be able to say more upon this topic in the near future, and I do not think your Lordships will expect me to anticipate

745
the statement which he will make. One thing I can say is that we are entirely satisfied with the Commission's management of land. We are satisfied that their work in this connection is of a very high standard. Land owned by the Ministry is to be sold not because the Commission do not manage it very well but because this Government believes that, in general—and I am speaking in no doctrinaire sense—agricultural land is best managed by private enterprise. The noble Earl asked me whether any land that the Commission were farming was under supervision. The Commission do not do much direct farming, and when they do they farm as well as they manage. Of the tenants on land which is under their control, only two are under supervision. Both of these cases are exceptional and do not reflect in any way the management of land by the Commission.
I am aware that there are a number of points upon which I may not have touched, but I have tried to deal as fully as I think your Lordships would wish me to do with the points that have been raised. As the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack undertook—and I repeat his assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot—a close watch will be kept on this problem of compulsory purchase price. I am afraid I cannot promise more than that. I assure noble Lords that my noble Leader, who is to speak later in the debate, will deal with any points I have left over.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his reply, but I did ask whether he could say anything about the timing of the Report of the two-man Committee inquiring into the work of the Land Commission. If he cannot reply, perhaps another Government spokesman will be able to reply later on.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I shall certainly try to get that information.
3.53 p.m.
LORD HARDINGE OF PENSHURST: My Lords, although I have been a Member of this House for ten years, this is the first time on which I have ventured to address your Lordships. Indeed, I was hoping to follow the example of a former noble Lord whom I had the pleasure of hearing make his maiden speech at the age of ninety-four, but the Motion of
746
the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has roused me to premature activity, and with all trepidation I ask your Lordships for the indulgence which you so generously show to maiden speakers.
The purpose of my intervention, which will be brief, is to support the Motion, in particular the last part, which refers to the acquisition of land by Government Departments and other statutory bodies. The Crichel Down Inquiry revealed a number of weaknesses in the system of land disposal, and I venture to think that there are just as many weaknesses in the system of land acquisition, to which attention should be paid. I was glad to hear the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, say that something of that kind might happen. Most of us agree that, in normal circumstances, the interests of the individual must give way to the requirements of the public and the wellbeing of the community; but the person who is affected is entitled to expect a fair deal, and if the State feels obliged to remove somebody's home from him, it should not subject him also to other financial or material loss. That, I believe, is what is happening in a great many cases to-day.
I am thinking particularly of the system of designation. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, referred, rather lightheartedly I thought, to periods of seven or ten years. That is a very long time. I feel that some other solution should be found, and I think it probably could be found. The ideal solution would be for the State immediately to buy out an owner after the designation order has been made, but I understand that there are great administrative, and no doubt political, difficulties about such a course. In the circumstances, I think that the compromise put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, is probably the best that we can hope for.
There is another type of case which, so far as I can make out, would not be covered by any such guarantee—I refer to those cases where detailed plans have to be laid before Parliament and approved before they can be put into operation. I myself have had a slight experience of this sort of thing with the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. I was the owner of a small property in the North of Scotland, and one day the Board's surveyors appeared and revealed that the scheme which they were surveying would involve the flooding of my

747
house, my stalker's house and all my ancillary buildings. Of course, the market value of that estate vanished: it became entirely worthless. At the same time it was impossible to get any kind of compensation until the whole detailed plan had gone through its many phases and was finally laid before Parliament and received the confirmation of the Secretary of State. In my case, though I co-operated in every possible way, that process took seven years. All that time, of course, the property was quite unsaleable; and, curiously enough, during all that time I was expected to go on paying rates and taxes on the property, although circumstances compelled me to abandon it three or four years ago. I can speak about this matter now with all propriety because the survey was made in 1947 and about a month ago I received payment.
Another slightly disturbing feature about cases of this kind, and certainly about the Hydro-Electric Board, is that there is no tribunal or individual to whom one can appeal, or before whom one can lay one's grievances, although nobody could have been kinder or more sympathetic than the noble Earl, Lord Home. But he always made it clear that as the Minister had to function in a quasi-judicial capacity, he could no nothing about expediting the work of the Hydro-Electric Board. Therefore, I was left entirely at their mercy; and I must say that they seemed to be strangely indifferent to the hardship they were causing me. I have no doubt that there are many other people in exactly the same position as myself, and I feel that some solution ought to be found for this problem also. I wonder whether, in cases of this kind, it would not be possible for a definite interval to be fixed after which the full compensation terms would be paid, so that people were not kept hanging about waiting for payment for so long.
All this leads to a very big question, which is the relationship between the individual and the State. I do not switch on the Third Programme as often as, no doubt, I ought to, but I made a point of listening a little time ago to an address given by Professor Hamson, of Cambridge University, on the Crichel Down Inquiry. In his address he drew atten-
748
tion (and here, if I may, I will quote his words) to the
"desperate state in which the normal subject, the ordinary citizen, you and I, find ourselves to-day in England when confronted with the powers vested in a Minister, powers which actually are exercised by the delegate of a delegate of a delegate, or by a collective anonymity which has as little soul as it has human face."
He added:
"The capital revelation of the Crichel Down Inquiry is how entirely defenceless the normal citizen is in England to-day against a Ministry acting within the ambit of its enormous powers: powers which give to a single Ministry a more arbitrary dominion over our liberties and our property than was ever claimed by any Stuart King."
That is a forthright statement, but I do not think it is a grave exaggeration. The professor then went on to remind us that in France there exists a tribunal known as the Conseil d'Etat, which is there for the express purpose of hearing complaints made by private individuals against Government officials. He went on to say:
"We"—
that is, the subjects—
"require the redress of such of our grievances as may by impartial inquiry be found to be just. We demand the possibility of justice even against a Government Department acting within the ambit of its powers. It is of the bare possibility of this justice that there is in England to-day the gravest default."
My Lords, I feel that that puts the case in a nutshell. It may well be that, in the course of time, if interference with the individual increases, as it very likely will, the people will wish for some kind of tribunal corresponding to the Conseil d'Etat to be set up. But that is looking some way ahead, and I certainly do not expect the Government to contemplate setting up a Star Chamber to-morrow especially for this purpose. I do, however, consider that the proposal contained in the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, provides an alleviation of what is at present a real injustice, and therefore I warmly support it.
4.4 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, first it is my pleasure and privilege to congratulate the last speaker on an excellent maiden speech. I sincerely hope that we shall hear him on many future occasions, and that he will not delay his next speech until he reaches the age of ninety-four,

749
otherwise I am afraid that many of us will not be here to listen to him. He has spoken from experience, and a somewhat bitter experience, and for that reason I hope that the Government will take full cognisance of what he has said. As I say, we hope to hear the noble Lord again on many future occasions.
I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has dealt with one or two points arising from the Motion before your Lordships. On reading the Motion, it appeared to me that there might have been some confusion of mind, particularly in regard to the first part, in which the words "requisitioned" and "acquired" are mentioned. I am glad that the noble Earl has cleared up these points about requisitioning. During the war I had a good deal to do with requisitioning, and we always held the belief that when property was requisitioned full compensation would be paid to the person from whom it was requisitioned, either the owner or the tenant, and that eventually, unless the property was acquired by the State, it would be returned at the end of hostilities, or at some later date, to the person from whom it had been requisitioned.
The question of acquiring opens up a different field altogether, in my view. In a short speech I want to support my noble friend Lord Listowel, who has moved an Amendment to the Motion. Up to the present time this discussion has been on friendly lines, and I have no hesitation in saying that when a matter of this sort comes before your Lordships' House the discussion is always conducted on those lines. The subject before your Lordships this afternoon is of great importance to this country. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, on bringing it before the House, because it has given the Government an opportunity of adding to the statements which we have already had of the policy which they are preparing to carry out, so far as returning land acquired by the State, for the purposes of the State, to the original owners is concerned. It has been said by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, that the Government are concerned with efficient production from our agricultural land. That may be so, but in my view the holding of land by the Government, or by a Government Department, should mean the maximum of production from that
750
particular land. At the present time, we in this country must hold as our first priority that we should use our land efficiently; that we should retain its fertility and produce the greatest volume of foodstuffs that we can. We often talk in this House in terms of defence, and are concerned with the massing of the weapons of war. To-day we must be concerned with the massing of vast food stocks and fool supplies in this country.
With regard to the return of property to the original owner we cannot exercise a rigid rule. I hope that the Government—and I feel certain that they will—will treat every case upon its merits. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, referred to the question of the transfer of land from one Department to another, and told us that, as a general rule, there could not in future be a transfer from one Government Department to another. I should like to put the point as to what will happen in the case of a county council which requires smallholdings. If a property held by the Government is about to be returned to the original owners, or their successors, is there to be no transfer at all to the county council, through the Minister of Agriculture, or to any other Department, in order that that particular property may be used for the purposes of smallholdings for which it may be desirable that it should be used? With the terrific demand in this country at the present time for smallholdings, I think that if there is any land in Government hands which could be used for that purpose, it should not be offered back as a matter of ordinary routine to the original owners.
There is another point which I wish to put to the Government. What control I have the Government over the original owner of the property, or a successor, that if the property is handed back it wilt not be sold for some other purposes not compatible with efficient food production and agricultural use? It is quite possible, so far as I can understand, for the original owner to resell to anybody he wishes; so the State may be releasing from State ownership lands of which we as a nation can make use, handing them back to a private individual who is not concerned with what I say is the prior need, the efficient production of food. In conclusion, I want to say just this—because I promised to be brief. I am certain that not only we on this side of

751
the House but Members of the Government also, are concerned that we should do nothing to frustrate anyone from conferring what I believe is the greatest benefit that many of us can bestow upon this nation; that is, putting our hands to the efficient and maximum production of foodstuffs for the nation.
4.13 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, speaks for the Government, I hope that I may be allowed to challenge the remark with which he began his speech, that there were no Rules of Order in this House. As your Lordships know, there are Rules of Order which are contained in our Standing Orders: they are also contained in the longstanding customs of the House, which have not been written down. And, it is a regrettable fact that they are often broken, sometimes with impunity.
Coming to the Motion, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge of Penshurst, for his maiden speech, because he said a great many things that I wished to say, and he said them a great deal better than I could possibly have put them. I hope there will be many occasions when he will do me the same service. Looking at the Motion introduced by my noble friend Lord Teviot, there is one phrase which I should like to see inserted. That is at the end of line 6, where I should like to insert the words
"at a price based upon the price paid for it."
When land is compulsorily bought, it is bought on a valuation by the district valuer, who is an Inland Revenue official and who is bound, of course, by the directions that he receives from his head-quarters. I am going to urge that in some ways he is not a valuer at all, although I know that he keeps himself in touch with markets. I am going to say one or two things which suggest that he is not always a very good valuer. To give your Lordships one case, my mother, unfortunately, died in 1940, and I succeeded to her house in Gloucester Place. It was the only house which had not been badly bombed, and I returned it for death duties at a nil valuation. The district valuer refused to accept that, and said that the house must have a market. I inquired, both of him and on the market itself, what that market would be,
752
and I was told that if I would pay three years' rent I might get the house taken off my hands—that is to say, the market price of the house was minus three years' purchase. As your Lordships know—those of you who are conversant with the leasehold law of England—that would not have relieved me entirely of liability in respect of that house. I therefore answered the district valuer that, if he would show me the market, I would sell in that market and pay duty on what I received. The controversy went on for a considerable time, and I think they thought that I might leave them in a worse difficulty, for eventually that suggestion was accepted.
I am connected with an institution which is nation-wide and which does work that would otherwise have to be done at far greater expense by Her Majesty's Government. We twice had to remove during the war, and at the end of the war we tried to re-establish ourselves in quarters which were fit and proper for carrying on our undertaking. We tried to acquire first one property, then another; but in every case we were unable to do so because the district valuer put on the property a price far lower than that at which we expected and were willing to purchase, and at which we could have made the property useful. In every case, therefore, being so bound, we were unable to purchase, and had the mortification of seeing those properties acquired, in every case. I think, by other institutions which were not so bound.
The other day I became anxious about expressions of opinion on valuations by great authorities in this field, and I was so perturbed that I went to the Surveyors' Institute, of which I am honorary Fellow—I passed some of their examinations in my youth, in connection with this business of valuation. I asked the highest authority I could see whether the principles of valuation had been altered, or whether the Institute still held to the old principles of valuation: that any man who is a competent valuer values with respect to a market, and that if he puts a value on anything he will indicate the market in which that value can be obtained. The one thing a good valuer hates is valuing a hypothetical subject. The answer I received was: "It is perfectly true that principles of valuation have not changed, but from time to time

