Sitting of 8 February 1956

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND, 1954–55
Accounts ordered,
of the Civil Contingencies Fund, 1954–55, showing (1) the Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended 31st day of March, 1955, and (2) the Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SHIPPING

    Shipowners' Liability (Draft Convention)
    Mr. Knox Cunninghamasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what consideration Her Majesty's Government have given to the convention on the subject of shipowners' liability which was drafted by the International Maritime Committee at its meeting in September, 1955; and what action Her Majesty's Government propose to take.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): The draft convention is being studied with the numerous interests concerned. I cannot state what action Her Majesty's Government may take, until these studies and subsequent inter-Governmental discussions are completed.
    Mr. Knox Cunningham: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there is grave injustice at present owing to the low limit of liability, and will he realise that time is of the essence? Will he also bear in mind that a somewhat similar convention of 1924 has not been implemented?
    Mr. Profumo: I recognise that there is a clear case for review, but we must wait
    1644
    to take any action according to the Answer which I have already given to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Younger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I, and I have no doubt other hon. Members, have been pressing this matter for a long time? Is the hon. Gentleman not also aware that these international negotiations have been dragging on, to my knowledge, certainly for several years, in addition to the earlier ones which were reported in 1924? There are ships being lost at sea every month, I am sorry to say, and certainly every year from my constituency, and the amount of compensation that dependants can get is certainly not more than about a quarter of what everybody thinks they should get. This really is a very urgent matter.
    Mr. Profumo: I recognise the urgency of this matter, but it would be most unwise to prejudice our interests and our negotiating freedom at the conference which will have to take place, by announcing in advance our position or making it publicly known before the conference takes place.

    Harbours (Radar Apparatus)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if the new radar apparatus for guiding small vessels into harbour when visibility is bad, which was recently tested at Fraserburgh and Arbroath, is yet in commercial production and on the market for purchase; and if he will give details of the places where, and price at which, it can be purchased.
    The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I understand that a firm of radio manufacturers is undertaking commercial production of this apparatus and will soon be publishing the information for which the hon. and learned Member asks.
    Mr. Hughes: In view of the value of the life-saving potentialities of this new invention, but its great cost to small ships, will the Minister devise some means whereby there may be grants or loans provided for its purchase?
    Mr. Watkinson: I will consider that suggestion, but my present understanding is that the expensive part of the apparatus is that which is installed on shore— the transmitting part—and that the part

    1645
    which is fitted in the ship or trawler is relatively inexpensive. However, I will certainly have another look at the matter.

    Freight Charges
    Mr. Bowlesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will introduce legislation to control shipping freight charges and prevent such rises as must unduly inflate export prices and so adversely affect our export trade.
    Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir, I consider that the best policy is to leave the fixing of shipping freight rates to be settled commercially.
    Mr. Bowles: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the 10 per cent. increase in charges, starting from 1st April, for shipping from Europe, and in particular from this country to the North American Continent, is likely to price us out of the market? We are told that strikes by the workers are liable to price our products out of the market. Surely the right hon. Gentleman can make representations to the Shipping Conference to see that these advances do not take place without his having more to say about them?
    Mr. Watkinson: I have looked carefully into this, and I find that even after this increase the shipping companies have increased their charges rather less than most other forms of transport.
    Sir L. Ropner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that rates of freight to this country from the American Continent are on the average about 10s. a ton more than the rates on freight to the Continent, entirely due to the delay in British ports compared with Continental ports?

    Ships (Medical Advice)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what methods are adopted to send medical advice to and from ships at sea where no doctor is carried; if he is satisfied that this is adequate; and what steps are being taken to give officers such training that they will be better able to explain the symptoms of a case when drafting a call for medical aid or receiving such advice.
    Mr. Watkinson: Ships obtain medical advice by radio through shore stations
    1646
    and from doctors aboard other ships. These arrangements are well established and work adequately. AH United Kingdom ships and all doctors concerned have copies of the 'Ship Captain's Medical Guide," so that symptoms and advice can be discussed by reference to it. In addition, all United Kingdom certificated officers must hold a first-aid certificate.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that it is highly desirable that on reasonably sized ships there should be someone who can send out and receive medical messages? Will he encourage all officers to pass the examination, and see that they get recompensed for the trouble taken in passing the examination?
    Mr. Watkinson: That is a very important point and I should like to look at it, although I am advised that the present arrangements are not unsatisfactory.

  ROADS

    By-pass, Atherstone
    Mr. Mossasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress has been made in the proposal to construct a by-pass at Atherstone in the County of Warwick.
    Mr. Watkinson: The preliminary survey work has now been completed by the agent authority, the Warwickshire County Council. The preparation of the draft Order under Section 1 (2) of the Trunk Roads Act, 1946, which I hope to publish later in the year, is in hand.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Is the Minister aware that plans were made for this road as far back as 1927 when the route was pegged out across the grammar school playing fields? Is it not time that something more active was done?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am afraid that some of these road schemes take an enormous time because of the difficulties of acquiring property and many other factors.

    Forth Tube Project
    Mr. Hoyasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the proposed tube crossing of the Forth.
    Mr. Watkinson: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Major Anstruther-Gray) on 1st February.
    Mr. Hoy: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is now eight months since his predecessor intimated to me the setting up of this committee? Could not the right hon. Gentleman be a little more definite about the date when the report is expected?
    Mr. Watkinson: As I said last week, this committee is not behind in its schedule of work. As I think the hon. Member knows, this is a very difficult technical problem.

    Pedestrian Crossings (Fatalities)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many pedestrians were killed or seriously injured on zebra crossings during 1955 as compared with 1954.
    Mr. Watkinson: Figures for the whole year will not be available until the end of this month. During the first eleven months of 1955, sixty-three persons were killed and 697 seriously injured on zebra crossings. Corresponding figures for the first eleven months of 1954 are, sixty-four persons killed and 675 seriously injured.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister taking note of the fact that the number of people killed and injured on zebra crossings seems to be steadily rising? Is that a good argument in favour of zebra crossings?
    Mr. Watkinson: A fact of which I have taken note is that, allowing for the very large increase in traffic last year, the figures of accidents on zebra crossings have remained very much the same. I am not saying that there are not difficult problems to overcome—there are—but at least accidents on crossings are not increasing pro rata to the traffic.
    Mr. Page: Can my right hon. Friend give any figures showing how many of these accidents occurred through cars overtaking on the approaches to pedestrian crossings? Is that one of the difficult problems which he can try to overcome?
    Mr. Watkinson: My hon. Friend is on a very good point, and I am having a technical study made of that cause.

    Basingstoke By-pass
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the length of the Basingstoke by-pass; how long it has been under repair; and how much longer it is expected to remain under repair.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): The length of the by-pass is about 2·4 miles. The work of reconstruction has been carried out in stages as the annual allocation of funds has permitted. The first section was started in February, 1953, and subject to funds being available in the coming financial year, the last section should be started in September, 1956, and completed by June, 1957.
    Captain Pilkington: Does my right hon. Friend consider that this is the rate of progress contemplated for the future road plan development in this country? Why is money being spent on putting kerb stones along both sides of this already narrow by-pass?
    Mr. Molson: It is inevitable that there should be delay when the amount of money available is not as large as we should like for this particular job. Secondly, great delay has been occasioned by the acute shortage of labour in that part of the country. Replying to the second question, when this by-pass was begun it was built to the width of 20 feet, which was then the standard width. Since then, the standard width has been raised first to 22 feet and then to 24 feet. Where possible, when kerbs have been put in, they have been put in to these wider limits.

    Road Accidents
    Mr. Pageasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the definition of injured for the purposes of inclusion in the statistics of road accidents issued by his Department.
    Mr. Molson: Any person involved in a road accident who receives or may seem to need medical treatment is classified as injured.
    Mr. Page: Has the attention of my hon. Friend been drawn to an article in a Sunday newspaper recently in which an official of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents is reported as

    1649
    having said that these figures were inflated by 26,000? Will my hon. Friend publicly refute that statement by a society which is paid by the Government to propagate road safety?
    Mr. Molson: My attention has been drawn to the article that appeared in the People. That article gave an extremely false impression. The statistics which are issued by the Ministry of Transport do not contain figures other than those relating to personal injury.

    Road Safety Propaganda
    Mr. Pageasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will resume direct control of road safety propaganda so that such propaganda may have a national impact.
    Mr. Watkinson: Road safety propaganda and education is chiefly valuable in its local and personal impacts, and I should like to take this opportunity of paying a sincere tribute to the immensely valuable work which is being done throughout the country by local authorities and local road safety committees.
    Mr. Page: Is it not time that we treated 260,000 road casualties with more seriousness than by having silly little slogans on serviettes, sand bins and public urinals? Is my right hon. Friend aware that since his Department gave up control of road safety propaganda, courtesy weeks and safety campaigns have utterly failed to have any effect on road accident figures? Will he consult advertising agents and those who know about advertising to produce some real scheme which will make an impact on the public?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am aware that my hon. Friend had better brief himself a little better on what local authorities are doing.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: Whilst everyone would agree that local efforts are very desirable, is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only time when we had a really effective road safety campaign was when there was substantial expenditure on a campaign organised and initiated by the Government nationally, which, with local activities, had a remarkable effect on road accidents? Is it not time we had another such national campaign directed by the Ministry of Transport?
    Mr. Watkinson: That is a different point. The point I was making in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is that I am not prepared to throw away the valuable work done by local authorities and local road safety committees. The question of supplementing them is a quite different matter.
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, how much per annum is contributed by his Department on road safety propaganda throughout Britain.
    Mr. Watkinson: My Department spent £262,000 on road safety propaganda in the financial year 1954–55.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the Minister aware that that is £262,000 more than is being spent on home safety, and that deaths in the home number 1,000 per annum more than deaths on the roads? Would the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if one fine day he finds he has too much money for road safety propaganda, he will hand it over to a Minister responsible for safety in the home—if he can find such a Minister anywhere in Westminster?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am afraid the hon. Lady, in her capacity as a member of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, has a dual loyalty, but I am afraid that I cannot spare any money.
    Commander Agnew: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any of this sum includes grants made to local education authorities for making road safety a compulsory subject of instruction in the schools? If not, will he include enough money to make it one?

    Road Islands
    Colonel Stoddart-Scottasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the cost of the road island in the Otley-Wetherby road, near Pool Bridge; its purpose; and the cost of its removal.
    Mr. Molson: This island was installed by the West Riding County Council at a cost of about £160 to improve traffic conditions at the junction of two Class I roads. It was not, however, found to be satisfactory and was therefore removed. The value of the materials so recovered exceeded the cost of removal by about £20.
    Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Is the Minister aware that this island was one which one did not have to go round, and there was no complicated road transport at that junction? Cannot his Department supervise these schemes before public money is wasted on them?
    Mr. Molson: I have already mentioned that this island was built at the meeting point of two Class I roads. Classified roads are the responsibillity of the local highway authorities. My right hon. Friend's divisional road engineer was not consulted, and his consent was not required. The local authority has found that that Island was not well designed, and for that reason it was, very prudently, removed.
    Colonel Stoddart-Scottasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the cost of the island at the bottom of Brook Street, Ilkley; its purpose, and what will be the cost of its removal.
    Mr. Molson: The cost of the island was about£130. Its purpose is to help the movement of traffic on the trunk road from the direction of Leeds turning left into Brook Street. As it does this satisfactorily no question of the removal of this island arises.
    Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Will the Minister get his officer to go to look at this island before it is completed to see if its construction can be stopped, so that we do not have to waste money in taking it away again?
    Mr. Molson: My information is that this island has already been completed. It is serving the purpose for which it was -designed extremely well. One of the signal heads was removed forward to a new island, constructed at the mouth of Brook Street. The effect is that traffic from the direction of Leeds on the trunk road can now turn left into Brook Street before reaching the signals. There is a heavy left-hand turn for buses at the junction, and bus drivers prefer the new arrangement.
    Mr. Beswick: Would the hon. Gentleman help us by having a map or diagram of the area placed in the Library?
    Mr. Molson: I suggest that hon. Members should visit the constituency of my hon. and gallant Friend and study the island in situ.

    Tyne Crossing Project
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (1) what effect the proposal to build a new bridge crossing the Tyne in place of the proposed Tyne Tunnel has on the priority afforded to the project; and when he expects work upon the bridge to be commenced;
    (2) the estimated cost of the proposed new bridge crossing the Tyne; and how this compares with the cost of the proposed Tyne Tunnel.
    Mr. Watkinson: The cost of a bridge has been provisionally estimated at about £6 million as compared with about £11 million for a tunnel. Neither scheme can be included in the earlier years of the road programme, and I cannot therefore say when work will be started.
    Mr. Willey: Would the Minister agree that the Tyne Tunnel project has a specific priority—it follows the Whiteinch Tunnel—and that if a bridge is now to replace the Tyne Tunnel project, particularly as it would cost less, we expect it to hold at least the same priority that the tunnel project held?
    Mr. Watkinson: We had first better decide whether it is to be a tunnel or a bridge.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that on the North-East Coast we are getting a bit depressed about the way we are being fussed around over tunnels and bridges, and that our trade is as important to the country as the trade in the rest of this island? Therefore, it is of vital importance that we should know when we shall get our new tunnel or bridge. How long is my right hon. Friend taking before he makes up his mind what we are to have?
    Mr. Watkinson: I must await the results of a lot of technical examinations but I will try to get them done as soon as I can.

    Programme
    Mr. Leeasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will step up the scope and speed of the road programme from the £147 million in four years previously announced.
    Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir, not under present circumstances.
    Mr. Lee: Is the Minister aware that technical development in many phases of the engineering industry is now being held up because our road system does not permit of large indivisible loads being taken to their points of destination? Will he, therefore, see that in the new age of automation and all that it means, we shall not be restricted and prohibited from making progress by an obsolete road system?
    Mr. Watkinson: It is a very big question, for perhaps we ought to be carrying some of the loads on the railways.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: While it may be generally acceptable in present economic circumstances that the road programme should not be stepped up, will my right hon. Friend be quite explicit that these economic circumstances are not judged to be sufficiently grave as to reduce the announced road programme?
    Mr. Watkinson: I shall be dealing with that in answering a later Question.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: In view of the Minister's statement, with which all of us on this side of the House agree, that many of the loads now on the roads ought to be on the railways, what action is he taking or proposing to take to bring about that state of affairs?
    Mr. Watkinson: That is quite another question.
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what changes in the priorities in the Government road programme as already announced he is proposing to make.
    Mr. Watkinson: I have no specific changes to announce at present, but I am reconsidering priorities. My immediate aim is to help traffic to flow as smoothly and as safely as possible, and the road works which I shall authorise in the coming year will be selected with that aim in mind.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will bear in mind the value of the motorways in the road programme, and will he also bear in mind that industry is very anxious that the road programme should advance as fast as possible?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am just as anxious as my hon. Friend that we should try to get the best roads as quickly as possible, and I have indicated in my answer how I think we can best do it in the immediate future.
    Mr. Usborne: Does the Minister know that the authorities in Birmingham are very anxious to build an inner ring road and have consulted the Government about it? Will he say whether there is any prospect of permission being given for that at an early date?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am going to Birmingham on Saturday morning to look at that ring road.
    Mr. John MacLeod: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the most extraordinary policy is being carried out by his Department in making narrow roads with passing places on new trunk roads in the Highlands of Scotland, which have the effect of making the roads much too narrow? Will he took into this very serious problem? All the local authorities think it is quite wrong.
    Mr. Watkinson: If my hon. Friend will give me details I will certainly look into them.

    Eastern Avenue Extension, Leyton
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he now has any further information to give in respect of the Eastern Avenue extension through the borough of Leyton, particularly in view of the anxieties of householders likely to be affected.
    Mr. Molson: Not at present, Sir.
    Mr. Sorensen: When will some information regarding this matter be forthcoming, particularly in view of the undoubted anxiety and apprehension that exists among many of my constituents, including a minority who as a protest now refuse to pay their rates?
    Mr. Molson: The local borough council is carrying out a survey as agent of my right hon. Friend. I understand that it will be about nine or twelve months before this survey is completed. Only then will it be possible to see where it is likely that the road will go.

    Cromwell Road Extension
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what percentage of the work on the Cromwell Road Extension has so far been completed on the classified road portion and the trunk road portion, respectively; and whether he is yet in a position to give an estimated date when the work as a whole will be completed.
    Mr. Watkinson: On the classified road portion 16 per cent., and on the trunk road portion 1·4 per cent. I am not yet able to give a date for completion of the whole scheme.
    Mr. Janner: Will the Minister expedite this work, which has been on hand for a very considerable time? Is he not in a position yet to give some indication when it is likely to be completed?
    Mr. Watkinson: I do attach great importance to it because of the link between London and London Airport.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the decision of his predecessor not to press for the fly-under at the Hammersmith junction?
    Mr. Watkinson: That is a very technical question, which I cannot answer now, but if my noble Friend likes to put it down I will do my best to answer it.

    Right of Way (Signs)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the exact meaning of the new proposed road sign instructing drivers to yield right of way; and what arrangements will be made to include an explanation of this in the Highway Code.
    Mr. Watkinson: This sign is intended to indicate to the motorist, more positively than the present "Slow" sign, that traffic on the major road ahead has priority. I propose to await the results of the experiment before I decide whether general use of the sign is desirable.
    Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are dozens of definitions given of the word "yield" in the dictionary, and that there is, therefore, a likelihood of confusion? Will he give an idea of what the cost will be if he has to remove the signs being put up now?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am carrying out a limited experiment, because I think that that is the simplest and most practical way of deciding whether this word is right or wrong.

  TRANSPORT

    British Transport Commission (Tenders)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give a general direction to the Transport Commission to advertise publicly for tenders for all work they are letting out to contractors.
    Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir.
    Mr. Johnson: Will my right hon. Friend at least suggest to the Transport Commission that by advertising publicly the Commission might well receive advantageous tenders from new firms which do not have an opportunity of quoting under present conditions?
    Mr. Watkinson: I will certainly look at that point. I thought my hon. Friend was perhaps on a different point and that he was anxious to make the Commission less commercial rather than more commercial. I am anxious to make it more commercial.

    Private Cars, Central London
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in order to reduce traffic congestion, he will ban the use of private cars in central London during the rush hours.
    Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. I am all too well aware of the congestion in central London caused by the influx of private cars, but I believe that there are other and fairer methods of controlling it than by complete prohibition. I am at the moment engaged in an intensive study of possible methods of attack.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: If, as may be the case, those alternative methods prove unsuccessful, or are not carried out, will, the Minister bear in mind that about 10 million people use the London buses daily, largely in order to get to and from work? Does he not agree that if it is a question of giving priority, then people travelling to and from work on the buses should have absolute priority over private car owners?
    Mr. Watkinson: We had better try my other methods first.
    Captain Pilkington: Will my right hon. Friend try to get greater facilities for parking and garaging under existing buildings?
    Mr. Ernest Davies: Would not one of the alternative methods be that of introducing a system of staggering hours so that the large number of extra buses which have to be introduced at peak times can be reduced?
    Mr. Watkinson: There I quite agree.

    Driving Tests, Walsall
    Mr. W. Wellsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how much time elapses in an average case between an application from Walsall and district for a driving test and the test.
    Mr. Watkinson: Approximately eleven weeks.
    Mr. Wells: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this delay causes a great deal of inconvenience? Is not the right solution to have more examiners and to attract them by paying for their very responsible work a reasonable salary?
    Mr. Watkinson: That is why I am recruiting more examiners.

    Road Haulage Vehicles (Disposal)
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will guarantee the British Transport Commission against any loss arising from disposal of road haulage vehicles which the Transport Fund is inadequate to meet on the termination of the Transport Levy.
    Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. Nor will I require them to surrender any surplus which may arise from disposal of road haulage vehicles, taking into account the proceeds of the levy.
    Mr. Davies: Since the levy was imposed for the purpose of making good any loss which the B.T.C. suffered as a result of the sell-off of the vehicles, are not the Government under an obligation to make good any loss which arises from this
    1658
    policy, which B.T.C. never wanted and still does not wish to pursue?
    Mr. Watkinson: These are very technical matters which, I believe, we may have an opportunity to debate in the House tomorrow.
    Mr. Davies: Does not the Minister agree that the question of the loss to be suffered by the British Transport Commission is not a technical matter but one of £ s. d.? The British Transport Commission has a very large deficit at present, and if the loss on these sales is not made good the deficit will be increased and the position made far worse.
    Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that this subject might be in order in tomorrow's business.
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, in estimating the loss on disposal at £12¼ million, what amount was taken as receivable on account of sales of the Transport Commission's vehicles and other assets; and what was the book value of such assets.
    Mr. Watkinson: The estimate of the loss on disposal of vehicles was based, not on the total book value of the Commission's assets, but on the average price per vehicle expected to be realised having regard to experience so far gained. In the case of premises and stores, it was similarly based on experience of sales which had been completed.
    Mr. Davies: Since, then, the loss estimated at £12¼ million is, by coincidence, the same amount as is expected to be paid in levy, does not the Minister agree that there is a possibility that there will be a deficit in the Transport Fund when it is wound up next year if tomorrow's Bill goes through? Will he, therefore, review the estimate in the light of future sales, and will he reconsider the shocking decision he announced to the House today that the British Transport Commission will have to bear any deficit that arises?
    Mr. Watkinson: This is the best actuarial estimate the experts can make at the moment, but I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is only an estimate; I think we had better wait to see what the final figure is.

    Road Haulage Disposal Board
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the salaries at present being paid to the Chairman and members of the Road Haulage Disposal Board, and its total cost to date.
    Mr. Watkinson: The salaries of the Board are still as they were when the White Paper "Public Boards" was issued in December last. The total cost of the Board up to 31st December last was £45,483.
    Mr. Davies: Since the desire of the Government is to reduce expenditure all round, would not one way in which a saving could be made be by abolishing this Board, as its work is of no use to the country?
    Mr. Watkinson: I think that the hon. Member already knows that the Chairman, at his own request, is not drawing a salary. I think that the Board has done a difficult task very well in the public interest.

    Prices (Stabilisation)
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware of the decision of the South of Scotland Electricity Board in regard to the pegging of prices for electricity for a future period, thus following the lead of the cement industry; and, in view of this example set by a nationalised industry, whether he will now issue a general direction to those nationalised industries under his control to peg their prices until the end of 1956.
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if, in view of the precedent now set by certain privately-owned companies and by one of the nationalised concerns in Scotland in stabilising prices to consumers for the present year, he will issue a general direction to the British Transport Commission and all other nationalised concerns coming under his jurisdiction to ensure a similar standstill of prices and charges within their respective spheres of operation.
    Mr. Watkinson: I strongly commend the example of those industries which are stabilising their prices but I am not prepared to issue a direction to the British
    1660
    Transport Commission or the air corporations on this matter of purely commercial policy.
    Mr. Nabarro: While my right hon. Friend may not wish to issue a direction, would it not be appropriate in present circumstances if he had a few friendly conversations with the people concerned? What is the value of the Prime Minister appealing for price stability if all his efforts and ours are to be sabotaged by the nationalised industries?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am always having friendly conversations with the chairmen of the nationalised industries for which I am responsible, and I have already said in my Answer that I commend the example of those private industries which are stabilising their prices, but they are making a profit whereas the British Transport Commission, I regret to say, is not.
    Mr. J. Harrison: When commending this example to the Transport Commission, will the Minister remember that cement prices are three times what they were pre-war but that railway rates are about only twice what they were at the end of the war?

    Abnormal Loads
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware of the inconvenience and delay on the Great North Road caused by large overhanging lorry transport; and whether he will arrange that such loads should be transported by canal or coastwise shipping.
    Mr. Watkinson: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 1st February to a Question by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) on the subject of heavy and bulky loads.
    38. Mr. Jeger: Could not the Minister give a general indication to chambers of commerce and various industrialists about transporting these heavy indivisible loads by water rather than on the roads?
    Mr. Watkinson: Not until I have had more time to examine the technical replies that we have received.
    Mr. Steele: Can the Minister say whether any charge is made for the police

    1661
    patrol cars which precede this type of traffic, warning oncoming traffic by loudspeaker?
    Mr. Watkinson: I think that is correct.

    Snow-clearing Plant
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, as promised, the twenty heavy lorries fitted with big wing snow ploughs, the equipping of sixty lorries of this type for gritting, and the provision of sixty-eight trailer gritters and one small rotary snow blower for increasing the snow-clearing plant provided by his Department for use on trunk roads, were delivered by the end of 1955; and how effective this extra equipment has proved in recent weather conditions.
    Mr. Watkinson: Sixteen of the heavy lorries had been delivered by the end of 1955 and were undergoing final preparations. These sixteen are now fully operational. Fifty-three lorries had been fitted with gritter bodies and all sixty have now been completed. Forty-five trailer gritters were delivered during 1955 and this number has now been increased to fifty-six. The small rotary blower was delivered by the end of the year and has been operated satisfactorily by Ministry personnel. I understand that the other equipment that has been put into use has also worked effectively.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister satisfied that there is sufficient provision made now, in view of the effectiveness of what has already been supplied for this purpose?
    Mr. Watkinson: Yes, I think we have enough for the moment, anyway.

    Superannuitants and Pensioners
    Mr. G. H. R. Rogersasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is now able to make a statement on the result of discussions with the British Transport Commission on the question of further assistance to superannuitants and pensioners.
    Mr. Watkinson: I cannot yet add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 25th January.
    Mr. Rogers: Can the right hon. Gentleman forecast the possible date of a decision?
    Mr. Watkinson: This is a very important matter, but it is a very complex one, as the hon. Member knows. I did say that I wanted to look at it myself with the Chairman of the British Transport Commission. I am afraid that I cannot forecast how long that will take.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Is it not possible to bring the railway superannuitants within the compass of the Pensions (Increase) Bill?

    Inland Waterways (Committee of Inquiry)
    Mr. G. R. Straussasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what time limit for their deliberations he has indicated to the members of the committee he has set up to consider the problem of canals and inland waters.
    Mr. Watkinson: None, Sir.
    Mr. Strauss: In view of the fact that the Minister has given this committee very wide powers of reference to survey the whole problem of canals and inland waterways once again, is it not likely that, without some direction, the committee will take one or two years, possibly more, in doing its work, and that that will mean that it will be three years before a decision is made, and that the great uncertainty of this long delay will do harm? Ought he not to take some steps to prevent this serious and harmful delay from occurring?
    Mr. Watkinson: I do not take such a depressing view of when I shall get the committee's report as does the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Strauss: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that an early report is desirable? Has he informed the committee of that? If he has not, will he do so?
    Mr. Watkinson: This inquiry is, I agree, a matter of urgency, and that is the opinion of the gentlemen who are carrying it out.

  RAILWAYS

    Wage Rates and Fares
    Mr. Fisherasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give a general direction to the British

    1663
    Transport Commission to stabilise both wage rates for the railwaymen and fares to the public for a definite period in an effort to correct the continued inflationary wage-price spiral.
    Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. The terms and conditions of employment of railway-men are settled through the long established machinery in the railway industry. As far as fares are concerned, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Scots-toun (Sir J. Hutchison) on 25th January.
    Mr. Fisher: Would it not be a splendid thing if the nationalised transport industry could follow the example of the private enterprise cement industry and stock brick industry in stabilising prices, thus making a real contribution to the solution of the nation's economic difficulties? Will not my right hon. Friend further agree that, whilst Sir Brian Robertson's objective of a contented staff is very laudable, there is also something to be said for having contented passengers and contented customers?
    Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps my hon. Friend has not paid enough attention to the fact that until one has a contented staff one does not get contented passengers.
    Mr. D. Jones: If the right hon. Gentleman is issuing any directions at all, will he issue directions to the British Transport Commission to bring the wages of railway men up to the normal standard in this country before doing anything about a wage freeze?
    Mr. Watkinson: I said that wages must be handled through the ordinary machinery of the industry.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Air Corporations (Maintenance Work)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give a general direction to the air corporations that maintenance work on their aircraft is not to be let out to independent contractors but is invariably to be done by the staff of the corporations.
    Mr. Watkinson: These matters must be decided by the corporations on commercial grounds.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the Minister not aware that because of the lack of a directive of this nature, or something akin to it, the policy being pursued by B.E.A. is leading to a complete mess up? Is he aware that work has been transferred from Renfrew to London on the ground that maintenance could be done there more economically and more efficiently and that now some of that work is being farmed out to independent firms? Is not that something on which he could issue a directive, because some of the maintenance workers are now being asked whether they want to return to Renfrew.
    Mr. Watkinson: I understand that the work being placed out by B.E.A. is not normal maintenance but is, for example, the reconstruction of crashed aircraft. The workpeople concerned have their proper channels of communication, and I should always be willing in a sympathetic fashion to try to look at any difficulties about which I hear.
    Mr. Mikardo: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a good deal of regular maintenance work formerly done at Renfrew is being farmed out? I have seen it with my own eyes. Is he further aware that some of this work has had to be rejected as not up to B.E.A. standards and that that rejection has caused B.E.A. a lot of trouble? Is not all this the result of the silly decision to shut Renfrew down?
    Mr. Watkinson: This is all part of the commercial policy of the corporations, and they must sort these things out for themselves.

    Aerodrome Facilities, Kuwait
    Dr. Bennettasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress is now being made towards the provision of a new aerodrome in Kuwait.
    Mr. Profumo: Discussions on this subject are in progress with the Ruler of Kuwait.
    Dr. Bennett: Can my hon. Friend say whether any progress has been made, and whether a site has yet been finally chosen?
    Mr. Profumo: It would be premature to make any further statement at this juncture.
    Dr. Bennettasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (1) if he will take steps to make the aerodrome in Kuwait fit for Viscount aircraft;
    (2) if he will take steps to make the aerodrome in Kuwait serviceable in rainy conditions.
    Mr. Profumo: The work necessary to make the runway fit for Viscount operations is expected to begin in early March. This work should also reduce the comparatively few occasions when the aerodrome is closed owing to heavy rains.
    Dr. Bennett: While it is satisfactory to hear that reply, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that any ordinary thunderstorms can put the aerodrome out of action, and that anybody bound for Kuwait is liable to find himself literally at sea?
    Mr. Profumo: I cannot entirely accept that. My statistics show that it is not for more than ten days in the whole year that the rainstorms affect Kuwait Aerodrome in the manner in which my hon. Friend suggests; but we shall, of course, hope that if there is a new aerodrome these conditions will be overcome.

    Air Terminal, London
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what extent the proposed air terminal in the Cromwell Road is to be a permanent or temporary undertaking; how the passengers will be conveyed from that terminal to the London Airport; and what function will be then served by the rail extension from Waterloo or Victoria, surveys of which are about to start.
    Mr. Watkinson: The construction and operation of the London Air Terminal is a matter between Air Terminals, Ltd., and the airlines concerned; but I understand that the scope of the development would be reviewed if it were decided to build a rail link from central London to the airport.
    Mr. Beswick: Surely, a capital expenditure of this kind is one with which the Minister must be in complete agreement. Would he not agree that any large capital expenditure on the Cromwell Road scheme ought to be made in the light of a firm decision about the rail extension? Can he, therefore, hurry up a decision about the rail extension?
    Mr. Watkinson: I think that the real answer, with which the hon. Member, with his considerable knowledge, would not disagree, is that the traffic at London Airport will increase at such a phenomenal rate that we shall want certainly more than one way of communication between London and the airport.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Has my right hon. Friend considered running the rail link from Olympia or St. Paul's, which is almost adjacent to the new site?
    Mr. Watkinson: I will certainly look at that suggestion.

    Air Corporations Act (Exchequer Grant Provisions)
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will make a statement on his policy in relation to the subsidy sections of the Air Corporations Act which will expire on 31st March, 1956.
    Mr. Watkinson: I am glad to say that I see no immediate reason which would necessitate the extension of the Exchequer grant provisions of the Air Corporations Act, 1949, when they expire on 31st March, 1956.
    Mr. Beswick: Does that mean that the Minister envisages no change in the rôle which the air corporations will play as the chosen instruments of the Government?
    Mr. Watkinson: What I mean is that I am delighted to see that the air corporations can stand on their own feet.

  ATOMIC ENERGY

    Heavy Water Supplies
    Mr. Patrick Maitlandasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make inquiries about the possible places in the Commonwealth and Empire where a plant for making heavy water could be established at reasonable cost; and whether he will consult with other Empire and Commonwealth Governments about the possibility of establishing such plants as would enable the Commonwealth to be independent of foreign sources of supply.
    The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): This is a matter for the Atomic Energy Authority, who inform me that the location of a plant for the production of heavy water depends to a large extent

    1667
    on the nature of the process to be employed, and that it would not be profitable to inquire about possible sites within the Commonwealth independently of this factor. The possibility of locating such a plant within the Commonwealth will, however, be examined at the appropriate time in connection with any scheme which may be developed for establishing a new source of supply.
    Mr. Maitland: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is true that the New Zealand scheme has been abandoned? Does he agree in principle that it is desirable that the Commonwealth should be independent of foreign sources of supply?
    Mr. Butler: I can only refer to the outlook for the United Kingdom, and for the time being our requirements are covered, and that, at any rate, gives us sufficient time to look around. The New Zealand plant was found to be uneconomic owing to a very considerable increase in the estimate of plant costs.
    Mr. Hobson: In view of the urgency of this problem as far as advance requirements are concerned, and in view of certain recent developments in scientific experiments in regard to heavy water, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has approached the Canadian Government about this matter?
    Mr. Butler: We are in touch with all Governments primarily concerned, but I should like notice of a question about a particular approach.
    Mr. Patrick Maitlandasked the Lord Privy Seal to what extent, in obtaining heavy water supplies from the United States of America, Her Majesty's Government are required to furnish data about the use to which it will be put.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Supplies of heavy water from the United States are obtained under the U.K.-U.S. Agreement for Cooperation on the Civil Uses of Atomic Energy, and Her Majesty's Government are accordingly required to furnish sufficient information to satisfy the United States Authorities that the material will be used for developing the civil applications of atomic energy to which the Agreement relates.
    Mr. Maitland: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is possible to give such information without to some extent disclosing military secrets?
    Mr. Butler: We attempt to carry out the terms of the Agreement. I cannot say more than that.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in his opinion the Prime Minister is not already making as much heavy weather in the United States as necessary?
    Mr. Nabarro: A very poor joke.

