Sitting of 20 March 1963

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

  FRANCO-GERMAN TREATY
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in pursuance of the Paris Declaration of October, 1954, he will call the attention of the Governments of France and of the German Federal Republic to the fact that the military clauses of the Treaty of Alliance between France and Germany threaten the integrity and unity of the Atlantic Alliance and its defensive purposes, as defined in that Declaration, and that if the Treaty is ratified Her Majesty's Government will consider France and West Germany as having forfeited their rights under the North Atlantic Treaty to any guarantee and any military assistance provided for in that Treaty and its Protocols.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): No, Sir.
  Mr. Warbey: Is that the opinion which has been supplied to the Government by their legal advisers? Have they been consulted about it? If so, have they taken into account that the Treaty contains no clause expressly subordinating its provisions to the obligations undertaken by France and Germany in the Paris Agreement and the North Atlantic Treaty and the revised Brussels Treaty?
  Mr. Heath: There is nothing in the Agreements contrary to the obligations of these two countries.
  Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will ensure that, following the Franco-German Treaty of 22nd January, 1963, no steps are taken within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to give West Germany nuclear weapons or to give her any means of obtaining them.
  Mr. Heath: I have nothing to add to my reply of 11th February.
  Mr. Allaun: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that following this Treaty the Italian Government gathered together all their ambassadors and defence experts and came to the conclusion that nuclear weapons were involved? If this is correct, what do Her Majesty's Government intend to do about it, either inside or outside N.A.T.O.?
  Mr. Heaths: I have no knowledge of any conclusions to which a meeting of Italian ambassadors may have come about the Franco-German Treaty. We had a meeting in London of all British ambassadors in Europe and we came to the reverse conclusion.
  Mr. Warbey: Does the right hon. Gentleman equally have no knowledge of a secret agreement or understanding between France and Germany that the Germans should co-operate in the production of nuclear weapons and nuclear delivery systems on French soil?
  Mr. Heath: I have no knowledge of any such agreement, and if there is such an agreement I obviously would not have knowledge of it.

  FRANCE (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Lord Privy Seal to what extent the French Government has furnished to the Armaments Control Agency of Western European Union statements about nuclear weapon stocks required and held in respect of its forces stationed on the mainland of Europe or overseas, in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 13 of Protocol No. 4 to the revised Brussels Treaty.
  Mr. Heath: I understand that all member Governments of the Western European Union have fulfilled this requirement.
  Mr. Warbey: In that case will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he told the House last November that the Council of Western European Union was unable to take action regarding the size of the nuclear stocks held by France because no reports had been received from the French Government on the matter?
  Mr. Heath: The situation is that the statements of the Western European Governments for the control year 1962 were considered satisfactory by the Armaments Control Agency.
  Mr. Warbey: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account that the reports were to include stocks required for the future? Did the French Government submit a report of the stocks required for the current year and did it include the nuclear weapons that they are known to be building up, and what action does the Council intend to take on the matter?
  Mr. Heath: The Armaments Control Agency is the body responsible in this matter. It was dealing with the year 1962, and I have already told the House that it was satisfactory.

  UNITED NATIONS

    Members (Per Capita Income)
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will ask the United Nations to publish a yearly estimate of the income per capita of all its members in a common currency, so that comparisons between their standards of living may be readily available; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. J. B. Godber): While sympathising with my hon. Friend's desire to simplify such comparisons. I fear that such a table could be misleading if based simply on exchange rates; while to make calculations for all the different factors involved would be either arbitrary or extremely complicated.
    Sir C. Osborne: I recognise the limitations. May I ask what is the estimated income per capita, say, of this country, of Indian and of Pakistan; and, if they were average, what sort of average, or what would be the sacrifice which the people of this country would have to make in order to make freedom from hunger a reality?
    Mr. Godber: I can give only an approximate answer. But I should say that for the United Kingdom something like £400 per annum and for India and Pakistan about £20. The average would
    358
    come out between £50 and £60. This would show the big difference that is pointed out by my hon. Friend.

    Finance
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the present financial position of the United Nations Organisation; which countries are in arrears with their dues; and what action is to be taken against defaulting members.
    Mr. E. L. Malialieuasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will give instructions to his representative at the United Nations to raise the subject of the United Nations' financial position, in view of the advisory opinion given by the International Court of Justice in July of last year entitled, Certain Expenses of the United Nations, Article 17, Paragraph 2 of the Charter, in regard to the Congo.
    Mr. Godber: The most recent information regarding the state of contributions to the Regular and Special accounts of the United Nations is contained in the United Nations Secretariat document dated 25th February, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. According to that document arrears of contributions on 31st January this year amounted to approximately 116 million dollars. As against this, receipts from the United Nations Bond Issue totalled on 15th February a little over 124 million dollars.
    The question of what action should be taken regarding members who are in arrears with their contributions is now being studied by the Working Group of Twenty-One established by the General Assembly at its last Session to consider the question of United Nations' finances in the light of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court. The United Kingdom is a member of the Working Group, which is to complete its report by 31st March. Its recommendations will be considered by a Special Session of the General Assembly which is expected to begin on 14th May.
    Mr. Henderson: Can the Minister of State say whether the Soviet and French Governments are still refusing to pay their contributions in spite of the advisory opinion received from the International

    359
    Court of Justice? If so, does not this continued refusal to pay constitute a serious threat to the continued existence of the United Nations itself?
    Mr. Godber: A number of countries are still refusing to pay these contributions, in particular for the Congo operation. The Soviet bloc, in addition, refuse to pay contributions for the Middle East Force. All these matters are being considered by this working group to see if we could get out of the present impasse. Both the Soviet Union and France are members of that group and so are the British Government. We hope that something may come from it.

    FAROE ISLANDS (FISHERY LIMITS)
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Lord Privy Seal if he has any further statement to make on the recent talks between the British and Danish Governments on the question of fishery limits off the Faroe Islands, and on the result of the consideration by the Governments concerned of the outcome of those talks.
    Mr. Heath: There is nothing further I can say at this stage.
    Sir C. Osborne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the smaller trawler owners in the Grimsby area are vitally affected by the question of the Faroe fishing limits and that they are facing great difficulties? Could he do something to help them?
    Mr. Heath: I fully appreciate the situation regarding our fishing industry. I have had the opportunity to talk to many hon. Members about it. The situation is that at the first meeting the British and Danish Governments had about this matter, they agreed to give consideration to the points of view put before them by both sides, and we are awaiting a further meeting.
    Mr. Hoy: Without belittling in any way any bilateral agreement which may be reached, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the time has come for him to invite all Scandinavian countries to get an overall settlement of this problem rather than trying to solve it in this way?
    Mr. Heath: This is a particular problem which must, of course, be solved. I shall certainly bear in mind what the hon. Member has said about the wider objective of a common fisheries policy.

    DISARMAMENT
    Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Lord Privy Seal which Government Departments are concerned with the disarmament negotiations now in progress at Geneva; which of them are represented in the British delegation; and what is the total number of British officials taking part.
    Mr. Godber: Responsibility for conducting disarmament negotiations is vested in the Foreign Office, which is advised by the Ministry of Defence and other Government Departments as necessary. The British delegation at Geneva is led by myself, supported by some nine Foreign Service officers and two senior representatives from the Ministry of Defence. When necessary, additional officers from these and from other Government Departments are attached to the Delegation.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Would the Government be prepared to look at the composition of the delegation with a view to strengthening it so that we have the most effective possible team at this vital stage in the negotiations?
    Mr. Godber: If I thought that it needed strengthening, I should not hesitate a moment to recommend that. At the moment we have the third largest delegation at these talks and I think we play a very full part in them.
    Mr. Milanasked the Lord Privy Seal, what initiative Her Majesty's Government are taking at the disarmament negotiations in Geneva in the way of proposals on manpower levels.
    Mr. Godber: There has been no recent discussion of this aspect of disarmament at Geneva.
    Mr. Milan: Since the original Russian proposals were for a reduction to 1·7 million at the end of the first stage as compared with the United States figure of 2·1 million, and the Russians have since compromised at a figure of 1·9 million, and since one of our aims has

    361
    been to get a reduction in Russian conventional forces which are much larger than ours, why cannot the new Russian proposals now be accepted? What is holding up the acceptance of these figures and what are the British Government doing about it?
    Mr. Godber: This is not a matter which has been the subject of detailed discussion at any time during our discussions in Geneva. I have indicated that the British view is that the difference in figures should not be a stumbling block in reaching agreement, but this is not one of the main issues at all. We are seeking to concentrate on this problem at present.

    CONGO
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government will now raise in the United Nations Security Council as a threat to peace the training in the ex-Belgian Congo of private armies headed by Holden Roberto and Mario Andrade and estimated at 25,000 troops, with the object of the armed invasion of neighbouring African territories.
    Mr. Heath: No, Sir.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a disappointing Answer? Does he recall the frightful consequences of the last invasion of Portuguese territory from across the Congo frontier? Has any British diplomatic or consular representative been to Brazzaville to see for himself? Does my right hon. Friend think that what is going on there is compatible with the Congo Republic's membership of the United Nations?
    Mr. Heath: I understand that some members of the Angola Nationalist Movement are being trained as my hon. Friend has described, but I do not think that the information we have justifies the figures mentioned in his Question. I do not think there is any question of a threat to British territory as a result of this. If there were a threat to Portuguese territory as my hon. Friend suggests, the initiative would rest with the Portuguese Government.
    Mr. Brockway: Will the Lord Privy Seal also bear in mind resolutions adopted
    362
    by committees of the United Nations regarding the administration of these territories by Portugal?
    Mr. Heath: That is quite a separate question from the training of the Angola Nationalist Movement in the Congo.
    Mr. Hastings: Will my right hon. Friend tell us about the instruction which it has been said has been carried out by Algerians in this area and also gun running on a large scale?
    Mr. Heath: I have not the detailed information for which my hon. Friend asks.
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made since the latest agreement between the Leopoldville Government and Mr. Tshombe, to establish the Thant plan for a Congo Federation; and what information he has about the recall of Parliament in Leopoldville.
    Mr. Taverneasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement about the extent of the co-operation between the Central Government of the Congo and the Provisional Government of South Katanga on the national reconciliation plan.
    Mr. Fellasked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made in implementing the Thant plan for the Congo.
    Mr. Heath: There have been no major developments in these matters since the reply which I gave on 13th March to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson).
    Mr. Hastings: Is my right hon. Friend aware that proposals put forward, notably on 29th January last, by Mr. Ileo in Elisabethville for the reorganisation of the Congo Republic go even further in centralism than the loi fondamentale? Will he urge the United Nations and United States officials in the Congo—who seem to have such influence over the United Nations—to apply the U Thant plan?
    Mr. Heath: Her Majesty's Government have always been in support of the U Thant plan and have indicated this very clearly in the United Nations and to the Government of the Congo in Leopoldville. The content of the constitution is a matter

    363
    which must be settled in the Congo. I understand that the draft constitution is being put before the Assembly.
    Mr. Taverne: Has the Minister had any information whether the Central Government of the Congo are satisfied with the progress being made and with the cooperation they are getting from the Provincial Government?
    Mr. Heath: I do not know whether the Government are satisfied or whether any Government are ever satisfied, but I believe it is the view of the Government at Leopoldville that there is co-operation between themselves and Mr. Tshombe, and that is also the view of the United Nations.
    Mr. Fell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that developments are confirming the worst fears we have expressed in the past? Will he particularly, on a specific point, press for an inquiry into the behaviour of the Ethiopian troops in Elisabethville, where I hear that Katangese are now frightened to go to work after 12 midday, by which time the Ethiopians are mostly drunk—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and completely out of the control of their officers? The Katangese are afraid to stay at work. Will my right hon. Friend ask for an inquiry?
    Mr. Heath: If my hon. Friend has detailed information of that kind, I shall certainly have inquiries made about it.

    MR. HAROLD PHILBY
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeauxasked the Lord Privy Seal what inquiries have recently been received by Her Majesty's Embassies concerning the whereabouts of Mr. Harold Philby; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Heath: On 24th January, at the request of Mrs. Philby, Her Majesty's Embassy at Beirut made inquiries of the Lebanese authorities to try to trace the whereabouts of Mr. Philby who had been missing since the previous evening. Subsequently Mrs. Philby informed the Embassy that she had received a reassuring letter and a telegram from Mr. Philby in Cairo. In view of this the inquiries of the Lebanese authorities were not pressed.
    364
    On 28th February the Foreign Office were requested by his employers, the Observer, to inquire from the authorities of the United Arab Republic whether there was any record of Mr. Philby having entered Egypt and whether his whereabouts were known. Our Embassy was informed that Mr. Philby had not entered the United Arab Republic since his visit in June/July, 1962.
    Meanwhile Mrs. Philby has informed the Embassy in Beirut that she has received further communications from her husband from Cairo.
    We understand that the United Arab Republic authorities are continuing their inquiries.
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Can my right hon. Friend give the House a little more information than that in response to my request for a statement? Does he realise that, in view of disclosures made in this House by the Prime Minister on 7th November, 1955, there will be very grave disquiet in the public mind until the whereabouts of Mr. Philby are discovered?
    Mr. Heath: I have given my hon. Friend all the information which is in our possession. It is not possible for me to speculate on the whereabouts of Mr. Philby. On the last point in his Question, it may reassure my hon. Friend to know that since Mr. Philby resigned from the Foreign Service in 1951–12 years ago—he has had no access of any kind to any official information.
    Mr. Lipton: Would it not be more in the public interest if the machinery of State were concentrated on tracing the whereabouts in England of missing witnesses?
    Mr. Speaker: That is wholly out of order. It does not arise.

    DIPLOMATS (DUTY-FREE SPIRITS)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Lord Privy Seal in which overseas countries British diplomats are entitled to obtain domestically produced spirits free of excise duty.
    Mr. Heath: British diplomats are entitled to obtain domestically produced spirits free of excise, or equivalent, duty in 18 countries. In two other countries

    365
    they are entitled to specially reduced prices. I will put the list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that British diplomats in those 18 countries are resting on the good nature of the local populations and that we in this country are not reciprocating to their diplomats here? This must be rather embarrassing to the Foreign Office. Will my right hon. Friend mention it to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. Heath: I think that my right hon. Friend is aware of the position.
    Following is the list:

    Belgium.

    Laos.

    Denmark.

    Luxembourg.

    Dominican Republic

    The Netherlands.

    France.

    Norway.

    Finland.

    Roumania.

    Germany.

    Sweden.

    Haiti.

    Tunis.

    Hungary.

    Reduced prices:

    Iceland,

    Poland.

    Israel.

    Turkey.

    Italy.

    NUCLEAR TESTS (GENEVA CONFERENCE)
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a further statement on the Nuclear Test Ban Conference at Geneva.
    Mr. Frank Allannasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on developments in the talks on ending nuclear test explosions, and on the initiative being taken by Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Milianasked the Lord Privy Seal what proposals Her Majesty's Government have now put forward at the disarmament negotiations in Geneva on the number of on-site inspections to be permitted in the Soviet Union as part of a test-ban treaty.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Lord Privy Seal what study he has made of the present proposals of the eight neutral countries, made at Geneva, aimed at ending the deadlock between the nuclear powers in regard to underground tests; and if he will make a statement on them.
    Mr. Godber: I regret that no further progress has been made in the latest dis-
    366
    cussions a Geneva on a nuclear test ban treaty. The major point of difficulty is in the field of on-site inspections, where the West feel that seven such inspections on Soviet territory are necessary annually and the Soviet Government is willing to concede only three. There are of course a number of other substantive matters to be agreed on, but so far, as my right honourable Friend the Prime Minister told the House yesterday, the Russians have refused to discuss them unless their offer of three on-site inspections is first accepted. Although there have been reports that the eight non-aligned delegations intend to put forward new proposals, they have not so far done so.
    Mr. Henderson: In view of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that no progress is likely to be made by entering into a public auction on numbers of on-site inspections, and as there does exist a wide measure of agreement, is it not time that the three Foreign Ministers returned to Geneva and themselves took over the responsibility for these negotiations?
    Mr. Godber: My noble Friend has been taking a very close interest in all this, and I am sure that if he felt that it would help he would be very ready to go. At the moment, we are in a real difficulty in relation to these numbers, but I will take note of that point.
    Mr. Allaun: In supporting my right hon. and learned Friend, may I ask whether the Minister of State is aware that many people are completely disgusted and hopeless about the four years of failure of the U.S., U.S.S.R. and U.K. Governments to reach agreement because of mutual suspicion'? Would not the best solution be for Britain to declare forthwith that she will end all her tests and invite inspection, and ask the other two countries to follow her initiative?
    Mr. Godber: I can understand that there is a feeling of disappointment that we have not been able to make further progress, but I do not think that suggestions such as that would really help us towards agreement.
    Mr. Milian: When the gap between the Russian proposals of three on-site inspections and the Western proposal of seven inspections is so small, is it not

    367
    completely indefensible that the negotiations should seem to be foundering on this point? Why cannot the British Government put forward a compromise proposal of, say, five on-site inspections? Have the Government done this?
    Mr. Godber: I have tried to make it plain on a number of occasions that although the numbers are fairly close together, the bases on which they are arrived at are entirely different. The Soviet Union have all along said that they have put forward this number only for purely political reasons; they do not see the need for any on-site inspections. We have said that we base ourselves on the best scientific advice available to us. If the Soviet Union have better scientific advice, we ask them to bring it forward. If they do not do so, we can only presume that they do not possess it.
    Mr. Rankin: As even the neutral nations seem unable to provide any proposals that will induce general agreement, does not that give the noble Lord the Secretary of State a still greater opportunity to achieve a compromise? Apart altogether from the scientific knowledge behind each of the proposals, would not the Secretary of State consider a compromise such as that suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) as a basis of negotiation?
    Mr. Godber: It is all very well to propose compromise, but unless we can have some confidence that the other side will also be willing to compromise, there is little prospect of making progress there. Of course, one can make informal contacts in relation to this, and I am sure that my noble Friend will be glad to do anything he can to get agreement, but it is no good ignoring these basic facts, and the fact is that to get a treaty which one had no confidence would be carried out would be a mockery.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Is it not important that the British Government—while, of course, remaining in the Western Alliance—should take the initiative in the matter? Is it really not possible to work on the lines of fewer on-site inspections and a corresponding increase in the "black box" technique? After all, it is on a combination of these two things that we shall finally have agreement.
    Mr. Godber: It is the combination of these with other matters as well, and we have asked the Soviet Union to go into detail in relation to the other matters. That is to enable us to see whether any compromise can be reached. So far, they have refused to go into the question of the additional number of "black boxes" or other modalities. We have urged them many times—I have done so myself recently—to discuss these matters with us. If they would, there might be some prospect of making progress.
    Mr. Allaun: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies we have had, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise the subject on the Adjournment.

    BERLINER ENSEMBLE (TRAVEL DOCUMENTS)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Lord Privy Seal why permission has been refused for a visit to England by the Berliner Ensemble; and if he will reconsider this decision.
    Mr. Heath: The Ensemble has not, in fact, applied for the necessary travel documents for such a visit. But it is the general policy of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation at present not to grant travel facilities to East German visitors of this sort.
    Mr. Driberg: With regard to the first part of that reply, is it not the case that arrangements were made for such a visit? Is it not just dodging the question to say that they have not applied?
    Mr. Heath: No, Sir—not at all. I am not aware of what arrangements were made for the visit. The information I have is that they have not applied for the necessary travel documents for them to make the visit.
    Mr. Driberg: If they do, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that they will be granted permission?
    Mr. Heath: In the second part of my Answer—which, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman did not appreciate—I said that it is the general policy not to grant travel facilities for East German visitors of that kind.
    Mr. Driberg: Is not that extremely silly?

    YEMEN
    Mr. Taverneasked the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government will now recognise the republican Government of the Yemen.
    Mr. Heath: No, Sir. But Her Majesty's Government are keeping the question of whether the Yemeni republican regime fulfils the normal criteria for recognition under consideration.
    Mr. Taverne: Are not the Government being excessively cautious in this, since the republican regime has now been in power for nearly six months and previous revolutions have lasted only a matter of days? Will not the Lord Privy Seal seriously examine how far non-recognition is affecting our relationship for the worse with Arab nationalist forces in the Middle East, which are gaining in strength all the time?
    Mr. Heath: It is not so much a question of how long a revolution has lasted but of the conditions in the country in which the revolution has taken place, and the degree of control over it. On the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, our relationship with the other countries is one of the factors to be taken into consideration the whole time.
    Mr. P. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his Answer will give great satisfaction to many of us on this side; and that, in fact, it is desperately important that no recognition should be given to a régime supported from outside its own borders?
    Mr. Heath: In this case, we shall continue to apply the normal criteria for recognition.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government will now raise at the United Nations the Egyptian air bombardment of civilians and their property in Yemen, including the use of napalm, as a threat to peace; and whether he will make a statement, having particular regard to relevant international conventions.
    Mr. Heath: Dr. Bunche, the Under-Secretary for Special Political Affairs in the United Nations Secretariat, recently paid an exploratory visit to the Yemen and has returned to New York to report to the Secretary-General. I should prefer to await the outcome of this before making any comment.

    FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS (UNIVERSITY RESEARCH)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Lord Privy Seal to what extent senior members of the Foreign Office are seconded to universities and research institutions for the purpose of undertaking periods of research into the technical problems of disarmament and the creation of a world authority.
    Mr. Godber: No senior members of the Foreign Office have been or are seconded to universities or research institutions for this purpose, but close informal contacts are maintained between these bodies and the Foreign Office departments concerned.
    Mr. Thomson: But would it not be worth while from the point of view of both the Foreign Office and the universities to encourage serious research on these important subjects of disarmament and the creation of a world authority? I understand that this has been very fruitful as between the American State Department and the American universities. Will the hon. Gentleman look at it again?
    Mr. Godber: We are perfectly willing to consider this. If there were a demand from universities, or any of these research institutes, we should be very glad to consider it seriously.

    COMMONWEALTH AND E.F.T.A. COUNTRIES
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will take steps towards the formation of the European Free Trade Association countries and the Commonwealth into an Oceanic Economic Community.
    Mr. Heath: No, Sir. It is the Government's policy to promote trade and closer economic co-operation both with the European Free Trade Association

    371
    countries and with the Commonwealth, but their interests do not provide a realistic basis for an Economic Community.
    Sir T. Moore: But does not my right hon. Friend think that this proposal offers far wider scope for both political and economic development than the hidebound, inward-looking Common Market community dominated by President de Gaulle?
    Mr. Heath: There is an opportunity for development in the E.F.T.A. countries and in the Commonwealth, but my hon. Friend, as I understood him, was suggesting that we should bring the two groups into one community. I am afraid that the present position of the groups does not make that a realistic proposition.

    FOREIGN SERVICE
    Dr. A. Thompsonasked the Lord Privy Seal how many of the successful applicants for Branch A of the Foreign Service in the period 1952–62 were educated at Oxford and Cambridge Universities, and at the remaining British universities, respectively; and what percentages these figures constitute in each case.
    Mr. Godber: One hundred and ninety-five, that is, 94·2 per cent., of the successful applicants for Branch A of the Foreign Service by the normal Open Competitions in the period 1952–62 were educated at Oxford and Cambridge Universities; 11. that is, 5·3 per cent., at the remaining British universities.
    Dr. Thompson: While in no way disparaging the very high quality of Oxford and Cambridge graduates, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he really thinks that a figure of 5 per cent. of applicants is drawing upon the reservoir of talent and ability in our English, Welsh and Scottish universities?
    Mr. Godber: The Foreign Office is anxious to encourage recruitment from all these universities, and members of the personnel department make annual visits to all of them to explain what the Foreign Service does and what opportunities are open to graduates. I hope that we shall see an increase in these figures.
    Dr. A. Thompsonasked the Lord Privy Seal how many of the successful applicants for Branch A of the Foreign Service in the period 1952–62 were educated at independent public schools, direct grant schools and State schools, respectively; and what percentages these figures constitute in each case.
    Mr. Godber: As stated in the first line of the table included in my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Gentleman on 18th March, 143, that is, 70 per cent., of the successful applicants for Branch A of the Foreign Service by the normal open competitions, were educated at independent public schools, 17, or 8 per cent., at direct grant schools, and 42, or 20 per cent., at State schools.
    Dr. Thompson: Again, does the Minister of State think that one in five of successful applicants from our State schools is really representative of the number of boys attending these schools or is in line with the policy of other Government Departments? Will the hon. Gentlemen ensure that his careers officers get round to the State schools to explain and illustrate the benefits of a Foreign Office career?
    Mr. Godber: I would point out that the trend in this matter is in favour of more coming from the direct grant and State schools. In 1960–62, 61 per cent. of successful applicants came from public schools and 39 per cent. from other schools. In 1962 itself less than 50 per cent. came from the public schools. I would point out that the basis of entry into the Foreign Service is that laid down by Mr. Ernest Bevin when he was Foreign Secretary.

    REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA (CUSTOMS EXAMINATION)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Lord Privy Seal what representations he has made to the Government of the Republic of South Africa regarding the searching by Customs officials of British subjects in transit from the High Commission Territories to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Godber: None, Sir.
    Mr. Brockway: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a prominent British subject, an African from Basutoland, having the

    373
    necessary passport and the necessary ticket facilities to come to London, was detained in Johannesburg and searched in detail by the South African authorities? Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that just as we would not tolerate this in Paris or in Prague, we will not tolerate it in Johannesburg?
    Mr. Godber: I have seen a report in in the South African Press. There was such a gentleman who was subjected to this, but no complaint has been made in relation to this matter to our representatives. If a complaint were received, naturally we would look into it.
    Mr. Brockway: Is it merely the policy of Her Majesty's Government to wait until complaints are received relating to British subjects who are treated in this intolerable way? Does not the Foreign Office take some initiative on behalf of British subjects?
    Mr. Godlier: I think that this is getting a little Out of proportion. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that if a complaint is made we should look into it, but I would point out that the Customs authorities in any country are entitled to search any person entering that country.

    N.A.T.O. (NUCLEAR FORCE)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Lord Privy Seal what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the new American proposal in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for a multilateral nuclear force.
    Mr. Shinwell: May I point out that the word "multilateral" in the Question should be "multinational". It is my mistake.
    Mr. Heath: That, of course, makes it a fundamentally different Question. May I therefore provide an Answer? The new American proposal is not a proposal for a multinational force. The proposal for a multinational force, or the paragraph 6 force of the Nassau communiqué, was taken on the initiative of our own Prime Minister.
    Mr. Shinwell: In this connection, will the right hon. Gentleman exercise the greatest caution in accepting the proposal for surface Polaris missiles on ships and
    374
    also the proposal for a mixed force? Before any definite conclusion is reached about this matter, will the Government consult the House?
    Mr. Heath: Perhaps I can now assure the right hon. Gentleman that his Question as printed on the Order Paper was really what he meant to ask. The question of a surface force to which he referred is only in connection with the multilateral force. We have had the advantage of discussions with Mr. Merchant about this and we are now considering all the implications of these proposals.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. I did not catch what the Minister said. Is Question No. 32 being taken with this Question?
    Mr. Speaker: Not as far as I know.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that the Americans have made so many proposals that ii is rather likely that some of us are confused about them?
    Mr. Heath: I always do my best to clarify issues for the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Healey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government have yet made any estimate of the cost to Britain of making a contribution towards the multilateral force and how that compares with the contribution towards the multinational force, to which Her Majesty's Government are committed, and the cost of the TSR2 deterrent force and the cost of continuing the V-bomber force to which the Government are also already committed?
    Mr. Heath: Now that we have had discussions with Mr. Merchant and we have the figure of cost which is in the minds of the American Administration, we are considering the way we can best help. The figure bears no relation to the figure quoted by the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) yesterday.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the Government concentrate British resources on a British deterrent rather than indulge in these preposterous polyglot Polaris proposals?
    Mr. Heath: I cannot possibly accept that rather cleverly worded supplementary question by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Lord Privy Seal to what extent the multinational agreement on the use of the nuclear weapons assigned to North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces imposes international control on the use by the United States of America of its own nuclear forces.
    Mr. Heath: The arrangements for control over the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear force remain to be worked out.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Is there any prospect of that system of control operating in regard to American nuclear forces outside N.A.T.O.? Is there any prospect, for instance, of N.A.T.O. approval being required before the United States threatens to resort to nuclear force as she did in the case of Cuba?
    Mr. Heath: This is a question of N.A.T.O. nuclear forces.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Not the American forces?
    Mr. Healey: Could the hon. Gentleman clear up the matter in relation to a multinational force? I understand that so far the Supreme Allied Commander Europe has never been given any control over strategic nuclear weapons. Is it intended that under Her Majesty's Government's proposals for a supranational N.A.T.O. force as put before the N.A.T.O. Council this morning, S.A.C.E.U.R. should be given direct control of a strategic nuclear strike force?
    Mr. Heath: I have already explained that these questions of the control of the force have got to be worked out by the Alliance generally, and I am not prepared to say what our proposals are going to be in the context of the general discussions in the Alliance.
    Mr. Healeyasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will publish a White Paper on the proposals of Her Majesty's Government for a multinational North Atlantic Treaty Organisation deterrent force.
    Mr. Heath: No, Sir. A White Paper would not be appropriate at this stage.
    Mr. Healey: Since reports of the Foreign Secretary's speech are already
    376
    appearing on the tape, and since his speech was listened to by a very large number of functionaries of a very large number of European countries, is it not desirable that the House of Commons and the British people should have some information about Her Majesty's Government's proposals on this extremely important matter? So far, there seems to have been total equivocation and confusion on the Government's part.
    Mr. Heath: There is no equivocation on the Government's part. It is a question of how much information should be made available publicly on the course of confidential discussions between allies. But I will certainly consider the earliest moment at which it is possible to give further information to the House.
    Mr. P. Williams: Since there was practically nothing in the Defence White Paper, and since it is obvious that discussions—reasonably—are being held, will my right hon. Friend give us a specific undertaking that when eventually we develop a defence policy we shall have the opportunity of debating it?
    Mr. Heath: This matter was fully debated during the defence debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There was discussion on this point during the debate on the Nassau communiqué. However, if it is the desire of the House to debate the matter, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will consider it.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the Government propose to take a definite decision on this very important matter without consulting the House? Will he say what is in the Government's mind about this?
    Mr. Heath: No, I did not say that. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman wishes to misinterpret me. There are discussions going on at the moment inside the Alliance, in which all the countries concerned can take part, in order to try to work out the arrangements which should be made first for the multinational force and then for the multilateral force. I have assured hon. Members that, if they desire a debate, the Leader of the House will give full consideration to that matter in the normal way and that I will consult my noble Friend and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence to see how soon

    377
    we can give to the House further information of a more detailed kind about the arrangements for this force.
    Mr. G. Brown: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that that is what hon. Members on both sides are asking for? It appears that this morning the Foreign Secretary has put before our allies some ideas and proposals in the name of the British Government. The House would like to know what proposals are being made. Will the right hon. Gentleman issue a White Paper giving us the information which the Foreign Secretary has this morning given to the representatives of all the other members of the Alliance?
    Mr. Heath: I have explained to the House—and the House has always accepted it on previous occasions—that when confidential discussions are going on between allies they cannot be carried on in public but that as soon as it is possible to make further information available we will do so. That is the undertaking which I have given.
    Mr. Brown: How confidential can he a statement made before 14 other members of the Alliance and reports of which are already on the tape and will be widely printed tonight or tomorrow morning? It is now beyond the stage of a confidential exchange of ideas and is at the point of formal presentation of views. Therefore, surely the House should know what views we are putting forward.
    Mr. Heath: I have already given the House the undertaking that I will consider with my noble Friend how much information can be made available following his speech to N.A.T.O.

    PRESIDENT OF TOGO (ASSASSINATION)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Lord Privy Seal on what date Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in Togo telephoned his official report on the assassination of the President of Togo; at what time it was sent; at what time it was first received in the Commonwealth Relations Office in London; and at what time it reached the Foreign Office.
    Mr. Godber: The President was assassinated at approximately 7.25 a.m. on
    378
    Sunday, 13th January. Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires telephoned his report to the High Commissioner in Accra at 9 a.m. After being encyphered the message was despatched at 10.45 a.m. It was received in the Commonwealth Relations Office at 12 noon and communicated to the Foreign Office after de-cyphering at 12.20.
    Mr. Thomson: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether this rather cumbersome communications system does not illustrate the difficulties in Africa where there are Commonwealth countries and independent foreign countries in relation to the Foreign Office? What steps are the Government taking to co-ordinate the communications system between foreign countries in Africa, Commonwealth countries and Colonial Territories?
    Mr. Godber: I thought that it was a pretty good record on communications. I am only sorry that we had to get the High Commissioner out of bed early on Sunday morning, but it operated successfully in this case. Communications in Togo had been closed down and therefore this was a very good piece of work on the part of our representative.
    Mr. F. Noel-Baker: If this news was in all the newspapers, why did it have to be sent in cipher?
    Mr. Godber: Certainly it was not in all the newspapers al; that time.