753
Parliament has by Statute arranged certain assessments which are called valuations, and we are often asked to value properties on these rather difficult bases and under these rather difficult hypotheses. None of us likes doing it, but we have to do it because these assessments are required by Statute." I have protested against that practice in Bills since 1935, when I protested against the form in which the Sheep Stocks Valuation (Scotland) Act was ultimately carried by my noble friend Lord Thankerton. I had the Surveyors' Institute fully behind me at the time when I made the protest.
These valuations must be regarded rather in the nature of assessments than of valuations. It is perfectly true that Parliament, by Statute, calls them valuations—I think to put a better colour on the matter—but these official valuations are largely in the nature of assessments. Therefore, I think that my noble friend Lord Teviot's Motion would be improved by the addition of words to the effect that, where a man's land has been acquired at an assessed price, he should be entitled to regain his land at a price based upon that assessment and should not, unless he so desired, have to go into the market and buy it at auction. For that reason, I entirely support the last part of what my noble friend has put in his Motion. I should he very glad if it could be made possible, when people have land requisitioned, that they should receive the full market price.
There is one other point that I should like to mention. It has already been brought up to-day; it was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge of Penshurst, and deserves attention—I refer to the great injury that is done to any proprietor or any subject when a local authority or a Government Department shows signs of wishing to acquire land. Let me give your Lordships an example. In a case that came to my attention the other day, a local authority sent for a person whom they thought was the proprietor of a house and they said, "Do you wish to sell your house?" He said, "No, I do not. I bought that house, which is a suitable house, in order that, when I die, I may be sure that my wife has a home in which to live." So the local authority said "Oh, well, we want it." The owner of the house said, "Well, I do not see how I can ever feel safe
754
again." The local authority said, "Oh, well, go away. We will not press you at this time."
Here is a proprietor of what was a very pleasant and desirable house. Of what value is that house in the market now? There has only been question and answer; there has been no overt offer to buy; and yet, if he sells the house, he sells it under the threat of compulsory requisition by the local authority. There is no place that I know to which he can have recourse for compensation for the loss in which that short conversation has involved him. I think that is an utterly unsatisfactory state of things. I could go on and make the situation sound even worse than I have done, but I prefer to leave the matter there. I think that that is enough to show that the situation with regard to compulsory acquisition and acquirement of property by Government Departments and local authorities is not satisfactory and should be amended. In particular, I should very much like Her Majesty's Government to set up a Commission of competent people to inquire into the whole practice of the official valuation of lands and heritages. It would be a most interesting inquiry, and I think there would be some extraordinarily interesting evidence.
4.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat will allow me to join with him and with the noble Lord who preceded him in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge of Penshurst, on, his excellent maiden speech. I know what an ordeal such occasions are. My own is vivid in my memory. I sincerely hope that he will listen to the pleas of the noble Lords who have followed him and not keep us waiting another ten years before we have another excellent contribution from him. When I first saw both the Motion and the two Amendments on the Paper. I must say I came to the conclusion that there were grouped together in these documents quite a number of different propositions of totally different values. For that reason I rather hope that, after the excellent debate we have been having, this matter will not be put to a vote in either sense.
May I first deal, as is sometimes convenient, with the Amendments? The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, made what perhaps

755
he will forgive me for saying was a very handsome speech in support of a very shabby Amendment. The strength of the case of my noble friend, Lord Teviot, as I understand it, is ultimately a plea to the moral sense of the nation. Quite honestly, that was accepted in the speech of the noble Earl, and I think it would be fair to say so; but, in answer to the Amendment as it appears on the Paper, I am bound to say that one does not answer a plea for justice by a cheap, popular, economic slogan. I speak for myself, at any rate, without in any way derogating from the need for maximum food production in this country, and I should say that the paramount consideration in dealings between the Crown and the subject ought to be a consideration of justice, and that, even if sometimes it costs a little food, in ordinary circumstances, justice and morality should prevail.
If the wording of the first Amendment were accepted, that would not be the case, although I frankly concede that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in his speech adopted a very different and, if he will allow me to say so, far more honourable attitude than the words to which he had committed himself in print. There is, if I may say so with respect, something, else wrong with this Amendment. We can be the victims of slogans. Primarily, this is not an agricultural debate because, with all due respect to the noble Earl, a great deal of this land, perhaps even the greater part of this land, is not agricultural land at all; but, even in regard to agricultural land, you can talk too much about maximum production. What one has to aim at is the best use of the land having regard to all kinds of considerations, of which maximum production is only one.
May I pass on from that to criticise something which the noble Earl said. It may or may not be the case—we will differ about it—that the State is a good landowner for the purposes of securing good agricultural use of land; but you are not going to get that, one way or the other, by the utilisation of the Agricultural Land Commission. Primarily, the Agricultural Land Commission is a body to pick up from other Government Departments which have acquired agricultural estates of doubtful value for different purposes, such as bombing ranges (as
756
was the case in Crichel Down) properties which require rehabilitation and which therefore are not particularly good instruments for the best agricultural use of land. If the noble Earl is going to tell us that the State ought to own agricultural land, that is something about which we shall differ, but I am sure he will agree with me, on reflection, about this: that we cannot rely very much for agricultural production on the utilisation of the discarded remnants of Government-acquired properties which were originally acquired for purposes quite different from agriculture.
I come to one final observation about the first Amendment. I think we are all rather bedevilled by the Crichel Down case which excited us all very much but was the cause of much darkening of counsel at various times. The real truth about maximum food production in agricultural land, as I see it, is this. The late Minister of Agriculture did a very real disservice to clear thinking on the subject when he suggested that by keeping a thing in the hands of public authority you were really serving the purpose of maximum food production. The plain and absolute truth about that case, and most others, is that the Government, when they find themselves in possession of land, ought to act as a prudent landowner should, and in that particular case they ought to have offered the land to those who wanted to buy it. If they had done so, the gentleman who instituted the inquiry, Commander Marten, would have got his land without all this nonsense, and it would, in fact, as everybody can see who has read the Report, have redounded to the best agricultural use to which the land could have been put. The mistake which was made in that case, and I think is made in the Amendment, consists in supposing that two Government officials having lunch together in Pall Mall and inventing some perfectly fantastic experiment of erecting expensive farm buildings on a rabbit rundown, will ultimately produce more food than the neighbouring landowner who, in the ordinary course, would have paid good money to the Crown for getting the land back. Really that is all I have to say about the Amendment.
I now turn to the Motion of my noble friend Lord Teviot. I hope he will allow

757
me to say that I think it was a mistake, as I think the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr said, to combine in one proposition requisitioned land and land compulsorily acquired by purchase, because it seems to me that quite different considerations apply to those cases. In the case of requisitioned land—that is to say, land taken temporarily for the purposes of the war emergency or the transitional emergency which succeeded it—there must be an almost absolute moral duty on the part of the Crown to return it to the subject when it is no longer wanted for the emergency. I was glad to hear the noble Earl accept that as a principle; but I do think he has been slightly misinformed as to the extent to which that duty is being disregarded in the case of requisitioned land. I could give details of an example, which I will not do, solely because I advised about it professionally and therefore I do not want it to be identified; but I can give details of an example which I will describe in general terms having regard to the changes in Government policy from time to time.
A valuable estate, which consisted not primarily of agricultural land but of a dwelling-house of great historical interest and cultural amenity, was requisitioned for war purposes somewhere about 1943, against the protest of the owner at that time, it so happening that the owner had designed to give this house either to the nation or to some other public body on the occasion of his death, so that it would become a part of the national heritage. The war passed on and came to an end. A change of policy was announced after the war by the Government of the day. At that time I can remember, because I was in another place, that the change of policy was welcomed as a step forward. They said they were going to discontinue the requisitioning of new tracts of land, and in order to help them to that end the Government announced a policy that when one Government Department ceased to want land already in requisition they would first offer it to all the other Government Departments to see whether they wanted to continue it in requisition before it was handed back to the owner.
Of course, in a sense that was a very real step forward, because everybody else was delivered from the danger of new requisitioning; but it imposed a real hardship
758
on the owners of land whose properties were already in temporary requisition, supposedly for the purposes of the emergency. And when you are dealing with a situation in which the end of the war is nearly ten years away, to find properties of that kind of distinction or value still under requisition—that is to say, not compulsorily acquired, but still under requisition for temporary purposes—is something more than hardship; it is something like an injustice. In this particular case, it was more than an injustice; it was a very damaging thing to the national heritage, because during the period of requisition it so happened that the authorities thought it right to grant the local authority of the district the right to erect on part of this valuable and historic property a sewage farm which it will be very difficult and rather expensive to get rid of when the Government come to discharge the duty of derequisitioning the land and handing it back to its former owner.
I say to the Government—I understand they do not seriously dispute it in principle, because the noble Earl was generous in what he said about this—that the time has now come to bring requisition, as such, to an end. Requisition was designed for a temporary emergency. Let them either purchase land under their compulsory powers, if they want to keep their hold on it, or else derequisition it and give it back to the owners. It is not really any longer tolerable that owners who had their land requisitioned at some point of time during the war should go on suffering an added hardship and injustice in order to preserve the rest of the community from liability for the requisition. The thing must be wound up one way or another, and I hope that the Government will give us some hope that they will do so.
That leads me to the very different question of land which is the subject of compulsory acquisition. There, I must say that I am much less at one with my noble friend Lord Teviot than I am on the question of requisition. I do not want to enter into the ethics of compulsory acquisition, but some noble Lords this afternoon have talked as if it were something new. One must bear in mind that the compulsory acquisition of land for various public purposes has been part of the law of this country since the Lands Clauses Act, 1845. The ground has been fairly well dug over in the 109 years since