    Marine Propulsion (Research)
    Mr. Pageasked the Lord Privy Seal what research is being undertaken under Government sponsorship, into the practicability of the development of atomic-powered merchant vessels.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The Atomic Energy Authority is collaborating with the British Shipbuilding Research Association in a joint study of the feasibility of using nuclear energy for marine propulsion.
    Mr. Page: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that this country is not being overtaken by the United States in this research work in view of reports of atomic-powered vessels having been built in the United States?
    Mr. Butler: Of course, we are aware of developments in the United States. That is precisely why considerable activity is taking place at Harwell, so that we ourselves show activity in this matter, to which my hon. Friend has rightly called attention.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the reply which the right hon. Gentleman gave apply to fishing vessels also, or are the researches in regard to fishing vessels separate?
    Mr. Butler: As a general proposition, marine propulsion applies as much to fishing vessels as to others. However, the hon. and learned Member should not exaggerate too much the immediate application of this power to ship propulsion.

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    National Service
    Mr. Allaunasked the Minister of Defence if, in the light of the recent Services review, he will reconsider his refusal to reduce or abolish the period of National Service.
    The Minister of Defence (Sir Walter Monckton): The policy of Her Majesty's Government remains as set out in the White Paper on National Service (Cmd. 9608).
    Mr. Allaun: Does the Minister appreciate that conscripts and their parents would greatly prefer a substantial cut now to vague remarks by the Prime Minister about what might or might not happen in 1958, and that they would greatly prefer bread now to a promise of pie in the dim, distant future?
    Sir W. Monckton: I have to bear in mind the prospects of recruitment to the Regular Army and the commitments which the Services have to perform, and that is the deciding factor.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister aware that the United States Government have now decided to reduce the period of national service for their draftees from 24 to 18 months? Does not that make any impact on his mind?
    Sir W. Monckton: The reasons which induced us to retain the 24 months were fully debated on 2nd November. I have no reason to change the view which I then expressed.
    Mr. Strachey: Will the Minister bear in mind the Prime Minister's recent declaration that it is the Government's aim to abolish National Service altogether? Surely he does not think that that can be done in one step from a Service point of view. Ought the Minister not, therefore, to consider the prospect of reducing the period instead of the Government's present very unsatisfactory scheme of raising the age of call-up?
    Sir W. Monckton: One considers these things all the time, but the Prime Minister made it clear that what he was talking about was the first of the two qualifications which I made earlier, namely, the growth of regular recruitment. If we have that we can measure up to our commitments and that will make all the difference, but it is no good making promises in advance.
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Minister of Defence whether he will limit the duty to serve of National Service men strictly to national defence and liberate them from Imperial or international police duties, that is, from serving in colonial or United
    1670
    Nations wars, unless they volunteer for such service.
    Sir W. Monckton: No, Sir.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Is the Minister not aware that under the military service legislation of Belgium, France and the Netherlands conscripts are exempt from colonial service unless they volunteer? Is it not an anomaly that in this country, in which peace-time conscription is an abhorrent novelty, we should show less respect for human rights and be less scrupulous about exercising the tyrannous power of the State than the old conscript countries?
    Sir W. Monckton: We must not call it so much of a novelty. It began in 1949, and there has always been since then a world-wide liability. If we altered it we should reduce the efficiency of our forces.
    Mr. Nairn: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the implications of this Question will be strongly resented by many National Service men of all shades of political opinion?
    Mr. Wade: Does the Minister not agree that the attitude of mind implied in the Question is very insular, and that there is little hope of maintaining permanent world peace unless and until there is created some form of international police force?

    N.A.T.O. Forces
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Minister of Defence how many French troops have been withdrawn from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces in Europe; and to what extent British forces in that area have had to be strengthened as a consequence.
    Sir W. Monckton: It would not be appropriate for me to disclose information about the forces of another country which that country itself had not disclosed.
    The Answer to the second part of the Question is "No, Sir."
    Mr. Bellenger: Is it not common knowledge that considerable French front-line forces have been withdrawn? If the Minister is not at liberty to disclose the figures, can he at least not admit that fact? Does he not realise that it was agreed that four British divisions should be kept in Germany to meet French susceptibilities, and that if France

    1671
    weakens her front-line troops in N.A.T.O. forces in Germany it may not be so necessary for us to keep to that obligation?
    Sir W. Monckton: In answer to the first part of the Question, the reduction has undoubtedly been appreciable. As to our part in N.A.T.O., we shall continue to carry it out.
    Mr. Shinwell: Are we not imposing an unfair and unjust burden on British forces in Germany, in view of the almost complete withdrawal of French forces in that area? Is not that a matter in which the United Kingdom Government should intervene? Have not the facts been disclosed already by N.A.T.O.?
    Sir W. Monckton: It is right that I should say, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman, that, in common with other N.A.T.O. countries, we have had full information about the movements of French troops. It was in the light of that fact that I gave my answer.
    Mr. Ian Harvey: Would my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that the last three Questions hardly seem compatible one with the other?

    Overseas Troops (Concessionary Postal Rates)
    Dr. King askedthe Minister of Defence if he will make arrangements whereby Service men in Cyprus may receive parcels from home by air mail at reduced rates.
    Sir W. Monckton: Concessionary postal rates on mail sent to members of the Forces serving abroad and homeward mail from them are already costing the taxpayer about £1¼ million a year. I should not feel justified in making proposals which would add to this sum.
    Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that it is taking weeks for food parcels to go to Cyprus by ordinary mail, and that a small food parcel sent by air mail is costing the mothers of Service men about £2 15s.? Will he not quicken ordinary transport or give some concession on the cost of air mail?
    Sir W. Monckton: I cannot answer the question about quickening up, but as to adding to the concessionary advantages now given, it would be very difficult to single out one place and say that of all
    1672
    the overseas stations we should give the men there preferential treatment.
    Mr. Dodds: Does the Minister not appreciate that the position has been made much worse in that the Cyprus authorities now say that they are going to search for parcels and charge Customs duty as well?

    ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will take steps to issue a White Paper on the proposals of the Swiss chairman of the sub-committee of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation which has been studying the fisheries dispute between Great Britain and Iceland.
    The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): This is not possible while the confidential negotiations are continuing, but a statement will be made to the House when these negotiations are completed.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that this dispute has been dragging on far too long? Is he aware that the House is entitled to be informed on it. and that here is a basis for settlement which should be promptly discussed and disclosed to the House?
    Mr. Nutting: It is precisely because I am anxious to settle the dispute and we seem at long last to be in sight of a settlement that I do not want to take action at this moment of all moments to prejudice that settlement.

    EGYPT (ANTI-BRITISH BROADCASTS)
    Mr. Bennasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what plans he has for jamming the anti-British broadcasts by the "Voice of Araby" transmitted from Egypt.
    Mr. Nutting: None, Sir.
    Mr. Benn: While the Minister's statement will be welcomed in the House, will he give an absolute assurance that the cost of jamming equipment acquired by the Jordanian Government did not come under any terms of our assistance to them?
    Mr. Nutting: The cost of radio sets bought by the Jordanian Government in this country was paid for out of their own budget and not out of the Arab Legion subsidy.

    ISRAEL (SUPPLY OF ARMS)
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations are taking place between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government with regard to the application of the Government of Israel for the supply of arms to the value of £17 million.
    Mr. Nutting: I know of no such application. But, as I explained to the right hon. and learned Gentleman on 30th January, Her Majesty's Government are in close consultation with the United States and French Governments on the supply of arms to Middle Eastern countries.
    Mr. Henderson: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the report that the Government of Egypt have received 40 jet Ilyushin bombers and 25 to 30 jet MiG fighters? Does he not consider that the Government of Israel should be supplied at least with equipment of equal quality in order to permit them to undertake their legitimate self defence?
    Mr. Nutting: I do not think that that question arises out of the Question on the Order Paper, which mentions a specific request of which I have no knowledge.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is the question of the supply of arms to Israel one of the subjects to be discussed between the signatories of the Tripartite Declaration— discussions which I understand are now taking place in Washington?
    Mr. Nutting: That is not on the agenda of these specific discussions so far as I am aware because, in the jargon phrase, that
    1674
    has been under continuous review by the three Governments.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Can we then expect a statement from the Prime Minister on this subject, and will he tell us, when he returns, what has been actually decided on the matter?
    Mr. Nutting: I will see that that suggestion is conveyed to the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Henderson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to clarify his original reply? Did I understand him to say that the Government of Israel have not made an application for the supply of arms to the equivalent value of £17 million either to this country or to the United States Government?
    Mr. Nutting: I said to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I know of no such application, certainly so far as any application to this country is concerned. So far as application to the United States is concerned, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I am not responsible.
    Mr. Henderson: But surely, if the right hon. Gentleman has said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I only want to get the matter clear. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say, in a reply to me last week, that there were always close consultations between the three Governments when the Government of Israel or one of the Arab countries made application for arms. Therefore, if there has been an application to the United States Government, can we not expect that there will be close consultation between that Government and the British Government?
    Mr. Nutting: I think I have been quite clear and have answered the Question which the right hon. and learned Gentleman put on the Order Paper. He mentioned a figure of £17 million. I know of no such application from the Government of Israel either to this Government or to the United States Government.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
  PRODUCTIVITY (INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE)
  Mr. Page: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 24th February, I shall call attention to the need for proper organisation of ideas and suggestions for increasing productivity in industry and commerce, and move a Resolution.
  DISABLED WORKERS (EMPLOYMENT)
  The Rev. LI. Williams: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 24th February, I shall call attention to the need for the provision of sheltered employment for disabled workers, and move a Resolution.
  LAND DRAINAGE RATING
  Mr. Deer: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 24th February, I shall call attention to the dissatisfaction arising out of the inequalities of land drainage rating, and move a Resolution.
BILLS PRESENTED

  CHARLES BEATTIE INDEMNITY
  Bill to indemnify Charles Beattie, Esquire, from any penal consequences which he may have incurred by sitting and voting as a member of the House of
  1676
  Commons while holding the office or place of member of certain panels constituted in pursuance of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act (Northern Ireland), 1946, and the National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland), 1946, or of member of an appeal tribunal constituted in pursuance of the National Assistance Act (Northern Ireland), 1948, presented by the Prime Minister; supported by Mr. R. A. Butler, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Henry Brooke; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 94.]

  SLUM CLEARANCE (COMPENSATION)
  Bill to make additional provision for payments in respect of certain unfit houses subject to compulsory purchase, clearance, demolition or closing orders, presented by Mr. Sandys; supported by Mr. J. Enoch Powell and Mr. Henry Brooke; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 93.]
  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. R. A. Butler.]
FOOD AND DRUGS (SCOTLAND) BILL
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1.—(OFFENCES IN CONNECTION WITH PREPARATION AND SALE OF INJURIOUS FOODS AND ADULTERATED DRUGS.)
3.33 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): I beg to move, in page 2, line 17, at the end to insert:
"and did not himself make, or cause to be made, any material alteration in the substance of that advertisement."
Mr. Speaker, with your approval and for the convenience of the House, perhaps we could take together this Amendment and the following one to Clause 6, page 6, line 6.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) asked that it should be made quite clear that anyone in the publishing or advertising business who helped to prepare an illegal advertisement could not plead, to use the words of the Bill, that
"he received the advertisement for publication in the ordinary course of business."
The added words give effect to the request of the hon. Lady in the two places in the Bill where we agree that grounds for defence should be narrowed in this way.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6.—(LABELS AND ADVERTISEMENTS DESCRIBING INCORRECTLY FOOD OR DRUGS.)
Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 6, at end insert:
"and did not himself make, or cause to be made, any material alteration in the substance of that advertisement."—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

Clause 7.—(REGULATIONS AS TO LABELLING AND DESCRIPTION OF FOOD.)
Mr. J. Nixon Browne: I beg to move, in page 6, line 29, at the end to insert "and separated milk."
Powers to make regulations about the labelling of separated milk are included already in the Milk and Dairies (Scotland) Act, 1914, but the powers under Clause 7 of this Bill are wider. For instance, they include control over advertising and
1678
descriptions. This Amendment was proposed by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), in Committee, and on second thoughts we have accepted it.
Mr. A. Woodburn: On behalf of my hon. Friend, I thank the Government for this Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8.—(PROHIBITION ON SALE, ETC, OF FOOD UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION.)
The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant): I beg to move, in page 7, line 3, to leave out from "prove" to "he" in line 8, and to insert:

(a) that he had no reason to suppose that the person, with whom he deposited, or to whom he consigned or sold the food in question, intended the food for human consumption, and that he gave notice to that person that the food was unfit for such consumption, or

(b) that, at the time when he delivered or dispatched it to that person, it was fit for human consumption, or

(c) that, at such time as aforesaid.

This arises out of an Amendment which was moved during the Committee stage by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), who wished to have the Clause tightened in order to ensure that a person who sells unsound food to any other person shall not only give notice that it is not intended for human consumption, but shall satisfy himself that the purchaser did not intend to sell it again for human consumption.
As the Bill stands, it is a defence merely to give notice to the purchaser that the food is unfit for consumption, and we have tried to tighten this by specifying that not only must the seller do that, but he must also satisfy the court that he had no reason to suppose that the person to whom he sold or consigned the goods intended that the food should be used for human consumption. This Amendment does not go as far as the Amendment of the hon. Lady, but it goes far enough to make this Clause watertight.
Mr. Woodburn: Again, we are grateful to the Government, and on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), who has just entered the Chamber, may I say that

1679
(we are glad that the Government have tightened this Clause, even though not quite in the words we suggested.
Mr. James H. Hoy: There was a long discussion on this point during the Committee stage and we were assured by the Government Front Bench that this could not be done—
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong, because I agreed that there was a loophole here. I have not the reference with me, but I could give it to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Hoy: If I am wrong I apologise, but at one time it was said that this could not be done. It is true that the hon. and learned Gentleman gave an assurance that he would look at this point again, and we are grateful to him for doing so.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9.—(EXAMINATION AND SEIZURE OF SUSPECTED FOOD.)
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move in page 7, line 18, to leave out "or a magistrate."
I think it would be for the convenience of the House, Sir, if, with your permission, we took with this Amendment three other Government Amendments, which deal with the same point.
These are interlinked Amendments which, I am glad to say, again give effect to the reasonable and sensible suggestion which was made by hon. Members opposite during the Committee stage. The position is that the words "justice of the peace" are defined in a curious way in the definition Clause. These words appear only in two Clauses of the Bill, and it was felt that it would be much more satisfactory to have the definition of "justice of the peace" in the two Clauses where those words appear, and this Amendment achieves that object.
Amendment agreed to
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 7, line 28, to leave out "not" and to insert:
"liable to be so seized."
As the Bill stands, doubts arise as to whether food which is merely intended for animal consumption, say, on a farm, might be caught by the Clause. The point was raised in Committee by the
1680
hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). I agree that the words "or not" are much too wide. Accordingly, we propose to delete "not" and substitute "liable to be so seized," so that the only food to be dealt with is that which has been seized or is liable to be seized because it is intended for sale for human consumption.
Mr. E. G. Willis: When I raised the matter in Committee the hon. and learned Gentleman promised to look into it. I am grateful to him for making this alteration. The Clause will be much more explicit as the result of the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Futher Amendment made: In page 7, line 37, at end insert:
(5) In this section any reference to a justice of the peace includes a reference to the sheriff and to a magistrate.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Clause 10.—(FOOD OFFERED AS PRIZES, ETC.)
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 8, line 14, to leave out "or trial of skill" and to insert:
"trial of skill or any lottery."
The Amendment meets a point raised in Committee. The purpose is merely to make sure that no unfit food is disposed of even if it is given away as a lottery prize. We know that certain unfit tinned goods are apt to be given away as lottery prizes at times, and that is something that ought to be prevented.
Mr. Woodburn: Will not the Amendment handicap people who want to get rid of such stuff to church bazaars, and so on? Have the Government made any other arrangements for the disposal of such goods from generous shopkeepers who wish to get rid of them?
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Not even for Unionist fetes.
Mr. Hoy: Many churches and organisations have bring-and-buy sales, and this is the kind of thing that adherents take along for disposal in order to aid church funds. Is the Solicitor-General telling us that as a result of the Amendment that will now become illegal?
Mr. Thomas Steele: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in another place today the whole question of gambling, betting and games of skill is being considered? Would it not be better to await the decision of another place before we come to a conclusion on this Amendment?
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13.—(REGULATIONS AS TO FOOD HYGIENE.)
Mr. J. Nixon Browne: I beg to move, in page 9. line 32, to leave out "and" and to insert "equipment, containers or."
With your approval, Mr. Speaker, and for the convenience of the House, perhaps we might at the same time deal with the next four Amendments.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) drew attention to the fact that there was reference to equipment in one subsection, but not the other subsections. We have examined the matter carefully, and this and the subsequent Amendments insert as well as "equipment" the word "containers." The addition of" containers" permits the exercise of control over cans for tinned foods, which might otherwise have been excluded.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 9, line 39, leave out "and" and insert "containers or."
In line 46, after "equipment," insert "containers."
In page 10, line I, after "equipment," insert "containers."
In line 7, leave out "and" and insert "equipment, containers or"—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Mr. W. R. Milligan): I beg to move, in page 11, line 5, at the end to insert:
"accommodation in home-going ships, and in respect of."
In Committee, the question arose whether ships ought to be covered, and as a result certain Amendments are now brought forward. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I suggest that we might consider at the same time the Amendments to Clause 28, in page 27, lines 7 and 8, to Clause 37, in page 8, line 26 and to Clause 58, in page 40, line 38.
1682
The question raised was whether it would not be desirable for ships to be covered by the Bill and to rank in appropriate places along with premises. I undertook to consider introducing Amendments later. The Amendment that I have moved gives effect to the point in this Clause. The later Amendments to which I have referred deal with sampling, power of entry, and definition.
Mr. Speaker: I see no objection to the Amendments being considered together, but I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will assist me when moving the subsequent Amendments to which he has alluded by telling me and the House that they are consequential.
Mr. William Ross: We ought to have from the Lord Advocate a definition of the scope of the term "home-going ship." In the discussion in Committee with reference to this Clause, we did not speak about all ships but specified certain types which we thought it right that the regulations should cover. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman can give us a definition of "home-growing ships"—I mean "home-going ships"; we shall be pleased to have "homegrown" ships provided that they come from the Clyde—we may be able to determine whether the Amendments effectively meet the point raised.
Captain J. A. L. Duncan: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say what consultation he had, before tabling the Amendments, with the shipping interests on the one hand and the Board of Trade on the other? I am anxious that the new law should have the good will of the shipping interests and to see that there is no duplication between the Board of Trade's administration of mercantile marine laws and the provisions of this Bill which apply to shipping.
I shall be satisfied if I can be assured that there is no duplication between the administration of the Board of Trade laws and the new Bill and that the shipping interests have been consulted and have agreed to these provisions, which are not in the English Bill.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), I should like further clarification on what is meant by

1683
home-going ships. I see that in a further Amendment, in page 40, a definition is given indicating that the phrase shall be applied to ships calling between places in Scotland. Could that not be extended to include one of the most popular excursion ships running between the West of Scotland and the Isle of Man? If that would involve difficulties in later parts of the Bill, could there be consultations to see whether ships running between Stranraer and Larne could not be brought within the scope of the Bill?
Mr. Hector Hughes: I should like to support the observations of my hon. Friends. The words "home-going ships" seem to be a roundabout way of expressing of what is intended. I suggest that it might be better to substitute the simple phrase, "coastal ships."
The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked me to clarify the expression "home-going shipping." It might be out of order to do so—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—but if it is not, then the hon. Member will find it in an Amendment to Clause 58.
Mr. Speaker: It is not out of order. We are having a discussion on all the Amendments.
The Lord Advocate: I would direct the hon. Member's attention to the Amendment in page 40, line 38, at the end to insert:
"'home-going ship' means a ship plying in inland waters, or a ship engaged in coastal passenger services, and for the purposes of this definition 'coastal passenger service' means a passenger service or excursion between places in Scotland which does not involve calling at any place outside Scotland."
That is a proposed Amendment to Clause 58, the interpretation Clause.
In the course of the Committee stage, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock drew attention particularly to excursions and the like. I do not say that the words of the Amendment are entirely taken out of the speech which he made on that occasion, but they are certainly designed to meet the very situation which he visualised. He referred to excursions to Rothesay and the like.
1684
Perhaps I may also deal with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), about the Isle of Man. It would be difficult in this purely Scottish Measure, as it were, to cross the Border. We have done a good deal for the ordinary coastal traffic around the coast of Scotland and I do not think that we ought to run into further difficulties of crossing the Border, even though it be only crossing the sea.
The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) also referred to a possibly better definition of coastal shipping. I think that, in fact, the definition proposed in page 40, line 38, is more thorough.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) inquired whether consultations had been held. The House will remember that in Committee I stated that active consultations with the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation had taken place and it was made abundantly clear at that time that it was proposed that we should include ships. No representations have been made against that and my hon. and gallant Friend can rest assured that there have been no unsatisfactory repercussions from the trade.
Mr. Steele: Most of the discussion so far has been about the coastal passenger services plying between Stranraer and the Isle of Man. The most important inland waterway in Scotland is Loch Lomond, and I should like to know whether that is included in the Amendment.
The Lord Advocate: Yes, Sir.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14.—(REGISTRATION OF MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS.)
Mr. G. M. Thomson: I beg to move, in page 11, line 18, after "premises," to insert "or other place."
This Amendment has been put down because during the proceedings on the Committee stage I pointed out that in Clause 14 (1) only the word "premises" is used, while in Clause 14 (2), in line 33, the definition of "premises" is extended to include "vehicles, stalls or places." In Committee I suggested that this extended definition was thoroughly desirable and I asked the Lord Advocate

1685
why it was not included in subsection (1). He replied:
"I will certainly look into that. There may be a very good reason, and I should not like to give a snap answer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee; 3rd November, 1955, c. 298.]
The Amendment has been tabled so that the Lord Advocate can now give us a considered, instead of a snap, answer.
Mr. William Hannan (Glasgow, Mary-hill): I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Two observations occur to me. One is that if the words, "or other place" are inserted after "premises," they would appear to be redundant, having regard to the meaning of "premises" in the definition Clause. "Premises" is there defined as meaning:
"…a building or any part thereof and any forecourts, yards and places of storage used in connection therewith."
With that definition the word "premises" seems to be a generic word. Alternatively, if the words "or other place" are to be inserted on the third line of the Clause, the words "or other place" should also be inserted after the word "premises" in line 22.
The Lord Advocate: I am glad to have the opportunity of giving the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) an explanation of the omission of the words which he seeks to insert. The House will note that Clause 14 (1) deals with premises and premises alone. Clause 14 (2) deals with places other than premises. It would accordingly be inappropriate and quite unnecessary to put in "or other place" after the word "premises" in the third line of Clause 14 (1), because the type of other place to which the hon. Member no doubt refers is covered in Clause 14 (2). The two subsections deal with different subjects. In view of that explanation, the hon. Member might feel disposed to withdraw his Amendment.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15.—(REFUSAL, ETC., OF REGISTRATION UNDER S. 14.)
The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 12, line 43, to leave out "a suitable person" and to insert:
"suitable having regard to considerations of public health and to the requirements of any enactment relating to food."
1686
4.0 p.m.
During the Committee stage we discussed whether the word suitable, "standing alone, was not too wide in its meaning and whether it might not give a local authority the opportunity to refuse to register a person because it disliked him. "They did not like his face" was one of the suggestions. We have considered that, and we propose the Amendment in order to qualify the word "suitable." This, I think, would restrict the local authority to those particular features which it is eminently desirable that it should take into account when considering the question of registration.
Mr. Ross: This is one of the most important principles which the Government have accepted so far. I am glad that the Government have noticed that, as drafted, the Clause, in giving this new power to local authorities, was leaving the matter fairly wide open. The position was that the local authority could turn down an application simply because it did not think the person was suitable, and no indication was given to the local authority as to how it should construe suitability or otherwise.
As a protection not only for the person making the application but for those who would have to adjudicate upon it, it is desirable that the law should be made more clear and, obviously, more fair. The words which it is proposed to add amply meet the objections which we on this side held very strongly. I should like to thank the Lord Advocate and the Joint Under-Secretary of State—whom we are glad to see back looking very much healthier than he did after we had "put him through the mill" in Committee— for having found it possible to make the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18.—(CREAM SUBSTITUTES.)
Mr. Hannan: I beg to move, in page 15, line 16, after "cream," to insert "or butter."
I would say right away that this is a new point which has been put to me subsequent to our discussions in Committee, and I recognise that this is a technical Clause. I put the broad point first. It has been said to me that in making cream substitutes the ordinary housewife occasionally resorts to the use of butter which she whips up, perhaps adding

1687
water, and in that way reconstitutes cream. If that is done in the home, what objection can there be to the small baker carrying out a similar process?
Subsection (1) indicates what cannot be sold as cream substitute, and subsection (3) defines what reconstituted cream is. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that butter can be used for reconstituting cream. It may be that the Government will answer that butter contains a dye called annatto, which gives the yellow colouring to butter, and that because of that possibly butter should be excluded; but there is no illegal process in the matter. If this may be done in the home why should it not be done by the small baker who wants to use butter?
Mr. G. M. Thomson: I beg formally to second the Amendment.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland:
Perhaps it will shorten the discussion if I say straight away that this is a reasonable and sensible Amendment which I advise hon. Members to accept. The Clause as drafted permits reconstituted cream to contain any ingredient which may be lawfully contained in real cream; but as reconstituted cream is frequently made from butter, it is proper that we should introduce a reference to the ingredients of butter as well. The Amendment will make it clear that reconstituted cream may lawfully contain any ingredient which may lawfully be contained in butter.
Mr. Hannan: I should like to thank the Solicitor-General and the Government for considering this matter at such short notice. I am sure that the decision will give satisfaction. I confess that I was in doubt whether this was the proper place in the Bill for the Amendment, but my guess was right.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19.—(SIGN TO BE DISPLAYED ON PREMISES, ETC., WHERE HORSEFLESH IS SOLD FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION.)
Mr. J. Nixon Browne: I beg to move, in page 15, line 36, to leave out from "letters" to the end of line 38 and to insert:
"not less than four inches in height stating that horseflesh is sold there, is at all times displayed in a conspicuous position."
1688
During discussion in Committee on this Clause, which was then Clause 20, Amendments were moved by hon. Members opposite to strengthen the wording by providing that the notices to be displayed in shops selling horseflesh should be of a certain size, should occupy a certain position and should be permanently displayed. I agreed to table an Amendment which would give effect to the spirit of those Amendments, though not necessarily in the same words, as they themselves were in slight conflict.
Examination of the Clause has revealed that it is possible to strengthen and to simplify at the same time. As drafted. the Clause made no provision for the size of the lettering of the notice, apart from the fact that it should be legible and it implied that the notice need be put up only at times when horseflesh was being sold. The Amendment provides that, wherever horseflesh is sold, a notice in letters not less than four inches in height shall be displayed in a conspicuous position at all times. There will thus be no possibility of shopkeepers selling horseflesh for human consumption and misleading their customers.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: We are all glad to see the Joint Under-Secretary back in his place and recovered from the illness to which, no doubt, the labours that we forced on him during Committee stage contributed, but if he has not yet completely recovered I am sure that our proceedings today will be an additional tonic for him.
I should like to express my personal gratitude to the Joint Under-Secretary for carrying out the undertaking he gave in Committee to take back this part of the Bill and re-write it in a fuller form to safeguard the interests of the public more strongly.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22.—(NOTIFICATION OF CASES OF FOOD POISONING.)
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 17, line 30, to leave out subsection (3).
This Amendment arises out of a matter which was raised during the Committee stage by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison). We found, on investigation, that it affected only one medical officer of health in the

1689
whole of Scotland—there being only one part-time medical officer—and he can be looked after under the regulations referred to in subsection (2). Accordingly, subsection (3) is unnecessary, and I think it would be wise to take it out.
Miss Margaret Herbison: I am very glad indeed that the Government have decided to delete this subsection from the Bill. We were told in Committee that there was only one such person, but in future there may be more than one such person, and it is, therefore, a good thing that we should not have the duplication of fees which there would have been as the Bill stood. I am most grateful to the Government for their decision.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 24.—(PROVISIONS AS TO SUSPECTED FOOD.)
Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 18, line 7, at the end to insert:
"The investigation of food thus suspected must be carried out as quickly as is reasonably practicable."
We had a long discussion in Committee on this matter, and I myself moved an Amendment designed to limit to 48 hours the time to be taken by the medical officer of health in examining food. The learned Lord Advocate said he thought the position of the shopkeeper or the person owning the food was fairly well safeguarded by subsection (2), but he agreed that the matter ought to be looked at again because of the arguments which were then advanced.
In subsection (3) of this Clause certain provisions are made for compensation in the event of the deterioration of food and for other purposes, but we made the point to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that dislocation was likely to be caused to the business of the person concerned while the examination was being undertaken. We thought there ought to be an obligation placed upon the medical officer of health of the local authority to carry out his examination as quickly as possible. The words contained in the Amendment were suggested during the Committee stage, and are words which the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself said were worth looking at when the suggestion was made. I therefore commend the Amendment to his attention.
Mr. Ross: I beg to second the Amendment.
We had quite a long discussion on this in Committee, but I think that the fact that the learned Lord Advocate himself, at the end of that discussion, felt that it was necessary to have another look at the matter itself proves that some explanation is necessary from the Government as to what happened in their further consideration and why they did not find it possible or necessary to add any words.
I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman recollects the point at issue, and will remember that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) took some part in the discussion. The point at issue is this. First, the food is suspected of being contaminated and liable to cause food poisoning. The local authority gives instructions that the food is not to be sold or used for human consumption and is not to be removed, or that it may be removed to a specified place. The presumption is that if it is not moved then, obviously, all the other food in that place comes into the same category and is liable to become contaminated. This is a point which I do not think is covered by the existing provisions of the compensation subsection, and I would ask the Lord Advocate to have another look at it in the future progress of this Bill in another place.
4.15 p.m.
Captain Duncan: This is the last stage.
Mr. Ross: Oh, this is the last stage of the Bill. We have had so many versions of this Bill. This is Mark III—the last one—although this version has proceeded a little further than the rest.
This is a point worth considering. The position is that if the food is not removed, other food will be affected and any other food brought in will also be affected. The longer we delay the examination of the food which was the original cause of the investigation being made, the greater the damage is likely to be to the public. I think that this was a matter which concerned the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who said, for rather paradoxical reasons, that we did not need to specify any period or stipulate that it was urgent. To my mind, if the food is contaminated, the sooner we make an investigation and have it destroyed, the better it will be from the

1691
point of view of the public and from that of the trader or manufacturer or customer.
It is desirable that the matter should be cleared up as quickly as possible, and, from the point of view of the local authority—as the local authority is liable for limited compensation in this case—the quicker it is done the smaller the compensation and the better for the local authority. If the investigation is delayed, the greater the compensation is likely to be in respect of the food itself.
Further, if examination of the food is delayed and the food itself is not actually contaminated, it probably will be by the time the examination takes place, so that, from the points of view of the local authorities, the traders and the public, it is desirable that we should impress upon the authorities concerned the necessity for urgent and speedy investigation taking place in the cases of such food.
I sincerely hope that, even at this stage—there is still time for redemption; there always is—the Lord Advocate or the Joint Under-Secretary, or even the Secretary of State himself, since he has taken such a great interest in the Bill, will decide that this Amendment is desirable.
The Lord Advocate: I am obliged to the two hon. Gentlemen opposite for giving me this opportunity of reporting progress as it were in the consideration which we have given to this matter since the Committee stage. I agree with everything that has been said by the hon. Members for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) about speed, and if we thought that these words were necessary to make the investigation take place quickly, we would certainly accept them.
We do not, however, think that in this context, or in any context, it is necessary to put in the words—
"as quickly as is reasonably practicable."
he wording, naturally, implies that, and, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock pointed out, the local authority is, after all, in charge of the medical officer and itself has a very real interest in seeing that the investigation is carried out at an early stage. Therefore, while agreeing with all that the two hon. Gentlemen said about speed and the desirability for speed, I cannot accept the Amendment, because I do not think it is necessary.
Mr. Willis: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us why he thinks there would be this drive on the part of local authorities to have the food examined? After all, the local authority has already stopped the food being sold and taken steps to prevent it from reaching the public. What incentive is there to have the analysis carried out quickly?
The Lord Advocate: With the permission of the House, I will reply to the hon. Gentleman. The incentive to the local authority to take action at all is that which I hope all local authorities have, to carry out the provisions of the law. The incentive to have the examination done quickly is in order to discover the condition of the food as early as possible and—as was said by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock—not to run the risk of having to pay an unnecessarily high figure of compensation if, at the end of the day, it turns out that there is nothing wrong with the food.
Miss Herbison: The Lord Advocate has given no adequate reasons for not accepting this Amendment. Both in the discussions during the Committee stage and today my hon. Friends have tried to show how important it is that this Amendment should be accepted. In quite a number of our Statutes we have these words. Surely they are necessary in the case of providing clean food for our people and ensuring that no other clean food will become contaminated by poisoned food. These words should be inserted to ensure that local authorities are made aware—in case there should be any chance of a local authority being laggard in the matter—of the desire of Parliament that all speed should be taken in dealing with this food. Cannot the Joint Under-Secretary accept the Amendment?
Mr. J. Nixon Browne: We gave this matter considerable thought and we did not feel it proper to write into the Bill something which was inherent in the operation of requiring clean food in Scotland. After all, the incentive is prevention.
Mr. Ross: In that case, why is it that in a later Clause, Clause 38, 48 hours are stipulated for another type of investigation?
Mr. Browne: That is for a different reason altogether, in order not to hold up food at the ports.
If we write into the Bill things which any good medical officer or local authority must do for the protection of the people, there are so many Statutes where similar words could be written in. There is also the point that if we write into the Bill that there must be expedition, it might be a case for a defence that there had been undue delay in examining the food. We have tried to meet the Opposition on practically every point and I can assure the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) that if we could have done it this time we would. I hope that with that explanation this Amendment may be withdrawn.
Amendment negatived.