    MR. LIVINGSTON MERCHANT (TALKS)
    Mr. Healeyasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the official visit to London of Mr. Livingston Merchant.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with Mr. Livingston Merchant, President Kennedy's representative, on the multilateral or multinational North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear forces.
    Sir J. Maitlandasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the recent talks in London which Her Majesty's Government have had with Mr. Livingston Merchant.
    Mr. Wallasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement about his discussions with the United States authorities on the proposed Polaris surface ship contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
    Mr. Heath: These talks were, of course, confidential and I have no statement to add to the communiqué issued after the meetings. We were very glad to have this opportunity of detailed discussions with Mr. Merchant and the members of his mission.
    Mr. Healey: Will the right hon. Gentleman please be a little less coy about the expenditure which is likely to be incurred by Her Majesty's Government in accepting, at least in principle, Mr. Merchant's proposals for a multilateral surface force under N.A.T.O.? The right hon. Gentleman has told the House that £200 million, which is the figure that I gave yesterday, bears no relation to the actual cost. Could he say what, in fact, is a rough order of expenditure in which this country will be involved if this multilateral force ever comes into existence?
    Mr. Heath: I am not prepared to give detailed figures to the House at this stage.
    Mr. Healey: I do not want detailed figures.
    Mr. Heath: We have now been given the broad outline of the American proposals. We say that we are studying these proposals and that we are considering how we can best assist.
    Mr. Rankin: Is it not the case that the Bahamas Agreement only speaks about a multilateral nuclear force on which the President and the Prime Minister agreed? Does not the expression "multinational" only derive from Article 6 of the Agreement? Is it not now clear that these two ideas are in conflict? How did the two signatories come to an agreement on a treaty which contains two ideas that are in conflict?
    Mr. Heath: These ideas are in no way in conflict. The multinational force flows from paragraph 6 of the communiqué and is obviously the first stage because the force is already available. It will become the first stage of a N.A.T.O. nuclear force. The multilateral force
    380
    flows from paragraph 8 of the communiqué and will come later.
    Sir J. Maitland: Does my right hon. Friend remember that once upon a time it used to be the custom for the Press to get their information on foreign affairs occasionally from things that happened in this House? Is it not pretty lowering to the dignity of this House to have to depend for information and rumour of what has happened entirely on the Press? Will my right hon. Friend take the House of Commons into his confidence and allow us to consult with him before any action is taken on this very important matter?
    Mr. Heath: I am always anxious to give the House all the information which we have. But when one is discussing a matter which is of concern not only to this country but to all the members of the N.A.T.O. Alliance, and when it is based upon proposals which are put to us by the United States and which are not our own proposals, it would have been inappropriate for me to give all the details to the House while they are in this early stage.
    Mr. Wall: Can my right hon. Friend say what is the view of Her Majesty's Government? Have we been approached to contribute to a surface fleet armed with Polaris and manned by men of various nations? If so, is it the view of the Government that we should contribute to this force as well as allocate Polaris submarines?
    Mr. Heath: The view of Her Majesty's Government is that the American proposals for a multilateral force consisting of multimanned ships is one which deserves support. We have undertaken to examine what contributions we can make to this force.
    Mr. Rankin: Financial?
    Mr. Heath: In any form which is appropriate. So far we have not reached any conclusions about it.
    Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, as I am sure he is, that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence made a statement on this matter in conjunction with the Minister of Defence of Western Germany on Monday? I presume the Foreign Office at some stage informed the right hon. Gentleman of

    381
    this statement and that Her Majesty's Government, according to this statement, have accepted the idea of contributing to a multilateral force?
    Can the right hon. Gentleman clear up the equivocation which characterised his previous answers, by giving the House the answer to two questions? First, is it intended that the multinational force will be dropped when the multilateral force comes into being, or shall we be committed to both these types of force? Secondly, since the right hon. Gentleman seems to have an idea of the order of expenditure involved in a multilateral force, can he say, if it is not in the order of £200 million, what it is?
    Mr. Heath: There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to be so objectionable in a supplementary question. I have said nothing which is in conflict with the communiqué issued yesterday after the talks between my right hon. Friend and the German Minister of Defence.
    Secondly, the multinational force will naturally continue so long as it is a viable force. The multilateral force will be built up, and if N.A.T.O. can be strengthened by both of them, well and good. As the multinational force gradually becomes obsolescent, so it will cease to play its part.
    Thirdly, so far as expenditure is concerned, I am not prepared to give any detailed estimates at the moment because Her Majesty's Government are still considering in what form they should make a contribution and what the contribution should be. What I remarked to the hon. Gentleman was that the very large figure he gave yesterday does not bear any resemblance to what we would be asked to do or what we are likely to be able to do.
    Mr. P. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that we have recently been discussing the Defence Estimates and the defence programme of the Government, can you say whether there is any way in which hon. Members on the back benches can raise the question of a change of Government policy which appears to conflict with the Statement on Defence, which contained nothing at all in any case?
    Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman wants procedural advice I should be grateful if he would inquire afterwards so that we do not lose time for Questions.

    CHARTERED AIRCRAFT (GATWICK-MOSCOW)
    Mr. S. O. Daviesasked the Lord Privy Seal what was the cost to Her Majesty's Government of chartering on 8th March a DC.7C airliner from Gatwick to Moscow carrying 8 tons of building materials, Government workmen and two bags of cement.
    Mr. Heath: £2,373.
    Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the House into his confidence by telling us why these 8 tons of materials, British workmen and, in particular, two bags of cement were conveyed all the way from this country to do some small repairs to the British Embassy in Moscow?
    Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman can have a perfectly clear answer. These materials and the workmen were required to make alterations to the Chancery in Moscow of a security nature.
    Sir C. Osborne: Instead of incurring an expenditure of £2,300, what would it have cost to have had this work done by local workmen in Moscow without infringing vital security measures?
    Mr. Heath: There is no point in trying to make an estimate of the cost of doing that because we are not prepared to infringe security arrangements.
    Mr. Bellenger: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these two bags of cement were Portland cement or a code name for something more insidious?
    Mr. Heath: I think I said it was cement.

    WESTERN ALLIANCE (FUTURE)
    Mr. Longdenasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will seek to convene a conference of the Heads of Government of the seven countries of Western European Union with the specific purpose of ascertaining the views and intentions of the President of France regarding the future of the European Economic Community. Western European Union, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Western Alliance generally.
    Mr. Heath: No, Sir. I do not think a meeting for the purpose suggested by my hon. Friend would at present be appropriate.
    Mr. Longden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I put this Question down to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the hope that he would take this initiative? Are Her Majesty's Government satisfied that the Governments and peoples of Europe fully realise the suicidal implications of the French President's plan for the Continent?
    Mr. Heath: There are, of course, two views of how Europe should develop, and I think that our own has been perfectly well expressed. There would probably be considerable use in having a meeting of Western European Union at Foreign Minister level in the near future and as soon as it can be arranged, but I do not think that it would be appropriate to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion now.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Forestry Commission
    Mr. Godman Irvineasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that the present trading position of the Forestry Commission shown by the recent Supplementary Estimates reveals an increase over the original estimates of £500,000 in respect of salaries and wages and a decrease of £110,000 in respect of timber sales during the current year; and what action is being taken to remedy this.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): Yes, Sir. The Supplementary Estimate was due partly to a salary award, which applied throughout the Civil Service, and a wage increase to forest workers during the year; and partly to a fall in prices obtained for softwood thinnings.
    The Forestry Commission will continue its endeavours to meet rising costs by improved productivity, but it believes that the fall in the prices is a temporary phase.
    Mr. Godman Irvine: Will my right hon. Friend have another look at the situation because in the last five years, during which wages have risen, the Forestry Commission has increased its sales from
    384
    5·3 million hoppus feet to 11.6 million hoppus feet? During the same period, the price which has been recovered has dropped from Is. 7·1d. to ls. 5·3d. per hoppus foot. Does not that reveal a situation which requires my right Friend's careful consideration?
    Mr. Soames: The discrepancies in this estimate amount to £600,000 in all. They came about through an increase of £500,000 on wages and salaries, which could not be envisaged at the time that the estimate was put in and a discrepancy of £100,000 out of the total estimate of £2½ million on the likely receipts for the sale of timber during the current year. Since, obviously, the movement of market prices must have some effect on the total sum of money derived from sales, I think that my hon. Friend would agree that that was not a bad estimate.

    Covent Garden Market (Site)
    Mr. John Hallasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the Covent Garden Market Authority has made any recommendation about the site of a new market; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Soames: No, Sir. The Authority has not yet received the complete report from the firm of consultants it commissioned to advise on the siting of the market. It will then wish to study it and discuss the matter with the interests affected.
    Mr. Hall: Is it not a fact that the firm of consultants employed by the Authority is likely to recommend sites other than the present site of the Covent Garden Market? If one of its recommendations is accepted, will not amending legislation be required, which would have been avoided if the Amendment which I tabled when the Bill was considered had been accepted?
    Mr. Soames: When the Covent Garden Market Bill was going through the House I said—and it was said in another place, I think—that if the Covent Garden Market Authority decided, after giving the matter full consideration, that it wished to put the Market in some place other than in Covent Garden, we would not raise any unreasonable objection to its promoting a Private Bill for that purpose.

Fishing Limits
Mr. Shortasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports he has had of foreign fishing vessels arriving at the North Sea fishing grounds and refusing to give way to British vessels already fishing there, as required by Article XV of the International Convention; and whether Her Majesty's Government will now declare a 12-mile exclusive fishery limit around the coasts of the British Isles.
Mr. Owenasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is now able to make a statement of Her Majesty's Government's policy on the introduction of a 12 mile exclusive fishery limit around the coasts of the British Isles.
Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in order to preserve and develop British inshore fisheries, he will take immediate action to secure an extension of British fishery limits to a distance of 12 miles from the coastline.
Mr. Soarer: I know of the complaints which have been made by inshore fishermen of interference by foreign trawlers. Fishery protection vessels patrol areas where incidents are liable to occur to help in avoiding them; but some damage may be inevitable and this is one of many factors that must be taken into account is considering the question of our fishing limits.
Mr. Short: Is the Minister aware that in 1962 upwards of 250 foreign vessels fished off the coast of Northumberland alone and did a great deal of damage to nets, lobster pots, crab pots, and gear generally as well as to the stock of fish because of the use of very small mesh nets? Since Iceland, Norway and Denmark have extended their exclusive fishing limits, is it not time that we did something more positive than to send a fishing vessel to patrol the area?
Mr. Soames: I am aware of five cases this season in which specific claims for damages have been made against foreign owners, amounting to about £100 in all. That is the information which I have on claims made for damages. As I have said often in the House, we must balance the extension of our limits against the national interest. We must balance the
386
extent to which we fish off the coasts of other countries with our inshore interests. We are keeping this matter very much in mind.
Mr. Hayman: Is the Minister aware that the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees and the Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee urge him to extend this fishing limit because of the harm done to the inshore fisheries of Great Britain, and particularly around the coast of Cornwall? Is it not about time that the right hon. Gentleman looked after the interest of our own people? After all, the fishermen do a good job in peace and war.
Mr. Soames: Nobody would decry the good job done by our inshore fishermen, and the hon. Member is right in saying that inshore fishermen in this country, like those in a lot of other countries, would like to see their limits extended. Of that there is no doubt. The hon. Member asked whether it is not time that we looked after our interests. This is a question of the interests of fishermen and of the fishing fleets as a whole. It must be remembered that it is the long-distance trawler fleets which provide 90 per cent. of the fish in our markets.
Mr. Wall: While supporting the extension of the limit to six miles, may I ask my right hon. Friend to approach his noble Friend to get more vessels of the Fishery Protection Squadron operating around our coast in view of the great success of the vessel operating off the Yorkshire coast?
Mr. Soames: I believe that the fishery protection vessel which has lately been at Bridlington has been of great help in this regard. The part of the Fleet which is available for fishery protection does its best to ensure that there are the minimum of incidents.
Mr. Hayman: As the Minister's reply is so unsatisfactory, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

SCOTLAND (CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL)
The Secretary of Slate for Scotland (Mr. Michael Noble): With permission, I should like to make a statement about a matter raised by the hon. Member for

387
Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) on 14th March during discussion of the business of the House for this week.
The hon. Member referred to Press reports that the Government proposed that Clause I of the Children and Young Persons Bill should be extended to cover Scotland.
The history of the matter is briefly as follows. Clause 1 of the Bill, as drafted, is designed to implement a recommendation of the Ingleby Committee on Children and Young Persons—a Committee which dealt with England and Wales only—to the effect that
"there should be a general duty laid upon local authorities to prevent or forestall the suffering of children through neglect in their own homes".
The Clause, as introduced, was not framed to cover Scotland because the matter in relation to Scotland was being considered by a committee of the Scottish Advisory Council on Child Care under the chairmanship of Mr. J. McBoyle.
It was indicated to the House, however, by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, during the course of the Second Reading of the Bill on 27th February, that the Report of the McBoyle Committee had recently been submitted and would shortly be published; that its main recommendations were on much the same lines as those of the Ingleby Committee for England and Wales; and that I had asked the Scottish local authority associations to let me have their views on them as a matter of urgency.
I am sorry that the intention that Clause 1 would be extended to cover Scotland if the local authority associations agreed was not stated more definitely, though I think that the implication of what was said was clear enough.
Subsequently, all the local authority associations supported the view that the main recommendations of the McBoyle Committee should be implemented by the extension of Clause 1 of the Bill to Scotland; and the Report was published as a Command Paper on 12th March, with an accompanying Press notice which indicated that Amendments designed to achieve this end would be tabled.
I very much regret that it was overlooked that the effect of this procedure
388
was that the announcement of my intentions was made to the Press before they had been precisely stated to Parliament—although, as I have mentioned, the general indication of what was in my mind had, in fact, been given during the Second Reading debate on the Bill.
The Bill is, of course, to a considerable extent on a Great Britain basis and a large part of it already applies to Scotland. It now seems appropriate, by this proposed extension of Clause I to Scotland, to implement as soon as possible the most important part of the McBoyle Committee's Report and to that end the necessary Amendments to extend Clause 1 to Scotland will be tabled today.
I should have thought it unnecessary for this one particular point to be discussed in the Scottish Grand Committee when there has already been a very full debate in this House on the principles of the Bill, and there is no particularly Scottish problem arising out of the general issues involved in the Clause.
I apologise to the House. It would have been more appropriate to have answered a Parliamentary Question about my intentions and I am sorry that this was not done.
Mr. Ross: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his apology to the House for his belated recognition that it is unusual that in a matter as important as this a Bill which has been through all its stages in another place, and has had its Second Reading in this House, should then be so drastically altered in Committee, and for his recognition that this is a matter for announcement in the House.
The Secretary of State is rather unfair to us on this side and to the House as a whole in stating that his intention was not quite clear. I suggest to him that it simply was not declared. Indeed, does he appreciate that if his mind had been made up, his hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary had the opportunity to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), who asked the point-blank question about Clause 1 and Scotland? No answer was forthcoming, either then or at the end of the debate, although my hon. Friend's speech was referred to by the Home Secretary.

389
Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the Clause concerned was reckoned by everybody who spoke to it to be the most important Clause in the Bill? From that point of view, it could well be regarded as worthy of consideration by the Scottish Grand Committee.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about full debate. Does he consider that a full debate, certainly on a matter as important as this affecting Scotland, is one in which one Scottish back bencher takes part? It is certainly not our idea. Will the right hon. Gentleman think again, not only about having a Second Reading debate and preserving our rights but about this second point? Many of his difficulties may well have arisen from the fact that while having the Report of the McBoyle Committee he consulted local authorities without giving Members of the House and the public the opportunity to see the Report. Why did he not publish the Report? Then we could have had our debate in the light of the McBoyle Report, which we on this side welcome and accept.
Mr. Noble: It is true that my intention was not stated during Second Reading, but it is also true, if the hon. Member will think back to what was said on that occasion, that, in referring to Clause 1, my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said that
"my right hon. Friend has asked the local authorities' associations to let him have their views on them as a matter of urgency,"
He went on to say:
"As regards the remainder of Part I of the Bill, we cannot at present foresee the possibility of comparable Scottish legislation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1963: Vol. 672, c. 1267.]
I should have thought that that was at least a very broad hint.
To deal with the second point made by the hon. Member, it would have been difficult without being discourteous to local authorities—and we moved very fast in this matter, because we realised its importance—to have announced something to the House as my intention before all the local authorities' replies had been received. The McBoyle Report was submitted to me on 31st January, the local authorities were circulated an 15th February and the debate took place on the 27th.
390
Therefore, as the hon. Member will realise, some local authorities would not have had full time to consider it. If, however, there has been a fault, I agree that it is perhaps through my trying to hurry too much to get this desirable feature in our legislation and I have apologised to the House for making this mistake.
It seems to me that a Second Reading debate is unnecessary, because there is in Committee an opportunity for, perhaps, widening the scope of Clause 1 to include other matters which hon. Members want. It is on a Great Britain basis. I do not see that by having a Second Reading debate in principle on this one aspect, we would be doing anything more than having a parallel debate which could take place in Committee.
I think that I have covered the points about consulting the local authorities before telling Members of the House. This, of course, is a very common practice in many of these cases—
Mr. Ross: Before publishing the Report?
Mr. Noble: It is a very common practice in many cases, and if it is wrong at least it did enable this to be brought into this legislation which, I think, everybody wants.
Mr. H. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman has apologised quite clearly to the House and I think that the House will wish to leave the matter there in the light of his apology, but he has gone on to make a number of explanations, or attempted explanations, and I think that it is only right to ask him whether he is aware that the words which he has just quoted could not have been taken by the House as a broad hint or any other kind of hint. Those words were entirely obscure and gave no indication at all that there was the intention to widen Clause 1 to cover Scotland.
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that my hon. Friend made an extremely good point just now when he pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that, he having received the Report on 31st January, if we were to get broad or obscure hints in the debate on 27th February, we could at least have been given the privilege of seeing the Report even while the local authority associations were being consulted? It is not

391
good enough to get a report, to hold it up for six weeks before publication, to make obscure noises in a Second Reading debate which we are now expected retrospectively to read more into than was expected at that time, and then think that the point has been dealt with.
Will the right hon. Gentleman—and I put it to the Leader of the House, too, since he is here listening—take into account what my hon. Friend has just said about the desirability of debating the principle of this in the Scottish Grand Committee? I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find on rereading in HANSARD the debate to which he has just referred that there was no commitment that a debate would take place when the Scottish Report was available to this House, and I think that, in the circumstances, the best thing now would be to allow the Scottish Members to have the same freedom of discussion on a published Report as the English and Welsh Members had in the debate on 27th February. If he and the Leader of the House would consult about this I think that the House would be well content to leave the matter where it is.
Mr. Grimond: I am sure that he House will be grateful to the Secretary of State for his apology. I am not quite certain why he apologised for not answering a question, or thought that it would be more appropriate to answering a question, because the Government were asked a question and if they wanted to answer it they could have done so.
Apart from the Parliamentary position, I am rather concerned about the status of Scottish administration. There have been suspicions in Scotland before that legislation for Scotland is tacked on to legislation primarily designed for England.
I am rather interested to know what might have been done, or was intended to be done, about the McBoyle's Committee's Report. The Committee did a lot of work on this matter, yet the Bill was introduced and allowed to proceed a long way on its course when it was known that the Committee was on the point of reporting? Was no notice taken of this by the Government in general? Or was it intended to have a
392
separate Scottish Bill? Or how were the findings of the Committee to be dealt with?
Mr Noble: I think that the right hon. Gentleman, who has a long experience of these things, knows that when separate committees are sitting for England, Wales and Scotland and the reporting is not simultaneous, as so often has happened in the past, because the Scottish Committee reports, four, five or six months later, legislation is not brought before the House perhaps until a year or two later. In this case, we have done our very best to hurry this proceeding up and, perhaps, made a mistake in hurrying it too much, but we have done our best to overcome the sort of difficulty the right hon. Gentleman referred to.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government were asked a question. This is true, but they were asked a question before the local authorities' reports had been received and the Government's intention at that time could not, therefore, I think, be given.
Mr. H. Wilson: May I press the right hon. Gentleman further, to get it right on the record? He said that he received this Report on 31st January. Is it not a fact that the Report was signed in December, 1962, and then went to the Scottish Advisory Council on Child Care for comment before he formally received it? Is he really telling us that he did not know and no one in his Department knew the contents of this Report in December, 1962? Is it not a fact that in normal circumstances there was likely to be someone in his Department who would have known?
Did nobody in the Scottish Office know? Did not he tell him about the contents of this Report in December, 1962? So it was not six weeks, but 10 or 11 weeks, before publication. In all these circumstances would it not have been possible to have hurried up the printing and had this made available to Members before this "broad hint" was delivered on 27th February?
Mr. Noble: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is probably right in his suspicion that there were people in my Department who had, at any rate, some knowledge of what Mr. McBoyle's Committee was likely to report on some

393
factors, but, as I said, I received the Report on 31st January.
Mr. W. Hamilton: Bumbling.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that we can continue with this now.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered,
That this day Business other then the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. lain Macleod.]

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (INDEMNITY)
Mr. William Hannan (Glasgow, Mary-hill): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to indemnify the Secretary of State for Scotland from any penal consequences he may have incurred by his failure to observe the provisions of the Universities (Scotland) Act 1889.
We have just had another example, if I may say so, of the kind of behaviour to which I now want to refer. The Bill which I now seek permission to introduce becomes necessary because it would appear that the Secretary of State for Scotland, by indifference, indolence and incompetence, has failed to secure the laying before Parliament of detailed annual reports under Section 30 of the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889.
Implicit in my proposed Bill is the reassertion of the rights and privileges of Parliament against the might of the Executive and one particular member of it who has persistently evaded and ignored our legitimate claims for information, a problem which is very prominent in our debates in Parliament and the Press at the present time.
For some years now I and some of my hon. Friends have been asking Questions and initiating Adjournment debates to elicit information and facts about the Scottish universities, and all this activity, of course, was designed to substantiate the case for at least one new university in Scotland to meet the growing crisis over higher education. One source which we thought would be of advantage for this purpose was the laying of the reports provided for in the Act. Section 30 of that Act—I shall only quote part of it—says:
"The University Court of each University shall make an annual report … and such other information as the Commissioners … may from time to time determine, and … on the state of the finances … and the said reports shall be made to the Secretary for Scotland, and shall be laid by him before the General Council of the University and before Parliament …"
There are no permissive powers there. They are mandatory all the way through, but, in fact, the reports have not been so laid for forty years, and certainly not in the form in which they were originally intended.
Questions which have been directed to these particular aspects have been

395
shuttled between the Scottish Office and the Treasury. The esteemed and respected Clerks of the House were, on occasion, as we were, puzzled as to which Minister had responsibility. Succeeding Secretaries of State for Scotland ignored our representations, but ultimately, on 5th December, 1962, I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he had inquired into why the four universities had ceased at various times to fulfil their obligations, whether the former practice of making their annual returns could now be resumed, and whether, as a member of the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council, he would bring that matter before that Committee.
Again, the Secretary of State did not take the hint. He walked blindly into trouble, and, instead of putting himself right, runs the risk of indictment at common law.
I received a letter from the Lord President of the Council. This is a most interesting letter, which reveals an extraordinary state of affairs. He starts by saying:
"The story is an odd one".
And then makes the damning admission which makes this Bill necessary:
"On examining the matter I think that there is no doubt that the consultation of the Scottish Universities Committee in 1920 and 1921 was not only not a statutory duty, but was ultra vires … The Committee has no say as to statistics of attendance on the various classes or details of teaching staff. It can only determine what other information shall be given in the Report."
The Lord President of the Council goes on to say, with almost an audible sigh of relief:
"This, however, is not really a matter for me, for the Privy Council Office as such has, for the reason I have indicated, no jurisdiction either to dispense or to enforce the law and I really only come into it because I have to confess to a blunder by my predecessors of 1920 and 1921, and I suppose, to apologise for their having acted ultra vires."
Then he asks, plaintively:
"In the meantime, what is to be done?"
What, indeed? I thought that the best answer was to introduce this Bill.
It may be argued that there are no legal precedents on the question whether a Minister who must lay reports must also take the responsibility that they contain the items specified in the Act.
396
I submit, however, that the obligation to present does imply a responsibility to scrutinise what he is presenting and, if he considers it to be deficient or inefficient, to adopt suitable precautions. That responsibility is a political one to be discharged in and to Parliament.
As far as I know, there is only one precedent for such a state of affairs when a principal Minister was indemnified by the Government of the day. In 1944, the then Home Secretary, now Lord Morrison of Lambeth, admitted in the House that certain Fire Service Regulations, which his Department was required to lay before the House by Act of Parliament, had not, in fact, been so laid, but he said that no act of indemnity would be required since the matter was one only for Parliament. As reported in HANSARD, 26th July, 1944, he said that as far as he knew, there were no sanctions for failing to lay the Regulations. He added:
"I do not think any question of indemnifying legislation will be necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1944; Vol. 402, c. 763.]
But the House—we know who the Prime Minister was in those days—took quite a different view and insisted that such a Bill should be introduced. That, too, is quite clear from a perusal of the same Volume of HANSARD, at columns 899 and 1207. The then Home Secretary said:
"There lies on every Minister a heavy responsibility to secure meticulous observance of a mandatory duty imposed on him by Act of Parliament … Every Department … will examine its arrangements with a view to ensuring that, the Minister shall not be exposed to such risk by any fault in the official machinery."
The then Home Secretary even went on to say, referring to himself:
"… appropriate punishment ought to fall on the responsible Minister. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1944; Vol. 402, c. 1218–9.]
That Act of indemnification absolved the then Home Secretary for his neglect to lay those Regulations, and it received the Royal Assent on 3rd August, 1944.
We have now to consider the punishment to which the Secretary of State for Scotland is liable in the absence of indemnification. The Act of 1889 does not itself lay down any penalty. But he is indictable at common law and can be tried for misdemeanour. Some of my hon. Friends think that the term should

397
be "criminal negligence". But reference to Halsbury's 3rd Edition, Vol. 36, paragraph 675, shows that it reads:
"Indictment on Information. Every breach of a statutory command is, in the absence of specific provision, indictable at common law as a misdemeanour."
It may be argued that such a personal disaster would be most unlikely but we have had quite a few personal disasters attending Ministers in the Conservative Administration during the last twelve years. Acts of indemnity are passed not to protect against the probability, but to cover a Minister against any possibility, however remote, of penal sanctions.
The Secretary of State's defence may be that he is an extremely busy man. He is Minister for Housing, Health, Education, Agriculture and Town Planning, and, of course, he also has to keep an interest in the study of Highland cattle, their habits and habitats. But so is the Lord President of the Council an extremely busy man. Yet it did not take him years to reply. He replied within three weeks. He, too, is a busy man, as we all know, because in addition to being Lord President, he is Minister of Sport, Minister for Science and Minister for North-East England and, I understand, he is also a devotee of campanology.
Some of my hon. Friends disagree with me in my asking permission to introduce the Bill. They think that the law should take its course, not only for this offence but for those in respect of his failure to deal with unemployment and housing. To me, however, the part of Portia is much more attractive than that of Shylock. The grand jury, the Scottish electorate, will try him on those charges in due course at the next General Election, and I have no doubt about their verdict.
My hon. Friends will have noted that if the Secretary of State were proceeded against and found guilty, his two years' sentence would overrun the statutory limit of this Parliament. Even with six months' remission for good conduct, which is doubtful, it is still questionable whether he would be released in time. In any case, I ask him to believe—not that I have had any experience of it—that Barlinnie Prison is not an ideal place from which the Chairman of the Scottish Unionist Party could conduct an election campaign.
398
Appropriately enough, we have the Scottish Criminal Justice Bill coming into the Committee stage. Since we are already without a Lord Advocate in the House, and without a Solicitor-General, it would be just too much to deprive ourselves of the Secretary of State for Scotland. On balance, it would be much better that he should pilot that Bill through the House, so that he would be one of the first inhabitants to reap some of the benefits.
The real victims of this unholy mess are probably the growing numbers of young people in Scotland who, having certificates of fitness for entry into universities, may have been deprived of their opportunity because of the Secretary of State's complete failure to inquire more closely into the increasing difficulties attending higher education. It will need a new Government with alert, energetic Ministers, to put this right.
3.58 p.m.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have listened with great interest and respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), but he has not convinced me that the Bill is necessary. I am in favour of the law taking its course. I can only think that there has been a generous agreement between the Government and the hon. Member, because there is no Lord Advocate on the Government Front Bench to put the case with the extreme lucidity with which it has been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill.
We have been told that the Secretary of State for Scotland has been guilty of gross neglect in his duty on a very important issue concerning the universities. I do not at ail wince from the prospect of the Secretary of State for Scotland going to Barlinnie. I would willingly visit him there, as I did recently a minister who is a constituent of mine and who went there for taking part in demonstrations at the Holy Loch.
The Secretary of State must agree that there has been a grave neglect of duty. Although I am usually inclined to mercy, I think that the law should take its course and that the Secretary of State should be dispatched to Barlinnie forthwith.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring

399
in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hannan, Mr. G. M. Thomson, Dr. A. Thompson, Mr. Millan, Mr. McInnes, Miss Herbison, Mr. Ross, Mr. Small, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Gourlay, and Mr. Rankin.

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (INDEMNITY)
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (INDEMNITY)
  Bill to indemnify the Secretary of State for Scotland from any penal consequences be may have incurred by his failure to observe the provisions of the Universities (Scotland) Act 1889, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 29th March, and to be printed. [Bill 86.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [13TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  REPORT [19TH MARCH]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1962–63; NAVY ESTIMATES, 1963–64; ARMY ESTIMATES, 1963–64; ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES ESTIMATE, 1963–64; WAR OFFICE PURCHASING (REPAYMENT) SERVICES ESTIMATE, 1963–64; MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63; NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63; ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63; CIVIL ESTIMATES (EXCESSES), 1961–62
  Resolutions reported;

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1962–63
  CLASS V
    VOTE 7. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SERVICES)
    1. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,418,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for expenditure by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in connection with sundry agricultural and food services including grants, grants in aid and certain subscriptions to international organisations.
CLASS VIII
  VOTE 16. GRANTS FOR THE ARTS
  2. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £355,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ended on the 31st day of March. 1963, for grants in aid of certain institutions and bodies connected with the arts.
CLASS IX
  VOTE 4. HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
  3. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £24,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for expenditure on Houses of Parliament buildings.
CLASS III
  VOTE 7. PRISONS, ENGLAND AND WALES
  4. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £135,000, he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Prison Commissioners and of prisons, borstal institutions, detention and remand centres in England and Wales.
CLASS IV
  VOTE 13. TRANSPORT (SHIPPING AND SPECIAL SERVICES)
  5. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £342,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for miscellaneous services connected with shipping, seamen, inland transport and ports, including the repair of damage by flood and tempest and certain special and other services.
  VOTE 7. MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  6. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £.13,750,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for the salaries and expense of the Ministry of Aviation for the administration of supply (including research, development and inspection), and of civil aviation; for contributions to two international organisations, a grant in aid, a conditional grant, and sundry other services.
CLASS I
  VOTE 3. TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS
  7. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £175,000 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Treasury and subordinate departments and of the First Secretary of State, the Lord Privy Seal, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Minister without Portfolio.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1963–64
  8. That a sum, not exceeding £36,391,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964, for expenditure in respect of Navy Services, viz.:—

  Vote

  £

  8.

  Lands, Buildings and Machinery

  3,093,000

  9.

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  11,610,000

  10.

  Non-effective Services

  21,687,000

  11.

  Additional Married Quarters

  1,000

  £36,391,000

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1963–64
  9. That a sum, not exceeding £213,511,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964, for expenditure in respect of Army Services, viz.:—

  Vote

  £

  1.

  Pay, etc., of the Army

  145,200,000

  2.

  Reserve Forces, Territorial Army and Cadet Forces

  20,710,000

  8.

  Lands, Buildings and Works

  6,990,000

  9.

  Miscellanous Effective Services

  5,760,000

  10.

  Non-effective Services

  34,850,000

  11.

  Additional Married Quarters

  1,000

  £213,511,000

ARMY
  ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES ESTIMATE, 1963–64
  10. That a sum, not exceeding £3,600,000, he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of operating the Royal Ordnance Factories, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964.
ARMY
  WAR OFFICE PURCHASING (REPAYMENT) SERVICES ESTIMATE, 1963–64
  11. That a sum, not exceeding £6,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, for expenditure incurred by the War Office on the supply of munitions, common-user and other articles for the Government service and on miscellaneous supply, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964.

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1962–63
  12. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £81,500,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for expenditure in respect of the following Supplementary Estimates, viz.:—

  CIVIL ESTIMATES

  CLASS I

  £

  1.

  House of Lords

  4,000

  2.

  House of Commons

  29,000

  6.

  Customs and Excise

  454,000

  7.

  Inland Revenue

  1,681,000

  8.

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  12,000

  9.

  Civil Service Commission

  43,000

  10.

  Royal Commissions, etc.

  25,000

  CLASS II

  £

  1.

  Foreign Service

  1,172,000

  2.

  Foreign Grants and Loans

  1,677,000

  4.

  Commonwealth Relations Office

  5,109,000

  5.

  Commonwealth Grants and Loans

  5,286,000

  7.

  Colonial Office

  1,127,000

  8.

  Colonial Grants and Loans

  413,000

  10.

  Department of Technical Co-operation

  1,000

  11.

  Commonwealth War Graves Commission

  64,000

  CLASS III

  1.

  Home Office

  776,000

  2B.

  Scottish Home and Health Department

  63,000

  3.

  Home Office(Civil Defence Services)

  250,000

  5.

  Police, England and Wales

  1,900,000

  6.

  Police, Scotland

  134,000

  8.

  Prisons, Scotland

  172,000

  11.

  Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.

  1,000

  12.

  County Courts

  5,000

  13.

  Legal Aid Fund

  1,050,000

  14.

  Law Charges

  1,000

  15.

  Law Charges and Courts of Law, Scotland

  10,000

  16.

  Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Northern Ireland

  1,000

  CLASS IV

  1.

  Board of Trade

  306,000

  2.

  Board of Trade (Promotion of Trade, Exports and Industrial Efficiency, and Trading, etc., Services)

  1,000

  6.

  Ministry of Labour

  1,000

  10.

  Ministry of Transport

  1,118,000

  12.

  Roads, etc., Scotland

  1,995,000

  14B.

  Transport (Railways and Waterways Boards)

  4,000,000

  CLASS V

  1.

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  585,000

  2.

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  1,000

  3.

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food(Agricultural Grants and Subsidies)

  6,705,000

  9.

  Fishery Grants and Services

  1,000

  11.

  Forestry Commission

  535,000

  CLASS VI

  1.

  Ministry of Housing and Local Government

  959,000

  4.

  General Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales

  4,660,000

  5.

  General Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland

  353,000

  8.

  Ministry of Education

  1,000

  9.