759
that Act was passed, and successive Statutes, including the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919, have told us something about the method of assessing compensation.
I do not think there is very much more to say about it than those successive Statutes have told us. When land is compulsorily acquired by purchase, the idea is to dispossess the owner entirely and permanently, and, ordinarily speaking, the purchase has that effect. In the case of Crichel Down, which again tends to darken counsel, the purchase was made long before the war, in 1937, for use as a bombing range; and at the time when that was done I have no doubt that nobody expected the land to come back to agricultural use. The great majority of compulsorily acquired properties do, in fact, become public property, and stay public property for an indefinite period, perhaps for centuries; and to talk in connection with that kind of transaction of leaving a residual right in the hands of the compulsory vendor or his successors in title to something over and above the compensation which he received at the time of purchase, seems to me to be approaching perilously near to the impracticable.
Even if it were practicable, I doubt whether it would be desirable; because when you come to consider the right of the original vendor, it is much more like a right inherent in the ownership of the estate, rather than something which is inherent in the vendor himself. Commander Marten's right in Crichel Down, if it was a right, would have been just as good from the moral point of view if he had bought that property from the vendor as it was because he happened to succeed by inheritance and marriage. As I see it, the right consisted in the fact that it was really insane that the land at Crichel Down should go to anybody else but the adjoining owners, and it was doubly insane because the adjoining owners were perfectly prepared to pay a fair price for it. It did not consist of some abstract, moral right in the original vendor to get back that of which he was compulsorily dispossessed an indefinite period of years before.
Therefore, frankly, I think that no Government will be successful in granting as a right, the right to repossession of
760
land compulsorily acquired, once and for all under the Lands Clauses Acts, the Defence (Land) Acts, the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919, or any of the subsequent Acts.
What emerges from this discussion is that when, for some reason or other, the Government wants to get rid of that land, it should, instead of inventing some fanciful reason for keeping it in Government ownership, act like any other sensible owner who wants to get rid of land. I am not wedded, as the Motion is, to public auction. It is not in every case a proper way to get rid of land of which you want to dispose. In the case of Crichel Down it would have been much more sensible to write to the adjoining owners. When the Government wants to get rid of land, let it dispose of it to the highest bidder at a reasonable price, and not fancy that, because it is the Government of the country, it has a greater responsibility than an ordinary responsible landowner would have in the circumstances. That is the source from which all this nonsense seems to derive: the idea that these casually acquired pieces of land have some magical property so long as they are in the hands of the Administration, and not when they are sent back to private ownership.
That leads me to the last point in the Motion, the question of compensation. Here there are two entirely different questions for consideration. The first is the ordinary measure of compensation which ought to be paid to owners of compulsorily acquired property. That ought to be the full price and I cannot see any reason why it should ever be anything else, although I venture respectfully to question the phrase "market price," which is much more suitable to commodities than to particular tracts of land. You cannot always have a market in anything so individual as a particular landed estate. The full value as between willing seller and willing purchaser must always be the test. It ought to be, and it is under the Acquisition of Lands Act and other Acts. Then, superimposed on that general proposition, comes the special question of the designation of land, sometimes, as we have heard, for seven, sometimes for ten, years under the Town and Country Planning Act. Until recently there certainly was a very real grievance in the restriction of compensation to the existing use value. Again a

761
recent case tends to darken counsel. The Government in this particular matter has been both reasonable and generous, and I certainly do not want to say anything which would make it less probable that the dependants of the unhappy man who lost his life should get adequate compensation from the local authority; but it seems to me that a good deal of unjustified attack was directed towards that local authority. After all, we were told that they did not know the significant fact: that the land had been acquired from a private vendor at a price which, having regard to the lapse of claim, it certainly ought not to have commanded. Had that fact been known, I can well conceive that the local authority would not have pursued its compulsory purchase at all and this man's property would have been safe to him. It is altogether unjustified to call a local authority "robbers" because they were in fact paying under a compulsory purchase the price which represented the actual value of the property owing to the lapse of the claim.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, is it not the case that the local authority wished to pay more than the current use value and referred the matter to the appropriate Department, and was refused permission?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think in fact they wanted to, after they discovered the facts, when it was too late to go on. I am glad my noble friend interrupted me, for that makes the case for that authority still stronger. In Parliament, where one is absolutely privileged, one wants to speak with a great sense of responsibility, but I must say that the person who really went wrong in that case was the person who sold the land in the first place, with a lapsed claim, at a price which the land could have legitimately commanded only had the claim not lapsed. I do not suggest it was done other than innocently, but that was the origin of the fault. Let no one who shares, as I do, the feeling of noble Lords that the individual is very much at the mercy of the State, allow that kind of feeling (which is legitimate and justified) operate to commit an injustice against local authorities or undermine the confidence which people legitimately feel in their integrity and fairness when they are fully apprised of the facts. For those reasons, I fully
762
sympathise with all that is in my noble friend's Motion and agree with the wording of most of it, but I hope that when the matter has been fully discussed the Motion and Amendment will not be pressed to a Division.
4.46 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, when this debate started I felt that we were about to listen to one of the old-fashioned Party political issues, in which we could have slanged one another and given our respective points of view. One felt that this was to be a debate between landlordism and the use of commodities grown on the land. Fortunately, as one would expect from your Lordships' House, this debate has reached a very high level, certainly very much higher than I had thought it would, and is one, therefore, in which we must be careful in the points of view expressed. I felt that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House might have been rather embarrassed by the fact that a noble Lord on his side raised this particular issue and would have preferred that the matter were not raised at all. Front our point of view there appears to be little to be said. I am glad that emphasis has been laid on the difference between requisition and compulsory purchase.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has given an instance that is almost parallel to an experience of my own, A very large and ancient house, with extensive grounds, given by a former Member of your Lordships' House for the purposes of an adult residential college, was requisitioned at the outbreak of war. One would have hoped that by now it could have been de-requisitioned. Her Majesty's Government spent something like £500,000 on that estate, destroying the amenities by the erection of a large number of un-slightly buildings that were necessary for war purposes at the lime. Then the body which originally requisitioned the building either derequisitioned it or had it requisitioned from them by some other Government Department. This other Department then ceased to occupy it, and we were told that the whole building was ready for complete derequisition. One would have imagined that would have meant that the whole of the estate and buildings would be restored to the original users and that the place would be put into its original condition. But,

763
for reasons which we are told are less substantial than the original, a good part of the building still there is needed and therefore the derequisitioning has been only partial. The body occupying this college have said that, in the circumstances, they will raise no objection: they recognise a national need. So at the moment, while the owners are still using the college and a small part of the surrounding grounds, the greater part is still requisitioned and remains a very bad eyesore.
On the compulsory purchase and acquisition of properties, perhaps we are apt to overlook the fact that local authorities are not happy at having to resort to compulsory action. It is not a cheap method of acquiring property: it is a very complicated and time-absorbing method. They would prefer that bargains should be arrived at by mutual agreement, because in the long run the actual purchase price is arrived at, not arbitrarily by the local authority but by valuers who presumably are in touch with market conditions and who put upon the property a price which may be lower than the original seller wished but is certainly higher, in most cases, than the local authority wish to pay. So that, in that sense, compulsory acquisition by a local authority is not something which they wish to undertake; it is something which is forced upon them by the fact that, owing to resistance—and not merely monetary resistance; not infrequently there is sentimental resistance to parting with certain properties—they have to go through this long and complicated procedure.
When we come to the question of the growing of food, whilst it may be true that the position to-day is a little less difficult than it was in 1952, as has been said in another place, I think we ought always to bear in mind that, in addition to the pressing need to grow as much food as we can in our own country for our own consumption, there is within the country a conflict between the needs of industry and the needs of agriculture, so far as the use of land is concerned. Therefore, very careful consideration is needed as to when land should be sterilised because of industrial needs, and when land should be used for the purpose for which
764
we prefer it should be used. I sometimes think that we have to be reminded that the primary purpose of growing food is not to sell it but to eat it. While it is true that that demands a certain system of distribution, we should never lose sight of the fact that we in this country are so vulnerably placed in the matter of food growing that we should be doubly careful as to whether or not we can cease Ito use our land for that purpose.
Does it matter whether food-growing land is returned to private ownership or is retained by the Government? I am not saying that the Government should go ahead now and either confiscate or purchase all the land that it is possible to use. That is a problem which might be discussed at some future date. What I say is this: that in so far as the Government to-day do, for various reasons, own a very large amount of agricultural land, they should retain the ownership of that land and should, like any other owner of land, see that it is cultivated and developed by the best possible type of agriculturists, in order that the best use and the maximum produce of that land can be enjoyed by the people of this country. That does not seem to me to be an unreasonable kind of request to make. I feel that if that attitude were adopted towards land already owned by the Government a good deal of this Party political conflict would disappear.
4.55 p.m.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: My Lords, it is not my intention to detain you for more than a brief moment. There is but one general point that I should like to make. It is one that has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge of Penshurst, towards the end of his excellent maiden speech. To my mind the most remarkable feature of the Crichel Down Inquiry was that the Inquiry ever took place at all. Such inquiries, as your Lordships know, are extremely rare. So that, to me, the lesson of the Crichel Down affair is its demonstration of the powerlessness and defencelessness of the ordinary citizen against the despotic and arbitrary powers which are to-day wielded by Departments of State. There is nothing in the Crichel Down Report to suggest that what transpired was not in the normal course of business, and there is no reason whatever to suppose that the Report does not give a

765
perfectly fair picture of the manner in which matters of this kind are ordinarily handled in Government Departments.
The fact that the Report is exceptional does not mean that the facts it reveals are in any way exceptional. The Ministry of Agriculture deal annually, I imagine, with thousands, if not tens of thousands, of applications concerning land development; and it is, I should say, a reasonable guess that many of these must have been dealt with in a manner very similar to that in which the Crichel Down affair was handled. And are the Ministry of Agriculture unique in Whitehall? Is it not fair to suppose that the methods of other Government Departments are similar in their nature? Does anyone, in fact, doubt that the Crichel Down affair, from being an isolated phenomenon, is a fair and typical example of bureaucracy in action?
So it seems to me that this Resolution, inasmuch as it merely advocates the declaration of a certain line of policy, tends in a manner to obscure the more fundamental issue. The remedy which it seems to me is required is that it should somehow be made possible for an ordinary citizen to bring before some impartial body the act of a Government Department and require its public justification. We have entered upon an age of public control, but it does not seem to me that we have made any adjustment of our legal and constitutional processes to protect the rights and liberties of private citizens in the new circumstances which now prevail. There is in this country no process or machinery of any kind by which a member of the public can, as of right, test by judicial process an act done—or misdone—by a Ministry, pursuant to powers granted by Parliament. This, it seems to me, is a fundamental circumstance which requires to be remedied.
The only thing that an aggrieved citizen can do when a Government Department seeks to confiscate his land is to have his case heard at an inquiry at which the confiscating Department, as well as being defendant, is also arbitrator. Such inquiries cannot be described as judicial proceedings. Indeed, they are merely part of the administrative process—as, indeed, they were described by the noble and learned Lord then sitting on the Woolsack, when these matters were debated in your Lordships' House some
766
three or four months ago. There is no appeal from such inquiry, and in the last resort the aggrieved citizen can only have his Member of Parliament ask a Question in another place. But a Minister cannot be cross-examined on the Floor of the House—and it is not difficult for the Department which is attacked to draft plausible replies to Questions and supplementary questions. The private citizen to-day is defenceless against a bureaucracy which for the past thirty years and more has steadily accumulated vast arbitrary powers—for let us make no mistake: those who wield these powers are the same as those who draft the Statutes which originate them.
I shall be reminded that the public interest must be paramount. I agree. But surely the public interest is concerned also with preserving the freedom of the subject under the rule of law. I shall be told of the many difficulties and impracticabilities of making it possible for a private citizen judicially to challenge the legitimate actions of the Executive; but as the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge of Penshurst, reminded us, in France a citizen can do that very thing. And I believe it to be no less than the urgent requirement of the day that in this country we should evolve some equivalent machinery for deciding disputes between Government Departments and individual citizens. If we do not, the liberty of the subject under the rule of law, hardly won through past centuries, if it does not disappear will be certainly and strangely diminished. I beg to support the Resolution.
5.1 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I do not want to traverse again the ground that has already been extremely well covered by my noble friend Earl De La Warr, but I feel that it is only right that I, as Leader of the House, should give some guidance to the House, if I can, with regard to the Motion and the Amendment which are before your Lordships this afternoon. In one way, it has been rather a curious debate, for the Government have been in the somewhat interesting, and mildly uncomfortable, situation, familiar to those who have engaged in war, of being sniped at both from in front and from behind—and what is more, so far as I can see, for