Clause 25.—(SCOTTISH FOOD HYGIENE COUNCIL.)
Mr. J. Nixon Browne: I beg to move, in page 19, line 39, at the end to insert:
(5) The said Council may make representations to the Secretary of State on the operation of any regulation, order or code of practice published or, as the case may be, made under any of the sections referred to in the last foregoing subsection, or having effect as if so made.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) is not present in the Chamber at the moment, so that I might pay him the compliment which I had intended to pay to him. During the Committee stage the right hon. Gentleman moved an Amendment to give the Scottish Food Hygiene Council power to initiate consideration of matters relating to hygiene in addition to the power already in the Bill to advise the Secretary of State on questions which he referred to the council. I said that the Secretary of State had sympathy with the proposal and undertook to table a suitable Amendment on Report.
There are a number of subjects dealt with by the Bill on which the council is not the appropriate body to give advice, principally the use of chemical substances in food and the composition of food generally, and questions relating to drugs. Apart from these, we agree, to use the right hon. Gentleman's own words, that we should not withhold from the council
"the power of thinking for itself and making suggestions to the Secretary of State."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 8th November, 1955; c. 375.]
1694
Our recently redrafted Amendment makes it quite clear that the council will have the power to make representations to the Secretary of State on the operation of any regulations made under Clause 7, labelling; Clause 13, hygiene; any order under Clause 14; registration, and any code of practice relating to food hygiene as mentioned in Clause 13. That is, on all the questions on which the council is qualified to advise.
The Amendment enables the council to make representations to the Secretary of State, not only on the regulations which he will make after the Bill becomes law, but also on the existing regulations made under existing law, which are continued in operation by Clause 60 of the Bill as if they had been made under the Bill. The Amendment is wide enough to enable the council to represent to the Secretary of State that regulations should be extended in new directions, as well as to suggest ways in which they might be modified in detail.
Finally, in accordance with the practice with other advisory committees, the Secretary of State will always be prepared to listen sympathetically to any requests by the council to be given a remit to consider any point on which it thinks it can give helpful advice.
Miss Herbison: My right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) was obliged to leave the Chamber before we came to this Amendment.
The Amendment makes a great improvement to the Bill and is an improvement on the Amendment originally put down for discussion on Report. My right hon. Friend was most anxious that the council should be concerned not only with matters which came to it from the Secretary of State, but that it should be able to take to the Secretary of State matters which it thought that the right hon. Gentleman should have brought to his notice.
This Amendment goes a long way to meet the point made by my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members during the discussions in Committee, but I am not sure whether it will go the whole way as we desired. The council can make representations to the Secretary of State on any regulations that will be or have been made, and on any order or code of practice published; it may suggest

1695
extensions to existing regulations or regulations which go to the Secretary of State.
So far, so good. The Government have come quite a long way to meeting the wishes of hon. Members on this side of the House, but it does not seem to me that the wording of this Amendment gives a right to the council to come to the Secretary of State without having any regulation before it. Its powers should be extended so that it can suggest to the Secretary of State that he should make a new regulation about a specific matter. I should like to know whether the Joint Under-Secretary can say that that and similar points under this and other Clauses are covered by the Amendment, because it does not seem to me that they are.
4.30 p.m.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: I support what my hon. Friend has said. We are glad that the Government have gone some way towards meeting the representations made by my right hon. Friend during the Committee stage but, although we do not wish to look a gift horse in the mouth, we feel that the Amendment falls a good deal short of what my right hon. Friend had in mind.
The Amendment says that the council
"may make representations to the Secretary of State on the operation of any regulation, order or code of practice published or, as the case may be, made under any of the sections referred to in the last foregoing subsection, or having effect as if so made."
That is not a very notable advance, since subsection (4) already states that the Secretary of State shall
"refer the proposals in the form of draft regulations or a draft order or a draft code of practice or otherwise, to the Scottish Food Hygiene Council for consideraion and advice."
Anything which is brought into being as a result of the provisions of the Bill must, in the ordinary course of events, be referred to the council. As I understand, the only concession which has been made by the Amendment is that regulations which have already been made may come under the purview of the council.
That is a quite useful provision, and we are glad to see that amount of progress being made, but it is not very much. My right hon. Friend wanted to see the council performing a much more positive
1696
function in Scottish life. The Joint Under-Secretary may recollect that during the debate upon this Clause in Committee some of us were rather doubtful about the purposes of the council. There was a long debate about its composition. We were afraid that the Secretary of State intended to use the council as a bulwark against public representations, and it was suggested that if we were to have such a council as this it should be enabled to do more than merely have placed before it draft regulations which the Secretary of State proposed to make.
There is a great deal to be said for a Scottish Food Hygiene Council which can take an enthusiastic responsibility for education in matters of food hygiene, and which, for instance, could publish an annual report and publicise its activities as widely as possible, using its influence in order to raise food hygiene standards. This very modest Government Amendment makes no provision for that sort of body being set up. I am grateful for what the Government are giving us, but I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will reconsider the question in order to see whether we can set up a council which can play a really important and constructive role in this matter.
Mr. Willis: It is rather unfortunate that we have now reached the stage where we can do very little other than accept or reject Amendments, because there is no doubt that the Amendment falls far short of what was envisaged during the Committee stage. It is really only a very small extension of the powers referred to in subsection (3). We wanted to set up a council which had some initiative, so that people might be encouraged to serve upon it. We expressed fears that it would be difficult to get people to take an interest in this body and to give their time and energies to serving upon it unless they felt that they would be given a responsible job to do.
The Amendment goes some way in that direction. The council has been given a certain amount of responsibility, but it is an exceedingly limited amount, and it is entirely dependent upon what the Secretary of State does in relation to issuing regulations. I express some small appreciation at the slight distance which the Government have gone to meet us in this matter, but I express far greater disappointment that they have not taken their

1697
courage in their hands and displayed some of the imagination about which they are so fond of boasting at times.
Mr. Ross: I intended to congratulate the Government, but I find myself in such a lonely position on this side of the House that I feel I had better change my mind. It is true that my congratulations were going to be very limited, and tempered by condemnation—because this is the first power of which the council can be at all assured. In the first stage of its duties it deals only with matters that the Secretary of State may from time to time refer to it, if he thinks fit. The Clause then says that
"he shall"—
and then there is an important parenthetical interpolation—
"(unless it appears to him to be inexpedient to do so having regard to the urgency of the matter) …"
refer such draft regulations to the council —and that is the extent of its powers, apart from the Amendment.
The Amendment enables the council also to make representations to the Secretary of State upon the working of draft regulations, orders, or anything else which is brought into being by him. The Secretary of State may consult the council before taking action, or he may feel he has not the time to do so and must put them into operation first, saying to the council, "You can look at them after they are in operation."
Scotland is beginning to take this question of food hygiene seriously. We are setting up this council, and I very much regret that the Government are so limiting the scope of its work from the very start that it has no room to grow. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) is right in saying that in the course of years a developing campaign for cleaner food in Scotland is surely a direction in which this council should develop, but the Government have so tied it up, in their cagey approach to the whole question, that it will not be able to develop in that direction. That fact is bound to cause difficulty in finding persons to serve upon it.
I want to ask the Government—and this is where I was hoping to congratulate them; it was really a matter of flattering them in the hope that I might get something out of them—whether the
1698
Amendment can be very widely interpreted. It says:
"The said Council may make representations to the Secretary of State on the operation of any regulation,…"
What is to be the nature of the limitation placed upon those representations? Can the council, for instance, make representations that considerable public ignorance exists in regard to certain regulations? Can it, within those representations, then suggest that a publicity campaign should be started?
If we can have an assurance from the Joint Under-Secretary that the power granted by the Amendment will be widely interpreted, and that the council will not be limited purely to dealing with the way in which regulations affect certain areas, if it can go on to draw conclusions as to what must be done, we can be satisfied that it will be given some slight scope for initiative.
It is urgently necessary, if the Scottish public are to take this seriously and the people who serve on this council are to take it seriously, that they should have the widest possible powers that can be construed under this one positive power which they are being given virtually at the last minute. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to give us this assurance.
I am sorry that at this late stage we should be saying this, but we do not wish this Scottish Food Hygiene Council merely to be regarded as a sort of creature of the Secretary of State, or a bit of propaganda—a sop thrown to cranks who feel that an extra council with a high-sounding title will, somehow or other, satisfy the complaint that nothing is being done. If that is all that this council does, it will lead to distrust by the public not only of the council but of many other bodies which are doing quite good work. Therefore, can we have from the Joint Under-Secretary an assurance that there will be wide interpretation of the power to make representations to the Secretary of State? Cannot he think of a way, within the scope of the Amendment, to widen still further the powers of the advisory council?
Mr. Steele: I emphasise what has already been said. I think that there is another opportunity available to have this done. It may be that some of my

1699
hon. Friends believe that this Bill has already been to another place, but I think that they are confusing it with another Bill in another Session. There has been an interval in which that Bill lapsed and this Bill was introduced here, and there will be another opportunity in another place to have something done.
I believe, when I recall what the Minister said in Committee on this matter, that he was anxious that this council should do a good job. All the powers in the Clause at the moment are powers which give the Secretary of State the initiative to remit matters to the council. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said, there is this important point in the Amendment, that it gives the council an opportunity to take a little initiative in the matter, but it can only do so on regulations which are already in force and make representations to the Secretary of State on those matters.
It seems to me that if the Amendment were extended in another place so that after the words
"…on the operation of any regulation…"
there could be inserted, "or any other matter," or words to that effect, that would give the Scottish Food Hygiene Council an opportunity to consider other matters to which they may wish to draw the attention of the advisory council.
4.45 p.m.
Mr. J. Nixon Browne: I want to assure the House that every point made by those who have spoken is, in the view of the Government, met by this deceptively simple Amendment, and by the common practice of the Secretary of State. I have studied this most carefully. Let us think for a moment what it will mean if we give the council the right to make representation on the operation of any regulation. The regulations are, beyond doubt, every regulation that has been or will be passed within the field appropriate to the advisory council. To make a representation on the operation of a regulation means that the council can say," We think that another regulation should be made on this particular point. "I can conceive of no subject within its powers on which the council cannot make representation within the rights which it has under this Amendment as all Scottish
1700
hygiene is covered by the provisions mentioned in subsection (4).
Suppose that something slips through the net. We have already given an undertaking—and I am sure that the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), who has been in my position for so long, will know that this is true—that when a council asks the Secretary of State for a remit—"Please may we examine this?"—the Secretary of State is always only too willing to grant that request. I assure the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) that this is not a narrow Amendment, but a very wide Amendment indeed.
Miss Herbison: The Joint Under-Secretary says that the Secretary of State, if this council or any other such body were to say, "Please remit something to us, we would like to study it," would be willing to do so. But the point made by my hon. Friends and myself was that the council did not want to be continually getting something from the Secretary of State. The council wished to be able to initiate examination of some particular problem.
There is another matter on which I think we should be clear, because there is a chance of our having something done about it in another place. It is this. The council can examine existing regulations and regulations that will be made, but these regulations, either existing or about to be made, may not cover everything that the council wishes to be covered. If there were a completely new subject which could not very well be fitted into an existing regulation or one about to be made, it seems to me that subsection (5) would not cover that contingency.
Mr. Browne: That was the point which I was making. We can see very few things that are likely to slip through the net of this subsection. If a regulation is insufficient, then the council can draw attention to the fact and either say, "We think that there ought to be a new regulation," or, "We think that the existing one needs tightening up." As the whole of Scottish food hygiene is covered by the provisions in this subsection (4), I can give the hon. Lady the assurance that we are of the opinion that this Amendment does, in effect, give the council full powers to consider anything within its scope in relation to food hygiene. We can think of

1701
no case where it would want to ask the Secretary of State for the right to initiate.
We are satisfied that this really meets the point and that there is no room for any other Amendment, nor indeed could we make the Clause any wider. I hope that I have satisfied hon. Members opposite. I am most anxious to do so, because this is one of the most important Clauses in the Bill. I do not agree with the suggestion made by the Opposition that this council is a creature of the Secretary of State. It will not be a passive but an active body, and we want to see it doing its work for Scotland as so many other councils are doing today.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 28.—(POWERS OF SAMPLING.)
Mr. Hannan: I beg to move, in page 21, line 36, after "food," to insert "or drug."
I raised this point in Committee on the Motion that the Clause stand part, and on that occasion the Lord Advocate replied:
"It is very complicated and, in view of the arguments deployed by the hon. Member, we should like further to consider whether it is necessary or desirable that the words 'or drug' should be included in subsection (3). We will consider that point."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee: 15th November, 1955, c. 426.]
I hope that the Lord Advocate has been able to consider this and that he has some pleasant information to give us, just as had the Solicitor-General for Scotland a little earlier. The Joint Under-Secretary of State has also made a concession today, but the Lord Advocate is still a little stubborn.
The basis of the Amendment is this. Clause 1 (1) deals only with the adulteration of food by the addition or subtraction of anything, and subsection (2) of that Clause deals only with drugs. While the Title of the Bill refers to both food and drugs, the Lord Advocate in Committee did not appreciate—it was probably my fault—that I was trying to deal with those two topics separately and was directing attention to the sale of drugs in chemists shops. Subsection (2) of Clause 28 states that
"A sampling officer may purchase samples of any food or drug, or of any substance capable of being used in the preparation of food …"
1702
but subsection (3) of the Clause provides
"… that a sampling officer may take a sample of any food…
The words "or drug" are omitted. I am informed that drugs sold in a chemist's shop not for food can be adulterated, and I want to be assured—I hope by the acceptance of this Amendment— that that will be covered. There is no need to develop this point any further— I think that the House is fully apprised of it—and I hope that the Lord Advocate can accept the Amendment.
Mr. Thomson: I beg to second the Amendment.
The Lord Advocate said in Committee that this is a complicated matter, but the more I look at it the harder I find it to understand his reasons for not accepting my hon. Friend's Amendment during the Committee stage. It is quite clear that subsections (2) and (3) deal with separate processes. Subsection (2) very plainly deals with any food or drug, but subsection (3), which deals with sampling, for some reason refers only to food.
During the Committee stage the Lord Advocate did not argue that subsection (3) deals only with food as distinct from food and drugs, but—most curiously, it seemed to my lay mind—that food was adequately defined in the definition Clause to incorporate such substances as drugs. If that is still his argument, I submit that it is not a very strong one. In a Bill like this, which will be used by people who are not lawyers, it is very important that in as many of the Clauses as possible such things are fully explained in the Clauses themselves and do not have to be explained by reference to a definition Clause. In those circumstances, I would have thought that there was a very strong case indeed for making quite sure that subsection (3) made it quite plain that the sampling officer was empowered to take samples of both food and drugs.
The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) was quite right in saying that during the Committee stage I did refer to the definition Clause. I think that that was an inadequate answer—almost an irrelevant answer—but as the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) pointed out, the matter had been raised rather suddenly and we promised to look into it.

1703
I fear that I am once again apparently the sole bearer of ill news. We feel that we cannot accept the Amendment because we do not think it necessary to include drugs. Certain contrasts between subsections (2) and (3) have been pointed out, but the important distinction between them is that in (2) the word is "purchase" while in (3) the operative word is "take." We think that it is sufficient if power to take—as distinct from purchase—is limited to food and that it is not necessary to give power to take drugs. Clause 28 (2) gives power to purchase drugs.
The need for taking samples of food really arises only where a local authority officer visits premises where goods are not on sale—for example, factories, warehouses and the like. If the officer went to a warehouse and found a barrel or a bin of flour it would be unreasonable for him to have to purchase a sample— and, in fact, it might be difficult to purchase a small quantity from a barrel or bin of flour. The position in regard to drugs is slightly different and there are other provisions in other Acts which enable a control of drugs to be taken.
That is the most satisfactory and the shortest answer—that here we do not think it necessary to demand further powers in respect of drugs and, of course, there is still power under subsection (2) to purchase them.
Mr. Thomson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why he feels that sampling officers may not need to deal with drugs in warehouses?
The Lord Advocate: With permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in dealing with drugs, hon. Members will recollect that there are Dangerous Drugs Acts, Therapeutic Substances Acts, Pharmacy and Poisons Acts which we think have, up to date, proved sufficient to control the composition of drugs. Of course, those Acts do not apply to food.
Mr. Steele: I should like to protest against the Lord Advocate's attitude. To start with, he indicated that he had rejected the Amendment in Committee because he did not understand it. The Joint Under-Secretary of State is showing his disagreement, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself said that he had used a bad argument.
The Lord Advocate: An irrelevant argument.
Mr. Steele: An irrelevant argument— so I only take the evidence from the Lord Advocate himself. He then gave the Committee the impression that he had approached the subject again, not to discover whether or not it was a good Amendment, but to find a better argument to use against it.
5.0 p.m.
It is evident that the speeches of the Lord Advocate have been unfortunate, and it is quite understandable to us that he has been the bearer of bad news, but I am sure that his argument today, while perhaps not irrelevant, is just as unsatisfactory as it was in Committee. We ought to give him another opportunity to find a better argument than he has used this afternoon. Perhaps if he studies the matter again he will find reasons for accepting the Amendment.
With regard to subsection (2), I can understand the circumstances in which a sampling officer, going into a shop, would be able to purchase a sample. It is important that he should be able to do so, so that the person in charge of the shop would be unaware that he was a sampling officer. But the Lord Advocate says that a sampling officer would not take away or purchase a barrel containing some commodity because he would only want a little of it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) indicated, there are surely places where there will be bulk supplies of drugs or preservatives. The Lord Advocate says that there is no point in adding these words "or drug," but is there any reason why they should not be added? We believe that the inclusion of these words would be an added protection to cover any case that might arise.
Mr. Ross: The argument of the Lord Advocate on this occasion has been as unconvincing as it was verbose. He may have been studying the Amendment, but I have my doubts. I think that he spent more time studying what he should say in rejecting the Amendment.
Having read the previous subsection as well as this subsection, I cannot see why this greater power should not be added by the inclusion of the words "or drug." The Lord Advocate said that he was a

1705
carrier of bad news. Within the context of this Bill, a carrier is a very dangerous thing indeed. What we do with carriers is to take them away and submit them to treatment, and I suggest that the Government should do that with the Lord Advocate.
Miss Herbison: I hope that the Government will have another look at this Amendment. The Lord Advocate said that it is not necessary, but my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) wished to know why the words "or drug" are included in subsection (2) and not in subsection (3). The Lord Advocate said that subsection (2) applied to a sampling officer who would be making a purchase, and that he saw no reason for allowing a sampling officer to take a drug under subsection (3). But, according to subsection (3), the food or drug are not all to be found in a shop. There are many places where it might be found. It refers to:
"…any substance capable of being used in the preparation of food, which appears to him to be intended for sale or to have been sold for human consumption, or is found by him on or in any premises, stall, vehicle, ship or aircraft or place other than premises which he is authorised to enter…
Surely, if the inclusion of the word "drug" is correct in subsection (2), it is just as proper to have it in subsection (3). I am certain that if the Lord Advocate has another look at this matter he will come to the conclusion that there is reason in this Amendment. If he cannot give better reasons for refusing it, he should accept it.
Mr. Willis: May I ask the Lord Advocate to try to forget that he is a member of the Bar trying to win a case? The reason why he is always the bearer of bad tidings is that he approaches these problems as though he were in Parliament House, Edinburgh, trying to win a case, instead of trying to assist us.
I was impressed by the offhand manner in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman dealt with this matter. He said that there is power under subsection (2) to purchase a drug and that he does not see why the same power need be taken under subsection (3) in the case of taking a drug. But why not? He referred to several other Acts relating to drugs, but he did not tell us what those Acts state. If he had told us that it was
1706
possible for drugs to be taken under these Acts, in the same way as it is possible to take a sample of food under subsection (3) of this Clause, we might have been satisfied.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has a staff to make these inquiries for him, and if he is using this argument for not including reference to drugs in this subsection, he might at least have given us the proper argument and not merely the references to whatever argument he is using. He ought to tell us his reasons. It is not good enough to say that they are in some Act. He should tell us what the Act empowers him to do. Is it possible under the Acts that he has mentioned to do in respect of drugs what can be done under subsection (3) of this Clause in respect of food, namely, to take a sample? If it is not possible, this Amendment ought to be accepted.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The Question is—
Mr. Thomas Hubbard: May we have an answer from the Lord Advocate?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That does not lie in my hands.
The Lord Advocate: I must apologise for not rising to my feet quickly enough. It has been suggested that I came here with a view to winning a case and in the hope that this and other Amendments would be rejected. That is most certainly not the attitude which we on this bench adopt to any Amendment, from whatever part of the House it may come. It is much more satisfactory to us to be able to accept an Amendment. We most certainly would have accepted the Amendment had we thought it desirable or necessary. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said that we came here with the intention of winning a case. We do not come here to win a case. We come here in order to state the situation as we see it for the decision of the House.
I do not want to repeat what I said earlier, but there is a very marked distinction between subsections (2) and (3), one relating to purchasing and the other relating to taking. We do not want more taking to be done than is necessary, in contrast to purchasing. That surely is

1707
only fair. One should purchase if possible, but in certain circumstances it is necessary to take.
While I cannot give an absolute assurance to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East that everything which could have been done under subsection (3) if the Amendment were accepted can be done under existing legislation, I can at least say that under existing legislation we are able to do everything that we think is necessary; otherwise we would have accepted the Amendment and introduced the words "or drug" in subsection (3).
Mr. Hoy: That is an appalling answer. The Lord Advocate told us that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) had suggested that his attitude was that of hoping to win a case. On the evidence which he has presented this afternoon the Lord Advocate had a very poor chance of winning it. We have had two winners this afternoon and the Lord Advocate is in the appalling position of being unable even to fill the third place in this race.
In view of the long delay between the Committee stage and Report, I should have thought that the Lord Advocate would have gone into the matter very fully. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East asked whether this position was covered by existing legislation. Surely the House was entitled to a much better answer than that given by the Lord Advocate.
It is no good the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that he has put in the Bill all that he feels to be necessary. It is the duty of the House to see that the Bill is as efficient as possible, and, particularly on this Bill, the Opposition have made a contribution in making it a very much better Bill than when it was presented. That reason given by the Lord Advocate is a very poor one.
We are very disappointed. It was not our intention to press the Amendment to a Division—that would be for my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Mary-hill (Mr. Hannan) to decide—but the Lord Advocate places us in a most unfortunate position and we have to decide what we should do about it.
Mr. Hannan: May I, with the leave of the House, address a few questions to the
1708
Lord Advocate? I hope that in view of the representations which have been made he will tell us that he will at least look at this matter still further. The Bill deals not merely with food, but with food and drugs, and that distinction runs through the first three or four Clauses.
Mr. Willis: It is in the Title of the Bill.
Mr. Hannan: The first two subsections of Clause 1 deal with those items separately. They are again separate in Clause 2, and Clause 3 lays down what the defences will be in either case. If there is an offence against the Act and the evidence of the sampling officer is important when the case comes to court, is it not most important that that officer should be empowered to "take" as well as to "purchase "? The Lord Advocate makes a distinction between "purchase" in subsection (2) and "take" in subsection (3). Surely that is not the important distinction. The important point is that we should be able to "purchase "or "take" either food or drugs. To me, as a lay man, that is the simple point.
I agree that in subsection (2) there is the qualification concerning the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1951, and it seems to me that if the same qualification is inserted in subsection (3) the point would be covered.
The Lord Advocate finished his argument by saying, in effect, that this was the best argument to advance. That suggests that he has had before him three or four possible arguments of which he has chosen one. I think, by the smile on his face, that I am not far wrong. In keeping with the spirit which has been prevalent throughout our proceedings in Committee and in the House, I hope the Lord Advocate will now say either that he accepts the Amendment or that, at least, he will give further consideration to it.
Amendment negatived.
5.15 p.m.
The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 22, line 7, after "ship," to insert:
'not being a home-going ship."
This Amendment was referred to earlier when we were dealing with the Amendment to Clause 13, page 11, line 5. Perhaps it is the wish of the House that I should now formally move it.
Amendment agreed to.
The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 22, line 8, to leave out from "imported" to the end of line 9 and to insert:
"or otherwise carried as part of the cargo of that ship or aircraft for unloading at a place in Scotland."
The purpose of the Amendment is to enlarge the circumstances in which sampling can take place. Certain criticism was made by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite about the somewhat limited circumstances in which cargoes could be sampled. The Amendment will allow transshipment cargoes to be sampled.
Hon. Members might be prepared to consider at the same time, with your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the Amendment to Clause 37, page 28, line 21, leave out "as part of the cargo" and insert:
"or otherwise carried as part of the cargo for unloading at a place in Scotland."
I might be able to move that Amendment formally when we reach it.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 29.—(RIGHT TO HAVE SAMPLES ANALYSED.)
Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 22, line 29, at the end to insert
"in accordance with a scale of fees approved by the Secretary of State."
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and I had down an Amendment to limit the charge to Is. in order to make it possible for people readily to have samples analysed. In the course of a very long debate, it was pointed out that the Government's concern was in case business firms could have samples taken and then use the result for the purpose of advertising their products in the market. The Joint Under-Secretary of State advanced the argument that in these cases business firms ought to be made to pay. Obviously we must take cognisance of that; the argument seems to be quite sound.
We pointed out, however, that we desired to make it easy for people who suspected food which they had bought to have it analysed, and we felt that if the charge were too high, as might well be the case, that object might not be achieved. In Committee we suggested that the charge should be is. We recognise that our Amendment in Committee
1710
was probably not effective. We had a long debate, at the end of which we were given an assurance that the matter would be looked at; and the Amendment was withdrawn on that undertaking.
I understand that the Lord Advocate is to reply to this debate, and, therefore, I am not very hopeful. If he intends to refer to anything else, I hope that he will tell us what are the arguments to which he is referring instead of simply giving a reference number, as he tended to do on the previous Amendment. I hope that he will not merely say, as he did earlier, that he is giving us the best of his arguments—in other words, that he will not approach this matter as though he is fighting a case in Parliament House.
I do not want to go over all the arguments used in Committee because I think that they are still fresh in the mind of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I would point out to him that during the Committee stage it was stated that under the Weights and Measures Act a housewife who thought that she was not getting fair weight of sugar could go to the weights and measures inspector and have that sugar weighed for no charge at all. It was pointed out that that ought to be the type of provision made in relation to the taking of samples.
After giving this matter some thought, we felt that the words of this Amendment would possibly cover the various arguments put forward on Committee. At the same time, it would achieve the purpose which we sought to achieve, namely, make it easy for people to get samples of food analysed when they thought that there was something wrong with that food.
Mr. Ross: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), in his very cogent speech, has adequately covered the points at issue which we want to press on the Government. If we are to get the co-operation of the public in getting the best out of this Bill we must not penalise by a far too high cash payment for an analysis the person who seeks to have that analysis made.
Originally, we suggested a charge of is. Objection was taken to that, although we thought that a purely nominal figure would cover the case. Now we are trusting to the good sense

1711
of the Scottish Department—I wonder whether we are wise in doing so—properly to interpret the spirit of what was said by Scottish hon. Members in the Committee. We suggest that the Minister should fix a scale of fees.
I am sure that if the Lord Advocate has read fully the arguments put forward in Committee and fully understands the reasons for the Amendment moved on that occasion and the Amendment moved on this occasion, this time he should not be the carrier of bad news.
The Lord Advocate: During the Committee stage a most interesting argument took place as to whether, in point of fact, there should be any charge at all, and it was tested on the question of whether there should be is, charge. This Amendment does not raise that point at all. The reason why I cannot accept this Amendment is because, again, I think that it is unnecessary and most discourteous to the local authorities.
Mr. Ross: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will continue to have regard to the importance of local authorities when we deal with future Amendments.
The Lord Advocate: I shall most certainly do that. I invite hon. Members to consider how this would read if subsection (3) were amended in the way suggested. It would say:
"Provided that in the case of a sample submitted by a person not being an officer of the local authority, the analyst may demand in advance such fee as may be fixed by that authority in accordance with a scale of fees approved by the Secretary of State."
I should have thought that the House would have been prepared, as we on this side of the House are prepared, to trust the local authority to fix a suitable fee. Quite apart from that, there would be very great difficulty—I should have thought it would be almost impossible— if my right hon. Friend had to fix a scale of fees for work which varies so enormously from one operation to another. I invite the House to reject the Amendment and to leave this matter, as I think it can be safely left, in the hands of local authorities.
Mr. Steele: The Lord Advocate continues to bring bad news. When he started his speech on this occasion I had a feeling that he was a harbinger of good news because he drew our attention to
1712
the fact that during the Committee stage the arguments had all been concerned with whether or not there should be a payment. For one second I thought that he was going to tell the House that he had abandoned the idea of asking for any payment. I was soon disillusioned when he told us, as he has told us on previous Amendments, that the Government could not accept this Amendment. He told us that the Amendment, if accepted, would be nonsense.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) says that the arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman are the same. We are not wedded to any particular form of words, so long as the intention is accepted. The intention is that anyone who purchases food should not have in mind any question of cost for having that food analysed if he has a feeling that there is some danger about that food and that he ought to have it analysed.
May I draw the attention of the House to the attitude of the Government in this matter? If a local fanner has some concern about the soil on which he grows food he is advised by the Government to send samples of that soil to the Department, which will analyse it and give him all the advice necessary. The Department will send representatives from the local agricultural executive committee to tell the farmer how to deal with the soil —what to put into it, and how to work it—and that is all done without any cost to the farmer. But, after the food has been grown and goes to a shop, if the shopkeeper feels that there is something wrong with it and sends it to the public analyst, he will, according to this Bill, have to pay a charge. I think that is entirely wrong and I hope that the Government will look at this matter again, firstly, to see if they cannot provide that no charge be made, and, secondly, if that cannot be accepted, to ensure that the charge is not such as would tend to prohibit or lessen the desire of the individual to send such food to the analyst.
Captain Duncan: I think that on this occasion the Lord Advocate is bringing good news. The argument in support of the Amendment is really between whether one believes that the local authority should fix the charges or the Secretary of State should fix the charges. I think that the Lord Advocate is right.

