Sitting of 1 July 1959

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (MEDWAY LOWER NAVIGATION) BILL
  Reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GLOUCESTER) BILL
Reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

JOSEPH ROWNTREE MEMORIAL TRUST BILL [Lords]
Reported, with an Amendment (with Report on the Bill).
Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

FALMOUTH DOCKS BILL [Lords]
Reported, with Amendments (with Report on the Bill).
Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    National and Local Government Officers' Association
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Labour if he has considered a letter which the National and Local Government Officers' Association recently sent him, complaining of an employer's refusal to recognise the Association as a negotiating body in a dispute where over 80 per cent. of the members of the clerical and supervisory staff have joined the Association; and what action he will take in response to the Association's appeal to help them resolve this dispute.
    The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir, and I have arranged in the first instance for my officers to discuss the matter with representatives of the Association.
    Mr. Swingler: Whilst thanking the Minister for that action, may I ask him whether he does not think that the workers concerned are being extraordinarily patient and restrained in view of the fact that the refusal to recognise the Association has gone on over a period of years? Will his Department take some serious action to make the employers see reason?
    Mr. Macleod: I am meeting, or rather my representatives are meeting, representatives of the Association tomorrow, so we are moving as quickly as we can on that. With respect, I think that the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question goes too wide. I do not think it is right for the Minister of Labour, or within his power, to force any employer to recognise any particular association. I am, however, very glad to have these talks.

    Redundancy (Compensation Schemes)
    Mr. Oliverasked the Minister of Labour whether he will give the number of redundancy compensation schemes now in operation by firms and industries in this country.
    Mr. Moyleasked the Minister of Labour if he will arrange to publish details of industrial schemes of compensation for redundancy now in operation.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: No comprehensive figures are available, but a certain amount of information has been collected by my Department; these details could not be made public without the authority of the firms concerned.
    I have already published details of some specimens of redundancy schemes in the booklet "Positive Employment Policies", and I am sending the hon. Members copies. Information on this subject was also given in the publication "Redundancy" of the Acton Society Trust.
    I am considering how best to bring to the notice of industry the additional information on this subject collected by my Department since these two booklets were published.
    Mr. Lee: In the information which the right hon. Gentleman gives us about the schemes will he include information of the schemes under which directors retire on £60,000 or something of that sort—the method by which it is done?

    School Leavers
    Mr. Moyleasked the Minister of Labour, having regard to the increasing number of teen-agers leaving school in the period 1960–62, his plans for providing them with suitable employment on leaving school.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Richard Wood): I am confident that an expanding economy will absorb these school leavers into employment, but training opportunities will need to be considerably expanded. This is engaging the attention of the Industrial Training Council.
    Mr. Moyle: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the plans of the Minister for the future include consideration of the continuation of part-time education for these teen-agers so as to strengthen their prospects of finding suitable and profitable employment?
    Mr. Wood: I think that the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is wide of the Question. Perhaps he will put down another Question.
    Mr. Robens: On the question of youngsters leaving school and the problem of finding work for them, will the Parliamentary Secretary consider issuing from time to time a report about the progress of the Industrial Training Council in order that we may be kept abreast of what is happening?
    Mr. Wood: Yes, I will certainly do that.

    Remploy Factory, Sunderland
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Labour what proposals have been made to extend the Remploy factory at Sunderland.
    Mr. Wood: No such extension is proposed at present.
    Mr. Willey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that not only have we a very high incidence of unemployment among the disabled in Sunderland but that recently one of his own officials said that the real problem is that the seriously disabled have no prospect of obtaining employment in open industry? In view of this, does he not think that the Government must accept the obligation of providing employment for these seriously disabled persons who, otherwise, will be thoroughly demoralised?
    Mr. Wood: I, of course, am with the hon. Gentleman in wanting to find employment for those people who are not fit for employment in open industry. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a Remploy factory and a workshop for the blind, and they employ a number of very severely disabled people. The number of severely disabled without employment is about the same now as it was two or three years ago. Although I should like to see the facilities increased, I am told that at the moment the position of Remploy is not sufficient to give it any hope of increasing the facilities which it is at present offering.

    Factory, Cardiff (Closure)
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the imminent closure of the Cardiff Foundry and Engineering Company (1947) due to a fall in demand for iron castings; and whether, in view of the consequent unemployment of Cardiff workers, he will make a statement on alternative employment prospects.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Yes, Sir Of 80 workers dismissed in the past few weeks, only 22 are still registered as unemployed, 6 of whom are under submission to vacancies. Efforts to place those unemployed will continue and I am encouraged by the progress already made in resolving this redundancy.
    Mr. Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the B.S.A., which is the main holder of this company, has behaved very badly indeed to the apprentices, some of whom have completed two or three years and were just thrown out without their time counting? Would he ask this firm to give further consideration to the question of finding work for these apprentices?
    Mr. Macleod: I will look at the point about apprentices, which is a new one to me. The firm has certainly provided redundancy payments for many of these people. On the general question, perhaps the hon. Member will remember that he had this Question down for me last week, when I was going to give him an extremely discouraging answer. The position has improved so much in the last few days that we have made a great deal of progress in regard to these people.

    R.A.F. Station, Andover (Civilian Employees)
    Mr. Denzil Freethasked the Minister of Labour what additional facilities he will provide at the end of 1960 to help the 570 civilians now employed at No. 41 Group Headquarters, Royal Air Force station, Andover, who will then become redundant.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: It is too soon to say how many civilian employees will become redundant at the end of 1960 and whether any additional facilities will then be needed to assist them to find other employment.
    Mr. Freeth: Will my right hon. Friend consider keeping in touch with the Secretary of State for Air, so that his regional officer in Andover may contact those who are likely to become redundant, as soon as definite information is known about individual cases?
    Mr. Macleod: Yes. We are, of course, closely in touch, but in an area where unemployment is under 1 per cent. it is too far in front of the event to make detailed plans. If advanced registration nearer the time will help, of course we will arrange it.
    Mr. Lee: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the request he made some time ago, which was reinforced from all parts of the House, that employers who are about to discard, or in future will discard, some of their labour should give local employment exchanges as much prior notice as they can? In connection with this industry I have the same problem at Burtonwood. Could the right hon. Gentleman make a special effort to reinforce the original plea which he made?
    Mr. Macleod: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that suggestion. Nothing is more helpful to the placing of workers than if I and my officers can have advance information about prospective changes in employment, either up or down.
    Mr. Robens: On the question of apprentices, it is common ground on both sides of the House that we do not want to see them have their apprenticeship broken after one or two years, in the way mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) in his supplementary question on Question No. 5. Would the Minister
    440
    ask his officers to look specially at the question of redundancy in connection with apprentices, who might be transferred to other places at which their apprenticeship could be continued?
    Mr. Macleod: I will certainly do so. I was going to write to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) about the last Question. I will send a copy to the right hon. Gentleman, if I may.

    Retail Prices Index (Food Prices)
    Sir A. Hurdasked the Minister of Labour to what extent the total of food items in the retail prices index has changed in the past year.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: At 12th May, 1959, the index for the food group of the retail prices index was about 0·4 per cent. below the corresponding figure for 13th May, 1958.
    Sir A. Hurd: As this is the first year since the war that, on the whole, food prices in the shops have fallen, would my right hon. Friend tell us briefly which foods in particular have contributed to this result?
    Hon. Members: Beer.
    Mr. Macleod: I do not know whether hon. Members consider beer to be a food but I assure them that it is not included in this Index. Foods that have gone down over the year are potatoes, vegetables, fresh fruit and eggs which, on the whole, seem to be home-produced. Those that have gone up are butter, cheese and beef, a large proportion of which no doubt come from overseas.
    Mrs. Mann: How much have the weights gone down?
    Mr. Macleod: The weight of food in pre-packages, which is presumably what the hon. Lady means, does not come into this matter, because allowance for any change in weights is made every month when we take our soundings of the figures.

    Wales
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Labour what variation has occurred in the total numbers of people unemployed in Wales between February and the latest convenient date for which figures are available; what is his estimate of the future trend of employment in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Between February and June, 1959, unemployment in Wales fell by just under 13,000 to a total of 32,367, i.e. a drop of 28 per cent. Industrial details for June are not yet available but the improvement between February and May this year, whilst partly seasonal, included a substantial decrease in a number of manufacturing industries, especially iron and steel. I have every reason to expect that Wales will continue to share in the economic expansion which is affecting unemployment, in addition to benefiting from a number of new projects in South Wales where most of the working population is concentrated.
    Mr. Gower: To what extent has this very welcome change affected the more difficult areas in North-West and Southwest Wales?
    Mr. Macleod: I would like my hon. Friend to put down a further Question, when I will cover that point. It remains true that in many areas, like North-West Wales, there are great difficulties unsolved which we must continue to try to solve.
    Mr. Lee: What is the employment position in Wales as distinct from the unemployment position?
    Mr. Macleod: Employment figures are always received a little later than the unemployment figures. They will be issued in a few days and I have every reason to believe that they will be extremely satisfactory.

    Douglas Castle Colliery
    Mr. Patrick Maitlandasked the Minister of Labour what arrangements he has with the nationalised industries to enable him to anticipate redundancies in their employment, for example, in the collieries; and when he expects the next phase of redundancies through closure at Douglas Castle Colliery in the County of Lanark.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Arrangements for informal consultation are made as required, with the co-operation of my right hon. Friends the Minister of Power and the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. I understand that the next and final stage of closure at Douglas Castle Colliery is timed for September next.
    Mr. Maitland: Does my right hon. Friend know, and can he tell us, how
    442
    many remaining workers at Douglas will be affected? Will he keep this matter constantly before his hon. and right hon. colleagues, so that something can be done to arrest the complete decline and ruination of this large area?
    Mr. Macleod: On the question of numbers, 115 men are affected in total, but I do not know how many of them may yet be transferred to other employment. I will certainly keep in touch with my right hon. Friends on this matter.
    Mr. Robens: These closures very often mean, as in the case of the hon. Member's constituency, the dereliction of a complete village. Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the President of the Board of Trade about alternative industries for many of the areas which, under the new National Coal Board plan, are likely to become derelict?
    Mr. Macleod: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has emphasised that aspect of the matter, because the social effect of closures must be studied along with the economic effects.
    Mr. Maitland: Will the right hon. Gentleman help me to get new industries established in Douglas?

  NATIONAL SERVICE

    Call-up
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the difficulties experienced by men awaiting call-up, owing to the fact that they are not informed immediately as to the actual date when they are expected to report for duty; what action he will take to remedy this; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: In the closing stages of National Service delays in call-up cannot be avoided, but arrangements have recently been made so that a man can be given advance information when his medical examination and enlistment may be expected.
    Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a constituent of mine was registered as long ago as 14th June, 1958. He had his medical examination in December last year, but still has no information and cannot find out where he has to go and what he has to do.
    Mr. Macleod: I shall be glad to look into that special case. It is bound to happen in the closing stages that some people become available more quickly than the Service requires them; this sort of difficulty is bound to arise. I have sent out further instructions, dated 29th June, which I hope will get over the sort of difficulty to which the right hon. Gentleman has called my attention.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Nuclear-Powered Missile-Carrying Submarines
    Mr. Wallasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when it is intended to lay down a nuclear-powered missile-carrying submarine.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): It has never been the practice to disclose information of this sort.
    Mr. Wall: Is my hon. Friend aware that his Answer is most disappointing? Could he not give the House some information or at least some reasons to justify his reply? Would he not agree that such a vessel may be of vital importance to the Royal Navy and to this country in the future?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: It would be unwise to reveal naval plans several years before the keel of a ship is laid down. Our submarine plans have always carried a higher degree of security even than that demanded for surface ships. I agree with my hon. Friend that this type of vessel will be of supreme importance in the future to our navy. That is one of the reasons why it would be unwise to give any information at this stage.
    Mr. Paget: Has not the Parliamentary Secretary said something which is very important when he said "several years before the keel is laid down". Is it really to be several years before we consider laying the hulls of nuclear-powered submarines of this character?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I cannot give any information on this subject at this stage. I have stated the general principle of not announcing future naval plans. This has prevailed for many years, if not for all time, and it would be a mistake to depart from it at this juncture.

    Motor Transport Depot (Newcastle-under-Lyme)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will now make a further statement about the future of Clayton motor transport depot in Newcastle-under-Lyme.
    The Civil Lord to the Admiralty (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): In accordance with an undertaking given to the local authorities and in order to save overheads, the motor transport depot at Clayton, together with its satellites, is being transferred to the Royal Naval Armament Depot, Minworth. The existing premises will be vacated at the end of this year.
    Mr. Swingler: Could the Civil Lord be a bit more forthcoming? Will it be possible now to announce to those who are employed at this depot a clear plan as to their future? They have been in a state of uncertainty for months, knowing that this depot would be closed. Is it not possible now to say how many men will remain redundant and what offers of other employment will be available to them?
    Mr. Galbraith: I shall certainly look into the possibility of doing that, but in general terms the rundown will start at the end of July and finish by the middle of December.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why workers at Clayton motor transport depot, Newcastle-under-Lyme, have been told that they can have only one week's paid holiday this year.
    Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: Admiralty workpeople are entitled to at least two weeks' paid leave for a full year's service. This leave is earned gradually throughout the twelve months, and some of the workpeople at Clayton will not be employed by us long enough to earn the Ml amount. They will, therefore, be allowed to take only part of their holiday as paid leave and the rest as unpaid leave, if they require it. If at the end of their employment they are found to have earned more leave with pay, they will then be paid for it.
    Mr. Swingler: Will the hon. Gentleman look carefully at this matter and give an assurance that the Admiralty will not work out its redundancy plan for these workers at Clayton in such a fashion as deliberately to do some of them out of

    445
    holidays 1o which otherwise they would be entitled? Will he therefore examine the plan very carefully?
    Mr. Galbraith: I shall certainly look into it, but I do not believe the suggestion made by the hon. Member was ever in the mind of the Admiralty.

    South Wales Ports (Ships' Visits)
    Mr. Gowerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why, in view of the fact that numbers of Her Majesty's ships visited all the South Wales ports during the summer of 1958, only the port of Barry has been omitted from the South Wales ports to be visited in 1959; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The demand from numerous home ports for visits by Her Majesty's ships unfortunately cannot always be satisfied and our aim is to provide a fair share of visits over the country as a whole.
    Of the South Wales ports, we had to omit Tenby last year and Barry this year. Barry was omitted from the programme of visits planned for this year because the port has been visited every year since 1953 and, in fact, three separate visits were paid last year.
    Mr. Gower: In future when arranging visits will my hon. Friend take account of the fact that in each of the last ten years the town, the council and people of Barry have made very special arrangements for visits of Her Majesty's ships and for the entertainment of their companies? On each occasion they have organised a special marine festival. Does my hon. Friend agree that this probably has been something more than has been arranged in many other places?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: All I would say is that I know our ships' companies have very much enjoyed visits to Barry and, should extra ships become available, we shall see whether Barry can be included.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that Barry, Cardiff and other South Wales ports need not just an occasional visit but a resumption of the part those ports played in the shipping of this country before the war?
    Mr. G. Thomas: While in no way trying to compete with the parochial interests of the hon. Member who represents my neighbouring constituency of Barry (Mr. Gower), may I ask if the
    446
    hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that Barry is quite unable to offer what the City of Cardiff offers?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am very glad to find the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) supporting the principle of competition in entertaining ships' companies.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Territorial Army (William Firth)
    Mr. Pagetasked the Secretary of State for War the circumstances in which William Firth was dismissed from the Territorial Army.
    The Under-Secretary of State and Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Hugh Fraser): There is a regulation that beards may not be worn in the Army and this applies to the Territorial Army during annual camps. Mr. Firth was discharged for refusing to comply.
    Mr. Paget: Who makes these regulations—Moses? Whilst it might be quite reasonable for a Regular soldier, surely it is an absurd piece of bureaucracy to require a Territorial to alter his facial arrangements for a fortnight's camp?
    Mr. Fraser: The hon. and learned Member naturally shows a Royal Navy predisposition for beards, but I might point out that in his Service they are not allowed to wear moustaches unless they wear beards. Territorial Army soldiers like to be as smart on these parades as the rest of the Army.

    Helicopters
    Mr. Wiggasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement on the future of the Joint Experimental Helicopter Unit.
    Mr. H. Fraser: The unit will continue its present work until the end of this year. No decision has been made beyond that.
    Mr. Wigg: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to say when that decision was taken because, as recently as a few weeks ago, this unit had been informed that as from September it would cease to exist in its present form? If the policy has been reconsidered and there has been a change of heart, that is very welcome news.
    Mr. Fraser: There is no change of policy. It was agreed a year ago that there would be a year's extension.
    Mr. Wigg: Are we to take it that the situation now is that this unit will continue for at least another year?
    Mr. Fraser: No, Sir. As I explained in my Answer, unless there is a decision to keep this unit in being it will close at the end of this year.
    Mr. Wigg: In that case, will the hon. Gentlemen be good enough to say what considerations have caused this experimental unit to be wound up when every other army in the world it paying increasing interest to the use of helicopters?
    Mr. Fraser: As the hon. Member knows, this unit has been used for experimental tactical purposes. It started four years ago and the question arises whether it has come out of the realm of the tactical experimental stage into the tactical application stage.
    Mr. Wigg: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that at the earliest opportunity I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Wiggasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement on the future use of helicopters by the Army.
    Mr. H. Fraser: Helicopters of the Royal Air Force and the Army Air Corps will be used increasingly in support of the Army in the field. Their tasks will include the carriage of troops, supplies and equipment, casualty evacuation, reconnaissance and liaison in forward areas.
    Mr. Wigg: Is it not a fact that, in view of the Army's present policy of limiting helicopters to a 4,000 1b. weight, the Army has to fit two men according to their size? If it has a fat man it has to put him in with a thin man or they cannot manage their rifles. Does not this indicate that the Government are pursuing a fantastic policy, for which they are not prepared to ask the country to pay?
    Mr. Fraser: With respect, it is not a fantastic policy in the least. The policy was clearly laid down by the Minister
    448
    of Defence the other day. There must be a limit between Army responsibilities and the responsibility of the Royal Air Force which is equipped to deal with heavier machines.
    Mr. Wigg: The fact is that the Russians certainly have hundreds or even thousands of helicopters and we have about half a dozen. Is the Financial Secretary prepared to reconsider this policy which limits Army helicopters to 4,000 1b. weight with all the consequences which flow from that?
    Mr. Fraser: As was explained by my right hon. Friend the other day, there is no permanent "Plimsol line". As these helicopters get bigger, the size will go up. It is purely an administrative matter.
    Mr. Shinwell: As a matter of interest, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many helicopters the Army uses?
    Mr. Fraser: The Army is well equipped at the moment with small Skeeter reconnaissance helicopters.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will they be of any value in the field?
    Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir. They are of great value for reconnaissance and liaison.
    Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    School of Infantry
    Mr. Wiggasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied that the School of Infantry has sufficient supplies of modern equipment to enable adequate study of modern tactical and strategic problems to be carried out; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. H. Fraser: Yes, Sir. The most modern weapons and equipment in service are at the school's disposal. Prototypes are tested there and the school is consulted at all stages of research and development.
    Mr. Wigg: Will the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that all members of the staff of the School of Infantry are satisfied with the equipment which is available?
    Mr. Fraser: As I see it, in this instance enough is never enough, but what is quite clear is that the staff has the best equipment that we have available. I think one of the reasons why the hon. Member is asking this Question is that he went to a demonstration the other day when a great many things on the secret list were not shown, not because he was present, but because there were many foreign attachés from beyond the Iron Curtain present.
    Mr. Wigg: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Colchester (Military Detention Centre)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War what protests he has received from Colchester about his proposal to transfer military prisoners from Shepton Mallet to the prison there; and what has been the nature of his reply.
    Mr. H. Fraser: My right hon. Friend has written in answer to an inquiry by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport), to say that we are considering an extension of Berechurch Camp, Colchester, to house those soldiers undergoing long terms of detention who are now kept at Shepton Mallet. This transfer would not apply to men serving sentences of imprisonment—as distinct from detention—whom it is hoped will be confined in civil prisons when the Army tenure of Shepton Mallet expires.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would the Minister tell us something of the nature of the protests which he has received from the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations? Is it in accordance with the principle of Governmental collective responsibility for one Minister to complain to another in this way? Is he aware that there are eight Scottish soldiers serving in Shepton Mallet who do not want to go to Colchester? They want to go home.
    Mr. Fraser: Clearly the hon. Member belongs to so many different nationalities that he comes under the office of the Minister for Commonwealth Relations. I am sure that the Minister will be extremely grateful to the hon. Member for having raised this question. If the
    450
    people of Colchester are worried it can be said that if we proceed with this plan there are two aspects which should reassure them. First, the real criminals, the men who have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment, will not be sent there. They will be sent to civil prisons. Secondly, long-term detainees who are due to be discharged from the Army will be kept in a separate wing under conditions of special security. They will be separate from the short-sentence detainees, who will be kept in the Military Corrective Training Establishment, as at present.

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Advertisements
    Mr. Croninasked the Postmaster-General, in view of the adverse report of the Medical Panel of the Advertising Inquiry Committee on Press and Television Advertising on the advertisements on television of medical preparations and such items as toothpaste and slimming courses, what consultations have taken place under Section 4 (5) of the Television Act, 1954, between the Independent Television Authority and himself regarding such advertisements.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ernest Marples): Consultations take place from time to time with the Authority about classes of goods and services which must not be advertised and methods of advertising which must not be employed. I agreed in March last an amendment to the rules about products or treatments for slimming. The report referred to by the hon. Member makes no specific criticism of contravention of television advertisement rules or of the rules them-selves.
    Mr. Cronin: Is there not some evidence that some television viewers are being seriously imposed upon by some television advertisements? Has not the right hon. Gentleman adequate powers under the Television Act to put a stop to it?
    Mr. Marples: If the hon. Member thinks that any specific advertisement falls within the category of his supplementary question, I should be grateful if he would tell me what it is, and I will look into it.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not some of the trouble due to the fact that the meetings of the medical panel and the full committee are so infrequent that the decisions of the medical panel are sometimes not considered until months after they have been taken? In this difficult matter of determining whether claims are false or otherwise, ought not the machinery to be speeded up?
    Mr. Marples: I do not think so. If any hon. Member puts forward a complaint to me it will be looked into straight away.

    Political Broadcasts
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Postmaster-General if he will seek to amend the Licence and Agreement with the British Broadcasting Corporation, and the Television Act, 1954, in order to provide that when statements have been made on talks or political broadcasts which are subsequently found to be inaccurate the first possible opportunity must be taken to correct the error and such correction must be repeated at least twice.
    Mr. Marples: No, Sir.
    Mr. Johnson: Does not my right hon. Friend think it very serious if misstatements are put out over a wide television network and are not corrected? Would he at least try to arrange that the B.B.C. and I.T.A. make transcripts of all the previous day's spoken transmissions and that these transcripts are supplied on the following day and made available in the Library for hon. Members to check?
    Mr. Marples: That would be a heavy commitment for the B.B.C. and I.T.A. to undertake. It also raises the question of what is a misstatement. There are many views about it. Many misstatements are of a trivial nature. Those which are of a serious nature become news, and I think they are corrected almost immediately both in broadcasting and in the Press.

    "The Week's Good Cause" (Appeals)
    Mr. Teelingasked the Postmaster-General if he will use his powers under Section 15 (4) of the Licence and Agreement to require the British Broadcasting Corporation to refrain from sending on
    452
    23rd August a programme entitled, "The Week's Good Cause", in which an appeal is to be made by the Bishop of Southwark on behalf of the Family Planning Association, in view of the controversy aroused in Christian circles by the subject of birth control and the resentment which will be caused to many of them in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Marples: No, Sir. I do not think it appropriate to use the powers of direction under Clause 15 (4) of the Licence and Agreement, as suggested by my hon. Friend. I think we should do well to leave this matter to the Governors of the B.B.C. who in this sphere have the help of their Appeals Advisory Committees.
    Mr. Teeling: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the main object of my asking the Question is to see that this appeal should not be made on "The Week's Good Cause," as the Family Planning Association, which used to be called the Birth Control Association, is a very controversial body and definitely advises that married women should go in for contraception and birth control without the knowledge or permission of their husbands? Would it not be wiser for this to be debated? Could it not be dealt with as a debatable subject so that it could be answered? Is he further aware that Sir Ian Jacob told me that the questions of birth control and contra- ception would not be brought up? If that is so, is not the Bishop of Southwark making an appeal for money under false pretences and—?
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Marples: It is for the B.B.C. to decide. The B.B.C. has informed me that in allowing it several factors were taken into account. First, the B.B.C. Appeals Advisory Committee raised no objection. Secondly, local authorities, the regional hospital boards, doctors and others send cases to the Family Planning Association. Thirdly, the Family Planning Association is not concerned only with birth control; in fact, it helps married couples who find themselves sterile and wish to have children. In those circumstances, I do not think that I could possibly use the powers given under the Section.
    Mrs. L. Jeger: Will the Minister also bear in mind that the Royal Commission on Population recommended that family

    453
    planning facilities should be a part of the National Health Service and that it is only in default of that having been instituted that these appeals for voluntary funds still have to be made? Will he remind his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) that the Lambeth Conference has given its blessing not only to family planning facilities, which this Association provides, but also to its compassionate and very Christian work in helping couples to have children who are otherwise unable to do so?
    Mr. Marples: I should not like to enter into this controversy. I have given my Answer, which is a reasonable Answer in all the circumstances.
    Mr. Patrick Maitlandasked the Postmaster-General what notice he has given to the British Broadcasting Corporation to refrain from including in "The Week's Good Cause" publicity for actions which large bodies of Christian opinion hold to be bad; and whether he will now give notice to the British Broadcasting Corporation to refrain from including in its "The Week's Good Cause" programme publicity for such controversial practices as euthanasia, abortion and birth control, or for persons or organisations advocating them.
    Mr. Marples: None, Sir. On the second part of the Question, as I have already said in reply to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) I think that we should do well to leave matters such as these to the discretion of the Governors of the B.B.C.
    Mr. Patrick Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend bear three points in mind? First, no amount of popularity makes a bad action good. Secondly, in this particular matter we are dealing with something highly controversial and the proposal that this should be broadcast in "The Week's Good Cause" means that the B.B.C. is declaring it to be good. Thirdly, there has been much misrepresentation about the Lambeth Conference resolutions, which should be studied together from 1908 onwards.
    Mr. Marples: That may be so. I did not make that decision because it was a popular decision. I had no idea whether it was popular or unpopular. I made it because I considered it my duty on the evidence available. As to the Question on the Order Paper. I do not
    454
    know of any charitable organisation which would carry out such illegal practices as abortion, and so on. Therefore, it is not likely that an appeal would be asked for, and it is certainly unlikely that it would ever be allowed.
    Mrs. Mann: On a point of order. Up to now, we have been assured at the Table that we cannot possibly put down a Question to the Postmaster-General on the programmes of the B.B.C. As recently as the controversy over the Scottish B.B.C. Orchestra, several hon. Members were turned away from the Table because the Postmaster-General had no responsibility. How do these Questions come to be on the Order Paper today?
    Mr. Speaker: They are not asking about particular items in the programmes, which are the responsibility of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Question No. 33 was about certain powers which the Postmaster-General has under Section 15 of the Licence and Agreement. It all depends on how the Question is phrased and what it refers to.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Further to that point of order. A number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have experienced difficulty in putting on the Order Paper Questions relating to particular items. This Question raises a very important item that is to appear in a B.B.C. programme. The right hon. Gentleman has accepted responsibility for answering it. It is rather strange that this Question has been allowed to come on to the Order Paper when so many others of a similar type have been refused.
    Mr. Speaker: I admit that sometimes the borderline is rather difficult to see, but I think that this Question is in order. If an hon. Member has difficulty with a Question and is dissatisfied with its rejection, I am always very willing to see the hon. Member to try to explain the matter.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Further to that point of order. Are we to understand that, if an hon. Member asks the Postmaster-General what notice he has given to the B.B.C. about any particular programme, that will be in order?
    Mr. Speaker: I should not like to give a general answer about all sorts of questions. This Question, I am told, is in order.
    Mr. Dugdale: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said that it was not a specific case, but the Question specifically names a broadcast on 23rd August entitled "The Week's Good Cause". It seems to me to be definitely specific.
    Mr. Speaker: One would have to consult the Licence and Agreement to ascertain exactly what powers the Postmaster-General has. I have not the Licence and Agreement with me. I do not carry it in my head. It may be that a Question can be framed with reference to it which is in order, whereas other general questions about programmes infringe upon the B.B.C.'s own responsibility.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Further to that point of order. You will notice that the Question is framed on the assumption that the Postmaster-General has given notice to the B.B.C. The Question says:
    "what notice he has given to the British Broadcasting Corporation"
    the assumption being that the right hon. Gentleman has given notice. Why is a Question which is drafted in this form, assuming something which has not taken place, allowed on the Order Paper?
    Mr. Speaker: If an hon. Member makes a statement of a fact or assumes a fact in his Question, he is responsible, not the Table.
    Mr. Patrick Maitland: Further to that point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Postmaster-General what representations he has received concerning the programme, "The Week's Good Cause", which is proposed to be broadcast by the British Broadcasting Corporation on 23rd August; and what consideration he is giving to the use of his powers under Section 15 (4) of the Licence and Agreement to prohibit such programmes from being broadcast.
    Mr. Marples: Up to 30th June I had received nine letters in favour of the broadcast taking place, one of which was signed by 28 people, and 41 letters against it.
    In answer to the second part of the Question, I have already said in answer
    456
    to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) that I do not consider the use of the powers of direction under Clause 15 (4) of the B.B.C.'s Licence and Agreement appropriate.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that every 300 days the population of the world is increasing by more than the total who were killed in both world wars and that the justification for this broadcast is that many people are gravely perturbed at the prospect of unlimited numbers of children being brought into a world which, even now, is unable to provide for millions of them enough food, shelter or clothing?
    Mr. Marples: I did not carry those statistics in my head. The best thing I can do is to send the details of this to the B.B.C. and ask the B.B.C. if it will show them to the chairman of the Appeals Advisory Committee so that he will know the views of hon. Members.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Will the right hon. Gentleman refrain from becoming a party to sectarian pressures about a highly controversial matter? Will he, as usual, endeavour to keep himself completely above the battle?
    Mr. Marples: That is exactly why I will not enter into the controversy and exactly why I refuse to do so. This is a matter for the B.B.C. If any hon. Members in any part of the House have any expression of opinion and wish to put it forward, it is for the B.B.C. and not for me to consider it.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is, I hope, the desire now on both sides of the House—may we convey this to some of the hon. Members who have asked these Questions—that we want them to show to people with other views the same tolerance as the House has shown to them?
    Mr. Telling: On a point of order. The Postmaster-General has said that he has sent me some letters. I have received no letters from him, but I have received over 200 letters on this subject.
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. This matter is to be raised on the Adjournment later.
    Mr. Marples: I never said that I had sent any letters to my hon. Friend.

    Lineage, Wavelengths and Colour Television
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Postmaster-General (1) when the Report of the Television Advisory Committee dealing with the problem of lineage, allocation of wavelengths, and colour will be published;
    (2) if he will make available the Report of the Technical Sub-Committee that has been considering the questions of lineage and colour television.
    Mr. Marples: The Technical Sub-Committee to which the right hon. Member refers is a sub-committee set up by my Television Advisory Committee to advise it on certain matters. It does not report to me. It is the Television Advisory Committee which will report to me. The form of its Report is a matter for it and I have already promised the House that I will place a copy in the Library.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: As the previous Sub-Committee's Report was contained in the Television Advisory Committee's second Report which has been published as a White Paper, would it not be in the interests of securing a balanced view about what is to take place with regard to the change of lineage and colour that all that information should be before the House before the right hon. Gentleman forms any view about it?
    Mr. Marples: If it is to be presented as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, we must wait for the main Committee's Report before both of them are published; but I must wait until the main Committee has reported.

    International Radio Consultative Committee (Meeting)
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Postmaster-General what instructions were issued to the British delegation to the International Conference held in the United States of America to consider matters relating to television and sound transmissions.
    Mr. Marples: I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the recent meeting of the International Radio Consultative Committee at Los Angeles which discussed the question of common standards for television in Bands IV and V. The instructions to
    458
    the British delegation concerned channel spacing in these Bands and followed the advice given to me in the letter of 18th March from the Chairman of my Television Advisory Committee. My hon. Friend told the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) on 25th March last that a copy of this letter had been placed in the Library.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: As I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has a Frequency Committee advising him, will he make available to the House such advice as has been obtained from the Frequency Committee?
    Mr. Marples: A copy of the letter is already available in the Library.

  POST OFFICE

    Savings Bank (Unclaimed Balances)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Postmaster-General the total amount standing in unclaimed balances in Post Office Savings Bank accounts in which there have been no transactions for more than twenty years.
    Mr. Marples: The amount is estimated to have been £5,770,000 at 1st January, 1959.
    Mr. Allaun: As the balances are mostly in the names of depositors who died without relatives or heirs, would the Minister consider transferring them to the Exchequer, subject to reclaim at any later date? Does not this involve the even bigger question of the hundreds of millions of £s lying in the joint stock banks, the Big Five, which are using them for their own purposes? Is not the nation entitled to this money?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Postmaster-General is not responsible for the joint stock banks.
    Mr. Marples: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. As you truly said, I am not responsible for the joint stock banks. Deposits in the savings bank cannot be diverted to some other purpose because that is precluded by the Post Office Savings Bank Act, 1954. Under that Act deposits must be held without limit of time subject to withdrawal at the demand of the depositor or other legally entitled person.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Automatic Exchange, Stoke-on-Trent
    Mrs. Slaterasked the Postmaster-General when it is estimated that Stoke-on-Trent will have a new automatic exchange for trunk dialling.
    Mr. Marples: During 1964–65, when we expect to complete the installation of a new exchange in a new building for which we are now acquiring a site.
    Mrs. Slater: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a very long time away for a large city such as Stoke-on-Trent and for the area which this trunk dialling exchange would cover, which is the whole of North Staffordshire almost down as far as Stafford? Could he not bring the date forward to a much earlier date than 1964?
    Mr. Marples: I am afraid not. Whenever we change equipment it is desirable that we should install subscribers' trunk dialling instead of the old automatic equipment. As we propose that almost 60 per cent. of the calls shall be subscriber trunk dialled in the next five years, it is a fairly good programme.

    Charges
    Mr. Watkinsasked the Postmaster-General (1) the charges which are asked of subscribers who live three miles or over from a telephone exchange; when these charges were fixed; how many times they have been reviewed since then; and what recommendations the Post Office Advisory Committee have made to reduce these charges;
    (2) whether he has yet reviewed the charges which are made upon telephone subscribers who live three miles or over from a telephone exchange; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Marples: For exclusive lines, the present extra quarterly charge is 10s. for each furlong beyond three miles from the exchange; for shared lines the rate is 5s. per furlong. These charges were put before the House in July, 1957, and introduced on 1st October, 1957. The charges do not fully cover the costs of these long lines. On the other hand, I think it would be unreasonable to allow the whole of the extra costs to fall on telephone users generally.
    460
    Although the matter has been before the Post Office Advisory Council it has made no recommendation.
    Mr. Watkins: Is the Postmaster-General aware that at the annual meeting of the Women's Institutes recently a resolution on the subject from Breconshire was unanimously carried? In view of such resolutions carried outside Parliament and representations which I have continually made, why cannot he has some regard to the need to reduce the charges, the size of which adds to rural depopulation?
    Mr. Marples: Many resolutions are passed transferring the burden of charge from the persons passing the resolution to someone else. It would be difficult for the Post Office to meet all these charges. A survey was made of the cost of providing these lines in 1955 and it showed that the annual charges for maintenance, interest on capital and depreciation varied between £16 and £29 per mile. We charge only 10s. a furlong, which is not unreasonable.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Khormaksar, Aden (Accommodation)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the shortage of accommodation for Service families in transit through Royal Air Force, Khormaksar, Aden; and what he proposes to do in this matter.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Airey Neave): Civil charter aircraft carrying Service families on the Far East route do not call at Aden. The few families who are brought back by Comets of Transport Command which refuel at Khormaksar will be able to use the new transit centre which we plan to build at the airfield.
    Mr. de Freitas: When the Under-Secretary says that it is planned to build a new transit centre, is he aware that I am referring to the existing conditions? Why have they been allowed to get so bad that Service families suffer in this way?
    Mr. Neave: Virtually all Service families travelling to and from the Far East travel by civil charter aircraft and

    461
    do not call at Aden. The families we are talking about come mainly from Ceylon. I quite agree that the conditions at this transit centre are most unsatisfactory. We have been delayed in the building of the new transit centre by the construction of the new runway, but I hope that it will be completed by next year.

    Low Flying, Stockton-on-Tees
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will discontinue low-level flying over Stockton-on-Tees, particularly at night time.
    Mr. Neave: Aircraft landing at R.A.F. Middleton St. George must normally pass over Stockton at a height of 1,000 to 1,500 feet. I greatly regret the disturbance which this causes, but I cannot agree to stop the flying, which is a necessary part of operational training.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Is it not possible to restrict the night flying, during which these planes fly at a very low level, between one and two o'clock in the morning, when they cause considerable annoyance to my hard-working constituents? As Middleton St. George is surrounded more or less by open country, why must these aircraft pass over Stockton to approach it? There is plenty of open space over which they could fly.
    Mr. Neave: Some night flying is a necessary part of the operational training programme. I will look into this matter to see whether any relaxation is possible, but we are well aware of the noise problem and pilots are briefed to avoid creating disturbance over local towns as much as possible.
    Mr. Slater: My hon. Friend was not correct in stating that Middleton St. George is an open area. It happens to be in my constituency. I want the same accommodation granted to the people of Middleton St. George as my hon. Friend asks for Stockton.

    Ration Money, Aden
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will take steps to see that any future reductions in the rates of ration money for the Royal Air Force in Aden are not made retroactive.
    Mr. Neave: Instructions now going out should ensure that the question of backdating does not in future arise.
    Mrs. Castle: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for a reply which I find a little devious but which I assume to be in the affirmative, may I ask whether he will take steps to ensure that this same principle applies throughout the whole of the Royal Air Force Commands?
    Mr. Neave: I think that my Answer would cover all R.A.F. Commands.

    Officers (Recruitment)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement on the recruitment of General Duties and other officers.
    Mr. Neave: Recruitment to the General Duties branch has improved during the last few months but more candidates are still needed. In most of the ground branches recruitment is reasonably satisfactory. We need, however, to increase entries into the Education, Secretarial and Dental branches, and into the R.A.F. Regiment. We also need many more W.R.A.F. officers.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is not a great deal of the shortage of aircrew recruits due to the statements made by the Minister of Defence, which were responsible for parents and schoolmasters believing that there was no longer a flying career in the Royal Air Force? What is the Air Council doing to correct this impression?
    Mr. Neave: We are studying the problem the whole time and we have recently strengthened our publicity organisation. What we need more than anything else is to get over to young men who wish to fly the excellent prospects and many attractions which a Service career has to offer.

    Missiles
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Air what plans he has for exchanging British ground-to-air missiles for United States air-to-air missiles for the mutual benefit of the British and United States Services.
    Mr. Neave: I have nothing to add to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence of 17th June.
    Mr. de Freitas: Has it not now become apparent that the British ground-to-air missiles are far superior to those of the United States and that it is at least possible that the American air-to-air missiles are superior to ours? If interdependence is to be anything but merely a word, would not this be a good place to start the exchange of equipment?
    Mr. Neave: I see the point made by the hon. Member. He should, however, know that there is a steady exchange of information between the Americans and ourselves on the development of new weapons and that this is of great benefit. Whether from the knowledge thus derived it would be advantageous for one country to adopt a particular weapon being developed by the other is for that country to decide.

    Training Area, Spaunton Moor (Accident)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that during the weekend of 19th–21st June five children were injured by a live mortar bomb which they found in a moorland stream near Locksay Bridge, Hutton le Hole; whether he will investigate the causes of this incident; and what steps he is taking to secure that the north Yorkshire moors are cleared of such missiles.
    Mr. Neave: The accident occurred in the old training area on Spaunton Moor, when a child appears to have found an unexploded bomb and to have thrown it into a stream, where it hit a rock. The area had been searched for explosives by a Royal Air Force bomb disposal unit eight years ago, and the missiles which were found were then removed. We have within the last few days carried out a further search in the area of the accident. No further dangerous objects were found.
    Perhaps I may take this opportunity to express my sympathy with the children who were injured, and with their parents.
    Mr. Turton: May I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware of the great concern that is felt in this well-known holiday resort about this most unfortunate accident; that some years ago an adjoining piece of moor was set on fire
    464
    and a great number of these bombs were set off and exploded, and that, on the rest of the moor, shepherds are continually finding unexploded shells? In view of these facts, will my hon. Friend now order a more searching investigation to see that no bombs are left?
    Mr. Neave: I am certainly very interested in what my right hon. Friend says. If he will send me full details of what has been found, I will look into the matter again and consider the position in the future. I ought to say that the search lasted a full twelve months and covered over 6,000 acres.
    Mr. Popplewell: In how many acres of these north Yorkshire moors are there still dangerous unexploded bombs? We know that it is a fairly large acreage. Is the hon. Gentleman able to say?
    Mr. Neave: I can only say that we have searched 6,000 acres. What my right hon. Friend has said about these weapons being found on other occasions is very important and, therefore, I ought to look at the matter further.

  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (SPEECH)
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister whether the speech by the Home Secretary, made at King's Lynn on 27th June, on the question of the hydrogen bomb, represented the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
  Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Hughes: Is the Home Secretary aware that we are very glad that he is more in accord with his Cabinet colleagues than he was at the time of Suez, when he said that we must be strong and be able to speak from an independent position? Is not that an argument that General de Gaulle, Nasser and a large number of other spokesmen of the nations could use for their possession of atomic weapons? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the world would be safer if a very large number of other people adopted the same arguments?
  Mr. Butler: No, Sir. Her Majesty's Government would not welcome the indiscriminate spreading of the capacity to produce nuclear weapons. We think that this can best be avoided through comprehensive disarmament.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. Friend, any hon. Member opposite or anyone else tell us whether the recent joint declaration on the subject by the party opposite represents the policy of the Labour Party?

  NUCLEAR WARFARE
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he will consider issuing a White Paper giving the estimates of possible loss of life in Great Britain in the event of nuclear war similar to the estimates of loss of life in the United States of America, just published by a sub-committee of the United States Congress, a copy of which has been sent to him.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
  No, Sir. The number of people likely to be killed and injured would depend upon so many variable factors, such as the scale of the attack, the length of tactical warning received, the numbers able to take cover, and the weather and wind conditions, that no useful purpose would be served by publishing such estimates.
  Mr. Hughes: If the Americans can publish an estimate in spite of all those different facts, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has read the report to the American Congress that an attack would kill 49 million people and injure another 20 million? Is it not necessary that the people of this country should know the truth about the dangers of atomic war in order to get rid of these
  466
  H-bomb weapons, whatever right hon. Gentlemen, on either side of the House, think about it?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. We are all equally clear on the desirability of getting rid of atomic weapons if we can. I must say, however, that the American report, which the hon. Member sent to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, covered by a very courteous letter to the Prime Minister, which I have read, was based, I gather, on a number of hypothetical conditions and assumptions which we cannot necessarily take as being accurate. I would not like to publish a similar estimate for this country in view of the considerations I have put forward.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the Home Secretary consider publishing for the public in a cheap edition the manuals on nuclear, biological and chemical weapons which his Department has prepared for civil defence workers?
  Mr. Butler: If the right hon. Gentleman would indicate to me those he has in mind, I will certainly look at them. We have made one or two publication' which, I think, have brought home to the public the undoubted danger of nuclear war. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to specify any other material that he would like to discuss, I will discuss it with him.
  Mr. Hughes: In view of the highly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I will attempt to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

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.]

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE [MONEY]
Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to empower the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to make orders increasing any of the amounts specified in paragraph 3 or 5 of the Second Schedule to the National Assistance Act, 1948, and making certain consequential provision, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in any sums payable out of moneys so provided which is attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session empowering the said Minister as aforesaid.
Resolution agreed to.