767
diametrically opposing reasons. In front, there has been the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who, if I understood him right, feels that on the whole the Government have been rather too tender with the interests of the private owner—at least, so far as I can see, that is the only relevance of his Amendment to the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. And behind us, there is the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and his friends, who think that on the whole the Government have not been quite tender enough with the rights of the private owner. Finally, in the centre, there is the Government who, I hope it will be agreed, represent the happy mean.
I should like, if I may, to revert to these two propositions. First of all, I should like to say a word about the Amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, which reaffirms that "the paramount" purpose of agricultural policy is the production of food. That may well seem to most of us a self-evident proposition. Why does mankind cultivate land at all? Why has it done so since prehistoric days? So far as I can see, except for the modified pleasures of horticulture, the only reason why land is cultivated is to produce food. In the broadest sense of the term that is not only the main but the sole purpose of agriculture. I should have thought that none of us, in whatever part of the House we sit, would dispute that. But even so, I suggest that by the use of the expression "the paramount" applied to agricultural policy in 1954—as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, quite rightly pointed out—the noble Earl is over-simplifying the subject. If, as his Motion seems to say, this is the only consideration which has to be borne in mind, it ignores entirely the economic factor. Of course, to produce the maximum amount of food is a comparatively simple affair, so long as we need not concern ourselves with prices.
As we all know, that was the position in the days of the war, when we had no other sources of food available and had to produce ourselves or die. But now, I believe, and I am sure most noble Lords will agree with me, the situation has become a good deal more complicated than it was then. Now, when it is possible to obtain food from abroad, from our Commonwealth and Empire and from foreign countries, the question of con-
768
summer choice inevitably comes in. It is still vital for us to produce as much as we possibly can. On that, so far as I can see, whatever Party is in power, there can be no weakening. It is as important to-day as ever it was at any time in out history. But it is equally necessary to safeguard the interests of the consumer, so far as we possibly can. In fact, we must aim at the maximum production of food, at the price at which people can buy it. That, quite briefly, must be the object of our policy.
This brings me to the relationship of Lord Listowel's Amendment to the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. I thought it evident from the noble Earl's speech that he considered that the efficient production of food was best achieved by the land being under public ownership and control. Otherwise, so far as I can see, he would not have wished to amend Lord Teviot's Motion at all. That consideration I take to be the relevance of his remarks about the land held by the Agricultural Land Commissioners. His purpose was to prove that land was better farmed in public hands. If he had produced figures—
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure the noble Marquess does not wish to misinterpret what I said. I did not suggest that the land was better farmed, I suggested that it was as well farmed in public hands.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What the noble Earl has to do is to prove that it is better farmed. If he could produce figures to show that the capital expenditure was less and that the yield was cheaper and greater when land was owned and administered by the Agricultural Land Commissioners than on similar land which was privately owned, no doubt these would be facts which we should all of us have to take seriously into account. But he produced no such figures, and nothing, so far as I know, produced either in the Crichel Down Inquiry or elsewhere supports his case. Indeed, I frankly believe that there is no evidence to that effect.
In this connection I thought it significant that there was one notable omission from the noble Earl's speech and from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wise, who followed him. I listened to every word of their speeches, and so far as I could hear, although the word "efficient" constantly occurred, the word

769
"economic" never passed their lips. I did not hear it mentioned in the course of the whole of their speeches. Yet, as we see it, that is the essence of the whole matter. We believe that people who manage or farm their own land, with their own money, are more likely to be economical than people who have no such direct personal interest in the matter. We all know this from our own lives, and we believe it to be equally true in broad questions of policy. Therefore, what we are doing is the result of no mere philosophic shibboleth, as the noble Earl has suggested. We believe that it arises from something which is inherent in human nature and consistent with all experience. Noble Lords opposite may not share that view, but the present Government, holding it as they do (and I would make this statement as definitely as I can) believe that agriculture is better administered, and that food is more cheaply and efficiently produced in private hands than it is in public hands. Where, therefore, land has passed into public hands and is no longer needed for the purpose for which it was acquired in quite different circumstances from those which prevail to-day, it is our intention to restore it as and when we can.
In connection with this matter, I should like to answer one or two questions put by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. He asked whether land in public hands that needed equipment would be given that equipment before it was sold. The answer is, Yes; it would not be sold until it was properly equipped. The noble Earl also asked the number of acres at present under the control of the Agricultural Land Commission. The answer is that they have about 220,000 acres under their control, and about half of this is already fairly well equipped and suitable for sale. Finally, he asked when the two-man inquiry into the Agricultural Land Commission was going to report. I have made every effort I can to get an answer to that question in the time that has elapsed since it was asked, but I have been unable to do so. All I can say is that I will report what the noble Earl has said to my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, and if there is any further information that I can give him, I will let him have it.
Up to now, I have been speaking to your Lordships about what I would call the first leg of our policy in this matter.
770
The second is this. We also believe that when land has been taken from a private owner, compulsorily, for a specific purpose in the course of a national emergency, as in the cases we have been discussing, the owner, or his successor should have a special opportunity to receive it back, if he wants it, when the State no longer needs it for the purpose for which it was required. I did not quite agree with that point in the otherwise admirable speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. Personally, I believe that there is a certain moral issue raised by this matter. That is a matter of opinion; but I believe that there is, and I think I represent a large body of opinion in the country. I feel that the view that the noble Viscount took, though perfectly logical, was perhaps a little too legal for this particular issue.
I have tried to describe briefly the broad policy of the Government in regard to these matters, and I think it has been confirmed by recent events. On this broad policy, I gather that there is really no difference between the view held by the Government and that held by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, who tabled this Motion. For his Motion says:
"… that Her Majesty's Government should establish the principle that those whose land or other property has been requisitioned or acquired for Government purposes and who have been dispossessed, shall have the right, if they so desire (save in cases of dispossession owing to bad husbandry), to resume possession of the property, which has been compulsorily taken from them, when it is no longer required for the purposes for which it was requisitioned."
In passing, I would say that I do not intend to refer any more to requisitioned land, because that was fully dealt with by my noble friend Lord De La Warr. I would only say this. I entirely agree with what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that it is most important that those lands and properties which have been requisitioned should be restored as quickly as possible. I understand that that is now completely recognised by the Departments concerned, and (although I think it would be a mistake to underestimate the difficulties of doing this in every individual case; there are bound to be delays in certain cases) I can assure your Lordships that strenuous efforts are being made to accelerate the process.
But if I now turn to the land which has been actually acquired by the Government, I would repeat that if any

771
Member of your Lordships' House will refer to the statement made by the late Minister of Agriculture in another place on July 20 of this year he will find that the relevant portions of that statement and the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, are almost identical. There must, of course, be, as my noble friend Lord De La Warr has already pointed out, certain exceptions to the rule. There are exceptions to every rule, as we all know. But these particular exceptions are limited and framed to deal with special circumstances. There is the case of land which was acquired from a landlord because it was neglected, and he obviously was not fit to manage it. Clearly, it would not be good public policy to hand that land back to that man. On that point I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and the Government are at one; that was the one exception that he himself made in his Motion.
LORD TEVIOT: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Marquess. I am not clear on this point. The late Minister of Agriculture said that the land would be returned, provided that no other Government Department wanted it. That is what I am worried about.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have not quite finished. I am going to develop the point a little further, and I was only dealing with one particular exception. Secondly, there is the case where the Government have spent large sums on the land, and in doing so have so altered the character that it has really become unfit for agriculture. I can give your Lordships a simple example. Supposing the Government acquired from a landowner five acres of ground in order to build a war hospital and spent several million pounds on that hospital. Clearly the owner could not expect to have his land back with the hospital on it. The same considerations apply to an equal extent to cases like airfields, and matters of that kind. Finally, there is the case—I think this is the point in which the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, is interested—where a Department which has acquired land does not itself need it any more, but where the land is needed by another Department which has compulsory powers. That is merely a question of practical convenience. It would, of
772
course, be possible for the original Department to hand back the land to the owner, and for the second Department, using its compulsory powers, immediately to take it away again. But I should have thought that that was not only clumsy, but more irritating to the owner than any other procedure that could possibly be adopted.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, asked a question in this connection with regard to land needed for smallholdings. I believe the answer to the noble Lord is this. If the Department that wanted the land for these smallholdings had compulsory powers to acquire it, then it could acquire the land straight from the holding Department; but if it had not compulsory powers, then it would have to buy the land in the ordinary way.
LORD WISE: From the original owner?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think that in that case the land would go back to the owner, and it would be for the owner to decide what he wished to do with it. If he did not need it for some special purpose of his own, and it was obvious that the local authority did, I should have thought that the owner would be wise to pass it on. But the acid test is whether the Department has compulsory powers for a particular purpose or not. These are the main exceptions: they are limited in character and, so far as the restoration of land to its former owner are concerned, they are, so far as I know, the only differences—if, indeed, they are differences—between the policy of the Government and that of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot.
EARL JOWITT: This applies only to land which has been compulsorily acquired, does it not?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes.
EARL JOWITT: There is a good deal of land which has been the subject of voluntary bargaining, I should imagine. I feel, with regard to that type of land, that it is a different proposition altogether. There I cannot see why any moral question arises at all.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Obviously, land voluntarily acquired does not come into the matter at all. There is what I may call the twilight case, of land which is acquired under the threat