1713
This Bill is largely a consolidation Measure, and I think I am right in saying that the provision we are discussing has been in force since 1928; local authorities have had these powers since then. So far as I know, they have worked the powers perfectly smoothly and no account has been given by hon. Members opposite to the effect that these powers have not worked satisfactorily. I am one of those who believe that if things are working well, we should not change them simply for the sake of change, but should leave a good system to continue to operate.
5.30 p.m.
I further believe in this connection that when we can leave power in the hands of the local authority, we should do so rather than bring in the Secretary of State to fix a scale of fees when it might be difficult, even if it were practically possible, to lay down a scale which would be fair between the public and the public analyst. For these reasons, I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is right and that the Amendment should be rejected.
Amendment negatived.
Miss Herbison: I beg to move, in page 23, line 3, after "but," to insert "part of."
We had a fairly long discussion on the Clause in Committee, although not on this Amendment. In Committee, it was my desire to have the work of analysing done either by the public analyst or by his deputy under his direction. I moved an Amendment which was negatived. In trying to support his case, the Lord Advocate said:
"The normal position one would contemplate would be that there would be an analyst and a deputy analyst, and that in the offices of the local authority there would be appropriate laboratory facilities, and the like."
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not very sure that we would have all this, but that was what he thought there would be. He said:
"Obviously, under them, they would need to have as assistants persons who were apprentices or trainees, or perhaps people even more qualified."
Now we come to the important part in support of my Amendment:
"When the analyst was about to make an analysis he might say to those persons, 'Will you prepare that for analysis?' I do not know, any more than does the hon. Lady, how an
1714
analyst works, but I imagine that there would be some preliminary work which, strictly, could be called part of the analysis, the donkey work, which the analyst would ask his assistant to do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 15th November, 1955; c. 455–6.]
The Lord Advocate did not seem very sure, but that was what he thought would happen in the public analyst's office.
Like my hon. Friends, I accept that what the Lord Advocate described as likely to happen is what really happens. If he felt that the trainees or apprentices, whatever name is given to them, would do simply part of the preliminary work or the donkey work, I should point out that that is not what subsection (6) states, for by subsection (6) it would be possible for the trainee or apprentice to do the whole of the work and for the public analyst to give his signature to it.
It is because I feel that every Clause of the Bill should be so drawn as to leave no loopholes which might permit of mistakes that could lead to food poisoning or lessen the standard of hygiene that we wish to be observed, that I feel that the important job of analysis should in no instance be left completely in the hands of an apprentice or trainee. I am willing that the apprentice or trainee should do any preliminary work for which his state of training fits him, but I feel that at some stage the analyst himself should come in, not simply to take from the apprentice or trainee the report of what has happened, but to complete the analysis.
In other words, my Amendment goes halfway towards meeting the Lord Advocate and the arguments that were put forward by the Government. If it is not accepted, there will be grave danger of leaving a loophole so that we do not achieve the security we want.
Mr. Woodburn: I beg to second the Amendment.
The Lord Advocate: The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and I are in agreement as to what happens when an analysis is made. There is the preliminary stage and then, at some indeterminate stage, the analysis proper starts. The hon. Lady wants the Bill to provide that the analyst himself—the gentleman who is to sign the certificate—should take some part in the analysis. The Amendment does not say how much part he should take; it simply

1715
States "part of." By a strict reading of the Amendment, the analyst would conform with the terms of the subsection if he merely stirred a dish or whatever it happened to be.
The question is whether the analyst himself must do it all himself or whether, in simple circumstances, he is to be entitled to leave it, as in the Bill at the moment, and as I agree, entirely to somebody else, while taking the full responsibility, as he is bound to do.
In our view, the various types of analysis are numerous and there are some which, I understand, are comparatively simple and which might conceivably and quke properly be left to the assistant of the analyst, who would do the work, and the analyst himself would then, on his responsibility as a professional man, sign the analysis. For these reasons, we do not think it is desirable to include a subsection which could be easily evaded by the analyst looking in simply for a brief moment and taking no active part in the analysis.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 23, line 3, after "any," to insert "competent."
We withdrew a similar Amendment in Committee on the assurance that this matter would be looked at. During the Committee stage, the view was expressed that subsection (6) was widely drawn, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and others of us felt that it should be tightened. To achieve this we thought that the insertion of the word "competent" before the word "person" would help.
I hope the Government have looked into this since the Committee. I wonder if the Lord Advocate is to answer the case? If he does, then I suppose that it is a foregone conclusion it will not be accepted. However, I hope the Government have reconsidered this subsection and have come to the conclusion that to make this Amendment would improve the Bill.
Some of the Government's arguments against a similar Amendment moved in Committee were specious arguments. One was that the word "competent" appeared nowhere else in the Bill, and that, therefore, we should not put it in here. There were other arguments of that character.
1716
As the Clause stands at present, anybody may do the analysis. An office boy may do it. The Lord Advocate could be called upon to do it. The analysis having been done by anybody, a certificate of the results are signed by the public analyst. Presumably the certificate may be shoved into his hands for signature along with a handful of other papers, at any time, perhaps late at night, or whenever the person who has done the analysis may chance to meet him.
To prevent anything like that from happening we ought to make this Amendment. It was argued that it would be an insult to the public analyst to make such an Amendment as this, expressly to provide that the analysis must be made by a "competent" person. It was argued that the public analyst would naturally be careful in his work and would not employ any person other than a competent person to help him. Nobody doubts the trustworthiness of the public analyst, but it is not difficult to visualise circumstances in which the public analyst may have nothing whatever to do with the analysis and in which only a very casual examination of the samples may be made. It is not difficult to visualise the analysis being carried out in circumstances of which the public analyst would not approve but may not know. Therefore, I suggest that this Amendment, far from being an insult, is really a safeguard, since it insists that the analysis must be done by a competent person. That is all we are asking, and I sincerely hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.
Mr. Steele: I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) just now made it perfectly clear that we want to ensure that the Bill puts the responsibility on the public analyst. The Lord Advocate will remember that he told us in Committee that this subsection is in the Bill because of a difficulty which arose in England. The difficulty had not then arisen in Scotland, but in England there was a case in which a certificate was rejected because the analyst had not himself done all the work.
However, the subsection says only that the certificate of the results of an analysis shall be signed by the public analyst. It does not say that he must do the analysis.

1717
It says that the analysis may be done by any person acting under his direction. That is quite unsatisfactory, and we ought to have at least the safeguard that any person making the analysis under the analyst's direction shall be a person competent to do the job, and I hope that the Lord Advocate will accept the Amendment.
5.45 p.m.
The Lord Advocate: Hon. Members opposite will be glad to know that this is positively my last appearance on this stage of our proceedings on the Bill. The question is whether it is desirable to put in here the word "competent." Hon. Members must remember that the person we employ for this work is the analyst, and it is the analyst who has to sign the certificate. The analyst is a professional man, proud of his work, proud of his name. One can hardly imagine that a professional man would in such circumstances entrust any part of his work to anybody he himself did not think competent and adequate to do it.
There is a further check, I think. if the certificate were doubted, then it would be very appropriate in cross-examination of the analyst, to ask him, first, whether he had done all the analysis. If he were to say that he had not, one could then ask him who had done it. If it turned out to have been done merely by a small boy who normally ran round with letters—or some one of that sort—then almost certainly the certificate would not be accepted by the court.
Mr. Woodburn: That is just the point that is worrying us. The matter may not go to a court, yet somebody may be affected by the analysis. Because of that analysis somebody's food may be destroyed, even although the analysis was left to the office boy. If the Amendment is accepted, then by law the analyst must employ a competent person to make the analysis. To that extent he will be liable for not doing his duty, if an incompetent person makes the analysis. If the Amendment were made an analysis made by an incompetent person would lose its validity. When we are dealing with food, clean food, prosecutions in cases of unfit food—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be developing an intervention into a speech.
The Lord Advocate: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the case would not necessarily go to court. However, the analyst is a man of skill, and one who is not likely to sign just any certificate. No professional man will sign a certificate unless he is satisfied that the other people taking part in the operation are competent to do their duty.
I know that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) does not like this argument, but I must remind him of it, that if we were to put in the word "competent" here we should have to put it in a great many other places in the Bill. If we did not, some bright person would suggest that a man did not need to be competent for this work, because when Parliament meant competent it said competent.
Amendment negatived.

Clause 34.—(EXAMINATION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF FOOD NOT FOR SALE.)
Mr. J. Nixon Browne: I beg to move, in page 26, line 21, at the end to insert:
(2) Subject to the provisions of section twenty-four of this Act, where any food examined in pursuance of the last foregoing subsection is found to be unfit for human consumption, the local authority may, with the consent of the aforesaid person, arrange for the disposal of the food.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), whom I do not see in his place at the moment, proposed in Committee that Clause 34, which relates to the voluntary examination of food not intended for sale, should be extended to enable the local authority to order food to be disposed of when, after examination, it was found to be unfit for human consumption. In reply I said, and the hon. Member and i think the Committee agreed, that we did not want to create any offence under the Clause, for that might discourage its use. We were all in agreement that the local authority should have power to dispose if necessary of the food which it had been asked to examine, but we disagreed on whether or not the disposal should be with the owner's consent and we wanted to retain it.
We have looked at this matter very carefully and we believe that the principle of consent is vital to the Clause. I want to draw a distinction between food unfit for human consumption and food likely to cause poisoning. If the food is unfit for human consumption in the sense

1719
of being bad or high, but not likely to cause poisoning, there is every justification for requiring the consent of the owner for its disposal. If the food is likely to cause food poisoning, the appropriate action is not taken under this Clause but under Clause 24 by the medical officer, who has powers to destroy the food. If we remove consent from this Clause we shall have conflict with Clause 24, which is the appropriate Clause under which to take powers to destroy.
The Clause, as amended. encourages action which will help in disclosing to the local authority food in private hands which is unfit for human consumption, and it gives the local authority power to give directions about its disposal. The local authority knows that the food is there, unfit for human consumption, and if there is any danger of the food poisoning its owner or anyone else the local authority has full power, under Clause 24, to destroy whether the owner agrees or not. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) has not been here but I hope that I have met the point on which he was so keen.
Mr. Thomson: I apologise to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland for not being in the House when be dealt with this matter. I was called out a few minutes ago, but I did hear the conclusion of what he had to say. I am grateful to him for having given further consideration to this very important point and for moving the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 35.—(QUARTERLY REPORTS BY ANALYSTS.)
Amendment made: In page 26, line 32, after "of" insert "any."—[Mr.N. Browne.]

Clause 36.—(POWER TO ENTER PREMISES.)
Amendment made: In page 28, line 15, at end insert:
(8) In this section, any reference to a justice of the peace includes a reference to the sheriff and to a magistrate.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Clause 37.—(POWER TO ENTER SHIPS, AIRCRAFT, VEHICLES, ETC.)
Amendments made: In page 28, line 21, leave out "as part of the cargo" and insert "or otherwise carried as part
1720
of the cargo for unloading at a place in Scotland."
In page 28, line 26, leave out from beginning to first "for" in line 27, and insert:
"or any home-going ship."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Clause 58.—(INTERPRETATION.)
Amendments made: In page 40, line 38, at end insert:
"home-going ship" means a ship plying in inland waters, or a ship engaged in coastal passenger services, and for the purposes of this definition "coastal passenger service" means a passenger service or excursion between places in Scotland which does not involve calling at any place outside Scotland.—[The Lord Advocate.]
In page 41, line 23, leave out "a liquid and gas" and insert "any liquid or gas."
In line 35, leave out subsection (3).—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]
Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
5.58 p.m.
Mr. J. Nixon Browne: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Bill may not have hit the headlines, but it is a very important addition to the public health code in Scotland. It is some considerable time since the Bill was first introduced, and no one regrets the delay more than I do. Nevertheless, I am not altogether sorry. Because of the delay it has fallen to me to pilot the Bill through the Commons, if not through stormy seas at least against a very strong current.
I have the objects of the Bill very much at heart, and I know how strong has been the demand of Scottish housewives for a Bill of this nature. In spite of its many vicissitudes, I think that we can all agree that the Bill is now even better than the one originally introduced. My right hon. Friend and I are indeed grateful to the Scottish Standing Committee for having made the Bill the Measure it is, and I must also pay a sincere tribute to the amount of useful work which Scottish Members opposite have put into it.
The Bill is not a duplicate of the corresponding English Measure which is already on the Statute Book. We have not been bound by precedents or dragged

1721
behind England's coat tails. We have produced a Measure suitable to Scottish needs and conditions but in no way embarrassing United Kingdom suppliers or upsetting a uniform United Kingdom policy where that is desirable. Much of the Bill is concerned with clarifying and bringing the existing law up to date, but there is also much that is new. I hope that this blending of the new and the old has been accomplished with reasonable success. If some of the older provisions have been scrutinised in Committee more fully than one might have expected, that in the end has proved all to the good. It is good to pull out the old provisions sometimes and look at them carefully again.
It is commonly said, and I know that the House will think it substantially true, that it is education and not legislation which will achieve an advance in the clean handling of food. I have no doubt at all about the importance of education in this connection, and I can assure the House that much good work has been done by the local authorities and others in the form of food hygiene propaganda. But if education in hygiene is to be successful, the worker's condition, his environment and the equipment and appliances which he has to use must be such as will encourage cleanly habits at work. So, education, which is largely the responsibility of the local authority, and legislation, which we have the responsibility for, in this Bill, must go hand in hand.
Much depends on the attitude of the public, and here I hope that all hon. Members will help. To a great extent this Measure is due to a growing public conscience about clean food, and undoubtedly the best results can only be obtained if the housewife, and the public, generally, continue to make it clear to the supplier that they insist on having food which is clean and wholesome and which is sold or served in a clean manner.
There has also been a certain amount of public concern about the use of new chemical substances in the preparation of food. Perhaps we are worrying too much about these things, but we are taking steps in this Bill to keep the problem in hand with the power to call for information from manufacturers and to prescribe controls. There is every indication that the full co-operation of the Scottish food
1722
trades will be forthcoming. The Department of Health has had many contacts with trade representatives and I am satisfied that their organisations are anxious to do all that can reasonably be expected of them.
It is on this note of good will that I conclude. We do not look on this Bill as one which provides a penal code for offenders against idealistic legislation. The Bill is essentially a practical Measure. We will encourage the local authorities and their officers to regard themselves as the friends and advisers of the food trader, and not merely as policemen waiting for contraventions of the law. There is much to be done but I have no doubt that with good will on all sides much will be achieved by the Bill.
6.2 p.m.
Miss Herbison: This Bill has had to undergo many vicissitudes before reaching its Third Reading and being sent on to another place. The Joint Under-Secretary of State has said rightly that the Bill is a great improvement compared with that which came before us originally and he thanked my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House. I would point out that back benchers opposite cannot expect much thanks from us for any part they played in improving the Bill. Almost every improvement has been due to the work done by my right hon. and hon. Friends. Having said that, may I tell the Joint Under-Secretary and his Ministerial colleagues that we are grateful to them for their co-operation in making the Bill what it is today. If the Joint Under-Secretary had approached it with a closed mind, it would not be the good Measure it is, in spite of what we were trying to do.
The two greatest improvements lie in the registration of the catering industry and the provision in Clause 23, whereby every precaution will be taken to ensure that those dealing with food do not contaminate it. Even there, I cannot say that we received co-operation from the back benches opposite. Many of the other improvements will go a long way towards ensuring that in Scotland we shall have for our housewives food that is wholesome, is clean, and which they need not fear to give to their families.
One thing is worrying me. If the catering industry is to do all it must do

1723
to conform with the regulations made under the Bill, a considerable expense will result for some of the trade. The whole Government must take responsibility for this Measure, of course, but the actions of some other Ministers will make it difficult for some of those catering interests to bring into their business the utensils and machinery which will be necessary if we are to get what we want. I am referring to the Government's credit squeeze and their increases in Purchase Tax. In some cases, what we have done in the Bill will be rendered almost nugatory because of the general policy of the Government on other matters. If the regulations do not measure up to those made by the various working parties, the Bill will not have the teeth in it that it needs. Its teeth must lie in the regulations, and in making them the Government should take into account all the recommendations made by the various working parties on clean food. We shall examine the regulations carefully when they come before us.
On the question of the part to be played by the Scottish Food Hygiene Council, I hope that the assurances given to us today by the Joint Under-Secretary are sound. Not only do we want the council to deal with regulations and codes sent to it, but we want the council to bring to the Secretary of State its views on any matter affecting food hygiene, and also the result of its discussion of matters about which the Secretary of State may not have thought. In other words, we want the two-way traffic for which we ask. We have spent a long time on the Bill in Committee and on Report—35½ hours—but that time has been very well spent when we compare the Bill as it leaves us with the Bill as it was on Second Reading.
6.10 p.m.
Colonel Sir Alan Gomme-Duncan: Having, for certain reasons, been debarred hitherto from taking part in the discussion so far, I should like to give my support to the Bill as it leaves the House. It is a valuable Measure. I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and the Joint Under-Secretary that the Opposition Amendments—of which there were many —have played a great part in improving it. I do not think it can be said that
1724
Conservative hon. Members were uncooperative, or they would have opposed the Amendments which have now been incorporated in the Bill. I feel that my right hon. and hon. Friends may take some share of the credit, although the hon. Lady does not seem to be prepared to give them any.
Miss Herbison: I gave some credit to the Ministers, for they did a great deal to help us. There was also the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), who, in one case, gave us real support.
Sir A. Gomme-Duncan: Verbal support is not the only support that is valuable. Voting support is equally valuable. The hon. Lady had a great deal of that from Conservative hon. Members.
I want to utter a note of warning, to which reference was made by the Joint Under-Secretary. The Bill, good as it is as it leaves us after all our deliberations, can only work if the human element works. No amount of legislation will make people clean, nor will it make clean their habits and their handling or preparation of food. Education will play the greatest possible part in making the Bill work. It is a matter not only of the education of school children; it is also a matter of the education of grown-ups who are not as good as they ought to be in many matters of hygiene.
As I said on an earlier edition of the Bill, we do not want the Bill to be a cranks' charter. There is always a danger of that happening when we attempt to put right things which need putting right. I feel confident that the Bill will be a great help to us in trying to do what we all want to do regardless of our political affiliations, which is '.to ensure good clean food, first of all for our children and then for our people as a whole. I have the greatest pleasure in giving my warm support to the Bill as it leaves the House.
6.13 p.m.
Mr. John Taylor: I believe that this is the first occasion on which an hon. Member has followed the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Sir A. Gomme-Duncan) in debate since he was honoured a day or two ago. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate him. I know that he regards his knighthood as a very

1725
great honour and is pleased about it, and we are also pleased that he has been honoured.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) said, we have already spent nearly 40 hours considering the Bill. One would imagine that after such a spate of oratory there would be very little new left to say about the Bill and that anything that might be said would be almost bound to be tedious repetition. However, others might say that that was underestimating the ingenuity of Scottish hon. Members, who can always find something new to say at any stage, particularly at the end of a long and not altogether uncontentious Bill.
The Bill differs from the English Measure in one important respect. Clause 14 provides for the registration of catering premises. I notice that this difference was received with many misgivings by, and met some opposition from, the catering and hotel trade in Scotland, the trade feeling that it was being unjustly treated compared with the trade on this side of the border.
I think that the trade is mistaken. If it regards the provision in a proper light, it will find that it is very much to its advantage. Hoteliers, restaurateurs, and other caterers in Scotland who are seeking to attract tourist trade can now say, "When you come to Scotland you can be sure that your food is hygienic. You have no such guarantee when you eat in an English hotel or restaurant. By law, we must now register and conform to fairly rigid standards of hygiene with the object of supplying good, clean, wholesome food prepared in good, clean, wholesome conditions." I give the trade that tip gratis. I must also pay a tribute to the persistence of my right hon. and hon. Friends in pressing for this improvement in the Bill, and to the Government for giving way to reasonable and sensible pressure.
The Bill has been very much improved and is now an excellent piece of legislation. I bid it farewell somewhat regretfully, because throughout its long progress in the Scottish Standing Committee it seemed to me to be an excellent example of the effectiveness of that Committee, showing how well it does its work and how carefully and closely it can examine even minutia? of legislation, and produce, as a joint effort, a very much improved
1726
Measure. The present state of the Bill is a compliment to the Scottish Standing Committee.
We wish the Bill well. We agree that it can operate fully only if those engaged in the trade sincerely believe that it is a good trade, and that it is their duty to provide good clean food. The Bill provides that they must not do otherwise, but it will be very much easier if the publicity which the Bill has given to the whole problem results in support by the trade. It may then be that the punitive Clauses of the Bill will never need to be put into effect because our public catering will be all that we wish it to be.
6.19 p.m.
Sir Thomas Moore: It seems that we are all agreed that this is a good Bill, and, judging by the interminable debates in Committee, I dare say that it was badly needed.
In thinking the matter over, the only thing that puzzles me is how people of my age—there are only a few left—survived all the perils of being brought up. My memory now goes back a long time. My memory of milking, for example, is of seeing none-too-clean hands tugging on none-too-clean udders and milk pouring into none-too-clean buckets, and the only time the milk went into a clean receptacle was when it entered the mug which conveyed it to my mouth. I can only think that it must have been a matter of the survival of the fittest. There is no doubt that too many dirty hands have handled our food for centuries, too many dirty receptacles have held it, and too many dirt-carrying flies have fed on it before it reached the human stomach.
As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Sir A. Gomme-Duncan) said, if the Bill is operated with determination and with an anxiety to make it a success, then it will succeed. As the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) said, a number of constituencies are especially affected. They are those in seaside resorts. Hotel keepers, boarding-house keepers and even the keepers of licensed premises have been seriously perturbed about registration. I imagine we have all had letters complaining of hordes of snoopers descending on such people and of the danger that the local authority might haphazardly remove their livelihoods.

1727
This caused me a certain amount of alarm, because I have a great number of constituents faced with this problem; but I found that the answer was simple, because the clean, well-kept and well-conducted premises have nothing to fear. That is the essential foundation of the provision for registration. There is also the right of appeal, supposing that registration is removed or refused. The appeal is made to the sheriff so that the appellants will have an unbiased hearing. On their fears about hordes of inspectors, I have written to my correspondents to say that my right hon. Friend would be hard put to it, in these days of full or over employment, to find the hordes of inspectors who would be required to go round all the licensed premises in Scotland.
There is one improvement in the Bill for which we owe thanks to the hon. Member for West Lothian. He introduced a new Clause towards the end of the Committee stage for features of the Bill to apply to public houses. Unfortunately, there is a big difference between public houses in Scotland and those in the rest of Britain. In the rest of Britain they tend to cater more for the family, but in Scotland they tend to cater more for the individual drinker. I am sure that by registration we shall largely do away with that defect and as soon as we can we are more likely to clean up bad drinking habits—if there are any drinking habits left in Scotland; only Burns reminds me of drinking habits these days.
I am sure that the Bill will introduce an entirely new atmosphere into Scottish licensed premises and for that reason alone, if for no others, we owe a great debt of gratitude to my right hon. Friend and his colleagues, and to hon. Members opposite, for their assistance in bringing the Bill to a satisfactory conclusion.
6.23 p.m.
Mr. Willis: I want to ask one or two questions in addition to making one or two general remarks. I agree with what has been said by my hon. Friends about the Bill being dependent on the regulations that are issued. It was only in that respect that we did not like the treatment meted out to us by the Government. We feel that we might have had a preview of those regulations, as was done in the case of the English Bill.
1728
Apart from that, our relations were very happy and the Government were forthcoming. I agree that the Bill depends upon the regulations and on putting into effect the recommendations of the various working committees. The Government must soon decide on the Report of the Interdepartmental Committee on Slaughterhouses (Scotland), which has now been before the House for a considerable time and on which we have had no Government statement of policy. That report is important and contains important recommendations affecting meat hygiene. If we are really concerned about it, we have to bring those recommendations into effect and make up our minds about slaughterhouses.
Being pertinacious, I want to ask a short question about the financial assistance under Clause 20. Is it given by loan, grant, or both? I tried to find out during Committee stage and the Joint Under-Secretary could not tell me. I tried to put down an Amendment for the Report stage, but it was out of order and I am still wondering what is the character of the financial assistance; and I would be glad to have an answer.
I hope that in winding up the debate the Government spokesman will give us some information about the Scottish Food Hygiene Council, about which we had a very long debate and about which we have received very little information from the Government. I have gone through the debate very carefully and what the Government said amounted to saying no more than that they would appoint people whom they thought to be suitable.
Very serious considerations about the nature of the council were raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn). One important factor which should be borne in mind is the danger of duplication with the interests mentioned in Clause 56 (6). Nothing has yet been said about that and we have never been told the size of the council. We might have a little more information from the Government, because it is a matter of considerable importance.
Having asked my questions, may I say that I welcome the Bill? In Edinburgh, we intended to seek powers in connection with food hygiene three or four years ago. The intention never got further than being an intention, because it was

1729
thought that it would be better to await the Government Bill. Edinburgh has now been waiting three or four years. We had expected that the Government would see the Bill through in a year, but, of course, that did not happen. We are certainly glad to have it, even though we have had to wait a long time for it.
6.28 p.m.
Mr. John Mackie: I am sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has left the Chamber, because I feel bound to say a word or two about the opening passages in her speech, in which she had few bouquets to offer the Government, but a very great deal of criticism to offer Conservative back benchers who were concerned with the passage of the Bill through the Scottish Grand Committee. The hon. Lady called attention to the fact that we spent about 35 hours considering the Measure upstairs. She and her right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) will agree that they had what in House of Commons phraseology is called a field day and that, quite permissibly, they were a little obstructive.
As an old Parliamentarian I rather welcomed it, but, as was pointed out by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Sir A. Gomme-Duncan), the hon. Lady and her friends met with no obstructive opposition from our side. I hope that that will be passed on to the hon. Lady. She has been here now for ten years and I regard her as a good Parliamentarian and a good House of Commons "man," if I may so express it. I am delighted to see the hon. Lady coming back into the Chamber. I shall not repeat what I have said, or I shall be reproved by Mr. Speaker for tedious repetition. No doubt her right hon. Friend will tell her what I have said. The substance of my remarks really was that I thought that the hon. Lady was a little unfair in her criticism of Government back benchers.
I made a speech in the last Parliament on this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There is no reason why I should not offer a few remarks again this evening.
Mr. Willis: We thought that the hon. Gentleman was dead.
Mr. Mackie: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am very much alive.
1730
I join my hon. Friends in commending the Bill and expressing the hope, which I think the hon. Lady expressed, that it really will do something to meet, to quote accurately what she said, what has been a "long-felt want" among the housewives of Scotland. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire said, we can bring in legislation, but if it is to work properly we must have co-operation from those responsible for seeing that our food is prepared and cooked in a cleanly manner. We all hope that those concerned will co-operate to make the Bill work.
I am very glad to have had the opportunity to say these few words, and I sincerely hope that the Bill will safeguard us from those horrible conditions to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) referred as being so prevalent in his youth. Although I am ten or twelve years younger than he, I have a faint recollection of them myself. I wish the Bill well and I know that it will receive an unopposed Third Reading.
6.32 p.m.
Mr. Woodburn: I am sure that the whole House will congratulate the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) on his "maiden speech." We had been under the impression for some time that somebody had fitted him with "domes of silence." We are glad to find that the has not lost his great powers of eloquence and very surprised to hear that he is of the kind of age which he suggested, because he looks so full of youthful vigour.
I was struck by what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) who remarked that, as a result of the Bill, people coming to Scotland would know that Scotland was sound in health and that the food was clean. It rather reminded me of the late George Gibson, who said that he was the only man in public life who was certified as being sane, because it was part of his duty in the mental officers' union to be certified as sane before he could officiate in mental hospitals of the country. We are very glad to know that at least we have a certificate that we are clean.
I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Sir A. Gomme-Duncan), to whom I add my congratulations as well, that in the long run cleanliness will depend on self-discipline rather than on imposed discipline. In this respect, there has been a

1731
great deal of misunderstanding about what the Bill does. I hope that the Lord Advocate will make it clear that there is not to be a search party going round to search the "auld wives' barrels," as Burns says. Let us keep the strap in the desk. If the pupils behave themselves then there is no danger of the teacher bringing it out.
I had several letters like those received by the hon. and gallant Member and the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore). When I replied I said that the Bill dealt only with people who were endangering public health and, as I understood that my correspondents kept clean and healthy premises, I did not see what they were bothering about because the only people who need bother are those who endanger public health.
The point ought to be made that this is not the start of a great campaign to interfere with shopkeepers and caterers all over the place. I am sure that we can depend upon the medical officers of health and the sanitary officers to treat people courteously, to do their job in a judicious fashion and not to try to impose conditions that the people cannot fulfil. This will be a very gradual process, but I am satisfied that the existence of the new powers will set a standard with which all new buildings and all new catering and other establishments will be able to comply immediately. The pattern will gradually change just as it changed in respect of bakers and others who have been dealt with in the past, and eventually we shall reach a much higher standard.
The hon. Member for Ayr wondered how he survived. Knowing his ancestor as a tough fighting man, we take it for granted that he was able successfully to fight the germs from which others did not survive. He used the words, "we all survived," but we do not all survive. It is extremely interesting to speculate how much we have added to our lives, and to the lives of everyone, by the introduction of health Measures such as this Bill, which have cut down the sickness and ill-health from which people suffered in the past and which eventually shortened their lives. Actually, these Measures are adding to the length of people's lives and to their enjoyment. When we think of the misery eliminated by the introduction
1732
of these health Measures we can feel satisfied if we have made one contribution toward a further improvement.
I should not like the opportunity to pass without paying a tribute to the B.B.C. During the earlier stages of the Bill I called attention to the contribution which the B.B.C. could make in the educational work of getting people to help themselves. The B.B.C. put on a very fine television programme to which a great many hon. Members referred. I think that we ought to pay tribute to the B.B.C. and to express the hope that it will not let that be its last effort in this direction, and that it will contribute in many ways to the good health of the population.
A great many people outside the House have the idea that the only important thing that happens here is when we go into the Division Lobbies. The fact is that when we reach the stage of going into the Division Lobbies we have lost. We vote only when we have lost; we do not vote when we win. We vote only when the Government of the day refuse to agree to what we want. The most important achievements of Parliament are gained by debate, persuasion and reasonable discussion. That is not understood outside, because everybody loves a fight and people look only at the fights.
I can remember very few Bills, if any, that have been so successfully carried through Committee and are such a tribute to the constructive work of the Committees of this House. Everybody agrees that the Bill has been greatly improved in Committee. We would not seek to be ungracious in our acknowledgement of the help that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), and some of his colleagues, gave in pressing on the Government this reform that we carried in respect of the Scottish Bill.
We give credit to the Secretary of State for Scotland, because he had a tough job. When his fellow Minister had refused to accept this concession in England, obviously he must have had a difficult job to get it accepted for Scotland. I do not think that any of us would withhold acknowledgment of the decision which he persuaded the Government to make though it might have embarrassed them south of the Border. That is one of the difficulties of our joint partnership. The partnership will work all the better

1733
if what England does is not necessarily imposed upon us.
Scotland is a different type of country and, in many ways, we can make laboratory experiments in social progress which it is not possible to carry out in England. I hope that the Government will keep this excellent example in mind, and, when we come to other legislation, will not find themselves bound by what is done in another place or in another committee, but will deal with things according to Scottish conditions and produce the best possible legislation.
I should like to add my tribute to those who have taken part in the discussions on the Bill and made their contributions in debate. I must perhaps apologise for all the homework we set for the learned Lord Advocate during our progress on this Bill. We put forward some very thorny legal points for him to settle, and I am quite sure that even his legal knowledge has been greatly improved as a result of those exercises. I think we really all enjoyed ourselves, and I can only conclude by repeating a great Scottish toast, "Here's tae us, wha's like us?"
6.41 p.m.
The Lord Advocate: May I, in the first place, thank hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite for the extremely kind things they have said about those on this side of the House? The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) even said something nice about me. It may have been the case, throughout the various stages of this Bill, that her looks have belied her and that the hon. Lady really was not thinking the horrible things which at times she looked as if she was thinking.
May I answer two questions which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) put to me? One was about the Scottish Food Hygiene Council. Naturally, that cannot yet be set up, but the preliminary steps are being taken. Various authorities and interested people have been consulted, and it is hoped that very soon after this Bill becomes an Act the council will be able to be set up.
1734
The other point to which the hon. Gentleman referred concerned the meaning of the word "contribute," in Clause 20. The hon. Gentleman wanted to know whether it would include a loan. The word "contribute" would not normally include a loan, but in a certain context it might. In the context in which we find it in Clause 20, I do not think it would include a loan.
I should like, in conclusion, and before we send the Bill away to another place, where we hope it will be recognised as a child of one of its many ancestors— though, as many hon. Members have said, a flourishing child—stress two things which have been mentioned in the debates during the passage of this Bill so far. They are the necessity for the co-operation of the public and for the education of the public. The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) has referred to the B.B.C., and, of course, the B.B.C. can do an enormous lot of good, as I hope it will, in bringing to the notice of the people the existence of the Bill and what they themselves can do to make it work.
The right hon. Gentleman said, "Let us keep the strap in the desk." Before he used these very picturesque words, I had in my notes for this speech the phrase, "Prosecution as a last resort." In other words, prosecution is a sanction introduced to meet what we hope will be exceptional cases. Throughout the various stages of this Bill, we have all tried to steer a realistic course. One can go too far, but one must try to go far enough. One could make conditions quite impossible for those who deal with food, and could virtually harry them out of existence, but I hope that a middle course has been steered.
I therefore commend the Bill to right hon. and hon. Members, and invite the House to give it an unopposed Third Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
6.45 p.m.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I hope that I shall not take up very much of the time of the House. This is very largely a consolidation Measure, and it has already been considered by a Joint Select Committee of both Houses. That Committee reported that, in its view, there was nothing in the Bill as amended by it—and they were very minor Amendments—to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn.
The real parent of the Bill is the Scottish Local Government Law Consolidation Committee, which was reconstituted in 1948 by the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn). The Chairman of the Committee is Professor Fisher of Edinburgh, and the Committee includes hon. Members from both sides of this House. It also includes representatives of local authorities. In November, 1953, the Committee produced a unanimous Report about the law relating to the police in Scotland, and this Report, together with a draft Bill which was also prepared by the Committee, was discussed with the Scottish police and local authority associations. As a result, certain adjustments were made in this Bill in order to meet their points.
The Bill, in the form in which it was introduced in another place, was, generally speaking, agreed by all the interested parties and associations, and the Measure which is now before the House is, apart from a few minor drafting Amendments, practically identical with the Bill as introduced elsewhere. An Explanatory Memorandum has been published which draws attention to the main alterations proposed in the existing law and also to the main changes or differences between this Bill as it now stands and the draft Bill which was prepared by the Consolidation Committee. I have no doubt that hon. Members have studied these documents, and I do not want to go into them at this stage.
1736
As I have said, the Bill is essentially a Consolidation Measure and really derives from three main codes. First of all, we have the Police (Scotland) Act, 1857, which governs the administration of county police forces; secondly, we have the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, which deals in a similar fashion with most of the large burghs, and, thirdly, we have a series of local Acts which cover Aberdeen, Dundee, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Greenock. Therefore, we have three main codes, with certain differences between them. The Fisher Committee tried to reproduce the best parts of the existing codes and to apply the results to the country as a whole, so that we could get a uniform code for the whole country, instead of having three separate codes as we have at the moment. That Committee tried—as, I think, does this Bill—to make the existing provisions rather more compact, up-to-date and less antiquated, and, I hope, rather more easy to understand.
I should perhaps explain why the Bill was not dealt with under the terms of the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949. The reason is simply that obtaining uniformity is not one of the purposes for which the usual procedure provided for in that Act can be applied. We are here obtaining uniformity and not merely consolidating, and we are also making various minor alterations. As a result, it was decided to refer the Bill to a Joint Select Committee, as was done, with the Bill which led up to the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947.
I do not want to deal in detail with the individual provisions of the Bill because they are covered in great detail in the Explanatory Memorandum, but there is one matter to which I should refer because it caused considerable discussion in the Joint Select Committee. It is a matter on which I think at one time or another all Scottish Members have received representations, the employment of special constables.
Under the existing law, special constables can be employed in most areas in Scotland—I will qualify that in a moment —only in an emergency or for the suppression and prevention of tumult and riot. There is no legal provision over most of Scotland for giving these special constables the practical training in the