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE BILL

  Clause 1.—(POWER TO INCREASE CERTAIN DISREGARDS.)
  3.31 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Fraser: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out from "Schedule" to the end of line 17.
  As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance said in his winding-up speech on Second Reading, the Ministers responsible for the Legal Aid Acts are the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Scotland. The words which the Amendment proposes to omit provide that the regulation-making powers which at present reside in the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Scotland will be given to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in consultation with the National Assistance Board.
  The changes which are being made here will affect in some measure, albeit a small measure, the contribution made by people who are in receipt of legal aid. I think that in 1949 Members of Parliament expressed a little concern that the Ministers then responsible—the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Scotland—were even going to use the National Assistance Board as their instrument and to use the disregards that were set out in the National Assistance Act as the disregards to be
  468
  inserted in the Legal Aid Acts and the regulations made under the Legal Aid Acts. However, Parliament acquiesced in what was then done. But I think Ministers have to justify at this time taking away this regulation-making power from the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State and vesting it in the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.
  May I say, in passing, that I was interested to notice that the National Assistance Bill had to be reissued because the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been left out from among the supporters of the Bill in the first place. The Bill was, therefore, reissued with this small Amendment. But I found that even after the Amendment had been made, the Secretary of State for Scotland, whose 1949 Legal Aid Act is being amended by this Bill, and who is a member of the Cabinet, is still not among the supporters of the Bill, which is passing strange because he seems to me to have more responsibility for this matter and must have more responsibility for the administration of the Act than has the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): A sum of £32 million is involved.
  Mr. Fraser: The Minister interjects to say that £32 million is involved. He heads the Ministers who introduced the Bill to the House. He does not find the £32 million. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does. The Chancellor obviously came in as an afterthought, but the Secretary of State for Scotland is not in yet.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps I may intervene to say that this is a point which I cleared up in the main debate on the regulations. I believe that the hon. Gentleman was not there. My right hon. Friend's name was on the Bill from the very beginning, but, owing to an error made by the authorities of the House, it was not included in the first print. That is all.
  Mr. Fraser: The amount set out in the Legal Aid Acts that are most in need of Amendment—and this was brought out clearly in the debate in the House on 24th February—are the upper

  469
  and lower limits of disposable income. To change the amount of the disregards—and that is what is now proposed—is like leaving the National Assistance scales at the level at which they were in 1949 and merely altering the disregards. That is exactly the position. To make this Amendment is to alter the disregards without doing anything at all to alter those basic scales. The figures of £156 and £420 which were used in 1949 are totally out of date at the present time. In spite of what the Attorney- General said on 24th February—
  The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): On a point of Order, Sir Charles. May I ask for your guidance? The hon. Gentleman is now referring to the financial limits of the Legal Aid Scheme, which come nowhere within the Bill and are not affected by this Amendment. The Amendment does not touch on them at all. The limit above which legal aid is not available and the lower limit do not come into the scope of the Bill. All that is under consideration now is the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman, to leave out from the Bill certain words which relate merely to bringing certain provisions of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, dealing with disregards, into line with changes that may be made as to disregards' by my right hon. Friend.
  There is nothing in the Bill which has anything bearing on the financial limits of the Legal Aid Scheme, and, in my submission to you, Sir Charles—and I should like your guidance upon this point—it is out of order for us, on this narrow Amendment, to debate the scope, extent and application of the Legal Aid Scheme which was debated recently on a Supply Day.
  Mr. Fraser: Before you give your Ruling, Sir Charles, may I submit to you that it is in the best traditions of the Committee that an hon. Member, in moving an Amendment, is given some freedom in showing why the Amendment should be considered by the Committee? My reason for asking the Committee to consider this Amendment is that the Legal Aid Acts need amendment and have been promised amendment, and that this Amendment seems to be a fitting one. I submit that what I was about to say would be in order.
  470
  What I was about to say would be in order—not what I had said.
  The Chairman: We are not amending the Legal Aid Acts.
  Mr. Fraser: Yes, we are, Sir Charles.
  The Attorney-General: May I make my point clear, Sir Charles? You will have heard the hon. Gentleman, in his last sentence, admit that what he had just said was out of order, but that what he was going to say would be in order.
  Mr. Fraser: No, I did not.
  The Attorney-General: May I return to the point? This Bill refers to the Legal Aid and Advice Act. It refers to particular provisions in that Act dealing with disregards. Perhaps you will be good enough to read the words, Sir Charles:
  "… and if the said paragraph 5 "—
  that is, in the Second Schedule of the National Assistance Act, 1948—
  "is for the time being reproduced in the Second Schedule to the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, or to the Legal Aid and Solicitors (Scotland) Act. 1949, or, in pursuance of subsection (5) of section four of either of those Acts, in any regulations made under that section, any such order amending that paragraph"—
  that is, the Order amending the paragraph of the Schedule in the National Assistance Act—
  "shall also amend that Schedule"—
  that is, the Schedule in the Legal Aid Act—
  "or those regulations in the like manner."
  All we are dealing with here is the intention to make the effect of an amendment of disregards under the National Assistance Act apply to the disregards under the Legal Aid and Advice Acts.
  This being so, it is a very limited matter. It is not, in my submission, in order to discuss, as the hon. Gentleman was, the financial limits of the Legal Aid Scheme and the question whether those limits are right or wrong or to what extent they should be altered. A few moments ago, the hon. Gentleman referred to the upper limit in the existing scheme and said that criticism has been made of that. That may well be, but, in my submission, it is wholly out of order on this narrow Amendment.
  The Chairman: Of course, the marginal note is not part of the Bill, but it is generally intended to make the matter clear to ordinary people. According to the marginal note, the only thing the Clause deals with is
  "Power to increase certain disregards".
  That is, therefore, the scope of the Clause.
  Mr. Fraser: I am obliged to you, Sir Charles, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman now feels that he has been very properly put in his place. I had not discussed the upper limit or the lower limit. I had mentioned the upper and lower limits, but I had not discussed them. I think that I was not out of order in anything I had said, and I hope that I shall not be out of order in anything I shall say.
  The Committee will be aware of all that was said on 24th February and will be aware of the Resolution then passed by the House, on the advice of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General. The House then, with its eyes open and with all the advice the Attorney-General could give, took the view that the financial arrangements in the administration of the Legal Aid Acts should be altered as soon as circumstances permitted. I think that I am entitled to ask whether this is the alteration then promised. Is this the alteration promised on 24th February? If it is, it is a rather poor and fiddling little alteration.
  The real hardship is caused to litigants or would-be litigants, poor people who are denied the opportunity of litigation because of other weaknesses, the other limits which we cannot discuss at the present time. It seems to me, none the less, that Ministers, in amending the Legal Aid Acts—particularly the Ministers responsible for them—should use the appropriate instrument to alter the Acts in toto rather than alter the disregards while leaving the basic scales untouched.
  Will the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland tell me whether he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are satisfied with this alteration of the Legal Aid and Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1949. Is his right hon. Friend content to advise Parliament at this time to take from him, the Secretary of State for Scotland, a regulation-making power to
  472
  govern the administration of legal aid in Scotland and vest that regulation-making power in the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance?
  Mr. George Chetwynd: I do not think that we can discuss the effect of these disregards unless we relate them, however briefly, to the main Section of the original Act, the disposal of income Section. As the law now stands, there is a free limit up to £156, and then there is a graduated payment up to a maximum limit of £420, and the man who is assessed for charges pays half the difference calculated on the basis of his disposable income. This has been the subject of complaint from time to time. Last February, we were promised that, when circumstances permitted, there would be modifications.
  3.45 p.m.
  This is the first time that we have been told by the Government that people on National Assistance are to be allowed to have a greater share in national prosperity, and it is my contention that the same should apply to those who are being assessed for contributions towards legal aid. The National Assistance Board is the machine through which the assessment is made. I should have thought, therefore, that we could make passing reference to the main purpose of the Assistance Board in assessing scales and then judge against that just how far the disregards were to be taken into account. That was my main purpose.
  If you refer to Clause 1, Sir Charles, you will see, in line 10, the words "for the time being", and again, in the following line, the words, "for the time being" appear. What we really want to know is this. We are amending by this means the Legal Aid and Advice Act itself, for the time being. Are we to anticipate, therefore, that, very soon, there will be an actual amendment of the Act, or a reintroduction of the Act itself to amend the main scales? Otherwise, what is the point of putting in "for the time being"? Those words, to my mind, presuppose that there will, very soon, be a major change in the Act itself.
  I come now to the point at issue on the disregards. I understand that the Assistance Board, according to its last Report, made 32,000 assessments in the relevant period. Of those, roughly 29 per cent. resulted in no contribution at

  473
  all, 54 per cent. of applicants were assessed on a graduated scale, and 16 per cent. of the applicants were excluded completely from assistance, principally because of the £420 upper limit. The £420 upper limit has a value of only £280 today and, if it is to have the real value we intended it to have in 1949, it ought to be £650.
  I take it that the actual disregards in question at present are the 10s. 6d. a week from friendly societies, trade unions, etc., and the 10s. 6d. a week from any superannuation or pension payments. As I understand it, they are to be raised to 15s. In future, instead of 10s. 6d. being disregarded in these cases, the amount will be 15s. We put down the Amendment to give the Minister an opportunity of explaining how these different disregards will benefit an applicant in the future.
  Exactly what will be involved in these changes? In her winding-up speech on 24th June, the hon. Lady the Joint Parliamentary Secretary dealt with the position on the increase in the children's scale. May we be told exactly how it will work: out in practice?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Edith Pitt)The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Edith Pitt) indicated dissent.
  Mr. Chetwynd: I see the hon. Lady shaking her head, but she did deal with it, perhaps very vaguely, and her words are reported in c. 1327. Because that was so vague and did not give us very much information, I am asking now that the Government should say exactly how the disregards will work.
  I have in mind cases where an assessment has already been made and someone has been excluded because his disposable income is too high or he has, perhaps, been assessed on the fifty-fifty basis at a certain figure and payments are being made. Will such cases be automatically reconsidered by the Assistance Board and a reduction given? Can people who fall outside the scope of legal aid now be brought in? Are the new scales to work only in respect of applications after the appointed day?
  I have in mind a case which I have mentioned on a number of occasions, which concerns a man in receipt of sickness benefit and unemployability supplement
  474
  who is being charged 10 guineas for a legal aid case and who is paying at the rate of 17s. 6d. a month. It seems to me that these disregards may make a slight difference in his case. Will cases which have previously been assessed now be brought within the scope of the scheme so that such people may have benefit from it? In other words, can the benefits be made retrospective for existing cases?
  That is the main point which I want to raise. If we could have a better explanation as to how the scheme will work, then I think that the Amendment will have served its purpose.
  The Attorney-General: In replying to the debate, I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the scope of the Bill. The Bill starts off by giving the Minister power by regulation to amend paragraph 3 or 5 of the Second Schedule to the National Assistance Act, 1948. That is a Schedule which states that here will be certain disregards in dealing with applications for National Assistance. When the Legal Aid and Advice Act was passed in 1949, Section 4 embodied word for word the same paragraph of the Second Schedule of the National Assistance Act.
  Under the Legal Aid and Advice Act it was required to be set out for the guidance of those who had to operate it in regulations made under the Legal Aid and Advice Act. Paragraph 5 appeared in four places, namely, in the National Assistance Act, the Legal Aid and Advice Act, the Legal Aid and Advice (Scotland) Act and in regulations made under those two last Acts.
  Mr. Joseph Slater: Five.
  The Attorney-General: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Five is the correct figure.
  The Committee should realise that all that the latter part of the Bill seeks to do is to ensure that the disregards for legal aid assessments shall keep in line with the disregards for National Assistance. If the Amendment were carried, the effect of it would be disastrous, because the National Assistance disregards would be raised by Order or by Statutory Instrument put before the House by the Minister and the disregards for legal aid assessments would be left where they were.

  475
  The provision which the hon. Gentleman seeks to leave out ensures that that does not happen and that, whatever changes upwards are made in the disregards for National Assistance for the purpose of assessing National Assistance, there shall be the same disregards as there has always been up to now for the purpose of legal aid assessments.
  That is all the Bill does in relation to legal aid assessments. It is obviously desirable that it should do that. If the Bill did not link this particular feature of legal aid with National Assistance, it would mean separate legislation to amend the disregards, because there is no power to amend the Legal Aid Act in this respect by Statutory Instrument. I hope that the Committee will agree with me when I say that there is no case at all for the acceptance of the Amendment.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether this was the alteration which was promised on 24th February, when we discussed the Legal Aid Schemes and when I moved an Amendment which was endorsed by the House and which read as follows:
  "endorses the introduction by Her Majesty's Government of a scheme for oral legal advice; welcomes the announcement of the intention of Her Majesty's Government to implement the provisions of Sections 21 to 23 of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, relating to legal aid in criminal courts, and the provisions of Section 5, relating to legal aid in matters not involving litigation; and recognises that it is desirable to modify the financial provisions of the Legal Aid Scheme when circumstances permit."
  I do not depart one iota from the words of that Amendment. There is a strong case for altering the financial limits "when circumstances permit", but that is not under discussion today.
  I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this provision in the Bill, for the reasons which I have given, is not put forward as an implementation of what was said on 24th February. It is purely a machinery provision which I hope I have now been able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman is desirable. It will operate when regulations are made increasing the disregards for National Assistance. It will obviously automatically operate when regulations are made which affect the position of those who have applied for legal aid.
  Mr. Chetwynd: Will it apply to existing cases?
  The Attorney-General: I will deal with that point in a moment. The hon. Gentleman knows that applications for legal aid are frequently reviewed under a change of circumstances. I have had many cases brought to my attention where, on further investigation, it is shown that, owing to non-disclosure of a material fact by an applicant or a mistake being made in some of the figures, too high an assessment has been made, and that will be varied. Similarly, I apprehend that when the disregards are increased it will be possible to get the assessments adjusted. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's point about existing cases positively, because one does not know the state that a case will be in when the regulations come into effect. I am not trying to evade the hon. Gentleman's question. I am trying to answer it, but I cannot give an answer—
  Mr. Chetwynd: Usually, people pay so much a month towards the assessment. Regardless of what has happened in the case of past payments, will it be possible to review future cases?
  The Attorney-General: A review can always take place, as is the case at present. I do not think that there will be any difficulty about this. An existing case might have finished before the regulations come into force. I cannot give a positive answer to the hon. Gentle- man, for, as he knows, assessments are reviewed from time to time when there is a change of circumstances, and if the disregards are increased while the case is being dealt with that would be a change of circumstances.
  I hope that I have dealt satisfactorily with the point which has been raised, but again I do not think that it really arises under the Amendment. However, I am glad to have had the opportunity of answering it.
  Mr. Tom Brown: I am not anxious to continue the discussion on this Amendment, but I think that we are all anxious to be of assistance to the old people and to those on National Assistance in helping them to understand the meaning of the Bill. Being so anxious, we should have a little more clarification from the Attorney-General.
  May I call the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to paragraph 7 of

  477
  the White Paper, "Improvements in National Assistance"? Under the heading "Capital and Income Disregards", it is stated:
  "Any Order made under the power which is being sought to increase the amounts of resources disregarded under the National Assistance Act will also make corresponding increases for the purpose of the disregards to be applied in deciding applications for legal aid, in so far as these are governed by the National Assistance Act."
  In practically 99 per cent. of the disregards the amount is stated, but in the case of an applicant for legal aid the amount is not stated.
  The question which I want to ask the Attorney-General is this: will the disregards applicable to an applicant who makes application for legal aid be the same as the other disregards mentioned in the White Paper? That is a very important point. If the Attorney-General can answer it, it will assist considerably old people who have had the misfortune to have to apply for legal aid in understanding their exact position.
  4.0 p.m.
  The Attorney-General: The disregards that come under paragraph (5) of the Second Schedule of the National Assistance Act will be the same as the disregards that are given for legal aid assessments. This provision is intended to ensure, and does ensure, that there will be the same disregards for both. No matter what changes are made under National Assistance, the amount of the disregards under that part of the National Assistance Act will also be applied with regard to legal aid.
  Mr. T. Fraser: I wonder whether the learned Attorney-General would turn his mind to another question, relating to the position of the person who got his legal aid certificate, had his assessment and then, perhaps three months—
  The Attorney-General: That is not in order.
  Mr. Fraser: The learned Attorney-General seems to be electing himself Chairman of this Committee. He tells me that I am out of order. The question asked was about the person whose assessment has now been made, with contributions to be paid over twelve months. If there is, say, six or nine months still to run, can that assessment
  478
  be looked at again in the context of regulations, when made?
  The Attorney-General: If the hon. Gentleman had listened he would have heard me answer the question asked by his hon. Friend and, I think, to that hon. Gentleman's satisfaction. I answered at some length, and the answer was "Yes".
  Mr. Fraser: I am grateful. If the Attorney-General says that he answered it, and that the answer was "Yes", I withdraw what I said, and apologise. I thought that in his previous answer he was concerned with the case where an application had been made but no decision had been reached. However, I accept that reply.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman also said something that showed that he has been reviewing cases that have been sent to him. He said that he found that sometimes the assessment was too high because some material figure had not been disclosed; that this had been brought out after he himself had considered the case, that an adjustment had been made and the contribution reduced.
  I think that I have all the right hon. and learned Gentleman's supporters with me in that, so I want to tell them that on 22nd June the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland wrote to me about a case, saying:
  "The Secretary of State has no power to review the Board's decision and I am sure you will appreciate that it would not be proper for me to comment on how they had reached it in any particular case."
  I had written about a constituent who was asked for a contribution of £1 a week for the next twelve months. This constituent could not afford £1 a week out of a wage of less than £8, and with a rent of 20s. or 30s. a week. Because he could not make the contribution, his wife, who was the litigant, found that the doors of the court were closed to her—this poor woman who was making a claim for damages, and had a legal aid certificate. She will never be able to use her hand again.
  The Joint Under-Secretary wrote that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no power to review the Board's decision, but if he has no power to do what the learned Attorney-General said that he has done—
  The Attorney-General The Attorney-General rose—
  Mr. Fraser: The right hon. and learned Gentleman can get up only when I sit down. I am perfectly willing to give way, but he must learn to show a little courtesy, instead of just pushing in and trying to browbeat. I give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman did not catch correctly what I said. I have no power to review the decision of the National Assistance Board, and never said that I had. I cannot review those cases. It is not within my power, nor is it within the function of the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, hon. Members do write, quite naturally, drawing my attention to particular cases—as, in Scotland, no doubt, they do to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I then bring the facts of those cases to the attention of the Board. All I was saying was that in some of the cases brought to my attention, and which I have referred to the National Assistance Board, the disclosure of new facts has led to a revision of the assessment.
  If the hon. Gentleman heard that part of my answer, I really do not understand why he did not hear the other part, when I said that assessments are changed from time to time as circumstances alter, and also in the light of fresh discoveries as to relevant facts. And I really do not know why the hon. Gentleman should get so annoyed when I try to correct him on that. I have no power, and never have had any power at all, to review assessments made by the National Assistance Board. I hope that I have made that clear to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Fraser: Yes, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made that clear to me, but he did not do so in his original speech. What I am trying to make clear to him is that when the Joint Under-Secretary had from me the kind of complaint that the Attorney-General has had from other hon. Gentlemen, the Under-Secretary has written to tell me that he has not the power to take the action that the Attorney-General has taken. I leave it to the Under-Secretary. He has not referred this case—or, if he has, he has not told me—to the National Assistance Board. He has told me, politely but quite clearly, that when the Board makes up its mind it makes up its mind,
  480
  and that he has no responsibility for making any assessment.
  I do not want to continue this discussion unnecessarily. I think that I raised a reasonable point on this Amendment, and I also think that it is quite clear that a function that did previously lie with the Lord Chancellor and with the Secretary of State is being so altered as to take from the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to amend a Scottish Act, and that that power is being vested in the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.
  Amendment negatived.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. George Lawson: This Clause deals with the disregards. We welcome the fact that the disregards are being raised, but I should like to know to what extent that will affect the amount of money a person is allowed to spend out of savings. I cannot recall this having been mentioned at all, but it recalls rather vividly to my mind a case brought to my notice of a man who had not reached retiring age but who was so badly crippled with arthritis that he was no longer able to work. He had saved a little money, and was making desperate efforts to make himself again fit for work. To do that, he was spending some of the money he had saved on special treatment that he could not get from the National Health Service—I neither praise nor condemn that.
  The local National Assistance office put a very strict limit on the amount of the man's own savings that he would be permitted to spend, and regularly scrutinised his savings book to see that he was not spending more than the sum laid down. This was his own money that he had saved. He told me that on two occasions his National Assistance money had been docked because he had spent rather more than the permitted amount. On one occasion he had spent a little money, not on buying his wife a new coat—he could not rise to that—but on having his wife's coat cleaned and repaired. Because of this additional expenditure his National Assistance money was docked. I must say that immediately I intervened with the local manager that decision to reduce his National Assistance money was wiped out

  481
  and he was paid the money he had been previously paid.
  I do not know whether or not there is a rule—and it is this I want to have cleared up—which lays down that if a person has a certain amount of savings, which is disregarded, he shall be permitted to spend only a certain amount of that money. Is there a rule which says that? Is this treated in this way? Is it that he is allowed to spend 10s. 6d. or 15s.? Or is this a matter for local decision? It would certainly seem to me that if this practice is engaged in in some parts of the country—and I know that it is or has been engaged in in my own constituency—there should be some uniform method of dealing with this.
  The case I have mentioned was that of a very genuine person making a really desperate effort to get himself into a fit condition again for working, and who had to suffer what we have so often been told it is very much against the policy of this Committee a person should suffer, namely, the humiliation of being told that he was not permitted to spend what was a matter of almost a few shillings, or else the money he had been receiving from the National Assistance Board would be reduced.
  Is there or will there be a rule which says that a person who has a certain sum of money saved, and is drawing upon that money to supplement National Assistance money he is receiving, will be permitted to draw a certain sum only per week? Or is this a matter which is left for the local manager or the local officials? It certainly seems to me that this is a matter which requires clarification, and I should like to hear what the position is.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: In the White Paper the Minister has been good enough to give the Committee a preview of the changes in the disregards which he proposes to make when the Bill becomes law. I am not sure whether it will be permissible in this debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," to comment on the use which the Minister proposes to make of these powers when he gets them. If it is I should like to suggest to him that while there is still time to consider the actual changes in the disregards he
  482
  should consider whether they go far enough.
  The 10s. 6d., for example, from vocational pension schemes which is in the existing disregards and which he proposes to amend to 15s. seems a small increase when looked at in the ratio between the 10s. 6d. as it originally was and still is and the maximum amount of Assistance which could be granted to a married couple in 1948. The 10s. 6d. then was about one-quarter of the maximum Assistance given to a married couple. Under the proposals which the Minister has outlined in the White Paper. 15s. will be nearer one-sixth of the total amount which may be granted to a married couple.
  The point I am making is that the ratio in 1948 between the disregards and the standard rate of Assistance will be less favourable in future than it was in 1948. For instance, consider the amount of 20s. of war disability or industrial injury disablement pension which is in the existing disregards and which he proposes to make 30s. In 1948, the disregard of war disability pension could be one-half approximately of the standard rate of Assistance. When the Minister has increased the 20s. to 30s. that disregard will in future be no more than one-third. There, again, there is an unfavourable disturbance of the ratio between the disregards and the standard rate of Assistance in 1948.
  4.15 p.m.
  Throughout all the discussions on the payment of post-war credits we were assured that post-war credit repayments would not be taken into account for the purpose of assessing National Assistance. Looking at the Second Schedule to the 1948 Act I saw there, in paragraph 7 (4), what is laid down for the reckoning of post-war credits under National Assistance, and it seems to me that there is no legal sanction for a complete disregard.
  Paragraps 7 (4) of the Second Schedule provides that the amount of post-war credits repaid shall be counted as part of war savings. That seems to mean that if a recipient of National Assistance already has the full exemption for war savings then the post-war credit repayment would be reckonable for National Assistance. That seems to me to be the

  483
  interpretation of the Second Schedule to the 1948 Act.
  I rather thought that the Minister had given one of those things which are frequently described as extra statutory concessions. It may be he is so doing. I have no case to bring to his attention where any person has claimed that a post-war credit has been reckonable for National Assistance because he already had the maximum exemption for war savings.
  However, I think that before we part with this Clause it is well that the Minister should be satisfied that he has no need to extend the scope of the amendments to the Second Schedule which are provided here. He restricts the powers which he seeks to amending the amounts of the disregards in paragraphs 3 to 5 inclusive of the Second Schedule to the 1948 Act, which excludes paragraph 2 which deals with war savings. He is not proposing to take power to increase the maximum amount of war savings which the recipient of National Assistance may have without worsening the amount of his National Assistance.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. James H. Hoy): I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but I would just remind him and the Committee that, before this can be done, we shall have a Statutory Instrument brought before the House. That will be debatable then, so I do not think that we should let this matter go too wide now.
  Mr. Houghton: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Hoy. You have been so generous to me that the point you have now raised relates to my previous remarks, not to what I am saying now.
  What I am saying now is that the Clause is probably not wide enough to deal with this point. Nothing the Minister can produce in Statutory Instruments under this Clause can touch the point to which I am referring at the moment as long as the Clause is limited to paragraphs 3 to 5 inclusive of the Second Schedule to the 1948 Act.
  I have finished what I had to say. I have drawn the Minister's attention to this. If he can assure the Committee that no difficulties will arise on this matter and that there is no need to do anything about paragraph 2 of the
  484
  Second Schedule, I am sure that the Committee will be satisfied, but I think that we should be upset if, after the assurances we were given on earlier legislation, we were to let this point go, when considering a Clause which gives power to make concessions, and later found, to our dismay, that persons were placed at a disadvantage in claiming National Assistance because their postwar credit repayments took them over the limit of war savings specified in the Second Schedule to the 1948 Act as it stands now.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: The case which my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has just made out for further increases in the disregards is made stronger if it is remembered that the present disregards were not fixed in 1948 but in 1943. We must bear in mind, when we consider how far the position in connection with disregards has worsened, that the purchasing power of the £ was much greater in 1943 than in 1948, and again much greater in 1948 than in 1959.
  I do not know whether anything can be done about it, but I feel sorry for those working men who subscribe to a sickness fund at work so that their workmates when they become sick and have no benefit except National Insurance can receive, after a month or six weeks of sickness, 7s. 6d. or 10s. or 15s. per week. I know of firms where men are assisted by their workmates in this manner, but those workmates find their generosity penalised by the National Assistance Board not because the local officials want to do that, but because they must bow to the regulations.
  I wonder whether, in circumstances of that kind, the Minister could get the Assistance Board officers to turn a blind eye to the ex gratia payments made by workmen to their mates who are suffering from a long illness. If he could help, it would be greatly appreciated by those affected.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): I think that it would help if I answered questions in the reverse order. First, the question of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) is answered by the fact that the point is normally met by the Board's exercise of discretion.
  Mr. Fernyhough: But that has not been exercised in the case to which I have been referring. It would be appreciated if the Minister could say a word about that.
  Mr. Vane: If the hon. Member will send me details I will take the matter up with the Chairman of the Board. It is extremely difficult, without making a Statute inordinately long, and particularly the Schedule, to cover every circumstance that might arise. In general, the sort of payment which the hon. Member has mentioned is met by the Board exercising its discretion.
  The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) asked two questions. The first was about post-war credits. There have been repayments, of course, over a number of years and, therefore, this is not a new problem which we have before us. There is a certain experience already. The sort of circumstances which he mentioned have been met without great difficulty and, once again, it has been possible where special problems have arisen to meet them generally by the exercise of the Board's discretion.
  Mr. Houghton: I take the point completely, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that now, for the first time, we are making repayments of post-war credits to persons who have been on National Assistance for 12 weeks or more and, therefore, we are going right to the heart of the matter.
  Mr. Vane: I realise the problem and that it may become greater in the future. As the hon. Member has pointed out, this is outside the relevant paragraphs in the Second Schedule and, therefore, right outside the scope of the Bill, because we have considered that there was not so much of a problem here as to make it necessary to bring the matter into the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Sowerby also asked whether the disregards which we are proposing to raise in accordance with the paragraphs in the White Paper go far enough. I suppose that it is fair to say that whatever figures we offset some people would think that one or other had not moved far enough, or had better be fixed at a different level. But we are raising the real standards by lifting the rates, and we have to bear that in mind when we consider the proposed
  486
  disregards and compare them with those which applied ten years ago.
  These disregards are not applicable to everyone. They apply only to some. Improved though they are, the rates are the really important figures. We are lifting the rates in a higher proportion, and it is not unreasonable to find at the end of the day that the disregards have not moved in quite the same proportion.
  The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) mentioned a special case and asked whether the circumstances which he roughly sketched out were in accordance with any general rule of the Board. I assure him that there is no such general rule. If he is in trouble with any case of the nature he described I should be glad if he would let me have the full details, when I will take it up with the chairman of the Board. I repeat that there is no general rule, which, indeed, would be very harsh. What we are doing is taking power to change certain figures on which calculations are based, and nothing more than that.
  Mr. Lawson: The point concerns cases where capital is being used as income. The capital has been disregarded, but when it comes to use as income, is it taken into account? I know that it has been taken into account in the case which I mentioned. I discussed this question at the weekend with a new manager, not the manager with whom I dealt previously and against whom I have no complaint. I asked the new manager whether there were any rule or whether he himself took the matter into account. He replied that if the applicant was expending extravagantly that would have to be taken into account. That, of course, raises the question of what is meant by "extravagantly". The new manager seems to have in his mind that if the person is spending capital which has been disregarded that can be taken into account.
  Mr. Vane: I can only repeat that there is no general rule. The capital figures which we are considering now are intended to help in the calculation of entitlement to National Assistance. But, if spent reasonably, I cannot imagine anyone commenting on how a person receiving National Assistance dealt with his own capital resources, which usually are not very great. On the other hand,

  487
  I can imagine a manager, or any of us who might find himself responsible, commenting on the matter if it were known that a person who by general repute in the village had been spending his resources extravagantly was, at the same time, coming into the office and putting over the counter a poor face on his circumstances. But there is no general rule. All we are doing is changing certain figures on which the well-known calculations are based. With that assurance, I hope that the Committee will accept the Clause.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

EDUCATION [MONEY]
Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to education it is expedient, in relation to any new expenditure on aided or special agreement schools,—

(a) to authorise the making of provision to increase the contributions and grants payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under sections one hundred and two to one hundred and four of the Education Act, 1944, by making the amount of the maintenance contribution under section one hundred and two, and the maximum amount of any grant under either of the other sections, three-quarters (instead of one half) of the expenses in respect of which the contribution or grant is made; and

(b) to authorise the making out of moneys provided by Parliament of grants (not exceeding three-quarters of the expenditure in question) and loans in respect of expenditure incurred on the provision of sites for schools or of school buildings in order to extend the facilities for secondary education in any area in England or Wales;

but for this purpose "new expenditure" shall not include expenditure on work begun before the fifteenth day of June, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine, on work approved by the Minister of Education before that date under subsection (6) of section thirteen of the Education Act, 1944, or under any arrangements relating to work to which that section does not apply, or on work included in a programme notified to a local education authority as the main building programme approved by the Minister for the twelve months beginning with April, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine, or for any earlier period, nor expenditure on the provision of the site on which or buildings to which any such work was done or proposed to be done.
Resolution agreed to.

EDUCATION BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. JAMES H. HOY in the Chair]

EDUCATION BILL

  Clause 1.—(EXTENDED POWERS TO MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS, ETC.)
  4.30 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, to leave out "established before the relevant date or" and to insert:
  "aided schools or special agreement schools before the relevant date or were established".
  This is a drafting Amendment to remove a doubt raised as to the meaning of the word "established" on page 2, line 10 of the Bill. The purpose of Clause 1 (2) is to provide grant for a secondary school which is built to serve pupils coming from primary schools in the area, those schools being aided or special agreement schools, either existing on 15th June, 1959, or replacing such existing schools. It could just be argued that the phraseology of line 10 would let in for the purposes of the subsection, a primary school which is now an independent school but becomes an aided school at some time in the future. This is not the intention of the Bill. I know it was never the understanding of the House, and the proposed Amendment will remove the doubt which has been raised.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
  Lady Megan Lloyd George: Before we part with the Clause, I would like some assurances from the Minister about single-school areas. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, this is a disability from which Nonconformists suffer to a considerable degree in many parts of the country. Indeed, it is estimated that there may be 200 or 300 single-school areas. Nonconformists and Free Churchmen do not like the dual system but they have accepted it with, I think, good grace. They have agreed to differ. In the same way they do not oppose the existence of denominational schools where there are sufficient numbers of any denomination

  489
  to justify the establishment of such a school. However, they feel strongly that denominational schools should not be the only ones available in an area. If necessary, they should be an alternative, but certainly not an inevitability.
  I say at once that we are all glad that the bitter religious controversies have died down. Certainly, a great change has come about in Wales in the relationship between the Nonconformists and the Church of England, who are largely concerned in this matter.
  Mr. James Griffiths: May I correct my hon. Friend? It is no longer the Church of England, but the Church in Wales.
  Lady Megan Lloyd George: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. I am only rather surprised that he, of all people, should have had to remind me of that fact. This one problem of the single school remains, it is an irritant and it is time that it was dealt with. I ask hon. Members who are members of the Church of England what their views would be if the position were reversed and there were no alternative schools for Church children in a locality, and they were compelled by that very circumstance to attend a Nonconformist school?
  We have no doubt what our Roman Catholic friends would feel in the circumstances. In fact, I asked one of them the other day, and he replied, "If such a case were to arise, we would not stand for it". This only goes to show how extremely tolerant Free Churchmen are. But that does not mean that we do not feel that we are entitled to receive at the hands of this House, when this Bill is passing through it, some assurances and safeguards.
  The Minister said in his Second Reading speech that it was not his expectation that this Clause would lead to the creation of any new single-school areas. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be very sure indeed that he is right on this point, because I cannot think of anything more likely to exacerbate feelings, or anything that would be less in the spirit of the compromise that the Bill represents, such as it is. I hope, therefore, that he will be able to give us some assurance on this matter today.
  490
  In single-school areas we would all agree that it is vital that the child should not suffer, that a child not of the denomination controlling the school should not be made to feel his position. I know there are many hon. Members on this side of the Committee who have lived through this experience in our village schools. My father—if I may mention a controversial subject in such unexceptionable debates as these—was brought up in a single-school area. In that case the results were not very happy for the school management and governors. There might be children, however, who would be affected by such an experience. One important way of avoiding this would be to ensure that an agreed syllabus of teaching should be available inside the school as a matter of routine and not of request. It would ease the situation considerably for these children.
  My next point concerns representation on the board of managers and governors. I recognise that this question is not easily dealt with by Statute. I myself, and I think many other hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, also, would have been glad to see some provision incorporated in the Bill. Indeed, if the assurances given to us by the Minister are not carried out, this may still have to be the subject of legislation at a future date.
  Of course, we are all glad to have the assurances of the right hon. Gentleman but, as Minister of Education, his days are numbered. I do not mean simply because the Prime Minister may take him by the arm, but for other circumstances over which he may have no control, and he cannot pledge his successors. Therefore, we would like the right hon. Gentleman to make it clear to local authorities, when they have a say in appointments, that, if possible, they should avoid appointing persons of the same denomination as those to whom the school belongs. It is only fair that local authorities should pay special regard to the representation of religious sections of the community; people who, by circumstances, are forced to send their children to these other schools. That would be another safeguard which would be acceptable to the Free Church community.
  Finally, may I ask this question? The right hon. Gentleman told us in his speech on Second Reading that there

  491
  would be meetings between the Church of England and the Free Churches. I understand that meetings took place last week and I hope very much that the Minister will be able to tell us this afternoon some of the terms of the agreement which apparently they reached.
  Taking up the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), may I ask whether the Church in Wales was included in the discussions? As the Minister will realise, the Church in Wales is independent and not governed by the Church Assembly. If the right hon. Gentleman has not already had consultations with the Church in Wales, I hope that he can tell us that he is now prepared to do so. Perhaps he will also tell us whether he has made any progress with his suggestion during the Second Reading debate to the Free Churches that they should set up a central body which could constitute a permanent liaison with the Church of England Schools Council? That is an admirable proposition, so I hope that he will be able to tell us something about it. These are all matters which Free Church men and Nonconformists regard as vital to the faith in which they were brought up and in which they live.
  Mr. Peter Kirk: I am glad to have the opportunity to follow the noble Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George). I will be very brief because I do not want to repeat much of what I said on Second Reading, which covered some of the points she has made.
  I agree with much of what she said, approaching it from a somewhat different angle, as I am a member of the Church of England, but I think that it is fair to say that both the two main points which worried her and which are worrying many Free Church men—the question of providing some agreed syllabus in single-school areas and the question of appointing Free Church men to the management of single-school areas—have attracted the attention of the Church of England Schools Council.
  On Second Reading I drew attention to the statement which the Council had made on the talks which it had been having with Free Church men over the past eighteen months or so. It is fair to say that the Church of England has perhaps
  492
  been hampered a little by the absence of a central body in the Free Churches, with which it could negotiate, and I very much share the noble Lady's hope that such a central body will be set up as early as possible to iron out the remaining difficulties.
  Unlike the noble Lady, I am somewhat relieved that no attempt has been made to write into the Statute provisions which would ensure for all time and in all circumstances that those two things would come about, not because I do not want them to come about, but because I feel that in certain areas it might be difficult to follow absolutely rigidly the letter of the Statute as we laid it down. Over the past fourteen years the Church of England has tried to do what it could, in the question of appointing managing bodies, to see that in single-school areas, where there is a large body of Free Church opinion and many Free Church children, such Free Church members were appointed. In many cases this has happened. It has happened particularly in certain parts of the West Country, and it is working well.
  In some cases, however, we have run up against difficulties. Either no suitable person could be found or, for various reasons, the Free Churches themselves could not agree on who should be appointed. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that these difficulties may arise again in the future. That is why the position should be kept reasonably flexible, although I agree with the noble Lady that it should be done in every case where it possibly can be done. It is no less than justice.
  The Church of England Schools Council has made it clear that it is quite prepared to work out an agreed syllabus with the Free Churches when it becomes possible. I join the noble Lady in asking the Minister what progress has been made in the talks which he so admirably sponsored after Second Reading and whether there is any prospect of a settlement between the Churches on these two matters, which are the only two matters outstanding as a result of the 1944 Act. If we can overcome these two difficulties, I think that the last echoes of this appalling controversy will have died away, and that will be a very good thing for the country and for the children.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I rise to support my noble Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George). Her intervention had special significance because of the part which her father played in the great arguments which followed 1902 and which are now part of our history. The single-school area was a focal point of the great controversies following 1902 and special attempts were made by Augustine Birrell, Reginald McKenna and Walter Runciman to remove the causes of the grievances which the Nonconformists felt so deeply at that time. It is interesting to note that the Welsh Department of Education was set up as a direct result of the controversies of the first decade of this century.
  Happily, as my noble Friend said, the bitterness has passed, but the single-school areas remain. Nonconformists still object on principle to this anachronism. They justifiably feel that denominational schools should not be the only schools available to their children in any area. Unless something positive is done the Bill will tend to strengthen single-school areas.
  There is one point which the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk) and the Minister have not yet grasped, and it is that the Church of England Schools Council has no authority in Wales, because the Church in Wales—it is the Church in Wales and not the Church of Wales—is independent of the established Church. The people of Wales, therefore, have had no direct connection through their Churches with the Minister in all the negotiations on this matter, and we feel some resentment because of that.
  My personal feeling is that it is a great pity that the Minister did not go to greater pains to negotiate a settlement on this and other points with the Free Churches before introducing the Bill. We feel that the Bill has been introduced rather too hastily. We realise that we are in a minority in this country, but Nonconformity has played a very great part in educational progress and its views are entitled to consideration. Assurances from the Government Dispatch Box are very welcome, but they are not equivalent to safeguards in the Bill.
  494
  The Minister said on Second Reading that he had suggested that there should be a central committee of the Free Church Federal Council. I think that that is a good suggestion and I hope that Wales will be well represented on this committee if it comes into being, as we have a very special interest in these matters. If we are to pay these large sums towards denominational schools it is all the more reason why the single-school area problem should be settled once and for all. We should have our representatives on the managing bodies as of right and our children should be taught the agreed syllabus as a matter of right and not of request. I hope that the Minister will give these matters his very careful consideration.
  The Minister of Education (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The Committee might think it useful if I made a few comments at this stage. I am grateful to the noble Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George), the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) and the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) for bringing forward the importance of the Free Church point of view.
  It is fortunate that at this stage we have the opportunity of pausing to consider the important feelings and position of the Free Churches who, as the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said earlier and as has been said again since, played such an important part and made such great sacrifices in the cause of education in our country, apart from all the other important contributions which they have made. I am therefore pleased to have the opportunity, in response to the speeches which have been made, to make some further statement about that position and the way in which we regard it in trying to make progress with the Bill and with the problems.
  I will begin by repeating the assurance which I gave the House on Second Reading that it is certainly not my expectation that the provisions in subsections (2) to (4) of Clause 1 will lead to the creation of new single-school areas. The Church of England is not expected to make very much use of this provision, and the single-school area is essentially an Anglican problem. I should also like to repeat that in dealing with any proposal under Section 13 of the 1944 Act

  495
  for a new denominational secondary school I should consider very carefully indeed the use which is made of the new grants. Section 13 gives parents ample opportunities to make their wishes known. There is a period of two months, after public notice is given of the proposal, during which objections may be sent to the Ministry of Education.
  In addition, if the promoters seek a loan from the Exchequer for a school in a single-school area, I am bound by Section 105 (3) of the 1944 Act to consult such persons as seem to me to be representative of any religious denomination concerned and, if necessary, to hold a local inquiry. I would add that, whether or not a loan from the Exchequer is required, I have power to cause such an inquiry to be held, and I would not hesitate to use this power if I were in doubt at all as to what were the real wishes of the people in the locality. In the exercise of all my powers under the Act, I am bound by Section 76 to have regard to the wishes of the parents.
  Now, if I may turn to the question of the existing single school areas, which was also mentioned by the noble Lady, it will be remembered that during the Second Reading debate I said that I had suggested to the Free Churches that the best way of dealing with existing single school areas would be for the Free Churches to examine the problem jointly with the Church of England. The noble Lady was good enough to ask me to give some information about how we got on. I am glad to be able to tell the Committee that this meeting has taken place under my chairmanship and that our discussion of the problems was greatly helped by the views which hon. and right hon. Members expressed during the Second Reading debate. I think I can say that the atmosphere of the meeting was very friendly, and at the end of the meeting we were able to issue an agreed statement recording definite results.
  Two suggestions were put forward for easing difficulties in existing single school areas. The first was that steps should be taken to ensure that the Free Churches are represented on the managing bodies of aided or special agreement schools in single school areas. The second was that the agreed syllabus instruction should be given in all such schools. Suggestions on these lines have, in fact,
  496
  been discussed between the Church of England and the Free Churches for some time past, as the Church of England made clear in a statement published recently.
  I want to emphasise this and make quite clear to the House that there has been no reluctance whatever about this on the part of the Church of England and that is an important point of which we should all want to take due note. Their representatives renewed the suggestions of their own accord at the meeting last week, and the main question was how to bring them into operation.
  To take first the suggestion about managing bodies, the 1944 Education Act provides that these should consist partly of foundation managers and partly of persons appointed by the local education authorities. That is the position under the Statute, but although there is no statutory provision for the representation of the Free Churches as such, this can be arranged by agreement with the bodies responsible for making the appointment, and arrangements along these lines are in fact already in operation in some parts of the country.
  The representatives of the Church of England present at last week's meeting said that they would like to see similar arrangements made in all single school areas. The Churches themselves are considering how this can best be done, and further joint meetings are to be held on this and other points. I understand that they have in mind ways of strengthening their arrangements for consultation, not only at the centre but also in the dioceses, and making them a permanent part of their machinery. If the Church Assembly endorses these arrangements, I think they will be adopted generally.
  So far I have referred only to the Church of England, but the Church in Wales has been associated with the Church of England in earlier discussions, and their general approach to these problems is the same. I understand that the Governing Body of the Church in Wales will be asked to consider action along the same lines as the Church Assembly in England.
  I come now to the second suggestion; that is, that the agreed syllabus instruction should be available for the children of Free Church parents in all single

  497
  school areas. There is already statutory provision for this in Section 28 of the Education Act, 1944, which provides that, where the parents—
  "cannot with reasonable convenience cause their children to attend any school at which the agreed syllabus is in use"
  arrangements shall be made to give them agreed syllabus instruction in the school.
  The only innovation which I have heard suggested is that the Minister instead of the local education authority, should decide whether or not a parent can "with reasonable convenience" send his child to another school where agreed syllabus instruction is available. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it is local knowledge of transport and geography which is essential in deciding these questions, and local knowledge is not to be found in London so much as in the area itself. Therefore, I did not myself feel that this was a good suggestion to pursue, but I can assure the House that if it were represented to me that a local education authority was not exercising its discretion reasonably, I would look into the facts with the utmost care. In fact, so far as I can discover, no complaint has ever been made either to me or to any of my predecessors in regard to this point.
  If I may say a word or two to the noble Lady about the value of assurances, I think she will probably agree with me that in the case of a Bill which is unopposed and has the support of all parties in the House, the assurances of the Minister carry with them extra authority which might not be the case in a more controversial setting. On another point, on which the noble Lady and also the hon. Member for Anglesey asked me, about the attitude of the Free Churches towards setting up a central body, I can say that at the meeting they expressed themselves as ready sympathetically to examine the suggestion that there should be set up a Central Committee of the Free Church Federal Council, in some measure parallel to the Church of England Schools Council.
  I end by saying that we are genuinely in a very different atmosphere from that which prevailed many years ago. I thought it was a little interesting that the noble Lady herself had to be corrected by the right hon. Member for Llanelly, and on a point on which obviously the fact was not so clearly in
  498
  her mind as it would have been several years ago. I think that is also shown by the fact that while there are, as has been accepted by the Free Churches, a few hundred of these single-school areas left, this compares with some 4,000 at the time of the 1944 Act. It is a very great contraction, and I believe that we are in sight of a solution to this problem by the good will that has gradually grown on this subject, and above all by the good will which the Churches themselves are showing to each other.
  Mr. Goronwy Roberts: The Minister said that he did not expect that there would be a substantial increase in the number of single-school areas in future as a result of this Bill. Can he say whether that expectation has been reinforced or substantiated by any discussions which he has had with the Church of England Schools Council? Is that the expectation of the Church as well as the Minister?
  Mr. Lloyd: I think it would be fair to say that it is. I think that it is probably only in unusual circumstances where there was a general feeling in a particular district that the circumstances were favourable that it might come about. I do not believe that it is the intention of the Church of England to take any initiative on a wide scale in this matter.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: I should like to thank the Minister for the statement that he has just made. As he and other hon. Members interested in the matter will know, we raised this matter at a very early stage. We were deeply anxious, and we still are, that the Bill, which is approved by all parties in this House, should also have the full assent of people in all religious organisations. We are anxious to meet these old deeply felt grievances of Nonconformists. It is good for the whole of the country that we are able in 1959 to discuss this with a better approach towards unity and tolerance amongst all the Churches in the country than was the case before. In 1902 we had passive resistance, and so on, and the country is none the worse for the fact that we are now able to approach this matter more calmly.
  5.0 p.m.
  The Minister was right to say that his tenure of office was not likely to be very long, but, as he said, his assurances carry

  499
  the assent of both sides of the Committee, of the Official Opposition as well as the Liberal Party and in that way have an extra force. As a Nonconformist, I welcome the new approach of the Church of England and the Church in Wales—to correct myself—and I hope that my hon. Friends who come from the northwest corner of Wales, with all its traditions and memories, will also accept those assurances. They should be satisfied that the old scandals of which they have memories will not return. Let us hope that in their administration of the provisions of the Bill, and in their relations with each other, all religious denominations will approach this matter in the spirit in which the House of Commons has approached it.
  Mr. Clement Davies: I am very glad that the noble Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) has spoken in this debate. Indeed, she would have been failing in her filial duty if, with memories of her father, she had not given us the benefit of her views. The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) missed out one great name, because the 1902 Measure was fought by two men in particular, the then hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs and the hon. Member for Mid-Glamorgan, who was afterwards better known as Sir Samuel Evans. It was on that Bill that those men made their Parliamentary reputations. Those are days gone by. There is now a much better understanding among all of us, and every one of us is pleased about it. I add my thanks to those expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) to the Minister, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his renewed assurances.
  I hope that every one of us is now very conscious of the anxieties felt by Nonconformists and Free Churches everywhere. The assurances which we have received and what hon. Members from both sides have said have gone a long way towards allaying those anxieties. There is now a strong desire that we should all work together for the common end of the best education which we can give to the children.
  One or two hon. Members—and it has been said outside the House of Commons—have seemed to suggest that the Bill would be the precursor to further requests
  500
  as time went on. Those requests will be resisted, and strongly resisted, unless there are changes in the situation comparable with those which have occurred since 1944. We all recognise the changes which have taken place, economically and otherwise, during the last fifteen years, and that has been the reason for our unanimity.
  It was suggested by the hon. Member for Abertillery (The Rev. LI. Williams) that the time would come when there would be a request for a 100 per cent. grant for denominational schools. I remind him that whereas the 1944 Act said that the wishes of the parent should be observed, there was the understanding—and it was the basis on which the 1944 Act was accepted—that denominational schools had made sacrifices, were making sacrifices, and would continue to make sacrifices. If the full grant of 100 per cent. were made, there would be no sacrifice, and that understanding would no longer exist.
  Mr. James MacColl: I join with others in welcoming the Minister's statement about the progress of discussions between Nonconformist bodies and the Church of England and the Church in Wales. I hope that my noble Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) will not mind my saying that if it was an Anglican dog which bit her distinguished father I cannot help but wish that the same dog would bite more Welsh children to produce the same effect.
  Everyone will agree it is vitally important that there should be no kind of discrimination against children because of their beliefs or the beliefs of their parents. Every member of the Anglican Church should share that view, just as strongly as Nonconformists. The Church of England is not distinguished for having democratic centralisation as its basis of organisation, and therefore it is not possible ever to say that what is agreed in the council chamber and approved by the Church Assembly will be carried out by every managing body and every parochial church council. That is human nature, and it has to be recognised as part of the situation.
  However, I am certain that everybody who has any responsibility for educational matters in the Church of England will be most anxious to do everything