773
of compulsion. I think that would come under the rule I have been describing, but there would have to be definite evidence of a threat of compulsion. In both cases the former owner, or his successor, if he can be discovered and if he can substantiate his claim, will be offered the property back.
As the House knows, under this scheme of the Government the price at which the land is to be offered will be assessed by the district valuer. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, is not happy about this; he has doubts, I believe, as to the capacity of the district valuer for this particular job. In my experience, district valuers are extremely competent people, and I should not like anything to go out from this House that threw any doubt upon that. However, I will explain why the district valuer was chosen. In the war, when this land was taken from the owner and acquired by the State, the valuation was made by the district valuer; therefore, it seemed reasonable and proper that the same machinery should be used when the land was being transferred back from the State to the owner. I think that would be regarded as the natural procedure to adopt.
I have dealt up to now with the main parts of the noble Lord's Motion, but there is, as your Lordships know, a tail to it, in which he says:
"… and, further, that the full market value of property, designated for compulsory purchase by any public authority, at the time of the service of notice of designation, shall be payable to the owner of that property at the time of the execution of the notice."
That is the tail of the Motion and, as so often, I suspect that it is in the tail of the Motion that the sting resides. At any rate, as I understood it from the noble Lord's speech and the speeches of other noble Lords who followed him, it is there that their main preoccupations are to be found, at any rate on this side of the House. The noble Lord's complaint against the present procedure, if I understood him right, relates, first, to the price which the owner receives and, secondly, to the delay he suffers in getting his money. Now, so far as the delay in getting his money is concerned, there are probably many of us in all parts of the House who have considerable sympathy with the object which the noble Lord seeks to achieve with regard to the desirability of ensuring that the owner
774
waits as short a time as possible before he gets his money. That obviously seems fair.
Some examples of very hard cases have been quoted to-day. But the problem is not so easy to solve as it may previously have appeared to some of your Lord-ships. As I think the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, explained, the fact that a local planning authority has designated an area as subject to compulsory acquisition, does not necessarily mean that that area is in fact going to be compulsorily acquired. A most elaborate process of inquiry has to take place, most of which consists of safeguards which were inserted by Parliament in the interests of the owner or owners of the land. The Minister has to be satisfied that the acquisition will take place within a maximum of ten years or, in the case of agricultural land, seven years, from the date on which the plan was approved. That requirement was inserted to ensure that the threat was not held over the owner indefinitely by the local authority. Then the Minister—I have no doubt the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, remembers this; we went through it all at the time of the original Town and Country Planning Act—has to hear objections by those opposed to the scheme and, if necessary, there must be a public inquiry before the development plan is approved.
Nor is that all. Even when the Minister has decided to confirm the designation, and at the further stage when the making of a compulsory purchase order is reached, there, too, there is, I believe additional provision for fixing a time limit, hearing objections and so on. It is only after all these opportunities have been given to the owners to make their case against the scheme, if they wish to do so, that the acquiring authority serves a notice to treat. It is at that point, when the decision has finally been taken, that the assessment is normally made of the compensation which is to be paid.
I have tried to explain as shortly as I can to your Lordships the extremely complicated machinery. All those safeguards were approved by Parliament, not in the interests of the State but, I would repeat, in the interests of the owners and others in the area. The noble Lord, Lord Hardinge of Penshurst, who made so admirable a maiden speech to your Lordships this afternoon, described, if I may

775
say so, the very tough experiences which he had in connection with this aspect of compulsory purchase. I am quite sure that there was none of us who did not feel the deepest sympathy with him. He will correct me if I did not rightly understand him. I think that he suggested that the owner should be bought out on the day of designation by the local planning authority. But if that were done before the owner had an opportunity, if he wished to do so, to make objections and before the Minister even had time to approve a scheme, I am quite certain that there would be a good many noble Lords who would come down and protest in this House at the lack of consideration with which that owner had been treated.
I am told that in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge of Penshurst, one of the main difficulties was that he was not the only owner involved. He was one of eight, and the others wanted something quite different from what he did. He wanted to clear out—and I do not blame him in the circumstances—but they wanted to hang on as long as they possibly could and they therefore made as many objections as they could. That particular example shows how terribly complicated it is to find your way through the difficulties of this very thorny question of compulsory purchase.
The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, as I understood it in his Motion, put forward rather a different proposal for dealing with this case. He suggested that the valuation should be made on the day of designation, and payment should be made at the time of the execution of the notice of proposal. But, of course, that would entail involving the local authority in a most complicated process of valuing property before any decision to buy that property had been taken at all. This, it might fairly be argued by some people, would be unsatisfactory from the point of view of the other party to the transaction—that is, of course, the community who has ultimately to pay.
I do not think for a moment that the present procedure cannot be improved. I have personally always been doubtful about the length of time—seven years for agricultural land and ten years for other land—which can elapse between the giving of approval of the scheme and the actual acquisition of the land. I
776
think I am on record in saying that in the House in the days of the last Government when they introduced their original Bill. But we do not live, thank heavens! as the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said this afternoon, in the land of the Medes and Persians. Our laws are not immutable, and though, of course, there can be no question of altering this or any other provision of this kind by an Amendment to the Town and Country Planning Bill which is at present before Parliament—because it would not come within the scope of that particular Bill—yet it could always be amended in a later Act if it proved unduly onerous in a large number of cases. That is what Parliament is for—to watch legislation to see whether it can be amended and improved. And the same considerations would apply to the question of facilities for appeal to which the noble Lord, Lord Broughshane, referred in the speech he has just made.
What, however, I am doubtful about is whether any of the actual alternatives which various noble Lords have asked the House to support to-day would provide an ideal or even a better solution for this most difficult question. In their present form they might well, for reasons which I have tried to explain to your Lordships, cause as many difficulties as they cured. For that reason, I certainly could not recommend your Lordships to support those proposals though, of course, they will, like everything else that has been said in this debate, receive careful study by those who are concerned with these matters.
Finally, I come to the question of the price paid for the property which is compulsorily acquired. That, of course, is equally a question on which differing views could be held. Some may approve the machinery which is contained in the present Town and Country Planning Bill as the best that can be devised at the moment. There may be others, like the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, who, I think, believes that it could be improved. I say frankly that I do not propose to go any further into this subject to-day, for I do not believe it is the proper occasion. As your Lordships know, the Bill of which this particular machinery forms a part is not only at the moment before Parliament, but is actually before your Lordships' House. It passed its Second Reading last week, and it is to have its Committee stage next week. That is the

777
occasion, if any noble Lord wishes, for him to make his views clear on that particular point. But this is, of course, a matter of great complexity, vitally affecting a major Government Bill, and for your Lordships to take up a hard and fast attitude to it now on a private Member's Motion without waiting for next week's debate, without considering what will be said by the Government spokesman in charge of the Bill, would surely be odd, difficult to defend and. I think, not in accordance with that outlook which has always actuated your Lordships' House and, I hope, if I may say so, always will.
During the course, I am afraid, of quite a large number of years now I have had the privilege of leading your Lordships' House or of leading in Opposition, and it has fairly often fallen to my lot to advise the House, or my supporters at any rate, on the course they should adopt on this or that issue; and always, I think, I have given in essence the same advice—not to do anything rash or unconsidered. That is specially true on questions on which it may be suggested, however wrongly, that our personal interests are involved. Were the matter to go to a vote on this particular question to-day, I could only recommend your Lordships, for reasons which I have tried to explain to the House, to reject both the Amendments and the Motion; but, in view of what I have said, I hope that that will not happen and that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, having ventilated the subject and produced an extremely interesting and important debate, will withdraw his Motion. For, if he were to press the matter further, I cannot but think that he might do serious injury to your Lordships' House in the country.
LORD SALTOUN: Before the noble Lord replies, may I be allowed to correct a misinterpretation that the noble Marquess placed on my speech? My complaint was not that the district valuers, were incompetent; my complaint was that, under the rules laid down by Parliament, or perhaps under the regulations, they are compelled to do their work in an unreal atmosphere and condition. In my instance of the institution trying to rehouse itself, it appeared to me that the district valuers were rather compelled to put the "break-up" value on these properties in which, as the facts showed, there was quite a lively market.
5.33 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I believe that the moment has arrived when I am entitled to address your Lordships again for a few moments in regard to the Amendments and also to the Motion. If the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, will bear with me, I am not the least surprised that he does not agree with my views. He demonstrated in his speech the policy that the Socialist Party are always pursuing—that is, the nationalisation of land and everything else. That is the policy for the, nationalisation of the means of production; evidently, the noble Earl has that in mind. Therefore, my suggestion, a liberal one, is anathema to the Socialist Party. The noble Earl seems to think that I ought to have said something about agriculture, but I was not touching on agriculture. Of course, I agree with a great deal that the noble Earl has said: we must do everything we can to produce all the food possible. And when we look back on the time of the First World War and the Second World War, I think that the agricultural community stood up to the situation in an amazingly strong way. They did help us through difficult times. After all, agriculture, as all of us who are in it realise, is a terrific gamble. A month or two before the harvest, you think you are going to have a wonderful harvest, and yet you may have a terrible harvest and end up with a serious loss.
I was a little sorry that the noble Earl, in his first Amendment, did not touch very much on my Motion. However, I agree with part of it, although I was not going to accept it because it was outside my Motion and what I had in mind. I am glad that the noble Marquess said just now that this question of economics comes into the matter, for the noble Earl appeared not to refer to that. One has to be very careful about maximum production. One can overdo the maximum; one can go in for big crops and so strain the land. It is the good average production that I want to see, so that the land can carry on in any circumstances producing crops which are needed by the country as a whole.
With regard to what the noble Marquess said on my Motion, I should like to ask a question. I do not think perhaps he quite understood what I meant in the latter part of my Motion. Does he realise that, from the moment

779
that a property, whatever it is, is designated for compulsory purchase, that property is unsaleable? A particular owner may have in mind to-day that he wants to sell this property. Then along comes an authority, designates it for compulsory purchase and he is completely "done in." He cannot do anything at all about it—because, after all, nobody is going to buy a property that has this threat of compulsory purchase hanging over it. That is why I put in those words. I hope the noble Marquess will ask the Government to see whether they cannot obviate that distinct and real grievance that an owner has, unless it happens to be only part of his property that is affected, or unless he is so well off that it does not much matter to him. However, as I say, we have that state of affairs from the very moment that designation takes place. An owner then has a property that is worth nothing to him, perhaps for seven or ten years. That is why I wanted to stress that aspect. I hope the Government will try to solve that serious grievance which is undoubtedly felt by a great many people—I see that the noble Marquess nods his head.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I shall be only too delighted to bring this to the attention of my right honourable friend the Minister. It is a very real problem. What I tried to do in my speech was to explain to the noble Lord the immense complexity of the issues involved.
LORD TEVIOT: I listened with great attention to what our noble Leader said, and I feel that he has, at least by inference, come a very long way towards what I was aiming at and what I was asking for. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
5.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, listening to the noble Marquess, I confess that I wished I had consulted him before I put down my Amendments, because his drafting was a great improvement on mine. We all come to these debates with open minds, and in my case this process resulted in the conviction that my Amendments had been extremely carelessly drafted. May I point out to
780
the noble Marquess that, when I spoke of "efficiency," I meant "economic efficiency" and, in discussing whether or not the Agricultural Land Commission should be allowed to continue to manage their public land, when I expressed the view that the test should be the efficiency they showed in management, I meant "economic efficiency."
The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, made a reassuring remark when he said that the Minister would soon make a statement—in another place, presumably—about the Agricultural Land Commission and the sale of land. He used the words "in the near future." That is a somewhat well-worn Parliamentary expression and can be interpreted in many senses. I sincerely hope that in this case it means days or weeks, rather than months, because I am sure he will agree that this policy goes back quite a long way; that uncertainty is undesirable for farmers, and that the sooner those of them who will be affected know where they stand, the better. I was also glad to hear from the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, a glowing tribute to the efficiency of the Agricultural Land Commission. That was really my case this afternoon. My case was simply that if the Agricultural Land Commission are doing their job, then why give this land to someone else? We have always been told that if an industry is efficient it should not be interfered with. We cannot help regretting sometimes that the Government do not appear to practise what they preach.
This debate this afternoon has certainly satisfied my highest expectations. We have had this important subject of the disposal of agricultural land discussed by many noble Lords. There was an interesting maiden speech from the Cross Benches, and some valuable contributions from the Back Benches, on both sides of the House, in a vein of serious consideration of the whole problem, without any personalities or trivial Party arguments; and this was certainly the best that I had hoped for in putting down my Amendments. There is always some consolation in defeat—and of course my Amendment will be defeated—but I observe that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will be in exactly the same boat and will lose his Resolution also.