1737
actual carrying out of police duties which they would need in the event of their services being required at some later stage.
I said that that was the position over most of Scotland, and perhaps I should explain that in Aberdeen and in Dundee, under local Acts, the employment of special constables is more or less untrammelled. The Fisher Committee recommended, in effect, that all the restrictions on the use of special constables should be removed. That meant that provided the constable was willing to be employed, he could be employed. That would have brought the position in Scotland into line with what it is in England and Wales.
But subsequent discussions with the Scottish Police Federation, which represents officers up to and including the rank of inspector, revealed that it was opposed to this plan. The grounds of its opposition were that it felt that the widespread employment of special constables would have three bad effects on the regular police. The first was that it might damage the reputation of the police force. The argument was, I think, that the special constable might not be as skilled as the regular man, and if he made a mistake, the onlooker would attribute it to the regular police as a whole. One can understand that fear.
The second objection was that it thought that the extension of employment of special constables would perhaps create friction and ill-feeling between the special constables and members of the regular forces. The third reason was that it felt that this recommendation of the Fisher Committee would enable police authorities to employ special constables in order to make up shortages in their regular police force establishment. In fact, it was afraid of dilution. I think that is putting it in a nutshell.
In order to meet these difficulties, it was suggested to the Federation that the draft Bill prepared by the Fisher Committee should be amended in two ways. First, it should provide that a police authority could not take account of its special constables in assessing the establishment of police it needed—that met the dilution fear—and, secondly, that a special constable should be employed outside an emergency only to the extent necessary to give him practical experience of police work.
1738
At the same time the Federation was told that although the Government did not think it practicable to put a specific limitation on the hours which could be worked by a special constable, it was the intention of the Government to hold discussions with the Federation and other interested organisations with a view to issuing advice to the police authorities on the extent to which special constables should be employed, that is to say, to try to get this limitation arranged on an administrative advice basis, if I may so call it.
These proposals were, I understand, accepted both orally and in writing by the Federation and by the other police and local authority associations. As hon. Members will see, the necessary Amendments to give effect to these proposals have been made. They will be found in Clause 3 (2) and in the proviso to Clause 4. The joint select Committee, when considering this question, examined the possibility of limiting the employment of special constables otherwise than in an emergency by statutory regulations rather than by administrative advice. But it did not recommend any specific amendment to the Bill, leaving it to this House to exercise its own judgment in the matter.
That point has been very carefully considered since the Committee reported, but no new Amendment has been put into the Bill for the following reasons. First, the Federation has agreed in principle that some training of special constables is necessary, which means that an amendment to the law is required. Of course that amendment is in the Bill. Secondly, as the proposals as they stand have been accepted by the Federation and by the other interested bodies, it was felt that it would be a pity to interfere with the provisions of the Bill which had been agreed in that way. Once we start altering something which has been agreed we are apt to run into trouble with one side or the other.
The third reason I have already referred to, that an undertaking has been given to discuss this question of the limiting of special constables outwith an emergency and to deal with it by means of administrative action. I can assure hon. Members that that undertaking will stand. If it should turn out in the end to be advisable or necessary to deal with the matter by statutory regulation, that could be done under the Bill as it stands. It could

1739
be done by regulation under Clause 11 (1), which is widely enough drawn to enable regulations to be made to cover this point without the matter being specifically stated in the Bill.
That question of the special constables was the only one with which the Select Committee was concerned at any length, and it is the only matter with which I think it right to deal at this stage. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the House will agree to give this Bill a Second Reading.
6.58 p.m.
Mr. A. Woodburn: Of course we must welcome this Bill. It is part of the process I started in 1948 to get a great many of our laws consolidated. It is a pity that in Clause 4, in defining the duties of the constables, it would appear that their duties are almost entirely confined to crime. That was the case when constables first came into existence, and it remained so for many years. But the modern police force is an entirely different organisation; in many ways it has entirely different functions.
It is true that in the last resort the police protect us against crime as well as safeguard life and property. But the duties of the police force today are multifarious compared with the man on the beat whose only job was to watch for people attempting to break into houses. Today they look after children, control traffic, guide great concourses of people throughout the country and develop laboratories with scientists as part of their organisation. The police force is not simply a body of men watching other men; it is a great organisation; a great machine, extending right from the man on the beat to the scientist in the laboratory who uses all the power of science to assist those who try to detect crime.
The opportunities now offered to constables are quite different from what they were. Some constables now have university degrees; indeed, we heard of one a few days ago who had retired from the force and is now training to become a teacher. People do not always appreciate the kind of police force which exists today. It consists of people with skills of all types, and the opportunities it
1740
affords for developing a person's intelligence and capacity are no less than those in industrial or commercial life.
In some places it has been rather difficult to recruit men to the force, because of the onerous shifts of duty. We should aim to create such conditions in the police force that the best people are attracted to it. A policeman is a force in more than one sense. He has a great moral power in the community, and the very fact that he is there to be called upon for help is a great asset. I remember the first time I went through the House of Commons. I was in the company of the late George Lansbury, and he was also accompanied by about 30 school children. A policeman came along with us, and I was most astonished to see one little girl go up to him and say, "Will you please tie my lace?" The policeman bent down and tied her lace. When I was a youngster in Scotland no child would have approached within a mile of a policeman if he could avoid it; in fact, whenever he saw a policeman he would run for his life.
A tremendous change has taken place in the relationship between the policeman and the public. Instead of being the terror of the children and the public he is now their friend. They go to him for all kinds of assistance. The policeman is now regarded as a kind of legal aid, without any means test. People ask him for all sorts of advice, and in many cases he is able to give it.
That being so, I wish to take the opportunity which this debate offers to pay tribute to the splendid work of the Scottish police, and to put on record the improved relationship which exists between them and the rest of the public. We trust that they will receive recognition not only as protectors of property but as providers of various services which are of great value to the community. It might have been possible so to have clarified the duties of the police in Clause 4 as to afford some recognition of their services. When we think of them having a wireless broadcasting station at Blackford Hill, and think of the machinery which a policeman has to operate nowadays, as compared with the baton which was all he used to carry about, we realise that an evolution has taken place and that the police force has grown into a very complex organisation.

1741
There may be points about the Bill which we shall want to discuss in detail in Committee. This is not the time to do that. We shall certainly support this consolidation Measure, with the improvements which it makes, because we regard it as desirable that the law in connection with the administration of the police force should be clear to all those who work in it or have anything to do with its work.
7.5 p.m.
Mr. James H. Hoy: As my right hon. Friend has said, the Bill is primarily a consolidation Measure, but it will have a useful effect in bringing about uniformity in police administration. The Bill was prepared by a Scottish Committee dealing with the consolidation of local government law, and when my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) appointed the Committee he chose very wisely. We should take this opportunity of congratulating the Chairman of the Committee—Professor Fisher—who presided over it so ably. Most of us know him, as we serve on the panel which deals with Provisional Orders. He is our able guide. He will probably be leaving that job soon, and I would point out to right hon. and hon. Members opposite that my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members on this side of the House will watch with great care the selection of the successor to Professor Fisher's job.
As the Solicitor-General said, the one contentious point raised before the Joint Select Committee was in relation to the employment of special constables. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) raised this matter because the police had certain fears about the employment of special constables. They did not begrudge the service given by those constables. We all know the great part that they play in a voluntary capacity, along with the regular police force. But the Police Federation felt that a stage might come when special constables were used not to supplement the police force but in place of it. It felt that this was a very great threat to the livelihood of the regular police. My right hon. Friend has mentioned the case of a policeman resigning from the force and training to become a teacher. We cannot believe
1742
that, even with the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill, teachers will be driven out of their profession to train as policemen. The police felt that there was a threat, and they wanted certain safeguards.
During the meetings of the Select Committee the representatives of the Scottish Office gave specific assurances to the Federation about this aspect of the Bill, and I am certain that those who spoke on behalf of the Scottish Office will carry out their pledges. Nevertheless, we were glad to hear from the Solicitor-General that even if the position cannot be safeguarded purely administratively, power is included in the Bill to do all the things that have been promised. We willingly accept that assurance and hope that the Bill will prove to be a benefit in operation. We shall certainly watch future appointments with a great deal of care.
7.8 p.m.
Mr. George Lawson: There is not much that I can add to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy). I was a Member of the Select Committee and, prior to its first meeting, representations were received from the Police Federation making it quite clear that it saw some danger in the increased use of special constables. The Federation thought that the employment conditions of the regular police might be jeopardised. It seems that the Federation had approached the Secretary of State on the matter on many occasions, and had pointed to the fact that the law was already being broken in that special constables were being employed for purposes in respect of which they were not legally entitled to be employed.
The Federation's fear was that, under the guise of providing facilities for their training for the suppression of riot and tumult, special constables might be used in an ever-increasing capacity to supplement the regular constables. It was this point which caused so much discussion in the Select Committee. I have discussed the matter in other quarters, and it seems that the fear is now not quite so great as it was.
Can we be given adequate assurances that there is no intention of using special constables in any way which would injure the conditions of or supplant the regular constables, and that there is no intention of reducing the size of the regular police

1743
force on the basis that there already exists a special constabulary that can be used for such duties as regulating crowds at football matches? If ample assurances can be given that there is no such intention, my own feeling is that the Bill contains nothing to which we can object. I understand that such assurances will be forthcoming, and I rest quite happy.
7.11 p.m.
Miss Margaret Herbison: I am very grateful that the Solicitor-General for Scotland has given us so much detail on the question of the employment of special constables. We on this side of the House, and possibly hon. Members opposite, are worried because we fear that what has been represented to us by the Police Federation may have some basis.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland has told us that under Clause 3 (2), in assessing the establishment of any police force, the number of special constables would not be taken into account. I think that is important, but I do not know if that is sufficient for the police force in Scotland. The Federation may agree when the assessment of the establishment is made no account will be taken of the 'number of special constables, but it may be afraid that if there is an adequate supply of special constables the police authorities will not make the same efforts to get regular constables. I am putting that forward as one of the fears which have been expressed by the police constables.
Clause 4 deals with the duties of special constables. One of the complaints of the Police Federation was that special constables were being used illegally in Scotland. From the word "Provided" to the end of paragraph (c) the Clause now makes legal what was previously illegal. The Solicitor-General for Scotland has said that an undertaking had been given to the Police Federation that this matter could be discussed, and I hope that administrative action will be taken to ensure that there will not be an abuse of this Clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman has also given an undertaking that if this is not possible, statutory regulations will be made under Clause 11. We are very grateful for those assurances.
1744
I hope that these consultations will take place very soon with the Police Federation, and that there will be no hesitation on the part of the Government, if they find that administrative action is not successful, in using the statutory regulations under Clause 11.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]
Committee Tomorrow.

POLICE (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees). —[Queen's Recommendation signified.']
[Sir RHYS HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to consolidate with amendments certain enactments relating to police forces in Scotland and to the execution of warrants in the border counties of England and Scotland, it is expedient—
A. to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any enactment providing for the payment of grants towards the expenses of police authorities and joint police committees in Scotland; and

(b)any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under any provision of the said Act of the present Session empowering him—

(i) to provide courses of instruction in matters relating to police service for constables of police forces maintained under any provision of the said Act, and for that purpose to maintain central training institutions (including instructing and administrative staff and land, buildings and equipment); or

(ii) to make arrangements for the attendance of constables of such police forces at courses provided otherwise than as aforesaid;

and
B. to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Secretary of State from police authorities or joint police committees in Scotland, or deducted by him from moneys otherwise payable by him to any such authority or committee, by virtue of any provision of the said Act of the present Session.—[Mr. J. Stuart.]
Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

HOSPITAL STAFFS (SALARIES)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]
7.17 p.m.
Mr. R. J. Mellish: I should like to thank my hon. Friends from Scotland for terminating their proceedings so early in the evening and thus enabling a matter which I think is of great importance to be given adequate and, I hope, very full discussion. I am obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for being dead on time to listen to the debate.
The matter which I wish to raise concerns the clerical and administrative staff within the hospital service for which the Minister is primarily responsible. I have no doubt that some of my hon. Friends will speak later during the debate and will want to talk about other staffs, but I wish to concentrate on this particular section of the hospital service.
As long ago as 1951, the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) raised this problem in an Adjournment debate. He spoke of the urgent need to attract recruits of the right kind and quantity to the hospital administration. The Director of the Nuffield Foundation raised the same point at the last Health Service Conference at the Royal Institute of Public Administration in October, 1953, when he stressed that hospital administration was one of the most difficult forms of administration and required very able administrators, not only at the centre but in the field.
The growing unattractiveness of hospital administration as a career has been the subject of comment at a recent conference of the Association of Hospital Management Committees. In the hospital service, in which I have the honour to be of some help as chairman of a local management committee and a member of a regional hospital board, I recognise that the administrative and clerical workers are a very important part of that service. It is, of course, right that the main emphasis should be on the patients and that everything which we do in this service should, in the long run, benefit the patients.
1746
We have all given a great deal of attention to the conditions of the nurses and where we have been able to do so we have tried to improve their conditions, but the subject of their pay is a matter for another debate. I think that the Cinderellas of the service are those who are doing what I call a back-room job, and who are often forgotten by their own colleagues in the hospital service.
There is no doubt that today—and I choose my words carefully—all the staff are gravely dissatisfied with their salary position. I am sure that, from inquiries that she has no doubt made since she knew this debate was to take place, the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary will know that to be true. The National Union of Public Employees, N.A.L.G.O., and other bodies closely associated with these people are perturbed and worried not only about the present salary position as such, but about its effect on recruitment.
Unless it gets the very best clerical staff, the hospital service—and, therefore, in the long run, the patient—will suffer. Carefully selected, well-trained clerical staff can do a great job in relieving doctors, nurses and other technical staff of routine matters. We must have the right type of people in sufficient numbers to ensure that the patient, and his relatives and friends who come to inquire about him, get a sympathetic, intelligent and courteous reception.
The administrative officer has a tremendous task in the service. He has a very complex job which requires highly-skilled professional knowledge. He has to be humane and has to administer the organisation so that modern science can be directed in the most beneficial way to the individual problems of the patient. To that part of the work I wish to pay tribute. Ever since 1948 these people have done a fine job, and it is a great pity that tonight we must talk about their salaries. I think this subject could have been dealt with much better in other ways, but the fact remains that there is tremendous dissatisfaction among these people throughout the country.
I can give the House one small example of how recruitment is affected. The Dart-ford Group Hospital Management Committee, which is one of the largest in the country, has recruited only three grammar school boys into the service since

1747
1948—and all three have since left because the rates of pay offered to young people entering the service just cannot be compared with those offered by outside industry. If the Parliamentary Secretary has been to the regional board's headquarters—as I am sure she has—she will agree that one would be lucky to find on the staff side anyone under 35 years of age. There, too, the staff position is desperate; and the hon. Lady well knows the importance of the work done there.
I must here say a word about the responsibility of the Minister. When questions about remuneration and conditions in the service are raised it is customary for the Minister, or for the Secretary of State for Scotland, immediately to disclaim responsibility by saying that such matters are appropriate to the Whitley Council. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not use that argument tonight, because I intend to deal with the Whitley Council machinery and hope to show that in this case responsibility cannot be evaded by the Minister in that way.
Not only has the Minister ultimate responsibility—whatever may or may not be done by the Whitley Council—for ensuring the continued efficiency and well being of the hospital service, but, despite the customary disclaimer of responsibility, the Ministry does, in fact, directly participate through its own representatives, officers and civil servants in the Whitley Council negotiations. Those representatives largely control the decisions of the management side. On every Health Service Whitley Council there are eight representatives from either the Ministry of Health or the Treasury —eight. I would like to ask the hon. Lady why, in heaven's name, we have to have eight civil servants on the Whitley Council to discuss wages and conditions. Why eight?
Those eight representatives attend not simply in the capacity of advisers, but consider it their right and duty to put forward proposals and, when necessary, to veto alternatives. Though not in a numerical majority it is well known that if they are outvoted, or are likely to be outvoted, the civil servants insist on "reserving the Minister's position."
1748
Inevitably, in such a service as this—and with the power of the Exchequer purse behind them—they are able to get the agreement of the management side.
That being the case, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary not to say that she is very sorry about it all but that it is purely a matter for the Whitley Council. I ask for something more than that. I want to be quite clear what she proposes to do. I hope, too, that she will not say that she understands that the matter has been referred to the Industrial Court. I wish tonight to show how this position has arisen, and to warn the House that unless something is done the hospital service will suffer even more. If it suffers, so ultimately will the patients.
Perhaps I may now be permitted to give a short history of the salaries of the administrative and clerical staff. In 1948, when the National Health Service was launched, the then Minister had to recruit staff for it. Many of the London hospitals which were taken over were, in fact, run by the London County Council, and the procedure then adopted—rightly, I think—was to recruit the staff from local government sources, and the Minister himself adopted for the Health Service the then current salary scale of the administrative, professional and technical staffs in local government service.
That gave a range of salaries in the general clerical and administrative grades rising from£360 for the lowest to£760 for the highest grade. For designated officers such as secretaries of regional hospital boards and management committees, finance officers and the like, special temporary scales were introduced, and most of those people entered the service at the pay they were receiving from their old authority at the date of transfer and kept it until offered Health Service gradings. Many officers in the L.C.C. area found that the London County Council was then paying rates higher than those paid by these other authorities and, therefore, opted to remain on their old salary.
The Parliamentary Secretary may be interested to know that those who opted to receive that London County Council salary are today drawing exactly the same amount. They have had no increase at all, because the salary of the Health Service has not yet reached that level. They

1749
have remained on the same salary, although since that year—1948—the London County Council has granted increases to the remainder of the staff amounting to 35 per cent. It can "be imagined how bitter and annoyed those people feel.
In 1951, the Whitley Council for the administrative and clerical staffs agreed on a new salary scale. The result was that three clerical and eight administrative grades were telescoped into seven new ones which, for ease of reference, were lettered A to G, the salary scales remaining basically the same as those paid in local government at that time. The hospital service staffs have always regarded the salaries of local government staffs as being comparable with their own. Since 1951 such salary awards as have been agreed by the Health Service Whitley Council have been in line with the increases granted in local government circles.
Failure to reach agreement on a salary award in the Health Service Whitley Council in 1951 resulted in the claim going to arbitration under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Industrial Court accepted the argument put forward by the management side that the staff's responsibilities, type of work, conditions of service, salaries, and so on, were strictly comparable with those of local government. That was the argument of the management side before the Industrial Court in 1951. The Court agreed with the management side and decided that, wage for wage at all levels, the staff should get the same increases as local government. The Industrial Court awarded accordingly.
The staff's reaction to that in 1951 was, "This is better than nothing. At least, we have established a definite principle." They were consoled with the thought that in the light of the management side's argument and of the Industrial Court's decision, they would not fall any lower than local government scales; for that was the principle then argued.
But the staffs were quickly disillusioned. Almost before the ink on the arbitration decision was dry, the National Joint Council for Local Government Staffs announced a new improved grading structure and increases in pay for all staffs. That was what was done in local government. The staff side of the Health Service assumed from the previous decision that they would get a similar increase and that
1750
new rates would be given to them. Instead, the management side of the Whitley Council made a complete about-turn and did not agree at that stage that local government rates should apply. They argued strenuously against it.
It took seven long months of bitter negotiation with that Whitley Council to win increases which were still short of those given to local government and which, consequently, placed the staff of the Health Service away at the bottom of the list as against comparable staffs in banks, insurance companies, nationalised industries, the Port of London Authority and, of course, local authorities.
That agreement—I am talking now of a year or so ago—was received with much disquiet by the staff and also by the employing authorities—that is, the regional boards and management committees—who saw that their recruiting difficulties would be accentuated. I remember that my own committee at the time sent a resolution to the regional board on this question and, I believe, it went forward to the Ministry.
The matter has now reached an even greater crisis. Last December, local government staffs received increases ranging from 5 to 9 per cent., with greatly improved salary scales for the clerical staff in London in particular. They received improved subsistence rates, and local authorities were told that they could, if they wished, introduce a five-day week. Improved scales were adopted for typists and similar grades. This agreement was reached in local government after the employers had refused to negotiate on a claim for the restoration of the 1948 purchasing power to staff salaries. They were, however, prepared to make some improvements by the agreement which gave extra increases over and above the increase I have mentioned.
The Health Service claim for restoration of the 1948 standards was rejected out of hand. The management side was not prepared to consider it at all. The staff then made a modified claim for a 12½ per cent. increase but this met with the same blank refusal. After the publication of the local government award, the management side made a small offer for some grades, which was substantially less than in the case of local government, which the staff side could not accept.

1751
The management side has refused to budge and the claim has now gone again to the Industrial Court, which, if it is consistent, must award increases similar to those granted in local government as was done before. This means that there will probably be more months of delay while the matter is being considered. By then, the whole argument will probably be clarified again on a local government basis. The staff, however, are conscious that whatever happens in future, this is the Whitley Council machine that they must use and that this is the sort of thing with which they will be faced again and again.
I want to say a few words about the Whitley Council machine. At these meetings, there are no negotiations as I understand them in the trade union movement. My experience is that when going to negotiate a wage claim, a person goes in front of his employer, he argues his case, the employer argues back, and eventually a decision is reached. What happens with this Whitley Council machinery, however, is that there are no negotiations round the table. On entering the meeting, one finds the eight civil servants representing the Ministry of Health and the Treasury. The staff side goes in and puts its case. Then, the management side withdraws to a private room to discuss the staff side's proposals. The management side sends out its chairman from the private room with his side's answer. If the staff side do not like his answer, they tell him so and give him the reasons. Then he goes back to his colleagues, including all the civil servants, in their private room to tell them what the staff side has said. This is the most lopsided method of negotiation I have ever heard of.
At one meeting of the Council, the management side trooped off to its private room at 4.30 in the afternoon. The staff side waited patiently for the reappearance of the management side. Time went by, and at half-past five the secretary of the staff side went to find what had happened and found that the management side had gone home, having left its secretary to tell him that the management side had decided to fix another meeting. That is, the kind of frustration which is encountered, and it is about time that this Whitley Council was shown up for what
1752
it is doing. This is a very serious matter indeed.
I cannot get over the fact that this bright body should have eight civil servants. The fact that eight of them are wanted from the Treasury shows how dull-witted they must be when eight people are needed to do a job which, I am sure, could be done by one. Up to the end of last year, the Council met quarterly. Now, it meets bi-monthly and sub-committees meet when necessary. I am told, however, that the management side find it surprisingly difficult to arrange a meeting of the salaries negotiating sub-committee, which seldom meets more frequently than once a month when considering a salary claim.
I am told that at one of the negotiating meetings for salaries, when the staff side went in a civil servant came out and addressed them on the economic plight of the country and the need for wages restraint—in the middle of a wages claim! I am all for being lectured when necessary, although I do not think that civil servants are the right people to do it. They have their own negotiating machinery, and I have figures which show that they have not done so badly for themselves. I wonder how they would like it if somebody lectured to them, although I do not quite know who could do it. At any rate, that was what they did on that occasion.
I am not quoting salary rates but am discussing rather the general principle. All this is having a very disheartening effect on the staff. In page 266 of its Report, the Guillebaud Committee refers to the Whitley Council machinery and says:
"In general terms, it seems to us that the employing authorities in the hospital service are under-represented on the Whitley Councils particularly in comparison with the Health Departments; and we recommend that the representation of Regional Hospital Boards and Hospital Management Committees be substantially increased. This will have the dual effect of bringing greater experience of hospital management to Whitley Council discussions and also of helping the Management Sides to carry the hospital managers along with them in implementing their decisions."
That is a very important point. The Committee recommend:
"that the Health Departments should review the present arrangements for consultation with Regional Hospital Boards, and should invite Regional Hospital Boards to review their

1753
arrangements with Hospital Management Committees, in order to make certain that the Management Sides of the Whitley Councils are as fully aware as possible of the views of these authorities before decisions are reached on matters which will affect them."
That is common sense. That is referring to the Whitley Council machine, the management side of which is so heavily weighted by people who are not of the management side that the real views of the management are not known. There should be wider representation on management committees.
I am not looking for any more tasks—I have sufficient voluntary jobs to do in this short life of mine—but I should not mind going on that Whitley Council machine and taking a look at those eight civil servants. I make the hon. Lady an offer. If there is a vacancy on that Whitley Council machine, I am quite willing to go on it.
It is very distressing indeed that these staffs should be in the position of asking for this matter to be ventilated in Parliament. This is not, I ought to say, just a personal application to me. These people were aware that I know something of this matter through being within the hospital service. I know that every London Member of Parliament has had representations made to him and that the hon. Lady knows a great deal about it all. I know that she has this great service at heart. I ask her tonight not to say, "This matter is under active consideration. It has been referred to the Industrial Court and, therefore, I cannot make any comment, "but to say exactly what she proposes to do; for unless we get satisfaction, we will not get the kind of staff we want or ought to have, and they are an important part of what I believe is the greatest Health Service in the world.
7.40 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Maitland: I am sure we are all grateful to the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) for bringing up this matter, which is obviously of very wide interest and seems to raise serious issues. I am sure that he is grateful to our Scottish colleagues who hurried through their business earlier, thus leaving plenty of time for this debate. I am a little surprised that some of them have not managed to stay for this debate, especially as I believe several who sit for constituencies in Lanarkshire will have had word of this
1754
problem, as I have had, from members of the staff of Law Hospital. In parenthesis, I would remark that any comment one makes on this problem is not intended to derogate in the slightest from the splendid services which the staffs in the National Health Service are giving, and particularly at Law Hospital.
I must crave the indulgence of the House, and especially of the Parliamentary Secretary, because, unhappily, I have presently to go to an outside engagement arranged some time ago, and it may not be possible for me to hear my hon. Friend's reply to the debate, or, indeed, other speeches by other hon. Members.
I listened to the presentation of the case by the hon. Member for Bermondsey with very great interest. Not the least interesting part of it was his informative summary of the Whitley Council story. I think it is well to refresh our minds from time to time of how the Whitley Council system came into existence, and to remind ourselves that it has done very useful work. As I see it, that is not the point at issue tonight. The point we are asked to consider—and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I have misunderstood him—is whether, and, if so, in what direction, the Minister should intervene in a matter which, so I apprehend, has been referred to the Whitley Council machinery, or has been referred to arbitration. If that is the point at issue, then it is a very serious one indeed.
Mr. Mellish: I appreciate what the hon. Member says, but the trouble in discussing this matter is that no time is the right time. I do not expect the Parliamentary Secretary to say, "All right, we have taken it over and we shall give an extra amount of money." I have tried to recall how this Whitley story came about, and I believe this story had to be told, even though the case is before the Whitley Council.
Mr. Maitland: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Of course, we cannot say that because the Whitley machinery exists and because it is in operation we cannot discuss it. Of course we want to discuss it from time to time. It is part of the duty of Parliament to keep such matters under review. I am sure, however, that, when he reflects, the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is one thing to discuss the general operation of

1755
the Whitley Council machinery, with recourse to arbitration, and such like, but that it is a different matter to relate such a general discussion to a series of wage claims in particular. If we proceed in that kind of course we may be in danger, which would certainly be regretted on both sides of the House, of allowing wage and salary issues to be debated across the Floor of the House, and I for one am quite sure—
Mr. Mellish: I accept in principle the hon. Gentleman's argument, but something has to be done if the machinery is inadequate. We must by Questions, or by debate on such an occasion as this, bring these matters here if the machinery is frustrating machinery.
Mr. Maitland: I am obliged again to the hon. Gentleman. I think that he and I are closer together in this matter than he may, perhaps, think.
Certainly we have an absolute right to discuss the merits of a system of negotiating machinery, and if persons who have to submit to that machinery have a sense of frustration such as has been described—and I would not contradict the hon. Gentleman's description—then it is very natural that this House should concern itself with it; but, in so doing, it ought to be very careful not to allow a wages issue to become a matter of debate between one side of the House and the other. We should not want that to happen. I should be a little surprised if it were thought to be a sound trade union viewpoint that the Minister should be invited to intervene in a matter that either is already under arbitration or is likely to be submitted to arbitration soon. I do not believe that that is what the hon. Gentleman intended. I think he was trying to smoke out the Parliamentary Secretary, which it is natural enough to want to do. We often want to smoke out Ministers. I am quite sure, however, that the hon. Gentleman does not want to go down in history as having tried to bring wage claims on to the Floor of the House, to be settled between one side of the House and the other.
As I have mentioned, I have myself been approached by persons working in Law Hospital in my constituency, all of them organised in N.A.L.G.O. I would not claim to be particularly knowledgeable about this matter. I wonder if my
1756
hon. Friend can tell us, when she replies to the debate, whether it is or is not the case that N.A.L.G.O. is one of several, I believe seven or eight, bodies which represent persons engaged in such work, and whether it is not the case that the others at least have not been Lobbying their Members. I have heard only from N.A.L.G.O. I cannot judge whether N.A.L.G.O. represents a larger body of opinion than that of its own members.
Mr. Mellish: Will the hon. Gentleman please accept it from me that the trade unions representing this type of worker are very much concerned and are very glad we are discussing this matter tonight?
Mr. Maitland: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I was asking only how many organisations are involved and which others have brought the matter to the Minister's attention. I have heard only from N.A.L.G.O. It may be that other organisations have lobbyed such other hon. Members as they felt would give them a sympathetic hearing, and they felt they had access to.
Perhaps my hon. Friend can tell us whether it is the case, as I believe, that the point at issue now relates to salaries for the higher grades. If my information is correct—it may be wrong, and the hon. Gentleman may well correct me—the rates have been largely agreed for the lower grades, and we are considering what should be done about the higher grades.
Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong.
Mr. Maitland: The hon. Gentleman says that I am quite wrong. I am only asking my hon. Friend for information when she replies to the debate.
I wonder if she can also tell us in how many cases this matter is going, or looks like going, or has already gone, to arbitration. There may be only a few cases. There may be many cases. An answer on that point would give us some idea of what cause there is for the sense of frustration which has been described, and of what the extent of that sense of frustration may be. It is difficult for me to judge, having had representations from the staff of only one of no fewer than five hospitals in my constituency—and that not the biggest; or, if it is, it is

1757
only just the biggest. Representations have not been backed by complaints from the staffs of the other hospitals, all of which I visit frequently, so that I do not think there can be in their minds any thought that I am not, generally speaking, accessible to them or that I am indifferent to their problems.
I am sure that the Minister will look at this matter sympathetically within the limits of her responsibility. I do not think that any of us want to ask her to do more than interest herself in the whole subject, and in the whole sense of frustration, if that is the case, in the Whitley Council procedure. I cannot believe that anybody so responsible as the hon. Member for Bermondsey would be suggesting or wants to be thought to be suggesting that the Minister should intervene directly in a particular wage negotiation while it is going through the recognised machinery.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising this matter. I shall look forward to reading the Minister's reply in tomorrow's OFFICIAL REPORT since, as I have said, I may not be able to remain here to hear her myself. I might add that I have had no representations on this subject from Hairmyres Hospital, Stone-house Hospital, Douglas Cottage Hospital, St. Mary's Hospital, Lanark, or Lockhart Hospital, Lanark. These hospitals, all very large, are all in my constituency. I hear from them from time to time and all of them know that I am very eager to help all hospitals as far as possible.
7.52 p.m.
Mr. A. Blenkinsop (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East): This is a very difficult subject for us to deal with in the House. I quite agree that it would not be right for us to fight the battles of particular wage claims as such in this Chamber, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) that if there is a general feeling of anxiety about the working of the Whitley machinery it is right that we should discuss it. In doing so, we may have to mention examples in order to make some of the problems clear.
I have had some responsibility in the past in this matter and I appreciate the very real problems that are involved. It is true that this feeling of anxiety and frustration does not apply only to this
1758
particular group of staff. We are all conscious of the complaints which we have had from nursing staffs on many occasions about exactly the same problem. They all feel that it is impossible, in the present state of Whitley machinery, to carry out negotiations in a form which any of us understand as negotiation. This state of affairs is described as the "dead hand of the Treasury" and by other expressions of that kind.
The feeling appears to be very general throughout hospital staffs that applications for wage advances and discussions of matters of that kind are of little avail unless the whole issue is taken as far as arbitration, and that it is impossible to have any discussion of a wage case unless it goes right through some form of court procedure. Inevitably, with these long negotiations going on all the time and the calling of one Whitley Council and another, by the time any conclusion is reached by means of the courts the award has to be back-dated a long way. All the time there are increasing feelings of anxiety and frustration.
This is a very difficult problem which comes down to some fundamental issues. It involves the whole position of the Treasury in relation to settlements of this kind, and there is a strong feeling that the Treasury is unwilling to allow any normal negotiation procedure to be carried on. There is a feeling that the Treasury insists upon prior approval of any suggestion that is to be put forward on the management side, and that it is this that causes the major delay. I agree that the Guillebaud Committee suggestion is a valuable one. I have a copy of some representations which have been made. These representations come not only from N.A.L.G.O., but from other organisations as well. Some very important professional bodies also raise precisely the same point.
They say—and the Royal College of Nursing has said so among other bodies —that they begin to wonder about the value of making these initial approaches at all. They ask why they cannot go straight forward and have the arbitration proceedings because, they say, that seems to be the only thing that counts. If that is the general feeling, there is surely a strong case for a very careful examination of the machinery.
I know the difficulties only too well. There is the problem that there are so