  Scottish Education Department

  248,000

  12.

  Ministry of Health

  230,000

  14.

  National Health Service (Hospital, etc., Services), England and Wales

  1,438,000

  £

  16.

  Miscellaneous Health and Welfare Services, England and Wales

  1,026,000

  17.

  National Health Service (Superannuation, etc.), England and Wales

  1,000

  18.

  National Health Service, etc., Scotland

  3,054,000

  19.

  National Health Service (Superannuation, etc.), Scotland

  1,000

  20.

  Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance

  286,000

  22.

  Family Allowances

  250,000

  23.

  National Assistance Board

  26,207,000

  CLASS VII

  3.

  Atomic Energy

  1,000

  5.

  Medical Research Council

  42,000

  6.

  Agricultural Research Council

  13,000

  7.

  Nature Conservancy

  61,000

  CLASS VIII

  1.

  British Museum

  1,000

  3.

  Science Museum

  1,000

  4.

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  22,000

  6.

  London Museum

  2,000

  7.

  National Gallery

  12,000

  8.

  National Maritime Museum

  37,000

  9.

  National Portrait Gallery

  1,000

  10.

  Tate Gallery

  20,000

  11.

  Wallace Collection

  1,000

  13.

  National Galleries of Scotland

  2,000

  CLASS IX

  1.

  Ministry of Public Building and Works

  1,000

  2.

  Public Buildings, etc., United Kingdom

  2,650,000

  3.

  Public Buildings Overseas

  400,000

  5.

  Royal Palaces

  12,000

  6.

  Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

  35,000

  8.

  Rates on Government Property

  480,000

  13.

  Civil Superannuation, etc.

  1,135,000

  14.

  Posit Office Superannuation, etc.

  1,000

  CLASS X

  1.

  Charity Commission

  11,000

  2.

  Crown Estate Office

  2,000

  5.

  National Debt Office

  1,000

  7.

  Public Trustee

  1,000

  11.

  Ordnance Survey

  94,000

  12.

  Public Record Office

  1,000

  13

  . Scottish Record Office

  4,000

  16.

  Department of the Registers of Scotland

  1,000

  CLASS XI

  1.

  Broadcasting

  636,000

  4.

  Pensions etc. (India, Pakistan and Burma)

  266,000

  5.

  Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc.

  9,000

  11.

  Supplements to Pensions, etc. (Overseas Services)

  122,000

  81,500,000

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63
  13. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course

  NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63
  14. That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £11,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Naval Services for the year.

  SCHEDULE

  Sums not exceeding

  Supply Grants

  Appropriations in Aid

  Vote

  £

  £

  2.

  Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

  …

  …

  …

  300,000

  350,000

  4.

  Civilians on Fleet Services

  …

  …

  …

  300,000

  —

  6.

  Scientific Services

  …

  …

  …

  Cr. 1,100,000

  100,000

  8.

  Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.

  I—Personnel

  …

  …

  …

  930,000

  *-30,000

  II—Material

  …

  …

  …

  4,500,000

  *-3,100,000

  III—Contract Work

  …

  …

  …

  5,000,000

  1,400,000

  9.

  Naval Armaments

  …

  …

  …

  Cr. 330,000

  *-430,000

  11.

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  …

  …

  …

  650,000

  *-650,000

  13.

  Non-effective Services

  …

  …

  …

  750,000

  —

  Total, Navy (Supplementary), 1962–63

  …£

  11,000,000

  *-2,360,000

  * Deficit

  ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63
  15. That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March,1963, for expenditure, including a grant in aid, beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year.

  SCHEDULE

  Sums not exceeding

  Supply Grants

  Appropriations in Aid

  Vote

  £

  £

  1.

  Pay, etc., of the Army

  …

  2,031,000

  —

  2.

  Reserve Forces, Territorial Army and Cadet Forces

  …

  Cr. 880,000

  *-550,000

  4.

  Civilians

  …

  1,970,000

  —

  5.

  Movements

  …

  2,200,000

  170,000

  6.

  Supplies, etc.

  …

  880,000

  —

  7.

  Stores

  …

  Cr. 6,830,000

  2,500,000

  8.

  Works, Buildings and Lands

  …

  Cr. 20,000

  1,800,000

  10.

  Non-effective Services

  …

  650,000

  —

  11.

  Additional Married Quarters

  …

  —

  *-640,000

  Total, Army (Supplementary), 1962–63

  …£

  1,000

  3,280,000

  * Deficit

  of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Defence; expenses in connection with International Defence Organisations, including international subscriptions; and certain grants in aid.

  CIVIL ESTIMATES (EXCESSES), 1961–62
  16. That a sum, not exceeding £30, be granted to Her Majesty, to make good excesses on certain grants for Civil Services, for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1962.

  SCHEDULE

  Class and Vote

  Excess Vote

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  CLASS II

  2.

  FOREIGN OFFICE GRANTS AND SERVICES

  £

  s.

  d.

  Subhead D.7.—United Nations Civil Assistance to the Congo:

  Excess Expenditure

  39

  8

  2

  Subhead E.7.—Central Treaty Organisation: Institute of Nuclear Science (Grant in Aid):

  Excess Expenditure

  1,583

  3

  0

  Subhead E.9.—Central Treaty Organisation: Agricultural Machinery and Soil Conservation Training Centre (Grant in Aid):

  Excess Expenditure

  2,855

  12

  6

  4,478

  3

  8

  Less—Net savings available on other subheads

  4,468

  3

  8

  10

  0

  0

  12.

  DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION

  Subhead C.—Subscription towards the expenses of the Colombo Plan Bureau:

  Excess Expenditure

  206

  3

  2

  Less—Net savings available on other subheads

  196

  3

  2

  10

  0

  0

  CLASS IV

  1.

  MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

  £

  s.

  d.

  Subhead K.1.—United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation: Subscription:

  Excess Expenditure

  1,901

  0

  0

  Subhead K.2.—International Bureau of Education: Subscription:

  Excess Expenditure

  3

  18

  1

  1,904

  18

  1

  Less—Net savings available on other subheads

  1,894

  18

  1

  10

  0

  0

  Total, Civil (Excesses)

  £

  30

  0

  0

  First Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

FREEDOM FROM HUNGER CAMPAIGN
4.0 p.m.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I desire to raise an item of Government expenditure of £5,000, what they call, I believe, their final contribution to the funds of the Freedom From Hunger Campaign. The £5,000 is an addition to the £30,000 which they have given before.
I want to start by making clear the aim and purpose of the eminent organisers of this campaign. Since it was launched three years ago by the Food and Agriculture Organisation, our British committee has established 750 local committees, has secured the affiliation of 72 voluntary organisations, has obtained from private
408
sources promises of help or actual gifts of nearly £6 million, and still hopes to raise much more. It is operating on a common plan with national committees in 55 other countries that are members of the United Nations.
What is the purpose of this formidable organisation of effort and good will? It is not charity. It is not to buy food for hungry mouths. It is, say the organisers, twofold, and I quote their words:
"First, to make known the facts of hunger in our twentieth century world, to explain the urgency of the problem, and how it can be conquered; second, to show the peoples of the underdeveloped countries"—
it is more convenient to call them, as I shall call them, the developing countries—
"what they can do successfully to help themselves"
The committee wants to do this—
"by raising funds to be used for starting work of permanent value in as many places as possible".

409
In other words, the money given in Britain will all be used for social and economic development. It will be the first phase of the United Nations Development Decade, for which the British delegate voted in December, 1961. It will, above all, if it succeeds, educate the Governments and the peoples, including our Government and our people here, in the vastly greater task which they must carry through with Government resources before our present decade ends.
It is this task of public education which gives real significance to our British Freedom From Hunger Campaign. In itself, the campaign is and can be only a tiny pilot plan to deal with the biggest international problem, after armaments, which the world confronts today. Suppose it succeeds beyond our dreams. World Refugee Year raised £80 million. If this raised twice as much—£160 million—what could that achieve in solving world hunger?
What are the facts? Mr. Gordon Evans, of the United Nations Association, who has done such admirable work in creating informed opinion on the subject, says that the main purpose of the campaign is to dramatise and humanise the programme of action that is needed. The facts, in all conscience, are dramatic enough. Half the people of the world are underfed. They do not eat enough to keep them healthy, strong and well. But all the same, they are increasing in numbers very fast. Today, the total is 3,000 million. In 2000 A.D., only thirty-seven years from now, half the lifetime of the babies born in 1963, it will be 6,000 million.
When I was at the Peace Conference in Paris, in 1919, I remember learning with astonishment that the population of the great African continent was under 100 million. It is now 237 million. In 2000 A.D. it will be 517 million. The population of Latin America is now 206 million. In 2000 A.D. it will be nearly 600 million. The population of Asia is now 1,500 million. In 2000 A.D. it will be 3,707 million. Who, I wonder, will be the great Powers then? To feed these people, says F.A.O., world food production must be doubled by 1980 and trebled a more difficult task, by 2000.
From what level do we start? What do our words convey when we say that
410
half our fellow human beings are underfed? Ritchie Calder, one of the greatest authorities on the subject, quoted the other day what he called the "Litany of Hunger in the East"—
"Better to walk than to run.
Better to sit than to walk.
Better to sleep than to sit.
Better to die than to wake."
That, he says—
"is the muted misery of millions It does not shout from the headlines like famine, nor scandalise us like the walking skeletons of Belsen. It is the creeping death of malnutrition, of people dragging out the years of a stunted life, without the energy or the will to help themselves."
Let the House look more closely at what this means. Professor Banks, Professor of Human Ecology at Cambridge, wont for the World Health Organisation to the University of Lucknow. He made a detailed survey of the lives of 5,000 people in four villages near there. The infant mortality was 190 per 1,000. In Britain, it is 21. Only half the children born grow up to be adult. Fifty per cent. of the people had hook-worm and another 10 per cent. had other worm diseases, which caused them grievous suffering and drastically reduced their ability and their will to work.
In village schools there was often not a single healthy child. Seventy per cent. in the age group 0 to 14 were tubercular positive. In one district, 92 per cent. of the population suffered from eye troubles. Trachoma varied in different districts from 60 per cent. to 80 per cent. Everyone—men, women and children—were suffering from malnutrition.
Things are much the same in large parts of Africa. There is a common disease in children in Africa, kwashickor. This means, "the sickness of which the first baby dies when the next baby is born". When a baby is weaned by its mother, it goes on a diet which is deficient in protein. Its hair goes grey. Its skin cracks like a crazy paving. Its stomach swells. It lives, and soon dies, in tearless, inarticulate misery.
There is another affliction, zerophthalmia, blindness in infants due to lack of Vitamin A. There is hunger toxicosis, dehydrating a baby, which will die without the complicated treatment of transfusion.

411
Consider the problem of these developing countries through the eyes of a Communist. In the General Assembly of the United Nations, a few days ago, ad Iron Curtain delegate said that United States capitalists had for a century or more been taking minerals, oil, fruit and sugar from Latin America and had made enormous fortunes for themselves. The statistics showed, he said, that the average income of the people of the United States was ten times the average of the peoples of Latin America. The Iron Curtain delegate added, with a sardonic irony not lost on many of the delegates in the Assembly, "And they call it the free world".
We can make the same sort of comparison for ourselves. For three centuries we have had an expanding empire of which, for many reasons, if not all, we were justly proud. Last July, the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) told the House that the average income per person in Pakistan was £19 a year, that in India it was £24, and in Britain was £387. He might have added that in Uganda, now independent, the average income was £20 and that for the five years up to 1961 it had been going down.
With the curse of hunger, poverty and disease there goes the crowning handicap of illiteracy. There are, perhaps, 1,000 million people in the world who cannot really read or write. U.N.E.S.C.O. stated last autumn that of all people between the ages of 5 and 20 only two in five received any kind of formal education. So the great majority of young people in the developing countries today get no schooling at all. If present plans mature less than half the children is Asia will go to school in 1970. How can we hope, in these circumstances, for a system of free democracy to work?
What can the Freedom From Hunger Campaign, with its voluntary contributions, hope to do to meet this vast complex of tragic human problems and mitigate the suffering and waste they involve? It can demonstrate by concrete schemes of development that if the advanced nations want to do it, all those problems can be solved. Indeed, some of them could be solved very quickly and cheaply. Yaws is a horrible disease, but it can be cured by a dose or two of penicillin. Ten cures for a dollar is what
412
it means and if it were wiped out the agricultural output of the countries in which it is found would be immensely increased. Blindness makes a person helpless and a burden on the society in which he lives, but trachoma can be cured by the application of an ointment which is cheap to buy.
Food production can be much increased by simple changes requiring no agricultural revolution. The Western scythe for the sickle multiplied the hay crop threefold some years ago in Afghanistan, while Western hoes did the same for vegetable foods. Better seed multiplied the rice yield in India, Japan, Italy and in many other countries. The farming of fish in the paddy-fields of South-East Asia, introduced by F.A.O. ten years ago, has added protein to the diet of many millions of people. Western experts, Western methods and Western machines can do much more.
It is not a lack of knowledge or resources that need limit our efforts to wipe out these great world evils. The Freedom From Hunger Campaign will demonstrate in many places and in many ways how this can be done. It is giving £12,000 to improve the cattle at Allahabad by cross-breeding the local cattle with Jersey the Brown Swiss bulls; and 300 villages will benefit by the results of this. It is giving £22,000 for a scheme of nutritional education for young women in Uganda to teach them, when they become mothers, how to avoid the deadly deficiency disease of which I have spoken.
It is giving £150,000 to the Department of Land Utilisation in Swaziland—and how vastly important is the argricultural future of Swaziland today—to set up an agricultural college to provide 20 students a year with a two-year course. It is giving £1,000 to enable the fishermen of Aden to visit Malta for a six-week course in modern methods and to learn these methods from the Maltese fishermen. It is giving the F.A.O. £38,000 to establish cheese production in Libya by the importation of Sarda sheep.
So far, the Freedom From Hunger Campaign has committed more than £3 million to schemes like this, and the three great relief organisations—Oxfam, War on Want and Save the Children Fund—have pledged more than another £2 million. All this is admirable work to which the whole Committee will pledge its full

413
support. It will open our people's eyes to the nature of the problem and its vast extent, it will show the receiving peoples how they can help themselves and it will be a notable addition to the work of the United Nations agencies which have been struggling with the problem since 1945. But if we are to avoid a great disaster within two decades from now the Governments must do far more to support the United Nations agencies than they are now doing; to give them moral support, experts and far greater resources than they have been granted hitherto.
The United Nations Technical Assistance Board began, I think, in 1950 with a programme of 25 million dollars for eighteen months. For years, while in opposition, we had great difficulty in making Her Majesty's Government maintain their proper contribution to the total of 25 million dollars. At length we got it up to 30 million dollars and last year—and I am talking of the total—it touched 50 million dollars.
In 1959, Mr. Paul Hoffman's Special Fund was added to the Assistance Board. It began with 25 million dollars a year and in 1962 it was increased to 50 million dollars. But this was far short of the target which was set when the British delegate voted for the United Nations Development Decade in 1961. The target was 150 million dollars and the Secretary-General has said that if the minimum target of the Decade is to be attained by 1970, the resources of these two agencies—the Technical Assistance Board and the Special Fund—must rise by 25 million dollars a year and must reach 300 million dollars by the end of the decade.
Much the most important of the agencies has been the International Bank. It has done splendid work and 600 million dollars worth of loans, mostly to developing countries, have been made in its first fifteen years of work. However, Mr. Eugene Black, who has just retired as Chairman, and who has a world-wide reputation for statesmanship of the highest order, has said that the Bank must lend far more in the years to come.
Mr. Black set up, to supplement the work of the International Bank, what is called the International Development Association, its purpose being to make interest-free loans for what Mr. Black
414
calls "pre-investment projects"—such as water supply, roads, schools, railways, housing, health services; things that must be done before productive agriculture, mineral and industrial development plans can be put on foot.
The I.D.A. will this year commit, in interest-free loans, 500 million dollars, and will exhaust the funds which have so far been put at its disposal. Mr. Black says that the demands will grow very greatly from year to year. Mr. Hoffman, more specifically, and with equal experience of big business and world poverty, says that the International Bank and the I.D.A. must each invest at least 1,000 million dollars a year for the rest of this decade.
What is the minimum target that this investment would achieve? It is modest enough. It would be a rise from 1 per cent. to 2 per cent. in the annual rate of growth of the national incomes of the developing countries, an increase in their standard of living by 1970 of only 25 per cent. Of course, such an increase would be, for Britain, which lives by importing food and raw materials and by exporting manufactured goods, a magnificent investment. It would be no less magnificent for the world at large.
But where will the money come from? Where will these agencies get the 25 million dollar annual increase, the 300 million dollars in 1970 for the Technical Assistance Board and the Special Fund, the 1,000 million dollars for the International Bank, and the 1,000 million dollars for the I.D.A.? These sums must come, of course, from Government resources of advanced nations like ours. That is why the most important function of the present campaign is to educate Governments and peoples in the brutal facts which they must face.
Of course, there are other things besides giving aid which Governments ought to do. Above all, they ought to stabilise the prices of the commodities which the developing countries have to sell. Shortly before he died, Mr. Hammarskjoeld said:
"A fall of only 5 per cent, in the average of their export prices is approximately equivalent to the entire annual inflow of capital which they receive, not from International Bank loans only, but from all other public and private loans and Government grants"
In a recent year, cereals fell by 11 per cent. in price, sugar by 47 per cent., fats

415
by 12 per cent., wool by 32 per cent. and metal ores by 9 per cent. We in this country benefited by these falls in prices of our imports and our export prices for manufactured goods were simultaneously going up.
The terms of trade are still turning in our favour at the expense of these developing countries. It must be a prime object of Government policy to get commodity agreements to stabilise prices, however difficult it may be, Surely, as Lady Jackson argued so eloquently upstairs the other day, we must open our Western markets to the simple manufactured goods which the developing countries have to sell.
Whatever else may happen, the Government must invest much more through the United Nations agencies of which I have spoken. Our present Government have not a very brilliant record on this. For years, as I have said, they stabilised their contribution to the United Nations Technical Assistance Board and the Special Fund at 8 million dollars a year. Last autumn, for 1963, thanks to the persistent efforts of my hon. Friends the Members for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) and Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), they have added 2 million dollars. They called that a 25 per cent. increase, and it sounds grand, but it will not go far towards meeting the 300 million dollars needed by these two agencies in 1970.
The Government have also given 5 million dollars, spread over three years, to the World Food Fund, an F.A.O. project to use food surpluses to promote development schemes. They have refused to issue in this country Freedom From Hunger stamps, although 76 other countries have found it possible to do so.
In the General Assembly, they voted that 1 per cent. of the national income should be devoted to international aid. I should like to hear very much how this vote has been implemented since then. I agree that they have also given the sum of £35,000 to our British Freedom From Hunger campaign. That is 0·002 per cent. of our annual armaments bill, and would pay Dr. Beeching for eighteen months.
What visionary master mind in what corner of Whitehall hit on that majestic sum? Perhaps he thought that the
416
Government could recoup it from one day's revenue from the new Post Office tariffs, announced yesterday. Whatever the calculation, it is a pretty sordid reflection on the priorities of those who rule us now. It is a derisory sum which the Government should at once and very much increase.
This great international campaign will succeed in its purpose only if it brings Governments to face the realities of this and the other decades that lie ahead. At present, the great military Powers are spending £45,000 million on armaments a year—perhaps as much, says the Economist intelligence Unit, as the whole present income of the developing nations which need our aid. Unless we can have a new vision of this problem, and take the measures which Mr. Black and Mr. Hoffman now advise, we shall face a great world disaster in the lifetime of most hon. Members present here today.
I have quoted many figures about hunger, poverty and disease. But imagination is, alas, the feeblest of human faculties. Have I made anyone really feel the misery and the needless pain which these figures represent? If the Government will face this moral challenge—for that is what it is—and allow Britain to lead the other nations in doing what Mr. Black and Mr. Hoffman have told us is required, they will not only be serving a British interest, they will not only earn a handsome dividend for British trade in years to come, but will do very much to build up, on firm foundations, the authority of the United Nations and the sovereign power of its international law.
4.28 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Henderson: My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) has rendered signal service by raising this problem as the subject of our debate. It is a problem that transcends all party considerations. Indeed, it passes over national boundaries. It is a problem which affects the whole world. It is quite impossible to carry on any longer ignoring the stark facts of the world situation—a situation which, as my right hon. Friend has just told us, results in more than half the total population of the world living on the margin of subsistence in conditions of hunger and affected by disease.

417
Such conditions constitute a premium upon war and conflict. So long as they continue, they will undermine the permanent basis of world peace. We are told of the potential nuclear threat to the welfare of mankind, but here we are dealing with an actual problem affecting the welfare and happiness of the teeming millions of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South has quoted some basic facts relating to the problem of world hunger. I will give another. One-third of the world's population lives in the industrialised countries of Europe and North America. The average yearly income of that one-third is ten times that of the 2,000 million people of Asia, Africa and Latin America. It is obvious that so long as we have a world divided into haves and have-nots, so long will we have the undercurrents of seething discontents in those parts of the world which we call the under-developed countries.
It is in these circumstances that, at long last, the United Nations has decided to grapple with this terrible problem. I said that it transcended party lines and national boundaries. In a world divided East from West, and in which £45,000 million a year are spent on the creation and construction of some of the worst weapons of mass destruction that the human imagination is able to appreciate, every single member of the United Nations, 104 members, representing both Communist and non-Communist, all races and all nations, unanimously decided to launch this programme of the Development Decade.
It is not sufficient to regard this as merely providing food and nourishment for the hungry and those suffering from malnutrition, vital as that is to the millions in the underdeveloped countries. Through no fault of their own, these people do not have the "know-how" and the social and economic infrastructures which are so essential in the more advanced countries and to the standards of living which so many of us in the West are able to enjoy. These people are not merely to be given charity. What is essential is that their standards of living should be built up and to do that they must be assisted to develop their economies
418
and to play their part in that development.
This programme—and it is only a programme and there is a long way to go before it becomes reality—provides that until 1970 aid will be given through private and national investment so that the underdeveloped countries can build up their economic and social infrastructures. This means that we have to do a great deal more than we have done.
A great deal has already been done, and we should not underestimate it, by most of the countries of the West, although I agree with my right hon. Friend that we would like to see our own Government doing more. Much has been done, through the Colombo Plan and Point Four and through technical assistance, to train these people to be able to build up their own economies.
I was in Guatemala six weeks ago and I was very impressed with the fine main roads along which I travelled. I congratulated the person with whom I was travelling on the efforts of the Guatemalan engineers, but I was told that the roads had been built by United States engineers with capital provided by the United States. That is a good contribution to that country's economy, but we have to seek to train these countries so that they are able to build up their economies through their own efforts.
One of the main provisions of the Development Decade will be to assist underdeveloped countries by constructing roads, hospitals, drainage systems, railways and factories, and by providing them with agricultural and industrial machinery and other means of developing their own economies. This will not be done without the provision of capital, both private and governmental.
Mr. Paul Hoffman has estimated that at least £1,000 million a year during the next ten years, in addition to what has already bean invested, will be necessary to secure the target set by the programme, namely, that by the end of the decade the aggregate national income throughout the underdeveloped countries will have been increased by 5 per cent. per annum. That may not seem very much until it is appreciated that in countries like India and Pakistan and those of Africa the present annual income is extremely small. If

419
we can secure an increase of 5 per cent. per annum, in due course it will be possible to double the standard of living of these countries.
I do not know whether the £1,000 million will be available. If it is not, this programme will fail. This is not only a moral but an economic challenge. It is in our own interest that the programme should succeed and that the world should no longer be divided into haves and have-nots. I am reminded of what Abraham Lincoln said during the early stages of the American Civil War, that a nation could not endure half-slave and half-free. The world cannot endure when half its population lives in abundance and half in squalor, poverty, disease and misery such as characterise the people of these countries.
That is the challenge which faces us, not only our own people, but all the peoples of the world, irrespective of colour, creed or religion. The challenge was accepted by the 104 nations of the United Nations. We need deeds as well as words. I cannot believe that this is a challenge which we cannot expect to fulfil. In a world spending £45,000 million a year on armaments, I cannot believe that it is not possible for the nations to make their contribution to the £1,000 million a year needed over the next ten years.
I should like to quote what was said by the Secretary-General of the United Nations about the problem of world hunger and the depressed nations and the importance of this programme, the Development Decade. In Copenhagen, in May last year, U Thant said:
"Shall we be able to make this Decade of Development the achievement in human solidarity we hope it will be …? It is not enough for us in the United Nations to dedicate ourselves to the Decade of Development. We have to take with us the Governments to whom we are responsible and through them we have to reach out to the peoples …Our Decade of Development cannot ultimately succeed unless it is rooted in the wills and hearts of millions of citizens everywhere. It will not succeed unless it can win their sustained support. It will not succeed unless they see it as a great goal of human endeavour and one which they are prepared to make their own …"
I believe that this debate will help to make the people of our country realise that this is a goal which they can make their own.
4.43 p.m.
Mr. John Hall: I apologise to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) for not having been present for the beginning of his speech. It may be that, in consequence, I shall traverse some of the ground already covered and give some figures which the right hon. Gentleman has already quoted.
We have just heard a very moving speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson). There is no doubt that this campaign, the Freedom From Hunger Campaign, is one which appeals to the humanity of the people of the world. It calls forth the greatest charity—I use the word "charity" in its best sense—but, unfortunately, appeals to the charity of the human race often fall on very few ears.
When one is talking on a subject like this one is often accused of talking in platitudes. But what is a platitude but a truth that we are tired of hearing? We are constantly told of the hunger, poverty, misery and disease which inflict so many millions of people throughout the world, and after a time we get hardened to it; we get bored by repetition and begin to think that we are talking in platitudes because most of us have no personal experience of this problem. We have not actually seen the conditions about which eve are being told.
I want, therefore, not to appeal to the House on the ground of humanity entirely, but on the ground of enlightened self-interest. It has been calculated that the world population today is increasing at the rate of about 1·8 per cent. per annum. At present, that means that it is increasing by about 54 million people a year—more than the entire population of the United Kingdom. It means, too, that over the next forty years, at a progressive rate the population of the world will have gone up from about 3,000 million to 6,000 million.
The great danger that will face the world as a result of what is popularly described today as the "population explosion" will be to the peace of the world and increasing danger, too, to the forms of democratic government as we know them today.

421
A very interesting conference was held in the United States not very long ago, at which some of the outstanding scientists of the world were present, when this danger was emphasised—that problems would arise, for democratic forms of government as we understand them, from this increasing pressure of population. If we are to meet this problem—and we have not got very long; forty years, after all, is nothing—and if the danger is to increase intensely year by year, we must, I am certain, conscript all the available resources of the Western world.
One major problem is to produce enough food for the increasing population. Another problem is that of achieving some control of population growth, which is very difficult in some underdeveloped countries. There is no doubt that there are many ways of increasing food supplies. We have not yet done more than touch the fringe of the world's food resources—in the sea, for example. But to develop new kinds of food resources we want a great deal of money, technical "know-how" and technical resources.
As much as anything, the underdeveloped parts of the world require technical assistance from skilled men and women. We have not just to provide them with food that we obtain or produce ourselves and hand it over to them; we have, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to help to teach them to help themselves. We have to increase their own ability to maintain their own growing population and make a contribution to the world resources as a whole.
In the past, I have advanced what some people would describe as a rather insane idea; but it is not an unusual thing to hear insane ideas advanced in this House, so perhaps I am in good company. My idea is to try to mobilise the resources of technical skills in the developing Western countries and particularly in our own for the benefit of the underdeveloped countries.
I envisage, for example, a form of conscription for peace. We have conscription for war, or for the preparation for war, and I should like to see the youth of the nation brought into a service where they can receive training in technical skills which they may not possess
422
already and be employed around the world to help the underdeveloped countries which need that kind of skill.
This would have two major advantages. One is that it would give help to the underdeveloped countries which they really need, and the other is that it would give technical training to many young people who might not otherwise get it, which would he of great value to them after they have finished their period of service.
This idea has many problems and difficulties, but it emphasises the main point that I want to make, that if we rely merely upon voluntary effort, upon appeals to the instinct of charity and the good nature of the people of the world, we shall get a very limited response. Cases of this sort are duly supported by a fraction of the people, by a small minority with a strongly developed social conscience who come to the rescue, but this is not sufficient. We have to conscript—and I use that word deliberately—the world's resources of manpower, technical ability, and cash for the benefit of the world as a whole if we are to solve this problem.
I do not want to develop this any more, because there may be other hon. Members who may wish to speak on this topic. I end by emphasising the tremendous danger to the peace of the world if we do not do something quite drastic and revolutionary to meet the danger in the very near future. Time is not on our side. We shall face one of the greatest problems that the world has ever faced if we do not find a way of dealing with this tremendous growth in population and ensuring that its peoples have a reasonable opportunity of enjoying a moderate standard of living.
4.50 p.m.
Dr. Alan Thompson: My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) said that one of the objectives of his speech was to dramatise the facts, and he did this with the eloquence and humanity that we expect of him.
I should like to carry on one or two of the points made by my right hon. Friend. Never before in our history has there been a deeper ditch or a wider gap

423
between the wealthy people of the world and the poor, between those who lack nothing and those who have need of everything. It is ironical that an American professor, Prof. Galbraith, should write a book on the economics of affluence, a book, in effect, on the economics of satiation and the problems of an economy which is trying to persuade people with two cars to have three and people with two refrigerators to have another one. It is ironic that a person should write this sort of book in a world in which Mr. Norris Dodds, the Director-General on the F.A.O., on his world travels in Asia as few years ago, quoted the example of a family who had one linen sheet which was used not only for bedding but for clothing. When one member of the family went to town dressed in the linen sheet the rest of the family crouched naked in their hut waiting for his return—this side by side with the economists of the West discussing the problems of satiation.
Before the war 38 per cent. of the world's population did not have enough to eat. After ail our advances, this figure has risen to 59·5 per cent., and yet our world stocks are rising. In a recent year the North American output of cereals and other foodstuffs rose by 12 per cent. The paradox is that at a time when the starvation level, measured by arbitrary medical standards, is rising, world stocks of food are rising. There are various things that we can do about this. One was touched on by my right hon. Friend—give people a fair price for their products and get world trade moving between industrial countries and the primary trade countries.
I often think that economists have become obsessed, as we did over the Common Market negotiations, with the pattern of trade rather than the process of trade. If the process of world trade is liberalised, I think that the pattern to some extent takes care of itself. I think that economists have become too obsessed with static examples of patterns of trade instead of looking at international export-import organisations to facilitate the processes of world trade.
Another thing that we must do is to help people to help themselves. We can do this in a variety of ways, which I shall touch on in a moment.
The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) gave an estimate of the rise
424
in population. It will be 6,000 million by the end of the century. Economists have estimated that every million added to the world's population calls for an addition to the world's food supplies of 13 million tons of cereals and 14 million tons of animal products, by which I mean meat, milk, eggs and the like. Every year about 100 million children are born and about 51 million die. In other words, each year our population increases by about 48 million. A population increase equal to the size of France is added to the world virtually every year. When we break down the figures into regions we see that the rate of growth of population in Europe, for instance, with all its tremendous technological and cultural achievements, is 0·7 per cent. At the other extreme, the rate of population growth in the Ivory Coast is 5·3 per cent.
I think that my right hon. Friend used the term "developing countries". This is a better phrase than underdeveloped countries. The problem of these developing countries is that they have a medieval birth rate associated with a modern death rate, and this is a very serious problem. Some countries, such as China, are tackling their problems efficiently though rather ruthlessly. The Chinese now have a population of 660 million, and they estimate to double that—to about 1,280 million—by the end of the century. In other words, by that time a quarter of humanity will be Chinese. The Chinese are tackling the problem in various ways. They are doing it by directing migration to the more sparsely inhabited lands of the north and west territories, and also by a good deal of ruthless control and hard work. By these methods they are reducing the incidence of famine and plagues in a spectacular fashion, but the more tempting areas of colonisation lie beyond the existing frontiers of China, which brings me back to the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson), who related the diplomatic and military problems to our economic problems.
We have seen China casting covetous eyes on Tibet and Nepal. Tomorrow she may be interested in Mongolia and those parts of Manchuria under Russian control. Siberia has only eighteen people per square mile, compared with the