781
In the circumstances, I shall ask your Lordships leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): Does the noble Earl desire to move the Second Amendment?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: No.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LOW FLYING FROM ABINGDON R.A.F. STATION
5.43 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will issue instructions that the type of training carried on at the R.A.F. Station at Abingdon, which involves low flying over civilian houses, shall be suspended and thus alleviate the intolerable nuisance From noise and the potential danger which are being suffered by the civilian population in the area; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel that I should apologise to your Lordships for asking you to give your consideration to what I think is a very serious matter, after you have spent such a strenuous afternoon in considering another serious matter; but it is not my fault. I have tried, by every peaceful and conciliatory method I can, to get redress for what I call this intolerable nuisance and danger to a large body of civilians, but to no avail. For months past I have tried to bring reason into this matter by my approaches to the Air Ministry, and it was in desperation that about three weeks ago I approached the noble Marquess the Leader of your Lordships' House. With that courtesy and sympathetic understanding which he shows to all your Lordships, upon whichever Bench you happen to sit, he immediately said he would try and do what he could. After another delay his efforts suffered the same fate as mine, and as I was determined that nothing I could do would be left undone to save these people the misery, the torture and the pain which they are suffering, I put down this Motion to gain an expression of your Lordships' opinion.
I know very well that this is a national problem. If we in this country are to
782
live for the next, decade or longer in a state of semi-armed preparedness for war, if we must house in this country a foreign air force and build up our own, then greater attention must be given to the siting of airfields and the amenity of the civil population than has been the case up to date. My Lords, it was the fortitude and courage of the civilian population that won the last war, and it will be the fortitude and courage of the civilian population that will bring us through the next one, if there ever is one. I do not think the civil population is receiving the consideration to which it is entitled. However, I am not going to deal with the national problem to-day; I am going to concentrate my remarks upon what is happening at Abingdon.
Abingdon Royal Air Force station is occupied by Transport Command, and apart from their operational services they have a type of training which necessitates a noise which is barely describable and is a source of potential danger to the lives and property of civilians. They use there four-engined Hastings and York aircraft, among the noisiest piston machines now in service with the Royal Air Force. They simulate emergency conditions, and immediately one of these aircraft becomes airborne the pilot is blindfolded and sometimes an engine is cut out—as I say, to simulate danger—and the aircraft flies over the rooftops of houses at an approximate height of 150 feet. The instructions to the pilot are that he must ground his aircraft as soon as he possibly can, so he flies round a circuit of the radius of about 6,000 yards; he comes down on the runway, and then immediately goes up again. This goes on consistently, hour after hour, day and night. The aircraft is always going up or coming down; it is always landing or ascending, and it goes round and round, at a height of approximately 150 to 200 feet, to the terror of everybody in the daytime and as a ceaseless nuisance to thorn at night. That is one kind of exercise. Then there is the other, where the aircraft carry heavy loads, such as guns and vehicles, for parachuting in other places.
That, in a few words, is the source of all the trouble caused by these two training exercises. Witt ordinary operational flying the aircraft fly light, and after they have travelled a mile from the centre of the aerodrome they are 500 or 600 feet up and occasion no nuisance to

783
anybody. But there have been times (I have seen this with my own eyes) when one of these aircraft does this training stunt—because it is stunt flying—a mile and a half to two miles from the centre of the runway, when it is still flying at under 200 feet. I will bring before you irrefutable evidence that that is so. Building estates and houses are within 1,000 to 2,000 yards of the centre of the aerodrome. There are two housing estates 1,000 yards from the aerodrome; there is another 1,200 yards from the aerodrome, and a community of some 5,000 people live within 1,500 to 2,000 yards directly in line with the main runway. The nearest houses on one side of the aerodrome are less than 250 yards from the end of the runway. At the other end of the east-west runway there are about 1,000 houses. One main road is 250 yards from one runway, and another is 50 yards from the other. From a radius of 6,000 yards of the centre of that aerodrome there are 30,000 people living, the overspill of industrialised Oxford, men who live their days at the Pressed Steel works, with the noise of heavy presses, or in the machine shops of the Morris Works at Cowley. They live in these humble building estates and are wracked with this terrifying noise all night. I will let these people tell their own stories in the evidence I have here.
Some time ago the north-south runway became out of repair, and for the last three months only the east-west runway, about 1,600 yards long, has been in use. That causes the maximum amount of nuisance, for it means that planes fly over houses within 1,000 yards. Noble Lords will know that Abingdon Airfield has, the natural disability of Boar's Hill, which stands 400 feet above the aerodrome within 3,000 yards of it, and as residents will say, these planes go up and come down literally skimming the rooftops. Because it got so bad, local residents raised a petition which, on their behalf, I forwarded to the Secretary of State. It was couched in this language:
"I feel I ought to inform you of the really desperate conditions affecting the health of the inhabitants of Frilford Heath through the continual roar of high-powered planes flying as low sometimes as 200 feet high. Personally I am often awakened at night by the fearful noise and literally the house (well built) shakes, not only at night but in the day. My wife
784
and other women living in the district are nearly driven crazy by the terrible noise and frightening effect of these machines which seem as if they will hit the chimneys or rooftops."
That petition was signed by the principal residents of Frilford Heath. It had just as much effect as any other protest. I have here a letter from the Rector of Dry Sandford, which is the village and housing estate directly in line with one of the runways over which these roaring monsters, with throttles full open, fly just over the rooftops. The letter says:
"I am frequently alarmed as … large planes skim over very low. For myself I find the noise the worst part, but some residents are in real fear and will duck as the plane goes over. Ceilings are cracking, babies are unable to get their rest and older children are unable to do any homework at all."
That letter is from the Rector. I have a list of residents who complain of sleepless nights. They are unable to get their rest, and their little houses are suffering deterioration.
I have here, too, particulars of someone who has had to build a sound-proof room in his house to keep his wife's sanity. Fortunately that particular gentleman is very wealthy and can afford to do that; but these other artisans of whom I tell you are kept with their nerves on edge, working all day with thousand-ton steel presses and having to put up with this intolerable noise all night. I have in my hand a letter from the Matron of Abingdon Hospital appealing for something to be done. This is what she says:
"There are always nearly fifty patients and eighteen resident staff. During the day ill patients having been given sedatives for the relief of pain are often prevented from resting or disturbed from sleep by the appalling noise."
In this hospital there is a tuberculosis clinic, and this is what the Matron says:
"Physicians cannot examine patients' chests using a stethoscope, being unable to hear a sound above the roar of the planes' engines, and the night staff cannot sleep. In the late evening patients and staff are again prevented from resting. Peace and quietness is so essential to patients who are very ill in order that sedatives may ease their pain and enable them to get much-needed rest."
Of the planes she says:
"Their present course invariably takes them straight over the middle of the ward blocks."
I have also a letter from the Matron of the Warren Maternity Hospital, in Abingdon. Both these hospitals are

785
nearly two and a half miles from the centre of this aerodrome, just about within the 6,000 yard radius I have mentioned. This Matron says:
"I am writing on behalf of the patients and staff of this hospital, hoping that you may be able to help in the matter of low-flying aircraft. As you will understand, mothers, both in labour and during their lying-in period, need absolute rest and quiet; also the staff, which at the moment, as in all hospitals, is very depleted. The few of us who have to work in the day get very little sleep at night, owing to planes flying so low that it is possible to see some of the crews in them. As I write this a plane flew so low the shadow was shown in this room."
Now here is a letter from the Matron of Dr. Barnardo's Home at Frilford Heath:
"The aeroplanes fly very, very low over the house, causing a great deal of vibration. We have here fifty small children, aged two months to five years, and twenty young student nurses, as well as our staff. The children are often frightened when the planes come over so low, and they cannot hear themselves speak or the voice of their nurse. This happens very frequently, and of late we have found night flying very disturbing."
There is yet another letter that I should like to quote, for it comes from a gentleman known to a number of noble Lords, the headmaster of Cothill House preparatory school, where a great many of your Lordships, I believe, once went. He writes in very strong language. I will just quote to your Lordships one paragraph:
"The R.A.F. attitude seems to be that the large civilian population don't count, and can be ignored, and that they must weakly and meekly put up with what is for most of us an intolerable condition of affairs. … As headmaster of this boys' preparatory school, of over 100 boys (and the school was here long before any aerodrome was thought of) I know full well what a big nuisance and menace this low flying is. … Surely there are more suitable aerodromes placed in a less populated area."
Another letter which I have received is from a man who tells me that his wife
"gets into a state of collapse and nervous distraction during these performances."
Another correspondent who lives next door to the City of Oxford Old People's Home writes that the only people who can live there in peace are those who are afflicted with deafness. My Lords, is it not incongruous that in this country, at this time, the only people who can live in peace in this neighbourhood are those who have one of the worst afflictions from which humans can suffer—that is, deafness?
I have a further letter here (and it is the last one to which I am going to refer); in which my correspondent speaks in terms of affection of "that great man Glyn" and the great work done by him. The noble Lord, Lord Glyn, who is now sitting opposite me, was once Member of Parliament for that area. My correspondent says that he got this nuisance abated and received an undertaking that it would not occur again. What can be done, now that the noble Lord has been transferred here from another place—to the great gain of all your Lordships, but to the terrific loss of the people of that district? My correspondent says that the trouble is worse than ever. I can assure the noble Lord that he is still held in the greatest respect and affection in that district.
Is the answer of the noble Earl who is to reply to me going to be that this kind of training cannot be done anywhere except over a population of 30,000 people? May I make it perfectly clear that I agree that this training is necessary—it is not for me to question that for a moment. What I do question most sincerely is whether it cannot be carried out in a less populous district. As I have said, within 6,000 yards of this place there are 30,000 people, mostly artisans who have to work all day. These people are not exaggerating in the complaints they make. One woman tells me that it is a most terrifying experience for housewives to see these monsters with four engines, sometimes blazing full out, coming right at them as they work in their kitchens. Surely something could be done! But up to date all the efforts have been of little avail, and I am forced to the conclusion that somewhere—I hope your Lordships do not think I am exaggerating—there is a curious indifference to the suffering of these people. For while most of these things are known, no trouble has been taken to find out the true depth of the sufferings of the individuals affected.
The contempt which the Air Ministry show is exemplified in something which appears in a recent edition of the Oxford Mail. It is there recorded that the Air Ministry have sent a letter to the honourable gentleman who is Member for the district saying that the Ministry reject all protests and that this nuisance will go on. And the Ministry have done