  501
  possible to deal with particular cases which might arise where there may be difficulties of this sort. I am sure that the best way of securing what we all want is by having the feeling that there should be free discussion of difficulties and that we should not be at arm's length.
  To follow a point made by my noble Friend, I feel strongly about the appointment of local authority managers to aided schools. Aided school authorities have the habit of going to local authorities and suggesting as suitable to be a manager someone who is regarded as a safe person and who will not cause trouble. That is not operating the 1944 Act in the spirit in which it should be operated. In appointing their representatives to the school managers of aided schools, local authorities are responsible for choosing people who will look after the public interest and the public share of the responsibility, which is now very substantial. That is something which requires not an alteration in the law, but a little more common sense on the part of the managers and a little more appreciation by the foundation managers that from the educational point of view it is better to bring in someone who will see the value of the school, rather than making it all a cosy little tea party in which only certain people take part.
  When foundation managers are reporting vacancies, I hope that they will not try to put pressure on local authorities to appoint someone from among their friends, but that they will see the appointment as an opportunity for ordinary representatives of the public, ratepayers and taxpayers, to play a part in the management of the school and to see what is happening at schools of this sort.
  I do not want to take up the time of the Committee, but I did not want to leave this very important matter without a Socialist Anglican having some opportunity of joining a Tory Anglican and giving a cordial welcome to what the right hon. Gentleman has said and to say that we shall help in every way we can.
  Mr. Ede: It ought not to be thought that the main interest in the matter on this side of the Committee is concentrated in Welshmen, because the main problem here is in the
  502
  English rural areas. I am told that there are no single-school areas in Wales.
  Mr. C. Davies: That is so.
  Lady Megan Lloyd George: That is not so.
  Mr. Ede: I gather that in the Second Reading debate there was considerable belief in the statement made in an intervention of my speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), but in England there are areas in which this is a very deep-seated grievance going back over a very long time. Part of the grievance is that, as a rule, the village school in the single school area is an old school, very often pre-1870. Owing to the fact that even in these days the child population has not greatly increased, if it has increased at all—it has more generally decreased—there has been no urgent need, mere physical need, to build a new school or to improve the existing one. Therefore, the parents who may have denominational grievances have a grievance that is also shared in many places by parents who hold the faith of the foundation of the school, that somehow or other their children in the village are getting a worse deal than of their cousins who live in a town where, owing to the expansion of population, the great new schools have been built.
  I am disappointed to some extent with what we have been told this afternoon because the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery will remember that on 26th April, 1944, Dr. Scott Lidgett, with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the chair, told us that he had received from the Church of England a promise that all the things about which we have been talking this afternoon would be carried out as soon as the 1944 Act was passed.
  It is true that Dr. Scott Lidgett was not an official representative of the Free Churches. He was a freelance in this matter, and we were sometimes rather suspicious as to how far he was trying to promote religious unity and how far he was concerned with Nonconformist interests in the negotiations going on. In fact, since his death I have been approached by more than one Methodist organisation to know if I would tell them exactly the part that he played. I think that he did his very best in difficult

  503
  circumstances. However, I hope that it will be possible to put something into a Statute that will secure what we now understand is being discussed.
  I see that the right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary and Lord Privy Seal is present. He will recollect the occasion when the Archbishop of Canterbury and Dr. Scott Lidgett brought to see him in the then Board of Education the representatives of the Churches for what were known as the "Archbishop's five points". It was remarkable that that afternoon the Nonconformists did not bring a single representative of rural Nonconformity with them. I remarked on that to Archbishop Temple after the meeting broke up. He said to me, "Well, you see, we did not bring the country parson either."
  That, I think, is a reminder of the fact that here we are dealing with a special problem that goes back a very long way in its social implications in the construction of village life in England. I am quite certain that unless this is put into a Statute we shall always have a few areas in which, with the best will in the world, agreement will not be reached.
  5.15 p.m.
  As has been remarked, the Church of England is not, after all, an authoritarian church in these matters. If one reaches a bargain with the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, one knows that it will be carried out down to the smallest school in the country. But if one reaches an agreement with an Anglican bishop, one finds it very difficult indeed to secure from some of the parochial clergy an admission that they can be bound in these matters by what he does. The last remaining cases will be those where feeling is bitterest and where it will endure. I hope, therefore, that the representative bodies which are now going to meet will be able to deal with this matter.
  I am excluded from the Federal Free Church Council and so are people of my religious views, from being represented by it. I do not want anyone to think that if they can reach an agreement with the Federal Free Church Council they of necessity bind me or members of my denomination. All I can say is that in 1870, when we were led in his greater days by Joseph
  504
  Chamberlain, we declared for secular education. Under the 1944 Act we agreed to the Agreed Syllabus and the arrangements that were then made, but it must not be thought that the Free Church Council speaks for the whole of Noncomformity in England. I do not know how it can claim to speak for Noncomfority in Wales because I do not understand how one can be a Noncomformist in a country which has no State church.
  Mr. Cyril Osborne: I wish to support from an English point of view what has just been said and to say to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education that I took the liberty of sending a copy of HANSARD to all clergymen of every denomination in my constituency so that they could read for themselves what had been said from each point of view. On Saturday I met a group of Nonconformist clergy. They made the point which the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) made. They asked, "Is it possible that the promise which has been made to Free Churches could be written into a Statute?" They were not saying that they distrusted the word of the Minister at all. They merely asked whether it was at all possible to put those promises, which they accept with gratitude from my right hon. Friend, into writing. If my right hon. Friend could possibly do that, I am sure that they would be extremely grateful to him.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered.
  5.20 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I do not think the House will wish me to be very long about this. I would therefore merely say that the Bill is designed to bring the present law up to date and to fit the facts as they are today without altering its general framework.
  As we have heard this afternoon, the Act of 1944 and the discussions leading

  505
  up to it brought about a great change for the better in the atmosphere surrounding all these questions. I could not have looked for a better or more understanding reception for the Bill. It has been understood on all sides that the paramount consideration is the interests of the children and that whatever is necessary in their interests should be done.
  It has also, I think, been accepted that it is being done without infringing the general principles underlying the Acts of 1936 and 1944. We have tried instead to build on them in such a way as to meet the needs of 1960 and the years ahead. I am much indebted for the smooth passage of the Bill to the collaboration of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and below the Gangway. I think we can truly say that we have worked together in the spirit of 1944, and it is a pleasure to me to acknowledge my debt today.
  5.23 p.m.
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: It would be most ungracious of me if I did not say something because, with great self-restraint, I did not comment on the Bill on Second Reading or, indeed, during the Committee stage. Many people like myself are greatly indebted to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for bringing the Bill before the House and for what they said on Second Reading.
  Special reference should be made to my right hon. Friend the Deputy-Leader of my party and to the able work of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), whose explanation of the Bill on Second Reading was, I think, agreed in the House to be almost a classic. The Parliamentary Secretary's reply was equally good. We know him as a man of ability, and more than once he has demonstrated his great knowledge of education. I should also like to thank the leader of the Liberal Party for the great part he played.
  I must declare my vested interest and say that I am one of those who will benefit from the Bill, because I hope to get some financial relief very soon. Others who hold religious beliefs such as mine are proud to be living in a country like Great Britain. No minority in any other country of the world, and
  506
  that is what we are, gets better treatment than we do. Those who share my faith hope that the treatment we have received in this House will become known to the world, and we hope that other countries might learn a lesson from this country. To other hon. Members who do not share my personal religious beliefs, I can only say that I am grateful to them for the approach they made in this very important matter.
  The great Dr. Scott Lidgett was mentioned, and it is appropriate that he should be. His work was done in my constituency, where he founded the famous Bermondsey Settlement. I know of no man who brought Christianity and life more into the hearts of people than he did. He really brought it into the hearts of ordinary people everywhere. He demonstrated that Christianity was not just a church, a cross, or an altar, but he was a living example of Christianity.
  Whilst talking of Dr. Scott Lidgett, may I say also that Methodism in my constituency has to fight for survival. My faith does not make converts when Methodism loses. My church would not be happy if Methodism failed. The fact is that we believe, and always have done, in trying to inculcate into our children the point of view of our faith in our church. It is a policy we have always believed in, and I am grateful to this country for allowing us to carry on in this way.
  We still have a great deal of debt, and we always shall. I am glad that I am going to get relief, but we shall not receive the entire relief and there will always be a lot of money to pay. The question asked by the hon. Member for Abertillery (The Rev. L1. Williams) was a fair one. He asked: "Are these people coming back for more?" For five years I have been engaged in negotiations in this House. Any Catholic who believes that it is easy to come forward and say "I demand as a right" is a fool. Anyone who is in a minority must understand that it is only a great country like ours that is prepared to give him concessions at all.
  As I see it, the tragedy of the Bill is that if we could also have had the grant for new primary schools, which would have cost only £9 million over 20 years, this matter would have been taken out of party politics and away from the House

  507
  of Commons for the rest of the century. In the lifetime of all of us we could not have come here again, and that would have been said from the pulpit of Westminster. There is, however, that anomaly in the Bill, and it must be pointed out.
  New primary schools will be built. We shall build them for the children, still unborn, who will need these schools in areas where there will be no grant. When these children are 11 years old and go on to secondary modern schools, again we shall find the money for these schools because the beliefs of our people on education are so determined from the bottom level that we shall carry out our programme. If we could have had this one concession tonight it would have taken this question right out of the political arena for the rest of the century.
  I hope it does not come back, but I could well understand its justification if it did with regard to the new primary schools. If one thinks about it, it is a ridiculous anomaly that a 75 per cent. grant is to be given for everything but new primary schools.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) spoke about Northern Ireland on Second Reading. Obviously he has not been to a Catholic school. I was educated in one, and I have never heard any one of my people attack Nonconformity. I have never in my own school heard any other religion attacked. It is an absolute myth and nonsense to say that there is an extreme atmosphere in these schools. The pupils are always taught that Christianity is important as the three R's. There was no difference in what we were taught in my school. There was no difference in the curriculum.
  We have our system of managership, and I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) when he talked about outsiders coming in as managers. I believe that it brings in a fine breath of air when one gets people from outside. I support any system whereby other people are brought into managership. Local education authorities have rights in this matter. They nominate the people, and, wherever possible, we try and get other people in.
  We have talked about the problems of the Church in England, in Wales, and the Free Churches. Some time, somewhere, I should like a get-together of all the
  508
  religious denominations to talk about the possibilities of the Scottish system. Scotland has its own system which works. We have had no complaints from my Scottish friends, whatever their religion.
  Finally, I should like to thank all hon.
  Members for what they have done, and I personally pay tribute to them.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: Denominational views are rightly and strongly held but I think the message that goes out from this House to the country is that agreement between representatives of the various denominations is possible. I hope that this agreement and goodwill will spread throughout the country.
  The Bill that we have been debating will allow the voluntary schools to play a full part in the development of secondary education which has been announced in the recent White Paper.
  The right hon and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) said that he felt that, if parents wanted their children to receive denominational education, they should continue to pay for it. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that they will do so. I tabled a Question on this subject to the Minister not very long ago. The Answer, broadly speaking, was that Church of England parents pay, in round figures, about £1 million a year for their schools and that Roman Catholic parents pay, also in round figures, about £2 million a year. That sum will be reduced by the Bill but it will still continue to be a burden on the parents, and one that will be willingly carried.
  I believe that our debate has tended to show that it is the view of hon. Members on both sides of the House that the various Christian religions should get together to face the common dangers of indifference and materialism.
  Finally, may I say that many parents are greatly indebted, not only to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education for introducing this Bill, but to the leaders of the three political parties who have given it their support.
  5.31 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: I hope that I shall not spoil the harmony of the debate, but, like my hon. Friend

  509
  the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), I did not speak on Second Reading. We have just listened to a most characteristic speech from my hon. Friend. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree, and so will the House, that the Bill is made possible only because of liberal thought in this country on religious matters, and especially the tolerance of other religious denominations and of those of no religion at all.
  I rise only to express the hope that the tolerance being shown by the House of Commons and by the country to the religious denominations who will benefit under the Bill will be extended by them to differing thought and differing opinions upon many matters of acute controversy today. This note should be sounded. My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey truly said that we all hoped that other countries, where certain religious thought is in control, were as tolerant towards minorities as we are in this country. Would a Bill of an entirely opposite purpose be possible in the Republic of Ireland or in Spain? We do not wish to copy the kind of intolerance which we find elsewhere. I am angry when we see glimpses of it, even on the Order Paper today, and we are asked in the Bill to finance the teaching of religious bigotry and intolerance such as we found in some Questions on the Order Paper today. I refer particularly to Question No. 33. I ask that those with opinions different from others should respect the sincerity of those, who do not always think alike.
  On Second Reading speeches were made to suggest that 75 per cent., as distinct from 50 per cent. is no different in principle. It may not be, but if the proportion becomes too high, or if it becomes 100 per cent., there will be a difference in principle. I have no wish to fan the flames of controversies which have now disappeared from public life. When I was a boy my father went to prison every year rather than pay the education rate to subsidise the Anglican schools. I was brought up in a home and a town of passive resistance. I have had to modify my views on this question, as many of us have, in order to accept the liberal doctrine of today. I am glad to do so. I ask no more of anyone than that they should not be aggressive, indeed cruel sometimes, when opinions different from their own are expressed sincerely, honestly and publicly. Let us have our
  510
  own say. Let us express our opinions without being abused in our constituencies and without being confronted on occasion with the most aggressive religious persecution that one can have because there is a viewpoint expressed contrary to that of a particular Church.
  I have on occasions felt deeply at instances of bigotry and intolerance, and I cannot let the Bill go through without expressing those sentiments.
  5.35 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: The whole House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) for the passage in his speech in which he referred to the very different atmosphere prevailing in this country from that prevailing in some other countries. I was very glad that my hon. Friend said that, because I know that that consideration has been very prominent in the minds of many members of the Free Churches in this country.
  I do not know what opportunities there are for my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey or for the many of his coreligionists who feel as he does on this matter to exercise any influence over what may be the practice in countries where his co-religionists are in the majority and where the same tolerance does not prevail as in this country. If there are any such opportunities, I say to him and to those who feel like him that any influence they can exert in the direction of greater tolerance in countries of that kind will be of very great assistance to the solution of educational problems in this country and, in a much wider field, to the welfare of Christendom as a whole. That is a matter on which Free Churchmen and free thinkers in this country feel very strongly indeed. I am very happy to realise how fully my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey is aware of that.
  We are reaching the end of rather protracted and complicated, but happily not acrimonious, labours on the Bill. In view of the acknowledgements made from time to time by the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary, it is proper that we, speaking for the Opposition, should recognise the part played in achieving this success by the labours of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. To speak frankly, I have not the cast of mind

  511
  or temperament which causes me to enjoy co-operating with my political opponents for the sake of so doing, but as our work on this matter proceeded I found that there was a genuine pleasure in trying to achieve an agreed result.
  That arises for two reasons. First, we not only were able to achieve much mutual agreement and good will among the religious denominations, but as the Bill proceeded the degree of agreement which it has been possible to reach has extended. That was apparent from the course of the debate on one of the Clauses earlier this afternoon. The view has been expressed that some of the things which the Minister believes and which I believe will be achieved in practice might have been put into the Statute. There would be great difficulties about that. I listened very carefully to what some of my hon. Friends said on this issue. I feel that there would be great difficulty in putting it into a Statute. If one takes that view, as I do and as the Minister does, it becomes all the more important to see that all the assurances that the Minister was able to give after his discussions with the churches are fulfilled to the full extent that is humanly possible. That, I am certain, will be done.
  It is gratifying to realise that the process of discussion and agreement, which was going on between the Anglican and the Free Churches on this matter long before this Bill was first mooted, is now being brought to fruition as a result of the introduction of this Measure. It seems to have given an added impetus to the reaching of agreement between the Anglican and the Free Churches on the single-school areas and certain other related problems. I trust that as time goes by there will be fewer and fewer areas in which any cause for complaint can be found, until finally their number is diminished to zero.
  While I am on that point, may I say how strongly I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). It is certainly desirable that when managers are being appointed to an aided school in a single-school area, there should be consideration given to the claims of non-Anglican communities. I earnestly hope that it will be remembered by everyone who
  512
  has responsibility for appointing school governors or managers, whether a religious community or a local authority, that one of the first questions which they should ask is whether the person will make a good school governor or manager, whether he has acquainted himself with the very important duties that go with the job. The whole colour of our educational system can be greatly influenced by how well that job is done.
  That brings me to the major point which I wish to make. It has always seemed to me that this Bill is important because it removes an obstacle to educational progress. My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) made a speech with which I have a great deal of sympathy. We have been anxious to meet the needs of religious denominations and of those people who hold very strongly this or another form of the Christian faith. But, as I said during the Second Reading debate, we must remember that there are a large number of people who, whether they profess the Christian faith or not, do not want a denominational education for their children, but do want good education for all children.
  While we are anxious, and rightly so, to safeguard the interests of every other section of the community, it is important that we should not forget the feelings and wishes of that very large section. It is many of them who have wanted us to carry through a Bill of this kind so that educational progress would be possible without violence to the consciences of their fellow citizens. In this Bill we have removed that obstacle to educational progress. Let us be sure that we have the progress.
  Among the many letters which I have received on the subject of this Bill, there was one from a person who is a devoted Anglican and interested in a particular Anglican school, but concerned that there did not always seem to be sufficient anxiety to keep the school buildings up to standard. The writer of that letter wants to know whether, if Parliament gives further financial help, the work will be done; will those responsible for the upkeep of school buildings see to it that, as Parliament has sought to help them, so they will set themselves a high standard in the carrying out of the responsibilities which belong to them under the

  513
  scheme which Parliament has approved. I think it important that that should be remembered everywhere where this Act is being administered.
  It has often been said during the discussions on this Bill that it helps one denomination or another. I hope it does. I hope it does more, I hope it helps every child in this country and every citizen of all religious faiths, or of none, to feel that in passing this Bill, although it is not a major educational Measure, it is a necessary part of the improvement to education in this country; so that the general tenor of life shall be more nearly that which everyone, whatever his religious faith, would desire it to be.
  5.45 p.m.
  Sir E. Boyle: I wish to echo and reaffirm some of the points made by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). The Bill was not brought in as a result of pressures from one denomination or another, but because it was the will of all the main parties in the House that all children, irrespective of their religious background, should benefit from the improved plans for secondary education which everyone wishes to promote. We may and we do differ—though not, I believe, fundamentally—on questions of how education should be organised, but there is a universal desire that all children should benefit from the rising standards which are the will of the country today.
  I believe that to be the wish not only of men and women and hon. Members who are members of the various Churches, but also of very many enthusiasts for education who are not members of any particular religious denomination. I was glad to note that the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) referred to those professing no religion at all. There are a great many people, both in the House and outside, who do not themselves hold religious beliefs but, none the less, wish to see a rise in the standards of schools of all kinds, including denominational schools.
  Without too much self-congratulation, I hope that we may say that the manner in which we have handled this issue and in our debates upon the Bill, may serve as an example to other countries in the Western world where the history of this question has not always been quite so
  514
  fortunate. May I express the hope that whenever this subject comes before us we shall be able to handle it in a spirit of unity, as between the two sides of this House. After all, it is we in Parliament who finally decide an issue of this kind. It is not a matter for religious denominations or groups outside, but it is one for the House itself to decide; and I hope that the agreement in the discussions on this occasion will mark our discussions on future occasions.
  I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Fulham that throughout the course of these long negotiations we have brought about a greater degree of agreement and understanding between religious bodies. At the Ministry it will certainly be our aim to see that this agreement is strengthened so far as possible for the future. We know perfectly well that there are particular areas in the country where relations are still not quite as good as they should be.
  I listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) as did my right hon. Friend. Of course, it is true that there are some rural areas, in England in particular, where there is one old Church school in a village with a declining population and where there may still be difficulties. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, if there are any particular cases to which he wishes to draw our attention, we shall at once take them up with the Church authorities.
  I also agree with the hon. Member for Fulham that there may be issues of this kind which are better dealt with by negotiations with the Church authorities than by trying to proceed by means of precise legislation.
  Dr. Horace King: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to publish the sentiments which he has expressed, and which have been expressed by my hon. Friend, in the form of a circular to local authorities?
  Sir E. Boyle: We will consider whether anything useful can be done in that way. I take note of the point made by the hon. Gentleman.
  The last point I wish to raise is this. During these debates we have talked a good deal about the religious denominations and the desirability of ever-increasing harmony, but there is one

  515
  other set of bodies which I hope we shall not forget in this context—the local education authorities themselves. Throughout the whole field of education it is upon the education authorities that we shall greatly depend for progress; and if we are to make a reality of secondary education for all, and to see rising standards of secondary education, as we hope, throughout all our secondary schools including denominational schools, then I hope that there will be the closest co-operation between the local education authorities and the religious bodies.
  I believe that co-operation has become much more marked in recent years and the more it can continue the better. With these words I should once again like to thank the House for the reception that it has given to our proposals. I am absolutely sure that when we look back on this Bill in the years to come, the House will have no doubt at all that it was wise to pass this Measure, and that it will contribute to the fulfilment of those ideals which all of us in this House would wish to uphold.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS (LICENSING AND INSURANCE) BILL [Lords]
Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
Bill recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 3, page 5, lines 12, 14, 18 and 22; and Clause 4, page 6, lines 22 and 27 and page 7, line 28, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Maudling.—(Sir I. Horobin.)
Bill immediately considered in Committee.
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS (LICENSING AND INSURANCE) BILL [Lords]

  Clause 3.—(LICENSEE'S LIABILITY.)
  5.52 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): I beg to move, in page 5, line 12, at the end to insert:
  "the relevant date, that is to say, the date of".
  I wonder whether it would be convenient, Sir Charles, to consider this Amendment, which is a paving Amendment, with the following substantive Amendment, in page 5, line 14. If that Amendment is passed, all the following Government Amendments become consequential and could be moved formally.
  Sir Frank Soskice: I hope, Sir Charles, that you will feel able to call the Amendment to the proposed Amendment standing in the names of my hon. Friends and myself. I take it that in due course you may feel able to allow discussion on that.
  The Chairman: All the Amendments will be called, except the one that has not been recommitted.
  Sir I. Horobin: That being agreed, Sir Charles, I do not think that these two Amendments will take very long because they deal with a matter upon which both sides of the Standing Committee felt very strongly and we are just engaged in making sure that we do what we all wanted to do.
  The point, shortly, is that we do not want to find that anyone's claim is barred by limitation of time as the result of any narrow judicial interpretation of the

  517
  word "occurrence". We want to be sure that it is not confined to a momentary definable catastrophic event because an occurrence might become a continuing or repeating one. In Committee I moved an Amendment to Clause 4 (1) which went a substantial way to deal with that, but I said that we would look at it again. We have re-examined the matter and the point of these Amendments is to make doubly sure.
  One of the points on which we were not quite certain was the legal position concerning Clarkson v. Modern Foundries Ltd., 1958, which has a certain effect in England but might be held not to apply to Scotland. It would obviously be undesirable if different circumstances arose in the two countries. The result of that further consideration is in the words of the second Amendment which we are now discussing, and which I shall move in a moment. I think that it will make absolutely certain that what both sides of the Committee wanted to be done will be done.
  Sir F. Soskice: I rise to thank the Minister for the obvious trouble which the Government have expended upon considering the points that we put in Standing Committee. The Amendment which we are now discussing and which we on this side of the Committee are very glad indeed to accept goes a long way to removing the apprehensions which troubled us when we were looking at this part of the Bill during Committee stage.
  We still have, however, some apprehensions which it would perhaps be out of order for me to mention now as the Chair has indicated that it proposes to call the Amendment to this Amendment. The Amendment certainly goes a long way to bring in all those cases in which it is difficult to point to any particular occurrence where there is a number of occurrences forming a chain of events in circumstances in which it is difficult to pick out and isolate one particular instance as being the cause of the misfortune.
  I am very grateful to the Government for what they have done and for the language they have chosen, and, speaking for myself, I am very glad to welcome the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed: In page 5, line 14, at end insert:
  "or, where that occurrence was a continuing one, or was one of a succession of occurrences all attributable to a particular happening on that site or to the carrying out from time to time on that site of a particular operation, the date of the last event in the course of that occurrence or succession of occurrences to which the claim relates".—[Sir I. Horobin.]
  Sir F. Soskice: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end to add:
  "and for the purpose of this subsection the appearance of symptoms indicating the presence of any illness, incapacity or injury shall be deemed to be an occurrence".
  I intimated a moment ago that the Government Amendment still left one area about which we felt uncertain. It is this. The Government Amendment has certainly covered the case where we have a confused series of incidents, one or more of which could be said to be the author of the mishap. What we feel may not have been adequately covered is the situation in which a person after a long period of time, having been exposed to radiation through working in or near a plant, developed symptoms of an illness which would seem to be traceable to that exposure.
  In that circumstance it might be impossible to link the symptoms with any known incident at all. They might occur years later. Doctors may be able to say that the symptoms must have been caused by exposure and to the proximity of the patient to some happening in which a radiating effluence was emitted. That situation, we feel, would not be covered, and we have tried to devise a form of words to bring it in. We have sought to provide that the first appearance of symptoms indicating the presence of some illness or incapacity and being symptoms which are the sort which one would link with exposure to radiation should themselves be regarded as an occurrence.
  The result of that would be, if the Amendment were accepted, as follows. Supposing a person who has worked in one of these plants for ten, fifteen, twenty or thirty years later develops some incapacity—loses the sight of an eye, which was an example given in Standing Committee—or suffers some malformation, perhaps suddenly or over a period of time; and supposing that when the

  519
  symptoms first appear it is utterly impossible, looking backwards in history, to say that the symptoms were due to the fact that on such a day twenty years ago there was an explosion, or that "I stood too near one of these plants without proper protective clothing" or something of that sort, it will be possible for the claimant or, in the event of his death, his dependants to say that the actual emergence of the symptoms is the thing we point to as the occurrence.
  6.0 p.m.
  Our Amendment provides that the appearance of a symptom indicating an illness shall be regarded as the occurrence. The Government may say that although they recognise the force of our argument they cannot accept the Amendment because they have already extended the period to thirty years. My reply would be that we are dealing with a new type of illness and with a situation which has been very little explored. Doctors know very little about it. It may well be that, as the result of exposure which itself may have lasted for a very long period of time, one of these dreadful catastrophes will take place years later; we cannot say how long. A man's eyesight may go, or something of that sort. I bring that in as a rather macabre example.
  We should make sure that that sort of case is brought into the scope of these rather complicated provisions. It should be possible for a person who is the victim of exposure which took place years before, or for his dependants, to say that years ago he had worked in circumstances in which he might have exposed himself to radiation, and to point to the emergence of the illness as being the occurrence under this Measure. I think the language that we have chosen in our Amendment would bring that about. If the Amendment is in line with the Government's own thinking, I hope that they will accept it and will redraft it with the assistance of their advisers.
  I therefore commend the Amendment to the Committee. One is uncertain how these symptoms may develop and what form they may take. We are laying down the framework of a code of security, and trying to provide for unknown situations which may present
  520
  themselves in the future. We ought not to take the risk of leaving out of the Bill that kind of contingency. The Government have gone a long way to bring in everything that should be brought in, but they have not gone quite to the length that we would like them to go. We believe that the Committee generally will readily accept that the sort of situation I have described should be brought within the scope of the Bill, if it is practicable and possible so to do.
  Mr. Frederick Peart: I would reinforce the plea which has just been made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice). In Committee, we tried to argue that we should err on the side of caution. That was always our approach, not only in dealing with actual safety of nuclear reactors and installations but of the personnel who are employed in them. I hope that the Minister will accept the plea of my right hon. and learned Friend that we shall err on the side of caution and not think in terms of a 30-year limit.
  What really matters is how the individual is affected. There is great uncertainty in this field, in which medical knowledge is extremely limited. For that very important reason we ask the Government to err on the side of caution in this legislation and, therefore, to accept our Amendment to the proposed Amendment. I do not want to put it higher than that—we are dealing with unknown hazards in the radioactive field. I hope that the Government will accept our Amendment.
  Mr. Roy Mason: I do not want unduly to prolong the discussion on this part of the Bill, but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) has said, we stressed in Committee the need for safety. We can congratulate the Government, and successive Governments, on starting off the atomic energy policy and nuclear energy in all its aspects in a way that has made it one of the safest industries of the country and compares well with nuclear industries elsewhere.
  Nevertheless, there is bound to be spillage or leakage of nuclear energy from these nuclear reactors, and such things should be taken into consideration. There may be a slight increase of radioactivity on the site itself and that will exist as

  521
  long as the site is occupied in this way. There is always the danger, as we have witnessed not long ago, that the operating boxes in our research establishments are used under the wrong impression that they are safe, and symptoms develop later on in the people concerned. Many people who are not scientists have to handle radioactive materials over a long period of time, such as radioactive waste in various forms when it is deposited in bulk from nuclear energy plants or dumped into the sea. There is no telling to what extent people may be affected over a period of time.
  I doubt very much whether there will be another Windscale accident, because we learned very many lessons from the previous one and we may never have another one like that, yet people who are not employed in the reactors but work in the immediate vicinity of them may be slightly affected. To suggest that the appearance of symptoms indicating the presence of an illness should be regarded as the "occurrence" is reasonable.
  I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say at least that he is willing to consider all these points, which will bring the Bill up to the standard of safety that we desire and will err on the side of caution.
  Mr. Harold Davies: There is no need for me to detain the Committee long over this matter, particularly since we had a long discussion on it when the Bill was in Committee. I would ask the Minister to say, when he replies, whether, when the Clause was drafted, the safety executive committee of the Atomic Energy Authority, which was formed in 1957, was consulted.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) made a point that is worthy of consideration. It is true that neither medical science nor nuclear physics is quite certain of the consequences of radiation. In fact, the nuclear physicist knows less about it than do the geneticist and biologist. That fact was brought out at the present Geneva Conference. Since the world is going in for atomic energy, which assumes that we can live peacefully side by side, it would be good if Britain, which was one of the foremost with industrial Factory Acts, were to take a lead in passing a safety clause for the
  522
  first nuclear installations, erring on the side of caution rather than in any other direction. This would be an example and a practice for the rest of the world to follow.
  It would bore the Committee to stress the point further. The point is well taken, but I think it was correct for some of us to follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport to let it be known that we believed this was not a frivolous Amendment, but one which needed deep consideration by the Government. In Committee upstairs the right hon. Gentleman did consider deeply the points we put in debate.
  Sir I. Horobin: I hope that the Opposition will not press this Amendment to the Amendment. I am glad that hon. Members opposite agree that we have tried on this and on other matters to consider the points made from both sides of the Committee upstairs. There is no party question involved here, but there are difficulties. The primary one, on which I base my submission to the Committee that we should not accept this Amendment to the proposed Amendment, is that it would destroy the whole basis of limitation.
  We could have a position, which I think the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) himself suggested, of something occurring twenty or thirty years afterwards and then there is another thirty years in which claims could be made. Whether or not it would be likely to extend over that long period, the fact remains that such a provision would drive a coach and four through the principle of limitation.
  As the right hon. and learned Member knows better than I do, there are very grave objections to destroying the principle of limitation, although we have extended the period very much in this Bill for reasons that everyone knows about. The difficulty of proving certainly the cause of events which took place a very long time ago is one which must be faced. It cannot be got over by extending the period. In fact, the longer the period the more difficult it becomes to settle exactly what happened.
  I want to make two other points simply, because this is a late stage in the Bill and we are all anxious to get the Bill for obvious reasons. At such a late stage

  523
  wording is important and, while I do not base my objections to the Opposition Amendment on that, I should say it is by no means certain that these words would be reasonable even in themselves because they do not say, "symptoms in any way related to radiation" and, strictly speaking, any symptoms would become the occurrence. It way be argued that this would have to be read in the context of other parts of the Clause, but that is by no means certain. There is also the difficulty that it would be by no means workable, because after ten years the licensee could not insure and there might be a period in which he would not be reimbursed by Parliament.
  I do not base my objections on those points, although I believe that they are relevant. It is accepted that we have made a genuine effort to go a long way, but to accept this Amendment to the Amendment now, would, in fact, mean destroying the whole principle, which is well embedded in our law for perfectly good reasons which we all understand, that there must be some limit to claims. We have extended that a great deal in the Bill. I hope the Opposition will not press us to go further to such an extent as practically to destroy the whole principle.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Alfred Robens: The case that the Parliamentary Secretary has made is very reasonable. We are all alive to the necessity for some limitation in making claims in a general sort of way. That is well laid down in the law, but we are in the difficulty of being on the verge of the unknown in this matter and no scientist is prepared to be very specific about what would happen.
  While this matter relates to the individual who was working, it is quite clear that genetic damage could be done to him and that damage could be passed on to some infant. I do not know how that would stand under the law in relation to compensation in respect of a terrible happening which the scientists tell us could occur. We all find ourselves in considerable difficulty in trying to do justice to all those who are likely to be exposed to these new hazards and, at the same time, to retain the whole affair within commonsense limits and the general principles we accept of limita-
  524
  tion of claims. The Parliamentary Secretary has put the case well for the Government and I cannot quarrel with him about what he has said.
  We can only say once again—I think that the hon. Gentleman would concur in this—that we are not certain at this stage and the purpose of our Amendment was to try to be as certain as we can be in all these circumstances However, in view of what he has said and of the fact that on this matter there is no difference between us—we all want to see justice done to people who may be damaged as a result of this work—I suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) that we are very satisfied with the explanation and the comments which have passed between us and could perhaps now pass to other parts of the Bill.
  Sir F. Soskice: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Proposed words there inserted.
  Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 18, leave out "occurrence" and insert "relevant date".
  In line 22, leave out "occurrence" and insert "relevant date".—[Sir I. Horobin.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 4.—(PROVISION OF COVER FOR LICENSEE'S LIABILITY.)
  Amendments made: In page 6, line 22, leave out from "the" to end of line 23 and insert:
  "relevant date for the purposes of subsection (4) of the said section three".
  In line 27, leave out from "which" to end of line 29 and insert:
  "the relevant date aforesaid fell".
  In page 7, line 28, leave out from "the" to "and" in line 30 and insert:
  "relevant date for the purposes of subsection (4) of section three of this Act".—[Sir I. Horobin.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

  New Clause.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO LICENSING OF SITES.)
  (1) Where in the case of an application for a nuclear site licence in respect of any site received by the Minister after the commencement of this Act it appears to the Minister appropriate so to do, he may direct the applicant to serve on such bodies of any of the following descriptions as may be specified in the direction, that is to say—

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  The new Clause is designed to meet a series of points raised by the Opposition in the Standing Committee. It falls into three parts. Subsection (1) deals with the position of local authorities, river boards, local fisheries committees and so forth, and provides that the Minister shall have power to direct anyone applying for a nuclear site licence to serve on these bodies notice of his application, giving in that notice such particulars as the Minister may specify and also making it clear to the bodies that they have two months in which to object. Thereafter, the Minister cannot grant the licence until he is satisfied that the full two months have passed from the serving of the last
  526
  of the notices, and he cannot grant it until he has considered any representations that may have been made. That covers, I think, fairly satisfactorily the important matter raised in the Standing Committee of notification to local authorities and similar bodies and provides an opportunity for them to raise objections. There is a proviso that this shall not apply to the sites of nuclear generating stations for the electricity boards because we feel that the provisions already made under the Electricity Acts should be adequate for the purpose.
  The second subsection is a separate, somewhat cognate point raised by Opposition speakers at an earlier stage. It provides that where any organisation representing people working on the site makes representations to the Minister asking him to use his powers to vary or

  527
  revoke an existing licence he shall be under a duty to consider those representations.
  The third subsection—again dealing with a separate point—provides that the Minister shall maintain and make available for inspection by the public a list showing every site in respect of which he has granted a nuclear site licence, save only sites where there is no licence for the time being in force and thirty years have elapsed since the expiration of the last licensee's period of responsibility. I think that will provide for comprehensive information to be available to the public on the lines that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had in mind.
  I hope the House will take the Clause as an attempt to meet the important points which were raised and will, therefore, accept it as it stands.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: I think we can say from this side of the House that we are very delighted indeed with the new Clause. We are grateful to the Government for meeting our points. I think we may congratulate ourselves upon the activity and the mental penetration that we displayed in Standing Committee. The three subsections of the Clause are the result of suggestions from the Opposition during the Standing Committee proceedings.
  It would be out of order at this stage for me to refer to an Amendment which we shall shortly be considering, but we feel that the period of notice should be a little longer. We are particularly delighted about subsection (2) because it gives an opportunity to the trade unions representing employees at the nuclear sites to make representations to the Minister about matters connected with the granting of a licence before such a licence is granted.
  Finally, there is the third point—we pressed this very strongly—that the public should be enabled to find out just where the nuclear sites are, both sites which are in active use and sites which have expired. The public should be able to obtain that information, and a proper list should be maintained by the Minister and maps should be available. Therefore, we welcome the new Clause.
  Mr. David Price: There are two points on which I should like
  528
  my right hon. Friend to give some undertaking if he can.
  The first relates to subsection (1) of the new Clause. It would be helpful to applicants for licences if they had a copy of the representations made by the various bodies. A water board might object because it had fears about effluent, and it is reasonable that the applicant, who gets notice, should know what the objection is at the same time as it goes to the Minister. I should have liked some words to this effect included in the Clause, but it will suffice if my right hon. Friend can give an undertaking that the Department will carry out the course which I have mentioned.
  My point about subsection (2) is very similar. We had a long debate about this in the Standing Committee. I think my right hon. Friend has met the case made by the Opposition, but, equally, I think it is fair that the operator should be informed of the type of representation that the staff or workers' organisation is making to the Minister. We hope that, in practice, this course will be rare and that objections will be put directly to the management of the nuclear installation, but that should relations be such that it is felt that representations at a higher level are necessary, copies of them should go to the management.
  I am sure that the House will agree that ideally we want the fears and objections of workers and staff to be dealt with by the management. I look upon the subsection as a safeguard so that where that level of confidence does not exist between staff, workpeople and management there shall be a longstop.
  Mr. Peart: I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price). I call him "my hon. Friend" because in Standing Committee there was considerable agreement between us. In fact, he was the only hon. Member opposite who spoke—
  Mr. Robens: And always very wisely.
  Mr. Peart: —and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) says, always very wisely.
  I support the hon. Gentleman's plea to the Minister that before licences are granted the representations of local authorities and other bodies, such as

  529
  trade unions and others employed at nuclear installations and on sites, should be made known to the people who have been mentioned.
  I am certain that the Minister will be sensible, and I am glad that he has been sensible about the views that we expressed in Standing Committee. I am very pleased that our representations have had their effect and that any local authority will be considered and consulted and will be able to make the necessary representations. I am also grateful to the Government in respect of the plea that we made on behalf of river boards and local fishery committees. We emphasised how important it was that they should be able to make the necessary representations. I assume that water boards will be included. I take it that they are covered by the term "any river purification board".
  I want representations to be made to site operators and owners not purely for negative reasons. I have always argued that local authorities and their staffs have a great contribution to make in this matter. They have local knowledge. They know the geology of the area, and they have special technical facilities. Local authorities have engineers and water undertakings have water engineers who can all make their contribution to the siting of the reactor. I hope that the new Clause will not be administered in the purely negative sense of making representations to prevent the creation of a nuclear site. I would rather see representations made to help make the site more efficient and better situated, and able to be operated more smoothly.
  If we accept the Clause in that spirit I am sure that we shall have a better approach to siting, especially from the point of view of nuclear reactor operators and the authorities who will have to work with the owners in the areas concerned.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Mason: The Minister has generally satisfied the wishes of the Committee and has particularly stressed that water undertakings and local authorities shall be consulted before licences are granted. Water undertakings are very worried about the discharge of effluent, as the hon. Member for East-
  530
  leigh (Mr. D. Price) mentioned, and local authorities are worried both about effluent and about the siting of nuclear power stations. I understand that the Atomic Energy Authority has now managed successfully to develop a system which allows it to dump radioactive waste in bulk. Local authorities will want to be notified well in advance of the sites where this radioactive matter in bulk form is to be dumped—whether it is to be in mineshafts in their areas or offshore but nevertheless within the area of some coastline authority.
  There is one other factor which applies to all forms of radioactive materials, such as radioactive isotopes, nuclear material and radioactive waste. When licences for sites are being granted and it is necessary to transport radioactive matter in bulk a code of recognition should be established in respect of the containers, so that local authorities, the police and the first services can become conversant with this code and will know, precisely what degree of danger is involved if there should be an accident or fire should break out. They will then know precisely what to do.
  The word "radioactivity" still charges people with fear, and although we are managing to control it safely it is essential that the people who have to handle the material in emergencies should be sure that they can easily recognise the degree of danger if an accident should occur. The Clause will provide a greater measure of protection, because water undertakings and local authorities will know the whereabouts of radioactive effluent or waste, but if a code of recognition is developed the strength of this matter will also be known. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has been able to introduce the Clause because it will help local authorities and river boards, since they will now be fully informed.
  Mr. Peart: There is one other point that I should have mentioned. There is no obligation upon a site owner or the people concerned with an installation to consult a water undertaking or local authority after a licence has been granted. Will there be such consultations?
  Mr. Maudling: The points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) and the hon. Member for

  531
  Workington (Mr. Peart) can be readily accepted. It would obviously be common sense for information to be made available. I can assure both hon. Members that the provisions of the Clause will be administered in that spirit.
  In reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), I would say that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government has already begun discussions with local bodies about permanent legislation concerning the disposal of radioactive waste, which the hon. Member has often referred to as a very important problem. As for the code of recognition, I shall gladly have his suggestion studied, although I cannot commit myself in any way.
  As for the final point made by the hon. Member for Workington, the Clause refers to what must be done in the way of consultation before a licence is granted, but anything which is regarded as necessary subsequently can no doubt be included within the conditions of the licence.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a second time.
  Mr. Palmer: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 17, to leave out "two" and to insert "three".
  Mr. Speaker: I think it would be convenient to discuss the Amendment in line 19—to leave out "two" and to insert "three"—at the same time.
  Mr. Palmer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is not necessary for me to say very much, because I suspect that we are pushing at an open door. We want to extend the period in which local authorities and other public authorities can make representations to the Minister in relation to considerations arising in connection with the granting of a licence. In official circles a period of two months is not very long. The notice has to be received and studied; other bodies may have to be consulted, committees may have to meet and officers may have to make reports. It is extremely difficult to do all these things within two months. We are being very moderate in proposing that the period should be extended by one month. We think that the Amendment will facilitate the efficient conduct of public business all round.
  Mrs. Joyce Butler: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I do so mainly for the reasons puts forward by my hon. Friend, but particularly because, in the sphere into which we are moving, it is likely to be necessary for consultations to take place between neighbouring authorities. In the provision of these sites, and their licensing, it is likely that a number of local authorities will be concerned. At the moment the machinery for consultation on these matters is a rather cumbersome one. We hope that in time it will become much easier for them to consult each other, but it seems to us that three months is the minimum period necessary for all the consultations to take place, bearing in mind the fact that county authorities and non-county authorities, as well as neighbouring authorities, will be concerned. There seems to be nothing to be lost and everything to be gained by lengthening the period.
  Mr. Maudling: The arguments put forward by the hon. Members opposite are convincing, and I would recommend the House to accept the Amendments.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In line 19, leave out "two" and insert "three".—[Mr. Palmer.]
  Mr. Palmer: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause as amended, in line 33, after "him", to insert:
  "(whether or not such licence is still in force)".
  This also is an Amendment on which I need not speak at length, because there may be an easy answer to our point and we hope that the Amendment will be accepted. We are anxious to cover the case of what I shall call, for convenience, the evacuated site, where there has been use of a site for a nuclear process, a licence has been granted and is later revoked, but the risk of danger still exists and, therefore, under the terms of the Bill, there is still a continued liability on the part of the occupier.
  In those circumstances, if the Minister is to maintain a list of the sites or if maps showing them are to be displayed, we might as well do the job properly and fully and include those evacuated sites. They are bound to exist in the years to

  533
  come when this business has gone a great distance ahead. All sites should be included whether or not the licence for them is still in force. I am puzzled why this provision is not included already in what is generally a sound Clause. For these reasons, I hope that the Paymaster-General will look with favour on our Amendment.
  Mr. Harold Davies: I beg to second the Amendment.
  In view of the possibilities and the difficulties in the prolongation of radioactive isotopes, this proposal would be a safeguard. The House is well aware of the facts and, therefore, there is no need for a long speech. This is a reasonable Amendment and I sincerely hope that the Minister will give it due consideration.
  Mr. Maudling: I cannot recommend the House to accept the Amendment, but I hope to be able to persuade hon. Members opposite that it is unnecessary, that the Clause already has the effect which they intend and that by adding these

  (1A) Notwithstanding that a nuclear site licence is for the time being in force or is not for the time being required in respect thereof, no person other than the Authority shall use any site—

  5

  (a) for any treatment of irradiated matter which involves the extraction therefrom of plutonium or uranium; or

  (b) for any treatment of uranium such as to increase the proportion of the isotope 235 contained therein.

  10

  except under, and in accordance with the terms of a permit in writing for such a use of the site for purposes of research or development granted by the Authority or a government department; and any fissile material produced under such a permit shall be disposed of only in such manner as may be approved by the authority by whom the permit was granted.