425
densely populated areas of China. To remove the threat of hunger in the world is to lessen the diplomatic and military tensions that arise. What we need for these backward territories is more agricultural production, which I think in turn depends on giving a greater aptitude to the farmers and workers in those countries to work harder and harder; but here we come to a vicious circle. The people in many parts of these countries are afflicted by diseases like malaria. They want to sit or sleep, and their energy is sapped. Children go to school on a nonexistent breakfast and fall asleep in front of their teachers. Their intellectual processes are slowed down. Their physical processes are slowed down by a lack of food, and they do not produce very much.
These developing countries must have the tools. In the world of electronics and automation, in a world in which we are sending people to the moon and developing nuclear power beyond our wildest dreams, most of the people who cultivate land in India do not have even a scythe. If they had their task would be made infinitely easier. We therefore have to equip these people, encourage the rearrangement of fanning methods and land reform, and provide facilities for health and education.
One of the things that we have to get across to the developing countries—and we are partly to blame—is that they must not always become obsessed with the spectacular highly industrialised schemes. There is no reason why projects for fertilising deserts should be held back for more spectacular ventures. These countries look to Britain and the West and see that in our country industrialisation is accompanied by higher living standards, but I think that this can be a dangerous obsession. One reason why we do not provide a good example is that these developing countries see that industrialisation is a good basis for military power. Some of those countries want to be in on the arms race. We cannot stop progress in electronics, automation and industrialisation, but we can spread information about the need for meeting man's essential needs—food, clothing, housing, health, and so on—in those parts of the world.
One of the reasons for morbidity and mortality in a large part of the world is something that scientists located and
426
diagnosed long ago—a deficiency of protein. We have carried out a tremendous amount of research into this problem. It is not a lack of knowledge that holds these people back. For example, there has been our research into Vitamin A, which is found in oils and mineral fats, which prevents blindness. In Indonesia, a recent pilot project showed that 83 per cent. of the children between the ages of one and six years old had eye diseases which, unless checked, would in adult life cause lesions of the cornea and consequent blindness which would then be irreversible. This could be cured if these people could have food containing Vitamin A or the vitamin itself.
Then there is the lack of Vitamin B.1, which causes beri-beri. It has been shown that if this is present in food, or if it is given in vitamin form, it can cure this disease. The same thing applies in the case of Vitamin C, or ascorbic acid, which prevents scurvy, and Vitamin D, which is vital for proper bone formation. There is a lack of this in the diets of people over a large proportion of the globe. All these vitamins are present in certain high-quality foods, such as meat, milk and cheese, but these foods are very scarce in some continents and unknown in some countries.
Scientists have estimated that a satisfactory diet is provided by about 3,000 calories a day. If there is less than 2,500 there is under-nourishment. Less than 2,000 calories means acute shortage—and most of the areas that we are discussing come into that category—less than 1,500 indicates famine, and a diet of less than 1,000 calories, if prolonged, causes death to ensue. The Nazis, in their concentration camps, disposed of their victims by setting a ceiling of 1,000 calories. This was a highly successful way of massacring the inhabitants of those camps.
Here again, we have to spread information about the kind of crops that yield these calories. Historical accidents in different parts of the world, and accidents of soil and climate, in geography, have had much to do with the health of the people living in these areas. If we think in terms of the average calory yield, per million to the acre, we find that a sugar crop produces 10·1; bananas, 5·6; potatoes, 4·7; rice, 2·7; wheat, 2·1; milk, 0·7, and meat, 0·16. These are calory contents. There are other elements in

427
our diet, but these figures provide a good guide, especially in relation to the backward countries.
In Basutoland, 41 per cent. of the people—or nearly half—have goitre. This could be cured by something which is well known to medical science—iodised salt. If it could be given in the diet the lives of these people would be utterly transformed, in terms of health and intellectual activities, and their whole way of life. Malnutrition affects everything—education, production, and the whole range of human activities.
We cannot tackle the overall problem by providing cows' milk. If we could supply the whole of Africa with cows' milk it would cure many of that continent's problems, including ultimately even its aggressive diplomatic problems. What we can do is to use vegetable oils from peanuts or soya beans, which, if not as good as milk, show very good results, which the Africans can prepare for themselves.
Sometimes problems arise because of a nation's concern with cultural and religious matters. India is a good example. She has the greatest number of cattle in the world—190 million. There is one cow for every two Indians. But because slaughter is forbidden by their religion, these cattle are used in the worst possible way—to provide energy, by pulling carts and drawing water. Their droppings are used to provide fuel or for plastering the interiors of houses and floors, Even in respect of the one important use to which Indian cattle are put, namely, the yielding of milk, production is very poor because of the lack of crossbreeding. An Indian cow produces 40 gallons as compared with a Dutch cow's 790 gallons.
Indians are so averse to the taking of life that even in the recent campaign of the Indian Government to kill rats, which were spreading disease, it frequently happened that villagers would capture the rats in their village, put them into sacks, and then, because their religion forbade them kill the rats, steal furtively along to the next village, taking the rats with them and deposit them on their neighbours. These cultural and religious problems can be overcome only by massive programmes of re-education.
We have several aims before us, as outlined in my right hon. Friend's opening
428
speech. Our short-term aim is the temporary relief of under-nourishment. Even that will enable some people to live who might otherwise die. But our longer-term aims are more important—the elimination of hunger and the spread throughout the world of the food surpluses which exist in some countries.
How can we achieve these aims? How can we eliminate hunger? We can do so by scientific methods—improved farming techniques, cross-breeding, the use of better animal and vegetable strains, soil analysis, treatment with natural and artificial manures, irrigation and drainage. All these things lie in the realm of applied science. There are also antibiotics, and the use of insecticides against pests. Our horizons become wider every day—wider than they have ever been before. Revolutionary and hopeful discoveries connected with food production are being made every day. But the important thing about applied science is that it should be applied, and our efforts should be directed to making sure that its benefits are known and applied throughout the world.
But it is not only the benefits of science which should be spread; we also need to spread the benefits of education, by the teaching and guidance of backward rural communities. The Republic of Ghana has carried out something that it calls "mass education assistance". It recruits many dedicated young men in their early twenties who have had a primary education—not men with Ph.D.s or advanced scientific and technical knowledge; those people cannot be spared—but men with a sense of mission—who do nine months' training in rural studies, and are then sent to villages where organised meetings and discussions are held. They get the farmers and workers together and train them. In a way, they provide a liaison between farmers and peasants and the specialist Government departments to whom they apply for help in engineering and scientific agricultural methods. Here the matching of mass information techniques to the knowledge of science and agriculture is having a very useful effect.
There is one other point, which is really an example of what can be done, given the will. Suggestions have been made that an inland sea could be created in the Sahara. That may sound fantastic, and it is true that to create such an

429
inland sea would require the moving of five times as much earth as de Lesseps moved when he built the Suez Canal. But he did not have the benefit of the thermo-nuclear explosion. He had only shovels at his disposal. If our nuclear knowledge could be applied to this positive purpose instead of to the silly explosions which General de Gaulle carried out in pursuit of empty national prestige in the Sahara, it would be much more useful to the population of the Middle East.
If we did this in the Sahara oceangoing vessels could sail right into the middle of the present desert, bringing world trade to the area. We could establish a fishing industry which would provide some of the vitamins, particularly Vitamin A, which I mentioned earlier, and others, to this part of the world which is desperately starved of them, and, of course, increase the fertility of the surrounding area. I suggest that a project of this kind could do far more to stabilise the Middle East diplomatically and militarily than any of the purely defensive or military arrangements which we might make.
I hope I have said enough to convince hon. Members that, although the problem is a complex one, nevertheless we have at our finger tips as no generation before has had a tremendous array of knowledge and expertise. If we can marry that knowledge, as I believe we can, to good will and energy, then I am sure the proposals which my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South outlined will be nearer fruition.
5.11 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): I hope it may be for the convenience of the House if I intervene now. I am certainly very grateful to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) for drawing the attention to the plight of the hungry and ill-nourished peoples of the world. I do not dispute the fact that an awful lot of people in the world are badly fed and in bad conditions at the present time.
I hope during the course of my speech to demonstrate that the Government are doing their fair share—indeed, are taking a leading part—in meeting this challenge and in fighting the hunger which exists
430
throughout a large part of the world. Of course, we always want to do more, but we are bound by the limitations of our resources. Even so, I am convinced that we are doing the most we can in the present circumstances.
The Freedom From Hunger Campaign, which has been going on for two and a half years in this country, is a voluntary campaign, and its national committee is under the chairmanship of my noble Friend Earl De La Warr. I congratulate that committee on the tremendous work it is doing in bringing to the attention of our fellow countrymen this work and the need for it. There are now over fifty countries with national committees of this kind, and our country was one of the first in the field. We have reached the halfway stage.
One of the most important matters with which the national committee has dealt to date, and which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Derby, South, is that of making the people of this country aware of the need of people in other parts of the world for food. To this end the funds collected are being used to increase the production of food in the developing countries and to raise the purchasing power of the large rural population in these countries.
One of the first tasks of the national committee was to seek out worth-while projects in the developing countries, particularly in Africa and Asia. So far about 300 projects have been sent in, each with the approval of the developing country concerned. The projects are scrutinised by an expert committee, which is part of the national committee, and 127 of them have been approved up to date costing around £4 million. The list is growing all the time, both in the number of projects sent in and the number approved. But, of course, the main object, as has been mentioned already in the debate, is to make it possible for the people of the developing countries to help themselves. This is why our national committee has decided that a high proportion of the schemes which it is sponsoring should be concerned with agricultural and other forms of training.
A number of other schemes, such as those for rural water supplies and cooperative societies, or for research into

431
pests and diseases, are aimed at strengthening the developing country's economy rather than directly at food production. I think that they will have a lasting impact on those countries after the actual campaign finishes its course when the five-year period is up.
The right hon. Member for Derby, South mentioned one project in Swaziland where an agricultural college and a short course centre are being financed by this country, partly by the Luton and Leek branch committees of the national committee, costing upwards of £250,000. There are some larger schemes and some much smaller schemes going down to £1,000 or less. The important thing is the way in which the public have been made aware through television, Press and radio of the need for this work and of the work which the campaign committee is doing. Indeed, I believe that there are some 132 hon. Members of this House, of which I am one, who have made a contribution of one hour of their pay. I sincerely hope and believe, and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Derby, South does too, that this will continue.
I want to assure the House that the Government are doing their full share in meeting this challenge. We have contributed £55,000 to the campaign funds. As the right hon. Member for Derby, South said, £30,000 of this was given to the national committee at the outset of the campaign to help it set up its administrative machine. At the same time, £20,000 was given to F.A.O. headquarters in Rome towards its administrative costs in organising this world-wide campaign. That was a direct contribution for this specific purpose. The further £5,000 which was given this year, and which is the subject of this Supplementary Estimate, was an additional donation in response to an urgent appeal from the United Kingdom national committee to help it with a specific difficulty. Inevitably, the costs of the campaign were heavy at the outset and the committee found that the original £30,000 was not quite sufficient to see it through its initial operations; but I understand that in the future sufficient funds will be available from other sources.
This is essentially a voluntary effort. Indeed, we have only to cast our minds back to the enormous amount of money raised through the World Refugee Fund,
432
which was a purely voluntary organisation, to realise what sources can be tapped in this field. We have been extremely glad to give this extra interim help, and I understand that the Committee has now made permanent arrangements for meeting its administrative costs.
Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I understand that the Government have given £35,000 to our Freedom From Hunger Campaign and £20,000 to F.A.O. to help it to start its organisation because there was no money in the kitty when it was begun.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I think the point is that the £55,000 has all gone to the Freedom From Hunger Campaign whether it has gone in this country or to Rome, or wherever else. As long as it is devoted to this purpose, I think I am justified in saying that it is being given to the campaign.
The contribution of £20,000 to F.A.O. headquarters was for 1960–61, when there was no provision in F.A.O.'s regular budget for the headquarters costs of the campaign. I should like to make it clear that for the two years 1962 and 1963 we are giving something above 10 per cent. of the 800,000 dollars provided for these costs in the F.A.O. regular budget—10 per cent., or about 80,000 dollars, for this specific purpose.
But, as has been mentioned, F.A.O. is only one of the specialised agencies of the United Nations. Not only is it important in its own right—with its declared objective of increasing food production, improving nutritional standards and raising the living standards of the rural population of less-developed countries—but it does a tremendous amount of work as executing agency for the United Nations Special Fund and the Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance.
The many forms of aid which this country provides are directed towards the achievement of self-sustaining economic growth in the less developed countries. We are usually the largest contributor, after the United States, to the aid programmes of the United Nations and to the financing of its specialised agencies. In 1963 we shall be paying out about £485,000 as our contribution to the running of F.A.O.; nearly £2¼ million to the United Nations Special

433
Fund and over £1¼ million to the expanded programme of technical assistance.
I think the House will agree that in this sphere alone that is a considerable amount of money to be expended for these purposes. The most important of these programmes are the expanded programme of technical assistance and the Special Fund. They are designed to fulfil the same purpose, to alleviate hunger and want in the developing countries and to bring their economies nearer to the standards enjoyed in the highly sophisticated countries of the West. Our contribution to this Fund has been increased this year by 25 per cent. I hope that other countries will follow the lead that we have given. The Special Fund finances much larger projects than those about which we have been talking. An example is the Near East Animal Health Institute, which has units in the Sudan, Lebanon, and various other places in the Middle East. The project will last for five years and involve a total expenditure of about 5 million dollars.
We give about £3 million a year to the various United Nations relief organisations, including our contribution to the world food programme. In addition, we make a contribution to national disaster funds. Last year, for example, we gave £20,000 in respect of the earthquake in Iran; £15,000 after the Pakistan floods; £10,000 in respect of the Hong Kong typhoon and £10,000 for insecticides following the locust disaster in Iran.
The World Food Programme has been set up jointly by the United Nations and F.A.O. as an experiment in giving food aid multilaterally. It is to run for three years, and it aims to provide food aid to a total value of approximately 100 million dollars. Contributions to the programme are voluntary and may be pledged by countries in the form of appropriate commodities, acceptable services, or cash. Our contribution of 5 million dollars was half in services and half in foodstuffs.
Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Five million dollars is 5 per cent. of the 100 million dollars to be raised for the World Food Fund. We are one of the advanced countries which are to help the developing countries. That amount of 5 per cent. is far below our normal quota of the
434
U.N. budget. The hon. Gentleman is now repeating what the Government always say—that we are second, that we are very generous. We are the second richest country in the world and we make a contribution for our own people and for the 43 million people in other parts of the world whom we still rule. What the hon. Gentleman is now saying has convinced me of something which I hesitated to say in my original speech, namely, that the alibi of the Government for doing nothing more in support of our Freedom From Hunger Campaign is that British private generosity is making a contribution.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: That is a most unjust charge. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that our contribution to the developing countries is very great in proportion to our wealth and resources. The contributions which I have listed are not the only ones. There are other forms of contribution by this country, and I think that in the circumstances 5 million dollars, given half in the form of services and half in foodstuffs, is generous at this stage.
Of course, we all want to give as much as we can to see that hunger and starvation is conquered throughout the world. But it is a continuing problem, and we must keep an eye on our resources and our ability to contribute. The main point is that there are many other spheres in which the Government spend a great deal of money in helping people in the developing countries and I will refer to them briefly.
Probably the greatest contribution which we make to this problem is in the form of helping those countries which lack the resources to solve their problems themselves. With other countries of the highly sophisticated West we give aid in the form of grants, loans, technical assistance and aid in kind, and by facilitating trade with the less developed countries. We are one of the most generous contributors in these efforts, and an important aspect of our aid programme is the provision of facilities for education and training, on which we spend over £30 million annually.
We provide assistance to developing countries, with the full co-operation of their Governments, aimed at educating their men and women and developing

435
their natural resources, raising their standards of living and building up their institutions and services. This programme includes bringing people to this country from overseas for education and training, and supplying qualified and experienced men and women to teach, help and work overseas.
The Department of Technical Cooperation was established in July, 1961, to co-ordinate, promote and carry out arrangements for furnishing aid to overseas countries with which we have technical assistance arrangements. Loans at low rates of interest with long terms for repayment, and grants, play an extremely important rôle in raising the standard of living of the less fortunate countries. There are, of course, other ways in addition to cash contributions by which we can help.
Mr. A. Henderson: Does the hon. Gentleman propose to say anything about the programme for the Development Decade?
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: In fact I am referring to the Development Decade all the time. The Freedom From Hunger Campaign is part of it. The 100 million dollar fund is part of it, and our aid to overseas developing countries is part. Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that I have been talking about that the whole time, as he did during his interesting intervention.
The total economic and technical assistance to less developed countries from this country and from Government funds was approximately doubled between 1957–58 and 1961–62 from £81 million to £161 million. In addition, there is a substantial flow of private funds from this country to the less developed countries. While grants and loans can help, the real need of the developing countries is for increased opportunities for their exports, as was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman and others. To this end we have been playing an active part in the work of a special committee set up under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to consider measures for the maintenance and expansion of the export earnings of the less developed countries. We have a good record in providing the less
436
developed countries with increased opportunities for trade. This comes into the same category.
In particular, we have supported the efforts made in international fora to secure the elimination of quantitative restrictions affecting the exports of less developed countries. We have played a full part in international commodity agreements designed to avoid excessive price fluctuations, and in this sphere we have been working with other countries and taken a full part in the agreements on sugar, tin, coffee and cocoa. It is the aim of the Government to work towards world commodity price agreements and the stabilisation of raw materials upon which the developing countries depend for their trade. As the House will realise, this takes time and it is not an easy objective to achieve.
Where there are surpluses in the West, and in the industrial countries, there is the problem of getting these surpluses to the developing countries. It is here that the difficulties arise. The United States has had a great deal of experience in administering aid of this kind and has learned about the difficulties and limitations. With permission, I should like to quote what Mr. Orville Freeman, the United States Secretary for Agriculture, said to the Ministers of Agriculture of O.E.C.D. countries last November:
"We have learned much of the difficulties and the complexities, the hazards and the costs, the very real limitations of such programmes. Precautions must be taken to prevent a disruption of normal commerce or a deterrent effect on local agricultural development. Costs of effective distribution can be higher than the cost of food itself. Many countries lack both the physical facilities and the administrative experience to receive, handle, and distribute food aid."
This illustrates some of the difficulties which face us in trying to cope with this problem.
I do not want to finish my speech with the figures and quotations I have given the House. I think the most important element of all is the human element, what we can ourselves do and what we are doing on the human side to solve this problem of helping our brothers overseas in developing countries. In past generations we built up our place in history as a country by our young people going overseas, making their fortunes, and meeting the challenge of the times, which

437
in those days was very great. We face the same sort of challenge today. Our young people have the same sense of adventure. They will benefit from it, and we as a country will benefit.
Our young people, as trained personnel and graduates, are going overseas now in hundreds and in thousands. We are helping to train public servants, supplying and training teachers, supplying doctors and nurses. We are supplying technicians of various kinds and engineers, who are going to these developing countries to help them to go ahead. Altogether there are more than 60,000 students from overseas, mostly from the developing countries, at our universities and technical colleges studying our skills and we are passing on our knowledge to them. In addition, we are giving support to 15,000 men and women serving the Governments of dependent and independent countries of the Commonwealth. Voluntary Service Overseas is sending school-leavers and graduates abroad in increasing numbers year by year.
Apart from the contributions the Government are making to help the developing countries which I have outlined very briefly, we are helping in the technical field. It is up to our young people to meet the challenges with which those developing countries face us, to go out as our forefathers did in years gone by, not to conquer those countries, but to bring them up to the same standard of living, of prosperity and sophistication which we enjoy in this country.
Mr. Elwyn Jones: Is it not the case that there are far more applicants among young men and women for these opportunities than there are opportunities for young men and women? Is there not room for even greater contributions by the Government to agencies such as International Voluntary Service to increase the availability of these openings for young people?
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: This voluntary service is increasing year by year, I am glad to say, but I hope there will not ever be a situation in which we shall lack volunteers for it. We want the highest quality people to go out to help these countries. I am confident that they will not be lacking, as indeed they are not now. The hon. and learned Member made a good point there.
438
The Government make a contribution, not only in this field, but over the whole field of financial aid and technical assistance. In voluntary assistance, also, we in this country should play our part in the battle against hunger, famine and malnutrition.
5.35 p.m.
Mr. A. E. Oram: It is a good thing that the House has this opportunity of discussing world hunger in the middle of Freedom From Hunger Week. One hopes that this debate, so far as it receives attention in the country, will call attention to the fact that "This is the week this is". I hope that at least a proportion of the millions who see the television programme on Saturday nights—among whom I count myself as an enthusiastic viewer—will regard this week as one of unusual importance because of the campaign taking place as part of an intensification of the longer-term campaign against world hunger. I hope that, as the Minister has said, now 130 hon. Members have joined in the scheme by giving up an hour of pay, that will set an example to others, not only outside but inside this House.
I hope that the Minister will not take it amiss when I say that I thought his speech was somewhat complacent. It was a recital, which we have heard before in this House, of rather minimal figures in face of a problem of immense importance. I had certainly heard much of his speech before, not from him but from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who was speaking for the Government in the debate at Geneva on the Development Decade. I then felt, as I am sure delegates from developing countries felt, that a recital of these figures, which are quite inadequate in face of the size of the problem, is not the best way to arouse enthusiasm among the population of this country nor to arouse in the developing countries a sense that the industrialised countries are doing all that they should.
When I heard the Minister mention figures of £30,000, £20,000, £5,000 and even £3 million, or 5 million dollars, in relation to other projects, I considered that if he added them all together the total would not be very impressive compared either with national incomes or

439
with the size of the problem we are discussing or—and this was the contrast in my mind when he was speaking—with the Service Estimates which we were debating last week and on Monday this week. Those are the contrasts which a speech of such complacency brought out.
The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), in a very welcome speech, almost apologised for one of his suggestions as being "insane". The idea of what I think he called "conscription for peace" was unorthodox only because of the insane standards which orthodoxy applies in these matters. I often think that arithmetic becomes a different technique when we are talking about armaments from when we are talking about economic matters and particularly the welfare of the people of developing countries.
This Freedom From Hunger Campaign is a massive exercise in aid all over the world. It deserves the utmost support from all Governments and all peoples. I wish that the Government had shown rather more enthusiasm in welcoming this week. I shall give one example. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) mentioned it, although I think he got his facts a little out of date. That is the question of the stamp which is to be issued.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins rose—
Mr. Oram: I am going to correct my right hon. Friend, so the Minister need not correct me.
I am glad to say that a stamp is to be issued in this country. I believe it is to come out tomorrow, but in the first instance the Government decided not to issue the stamp. Only when a Question was asked and extra pressure was put on the Government could they be persuaded to change their mind.
Mr. P. Noel-Baker: My hon. Friend's Question gave me the information that the Government refused and subsequently gave way.
Mr. Oram: The Government refused when my first Question was asked, but when the second Question was asked, I am glad to say there was a more generous response.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Perhaps I may be allowed to clear up a little inaccuracy.
440
There are two stamps to be issued tomorrow, one for 2½d. and another for 1s. 3d. They will be issued midway during the week, which is an important time for them to be issued.
Mr. Oram: My main point is that in this, as in many other matters connected with world hunger, the Government drag their feet.
I want to point out the limitations of aid from Western countries in tackling world poverty. I am all for that aid—I hope that I have indicated that I think that should be very much greater—but however generous may be the grants in aid from developing countries, the generosity can be the opposite if seen in a context of a decline in the prices of the foodstuffs and raw materials that the developing countries seek to sell on the world market.
I have accused the Minister of making a complacent speech. An that he described in terms of the aid that has come from the West has been wiped out by the decline in prices of the commodities which the developing countries seek to sell The balance of advantage has, therefore, been with the West, not with the developing countries. That gap has been widening rather than narrowing, and the aid we have given has only stopped the gap from widening a little more.
That is why I say that the Government's attitude in these matters is complacent. Time after time they trot out this familiar list of the things they do, but what they do is really nothing in terms of the real problem, which is that because we in the West are getting advantages on the world commodity markets the people in the developing countries are getting less. Over the last decade, the terms of trade have gone entirely in our favour, and entirely against the interests of the developing countries.
That is why, though aid is important, trade is so much more important. That is why the commodity schemes to which the Minister referred are of great urgency. He has claimed that the Government have done something about coffee, tin and sugar—yes, there are these schemes, but I suggest that here again this problem of declining commodity prices has not been tackled with

441
nearly the sense of urgency with which it should be tackled. The Minister says that these things take time. That is true, but there is a danger of using talk about commodity schemes as an excuse to do nothing about them.
I remember that the big idea emerging from the Ottawa Commonwealth Conference in, I think, 1958, was commodity schemes. I remember that when we were negotiating for British entry into Europe, and there was a Commonwealth problem, it was said, "Ah, but commodity schemes will take care of that problem." When it was found that we could not get into Europe and had to think of an alternative, the Prime Minister said, "Oh, we will get commodity schemes." So whether we are in Europe or out of it, or whatever the time may be, there is much talk about these things and all too little action.
I should like the Government to think not only in terms of these internationally-arranged commodity prices—which I consider to be the most effective long-term safeguards for the welfare of the people in the developing countries—but also in terms of schemes which this country can undertake entirely on its own. I mention the commodity plan put forward by Mr. St. Clare Grondona, a most eminent economist, who has developed a most important scheme which this country could adopt on its own. I have heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer refer to that scheme as being most interesting and helpful—here again, sympathetic noises, but never any action.
I therefore urge that the Government, in approaching this question—the most important question of our generation—should think in terms, not only of aid but of fair trade for the developing countries; above all, not only in terms of complacent talk, but in terms of getting on with something as soon as we can.
5.45 p.m.
Sir John Barlow: I confess that at the beginning of this debate I had not intended to speak, but as so many of the speeches are so near my heart I feel impelled to do so. I have told the House before of my interests in tropical agriculture in different parts of the world, and for that reason this debate particularly
442
appeals to me, because we find that so much of the poverty of the world exists in the tropical agricultural areas. My family was one of pioneers of the rubber planting industry in Malaya, and I have been interested in the tea, coconut, palm oil and copra industries.
Those who have followed the development of Malaya over the last fifty years will realise what a wonderful job the Colonial Office and the private sector of development have done there. We have now passed to the people there a rich, fine country, and they have carried on with their freedom and made a greater success of it than probably any other of the emergent territories. I am particularly pleased to follow the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) because I had the opportunity of travelling with him in the wilds of Borneo about four years ago, and I can see that he has remembered many of the lessons he then learned. Unfortunately, our travels were cut short. The General Election of 1959 was suddenly announced, and we both had to fly home hurriedly to secure our re-election.
This debate has very largely revolved around what the Government are doing, and the Parliamentary Secretary has shown that the Government have for many years done a great deal of useful work in the development of these Commonwealth countries and to help the underfed and the hungry. I also appreciate the speech of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker). Some of us who have known him for at least 45 years know the tremendous work he has done during that time on this and similar lines, and I was delighted to hear him.
I want to emphasise more particularly what has been done, and what can be done, in the private sector. The development of tropical estates producing rubber, tea, copra, and other things, has done a tremendous amount to help the local population. We have made profit out of it at times, and, at other times, incurred great loss—I agree with the hon. Member for East Ham, South there, but I shall deal with prices later. In prewar days, most well-run estates had a relatively far higher standard of living than existed in this country. I do not speak in terms of absolute income, but the idea of the Welfare State was far better developed on many properties in

443
Malaya, India and Ceylon in the 'twenties and 'thirties than in this country. All well-run estates at that time had their own schools, hospitals, crèches, maternity benefits and so on—things which were quite unknown then in this country. An immense amount of British capital has been spent on these developments for the mutual benefit of all concerned.
When I say that it probably costs £150 an acre to plant a rubber estate and about £300 an acre to plant a tea estate, the tremendous amount of wealth in these countries will be appreciated. That money is largely spent on labour. The people receive the benefit of good wages and good conditions, but perhaps the greatest benefit they receive is the example set of how to run agriculture efficiently. Before the development of these estates the budding of rubber trees on clonel seed was quite unknown. Now that these great European estates have been developed, the benefit has been passed on to local farmers in different countries. This has been a wonderful source of education and of wealth to these people.
One cannot discuss this subject without mentioning also the excellent work of the Colonial Development Corporation which was started after the war. In its early days the Corporation made many mistakes, just as any similar corporation would make mistakes. It had to experiment by trial and error. It found what it could do successfully and it had many failures as well as great successes. My one and only criticism of that Corporation, in view of the excellent work that it did, was that it did not differentiate between commercial work to make money and benevolent work to improve the country and the conditions of the people. When one tries to mix the two, one usually does not make a great success of either. Both are necessary, but it is best to keep them apart and to have different peoples and organisations developing them.
Mr. E. Fernyhough (Jarrow): How does the hon. Member square that with the argument at the beginning of his speech when he spoke of what the rubber and tea planters had done? They mixed desirable commercial projects with desirable social projects.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Perhaps I should intervene for a moment to remind the House that we are discussing a Supplementary Estimate and the debate should be concentrated on the Freedom From Hunger Campaign. I do not know that the Colonial Development Corporation comes into that directly, although an incidental reference to it is fair enough.
Sir J. Barlow: I hope that my reference has been quite sufficient to prove my point.
The hon. Member for East Ham, South referred to the difficulty about prices. Many of these tropical countries have developed two or three commodities, such as rubber, tin and cocoa, from which they have specially benefited and which they can produce very efficiently. This has meant that the whole of the economy of these countries has relied on two or three very speculative commodities in which there have been violent fluctuations of prices. It is quite wrong to expect the economy of a whole nation to rest entirely on two or three speculative kinds of produce, and for that reason most of these countries have tried to develop small local industries.
In many cases we have provided a large amount of capital for this purpose, although we know that in world markets these schemes are quite uneconomic and could never produce efficiently. For this reason, it would be of great financial benefit to us and to these countries if a scheme of stabilisation of prices were developed. It would mean much greater efficiency for both the producer and the user. I do not think that such a scheme is impossible. It has been tried, successfully in some cases. It has failed in others, but it is important that we should go much further with this idea than we have gone up to the present.
A great deal of the money which has gone overseas has been used very wastefully. We have helped many of these small emerging countries in the past and we can help them in the future, but in many cases they are not making it easy for us to help them now. It is essential when using modern machinery and techniques to have a certain limited amount of European supervision. This we now find increasingly difficult to maintain. It would be to the greater interest of these countries and of ourselves if they

445
recognised this fact and allowed more of our enterprising young men to go out and help develop the countries as young men have done in the past.
When these developments are successful there is in every case a substantial revenue from Income Tax and, in many instances, from export duty, and the countries concerned benefit greatly. Revenue is raised from taxation for the development of education and of agriculture and for the large-scale employment of labour.
These are the lines along which we can help the world, and the Commonwealth in particular, far more than by the collection of small funds for a World Hunger Week or anything of that kind, This is a great world problem. Although having a week to help the hungry draws attention to the need to do something to help these people, it does not begin to solve the real problem.
5.57 p.m.
Mr. R. E. Prentice: Towards the end of the very powerful speech with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) opened the debate, he spoke about the limitations of the human imagination in being able to comprehend what world hunger means. He drew attention to these limitations in speaking in terms of thousands of millions of people or in terms of calories and of the difficulty of finding a yardstick by which to measure the scope of this subject.
I have referred before in the House, and make no apology for referring again, to the yardstick which I find useful in measuring this problem in real terms. I have a daughter of whom I am very proud. She is now 11½ years old. I calculate that since she was born about 1,000 million other children have been born, and I am sure that, generally, their parents were or are as fond of them as my wife and I are fond of our daughter. About 150 million of these children are already dead. Most of them have died unnecessarily because of hunger or disease associated with inadequate diets.
Of the rest, between one-half and two-thirds face a life in which they are constantly threatened with that kind of disease; a life in which they will never have an adequate diet and an existence in which their average expectation of life
446
may be about thirty-five years. It is against that background that we are discussing this Estimate and the purpose which it is meant to fulfil.
The Freedom From Hunger Campaign is a wonderful thing, and we should all support it in every way that we can. I believe that we can be encouraged by the fact that throughout the country hundreds of local committees have been established and thousands of people are not merely giving money, but are working to support the campaign. Politicians in general, and Conservative politicians, in particular, have been inclined to underestimate the latent idealism of the British people in matters of this kind. There is an idealism which has been tapped by this campaign, and it is a movement which can grow.
Television may have had quite an impact here. One of the incidental benefits of television is that it has brought the outside world into people's drawing roms. When people see hungry children, with swollen bellies, they realise what hunger means. When they saw the conditions which existed in the Congo in the early stages of the crisis, people were anxious and willing to give money. When people saw the effects of the earthquake in Iran last year, they crowded outside the Red Cross headquarters in London to see what they could give and what they could do to help in the disaster.
People are responding to the Freedom From Hunger Campaign, which is the main subject of our debate. But I state very strongly—and here I agree with the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow)—that a campaign of this kind will be only of limited benefit unless it is a catalyst for something much bigger. The whole purpose of the Freedom From Hunger Campaign Committee is to capture the imagination of people so that the country can embark on permanent schemes which will have a long-term impact on the problem. Otherwise, the projects which are being sponsored by various groups throughout the country, useful as they will be, will only be scratching the surface of the enormous human problem with which we are concerned.
This long-term action has got to be by Government and by voluntary action, and it has got to be undertaken in this country and in all the other richer countries.