1759
many organisations. That fact in itself does not help in speeding up procedure. It is a problem which has had to be faced in many other spheres. There is also the problem of the professional bodies which claim a rather special position because of their past history. Then there is the matter of the unions which now have a more important part to play than they had in the past.
All these factors undoubtedly cause real difficulties. I am not, therefore, expecting any immediate solution, but I submit that it is time we had a quiet, careful examination of the machinery to see if any improvement can be made. In this respect the recommendation from the Guillebaud Committee is of some value.
I should like to take this issue a little wider and suggest, as indeed did my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey, that the whole question of recruitment of adequately trained administrative staff is a matter of the first importance for the development of our hospital work. It has been customary in the past to tend to brush off administrative staff as of less importance than many of those who do the much more exciting and dramatic things in hospital work. However, I believe that there has been a gradual increase in the understanding that, if our hospitals are to be as efficiently run as we all want them to be, a great deal more attention must be given to the quality of the administrative staff. It is unfortunate that we have come rather late to the consideration of what can be done in this respect.
An interesting experiment is being made by the King Edward VII Memorial Fund in the college which that organisation has set up. I hope that by now that college has provided us with sufficient experience of the kind of training which would be valuable for hospital administrators and has given a useful lead to the Government on what could now be done on a wider scale and on a more official basis. This small college has been run for some years and has enjoyed the advice of able administrators, including some hon. Members of this House. I should have thought that by now the Government might have been expected to suggest how the training of hospital administrators can best be organised in future, and how it can best be linked with some of the
1760
other hospital training work, for example, with the School of Hygiene, or with welfare training, and so on.
This would encourage hospital administrators to feel that they are part of a wider team, including those with medical training. If we are to attract into either the present college or any future official college for hospital administration the people we want, then we must consider the status, salary, and other conditions to be offered to them. That is where we come back to the point raised by my hon. Friend. We want people to feel that this is a vital and valuable career, as useful and helpful to the community as any other. At the moment, however, I am afraid that we are not succeeding in making quite that appeal.
I do not expect the Parliamentary Secretary to reply to all these points on the spur of the moment, but I hope that the hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend are as anxious as we are to see progress made in this respect. I hope, too, that the debate will prove to have been of value, not only by resulting in elucidation of the Whitley machinery, but also of the equally important matter of the training we give to our future hospitial administrators.
8.2 p.m.
Mr. Herbert Butler: Since the National Health Service Act was passed I have been fortunate in that successive Ministers have reappointed me to one of the hospital regional boards and I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has raised this subject tonight. One of the problems which every regional board has to face is that of the inadequacy of the Whitley machinery. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the administrative and clerical employees, but this kind of thing appears to be operating in every part of the Health Service.
As one who has had something to do with Whitley machinery in local government, I can tell the House that as employers' representatives we used to meet the trade unions. We discussed our problems and arrived at the solution by a majority decision on either side. The difference in this machinery is that apparently the Ministry has interposed between the employing authority—which, I assume, is the hospital regional board

1761
and the management committee—and the trade unions, the Ministry of Health officials, and the Treasury. That is not negotiating machinery as we normally understood it in local government service.
This problem expresses itself in many ways. For about a year in the Borough of Hackney we have had difficulty with a chimney which emits considerable grit and smoke. The local authority and the public health authority have been in touch with the regional board on this matter. The answer of the regional board engineer has been that he has to rely upon Pakistani stokers. He cannot get our own people as stokers because the rates of pay laid down by the machinery are insufficient to attract responsible and efficient men.
The same is true of other sections of the service. For instance, we are in the same situation over engineers. The Whitley Council machinery does not move fast enough to deal with our day-to-day problems. We cannot attract engineers to work in our hospitals because commercial firms are paying higher wages than we are allowed to pay inside the Health Service. For the same reason we cannot recruit cooks or hospital porters. The calibre of those recruited is such that many of our porters ought to be patients. Instead of wheeling bodies around they should be wheeled around themselves. Moreover, the incidence of sickness is such that it is uneconomic to employ these people.
As an illustration of our problems, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I mention the case of a Pakistani stoker who allowed the boilers to explode? Fortunately, with the assistance of responsible members. of the electrical trade union, we were able to deal with the difficulty. We want to pay someone a few shillings more to supervise, but we are not allowed to do so. We have to refer to the Whitley Council. As a consequence, people who are trying to do a good job inside the service feel themselves frustrated. The hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) said that he was aware of only one hospital in his constituency which had complained. This is not a question of how many complaints have been made but of the problem that people will not enter the hospital service. Those inside it do not complain, but it is impossible to recruit new staff.
1762
I am not suggesting to the Parliamentary Secretary that there is an easy solution. I do say, however, that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to the grave difficulty in the service, a service which we all desire to be successful. By an examination of the existing procedure it is possible to meet the reasonable requirements of those engaged in it. The Ministry should inquire how far we can assist in a better appreciation of the service which these people render.
I hope that we shall hear from the hon. Lady that she appreciates the difficulties, and that she will tell us of some remedies which the Ministry of Health proposes to apply.
8.9 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) for the way in which he initiated this debate, though I cannot go all the way with him in meeting his requests. I well know his active work and interest in the National Health Service, since he serves on my local hospital regional board and is the chairman of a hospital committee. I also welcomed the contribution from my predecessor in office, the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop). I know he is aware that my reply will not go as wide as some of the issues he has raised.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey asked a great deal when he suggested that I should say plainly what we are going to do. The hon. Member knows very well that we are bound by the machinery of the Whitley Council and of the Industrial Courts Act, to which hon. Members on all sides of the House subscribe. I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that it would be improper for me to discuss the merits of an individual case. For instance, I cannot discuss the claims that have been put forward and the arguments that will be advanced by the management side since this case has already been referred to the arbitration court. There it will have full and impartial investigation, and both sides will have an opportunity to put all the evidence they wish before the court.
It would be improper for me to anticipate or prejudice findings for which there is an established procedure. It

1763
would be a very great departure from what is accepted in this House as the procedure for joint negotiation. Consequently, I must confine myself to the general machinery for dealing with claims, the diary of events, the arguments for the claim and the facts which have confronted us.
Mr. Mellish: Will the hon. Lady concede my case that there is grave dissatisfaction among the staff? Will she please admit that?
Miss Hornsby-Smith: No. I would not give a wholesale undertaking like that. We shall never find any organisation in which all members of its staff are satisfied about their salaries and are not trying to get more. That includes Members of Parliament.
I will deal, first, with the machinery. The Whitley Councils are established on a recognised principle of negotiation, of joint councils of employers and employees. I have been somewhat surprised this week to hear, particularly so at Question Time on Monday, hon. Members suggesting that the Minister should intervene. In view of the authority that he carries, intervention could only mean that one way or the other he would be overriding decisions. It would be a complete contradiction of what we accept as joint negotiating machinery if he were to do so. My right hon. Friend believes that it would be quite improper for him to intervene in these negotiations.
The Whitley Councils were set up at the start of the National Health Service. Under the Whitley machinery there is the General Council which deals with matters concerning all grades, and there are nine functional councils of which the Administrative and Clerical Staffs Whitley Council is one. Less than justice has been paid tonight to the very substantial amount of work that has been done by the Whitley Councils in starting a great new service with all its difficulties of classification, salary grading and so on.
It would not be fair to suggest as one hon. Member did, that nothing was ever settled without going to arbitration. I have looked up the number of salary and wage claims which have been settled by Whitley machinery in the National Health Service without going to arbitration. The total is nearly 200. Consequently, it
1764
would be quite wrong to suggest that no claim is ever agreed unless it goes to arbitration. That just is not true. There have been cases which have gone to arbitration, but in the majority of cases agreement is reached between the two sides.
Mr. Mellish: When I was making my argument, I was dealing with major wage claims. I believe I made the point that a major claim was made earlier in relation to local government wage rates. It was sent to arbitration in order to get a ruling, which was given, about local government wage rates being applied to these people.
Miss Hornsby-Smith: I can answer that point. There have been five major, as the hon. Gentleman calls them, wage claims, dealt with by the Administrative and Clerical Staffs Whitley Council, apart from many claims of major importance to the grades concerned but not embracing all classes, and three were settled without arbitration and two went to arbitration. It is not fair to say that the Whitley machinery never settles anything without it going to arbitration.
The constitution of the Council was drawn up by agreement between both sides. Hon. Members have been having great fun at the expense of the management side, but no one has mentioned that there are thirty members of the staff side on the Council, which is very substantial representation on any count, as against eighteen on the other side. It was suggested that eight represented too many civil servants. The hon. Member for Bermondsey then said that the hospital management committees and regional boards had no opportunity; but they and the Executive Councils have ten representatives.
Mr. Mellish: I did not say that. I said that they had not got enough.
Miss Hornsby-Smith: They have ten representatives. If, as the hon. Member suggested, one civil servant is enough to express a view, I am surprised at the suggestion that ten members together on the board are not capable of expressing an equally emphatic view. I am, of course, aware, that the Guillebaud Committee has recommended that the non-Civil Service representation on the management side should be increased. The matter has not yet been considered by the Whitley Council. No doubt it, the hospital management committees and

1765
the regional boards will be making their views about it known to the Minister, who will consider the matter when he receives the views of the interested bodies.
Since the appointed day, five major general salary claims have been dealt with. In three cases settlement was reached without arbitration. As the hon. Member said, in 1954 agreement could not be reached on a general salary claim, and the dispute was referred to the Industrial Court. I do not think the hon. Member meant what he then said, but when he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow he will find that his words implied a reflection on the arbitration court. He said that the court just accepted the management's case. That is an implied reflection, because the court went into the matter in the greatest detail and in a most impartial manner, and I am sure that its views were not just an acceptance of what the management side had to say.
Mr. Mellish: If I gave that impression, I withdraw it immediately. The point I was making was that the management's case at that time was that wages in the National Health Service should be allied to those in local government, and the court accepted that point of view. I was attempting to deal with the point that in 1956 the argument on the management side is that local government wages should not be the criterion. This is part of the reason why there is so much consternation.
Miss Hornsby-Smith: That is still a matter to be decided by the court of arbitration.
It was not only the issue of parity with the N.J.C. rates. There was the fact that the staff side was asking for a higher rise than the management had offered. After the arbitration court's inquiry, the staff side accepted the offer initially made by the management side. At that time many hon. Members received complaints abouts delays in the Whitley machinery. However, the fact emerges that had the staff side accepted the management's side offer in the first place, the delay would not have been so long. The arbitration court decided on the rates of the offer by the management side. It is a little hard to blame the Whitley machinery and the Management Side for delay when it arose over the desire of the staff side not to accept the original offer and to go to arbitration.
Mr. Mellish: This is most unfair. I am sure the hon. Lady does not wish to make the position worse than it is, but her words will be read by the staff. The reason for the argument about local government rates was that a decision on the point had been reached earlier. The staff side had no alternative but to go to arbitration to obtain a ruling. I remember telling the hon. Lady that, although the staff side did not get all it wanted at that time, it was consoled by the thought that the arbitration court had decided that local government wage rates should be the yardstick, for it could say that in future claims it would know where it stood. The whole burden of my case is that in 1956 the yardstick of the local government wage rates has been abandoned.
Miss Hornsby-Smith: I will deal with the hon. Member's point on local government rates, but on the question of whether every grade and every rate can be exactly similar to local government service, is it beyond the bounds of possibility that classification and responsibility in an entirely different service may not have an exact parallel in another service? That is an issue to be decided on this claim in the industrial court.
The fact remains that increases which had been offered by the management side in the negotiations under that claim were those finally settled by the court of arbitration. The remaining claim is the one now in dispute and it has just gone to arbitration. In its original form—the hon. Member for Bermondsey did not mention this—it would have resulted in increases for most grades from 20 to 27 per cent. on existing salaries, up to a maximum of£560 on the top salary.
That claim was rejected by the management and subsequently withdrawn by the staff side. In December, 1955—not very long ago for all the complaints about Whitley delay—a claim was submitted for a 12½ per cent. increase on all salaries subject to the present dispute.
Mr. Mellish: Why?
Miss Hornsby-Smith: That was submitted by the staff side and was the basis of its claim.
Mr. Mellish: Because local government had applied such increases itself.
Miss Hornsby-Smith: Local government has not applied 12½ per cent. increases.
Mr. Mellish: That was the point of the claim.
Miss Hornsby-Smith: The increase granted by the N.J.C. was not 12½ per cent.
The National Health Service management side made a counter-proposal which, broadly speaking, was 5 per cent. on existing salaries with a maximum of£100. The actual percentage increase would be higher than 5 per cent. at some points and lower at others. A certain amount of agreement on the lower grades was reached and in the main the claim in dispute is on the higher and not the lower salaries. On the rest of the claims, particularly in the higher grades, there has been clear disagreement, because in many cases there has been a demand for absolute parity with certain grades which are claimed to be completely parallel with the N.J.C. scale.
The matter has been dealt with quickly. The claim was submitted on 19th December and the joint secretaries, after failure to agree, wrote to the Ministry of Labour in agreed terms of reference for the consideration of the industrial court on 31st January. The senior grades were discussed. There was failure to agree and the reference to the industrial court has been widened to include the senior grades and both sides of the Whitley Council have asked for arbitration.
Here I should like to emphasise that nine organisations on the Staff Side of the Whitley Council are concerned. The hon. Member for Bermondsey seemed to suggest that all those parties were in favour of the particular action and representations which N.A.L.G.O. has made for Ministerial intervention, which has been the aim of telegrams and letters sent by N.A.L.G.O. to hon. Members and the Ministry.
I again emphasis that for the Minister to intervene at this stage would not only be quite improper, but would be contrary to the statutory procedure which this House has laid down under the Industrial Courts Act, 1919. We cannot wholly assume that all the other eight organisations on the staff side desire Ministerial intervention. They are going to arbitra-
1768
tion and will have every opportunity to make their case and produce their evidence. I believe that it is important that nothing should be said to attempt to prejudice or anticipate what those proceedings will bring forth.
Mr. Mellish: I am very much obliged to the hon. Lady for giving way so often. I wanted to get this clear. I understand that she cannot stand at that Box when something is going to an industrial court and do something at that moment; but whatever time one raises this matter is the wrong time. If I put down a Question when no matter is before the industrial court, asking whether she is aware of the grave dissatisfaction of hospital staffs with their wages, she will tell me that it is a matter for the Whitley Council; if the Whitley Council has received a claim, she says that to say anything in the House would be detrimental to future negotiations. Will she tell me when to raise it?
Miss Hornsby-Smith: The vast majority of hon. Members accept the principle of the Industrial Courts Act and of arbitration arrangements.
Mr. Mellish: No one more than I.
Miss Hornsby-Smith: They accept the basis of Whitley Councils. I am sure that the hon. Member would deplore as much as anyone any suggestion that hon. Members should decide rates of pay. I am sure that he will agree that there must be joint machinery between employer and employee. I am sure that I carry him with me on that. That view is held not only by Members on this side, but by Members opposite who, when in Government, said that wage rates and negotiations were not a matter for this House. It is important, having accepted that principle, that we should recognise that we must not go beyond the limitations which we have put on ourselves by Act of Parliament.
Mr. Mellish: If I am able to show to the hon. Lady—as I believe I have shown to the rest of the Members of this House—that the machinery is inadequate, or is not working as it should work in the view of most of us and that something should be done, is it too much to ask for the hon. Lady's assurance that she will look at the machinery? I should still like a reply to my question about eight civil servants.
Miss Hornsby-Smith: The representation on the Council was agreed between the parties. There has been a recommendation from the Guillebaud Committee. We have to wait until various interested parties submit views to the Minister and I should not like to anticipate what might come out of those representations.
Mr. H. Butler: I realise the difficulty and complexity of the points with which the hon. Lady has to deal. In addition to the point raised by my hon. Friend, can the hon. Lady tell the House whether she has received any letters from the secretaries of regional boards pointing out their difficulties in getting staffs under existing arrangements?
Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am quite prepared to deal with the hon. Member's point about staff in a moment.
Mr. Mellish: What about the eight civil servants?
Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Member refers to eight civil servants, but it is fair to recognise that the Ministry of Health is the paying Department and is responsible to and through Parliament for the money it spends. I do not think that the hon. Member would suggest for a moment that Parliament should vote money without a hand in its dispensation. Whether, as the outcome of the deliberations on the Guillebaud Report, any Amendments may arise, is a matter for a decision when all the views from all sides are taken into account.
Again, I would emphasise that the recommendation of the Guillebaud Committee was to increase the management side and not the staff side. I think that the hon. Member is being unjust to civil servants. He is attacking them rather savagely tonight. They have upon them a very great responsibility and, indeed, they carry out their duties with great integrity and in a very conscientious manner. I think that it is a great reflection on them that the hon. Member should consider them either unnecessary or unworthy for the task they are called upon to do in the Whitley Machinery.
I should like to say a few words about the background of the N.J.C. and the National Health Service Whitley Councils. The existing salary scales, which are going to arbitration, took effect from 1st March, 1955. The claims of both the
1770
N.J.C. and the Whitley National Health Service Council were considered in the latter part of last year. On 14th December, 1955, the National Joint Council for local authority staffs reached agreement on salaries up to£1,200. On an average this settlement gave a 5 per cent. increase at the maximum of each scale, so that the offer which applied to the lower grades in the comparable National Health Service Whitley administration and clerical grades was comparable to that granted by the N.J.C.
Mr. Mellish: The hon. Lady, quite rightly, is reading from information which has been supplied to her. I have information which has been given to me. I am sure that these increases were from 5 per cent. to 9 per cent. and that alongside that were improved subsistence rates and the local authorities were told that they could, if they wished, introduce a five-day week.
Miss Hornsby-Smith: The basis was a 5 per cent. increase at the maximum of each scale. For grades above A.P.T. Ill the National Joint Council agreed increases of a larger percentage, for reasons, which they made plain in those negotiations, were peculiar to local authority service.
Here we come to the crux of one of the disparities between the higher grades. The hon. Member is aware that when the 1951 claim was made members in the higher grades of salaries, near£1,000, under the N.J.C. machinery were unable to get the rises which the lower grades got. Some of them got only £10; some got nothing at all, because constitutionally that particular Whitley Council could not give rises to anyone whose grade had gone over the£1,000 mark. That restriction did not apply to the National Health Service grades.
Therefore, for three or four years what would have been the comparable National Health Service grades had, in fact, been£40 or£50 ahead of the N.J.C. grades. In the agreement of December that disparity for these senior members of the particular grades in the N.J.C. was righted. The argument which the hon. Gentleman is putting forward is that that same differential should be maintained, but in fact the disability from which certain members who did not get an increase in 1951 under the N.J.C. have suffered for a considerable time has been

1771
put right. The hon. Member is suggesting that that differential should be maintained.
It is a problem peculiar to the N.J.C. and one which it had under the constitution of the award of that time. I think it not unreasonable that it should be accepted as a problem peculiar to it which it has righted, and one which does not create a new problem for us. I do not want to go into more details in that matter, because obviously the National Health Service salary grades are before the arbitration court and it would be improper for me to deal with them or to dwell upon them.
Mr. Mellish: I am much obliged to the hon. Lady. In dealing with this matter, she has omitted one very important fact. I omitted it too, so we are both guilty. I forgot to mention, and the hon. Lady has forgotten to mention, that there was a review by the Minister of Health—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): Is the hon. Member making a second speech or an intervention?
Mr. Mellish: It is relevant to the argument the hon. Lady has just used, and I am saying that she has omitted something which is important to this debate. Is the hon. Lady aware that the Minister of Health reviewed these grades and downgraded a great deal of them, so that there are many people today in a different grade to what they were in when they came into the service and cannot, as a result, get an increase in salary? When the hon. Lady is talking about differentials, will she remember that many of these people are now in grades which they were not in at the time of entering the Service, because of the economy drive?
Miss Hornsby-Smith: These are matters which are discussed with the Whitley Council. After a few years' running of the National Health Service, I know that, as the hon. Member quite correctly says, there was a review of all grades, and the new grades were agreed in very detailed discussion with the staff side of the Whitley Council. As is inevitable, even when the staff side agrees 100 per cent. on any particular grade or issue, anyone who does not gain an advantage from the
1772
regrading automatically writes to his Member of Parliament and complains bitterly about the Whitley Council.
I personally wrote many replies to hon. Members of this House who took up individual cases, and was able to say that this grading and these particular salary rates for this particular job had been agreed by both sides of the Whitley Council. It is inevitable in regrading that some people gain, while some others do not gain as much, and inevitably they will blame the Council.
We have had a very interesting debate, and I appreciate that I have fallen far short of the hopes which the hon. Member for Bermondsey placed in me, but the hon. Gentleman knows that I could not go very much further, because it is a most important principle that we should not intervene in the arbitration machinery which Parliament has set up and approved. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that in a wider field some other method should be used, he must set about altering the parent Act and not try to persuade the Minister to intervene in what is at the moment the law and procedure in this matter.
8.37 p.m.
Mr. Ede: We can all congratulate the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary on the way in which she has stood up to the questioning by my hon. Friends the Members for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and Hackney, Central (Mr. H. Butler). I have seen nothing like it since I watched Laker and Lock bowling against Worcestershire on a sticky wicket, when they got them all out for 40. They got them out for 24 the day before.
I am not going over much of what has been said, and I agree with the hon. Lady that while this matter is before the arbitration court—no matter how it has managed to get as far as that—it would be wrong of her or her Minister to give any indication as to what he thought should happen. I only wish that the hon. Lady would go and bite the Minister of Education, who is now advising the parties to the Burnham Award to take a particular line; I am quite sure it would mean an easier life for all of us. I am a little concerned about the description which my hon. Friend gave of what happened during the negotiations—a point on which the hon. Lady said

1773
nothing. My hon. Friend said—and if I go a bit beyond what he alleged, I hope he will correct me—that the representatives of nine organisations who make up thirteen—
Miss Hornsby-Smith: Thirty.
Mr. Ede: There are thirty people on one side? Of course, they have to agree among themselves and reach a majority, and if sixteen agree on a line, that binds the other fourteen as well as themselves. They meet separately, and then the eighteen meet separately. After all, as I understand it, on a Whitley Council both sides are supposed to be equal in prestige. That is the essence of the thing. This is not a case of the labourer going cap in hand to the boss. The whole essence of Whitleyism, as started by a previous occupant of the Chair of this House, is that both sides are equal partners, working under common duress and trying to arrive at a just decision. I think it important that that position should be preserved and recognised.
My hon. Friend said that there are the forty-eight of them—or as many as turn up—thirty on one side who have to reach a decision and eighteen on the other side. That is very awkward on both sides, because they have an even number. They have had their discussion and each side has put forward at this stage—we will say without other than logical argument—the case they feel. Then eighteen go off to a private room. Apparently, the thirty remain in the room where the discussion has taken place.
Until a comparatively few years ago—at any rate in my lifetime—when a Division was taken in this House, hon. Members in one part of the House went out of the Chamber and the others stayed in and were counted in the Chamber. If an hon. Member did not wish to vote, he had to clear out pretty quick and take care that he did not get into the mob who were being counted outside.
These people go into a private room, and I believe it is generally arranged that there shall be two private rooms. One lot go into one room and the others go into another, and when they feel that the main body can meet again, they again go into the first room. My hon. Friend said—and I regard this as a matter fundamental to the whole issue of Whitleyism—that the eighteen go out, and
1774
when they have reached a decision as to whether they can agree with what the other side have put forward their secretary—
Mr. Mellish: And chairman.
Mr. Ede: Well, do not let us get down to individuals—one of their number comes and announces to the others what is the decision of the eighteen.
I am bound to say that I do not think that is in accordance with the Whitley spirit, and I hope, and I am sure I carry my hon. Friends with me on this, that the Parliamentary Secretary will feel that if on inquiry that is substantiated as the procedure which is followed, she should intimate that it could be improved. It is just the kind of thing which sometimes enables awkward corners to be got round without one side feeling that they have been rather spoken down to by the other.
If there were such an occasion when the others, when one lot, cleared off—I do not care which side it was—and left the others to send some messenger in to find out what was the decision, and they were told, "They have all gone home but I can tell you if you want to know," that, I think, is a piece of discourtesy which, if it occurred—I am taking the statement of my hon. Friend, to which the hon. Lady did not allude, as representing the feeling that there is on one side of this body—
Mr. Mellish: If I may help my right hon. Friend, it is perfectly true, I understand, that in fact they waited for an hour. When they went to inquire, they were told by the secretary and chairman that the management side had gone home. They said that they were remaining behind to arrange another meeting and they would be told.
Mr. Ede: Whatever it was, I hope that the practice will never be followed again of eighteen people having retired into another room, not coming back en bloc to meet other people, who are supposed to be their equals, engaged in the job of serving this particular industry.
Miss Hornsby-Smith: It would be most unfortunate if it went out from this House that this was the general procedure. It is the normal procedure for the full committee to meet when decisions are given, and I would be most grateful to

1775
the hon. Member for Bermondsey if he would give me details of this case, because it is certainly not common practice. On one occasion when I was in the Ministry I ran into a member of the management side, and when I asked him what he was doing there he told me that the staff side wanted to discuss a point; the management side had cleared out to allow them to do so, and were waiting to go back. The procedure operates both ways.
Mr. Ede: I do not mind that. There are thirty people on the staff side; a room that will comfortably accommodate eighteen might not be suitable for thirty, and I do not think anyone can complain if one side has to leave and go to another room as a matter of convenience. But when the meeting breaks up, I think that it should be a breaking up of forty-eight members, or as many of them as possible. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for intervening, because it establishes the fact that the Ministry regards the arrangements which I have outlined as the normal procedure.
We should be told a little more about the eighteen members. I understand that those members are divided into two groups, one of eight and the other of ten. Eight are nominated by somebody in the Civil Service, and ten by the regional boards. Does the Minister or the Treasury nominate the eight?
Miss Hornsby-Smith: Ten are nominated by the regional hospital boards—the executive councils, the boards of governors, and the hospital management committees—six are nominated by the Minister of Health, and two by the Secretary of State for Scotland. They are not necessarily civil servants.
Mr. Ede: They are the nominees of the Minister—either in England or Scotland—who is responsible for the service.
Do they go to the meeting with instructions from the Minister, or do they listen to the case first and then report to the Minister? The hon. Lady will appreciate the difference. I have been a Minister and I realise that a difficulty sometimes arises in these matters because persons nominated by a Minister receive prior instructions as to how far they can go. The hon. Lady will realise that they have to convey to the other side, as politely
1776
as they can, that when a certain stage has been reached they cannot go any further. This may be necessary on some occasions.
I hope that the hon. Lady will not think I am attacking her in any way; I am doing my best to have this procedure so elucidated that everyone will know what is expected of them. I am not asking the hon. Lady for any snap answers. I am trying not to set any traps for her which she might regret having been led into—even if I were capable of leading the hon. Lady into temptation. Having been responsible for educating a brother of hers, I can say that they are a tough lot in her family.
There may be occasions when. before the negotiations are over, it is necessary to say, "The most you can go to is this," but I venture to say that those occasions should be as rare as possible. At any rate, there should be a first meeting at which both sides can approach the matter without feeling that limits have been placed upon them. It might be very helpful on occasion if the Minister's representatives, whether civil servant or not, could go to the Minister and say, "This is the case." In certain circumstances there is a lot of feeling about this, because everyone who has been an employed person knows that a lot of the things about which there is most feeling are very often not very well understood by the people on the other side of the table, and one can sometimes ease small grievances in a way that greatly helps in dealing with difficult matters.
If there is a feeling on one side that the people on the other are union representatives who are being tied too tightly by their union with instructions, or a Minister's representatives who have been tied by his instructions beforehand, it does not make for very helpful procedure.
I was very struck by one thing which my hon. Friend said—that a board had only managed to recruit three boys from grammar schools, and that those three had left the service since. That is a very serious state of affairs. I hope that it will be inquired into and that it will be ascertained exactly why that peculiar state of affairs should exist. In a grammar school which should supply staff for this kind of authority in the area one does not want it to be thought that it is

1777
not a good thing for the boys to enter that authority's service.
I am not now saying that is said by the staff. I have advised the hon. Lady's brother in days gone by and I know exactly how much weight he thought should be attached to that advice. Speaking now, I would not differ from the views he used to hold. It is, however, a bad thing when among the boys at such a school it is said, "You recollect that Smith, Jones and Robinson went there and they pretty soon cleared out." That does not encourage the right type of boy in the locality to apply for these jobs, and I hope that something will be done about it.
I join in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey for raising this matter and for raising it in such a way that we have been able to have a good, widely-ranging discussion. I am quite sure that I speak for my two hon. Friends
1778
in saying that we all recognise the limitation necessarily imposed on the hon. Lady by the stage which these negotiations have reached. All we would ask is that she should report the spirit of this debate—which I hope I have as nearly as possible epitomised—so that where there are possibilities of improvement they shall be seized.
I understand that these boards are set up under Statutory Instruments, and if it is necessary to revise them in order to meet any of the criticisms that have been made, the hon. Lady can feel assured that if she brings such revisions forward—possibly after consultation with my hon. Friends—we shall be quite willing to do all we can to help the establishment of machinery that would enjoy the full confidence of all concerned.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Nine o'clock.

ROADS
  Widening
  Widening
  Repairs
  Repairs
TRANSPORT
  Inland Waterways (Committee of Inquiry)
  Inland Waterways (Committee of Inquiry)
RAILWAYS
  Shenfield—Southend Line (Electrification)
  Shenfield—Southend Line (Electrification)
CIVIL AVIATION
  London Airport (Communications)
  London Airport (Communications)
  MIDDLE EAST (BROADCASTS)
  MIDDLE EAST (BROADCASTS)
  GENEVA CONFERENCE (MR. MOLOTOV'S SPEECH)
  GENEVA CONFERENCE (MR. MOLOTOV'S SPEECH)
  UNITED NATIONS RELIEF (U.K. CONTRIBUTIONS)
  UNITED NATIONS RELIEF (U.K. CONTRIBUTIONS)
  PROPAGANDA BALLOONS
  PROPAGANDA BALLOONS
  GIBRALTAR (SPANISH RESTRICTIONS)
  GIBRALTAR (SPANISH RESTRICTIONS)
  GULF OF AQABA (SHIPPING RESTRICTIONS)
  GULF OF AQABA (SHIPPING RESTRICTIONS)
  GUIDED MISSILES (UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS)
  GUIDED MISSILES (UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS)
  ETHIOPIA (MOHAMMED BEGORREH)
  ETHIOPIA (MOHAMMED BEGORREH)
  CENTURION TANKS (EXPORTS)
  CENTURION TANKS (EXPORTS)
CYPRUS
  Negotiations
  Negotiations
  Detained Persons
  Detained Persons
  Athens Radio Broadcasts (Jamming)
  Athens Radio Broadcasts (Jamming)
  Development Scheme (Finance)
  Development Scheme (Finance)
  Sir D'Arcy Waechter (Appointment)
  Sir D'Arcy Waechter (Appointment)
BRITISH SOMALILAND
  Status
  Status
  Students (Overseas Education)
  Students (Overseas Education)
KENYA
  African Congress (Registration)
  African Congress (Registration)
  White Highlands (European Settlers)
  White Highlands (European Settlers)
  TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS (SALT INDUSTRY)
  TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS (SALT INDUSTRY)
  NIGERIA (ROYAL TOUR)
  NIGERIA (ROYAL TOUR)
MALTA
  Rediffusion Limited
  Rediffusion Limited
  Nationalist Party (Protest)
  Nationalist Party (Protest)
  Incidents
  Incidents
  Assurances
  Assurances
  SARAWAK (PEPPER DISEASE)
  SARAWAK (PEPPER DISEASE)
  MAURITIUS (KEITH-LUCAS COMMISSION)
  MAURITIUS (KEITH-LUCAS COMMISSION)
  COLONIAL TERRITORIES (EXPORTS TO U.S.S.R. AND CHINA)
  COLONIAL TERRITORIES (EXPORTS TO U.S.S.R. AND CHINA)
TANGANYIKA
  Floods, Central Province
  Floods, Central Province
  Launch, Lake Victoria (Loss)
  Launch, Lake Victoria (Loss)
ROYAL NAVY
  Naval Discipline Act (Select Committee)
  Naval Discipline Act (Select Committee)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Storm Damage, North-East England (Repairs)
  Storm Damage, North-East England (Repairs)
  Rubery Exchange, Birmingham
  Rubery Exchange, Birmingham
  Llan Rumney Estate, Cardiff
  Llan Rumney Estate, Cardiff
POST OFFICE
  Monthly Magazines (Postal Rate)
  Monthly Magazines (Postal Rate)
  Commemorative Stamps (Policy)
  Commemorative Stamps (Policy)
  Belfast
  Belfast
  B.B.C. Station, Wenvoe (Reception)
  B.B.C. Station, Wenvoe (Reception)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Air Trooping
  Air Trooping
  New Bounty Scheme
  New Bounty Scheme
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Visas
  Visas
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Credit Squeeze
  Credit Squeeze
  Civil Servants (Superannuation Benefits)
  Civil Servants (Superannuation Benefits)
  Licence Duty Receipts (Greyhound Racing)
  Licence Duty Receipts (Greyhound Racing)
BRITISH ARMY
  Helicopters
  Helicopters

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON
Henry Colville Montgomery, Lord Bishop of London—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD
Tom, Lord Bishop of Hereford—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Earl Nelson—Took the Oath.
2.45 p.m.