  This Amendment concerns a matter to which much importance was rightly attached by Opposition Members during earlier proceedings. It is the problem which arises from the highly dangerous nature of certain substances used in nuclear installations, of which the outstanding one is plutonium. It was plutonium to which references were mainly directed.
  The purpose of the Amendment is to make it clear that no private body or company shall have the right to treat irradiated matter in such a way as to extract plutonium or uranium—to cover all dangerous substances that can be extracted, one must specify uranium as well as plutonium—nor shall they have the right to treat uranium in such a way as to increase the proportion of the isotope 235 contained therein. That means, in effect, that no private person
  words, confusion might be caused. The new Clause states that
  "The Minister shall maintain a list showing every site in respect of which a nuclear site licence has been granted by him".
  That, I am advised, would cover both types of case. To make certainty doubly sure, however, the House will see that the proviso excludes from this provision a site for which a licence is no longer in force, but only when thirty years have elapsed since the end of the period of responsibility.
  I assure hon. Members, therefore, that the point contemplated by the Amendment is covered and that to add these words to the Clause would have no effect and might, indeed, be confusing.
  Amendment to the proposed Clause, as amended, negatived.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

  Clause 1.—(LICENSING OF SITES FOR NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS.)
  Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, at the end, to insert:
  shall be entitled to make plutonium and similar highly dangerous substances. That is in line with what the Opposition had in mind.
  6.45 p.m.
  An exception is made where a permit has been given in writing by the Atomic Energy Authority or a Government Department to somebody for purposes of research or development. We felt that it would be wrong to restrict research and development in these matters. An immense amount of research and development work is done outside Government establishments and it is for the general good that that should continue. It would be a great pity if it should be inhibited by reason of the fact that certain possibly small quantities of fissile materials should be extracted or created in the course of that research or development.
  As the House will see, however, there is the further proviso that any fissile material whatsoever which is produced under such a permit
  "shall be disposed of only in such manner as may be approved by the authority by whom the permit was granted."
  In other words, if in the course of research and development a private body made some of this substance, it would not be able to do with it anything other than the Government Department or the Atomic Energy Authority says may be done with it.
  This proposal gives complete control over these highly dangerous substances without at the same time inhibiting, which I think would be wrong, research and development into these highly important matters for our economy. I hope that we have succeeded in covering the point that was made earlier and in carrying out the undertaking which I gave. I trust, therefore, that the Amendment will be accepted by the House.
  Sir F. Soskice: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out lines 8 to 12.
  Our Amendment would have the effect of leaving out from the Government Amendment those portions of it which enable licences or permits to be issued to private undertakings for the purpose of research and development with plutonium. At the outset, it would be churlish of me if I did not recognise fully that the Government have gone a long way to meet our desires in this matter. Obviously, they have given a lot of thought to it and in their Amendment they have gone, I am not quite sure whether the whole way, but at least very far to meeting what we had in mind. The purpose of our Amendment is to explore the question of whether the Government by their Amendment have gone quite far enough. As I repeat, I acknowledge and thank the Government for having gone a long way.
  When we discussed this matter in Standing Committee, there was an Amendment in the names of several of my hon. Friends and myself suggesting that the plutonium should only be extracted either by public authorities or by approved research organisations. The Paymaster-General may say that in seeking
  536
  to leave out from the Government Amendment the words which permit licensing, we are being rather inconsistent and, perhaps, going back upon the earlier Amendment which we ourselves proposed. If we have to plead guilty to that charge, may we say, in extenuation, that it is because we are dealing with something which is so vast in its potentialities and so full of possible dangers that perhaps if we err on the side of extreme caution it is a virtue and not a vice.
  Therefore, in putting down this Amendment we seek to explore the situation which may develop in the future if this licensing system is to be permitted. We are dealing with the very heart and kernel of the Bill. We are dealing with this highly dangerous matter, plutonium, and with the particular sort of uranium which is referred to in the Amendment. To say that that is like handling dynamite is obviously very much of an understatement. It is much more dangerous than dynamite. Therefore, I am sure that it will be agreed on both sides of the House that whether the Government are right or whether we are right in the doubts expressed, it is proper that we should go into this matter fully and see that we have drawn the line in the right place so far as human foresight can ensure.
  The Government Amendment would permit the Atomic Energy Authority, in the first place, to license private undertakings to extract from the enriched material the very matter out of which atomic weapons can be constructed. The commonsense answer may be advanced by the right hon. Gentleman that it is highly unlikely that any private undertaking would be able or would have the desire to construct an atomic or hydrogen bomb. That one readly recognises as common sense. At the same time, we pose the question by our Amendment whether it really should be possible at all for any private undertaking to handle this material, to engage upon the process which results in the production of this material from the enriched product.
  I would like the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us the sort of private undertakings which might want, and might be licensed, to extract the plutonium—in other words, to have in their possession so that they could use it, the very matter out of which

  537
  atomic weapons are constructed. We are talking about the actual matter and not about any of the preparatory processes. We are talking about the extraction from the enriched material of that very substance which goes to make up nuclear weapons. We therefore ask: is it desirable or necessary that in any circumstances that should be done by a private concern?
  I recognise at once that the Government Amendment goes a great way to hedge round the liberty of action of any concern other than the Authority. In terms it provides that any fissile material produced under such a permit shall be disposed of only in such manner as may be approved by the Authority by whom the permit was granted. Theoretically, at any rate, and within the terms of that language, I suppose that means that the ownership of the fissile material produced might be permitted under a licence to pass into private hands. I think it will be agreed that that is what the language allows.
  I ask, in what circumstances could it be in the public interest that that situation should emerge? In what circumstances is it necessary for a private undertaking to become the owner of, as distinct from being given a limited right to use, the fissile material? If a strong case cannot be made out showing that it is in certain circumstances essential that private concerns should become possessed and become the proprietors of that material, is there not a strong case for saying that there should not even exist a power to enable them to acquire the ownership of it?
  I do not want to throw out any fanciful examples of black market operations in this sort of material. Obviously, that would be unreal. There is nothing to consider or answer on that sort of hypothesis. But short of that, as we are dealing with this deadly dangerous stuff, should we not erect every sort of hedge to prevent the least possibility of danger, unless there is a strong case for saying that in some circumstances, which we think should be indicated by the Government, it should be enabled to pass out of the ownership of the State in the form of the Atomic Energy Authority?
  Therefore, it is, as I say, with a view to probing and eliciting more informa-
  538
  tion from the Government in this vital sphere of our future that we put down this Amendment which, in terms and as a matter of language, seeks to leave out the whole of the provisions relating to licensing. If a strong case can be made for the necessity of licensing, I concede that our Amendment must go too far, but a strong case should be made out. We think that the Government should be able to satisfy the House, before their Amendment is accepted, that it is essential that in certain circumstances this quintessence of danger, the extracted plutonium, should be allowed outside the custody of a public body. It should be shown beyond a peradventure. I think that the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary agree with me in that proposition. We are dealing with something so vitally dangerous that unless it is essential that it should be in some hands other than public hands, there should be no power in any authority to enable that possible hypothetical situation ever to eventuate.
  We put down this Amendment in case the Government spokesman may be able to satisfy us that we have gone too far. We shall listen expectantly to the reply. If I may put it in short compass, the point that I make is this. The Government Amendment—and we are grateful to the Government for having given careful consideration to our anxieties—enables licensing to take place under which private firms can extract this material. It also enables permission to be given for the ownership of this material, in addition to its use, to pass from public hands into private hands. If that is to be allowed under our system of law, we submit that the strongest reasons of utility and practical necessity must be shown to exist.
  The case for this Opposition Amendment can be put in the form of a question: can those grounds be established? If they can, we should like to hear them. We would then be able to determine our attitude. Our Amendment is exploratory in character and we should like a full answer to our question.
  Mr. Peart: We approached this very important subject in Committee not in any doctrinaire spirit and, therefore, I am pleased that the Government have moved this Amendment, because there is no doubt that it is accepted on both

  539
  sides of the House that the responsibility for the production of plutonium and enriched uranium must be with the State. Indeed, in reply to a question which I put to the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee, that fact was emphasised and it has been emphasised over and over again. We therefore accept that.
  I recognise that there is force in the Government Amendment and that the Minister has gone a long way to meet the points I raised in Committee. Inevitably, if we are to have important scientific research carried on in the use of plutonium and enriched uranium, it will be necessary for firms in the consortia and, indeed, firms outside the consortia, in certain circumstances and with proper safeguards, to do research in this subject. Obviously, if we are to accelerate the development of gas diffusion plants in this country, we must have much more research into enriched uranium. I am certain, therefore, that, in that sense, the Government's Amendment meets that kind of case. Neither my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) nor any of my hon. Friends wish in any way to impede that work.
  7.0 p.m.
  Only this morning I had the pleasure of seeing, in the course of construction, a reactor which is to be built by the Hawker-Siddeley Nuclear Power Company, one of the Hawker-Siddeley Group. Obviously, a body of that kind, doing important research not only for the Hawker-Siddeley Group, but also for the Atomic Energy Authority, should, in certain circumstances, have made available to it from the Atomic Energy Authority a supply of plutonium or a supply of enriched uranium.
  No one on this side of the House wishes to be doctrinaire about this matter. As I said in Committee—I stress it again—this is a partnership. It is a strong partnership which must go on. None the less, I am concerned about the question of ownership. I feel that the words of the Government Amendment are too vague. I hope that an answer will be given to my right hon. and learned Friend's question on the legal point. Line 10 of the Government's Amendment deals with the disposal of any fissile material. Does disposal mean a change of ownership? Do
  540
  the Government visualise that there may be a change of ownership of material which had been lent to a consortium or to a private concern? I am certain that each one of us on this side wants an assurance about this.
  We are dealing here with material which can be used for the peaceful production of atomic energy but which, also, affects our defence programme. We are anxious to have safeguards about ownership, but in no way do we wish to restrict research. I have said again and again that we cannot be doctrinaire about it. There must be this partnership between private industry and the Atomic Energy Authority acting as the agent of the Government. In certain circumstances, I can imagine that fissile material such as that mentioned in the Amendment could be used fruitfully by an organisation doing important research even though that organisation is a private one.
  I hope that we shall have further assurances about ownership. I shall not labour the point. The Government have gone a long way to meet our view, and there has been broad agreement that the State must have responsibility, with a proper licensing system. If that is in operation, I am sure that it will work well. But we must have a specific answer on the question of ownership, particularly as regards what is referred to in line 10 of the Government's Amendment.
  Mr. D. Price: As the House knows, I have some very modest experience in these matters, and it might be for the convenience of the House, in assisting it to make up its mind, if I were to explain one or two points.
  In my view, the case for resisting the Opposition Amendment is strong. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) has already given the main reason why it is right that the Atomic Energy Authority should, in proper conditions, permit private organisations to have uranium and plutonium. There is not only the obviously important matter of research in nuclear physics, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but also the very important work done by many establishments on canning materials, alloys, ceramics and various forms of insulation, linings for canning materials, and so on.

  541
  In Standing Committee, I declared a personal interest in the matter of beryllium, on which my own company works. It is not really possible to do experimental and development work on a new canning material for fissile raw material which one wishes to put into a reactor without having some of the actual fissile material to work with. There is a further legal difficulty to which I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice). One of the unfortunate features of this kind of work is that one is really applying the Einstein formula, converting mass into energy. One may start with a quantity of U 235, but, during the course of work, one may disperse some of it or convert it into other chemical forms. Therefore, all one has left is the decayed material which will go back to the Authority. I can well imagine very complicated legal arguments about the ownership of the part one has turned into energy. I will not labour the point, but it does add a complication.
  My next remark will, I hope, allay certain fears expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Uranium and plutonium, as he says, are associated with nuclear weapons and, of course, this must be in the back of all our minds. Nevertheless, I do not think that we should be too alarmed, provided that there is a reasonable system of licensing and permits as proposed in my right hon. Friend's Amendment. To illustrate what I mean, I will remind the House about the uses to which the element nitrogen is put. Thinking in terms of armaments, one's mind immediately goes to nitro-glycerine. On the other hand, although nitrogen can be used in making nitro-glycerine, one does not say that no private company shall work with the chemical nitrogen. If one said that, there would be no nitrogenous fertilisers. That simple analogy of the chemical nitrogen, which is familiar to most hon. Members, can be applied in exactly the same terms to the elements uranium and plutonium.
  I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to remember that in this whole new field of work there are, of course, risks that these things may be used for hostile purposes—it is the job of society to ensure that they are not—but that does not mean that they have
  542
  not also a perfectly good use for the benefit of mankind. Stones may be used for building houses or for throwing at people. We should have the same approach to plutonium and uranium.
  Mr. Mason: The Government's Amendment goes a long way to meet my point of view. I expressed a very definite point of view in Committee about the possibility of plutonium and enriched uranium passing out of the hands of the State. I hope that we shall have from the Government further elaboration particularly in regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) with reference to line 10 in the Amendment which deals with disposal. Will the material go back to the State or not?
  The right hon. Gentleman will remember that, in Committee, I said that we visualised a State plutonium bank, the idea being that, at all times, plutonium and enriched uranium after extraction during normal nuclear energy processes should be processed by and kept in the hands of the State. We therefore visualised that this very dangerous material would always be kept in the hands of the State and farmed out only under control and direction so that we at no time lost sight of it.
  The Governent's Amendment goes a long way to meet that point, but I am a little hazy about the last part of it. If the Government can assure us that at all times this extremely dangerous material plutonium and enriched uranium, will be kept in the hands of the State, that will go some way to meeting us. There is also the question of ownership of these materials used in a private reactor, perhaps by a member of the consortia or by a university establishment such as the Imperial College of Science and Technology, which may, in its normal processing and the running of its reactors, produce enriched uranium and, eventually, plutonium. If we can be assured that the material will be chemically processed by the State and kept in the hands of the State, that will go a long way to meet our point.
  Every time we export a nuclear reactor—the arrangements with Italy and Japan are examples—it is arranged that the nuclear fuels are brought back to this country so that they can be chemically processed. Control of them is not lost and they do not pass into other hands.

  543
  If the right hon. Gentleman can assure us that we shall, in fact, have a plutonium bank, the material being in the hands of the State and, at all times, kept under our control and direction, that will go a long way to meet my misgivings.
  Mr. Harold Davies: I agree with some of the points made by my hon. Friends, but I do not think that the analogy of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price), with all respect to his scientific knowledge, between nitrogen and nitroglycerine and plutonium and uranium 235 fits. There are two questions which we should ask about the movement of this enriched material. If this material goes into private ownership for research—and there is a case for research in private ownership—will we have safety regulations and provisions for insurance and compensation? The Committee has not considered this point. Such provision will be neded for scientific research under the drive of private enterprise or for university work.
  I should not like the Bill to go through in its present form, It is very loose. When this material is used in a university for smaller experiments, is that covered by the Bill? Perhaps the Minister will clear up that point. It is important that the public should know that we have considered these points.
  Another point about which I am concerned is this. This material will get cheaper. There is an interesting comparison between investment in the coal mines and investment in atomic energy. We were told that investment in the coal mining industry between 1945 and 1965 will amount to £2,000 million and that investment in atomic energy will amount to £3,350 million by 1965. When one invests in the mines, the older the mine gets the further one has to go from the shaft and a greater investment may be needed to win the coal, but the fascinating thing about this great discovery of mankind is that it will become cheaper. This may be a blessing to mankind. Ultimately, private firms of the smallest type may be able to experiment in this material twenty years from now because it will be so cheap and they may produce something that is worth while. Are we clear as to how this matter will be moved into private hands for experiment? I should like the Minister to consider this point.
  544
  We have spoken at great length about this subject, but I think that those points were worth making at this stage because they are points to which I think the Minister should apply his mind.
  Mr. Maudling: I can confirm that the point made by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) is covered by the first Clause of the Bill.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) was quite right in saying that the process of making fissile material, either by extraction from irradiated material or by enriching natural uranium, is extremely costly and complicated, and it is highly unlikely that in practice private undertakings would embark on manufacturing fissile material on an industrial scale. However, the Opposition have made the point, and we have accepted it, that, although this is unlikely, it is not impossible and, therefore, it should be made illegal by Statute. That is the purpose of the Government's Amendment.
  As I have said, the point is that the Amendment would, in fact, prohibit in any circumstances the manufacture of plutonium or the enrichment of uranium by a private firm on an industrial scale—not even with a permit or licence. Manufacture on an industrial scale is out under the Government Amendment. The only thing that would be permitted, subject to a permit, would be, for example, the incidental production of plutonium, which would be in small quantities as incidental to a process of research and development. It is true that that involves risks, but we must consider both sides of the question.
  7.15 p.m.
  I have been advised by the Atomic Energy Authority that if we were to accept the Opposition's Amendment and not make it possible for permits to be given for research and development the Authority itself would be considerably hampered because it would be prevented from placing with outside bodies certain research jobs which it cannot do itself. I am also advised that a good deal of university research would be seriously hampered if the provision did not exist. I am sure that the House will accept that and that we are at one in wishing that research should not be hampered but should be fully controlled.

  545
  The method which we have chosen, I think, is more practical than proceeding by reference to the ownership of the material. I suppose that there are many sources from which these highly dangerous substances can be produced, although some of them are perfectly safe in themselves, like natural uranium, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) referred. The important thing, therefore, is not the ownership but that we should have regard to the point at which something that is highly dangerous is created or made, and ensure that no one outside the Authority and Government Departments shall have the right to make these highly dangerous substances save under a permit issued by the Authority. The safeguard would be that that permit would specify what use shall be made of the fissile material once it has been produced. The word "disposal", I take it, would cover sale back to the Authority, but I imagine that possibly it might be desirable for some of this material to be made available to the Electricity Generating Board later. What is clear is that the Authority or the Government Department, whichever it may be, has complete control over this dangerous substance from the moment that it is created.
  I am sure that in practice both the Authority and any Government Department would not give a permit unless they were fully satisfied that the material concerned—the plutonium or whatever it is—will be just as safe in the hands of a university or research department as in the hands of a Government Department or the Atomic Energy Authority. Everyone knows how dangerous this material is. We can take it for certain that the Authority and Government Departments would take that precaution before issuing a permit.
  I hope that I have been able to persuade right hon. and hon. Members opposite that our proposal is the best way to achieve the common object. It makes provision for proper research and development. It recognises that as an incidental of research and development quantities of plutonium may be created. If that happens, however, it can be done only under a permit, and subsequent use or disposal of any such material will be entirely under the control either of the
  546
  Atomic Energy Authority or a Government Department. I hope that I have persuaded hon. Members opposite that that is the fact.
  Mr. Robens: What the right hon. Gentleman has said is very satisfactory to us on this side of the House. This was a matter which engendered a good deal of heat in Committee. We spent a lot of time on this point and at one stage it came back to the House. However, time has passed and we have forgotten the difficulties which lay between us.
  We are happy that the Paymaster-General and the Parliamentary Secretary have been able to produce these words which I think adequately meet the fears which were expressed. There is always the difficulty in dealing with a Bill of this kind that we are trying to safeguard for unknown hazards and difficulties, and in drawing attention in Committee to the dangers which would arise if it were possible for private enterprise to produce plutonium I think that we on this side were only doing our proper duty.
  What the Paymaster-General has said is, of course, perfectly correct. It is a very expensive process. Because of the tremendous cost and the work involved, it is hardly likely that anyone would enter this field, but we do not know exactly what work will be involved and what the cost will be in ten, fifteen or twenty years' time. Therefore, in producing these words, the Paymaster-General has covered beyond a shadow of doubt the difficulty that faced us at one time of preventing the actual extraction of plutonium, and its manufacture, being placed in the hands of private individuals.
  We go with the right hon. Gentleman on the necessity of private enterprise in its research programmes, needing access to these materials, and to use them, but I was more than delighted to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said about the disposal of these products. Our Amendment to the proposed Amendment was, of course, intended to focus attention on this aspect. It was not designed in any way to do more than elicit the kind of exchange we have had, and I am very glad indeed that our action has produced such an excellent statement from the Paymaster-General which, I am sure, satisfies my right hon and hon. Friends as it satisfies me.

  547
  I am grateful, because of what took place in the Standing Committee. I am conscious that tempers sometimes get frayed—mine probably gets heated more quickly than others—and certain hard words passed between us. Nevertheless, the fact that there has emerged such a useful and profitable debate perhaps justified what took place then. I want, once again, to say that we appreciate the work of the Parliamentary Secretary and the Paymaster-General in dealing with this matter in this way, and I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) will seek the leave of the House to withdraw our Amendment and so enable us to accept the Paymaster-General's proposed Amendment.
  Sir F. Soskice: In view of the answer we have had, Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
  Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, to leave out from "Minister" to end of line 12 and to insert:
  "by instrument in writing—
  (a) shall on granting the licence, and may from time to time thereafter, attach to the licence such conditions as may appear to the Minister to be necessary or desirable in the interests of safety, whether in normal circumstances or in the event of any accident or other emergency on the site, which conditions may in particular include provision—".
  I do not think that this Amendment need take us long. It is put down to meet a wish expressed by the Opposition that the Minister should have a duty, and not merely a power, to attach appropriate safety conditions to a licence. This seemed to us to be a very reasonable point, and we were glad to accede to it.
  Mr. Palmer: I understand that these words have been framed in order to meet points raised in Committee, once again, by the Opposition. We are, therefore, grateful to the Government.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, at the end to insert:
  "(iii) with respect to preparations for dealing with, and measures to be taken on the happe-
  548
  ning of, any accident or other emergency on the site".
  This Amendment, again, has been tabled to cover a very useful point, if I may say so, made in Committee; that safety conditions should cover not only the normal operation of the installation but also the arrangements to meet an emergency, and the proper action to be taken in the case of evacuation and so on.
  Mr. Palmer: I believe that I was responsible for raising this matter in Committee. I then made a fairly long speech. I am now happy to make an extremely short one, and to welcome an Amendment put down in response, once again, to the Opposition's representations.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, after (b) to insert:
  "may at any time attach to the licence such conditions as the Minister may think fit with respect to the handling, treatment and disposal of any nuclear fuel which becomes irradiated in the course of its use at the site;
  and the Minister may at any time by a further instrument in writing".
  This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment we have just been discussing about the treatment of plutonium.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 3, line 2, to leave out "who" and to insert "which".
  This small Amendment has been tabled as a matter of clarification. It turned out that the Bill, as it left the Committee, might be read as meaning that all these extraordinarily complicated and sometimes very technical conditions would have to be posted en bloc everywhere. That, obviously, would be absurd and, in practice, would probably mean that nobody would obey any of them. By making this small change we are, in effect, ensuring that each of the conditions shall be available somewhere, but that the particular Regulations affecting someone's duty in some part of the site can, on the decision of the Inspector, be separated quite clearly so that the man who has to do something under them can see exactly what he is responsible for doing, and not have that duty mixed up with a whole lot of

  549
  other things which could only cause confusion.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, after "(1)", to insert "subsection (1A)".
  This Amendment, again, is consequential on that dealing with the treatment of plutonium.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 2.—(REVOCATION AND SURRENDER OF LICENCES.)
  Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 3, line 28, after "direct", to insert:
  "and shall during the remainder of the period of his responsibility cause to be kept posted upon the site such notices indicating the limits thereof in such positions as may be directed by an inspector".
  This Amendment, Mr. Speaker, and those in page 3, line 29 and in page 4, line 16, all go together. Again, this group of Amendments is tabled to meet a proposal of the Opposition that commended itself to us; that disused nuclear sites ought to be clearly demarcated so that people could not go upon them, as it were, without knowing that they were trespassing into an area that might or might not be dangerous. This seemed to us to be a reasonable precaution.
  Mr. Palmer: This is getting monotonous, Mr. Speaker, but I must say again, while expressing our gratitude for this small but excellent change, that it has come about, once again, as a result of Opposition initiative.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In page 3, line 29, leave out from "thereafter" to "directions" in line 31 and insert:
  "until the expiration of the said period give to the licensee such other".
  In page 4, line 16, at end insert:
  "and any person who without reasonable cause pulls down, injures or defaces any notice posted in pursuance of subsection (2) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds".—(Sir 1. Horobin.)

  Clause 5.—(DANGEROUS OCCURENCES IN CONNECTION WITH LICENSED SITES.)
  Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 8, line 34, to leave out from "as" to "with" in line 35 and to insert:
  "it is not in his opinion inconsistent".
  This Amendment goes with that in page 16, line 4, put down in pursuance of an undertaking that I gave in Committee It does not make a great difference, but it does slightly alter the emphasis with regard to security. The Opposition felt that, as it were, the onus of proof should lie on why something was not published, rather than the other way round. I do not think it makes a great deal of difference, but we felt that we should like to meet the Opposition on this small point in this way. These Amendments make it quite clear that the reports may be published to any extent which is not inconsistent with national security.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 6.—(INSPECTORS.)
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Palmer: I beg to move, in page 9, line 30, after "qualified", to insert "and trained".
  We are proceeding so rapidly that I hesitate to make anything like a long speech on this which is admittedly a relatively small point. Clause 6 of the Bill deals with the question of the inspectors who will be necessary once the Bill becomes the law of the land. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will agree with me when I say that the success of the safety provisions of the Bill will depend to a great extent on the Inspectorate, just as the success of the Factories Acts depends upon the Factory Inspectorate. Clause 6 of the Bill says that the inspectors to be appointed should be "qualified" persons.
  I think we can take it for granted that they must be qualified and that they will have the proper education in nuclear science and nuclear technology and all that is associated with it. But we should like to take the matter a little further, to ensure not only that the inspectors should be qualified for the duties which they will have to perform but that, in addition, they should be trained. I should have thought that in the ordinary way the two things, the two words "qualified" and "trained", would have gone together, and I am a little surprised that the word "trained" which we propose to insert is not already in the Bill because most Acts of Parliament, as far as I remember, particularly

  551
  those dealing with the nationalised industries, if they use the word "education", add the word "training". The phrase usually is "education and training". Therefore, if we substitute "qualification" for "education," why cannot we go on to add the word "training", and if we have "qualified" why cannot we add "trained"?
  When the right hon. Gentleman, or his hon. Friend, replies, perhaps he will also tell us a little bit about how it is proposed to recruit these inspectors. I am, of course, assuming that they are already educated in these matters, that they are already qualified, and should also, as we are proposing, be trained. Much of the training at the moment will necessarily be done by the Atomic Energy Authority. I think it would be interesting to the House to know what kind of relationship is to be established between the Ministry and the Atomic Energy Authority in this matter.
  Trade unions and some of the staff associations which organise staff and workpeople in atomic energy establishments—and there will, of course, be others yet to come as the extent of these nuclear processes grows wider—are most interested in this matter of the Inspectorate, that not only should the inspectors be qualified but that they should be firmly trained in the duties which they have to perform. It may be that I am taking too favourable a view of my own argument, but to me it seems a very sound argument, and I hope that it will be looked upon favourably by the Government.
  Mr. Harold Davies: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Sir I. Horobin: I do not think there is anything between us on this matter, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. and right hon. Friends will not press this Amendment. There are really two quite simple reasons why we take that view. The word "qualified" places the responsibility for the decision quite clearly on the Minister. It is up to him to decide whether the appropriate persons are appointed in these different grades of service. We are anxious that nothing should go into the Bill which might cause confusion, and that might arise in two ways if these proposed words were put in.
  552
  First of all, there is not only the need for academic qualification in these matters and for specific training in certain cases, but some should have at certain grades substantial practical experience. Therefore, if we put one thing and do not put the other, that may lead to doubt, whereas if we simply put, as I say, definite responsibility on the Minister to see that the persons appointed have the proper qualifications, which is a general word, that difficulty is covered.
  The other objection is very relevant to something which we all know is very much in the hon. Gentleman's mind. Indeed, he referred to it in passing when he was moving the Amendment. There may be certain of these junior appointments for which, if we are to get them at all and get them quickly, the Minister must go to the universities and appoint people subject to subsequent training. This Amendment would make it impossible for him to do that because he could not start paying these young people, who may have the most brilliant qualifications and be in every way qualified, as they would not already have had the necessary training.
  For these and similar reasons, and as we entirely share the objective which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, I hope he will agree that his point would best be met by leaving the Bill as it is.
  Mr. Palmer: In view of that very rational explanation for which I am sure we are grateful, and as, I understand, the word "qualified" covers, in effect, education and training, and as I see the strength of the hon. Gentleman's argument about the recruiting difficulty, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 10, line 6, at the end to insert:
  "in order to secure that the carrying out of the test does not create any danger."
  This Amendment is for the purpose of clarification. In Clause 6 (2) there is a proviso that before carrying out any tests an inspector
  "shall consult with such persons having duties upon the site as may appear to him appropriate."
  There was some discussion earlier whether this should not be spelled out a little more definitely, and the purpose

  553
  of this Amendment is to make it quite clear that the purpose of these consultations is not to consider the nature of a test but to ensure that the test itself does not create any danger—by the pushing of the wrong switch, or something of that kind. I hope we have made that clear and that the House will think it satisfactory to leave it to the inspector to decide for himself whom he should consult before carrying out his test.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 11.—(NORTHERN IRELAND.)
  Amendments made: In page 13, line 39, leave out from beginning to "to" in line 40 and insert:
  (f) except in section ten of this Act, any reference.
  In page 13, line 42, at end insert:
  (g) for paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of section (Supplementary provisions as to licensing of sites) of this Act there shall be substituted the following, that is to say—
  "(b) any board of conservators for a fishery district constituted under the Fisheries Acts (Northern Ireland), 1842 to 1954, and any statutory water undertaking within the meaning of the Water Supplies and Sewerage Act (Northern Ireland), 1945."—[Mr. Maudling.]

  Schedule.—(INQUIRIES INTO OCCURRENCES IN CONNECTION WITH LICENSED SITES.)
  Amendment made: In page 16, line 4, leave out from "as" to "with" in line 5 and insert:
  "it is not in his opinion inconsistent."—[sir I. Horobin.]
  Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
  7.40 p.m.
  Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I do not think that we need spend very long on this Third Reading stage. The proceedings on the Bill have been mutually advantageous. A great many useful suggestions have been put forward and even when they have not been accepted in their original form they have perhaps stirred up the Government to make improvements which otherwise might not have been made. We have dealt in a sensible, compromise way with the thorny subject of the extraction of plutonium and other dangerous substances, without impairing the essential development work
  554
  which has to be done. We have made improvements in the Bill as originally introduced in its relations with local authorities and water undertakings.
  At this stage, I should refer perhaps to the fact that no time is being wasted on the related subject of effluent. In the next few days my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is meeting those concerned to get on with this very important aspect. We have improved the position of the trade unions in a field where, obviously, they have to consider the safety and circumstances of their members' work.
  It might be useful if I repeat in the House an assurance which I gave in Committee on behalf of the Atomic Energy Authority, because it is right that it should be as widely known as possible that though nothing in the Bill is retrospective, the Authority does not intend to invoke the existing law of limitation to protect itself from any claims arising out of the Windscale accident.
  One point which was raised in Committee and which might be referred to in a sentence on this last stage was the question of the certainty that the Bill would have application in the event of the fusion process becoming a reality. I promised to look into it again, and I can assure hon. Members opposite that we are satisfied on the best advice, that the terms of paragraph (b) of Clause 1 (1) cover those processes. The only reason why we used in the relevant passage the word "installation" instead of "plant" was simply that we wanted to include not only those but the bulk storage of radioactive substances, and so on. If right hon. and hon. Members opposite had any further anxieties on that subject, I think that they will now feel reassured.
  One improvement made in the Bill as a result of observations made not in Committee, but by persons concerned, is the exclusion from the Minister's powers of any provision which might give him improper powers to hinder industrial processes which do not involve danger to health and safety. The outstanding one is the treatment of minerals like beryllium, and there are other processes which are of great importance to the large undertakings like I.C.I. which are doing invaluable work in this field. Here, I might make a passing reference to our late lamented colleague the Member

  555
  for Clitheroe, Mr. Fort, who, though not a member of the Standing Committee, had a great knowledge of these matters. He came to see us several times and was particularly interested in this aspect of the problem.
  We looked again, at the request of some hon. Members opposite, to make quite sure that there was no harm in the word "vicinity" in regard to giving the Minister powers to treat neighbouring installations as one. We are quite satisfied that the provision in the Bill gives the Minister the necessary power and that if we tried to determine more exactly in legal language what exactly was meant by vicinity—how near it ought to be, and what kind of division between neighbouring sites constituted two sites instead of one—the resultant change in the Bill would lead only to complication and would not do any good.
  I believe that it was the wish of everybody concerned to be assured that the Government were not allowing the grass to grow under their feet, whether it had a lot of strontium 90 in it or not, in appointing inspectors, because that, after all, is the crux of this matter. It is no good having beautiful provisions on the Statute Book if there is nobody to enforce them. I am glad to inform the House that Major-General S. W. Joslin, who has had a very distinguished career, first in the Royal Engineers and the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, and later with the Atomic Energy Authority, has said that he will be willing to accept appointment as Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations as soon as the Bill becomes law. It will be his first duty, of course, to consider the appointment of staff to his department. All hon. Members should be glad to feel that we are taking urgent action to get on with this important matter.
  Although I cannot develop it, because probably it would be out of order, it would be relevant in rounding off the whole picture to tell the House and hon. Members who were not members of the Standing Committee about the problems of transport by sea. Progress is being made in respect of them, too. In relation to O.E.E.C. countries, a draft convention will be considered this month with a view to ratification, in which case further legis-
  556
  lation will be required. I am advised that the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna is urgently considering the general question as it affects countries which are not included in O.E.E.C.
  I think that we can say, therefore, that in the Bill we are taking an essential part in securing that this great advance into a new field, holding out immense possibilities but also great dangers, is now being made on a wide front. We are dealing here with safety and insurance. Steps are in hand to deal with the problems of effluent waste and also with the problems of transport by air and sea. I think that the Bill has been improved in the course of its passage through the House. While, generally, nothing is permanent in this industry which is moving so quickly, the Bill is a valuable piece of legislation and I have no hesitation in commending it to the House.
  7.49 p.m.
  Mr. Palmer: In supporting the Third Reading, one can say that the Bill certainly had to come. Nuclear science is still relatively new and nuclear technology is certainly rather newer, yet the practical progress made since Lord Rutherford and others made the first pioneering discoveries nearly half a century ago has been enormous. Some of that progress has been made under the impact of war, and much under the challenge of post-war industrial advance.
  Speaking as a Socialist I would be prepared gladly to say that in many of these developments private capitalism has played a worthy part. However it should be remembered that the major planning, research and development has been undertaken by public enterprise. So when one looks at the history of nuclear development one can hardly say afterwards that public enterprise cannot initiate change and progress.
  Nothing stands still; alteration and evolution continue all the time. It would be a great danger to the industrial progress of our country if we confined nuclear development in too tight a legislative jacket. It is inevitable that as nuclear knowledge and application grows, it will become less and less of a mystery and more and more of a normal industrial technique. That is all to the good. The further we can get it away

  557
  from the semi-secret military atmosphere, the better all round.
  We should welcome this development because of the constructive industrial benefit it can bring to our country and, without being too pompous about it, to all mankind. However, because of the special dangers to health, life and property associated with radioactive processes, and because of the well-known potential military use of nuclear materials, it is essential that the public interest should be fully safeguarded at all stages. Hence the provisions in the Bill that all nuclear installations must have a licence and that safety and insurance conditions must be imposed. I think my hon. Friends would agree with me if I said that, on balance, in Committee we thought the Government had gone a little too far in the provisions of the licensing system, though it is true that before the end of our discussions we seemed to reach more general all round agreement on that point.
  On the insurance provisions, I think it might have been possible to arrange that the insurance could have been undertaken through the medium of a fund raised by a levy on all the undertakings likely to be concerned. Instead it is being done by private insurance, but only for the first period of ten years. After that it will be necessary for Parliament to look at the situation again and make a special provision.
  On the matter of safety, I think one can say that both sides of the Committee upstairs did a great deal to improve the Bill. The fact that a great many Opposition Amendments were accepted should be taken as a tribute to the helpfulness of the Government. Also without being too boastful about it, I think it is a tribute to my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Opposition have worked hard on this Bill because we appreciate how important it is.
  During the Second Reading debate, I described the Bill as being a somewhat reach-me-down commercial little Measure. Looking back, I think that was too harsh a view. Whether I was right or wrong on that occasion, however, I am prepared to accept that the Bill is now much better than when it left its Second Reading.
  For that reason, I have pleasure in supporting its Third Reading.
  7.54 p.m.
  Mr. Mason: First, may I congratulate the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary on having successfully piloted the Bill through to its final stages. At one time in Committee the atmosphere was rather charged with radioactivity, and it took a little time before we managed to disperse the radioactive matter, after which we had a rather clearer atmosphere and progress was made.
  If this country is to expand and prosper and the nation is to have an economic future, the new industry of atomic energy will have to play its part, and the greater the energy output of a nation the greater its prosperity. That yardstick has been used time and time again, and undoubtedly it will be the yardstick of our economic expansion in future years. This industry will certainly play its part in that respect.
  I come from the basic industry of the country, coal mining. I can see that its future is threatened seriously by the gradual advent of nuclear energy, but that is not worrying me. The quicker we can get all men out of the mines and away from the dangerous and hazardous occupation of coal mining, the better it will be for us all, provided that it can be done in a fashion so phased that no social problems of great magnitude follow.
  It is pleasing to know that in spite of the fact that this is a densely populated island, because we have managed so successfully to introduce the new industry in all its aspects throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, we have had few accidents. That reflects great credit on an Authority which is completely controlled by the State, and it is one of the great benefits of having new industries started under State control. I have often wished that the coal-mining industry could have started on the same plane, for it would have saved many lives and have avoided accidents and great disasters. Already this industry is one of the safest in the country, and there is no nuclear energy activity in America or Russia which compares with ours in that respect.
  This Bill is in itself a safety measure because it will assure that safety will prevail in the industry. What is most important is that in case of accident it will provide insurance for those who

  559
  work in the industry and for many people who will be residing in the immediate vicinity of the vast new nuclear power stations.
  Briefly then, because I do not want to prolong the passage of the Bill through its final stages, I would say that the new industry is developing in a rapid, orderly and licensed fashion. I congratulate the two Ministers who have been responsible for getting it through the House, in spite of the heated opposition we had at times and of having to go through the unusual procedure of descending to the House prematurely.
  7.58 p.m.
  Mr. Peart: I, too, add my congratulalations to both Ministers on the way in which they have handled the Bill and have met many of the arguments advanced by this side of the House. In that sense the Bill has had a good Committee stage. I only wish that during that stage more hon. Gentlemen opposite had spoken, because this is not a party Bill. We have not approached it from a doctrinaire point of view, as I have stressed time and time again. We have only been anxious to ensure that there shall be created in this country a real safety organisation for the siting of reactors, the handling of radioactive materials and, above all, a safety code. We have been anxious to do that and the Bill reflects credit on both sides of the House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) has stressed the importance of nuclear energy. We all accept that, but he said that it is going to play a part. I would remind my hon. Friend that it is now playing a part. Indeed, that was why many of us during the Committee stage were anxious to ensure that, for example, radioactive isotopes were covered by the Bill. I will not repeat the details of their use which I gave in Committee, but I have seen already in various research institutions the use of radioactive materials. For example, radioactive Caesium is now used in soil research—thus radioactive isotopes will help to improve our grasslands and food production. This is now being done in this country, and so nuclear energy in its peaceful uses is here, and we must recognise that. Therefore, the Bill is of great importance.
  560
  I wish that many more hon. Members had taken an interest in the Bill because it may well affect the pattern of our development in this field. That is why we had the main arguments of policy over Clause 1. There must not be any repetition, but it is right and proper that on this safety measure policy should be discussed and that even at this late hour, on Third Reading, we should bear in mind that policy in turn will affect safety and siting and that both sides are complementary.
  We are very glad that we have had an assurance that the work of the Authority will go on and that no one will seek for doctrinaire reasons to impair the vitality of that body. I argued in the Standing Committee what we have seen abroad, particularly in the United States, where the Atomic Energy Commission is in a sense being frustrated for doctrinaire reasons. Congress has decided that the Commission shall shed itself of responsibilities and that there shall be a handing-over of the work of that authority to private industry for doctrinaire reasons. I am very glad that hon. Members opposite have not taken that view and that the Minister moved an Amendment to cover that situation and to show the world that we intend to make the Authority work, and make it work in conjunction with private industry. It is commendable that both sides of the House should accept this and that we should reject above all a doctrinaire approach.
  There is much to be done. The purpose of the Bill is safety, and, therefore, the real key to the operation is the inspectorate. Earlier we moved an Amendment focussing attention on the need to have a trained inspectorate. We have argued this matter over and over again. I believe it is now accepted that if we are to have proper safeguards and if the industry is to develop as it is doing the inspectorate must be of the highest quality. It must consist of graduates, of medical people with training in nuclear physics or nuclear physicists with training in medicine, and they must be of the highest quality in order to do the job.
  I am glad that the Minister has mentioned that fusion is coming. We all know of ZETA, but let us remember that other

  561
  countries are forging ahead in this direction. In the Standing Committee I quoted the experience of Western Germany which has three centres—Aachen, Gottingen and Hamburg—where research is going on into the fusion process. It may well be that much of our fission process will become obsolete in the next ten years. In fact, some of it is obsolescent now. Consequently, we must recognise that the process is thrusting forward not only in Western Germany but in the Soviet Union. We must regard it as part of the normal nuclear processes, and, therefore, it is right and proper that the fusion process should be covered by the Bill.
  The Bill raises many other points which have not yet been covered in too much detail. I should have liked more argument about the insurance situation, especially the arguments mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) earlier. I should still like more assurances in the Bill about the place of local authorities and water undertakings in consultation not before the granting of a site licence but afterwards. I have stressed the importance of technical people outside the Atomic Energy Authority who can make a continous contribution in respect of the monitoring arrangements that we have for our water supplies. All this is work which can be done by experts employed outside the Authority. I want that cooperation to continue not in a negative sense but in a positive sense.
  The Bill may contain various snags, but that is understandable. After all, we are trying to marry the abracadabra of science with the abracadabra of law, and it is not easy to do so. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have done well in that direction. They have explained most of the Clauses lucidly. We are glad that they have approached the Bill in this spirit, and each of us is glad to have been able to make his little contribution to this first major Bill affecting the safety of reactors.
  8.5 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Davies: Although the House may not be too full, one of the most historic Bills in the history of Parliament has moved quietly on its way this afternoon.
  562
  If mankind can resist its suicidal tendency—I wonder about it sometimes—there is no doubt that this is man's next step forward through the world, but for the success of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes co-operation between the whole of mankind is needed, and it is no good any one nation claiming all the prizes for this, although we in Britain are very lucky because we did a good deal of pioneer work.
  We have reached the pitch now where man, if he wants complete co-operation, must accept some of the great discoveries such as those of the two young Japanese scientists who were awarded a prize not long ago for their work on the atom. The Russians, the Germans and all of us are confronted with this fact. No alchemist in his medieval laboratory, with his dried lizards and dried crocodile skins, surrounded by a shining alembic, ever visualised the possibilities of what man can do in the twentieth century.
  The Bill shows the intent of man's desire to work peacefully to control his environment. Some of us who are called Utopian are often much more realistic than those who think they can defend the country by still having the hydrogen bomb. However, I will not go into that argument. I merely want to make it clear that we can produce plenty of power. The Conservative Party told us that it would double the standard of life of the country in twenty-five years. Every intelligent human being knows that one can double the standard of life only if one can double power and the amount of energy. Here is the opportunity if man will get down to it.
  In the Standing Committee I stressed two points, and I want to re-emphasise them. I still think that as we learn and move along empirically and pragmatically we shall discover that from time to time the Minister will have to come to the House to make changes in this original Nuclear Installations Bill, because the British trade union movement has now a new element of production, a new economic process, facing it. The British trade union movement and trade union movements all over the world will have to have scientists and physicists and perhaps geneticists giving them advice about working in an environment which

  563
  contains radioactive isotopes or other radioactive materials.
  Any Government in power will have to admit the right of the trade union movement's experts to have access to much of the so-called secret information. This secrecy humbug, this conspiracy of silence about facts which are known in Cairo, Tokyo and Berlin, is sometimes exaggerated. The trade union movement will have to be consulted from time to time. The trade union movement is not a movement of Luddites in this age of automation and nuclear and atomic energy, and it will have to be listened to, and it will, as it has shown through history, demonstrate its reasonable approach to the problem. I should have liked the right of the trade union experts to be written into the Bill—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Order. On Third Reading, hon. Members can deal only with what is contained in the Bill.
  Mr. Davies: The Bill deals with the inspectorate, and I hope that one of the inspectors will be a trade union officer with suitable qualifications.
  My last point is concerned with insurance. We are not quite sure about the cost. Some Americans—we have had this information from scientific reports from Geneva and elsewhere—have made fantastic, astronomical estimates of the possibilities of damage, extending to £200 million or £250 million, if some of the reactors were to go wrong. Whether the whole of the taxpayers' cross of gold is to be the substantial pool behind private nuclear reactors is an interesting and moot point. There is a point here about insurance. I am quite certain that we shall have to come to the House again to look further into the vast problem of insurance coverage as we get our twelve nuclear reactors operating throughout the country.
  Nevertheless, it has been a privilege to work with the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite on this little Bill, which I consider to be quite an historical one. I hope that as we go along in this country we shall be able to demonstrate to the world that we are using this power for the uplifting of the standards of life, not only of our own people, but of the people in the Commonwealth, and that we shall be prepared
  564
  to give that "know-how" to the underprivileged areas of the world, where poverty, hunger and disease constitute a far bigger menace than anything we can say about Communism at the moment.
  8.11 p.m.
  Mrs. Butler: I wish to associate myself with the blessings showered on the Bill, which I think is now a very much more workmanlike Bill than it was before. I particularly welcome the additions and improvements which have been made in providing for consultation with the local authorities and the trade unions.
  I rise not to detain the House, but only to emphasise what I think is most important. It is that the sense of urgency which has accompanied this Bill throughout the Committee stage—indeed, at some stages it went so fast that it left most of us behind—and which has also accompanied our proceedings tonight, will carry on when the Bill leaves our hands. We are blessing it on its way tonight, but I am concerned with what happens afterwards. The Bill now states that
  "This Act shall come into force on such date as Her Majesty may by Order in Council appoint."
  I do not know what the Government have in mind in regard to that date, or how quickly they will be able to bring all the provisions of the Act into operation.
  The Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned tonight the special arrangements which have been made for the training and appointment of the inspectorate, and all this may be quite a lengthy procedure. I do not want to strike a discordant note into the winding-up proceedings, but I would remind the House that, on the question of consultation, for example, water undertakings made their representations to the Minister a year ago—in June of last year—and we have now got to the point of bringing them into the Bill. It has taken a year to do that, and a great deal of radioactive material can be washed into the rivers during a year.
  I therefore hope that the Minister understands the urgency of the matter, and that the Government, when they get the Bill passed into law, will do everything they can to keep up the pressure so that we can get all the provisions of the Bill into operation as quickly as possible. I am sure that that is what we all desire, and that that is the whole purpose of the discussions which we have been having.
  8.14 p.m.
  Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and to the Minister for intervening in the Third Reading debate when I have not been able to attend the House during the day. I have been engaged on other Parliamentary duties, but my interest in the Bill is very great, because in my constituency there is a nuclear research station which will be considerably affected by this Measure.
  Twelve Members of Parliament have today visited the nuclear research station at Langley in my constituency which is being conducted by the Hawker-Siddeley Group. I was fortunate enough to make an earlier visit, and I say at once that, while I welcome the provisions of the Bill which will make for the safety of the public, I was deeply impressed on that earlier visit and again today by the provisions which are being made spontaneously by those who are responsible for research stations in regard to safety.
  When it was learned in my constituency that a nuclear research station was to be opened, there was a great deal of nervousness in the first instance, but I have no doubt at all, after that visit and after a good deal of examination, that everything that is physically possible to maintain safety is being carried out there. I have no doubt at all that a similar approach to this is being made in other nuclear research stations. Nevertheless, it is very important that we should have in our legislation safeguards for that purpose, and for that reason I welcome the Bill.
  The second thing I want to say is that every one of us who made that visit today was enormously impressed by the services which nuclear science can render to the cause of peace. When today we hear so much of the disaster which nuclear development can bring to the world, it is good that we should be spending some time considering a Bill which is related to the application of nuclear science for peaceful and constructive purposes, rather than the purposes of destruction and death. The research station at Langley is, of course, primarily engaged in research, but the potentialities of the work which it has already done are simply immense.
  I have seen a model of the reactor which will be opened in September.
  566
  There is one thing that impresses me about the sheer machinery of this new development, and that is how beautiful it is. When one thinks of the old forms of industry in this country, the ugly factories and the dirt and the grime which accompany them, and then sees these new modern scientific developments, one is astonished at the beauty of their outlines. If one goes to the exhibition on the higher floors of this House, one can see the beauty of modern architecture, and one can then begin to visualise what the new civilisation may be in a few years' time as a result of these discoveries.
  It is not merely the beauty of these research installations which impresses one, but also their tremendous possibilities. Hospitals, and groups of hospitals, under the activities which are dealt with by this Bill, will have isotopes easily available. By means of the activities which are now proceeding this new power may operate on the greatest liners. There is a town in Sweden in which already an experiment is proceeding whereby every house will be heated by means of this power, and there are all the possibilities of great industrial plants being conducted by this means.
  This Bill covers both the public authority and the private industries which are engaged in nuclear development. Because of the tremendous constructive importance of such development, I urge that we should place public service first in its application, not only in the development of our own country, but in the development of the great underdeveloped countries of the world. This new power can carry through a revolution. I welcome the Bill because it is clear that in that development the safety of man will be taken as the first consideration.
  8.21 p.m.
  Mr. Robens: I have spoken about this Bill so much that I do not now propose to detain the House for more than a few moments. I want to say how much we have appreciated the work of the Parliamentary Secretary and the Paymaster-General. Those of us with some experience of the Department of which they are the political representatives in the House know that it carries a very heavy burden and that the Bill is only one small portion of the work it

  567
  faces. It is also concerned with extremely difficult problems of great magnitude and of tremendous importance to the nation.
  The work done by the Paymaster-General and the Parliamentary Secretary on what has been a very difficult Bill, since it has dealt with a very technical subject which is new to all of us, has been very commendable and I want to make up for the hard things I have said in Committee from time to time by expressing my thanks and appreciation to them.
  It is probably not generally realised that as a nation we have spent about £475 million of the nation's money on research into atomic energy. That is a colossal sum. We have reaped the benefit in having established a number of nuclear power stations. But we have done more than that. We have enabled a number of groups of companies further to develop the work of the Atomic Energy Authority and to commercialise all that £475 million has produced.
  We are parting with a Bill which meets the problems which the commercialisation of atomic energy produces. It is perfectly clear that there will be a tremendous increase in research and development in this subject. In view of the very dangerous nature of these undertakings, it was essential that we legislated to provide for the safety of the public and of those who work in the industry and to ensure maximum safety all round not by good management, but by ensuring that the legislation provided a pathway down which management would have to tread. This is that Bill.
  I do not want to refer to any specific details in the Bill. I am absolutely satisfied that in Committee and subsequent stages, here and elsewhere, the Bill has been subjected to the closest scrutiny and that all suggestions which were constructive and which made sense were readily studied by the Ministers responsible for piloting the Bill. On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, I say that we are well satisfied with the way in which all our arguments have been well met by the Paymaster-General and the Parliamentary Secretary.
  568
  Like the Parliamentary Secretary, I believe that this is perhaps only a beginning. We do not know where we shall go, but at least this is a beginning and all of us who have been associated with it can feel some pride in the fact that we have launched a new type of legislation. As the years go by, and nuclear energy develops, it may well be that the legislation will change, but at least we shall have laid a good foundation for that future legislation. I welcome the Bill. We shall gladly facilitate its Third Reading.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. Maudling: The Bill has had a varied Parliamentary career, but now that we have reached the final stage, I think that we can say that its main structure has stood exhaustive and properly critical scrutiny while at the same time many improvements have been made.
  I express my thanks to the Parliamentary Secretary who, throughout, has carried by far the greater part of the burden of the work. I also express my appreciation of the way in which the Opposition have co-operated in getting the Measure into its present sound and constructive form, and I hope that the House will now give it its Third Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

WAYS AND MEANS
Considered in Committee.
[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

WAYS AND MEANS

  INCOME TAX (PENSION ANNUITY BUSINESS IN THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND)
  Resolved,
  That it is expedient to authorise any incidental charge to income tax which may arise from extending the operation of section four hundred and twenty-nine of the Income Tax Act, 1952, in the case of assurance companies carrying on pension annuity business in the Republic of Ireland.—[Mr. Maudling.]
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

NUCLEAR POWER PROGRAMME
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]
8.27 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Palmer: I am sure that we have had nearly enough of nuclear energy for one day, but I hasten to assure the Parliamentary Secretary that it is merely a coincidence that we have to continue to discuss the subject on this day, as I am sure he knows. I also cheerfully confess that this is a formidable subject for an Adjournment debate. That was my expectation when I thought that we would have only the usual half an hour. It happens that we have rather longer, but it still remains a formidable subject for an Adjournment debate.
However, I am raising this matter of the development of the British nuclear power programme because I feel that the life of this present Parliamentary Session is running out, as is the life of this Parliament. In those circumstances, I think it right to amplify the viewpoints which I have recently been able to put at Question Time. In doing so, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will acquit me in advance of any hostility to the nuclear power programme as such, or any desire artificially to protect any other energy source. I am anxious that Britain should pursue a fuel and power policy which will make the most effective use of all our available primary energy resources. I am prepared also to accept that in a trading nation that cannot exclude fuel imports.
I am prepared not only to accept that as a basis but to argue that true cost must be the normal measure of effectiveness. I know the point has often been made by the Government in defence of their activities in fuel and power matters that they are obliged to work on true cost. I am prepared to accept that as common ground, with the proviso that it is genuinely true cost and not some kind of estimated, ascertained or hypothetical cost.
My concern, and it is shared by some expert opinion, is that if the present fuel investment policies are not looked at rather more critically than the present Minister appears to be doing, they may result in us paying considerably more for
570
our electricity, which is the accepted universal medium of secondary energy in the years ahead than we might otherwise do. In short, I am afraid that if we are not careful with our fuel investment policies we may have rather dearer electricity than might otherwise be the case.
Some years from now that state of affairs might well be brought about by us having invested too much, too hastily, in high cost nuclear power stations which must, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, be run on the base load of the national electrical demand, thus forcing the lower cost coal fired power stations to carry the varying part of the load under perhaps increasingly uneconomic conditions.
I hope it will be accepted that the figures now available—and these are of course available in the hon. Gentleman's Department—show the conventional power station, whether it be a conventional coal-fired or oil-fired power station, to be a still developing and improving instrument for the making of electricity. That is most important, because it is all too easy to suppose that once a new technique starts existing techniques automatically wither and die.
There are some examples in technological history of that happening. I suppose the classical example is the way in which the stagecoach disappeared very quickly with the advent of the railway engine. However, the aeroplane has been with us for a long time, and those of us who travel on the roads know that the motor vehicle as a means of transport is certainly not withering or disappearing.
When one is thinking about new techniques, one must be careful not to fall too easily into the error of thinking that the older techniques will stand still. In power production in fact the old techniques may on occasions be stimulated into fresh activity by the coming into being of the new ones.
I yield to none in my admiration for the intellectual qualities of those gentlemen who are often referred to as "the nuclear knights". I say with great respect. The phrase was used by the President of the Board of Trade in a recent debate and will therefore soon become immortal, but I can claim to my pleasure a more than "nodding acquaintance" with one or two of these gentlemen.