447
I reject completely the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's view that what we are doing is satisfactory in relation to our resources. What we are doing at the moment does not measure up to the requirements. In fact, our Government and the Governments of the other richer countries in the West, and in the Communist world as well, have a duty to stop thinking in terms of what they imagine they can afford and to start thinking in terms of what the situation demands.
We are discussing this problem against the background of the United Nations Development Decade, which has been referred to by many other speakers. During the 1950s the average national income of the underdeveloped countries went up 3 per cent. a year. The population went up by an average of 2 per cent. a year. Income per head on average went up by 1 per cent. a year. That is an average in which we are generalising about something like 2,000 million people. In many cases their living standards went down and have been doing so for a long time.
The objective of the Decade is that by 1970 we should have an average rise in the national incomes of these countries of 5 per cent. a year—by no means an impossible objective. It is something that we can achieve and it is an objective for which the British Government and every other Government voted at the United Nations. But none of the Governments concerned has measured up to the real challenge that has been presented since they recorded that vote.
Let me take one of the figures to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred, relating to the contribution which we are making to the Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance and the Special Fund. He said that we had increased that contribution by 25 per cent. in the current year. But when we voted for the Development Decade resolution we went on to vote, in the same session of the General Assembly, for a consequential resolution which called on us and all the countries concerned to increase our contributions to the Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance and the Special Fund by 50 per cent. in 1962 and by further amounts in 1963 and the succeeding years.
In fact, we were content in 1962 to keep our contribution to the same figure as
448
it had been for some years previously, and then only to increase it by 25 per cent. this year. We are not the only defaulters. I am not suggesting that we have a worse record than other countries. The countries in the richer parts of the world have in general failed to meet the challenge, and they have to meet it in a much bigger way.
There are overwhelming arguments in support of that contention, of which the most important is the moral argument—the simple fact that it is unfair and wrong for this great gap to exist between the standard of living of one-third of the human race, on the one hand, and two-thirds, on the other, a gap which is growing and is intolerable to anyone who applies his conscience to this matter.
But there is also the argument of enlightened self-interest. We are a trading nation, and our future trade depends on prosperity in the rest of the world. The International Labour Organisation has a motto, "Poverty anywhere is a threat to prosperity everywhere". That again is part of the framework of the subject that we are discussing.
The other part of our enlightened self-interest is in terms of the international situation. Not only is the gap growing between the standard of living of some countries and others, but people in the poorer countries are becoming more aware of this and more discontented about it. The political situations which result from it are becoming more turbulent and will create more trouble. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) referred to Abraham Lincoln's remark that the United States, one hundred years ago, could not survive half-slave and half-free. That is right. The world today, in terms of communication, is a smaller place than the United States was one hundred years ago, and the threat that this represents to our security is thereby all the greater.
There is one other aspect of the problem to which I should like to make a brief reference. That is the question of the disposal of food surpluses. I am glad that one of the steps the Government have taken has been to make a contribution to the world food programme of the Food and Agriculture Organisation. We have been told that we were making this contribution to the value of 5 million

449
dollars to be spread over three years. It is about a year ago that I raised this question in an Adjournment debate. At that time the Government said that they would do nothing. Since then they have reversed the decision, and this is very welcome. But this is a very poor contribution.
Consider what other countries are doing. Canada, with a much smaller population than ours, is contributing as much as we are. West Germany is to provide 8 million dollars against our 5 million dollars, and the United States is to provide 50 million dollars worth of aid to this programme. That is a genuine contribution to the Freedom From Hunger Campaign. There should be more Government studies of this problem and of the use of food surpluses. Even in this country, which is a food-importing country, we are becoming embarrassed by surpluses of some commodities. The Price Review reflected that fact in relation to milk production and other commodities.
We are getting into a period of a growing paradox, when certain richer countries are embarrassed by food surpluses while the rest of the world lacks food. As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said, this problem cannot be solved simply by dumping food surpluses in the hungry countries. He referred to Mr. Orville Freeman's remarks in this connection. If we were to distribute food surpluses round the world, they would not make much of an impact in solving the problem of hunger.
A lot of thought has been given to this problem in the F.A.O., particularly by Mr. Sen, who has defined the way in which food surpluses can be used constructively. He has pointed out that capital development is held up by the inflationary position arising from extra wages paid to the workers on capital projects. Suppose large numbers of workers are engaged in building a dam or some other large capital project. They want to spend their wages on extra food and other consumer goods. This creates a pressure on local markets. It may create an inflationary situation. It may even create a strain on the balance of payments situation of the country concerned.
It is in that sort of situation that the gift of food surpluses can have a real
450
impact and be of real help in the development of that country. There is no doubt that the recent five-year plans in India have been helped by the gifts of food surpluses from the United States under their PL480 programme. This is an idea which can be developed constructively so that the food goes in to coincide with the capital development. It is not helpful if the food is simply dumped in such a way that it depresses the price which the local farmers get for producing it and discourages them from taking the steps which are needed. If it is related to the situation which I have mentioned, it can be helpful.
There are other possibilities. Surplus food can be related to welfare food programmes, such as food for expectant mothers, or for school meal programmes, in these countries. It can be related to the short-term setbacks in food production following land reform. A developing country often has to postpone plans for land reform because it cannot envisage the loss of production involved in the short term even though it may increase production in the long term. It can be related to the creation of food reserves to deal with famines or bad harvests, and things of that sort, and to the creation of stocks of grain to feed animals.
There are special ways in which food surpluses can be used throughout developing countries on a bigger scale provided that we and other richer countries go in for this in a big way and carry out a lot of study and research on it and make the right contributions. The F.A.O. has given a lead in this programme to which we are making this modest contribution which I hope will be increased in future.
I have already given one example of the many ways in which our national effort must increase. It must also increase in the form of capital aid in technical matters. I particularly believe that there is a case for a British peace corps on the lines of that in the United States to mobilise volunteers to work in the developing countries. Our efforts to arrive at commodity agreements to provide stable markets for these countries must increase.
The Freedom From Hunger Campaign will be a wonderful thing provided that it sparks off more long-term programmes. The danger is that many people in the country will make this one-and-for-all

451
gesture and will regard this as a temporary piece of charity. They may have a bread and cheese lunch and give the proceds to the fund or they may give one hour's pay, as many of us have done. That is all very well in its limited way. But this campaign will be of permanent value only if it sparks off long-term plans and brings about change in the attitude of this country and of other richer countries towards the poorer countries of the world. Nothing else will measure up to the challenge of the times in which we live.
6.13 p.m.
Sir William Robson Brown: I listened to the hon. Member for East Ham. North (Mr. Prentice) with great interest, but I regret that in his opening remarks he implied that there was a lack of interest and sincerity on the Conservative benches in this matter. May I remind him that World Refugee Year was inspired by a young Conservative Member of Parliament, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not denigrate the work done in that respect. There no party political bias in this matter. The appeal is universal. Certainly it is national, and, therefore, to bring party politics into it would be a profound mistake.
Mr. Prentice: I did not use words in the sense that the hon. Gentleman has indicated. I said that I thought that politicians in general and Conservative politicians in particular had underestimated the idealism of the British people in this matter.
Sir W. Robson Brown: That is a slight variation of what I said, but the taunt is the same.
I do not think that if this appeal is couched properly and is properly planned it will merely be a matter of our giving one day's pay and a tea party and we shall be finished with it for ever. It would be wrong if that were to happen. That would be a hypocritical act and would be an attempt to buy off our consciences so that, having seen a distressing photograph of a little child, we might be able to say that we had done something.
When I was a small boy I gave my pennies towards the missionary funds on Sundays. Small children all over the country regularly gave subscriptions innocently believing that they were doing
452
a Christian act and making a little sacrifice which to them was important. In my mature years, I find that generally the money was not used nor was it sufficient in quantity for the basic purposes to which it should have been put. I am satisfied that if more money had been applied to the education of children in Africa and other places our problems today arising from the "wind of change" would not be so difficult. Now, in the second half of this century, we are again faced with precisely the same problem.
I am genuinely worried that in the postwar period money which has been made available to certain Governments has in too many cases never found its way to the people who really needed it. The generous and big-hearted aid of the United States has sometimes been used to support corrupt Governments in the countries to which it went.
There is a certain arrogance in mentioning it, but it is hard economic common sense that one of the great problems of these countries is that they create too many families. They are building up the problem themselves. We must try to educate these people to have smaller families. Family life is profound and essential, but there comes a point when it adds to the problems and difficulties in some of these countries. We shall have to be extraordinarily careful in this matter. I say without offence to the religion of the people in India that that nation is making a bold and imaginative approach to this problem. This is something to which we in Great Britain should pay attention in all that we try to do to help these people.
As the hon. Member for East Ham, North, said, the Government's contribution clearly is inadequate. But the whole campaign is inadequate and savours too much of the soup kitchens of the hungry 'eighties in this country. The idea seems to be that we have to keep these people alive because we are worried about them, that they are under our feet and that we have to do something about it. We should not approach these problems in the soup kitchen spirit. We should give these people employment. They and their children do not need soup kitchens. Anything of a temporary and palliative nature will not touch the problem.
What we must send out to these countries is men as well as money. It seems

453
to me that many of these countries will never on their own build up a self-reliant economy which will support them. An example of this is India. There are more Englishmen working in India than there were when it was one of the Dominions in our complete and absolute control. The brains of this country have been going oat to help India to build up its economy. In some countries, which are not even as advanced as India, irrigation is more important than food. Food is essential, but it is important that irrigation engineers should go to these countries and properly survey the land and get the Government's co-operation in irrigation schemes.
Labour is another thing which can be used in these countries to great effect. I saw a film several months ago about Chinese who were working on an irrigation scheme. They were using mass labour in substitution for machinery which was not at their disposal. If we ask people to do something for themselves we are not denigrating them; nor are we reducing their dignity. In fact, we are enhancing it. If they feel that they are helping to build something for themselves we are doing something positive for them and their character.
The same applies to agriculture. I am advised by experts in agriculture that if the land in these countries were used properly and intelligently it could produce a large volume of food for the people in them. I believe that that is true. Many of our energies should be directed towards that end.
The same also applies to what I call gradual industrialism. It is not necessary to build vast steel works. We must first teach people in these countries to repair their old agricultural machinery and tractors. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), who is an engineer, will understand what I mean. Once a man starts to use the tools of engineering in a fitting shop he can make very good progress. I have often been impressed by the extraordinary intelligence about machinery that the people in these countries have. I do not like to call them natives because that is liable to be misunderstood.
Mr. Cyril Bence: We are natives of this country.
Sir W. Robson Brown: I did not wish to appear to be patronising. What we must try to do is not to give these people charity but to lift them up to independence. This is a long-term task of great importance.
The Government have been criticised for what they have done, but it seems to me that to have a campaign for one week is not enough. It must be a dedicated and continuing effort, because there is so much in this country today that is done for us that we now have to learn to do something for other people abroad. We have conquered poverty in our nation. There is a lot of money in the hands of a lot of people that is, perhaps, not used as wisely as it might be. When the results of their contributions and efforts are brought back to them visually by television and other means, they can see that the money is used wisely and well, so that we do not need to get back to the time when the small boy put his pennies into the missionary box and never had more than the barest of pictures of what was done with it.
When Governments do something for other Governments, there is the subtle inference that we are trying to influence them. They feel, "You are doing it because you have to and because it is expedient". But when the people themselves help people in other countries, it is an entirely different matter. The aid is not suspect but is taken at its proper valuation.
When people of our country help people of other countries they are reaching out the hand of friendship. If there is one thing that the world needs today it is the hand of friendship from one to the other. I hope and believe that as a result of this debate the people will realise that to make a contribution of one sort once only is simply not enough.
6.52 p.m.
Mr. E. Fernyhough: I hope that the hon. Member for Esher (Sir W. Robson Brown) will also realise that it is simply not enough for the Government to be interested in this campaign for one week only. As one of my hon. Friends has said, the big thing about the Freedom From Hunger Campaign is that it has touched something in the British people which many of us had begun to feel had become completely lost.

455
When there is so much cynicism abroad and when the world is so full of selfishness it is refreshing to find countless thousands of ordinary people being moved by old-fashioned morality, if I may put it that way—feeling, as it were, for their fellow men. The big thing about this campaign is that it strikes the right kind of chord. It brings out the best impulses in people. That is why not only the scheme is worth while, but the Government's contribution is so miserable.
Over the last few weeks, we have been dealing with Estimates amounting to nearly £2,000 million for the three Services—the Army, Air Force and Navy; and they have been passed with very little ado, with few complaints and with hardly anybody saying that we could not afford them. When we compare those figures with the miserable sum of the present Estimate, we are revealing something of our real values.
The object of the campaign is to try to bring immediate help to people who are dying daily in their thousands from poverty and disease. If any of the nations which are the beneficiaries of this aid were to be attacked or threatened by Communism tomorrow, there would be a readiness to pour millions of pounds into those countries in the shape of tanks, guns and aircraft.
It should be realised, however, that where somebody dies from disease, it is just as bad as dying from Communism. Life has ended. Life is being ended unnecessarily every minute of every hour of the day for tens of thousands of people, people who could be alive, who could live a natural existence, if only the resources of the developed nations, their scientists, their technicians, their "know-how" and their ability to produce were being poured into those countries as they are being poured into militarism.
I remember 1926. The hon. Member for Esher has referred to soup kitchens. We had soup kitchens in the mining areas in 1926. Many of us would not have had a breakfast had it not been for the soup kitchens. It was the poor who helped the poor. It was not the rich who helped us.
Mr. Bence: They opposed us.
Mr. Fernyhough: I remember Arthur Cook, the miners' leader, in 1926, when a
456
million miners and their wives were literally being starved to death because the wages for which they were asked to work were not sufficient to justify a reduction. The miners did not strike for more pay in 1926. They struck merely to keep that which they had.
Arthur Cook used a wonderful phrase which I have never forgotten. At a great meeting in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke, Central (Dr. Stross), he said, "You cannot grow the flower of peace in the garden of poverty". What Arthur Cook said in relation to industrial peace in Britain in 1926 applies in the international sphere in 1963.
We cannot grow the flower of peace in a world which is two-thirds poverty-stricken. This is where the real danger to peace lies, because hungry men occasionally become angry men, and angry men become irresponsible. When they become irresponsible, it is surprising how much we are prepared to devote to disciplining them, which would not have been necessary had we been prepared to act and help generously before their hunger drove them to rebellion.
One of the things that disturbs me about this kind of situation is that there is nobody in the House of Commons, on either side, who, if he could hear the cries of hunger and see the bodies of the victims day after day, would not say that we must do more. There is a tendency, of which we are only occasionally reminded, to shut these things out of our minds. I do not want us to shut this problem out of our minds, because I want the chance for future generations to inherit our earth.
I do not believe they will be able to inherit it unless we do something about this problem because I believe that this is a problem which can ultimately engulf and destroy the world. Just as Britain could not this century have gone on with the disparities which there were in this country in the last century between those at the top and those at the bottom, so the world cannot go on in this century with great disparities between the rich and the poor nations, with nothing or very little being done about them.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) about the importance of

457
commodity prices, the prices for the exports of the underdeveloped countries. I quite agree that it is very necessary that we should do something to see that they get a fair return for the raw materials we take from them. It is very important, when we are discussing territories for which we have responsibility or have had responsibility in the past, and when we talk about their trade, that we should also remember that if the prices which they get for the commodities they export go down, then they have that much less money with which to buy goods from us. That is partly the reason why Commonwealth trade has tended to decline. It is not because those countries wanted to take less, but because they have been getting less for their exports and have had their imports reduced by that much, thereby affecting our trade.
This is a very big issue. I think it is the biggest issue confronting the world. It is certainly the biggest issue confronting the West, and I say that unless we can deal with this problem, and unless we can deal with it reasonably quickly, then all talk about containing Communism becomes utter nonsense. Wherever there is poverty, hunger or disease of the magnitude that these evils exist in some of these territories, men will say, "Any system or philosopsy which will get us quickly out of this, which will relieve us of this disease and poverty, we will subscribe to, and any such system we will embrace".
That is why I hope that the Government next year, when they are deciding how to apportion their resources, will decide to do a little more in this direction, and a little less in that other direction which I mentioned, because I am quite sure that in this direction they will be able to do more to defend those things for which they are supposed to stand than by devoting £2,000 million to defence, which, in the days of nuclear weapons, no longer exists.
6.33 p.m.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: This discussion has been conducted in the wide terms of food, and I had hoped that some little part of it might have been in the rather tighter context of protein. In hungry areas such as the Nile Valley and Northern Nigeria no one has complained of the shortage of carbohydrates. The
458
problem is the shortage of proteins. This is not my personal view only but the view of Professor Richie Calder with whom I shared a platform ten days ago and who has made a life study of this problem.
Because other hon. Members want to speak on other subjects today I shall confine myself to just one positive suggestion. In November, 1962, at Lavers in the south of France, a French subsidiary of B.P. and a team under a man called Champagnat discovered a process whereby straight-chain hydrocarbons can be converted into proteins, valuable in animal feeding. This is a discovery of immense significance, perhaps one of the most important of the last twenty years.
It may be asked, where does this tie up with freedom from hunger? B.P. is a company, the majority shareholding of which is owned by Her Majesty's Government. The suggestion I have is this, that the Government make full inquiry into how this process, by which one changes straight-chain hydrocarbons into protein, is being brought to this country, and that an inquiry be made especially into whether protein can be manufactured on such a large scale, first of all, not for humans at ail but for animal feedingstuffs. Because, suppose we were able to deliver animal feeding-stuffs of high protein content to developing countries, that would give them the take-off into economic growth which is really essential and would give them a helpful capability of supplying health-giving food for industrial populations.
So this seems to me one of the absolutely crucial matters. To save time, as other hon. Members want to raise other subjects, I will sit down now, asking for an assurance that that will be looked into. The scientists of B.P., I know, will co-operate. I ask for this inquiry particularly with a view to the practical study of the manufacture of protein as a possible means of providing employment in oil refinery areas where there is unemployment, such as the north-east of England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. I ask that there may be a full investigation.
Question put and agreed to.

GRANTS FOR THE ARTS
Second Resolution read a Second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.
6.36 p.m.
Dr. Barnett Stross: This Vote contains reference to the need to vote £350,000 in order that the cartoon by Leonardo da Vinci shall be retained in this country and to a second and much smaller expenditure on a further grant, a grant in aid, to the British Academy, and this increase of £35,000 is required to finance the continuation of salvage work on sites shortly to be submerged in Egypt and the Sudan.
We have just listened to many eloquent and moving speeches on the tremendously great and important problem of the need of the world to have more food. The loss of these treat works which are to be drowned in the Sudan is due to the fact that it is essential that the world shall have more food in this, one of the most fertile and ancient valleys the world has known and where, perhaps, our civilisation—certainly that of this part of the world—began.
When we consider this matter of the salvage of sites in Egypt I am compelled to say that many of us felt more than sorry that we had to face the drowning of the Temples of Abu Simbel. The hon. Baronet the Member for Cambridge (Sir H. Kerr), who is in his place as he always is when these subjects are being discussed, will remember that the Arts and Amenities Group's two deputations did their best to see whether help could be given to save them, but the total sum required was very large, some 70 million dollars, and they did not find it possible to persuade the Treasury or the Minister of Education to find what we thought was needed, namely, an extra £2 million to buy those remarkable pieces of apparatus, the jacks which would have lifted the whole of this cliff 170 ft. into the air and mounted it to safety.
That cannot now be helped, but when we are dealing with the other item, the item of the £350,000 we must vote for the Leonardo cartoon, I think it is worth while in a few words to remind the House what has really happened. In the short debate which
460
we shall have on this subject many questions will be asked—and I hope that most of them will be answered—because of the serious embarrassment caused to many people when it was thought that Britain might lose this remarkable work of art.
As we were aware, an approach had been made by the Royal Academy to the Governnrient—a private approach, I believe—asking them to buy the cartoon, but the Government refused. We then received a declaration from the Royal Academy to the effect that it proposed to sell the cartoon by public auction. I appreciate that had that been done there would have been a so-called safeguard concerning the activities of the Reviewing Committee for the Export of Works of Art. However, that safeguard could not have had any effect until after the cartoon had gone to auction—where it was expected to fetch at least £1 million from foreign buyers.
It was at that time—with not much time left before the possibility of our losing it—that the hon. Baronet the Member for Cambridge and I saw the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). We did not ask him for money, just to be allowed time so that he and the Prime Minister would use their influence with the Royal Academy and allow the nation a period in which to buy the cartoon for Britain. We wanted to give the nation time to see if it thought highly enough of this work of art to purchase it.
I wish to pay tribute to the serious way in which our representations were received by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the immediate action taken by him, for within a few days of our visit we knew that we had about five months in which to retain this work of art—not a great time in which to organise and mount a great campaign to enable the people of this country to buy it for themselves. The Chairman of the National Art Collection Fund took it upon himself to mount this campaign and nothing I can say can be praise high enough for the work he did, for he forced himself to go on, and though not a well man, refused to go into hospital until he had achieved his object.
I think it fair to say that all of us who were interested in this matter were rather disappointed to find that few large sums were forthcoming. Naturally, the National Art Collection Fund helped with a large sum, as did the National

461
Gallery itself and one of the trusts, but, by and large, it was surprising to see just how few were the large sums contributed. I am dealing with this aspect now because I hope that the Financial Secretary will address his remarks to the question of what will happen in future should a similar situation occur. Why did we not get wealthy private benefactors to come forward with assistance? Hundreds of thousands of people who paid to see the cartoon in the National Gallery and those who gave money and silver articles raised a considerable amount. It has been impossible to trace the donors because no receipts were given, but by the end of the period allowed about £350,000 had been raised, about half the sum required.
At that stage it would have been possible to have pleaded for a further extension of time, but by the time the £350,000 had been raised summer was upon us, along with the Long Recess, people were on holiday and it was at this stage, following representations made by Lord Crawford, that the Treasury did something for which I must commend them; they offered to give the rest of the money. It was in this way that the cartoon was saved. We are tonight being asked to give the Treasury permission to have that money.
The exercise of raising the necessary money was, I suppose, the greatest manifestation of public patronage of any kind I can remember. The nation was alerted and the public came forward to keep this remarkable work of art in Britain. It is said that the location of a work of art is not important so long as the public has open access to it. In other words, whether it be in Berlin, Paris, New York or London, so long as lots of people can see it, that is the important thing. I suppose that that is accurate in some ways, but that philosophy surely should not mean that we should be prepared to lose treasures of this type without making an attempt to retain them in this country.
In this case we are dealing with a success story, for the cartoon was retained here. But the Economic Secretary must be aware that there are about 100 irreplaceable great works of art which are not in the possession of any of our national galleries but are in private
462
hands. The directors of our great institutions know where they are, but I hope the Economic Secretary will say that he considers that we should now quietly proceed to negotiate to try to buy them. If so, must not the Government review the present machinery so that whenever a work of art of this type is offered for sale the sort of embarrassment we suffered in this case will not arise again?
Had this happened in the United States there would have been no such embarrassment because private benefactors would have come forward with the money. The Government would not have had to come to the rescue and a great campaign to raise money nationally would not have been needed. Benefaction in the United States is marked and profound, but there are reasons for that. The British Treasury has not allowed our wealthy citizens to have the sort of advantages their counterparts enjoy in the United States. Our fiscal policy does not permit such advantages, and I am wondering whether the Economic Secretary has thought about this matter recently.
As we know, the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries has been pleading for some years for a change in Government policy in relation to death duties and certain taxes when gifts of articles of this type or gifts of money are made to galleries and museums. I will not go into the details because we are well aware of them. We have discussed this topic on Finance Bills for some years, although we have not succeeded in persuading the Government of the need for a change in policy in this respect. I hope that the Economic Secretary will say that some thought has been given to this matter.
It is interesting to note that a grant is made to institutions and allows provincial galleries to purchase works of art more easily than they would otherwise be able to do. Is there any likelihood of a change in Government policy along these lines which would ensure, on an area basis at least, that conservation would be possible with the assistance of the Treasury?
The Economic Secretary knows, of course, that there has been some criticism of the Treasury for administering the arts in the way it does, whether it be great institutions like the British

463
Museum or the giving of these grants-in-aid. Certain views have been voiced. I am delighted that my colleague, the hon. Member for Cambridge, is in his place, because he and several of his colleagues have given a view recently on this which is inimical to the Treasury. They would like the Treasury to surrender its responsibilities in this matter.
I wholly disagree with that view, but I know that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends agree with the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues who wrote an interesting pamphlet called Government and the Arts, which, strangely enough and rightly enough, has a reproduction of the Leonardo cartoon upon it. Many other hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite agree with me that we should avoid a Ministry of Fine Arts like the plague.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The fact that a reproduction of the Leonardo cartoon is on the outside of the pamphlet will not enable us to discuss the whole matter of policy.
Dr. Stross: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. You have been most kind in allowing me the freedom to go as far as I have.
The Economic Secretary is responsible for seeking this grant from us. If I disliked the hon. Gentleman, I suppose that it would be possible for me to accuse him of having forced us into this embarrassing situation and to ask him never to do so again. However, I must leave the matter where it is by saying that where we on these benches see the Government being generous to the arts they can look to us to support them wholeheartedly. For ourselves, we proclaim gladly that, in turn, we shall nurture and cherish all that is good in the arts and that, in particular, we want to encourage the living artist who lives among us today.
6.52 p.m.
Sir Hamilton Kerr: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) paid such a warm tribute to Lord Crawford and Balcarres. Both the hon. Gentleman and I saw a good deal of Lord Crawford during the period of the Leonardo appeal. Aided only by a
464
tiny staff, and working through 12 hours of the day, he bore almost single-handed the entire burden of the work. Seeing him at work, I was reminded of the pictures of St. Sebastian, as conceived by the old masters, pierced by a hundred arrows, but his face still lit by a seraphic smile.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the difficulties with which the Government are faced from time to time over the policy of helping the arts. The Leonardo appeal illustrated very vividly the trend that has already become familiar, and will become more and more familiar as the years go by. It is obvious that the day of the private patron is over.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that most of the money provided for the cartoon came from the pennies, shillings and half-crowns of ordinary people. Wealthy men, perhaps largely owing to existing tax laws, made no great single contribution. We have to accept the fact, when faced with demands for the purchase of works like the Leonardo, that, whether we like it or not, the Government of the day are becoming more and more the Maecenas of the arts.
Realising the issues raised by the sale of the Leonardo and its purchase in this way, my hon. Friends and I—and I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) here, because he did the bulk of the work—came to the conclusion that the machinery for handling the Government's relations with the arts at present was not satisfactory.
We made a modest proposal that there should be some co-ordination and that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works should be the co-ordinating figure. But this little mouse of a proposal created as much uproar in certain artistic circles as a barging Brontosaurus. "'Barmy,' Sir William Emrys Williams snorted and roared with the ferocity of a bull in a Spanish arena when it first sees the red capes of the bull fighters." Even Lord Cottesloe, who couched his remarks in the more mild and muted tone suited to the gilded and gothic splendours of the House of Lords, followed his example.
They were afraid of things that were never intended. It was not intended,

465
even after the purchase of the Leonardo by the Government, to lay down standards of taste. We merely tried to question whether the administration was the best possible. But both these two gentlemen pictured from our proposal some flushed and harassed Minister standing at that Box in the House and facing cries of "Disgraceful" and "Resign" from both sides of the House because he had not supported equal proportions of representational and non-representational art. They were misguided.
I will quote a far more serious authority on the need for co-ordination, when the Government come to deal with situations such as the purchase of the Leonardo, namely, Lord Bridges, the former head of the Treasury. Lord Bridges at one time was the veritable "Dalai Lama" of Whitehall, a figure whom Ministers and civil servants fawned upon and whose greeting or slightest nod of approval threw them into the ecstatic convulsions of a courtier who caught the eye of Louis XIV on the terrace of the Palace of Versailles.
In the Romanes lecture on the arts at Oxford he said that although the Treasury was performing its functions well at the present time in dealing with grants to the arts, he was not quite certain what might happen during a period of astringency, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not very well advise other Departments to go about in rags when his own spoilt children were clothed in purple and fine linen. This great Whitehall figure suggested that perhaps there should be a shift of responsibility and more coordination.
The grant for the Leonardo, and the interest shown by the people in it, illustrate more and more that we are coming to an age of leisure. More and more, the Government are becoming the patrons of the arts. They will be responsible for grants to the galleries and will set the standard by which an increasingly leisured society will draw its inspiration. I do not say that at once a girl prodigy at Roedean will begin to write poems as beautiful as those of Sappho, or that in suburban gardens we shall see statues moulded by some local Epstein. But we are moving into a period where people will more and more find that real happiness in life exists within themselves.
466
That is why the Government should consider very carefully, following the purchase of the Leonardo, their whole policy towards the system of the purchase of works of art and see whether administrative actions would not be more valuable through co-ordination—possibly in the way suggested by my hon. Friends and myself.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. John Mackie: As a Scottish Member who sits for an English seat, I should like to see more money provided for Scotland through the Arts Council. I am afraid that. I am unable to make my case in the exotic way of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir H. Kerr)—
Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether the hon. Member can make it at all and still be in order at the moment. I have some difficulty because I have to ask him to aim his observations at the only two matters contained in the Supplementary Estimate, the amount for the Leonardo and the submerged cities.
Mr. Mackie: In which case, I shall be in great difficulty about making my point. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) could get round that difficulty more easily because he is slightly more glib of tongue than I. Perhaps I can say that Scotland is as interested in the Leonardo picture as anywhere else and should therefore receive some assistance to help it satisfy its liking for the arts. If it were at all possible for the Under-Secretary to do something, we could probably see how we could divide the money and it might help a certain repertory theatre in which I have an interest. I think that is as far as I can go at short notice and still keep in order.
7.2 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir H. Kerr) and the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) on keeping within the rules of order, one rather longer than the other, on this rather difficult subject. I join with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) and with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge in congratulating Lord Crawford on the tremendous amount of work he did to make the Leonardo cartoon appeal a success and to raise more than half of the

467
sum required. It is also correct that I should pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) who, in a summer which was busy in the financial and economic sense, took a tremendous interest and a tremendous lot of trouble to make sure that this difficult operation went successfully. In many ways he found it a recreation from his more onerous duties in the Treasury, and we are all in his debt for what he did to save this great picture.
I fully recognise that the Treasury cannot disclose its hand in a matter like this until very late in the day. If it were to guarantee the money, or in any way to cover it at the beginning, the private contributions would clearly dry up immediately, and only those who feel that the State should pay 100 per cent. of the cost of a picture such as this could ask for that. Personally, I envisage this as a combination, a partnership, of the State and private contributors to put up the money for pictures such as the Leonardo, and it would be quite wrong if the whole cost were to fall on the Treasury. The people must demonstrate their wish, with their contributions, to keep a picture of this sort in the country. Otherwise, as a nation we must admit that we cannot afford to hold it, and we must let it go.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central who suggested that we should tackle this problem by buying up the pictures which we know to remain in the country and which we do not want to leave it. That would be quite the wrong approach. If every good picture in the world were in a museum, I do not think that it would be an advantage. There must be some movement from some homes to museums and from some homes to other homes. We should work towards making the pictures available to the public, but not necessarily have them all in national ownership.
The whole of this operation was carried out under the ultimate threat of export control through the machinery of the Waverley Committee. The Treasury would not have had nearly so much influence in the matter if it had not been for the possible refusal of an export licence at the end. I have always believed that this machinery is fully justified by United States tax concessions and by the policies
468
of other countries, which have the effect of forcing up the value of works of art and distorting the market in works of art and making conditions not normal market conditions. The machinery works very well and I should like to go on record as saying that in this extremely difficult problem we have got somewhere near the right solution.
We must not do anything which would damage the market in works of art which we have here in London and which is probably the finest in the world. We would be very wrong if we were to extend the principle of export control. Indeed, I should like it to be used as an absolute minimum. It could be said, and I think with some force, that the limits of values under which things can be exported without the approval of the Export Committee should be raised. That would keep more cases from going before the Committee. It could also be argued that the period by which export can be delayed should be reduced. At present it is three months, which is a little long to keep a foreign purchaser waiting until he can take the picture away if permission is eventually granted. Two months might be a better period.
I am concerned with the whole question of Parliamentary control of grants to the arts in relation to this item of £350,000. I find it slightly strange that it should be my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary who is responsible and who is sitting on the Front Bench to answer the debate. I have the greatest respect and affection for him, but I am still surprised that he can spare the time from his many duties connected with the national economy and the state of our affairs and our taxation problems to answer the debate. I hope that he is continuing also to find the time to keep in close touch with our many museums and galleries and theatres and operas and all the many artistic activities for which he is responsible. I am sure that he has seen the Leonardo two or three times since it has gone into the National Gallery and that he is always popping in to make sure that it is being properly looked after. I congratulate him on one thing—he has not allowed it to be stolen, as in a previous case of this sort. I hope that he is not finding these duties too onerous.