TYNE TUNNEL BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.
WALTHAMSTOW CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
DOVER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.

MINING SUBSIDENCE
2.46 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DERBY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of the debate in this House on the 20th of July last, they are yet in a position to announce any positive policy with respect to the problem of mining subsidence in inhabited areas.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Fuel and Power recently met a deputation of Members of Parliament and represen-
802
tatives of local authorities from mining areas and informed them that he would do all in his power to expedite the completion of the review now in hand of the mining subsidence problem. Meanwhile, he is consulting the local authority associations about a new limit of rateable value to be inserted in the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act, 1950, in the light of changes in rating valuations which will come into force in England and Wales on April 1 next.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DERBY: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Earl for the courtesy of his reply and to express the hope that the expedition now being brought to bear on the review of this problem may be effective.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, expedition is always very desirable but, as the right reverend Prelate knows, this problem is peculiarly stubborn.

ARMY POSTINGS AND ALLOWANCES
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what officers of the Regular Army are not subject to frequent postings, and are not therefore covered by the phrase "who are subject to frequent postings" used with reference to educational allowances by the Minister of Defence in his statement on November 2, 1955]
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, the only Regular officers ineligible are a comparatively small number in the United Kingdom serving under special arrangements exempting them from the normal liability to posting. All officers overseas, and all officers in the United Kingdom who are unlikely to remain in their present place of duty for more than four years, are regarded as subject to frequent postings.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply, which seems to cover most officers. Can he say whether, if a doubtful case arises at any time, the benefit of the doubt will he given to the officer and not to the Treasury?
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON Yes, my Lords.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON BETTING
2.49 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN rose to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on Betting, Lotteries and Gaming (Cmd. 8190); and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think the House will probably agree that it is appropriate that at long last attention should be drawn to the Report to which this Motion refers. The Royal Commission on Betting, Lotteries and Gaming were appointed in April, 1949, and their Final Report was presented to Parliament in March, 1951, or some two years later. The Commission held forty-two meetings, heard oral evidence from 141 witnesses and, in addition, received a vast amount of evidence from a large number of witnesses and from organisations, including the religious authorities, the Judiciary, the police, the organisations controlling various forms of sport and entertainment, as well as those concerned with the provision of betting facilities. They visited the Republic of Ireland on two occasions and they received reports of the practice in many other countries.
The Chairman of the Royal Commission was Mr. Willink, a distinguished public servant, who had been Minister of Health, who is to-day the Head of Magdalene College, Cambridge, and was, I think, at the time of this Report, or at any rate during some portion of it, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge. He had to assist him eleven distinguished men and women who had reached high positions in various walks of life and who gave of their time during those two years without measure or stint. The Report which they produced was unanimous. I have no doubt that each of them—or perhaps they have collectively—has received a letter of thanks from Her Majesty's Government for the great services rendered; but, so far as I know, that is all that has happened in the five years since they reported. The Report was buried in decent or indecent obscurity; it has gathered dust and, so far as I know, it has remained unread and unnoticed, and would have remained so but for the fact that the Chairman of the Royal Commission, Mr. Willink, felt, after nearly five years, that it was time something was done or said, or that the Government gave some evidence that they had at least looked at the Report, and
804
he wrote a letter to The Times. It is as a result of that that we have this debate to-day. I might mention, in passing, that the cost of this Report was £11,695 18s., and but for the fact that Mr. Willink, as a former Minister, felt that it was time that the Government made up their mind, this money would have been spent and to no purpose at all. I hope that as a result of this debate it may be possible for the Government to give us some assurance that they will take the trouble to read the Report; and they may even be able to give us some indication of the way in which their mind is working on this subject—if, indeed, that happens to be the case.
This is not an unimportant subject and it has been the subject matter of a number of Commissions and Royal Commissions in the past 150 years. The question of gambling has troubled the community roughly every twenty or thirty years, and Commissions or Royal Commissions have been set up. It is interesting to note that a Royal Commission on Gaming was set up in 1844, with Lord Palmerston as the Chairman. I do not know whether he had to wait this unconscionable time before any action was taken; it may well be that he was Prime Minister by that time and it became necessary to take action and something was done. Then there was also a Royal Commission in 1932, and that, at any rate, did result in the Gaming Act, 1934. I think this Report is well worth reading, and I would commend it to the Government. It gives a great many facts about gaming, and it tells us something which I believe many people who discuss this question have not got clearly in their minds—namely, the extent to which gambling is prevalent in this country. I suppose if one asked casually what is the extent of gambling one would get all sorts of answers from different people, according to their degree of interest in or aversion to gambling. By no means the least of the services which this Royal Commission have rendered is to give us factual information about the extent to which gambling is prevalent in this country.
If your Lordships will bear with me, I propose to give a few of the figures which the Royal Commission have elicited and set out in their Report. For the purpose of my speech I propose to discuss only horse racing, dog racing and football

805
pools. There is, of course, e wide field of gambling outside those: there are lotteries, gaming-houses, gaming-machines and a variety of types of gambling, but they have, to some extent, been tackled by Private Members in another place, and a certain amount of legislation has been passed. Though I do not disregard those forms of gambling, and would not for a moment say that they are unimportant, I think your Lordships will probably agree that the bulk of gambling comes under the three headings I have mentioned. First of all, there is horse racing. There are 4 million people in this country who bet regularly off the course on horse racing, and there are 2½ million who attend horse racing. I would not presume to add the two figures together, but let me, for the sake of the discussion, assume that it is 4 million people who devote a considerable part of their (shall I say?) leisure time to betting in connection with horse racing. As regards dog racing, the annual attendance is about 32 million, and there are regular attenders of about 350.000 who go at least once a week to dog racing. As to football pools, there are about 14 million people who more or less regularly send in their football coupons every week. So your Lordships will see, even if I do not add up those figures to make them cumulative, that a large proportion of the people in this country are interested in, and spend an appreciable amount of their time and money on, gambling in one form or another.
If we take the amount of money spent on gambling, again it is quite appreciable. The annual amount staked is stated to be about £750 million; but a certain amount of this—it is quite impossible to say how much—is returned in the form of winnings to those who stake their money. I am inclined to think that the bulk of the money is spent without much return, and that the winnings are perhaps considerable, but are not very widespread. There is also a substantial sum taken in taxation and expenses. The Commission—and this is one of the few matters on which I do not see altogether eye to eye with them—have come to the conclusion that the net personal expenditure on gambling is about £70 million a year. They compare this with about £700 million a year spent on alcoholic beverages, and about £750 million a year on tobacco. I should have thought that
806
the three figures were almost strictly comparable, because in these cases a large amount of the money spent is recovered to the benefit of the public in the form of taxation; and no doubt if people did not spend large sums on tobacco they would have to meet the taxation in some other form. However, we may say that the amount of money spent on betting, tobacco and alcoholic beverages, taken together, represents an appreciable percentage of the total income of this country.
The Commission estimate also that about 100,000 people are engaged whole-time in connection with gambling. They leave out of account the number of people who are engaged indirectly—professional people, accountants and people engaged in the building of dog-racing tracks. About half of those 100,000 people are employed by football pool promoters. From this fact the Commission conclude that gambling, on the scale on which it is indulged in at the present time, cannot be regarded as imposing a serious strain on our national resources of manpower, and they see no justification, in normal economic circumstances, for imposing special restrictions on gambling on the grounds of the employment of labour. It would be interesting to know the views of Her Majesty's Government on this point, now that we can no longer be said to be going through a period of normal economic conditions. A total of 100,000 people directly employed on this nonproductive type of activity in a period of over-employment would, I imagine, be of very great significance.
It is no part of my purpose to discuss the particular recommendations which the Royal Commission have made. I think it is useful for the House to discuss this question quite generally, and to try to elicit from the Government their views as to what should be done about gambling generally, and about the particular evils to which the attention of the Royal Commission was drawn. First of all, one must make up one's mind whether gambling on the sort of scalp on which it exists in this country is or is not an evil. And that, of course, is a matter on which opinion is strongly divided. There were people who gave evidence, particularly the representatives of the Churches, who took the strong view that all gambling was bad and should be, so far as possible, prohibited: they were against any

807
form of gambling or any form of contact with gambling. On the other hand, there was the view of the Commission that, on the scale on which it exists at the present time, it is not a serious evil, either moral or economic, and that it calls for no particular action to be taken other than regularising such questions as street betting, about which I will say a few words later on.
Speaking in a debate of this kind one gives one's own view. I had to say this yesterday, in connection with dentistry, and on this matter, too, I would repeat that I cannot pretend that I am expressing any view but my own. I feel that, to a large extent, the question of the morality or the desirability of gambling to-day, in view of the large numbers of people who participate in it, is largely academic. We have to face the fact that something between one-half and one-third of the population regularly indulge in one form or other of betting, and that we must do the best we can to regulate it and control it and see that this propensity for gambling is not carried to excess. I feel, therefore, that the Commission, having largely accepted that viewpoint, have probably come to the right conclusion. But I can see that this is a matter which may present serious difficulties for any Government, and I could understand a short delay during which the Government would find it necessary to make up their minds on the subject. The problem, however, does not disappear as time goes on. It either remains as it is or increases, and there is no reason to hope that next year the task of Her Majesty's Government in dealing with this problem will be any easier than it is this year or was last year. Therefore, I would ask the Government to take the plunge, make up their minds and tell the country what they propose doing about it, and do it.
Although there are some thirty-odd recommendations, the main recommendation relates to the problem of street betting. That is, I think, the real problem we have to face, once we accept the fact that gambling, in one form or another, is something we cannot stop, even if we desire to do so, and that the only thing to do is to regulate it in such a way that is does not injure the community. Everyone knows that although street betting is illegal it is, nevertheless, carried on on a
808
large scale. The police are, of course, aware of it, and sometimes they have even been known to connive at it. There is an interesting and amusing story in the Report of a policeman standing beside a street bookmaker or a bookmaker's runner, and a man coming up and saying to the policeman, "Please go away for a minute. I want to leave a bet with this chap before I go back to work." The policeman obliged; the bet was duly made, and the policeman came back. If an illegal occupation is being dealt with in that spirit, it is far better that we should recognise the position and do something which will not bring the law into disrepute. There have been. I understand, some 2,000 or 3,000 prosecutions a year of street bookmakers, but that is like the prosecution of prostitutes in the West End: the profession goes on as a matter of form. There is an occasional victim, but the victim just goes back. The principal—in this case the bookmaker—pays the fine and everything goes on as before. Normally, such a person expects to have immunity for perhaps a month or two before he is prosecuted again. Therefore it is not surprising that the Royal Commission applied their minds to some alternative, if only to regularise what was actually taking place.
They recommend that bookmaking and betting off the course should be made legal, provided it is carried out with a registered bookmaker, who would have to apply to, they suggest, a petty sessional court annually for a licence, and provided the betting itself is carried on in an office which has been licensed and approved by the same licensing authorities. They laid down a number of conditions which should apply: that there should be no continuous betting; that betting should be restricted to people over eighteen years of age, and that there should be no loitering in the premises. That is a matter on which Her Majesty's Government will have to make up their minds. There is the advantage that this type of betting, which is, on the figures I have given, prevalent, would be recognised, and that people carrying on this type of betting would not be breaking the law.
On the other hand, I cannot help feeling that it would tend to make betting a little easier, and particularly in the case of married women. As yet, it is not common, so far as I know, for married

809
women to hang around with slips which they hand to bookmakers in the streets; but once it was regularised and betting took place in an office, it might well be that we should see a substantial increase in betting by married women. And, of course, making betting respectable and giving it the appearance of an occupation which is permitted by law, licensed and regularised, will tend to encourage betting and may have the effect of inducing more people to go in for betting than do at the present time under existing conditions. That is a matter which the Government will have to consider and about which they will have to make up their minds. I do not pretend that it will be easy.
Then the Royal Commission deal with the question of dog-racing tracks. There, they recommend that dog racing should be permitted on four days a week. I imagine no one, even the most enthusiastic dog-racer, would pretend that the main function of dog racing was not for the purpose of betting. There is no particular sport, so far as I can see, in watching a dog follow a mechanical hare. It is the betting aspect of it which appeals to the 350,000 people who regularly attend dog-racing tracks. The question which Her Majesty's Government will have to consider is whether it is desirable or necessary to impose such limitations on dog racing as to restrict these tracks to four days a week. My own view is that it does not matter very much whether it is four days or six days a week. Four is two-thirds of six, but I cannot believe that, by restricting the use of these tracks to four days a week one would reduce the amount of betting on these courses by one-third. I should not have thought so for a moment. And it gives the impression of an injustice, because there is no such restriction suggested in the case of horse racing, although, of course, it is well known that horse racing does not take place as frequently as even four days a week on any particular race-course.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Would the noble Lord allow me to say this? I am not quite sure that "four days a week" gives the right impression. It is 104 days in the year on which racing is allowed.
LORD SILKIN: Yes. The noble Viscount no doubt knows much more about this subject than I do, but I was
810
looking at Recommendation No. (20). I think the noble Viscount will find that there is a reference there to four days a week.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: It is 104 days in the year.
LORD SILKIN: I can assure the noble Viscount that, if he goes back to the paragraph, he will find a reference to "four days a week". I have had the advantage of a letter from the Greyhound Racing Association, who certainly are under the impression that racing will be restricted to four days a week. One hundred and four days a year represents the two days a week when I think they are expected to close down. However, this is a question of fact. Your Lordships can easily ascertain what is the true position. It will have the advantage of inducing members to read the Report. I have achieved my purpose in introducing this subject. I hope I shall elicit some reply from Her Majesty's Government.
I have not attempted to give Her Majesty's Government much of a lead. It is a matter upon which we can all have different views. It may well be that my views are coloured by the fact that I intensely dislike gambling in any shape or form, but I think I have tried to face the facts. I want to end as I began, and that is by saying to the Government, most seriously, that it is most unhealthy for public affairs that people should be asked to make this sacrifice of time, labour and effort over a long period—in this case two years—without even having the satisfaction of knowing that the Government will give some thought and attention to the matter, still less of being informed what action the Government will take. I say this all the more feelingly because the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and I happen to be at the present time members of such a Commission who are devoting a good deal of time to their work. I am sure that, however much he and I disagree, we should agree on this: that we should hate to feel that at the end of five years nothing would have happened to the immense amount of thought that we are giving to the subject under review, and that it would be necessary for some noble Lord in live years' time to come along and call attention to our Report in

811
order to get some sort of statement from Her Majesty's Government. I beg to move for Papers.
3.20 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord who moved this Motion has said that at last, after a long time, attention is now to be given to this Report; but surely, when this Report was issued there was a Socialist Administration, and there was plenty of time before they went out of office to have debated it.
LORD SILKIN: I think it is a pity, but if the noble Lord wants that sort of discussion he can have it. We had about one week, and the Party of which the noble Lord is a distinguished ornament has had about five years.
LORD TEYNHAM: I still think that there would have been time for the Socialist Administration certainly to have raised this matter on the Floor of the House; but I do not propose to continue that discussion any further. I also think that most of your Lordships will agree that the laws on betting, lotteries and gaming should be clarified. There is no doubt that the Report of the Royal Commission has been produced with admirable fairness, and I think the evidence is such that public opinion can really formulate its views upon it. It is true to say that the gaming laws are largely obscure, illogical and difficult to enforce—in fact, I believe that there are still in force some Acts which date right back to the bow and arrow age. One law, I believe, dates from Henry VIII—in fact, it was passed to protect his subjects against distraction from archery. As your Lordships know, in addition to those Acts we have the Betting Act, 1853, the Street Betting Act, 1906, the Ready Money Football Betting Act, 1920, the Racecourse Betting Act, 1928, and finally, the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934. Surely it is high time that all these Acts were consolidated into a single Statute, as is recommended by the Report of the Royal Commission.
I am certainly not one of those people who believe that all gambling is immoral, and I endorse the views of the Commission that whilst gambling, like any other indulgence, such as drink or tobacco, should be kept within reasonable bounds, there is nothing inherently wrong with it. It is also interesting to note that the
812
Commission agrees that gambling is not the direct cause of serious crime and is of little importance in leading to minor dishonesty. I know it has been said in some quarters, and I think by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to-day, that an enormous number of people are employed in the gambling business. I think he mentioned a figure of 100,000. My figure is very much lower than that; my figure is round about 40,000. That is made clear in the Report of the Commission at page 165, where it gives the figure for men as being 12,430, and for women, 27,880. I think those figures are correct, unless I have been misled. The Commission put the total personal expenditure at that time, in 1951, on gambling, including taxation, at about £69 million—a figure which I think was agreed to by the noble Lord—which is only one half of one per cent. of the national resources. I do not think that is a very serious figure.
It appears that the Royal Commission are somewhat diffident about the institution of national lotteries, no doubt because, as we all know, it is a most controversial matter. But I cannot help feeling that if these lotteries were properly controlled they might be one good answer to inflation: they would syphen off a great deal of money which is now pressing on goods and services, and they might, at the same time, give the Government a "rake-off" too.
LORD SILKIN: For the purpose of the record, may I say that if the noble Lord will look at paragraph 167 of the Report, he will see these words:
"it could not, in our view, be said that gambling provides whole-time employment for the equivalent of as many as 100,000 persons."
I have taken 100,000 persons as a round figure. That was in 1948 or 1949, and I assume that 100,000 is about right.
LORD TEYNHAM: Well, there is no doubt that on page 165 the figure is given as 40,000. I will certainly take note of what the noble Lord has said and will see how the figures marry up. At the moment, I would say that the figure is 40,000. But, as I was saying in regard to State lotteries, I think the Commission went so far as to say that a lottery would increase the total volume of gambling far less than is supposed. I think it is a pity that they did not go a little further and come out in favour of it.

813
I hope that Her Majesty's Government will seriously consider the establishment of licensed betting offices. There is no doubt that the present laws have led to a mockery of justice and, on a small scale, are like the attempt to enforce prohibition in America. The fact is that resorting to a street bookmaker and betting in other diverse ways is certainly not regarded by millions of law-abiding citizens as a wrongful act when betting can be done with perfect legality on the racecourse itself. I am quite sure that prosecutions will never stop it. I hope that this state of affairs will be regularised in due course. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, also mentioned the number of people who attended dog racing. There I would duller from him. My records are that only about 350,000 to 400,000 are regular attenders at dog racing.
LORD SILKIN: That is what I said.
LORD TEYNHAM: I beg the noble Lord's pardon.
LORD SILKIN: For once, we agree with one another.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I do not wish to belabour this point, but I should again like to say how much I have appreciated reading the Report of the Royal Commission. I hope that the main recommendations will be adopted, and that time will be found for the necessary legislation.
3.27 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD: My Lords, speaking from this Bench, I should like to say how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for bringing this subject before the House. It seems to me regrettable that a Report which, as he has said, is so thorough in its examination of this complex subject, so timely in its appearance, and so judicious and temperate in its conclusions and recommendations, should have had so little consideration up to date. I should like to support the request that this Report and its contents should be taken most seriously.
As I read it, its main recommendation is that the time is ripe and the need urgent for the consolidation of the law, so far as possible, in one Statute. Up to now, all we have had is piecemeal legislation about this or that department of the subject. In another place a Private
814
Member's Bill is being discussed which deals again with one small part of the subject and, as far as I have studied it, it does not follow very closely the recommendations of the Report. There can, I think, be no question, after reading the Report, that the amount of gambling and betting, the prolific number of lotteries and sweepstakes and the propaganda and pressure on people to take part in them, is constituting a menacing social evil, and one which has been extending, I believe, in recent years. I venture to think that if the gentlemen who, at such great expense of time and thought, drew up this Report, had been doing it now, they would not have underestimated the evil, as I rather feel they did.
Before I say more on that subject I wish to disengage myself from those who argue that because an evil is great, therefore every minor indulgence is wrong, and also from those who persuade themselves that because minor indulgence in something is fairly harmless it cannot be a great social evil. I do not consider either of those points of view is sound. As we know, there are, in the Churches and outside, ethical purists who would consider one of your Lordships lacking in principle if he were to wager sixpence. I cannot with reason follow that argument, though I ant bound to admit that emotionally, perhaps because of vestigial Puritanism or something of the kind, I strongly dislike throwing money about in that way. Logic and ethical common sense do not always march together in these things. Some practices and habits become serious evils by reason of their frequency and scale or quantity. As an analogy, I would point out that if I leave a tap dripping in my room in the morning it is not a very serious matter; but if the whole nation adopted the practice it would become serious. Small peccadilloes become morally objectionable only if they directly injure another person or breed a bad habit.
Having said that, one must, in all honesty, add that, as things are, that can very easily happen when opportunities and pressures are so numerous. In my experience, chronic gamblers are very rarely good citizens, good workers or good parents. The habit, when it becomes chronic, loosens a man's moral fibres, and his children are greatly to be pitied. I remember that in the East End of London twenty-five years ago one could be certain

815
that those children who came to school badly dressed and obviously underfed were probably from the homes of gamblers.
I would ask your Lordships to look at the subject in a rather wider context. It seems to me (and I hope I can persuade you to the same view) that gambling is one expression of a more pervasive evil—the irresponsible and wasteful use of money. I remember hearing a discerning man say, "I kiss my daughter because I love her and the kiss makes me love her more." A man who is always gambling, even in small sums, is liable to become obsessed with the desire to get something for nothing, so that, through this habit, he becomes possessed of a venial love of money which is the root of a great deal of evil to-day. On the shop floors of industry, for example, there is no escape from the day-to-day pressure to join in sweepstakes and things of that kind. There is tremendously hard pressure upon a boy as soon as he gets his first wage-packet. Gaming and similar things result in time lost, work being less well done and money wasted; and in the more private purlieus where the management meet and work I have no doubt that something of a similar kind may be going on. The evil lies not so much in the actual transactions as in the climate of moral irresponsibility and the wrong attitude to work which it engenders in the individual and the community.
We are told in the Report that the economic loss to the nation is possibly 1 per cent. of the national income. But we must measure the loss in terms of the moral flabbiness, the wrong attitude to earning and spending and family responsibility which it produces. The more elderly of your Lordships may remember seeing in the Tate Gallery years ago a picture by G. M. Watts which represented Mammon as a bloated monster crushing the symbolic faces of the poor and the young. Since then Mammon has greatly improved his figure. Now he would feature possibly as a dapper pay clerk, handing out fat pay-packets on a Friday; or an accountant entering up large hotel bills in expenses accounts; or, perhaps, as the seductive advertiser of some gambling racket—possibly, sometimes, even as a man of God trying to persuade us to buy a ticket and urging that the end is so good
816
that the means are thereby rendered harmless. I do not believe it. All this enfeeblement and impoverishment of the nation's life adds up to a great loss of effort and a poor quality of living.
Its cure depends on many influences, including better education and the better use of leisure; and, so far as we are considering the subject this afternoon, it is a question of better legislation. I agree with the Report that we have to be realists. Whether we like it or not, the gambling instinct is strong in imperfect man, far too strong to be legalised out of existence. As the Report argues so excellently, it should therefore be governed and controlled, curbed if necessary, by good laws, well conceived and embodying a coherent policy. This nation should firmly protect its children and its youth from a habit which can easily become vicious and from a mental attitude to life and work which can become most anti-social. I should like to see a bottom-level age limit on all this lottery business. It is dangerously wrong to allow youth clubs to finance themselves by lotteries and similar means. For that reason, I should like, so far as possible, to disallow them from doing so and to reduce the frequency with which one institution can run lotteries.
The second point which should concern us is that in the history of voluntary social services in this country—a very distinguished history—charities and other causes have depended on direct giving by people who really believed in what they were supporting. I am certain that in the long run such support is vital to the activities of society. How short-sighted, therefore, if they are so organised to be tempted, as they are to-day, to depend on the money of those who do not mind risking half-a-crown in the hope that they may get a good many more in its place! The Report also is surely right in thinking that the excessively high prizes for pools are a most unwholesome influence in our public life, an influence which affects individual character and should be limited.
I should like to end my remarks, by expressing my agreement with the recommendation that, if betting there must be, it surely is desirable that it should be open and above board, regulated and legal, rather than the hole-and-corner

817
business it is at present—to which reference has been made by both noble Lords who have spoken. But I strongly share the fear of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that if you press that point too hard, you may greatly increase an evil which is already far too large. There I must leave the subject, only coming to the same conclusion to which Lord Silkin came: to urge Her Majesty's Government to give very careful consideration to this whole subject and to deal with the matter comprehensively, making a Statute, if possible so to do, not so restrictive as to provoke evasion, and not so lenient and flaccid that it encourages wrong values in the community and habits injurious to society, to families and to individuals. And let us have it before things get any worse.
3.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I should like to make it clear that in what I am about to say I am in no way associated with any other noble Lord or any of my colleagues: I am speaking for myself and for certain interests, which I shall declare to the House. I am a director of Wembley and, accordingly, am declaring an interest in the subject before the House to-day even though no legislation is involved.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has done a public service in moving this Motion. In the course of his remarks he urged that the Government should take action on the Report of the Royal Commission, although he made it clear that he did not propose to deal at length with any of the recommendations contained in the Report. On the other hand, I think this is a convenient opportunity for those of us who may wish to make some observations, critical though they may be, about the Report to do so, in order that Her Majesty's Government, or any other Government in the future, if they decide to base legislation on this Report, should be aware of the objections which may be raised from this and that quarter to certain of the recommendations. On page 49 of the Report, in recommendation 169, the Commissioners say—and this extract has already been quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin:
"We conclude that gambling, on the scale which it is indulged in at the present time, cannot be regarded as imposing a serious strain on our national resources or manpower, and we see no justification, in normal economic circumstances, for imposing special restrictions on gambling on these grounds."
818
I suggest that that eminently sensible statement is a complete answer to those who cry out that gambling, in any form, whether it be on the Stock Exchange, or football, or horse racing, or greyhound racing, is anti-social.
I desire, however, to draw attention to some of the inconsistencies, anomalies and discriminations contained in this Report, and in doing so I should like to make it clear that my remarks are designed to cover only greyhound racing interests which may be affected; they are in no sense intended as a criticism of horse racing. These are two sports which travel along very happily together, even though, in some cases, legislation may be to the disadvantage of one or the other. This Report, as I read it, seeks, on the one hand, to increase betting facilities, and, on the other, to limit them. I desire to stress the point that while increased facilities are recommended for betting on horse racing, there are recommendations for drastically curtailing opportunities for betting upon greyhound racecourses, which are already closely controlled by Act of Parliament. Such fresh discrimination cannot, I suggest, be based on fair dealing or justice. It denies the ostensible spirit of the Commission's Report which says in paragraph 186, on page 55:
"We therefore consider that the object of gambling legislation should be to interfere as little as possible with individual liberty to take part in the various forms of gambling, but to impose such restrictions as are desirable and practicable to discourage or prevent excess."
But nowhere, so far as I have been able to discover, does the Commission's Report claim that there is excess. Indeed, since the Report was published statements have been made by such authorities as the Churches' Committee on Gambling that betting has decreased.
I should like now for a few moments to draw attention to some of the discriminations contained in the recommendations of the Report. It seems to me that the more one studies it the more it appears to be a measure to popularise betting on horses while discouraging betting on greyhounds. There is one cardinal difference between betting on horses and betting on greyhounds. If there is a race meeting at, say, Kempton Park, Ascot or Doncaster, bets for that meeting are placed all over the country. The betting is national, and millions of pounds and millions of people

819
are involved. On the other hand, if a greyhound race is run at a course in, say, London, Edinburgh or Manchester, the betting is purely local. The man in Edinburgh does not bother himself about what is happening at Manchester, and neither the man in Edinburgh nor the man in Manchester could care less what is happening in London. Therefore, there is a far smaller volume of off-the-course betting in greyhound racing than there is in horse racing. If the object of the Commission is to stop excessive gambling off the course, the recommendation fails signally in its object. It makes no attempt at all to stem the flow of bets to off-the-course bookmakers: but, by recommending the licensing and legalising of betting shops, it encourages the belief that, in some way or another, a man is helping the State if he backs horses. The greyhound race-goer, on the other hand, is told that he must bet only when the local authority says he may.
Here I deal with the point on which I took the liberty of interrupting the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. Not only does the recommendation limit the days on which a man can go greyhound racing, but it lays down the time. He may be a shift-worker, who can go greyhound racing only in the afternoon but the Commission would prohibit him from doing this. They would encourage him, however, to have his bet on horses, and help him out by seeing that some agent is licensed to collect his bet. On page 106 of the Report paragraph 350 states:
"The only practicable method of imposing a general restriction on the number of days in the week on which betting may be permitted would be to provide, by statute, that betting at any track should be permitted only on certain specified days in the week. The existing restrictions on the number of betting days in the year allowed at any track and the requirement that the permitted days should be the same for all tracks in the same licensing area would remain unaltered."
The number of days allowed under the Act is 104 for each track—and this was the point at issue between the noble Lord and myself. It may, and does, happen that where the areas of licensing authorities overlap, there may be four days a week on which tracks could be visited by the same people. I think that that was the point which the noble Lord and I endeavoured to make from different angles.
820
Halfway down, paragraph 350 goes on:
"It is probable that the prohibition of betting on Fridays and on either Mondays or Tuesdays would cause the least interference with the provision of reasonable facilities, but it may well be that in certain areas, owing to local half-holidays and other reasons, there might be good grounds for allowing the provision of betting facilities on these particular days. Owing to the fact that those who gave evidence on behalf of the proprietors of dog-tracks adhered firmly to the view that there was no case for imposing any further restriction on the opportunities for betting at dog-tracks than is provided by the 1934 Act. we have been unable to investigate fully the possible effects on the conduct of dog-racing of the restriction on betting to four specified days in the week, …"
One would have supposed that the Commission, having made that statement, and not having the facts at their disposal, would not have made a recommendation. Yet, in paragraph 352, they say:
"… we attach such importance to the need for reducing the present opportunities for betting on licensed tracks that we feel justified in recommending that, if the first method is not regarded as practicable, the second should he adopted."
The methods are those under which the Secretary of State would compel licensing authorities to form a joint committee for the purpose of exercising their function in regard to the fixing of betting days. But even the Commission see an objection to that, for a little lower down they say:
"The objection we see to this method, apart from its complexity, is that it entails the intervention of Parliament in matters of local concern."
Of course, it does. It would be a further interference with the liberty of the subject in matters of greyhound racing, even though the Commission themselves say on page 56, in the chapter headed "The Principles of Gambling Legislation" that
"the law should apply fairly to all sections of the community."
Horse racing can run in the morning, in the afternoon and under flood-lights in the evening, and there is no suggestion whatsoever in the recommendations of the Report that the hours of horse racing should be restricted. Surely the greyhound racegoer is entitled to as much right and liberty of choice in this matter as is the horse racegoer, in accordance with the principle enunciated in the Report which I have just quoted.
I hope that in any future legislation and, I may add, in any future schemes of

821
taxation, two of the other matters arising out of the Report will be considered. First, the Commission avoid making any reference to the inequitable 10 per cent. pool betting duty which is placed en greyhound racing totalisators but not on horse racing totalisators. Secondly, greyhound tracks, by Statute, can deduct only 6 per cent. to cover expenses—and the Commission suggest that even this should be reduced—whereas the horse-racing totalisator is allowed by Statute to fix its own deduction for expenses. Is that discrimination fair? Is it just or equitable? After looking through this Report and studying it to the best of my ability, I would say that the Commission's recommendations do not appear to contain one single point in favour of greyhound racing. They seek to limit the number of racing days and to limit the profits—and this despite their pronunciamento that "the law should apply fairly to all sections of the community." In any future legislation or, indeed, in any scheme of taxation, what the greyhound racing public demand is fair treatment. They ask for no more, but they claim that no less should he meted out to them.
4 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CARLISLE: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the thanks that have been expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for bringing the subject of this Report so vividly and clearly before your Lordships, because I am sure that we are here dealing with a problem that necessitates the fairest consideration that fair-minded men can give to it in the interests of our whole country at the present moment. I am afraid I cannot offer any sympathy or commiseration to the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, for his fears in regard to the future of greyhound racing—but that is beside the point. My interest in this Report is derived not from an intimate knowledge of the practice of gambling, but from an observance of the consequences of gambling in the common life of our people over a period of more than thirty years. It was my privilege to serve in an industrial northern district, then in the West Country and then for eleven years in East London, and no one could be in touch with the ordinary life of men and women in those industrial areas without seeing something of the consequences of gambling upon home and community and economic life.
822
All these years I have been increasingly interested in trying to discover how we can allow what is a deep instinct in tie hearts of the people of our land, and yet keep it in such control that it will not seriously impair our common life. I agree with the Report that gambling is not intrinsically evil—-my mind compels me to agree with that—but often I have longed to call that a lie when I have been faced with a bit of broken humanity as a result of gambling. However, we can never allow our hearts to run away with our heads to that extent, and I start from the assumption that gambling is not intrinsically evil. Yet I would hasten to add that, as the practice of gambling grows, it soon becomes a great evil, both on the level of economics and in social matters.
One of my disagreements with the Report is that, in my opinion, it underestimates both the economic and the social effects of gambling. I find it hard to believe that the employment of 100,000 people in a non-productive industry, which draws on an average 6s. a week per man, woman and child from the people of England, can fail to have an effect upon the economic life of the country. You cannot estimate its economic effect by dwelling merely on figures, for the habit produces a certain restlessness, noticeable at special times, and a certain detachment from the rightful pursuits in which the people are engaged; and that restlessness and concentration upon the slight hope of gain can have a far-reaching effect upon the amount of work done in factory or in office over a period of time. Therefore, I am not impressed by the estimate of the economic effect of gambling.
Nor can I be content with the estimate of the Committee on the social effects of gambling. Again and again in the course of my experience—and I am not foolish enough to think that the experience of one person justifies him in drawing too general conclusions—I have been faced with serious evil social consequences of gambling; so much so that, though I cannot say it is wrong, I will never allow gambling to be used as a means of raising money for any good cause, whether it be religious or social, over which I have control. I have some grounds in my own experience for taking that attitude. I can see at this time the face of a mother in tears as she came to tell me