571
But there is always a danger that even the most reputable and important scientific men may overrun themselves and not count the cost. That is why I am glad that Sir Christopher Hinton has moved from the Atomic Energy Authority, where he did such fine work, to the more commercial atmosphere and practice of the Central Electricity Generating Board. He has moved away from an authority which, in the matter of its funds, is largely a direct charge upon the taxpayer. He is now chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board whose business it is to make sufficient electricity for the country, and to make it as cheaply as possible.
The change of position of Sir Christopher has already brought a new realism to nuclear discussions. In the Axel Johnson lecture which he gave in Stockholm in 1957, when he was still with the Atomic Energy Authority, he said that nuclear power could hope to be cheaper than coal-produced power by 1965. That was a very important international lecture, the report of which had a wide circulation. Just a month or so ago, at Torquay, at the British Electrical Power Convention, I was present to listen to Sir Christopher admit that he had been wrong in his estimate and that the break-even date could not now be before 1970 at least.
One reason he gave was the falling capital cost of conventional power stations. It is a remarkable fact that in spite of the increase in the cost of labour and materials in recent years the cost of conventional power stations has stood still, in money terms per kilowatt installed, and is now showing a tendency to fall. Sir Christopher Hinton recognised that as one of the reasons, and said that it could now be expected that there would be a stabilisation in the price of coal. Until recently it had been assumed by most people that the price of coal would continue to rise, but that is no longer the case. There is not yet much suggestion that it will fall, but there is reason to believe that with the improved position of coal supplies in relation to demands it will at least stabilise.
I suggest that the earlier figures, which have now proved to be wrong, were the ones which allowed the present
572
Minister, in 1957, to revise the nuclear power programme in an upward direction. It was advanced from the proposal contained in the 1955 White Paper, that we should aim at 2,000 megawatts of nuclear power by 1965, to the proposal that we should aim at 5,000 or 6,000 megawatts. There were then other objective reasons for the change. There was the continuing coal shortage, and also the discovery that it was possible to build rather larger nuclear power stations more economically than smaller ones. Techniques had already improved to allow that to be done.
Among the consortia of engineering firms there was naturally some commercial concern for an increase because they had invested a vast amount of capital and wanted to see that there was plenty of work ahead. No doubt all those factors were in the mind of the noble Lord when, as Minister, he made that decision. But just now I used the word "allowed" deliberately; I do not believe the Minister would have allowed the increase to come about unless he was convinced that the cost figures given to him at the time made it economically sound.
It has now been accepted that those figures have been falsified by the march of events. I am not saying that this is the fault of anybody. There were too many unknowns in the equation—the matter of the comparison between the expected future cost of nuclear fuel as against the cost of coal, for example. It was thought that the price of coal would go up steadily, and it was also thought that the price of uranium would probably come down rather rapidly. That was based on the assumption that we should gain quite a lot extra financially from the value of the plutonium credit. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, that has not been the case. If anything, the price of uranium and all associated with it in the matter of its use as a nuclear fuel is not showing as much a tendency to fall as was once assumed.
There is also the matter of interest charges. One must remember how much capital is involved in electrical power production. At the time when this thing was first planned, in 1955 at any rate, the average rate of interest was, say, 4

573
per cent. Now it is about 5½ per cent., which has made a tremendous difference to the economic balance. Though cheaper from the point of view of immediate running costs, the capital cost of a nuclear power station is excessive indeed when compared with that of a conventional power station.
I have said that in my view this was the fault of nobody in particular, but it is certainly the responsibility of the Minister in general. I appreciate his dilemma. It must be extremely difficult for a Minister, when surrounded by many experts, to know just which way to turn. At Question Time recently I suggested to the Paymaster-General that the Generating Board, if it could have its way, would now perhaps prefer to have a rather smaller nuclear power programme. The Paymaster-General answered that no advice had been given to the Ministry by the Generating Board. I must accept that because it is not for me to say. But I hope it will not be forgotten by the Ministry—I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not mind my mentioning this—that under the Electricity Act, 1957, it is the Electricity Council which is the advisory body to the Minister. The Council more fully represents the whole of the electricity supply industry and the Generating Board is a component.
The Council is strong in the representation of area boards to whom we must look for effective competition with oil in the matter of energy sales, and oil is becoming an increasingly effective competitor. I am trying to hint tactfully that the point of view of the whole of the electricity supply industry, both wholesale and retail, must be taken into account, rather than allowing the over-keen technological enthusiasts to have their own way all the time. We must preserve a sense of commercial reality.
I should like to develop my general argument further, but I am sure there is a limit to what the Parliamentary Secretary can endure at this time in the evening and I think there is a limit to the amount of cruelty which I can inflict upon myself.
I shall bring my case to a close by putting these points. I accept that we are so far committed to the present nuclear programme that it must be completed. There is no doubt about that.
574
Looking back in retrospect things might have been a little different, but we are not able to make any change at this stage, and the ten or twelve stations now planned for 1967, which includes the Hunterston Scottish station, must, of course, be completed. It would be most disheartening to all those who have worked so hard in the matter of planning design and construction of these stations if there were any setback, and I think that it would be very bad for the prestige of the country. The present programme must, therefore, go ahead.
We must also accept that the earlier forecasts of really cheap power from these stations are not likely to be realised. That should be understood. We must also accept that the improved cost outlook for conventional power stations and the improved coal supply position are factors which should not be ignored. I appeal, therefore, to the Parliamentary Secretary to represent to his noble Friend the view that the post-1965 nuclear power programme must be thought about very carefully indeed.
It may be, of course, that by 1970 or 1980, or whatever ultimate date has been suggested, the whole of British electricity supply will go over to nuclear fission or even part nuclear fusion, if at that time the ZETA project begins to yield results. But when we talk about some date remotely in the future for the complete change-over of the electricity supply system of the country to nuclear generation, it can only be on one condition, that at that time it pays us to do so. I should have thought that was a qualification which it was most important to make.
Other countries are obviously proceeding with caution in this matter. They realise, as we must all realise, that nuclear techniques are changing all the time and that we are only at the beginning of the road. They certainly do not wish to be caught out with a lot of capital tied up in the wrong designs. The West European countries are also now paying increasing attention to their heavy surplus stocks of coal and thinking about the possibilities of oil coming, perhaps fairly easily in a few years at a very low price, from the Sahara. Therefore, they are not rushing ahead over-fast with nuclear development. They are prepared to do a little, of course, and

575
to co-operate with the Americans to a certain extent. I wish that they were more ready to co-operate with this country in the matter of nuclear development, but, at any rate, they are extremely cautious. I shall be very grateful to have the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary on these observations which, I assure him, are put forward in the most constructive and intended helpful spirit.
8.50 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): Although we have rather more time than we might have had, I am sure that the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) will agree that this is not the occasion for too large-scale a development of this fascinating and important problem. As I think he knows, my own interests, looking back to my Cambridge days, have always been in the realm of nuclear physics, and I am sure that I can echo his references to the outstanding contribution which British men, I think one can say of genius, have made in this field, both in the theoretical and practical development of nuclear energy.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman did not introduce what he had to say, as recently some of his right hon. and hon. Friends have tended to do, by saying that we must consider the nuclear programme from the point of view of a rescue operation on behalf of the coal industry. He was very careful to say that that was not his approach, and I am sure that he was right in so doing.
It is important, however, that we should not go from one extreme to the other in this matter. There was a time—though I do not think responsible people ever took this view—when, to judge from some of the popular newspaper presentations, the day was only just round the corner when the whole power industry would be revolutionised by developments of this kind. Now I sense a tendency for the pendulum, as so often happens, to swing to the other extreme, and to suggest that the whole thing is an unfortunate mistake and completely miscalculated, and that it is rather a pity that we cannot liquidate the whole affair. That is an even more disastrous misconception of the position.
I believe that one can be most helpful in a short speech, which is all that is
576
appropriate, by trying to bring some of the facts up to date. I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said, that nobody can be dogmatic, least of all when one is trying to look into the 1980s and 1990s towards the millennium. We can only go on what are the best calculations and assessments of the extraordinarily able men who are concerned with this subject. They do not all agree, but one can take an average and use one's judgment to the best of one's ability.
First, what is the latest state of play, so to speak, in the cost comparison between conventional and nuclear stations? At present, a bracket of between ·50d. and ·65d. per unit sent out would be a fair assessment for conventional stations. The variation depends on siting and other factors. For nuclear stations of what are now regarded as the conventional type, the most recent figures would be between ·65d. and ·70d.
Here I would draw attention to the fact that the statement that nuclear energy today is 40 per cent. more expensive than conventional power is due simply to comparing the cheapest possible coal with the dearest existing nuclear energy. That is quite an unfair comparison. In this country one cannot find enough sites left where a large river with enough cooling water flows past a large and efficient modern pit with twenty or thirty years of coal available in it.
It is almost certain that in any case, as years go on, even if there were no nuclear power, some conventional coal stations would have to be sited far from the coal fields. Therefore, it is quite unreasonable and gives a wrong impression simply to take the cheapest coal and compare it with the dearest nuclear power. One can do no more than give a rough and ready calculation because, as I say, the circumstances vary.
One has to consider the growth in demand for electricity, much of it around London. One has to consider both the cost and also the amenity aspects of stringing yet more long transmission lines acros the country to meet demand in, say, south-eastern England from a conventional power station sited on a coalfield in the Midlands, and so forth. It would be more accurate to say that, at present, about 15 per cent. or,

577
possibly, 20 per cent. difference in costs separates the two types of station.
Those figures, again, can easily give a false impression. They are based on the cost of units sent out from the station. But one must not give anyone the impression that nuclear production would mean electricity 15 per cent. dearer for the consumer. It would be nothing like that at all because, of course, the percentage increase in the cost which the consumer pays, which has to carry all the costs of transmission, and so forth, would be very much less than that. Indeed, at the present moment, if one said that it was half that, that would probably be an overstatement.
In a full debate, one could, of course, elaborate on the situation at present, but I will leave it there now and come to the years which are immediately to follow. I am not now dealing with the distant future but with the next ten years. It is said that the price of coal is more stable, and this, happily, is true. However, the price of coal has risen by over 70 per cent. during the last ten years. Would anybody really suggest that it was realistic to base policy on the idea that, in twenty years, coal will not be 5s., 6s. or 7s. a ton dearer than it is now?
One must hope that that will be the case, but I think that many people in the industry would have to consider very carefully the implications of such a basis of policy. It might mean a very drastically reduced production of coal so as to concentrate on the more efficient and cheaper pits, or, if one wanted to keep something like the same kind of scale in the industry as we have now, having regard to its cost structure, there might well be other implications. I do not think that anyone can really say that we could base our policy with any certainty on the price of coal remaining absolutely stable during the next twenty years.
On the other hand, of course, there will be some quite definite savings on the nuclear side. I am not now talking about changes of type. I am assuming that we go on building, as it were, more Calder Halls. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the price of uranium. This was one of the few parts of his speech which I did not quite follow. It is far more likely, in my humble opinion, that the price of
578
uranium will fall when the present contracts run out than it is that the price of coal will remain absolutely stable over the next twenty years.
What I put to the hon. Gentleman is that a quite small but by no means impossible increase in the price of coal over the next twenty years, with at least one quite probable reduction in the price of the raw material for the nuclear stations, will mean that the present disadvantage of about 15 or 17 per cent. against nuclear energy will very probably be further reduced. That, of course, is only the beginning of the story. That is merely to say that, in trying to develop this great new industry, we have not started on something which shows a hopeless and uneconomic comparison between nuclear production and conventional production.
To consider the problem simply as a comparison between certain stations and their possible alternative from coal is to misconceive the situation. This programme was not embarked on on the basis that it would immediately save money by generating electricity in this new way. It was embarked on on the basis that somewhere in the later 1960s the fall in the price of generating by nuclear energy will cross the line of the cost of generating by coal. That situation remains true as far as anyone can estimate it. It is arguable whether it is likely to be 1965, but few people would say that it will be as late as 1970. It may be 1967, 1968 or 1969.
It is essential that we should bear in mind that we are not talking about whether electricity generated by nuclear processes will become cheaper than electricity generated by coal. All that we are discussing is whether it will take place in the first part of the later 1960s or the second half. I have gone into the point very carefully with all the instructed authorities in the country. We have obtained all the advice that we can get, not only from the Central Electricity Generating Board and Sir Christopher Hinton, but from the A.E.A. No one disputes that within the measurable future generation by nuclear energy will become substantially cheaper than by coal.
No one will be dogmatic about this point. It may shift a year or two one way or the other, but I do not think the hon. Gentleman or anyone else can

579
point to a recognised authority—there is certainly no advice about it available to the Government—which would deny that in the not too distant future it will be more economic to develop—
Mr. Palmer: I accept all of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but he will appreciate that the argument is to get correct balance in time in the amount of investment, particularly in relation to the types of nuclear power stations.
Sir I. Horobin: I was coming to that point. If we are right in setting to work to build up an industry capable of developing these new sources of scientific power, it becomes clear that we cannot chop and change on short-term considerations.
The British nuclear programme is a very carefully considered whole. No one will say that the industry will not make mistakes in future, although we have been remarkably free from them hitherto owing to the skill of those concerned. However, it is a carefully balanced whole. We must avoid at all cost making the mistake, which has been too frequent in British development in other spheres, of having a whole series of drawing board types—even, if I may use the analogy from the aircraft industry, a whole series of brilliant performers at Farnborough but not enough squadrons.
Provided that we have, broadly speaking, developed on right lines, we must back our fancy, as it were, pick what looks like a promising type and then get the best out of it. If we wait for perfection, we will wait for ever. There will never be a time when we will be able to say, "We have now at last found for certain the very best perfect type ". We have gone into the matter as carefully as possible We thought that in the light of the experience available in the A.E.A. and the Generating Board, that what we broadly call the Calder Hall type has several years of valuable development before it.
That is not the end. About 1961, it is hoped that the advanced gas-cooled reactor will become critical, and it is quite possible, if it is successful, that by about 1965 the first commercial type will be in operation. After that, we have to consider the fast breeder reactor now being developed at Dounreay, and the other, with which we have close relation-
580
ships, in the United States. It may be of interest to the hon. Member that during the next month or two it is expected that Dounreay will begin a period of low-power testing. The work so far done has been exceedingly successful and, if all goes well, by about 1970 we may hope that that type will come in. It has, of course, exciting possibilities, not only because of its great cheapness in capital cost but also as part of the balanced programme. By that time we shall have produced a substantial number of the Calder Hall type of station, all producing plutonium—and one of the problems will be what to do with it. Of course, the breeder reactor type gives great flexibility and, therefore, is all part of a carefully-designed plan of development. The point that I am trying to make is that we are not putting all our eggs obstinately into one basket. In this country, we cannot do what the United States has done—perhaps the hon. Gentleman has seen at Idaho what I can only describe as the "reactor zoo", containing every conceivable type of reactor. Were we to spread our resources in that way, or were we to wait until someone else had produced the perfect answer, we should practically be abdicating from this field.
Therefore, we have, first, a type of plant that is reasonably economic, and which, although never expected to be at once as cheap is not seriously dearer, and shows signs of becoming comparatively less expensive. We have a carefully chosen next stage that we hope will begin to come in in a few years and, beyond that, we have the breeder reactor. I am not dealing with the possibilities of fusion because, from a commercial point of view, that is far too far ahead.
If that is the position, what we have to consider is not, so to speak, an individual station but an industry as a whole capable of developing in an orderly fashion such as I have tried to describe. I put it to the hon. Member, and I hope that it will commend itself to the House and to the country generally, that our primary consideration now—subject always to the fundamental brainwork of the A.E.A. and the consortia—should be a healthy nuclear industry.
We therefore have to bear in mind—partly as a result, as the hon. Gentleman

581
himself pointed out, of the consortia themselves producing between them a situation where it became possible to build very much bigger stations than anyone had originally thought of—that there are only about half a dozen more stations—I do not tie myself to one figure or another—to come into the present programme.
We cannot afford to run any risk of completely unbalancing the structure of the industry by interfering with that programme, and I think that the hon. Gentleman indicated that he accepted that that was so. After this programme is completed it will be necessary to make further decisions, but there is no need for them to be made now. Urgent preliminary consideration is, of course, being given to the subject, but no final decision need yet be made. The stations that will be built in the 1966-67-68 period will not require to be finalised for another twelve months or two years—
Mr. Palmer: I am trying to look ahead. The decision will have to be made by this or a successive Government, so one must be thinking of these things.
Sir I. Horobin: As I say, we are giving these questions great thought, but no final decision needs to be made at present.
One of the biggest considerations, of course, will be decided well in advance of that date, and that is, how the advanced gas cooled reactor prototype works out. I agree entirely with the hon. Member that great thought must be and is being given by the Generating Board, by the Electricity Council, by the A.E.A., and by the Ministry; but we are committed, as it were, for the next year or two, broadly speaking, to the
582
type of programme and how it is to be carried out. It must not be, it cannot be, thought to be interfered with.
We have a period—not a long period, I agree, but a period—in which we can in a careful fashion in the light of our success or otherwise—I hope, our success, particularly in connection with the advanced gas cooled reactor and the progress at Dounreay—make up our minds what we will do in the years after 1965, but I think it is very important that everybody should realise that a nuclear programme on the scale of this country's must be a long-term, carefully-balanced programme and cannot be interrupted by fits and starts and lurches in response to short-term considerations. We are not concerned, as I said before, primarily with exact calculations whether a particular station would be rather cheaper one way or another.
We have to take a big view of this. We are entering a new field in which Great Britain has already made for itself a leading position. In fact, it is not too much to say we are not just a major civil nuclear Power: we are the major civil nuclear Power. Long may we remain so. The need for thought and care in investment and design is great. We are entirely with the hon. Member in that, but I do hope we may have the support of informed Members such as himself on the other side of the House to resist at all costs any injudicious interference with the proper development of that programme either in order to come to the rescue of alternative sources of supply or in an effort at economies which we may live to regret.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Nine o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Group Apprenticeship Schemes
  Group Apprenticeship Schemes
  Greenock
  Greenock
  Older Men and Women
  Older Men and Women
  School Leavers (Sunderland)
  School Leavers (Sunderland)
ROYAL NAVY
  Royal Hospital School, Holbrook
  Royal Hospital School, Holbrook
  Officer Appointments (Employment Liaison Section)
  Officer Appointments (Employment Liaison Section)
BRITISH ARMY
  Eaton Hall, Chester
  Eaton Hall, Chester
  Badminton Trials
  Badminton Trials
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Clocktower Exchange
  Clocktower Exchange
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  B.B.C. (Licence Revenue)
  B.B.C. (Licence Revenue)
RAILWAYS
  Victoria Line
  Victoria Line
ROADS
  Parking Places, St. Marylebone (Goods Vehicles)
  Parking Places, St. Marylebone (Goods Vehicles)
  Accidents, Feltham
  Accidents, Feltham
  Road Schemes (Land)
  Road Schemes (Land)
  Tyne Tunnel
  Tyne Tunnel
CIVIL AVIATION
  Willesden (Low-flying Aircraft)
  Willesden (Low-flying Aircraft)
  Aircraft Accident, Cardiff
  Aircraft Accident, Cardiff
TRANSPORT
  Driving Licences and Tests
  Driving Licences and Tests
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Weapons Policy
  Weapons Policy
  Victoria Cross (Annuity)
  Victoria Cross (Annuity)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Education Branch
  Education Branch
NORTHERN RHODESIA AND NYASALAND
  Labour Officers
  Labour Officers
TANGANYIKA
  United Nations (Technical Assistance)
  United Nations (Technical Assistance)
EDUCATION
  Domestic Science Courses
  Domestic Science Courses
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Eggs
  Eggs
  Aircraft Industry (Exports)
  Aircraft Industry (Exports)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool

NEW OVERHEAD RAILWAY SYSTEM
2.35 p.m.
LORD HAWKE:My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to the claim by engineers of the Southern Rhodesian Department of Engineering and Construction that they have invented a revolutionary new overhead railway; and whether Her Majesty's Government are making arrangements for testing the system in this country.]
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Gosford, I beg to reply to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. Her Majesty's Government are interested in any developments which might help in transport matters, and my right honourable friend is considering the information at present available to him upon these proposals.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his Answer I would ask whether Her Majesty's Government will publish as soon as possible details of this system, which claims to be very revolutionary and seems likely to be extremely valuable in opening up the open spaces in Africa with all-weather transport?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, at present details of this system are as yet very sketchy, but I will certainly bring what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, to the attention of my right honourable friend.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, arising out of the reply of the noble Earl, may I ask whether he is aware that a
526
Scottish consulting engineer not so long ago designed an efficient type of overhead railway? And is he further aware that this type of railway has been taken up by a French firm, in conjunction with the French Government, and that a test line is being built in France at Chateauneuf-sur-Loire which will be available for testing at the end of this year? Will the noble Earl ask his right honourable friend whether a representative of the British Government could be sent at the appropriate time to inspect it and to see whether it has possibilities from the point of view of providing a solution to the problem of rapid transit into towns?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I understand that the scheme has been put forward in France by the International Monorail Company, but so far as I know it is still a scheme and has yet to be tested.

FILM CENSORSHIP
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the procedure adopted by the Board of Film Censors in viewing screen plays; and if their attention has been called to the picture advertised The Mating Game.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the British Board of Film Censors is an independent body appointed by the film trade. It determines its own methods and standards, in consultation with the trade and with the local authorities who are responsible for licensing the public exhibition of films. I understand that the film referred to in the Question has been passed for universal exhibition.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, may I ask whether it is possible to get an answer to a question? I asked about the method and what is done. Do the members of the Board view the pictures as a Board, or individually? Is that known? Do they take each picture separately? Can we have any details about that?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think I should make it clear that the procedure and the methods adopted by the

527
Board of Film Censors are purely its own affair. The Board has nothing to do, in any shape or form, with the Government. I will, however, do my best; I do not want to be disobliging to the noble Lord. As I understand the position, the Board has examiners whose job it is to view the pictures individually, after which those which are passed are put in one or other of three categories: Category "U", denoting that the film is suitable for exhibition to people of any age; Category "A", which denotes that children under the age of 16 should not be admitted unless they are accompanied by, or within the charge of, a parent or some other person who has attained the age of 16; and Category "X" denoting that persons under the age of 16 years should not be admitted.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, is there then no way in which the nation can deal with the constant glamorisation of lust, and is it a fact that this great and rich industry has descended to the level of pimps and panders? Can we do nothing about it?
LORD CHESHAM: It is the view of Her Majesty's Government, and has been the view of successive Governments, that the existing arrangement whereby it falls to local, authorities to license any particular film—which usually they do not do unless it has first a certificate from the Board of Film Censors—is quite adequate.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend, disclosing my interest in the industry, whether he is aware—as, indeed, he has already pointed out—that this arrangement has lasted for a long time and has given general satisfaction; and that the film industry indignantly repudiates the charge which the noble Lord opposite has just brought against it?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I was aware of that.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may it be made clear that as this Board is an independent body Her Majesty's Government should not meddle with its procedure?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I should perhaps have made clear that
528
Her Majesty's Government have no intention of interfering with the procedure of the Board.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, does that mean that the poster advertising the particular film I mentioned in my Question is not to be criticised by anybody and not to be dealt with at all? It is frankly pornographic—there is no doubt at all about that. To say that everybody is satisfied is not true. I never had so big a correspondence on this subject, or one so favourable to what I did, as when I raised this question the other day in this House. Surely something should be done about it.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to refer to posters advertising films he should put down a Question about it. That matter does not arise from the Question on the Order Paper, because posters advertising things—films or anything else—are nothing whatever to do with the British Board of Film Censors.
LORD AMWELL: So I get no answer?

ESTATE DUTY ON LITERARY WORKS
2.43 p.m.
LORD DARWEN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to recent correspondence in the Press complaining of the harsh and unreasonable attitude of the Estate Duty Office in valuing the copyright of literary works of deceased persons for probate purposes.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, copyright in literary works, in common with other property, is valued for estate duty purposes, under Section 7 (5) of the Finance Act, 1894, on the basis of the price which, in the opinion of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and subject to right of appeal, the property would fetch if sold in the open market at the time of the death of the deceased. Your Lordships will appreciate that the Estate Duty Office have a duty to satisfy themselves as to the

529
values placed on property by representatives of the taxpayer. Your Lordships will also appreciate that the rule of confidentiality in tax matters prevents me from discussing the facts of the particular case which gave rise to the correspondence in the Press to which the noble Lord refers. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, however, satisfied that the aspersions against the Estate Duty Office are unwarranted.
LORD DARWEN: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his Answer, but I would ask him whether he does not think that it is necessary for the Government to see not only that justice is done in these matters but also that it appears to be done. The general public have no knowledge of the matters known to the noble Earl, and to them this seems a very unjust state of affairs.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we are all subject to very heavy, and some of us may think oppressive, taxation, and in order to prevent evasion the Finance Act imposes on the Inland Revenue officers statutory duties which they have to carry out. Because of the rule about confidentiality I cannot discuss the correspondence in this matter. I think that if the noble Lord were to read it again he would agree that the Inland Revenue have carried out their duties in a reasonable and considerate way according to law.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, will the noble Earl ask Her Majesty's Government to consider this suggestion: that when there is a difference of opinion between the Estate Duty Office and the heir or beneficiary in the estate as to the value of any asset, the beneficiary or the executor should be allowed to say to to the Estate Duty Office, "Well, if you value this article at this price, find me a market and I will sell it"? I ask that question because I know of occasions where that has been said and the suggestion has been entirely inoperative. As a matter of fact, I myself inherited a house which I——
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD SALTOUN: I beg your Lordships' pardon.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, surely that is not a matter of criticism
530
against Inland Revenue officials but a criticism against the Finance Act. If the noble Lord wants personal reminiscences, I may say that I spent most of my last year at Oxford disputing with the Inland Revenue about the death duties on my father's estate, with the result that I did not obtain a very good degree.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, my actual question, which I was in perfect order in putting, is the one thing the noble Earl has not answered. I asked whether an arrangement could not be made whereby, if the Inland Revenue put upon an article a value which the executor or beneficiary disputes, the beneficiary or the executor can challenge them to sell it at that price.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, that is exactly what I was referring to when I said that this was a matter for criticising the Finance Act and not the officials of the Inland Revenue. They cannot make these decisions; it is a matter for Parliament in passing the Finance Act.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the particular case to which he refers as being confidential was disclosed in the Press? And was it not a case where a literary work written ten years before the death was valued on the assumption that it had film rights and the value of those film rights was to be taken into account? Does that not appear, on the face of it, a very disturbing state of affairs, and ought not the House to be given rather more reassurance on the matter than the noble Earl has given?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am aware of the correspondence in the Press, which I read with great interest—including the prospect of seeing Mr. Compton Mackenzie's ghost. But I am afraid that the rule about confidentiality prevents me, despite the fact there has been this correspondence in the Press, from saying anything about the details of this case.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the situation has changed so much, because of the question of film rights and other things of this kind, that the whole of this matter ought to be looked at again? It is not

531
a question of civil servants not doing their job to the best of their ability and very conscientiously, but that the method adopted, which no doubt in the nineteenth century was a perfectly good one, has now ceased to be appropriate. It is a difficult problem, but I would ask the Minister whether he does not think the Government might give some thought to this matter and possibly set up a Committee to go into this whole problem.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, very likely; but I think that is a matter to be considered by Parliament in passing the Finance Act, and it cannot arise as a matter of criticism against the conduct of the Inland Revenue officials in carrying out their duties under the law.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: During his studies at Oxford, did the noble Earl find any reputable dictionary containing this word "confidentiality"?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I must confess that the first time I saw it was this morning.
LORD DARWEN: My Lords, if the noble Earl assures me from his confidential information that there is a very good explanation in this particular case, I am prepared to accept that; but I still feel it necessary that, in some way or other, the public should be assured that the Estate Duty Office is not playing some sort of "hanky-panky" with these estates.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am most anxious not to discourage noble Lords opposite from mitigating the incidence of estate duty.

MEMBERSHIP OF KRUPP MIXED COMMITTEE
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: 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 the seventh member of the Krupp Mixed Committee has been elected; and, if so, what is his name and nationality, and what are his political, business, economic or other associations.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, Herr Eberhard Reinhardt has been elected as the seventh member of the Krupp Mixed Committee. He is a Swiss national, and since 1945 has been one of the general directors of the Crédit Suisse in Zürich.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Marquess for his Answer. May we take it that the Committee is now in session?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: No, my Lords, your Lordships may not take it that the Committee is now in session; but your Lordships may take it that the Committee will be in session very shortly.

NATIONAL GALLERIES OF SCOTLAND BILL
Brought from the Commons endorsed with a Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.
NEW TOWNS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

NATIONAL PARKS
2.53 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN rose to call attention to the Ninth Report of the National Parks Commission; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said; My Lords, the Motion which I am about to move has had a rather chequered career in this House. It has been fixed on no fewer than five different days; and I have to apologise to the House, because it no doubt has caused considerable inconvenience to those noble Lords who were to speak. The result of all these changes is that we have one speaker who has dropped out and, so far, one who has taken his place. I thought it would be right to have a debate on National Parks because during the whole of their existence there has been only one debate in this House, because they are arousing a great and increasing interest throughout the country, and because we are shortly to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the creation of the National Parks Commission. We are about to discuss the Ninth Report of the Commission, and it is an occasion for reviewing the position of the National Parks; their achievements, their failings, and their future.
Now the National Parks arose out of the Report of a Committee known as the Hobhouse Committee. This Committee recommended that we should set up some eleven National Parks throughout the country; and up to the moment ten of these National Parks have been created. The ten National Parks occupy something like one-eleventh of the area of England and Wales, somewhere about 5,200-odd square miles—quite a substantial part of England and Wales. Of the ten, three are in Wales and the remainder in England. Curiously enough, of the three in Wales, two are in South Wales and one in North Wales. The Act does not apply to Scotland, and that is a matter for great regret, because there are vast areas of extensive beauty in Scotland which most of us know very well, which ought to be preserved, whose beauty ought to be enhanced, and which the public of Great Britain ought to be able to enjoy to an even greater extent than they do now. There is a movement to extend National Parks to Scotland, and I hope it will receive en-
534
couragement from the Government in due course.
The eleventh of the proposed National Parks is the Norfolk Broads. The Norfolk Broads have created certain difficulties which I do not need to dwell on to any extent; but there is an element of urgency about dealing with them, because they are sifting and gradually there is an encroachment on the waters—and, of course, the beauty of the Norfolk Broads does consist in their waters. I was never entirely certain whether the Norfolk Broads were quite appropriate as a National Park. It is undoubtedly an area of outstanding beauty: but, at any rate, it has been the subject of consideration by the Government, I know, and they are now looking at it in the light of the Report of the Commission on Inland Waterways. I hope that the noble Earl who is going to reply may be able to give us some information as to whether the Government have come to any conclusions about how to deal with the Norfolk Broads. Of this I am quite sure: that whether they are dealt with as a National Park, as an area of outstanding natural beauty, or in some other way, the problem ought not to be allowed to drift. If we allow the problem of the Norfolk Broads to drift, they will in due course disappear entirely.
I have referred to the National Parks. In addition, the Act itself provides for the creation of a number of areas of outstanding natural beauty. These are areas which, while they are not suitable as National Parks—not because they are any less lovely, but because they are not particularly areas in which large numbers of people can be suitably encouraged to congregate for the purpose of recreation—they are nevertheless areas which ought to be specially preserved, and whose beauty ought to be enhanced if at all possible. An increasing number of such areas have been designated during the ten years. In the South of England, we have had the Sussex Downs, the Kent Downs, the Surrey Hills, the Chilterns, and areas of that kind; and it is a source of great gratification to me personally that so many of these lovely areas, with which one is so intimately connected and which one visits almost weekly, are to be the subject of careful preservation. In the North, there is the Northumberland coast and a number of other similar areas.
Another feature of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act was the creation of a number of long-distance routes for pedestrians. The progress there has been rather slower. I realise that it is somewhat difficult to negotiate some of these paths which are in private ownership, because it is necessary to get agreements with the owners for access, but progress has been steady. None of them is complete, but the Pennine Way is well on the way; and there is a fine coastal path on the Pembroke coast and another on the Sussex Downs.
To-day we are considering the Ninth Report of the National Parks Commission, which is presided over with such distinction by my noble friend Lord Strang, who is here this afternoon. A great deal of their work has consisted of efforts to defend the National Parks from attack, a matter with which I will deal in a moment. But on the positive side they have done an immense amount of valuable work: in publicity; in building up a country code of behaviour; in putting up notices; in issuing literature; in encouraging the provision of facilities for recreation, including hostels and opportunities for campers; in dealing with litter, and, above all, in educating the public in the proper use of the National Parks. Obviously, unless the National Parks are properly used, they will defeat their purpose. They can become—indeed, very often after a Bank Holiday they do become—eyesores, places to keep away from rather than to go to. The Commission have done valuable work in educating the general public in the proper use of our national parks. I do not think that they would claim they have entirely succeeded but I think that if the noble Lord, Lord Strang, were free to speak—and I am sorry that he is not—he would be able to say that to-day the condition of the National Parks after a holiday is much better than it was nine or ten years ago.
One interesting feature about the National Parks movement is the large amount of voluntary work that is being done in connection with it and the large number of people who have been attracted to it. It is gratifying to find the great amount of enthusiasm that exists among so many people, particularly young people, about the National Parks. I should particularly like to say
536
a word about the work of the voluntary wardens. There are wardens in all ten of the National Parks, doing a variety of valuable work. In the Peak National Park alone, for instance, there are 400 voluntary workers. In the Lake District the wardens particularly carry out work in litter-scavenging at Bank Holiday periods—though, as I have said, I hope that this will become gradually less. On the York Moors, they have made it their particular job to watch over the wild daffodils which are a feature of the Farmdale Nature Reserve.
A particularly interesting feature of this work is that for the last two years during the summer vacation a number of Cambridge undergraduates have carried out work in various Parks, clearing disfigurements—disfigurements which ought to have been cleared away by the Government, so that they are doing the work which Her Majesty's Government ought to be doing. They have cleared a disused gun-site in the Peak National Park and derelict buildings in Northumberland, and have cleared similar types of disfigurements in the Lake District and the Peak. Many others still remain, but we are gradually getting rid of them. If I may be permitted a personal note, it is interesting to note that the inspirer and leader of this group of Cambridge undergraduates is Mr. Michael Dower. Many of your Lordships will remember his father, the late Mr. John Dower, who was, in a way, the inspirer of the National Parks movement and who played a great part in bringing National Parks into existence. He was a member of the Hobhouse Committee and gave many years of his life to ensuring that National Parks would be set up. His mother, Mrs. Dower, is Vice-Chairman of the National Parks Commission, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Strang, could testify to the great value she has been to them. I think that this is an interesting illustration of an hereditary interest in this voluntary work.
So far I have dealt with the credit side of the work of the National Parks Commission and with what has been achieved, but I regret to have to say that, on the other hand, there are a number of features which are less satisfactory—indeed, disquieting. The National Parks were not created as museum pieces, and it was never the intention that they should be sterilised,

537
that they should become a sort of Williamsburgs—although I should like to see a Williamsburg or two, even in this country. I do not think it would be right to compare our National Parks with national parks in countries like the United States, Canada or South America, where they have unlimited territory. Nevertheless, we recognise that the National Parks have a living part in our social life, have to evolve dynamically and, therefore, that appropriate activities have to go on. The whole idea of a National Park is that it is something special. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to read one or two short extracts from the National Parks Act. Section 5 of the Act says that the intention is:
"…of preserving and enhancing the natural beauties of the areas specified…"
and these areas
"are those extensive tracts of country in England and Wales… which…by reason of—

(a) their natural beauty, and

(b) the opportunities they afford for open air recreation, having regard both to their character and to their position in relation to centres of population,

it is especially desirable…"
to preserve.
That is the function of the National Park. As I have said, while we all recognise that developments have to take place, that people in the areas have to earn their livings and so on, we ought definitely to set our faces against any kind of development which conflicts with the conception of a National Park. I am sorry to have to say that in a number of cases the Government have permitted that type of development. I want to mention three in particular, because they have all taken place during the year which is covered by the Ninth Report of the Commission. First, there is the Esso oil refinery; secondly, the Angle iron ore stocking ground—both in the Pembrokeshire National Park: and thirdly, there is the Trawsfynydd nuclear power station in the Snowdonia National Park. I will not refer in any detail to the pylons and overhead wires which have done much to cause disfigurement in other National Parks, and which could at certain expense have been put underground, but I do want to refer to these three particular developments which, in
538
my view, completely change the character of the National Park and are in complete conflict with their whole conception.
It seems to me absurd to create National Parks, to create the machinery of the National Parks Commission and special planning boards to look after them, and then for the Government to come along and do what is the equivalent of destroying their whole character. In the case of the last of the three I have mentioned, the Trawsfynydd nuclear power station, the decision was actually contrary to the opinion of the Ministry inspector who had been appointed to consider the case. I should like to read to your Lordships a few short extracts showing the views of the National Parks Commission on these matters. First, as to the Angle iron ore stocking ground, they say:
"We feel deep concern at the fact that a site in a National Park should have been chosen for this project. We consider it to be totally at variance with the right use of land in a National Park."
Then, as to the Esso petroleum refinery, they say:
"We must express our keen disappointment at the Minister's decision. We recognise that he must have regard to other considerations than those with which we are concerned, but we very much regret his conclusion that the interests of the company must be met in full even at the cost of serious injury to the National Park."
Your Lordships may have seen a small, beautifully produced book called Our National Heritage, which contains a number of photographs of National Parks and areas of exceptional beauty. This book, which has been sent to me, and I imagine to all your Lordships, has been published by the National Benzole Company, Limited. I do not know the relationship between the National Benzole Company and the Esso Petroleum Company, but I imagine that there is some relationship between the two. So you have, on the one hand, the National Benzole Company doing everything they can to encourage people to visit the National Parks—in their cars, of course—and, on the other, the Esso Petroleum Company doing everything they can to discourage people from going to the National Parks—because an oil refinery is not exactly an attraction in a National Park.
I know that the Government have imposed a great many conditions to make

539
this oil refinery and the iron ore stocking area as attractive as possible. The most experienced and eminent architects have been employed to camouflage the oil refinery (whether it is going to be made to look like a cathedral or a baronial castle, I do not know), but I do not know whether any architect can camouflage the smell of an oil refinery and make it smell like a perfumery, or otherwise change its character. It certainly is not in keeping with a National Park.
I recognise that the Government have done all they could to find an alternative site; but if we want National Parks we must make some sacrifice for them; and it may be necessary for industry to put up with the second best. I readily admit that probably the best site for an oil refinery or for an iron ore stocking place may well be the areas which have been selected. I suppose we ought to be thankful that they do not require Salisbury Cathedral or some such place. Nobody would dream of committing sacrilege by trying to use areas of that kind; and I would go so far as to say it is almost an act of sacrilege to take the National Parks for these purposes. If we believe in National Parks, we ought to do all we can to maintain and preserve their general character.
I want to say a word or two about caravans. The caravan to-day is rapidly becoming the poor man's hotel. Caravans have made enormous progress in recent years. I do not know whether your Lordships have seen some of the latest caravans, but they are very fine and attractive places in which to live, at any rate during the summer months. Many of them have private bathrooms, kitchen facilities, refrigerators and so on, and are most suitable for couples with not too much money to occupy on holiday. I think they are most appropriate in the National Parks, and I am glad to say that the National Parks Commission and the planning committees of the National Parks are giving a certain amount of encouragement, and a growing amount of encouragement, to these caravan owners. But they are still not doing enough. We want far more sites for these caravans than are at present available—and by that I mean suitable sites provided with water and all the necessary amenities. I believe that if we did that we should be rendering a great service and should be
540
helping to use the National Park for the purpose for which they were created.
As usual, there is a criticism that the National Parks are not being sufficiently financed. The principle on which they are at present financed is that it is a responsibility partly of the local planning authorities and partly of the Government. Where considerable expense is required, however, the local authorities have found themselves unable to make the necessary contribution, and in a number of cases representations have been made to the Government for a larger share of the contribution. The more national these National Parks become, and the more people who visit them from outside the area, as is the case to an increasing extent, the more justified it is that the burden of the finance should fall nationally rather than locally. It so happens that the areas in which the most beautiful of the National Parks are situated are areas where the resources of the local authority are least; and with a little more finance we could go a long way.
Money is needed for the removal of unsightly buildings; for putting overhead wires underground, and for building in accordance with local style and tradition. For instance, in the Cotswolds it is almost a crime to build houses other than in the local stone and in the local character. We are destroying something that is, I think, unique in the whole world unless we maintain that character. But that type of building is expensive, and we cannot expect private enterprise, who would probably not get any more for their dwellings when they have built them by building them in the more expensive way, to incur the additional expense. If we want to maintain the character of that kind of area there must be some contribution, and even if it means creating a precedent I feel that it is a precedent which will be well worth while. Then we want more hostels and hotels. I would deny that these National Parks are to be solely places for young people. We older people should be able to enjoy them as well, and there ought to be encouragement for the building of places which are suitable for the older people as well as for the younger. Some of these matters may require legislation, and I hope whichever Government introduces the next series of measures will not hesitate to come to Parliament to