469
We must have some sort of Parliamentary control if we are to vote sums of money, in this case £350,000 and in some cases nearer £8 million or £9 million annually for the arts as a whole. Some of us have been accused of trying somehow to bring the arts within the control of Ministers and of Parliament. Surely the function of this debate arises because expenditure on the arts is already within the control of Parliament and Ministers. I have never had any difficulty about asking a Question to do with the arts. If we are to provide money for the arts, it is right that we in the House of Commons should at least be able to probe and have some degree of public accountability. I do not think there is anything wrong with that and I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, finds it so difficult to accept the proposals that there should be some public accountability to the representatives of the taxpayer.
Mr. Speaker: I admire the hon. Member's ingenuity, but the advantage of the noble Lord was that he was not talking about a specific Supplementary Estimate. We must bear in mind the limits of the debate. Hon. Members cannot raise the whole matter of policy within the realm of a Supplementary Estimate simply by saying. "In relation to this particular purchase".
Mr. Ridley: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, if I have erred a little far in my desire to scrutinise this Supplementary Estimate for £350,000. You have been kind enough to allow me to make my point.
All I should like to say in conclusion is that the whole question of the Leonardo fund and the grant which we are now discussing and the ever-growing expenditure on the arts have raised in our minds the question of how we can best control it and how we can best administer it. If in flying this kite we have done no more than promote discussion, thought and interest, I am not in the least ashamed of it, and I hope that this will form a subject of later debates in the House of Commons.
7.9 p.m.
Mr. Cyril Bence: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie), I am not a Scotsman representing an English seat but a Welshman represent-
470
ing a Scottish seat. Bearing in mind your admonition, Mr. Speaker, I rise with considerable trepidation to approach this Supplementary Estimate in the interests of Scotland. That is what I shall try to do, and I shall try my best to keep in order, confident that I shall not be allowed to break the rules of the House to any great extent, or to stray too far from the path of virtue in that respect.
I am concerned about this contribution of £350,000 from the Treasury to the Leonardo appeal fund. Some of this money is Scottish taxpayers' money. The Leonardo cartoon is now in the National Gallery in London. As Scottish and Welsh taxpayers have paid towards the acquiring of this cartoon, it should occasionally go to the Scottish National Gallery in Edinburgh and to the gallery in Cardiff. We could have a rota.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said that it was desirable that the State should acquire works of art and that it did not so much matter where they were as long as they were available for people to see and study them. The important thing with young people is that they should not merely see works of arts but should understand them. I cannot see our schoolchildren from Aberdeen coming down to the National Gallery in London to see this cartoon. If it were occasionally moved to Aberdeen or to Edinburgh, schoolchildren could make visits to it.
This is not very difficult, especially when it is remembered that the "Mona Lisa" has been moved from Paris to New York and that the Americans have not even bought it. As the sum of £350,000 represents taxes from all the taxpayers of the United Kingdom, the Leonardo cartoon should not be placed only in the National Gallery in London but should make a visit to the capital of Scotland and to the capital of Wales.
I have always thought that one of the best of the B.B.C's television programmes was "Sketch Club". I have followed it closely. I have grandchildren of my own and I have always thought that the presentation of art in this way to children is one of the finest things which can be done for the present generation of children. Appreciation of music and visual and other arts in all their forms

471
is to be encouraged among primary and elementary school children. We are living in a scientific society, a society of mechanical processes and mechanical forms, in a formalised civilisation, and to make living within that society a little more easy and a little more generous appreciation of art is most important. If we lose our artistic sense, as we have lost it in so many things, it will be bad for the people, bad for them as individuals and bad for society as a whole.
I see that we are to spend £95,000 on raising ancient monuments in Egypt. I do not know how far that sum will go in preserving these wonderful works of art which would otherwise be submerged as a result of the building of the Aswan Dam. This sum of money seems hopelessly inadequate. I do not know whether other funds are also available. I have seen these works only on television, but they seem to be huge and how £95,000 will be sufficient for the work of raising and preserving them I do not know, especially in view of the frightful cost of minor works in this country. I should like the Economic Secretary to explain what part this £95,000 can play as a contribution in salvaging these sites in Egypt and the Sudan. It seems to me to be a fiddling sum in the nature of what must be a tremendous task, and I should like to know from what other sources funds are being contributed to save these works.
7.15 p.m.
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies (Isle of Tbanet): I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir H. Kerr) "'" This is one thing that I can certainly say and I hope that I may be able to remain within the terms of order: he spake indeed with "winged words".
The words he expressed were attractive and honey to the ears of many of us. I want to pursue what he has said. If I may divert for a moment to what the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) was saying: that if, in fact, the cartoon will travel well and in safety, which is always a difficult matter with a cartoon of this kind, then I share his view that she can become a travelling maiden. There was great concern about one journey to the United States and I think that what we must recognise is that
472
this is a matter for the art experts, to whom we must leave decisions of that kind. In the British Museum Bill, which is before the House, there is power to arrange for these travelling exhibitions. Indeed, many of us, on another opportunity, will be able to discuss the matter in the House.
I want to pursue from the converse side these two matters. I certainly think that I can happily say that I shall be in order on these matters because they arise directly from these two points. In the case of Abu Simbel, this country and other countries are being asked to vote money to save very valuable works of art on an international basis. In the case of the Leonardo, no one seemed to think that it was worth very much or anything at all until, suddenly, it was to be exported from this country. Then there was a tremendous wave of almost national fervour among a certain section of the community, and, as a result, there was a hurried whip-round for money with the regrettable feeling that, in any event, if the target was not reached the Government would probably be sufficiently forced into having to find the balance. I want to address myself to these two matters.
I entirely agree that the machinery is not satisfactory. I entirely agree that we are now entering an age of leisure and that our young people are at least beginning to become very conscious not only of the heritage of the past, but also avant garde in their consideration of what I would call the modern arts. The very strong art market in this country today shows there is also a very wide sphere of what I might call investment buyers. I do not share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge that there is no room for a large increase of patronage other than State patronage.
I think that a major duty of this House is to give far greater encouragement, each one and all of us, to local authority patronage within our own constituencies. I also believe that many of us on both sides of the House can give far greater encouragement to industrial patronage. I think that many local authorities should do likewise. It is not all Tory ones that do it. In Bermondsey, recently, the local authority introduced a very fine statue on the boundaries between Bermondsey and elsewhere by a

473
well-known sculptor as a contribution to sculpture.
There is no reason why those who are developing very fine new architectural buildings should not incorporate into those buildings both magnificent sculpture and internally very fine modern art. I do not think that they will be encouraged to do this unless industrial and local authority patrons think that they are going to get some credit for it—such is human nature.
If this had been approached in another way, it would not be the Government's job to find any of the money for the Leonardo cartoon. I do not criticise them for having done so in the event, but I think that if the approach were along different lines it ought not to be necessary for the central Exchequer to have to carry a grant of this kind.
How, then, do I suggest that this problem should be approached? I think that it should be of a more national nature, along the lines which the Americans have been successfully pursuing over many years. First, I think that it is necessary that the museums and the galleries should encourage their own patrons. At present, we have the National Arts Collection Fund, the Friends of the Tate, contemporary art societies, and similar bodies. The Friends of the Tate, for example, are dedicated to assisting in the purchase of pictures for that admirable gallery, but it seems to me that if the British Museum in its new clothing, the Victoria and Albert, and others, really set out to attract patrons who would become known as the patrons of those museums, those patrons would then seek to encourage the purchase of pictures and to assist in the improvement, design, and attraction of those museums.
As an illustration perhaps I might refer to one museum in America which I know very well. It is the one in Philadelphia. The board of patrons there consists of leading local accountants and bank managers, and the president is the head of one of the best-known firms of lawyers in the United States. As a result, everything is clone to encourage people, almost as a status symbol, to become patrons of the local museum, and it is a position of great honour to be the president of that museum. The board has the best advisers, and encourages leading industrial, commercial, and professional citizens
474
to become interested in the arts and to play an effective part in the running of that museum.
If the local authorities in this country want to improve their provincial museums, the best way to begin is to encourage the local mayors and other citizens to take an active part in the running of them and to take an effective interest in the arts. If this were done and encouraged at all levels, I believe that in this case the Royal Academy would have had a sufficient number of good patrons who would have been able to go to the big industrial patrons and get £700,000 without much difficulty, and it is the more likely that they would have succeeded in so doing if they knew that the Government were not going to help them, because there is nothing like the spur of private endeavour to produce results.
It is said that we deserve only what we are prepared to pay for, and there is a good deal in this. I think that I am in a minority in my view, but I believe that one day it will be the majority view. I take the view that those who enjoy the pleasures of the museums would do so all the more if they had to pay a small charge for their pleasure. I know that this is not universally accepted, but if, for example, a man goes to the Tate Gallery, he has to pay his bus fares there and back—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I dislike having to interrupt the hon. Member, but he knows my duties. He must relate his observations to these two grants.
Mr. Rees-Davies: What I am seeking to argue is that if the public make no contribution to the pleasure of seeing these museums, and, therefore, the Leonardo, they are not entitled to ask the Government to pay by way of grant what they are not prepared to contribute. I say no more than that. I think that that makes my point, and if a person is prepared to pay his fare to go to Piccadilly to see the Leonardo, there is no reason why he should not pay a moderate entrance fee to the museum for that pleasure.
It would be easy to exclude students from this provision and I ask hon. Members to bear in mind the fact that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who discussed this matter with me and others

475
in this House, was definitely of the view that it would assist the Treasury considerably, when it was considering matters of this kind, if it knew that the public, as well as industrial and local authority patrons, were willing to make some small contributions to which there might then have to be added a benefice by the Government.
I ask the House and my hon. Friend to bear those observations in mind, because I do not think it right that members of the Treasury Bench should have to come to the Dispatch Box and say that they propose to make a further grant each time some major work of art is about to go out of the country. I hope that we may get a different outlook, and that we may be able to encourage a new type of patronage, particularly industrial patronage.
If the Chancellor at some suitable time is able to support the views I have expressed, and if those who want to assist in the golden age of leisure show by their material offers that they really want to assist the arts, we shall get a climate of opinion in the country which will make it easier to secure what at the moment only a minority feel strongly about, namely, the opportunity to enjoy the great pleasures which the arts can provide.
7.27 p.m.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: I profoundly disagree with the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). I hope we shall never see the day when a charge is made for entering our museums. The hon. Gentleman said that he was expressing a minority opinion. I hope that he will long live to be in a minority, and I hope that for a long time we shall not change the existing state of affairs in which entrance to our museums is as free as we can possibly make it.
I also disagree with what was said by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). I think that it is appropriate that we should have the opportunity of discussing these grants in aid, and I do not think it is regrettable that the Economic Secretary should come to the House to justify and explain this kind of expenditure.
Mr. Ridley: I think that the hon. Gentleman has got me wrong. I do not
476
think that no Minister should come down. I question whether my hon. Friend is the right one.
Mr. Fletcher: That is the point on which I disagree with the hon. Member. I think that the Economic Secretary is the right Minister. He is a good Minister, and from experience I can testify that he is very sympathetic on this subject. I therefore think that he is the ideal Minister to be made responsible for explaining the grants which the Treasury wishes the House to endorse, and in a moment I shall put one or two questions to the hon. Gentleman which I think will explain what I have in mind.
I wholeheartedly support these grants. I disagree with the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet. I think that the Government are right to recommend the House to make this contribution of £350,000 for the Leonardo cartoon and also to make a grant for salvage work on sites in Egypt.
I express the hope—and I hope that the Minister will confirm this—that in making this grant we are not acting in an exclusive spirit. It would be unfortunate if we fell into a situation in which we thought that only a certain amount of money was to be spent each year in grants for the preservation of works of art. No one can foretell precisely two years ahead, one year ahead or even three months ahead what demands are likely to arise upon the Treasury, as matters of urgency, for the preservation of works of art, whether they be works that we wish to keep in this country or overseas monuments which we seek to preserve, as in the case of the temples in Egypt, which are of world interest. It is equally important that we should make provision for being able to bring to this country from abroad works which are of special interest to this country.
My object in speaking in this debate is to invite the Minister to agree that the Treasury will always be sympathetic in inviting the House to vote sums of this kind whenever, in the opinion of the Treasury, the preservation, conservation or the bringing to this country of some work of outstanding importance is involved. In support of that I give two illustrations. I would not have minded if the grant had been higher. I have been urging the Minister to make a grant of

477
about £170,000 for the purchase by the Trustees of the British Museum of a unique work of art—a famous ivory cross the whereabouts of which had been unknown for centuries, and which only recently came to light in Switzerland. It is of outstanding interest to students—
Mr. Speaker: I have the impression that the matter of the ivory cross would necessitate a further and different Supplementary Estimate. I cannot get away from that difficulty.
Mr. Fletcher: I entirely agree, Mr. Speaker. But I submit that I can relate it to this Vote by asking the House to register the view that in agreeing to this Supplementary Estimate we are not thereby excluding the possibility of the Treasury's asking for similar grants—either now or at a later stage—in respect of opportunities to purchase articles of equally great national interest. In this connection, an occasion arises from time to time when some work of art is available for purchase. It may not be in this country, as in the case of the famous Codex Sinaiticus. The question may arise whether this country should acquire a certain work of art, or whether it should go to the United States or some other country. I hope that the Minister can assure us that the fact that we are being asked to agree to this appropriation of £355,000 does not exclude a willingness on the part of the Treasury to invite the House to make similar grants if and when opportunities arise for the acquisition of works of national interest or national importance to this country, whether or not they had their origin here.
The question of the salvage work to be carried out in Egypt raises a matter of principle. It does not seem possible for us adequately to discuss the appropriateness of agreeing to this grant without anything being said about the policy involved. Obviously it is for the Treasury to recommend the spending of money in retaining in this country, or bringing to this country, outstanding works of art such as the Leonardo cartoon, but I hope that the test that we apply will not depend on the question whether the work of art is in this country at the moment. That would unduly limit the scope of the grant.
As I conceive it, the Treasury has a duty from time to time to consider whether it should acquire from overseas
478
works of art, like the Codex Sinaiticus or the ivory cross—which the Minister knows about and which now, unfortunately, has gone to New York, although the Minister was prepared to recommend that we should purchase it. I may be expressing a view different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), whose speech I did not hear, but if there is to be a choice between preserving works of art that are in this country, or which, for various reasons, ought to be brought here, and preserving works of art in, say, Egypt, I think that we should choose to preserve the former.
I have no prejudice against Egypt. The salvage work that has been done by our art experts in the last year or two in connection with various monuments on the Nile is of great importance, but in this context I ask myself what the present position is, for example, with regard to the proposal of the Egyptian Government for the preservation of the two great temples at Abu Simbel. As I understand it, at the U.N.E.S.C.O. Conference, the appropriate committee of which met in November last, certain recommendations were made at the behest of the Egyptian Government to a number of States, or contributory nations to U.N.E.S.C.O., in connection with the raising of a large sum of money—it was either 70 million dollars or 80 million dollars—to finance a scheme put forward by Italian engineers to lift these monuments bodily from their present situation on the banks of the Nile to a position in which they would be above the new high level of the waters of the Nile and still visible for visitors.
I have always entertained very grave doubts both about the technical possibilities of carrying out the project to jack these monuments up the cliff and also—assuming that the project is technically feasible—about the value of reciting the monuments in an artificial location. I am not sure whether they would then be of the same aesthetic value to people who have the good fortune to visit Egypt to see these monuments. As I understand the position, the grant does not include anything in respect of the Abu Simbel temples. If that is so, the question arises whether this is the final decision of the Government or whether it is an interim decision. All

479
the member States of U.N.E.S.C.O. have to decide whether they propose to make a contribution. Some have already done so. India and Pakistan have decided to contribute and one or two European nations have agreed to do so. The United States has yet to reach a decision. We may find ourselves in a position of having to face the odium of being the only nation which does not propose to contribute, and as a result the future of the temples may be prejudiced, or we may be shamed into falling into line.
The Government may be taking the line of least resistance and saying that in the circumstances we are not prepared to contribute to the cost of preserving the Abu Simbel temples. If that is so, it will probably seal the fate of these temples, because if we, as a matter of policy, decide not to contribute, it would seem to be unlikely that the United States or the Soviet Union, or the other major potential contributors, will take any further interest. That may be the policy of the Government and if it is I shall not be unenthusiastic about it. The Government may adopt that policy and prefer to spend such money as is at present available on works of a more national interest,—such as the Leonardo cartoon or the ivory cross to which I have referred, and which is now in America—than on preserving some Egyptian monuments which many people in this country may not see.
I think that we are entitled to hear a declaration of policy from the Government. The Abu Simbel temples are not unique. Egypt is rich in archeaological treasures and I shall not quarrel with the Government if they adopt that policy; subject to a provision that the money which will be saved for the Treasury may be available in future to be used to preserve other works of art which will, no doubt, call for preservation in the future. I hope that such action on the part of the Government will enable those hon. Members who are interested in these maters to urge more successfully on the Government the desirability of spending money to preserve, conserve or acquire other objects in the future.
7.47 p.m.
Dame Irene Ward: I wish to support the expenditure proposed on these matters under discussion
480
and to announce my agreement with hon. Members who have argued that the machinery used to take these decisions requires examination. I support the decision that was taken by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of the Leonardo cartoon. But decisions in matters of this kind depend on the personality of the Chancellor of the day. I do not know the attitude of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary or of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It seems to me regrettable that in matters of this kind, about which I feel deeply, the decision should depend on the view of the Minister of the day.
This is not a matter of party politics. But the all-party deputations which have waited upon Chancellors in the past have been told that there is speculation about how the country would react to any decision involving the expenditure of public money on works of art. I think it time that the political party which I support did some modern thinking. I am tired of the kind of thinking which is not in tune with the feelings of the country at the present time.
There is not the slightest doubt that the country, particularly the youth of the country, is becoming tremendously interested in the arts. That is all to the good. Except in the decisions about the Leonardo and the salvage work being done in Egypt, however, I have not seen any absolutely modern policy on the part of the Government of the day. I am very glad that the Leonardo cartoon was finally acquired for this country. Probably many people will be horrified when I say this, but when the appeal was made no one actually explained what the Leonardo cartoon was.
A great many people have a desire for the preservation of works of art. Many take great pride and pleasure in local museums and art galleries as well as in the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery, which now houses the cartoon. Yet a large number of people, when they saw the way in which this matter was presented—and the Government did not enter into it until the public appeal had been launched—did not know what a cartoon was. They were used to cartoons in Punch and did not know whether we were spending public money on something which was worth while or not. That aspect of the situation, the gathering together of the great forces in this country

481
today in support of a realistic and up to date policy for the preservation of things which are great and for purchasing things which are great, is very important indeed.
In spite of what the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) said, I add my word of support to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). If we are to ask the general public, through the Treasury, to spend money on works of art and a large number of people are not yet convinced of the desirability of purchasing works of art, those people would be very much happier if we charged an entrance fee to some of our great galleries. I hope that, as my hon. Friend said, a more modern policy will be followed in that direction.
Local art galleries may make purchases and promote appeals to stimulate small local authority to help to develop an interest in the arts in their own areas and to look after their own museums. The objection is that, exactly as in the case of the Chancellor and taxpayers, local councillors are afraid of ratepayers. If the ratepayers could have the satisfaction of knowing that those who want this done will contribute to the finances by paying for entry to museums, that would help a great surge forward in interest in local galleries and museums.
I hope this matter will be looked at in a more realistic way than that of "hit or miss". Someone announces the sale of a work of art such as the Leonardo cartoon and then everybody gets excited. If those concerned had done their job in relation to the Royal Academy years before—had found how it was getting on with its expenditure and the development of its art school—we would not have had this question suddenly thrown at us. We suddenly find the possibility of the sale of the Leonardo and then everyone gets excited.
Mr. Ridley: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the Royal Academy should have accepted public funds for its art school? It has consistently refused to do so.
Dame Irene Ward: I would not comment on that because I do not know enough about the thinking of the Royal Academy. The Royal Academy would not need to accept public funds or to take a decision on the matter, but, in the ordinary course of national life and life in London, I presume that even the
482
Chancellor of the Exchequer knew that difficulty was arising in regard to the maintenance of the Royal Academy art school. We should have been made aware of that. Perhaps the Chancellor did not know about the Leonardo cartoon. How can I know whether he did or not? Those of us who mind about these things would like to know that we shall not be faced with an agonising decision and have to wonder right to the last moment whether or not we shall be able to persuade Her Majesty's Government to find the money.
I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Islington, East said about the ivory cross and I have a great interest in the preservation of the Abu Simbel temples on the Nile. There is not only the particular question of preservation of those temples, but also the question of how they fit in to world history. We go from the preservation of those temples to the history which is written of the great days in Egypt and the great works of art there which many people have enjoyed and wanted to go to see. We get from the preservation of the temples to literature and a whole variety of things which interest the world as a whole.
I have no idea what the present Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks about works of art. Probably, as he is a modern man and a young Chancellor, he is very go-ahead. I hope he will be. It is very limiting to be able to discuss only these two Estimates. I should like to say a great deal more, but I do not want to get out of order. I hope that in future we shall be told by the Treasury what its attitude is towards all these great matters. I hope that the present Chancellor and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury—I hope I have got his title right, but it is difficult to remember with all these translations from one office to another—will remember that now, after years of work, we see developing in this country a tremendous interest in art, music, archælogy and the whole wide field of arts of all kinds.
I hope that the Treasury will not sit back and wait for all-party deputations to try to persuade the Chancellor that he will not get cracked on the head if he decides to spend some public money. I have great pleasure in sup-

483
porting these Estimates, I hope that we shall hear from my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary what the modern policy of a modern Chancellor will be towards these questions.
7.59 p.m.
Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), the hon. Baronet the Member for Cambridge (Sir H. Kerr) and the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) all mentioned in the course of their speeches the pointer that this Estimate gives to us as to the future of the proper patronage of the arts.
Only one of those hon. Members, however, made any constructive suggestion for an alternative. He was the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet, who said that we ought to encourage industrialists and local authorities to become patrons of the arts. This morning I received through the post a Bill promoted by the hon. Member to give four more days' racing on the greyhound tracks. I do not know whether he regards them as industrialists. I gather that the proprietors may be even philanthropists who are anxious to provide for the adequate exercise of greyhounds.
I support his Bill, and I would do so with the more fervour if I had an indication from the greyhound track proprietors that in the event of their getting this extra opportunity for profit some of the money would go to the patronage of the fine arts. I hope that thought will be passed on by the hon. Gentleman to his friends, no matter what they may describe themselves as or what he may think they are.
I welcome these two grants, and I particularly welcome the way in which they have been received by the House. I should, however, like to sound a warning. The price of all these articles is now fixed by the amount that a wealthy American will be prepared to pay for them, and the more the efforts of this kind the higher the price will be, because these gentlemen across the Atlantic are determined to get the articles. If one of them had thought it possible to get the Leonardo for the equivalent of £330,000, such a sum would not have stopped the man who had that particular kind of interest.
484
Very often, now, when the trustees of these bodies are considering what price they should pay for a certain work of art—particularly if they have to ask the Treasury whether they can get a supplement to the annual Vote—they have to ask themselves what will be the highest bid from America. Personally, I do not want to see money sent from America merely to preserve these great works of art in private collections there, but I welcome the fact that the Treasury has responded to the magnificent lead given by the National Art Collections Fund and by the Earl of Crawford and Balcarres in starting a fund to try to preserve this particular work of art in this country.
I am a little surprised at the line taken by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence). I heard the same argument the other night—Scotland contributes so much to taxation. I have not yet heard of any Scotsman who pays any tax other than that demanded from him by this House, which he cannot escape paying. If they said, "In order that such-and-such a thing shall be preserved, we will agree to a special tax being levied on Scotland" I could understand it.
I regard these as national collections. If they can travel round, so much the better, but let us face the fact that a great many of these precious things are so fragile, need such arrangements with regard to air conditioning, and so on, that all of them cannot be sent round the country. Nevertheless, they should be made as available as possible in places where they can be exhibited without danger to their structure or their continued existence.
I welcome the fact that the Government have had the courage to make these grants. I hope that they will note what I have said about the possibility of getting into competition with American millionaires who want to reconcile their consciences over the way in which they have amassed their money with the way in which they use it for the public benefit, and so are prepared to make great sacrifices for their future in the next world and their reputation in some American pork butchery place in the present world.
Apart from anything else, I think that the Government have here recognised the truth of what this debate started

485
on—the difficulty there will be in future of getting big private contributions for the preservation for these works of art. I am quite certain that in future the Government will from time to time be faced with the problem of having to meet sudden demands that arise through the possible loss abroad of one or other of similar works of art.
I hope that the Government, no matter which party may be in power, will not fail in their duty to the cultural life of the country when such a crisis confronts them.
8.6 p.m.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Edward du Cann): First I want to say how much the Government welcome this debate, and how grateful we are for the contributions that have been made by so many hon. Members. I am sure that we particularly appreciate the most gracious things that have been said, and especially those most deservedly said about what was done by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) during his period as Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) particularly referred to him.
I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), who said that our mutual hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir H. Kerr)—whom I know has to be out of the Chamber for a moment—spoke with winged words. But I have a point of difference with my hon. Friend. He criticised slightly the versifiers of Roedean, suggesting that they were not up to the standard of Sappho. Having spent a fortnight being educated at Roedean, and regarding myself almost as an old boy of the school—I hasten to explain that it was taken over by the Navy during the war, which explains my presence there—I regard this as a fearsome slur on an honourable institution, and hope to discuss the question with him in due course.
We are grateful for the support that these two grants have received, particularly for the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). Perhaps I do not need to take up time in justifying these sums but, I shall, instead, try to answer some of
486
the questions and points that have been raised. If I cannot answer them all it is because I must keep within the rules of order. Perhaps we can look forward to a fuller debate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) said, on another occasion—and we shall look forward to that—
Mr. Charles Pannell: The Economic Secretary spoke about keeping within the rules of order—no one else has bothered.
Mr. du Cann: I am not too sure that two swallows make a summer.
This debate seems to me to give a flat contradiction to someone who said the other day, "The people who govern us"—he meant Parliament as a whole—"are not really interested in art. Any obeisance to art is a gesture." I am sure that that is very far from being true and, in particular, I would assure my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth that the present Treasury has a warm sympathy for the arts, as I hope to indicate later.
I was particularly asked about the Leonardo going on tour. The right hon. Member for South Shields pointed out the difficulties in that—the fragility of the cartoon, and so on. Even when the "Mona Lisa" toured it did not do so without very great controversy. None the less, I am sure that there are great advantages in touring, and one of the things we are doing in this House at the moment in passing through all its stages the British Museum Bill is possibly to foresee the development of loans between our various national and local museums and galleries. I believe that to be a wholly worthwhile and important development.
Much has been said by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) and by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet about local expenditure. The House will have observed the publication of the recent Report of the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries resulting from the Commission's survey of about 875 provincial museums. On behalf of the House as a whole, and certainly on behalf of the Government, I want to say how grateful we are to Lord Rosse and his colleagues for their work. The Government intend to consult the interests concerned about this matter, bearing in mind the principle, which I believe to be important,

487
and to have been very much to have been in Lord Amory's mind when this inquiry was established, that the upkeep of local museums and galleries in terms of normal expenditure is, and should remain, the responsibility of local bodies.
The truth is that local authorities have a glorious opportunity to do something really worth while for the arts. I know that this has been discussed quite recently, and it is right to point out that many local authorities live up to their responsibilities and take these opportunities. I hope very much that more of them will do so.
Major Sir Frank Markham: I understood that we were not allowed, on this Vote, to discuss the Report of the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries. The Economic Secretary has raised the matter now. Does that mean that the debate will become open to further debate on the Report which has just been published?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): I think that the Economic Secretary was making only a passing reference and that is permissible.
Sir F. Markham: If that be a passing reference, I hope that the Economic Secretary will do his utmost to see that the House has a fair chance of discussing that Report in the not too distant future.
Mr. du Cann: I will certainly bring that to the attention of the Leader of the House. It is a valuable point to which I am sure my right hon. Friend will give due weight and consideration. I refer to it in passing because the subject of lending to local museums and exhibitions have been mentioned. The matter is much more fully covered in column 36 of Written Answers in today's HANSARD and I will not pursue the subject any more.
The question of admission charges was raised. There are two schools of thought on this subject. It would be appropriate for me simply to say that the Government have an open mind, and I think that the Government should preserve an open mind until such time as there is clear opinion one way or another. There is much to be said in favour and equally a great deal to be said against.
Dame Irene Ward: Surely it is the Government's job to lead. No one will ever consider waiting until public opinion is for or against in this matter. It is a lead that is necessary.
Mr. du Cann: I am all for leading and I certainly would be very ready, if my hon. Friend would be willing to come with me, to lead her anywhere.
On the other hand, I think that it would be quite wrong for the Government to force any local or national museum or gallery into a policy which is actively resented. I do not think that that is a Government responsibility. Broadly speaking, it should be up to those individual institutions to make up their own minds on the point.
I turn to the basic matters, Vote D and Vote P, the British Academy grant in aid and the contribution to the Leonardo Appeal Fund. The grant in aid to the British Academy has by agreement with the Academy been fixed in recent years on a triennial basis. I make the point en passant that we are endeavouring to fix a number of grants on a forward-look basis for reasons which I shall explain in a moment. I believe this to be an important development in policy.
This provision which is agreed during the triennium is being augmented only in exceptional circumstances. In 196263, the level of the basic grant was raised from £68,000 to £90,000 a year, a substantial increase. Within this the British Academy makes grants to a number of bodies such as the British Schools in Rome and Athens and the Council for British Archaeology and the Egypt Exploration Society. In 1960–61 and 1961–62, special grants totalling £20,000 were approved to enable the British Academy to increase its subvention to the Egypt Exploration Society so that the latter might undertake important archaeological work on sites in Egypt and the Sudan which were threatened with being permanently submerged beneath the Nile when the High Aswan Dam was completed.
This work has proved successful beyond all expectation. When the opportunity arose to continue it for a further three years the Government agreed to make a special grant not exceeding £25,000 for this purpose, the first £5,000

489
to be provided in the current year. I was able to announce this in the House on 5th December. In answer to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East, this work has nothing to do with the raising of the temples and monuments at Abu Simbel, but I was asked particularly by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) what our policy was is relation to that matter. The hon. Member posed a number of hypothetical questions which I agree are extremely important.
This matter has been discussed in the House on other occasions, and in particular my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education has made it plain that there is no question at the moment of joining, so to speak, in the appeal made by U.N.E.S.C.O. In this, as the House knows, we are by no means alone and I certainly could not give in this debate any indication or undertaking that money would be available for this purpose. This is an entirely separate matter.
I turn to the detail of the Leonardo appeal I was entirely delighted with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central and other hon. Members, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who has explained to me that he cannot be here during the remainder of the debate. I was delighted that they paid a warm tribute to Lord Crawford and Balcarres. The work that he did was simply splendid. It was a great public duty which he undertook cheerfully and willingly in difficult personal circumstances. I know how most grateful everybody is to him for that.
This figure of £350,000—and I hope that this illustrates the point of sympathy to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth—is certainly the largest special grant ever, just as the £800,000 is, we believe, the highest price yet paid in this country for a single work of art. As hon. Members have said, the Leonardo appeal was unprecedentedly successful, given the short time in which it had to be organised and carried through. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said that the age of the private patron is over. Perhaps there is truth in that, although my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet does not agree and goes further in saying that it should be far from being true. The amount of interest aroused and the
490
thought of people contributing their sixpences, shillings and half-crowns are, to my mind, extremely romantic and very important.
Out of this, however, the important question arises whether thought should be given to the question of works of art of major importance held by public and semi-public bodies and what the position with regard to them should be in future. It has been decided that the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art, specially augmented, should be invited to consider the position with regard to the sale of works of art and antiques of national importance and to advise what changes if any might be desirable in the principles and procedures governing the export of such objects. This inquiry is now in train. It will take time. It is not an easy matter, but I am sure that it is right to have the inquiry. While I have the opportunity, I should like to pay a warm tribute to Lord Cottesloe, the Chairman of the Reviewing Committee, another devoted public servant of the arts.
I have been asked especially about the export of works of art. As the House will know, present arrangements stem from the recommendations of the Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Waverley. I will not spend time discussing the criteria, but in the ten years of its existence the Reviewing Committee has had 59 cases referred to it and in 44 cases it recommended that an export licence should be withheld. The number of cases coming before the Committee does not necessarily indicate the effectiveness of the control. I believe it to be very effective indeed, in the sense that it is designed to safeguard as far as possible all the various interests concerned in the export of works of art of national importance.
In its ninth Report, published last October, the Reviewing Committee made certain recommendations for improving the system. These recommendations are under consideration in the Treasury, and we shall consider them most carefully. They also present certain substantial difficulties but we shall feel it right to pay very strict attention indeed to what has been suggested.
I now turn to the question of ministerial responsibility for the arts. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury described me as a strange animal

491
to find here. I was a little disappointed in that. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Islington, East, with the courtesy that is so typical of him—we have done a number of things together, and I look forward to doing so in the future—said that I was an ideal Minister. My word! That, indeed, is high praise. It is the first time that I have ever been called ideal by anybody, even by my wife, and I am deeply grateful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth expressed, I think, a feeling which I believe hon. Members always share in relation to individual Ministers, namely, how to bring matters to their attention. If she has a good case and presents it in her usual inimitable, clear and determined style I am sure she will always be received with sympathy, whoever the Treasury Ministers might be.
There is a serious point here, and that is whether or not it is appropriate for Treasury Ministers to look after the arts or whether we should have a brand-new Ministry. Opinions vary about this, as we have seen this evening. Some of my hon. Friends, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, think it right that we should have a new Ministry. I think the important point is that the Government should keep an open mind on the subject until opinion becomes clear one way or the other. But in spite of what my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury said about Lord Cottesloe's remarks in another place, it seems to us that those concerned with the management of the arts value very highly their connection with the Treasury. This seems to be clear beyond a peradventure.
I am not at all sure that it would be right to say in general that the arts should develop under strict Government and ministerial control. I am sure they do much better without strict Government control. No Minister can be an arbiter of taste, and surely it would be wrong to suggest so. At any rate, at present the arts seem to be flourishing under their own impulse and I am sure that most of us believe that is the correct way at the present time.
I think what is really in my hon. Friend's mind is the idea that the
492
Treasury, which has the normal responsibility for controlling expenditure, will be mean towards the arts, and he wishes to avoid that situation. I understand that feeling. But I can assure my hon. Friends that in spite of what is said outside, so to speak, by some of those who come in daily contact with us, it seems to me that—and I am sure they would confirm this; indeed, they have done so publicly and privately—that the present system is one which appears to work well.
As to being frightened of approaching the Treasury, or anything of that sort, art is not made tongue-tied by authority at present. It is interesting, incidentally, to observe on this general subject that the current issue of the Museums Journal, in its leading article, states:
"Anything approaching a Ministry of Fine Arts has hitherto been treated with suspicion and, indeed, repugnance and will continue to be so regarded in many quarters."
That is a very widely-held view.
I observe that my old friend Kingsley Amis, the distinguished novelist and university man, is quoted as saying:
"I find the thought of the Arts and the Government getting together absolutely horrific. The further they stay apart the better."
Sir Oswald Sitwell is quoted as saying:
"Arts should be patronised by as many people as possible but nobody should direct them."
There is truth and force in those observations.
Dr. Stross: That is true of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). That is his view, also.
Mr. du Cann: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that. It lends added weight to the point. As I say, we must keep an open mind on the subject. I do not believe the system is bad. It is not true to say that it does not work; it does.
I turn to the question of expenditure in general. I think that one of my predecessors, Mr. Simon as he then was, as Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in an earlier debate quoted the motto of Pericles—"We will cultivate the arts without extravagance." I hope that we are not extravagant, but I hope that it is the feeling of the House that we approach the whole of this problem with

493
generosity and sympathy and with the aim of giving practical help. At any rate, support for the arts ran at about £1 million before and immediately after the war. It will run next year, if Parliament so wills, at about £11 million.
The amount for the arts is consistently increasing, a point which will be reassuring to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth. This becomes apparent when one examines the British Museum Bill which we are discussing. We propose to spend £10 million on one new library and £1 million on another. We are also making an allocation for the establishment of a National Theatre. The Government contribution on capital cost alone must be at least £1 million, which justifies the point that great progress is being made and will continue to be made.
Adverting to the long look to which I referred, in a number of grants normally carried on Class VIII, Vote 16, notably the basic grant to the British Academy, certainty and assurance are being given to various national institutions in relation to their expenditure in the future. This refers particularly to the Arts Council whose grants have been fixed for the next three years ahead, giving an annual increase year by year of approximately 10 per cent. There are other bodies which I could quote, such as the museums and galleries, which we are currently reviewing with the same principle in mind: we are engaged, with the help of the Standing Commission, in working out a building programme for museums and galleries over the next eight years. This is the policy, continuing and developing help for the arts in the future. I am talking primarily about these special grants.
The right hon. Member for South Shields was very much on the point when he talked about rising costs. This is a very important matter, and a very difficult one, but I should like to say a word about the way the system works. The trustees of the national collections are expected to rely for the purchase of new acquisitions in general on their regular annual purchase grants. However, the Government are ready to look sympathetically at requests for special grants in exceptional circumstances. They then expect the trustees of the applicant institutions to contribute what they can from their annual Exchequer grant, sup-
494
plemented by what they can provide from trust funds, private subscriptions, appeals to the general public and charitable foundations. One might describe the matter as a sort of combined operation, involving the institutions themselves with their ever-increasing funds, private sources, and, last, but by no means least, the Government, and the system works well enough.
Before the debate I was taking out the figures of the total of special grants to museums and galleries since the end of the war. The total figures are about £1·28 million out of a total price figure of £2·12 million. In other words, the total of these special grants is approximately 60 per cent. of the total cost in the cases where the Treasury was asked for money. I hope again that my hon. Friend feels reassured, for this is basically the system. Here is this money available for these institutions.
This is a situation where, in general, the amount of money is increasing. But should special situations arise, should these institutions come suddenly and beg for money, there is a wise provision which, with the approval of the whole House, arranges for contingencies. If these contingencies arise we are ready—this is in reply to the hon. Member for Islington, East—to look sympathetically at any proposition which is put before us. I share the hon. Gentleman's disappointment that we have not always had the successes that we would have wished, but it is right that the House should take some pride in the fact that we have made a number of very important acquisitions over the years since the end of the war. I do not doubt that we shall make more as time goes on.
I have been asked about tax concessions. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet feels particularly strongly about this subject and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central wished me to say something on it. It is a difficult subject because tax concessions in this respect plainly would involve a number of problems. One is the difficulty of discriminating between various worthy bodies, whether charitable bodies like the R.S.P.C.A., on the one hand, and museums and galleries, on the other.
Sometimes situations arise in which, as a matter of equity, they have to be considered, and it is difficult to separate

495
one from the other. Gifts of money or gifts in kind are different from specific gifts such as objects, pictures and paintings. A concession to enable gifts to be set against Surtax would give rise to exactly the sort of difficulties which we had in relation to covenants. It has certainly been the policy of this country to support public collections with monies voted by Parliament. This proposal would mean a specific policy change.
There is another very important and valuable concession, and that is that the national collections, in common with charities generally, already enjoy exemption from estate duty on gifts inter vivos after one year.
It has been said that the Treasury should not have a closed mind on this subject. We certainly do not have a closed mind. We have certainly been thinking about it, although it is right to point out that the superficial attractions of the idea seem, perhaps, less important than some of the real technical difficulties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and other hon. Members spoke of the creative use of leisure by the mass of our people. Certainly, they have more leisure, and it is vital that we do all we can to encourage them to use it wisely and prÒperly. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth spoke of the developing interest in the arts and said that we ignore it at our peril. How right she is. I entirely agree with her. It is the policy of the Government and I believe of the House of Commons as a whole in a bipartisan way to develop our artistic culture in all its aspects. We have a superb national heritage. It is in trust for the nation to manage and to develop it well. It is certainly our determination to succeed in doing this for the pleasure and profit of this generation and, perhaps, more especially for those to come.
Question put and agreed to.