787
this knowing that this Motion was down for debate in your Lordships' House. Such is their contempt for Parliament that they make their decision before the case has been put to the Government Front Bench! That is their whole attitude. And that is what the local people complain about. They are not even considered in this matter. I can tell your Lordships of it from my own personal experience: I have an interest in it, for I am one of the 30,000. I say that it is monstrous that this should continue.
We have just debated a subject arising from the Crichel Down affair. When Sir Andrew Clark's Report was published, the Prime Minister set up a Committee of Inquiry to inquire into certain matters. That Committee published a Report which inspired Sir Edward Bridges, the Head of the Civil Service, to write a letter of directive. In it he said this:
"The circumstances that led up to this Report have brought forcibly to their Lordships' attention,"—
"'their Lordships" being the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury—
"as to that of the country as a whole, the need for constant vigilance to ensure respect for the rights and feelings of individual members of the community who may be affected by the work of Departments. The confidence of the public in the administration of Government Departments depends upon this vigilance. My Lords consider that this most important consideration could not be better expressed than in the words of paragraph 3 of the Report:
'In present times the interests of the private citizen are affected to a great extent by the actions of civil servants. It is the more necessary that the civil servant should bear constantly in mind that the citizen has a right to expect not only that his affairs will be dealt with effectively and expeditiously but also that his personal feelings no less than his rights as an individual will be sympathetically and fairly considered.'"
The letter ends:
"My Lords strongly endorse this view and direct that the attention of all grades of the Service should be drawn to it."
LORD AMMON: What is the date of that letter?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I have not the date here—I am quoting an extract from The Times. It was some time within the last month.
I do not suppose it would be within the authority of the Head of the Civil Service to send a similar letter to
788
uniformed ranks of the Services. But I think that this needs saying: that, from the Marshal of the Air Force downwards, they are just as much civil servants as the most humble clerk who sits in the Air Ministry behind a desk and whose only uniform is a civilian suit. The fundamental root of this trouble is that that is not appreciated. I do not think I need say any more. This is a case in which I can only hope that the pre-judgment of the Air Ministry can be altered, and I would appeal to the noble Marquess who leads your Lordships' House. This is a desperate situation. Surely it is not necessary for the sick to be racked on their beds at night. Surely it is not necessary for mothers in childbirth and for artisan workers to suffer this noise and this intolerable nuisance at night. Surely that aerodrome can be used for some other and less noisy purpose and this training done elsewhere, so that some sense of peace and quietness may be brought to a neighbourhood that is really distressed. I beg to move for Papers.
6.10 p.m.
LORD GLYN: My Lords, I wish to intervene for a short time because this matter was frequently brought to my attention during the years I was Member of Parliament for Abingdon. During all that time I received the utmost co-operation, so far as it was possible, from the Air Ministry and the officers commanding the station. My honourable friend the present Member for Abingdon has taken up this case, as I did. Every day I had piteous appeals from schoolmasters and other people who found difficulty in carrying on their work because of the nuisance of aircraft flying very low. I had the most courteous attention from the Air Ministry, and over and over again matters were adjusted to try to improve the situation, which in many ways was intolerable. Therefore, I am very much astonished to learn from the noble Lord that in his view there has been a change of attitude of those in authority, because it is something which I certainly never experienced. I found the utmost co-operation in trying to make things less difficult.
I understand that in another place today an answer was given to the honourable Member for Abingdon by the Under-Secretary of State for Air, undertaking that the north-south runway will

789
be in commission again in about a fortnight. No doubt that will tend to improve the position. But the real difficulty is that this training has to be done, and that round this airfield, the building of which I well remember, the authorities have allowed a large number of bungalows and houses to be built. In my view, they should not have been allowed near the airfield. Since the day the airfield was built the type of aircraft has completely changed. It is a fact, as I have seen myself, that windows have been broken and ceilings damaged. Life for people in that district is well-nigh intolerable. I appreciate the difficulty of the Air Ministry in finding a suitable place where this training can be carried out. I am sure that the present Member for Abingdon cannot be satisfied with the position, when so many of his constituents are suffering daily and nightly, but at the same time I think it necessary to emphasise that this training is vital if we are going to have an efficient Air Force. There are certain satellite airfields which during the war were attached to Abingdon and which are now on a care and maintenance basis. I know two of them which are right in the country, with no houses near them, and I often wonder Why this particular sort of training could not be conducted on these more isolated airfields.
It is the constant taking off and landing which is the real difficulty of people living nearby. There is no question that it affects people's nerves. I know it is the wish of the Air Ministry, as it always has been, that there should be the utmost co-operation between the civil population and the Air Force, and we do not want a feeling of dislike, or even worse, to grow up; but undoubtedly there is a feeling in the district that the authorities do not care sufficiently for their condition. It is not only a question of Abingdon; there are other places in the country where this is the case, and it is no good pretending that this curse is only at Abingdon. Over £30 million have been voted this year for new airfields and for the adaption of existing fields. I think it would be great comfort to my late constituents, and I hope to the present Member, if the noble Earl who is to reply could say that a survey would be taken to see whether these particular noisy exercises could be carried out from the isolated stations where there are no houses in the immediate vicinity, without in the
790
least diminishing the efficiency of the Air Force. I believe we are spending £60,000 this year on surveys alone. Possibly some of that money might be spent on making a survey of existing airfields or of those on a care and maintenance basis to see whether some of the exercises could not be there transferred.
There is one other point which I feel I am in honour bound to mention. I have seen the petition that was sent to the Member of Parliament for Abingdon, as was the right course. The honourable Member has taken every step to relieve the feelings of the local people, which are strained almost to breaking point. It is all very well to deal with this matter in an impartial way, but if one lived there and saw the children's nerves suffering, or if one had to stop teaching in the local school because one could not make oneself heard, one would feel strongly about the matter. That sort of life for young people and women is very bad, and I know the opinions the doctors have given.
I believe that nobody appreciates the difficulties more than the Royal Air Force and that the Air Ministry will do all that they possibly can. But one of the problems has always been for the Member of Parliament to convince the people there that the Air Ministry do care about the position and are anxious to improve the situation. As is known to your Lordships, this airfield is being used for training parachute troops. I wonder whether there could not be a re-assessment of the use of our airfields so that those around which houses have grown up (even through a mistake of the planning authority, as I think) need not be used for this type of training. I have had vast correspondence with the professors and dons who live on Boar's Hill. Boar's Hill, as the noble Lord has said, is some 400 or 500 feet high, and when aeroplanes are circling it is a difficult task to clear the hill, a matter which is only too obvious to some of the professors who live on it. Whilst one is grateful to the noble Lord for raising this matter, when all is said and done, I think it is a matter for the Member of that constituency. I should hate it to be thought from this debate that the Air Ministry are not determined to do all in their power to alleviate this difficulty and bring peace to many honourable people.
6.20 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I still have some association with Oxford and I have had representations made to me about this matter. I am sorry I was called out while my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth was speaking, and therefore I hesitate to add anything at all. But I have been told by people on whom I can place complete reliance that the burden of this noise is very trying for them, particularly because it goes on at night. We live in the sort of world we do: we all know that we must have an Air Force, and that that Air Force must train its men; we must be realists about this. But I do feel it is most important that the Air Force and the Air Ministry should maintain and retain the confidence of the public. I think the corollary to that is this: that the public should be satisfied that the Air Ministry are appreciative of the trials which they are undergoing and are doing all they possibly can to remedy the position.
On would have thought—I speak as a child in these matters—that these night flying and low flying exercises might take place over some aerodrome where there is not a vast number of people congregated. My experience as a Minister taught me that Ministries are sometimes amenable to a little pressure. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth has raised this question. It was not, I am sure, raised in any sense of trying to take the matter out of the hands of the Member of Parliament, but rather to reinforce and strengthen his evidence, that we have "had a round" in this House. I hope the Minister who is going to reply will realise that these people have a real grievance and that this is causing real distress; and if he can do anything to alleviate the position by representations he can make to the Air Ministry, those people will be grateful. Those of us to whom representations have been made have done no more than was our duty in passing those representations on to your Lordships' House.
6.22 p.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I will not keep your Lordships more than a moment. I rise merely to put one point to the noble Earl who is to reply, and I hope that my noble friend who opened the discussion will not think I am in any way trying to minimise the problem, so far as Abingdon is concerned, if I put it
792
on a somewhat broader basis. In 1936 a committee was appointed under the chairmanship of Lord Gorell to go into the general question of noise created by flying aircraft. They issued a unanimous Report. That Report has never been heard of since. I mention this matter merely as a matter of historical interest and to warn my noble friend should he be promised a committee of inquiry.
6.23 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I will detain your Lordships for only a few moments. I spoke on this subject in your Lordships' House some time ago, and naturally when this sort of thing takes place I am communicated with. I have just had a long communication, which no doubt others of your Lordships have received, in regard to Gatwick Aerodrome. We are all suffering from this desire to go everywhere at the most frightful speed. It cannot matter, in the least, if I fly from America to this country, whether I get to my destination an hour and a half sooner. My noble friend Lord Glyn has just said that this large sum is going to be spent on surveying sites for new aerodromes. I feel that they should go to some of these other places. I will show them where they can go where they will disturb nobody, and they will not upset the agricultural population or disturb agriculture. Where you have downland with a few old sheep about, and a rabbit or two, you can fly up and down and not hurt anybody. Then there is all the heathland round about Sunningdale, near the golf course. You could have an aerodrome there and upset nobody at all. For goodness sake make these new sites for aerodromes on places of that sort. And I do not think they will cost anything like as much as if you go into thickly populated areas like Gatwick and the place mentioned by the noble Lord who moved the Motion. I hope that sites will be the paramount objective of the surveyors when they are going into the question of new aerodromes.
6.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend the Secretary of State for Air, I have been asked to reply to the Motion which has been moved this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. Before I deal with the individual remarks

793
and complaints which the noble Lord made, I think it may be of general use to the House if I endeavour to explain briefly the rôle of Abingdon Airfield, which was opened in September, 1932, and has been continuously in operation ever since. It was, I understand, in November, 1945, that a review was undertaken by the Air Ministry of all airfields in the United Kingdom. In their wisdom, they decided to retain Abingdon as a peace-time base and thereafter to equip it with every modern facility which is necessary for day and night flying. The airfield, as such, has, I am informed, not been developed since the war: an undertaking to this effect which was given to the Oxford Preservation Trust in 1950 has, in fact, been faithfully fulfilled. There are, as the noble Lord said, two runways on this airfield, the north-south one of 2,200 yards, and the east-west one of 1,600 yards. The longer runway was laid down in line with the prevailing wind and, therefore, that north-south runway is used far more often than the east-west runway.
I have also been advised—this is a technical matter, but it is of some importance in answering the question of the noble Lord—that both these runways were originally sited so that in their approach and take-off aircraft would be pointed over open country. Since 1932 the population within 6,000 yards of the runway has increased from 16,000 to 29,000, but I have been told that the new buildings which have resulted from the increase in the population show that there are few additional houses in line with the runway. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Glyn has just said, the houses which have been built to house this increased population were presumably built by contractors and local authorities, whoever they may be, with full knowledge that they were in close proximity to an airfield.
This base of Abingdon is one of Transport Command's main operational airfields, and the pilots of the squadrons that are based there are highly qualified and fly over many of the overseas air routes. But, in addition, those pilots are called upon to fly aircraft for parachute exercises, to which the noble Lord referred. Let me say, in passing, that that is the only time that any of the aircraft fly fully loaded—indeed, they have to, if they are
794
to have parachute droppings. On the airfield at the moment there are two squadrons of four-engined Hastings, which are machines, I am advised, used for normal operational purposes and for these exercises, too. Their pilots are called upon to carry out monthly training exercises in order that they may retain the high standard of competence for which they are well-known.
Now this training, which has been the basis of the trouble as I understand it, consists first of simulated engine failures on take-off, which involves three flights in every twenty-four hours. The second course of training is the overshoot and break-off with four engines, which involves sixteen flights in twenty-four hours. There is also the instrument take-off exercise. Let me make this quite clear. I think it would be generally and universally agreed that low flying training and practice form an essential part of the skill of these operation pilots. But the fact is that low flying does not take place and cannot occur at the whim of any individual pilot. In point of fact, Queen's Regulations lay down that flying is not to be done at less than 2,000 feet unless it has been specially authorised and, if planes have been specially authorised, the place which is approved for this low flying will have received the approval of the Air Officer Commander-in-Chief and the Air Officer of the Control Centre. The questions of disturbance in hospitals, of private individuals and, indeed, to pedigree herds of cattle, are all taken into consideration by the Air Officer Commander-in-Chief and the Air Traffic Control Centre.
Let me now deal with the grounds of complaint which were made by the noble Lord. He will forgive me if I say that the situation probably may be bad. Many of us who live near aerodromes probably suffer from this inconvenience, but I am bound to admit that I thought he painted a somewhat exaggerated picture. The noble Lord originally complained of noise from aircraft by day and night when the east-west runway is in use. That he did in January of this year. My noble friend the Secretary of State wrote to him in February, and that reply appeared to satisfy the noble Lord, because no further complaints were made by him until the middle of August this year, when much correspondence has