541
ask for an Amendment of the National Parks Act in order to facilitate the purposes for which these parks were created.
I want to conclude by expressing the thanks of the whole nation to all those who have been concerned with making these National Parks so successful. First of all, the Commission itself, the Chairman and the various other members. They have shown an immense amount of devotion to their cause. In fact, if they had not acted as dedicated men and women we should never have reached our present position. The Park Planning Authorities, whether they have been joint or advisory, have played a great part. When I introduced the Act I thought that where there were several authorities concerned a Joint Advisory Committee was better than perhaps several committees from each of the local planning authorities, with a joint advisory committee responsible for the whole area. Both have been tried, and it would be difficult to say which has been more successful. The latter is the more difficult type of management, but it has been successful, again because of the devotion of those who have been concerned with it.
A great debt of gratitude—and I think we ought to say so—is due to all the devoted voluntary workers: the wardens and others, who have not been afraid to do the menial work involved in picking up arid disposing of litter from the National Parks, giving of their time and efforts, and so on. All these have played their part in the success of the National Parks during these ten years. They have been pioneering years. It has been an entirely new venture, and I think we can all look back with a sense of pride and of achievement to the work of these first ten years. We must be vigilant to ensure that the next ten years will not see this work undone, but that they will bring to full fruition the ideas of those who pioneered this conception—the preservation of the beauty of the country and the fullest opportunity for the people of our country to enjoy it. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.26 p.m.
LORD BIRKETT: My Lords, I am sure that I express the view of noble Lords in every part of the House when I say that we are most grateful to the
542
noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for introducing in the House this afternoon this topic of National Parks. I know that it is the conventional thing to thank the introducer of a subject of this kind, but I say it with particular feeling for two reasons. First, it gives us an opportunity, which I feel we ought to take, of expressing our gratitude to the National Park Commissioners, under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Strang, for the noble work they have done in the most difficult circumstances—indeed, the most frustrating circumstances, as I shall show. And, secondly, it is an opportunity for giving publicity to the cause of National Parks. In my experience, National Parks have suffered in the past and suffer at the moment, because there is not a sufficiently educated, intelligent, knowledgeable public opinion behind them.
I speak, if I may say so., from somewhat sad experience. For many years I was the Chairman of the Standing Committee on National Parks which was set up by the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, and the constituent bodies like the National Trust and the Commons Preservation Society. The object of the Standing Committee was to agitate for the creation of National Parks. I was at the same time President of the Friends of the Lake District, a post which is now occupied, I am glad to think, by my noble friend Lord Winster. The purpose of the Friends of the Lake District, as its title indicates, was to try to safeguard that great sanctuary and that great place of beauty.
The first item on its programme was to make the Lake District a National Park. I am not going to go into the frustrating history of those years: they were long years; they were arduous years. We interviewed Government Departments and Ministers; we wrote books and articles; we held meetings and we did everything we could to create a public opinion which would make the Government of the day, of whatever complexion it might be, set up in this country of ours a system of National Parks. If your Lordships will bear with me I will give two illustrations to show why we felt the matter so urgent. Before National Parks were introduced in the Act of 1949, believe me! to save a footpath or a remote moor, or a place

543
of beauty in our island was fraught with the most intense difficulty.
Take the case of Eskdale, in the Lake country, which I know so well. In 1934, the Forestry Commission (about whom I shall have something to say a little later), with the taxpayers' money, purchased land in upper Eskdale. In 1936 they issued a White Paper saying what they were going to do with it. In a word, the plantations that they were going to make in that remote and lovely place were to destroy the whole of the natural beauty which had been for centuries associated with it. The Friends of the Lake District organised the most powerful oppositon, and presented a Petition which can be seen as an appendix to a wonderful little book called Afforestation in the Lake District by a great lover of the Lake District, the late Reverend H. H. Symonds, and that Petition represented every single phase of public opinion in this country.
A deputation went to the Forestry Commission. I had the honour of being a member of it, and it was led by the Archbishop of York, who made a very notable speech to the Forestry Commission, saying in effect that there is only one Lake District; destroy its beauty now and you destroy it not merely for this generation, you destroy it for ever, and we have a duty to generations that are yet to come. My noble friend Lord Beveridge used the expression about it to the Forestry Commission that the Lake Country is the very place for young people and for people of moderate means, and we have a duty to preserve it as a national thing just as we would preserve Westminster Abbey. The other speech to which I would make reference, because it adds point to what I am going to say in a moment, was by the poet Lascelles Abercrombie. He drew attention to a factor which has very rarely been on the lips of other men, the spiritual value that lay in the sight of natural beauty. The master of Trinity, Dr. Trevelyan, also lay stress upon the fact and quoted, "Without vision the people perish" and, "The sight of natural beauty is a great human need."
All these things were done before the Forestry Commission. With what result? That in order to preserve in that lovely land of Eskdale a few
544
hundred square miles, we had to pay voluntarily to the Forestry Commission something like £1,480—a figure of that kind—to compensate them for not planting there and destroying the natural beauty of that area. An agreement was entered into in 1938 whereby the Forestry Commission agreed not to plant in Lower Eskdale and in certain parts of the Duddon Valley. The voluntary society of which I was the president had, by their subscriptions from their subscribers, to provide the money to the Forestry Commission. I thought then that that was entirely wrong, and it was one of the factors, and a very strong factor indeed, which made me a most earnest propagandist for the setting up in this country of National Parks.
The other incident, if it can be termed an incident, which has a slight bearing on what I am going to say in a moment is that in 1945 and 1946 the Whitehaven Corporation, in conjunction with a great industrial concern, Courtaulds, wanted to take water from that lovely lake in the western Lakeland, Ennerdale Water. As many of your Lordships will know, it is one of the most lovely, remote, solitary places yet to be found in this Island. They wanted the water for a commercial factory of Courtaulds which at that time was being erected at Sellafield. The Friends of the Lake District, the Society for the Preservation of Rural England and the National Trust all combined to oppose it, and we produced, if I may say so, a very powerful case against it.
There was an inquiry. We briefed counsel. The case which was put into the hands of counsel, in my judgment, was overwhelming. We showed that they could take the water from Ennerdale for their purposes without raising the level of the water at all. Your Lordships will appreciate that the trouble about making a lake into a reservoir, or building a dam, is that you get a difference between high water and low water, due to the accidental ratios between rainfall and matters of that kind. The moment you get low water round about the fringes of the lake you get a most unsightly band of bleached rock, mud, stones and things of that kind. So we said, "Here is a plan by which you can raise the level of the water and provide all the water you want without any injury to Ennerdale." We also provided

545
a scheme whereby the water could be drawn from other places. With what result? The Minister of Health, who had the deciding voice in that day, turned it all down and said, "Ennerdale shall be made into a reservoir." But there are other powers in this world besides Government powers. For some reason, the industrial concern in question decided not to have their factory at Sella-field and to go elsewhere, so Ennerdale remained and was not made into a reservoir. I fear from the happenings which are going on in the North Country that Ennerdale is not yet secure; but we shall meet that when the moment comes.
I mention those two matters to emphasise as strongly as I can this point: that the only reason for the establishment of National Parks was, first of all, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said—and it is enshrined in Section 5 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949—to preserve and enhance natural beauty, sometimes called our glorious heritage. That was the idea. When National Parks came we had agitated for three things among others. The first was the all-important matter of the preservation and the enhancement of natural beauty. We set out the usual arguments to the Minister then: that we were the most urban country in the world and that the difference in the pressure upon each square mile in our country as compared with that in other countries is colossal—over 700 persons a square mile here, 43 in the United States of America. One-third of our population lives in seven of our great cities. The natural beauty of our Island is of course very limited; land is very limited and the all-important question is how you are going to use it. Therefore, if you are going to preserve and enhance the natural beauty you must have some body powerful enough to override everybody else and to say, "Thus far shall you go, and no further".
I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, say that we should set our faces against any developments in National Parks which are contrary to the spirit of the National Parks Act. I quite agree, and I will inquire in one moment into what we can do. I do not want to be pessimistic in the smallest degree, but I venture to say to this House and to
546
your Lordships that that which has been done and has now been in operation for nine years is such that we can never recall it.
In 1945—that is, four years before the National Parks Act—I was invited to deliver the Rede Lecture in the University of Cambridge, and, being so eager for the establishment of National Parks, I selected National Parks as the subject for that lecture in the Senate House at Cambridge. If your Lordships do not think it immodest of me, I should like to make one quotation from that lecture, delivered four years before the Act was brought in. I said:
"The great need is to make a sound national beginning and to make it now by the creation of National Parks, so that they may serve as a guide and stimulus and encouragement in that work of preservation which is the professed aim of Government and people alike. When National Parks are established, some, at least, of the growing dangers to the countryside will be overcome. The fairest places still left in these Islands will be secure from all assault arising either from accident or from design, and a very great contribution indeed will have been made to the happiness of millions in town and country alike."
Your Lordships may think that they are glowing words—indeed, they were. They were sustained by the view that National Parks were quite near—it was 1945. And I added to it, as all my colleagues in the open air societies added to it, that the essential thing was the setting up of a statutory body, armed by the Treasury with money, armed by the Government with powers, that should be able to override all those enemies of natural beauty who were so prevalent in those days and are so prevalent now. The difficulty was never with the small man, and the difficulty to-day is not with the small man. The difficulty always was with the great Government Departments, the great statutory bodies; and it was necessary, in our view, to see that National Park Commissioners should have those overriding powers. Well, they have not got them. When I think of my noble friend Lord Strang and his colleagues on that Commission confronted with the difficulties which are enshrined in this Report, I cannot conceal my admiration for their courage and steadfastness in view of their great disappointment.
Is it conceivable that in 1959, with all the knowledge that we have of the precious character of our countryside, and

547
how the Hobhouse Committee, to which the noble Lord referred, had spoken in the most moving language about how it was being eaten up, that the National Parks Commission should be writing these words:
"While welcoming the above statutory provisions on amenity"—
your Lordships will appreciate that in many Acts of Parliament, such as the Electricity Act, a provision is inserted that the undertakers shall have regard to the amenities of the district—
"we nevertheless cannot hide our disquiet that the year has also seen the granting of Ministerial consents for three major industrial undertakings in National Parks"—
then they are set out, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has referred to them.
The paragraph goes on
"We fully realise that in reaching their decisions the Ministers of Housing and Local Government and of Power had to take into account factors other than those with which, under the duty specifically laid upon us by the National Parks Act, we are specially concerned, namely the preservation and enhancement of natural beauty."
I would ask your Lordships to listen to this next sentence—
"But there is no disguising that their decisions will result in grievous damage to the landscape of two National Parks. We report at greater length…"—
as they do in the paragraphs referred to. Then there are the expressions which were read by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, about the various schemes. The Report is filled with that kind of note, such as where the Commissioners have said" Do not do this", and "We object to this", but without the power to enforce it.
I am one of those who recognise very fully indeed that we live in a democracy and that people who live in the National Parks have their rights, which must be considered. It is not enough to say, "Make me a dictator and let me overrule everybody". Never have we contemplated that. Our original proposal—and I still think it is the proposal which holds the field, though there is not much chance, now, I think, of its ever coming into being—was: give the National Parks Commission the power to override, to say to the great statutory bodies," You shall not do it, and if you have a grievance about it go to the appeal tribunal that we set up". We considered most carefully the nature of the appeal tribunal.
548
It was suggested at one time that it should be a Committee of the Cabinet. Upon inquiry, that was felt to be impracticable. It was then suggested that it might be a Committee of both Houses of Parliament. That was investigated and also felt to be impracticable. Finally, it was suggested—I think the proposal still holds the field—that a special Committee of the Privy Council should be set up and that gradually, over the years, a body of decisions would be gathered together which would be a perpetual guide all through the years. You would get, therefore, the decision made by the Commission, you would get your right of appeal, and everybody would be heard.
Incidentally, I should like, but it would take too much time to do it, to deal with all that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. Perhaps on this particular point I might interject this remark. Since the year 1956 the Commissioners have recommended that certain Amendments should be made to the Act of Parliament, and I hope that the noble Earl who is to reply to this debate will give us some encouragement on that matter. They are all set out in the Appendices to the Seventh Report and the Eighth Report, and one of them in the Seventh Report deals with the particular point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—saying to a man in the Cotswolds area, "You shall build it only to this design", or "You shall build it only on this site", and "we all recognise that this is going to cost more than it would if this were not a National Park, and we feel that you ought to be compensated".
But the Commissioners cannot do it. By one of the sections of the Act they are precluded. Therefore, a long list of Amendments has been set out by the Commissioners to make the Act of Parliament the effective thing it ought to be, year after year; and at the end of this, the Ninth, Report, there is given the correspondence with the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in which he says how deeply he sympathises but there is no room in the legislative programme. I venture to submit to your Lordships that there ought to be; and I would ask the noble Earl who is dealing with this matter to represent in the strongest way possible that if we cannot go back to the ideal that we had in mind when the Hobhouse

549
Committee reported, of giving the Commission overriding powers, we can at least consider the adoption of the Amendments—I will not trouble your Lordships with them—that are set out in the Appendices to the Seventh and Eighth Reports, and which are referred to again in the Ninth, to make the Act of Parliament a much more efficient thing with regard to finance and all sorts of other matters.
Perhaps I might say this, because it might otherwise seem impertinent. The Minister of Housing and Local Government, Mr. Henry Brooke, and I were associated for some years, until he took office, on the Court of the University of London, and my admiration not merely for his ability but for his complete integrity I cannot really express to your Lordships; it is deep and profound. Therefore it enables me to say that I think that the Minister of Housing and Local Government has not paid sufficient attention to the recommendations of this Commission. I say that with all respect, and I say it after full consideration.
Pages 69 and 70 of the Report, dealing with the nuclear power station at Trawsfynydd—I am sure that the local pronunciation is rather different from mine—are worthy of your Lordships' attention. At any rate, there was an inquiry before this nuclear station was set up in, of all places, a National Park. The Commissioners were represented by counsel and gave evidence. Then there was the decision-letter of the Ministry of Power dated July, 1958, and these words occur:
"The National Parks Commission represented at the Inquiry that there must be a strong presumption against the construction of large industrial buildings in a National Park, and that this presumption could only be rebutted if it were demonstrated that the station was required in the national interest and that no other suitable sites were available."
What were they compelled to do? They were compelled only to submit, as a proposition: "You should not put it in a National Park. The only time you should put it in a National Park is if you are driven to do so as an absolute last resort, in the public interest."
Listen to what is said about the public interest:
"After considering the arguments and inspecting the site,…the Chief Engineering Inspector of the Ministry of Power came to
550
the conclusion that the presence of a nuclear power station would not even irredeemably impair the amenities of the Snowdonia National Park; he…ecommended that consent be given."
But mark that Mr. Buchanan, the Principal Inspector of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government—Mr. Brooke's Department:
"concluded that the question to be decided was whether the urgency of the power programme and the difficulty of finding sites for nuclear power stations were so great as to justify what he regarded as grievous damage to the National Park; his judgment leant strongly to the preservation of the National Park from such development, but in view of the important questions of national policy which arise in this case he did not feel able to make a formal recommendation."
I do not want to be thought impertinent or, indeed, intrusive into a field in which I ought not to enter, but I venture respectfully and humbly to say that the Ministry under Mr. Brooke, the Minister of Housing, ought to pay a great deal more attention to the recommendations of the Commission set up by Parliament for the very purpose of preserving natural beauty.
I have kept your Lordships a long time and I will conclude in a few moments; but there are one or two matters on a rather brighter note that I should like to stress. There is not time for me to expound all that the Commissioners have done. Their beneficial work throughout this country is immense and we are immensely grateful to them. I remember going to Wales and having the great privilege of speaking with the Bishop of St. Asaph at a great demonstration against the hydro-electric schemes in Snowdonia. As a result of the noble work of the Commission the visitor to Snowdonia will not see any of those four hydro-electric schemes. They are out. In my own beloved Lake country, in what I regard as the loveliest vale in all England (and indeed Ruskin thought the same), the Vale of Borrow-dale, one will not see there what was once proposed, the overhead transmission lines. Thanks to the Commission the lines are all going underground, although I believe the same battle is going to have to be fought in Upper Borrowdale. I would again say to the noble Earl who is to reply to this debate, surely it should be settled on the highest level what generating and electricity authorities ought to do. It is no

551
good putting into an Act of Parliament that they must consider amenity if, in fact, they never do so, and have to be forced to put such lines underground, lines which would destroy a lovely vale like Borrowdale, lone Borrowdale. A decision ought to be made upon that matter, and made, I think, at the earliest moment. There is another great thing the Commissioners have done. If one goes down to Dartmoor one will not now see the china clay workings which were originally set up at Lee Moor. They have been withdrawn. The immensely good work of the Commission cannot be overestimated.
I said that I would refer to the Forestry Commission once more. I am bound to say, though I do not want to be unjust—that is the last thing I want to be—that I cannot pretend to any love for the Forestry Commission. I see, for example, that they had a proposal which did not affect the Lake District. We have had enough trouble there and there is more trouble to come, but in Exmoor they proposed taking 15,000 acres of land for the purpose of plantation. The Commission said that that would completely alter the character and nature and the present wild beauty of the area, and the matter was finally referred to the Ministers. There were a number of discussions, and finally, after all that effort and struggle, with the Commission fighting very hard, the Forestry Commission withdrew their proposals, with the result that Exmoor was left free.
Let me therefore conclude by saying that, in view of all the Commissioners have done, it should be our bounden duty to give them every support in our power; and when they ask that the Act should be amended merely to give them more power to carry out what Parliament has asked them to do, it should be our first duty to see that they have that power and so are made much more efficient than they are now. I have always thought that the trouble about the National Parks was their administration. It was the decision—it is too late now to go back on it—to have them administered, so to speak, locally, whereas in truth they should be administered nationally. Naturally, when a local authority is concerned it has to consider the people living there, and the rates; and Park Planning Committees
552
are confronted with problems of the gravest difficulty every day in making a decision against amenity, on the one hand, and, perhaps, rural electrification, water power, buildings or what-not, on the other. If, therefore, we could get a public opinion which strongly supported the Commission in all these matters, and if we could induce Government Departments to look with a more benevolent eye upon natural beauty, which it is the purpose of the Act to preserve, I think we should make very great advances.
I believe it to be essential that the Commissioners should have more staff. There are only 26 people in the buildings here in London, and the work all over the country is perfectly immense. They ought to have more money. The grants which are made from central funds ought certainly to be increased. Grants ought to be available from the Land Fund for all kinds of meritorious purposes. By such means as these the Commissioners would be able to do more. If one has the money and more power, one can do more. I believe also that one of the great needs is to provide money for publicity. My noble friend spoke on the question of litter and matters of that kind, and I warmly support his words. We have always said, and I repeat here, that National Parks must be preserved in their beauty, but they must be preserved for the enjoyment of the people. And this means providing the facilities for boating, fishing, cross-country walking, rock-climbing, camping and what you will. The powers are there, but the money ought to be available for these things to be done.
In my own National Park, the Lake District National Park, great steps are being taken in the provision of lay-bys, provision for cars and all sorts of other facilities, including facilities for people to have reasonable and comparatively cheap housing accommodation for the visitors. All this requires publicity; it requires a little more money. I noticed in the other place a Question addressed to the Minister of Defence asking how much it cost per week per person to maintain our present defence, and the answer was.11s per person per week for all the millions concerned. One-eighth of a penny a week given by them to the preservation and guardianship of natural beauty in our parks would provide all the money needed.

553
My Lords, I end as I began, by saying that I think the House owes a great debt to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, not merely for his introduction of this matter here to-day but for all his work for National Parks in days past. It is a very great pleasure to me to be able to say to your Lordships that I think it is our duty to support the Commissioners in their great work and to do it with a very ready hand.
4.2 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lucan has asked me to change places with him and speak now, as he has to leave the Chamber for a short time. I acceded to this request with a certain slight reluctance, because your Lordships are only too well aware how difficult it is to follow a speaker so famous for his eloquence as my noble and learned friend Lord Birkett. But I do so with some pleasure, because not only should I like to congratulate all those whom he has congratulated, to add my little meed and tribute to the work they have done, but I am sure your Lordships would like me to congratulate the noble and learned Lord himself. His speech has indicated how important a part he took in the history of this movement.
If your Lordships will permit me a little reminiscence. I remember very well, and with considerable delight, the occasion on which I myself, I think with the late Mr. John Dower and some other member of the C.P.R.E., called upon him at his chambers in Queen Anne's Mansions to ask him whether he would take on this job of being Chairman of the Standing Joint Committee on National Parks. He agreed to do so, without very much pressure—indeed with an enthusiasm which he afterwards brought to all the work of the Standing Joint Committee; and I am sure that the eventual success, in so far as it has been a success, of this movement is in a substantial degree due to the excellent work which he then put in. I should also like to add to what has been said about, and to the tributes paid to, the Commission themselves, also, and particularly, the voluntary workers. I was especially glad that my noble friend Lord Silkin paid tribute to Mr. Michael Dower and the team of Cambridge undergraduates who have devoted so much of the long vacation
554
during the past two or three years to going into different parts of the country and removing the eyesores which were put there during the war years by the War Department and other Government Departments and which, as my noble and learned friend Lord Birkett said, ought to have been removed by the Government themselves long ago.
Undoubtedly this is an important subject, much more important than most people realise. I like to look back to the time when I first began to walk over the Lake District hills, a little after the noble and learned Lord, at about the end of the First World War. At that time it was possible to walk all day long and meet hardly anybody. To-day it is not possible to walk over the Lake District hills, or the Welsh hills, or the Peak District, or indeed anywhere else, without meeting large numbers of young people. This has been one of the great revolutions of the times: the enthusiasm among the young people for getting out on to the moors and the mountains. It has enabled us to be the first at the top of Mount Everest and to achieve many other important adventurous exploits of that kind which redound to the credit of this country in the world. That is all part of the movement of which this National Parks movement has been such a signal and important part. I have, with the noble and learned Lord, often regretted that more interest has not been shown in Parliament, in your Lordships' House and in the other place, in this matter. We are indebted to my noble friend Lord Silkin for bringing it before us again. He has done so before. He was the architect of the Act under which the National Parks Commission are working, and it is good that he should from time to time bring the work which they are doing before us and give us an opportunity to discuss it.
My noble friend Lord Silkin has drawn attention to the main points which arise in the Ninth Report of the Commission and I do not wish to take up a great deal of time by going over ground which he has traversed, and on which I had been prepared to speak, but there are a few I's I should like to dot and a few t's which I should like to cross. Before doing so, however, I should like to say, as I said on the last occasion (which I think was as long ago as 1953), that I approach this problem from a

555
rather different angle from that of my noble friend Lord Silkin. I approach it from the point of view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett. As I explained in 1953, I think the present Act went about the matter in the wrong way. On that occasion my noble friend Lord Silkin said that I was an extremist. I was putting before your Lordships' House the views of the Hobhouse Committee, of which I had the honour to be a member, and I am very glad that to-day the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, has come along and expressed exactly the same point of view about these matters. No one would accuse him of being an extremist, and I feel that he has now, so to speak, rescued me from the position into which I was put on that occasion by my noble friend Lord Silkin.
I was particularly glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, emphasised, and emphasised so very clearly, how the work of the Commission, and indeed the work of the local authorities who have been given the job of administering this Act, has been hamstrung and hampered from first to last by financial considerations. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Silkin himself has now agreed that that is so, because on the last occasion he said that it was possible to get 75 per cent. from the Ministry, and that in many of these cases that was ample to enable the local authorities, the local planning committees and joint planning boards, to carry through the work which was entrusted to them. It is not; and I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, has proved that so clearly that there is no need for me to rub it in. I think it is very clear that until these parks are regarded as National Parks, and the nation takes responsibility for the financial problems which are involved, we shall not really succeed in tackling this problem effectively.
I was glad also that the noble Lord drew attention in such forcible terms to the destruction that is being carried through, as is brought out so very clearly in this Report, in two of the most important National Parks in Wales, in the Pembroke area and in Snowdonia, as a result of the new atomic power station. It really is a ghastly thing, when you come to think about it, that in that beautiful country—in Snowdonia, particularly—this dreadful, unsightly atomic
556
power station is to be erected. It appears quite clearly from this Report that this station may be—and indeed is quite likely to be—completely out of date within twenty years. But at the end of that twenty years it will be almost impossible to remove it; because, as we have already seen at Windscale, once one of these places is erected, and it becomes, so to speak; charged with this radio-active matter, the problem of removal is almost insuperable. It is almost impossible to find words to condemn an attitude of this kind—that the most beautiful countryside in England should be destroyed in this way by a monstrosity of this kind which may be completely out of date within twenty years or so and which it may then be impossible to remove.
My Lords, I also agree with the noble and learned Lord when he says that the Act goes about this matter in the wrong way; in leaving this problem to be handled by local planning committees, or joint committees of local planning authorities. What is needed is a strong national authority which would be in a position to negotiate effectively with Government Departments, instead of being in a position only to make representations. After all, if a chairman as gifted in diplomacy and as experienced in administration as Lord Strang (and the National Parks Commission are extraordinarily fortunate to have a man with a combination of qualities such as he has, if he will forgive me for saying this in his presence) cannot succeed in persuading these Ministers to alter their ways, then it is a poor look-out.
It seems to me that the case I have mentioned shows conclusively that we ought to have a much more powerful National Parks Commission, able to argue on a footing of equality with the Ministers in respect of matters which are concerned with National Parks. And there should be the possibility of an appeal, possibly to a sub-committee of the Cabinet, or to a committee of the Privy Council, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, has suggested, because at the present time the Minister is the judge in his own case. The Minister of Fuel and Power has the last word in the case I am discussing, and although everybody knows that Lord Mills has considerable sympathy for the Open Air

557
Movement and the National Parks Movement, in the end he has to look at the matter from the point of view of fuel and power, and has to give his decision on that basis. I submit that that is not right. The decision ought to be entrusted to somebody who can form an impartial opinion, and who would not have to look at it from the point of view of the Minister of Fuel and Power. Until we get that, I am quite sure that Lord Birkett is right in saying that we really have not got an adequate weapon with which to protect these lovely parks of England.
My Lords, there are one or two other points to which I should like to advert quite shortly. I should like to go back to what I was saying at the beginning, and to pay a particular tribute to a man who died this year, and whose name Lord Birkett mentioned—that is, the Reverend H. H. Symonds. Mr. Symonds was one of those personalities of whom it could be said that, so long as England can produce them, England is not too badly off. I knew him very well indeed. I sometimes quarrelled with him. He was a man who, when it was necessary, could stamp on anybody's toes; and could stamp very hard indeed. Sometimes he stamped on people's toes without a good enough reason; but, nine times out of ten, he had reason more than good enough. He was a great man, and we shall miss him very much. He and Mr. John Dower, Lord Birkett himself, and one or two other people—and the name of Sir Arthur Hobhouse ought also to be included—undoubtedly deserve the thanks of the nation for what they did in this movement.
There is one other matter, perhaps rather one of detail, on which I must disagree with Lord Silkin. He expressed the view that it did not matter whether there was a joint planning board or one of these joint committees to which a number of local authorities might refer a particular matter in order to get some advice. The National Parks Act provides perfectly clearly that joint planning boards should be set up, and it is only in cases where the Minister is quite satisfied that other arrangements are preferable that a joint planning board is not to be set up. Unfortunately, after the very first case, that of the Peak District, the Minister always found some reason for not setting up a joint planning board.
558
Lord Silkin said that it did not matter; that they both worked equally well. I do not see how anybody can read this Report without seeing that the National Park which has clone the best from the beginning is the one with the joint planning board—that is, the Peak District National Park. It gets two pages, almost all taken up by a very commendatory notice from the National Parks Commission. Many things, such as the voluntary warden system, were initiated by this Peak District Joint Planning Board, and much of the work of pulling down unsightly buildings was started in the Peak District. I should say that any impartial person coming to the reading of this Report must agree that a National Park with a joint planning board is in a very much better position to deal with these problems than, say, Snowdonia, where they have three or four planning authorities, with a sort of consultative committee from which they can get advice when they wish to do so. I wish that it were possible for Lord Strang to take part in these discussions, because I have not much doubt about the advice he would give is on this particular point.
My Lords, there are other noble Lords who wish to speak, and there is other business which your Lordships have to do later on this evening, so I will put my notes aside and content myself with saying that I am very much in sympathy with Lord Silkin's Motion, and I hope that it will receive your Lordships' acclamation.
4.18 p.m.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, my first duty is to say that I noticed that a very able member of the Commission who signed this Report had died since the Report appeared. I refer to Alderman Vaughan, who was affectionately known as "Billy" Vaughan. He was a very able man; a member of this Board and, I believe, also of the Forestry Commission. He was a man who made considerable contributions towards solving some of the problems; and he made them not looking serious or profoundly wise. When he began to chuckle one always knew that he was about to get to the root of the matter. I therefore thought it right to say a word or two about our regret at the loss of a very able servant, who has served in many parts of the life of this country.

559
Before I sit down I want to underline the point that Lord Silkin made concerning the warden service in these Parks. I want to underline it by saying that I got the impression that your Lordships' House probably thought that only Cambridge undergraduates were involved in this warden service. As a matter of fact, there are wardens—men and youths—from all parts of the country. I am pleased that this point was underlined by my noble friend Lord Silkin. Considerable notice is taken of another section of youth, as if they were the only representatives of youth in the land, but we have these young men giving up their week-ends to go into the Parks to help in seeing that they are properly conducted. At first, people are apt to leave gates open, to the annoyance and probable loss of farmers. These young men are doing a fine thing and I am glad that they have been given honourable mention in your Lordships' House to-day and in the Report. I am glad, too, that notice has been taken of the caravan experiment. Anyone who sees the caravan assemblies in some parts of the country will agree that the Commission will render a very real service if they can experiment with the size and positioning of these caravan gatherings and collect experience which will be useful to the local authorities.
In their speeches, my noble friends Lord Silkin and Lord Birkett drew attention to the fact that atomic energy stations are to be established in some of the parks. I am afraid that I have not the ability to be so selective in my language as they are, because I see this going much further than appears on the surface, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, the Minister of Fuel and Power, is here to hear what I have to say. From a notice I saw in The Times I understand that the matter of radioactive waste from these stations is still causing troubled minds, to put it at its lowest. The Times said:
"If the industry increases, so does the amount of radioactive waste which has to be disposed of safely and, if possible, economically. Proposals for new legislation are expected soon"
And it said that a Government pronouncement is to be made. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Mills, whether a statement is to be made this afternoon on
560
this important matter, because if the newspapers have knowledge of these things, certainly Parliament ought to have knowledge of them.
I remember well the debate which took place on the National Parks Bill. I have never seen anything like it. Everybody agreed, and that is a rare thing in any Parliament. Conservative, Liberal and Labour were all one on the need to set up National Parks. There was an enthusiasm almost unparalleled in the ordinary way of Parliament. I have seen a good deal of the National Parks, as I was deputy for some seven years, and I can say now with much more authority than I could before that a fine piece of work was done by Parliament in establishing the National Parks Commission, with authority to safeguard the beautiful places in our land. The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, has given an able and elaborate description of some of these areas and of what is desired by those responsible for running them. But none of them ever thought that we should have the establishment of atomic energy stations in the National Parks, with the growing danger of radioactive waste and with all the nuisance that comes with industrialisation.
Your Lordships will forgive me for being a little personal. I was born in the Wordsworth country. My first sight was of the mountains with which his name has become associated and which, as I found later in travelling over the world, are almost reverenced by people in all parts of the world. When I was about eight years old—that is, something like seventy years ago—I had to leave that part of England and go into a county which I have learned to love and which holds my affection, in which I have done the greater part of my public work which, perhaps, has led me to stand here and address your Lordships this afternoon, but I have never forgotten the shock of seeing a great industrial county, with its pit heaps and clustered houses in the coal centres. I shall never forget that so long as I live.
These atomic energy stations are the beginning of the new industrial revolution, and if we allow them to be established in the National Parks, then we shall lay on future generations an even greater burden, maybe, than we have had to carry in the old industrial areas. It

561
is not good enough to say that a local inquiry may be held and that at that inquiry it may be decided that an atomic energy station should be placed here or there. If it is the intention to deliberately industrialise these areas, to direct into these areas the new Industrial Revolution which is surely coming—even ordinary men and women can see that this is developing at an immense rate—then I say that it is not a matter for a local inquiry to settle; it is a matter for Parliament. Parliament ought to have the opportunity very soon of knowing what is the mind of the Government upon these matters, and of deciding whether they agree or not.
That is all I have to say. I am pleased to have had the opportunity of speaking in this debate and expressing my fear. I think I know the pulse of industry as well as any man living in this country: I have fought with it, lived with it and slept with it for seventy years, and I know the danger of these things. I remember going down to one of those beautiful places where the River Dove flows and seeing a water rat eating a salmon—I suppose people would say that the sooner the water rat is got rid of the better, if he feeds on salmon. But half a dozen of us stood watching him. He finished his meal, wiped his whiskers and dived again for another one. I thought that was a wonderful sight. That is the kind of place that is at stake in this matter. I hope the noble Earl who is to reply will be able to give an answer on the matter of the Bill or Order or whatever is supposed to be coming—at any rate it has been stated in an eminent newspaper—and also give us some comfort about this matter by telling us that the Government are not going to rely on local inquiries, because this is a matter for the nation and not for a few people in some distant part of the country.
4.33 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I regret that owing to another engagement I was unable to hear my two noble friends, Lord Chorley and Lord Lawson, but I did hear the eloquent speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett. This debate relates specifically to the Ninth Report of the National Parks Commission, but what it raises is the far bigger abstract question of amenity versus development of civilised
562
life. Lord Birkett was, I think, almost provocative in the uncompromising attitude he took up: that any change to a National Park area is for the bad. I wish I could feel as certain on the question as he and other noble Lords appear to do. I think it is a difficult question to decide as to where to hold the balance between the material necessities of a growing industrial country and the preservation of the right amount and the right kind of amenity. Ours is a thickly populated country, although not, I believe, the most thickly populated country in Western Europe. We have a limited area and a growing population which depends for its livelihood on an active industry, which must develop to keep pace with modern inventions. Our coal mines are being worked out, and nuclear power, oil refineries, and so on, are a necessity nowadays.
It is the unenviable job of the noble Lord, Lord Strang, and his Commission to try to save what can be saved of the natural countryside, and to resist, where they think necessary, industrial development; but it is for the Government to decide in the end what can or cannot be allowed. I think we should not forget that the intention of the National Parks Act was not to create great areas of natural country untouched by man, such as other larger countries can afford. The National Parks as designated include a considerable amount of cultivated land, arable land, villages and farmhouses, woods and reservoirs, and it seems to me that the right note was struck by the sentence in paragraph 53 of the Report which states:
"National Parks cannot be sterilised and remain for all time exactly as they were at the time of designation"
After all, the Parks as they were at the time of designation were probably much different from what they were a couple of hundred years before. The value of the National Parks, as it seems to me, is not to preserve something in its actual state in such a way that in a few generations it will become an archaism and something unnatural, in the nature of a folk park where you preserve a past and finished way of life. I do not think it was the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the Government that passed the National Parks Act that we

563
should turn these great areas of our country into anything of that nature.
So I think it is unrealistic to protest at every operation of the Forestry Commission, because although our generation is accustomed to seeing bare hillsides, those hillsides may have been afforested long ago. I do not think it is reasonable always to protest against the building of a dam, because sheets of water and dams can harmonise perfectly well with the countryside. But when it comes to the developments at Milford Haven, then I confess that I come down on the other side. Here is a piece of England that is quite irreplaceable; the only deep-water estuary on the West Coast and the only piece of wild coast line. There, right on the coastline, on both shores of the estuary, we have large-scale industrial development. There, regrettably, we have lost something for good that can never be replaced. On the other hand, what we have got is an essential addition to our industrial equipment; something that we are told the Government are convinced is essential if the economy of the country is to prosper and develop. We have those quite irreconcilable considerations, and he would be a bold man who would come down unequivocally on either side.
One can express great regret, as indeed the National Parks Commission have done, when something of the sort has to be done; but let us not forget the other side, and let us not forget, either, the people of the area. If I might criticise the ideas of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, it appeared to me that he was inclined to approve of the setting up of an all-powerful body that would override all other considerations. It seems to me that the machinery of the National Parks Act gives what is essential, and that is a voice to local opinion. We may think the local opinion is misguided, retrogressive and ignorant of the value of amenity; but nevertheless it should be heard. If the people of these very poor counties, thinly populated, with very low rateable values, think that prosperity is going to come through the introduction of some industry, and if they think it is for the good of their own population, they should certainly be heard and due weight given to their opinions.
564
On the other questions, I think we would all go all the way with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett. An amendment of the National Parks Act is overdue, and money is needed. Let us recognise the fact that we are getting our National Parks on the cheap. The amount of money spent on them is absurdly small. A sentence from a pamphlet issued by the Fabian Society recently on the amenity question is worth quoting. It says:
"There is a need for wider recognition that amenity values are part of the standard of living, and that it is unrealistic to allow weight to them only if this involves no cost"
I think that those words should be borne in mind by Her Majesty's Government.
I should like to turn now to one rather specialised side of the National Parks Commission, and refer to paragraph 7 of their Report where they say that they are studying the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Inland Waterways. That was the Committee which was set up by the Government to report on what could be done with canals and waterways. Its terms of reference included other matters, too, but the important thing for this purpose is that they considered canals which have no further use for commercial transport purposes. The Government issued a White Paper (Cmnd. 676) giving their decisions on the recommendations of this Committee, and they accepted the principle that these unwanted canals should be redeveloped—that is, should be converted for purposes other than commercial navigation and made the best use of for amenity, recreation and other purposes such as water supply, land drainage and the like. For that purpose, they have set up an Advisory Committee to deal with these canals one by one, by means of schemes for redevelopment.
The Government will, they say, welcome schemes for developing the possibilities for recreation and amenity, and they ask for the co-operation of all interests concerned—local authorities and voluntary organisations of all kinds, including, among others, the National Trust, which body is at the moment, I believe, negotiating in some particular cases with the Transport Commission. It seems to me that the object the Committee and the Government have in

565
mind in connection with these waterways is closely in harmony—in fact, almost identical—with the object of the National Parks Act: to preserve and enhance natural beauty and promote enjoyment of it by the public. That is exactly what is required in the case of these waterways.
It seems to me that there is machinery almost ready to hand for these canals to be dealt with, under the provisions of the Act. Section 13 of the Act gives powers to local planning authorities as respects any waterway in the Park to carry out such work as appears necessary
"for facilitating the use of the waterway by the public for sailing, boating, bathing or fishing."
That is all right, but, by the nature of them, National Parks are mostly in hilly country, and so not many canals pass through them. In fact, there is only one case, the Brecon Beacons Park, where a canal passes through it. In several other cases, however, there are waterways quite close to the boundaries of a National Park. There, it seems to me, there are possibilities. There is that beautiful canal stretching to within six miles of Buxton, almost in the heart of the Peak Park, called the Peak Forest Canal, accessible from the Potteries and from Manchester, where there is twenty miles without a lock up on the 500 ft. contour, with wonderful views. That would be an ideal adjunct to the Peak District National Park. The Lancaster Canal approaches within a mile or two of the boundaries of the Lake District National Park. There are others, too, that pass through what were recommended as, and may yet be, areas of outstanding natural beauty under the Act.
If you preserve these canals they will give means of access by water for people who wish to visit these places. They can go in their own boats. If you cannot manage to make a through route you can still allow boating facilities for people who visit the Park. The authorities could provide mooring and camping facilities and ensure the preservation of the waterway as an adjunct to the amenities of the Park. That could be done in one of two ways. The Commission could represent to the Minister that a certain length of canal should be designated as a detached part of a National Park. If the Minister agreed, the provisions of Section 13 of the Act would allow the
566
Park Authority to incur expenditure to look after that canal. If that method were not favoured, it seems to me that it could be done under Section 14, where the Minister can acquire land, or under Section 12, where a local planning authority may acquire land.
In either case Government grant is payable, for the improvement of waterways for the purposes of public amenity, of 75 per cent. or, in exceptional cases, 100 per cent. In the same way, I believe that under Sections 87 and 88, which deal with the areas of outstanding natural beauty, the local planning authorities could apply those sections of the Act and thus deal with the waterways concerned. A very good example of that is the Kennet and Avon Canal which goes through the Marlborough Downs through very beautiful, unspoiled country. That seems to me a very good example of what could be done by this method.
I do not want to go into the matter at further length. Neither do I expect Her Majesty's Government to give me an answer, because I have not given them prior notice. But I do hope that this suggestion will be considered and that the Government may come to the conclusion, or indeed that the Redevelopment Advisory Committee may come to the conclusion, that this method offers a good chance of redeveloping these waterways which are going to be such a problem, so many interests being concerned and having to give their consent. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will cause the suggestion to be considered in due course. Meanwhile, I think we should express our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for once again having brought this subject to your Lordships' attention.
4.53 p.m.
LORD GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to mention two points which are, I think, causing friction between the visitors to the National Parks and the local folk. The first one is the question of litter, which has been mentioned twice. The National Parks Commission have done a great deal of good, and so have the various youth organisations, in educating the public to have respect for the countryside; but there is still a great deal of litter in some of these parks. When it consists of bottles, and so

567
forth, it causes fires, and I am convinced that any money allowed to the National Parks Commission to carry out far more extensive advertising to educate the public further would be repaid by the number of fires avoided. The second point applies particularly to the North Yorkshire moors, where large numbers of sheep are killed on the roads by cars, some of which belong to the visitors. I think this also applies to the ponies in the New Forest. I wonder whether the National Parks Commisison are fully aware of the losses, which are causing great grief to the farmers, and whether they can do anything about it.
4.55 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is the father of a great deal of legislation designed to protect or improve amenity in this country. Your Lordships are always glad to hear him raise any of these subjects and give us an opportunity of discussing them. I should like to assure the noble Lord that the Government share fully his concern about the National Parks and also join with him in paying tribute to the work of the Commission, particularly its Chairman the noble Lord, Lord Strang, who we are very glad to see has recovered fully from his recent illness which prevented him from attending the late conference.
I should also like, on behalf of the Government, to add to the tribute which the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, paid to the work of the volunteers in the parks. He mentioned by name the team of undergraduates led by Michael Dower, whose father was the author of the Dower Report, and also the work of the voluntary wardens and their assistants, who do so much work in removing litter and in spreading interest and encouraging observance of the country code by visitors to the parks. There have been a good many complaints from farmers about careless or, sometimes, deliberate acts which have caused damage to crops or animals or farm property, and your Lordships, I know, will agree that the enjoyment of the parks does involve responsibility for leaving them unharmed for others to enjoy.
My own very small contribution towards the establishment of National Parks, unlike that of the noble Lord,
568
Lord Silkin, was completely unfruitful. Before the war I served for a time on one or two Committees whose duty it was to try to work out plans for National Parks in Scotland, but when the noble Lord introduced his legislation for National Parks in England, people in Scotland decided that they did not want them. The noble Lord has told us that he regrets that, and I will not go into it. It is not because they do not want to preserve beautiful areas in Scotland, but because they think they can do it better without having National Parks. Anyhow, we in Scotland do not object to the English having their parks. We congratulate the noble Lord on his ten fine babies. The Government are doing their best to cherish them and bring them up, although we are glad to be given advice from child welfare experts in all quarters of the House.
The first thing which the noble Lord asked me about was the eleventh baby—that is, the Norfolk Broads. He said he would like to know what was happening about that proposal. Since he raised this matter in the last debate on the subject, the Committee of Inquiry into Inland Waterways, set up by the Minister of Transport under the chairmanship of Mr. Bowes, has made its Report and in it has referred to the problem of the Broads. The Committee thought that schemes for the reclamation of the Broads which involved very large sums of money were not justified but that the dredging operations should be extended. It made proposals for new administrative arrangements, and in the White Paper to which the noble Lord referred, published in February, the Government said that such proposals should be thoroughly explored between the interested parties before any decision was taken.
Both the Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Commissioners and the Joint River Board are interested in the administrative problems concerned, and local discussions are still going on. The discussions are being co-ordinated by the Clerk of the Norfolk County Council. Some people are in favour of the designation of the Broads as a National Park. Others are against it. I understand that the National Parks Commission propose to join in the local discussions at a suitable opportunity. At present these discussions are being conducted without the National Parks Commission,

569
and the Clerk has agreed to tell the Commission when he is ready for them to come in. I understand that the Commission have never been greatly in favour of creating a Park in the Broads, but I have no doubt they will be interested in anything that can be done to preserve the amenities there.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, also asked me about "areas of outstanding natural beauty", as distinct from the Parks. Sections 87 and 88 of the Act enable the Commission to designate as areas of outstanding natural beauty stretches of beautiful country which, for one reason or another, do not qualify as parks and are administered by the local planning authorities. The Commission have recently announced a programme of designation of areas of outstanding natural beauty, and orders designating the Gower Peninsula, the Quantock Hills, the Lleyn Peninsula, the Northumberland Coast, Cannock Chase, the Surrey Hills and the Shropshire Hills have been confirmed by the Minister. A decision has not yet been given on the Dorset, Malvern Hills or Cornwall orders. The Commission are doing the preliminary work on orders for the Sussex Downs, the Forest of Bowland, East Hampshire, the North Devon Coast and the South Devon Coast.
The noble Lord also asked about long-distance routes. So far, six long-distance routes have been approved by the Minister under Section 52—namely, the Pennine Way, the Cornwall North Coast Path, the Pembrokeshire Coast Path, the Cornwall South Coast Path, Offa's Dyke Path; and recently, only last week, they agreed the Devon South Coast Route.
I think we recognised and expected that the main matters of concern which would be raised by your Lordships in the debate to-day were the various major industrial developments—one at Trawsfynydd, where the atomic power station is being built, and the others in the neighbourhood of Milford Haven. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was good enough to let me know he would mention them. I think your Lordships all recognise, and the noble Lord himself pointed out, that when you add up the total area of the National Parks they come to over 5,200 square miles; that is, one-tenth of the whole area of England. And
570
although, of course, that one-tenth of England does not contain anything like one-tenth of the population of England, it does contain a large number of people who have got to live—they cannot be expected to be walled off in a kind of stagnant museum, with no industrial development, no electric light and no modern amenities. It is the task of the Minister and of the Commission, as expressed by the Hobhouse Report, to see that the irreplaceable values for which these areas have been chosen are given due weight in the national balance; and one of the Minister's duties is to act as the final arbiter in deciding what are sometimes extremely difficult questions.
In his recent speech to the Conference of Park Planning Authorities at Bakewell, my right honourable friend showed that he was deeply conscious of his responsibility to safeguard the landscape from harm, and he gave an assurance that amenity always received due attention when the question of development was being considered. But there are cases in which development has to be permitted in the national interest.
Some of your Lordships may perhaps think it unfortunate that often the most suitable sites for modern industrial development, such as nuclear power stations, are in remote and beautiful country. When my noble friend Lord Lawson talks about the new Industrial Revolution, I do not know that we need think of this in terms of converting large areas of unspoiled country into areas which are completely industrialised. I think we have to think of probably much more scattered centres of industry. Remoteness is an asset to a nuclear power station, which, unlike other industrial concerns, does not need to be constantly supplied with raw materials after it has been constructed. But it does need millions of gallons of water for cooling daily, and even hourly. Therefore, these stations have to be built in close proximity to water. There are other geological conditions which have to be fulfilled and technical requirements which have to be met, and it is exceedingly difficult to find sites that will be suitable without selecting some part of the coast which is beautiful because of its isolation and its topography. I wish that it were possible to find sites which

571
were not only remote, out of the way and sterile, but also ugly, but it is extremely difficult to find a site which fulfils all those conditions and, at the same time, has the necessary physical requirements for such an undertaking as a nuclear power station.
In the case of the Milford Haven scheme the difficulty was that the favourable tidal conditions and depth of channel necessary for our purposes were not available in uncongested conditions anywhere else in this part of the United Kingdom. Alternative areas were explored, but none of them could compare with the Milford Haven conditions. Tankers of 50, 60 or 100 thousand tons need a very deep draught and sheltered water for unloading their cargo. I think that everyone regrets that this beautiful stretch of water, which is so much frequented by yachtsmen, should also have to harbour tankers—although tankers can be magnificent vessels in their own way. But, faced with the need for oil and the vital part it plays in industry, and therefore in the national economy as well, the decision was eventually given to allow the development; and similar conditions were required and found for the Angle ore stocking ground.
But the Minister did not give planning permission without very carefully considering whether some alternative place could be found. As he said in his speech, he gives great weight to the National Parks and believes that every prejudice in their favour should be allowed before he makes his decision. What he said was:
"Whenever a decision to allow industrial development in a National Park is eventually given it is never the case that the beauty and remoteness have not been considered. The scales are heavily tipped in their favour from the outset, but sometimes there may be exceptional weight on the other side."
I would again assure your Lordships that the presumption from which the Minister always starts is that, if at all possible, industrial development should not be permitted in the National Parks.
I would also suggest that there need not necessarily be a presumption that every kind of industrial building is necessarily ugly and an eyesore. The noble Lord; Lord Silkin, will remember that he had this Motion down a fortnight ago. I was lucky enough to be sent
572
to Lisbon a day or two before, and, so that I might have time to look at what he was going to talk about, I took the Papers with me. Thinking about the matter, one of the first things I saw in Lisbon was the great warehouse at Lisbon Docks for the cold storage of perishable goods—a magnificent modern building of very fine outline, decorated with statuary and friezes. I should say that it is one of the finest architectural sights one could have, and I could not help thinking what a pity it was that all commercial buildings could not be of similar character.
The National Parks Commission and the Minister try to ensure that whenever industrial buildings have to be put up in a National Park area the services of a landscape consultant, and if possible a good architect, shall be employed. In the case of Trawsfynydd Power Station, long before there had been any public anxiety and before the controversy had begun, Miss Sylvia Crowe, President of the Institute of Landscape Architects, had been employed by the Central Electricity Generating Board to help them to select the best site for a building of this kind. The architect who designed it is Mr. Basil Spence. Your Lordships may have seen in this week's Sunday Times a short article with a photograph of that power station to Mr. Basil Spence's design. It is not for me to express any kind of judgment on it, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, will not feel that it is necessarily a hideous eyesore.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he has ever seen the buildings at Windscale in Cumberland, on the edge of the Lake District?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not think that that is relevant to what I am saying.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, surely it is very relevant, because I should think that they are the most ugly buildings in England.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, it is only too true that many commercial and industrial buildings are ugly, but I am trying to say that it is not always necessary that they should be ugly; and we are trying to take these measures to have both landscape architects and

573
structual architects brought in, in order that if, of necessity, these new buildings are set up in National Parks, they shall be put in the best possible setting and built to the best possible design.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell me whether that was done at Windscale?—because if that is the result of all this care it looks as though it was impossible to design anything which was not hideous.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I was asking the noble Lord, so that he may judge whether it is impossible to design a building which is not hideous, to be good enough to look at Mr. Basil Spence's design for the atomic power station, which is the subject we are discussing in this debate. I am not going to express any opinion of my own about that, but I would ask the noble Lord to look at the photograph and to consider it.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, had some critical things to say about the Forestry Commission. The Report of the National Parks Commission mentions in paragraph 68 that they have been consulted by the Forestry Commission on proposals involving, in all, nearly 15,000 acres of land; and they mention the discussions which they have held with the Forestry Commission in which the Forestry Commission have been willing to take the National Parks Commission's advice. I believe that the Forestry Commission are invariably anxious to co-operate with the various local authorities in charge of the National Parks in order to decide where and in what circumstances woodlands are desirable from an amenity point of view. The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, referred to some old controversy which I believe took place twenty or thirty years ago in a very beautiful part of the country which I do not know; and I dare say he is right about it.
LORD BIRKETT: My Lords, will the noble Earl allow me to interrupt? One cannot deal with every matter of detail, but I gave the illustration of Eskdale to show the need for a controlling power. Before this debate I took the trouble to ascertain the position in Lakeland with regard to the Forestry Commission. On my advices, it is quite true that the Forestry Commission consult with the
574
Planning Committee, but very rarely do they concede the Planning Committee's point of view. I would have said that in debate, but of course there is not time to say everything.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord has made that plain. Having no personal knowledge of the area with which he is particularly concerned I cannot speak about that area, but I have often found that in these questions of planting the public are actuated by sheer conservatism; and although conservatism is a good thing it is not always accompanied by a great deal of imagination——
LORD SILKIN: Hear, hear!
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I have often found, when I have been concerned in some planting operation, perhaps trying to cover a barren hill with trees, that there is an immediate public outcry—"Oh, the beautiful hill! How can you be such a vandal as to plant your hideous trees all over this wonderful, majestic, sterile, barren bit of ground?" Then, fifty or sixty years later, when the trees have become mature and have to be felled, there is exactly the same kind of outcry—" Ah, the beautiful wood! How can you cut down this beautiful wood?" I believe the reason is that the life of a tree is often longer than the life of a man, and human imagination is sometimes a little weak. If we really want to enjoy the beauties of nature we ought to try to picture the whole life cycle of vegetable growth and regeneration in our imagination. Nature is not stagnant. We ought to enjoy not only trees at all stages but the mental concept of the whole life cycle of a tree, even though we cannot follow it and perceive it in our own short lifetime.
The noble Lord also, like some others, talked of the possibility of putting cables underground. That is a very good thing, of course; but though it is sometimes not too difficult with low tension cables, with high tension cables it is not only very difficult but expensive. I am told that the cost of doing so is about £310,000 per mile compared with £22,000 a mile, which is a very great deal of money; and it is not always satisfactory. It is not yet quite certain whether the electricity is transmitted as efficiently underground as it would be overhead.