823
about her son being sent to prison. He was sent to prison for theft, and the theft could easily be traceable to his gambling. He had been given a tip, and he thought he would get gain easily. He lost. He then had to borrow money—and that is the first stage: borrowing, not stealing. He still hoped to gain, but failed, and eventually he had to plunge deeper and deeper until his whole life and his whole career were ruined. That woman said to me: "Sir, the worst thing for me about the whole thing is that he first learned the practice in a parish hall." I therefore registered in my mind—again, one has to be governed a little by one's heart—that I would always turn my face against that method of raising money, where people are brought into a hall and are tempted to think that, because it is for a good cause, therefore there are no risks or dangers inherent in it. To go back to the point in the Report, I would emphasise that I do not believe that it gives a full account of the social effects of gambling
But I should like to take this subject on to a higher plane altogether, so that we may see it in the setting of our national life. We are engaging in our land in a great social experiment. It is a young experiment still, and I believe that, as an experiment, it represents the implementation of a great ideal. But I think that experiment can succeed only if there is an increasing sense of social responsibility on the part of our people, from the youngest to the oldest. I give it as my opinion, formed over a long period of years, that there are few things that cut so sharply at the root of social responsibility as the habit and practice of engaging in gambling for the pursuit of getting gain without making any effort or putting anything into the corporate and social or industrial life of the nation. It is on that level that I would ask your Lordships to view this Report and the whole practice of gambling as it exists on such a wide scale in our land at this time.
In conclusion, I come to the recommendations. There are one or two things I should like to emphasise as well worth consideration. The first is that the laws of this land regarding betting and gambling are so chaotic that the time has come for a radical investigation and reformation of them. They are so chaotic
824
that I believe it will be the height of folly to engage in any more patchwork legislation. Patchwork legislation will only confuse more and more the existing conditions; and, therefore, I would urge that serious thought should be given to this Report before any further legislation is allowed to confuse still more the chaos that at present exists. In order to say something definite and practical, I want to suggest that, when legislation is contemplated, the aim in the Report is clear and is an aim with which I think most of us can fully agree. But the aim will not be secured unless careful consideration is given to keeping down the value of prizes, for these are still a tremendous incentive; in order to check the growth of gambling, I believe that is a prime consideration.
The second thing I should like to say is that there should not be an increase in credit betting, for that is a far bigger temptation to many people than cash betting. Very often, if people had to put down the money first they would not be tempted to bet at all. Credit betting should be carefully watched. Consideration should then be given to cash betting. Let us try to get rid of this underground world of semi-legalised street betting, which brings the law into disrepute and which is unworthy of a great nation. Whatever may be the means, if we must have betting and gambling, let us regulate it. If we do not feel that it ought to be prohibited, some way must be found whereby cash betting may be as respectable and as legal as ally other form of betting. Having said that, I am fearful of what the consequences of cash betting may be upon the whole problem. I believe that this problem should not in any way be treated on a Party political basis, but the present should be regarded as the time when the nation as a whole should try to deal with it in a serious, fair and effective way.
4.15 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, like other Members of your Lordships' House who have spoken, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Silkin for the way in which he has brought this matter forward and has resurrected this Report from the pigeon-hole into which it seems to have been put some considerable time ago. Like other Members of your Lordships' House to-day, I am speaking entirely for

825
myself. I am glad to have the opportunity of putting in a word that has not been spoken. I am taking an attitude somewhat different from that taken by all noble Lords who lave spoken to-day: I am quite opposed to gambling in any form and, looking at this Report, I am somewhat concerned about the rather kindly and gentle way in which the whole business is looked at. I will illustrate what I think by reading one or two portions of the Report.
In paragraph 184, for example, it says:
"It does not follow that gambling in moderation is an amusement to which any great value should be attached. Let it be accepted that it has certain positive qualities; for instance, many of its forms involve some mental activity, and it has a social value as a general topic of conversation: but it frequently has characteristics which may reasonably he condemned. Of these the most important is its appeal to cupidity, but it may also justly be described as a self-regarding and essentially uncreative activity. Any judgment of the comparative value of various form of amusement must rest on an assessment of cultural and ethical values and is therefore likely to he the object of considerable disagreement, but we do not think it could he denied that there are many amusements which, if they took the place of gambling. Would leave the gambler both a happier and a better man."
I think that is a masterpiece of understatement. Let me quote the beginning and end of paragraph 185. The beginning says:
"It is with this part of the evidence in favour of further restrictions on gambling that we have most sympathy; no sensible man could but wish that gambling played a less Prominent part in the life of this country than it does."
The end of the paragraph says:
"The remedy lies not in restrictive legislation but in education and the provision of facilities for more healthy recreation."
I agree entirely with that comment.
May I turn to Chapter V, "The Principles of Gambling Legislation." Paragraph 189 (a) says
"that there should be a strict control over the provision on a commercial basis of all major forms of gambling facility, including the licensing or registration of all those who provide such facilities."
That is one of the recommendations. Then paragraph 190 says:
"The first of these principles is in our view the most important. Without this form of control there is no reliable method of preventing undesirable persons from entering the business or of measuring the extent of gambling. Abuses of all kinds can without difficulty be concealed and the influence of healthy public opinion is ineffective."
826
I continue to paragraph 191, which says:
"Two different objections have in the past been raised to this proposal, the first that it implies State approval of gambling, and the second that it is an unwarrantable interference with the liberties of those who provide gambling facilities. We do not consider that the imposition of control implies State approval in the sense that the State regards gambling as an activity which is to be encouraged, any more than the liquor licensing laws imply that the State wishes to encourage the drinking or alcoholic liquor. In either case it would be more accurate to say that tie State recognises the activity as one in which its citizens may properly indulge in moderation, but that it also recognises that there are grave dangers in uncontrolled indulgence."
Then, at the end of that paragraph 191, come these words:
"The attitude of public opinion towards excessive drinking has greatly changed, and a drunken man is no longer a joke but an object of disapproval. We see no reason why the application of the same principle to the problem of gambling should not have equally satisfactory results."
I say that these paragraphs and indeed the whole atmosphere of the Report are quite mild with regard to gambling, and yet what I have read clearly shows that we should recognise the seriousness of the position. I look upon the gambling industry as parasitical and harmful.
There is a statement in the Report that there are engaged in the industry, fulltime, 50,000 persons and, part-time, 30,000, a total of 80.000; but, if others who are required for the working of the means by which gambling is carried on are included, the number rises to some where in the region of 100,000. That has a serious impact on industrial activity. These people are uneconomically employed, from the point of view of the national interest. Then there is the expenditure involved. Personal expenditure is estimated at £70 million net. I understand that that is £150 million, less £80 million returned to the so-called "investor," the gambler. These figures are certainly much less than the expenditures on tobacco or alcoholic liquor, but the three forms of expenditure are frequently incurred by the same people, making a very big inroad into the household standard of those who are indulging in the gambling practice and in the other expenditures I have indicated.
I may be looked upon as being entirely without experience in this matter but it so happens that I was brought forcibly and emphatically to consider the question

827
of gambling many years ago when, in an office (let me say to the right reverend Prelate who has just sat down that it was in the city of Carlisle), one of the young assistants I had in a room there asked me whether he could go out for a few minutes. I said: "Yes, certainly. What are you after to-day?"—not with any great curiosity but just as a matter of conversation. He said: "I have got money from nearly every fellow in the office to put on nearly every horse in this race that is being run to-day, and there is only one that is going to win." I asked: "What is this horse which is going to win?" He replied: "Oh, Soranus will win." It was the Lincoln Handicap. If any of your Lordships cares to make a research as to when Soranus won the Lincoln, he will find the date of the incident about which I am talking. I thought: "Well, he is very certain," and I gave him 2s., saying: "Put a 'bob' each way on it for me." And he did so. Two days afterwards, he came to me and handed me 43s. Soranus had won at 33 to I, and my winning shilling had brought me 33s.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Each way.
LORD MATHERS: And the place money had brought me another 8s. and then I got my 2s. back; so I had made 41s. I had the good sense to share the money with the lad, but I cannot say that the money brought me any good. I cannot remember what happened to it—clearly showing that that which is lightly got is little valued. That cured me of gambling. Getting cured so quickly leaves me in the position—I think, the minority position—of those who have benefited by gambling. That is the position.
I could not regard that money as being provided by a bookmaker. I was greatly perturbed about it. I could only think of that money being provided and given to me as the result of some stupid bet on the part of some fellow—perhaps some married man who should have given it to his wife and children. As I say, that feeling completely cured me of gambling and I have not gambled again, except that there were a few weeks—this was a good number of years later—when I filled up a line in a coupon and paid, I think, 2d. or 3d. The coupon was being filled
828
up in the office. We kept a note of how we filled up the coupon that went round the office. I reached the point of becoming apprehensive. I was doing so well that I was really apprehensive that I should become a winner. I said to the other fellows in the office: "You must leave me out of this. I cannot run the risk of winning anything in this way." I was back to my thoughts about where the money came from in that bet of many years before.
That is my own personal experience with regard to betting. I have had an opportunity of seeing gambling at its highest—at the Mecca of gambling, I think it might be called—at Monte Carlo. I was on a committee that was meeting in Monte Carlo, and those of us who were there were given free access to the casino as a gesture of good will by the casino authorities. I went in each evening after dinner and watched the gambling taking place. A "dafter" way of finding recreation I never witnessed in my life. There was not a smile on the faces of the people there. They were completely absorbed in what was happening on the tables. They were going in for big stakes; many thousands of francs were passing, but I thought it absolute nonsense to think of that as enjoyment. I have seen the same thing in casinos on the Belgian coast in the summer time. Outside there has been a glorious summer day, but inside the blinds have been down and the lights on over the tables. I am glad to say that I had the good sense never to run any risk of winning anything in those circumstances.
What is the object of those who go in for gambling, a matter to which I am so much opposed? They want big money; they talk about it in conversation, although when one discusses it with them, getting down to it closely with them and arguing it out, they admit that it is a "mug's game." That is how they put it to me. Almost invariably they agree that gambling is a "mug's game." I think it is a "mug's game," and it is certainly not good enough for me to indulge in. What would they get with their big winnings? They would probably win enough money to buy a house. I tell them, however, that they would make more certain progress in that direction by depositing in a building society and putting themselves in a position to buy a house in the usual way; that is a more certain way of winning than

829
going in for gambling. I know of many ways in which people gamble. There are the small things that happen. Lightheartedly, they will give what they look upon merely as a subscription to something, and it is encouraging for them to think that they might possibly get something out of it. That takes it away from being an absolutely immoral thing to gamble, because these people have no regard for what they might get. I concede the point that there is a certain amount of amusement to be obtained if it is kept strictly in its place. But, like other things, such as drink, against which I have spoken in this House from time to time, it is a dangerous thing. A habit may grow until it becomes a serious one; and tragedy can follow.
All this is a question of personal values. So far as the money that we have at our disposal is concerned, I look upon it as a question of stewardship. Someone made reference to the irresponsible use of money. I say that it is tie irresponsible use of money to gamble with it; and I say too, going even beyond that, and beyond our ordinary ideas of whether it is right or wrong, that I think we have to measure these things, if we are really in earnest about them, in the light of the Divine plan and purpose. I am certain that the Divine plan and purpose does not admit of gambling, and therefore, so far as being entirely opposed to gambling is concerned, I am an absolutist. I deplore it; I deplore the hold that it has on many people. For me, it is quite impossible that I should go back to the time when I thought so lightly of it and made any bets that I have made with such carelessness. I could not do it. I have to think of the possibility of my action being copied by others who might take their cue from me; and I do not want to take that responsibility.
My conclusion, therefore, is that this practice is morally dangerous and industrially harmful. There is much time wasted in connection with it; there is much mental effort expended in studying form in order to make these bets. I am sure that a lot of time is wasted that could be more usefully used for the benefit of the individual. Socially, it is quite undesirable, especially for the young. I hope that the Government will not make gambling more attractive; I would rather endure the present unsatisfactory position than add to the harm
830
done by gambling by making it respectable or attractive in any way. That is my definite feeling about this Report and about the whole question of gambling of any kind.
4.36 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I rise to make two remarks and a suggestion. But I may say, first of all, that I find myself a little embarrassed by my noble friend's speech, because he has spoiled a point that I was going to make owing to his own peculiar reaction to winning. Most of your Lordships this afternoon have drawn a moral from the disastrous effects of losing; the noble Lord has pointed out the admirable and excellent effects of winning. I personally was inclined to question those effects. I thought that some noble Lords who spoke this afternoon tended to stress too much the disadvantages only of losing, because I believe it to be a fact that the disadvantages of winning, of obtaining money in this particular way, are probably as bad and as unhealthy as are the disadvantages of losing. Indeed, I found myself in almost complete agreement with the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Carlisle—although on one point I did not, because he said that he and the Report considered that gambling had nothing inherently wrong in it. There I disagree with him, because I believe that there is an inherent ill in gambling.
The habit of gambling has been compared by other speakers to the drinking of alcohol. Gambling has not even the convivial results of alcohol. However much we may regret excessive indulgence in drink, none the less a mild or moderate indulgence in alcohol undoubtedly has a social value—even a utility value. That is a personal view, although it may be the common experience of a number of your Lordships. I believe, therefore, that gambling is totally and absolutely a bad thing. Y our Lordships may therefore be somewhat surprised if I do not follow my noble friend Lord Mathers in preferring the present unsatisfactory forms of impediment which are put in the way of the gambler; on the contrary, I believe that these forms of impediment in fact offend against two penological principles. To start with, they have not the backing of the community; they have not even the backing of any substantial or effective minority in the community—in other

831
words, the vast majority of our people do not consider that gambling is a crime, much less do they consider it a vice. They will, all of them, say to you that of course gambling in excess is disastrous—as the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, said, it is a "mug's game"—but they continue to do it themselves, and, if they do not do it themselves, they tolerate it in others. To legislate against a practice to which the community has that attitude seems to me to be totally erroneous.
In addition, it has been shown to be impossible to enforce the law. I suggest that that is another offence against all penological theory, because as your Lordships, and certainly the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, are aware, nothing can be more disastrous than a law which it is impossible to enforce. I believe, therefore, that street betting should be made respectable.
On the other hand, if we look at the history of alcoholism in this country over the last 100 or 150 years, we shall all be very much struck by the remarkable decrease in drunkenness in this country. How has that been brought about? I suggest by two methods: education and taxation. The raising of the price of alcoholic liquors has combined with an improvement in education (and, therefore, the emergence of occupations for the educated) to reduce the amount of drunkenness to a remarkable extent. My suggestion is that, having made gambling respectable, you should then tax it. I believe that the two largest sources of income to the Treasury at present are alcohol and tobacco. There are those who would maintain (though I am not one of them) that alcohol is no less deleterious than gambling. It might even be argued that since the connection of tobacco with cancer of the lungs has been so clearly shown, tobacco is every bit as deleterious as alcohol. I suggest to Her Majesty's Government that, if and when they come to legislate on this very urgent problem of gambling, they should also consider whether it is not also a method of extracting money—I would not say painlessly, but with little pain—from a taxpayer who, after all, need not pay the tax if he does not wish to do so. Not only could gambling be made a source of substantial revenue to the Exchequer but, by raising the cost of gambling, and as the right reverend
832
Prelate said, by reducing the rewards, gambling might be made less attractive.
4.43 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I share the view of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Carlisle that gambling is not intrinsically evil, in spite of the enchanting stories of the gambling debauches of the noble Lord, Lord Mathers. I am not going to argue at any length the question of morality. I believe that gambling is not intrinsically evil, though obviously excessive indulgence in gambling may be very evil. In that respect it resembles, perhaps, what is so absurdly called alcoholic liquor, which seems to me a most indecent expression for wine; but just as wine is clearly a very good thing—one of the great gifts that mankind is allowed to enjoy—it nevertheless can cause great evil if indulged in to excess. That may well be so with gambling, though I am not, of course, suggesting that gambling is obviously good as wine is. I know that even there I may not be carrying the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, with me. In passing, I would say how much I object to the use by teetotallers of the expression "temperance" to describe their own attitude to life. It seems to me quite wrong, because after all the teetotaller shares with the habitual drunkard the common characteristic of being unable to indulge in wine in moderation.
I agree with some remarks made by the last speaker, though not, of course, with his main premise that gambling is intrinsically wrong. I agree that the law must be made less absurd and also that the views of the public must not be disregarded. There is one point I wish to emphasise in speaking this afternoon. I wish to strengthen the plea made in many of the speeches, and certainly in the speech of the noble Lord to whom we owe this debate, that some notice should be taken of the unanimous conclusions of a Royal Commission presided over by the eminent gentleman who is a friend of so many of us. I do not believe that this or any Government are ever under an obligation to accept the conclusions of a Royal Commission; but, when distinguished men have spent a great deal of time hearing evidence and have set down their considered conclusions, there is an obligation upon Governments to study those conclusions and either to

833
accept or reject them, or to state where they stand in regard to them. In the long run, I do not believe that eminent men will be found to devote so much of their time to consider matters which have been referred to them unless rather more notice is taken of their Report when it appears. There was a good deal of force in the letter to The Times from my friend Mr. Henry Willink. I have a great deal of sympathy with my noble friend who is to reply to this debate and who shares no responsibility for the fact that there has been this delay; but I hope that this debate may possibly be the occasion of the noble Lord saying something on the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to this question and in any case saying something to indicate that in the view of the Government these eminent gentlemen have not wasted all their time.
4.48 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, I join other noble Lords who have spoken in this interesting debate in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for giving us this opportunity of discussing the Report of the Royal Commission on Betting, Lotteries and Gaming. This Report, as your Lordships are now well aware, has not hitherto been discussed in either House of Parliament, but let me hasten to assure the House and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that it has been most carefully and closely examined by Her Majesty's Government. There is no dust on my copy of the Report. It is dog-eared and well thumbed, and not all the thumb marks are my own. As the House knows, an important part of the Report dealing with the control of pool betting has already been implemented by a Private Member's Bill, and another Private Member's Bill on the subject of lotteries is now going through Parliament and will reach your Lordships' House in due course. The Government have aided as best they could the passage of both these Private Members' Bills; but the accusation, levelled at the Government this afternoon by practically every speaker, which I must try to deal with, is that the Report has been in print an uncommonly long time. At the moment I can only say "peccavi" or "touché" or whatever foreign expression one uses to disguise
834
the fact that one has a slightly guilty conscience.
Admittedly the Report has been a long time in print: but I would draw attention to the crowded state of the legislative programme as a first reason for the length of the delay. Your Lordships are very familiar with the expressions "arduous and urgent affairs" and "difficulty of the said affairs and dangers impending." There are a large number of matters a little more important than betting, lotteries and gaming with which Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's previous Administration have had to deal. It is an aspect of the time-table and priorities, and I must first plead that the reason why it has not hitherto been possible to deal with this matter is that not only is gambling itself a controversial subject—as has been adequately demonstrated this afternoon—but so is legislation which may arise from it. We have had, I think, nine speeches this afternoon and they have differed in almost every respect. In the speeches there has been a complete lack of unanimity. Noble Lords who have spoken have shown radically divergent views on different aspects of the subject. Even the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, and the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, who came to the same conclusion differed essentially in their approach.
There are Members of your Lordships' House who were in another place and remember the passage in that place of the 1934 Betting and Lotteries Act. I asked them if they remembered its progress through that House. They blanched and changed the subject. And well they might do. That particular Act occupied over twenty Parliamentary days, and many of those days were actually nights. One clause alone took seven days in passing through Standing Committee. So your Lordships will realise the controversial and lengthy nature of proceedings concerned with any legislation on this subject. That was a view which I held before I listened to this debate and it is a view in which I have been greatly reinforced by reason of the divergence in the opinions that have been put forward to-day. With a crowded legislative programme before Parliament, with a large number of important topics to be dealt with, I ask

835
your Lordships' sympathetic consideration of the difficulty of fitting in a topic such as this.
Nevertheless, few of us will dissent from the Commission's conclusions that most of the present law upon this subject is basically illogical and difficult to enforce. Let me put this quite plainly: Her Majesty's Government recognise that the present state of the law is an ungodly jumble. And it is the Government's intention to try to find some way to remedy it. Inability to find the time at the moment does not reflect on the value which we attach to this Report. I join with other noble Lords in thanking warmly the distinguished body of ladies and gentlemen who sat under Mr. Henry Willink's chairmanship and produced this admirable, useful and unusually readable Report. I sympathise warmly with Mr. Willink's letter to The Times newspaper a month or two ago. I can assure the House that while we appreciate his concern, it is the difficulties of a crowded time-table, and not any lack of respect for the Commission or gratitude for this Report, which has caused the delay. I want to make it clear that the Report has not in any way been shelved. For that reason, the Government welcomes the opportunity provided by this debate of listening to informed discussion from all sides of the House.
I noticed one point of great interest in listening to the nine speeches which have been made so far in the debate. Nearly all the speakers came down heavily against gambling. I wonder whether, if one took nine other informed and sober-minded persons from any other walk of life or place, that opinion would be so unanimously and strongly reflected. I emphasise this only to underline the controversy and the divergence which this subject draws out. I was grateful to hear the views expressed by the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Carlisle, in what, if I may be allowed to say so, I thought a most cogent and telling speech, when he pleaded for the divorce of this topic from Party politics. Of course this is a matter outside Party politics. Many of the noble Lords who have spoken have dissociated themselves from any Party feeling and have made it clear that with them this is very much a matter of
836
conscience. As we saw full well when we debated performing animals and circus training last week, questions of conscience divide us very sharply, and they are not easy of resolution. The fact that we have so far left legislation on this subject to Private Members does not mean that the Government are trying to shuffle off their responsibility: the Government recognise that they have a responsibility in the matter.
The remaining parts of the Report—which are of course the major parts—raise issues which are much too large and too complex to be tackled by a Private Member, with the limited time and limited resources at his disposal. A moment ago I mentioned the question of conscience. Let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, that I warmly respect his conscientious objections. He put his case before the House, as he always does, simply, sincerely and frankly. I was pleased to hear that there was one occasion in the noble Lord's past when temptation raised its head but that the noble Lord resisted it in a manner which was most satisfactory to him, and, I am sure, to us all. His relation of that episode certainly gave all your Lordships much pleasure. He asked me if I remembered Soranus winning the Lincoln Handicap. The year was 1921 and, if my memory serves me aright, Soranus was a four-year-old carrying 8 stone 4 lb., and was ridden by Carslake and owned, I believe, by Solly Joel. Apart from those facts, my memory in that connection fails—it was all a little before my time.
As I was saying, this is a matter of conscience, and I want to make it clear that, as the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, pointed out, Parliament cannot legislate for standards of public behaviour unless there is some clear social need. We cannot have Parliament enforcing a code of behaviour which has no general support. That produces widespread disregard and contempt for the law. So, however much one may deplore the existence of gambling, one has to acknowledge that a very large number of our fellow-citizens indulge in it to a certain degree, and, come what may, they are going to continue indulging in it. That is the position which we have to face. I think the Royal Commission realise this

837
fact when they say, as they do in paragraph 160 of their Report, which I should like to read to your Lordships:
"In our view the State should not interfere with private gambling between individuals, but is concerned with the facilities for organised gambling. Stated broadly we think the general aim of the State in dealing with facilities for organised or professional gambling should be to prohibit or place restrictions upon such facilities, and such facilities only, as can be shown to have serious social consequences it not checked.… Not more prohibitions should be made than are absolutely necessary.… As a general principle the criminal law must not be lightly invoked; and the evils which result from any prohibitions, however desirable the object aimed at, must be set in the balance against the evil which it is sought to diminish."
That seems to me to be an admirable exposition of the main difficulty which has been before us in our debate.
The social consequences of gambling are much more debatable. I must confess that I have some sympathy with the views put forward by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Sheffield. When I first came to read the Report I was surprised at the moderation of the views put forward—I think in paragraph 186—concerning the social evils of gambling. I came to it with a comparatively fresh mind. This is not a subject that I had studied in great detail. I should have thought that the social consequences would have been deeper and would have struck the Commission as being more far-reaching than they suggest in their Report. I think that one or two others of your Lordships have also arrived at that conclusion. I hasten to say that I put that forward purely as a personal opinion. This only serves to show how strongly opinions do differ, and how controversial this subject is.
Now may we leave controversy for a moment and come to something rather different? I should like to lay before your Lordships what I believe to be the principles of gambling legislation. I think they are borne out by this Report. The Government believe that a satisfactory basis for legislation on this vexed subject of gambling would be roughly along these lines: first, there should be a strict control over the provision, on a commercial basis, of all major forms of gambling facilities, including the licensing or registration of all those who provide such facilities: secondly, the law should apply fairly to all sections of the community. Obviously, that is a major point—we are all well aware of the question of
838
street betting. Thirdly, as much information as is practicable should be made available to the public about the extent of gambling and, wherever possible, about the conduct of the various forms of gambling. These seem to me to be a satisfactory basis for tackling this question of legislation. Incidentally, they have already been given expression in the Pool Betting Act, 1954. The principles I have expressed were incorporated in that Act and I am informed that, so far, they are working successfully. There have been remarkably few complaints from either side.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised the interesting point that further legalisation of gambling might give it a spurious air 01' respectability and thereby encourage it. That does not seem to be so in the case of the 1954 Pool Betting Act. There has been a sharp falling off in pools stakes. I do not know why. I have never understood football pools and should not like to express an opinion. I tried to fill up forms once, with the assistance of one of the attendants in your Lordships' House, but he has row retired, so I have had to abandon football pools. The figures show a decline from £64½ million in 1954 to less than £59¼ million last year. That may be due to the fact that people do not risk so much when they pay cash as they do when they have to obtain credit, but the figures add weight to the theory advanced by noble Lords that if betting cannot be abolished, it had better be properly controlled. It is in that application of these principles, particularly in relation to off-the-course betting, that the Royal Commission's recommendations are likely to arouse most controversy.
The Government are particularly concerned about the undesirable consequences flowing from the unenforceability of the present laws. The point taken quite fairly by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is emphasised in paragraph 221 of the Report—it is so important that perhaps I might read it to your Lordships:
"To the police the enforcement of the present law is a task which they perform to the extent which their resources will allow and in the knowledge that their action has little or no effect in restricting the facilities available for cash betting. It is no exaggeration to say that the enforcement of the law has become little more than a formality."
That is a point to which nearly every speaker has drawn attention and drawn

839
the obvious conclusion that it is undesirable. It is undesirable because it encourages disrespect for the law. It is even more undesirable in the administration of justice because it endangers the integrity of the police. I place great weight on that. It is necessary to legislate without unfairness. There should not be one law for the rich gambler who obtains credit from a bookmaker and another for the poor gambler who has to deal with the street bookmaker.
If we accept this point—and I hope your Lordships will march some way with me—how is the law to be amended? Many possibilities have been examined by the Commission, including the legalisation of street betting; but the Commission concluded that the only effective method was to permit cash betting at authorised licensed betting offices, organised under strict control and supervision. This method has been tried abroad. Noble Lords may have seen it at work in Southern Ireland. Apparently, this system works well and without much abuse. I myself have seen these betting shops in Southern Ireland. They are neither attractive nor unattractive; they are as negative places as one can imagine, but apparently they work well. The Commission's findings on this subject have been supported by the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, who expressed himself in language which I think was in the mind of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Sheffield when he spoke earlier this afternoon. The most reverend Primate said that he was
"inclined to support the Commission's recommendation myself, though very reluctantly and subject to more safeguards and restrictions than the Royal Commission suggests. There is an unanswerable case for a change in the present law, which is unjust as between rich and poor and which cannot be enforced. The cure offered by the betting office may prove worse than the disease, but it seems to me worth trying, subject to very strict controls."
The detailed proposals which would be necessary to put that into law would require careful examination and discussion, but this would be useless unless we were all widely agreed on the need for amending the existing law. The legal facilities for strictly controlled off-the-course cash betting and the registration of bookmakers are two things which obviously spring to mind, and there are
840
many more. This debate has been useful to the Government in giving some indication of the feelings of people who have thought carefully about this difficult matter. It is clear to me that if people of good will of all political Parties are willing to co-operate in finding a solution to this difficult problem, as the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Carlisle suggested, the task of the Government will be very much eased.
In regard to greyhound racing, the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has made it difficult for me to reply, because I have not studied that portion of the Report as carefully as I might have done. The noble Viscount is an expert and I am an amateur. I have tried it once and did not like it and vowed never to go again. I would not readily express an opinion on greyhound racing and on one or two other smaller points raised in the debate.
The next most important point is the radical reconstruction needed in the law about gaming. That, again, is in a sorry state of confusion. It is a hotch-potch of hypocrisy. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, referred to the Act of Henry VIII which was designed to keep the King's liege subjects away from gambling so that they could practise archery. That law is still in existence. So if any noble Lord goes home this evening and plays "Racing Demons" in the nursery for pennies, or perhaps the more topical "Tiddlywinks," he will be all right, but if he does that three nights running he will probably find himself liable to be charged with keeping a common gaming-house. That is neither logical nor sensible and brings the law into disrepute. That points to another kind of illogicality and another difficulty in tightening up this branch of the law. The Government agree generally with the object of the Commission's proposals, which is to legalise those forms of gaming which are in practice tolerated despite their illegality, while continuing to prohibit the conduct of commercially organised gaming. The Commission recognised these difficulties and so do the Government.
I hope I have succeeded in giving your Lordships some general indication of the views of the Government on this subject. I have suggested roughly what might be a suitable basis for legislation. I think the Commission have proved beyond

841
doubt that the present state of the law is highly unsatisfactory, and with this view the Government wholeheartedly agree. I repeat that our main difficulty has been the pressure on Parliamentary time. Of course, we should not reed much time if we could sweep away all existing law and put nothing in its place, but we are all agreed that some control is necessary.
I agree with practically every speaker in this debate. There is no sensible man who could but wish hat gambling played a less prominent part in the life of this country than it does, but we must face the facts as they exist and not as we should like them to exist. I hope I have expressed the views of the Government in general as clearly as I possibly can. I cannot stand at this Dispatch Box and give an undertaking that legislation will be introduced to-morrow. I can only repeat as firmly as possible that the Government have no intention of neglecting this Report. I promise the House that the strong and carefully expressed feelings that have been put forward in this debate will be taken into account by the Government. This is a problem that has to be tackled; the Government means to tackle it; and I cannot say more than that.
5.11 p.m.
Loan SILKIN: My Lords, this debate has certainly served a valuable purpose in eliciting not only some kind of assurance as to the intentions of the Government from the noble Lord, but also the admirable speeches that we have heard from the two right reverend Prelates and from the noble Lord, Lord Mathers and Lord Faringdon. I do not want to hit a man when he is down, but obviously the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, was in some difficulty in explaining away the neglect of the Government in not dealing with this subject for five years. I listened carefully to what he said about the views of the Government on this matter, and really there was nothing that could not have been said four years ago with equal ease. I have no particular complaint as to the conclusion at which the Government have arrived, but there is nothing very startling or revolutionary in it. As I understand it, they merely intend, at some time, to implement certain parts of the Report; and that could have been said a long time ago, even if time had not permitted of the introduction of legislation—which I do
842
not accept. However, we do now know the mind of the Government.
I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, rather over-emphasised the amount of controversy that would be involved in implementing a policy such as he stated. I agree that different speakers in this debate have talked about gambling with different emphasis, but I am sure that, when the noble Lord comes to consider this debate again, he will be interested to reflect that every speaker, except my noble friend Lord Mathers, came down on the side of the conclusions of the Royal Commission. Some, I agree, displayed more reluctance than others, but everybody, except my noble friend, agreed that it was necessary to recognise what was taking place, and that some form of regulation and licensing was the right solution. Of course, I am apprehensive about the increase in facilities in connection with off-the-course betting, and I was interested to hear that the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury has the same kind of apprehension—I suppose that most of us must have it. However, I am prepared to accept it as the lesser of a number of evils, and I believe that most noble Lords who have spoken accept it in the same spirit.
We now have some idea as to the views of the Government on the subject. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that it would be unreasonable to expect them to introduce a Bill to-morrow, or even this Session—I will let him off this Session—but I do wish to press for an early implementation of this Report and the removal of all the anomalies that exist. I am satisfied that the removal of these anomalies, carried out in a sensible way, would not, on the whole, have the harmful effects which their continuance would have.
Finally, I would emphasise the need for bringing some order into the law. I agree with the noble Lord that there are on the Statute Book Acts passed in the sixteenth century, although I do not agree with him that if we played "Tiddlywinks" at home for three nights in succession we should probably be prosecuted. However, if it is a possibility, and I did indulge and were prosecuted, I should unhesitatingly come to the noble Lord and ask him to do his best to help me out; and I am sure he would. All the same,

843
it is wrong that that sort of law should be still on the Statute Book. I am sure that what is necessary is that order should be restored out of all this chaos and that we should know exactly where we are. I feel that the debate has at any rate elicited the intentions of the Government,
844
and I shall certainly keep them up to the mark from time to time. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past five o'clock.