795
since transpired between the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and the Under-Secretary of State. That may be due to the fact that, since August, the north-south runway has been undergoing repair, but, as my noble friend, Lord Glyn, pointed out, it will be operating again in the middle of November. We are all agreed that the north-south runway should be used in preference to the east-west runway, but I should not like, by saying that, to suggest that it may always be possible to do so. Nevertheless, my noble friend will do his best to see that the north-south, the longer, runway is used, but, naturally enough, he cannot give any definite or firm guarantee.
From August onwards, until the noble Lord who moved this Motion discussed the matter with the Leader of the House, there have, as I have said, been continuous letters from the noble Lord opposite in which he said he was trying to get redress from the Air Ministry and my noble friend. In almost every complaint that he has made, my noble friend has done his best to meet him, and has in many cases met him. Let me give the noble Lord indications. He said that the east-west runway had been used when the wind direction would have allowed use of the north-south runway. That, the noble Lord knows, is disputed by the station commander and my noble friend. The noble Lord complained that aircraft went over his house at a dangerously low level. My advice is that, except for taking off and landing, no aircraft is allowed to fly at less than 500 feet, and that it can only fly at that height if the proposals have been approved in the manner and the way in which I have outlined.
Then the noble Lord wrote again at the end of August complaining about low-flying aircraft at night, saying that the airfield is ill-sited for Service use, and that this flying which is carried out at Abingdon should be discontinued. There was a letter which he addressed to my noble and gallant friend, and what happened? It was decided to send down the Under-Secretary of State for Air, who visited the aerodrome at Abingdon, and also visited my noble friend at his house nearby. On this occasion the noble Lord asked for night flying to be reduced during the period when the north-south runway
796
was being repaired. That was in September, and the House will notice that the noble Lord has now gone so far that he asks for it to be completely suspended henceforth and for ever from this airfield. There again, the Under-Secretary of State informed him that, wherever possible, the north-south runway would be used, but that at the present moment, as it was undergoing repair, it was necessary to use the east-west runway. On September 9, the Secretary of State wrote to the noble Lord and told him what he was prepared to do—in fact, everything to assist him that he Could. My noble friend has now agreed that, whilst the north-south runway is out of commission, there will be a limit to the number of nights on which exercises are undertaken to four a week, and for night flying to cease at a reasonable hour. Secondly, he has undertaken that he will restrict the engine failure on take-off exercises to the daytime only. Furthermore, I can give the noble Lord an assurance now that if, in the future, any of these Hastings aircraft are replaced, the replacements will be provided by the Beverley piston-engined aircraft.
May I now refer to one or two of the points which were made in the course of the debate? They are detailed points, but I think it is necessary to clear them up. First, the flying on circuit on the beam, which was discussed by the noble Lord opposite. As I think I have explained to him, aircraft do not do this below 500 feet. They always have an experienced pilot with them, and they are never blindfold. It was suggested by, I think, my noble friend Lord Glyn that the Air Ministry should inquire into the possibility of using other satellite airfields where these exercises and training could be undertaken. I am advised that these old satellite runways would not be able to take these heavy aircraft, that there are no control facilities on them at present, and that there would be a considerable expense in their adaptation. I fully realise, as does my noble friend and, I think, anyone who is connected with, or has any knowledge of, modern aircraft, that people living in close proximity to an aerodrome do suffer a very grievous inconvenience. But, as I think was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, there is, I suppose, no feature in the R.A.F. which is more important

797
than training. Indeed, good flying training is the heart of the whole problem of securing an efficient air force, and my noble friend Lord Glyn was the first to be aware of how vital that is.
I have endeavoured to explain to the House that we have tried to meet every single one of the objections which have been lodged with us, and we have given careful consideration to every point which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has made. But with the best will in the world, it would not be possible for the Secretary of State to restrict further training, still less to suspend it. I repeat again, that I am advised that there is at the moment no other airfield in this country which is available for the two squadrons now stationed at Abingdon. To move the establishment would mean the laying down of a new airfield, at prohibitive cost. I can, however, give this guarantee: that, quite apart from my reporting to my noble and gallant friend the remarks which have been made by noble Lords on this Motion to-day, every person at the Air Ministry is genuinely concerned about reducing noise whenever it is possible and practicable, and efforts are continually being made to see how we can alleviate the distress which it undoubtedly causes to a large number of people.
I would add that I have no knowledge of the 1936 Committee's Report on the noise of aircraft, but if I can obtain a copy I will send it to the noble Lord. In conclusion, I hope that the noble Lord who moved this Motion will appreciate how necessary it is for the members of the Royal Air Force and for the general public to live on friendly terms close to one another. I hope that nothing that I have said to-day, and that nothing that the noble Lord will say in the course of his reply, will make difficult the continuance of that close co-operation in the future.
6.41 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his courteous reply. I knew that I should get that. Your Lordships have never had anything other than courtesy from the noble Earl when he replies on behalf of the Government, but I hope he will forgive my saying that some of the information that he has given your
798
Lordships is entirely wrong and misleading. I do not put the responsibility for that upon him—I will tell your Lordships why, in a minute. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, for his support. May I say this, in reply to what has been said? The Member for North Berkshire who sits in another place and I have worked in the closest co-operation. He has used every effort, but he has received the same blunt refusals that I have. The noble Earl, Lord Munster, said that concessions had been made. The concessions that have been made do not add up to a row of pins. Admittedly the Secretary of State, before he left for North America, made arrangements that there would be no night flying on Wednesday nights. What he did go on to say in his letter to me, however, was that it would be intensified on every other night, with the net result that we, rather like the humble servant girl, get a night off but have to endure the penalty longer on other nights.
The noble Earl talks about the north-south runway. The north-south runway is coming into operation again in a fortnight's time and the poor people at Dry Sandford, Wootton and Cumnor (where there has been, an increase in population of 3,000 to 4,000 since the date the noble Earl mentioned, when this survey was made; there is the housing estate of the Abingdon Rural District Council which has just been completed; there have been two further housing estates built upon the perimeter by the Abingdon Borough Council and one is just being completed) will have to go through this all over again. The noble Earl says that the only time that these aircraft fly at less than 500 feet is when they are either going up or coming down. If he will forgive my saying this, with great respect—I do not saddle him with the responsibility of making that statement—that is a thoroughly misleading statement and I will tell your Lordships why. On this what we call "circuits and bumps" exercise—that is, the blindfold and engine cutting out—the pilot gets instructions that, as soon as he is airborne, those simulations are put into operation and he has to land his aircraft as soon as he can. So he never gets up above 200 feet. He is always going up and coming down. He goes on doing this all night. He never gets higher than about 150 to 200 feet. So it is useless for my

799
noble friend, with great respect, to say that they never fly at under 500 feet. It is one of those circumlocutions—
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I must interrupt the noble Lord for a moment. He is doubting everything that I said to him about the flying of these low-flying aircraft.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am talking about low-flying aircraft which are not allowed to fly at a height below 2,000 feet unless the procedure and the place is passed by the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief. If there are training exercises going on, the aircraft might be going up and coming down again, not getting to 500 feet. But do not let the noble Lord think that aircraft other than those which are going up and coming down fly at below 500 feet.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Earl could not have heard what I said in my opening speech. It is those aircraft about which we complain. It is not the normal work of Transport Command, when they are on operational flying, because those aircraft leave the runway and within a mile have attained a height of 600 feet. Then as regards the visit of the Under-Secretary of State, it is true that he came to see me. He arrived at Abingdon aerodrome at 10.30 in the morning; he came to see me at 12.30; we had lunch and he left at 2.30. While he was at my house, from 12.30 to 2.30, not one aeroplane came anywhere near. I said to him: "Fancy coming down to investigate a problem and you have not seen even the beginning of it!" He left to fly back to Hendon at 2.30 and from 3 o'clock onwards hell was let loose. I happen to know the facts.
Then the noble Earl talks about "overshoot"—the most terrifying thing that could possibly happen. These four-engined monsters come down and a pilot overshoots the runway. He comes up over these small houses, does a quick "bank" out of the funnel into the circuit, just over the tops of the houses. Really, it is not good enough for the noble Earl to tell us that. I do not doubt his veracity, because he is only speaking from a brief, but those are the facts and
800
I hope that the noble Earl will do something more than he has said. It is no good talking about the increase in population and the bad planning. Those people are there. What are they going to do? Does the noble Earl suggest that these artisans should give up their jobs and move out, and find other work in the country, because it suits the convenience of the Royal Air Force or the Air Ministry to have an aerodrome like this in a built-up area? Does the noble Earl suggest that? There may be bad planning, but they are there; those folk are there.
This is not a political question and it is not a question upon which I intend to divide your Lordships, because I am certain that this thing will be cured; and what will cure it will be public opinion. As the noble Earl says, the last thing that any responsible person wants is friction between the civil population—I wish I could have the attention of the noble Earl; it may be a very funny story he is listening to, but this matter is not funny at all.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I would ask the noble Lord not to exaggerate. Much of what he has said is really grossly exaggerated. There are 29,000 people situated in the vicinity of this airfield. The number of complaints which were received from people in that neighbourhood were almost infinitesimal until the noble Lord started canvassing them on his behalf and on their behalf.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is an entirely wrong statement.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: From that moment a number of complaints have come in. For instance, there was one which the noble Lord made which I hoped to overlook. He was reading a letter from the Matron of the Abingdon Hospital about the serious inconvenience that was caused to her patients when the north-south runway was being used. But the noble Lord originally asked the Secretary of State to use none other than the north-south runway, with even more considerable inconvenience to the matron.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Earl says that I have exaggerated. I have not. I let these affected people speak for themselves; I read their letters to your Lordships. That is their own

801
language, and it expresses their feelings. I altered my Motion on the Order Paper because I realised what would be the suffering of other people when the north-south runway came into operation. The noble Earl has no right to say what he has said, and I hope he will withdraw it.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: No, I will not.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I have not canvassed anything.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The noble Lord held a Press conference.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No, I did not; I spoke to a reporter. Is that holding a Press conference? Is that exaggeration? The noble Earl need not lose his temper. I have not lost mine. This is far too serious a matter.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I agree.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: And, as I say, public opinion will cure this problem, because you cannot do this kind of thing in the name of the national interest. May I draw the noble Earl's attention, finally, to something which was printed in at least a Conservative newspaper, the Daily Telegraph:
"'Efficiency,' 'the national interest,' 'the public interest': … In truth, these phrases are beginning to acquire a sinister connotation; when they hear them, people ask who is being victimised."
We know who is being victimised here, and I hope the noble Marquess the Leader of the House will, as I feel certain he will, take into consideration what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, by my noble and learned Leader, Lord Jowitt, and myself, to see whether some
802
alleviation cannot be brought about. My Lords, with those words I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  LEGAL AID
  LEGAL AID