575
But, of course, we are always glad to consider what can be done in that way.
In thanking the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, again for raising this matter I would assure him that Her Majesty's Government are very conscious of their duty of preserving and enhancing the beauty of National Parks. Every application for development within a Park, whether it is positive development to beautifying it, or action to prevent some undesirable development which will bring ugliness to the Park, will be considered most carefully, and planning permission will never be lightly granted in any case. Your Lordships may be assured that the problems of the Parks and the Park planning authorities and the National Parks Commission will always be carefully studied, and if we can do anything to ease any of their difficulties or to adopt any course they recommend it will certainly be done.
5.21 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, this has been a most interesting debate, both to those who have spoken and to those who have listened, and the interest has certainly been added to materially by the eloquent speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, for which we are all greatly obliged. I think the interest cannot be measured by the number of speakers who have taken part. This is not a particularly controversial subject, and it is difficult to create controversy and to make speeches where there is no controversy, and a series of speakers all saying very much the same thing becomes rather dull. So I want to pick on one or two matters upon which perhaps some difference of opinion has become manifest.
First, on the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, I dislike crossing swords with him not only because he is probably right but also because he is one of the most brilliant advocates of the day; and therefore, whether one is right or wrong, one can usually be proved to be wrong. But my opinion is that he has misdirected himself about the functions of the National Parks Commission. His view is that they should have the right of decision on applications for development in the National Parks and that there should be an appeal to some such body as the Privy
576
Council. I do not know whether he meant the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council or merely a body of Privy Counsellors selected ad hoc. It seems to me that there are two difficulties, two major difficulties, about that suggestion. The first is the one that I found in considering the provisions of the Bill. Can you really isolate one portion of the area of a local planning authority and say to them, "You must not plan this bit. You can plan the rest of your area, but this bit is going to be taken away from you entirely"? I think, apart from its practicability, you lose a great deal by the fact that you are depriving local people of an interest in the most interesting and beautiful part of that area.
The other point was the fact that at that time, in 1949, we had only just created these local planning authorities under the 1947 Act; and there was difficulty in saying to them, two years later, "You have been set up to do a job. We trust you to do a job; we trust you. But we cannot trust you to do this particular, especially difficult job, which we must take away and give to an alien body, divorced from your area, whom we regard as being more suitable to carry out this task than you are" That was an impossible position for anybody in charge of this matter to take up. There were strong representations, which were carefully considered; but in the end we felt that we had to leave this matter to the local planning authorities. We asked them, however, to set up special committees for the areas concerned and to include in those committees people nominated by the National Parks Commission. I think that that was a very reasonable compromise.
I come to the next point. I can understand the argument that it should be left entirely to the National Parks Commission—let them decide. But once a right of appeal is given, is there any reason to suppose that a body of Privy Counsellors would come to any materially different conclusion from that of the Minister himself, advised as he is by his advisers? After a public inquiry the Minister would have to consider exactly the same facts and the same evidence as the Privy Counsellors would consider. Assuming equal good faith on both tribunals, in the end a decision must rest on the criterion that you attach to applications for development.

577
I believe that the Minister and all Ministers have been most conscientious in trying to weigh up the various considerations: the importance of preserving the character and the beauty of the National Park as against the importance of the proposals that were before them. I think that they have not always given sufficient weight to the claims of the National Parks. Though I admit that they have given weight to them—they have said so and I accept that fact—I do not think' they have given sufficient weight. But I have no reason to believe that a committee of Privy Counsellors to whom this matter would be put would take a different view unless they adopted a different criterion. Therefore, although I fully understand the considerations which have influenced the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, to put this point, I do not think that in the end he would find himself any better off with the Privy Counsellors than he would with the Minister.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has tried to reassure us of the interest of the Minister in the National Parks; and let us accept that. I would not altogether go along with him in his analogy of the very beautiful warehouse in Lisbon. I know Lisbon; I think I know it fairly well. It is one of the loveliest cities in Europe, and a very fine warehouse in Lisbon or outside Lisbon is in its proper place and fits in with the rest of the buildings, and there is no complaint. I agree with him that a warehouse can be made beautiful if there is a proper design for it. I do not think that the fact that it is in Lisbon, or outside Lisbon, is really material. I would ask him what he would think of a very beautiful warehouse on the borders of Lake Borrowdale. I think he would take a rather different view.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I would rather have a beautiful one than an ugly one on the borders of Lake Borrowdale.
LORD SILKIN: But would the noble Earl want one at all? That is the real
578
issue. The issue I want to put before the Government is this: having made up their minds that here are ten areas which they have selected as areas of outstanding beauty, areas which must be preserved, whose beauty must be enhanced and where the people of this country are to be encouraged to come for enjoyment and recreation—having done all that, are they going to permit industrial development for these areas quite contrary to the character of the areas? Nobody is suggesting that there should not be any development at all. I made that quite clear in my opening remarks. There is development which would be quite appropriate for the area; but the kind of development that has been allowed in these areas in the last year, which I have illustrated, is wholly inappropriate to the character of the area. That is the complaint that I make and that is why I think the Government have not applied the right test.
The noble Earl says that it is very difficult indeed to find a suitable site. He set out the requirements, and I would not challenge what he says. However, there are cases where you must accept the second best. Let us agree that the particular areas chosen are the best and are the most suitable for the industry but they are not unique, and it may be that in certain cases we have got to make a sacrifice. I believe that these who have the cause of National Parks at heart—and they constitute a very large section of the population—would be prepared to make that sacrifice in order to preserve the character of these National Parks.
That is all I wanted to say. I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken, and I fully accept the sympathy which the noble Earl has expressed in the cause of National Parks. I hope that we shall have no more Trawsfynydds and Milford Havens, and so on, to discuss when the next Report comes along. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

MENTAL HEALTH BILL
5.32 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 44:
Special provisions as to pyschopathic and subnormal patients
(2) Within the period of two months ending on the day on which a patient would cease to be liable to detention in a hospital in default of the renewal of authority under this subsection, the responsible medical officer shall examine the patient, and if it appears to him that the patient, if released from the hospital upon attaining the age of twenty-five years would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to other persons or to himself, shall furnish to the managers a report to that effect in the prescribed form; and where a report is duly furnished under this subsection the authority for the detention of the patient shall be thereby renewed, and shall continue in force accordingly after the patient attains the said age, but without prejudice to the application to the patient of the provisions of section forty-three of this Act.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (2) after "himself" to insert:
"or is liable to be exposed to danger or serious exploitation by other persons, or would be likely to resort to criminal activities, or is incapable of caring for himself".
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, and I hope it will be convenient if I discuss with it Amendment No. 86, so as to avoid the necessity for a separate discussion on that Amendment. It will have the added advantage of giving the noble and learned Viscount a clear run for the last 29 Amendments.
The words which it is proposed to add at this stage of the Bill are taken from the Sixth Schedule, on page 118, and they indicate the extraordinary difference—and, so far as I can see, the quite inexplicable difference—between the treatment proposed to be accorded to subnormal patients who enter hospitals when this Bill becomes an Act and that to be accorded to those who are there already. As your Lordships will be aware, a subnormal patient who enters a hospital under this Act, when he
580
becomes 25 years of age, and assuming he has not been previously released, will then be released—indeed, must be released—from the hospital unless, in the opinion of the medical officer, he would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to other persons or to himself. That may be perfectly satisfactory, and may be a full safeguard for the patient. But I would submit to the noble and learned Viscount that, if that is his answer—that it is perfectly full and satisfactory—then it ought also to be completely sufficient for patients who are already in hospital now, or who will be entering hospital prior to the passing of this Bill.
If he does not agree to that, we shall be faced with the position that we shall have, in the same hospital, two classes of patients—those who are already in hospital, and those who go into hospital after this Bill becomes an Act—who are of the same mental age and of the same degree of mental deficiency; and presumably one can be discharged from the hospital at the age of 25 and the other cannot. There can surely be no possible justification for that distinction. If the noble and learned Viscount thinks that these additional safeguards should be taken into consideration for patients already in hospital, then he should accept this Amendment, and make the treatment applicable to all patients in exactly the same way. If, however, he argues that Clause 44 is quite satisfactory as it stands and that the only criterion is that the patient is not likely to act in a manner dangerous to other persons or to himself, I shall be perfectly satisfied to accept that. But in that event it will be necessary to delete these same words where they occur in the Schedule on page 118.
It can be argued—I do not know whether it will be—that for patients already in hospital it may be necessary to have these additional safeguards because they may have been there longer: they may be, as it were, institutionalised. But most of the young people who go into mental deficiency hospitals under this Bill, especially if they are there until the age of 25—they cannot, under this Bill, be compulsorily admitted after they are 21—will have to be there a considerable number of years; and therefore they will be equally institutionalised. So there appears to be

581
no justification for any difference of treatment.
I mentioned that I should like to say a word on Amendment No. 86, which is on exactly the same point. When you look at paragraph 13 (1) (b) of the Sixth Schedule you see these words, which give another reason for not discharging one of these patients:
"…and that there is no suitable hospital or other establishment into which he can be admitted and where he would be likely to remain voluntarily…"
They are the words which, later on, I shall seek to remove. Those words do not apply in Clause 44, and they are an additional reason why a particular patient who is in hospital prior to the passing of this Bill could not be discharged, even if he satisfied the medical officer in every other way that he was not likely to do harm to himself or to anybody else; that he was not likely to be exploited, and that he was not likely to resort to criminal activities: he was, it was thought, safe to be released into the community. But to revert to the Schedule, if the medical officer said there was no place for him to go, or no other hospital to which he could be transferred voluntarily, that would be a reason for keeping him beyond the age of 25. That is unconscionable. We should be visiting upon the patient the consequences of our own failure to provide alternative means for these young people to come out of hospital. I emphasise that that would be a reason only for those who are at present in hospital, and it is not a reason under the other part of the Bill—namely, under Clause 44.
I do want to emphasise to the noble and learned Viscount that what I am asking for is equality of treatment for the same types of patient—those with exactly the same qualifications. Either we should add these safeguards to Clause 44, or, if the noble and learned Viscount is convinced that they are not necessary, we should delete them from a later stage in the Bill. Surely one or other of these alternatives must be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 16, after ("himself") insert ("or is liable to be exposed to danger or serious exploitation by other persons, or would be likely to resort to criminal activities, or is incapable of caring for himself").—(Lord Stonham.)
5.40 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): May I first deal with the dilemma with which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, very ably confronted me? As your Lordships are aware, the Royal Commission explained in paragraph 568 of their Report why the criteria which they had already suggested for future psychopathic and subnormal patients are not necessarily applicable to existing detained patients. The basis of our approach to future patients, if I may so call them, is that they should be liable to compulsory admission during their formative years, when treatment is more likely to be effective, and after that they should be detained only (except for short periods) if they have come into conflict with the criminal law. In paragraph 568, they said this. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for reading it but I think that it contains the whole argument.
"Some of these patients will not have been admitted to hospital until a fairly late age and will so have missed the opportunity for training while young. Some may have been so long in hospital that they have become completely institutionalised and quite unfit for life outside, and may yet not be willing to remain without compulsion; not all of these could properly be classified as severely subnormal, though in their present condition they would in fact be incapable of leading an independent life. Others of these patients will be known to have committed acts, before or since admission to hospital, which might have been made the subject of a criminal charge but were not because the patient was already under Order or was 'subject to be dealt with' under the Mental Deficiency Acts on other grounds. Others will not be known to have broken the criminal law.
"In each of these categories some patients will have been in hospital only a short time, others for many years. We do not think it would be right to say that these patients should simply be sorted into those who had been convicted of a criminal offence before admission and those who had not, and that when the new system comes into force none of the latter should be detained in hospital any longer. If that were done and that only, criteria which we have recommended should apply in future to people who have been living in the ordinary world and are accustomed to its standards would be applied to some patients who have been living for many years in a sheltered and artificial community; some but only some, parts of a system which is based on the assumption that most of those who need training will be given it before they are twenty-five would be applied to patients who did not receive training at that age."
The Commission went on for these reasons to recommend, in paragraph 569, that there should be special grounds—I

583
repeat, special grounds—for continuing the detention of existing patients in the psychopathic and subnormal category. Paragraph 13 (1) of the Sixth Schedule gives effect to this recommendation.
These grounds arise, therefore, from the circumstances of existing patients and are not applicable to patients newly admitted in future, to whom Clause 44 will apply. May I summarise these grounds again. They are
"(a) that if that patient were released from the hospital he would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to other persons or to himself, or would be liable to be exposed to danger or serious exploitation by other persons, or would be likely to resort to criminal activities; or
(b) that that patient is incapable of caring for himself and that there is no suitable hospital or other establishment into which he can be admitted and where he would be likely to remain voluntarily;"
The words "likely to resort to criminal activities" make me venture to add something to my reply which I think is of the greatest value for the general approach towards this problem. A great deal has been said at times, and a great deal more is felt and not said by people who have not studied this problem, about the likelihood of subnormal and psychopathic patients resorting to crime. Until recently we have had no statistics by which this suggestion could be refuted or confirmed. But we know of no firm evidence to support it and in the absence of such evidence we have resisted suggestions that on this ground we should seek to alter or reverse the policy of enabling as many patients as possible to resume life in the general community after a period of training or treatment in hospital.
The forms of crime which are usually in mind in connection with subnormal patients are either persistent petty crime, such as the petty crime of pilfering, or serious crimes of violence, particularly sexual offences. At present, the Home Office Research Unit, with the assistance of the police, is conducting an inquiry into the extent to which sexual offenders have formerly been mental patients and provisional results of this inquiry are now available. They show that only a small proportion of these offenders have a history of treatment for mental disorder. During the period from July 1 to December 31, 1958, 3,630 persons
584
were convicted by the courts in England and Wales on charges of sexual offences—that is, homosexuality, rape, indecent assault on women, unlawful sexual intercourse with girls under 15, incest and indecent exposure. Out of this total, only 261, about 7 per cent., had at one time or another, so far as is known, received treatment for their mental condition.
Those who feel that the ex-mental patient is likely to be a sexual offender are particularly concerned about the need to protect small children. I am sure that we have all come in contact with that feeling. Out of 946 cases in which offenders had committed an indecent assault on a girl under 15 years of age, only 50—that is about 5 per cent.—were offenders with a mental history. In relation to offenders who had previously received treatment for their mental condition, these figures include both those who had been mentally ill and those who were mentally deficient. Therefore, the percentage of offenders falling into the subnormal and psychopathic group—the only ones covered by the present Amendment to which we are directing our minds—would be only part of the percentages quoted. In any case, if at the age of 25 subnormal or psychopathic patients are considered liable to commit this type of offence or violence of any sort, Clause 44 allows for continued detention on the ground of danger.
With regard to petty crime, we still have no statistics either way, but again, I am advised that there is no doubt that a great many of these patients are living completely law-abiding lives, and we should not be justified in detaining in this way in hospital patients who are not considered dangerous to themselves or to other people, simply on the ground that there is a possibility they might resort to a comparatively minor form of crime. If in the event they do break the law they can, if necessary, under Part V of the Bill, be re-admitted to hospital at any age and detained for as long as is considered necessary.
I think that that is an answer—and it is one I should like the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to consider—to each horn of the dilemma. But it is a comforting matter to all of us who are anxious about this subject to see the better (I am not going to use offensive adjectives at all)

585
approach to that fear which I have found widely held, especially by people who live near hospitals. The figures I have given on the sexual offences are important and show that many people have overestimated this problem. When we come down to figures of 7 per cent. and 5 per cent. in all, and then, as I say, consider the psychopathic proportion of that, I think it is cheering and inspiring to us on our general thesis.
LORD SILKIN: With regard to the 261 cases of sexual offenders, does the noble and learned Viscount know what proportion of the total number of persons involved that represents?—I do not mean of the total people who have been convicted of that sort of offence, but of the people suffering from mental disorder. I would ask the same about the 50 who have been convicted of indecent assault of girls under fifteen. If it was 50 out of 50 who had been discharged, that would be a very dangerous position. Fifty out of 946 total cases does not really give us a measure of the danger of discharging these people.
Tin LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought I had given the figures correctly before, but let me give them again. I said that during the six months July 1 to December, 1958, 3,630 persons were convicted by the courts in England and Wales on charges of sexual offences; and I gave the offences. Out of those 3,630 convicted, only 261, or 7 per cent., had, so far as is known, at one time or another received treatment for their mental condition. So it is out of the number convicted that only 7 per cent. have received medical treatment. With regard to the assaults on children, it is only 50 out of 946, which is about 5 per cent.
LORD SILKIN: I have followed that. But we are trying to measure the danger to the community of releasing this type of person, and I was wondering whether 261 or 50 respectively constituted a large proportion of the people who have been released. For instance, if we take the last five years, if there had been 1,000 people released, and 261 of that 1,000 had committed this type of offence, the danger would be a real one. The same with the 50 cases: if this was 50 out of, say, 200 that had been released in the five years, there would be a real risk to the community. I think we are entitled
586
to have some reassurance on that matter. I hope I have made my point clear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have looked at it, of course, from the other side. I think we all agree that it is a surprisingly small percentage of the number convicted. Purely from my own study of the subject, I should not have thought for a moment that the percentage of releases was anything like as high as 7 per cent. or 5 per cent. I do not want to pronounce on it, but I think that, even without that aspect, if you asked ordinary people who have not studied this subject they would be inclined to think that a much higher proportion than 7 per cent. or 5 per cent. of the people convicted of these offences had been people who had received medical treatment. I agree that to round off my statement I ought to have the other figures, and if I can get them for the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I will. I should not have thought that they would be depressing, but that is only my a priori view, and I will try to get it confirmed.
For these reasons, we think it is necessary to apply rather different criteria to patients who have already been in hospital some time than to those who are going in in the future. As I have already explained, it is possible for anyone who is convicted by a court to be dealt with under the other sections of the Act. As with all the Amendments, I want to study carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said, but I thought it would be helpful to him if I dealt rather more fully with this Amendment than he may have expected, so that he would have in mind the reasons which have influenced us in drafting the Bill in this way.
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for dealing with the matter in such detail and I shall accept his invitation to study what he has said. At the moment, however, it seems to me that, although many reasons have been given for this difference, a good many of them are not relevant. The noble and learned Viscount will recall that on Monday last, when answering in an earlier debate on this particular point of the difference between subnormal and severely subnormal patients, he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 217 (No. 91), col. 349]:
"It is the intention of the Bill, and of the recommendation of the Royal Commission on

587
which it is based, that the severely subnormal group should extend well over the lower ranges of the present feeble-minded category."
The people who are going to be admitted, therefore—and I should like for a moment to leave out those who have committed a criminal offence, because I do not think that that is relevant—are the ordinarily retarded mental patients, be they subnormal or severely subnormal; and we have already learned that the severely subnormal category will be much wider than we have hitherto regarded it, so that those who come in will be just as much addicted to sex difficulties as those who are in already.
The only possible justification that I can see for any difference of treatment is if it is thought that there will be in the mental deficiency hospitals a hard core of severely subnormal people who may never come out of the mental hospital. That is all right. But I should say that they are already covered by the words of this clause—in other words, they would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to other persons or to themselves. So they will never be released if they are going to be dangerous to themselves.
It seems to me that the noble and learned Viscount has not addressed himself sufficiently to this point: that there will be persons with exactly similar qualifications, or disqualifications, and some of them can be discharged at the age of twenty-five and some of them cannot. The decision whether to discharge or not to discharge will rest entirely on their date of entry. That seems to me totally unjustifiable. I can imagine its leading to a great deal of difficulty among patients, and particularly among the relatives and friends, with further damage to the patient, which is really quite inexplicable. I hope, therefore, that the Lord Chancellor will look at this point again. It seems one of manifest injustice which the words of the Royal Commission—which seem to me on this subject rather confused and not altogether relevant—do not assuage. I shall certainly study very closely what the noble and learned Viscount has said, but I think that this point must be conceded. I should be perfectly happy with the clause as it is now, and would withdraw my Amendment, but that is not the argument. The argument is that if I withdraw the Amend-
588
ment to add these words, then they must come out on a later stage of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will study what the noble Lord has said. In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I would say that I have not got the complete figures, but I think the figure which has been given to me will help the noble Lord. It is that about 300,000 mental patients were discharged in the last five years. That is 30,000 in six months, which is roughly nine times the number of those who were convicted in that period. I think that that is sufficient to negative the noble Lord's fear that they might be a very high proportion of those discharged, but I will try to obtain more complete information.
LORD SILKIN: That is, indeed, very reassuring.
LORD STONHAM: When I said, "at a later stage", I meant that those words would have to be deleted from the Schedule by a suitable Amendment. Is that point clear to the noble and learned Viscount?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I take the noble Lord's point, although I do not agree with him. He says that we must either do one thing or the other (he is not abandoning either, really) and that he will consider what I have said and before the Report stage decide whether he wants to return to the charge. He is not in the least prejudiced from doing that.
LORD STONHAM: With that understanding, and hoping the consideration will be mutual, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45 [Special provisions as to patients absent without leave]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is partly consequential on Amendment No. 33 and does the necessary drafting. It goes with the next Amendment, No. 37. I can give a full explanation if wanted, but I think your Lordships would be perfectly safe in assuming that they are essentially drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 4, leave out ("of section forty-three") and insert ("or subsection (4) of section forty-three or subsection (2) of section forty-four").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 6, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) Where the authority for the detention or guardianship of a patient is renewed by virtue of this section after the day on which, apart from this section, that authority would have expired under section forty-three or section forty-four of this Act, the renewal shall take effect as from that day.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 46 [Special provisions as to patients sentenced to imprisonment, etc.]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 46 and insert the following new clause:
Special provisions as to patients sentenced to imprisonment, etc.
("46.—(1) Where a patient who is liable to be detained by virtue of an application for admission for treatment or is subject to guardianship by virtue of a guardianship application is detained in custody in pursuance of any sentence or order passed or made by a court in the United Kingdom (including an order committing or remanding him in custody), and is so detained for a period exceeding, or for successive periods exceeding in the aggregate, six months, the application shall cease to have effect at the expiration of that period.
(2) Where any such patient is detained in custody as aforesaid but the application does not cease to have effect under sub-section (1) of this section, then—

(a) if apart from this subsection the patient would have ceased to be liable to be detained or subject to guardianship as aforesaid on or before the day on which he is discharged from custody, he shall not cease and shall be deemed not to have ceased to be so liable or subject until the end of that day; and

(b) in any case, sections forty and forty-five of this Act shall apply in relation to the patient as if he had absented himself without leave on that day.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 47 [Discharge of patients]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved in subsection (4) to leave out "and in the case of a local authority the members so authorised shall be members of the health committee of that authority." The noble and learned Viscount said: Your Lordships will see that Clause 47 provides for the discharge of patients detained or subject to guardianship under Part IV of the Act. In the case of patients subject to guardianship the order for discharge may be made by the responsible local health authority and in the case of patients detained in a mental nursing home the order may be made by the registration authority within the meaning of Part III of the Act. Subsection (4) of the clause provides that the power of discharge by an authority may be exercised by any three or more members of the authority and in the case of a local authority the members shall be members of the health committee of that authority.
The effect of the Amendment is to delete the requirement that the members of the local authority who may be authorised to exercise this power shall be members of the health committee of that authority. These words were included in the Bill following the wording of the recommendation of the Royal Commission on this point, but the intention of the Royal Commission clearly was—and it appears to be quite simple—that the members concerned should be those who have an interest in and knowledge of the subject of mental health by virtue of their membership of the health committee. Representations have, however, been made that it is unnecessary to make this a statutory requirement. As part of the relaxation of Governmental controls over local authority functions, it has been accepted by us that the statutory requirement that certain committees, including the health committee, shall be established, should at sonic convenient future date be abolished, thus enabling local authorities to conduct their affairs through committees in the way which suits them best. It would therefore be somewhat anomalous at this stage to require membership of the health committee for the purposes of this clause. I should have thought that local authorities could be trusted to ensure that orders for the discharge of patients were made on their behalf by appropriate members.

591
I am supported—which is an envious position for any Minister—by both the County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, leave out lines 32 and 33.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 48 to 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Appointment by court of acting nearest relative]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment re-words paragraph (d) of subsection (3) to put right two points which were inadvertently overlooked when the clause was extensively redrafted at Report stage in another place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 22, leave out from ("has") to ("under") in line 24 and insert ("exercised without due regard to the welfare of the patient or the interests of the public his power to discharge the patient from hospital or guardianship").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Duty of mental welfare officer to make application for admission or guardianship]:
6.10 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the wishes of any" and insert "any wishes expressed by". The noble and learned Viscount said: Clause 54, makes it the duty of a mental welfare officer to make an application for the admission of a patient to hospital or guardianship if he is satisfied that the application ought to be made, and having regard to the wishes of the patient's relatives. As I think I explained, this clause, like one I dealt with earlier, might as it stands be held to oblige the mental welfare office to consult the patient's relatives, and to ascertain their views as to who should make the application, in all cases, including cases of emergency which are to be dealt with under Clause 29. This Amendment and the next one are intended to make it clear that the clause does not impose on the mental welfare
592
officer any duty to consult beyond that laid on him by Clause 27 (2) (which relates only to applications proposed to be made under Clauses 26 and 23) and does no more than require him to take account, among other relevant circumstances, of views already expressed to him by the relatives. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 17, leave out ("the wishes of any") and insert ("any wishes expressed by").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD STONHAM: I am not very happy about this Amendment. As the clause stands, the mental welfare officer is obliged, whenever it is reasonably practicable (I think those words are fair enough) to ascertain the wishes of the relatives. The Amendment now places the onus on the relatives of informing the mental welfare officer that they object. As we all know well, many of these relatives have great difficulty in knowing how to object and to whom they should object. It seems to me, particularly having regard to Clause 27, to which the noble and learned Viscount referred, and in which the position of the mental welfare officer has been made much easier—I might say more safe—that it is surely not unreasonable to ask or expect or require the mental welfare officer to take some steps to find out what the wishes of the relatives are. If, of course, they are inaccessible, or he cannot find them or they are a long way away and they do not reply to letters, then we have already covered that point. But he ought to be required to take steps and not leave the whole of the onus on the relatives.
The next Amendment to this clause, moreover, appears to encourage the mental welfare officer to by-pass the relatives. In many of these cases we are not dealing with well-informed people; and very often they are frightened people. I myself have had a great many of them to deal with and I do not think we ought to weaken this requirement placed on the mental welfare officer to find out exactly, or to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to find out, what the wishes of the relatives are. I think I heard the noble and learned Viscount say as almost his last words that the relatives had expressed a view, but I can see nothing in the clause which supports the assumption that the relatives have already expressed their

593
view. The clause reads now "having regard to the wishes of any relatives," but we are asked to take out "the wishes of any relatives" and to insert "any wishes expressed by". They may not have expressed any wishes yet there is apparently no duty on the officer to take reasonable steps to ascertain them. That is why I am uneasy about this change.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will have another look at the point. What was in our minds was the emergency case. Assuming that the relatives had expressed a view, I think it would be reasonable to act in an emergency bearing in mind the views already expressed. I should like to look again at the point the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, made, when there are no views already expressed by any relatives. It is a difficult point, because obviously in many emergency cases it would be important to act at once. I do not think there is any difference as to our intentions. We want to get it in as perfect a form as we can.
LORD STONHAM: The particular point I had in mind was that a certain mental welfare officer might know the relatives and might think to himself, although he is not entitled to, "I do not care what She thinks about it; I am going to put him away". Some steps should be taken to ascertain the wishes of the relatives.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will look at it again.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 24, at end add ("or as restricting the power of a mental welfare officer to make any application under this Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Regulations for purposes of Part IV]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out paragraph (d) and insert:
"(d) for requiring local health authorities to consult such bodies or persons as may be prescribed by or determined under the regulations in connection with the approval of medical practitioners for the purposes of section twenty-eight of this Act, and for con-
594
fining approval to such practitioners as may be agreed upon between these authorities and and any bodies or persons required to be consulted by them respectively."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment deals with a difficulty that was not at once foreseen. If I may put it very briefly before your Lordships, it deals with the arrangements to be made for requiring local health authorities to take the advice of persons nominated by the hospital authorities before approving doctors for the purposes of Clause 28 of the Bill. Your Lordships will remember that clause and the Amendment which was down upon it. Paragraph (d) of subsection (2) of Clause 56, as it now stands, allows the Minister by regulations to provide "for the constitution of committees" to advise local health authorities on this subject. The intention was to require local health authorities to appoint a small committee consisting entirely of doctors, some of whom would be nominated by the Regional Hospital Boards or boards of governors of teaching hospitals, and some of whom would be nominated by the local authority itself. It was expected that the local authority representatives would usually include at least one of their own medical officers.
The County Councils Association pointed out to us the practical difficulties if such a body were constituted as a committee of the local authority. It would have to have on it a proportion of members who were themselves members of the local authority, and it would be quite contrary to normal practice to appoint one of their own officers. We have therefore re-worded paragraph (d) so as to allow the nominees of hospital authorities to meet informally with the medical officer of health to present agreed advice to the local health authority, so achieving the desired object, and also the object of your Lordships, without introducing unnecessary constitutional and procedural difficulties. This deals with the point which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, raised by his Amendment at page 17, line 26. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 13, leave out paragraph (d) and insert the said new paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 57 to 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 [Powers of courts to order hospital admission or guardianship]:
6.20 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved, in subsection (1) (b), after "him" to insert:
"including any facilities for psychiatric treatment in any prison psychiatric hospital or otherwise within the prison system".
The noble Lord said: This Amendment takes us back into that terribly difficult area where crime and mental disorders overlap and where moral and medical issues are so inextricably entwined. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor—together, I hope, with other noble Lords—is supporting me here. Clause 60, as the Committee will see, deals with certain persons convicted before the courts, whom the courts can, in certain circumstances, recommend should be sent to and detained in hospital on the ground of mental illness, psychopathic disorder, subnormality, or severe subnormality. In subsection (1) (b) we are told that the court, in coming to a decision of this kind, is to have regard to all the circumstances—and I am now quoting the words:
"including the nature of the offence and the character and antecedents of the offender, and to the other available methods of dealing with him."
At this point our Amendment would add the words
"including any facilities for psychiatric treatment in any prison psychiatric hospital or otherwise within the prison system."
Strictly speaking, I would concede that the Amendment could be said to be verbally redundant, on the ground that any psychiatric facilities are already covered by the phrase "other available methods of dealing with him", but I hope and believe that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will not consider that that would be a sufficient answer to an Amendment which raises such important issues. It seems to me that there are two good reasons for tabling this Amendment. In the first place, it will prove a valuable addition to the Bill, as we have to keep before our minds in years to come the great importance of psychiatric development in the prison system, and in particular the need, which has been admitted for so long, for a psychiatric prison hospital. In the second place, it enables us to seek, and I hope obtain, from the Government—though not, I would expect, per-
596
haps to-day—at any rate a general outline of their feelings and philosophy in regard to the future treatment of what I may perhaps be allowed to call mental delinquents: that is to say, delinquents mentally afflicted.
We have discussed the White Paper, Penal Practice in a Changing Society, more than once in this House since it was issued in February, but the Committee perhaps will not mind my reminding them that in paragraph 76 of the present White Paper we are told that work will be starting shortly on a psychiatric prison hospital at Grendon Underwood, Bucks. That was in February, and I believe that there has been some further move since then, this being July. I am told—the Lord Chancellor will put me right if I am wrong—that this projected psychiatric prison hospital will accommodate about 300 prisoners, and it is hoped that it will be completed in 1962—three years from now.
I have been told too, though I am not sure whether this is the official view—perhaps this afternoon or later we shall be told if it is so—that in the broad sense this psychiatric prison hospital will give effect to the East-Hubert Report. I do not know whether many of your Lordships have read that Report. I have been studying it over the week-end. I make reference to the Report with, I hope, a "dead-pan" expression on my face. I do not want to seem to be praising or blaming the reference to the East-Hubert Report and the implications of their ideals, because the Report which I have in my hands here and which can be obtained from any museum, I suppose, was based on investigations which were conducted between 1934 and 1938, and the issue of this Report, which it is now hoped to implement in about 1962, was published in 1939. Its most important recommendation—it is extremely interesting—can be studied briefly in paragraph 172, and I will quote that to the Committee. It says:
"We believe that the most satisfactory method of dealing with abnormal and most unusual types of criminals would be by the creation of a penal institution of a special kind."
So a penal institution of a special kind was suggested in 1939. Six years of war passed immediately afterwards, and you can say, if you like, that we start again

597
at 1945. But there is the fact that this was published in 1939.
We know that in this country all ideas take a long time to fructify, but some take longer than others, and, on any calculation, 23 years is really a shockingly long time for a hospital of this vital importance to come into existence. I am afraid that this does not reflect any credit on anybody, and anybody who has been in any Government of one kind or another must share the blame. However, what I am asking the Government this afternoon to say is what are the principles on which it is intended that prisoners with mental troubles or handicaps will be allocated as between these three kinds of institution; the mental hospital, the psychiatric prison hospital, when it comes into existence (and I certainly hope that there will be more than one), and, thirdly, the ordinary prisons, where there will be, we hope, an increasing amount of psychiatric treatment available.
I think I am not being unreasonable and I shall not press the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to give a thorough or final answer to that question this afternoon. I am sure he will agree that it is not in any case a subject on which it would be wise to be dogmatic. It is clearly a field where the best answer is bound to involve a great deal of trial and error. I think everyone feels strongly that, before accepting this clause and other related portions of the Bill, the House should be given a chance of expressing its views and of giving the Government an opportunity, perhaps on the Report stage, to say how their mind is working, because at present I think it is fair to say that we have no clue at all in regard to their philosophy. I would gladly offer some ideas of my own, but I have spoken for some time already for a Committee stage speech and I am sure that the Committee would prefer to hear the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, with his special experience.
However, I cannot sit down without pointing out the great danger of not building a prison psychiatric hospital, and of not building more than one, because if we delay that course we shall have on our hands a number of prisoners who will either be rejected by mental hospitals or, if they are accepted, will destroy the whole atmosphere of the much improved
598
system that we are trying to establish under this Bill in the mental hospitals. If these prisoners remain in ordinary prisons they will be the greatest stumbling block in the path of prison reform. Yet we cannot cast them off from aid altogether; they are human beings, and we have a duty to them, as we have to all citizens; and something in the nature of a prison psychiatric hospital is the only answer. But even then, I think that all who have gone into this question most thoroughly are agreed that one is not enough. Apart even from the question of numbers, we cannot leave together the hopeful and the intractable cases: certainly we shall need eventually a variety of prison psychiatric hospitals. The whole subject bristles with problems and responsibilities and opportunities. I feel that we are entitled, as I said before, before we leave this Bill, to know the Government's mind on this matter, even though in the broadest outline. I hope that, if not to-day, at a later stage, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will seek to make the Government's intentions plain. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 8, after ("him") insert the said new words.—(Lord Pakenham.)
6.30 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My noble friend used his Amendment as a peg on which to hang a very wide argument, but I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount will not mind that. The clause itself is, I believe, a very good and valuable one, and the Amendment would force the court to think about the proper disposal of those who are before it and to have regard to all possible facilities. May I approach it from a slightly different angle from that of my noble friend? I do so from the point of view of one of the commonest kind of mental patients coming before the court: that is, the attempted and unsuccessful suicide. As a rule, such a patient is seen by a doctor who is called in. The doctor then has the dilemma of whether to inform the police or to get the mental welfare officer or his successor, the relieving officer; or to get the patient into hospital straight away.
If he informs the police it is quite likely that the patient will be taken to prison, quite properly, because he has committed an offence. There the prisoner may be remanded in custody and investigated.

599
On the other hand, if the doctor decides to get the patient straight to a mental hospital, the mental hospital informs the police after the patient's arrival, or the doctor does so after the patient's departure, and usually the situation proceeds much more smoothly. The doctor, in his dilemma, makes the decision whether he requires the case dealt with legally or from the hospital point of view; and almost the only type of case where he will feel it is right that the patient should be dealt with legally is the hysterical psychopath who is making a suicide attempt for demonstration purposes, in order to annoy.
It seems to me that when mental patients arrive at courts it is rather "hit and miss" as to where they end up. They may end up in Broadmoor or in a psychiatric ward; they may end up in a mental hospital. I hope that under this clause the matter will be clarified considerably and that as many as possible of these patients, particularly those who are mentally ill as opposed to psychopathic, will be sent to ordinary mental hospitals as ordinary patients—because that is what they are. It is purely fortuitous that they happen to have committed an offence in the course of their illness. Almost always they are very ill and very mad, and they differ in no way from other patients in mental hospitals. That is where they should be. That is where they will get better quickest.
There is one other strange situation which has arisen as a result of the improvements in active mental treatment, particularly electrical convulsive therapy. A deeply depressed patient who is committed for attempted suicide or infanticide or attempted infanticide is remanded for trial in a prison. Should that patient be given electrical convulsive treatment before she is tried—it is usually a lady? I do not know what the right answer is. Obviously, her mental state will be completely changed by the time she comes to trial. She may become perfectly sane and sensible. Yet at the time of committing the crime and being arrested, she will have been quite insane. It seems very inhuman that she should not be treated. I do not know whether or not treatment is generally given. I rather think it is not given before trial, but it means that the patient must remain ill for a considerable period.
600
I hope that the noble and learned Viscount may like the Amendment on its merits. It does not seem to me to weaken the clause in any way, but it does widen the information before the court. I hope, also, that the court may as far as possible lean towards sending patients to a hospital, rather than to the psychiatric facilities within the Prison Service which should be reserved for the very intractable and difficult cases.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, anticipated, I am not going to worry about certain technical difficulties which the Amendment raises, because I want to accept his invitation to give a preliminary view of our philosophy on this matter; and I hope that if there are any further points the noble Lord wants made clear he will not hesitate to ask me about them. One may pose the question: "How is the court to reach a decision on the most suitable method of disposing of the case?"
The court will, I am sure, be guided to a great extent by the medical evidence, and your Lordships will appreciate—though I hope you will not mind my repeating myself because I believe one has to have this in mind in order to grasp the flow of the argument—that the question of making a hospital or guardianship order cannot arise until, first, the court is satisfied on the evidence of two doctors that the offender is suffering from mental illness, psychopathic disorder, subnormality or severe subnormality: and secondly, that the mental disorder is of a nature or degree which warrants detention in a hospital for medical treatment or the reception of a patient into guardianship; and thirdly, that arrangements have been made for the admission of an offender to a particular hospital or, where guardianship is recommended, his reception into the care of a particular local authority or a particular individual.
Having been satisfied on medical evidence that these requirements are fulfilled, the court must then have regard, first, to the nature of the offence; secondly, to the character and antecedents of the offender; and thirdly, to other available methods of dealing with him, before they reach a decision. In a great many cases, especially with the mentally ill and the severely subnormal,

601
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that there will be little doubt in the mind of the court that a hospital order is the most suitable, if not the only, method of dealing with the offender.
The offender who is diagnosed as a psychopath will present the court with a more difficult problem and, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, knows better than anyone, the choice between prison and hospital in such cases will often not be a clear-cut one. The court will be able, if it wishes, to consult the doctors about their grounds for concluding that detention in a hospital is the proper course; and will be able to ask the prison medical officer, who will normally be in attendance at sessions for assizes, what treatment would be available if the offender were sent to prison; and how much help the prison medical officer would be able to give would depend on whether he has made one of the medical recommendations before the court. If the offender has been on bail, the opportunities of the medical officer will, of course, be limited.
May I now say a word about the present position as to treatment? At present psychiatric treatment by consultant psychiatrists is available in three prison hospitals: those at Wormwood Scrubs, Wakefield and Holloway; and a certain amount of support in minor therapy is given by prison medical officers. Prisoners can be sent to mental hospitals as voluntary patients under Section 22 (2) of the Prison Act, 1952, and prisoners who are certifiably insane or mentally defective are at present transferred to the appropriate hospitals and institutions and will continue to be so transferred under the corresponding provisions in Clause 72 of the Bill.
LORD TAYLOR: May I interrupt the noble and learned Viscount for a moment? When he says "the appropriate hospitals", does he mean Broad-moor or the county hospital or the area hospital to which they would normally go?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think that it was limited to Broad-moor.
Now I come to the proposed East-Hubert institution at Grendon Underwood. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham,
602
made some play with the dates, but I think he will understand that Norwood East was one of the Medical Commissioners of Prisons, and Dr. Hubert was a psychiatrist engaged as a psychotherapist at Wormwood Scrubs and, therefore, although the report, I am sure, is still a valuable document, the name has been given in memory of the very great work in their own name of these two distinguished gentlemen. I am not going to avoid the point, but I say merely that this is not a case like that of the distinguished great grand-uncle (I think I have it right) of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, who, when asked whether he was Mr. Smith, said, "If you believe that, you will believe anything" It is a name given in honour of their services.
And now I will come to some facts about the Institution. As to the numbers, it will house 350 prisoners and will provide facilities of the kind mentioned in the Amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said, it is unlikely to be opened until well into 1962; but I think these are the points which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, wanted to know. It is not intended to send to it prisoners who qualify for transfer to outside hospitals under Clause 72 of the Bill; that is, those who, in modern terminology, are certifiable. Imprisonment with a view to detention in the East-Hubert Institution is not, therefore, an alternative to a hospital order for offenders as to whom the court is satisfied that they qualify for hospital orders, if their primary need is for treatment in hospital. Nor is it intended that courts should select prisoners to go to the East-Hubert Institution. It is essential to the success of the Institution that its population should be selected by the prison medical service and their consultant advisers.
In so far as the Amendment might seem to encourage courts to make open recommendations that particular offenders should be sent to the institution, that would frankly be a source of embarrassment. May I refer (I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, is familiar with this, but others may not be, and it may be useful for it to be put shortly on the record) to a statement made on page 101 of the Report of the Prison Commissioners for 1954? I think, if noble Lords will bear with me while I

603
read it, that it will deal with the matter in one place. They stated—and I quote:
"There appears to be misunderstanding in some quarters as to the functions which it is intended this new establishment should serve, and it may be well to recapitulate those originally envisaged. They were:

(a) As a clinic and hospital, where cases could be investigated and, if necessary, treated by psychotherapy and other means, and their disposal decided on. This would serve also as a centre for criminological research, and for co-ordinating the various aspects of prison and after-care organisation:

(b) As an institution in which selected cases could live under special conditions of training and treatment. Many cases who proved unsuitable for, and unmodified by, the re-educative and rehabilitative influences of the modern prison system would be allocated to this section. Its aims would be, by the application of psychiatric experience, to achieve alterations in future behaviour:

(c) As a colony in which a further type of offender could live, who had proved himself quite unable to adapt himself to ordinary social conditions but for whom reformative measures, however specialised, seemed useless and ordinary prison life inappropriate:

(d) As an observation and treatment centre for Borstal lads who because of mental abnormality appeared unsuitable for, or had failed to respond to, ordinary Borstal training and for various reasons were considered unfit for early licence."

The Report goes on:
"No major departure from these intentions is at present contemplated and it needs to be emphasised that it is not intended that the Institution at Grendon should become solely or even mainly an establishment for psychopaths. The orientation will be treatment/research, and to weight the clinical climate with the more difficult and often irreversible psychopathic personalities would vitiate the forward-looking therapeutic atmosphere which it is hoped will obtain. It is likely therefore that the cases selected will be those with real therapeutic promise, and it may well be that those in the third category will not be sent to this establishment at all, and certainly not initially."
The plans indicated in that extract will be the bases of the plans, and the new Institution will be developed from the point at which it starts in the light of circumstances. Methods of dealing with psychopaths and their allocation as between hospital and prison will have to be worked out in the light of the developments, of facilities for treating them in hospital and
604
of knowledge in this field and its progress. It will be a matter—I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham—of trial and error, and we shall do our best to learn as we go. At the moment the emphasis in the Bill is on disposal by the courts by the ordinary means, unless, in the circumstances and conditions which I mentioned, a hospital order is clearly the most suitable course; and it is probable that many psychopaths will be sent to prison until experience has shown other and better means of dealing with them. I am sure I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, say that in the course of our debates. That is a fact at the moment. But we are anxious, as I said, to learn and to improve as we go along, starting broadly on the principles that we stated in 1954 and improving them in the light of experience.
I hope that what I have said will be of some help to the noble Lord. Lord Pakenham. At the end of the day it is almost impossible to get away from the great element of discretion that must exist in dealing with particular cases. But I have, so far as I can—and I am afraid it has been a rather long answer—tried to give the guiding principles. I hope that they may be of some advantage, and even if they are not fully satisfactory, the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, will find matters in them on which he can get further information, which I shall try to obtain for him.
LORD TAYLOR: May I raise one final point with the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor on his account of Grendon Underwood? Some of us have been very worried about Grendon Underwood, and the statement which he has read out from the Report of the Prison Commissioners makes clear why we are worried. The real problem is these psychopaths. We were hoping that Grendon Underwood would be a place where they would be investigated and looked after, and where the problem would be tackled—as, indeed, it has been tackled at Herstedvester, in Denmark. We know perfectly well that psychiatrists dislike looking after psychopaths, and will dodge them if they can. They much prefer the easier patients, who recover perfectly well out-

605
side prison—indeed, many of them recover without any treatment at all.
It would be so easy for Grendon Underwood to be filled with extremely recoverable, hopeful patients, who would recover anyway; and to leave these poor, wretched psychopaths with nowhere to go, and still with nobody wanting them. As the noble and learned Viscount read out the list of people who were going in, I thought his categories (b) and (c), and probably (d), were all psychopaths; but then when he came to the end of them there was an assurance that it would not be overweighted with psychopaths, and that they would be kept out of Grendon Underwood. My concern, at any rate—and it is, I think, the concern of many of my fellows in the field of psychiatry—is that this should be an institution primarily for the treatment and investigation of criminal psychopaths, who form the hard core of criminality and the hard core of psychiatry. We hope that it will not be blocked with perfectly recoverable depressions, anxiety states, and all sorts of minor psychiatric maladies. No doubt it would give the doctors there great pleasure to treat these cases, but it would not be doing the really tough, difficult piece of work.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have checked the words again, and the words the Prison Commissioners used were
"…it is not intended that the institution should become solely or even mainly…"
That still gives the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, quite a lot of room. Judging from the enthusiasm with which this has been awaited for a long time by everyone interested in these problems, I do not think that there is a real danger of their trying to take an easy way out. However, I shall certainly convey what the noble Lord. Lord Taylor, has said to my right honourable friend.
LORD PAKENHAM: I think that all of us—not only those of us who are here to-night, but a great many other Members of this House, and others outside—will be very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for what he has said, and will study it very carefully. I feel that there is little more I need say until I have studied what he has said. Before the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, got up, I was thinking of calling attention to the fact that we are
606
really left quite uncertain as to what is to happen to psychopaths. It is impossible, therefore, to feel that the Government's intentions are as clear or are as comprehensive as ideally they should be. Whether this Bill is the right moment to press the point home, or whether it is more the subject for debates on penal reform, is something that perhaps we can think over. But I am sure the noble and learned Viscount, to whom we are most grateful, will realise that we do consider that what he has said, with all his fullness and all his kindness, has left the problem of psychopaths, so far as we are concerned, quite uncovered. I do not say that it is in the slightest bit easy, but, standing here, I do not know what the Government intend to do about psychopaths. Therefore, while I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment, it is possible that I may want to return to it before the end of this Bill. I think that is rather doubtful, but I shall certainly hope to raise it again in this House on another occasion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clauses 61 and 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Effects of hospital order and guardianship order]:
6.55 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is the first of a series of Amendments, the others being Nos. 46, 73, 77, 78 and 79. They all deal with the application of the provisions of Part IV of the Bill to patients who are the subject of orders or directions made under the provisions of Part V, and they are purely drafting, in the sense that they excise certain provisions which are not appropriate in these circumstances. I could go through them all in detail, but I do not think there is anything that could by any stretch of the imagination, be controversial. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 4, leave out from ("than") to ("as") in line 5 and insert ("sections thirty-one and thirty-two, or section thirty-four as the case may be)")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 20, at end insert ("and the remaining provisions of the said Part IV shall not apply.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is one of the series of Amendments which I mentioned to your Lordships when I discussed Amendment No. 24. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 32, at end insert—
("(5) Where a patient is admitted to a hospital in pursuance of a hospital order, or placed under guardianship by a guardianship order, any previous application, order or direction under this Act by virtue of which he was liable to be detained in a hospital or subject to guardianship shall cease to have effect:
Provided that if the first-mentioned order, or the conviction on which it was made, is quashed on appeal this subsection shall not apply and section forty-six of this Act shall have effect as if during any period for which the patient was liable to be detained or subject to guardianship under the order, he had been detained in custody as mentioned in that section.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Power of higher courts to restrict discharge from hospital]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 22, leave out from ("duration") to ("shall") in line 24 and insert (",renewal and expiration of authority for the detention of patients ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This also is one of the series of Amendments that I mentioned when we dealt with Amendment No. 24. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—>
Page 48, line 7, at end insert—
("(4) A hospital order shall not cease to have effect under subsection (5) of section sixty-three of this Act if an order restricting the discharge of the patient is in force at the material time.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 66 to 92 agreed to.
Clause 93 [Patients absent from hospitals in England and Wales]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Your Lordships will see that Clause 93 deals with the retaking in Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man, of patients absent from hospitals in England and Wales. The effect of certain drafting Amendments in the Commons was to apply the clause to patients subject to guardianship, and the present Amendment restores the provisions of the clause to what was originally intended. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 38, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of this section").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 26, at end add—
("(4) This section shall not apply to any person who is subject to guardianship.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 93, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 94 to 123 agreed to.
Clause 124 [Rules as to procedure]:
7.1 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"(2) Rules made under this section shall make provision—

(a) for the applicant to be represented by any person selected or appointed by him;

(b) for the applicant and any person appointed by him under paragraph (a) of this subsection to receive copies of all documents to be submitted to or considered by the Mental Health Review Tribunal;

(c) for the submission of oral evidence by and on behalf of the applicant; and

(d) for the oral examination and cross examination of all witnesses including persons by or on behalf of whom any documents have been prepared for consideration by the Mental Health Review Tribunal."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is purely procedural. It sets out matters which, in our opinion, should be taken into consideration in making rules under subsection (1). There are later Amendments to be moved by the noble and learned Viscount which deal with two of the matters referred to in my

609
Amendment. As usual they deal with them in much better language than the language used in my Amendment. But paragraphs (c) and (d) of my Amendment are still left. I have no doubt that, generally speaking, evidence will be permitted, but since we are setting out in some detail the rules of procedure before the Tribunals, I think that it would be proper to say in terms that oral evidence and examination and cross-examination will be permitted. I do not suppose for a moment that it is intended that these should not be permitted, but we think it better that that should be stated. It would look as if the whole of this clause might be looked at again in the light of the Amendments to be moved by the noble and learned Viscount. The effect of his Amendments, which we would gladly accept, is that my own Amendment would not stand. Therefore, having moved it, I propose in due course, when I have heard what the noble and learned Viscount has to say about it, to withdraw my Amendment in favour of his, in the hope that at the next stage it may be possible to incorporate something relating to the giving of oral evidence before the tribunal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 7, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Silkin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful for the manner in which the noble Lord has moved his Amendment. I think that it would be convenient if I tried quite shortly to give a description of the procedure which we envisage for the Mental Health Review Tribunals and in the light of which I would make my rules. We envisage that the general arrangements would follow the recommendations in paragraph 448 of the Royal Commission report: they would be, first, that when the patient's application is received, the Tribunal would call for a written report from the hospital authorities, including a medical report. Secondly, the Tribunal would visit the hospital and interview the patient and any other person it wished; the medical member or members of the Tribunal would examine the patient. Thirdly, if the patient or other applicant asked for it, but not otherwise, the Tribunal would arrange for a hearing on more formal lines, with the hospital authorities and the patient present together and
610
making their statements in person or through representatives. Fourthly, the Tribunal would be able to make any other inquiries it wanted; and, lastly, the Tribunal would make its decision, based not only on what had been put to it by the patient and other persons in writing or orally but also on its own inquiries and its own assessment of the patient's mental condition.
That being our objective we come up against the age-long problem of formality or informality. It is a difficult one, and those, like the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and myself, who have been bred to the law have a natural bias in favour of clear rules of procedure, because on the whole we find that justice is obtained better in that way. On the other hand, we must face the fact that a great number of laymen think that lawyers are rather bewitched by procedure and forms, and have tried in various fields to introduce the informal procedure of general conversation. One finds that the rebound from that is a complaint about inquisitorial procedures.
I hope that your Lordships will not misunderstand me. I put it in rather light terms, but it is a very serious problem. Anyone who, like the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has been interested in, for example, the law of Parliamentary privilege, knows that there are many complaints in various books against that procedure, because it provides no method of presenting the case of the accused, or for the accused person to be represented, or any formalities of that kind. I instance this only to show how difficulties arise, and I am very anxious, in the rules which I have to make for these Tribunals, to have an informal hearing. I think that in many cases, where there is not a complaint so much as a desire to have a case looked at again, informality would be good. On the other hand, one can well imagine that when the patient or relatives and the hospital have come to an issue, they would want a formal presentation. Therefore I should prefer if I were given a considerable flexibility in regard to the rules.
Subsection (2) deals with the specialities about which I can make rules in particular. I am a little afraid that paragraphs (c) and (d) of the noble Lord's

611
Amendment would tie me down to formality, and I should like to consider that point again. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that the substance of his paragraph (a) is met in an appropriate and flexible form by the Government's Amendment No. 53. It would be possible under that Amendment to provide in the rules not only for the representation of the applicant but also for that of the patient when the application is made by, for example, the nearest relative under Clause 48 (3). Similarly, the noble Lord's paragraph (b) is met by Amendment No. 54, our paragraph (e), which enables the rules to provide for copies of all documents produced to the Tribunal to be made available to the applicant and to any patient in respect of whom an application is made. But it does give the Tribunal discretion to withhold documents if it considers it desirable to do so in the interests of the patient or for other special reasons. Noble Lords will remember that in paragraph 448 the Royal Commission explicitly stated that the doctors treating the patient—and the members of the Tribunal—must be able to use discretion in deciding how much of the medical report should be made available.
With regard to paragraphs (c) and (d), to which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred, again I should like to consider between now and the Report stage what he said. Even in the second class of cases where the patient desires a more formal hearing, I think that there are still advantages, despite the difficulty I have mentioned, in having the proceedings as informal and as flexible as possible. I hope your Lordships will not think it conceited of me to say that there are certain safeguards, one of which is that the rules will be made by the Lord Chancellor. Secondly, they will be submitted in draft to the Council on Tribunals, because it is the Government's intention to apply the Tribunals and Inquiries Act. The result is that they will be made by the Lord Chancellor and submitted to the Council on Tribunals; and then, of course, they will be sent, with the Council's suggestions, to the Lord Chancellor and will come under the general supervision of the Council. But I think that, in view of what I have said about the recommendation of the Royal Commission, one will
612
have to be flexible about whether the Tribunal should state its reasons, because it may be equally bad for the patient to know the reasons. That is a matter we have to consider, but obviously the same reasoning applies. The third safeguard is that the rules will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure.
I should like to have the opportunity of studying Lord Silkin's speech in cold print, but I hope he agrees that my general approach to the matter is the same as his would be if he were faced with this problem. We must try to get a procedure which will make quite sure that no individual is prejudiced in any way but which is at the same time sufficiently flexible to ensure that no person is frightened by it. Possibly the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, remembers when the Beveridge Report dealing with workmen's compensation was introduced. One of the matters which surprised me (because I had always thought that workmen's compensation cases were conducted in a kindly and reasonable way; and, like the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I have in my time appeared in many hundreds) was that when the Beveridge recommendations were produced in another place so many of our trade union colleagues testified to the frightening effect on the ordinary person of going into a court. That was one of the biggest shocks my professional sense has ever had. I want to avoid that by making this procedure flexible, yet at the same time to give protection. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will for the moment be content with that as a statement of my general approach. I will consider before the next stage what he has said.
LORD SILKIN: I can assure the noble and learned Viscount that his general approach is the same as mine. We do not want applicants, especially applicants who are suffering from mental trouble, to be frightened by the atmosphere of one of these Tribunals, and we should certainly like the proceedings to be conducted as informally as possible. On the other hand, I think he ought to provide for cases where it becomes necessary to cross-examine the doctor on the grounds upon which he is expressing an opinion; and it is a little difficult to do that informally. I do not think the decision as to whether the doctor ought to be cross-examined or not

613
should rest solely with the Tribunal. If there is a desire on the part of the applicant or his advisers to cross-examine, then I think they ought to have the right to do so. But if that point can be met in the rules, or if it can be met by an understanding that that will be the case, and the rules that the Lord Chancellor is going to submit can be amended from time to time in the light of experience, then I think the safeguards that he has given should be adequate: that the Tribunals will approve them; that they will be approved by the House and be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure; and that he himself will frame them.
I think also he is right in saying that there should be reserved to the Tribunal power to withhold, in certain circumstances, the reasons for their decision, or even to withhold certain documents which might be damaging to the interests of the patient. I should myself be willing to trust the Tribunal to make a fair decision on that. So what we are left with is that the Lord Chancellor will consider whether it is necessary to have in the rules some reference to the question of examination and cross-examination of witnesses, while preserving in the general case the informality that both he and I desire.
LORD STONHAM: Before my noble friend withdraws his Amendment, there are two points I should like to put to the noble and learned Viscount for consideration. I am wholly with him about having this procedure as informal as possible, but would he look closely at the procedure of the pensions appeal tribunals. I have been concerned in the rôle of appellant's friend on a good many occasions, and I am sure it is impossible to get rid of the sense of fear and excitement in the mind of the appellant or, in this case, the patient. The pensions appeal tribunals treat appellants extremely kindly, and they are as informal as they can be. If that procedure could be followed, I am sure it would be excellent.
The other point I am rather anxious about is that we should not be placed in the position that we deny to a patient who has not committed any crime the rights which in this Bill, under Clause 62 (3), we give to a person who has been convicted by a court and appeals.
614
All the items which my noble friend asked for in this Amendment are, of course, merely listing what is open to someone convicted by a court under Clause 62 (3). We ought not to have the feeling that we have denied to a patient who has not committed an offence the rights which are given to one who has been convicted by a court.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will gladly consider that point.
LORD SILKIN: I am sorry if I appeared to shut out my noble friend. If I had done, we should have missed two very useful suggestions. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 26, at end insert—
("(d) for regulating !the circumstances in which, and the persons by whom, applicants and patients in respect of whom applications are made to a tribunal may, if not desiring to appear in person, be represented before the tribunal").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD STONHAM: I am probably entirely wrong, but as I read this paragraph it would appear that the words "if not desiring to appear in person" means that if the patient does not wish to appear he cannot have a friend or representative with him.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:"Appear in person" is a term of art. It means "to conduct one's own case".
LORD STONHAM: I am quite clear that he can appear in person, but can he appear in person and have a friend with him as well? It certainly was not clear to me by these words; but then I am not a lawyer.
LORD SILKIN: It is quite clear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Lord mean someone who just sits beside him but who does not take part in the case?
LORD STONHAM: I have, no doubt it is my lack of intelligence in this matter. From the wording of the paragraph it seems to me that you either appear in person without assistance, or you do not appear and somebody represents you.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think the noble Lord need worry. The point is covered. But for his peace of mind I will look at it again.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 30, at end insert—
("(e) for making available to any applicant, and to any patient in respect of whom an application is made to a tribunal, copies of all documents produced to the tribunal in connection with the application except where the tribunal considers it undesirable in the interests of the patient or for other special reasons;
(f) for requiring a tribunal to furnish such statements of the reasons for any decision given by the tribunal as may be prescribed by the rules, subject to any provision made by the rules for withholding such a statement from a patient or any other person in cases where the tribunal considers that furnishing it would be undesirable in the interests of the patient or for other special reasons").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 124, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 125 to 132 agreed to.
Clause 133 [Correspondence of patients not subject to detention]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Your Lordships may remember that I mentioned Amendments Nos. 55, 56 and 57 when we were discussing an Amendment on the last occasion, and that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that he would not move the Amendment to leave out the Clause. These Amendments deal with the point which I mentioned, which was the undertaking of my right honourable friend to excise the people in local authority homes. The Amendments are for that purpose, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 89, line 15, leave out from ("shall") to ("apply") in line 16.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: These Amendments are acceptable so far as they go, but the noble and learned Viscount has undertaken to look further into the whole question of censorship of correspondence. Therefore, I give him notice that I will not move the next Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 89, line 18, leave out from ("purpose") to end of line 30 and insert ("but not being liable to be detained therein, as it applies in relation to a patient detained in a hospital under Part IV of this Act.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 89, line 31, leave out ("other").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 133, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 134 [Warrant to search for and remove patients]:
7.26 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to subsection (4)
"and in the execution of a warrant issued under subsection (2) of this section the constable to whom it is addressed may be accompanied—

(a) by a medical practitioner;

(b) by any person authorised by or under this Act to take or retake the patient."

The noble and learned Viscount said: Clause 134 provides for the issue of a justice's warrant authorising entry of premises in two sets of circumstances. Subsection (1) deals with cases where there is reasonable cause to believe that a mentally disordered person is being ill-treated or neglected or is not under proper care or control. In such cases the constable to whom the warrant is issued must, under subsection (4), be accompanied by a mental welfare officer and a doctor. Subsection (2) deals with cases where powers of entry are needed to obtain access to patients who are already liable under the Bill to be taken to some place (for example, to hospital under Clause 31) or to be retaken (for example, under Clauses 40 or 139). In these cases no provision is made, in the clause as it stands, for any person to accompany the constable when he enters the premises. It is not necessary in these cases to impose this as a requirement, because it is here a question of taking or retaking a known patient who is already liable to be detained. I want to tell your Lordships that in practice we expect that the constable would take with him a doctor or the person who has applied for the warrant under subsection (2), and

617
that this Amendment removes any doubt about his power to do this. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 26, at end insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 134, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 135 to 137 agreed to.
Clause 138 [Provisions as to custody, conveyance and detention]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 92, line 41, leave out ("detained or kept in custody") and insert ("kept in custody or detained")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 138, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 139 [Retaking of patients escaping from custody]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Clause 139 confers powers to retake the persons described in subsection (1) of Clause 138, if they escape; these include persons who are being taken to or detained in a place of safety under subsections (1) or (3) of Clause 134, or under Clause 135. Clauses 134 (3) and 135 (2) place a limit of 72 hours on the period for which such persons may be detained in the place of safety. Clause 139, as it now stands, places no time limit on the period during which persons can be retaken after escape. But subsection (2) of this clause does not apply to these persons because they are not liable to be detained in hospital or subject to guardianship when, for example, they are being taken to or detained in a place of safety under Clauses 134 or 135. The Amendment remedies the omission by providing in effect that such persons may not be retaken after the end of the 72 hours during which they may be detained in the place of safety or, if they escape while being taken to the place of safety and before reaching it, after 72 hours from the time of escape. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 93, line 33, at end insert—
("(3) A person who escapes while being taken to or detained in a place of safety under section one hundred and thirty-four or section one hundred and thirty-five of this Act shall not be retaken under this section after the
618
expiration of the period of seventy-two hours beginning with the time when he escapes or the period during which he is liable to be so detained, whichever expires first.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 139, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 140 to 143 agreed to.
7.30 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR LORD TAYLOR moved, after Clause 143 to insert the following new clause:
Research
"—(1) The Minister may undertake, or cause to be undertaken, research into the nature, causes and treatment of mental disorders, as defined in this Act.
(2) The Minister shall undertake, or cause to be undertaken, from time to time research into the manner in which the provisions of the Act are operating. The results of such research shall be laid before Parliament."
The noble Lord said: beg to move the new clause standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Pakenham and myself. This is the last Amendment I shall be moving, your Lordships will be pleased to hear, but I should like, if it is in accord with the practice of your Lordships' House, to say a personal word of thanks to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for the great courtesy and kindness with which he has received our Amendments. Sometimes if they have been a little off the wicket he has driven them for a good four, but when they have been on the wicket I must say I think he has been wonderfully reasonable and we are reasonably hopeful. One realises that it is a very difficult time for him, with a great deal of legislation flowing through; and one realises also that a Bill gathers momentum as it proceeds through Parliament and it may be that it is rather difficult to get Amendments as fully considered as they would be in another place at this stage. Yet we hope very much that we have advanced arguments which he will be able to study and deploy with his colleagues, and that we may have made a real impression on this Bill.
I come to the new clause, and your Lordships will see that it is in two parts. The first enables the Minister to undertake research into the matter of this Bill. The second enforces on the Minister research into the working of the Bill. The Title of this Bill is the Mental Health Bill, and it is a strange thing that in a great measure like this there should be

619
no reference to research. We are well aware that the Government have power to carry out research into mental illness under the Act which constitutes the Medical Research Council, and our attempt to insert this clause is no criticism whatsoever of the excellent work which the Council are doing—if one may say so, the increasingly good work which they are doing. They have already established two new committees in psychiatry and are establishing two new research units.
There are, however, limitations to what the Medical Research Council can achieve, and I well remember that, when the drafting of the National Health Service Act itself was under consideration, the question arose as to whether medical research should be mentioned in that Act. The official view taken then was that it was quite unnecessary because it was already covered by the Medical Research Council. Nevertheless, it is included in the National Health Service Act, in Section 16. That section says:
"Without prejudice to the general powers and duties conferred or imposed on the Minister under the Ministry of Health Act, 1919, and the duties imposed on the Committee of the Privy Council for Medical Research under the said Act, the Minister may conduct, or assist by grants or otherwise any person to conduct, research into any matters relating to the causation, prevention, diagnosis or treatment of illness or mental defectiveness."
If it was thought appropriate to insert a research section into the National Health Service Act, despite the existence of the Medical Research Council, we feel that it is equally appropriate to insert it into this Mental Health Bill. It is particularly appropriate, indeed, because Section 16 of the National Health Service Act refers to the "treatment of illness or mental defectiveness". We are now abolishing mental defectiveness under this Bill, and that means that the particular section relating to research into mental defectiveness in the National Health Service Act will become meaningless. We therefore feel it is not only appropriate but necessary that the first part of this new clause should be in this present great and valuable Bill.
Another argument which may be advanced is that it is undesirable to have more than one official channel flowing towards medical research, a multiplicity of ways by which money can be
620
obtained for carrying out medical research. But, of course, often a committee controls each of these channels. Somebody has an idea and applies to one committee. The idea is turned down. They then apply to another one. It is accepted and it proves fruitful. Committees are very human affairs, and time and again have blocked for quite reasonable reasons, good research
One cannot help thinking what would have happened if in 1934 Dr. Meduna, of Budapest, had had to approach the Medical Research Council with a theory which he then held. It was that there was a biological antagonism between schizophrenia and epilepsy. He noticed that people who had schizophrenia never developed epilepsy, and vice versa, and he thought if he could produce epilepsy artificially it might cure schizophrenia. It was a stupid hypothesis, but he went ahead. He discovered that by giving a dose of insulin it was possible to induce the effect of epilepsy, and as a result the whole of the modern physical treatment of mental illness came into being. Likewise, in 1938 two Italian gentlemen, Cerletti and Bini had the ridiculous idea of connecting patients up to the mains and giving them fits. They connected the patients to the mains, and that was how electrical convulsion therapy began. Yet had they approached a respectable committee of the Medical Research Council, one feels they might have received very little encouragement indeed; they might have been turned down as cranks or psychopaths.
The same thing exactly happened with Professor Fleming, with penicillin. Fleming was a difficult man in some ways. I remember we were told, when I was a student, that he had certain strange ideas about a substance called penicillin; that it was about as useful as lysozyme, which was quite useless; that he had "a bee in his bonnet" about it. He certainly had "a bee in his bonnet", but he happened to be right. Had he been able to attract £15,000 or £20,000 a year at that time for research, penicillin might have been isolated eight years earlier; but he was not able to because he was "out of the establishment", as it were. That is a risk with all medical research. We have a good group of people allocating money honestly: they do excellent work, and they organise excellent work. But if there is only one channel, then one block

621
of the official channel may frustrate the extraordinary, slightly off-beam work which may be just that which is going to prove most fruitful. That is why we want the Minister of Health, as well as the Medical Research Council, to have this power—which indeed the Minister has in respect of illness under the National Health Service Act, though not now in respect of mental subnormality. So much for the first part of our new clause.
The second part is something new and something which we hope we may see often incorporated, if not in this Bill, in future legislation. In industry the term "feedback" is becoming common. Whenever a new process is developed or a new idea worked out, there has to be some kind of intelligence machinery to inform the industrialists how the thing is going and to watch it all the time. We believe that this is equally essential in Parliamentary legislation. Of course, there are, and all Ministers receive, returns made by the various units of whatever service is operating. But returns are somewhat inaccurate. In one hospital region, there are two mental hospitals, one of which is always the first in sending in its return, and it is always the better and more complete return. But the hospital happens to be by far the worst hospital in the region—I will not reveal its name. The other hospital is always the last to send in its return. They are usually rather badly filled in and scrappy, but everybody knows that it is not merely the best mental hospital in its region but perhaps one of the two best mental hospitals in the country—I refer to Warlingham Park. So returns are extremely unreliable.
The second way by which Ministers get information on working Acts is by inspection. The Board of Control is "going by the board"—though in fact all its officers will remain as officers of the Ministry. But their inspections were not so detailed as to qualify for the term "research". The third way is by detailed field study—by going and looking and seeing and studying how this Act of Parliament is working.
This Bill is a leap in the dark. We do not know how it is going to work. It has been thought up by the Royal Commission wisely and carefully, but we have no real prototype for it. The nearest to a prototype is the Mental Treatment Act,
622
1930. The patients were dealt with in a similar manner to the proposals contained in this Bill, but, for quite other reasons, these arrangements failed. We believe that this Bill will work, but I think it quite probable that snags and difficulties will arise. Why should not Parliament know how its work is progressing, and apply modern methods of social research to see whether we are achieving what we set out to achieve and, if not, how we can put it right? That is what the second part of the clause seeks to do. I hope that this kind of provision for social research into the working of Acts of Parliament may in due course become general. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 143 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Taylor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that we have dealt with his first point but in a way slightly different from the one he proposes? If he will be good enough to follow me, he will find that Section 16 (1) of the National Health Service Act, 1946, provides, as he told us, that, without prejudice to these general powers or to the duties imposed on the Committee of the Privy Council for Medical Research under the 1919 Act, the Minister may conduct, or assist by grants or otherwise any persons to conduct, research into any matters relating to the causation, prevention, diagnosis or treatment of illness. The noble Lord quoted "or treatment of illness or mental defectiveness." If lie has a copy of the Bill and if he will look at page 133, line 1, he will find there a Schedule repealing various enactments. He will see that in the National Health Service Act, 1946,
"in section sixteen the words 'or mental defectiveness' shall be omitted."
So that gets rid of his first trouble. Then, if he will look at line 21, he will see these words:
"In section seventy-nine, in subsection (1), in the definition of 'hospital' the words 'or mental defectiveness' shall be omitted; and in the definition of 'illness', for the words 'mental illness' there shall be substituted the words mental disorder within he meaning of the Mental Health Act, 1959'".
So the Minister has power to conduct or assist research into mental disorder as described by the Act.

623
Secondly, the Committee of the Privy Council for Medical Research is of course set up under Statute and has the duty of promoting medical research of all kinds. Thirdly—I do not think the noble Lord mentioned this—the National Health Service Act, 1946, by Section 16 (2), empowers Boards of Governors of teaching hospitals, Regional Hospital Boards and hospital management committees to conduct research into the causation, prevention, diagnosis or treatment of illness, which now has the meaning which I have explained—namely, including mental disorder.
On the other point, it is, of course, the duty of a Minister of the Crown to conduct research of a very different kind—that is, to see that any Act for which he is responsible is being properly carried out; and he is usually greatly assisted in carrying out his duties by Questions in Parliament, by debates on the Adjournment, and by putting down his Vote and moving that his salary be reduced by £100 or £1,000 if the House of Commons is feeling more discontented with him. But, in addition, the Minister of Health is under a duty to produce an Annual Report on the proceedings of his Ministry, and he would be greatly in default if, after the passing of this Bill, he did not refer to its working in subsequent Annual Reports. Therefore although I and my right honourable friend are most fully behind everything Lord Taylor has said as to the desirability of research, I hope that in view of my explanation he will not find it necessary to press this Amendment. If he has any other thoughts about the second half of his Amendment I should be pleased if he would communicate them to me before the Report stage.
LORD GRENFELL: As I understand it, the Lord Chancellor has said that this provision is incorporated through the National Health Service Act. I shall speak for only a short time, but I would mention this fact, namely, that not a lot of money has in the past been allocated to research into the subject. Although it was authorised, it has not actually been done. I am thinking rather of the new discoveries which are being made regarding the possible cause of mongolism in children. My noble friend Lord Taylor will know better than I do
624
whether we are on the brink of great discoveries, but I should like to put it rather forcefully, in this way if I may: that not only is this a great tragedy but it is a mental sickness which is costing a great deal of money, because we have to keep many people at the taxpayers' expense who really can be of little help or use to the community as a whole.
We cannot just leave research to the voluntary associations. It is a duty of the Government to get the finance and to put it forward, to help the people who are working so hard in this sphere of medical science. I hope that this point will be taken carefully into account in the future, and that mental health research will not in future be the "Cinderella" of research in medical science. I would not attempt to go further than that, except just to ask my noble and learned friend to nut that forward to his right honourable friend.
7.51 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: May I ask one question of the noble and learned Viscount? Would he see any objection to our returning to this question on the Report stage? I have various views on this matter which it is really my duty to explain on behalf of the National Society for Mentally Handicapped People; and the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, who was anxious to be here and is a leading figure, in many senses, in this country, hoped that in his absence I would say a few words. But the hour is late. The noble and learned Viscount has explained the position from one point of view, and I wonder whether he, or my noble friend, Lord Taylor, would see any objection to returning to this topic on the Report stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that would be very convenient because there are certain more cheerful aspects of this matter which I did mention on Second Reading. I have in mind the two units that I mentioned, one on the epidemiology of mental disorders and the other on psychiatric genetics: and the two new committees, one on clinical psychiatry and the other on the epidemiology of mental disorders. I should have thought it would have been very convenient to have perhaps a rather fuller debate on this matter which we all consider most important. I am sure I am only doing what every one of your

625
Lordships would like me to do when I say that I will especially convey to my right honourable friend the point made by my noble friend Lord Grenfell in regard to the matter which we know is so near his heart.
LORD TAYLOR: May I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his reply and particularly for agreeing to my noble friend's suggestion that this matter be dealt with at the Report stage? I wonder whether I am right in assuming that in view of the contents of the Seventh Schedule, research now comes within the ambit of the Bill—consequentially, as it were.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, certainly.
LORD TAYLOR: Would we, then, be correct in debating research on the Seventh Schedule, or would it be more appropriate to put down a further Amendment on the Report stage?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It could be either this Amendment again, or another. It is not for me to draft the noble Lord's Amendments, but some general words encouraging my right honourable friend towards research will give him the paving stones for discussion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 144 agreed to.
Clauses 145 and 146 agreed to.
Clause 147:
Transitional provisions
(2) For the purposes of Part III of the said Sixth Schedule, an order sending a person to an institution or placing a person under guardianship, made before the ninth day of March nineteen hundred and fifty-six on a petition presented under the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, shall be deemed to be valid notwithstanding that that person may not have been found neglected within the meaning of section two of that Act when that order was made if—

(a) that order has been continued, at any time after that date, by order made by the Board of Control under section eleven of that Act after consideration of the reports and certificate required by that section; or

(b) the period for which that order was in force on the said date has not expired before the commencement of this Act, but the Board, after considering a special report from the medical practitioner responsible for the care or treatment of the patient, have determined that the patient is not a proper person to be discharged.

7.55 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: Since this is the last Amendment which will be moved from this side of the Committee, may I join with my noble friend Lord Taylor in expressing most grateful thanks to the noble and learned Viscount not only for the extreme care with which he has explained and dealt with the long list of Amendments, but also for his kindness. I feel that if, at the end of the day, when we have finished with this Bill, we have been able to make any improvement it will be in large measure due to the way in which the noble and learned Viscount has dealt with what my noble friend has called our "bowling". My noble friend was good enough to suggest that the noble and learned Viscount had scored a few glancing fours off the bowling, which carried the implication that he had not yet scored a six. This, therefore, is his last opportunity for that. I hope, however, that he will not take it but will rather do for the first time something which, with all his kindness, he has not yet been able to do on any previous Amendment; that is, to say a short, straight, sweet and simple "Yes"—which I should certainly very much appreciate.
My main ground for moving to delete this subsection is that it seeks to make an illegality legal—which, to me, is offensive and intolerable as a matter of principle. Secondly, in my view, in cases where it does not perpetuate an injustice it is unnecessary. After the High Court judgment in the Kathleen Rutty case, it was ascertained that some 6,000 persons who were detained in mental deficiency hospitals as having been found neglected were not, in fact, so found, and therefore were illegally detained. After that judgment, some few thousand of them were released, leaving about 2,700 still detained in mental hospitals and, as I have indicated, detained illegally.
Doubtless many of them are genuinely subnormal, but if so their continued detention does not depend upon the retention of this subsection. They will continue to be detained like any other subnormals or severely subnormals under the provisions of Part IV of this Bill when it becomes an Act. So we cannot be condoning an illegality, and

627
deliberately doing so, because of a fear that people who ought not to be released, because of the state of their mental retardedness, will be released if this subsection is removed from the Bill. The right honourable gentleman, the Minister of Health, has admitted that a considerable proportion of these 2,700 people still illegally detained would not now be detained but for the fact that they have nowhere to go. That is to say, we are punishing them, we are keeping them in mental deficiency hospitals, because of our failure to make proper provision. We are continuing to make them pay for the fact that some local authorities have used the Mental Deficiency Act as a means of dealing with awkward and inconvenient children under their care.
I think that has certainly happened, and that is a disgraceful practice which we are now asked, in effect, in this clause to condone. I would submit that it would be quite shameful if we were to agree to this. I do not dispute that many of the 2,700 are generally subnormal, but the removal of this subsection from the Bill will not release them unless they satisfy the other provisions regarding release of subnormals. If they do that they ought to be released, and if the Amendment is accepted it will, in my view, compel local authorities to make proper provision so that perfectly normal people now in detention can be released and given a fair chance to start life again. It will not wipe out the unfortunate injustice that they have suffered, and may have suffered for many years, but it will at least give us an opportunity to make such restitution as lies in our power. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 33, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Stonham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say first on this Amendment that it is not the case that this subsection is required in order to detain illegally people who are not suffering from mental disorder. It was never suggested in the Rutty case that Miss Rutty was not a mental defective within the meaning of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913. The question at issue was solely the interpretation of the words "found neglected"
628
in Section 2 (1) (b) of that Act, which sets out the grounds on which defectives may be detained in hospital or placed under guardianship. For forty-three years, from 1913 until 1956, those administering the Act (the justices, the local authorities and the Board of Control) took a wide view of the meaning of these words, interpreting them as covering, for example, defectives in Poor Law institutions and in children's homes who were in need of, and were not receiving, the care and supervision appropriate to their mental condition. I am the last person who should criticise a decision of the Courts, and I am not doing it for a moment, but it is material that the view which I have just stated was given support in an obiter dictum in the Radcliffe case in 1915 and was not challenged until the Rutty case in 1956; that is, the practice was based on an approving obiter dictum in a case in 1915 which had never been questioned.
In the Rutty case the Divisional Court interpreted the word "neglected" in a much narrower sense. This decision does not mean that the orders in other similar cases automatically became illegal or would necessarily have been upset by the courts if challenged. The Court of Appeal have, indeed, in two subsequent cases expressed, again as obiter dicta, some doubt as to the correctness of the decision in the Rutty case. That decision did, however, throw doubt on the validity of the orders in similar cases, of which there were some 5,000. The Board of Control therefore immediately reviewed those cases, and since then some 2,300 have been discharged from order, most of them remaining in hospital informally. None of the 2,700 who remain subject to detention has asked to leave hospital.
The subsection which the noble Lord seeks to leave out provides for the validation of the orders in these remaining cases but—and I emphasise this—only after the order has been reviewed, either when the order comes up for renewal in the ordinary way, under the provisions of the Mental Deficiency Acts (in this event the Board of Control consider the case on reports both from the medical officer of the institution and from the independent visitors of the institution) or, in cases where there has been no statutory review since March 9, 1956, on a further special review by the Board after obtaining and considering a report on the

629
patient. When the main provisions of the Bill come into operation the patients who remain subject to detention will again have to be reviewed and classified according to the definitions in the Bill, and the provision in the Sixth Schedule relating to renewal and right of application to the Mental Health Review Tribunals will apply. There will thus be full safeguards for these patients.
With regard to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that these patients should not continue to be detained merely because there is nowhere else for them to go, I want to say only this: it is true that there are some who could be transferred to some other form of care if it were available, but this, I want to emphasise, does not mean that they are not properly cared for where they are and, in particular, does not imply that they are not mentally disordered. As I said, the point at issue in the Rutty case was not whether Miss Rutty was mentally defective but whether she was "subject to be dealt with" under the terms of the Act and under the interpretation of the words "found neglected". I feel that it would be really inhuman to discharge these patients from hospital if they have nowhere else to go, and I hope I have made clear that there are the most complete safeguards.
It is one of the difficulties of legislation and of my own profession that on certain rare occasions an Act turns out to have the meaning which was not the meaning which Parliament intended to give it; and it happens on even rarer occasions that, as in this case, the second highest Court in the land gives an obiter dictum of approval to a construction of an Act which forty-one years later turns out not to be approved by the Divisional Court that has to deal with the matter. One can only regret these imperfections of legislation. I assure your Lordships that full consideration of this matter will show that nobody is going to be adversely affected or be deprived of the chance of having his case fully examined.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful for the last words of the noble and learned Viscount. They go to meet my point. I would make it perfectly clear that I did not say, and I certainly do not think, that these people are not being well cared for. That was not in my mind at all. The real point is this. If—and
630
the noble and learned Viscount has confirmed that there are such cases—the state of their subnormality were such that if they had somewhere to go then they could go and could be released, I feel that it is a gross failure on our part if arrangements do not exist whereby they can be released. We ought not, therefore, to put this subsection in a Bill and, as it were, legalise an illegality. I cannot possibly go into the other argument which the noble and learned Viscount adduced, because I have no knowledge of that at all and it would be completely valueless to do so. I am dealing merely with the law in the case as it is now. He said, I think, that it was quite wrong to say, as I suggested, that this clause is required to detain in hospital people who are subnormal. I am glad of that assurance. I am not certain, however—in fact what he said confirmed my fears—about people who could be released not being released because there is nowhere for them to go. It seems to me that what we shall have to do, therefore, is to press for redesignation, and press local authorities, wherever they are, to see that some other provision is made for them rather than that they should go on staying in a mental hospital when it is admitted that that is not necessary. With those remarks, and again with my thanks to the noble and learned Viscount, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 98, line 3, leave out from ("a") to ("have") in line 5 and insert ("report by a medical practitioner qualified to make a special report under the said section eleven").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 147, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 148 [Minor and consequential amendments and repeals]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 98, line 25, at end insert—
"(6) The repeal by this Act of the provisions of the Lunacy Act, 1890, and of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, relating to the superannuation of officers or employees shall not affect any arrangements for the payment of

631
allowances or other benefits made in accordance with those provisions and in force at the commencement of this Act."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 148, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 149 to 151 agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule [Section substituted for Education Act, 1944, s. 57]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This meets a point on which my right honourable friend gave an undertaking in another place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 101, line 3, leave out from beginning to ("for") in line 8 and insert ("It shall be the duty of every local education authority to ascertain what children in their area are suffering from a disability of mind of such a nature or to such an extent as to make them unsuitable for education at school; and for the purpose of fulfilling that duty any officer of a local education authority authorised in that behalf by the authority may by notice in writing served upon the parent of any child who has attained the age of two years require him to submit the child").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: At present, the local education authority must give a child's parent fourteen days within which he can appeal to the Minister of Education. The Amendment extends the period of appeal from fourteen to twenty-one days. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 101, line 32, leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("twenty-one").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This has the same effect, in the new Section 57A of the Education Act, as the Amendment at page 101 has in the new Section 57. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 7, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 9 and insert ("the local education authority shall cause to be served on the parent of the child the notice authorised by subsection (1) of section fifty-seven of this Act, and subsection (2) and (3) of that section shall apply accordingly;").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This extends from fourteen to twenty-one days the time allowed for parents to appeal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 23, leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("twenty-one").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 40, leave out ("sections fifty-seven and fifty-seven A") and insert ("section fifty-seven").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 45, leave out ("those sections") and insert ("that section").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This, also, is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 47, leave out from ("of") to ("officer") in line 48 and insert ("that section to a medical or other").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule [Application of Part IV to patients admitted to hospital or placed under guardianship under Part V]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 106, leave out lines 14 and 15.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment, also, is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 106, column 2, leave out line 16 and insert—
("In subsection (2), the words 'or subsection (2) of section forty-four' shall be omitted").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 106, column 2, leave out lines 18 to 23 and insert—
("For references to an application for admission or a guardianship application there shall be substituted references to the order or direction under Part V of this Act by virtue of which the patient is liable to be detained or subject to guardianship ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a further drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 106, line 18, column 3, leave out ("The section") and insert ("Subsection (1) and paragraph (a) of subsection (2)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 107, leave out lines 8 and 9.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 107, leave out lines 16 to 19—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This, also, is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 108, leave out lines 8 and 9.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth and Fifth Schedules agreed to.
Sixth Schedule [Transitional provisions]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 112, line 37, after ("treated") insert ("for the purposes of the provisions of Part III of this Act relating to mental nursing homes").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 113, line 19, leave out ("said provisions") and insert ("provisions of Part III of this Act relating to mental nursing homes")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a further drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 117, line 3, leave out ("three") and insert ("two") [years].—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This, also, is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 117, line 4, leave out from ("may") to ("apply") in line 6 and insert ("between the expiration of the said period of two years and the expiration of the current period of treatment").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 117, line 18, leave out ("but not more than two years").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 117, leave out line 20.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.17 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM had given notice to move, in paragraph 13 (1) (b), to leave out all words from "himself" to the end of the paragraph. The noble Lord said: In view of the earlier discussion on this point, I do not propose to move this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 118, line 39, leave out from ("that") to end of line 40 and insert ("none of the conditions set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph are").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This, also, is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 119, line 21, leave out ("was liable to be detained") and insert ("immediately before the commencement of this Act was liable to be detained in a hospital").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 119, line 32, leave out ("serving") and insert ("subject to").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a further drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 121, line 39, after ("applies") insert ("or a short-period patient").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This, also, is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 123, line 38, leave out from ("and") to ("any") in line 39 and insert ("notwithstanding anything in section one hundred and one of this Act, such rules may provide for treating as sufficient for conferring jurisdiction under the said Part VIII").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Seventh Schedule [Minor and consequential Amendments]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As this is the last Amendment, may I say how deeply touched I was by the kind words which the noble Lords opposite said about me. I have tried to give the service to the House to which the House is entitled and which it expects from the Lord Chancellor. But, on this Bill, the whole atmosphere in which we have discussed it has, for the Government,
636
made the conduct of the Bill a pleasure, and I am deeply grateful. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 141, leave out lines 48 and 49.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD PAKENHAM: I know that my noble friend Lord Lawson would wish me to associate myself and him with what was said by our noble friends behind us, the noble Lords, Lord Stonham and Lord Taylor, in paying tribute to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. I need not say more, except that it seems that in handling this Bill the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has taken on the character not only of a great Lord Chancellor but also of a great psychiatrist. With a little more practice, he would have had the noble Lords on these Benches "stretched on the couch", with most satisfactory results. But, in all seriousness, we are deeply grateful to him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Seventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.

EDUCATION BILL
8.21 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

WAGES COUNCILS BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, without amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past eight o'clock.