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Third Resolution read a Second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the committee in the said Resolution.
8.33 p.m.
Mr. Charles Pannell: It is not for me to criticise the House on how it runs its affairs, except to note that the Vote which follows this one is of over-riding public interest. Therefore, if I do not address myself at great length to this Vote, it is not because I could not dilate on it for a long time, but because we have been rather fortunate in this respect lately. Last Friday, by the luck of the Ballot, we were able to have a full day's debate on it when certain hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), dealt at length with the question of accommodation here. I understand that we are promised another debate on accommodation which will cover not only the buildings which are being erected at the top here—I do not wish to anticipate that—but also the Parliamentary precincts which will be built opposite.
I cannot help but feel that these Estimates for small over-spendings would have been far better dealt with had the Stokes Committee's Report on House of Commons Accommodation been implemented. Paragraph 55 of that Report recommended that a Parliamentary
"Commission should itself deal with matters of general principle, the consideration of the draft Estimates, the allocation of accommodation and matters affecting the principles governing the appointment and employment of the staff."
I should have thought that the great Mother of Parliaments would have been far better employed in bringing these Estimates before a Commission rather than that we should deal with them in this way and at this hour when one is only too conscious of the anxieties of our colleagues to bring matters of wider importance before the House.
We touch here on the control of the Palace of Westminster. I notice that the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary always refers to the authorities of the House when he has a sticky debate to answer. I looked up Sir Harold Emmerson's book on the Ministry of Works. The Commissioner of Works, who had great functions in the past, now merely has the custody of Westminster Hall. That is not much good to him now, although in the old days when it was used as a court of law rents could be obtained by letting stalls

497
for the sale of goods in that place. We appear to have got away from that.
I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary only one question. It concerns the pilot scheme across the road in St. Stephen's Club. It appears that the Ministry of Public Building and Works is no longer responsible for the cleaning of the club. I do not know who is doing that now. It is, after all, part of the Parliamentary precincts. There is a pilot scheme for the accommodation of Members over there. There are secretaries already there. It seems that the Estimates before us are rather silent on this point.
The Vote is a very narrow one. We are considering an additional provision of only £24,000. I understand that better progress has been made with the Victoria Tower than was expected. I do not know whether other work can be expedited, but I will be satisfied if the Minister will be able to assure me in the debate which will not be so narrowly drawn that his Department in future, if it has to call off any great schemes, will not do so by the device of the Written Answer. It was an absolute affront and almost an impertinence to a Committee on Accommodation set up by Mr. Speaker to do that—
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Mr. Richard Sharpies): To which scheme does the hon. Gentleman refer?
Mr. Pannell: I am speaking about the scheme at the top, the big scheme which will start this summer. Although the Committee sat for a long time and gave its services over a long period, we were not treated with civility. The Minister did not come to the House and say that, owing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's pay pause, he proposed to call the scheme off. We had the incivility of being fobbed off with a Written Answer to the Chairman of the Committee. There was a "stooge" question. I hope that the Minister will treat Committees set up by Mr. Speaker as responsible bodies and will afford them the civility which disinterested public servants deserve.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Mr. Sharples): The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has spoken very briefly and, as I know that the House
498
is anxious to debate the next subject, I shall reply only briefly. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish me at this stage to enlarge on his remarks about the authorities of the House. It would take far longer than I have at my disposal to enter into a worthwhile debate about it with the hon. Member. In any event, I should be overstepping the bounds of my responsibilities if I attempted to do so.
The hon. Member asked a specific question about the cleaning of the St. Stephen's Club. That was formerly on the House of Commons Vote, but now that the National Economic Development Council is the main occupier of the building, it is catered for by other Votes, although it is still the responsibility of my right hon. Friend's Department.
I also assure the hon. Gentleman that it is my right hon. Friend's wish to treat the House with every courtesy, and I have taken note of what the hon. Member has said about the way in which certain building work was altered. When I spoke to him this afternoon, the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to let me know some of the points which he intended to raise, but I agree with him that it might be much better to raise them in the wider debate on accommodation which we will be having later. It would be much more convenient for the House if that were done. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy tonight.
Question put and agreed to.

PRISONS, ENGLAND AND WALES
Fourth Resolution read a Second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.
8.40 p.m.
Miss Alice Bacon: We have very little time—about fifty minutes—to deal with this important subject. I hope that, in the very near future, the House of Commons will be enabled to have a full day's debate on what is an extremely important subject and one which worries many people.
The Vote which is now before us raises many matters about which we could speak—for example, buildings, food, medical services, work, punishment, the

499
segregation of prisoners into different types, young prisoners, borstals, the treatment of women, and, of course, the whole of the prison system and the way in which we treat criminals. I shall, however, be brief because I know that the Minister wishes to speak and some of my hon. Friends, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey), who has recently visited Durham Prison, would like the opportunity to say a few words.
I remember visiting Durham Prison with my hon. Friend some time ago, when I went particularly to see the girls who were in the borstal attached to the prison. I am pleased to know that what I then regarded as a scandal—that borstal girls were in the same building as the male prisoners—has now come to an end. I understand that the borstal girls are now elsewhere in the country.
If I do not mention various items contained in the Supplementary Estimate, the reason is not that I consider them to be unimportant but that I wish to be brief. I have visited several prisons. One of the things that most people find on visiting prisons is the immense variation in conditions—in the case of women's prisons, for example, the variations as between Holloway, on the one hand, with its old building, and, on the other hand, an open prison like Askham Grange.
I shall mention only two or three matters. First, buildings and staff are mentioned in the Supplementary Estimate. These aspects are particularly important in the local prisons where the overcrowding is extremely bad. It is much worse than in the other prisons, because the governor of a local prison cannot say, "We do not have room for you" as the prisoners come in from the courts. He has to make room for them. The regional and the central training prisons, on the other hand, take the prisoners as they come from the local prisons.
I believe that we could relieve the overcrowding in the local prisons if we could take out of those prisons the young prisoners and those on remand. That means that we must get ahead with the building of remand centres. In the section of the Vote dealing with buildings, I see that £790,000 less than expected has been spent because the building programme has not gone ahead as quickly as was
500
hoped. That may be the reason why we have only one remand centre.
We all remember that in April, 1961, the former Home Secretary, now First Secretary of State, said that we would soon have many more remand centres. We have only one at present, and because of the shortage of staff in that one, and because of the shortage of teachers for the younger boys, some of the boys are shut up alone for fifteen or sixteen hours a day and sometimes more. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman when he anticipates that we shall have more remand centres, because I believe that it is only through having more remand centres that we shall relieve the overcrowding in some of the local prisons.
There is an item here about medicines. I was very pleased to hear recently that the right hon. Gentleman agreed to set up a Committee to bring forth a report about the whole of the prison medical system. I get a lot of letters from prisoners. Apart from letters in which prisoners point out that they did not commit the crimes for which they are in prison, I think the largest number of letters I get from prisoners are complaints about the medical services, and I hope, therefore, that the Committee which is sitting will not be too long before it produces its report. I was pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman say last week that women in Holloway and other women's prisons were not compelled to take the V.D. test, but I hope that it will be made clear to them that they can refuse this test and not just have to object on their own without knowing what their full rights are.
Medicines, of course, include drugs. I feel very strongly that in this day and age when we have so many drugs it is a scandal that we should see in the Report of the Prison Commissioners that such things as straitjackets are still used in our prisons. I should have thought, for instance, that if anybody should be in a state of hysteria he could be more easily dealt with by modern drugs than by being put in a padded cell or in a straitjacket.
There is an item for public utilities and cleaning. I think that one of the worst features of our worst prisons is the degradation which prison life, and particularly the toilet facilities, brings to a great many of the prisoners. I do

501
not know whether it is true or not—I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to say—but I saw in a newspaper article about the new borstal which has been built and is now open in Bulwood in Essex, an article written by someone who visited the borstal, that the toilet facilities there leave a great deal to be desired and that, in particular, there are no toilet facilities for use by the girls and young women at night time. I have not yet visited that borstal, but I hope to do so in the very near future.
There is another point I must raise. I see there is an additional requirement for mail bag canvas and other materials for the manufacture of goods for other Government Departments. When are we going to get rid of mail bag sewing by hand in our prisons? Surely there are many better things which could be done by our prisoners in occupying their time than sewing mail bags by hand. It must be the most soul-destroying thing, and surely does not fit a man to go out into life.
While I am on the question of work, I think that the women in our prisons work far harder than the men, because there always seems to be work for the women prisoners to do. I hope that we shall look at the whole question of jam-making which goes on and which is very useful. Nevertheless, I think that the women in Holloway probably have to carry heavier weights than is good for them.
I want to mention only one other thing and I hope that I shall keep in order in mentioning it. I see an item about pay and allowances and other staff expenses, and that would affect the whole of prison welfare and some of the aftercare. We have seen in the newspapers today photographs of men who have been serving long-term sentences of preventive detention leaving prison, and anyone who has seen those photographs will agree that they did not see any great jubilation on the faces of the men being released. There was just absolute bewilderment because the most frightening part of a long-term sentence is the day of release. I receive many letters—and I have no doubt other hon. Members do too—from prisoners saying how absolutely frightened they are to face the outside world.
502
I have always been interested in the hostel scheme, which I have seen working at Wakefield and Askham Grange, by which long-term prisoners, in the last few months of their sentences, are allowed to go out to work and return to the prison at night. This is of inestimable value. I have seen women prisoners travelling on their bicycles a few miles to York where they work in the chocolate factories. On their release many of them continue to work in those factories and to live in York. This is a valuable scheme which was begun a few years ago.
The Dartmoor reconviction rate is twice as high among those who are not in the hostel scheme as it is among those who have gone through it. We have all heard of the tragic case which, I understand, will be raised by other hon. Members, of George Thatcher, who was participating in the hostel scheme at the time when he committed a murder. Maybe he was not the type of person to have been selected for the hostel scheme. I do not know. Maybe there should be a stricter watch and supervision over the free time of prisoners who are participating in the scheme. But what I should not like to see is any attempt to bring the scheme to an end, for I believe that it has worked well in easing the problems facing long-term prisoners when they are released. It has been a valuable scheme and I hope that nothing will be done to destroy its value.
Mr. Charles Loughlin: Thatcher was to have been released.
Miss Bacon: He would have been released in two or three months. In this case perhaps it is not a question of the hostel scheme having failed but a question of the whole of the prison system being at fault in that a man had been in prison for so many years but was coming out no better than when he went in. I agree that this was a tragic happening. Unfortunately, time does not permit me to go into many of these matters in detail and that is why I hope that we shall have a full debate on another occasion when we shall be able to discuss these matters at length.
8.54 p.m.
Mr. Edward Gardner: This is, as the hon. Lady the Member for

503
Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) said, undoubtedly a very important subject. I listened with interest to her remarks, particularly when she described the degradation of the toilet facilities in prisons. The most inexpensive yet most effective way of reforming our prisoners and helping those who are incarcerated in prison as a punishment would be to put in proper lavatorial facilities. I cannot see any reason in this day and age why a person who is being punished by the State must be forcibly subjected—because there is no alternative—to the habits of an animal. The "slopping" system should go as quickly as possible.
While I have said that this would be a comparatively inexpensive, although essential reform, I am not one of those who would advocate enormous expenditure on our prisons now. I am not complacent, but I am content with the level of expenditure on our prisons at the moment. That expenditure is about £5 million a year on building and alterations and the £26 million scheme started in 1959 is taking about £4½ million a year.
We must analyse all this and be careful that we know the answers. We must know why our prisons are being filled up at the rate at which they are at the moment. I believe that one of the sources of crime is bad housing, and if there are to be priorities, as indeed there must always be priorities in these matters, I would rather see money spent on housing than on prisons.
I agree that there is discomfort in prisons. Of course, no one enjoys being in them. I concede without hesitation the harm that can be done by having a number of men, for example, sleeping together in the same cell. I concede also the humiliation and the oppression of mind caused by these conditions. But these are at the moment one of the elements of punishment. I think that it is very easy to become over-sentimental in these matters.
The reasons for sending a man or a woman to prison are many. Primarily, they fall into three categories. The first reason is to punish them, the second to deter others from doing the same, and the third—which I am not sure is not as important as any of the others—is to reform them so that when they come out they will become good subjects of society.
Mr. Victor Yates (Birmingham, Lady-wood): Surely the modern conception of imprisonment is not primarily punishment but correction spiritually, morally and educationally?
Mr. Gardner: I agree. But I do not think that we should lose sight of the punitive element, and I think that the hon. Member will agree with me there. It is something that we cannot overlook. If we are to make our prisons as comfortable as home, and give the prisoners all the facilites that they could have outside, there will be little distinction between prison and the outside world except loss of freedom, which I agree is a very considerable thing.
One aspect of punishment that particularly interests me, and I am sure concerns the House as a whole, is the punishment of young girls. It is something which also particularly interests the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East. There has been an appalling increase in the crime rate among young women. I should call them young girls really, because the age group with which I am concerned is that between 14 and 17.
Since 1938 the crime rate in this age group has risen by nearly four times. In 1938 the number of young girls between 14 and 17 who committed offences was about 912; in 1961 the figure had risen to 3,305. If one compares this figure according to the number of offenders per 100,000 of the population, in 1938 it was 90 and in 1961 it was 310.
I mention this subject because it is essential when we consider the amount of money being spent on prisons and borstals that we keep these young girls in mind. It is essential that we should be satisfied that the very best is being done for them by deciding which particular form of treatment or punishment they should be given. It is essential that classifying centres—a very important step in the decision which is eventually taken about where a young girl should go—should be operated on the most effective and efficient basis. There is only one classifying centre for girls in the country at the moment and that is working at half-strength because of lack of staff.
The punishment given to a person, particularly to a young girl, is of paramount importance for the country's future. We

505
all know the immense influence which women have upon society, and if these crime rate figures continue to grow and we are not careful, we shall get a criminal class of women whose influence on society might be profound. I urge upon my right hon. Friend the need when deciding upon priorities of expenditures on our prison and borstal system to deal with women criminals at the top of the list.
I am grateful to hon. Members for their patience in listening to the case I have attempted to make. I know that there are many other hon. Members who wish to add their quota to the debate. I conclude by hoping that this subject of young women criminals will achieve a very high place in the list of priorities.
9.2 p.m.
Mr. Charles Grey: I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner) will forgive me if I do not follow him into that subject. I wish to deal with allegations which were made in the House on 12th March concerning Durham Prison. When the Home Secretary recently suggested that one or two hon. Members might visit a prison, I had no idea how soon it would be that I would take the opportunity of visiting that prison, although the circumstances surrounding my visit were very sad.
Perhaps I have been successful in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because of a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock). In all kindness and fairness to her, I have to say that I wish that she had mentioned her allegations to me before raising the subject in the House. It is an act of courtesy that when an hon. Member's constituency is involved the hon. Member wishing to raise the issue informs him of his intention to do so. My hon. Friend is a personal friend of mine, and I have no bitterness in my heart about her action, but if she had told me what she intended to say the harm which has been done might not have been caused.
I visited Durham Prison on Monday of this week. I met all types in the prison. I met the governor, the medical officers, the prison officers and the prisoners themselves. It took me three and a quarter hours to get in and out
506
of that prison. I have never had such an exhausting time before.
I can assure the House that the allegations which were made on 12th March were absolutely untrue, and it is because they were untrue that I ask the Home Secretary to agree to a full-scale inquiry into them. All these allegations are connected with brutal treatment. There are some with which the right hon. Gentleman could deal at once.
It was alleged that five of the warders at Durham Prison were transferred from Liverpool Prison because of their part in the inquiry at that prison. That allegation was not true. Only one of the five warders who were moved to Durham Prison took part in the inquiry at Liverpool Prison. One went to Durham on compassionate grounds and the other four were sent there on promotion. To suggest that they were moved to one prison because they were responsible for some upheaval in another is definitely untrue and malicious.
Mrs. E. M. Braddock: I did not say that at all. I did not say that anybody was transferred because of any difficulty at Liverpool Prison. I said that I had discovered that there were five warders from Liverpool Prison at Durham Prison who had been involved in the inquiry at Liverpool Prison.
Mr. Grey: Only one was involved in that inquiry.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): I must interrupt the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey). Although I want to be as lenient as possible, I find it difficult to see to what item the hon. Member is relating his remarks. Perhaps he can help me.
Mr. Grey: My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) has already widened the scope of the debate. We are here concerned with the recruitment of prison officers. If this kind of thing is to be said about prison officers, how are we to recruit them?
I am taking this matter up now because it is perhaps the only opportunity that I shall have of hearing from the Home Secretary whether there should be an inquiry into Durham Prison and all the aspects of prison life there concerning the governor, the medical officers, the prison

507
officers, and the prisoners themselves. I think that there should be an inquiry in the interest of all concerned and of the country. A slur has been cast against this prison which, I believe, ought to be removed.
I have tried to put myself in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I promise that I shall not be too long, but there is another case that I should like to mention. If it is said that warders are brutal when they are not, how shall we be able to staff our prisons? If we allow them to be maligned, and if ex-prisoners are allowed, in Press interviews, to make all kinds of malicious statements and there is no means of countering the allegations, what position will the country be in when it wants to launch a campaign to recruit prison officers?
The position has been jeopardised by the accusations that have been made. There is not one statement that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange that can stand up to the truth. This is very unfair when we think of all the things that a prison officer tries to do inside a prison, in difficult circumstances.
There is another aspect of the matter. Is not this a sad reflection on every religious denomination in Durham? Ministers of every religious denomination visit and are in close contact with the prison. If we say that cruelty occurs in the prison, we are condemning these people. because they must obviously know about it.
In view of the malicious and outrageous statements which have been made, and of the fact that great resentment is felt by some of the prisoners in the prison, by the prison officers, by the medical officers, by the governor himself, and by people outside the prison, nothing short of an inquiry will satisfy. I hope that I shall be permitted to tell the House what happened on Monday night.
Within half an hour of a television interview, a person whose name I shall not mention—I dare not—rang me and said, "I was in Durham Prison. I am ashamed of what I did in the past, but now I have a decent job. I am working for a good employer, but he does not know my past, and I do not want him to know it". This man is now afraid that his future has been jeopardised.
508
I feel very strongly about this. I am grateful for being allowed to go rather wide in my remarks, but I felt that this was the only opportunity to make known the views of the Durham authorities and of some of the prisoners, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be in favour of a full-scale inquiry into the whole matter.
9.12 p.m.
Mr. John Wells: I thank the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) for his vindication of the prison service in his constituency. What he has said will be of real value to the prison officers throughout the service. This is a matter which has caused widespread distress among prison officers and people who wish the service well, and I think that the House and the country should be grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
I shall confine my remarks to Subheads C and H. Under Subhead C we see that there is to be an increase of 212 staff. I welcome this increase, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will write me a letter as soon as he can answering the nine and a half points which I raised in my speech last Tuesday and which he left unanswered and deal with this question of additional staff which is of great importance.
I said last Tuesday, and I repeat now, that promotion prospects for the staff are far too slow. Until there is a more attractive career structure for the uniformed grades they are bound to want to press, and quite rightly so, for all promotions to the non-uniformed grades to be from the lower grades.
With regard to the non-uniformed grades, it is essential that there should be mobility and an improved career structure there also. I believe that the new arrangements which the House approved last Tuesday will enable the Home Secretary to allow manoeuvreability and mobility between one branch of the prison service and another, and I hope that further changes within the prison service, and indeed the probation service, will further improve recruitment in the years ahead.
Dealing with Subhead H, the hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) rightly deplored the continued sewing of mail bags. As I said last Tuesday, this grave shortage of work in the prisons is extremely distressing. A discharged prisoner faces a crisis when he

509
goes back to employment. If he has been spending his twenty-four hours a day in prison with a lack of work, he has formed a very unsatisfactory view of work. It is essential that we should do all we can to improve the real working conditions in prisons.
There are two requirements: first, more staff—and I welcome the increase under Subhead C—and, secondly, more realistic work. This can come only from the good offices of the Government and the trade unions. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will get closer to the trade unions in this matter of encouraging proper work in prisons. The hon. Lady deplored the sewing of mail bags by hand in prison, and so do I. But prisoners must be offered something relatively simple. I hope that the hon. Lady's condemnation of the jam factory in Holloway Prison was not coloured by the book which has been written by two young ladies who may not have been used to manual work. Conditions in Holloway may have been an eye-opener to them.
Item (3) of Subhead H is in respect of
"Additional requirements for mailbag canvas and other materials for manufacture of goods for other Government Departments and for prison use."
I hope that the other Government Departments will give a proper accounting for the raw materials that the Prison Commissioners buy for them and that the matter will be put upon a proper commercial basis. I notice that the former Assistant Postmaster-General, who is now at the Home Office, is present. I hope that the Post Office has not been getting its mailbags on the cheap in the past.
I notice that in Item (1)—"Farm Supplies"—there is apparently a decreased provision of £10,000. This does not surprise me, because the farming activities of the Prison Commissioners have been extensive and successful. I hope that my right hon. Friend will do all he can to improve recruiting, and also work conditions in prisons.
9.17 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): I am reluctant to rise now, but there are only 12 minutes remaining, and I want to
510
take the opportunity of answering as many questions as possible.
In reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon), I shall always welcome opportunities for debating prisons and the prison service in Parliament. It is a great responsibility, not only for the Home Secretary but for every one of us, that we have 30,000 people in detention. We should never forget them. We must always be thinking how we can improve the prison system not only in its deterrent but in its reformative aspect.
One of the necessary things is to recruit more prison staff and good prison staff. I am glad to say, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Maid-stone (Mr. J. Wells), that the strength of prison officer staff increased by no less than 550 last year, thanks to excellent recruitment, We now have two training centres open. This improved recruiting is continuing in the current year, and it is that, together with the vigorous building programme on which we are engaged, which will do more than anything else to put right some of the admitted shortcomings in our prisons now, especially with regard to work.
I set more store by providing prisoners with a full week of work than by almost anything else, but we cannot do that so long as we have to run a number of our prisons on a one-shift system of prison officers, and we cannot do it until we have enough workshop space. Hon. Members mentioned the question of mailbag sewing by hand. This is dreary and monotonous work, but it is, nevertheless, rather popular work in some prisons, because the prisoners sit close to each other on a bench and they can talk. They prefer that to working on machines by themselves, when they cannot chat to their neighbours. I am not saying that it is a good thing to have prisoners sewing mailbags by hand, but, until we have more workshop space and room for more machines, this kind of thing must continue.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Maid-stone, whose speech I very much appreciated, that I set great store by the work of my Advisory Council on Employment for Prisoners under the chairmanship of Sir Wilfrid Anson, who takes a great interest in the subject. I ask

511
my hon. Friend to believe that the real difficulty at present is not the shortage of work for prisoners to do, but the shortage of space in which they can do it.
The hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East asked about the building of remand centres. I am glad to say that in addition to the Ashford remand centre which is open, and which I have visited, we have six remand centres under construction and two more out for tender, so that we have a programme of nine altogether which will be coming into operation from next year onwards.
The hon. Lady referred to the hostel scheme. A case which is now sub judice brought the hostel scheme into prominence. Neither I nor any hon. Member can say anything about that case. But I wish to impress on the House that I set great store by the hostel system. I do not think that we should be deterred from carrying on with it. We should be seeking to perfect it all the time and if defects become apparent, we should seek to put those defects right.
The hostel scheme operates for men sentenced to terms of imprisonment of more than four years. These people will find it very difficult to stand on their own feet when they come out of prison unless they have some transitional experience. On a certain date they will come out of prison and be free to go straight or to commit crime and nobody can exercise control over them. The idea of the hostel system is that between six months and nine months before the date when, after many years in prison, they will be released, they shall do work for outside employers but live in a hostel. They are subjected thereby to far closer after-care than prisoners discharged in the normal way. I am glad to say that of the prisoners who came out of hostels up to 31st December, 1961, 86 per cent. had not been reconvicted by the end of 1962. I am not saying that is a perfect record, but I am sure that the facts show this to be an experiment which we should not set aside.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South-East asked about the use of the restraint jacket. That matter was dealt with by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) in reply to an Adjournment debate recently. The essential point is that
512
we cannot use sedatives to restrain prisoners without their consent. This situation does not arise in respect of mental hospitals, which deal with statutory patients. There, the position is quite different. I can assure the hon. Lady that restraint jackets are used as little as possible.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner) asked whether we could get rid of the slopping-out system as quickly as possible. I wish that we could. But the problem is a practical one. It would be quite impossible to provide water closets in the cells in the old prisons. The point of policy was carefully considered when the new prison building programme began. But it was decided not to provide lavatories in the cells in the new prisons. one reason being that it did not seem desirable to provide them in rooms to be used throughout their sentence by prisoners as bedrooms. Nobody wants to sleep in water closets.
I understand that the Swedes put water closets in the cells in some of their new prisons and decided to take them out again as a result of experience. We certainly are not accepting the slopping-out system as something which is ideal and which should remain for all time. In many ways it is disgusting, but there are real practical difficulties in finding a better alternative.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay also referred to crime among young girls. Crime among young girls, although it has greatly increased, is far less than crime among young boys of a comparable age. I think that my hon. and learned Friend had in mind, when he spoke of classifying arrangements, classifying arrangements for approved schools rather than for prisons. It is my policy to keep girls under 21 out of prison altogether. That is one reason why we have opened a detention centre at Moor Court, in Staffordshire. Our reward for that was that we were immediately attacked in the Press on the ground that detention centres are not suitable for girls, but they are more suitable than prisons. I hope that I shall have the support of the House for this policy.
I turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey). I should like to say how much I appreciate his

513
action in having gone to visit the prison in his constituency immediately after the reference was made to it in this House last week. I repeat that if hon. Members will visit prisons when they have an opportunity and, if they think fit, let me know afterwards—formally or informally—the impression that the prisons make on them, they will be performing a public service, not just to me but to the prison service. I am quite sure that it is right that there should be as many visits as possible by responsible people and I and other Home Office Ministers are seeking to act in that way.
The hon. Member mentioned the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock). I noticed her remark last week saying that there were five prison officers at Durham who had been involved in an inquiry concerning Liverpool Prison and who were now in Durham Prison. I have taken some pains to go into the facts. The facts are that there are nine prison officers at Durham Prison who, at one time or another, served at Liverpool. Of those nine, live were not at Liverpool at the time of the events which were the subject of the inquiry and not one of the other four was among the prison officers referred to in the Liverpool inquiry.
I certainly think that the allegations which have been made from various quarters about events in Durham Prison deserve investigation. Durham is not a prison from which complaints and adverse reports have been coming in; there is no reason to think that it has a bad record of any sort. But serious allegations have been made and I have decided that an inquiry into these allegations is necessary.
I have considered what form that inquiry should take, because I take the hon. Member's point that it should not be carried out by the Prison Commissioners and I have reached this decision: I am going to act in accordance with Rule 194 of the Prison Rules. I am calling on the visiting committee of Durham Prison—as the House knows, a visiting committee is an independent committee of justices, quite independent of the prison, the Prison Commissioners and the Home Secretary—to arrange for an inquiry to be held and a report to be made to me. When I receive that report I shall, naturally, con-
514
sider whether it is a report which t can publish.
I was anxious to have the opportunity of making that statement tonight because I do not think that allegations of this sort should be bandied about and certainly not made on television without their being taken seriously and without a full and proper inquiry being made by independent people into the facts underlying them.
Meanwhile, may my last words be that I would beg nobody lightly to say anything which will cast slurs on the prison service as a whole. No doubt there are "bad eggs" in the prison service—there are "bad eggs" wherever one looks—but, in general, the prison service consists of devoted people who are doing their very best according to their lights. We ought to be thankful that there are more and more men who are willing—
It being half-past Nine o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply), to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Resolution under consideration.
Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put and agreed to.
Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith, with respect to each of the remaining Resolutions reported from the Committee of Supply but not yet agreed to by the House, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in that Resolution:—
Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Fifth Resolution,
put and agreed to.
Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Sixth Resolution,
put and agreed to.
Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Seventh Resolution,
put and agreed to.
Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Eighth Resolution,
put and agreed to.
Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Ninth Resolution,
put and agreed to.
Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Tenth Resolution,
put and agreed to.
Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Eleventh Resolution,
put and agreed to.
Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Twelfth Resolution,
put and agreed to.
Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Thirteenth Resolution,
put and agreed to.
Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Fourteenth Resolution,
put and agreed to.
Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Fifteenth Resolution,
put and agreed to.
Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Sixteenth Resolution.
put and agreed to.
Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith, with respect to each Resolution come to by the Committee of Supply and not yet agreed to by the House, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in that Resolution:—

SUPPLY [18th March]
  AIR ESTIMATES, 1963–64
    VOTE 1. PAY, ETC., OF THE AIR FORCE
    1. That a sum, not exceeding £128.120,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964.
    VOTE 2. RESERVE AND AUXILIARY SERVICES
    2. That a sum, not exceeding £689,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the reserve and auxiliary services and cadet forces (to a number not exceeding 61,840, all ranks, for the Royal Air Force Reserve, and 1,200, all ranks, for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964.
    VOTE 7. AIRCRAFT AND STORES
    3. That a sum, not exceeding £244,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of aircraft and stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964.
    VOTE 9. MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES
    4. That a sum, not exceeding £510,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services including certain grants in aid and a subscription to the World Meteorological Organisation, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964.
    VOTE 11. ADDITIONAL MARRIED QUARTERS
    5. That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964.

    AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63
    6. That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,600,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year.

    SCHEDULE

    —

    Sums not exceeding

    Supply Grants

    Appropriations in Aid

    Vote

    £

    £

    5, Movements

    200,000

    650,000

    7. Aircraft and Stores

    1,400,000

    —

    Total, Air (Supplementary), 1962–63 £

    1,600,000

    650,000

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1963–64
  VOTE 1. PAY, ETC., OF THE ROYAL NAVY AND ROYAL MARINES
  7. That a sum, not exceeding £75,581,000. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending an the 31st day of March, 1964.
  VOTE 4. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER SCIENTIFIC SERVICES
  8. That a sum, not exceeding £25,895,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of scientific services, including a grant in aid to the National Institute of Oceanography, and a subscription to the International Hydrographic Bureau, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964.
SUPPLY [7th March]
  AIR ESTIMATES, 1963–64
    VOTE A. NUMBER FOR AIR FORCE SERVICE
    That a number of Officers, Airmen and Airwomen, not exceeding 148,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964.
SUPPLY [11th March]
  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1963–64
    VOTE A. NUMBERS
    That 100,000 Officers, Ratings and Royal Marines be maintained for Naval Service, for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1964.
SUPPLY [14th March]
  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1963–64

    VOTE A. NUMBER OF LAND FORCES
    That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 241,000, all ranks, be maintained for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of Her Majesty's Crown, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1964.
    Resolutions agreed to.

    WAYS AND MEANS [19th March]
    Resolutions reported,
    That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1962, the sum of £30 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
    That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, the sum of £115,301,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
    That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964, the sum of £2,388,393,100 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
    Resolutions agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Anthony Barber.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2)
    Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March, 1962, 1963 and 1964, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 85.]

    HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (SHIPPING SERVICES)
    9.34 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): I beg to move,
    That the Undertaking between the Secretary of State for Scotland and Messrs. Bremner and Company, Shipowners, a draft of which was laid before this House on 7th March. be approved.
    This draft Undertaking is a small measure from the financial point of view and follows very closely Undertakings that have been debated on earlier occasions, but, as I know that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) will agree, it is a matter of considerable importance to the area concerned. It deals with the sea transport services to the south Isles of Orkney—Hoy, Hotta, Fara and Graemsay, which lie to the south and west of Scapa Flow. The services run between these islands to the mainland piers of Orkney. at Stromness and at Scapa.
    The company which operates this service, Messrs. Bremner and Company of Stromness, is well-established and well-known in the islands. It is a small private company with two working partners. It has been operating there since before the war, and has been assisted by the Scottish Office since 1947 when a contribution was made under the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act powers to supplement the Post. Office mail contract. During 1957 things became rather difficult for the company when its old ship the "Orcadia" had to be scrapped and at the same time the naval base at Scapa closed down. This removed a considerable part of the company's revenue at a time when it faced considerable capital expenditure in providing a new vessel.
    The service obviously had to continue. As this was before the Highlands and Islands Shipping Services Act, 1960. had been passed, arrangements were made for the Admiralty to charter to the company its motor fishing vessel "Hoy Head", and the Scottish Office agreed to meet the company's losses on this ship, using the powers of the Secretary of State under the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897.
    This arrangement got over the immediate difficulties, but the "Hoy

    519
    Head", after adaptation to carry passengers and freight, was suitable to carry only 36 passengers. This was adequate for most of the year but not for the summer tourist season. To cope with the summer increase and to provide a relief vessel during surveys it was decided that a second ship must be obtained. The Highlands and Islands Shipping Services Act was by then on the Statute Book and in 1961 the Secretary of State was able to acquire and charter to the company a second vessel, the "Watchful" which can carry 91 passengers and therefore, with the "Hoy Head" is adequate to cope with summer traffic. The Watchful" is not normally used in winter except when she replaces the "Hoy Head" while that ship is undergoing survey. It has also been found useful to use her for similar purposes in the North Isles of Orkney.
    When the original arrangements were made with the company in 1957 it was thought that the cost to the Exchequer would be about £5,000 to £6,000, and so it was. Since 1961, however, finances have been more difficult. Wages and other costs have risen and have not been covered by increased charges. Moreover, the second vessel, the "Watchful", has added to the costs. Subsequently, the company's financial returns for 1961, unexpected repairs to the Hoy Head ", and a poor summer season for the "Watchful" in 1962, made it clear by the latter part of last year that payments in 1962–63 would have to be in the neighbourhood of £13,000.
    New arrangements were obviously needed, and, rather than continuing to use the powers of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act of 1897, it was obviously better to bring these arrangements into line with arrangements made for the other islands under the 1960 Highlands and Islands Shipping Services Act. As the House knows, however, Section 2 (3) of the 1960 Act provides that the Secretary of State cannot make advances totalling more than £10,000 in any one financial year to any person, except in accordance with an Undertaking, a draft of which has been laid before Parliament and approved by a Resolution of this House. That is what we are now asking the House to do.
    This draft Undertaking brings the arrangements with Messrs. Bremner into
    520
    line with the other agreements that have been concluded under the 1960 Act. It will enable the Secretary of State to meet the company's needs for assistance over £10,000 in the current financial year and, if necessary, in subsequent years. The Undertaking, of course, has been under discussion with the company since last year, and there have been negotiations. The Undertaking follows broadly the same lines as the agreements with David MacBrayne Limited and with the Orkney Islands Shipping Company Limited, which the House approved on 11th December, 1961. Therefore, perhaps I need not detain the House by saying very much about the detailed provisions since they repeat in effect what the House has already discussed and approved in the other agreements.
    I shall not summarise the Clauses unless the House wishes me to do so, except to make a brief reference to Clause 12 which provides an incentive to efficiency. There is a variation here, not in the form but in the proportions. The arrangements are the same as for MacBraynes, but hon. Members will see from the Undertaking that if losses turn out to be higher or lower than estimated, the difference is to be shared between the company and the Secretary of State in the proportion of 25 per cent./75 per cent. If I remember correctly, the proportion in the case of MacBraynes is 50 per cent./50 per cent.
    These proportions have been taken because obviously in a very small company like this a higher loss might be crippling. For the same reason, a maximum ceiling and floor is set at £1,000. Above this sum all losses are borne by the Secretary of State and all profits are taken by him. This looks complicated, but it amounts to this, that if the company does better than expected, it may earn up to an extra £250 and if it does not it stands to lose up to the same amount. If the company went on making extra losses or extra profits year after year, it would show that there was something wrong with the original estimates, and Clause 12 (2) provides that if similar results are shown in two consecutive years a recalculation shall be made in the grant.
    I hope that what I have said gives a sufficiently clear account of this small

    521
    measure to enable the House to approve it and to enable the Secretary of State to continue this new form of assistance which successive Governments have given to this company.
    Mr. Archie Manuel: Regarding the proportion of 75 per cent. and the limit of £1,000 above which the loss is met by the Secretary of State, is there any ceiling limit over that sum of £1,000? Could it go to £3,000?
    Mr. Brooman-White: As in the case of MacBraynes, any loss over a fixed figure, in this case £1,000, is borne by the Secretary of State and likewise any profit is taken by him.
    9.42 p.m.
    Mr. J. Grimond: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for this draft Undertaking and also for the way in which he has introduced it.
    My constituents are grateful for the help advanced to these services. As the Under-Secretary said, they are important in that they are the only means of transport for passengers and most freight up and down the Scapa Flow. They are, therefore, the equivalent of, and as importan: as, roads on the mainland.
    In passing, to allay any fears of hon. Members, and possibly in particular of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), this is a very limited operation. The figures in question are small and, I think, can be estimated with a fair degree of certainty.
    Mr. Manuel: My fear was that there would not be the flexibility to run an adequate service if the limit was too close to £1,000.
    Mr. Grimond: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. I should, first of all, like to say that, grateful as we are for this help, it seems to me that the whole situation underlines once again the lack of any strategy, so to speak, for services in the Highlands or, indeed, Highland development. One of the troubles of these services is that the population in the area is falling and so is trade. One reason why we are having this draft Undertaking is that losses have increased owing to a rundown to some extent in trade in the area.
    I am afraid that this is a situation which can be paralleled in many parts of the Highlands, and what we need is an
    522
    overall policy to reverse this spiral of falling population and falling trade with the consequent need for more assistance to build them up.
    This service consists of two vessels. As the hon. Gentleman said, one of these, the "Hoy Head", has passenger accommodation, but it is extremely limited because only about fifteen passengers can get under cover on the boat. Having made frequent trips in it, which I have much enjoyed, I cannot say that it is of transatlantic standards. In fact, there is close competition between the oil drums and the passengers on the deck. The other vessel is slow. I do not complain about this situation, but these vessels will not go on for ever, and, unless some general upthrust can be given to the area, we shall be in difficulties in future. There are also difficulties about piers. This is another common difficulty in Highland development. We may improve the services, but unless we have adequate piers we shall not meet the whole difficulty.
    The service is run primarily by two partners, and, lest the House feels that they are being unduly generously treated, I should point out that they get a very small management fee—I think that the Under-Secretary of State will confirm that—and undertake a good deal of the work themselves. This is not an operation which is conducted by two wealthy men in striped trousers sitting in an office. They do their best to run the concern efficiently and to give service in conditions which are not always easy and with boats which are licensed only for work within the Flow or to and fro between the mainland of Orkney and the inner islands. There is a slight difficulty here, because the Under-Secretary of State mentioned the possibility of using these boats between some of the northern islands of Orkney, but they could be used only between Kirkwall and the nearer Northern Isles because I do not think the Board of Trade would permit them to go far out. They are therefore confined to this service, which handicaps their profitability.
    I am grateful for what the Government have done. I hope that the time will come when they review the whole situation in the Highlands again, but meantime I hope that this will ensure that

    523
    my constituents will be able to travel between the islands on their lawful purposes and to continue their trade.
    9.47 p.m.
    Mr. William Ross: There was almost an air of abashment and shame about the Under-Secretary of State when, after hearing the large sums involved in the Estimates which we have just passed, he dealt with a matter which means life or death to the economy of a part of Scotland involving an annual cost of about £13,000. I remember the long debates we had on the Highlands and Islands Bill in the Scottish Committee and our determination to ensure that Parliament carried out its function of scrutinising expenditure. We wished to be sure not only about the wisdom of that expenditure but that the spirit of the Bill would be carried through.
    I do not know whether the spirit of the Bill, now that it is an Act, is carried through. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) has been a very considerable benefactor from it. He has been able on two occasions to indulge his occasional passion for nationalisation because the other company which links the Northern Isles is one of the instruments of the Secretary of State. I refer to the North Orkney company which replaced the steam navigation company, which is financed by the Secretary of State. We are here once again dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, but this time with the South Isles. I do not think that anyone would object to this. One appreciates the difficulties in this part of Scotland and that what the Government propose here is absolutely essential. I only regret that we do not always have a similar enlightened policy in other parts of Scotland. I would even think that the Liberal Party could have extended its occasional generosity in this connection when it voted for the Second Reading of the Transport Bill.
    The Undertaking is an interesting one. It is not exactly the same as the MacBrayne one—far from it. There is a curious definition of how long it will run. Its term is five years from 1st April, 1962—the Under-Secretary got it in just in time to cover this year—and it is terminable with three months' notice on each side, either before or after the
    524
    terminable date, strangely enough. It seems to be able to perpetuate itself beyond 31st March, 1967. I do not know whether this was one of the flaws in the Undertaking. There are some considerable flaws in it. I do not know whether we will get another apology from the Secretary of State before we have finished, but it is worth noticing that one or two things need to be explained.
    The financial commitment appears to be the annual grant and, of course, the management fee, of which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has spoken. At one time, the figure was running at between £5,000 and £6,000; now it is going up to £13,000. Then there is the revaluation and allocation of any additional loss or unexpected surplus. We can ignore that one for the moment. The company is, however, liable to gain anything up to £250 or to lose anything up to a similar figure, but any loss over that sum, no matter how big, will be borne by the Secretary of State, who, equally, will derive the benefit of any greater surplus.
    The approved capital expenditure, which is to be met by grant, is to cover the possibility of further chartering. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland speak about the difficulties of one of the ships which was rather slow. My impression is that power already exists in the Undertaking for the Secretary of State to replace the ship by a better one if he sees fit. There is no need for a further undertaking or for the Government to seek further powers for that purpose.
    In paragraph 12 (3), there is a financial commitment outside the other commitments in respect of the survey costs. Have the Government anything in mind in respect of this capital expenditure? I notice from the Estimates for next year that capital expenditure in respect of Highlands and Islands shipping is rising from about £450,000 to £1,100,000, although it is fair to state that the figure is as low as £450,000 because the Government failed to spend £212,000 on the replacement of ships. That is an interesting comment in view of the state of our shipbuilding industry. The Government were late in placing the orders. I wonder whether that figure includes any capital expenditure for this service. It may well be that the justified complaints

    525
    of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland could be met within this figure.
    Considerable interference will be caused to the freedom of Bremner and Company, because the Secretary of State now has furl power over the approved services. Incidentally, I should like to know from the Under-Secretary what are the services outwith the approved services which are not covered. It appears from the Undertaking that if the company decided to alter or to add to its existing services, as apart from approved services, it must tell the Secretary of State, who, in the light of what the Company proposes to do, could decide to take those services within the approved services. The company is, therefore, carrying on other services quite apart from the approved services.
    The company can introduce any additional service or alter any service without the written approval of the Secretary of State, but it requires the written authority of the Secretary of State to discontinue any service. If he decides that a new or additional service is required, then he can order it. Here is a wonderful field for Questions by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland to ensure that his area is properly looked after, although at the present rate of progress he will have to wait a couple of months before he gets the Secretary of State's reply—and then he can depend on it that he will not get the Secretary of State: he will get an Under-Secretary.
    There is freedom, I notice, to experiment with excursions and temporary services without giving prior notice to the Secretary of State so long as they do not last more. than six months—a wonderful dispensation from the Secretary of State's generosity.
    Another point which I think important is one which was stressed at the time when the Bill went through, and that is that if this is to mean anything at all. then the Secretary of State has got to exercise his powers in respect of fares and rates, passenger fares and freight rates, in the spirit of the Act. There was an Amendment put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and accepted by the Government so that under all these agreements any fares or freight rates would be fixed by
    526
    three criteria, the general level of other transport charges—whatever that may mean in the light of the situation as we know it in the Orkneys—the amount of the grant, and thirdly the effect on the economy of the area.
    I sincerely hope that it will be such within its limited scope as to do nothing to further the serious decline which has taken place both in trade and in population over the past years—since long before ten years ago—in Stromness which is in the centre of this area and which probably was as heavily populated as Kirkwall but has declined over the century, as also there are islands which have become more or less depopulated.
    So I hope that the Secretary of State will interpret this Undertaking in the spirit Parliament intended. I hope he will use it properly, and use his authority, if necessary, to bring fares down and to encourage experiments with services to enable this to be done. I would think that in certain areas there is a case for no freight charges at all. I think Parliament had better face this, and I think it will face it, considering the kind of thing for which we have already voted money today. With all due respect, if we vote £350,000 for something which is culturally desirable but which is not, as this is, a matter of life and death for certain people, then when the matter is one of life and death we have got to give it at least the same financial priority, and the Secretary of State should not be afraid to face that.
    There is one very important question I want to come to. What goes on in these islands, and what is related to this? We have got this strange and mysterious phrase appearing in this Undertaking:
    "If the Contractors shall at any time during the continuance of this Undertaking after receiving not less than two weeks' notice in writing from the Secretary of State unreasonably refuse or neglect to maintain any of the Approved Societies …"
    What are the approved societies doing in this? The Under-Secretary of State wil find those words on the last page of the agreement. How did the Secretary of State manage to get approved societies into this Undertaking related to approved services of Bremner and Sons? I do not know.
    The Secretary of State does so many strange things and he has got so many

    527
    strange powers—unknown to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro). He has got the power to own ships, he has the power to buy ships, he has power to build ships, power to run ships and power to charter ships. He is assuming strange powers and it would be interesting to know what these "societies" really are. If they are approved, then who approved them and what does it all mean?
    I hope that we shall get an adequate explanation of this. We may even get an apology. I do know how this affects the validity of the Undertaking or whether or not a new Undertaking will be necessary. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will tell us that this is another of his celebrated misprints. Be that as it may, someone in the Scottish Office should make it his business to ensure that this kind of error does not creep in. It could easily lead to misunderstanding.
    I have one other, more specific matter to raise concerning another variation. This Undertaking in respect of David MacBrayne Ltd. and the Orkney Islands Shipping Company Ltd. contained a clause stating what would happen in the event of hostilities. Evidently we have decided in 1963 that there are not likely to be any hostilities because, it appears, the clause "In the event of hostilities" has disappeared. Such words appeared in the past, and I should like to know why they are not now inserted. It may be that the fact that the whole matter can be terminated at any time within three months enables the Government to dispense with such words.
    On the whole, my hon. Friends and I welcome the Undertaking and the fact that it regularises something that is carried on rather fitfully. It is beneficial to the islands concerned and is of value to the inhabitants there, their trade and farming traffic, and is helpful to tourism. Although it could have been made even more helpful, we certainly will not vote against it tonight.
    10.3 p.m.
    Mr. Brooman-White: I would like to begin by referring to the last remarks of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), about societies. I congratulate him on his proof readiing. I certainly
    528
    would not have made a good proof reader, because I read this document with considerable care and did not spot that one. It is, as he said, a misprint for "services".
    The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked about our general strategy, while the hon. Member for Kilmarnock asked about the dates and duration of the Agreement. It is of a relatively short duration, for five years, and we do not know if this pattern of service will be developed very far in the future. As can be seen—in view of changes or developments which might take place—there is the three months possibility of terminating the Agreement. The sort of thing one might consider is the Orkney Islands Shipping Company Ltd. experimenting with a hydrofoil. Such an innovation or improvement could be brought in with reasonable expedition.
    The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland also mentioned piers. He will appreciate that substantial improvements have been agreed to for the Longhope Pier and it is hoped that work will start before long. About £34,000 is involved in this. Regarding the management fee, as the right hon. Member rightly surmised, that is not a very great sum, £1,000 and, in addition, one of the working partners will get a salary relating to certain stevedoring work which he takes on.
    The hon. Member for Kilmarnock asked about replacements. This is covered by the 1960 Act and does not come within the Undertaking. The large increased sums he referred to in the Estimates relate mainly to the three ships building for MacBrayne's. We do not envisage anything very large on these services.
    I do not think that there is any other major point. In general, the tone of the debate has been to welcome this very small agreement and an acceptance that it is flexible enough to take account of any improvements in the services that may become possible to meet the needs of this area.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the Undertaking between the Secretary of State for Scotland and Messrs. Bremner and Company, Shipowners, a draft of which was laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.

ST. HELENE
Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. I. Fraser.]
10.6 p.m.
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Last Christmas Eve there was a serious bus accident in St. Helena, as a result of which 10 people were injured, six of them seriously and four moderately. Later the same night one of the injured persons died. Before I deal with the aftermath of the accident, perhaps it would help if I gave some details about the island and the medical services there.
The island is small, having an area of 47 square miles and a population of just under 5,000. It is one of the remotest of British Colonies, being 4,500 miles from this country and 1,140 miles from the nearest point on the African Continent. It is made the more remote because there is no airfield and ships call there only infrequently.
However, there are compensating factors. It is a very attractive island, with one of the best climates in the world, and the inhabitants are very pleasant people. They are of mixed European, African, Indian and Chinese descent, but they are English-speaking and they try and live as far as they can on a European standard.
The St. Helenians have great loyalty to this country, and we have a very special kind of responsibility towards them. This is because Britain was responsible for populating the island. It was of vital importance to us, before the Suez Canal was opened, as a watering and victualling station. Now it is unimportant, but since we created its community we have a special responsibility towards it.
I turn now to the medical services. Since August last there has only been one doctor on the island. He is Dr. John Noakes. There is provision in the establishment for two doctors, but when this accident occurred Dr. Noakes had been working on the island alone for over four months. The doctor who left in August had given six months' notice.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be good enough to say what steps were taken by his Department to
530
fill this vacancy, of which it knew in February, 1962. My information is that insufficient steps were taken and that advertisements appeased in the medical journals only two or three times. Be that as it may, Dr. Noakes was left with a practice of nearly 5,000 people on this island, together with a 58-bed hospital to look after,
A general practitioner in this country has an average of 2,500 patients on his list and also has the hospital services, with consultants, and so on, behind him. To assist him on St. Helena, Dr. Noakes had a matron, Miss Grace Sim, the first St. Helenian to qualify as a State-registered nurse. Matron Sim is a first-class nurse and has been a tower of strength during the recent emergency. To give some idea of the hospital side of Dr. Noakes' work, in 1962 there were 755 in-patients at the hospital. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will be able to tell the House what qualified staff is in St. Helena at present, apart from Matron Sim.
Before I come to the accident itself, I want to deal briefly with the question of drugs. The House will recall that a United States aircraft from Ascension Island and a United States vessel took certain essential drugs and medical supplies to St. Helena immediately after the accident. In his Answer to my Question on 26th February, the Under-Secretary gave details of the drugs which were taken, and I am informed that they were largely drugs which should be in ample supply in St. Helena in case of emergency, for example, streptomycin and anti-tetanus serum.
Can the Under-Secretary say whether the drugs were in stock in Ascension Island, 700 miles away and, if so, how did they come to be in stock in Ascension Island, with a population of fewer than 300, and not available on St. Helena with a population of nearly 5,000?
On my return from St. Helena in the summer of 1958, I wrote a report for the Colonial Office, and in paragraph 30 these words appear:
"There is a serious shortage of drugs in stock. Neither does the money provided enable this shortage to be remedied. … It is quite extraordinary that this shortage should be permitted to continue on a remote Island where the possibility of obtaining additional supplies presents obvious difficulties."

531
Shortly before my visit, a man died from tetanus because of the lack at that time of anti-tetanus serum.
Drugs on St. Helena have to be bought on a very tight budget. I do not know what this year's estimate is, but that for 1958, when I was there, was £1,200 for a population of 5,000. On this occasion, I am informed, the letter of order was sent by the medical officer for St. Helena, Dr. Noakes, to the Government of St. Helena, at the Castle, in Jamestown, but was put on one side because it was a holiday period, with the result that the next boat was missed. If this is true, it seems to be a very serious matter, because it is because the stocks were low when the accident occured that additional drugs had to be brought from Ascension Island.
I now come to the accident on Christ. mas Eve. It was this which presented Dr. Noakes and Matron Sim with a fearful problem which they tackled with success and great courage. Dr. Noakes had to attend to his normal work during the day with frequent calls at the hospital and to stay at the hospital all night keeping the injured people alive. One operation took him 12½ hours. He kept them alive by intravenous therapy and antibiotics. There being no anaesthetist on the island, he used a local anaesthetic. As there is no blood bank, he had to obtain blood donors from the street, and the House can imagine the difficulty of cross-matching blood in those circumstances. In all this he was helped by Matron Sim and assistant nurses and neither he nor Matron Sim had a wink of sleep day or night for more than seven days. This joint effort by a British doctor and a St. Helenian nurse is deserving of the highest praise.
I now turn to a matter upon which I should like the Under-Secretary's comment. After the accident occurred, the medical officer reported it to the Governor. The Governor called at the hospital on Christmas Day, but did not go to see the patients themselves. I understand that the medical officer told the Governor that he needed help, which, in any event, was perfectly obvious, but that the Governor did not report the accident for seven days. I believe that the cable reporting it arrived in the Colonial Office on 31st December. Will the Under-Secretary confirm whether that
532
is true? If it is, why did the Governor take seven days to report the accident and to ask for surgical assistance?
I want to pay this tribute to the Colonial Office: when the accident was reported, it lost no time in taking the necessary action. Dr. R. P. Boggon, of St. Thomas's Hospital, was flown to Ascension Island and then taken by sea to St. Helena and was there by 5th January, which I understand to be a record journey from this country to St. Helena. But he did not arrive until 13 days after the accident occurred. He was then able to relieve Dr. Noakes of some of the strain which he had been suffering.
I am not at all happy about the way in which St. Helena is being administered. I am not satisfied that suitable officials are sent there. It is a small place and it is not regarded as important. It is remote and, therefore, officials can act in a slack and incompetent way, because by the time news filters through to this country it is diluted and stale. If this is true, it is very serious, because St. Helena is nothing more nor less than a microcosm of Victorian imperialism at its worst.
It is common knowledge on the island that the wife of one of the senior British officials who heard of the accident during a Christmas Day party was heard to say, "I am sorry for the so and so's; they have lost a good cook". That is the worst possible attitude for a British official to take in this day and age. Very little is needed to make St. Helena a very happy community. I hope that some effort will now be made to improve matters. I should have thought that the Colonial Office would have wished to nurse St. Helena carefully, ready for the time in the not too far distant future when she will be the only responsibility left to the Colonial Office.
There are some other matters which I want to mention. I shall try to summarise them in very brief questions. First, £500 per annum is allowed for the purchase of food at the hospital regardless of the number of patients there. Why is this? Should not the budget be elastic to meet the requirements from week to week and month to month? Secondly, what provision has been made

533
to provide better housing in St. Helena? When t was there, hundreds of the inhabitants were living in the most appalling hovels. They wanted better houses, and I should be glad if the Under-Secretary will say what progress is being made in providing adequate housing conditions for the people. Thirdly, what are the employment prospects there? This is one island where unemployment is consistently high. Can the Under-Secretary say how much on average is paid out in poor relief, which is their equivalent to unemployment benefit in this country?
What is the present position with regard to assisting those who wish to emigrate to this country? The young St. Helenian wants to come to this country either to live or to obtain some suitable training, because the outlet which he used to have to South Africa has been closed to him by the policy of apartheid there. The St. Helenian is a proud and independent person and no longer looks to South Africa. Can the Under-Secretary say what assurance is given to the young St. Helenian to emigrate to this country and to those who are suitable for various types of training to come to this country to train for various callings and professions? Many difficult problems remain to be solved in this small island, and they can be solved with a little effort and good will on the part of the Colonial Office. I hope that the Under-Secretary and his right hon. Friend will take the necessary steps to help this island and its charming people to overcome their problems.
10.20 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Nigel Fisher): I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) for raising this matter in the House. We have all too little opportunity, I always think, to debate the problems of the smaller and more remote Colonial Territories, and especially those places like St. Helena, which are very difficult for hon. Members or Ministers to visit; I believe the hon. Gentleman is perhaps the only Member of this House who has ever been to St. Helena. I am conscious of the fact that his background knowledge about the island, obtained from his own personal experience, is rather preferable to mine, which is based simply on Colonial Office
534
files, which I am afraid are sometimes rather impersonal.
The islanders of St. Helena ought to be very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the great interest he has consistently shown in their welfare since he visited the Colony. It is for this reason, particularly, that I take very seriously any criticisms that he has felt obliged to make tonight, because I know perfectly well that they are not actuated by any party political motives, or anything of that sort, but are actuated by his sincere anxiety for, and interest in, St. Helena.
Indeed, his report following his visit there in 1958 was of great value to the Colonial Office, and I am glad to say that we have since been able to take up some of the points he made in it, the most important of which have been the subsidising of the flax industry and the introduction of elected members to the Advisory Council.
This evening the hon. Gentleman has concentrated mainly on the serious motor accident on St. Helena on Christmas Eve, and on various criticisms that arose from it. The information that I have confirms that the senior medical officer, Dr. Noakes, the matron, Miss Sim, and the nursing staff, only two of whom are fully qualified over and above the doctor and the matron, did an extremely fine job under very difficult circumstances indeed.
Nine people were seriously injured in this accident. Many of them had multiple injuries, including fractures, one leg amputation, broken skulls, and so on. There is no doubt that the emergency placed a great strain on Dr. Noakes, and I think that the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there should always be two doctors working on St. Helena. This is, of course, the normal practice, except for leave periods.
I am very much concerned indeed about the gap of six months between the departure of the second medical officer and the arrival of his successor. I understand that there were genuine difficulties in recruiting a replacement, and indeed there is almost always bound to be difficulty in recruiting people for these smaller and more remote territories. In this case there was an added delay because the candidate who was first elected unfortunately fell through at the last minute and the whole process had to begin all over again. As

535
the hon. Gentleman knows, the Department of Technical Co-operation advertised this post on several occasions in medical journals over a period of several months. and it was also advertised in South Africa.
The hon. Gentleman criticised the Governor for not notifying us in London of the need for an extra doctor to help cope with the emergency until a week after the accident happened. As the House knows, there is a convention, and a good one, in this House that Ministers should always defend Governors, and this, therefore, one would wish to do anyway. But quite apart from that, in this case I wish to defend the Governor simply on the facts, which I think speak for themselves, and they are these: the accident occurred on the night of Christmas Eve. The Governor visited the hospital on the morning of Christmas Day, the 25th, and discussed the whole situation with the Senior Medical Officer. As Dr. Noakes obviously had a great deal on his plate, so to speak, at that moment, the Governor told him that he would not interfere with his work, or his rest—if he had had no rest—by paying frequent visits to the hospital, but would be available at any time if his help was needed in any way, and that Dr. Noakes must not hesitate to keep in touch with him. No requests were made from the hospital except for extra drugs which were supplied by air drop. The Governor was ready to see the patients himself, but he did not do so because he understood that they were too ill to be seen by outside people. In the meantime the hospital was visited from time to time by the Government Secretary.
On the evening of the 29th the Governor himself went to the hospital again and came to the conclusion, without any request from Dr. Noakes, that a relief doctor was needed. That was not so much to help the injured, because that crisis had already been resolved; it was really to help Dr. Noakes, who had been under very great strain and was clearly in need of a rest. The Governor then first tried to get a doctor from Ascension Island, because that was obviously the easiest and quickest source of help. This is a sad story. Normally there are two medical officers on Ascension, but it so happened that one had just gone to the United States for the New Year. He had just left as the request
536
came in. It was then that the Governor approached us and, as the hon. Member kindly said, we got someone there rather quickly.
I hope that it will be clear to the House from what I have said that the relief doctor was called for as soon as it became apparent to the Governor that help was needed. I must point out that although the strain upon the senior medical officer had been great, the fact is that, much to his credit, he got through this crisis. I have heard no corn-plaint that any patient was deprived of necessary treatment—and certainly no one died as a result of lack of attention. So no irreparable damage was done. The damage consisted of the great strain that Dr. Noakes was under during that period.
I should like to take this opportunity—because it is only fair to the Governor to do so—of saying that I have been impressed not only from reading Colonial Office files but also from other sources of information that I have had from the island, by the fact that the Governor has had a great deal of success in establishing very good relations with the islanders, including both the flax exporters and the General Workers' Union. I want to pay that tribute to him.
The hon. Member also referred to the question of drugs. The senior medical officer had foreseen that supplies of drugs and dressings might need replenishing at about the end of the year, and had indented to us for them. They should have arrived on the pre-Christmas mail ship, but they did not. There is really no excuse for this. I think it is better to be frank with the House. I do not like Ministers to make excuses when there are no excuses to make. They were simply omitted from the assignment. I can only ask the House to accept my apologies for what might have been a very serious omission.
In fact, despite the extra demands resulting from the accident, there was never an actual shortage of drugs, because the Americans—to whom I have already expressed my gratitude in the House—arranged for an air-drop of essential supplies within twenty-four hours. We are greatly in their debt for this very prompt assistance, and also for flying out the relief doctor to Ascension and then bringing him on by boat to St. Helena.

537
I hope that that covers most of the points raised by the hon. Member arising from the accident.
I quite agree that there is some very bad housing, from what I have been told, especially in Jamestown, but the Government are trying to improve it. In 1960 they set up a Housing Committee—which was a new body—consisting of the superintendent of works, councillors from each district, and a social welfare officer. The Committee did a very good job and advised on housing problems. In the past ten years the Government have built 39 houses, mostly from colonial development and welfare funds and are at present building 18 detached cottages in Jamestown. As the hon. Member knows, the Government make loans to house-owners for repairs and, in some cases, make free grants of material and labour, or they issue material at cost price. They are trying, but the housing picture is not all that good.
I now turn to the question of employment. According to my latest information, about 180 men are now unemployed on St. Helena, which is the lowest for a long time, mainly due to the re-opening of three mills. That has been a great help. In addition, 30 per cent. of the men on relief are older people whom it would have been difficult to employ in any case, and about 10 per cent. are only temporarily stopped—being between jobs, as it were. Over the past five years about £275,000 of C.D. and W. money has been spent, and this year £58,000 of this money will be spent. That does not sound very much. But it is quite good per capita by any standards and means that C.D. and W. funds have been spent at the rate of £45 per head over the last five years and £100 per head per annum given in grant aid. I was rather encouraged by a letter from the Governor, who said that this was one of the occasions where C.D. and W. help was really noticeable. The projects had provided for the needs of the people. and there was no one who did not daily get some direct benefit from them. One likes to think that the money voted by this House is well spent.
The island is pretty well equipped for medical buildings and schools, and development money is being concentrated mainly on agriculture and public works, especially road building and so on. Over
538
the past five years £44,000 has been spent on public works. I must confess, I do not know whether the Treasury would consider this right, but the public works have been chosen as much for their employment potential as for the actual benefit in development terms for the island. There is now a new 10-mile road being built, and the 18 cottages which I mentioned, and there is a new scheme for a slipway at Ruperts Bay.
As an employment measure, and it is really only that, the Government guarantees the price of hemp at a level at which it is possible for the millers to continue to operate the mills and the guaranteed price level has recently been raised from £56 15s. to £68 F.O.B. St. Helena. A contract for sales below the guaranteed price made in 1962 led to the reopening of two mills, and a recent rise in the price of hemp has led to the opening of a third mill. In fact, the price of hemp is higher than it has been for several years, and this is a great help in relation to employment
The statutory Poor Relief Board pays out about £3,500 a year. The Government grant—the rest comes from rates—has been increased since the hon. Member's visit there from £500 to £2,000 a year. That board makes payments according to need. Single people may receive up to 12s. 6d. a week front the board and widows £1 10s. 3d. according to the number of children of school age. There is also relief work for men who are employable but unemployed. They do three days a week for 30s. at 10s. a day. There are additional grants from charitable funds in the hands of the Government, and there are food subsidies in St. Helena, Customs duties have been abolished on everything except luxuries. Money is worth substantially more than in the United Kingdom.
Emigration was another point mentioned by the hon. Member. Many young women leave the island under a private domestic agency scheme, which as the hon. Member knows, is run by a St. Helenean. The Government sponsors a scheme for men who are found jobs in the hotel industry here and pay part of their passage money if they cannot raise it themselves. I understand that thirty-two men have come here under that scheme in the last three years, but only one this year. That is because

539
employment prospects in the island were better, and that is a good thing.
There has been recruitment of men in St. Helena to the Army here without the necessity to come for interviews. I believe that four have taken a preliminary test in St. Helena and are due to arrive here shortly.
I hope that I have covered all the main points the hon. Member put to me. I am sorry that this is not a complete answer to St. Helena's fundamental problem which arises from her changed position on the trade routes of the world. There have been some quite marked improvements in social and economic conditions on the island since the hon. Member's visit five years ago. I realise that there i5 still much more to be done, and I am not in the least complacent about the progress we have so far made. I appreciate very much the hon. Member's interest in this Colony. It does a tremendous amount of good. I know how much it is appreciated there, and it is good for me and my office. I think it wonderful that people should go to a Colony and continue to take an interest in it thereafter. I wish that applied to all hon. Members who visit Colonies. I am quite
540
sure that as long as I hold this office the hon. Member will keep me up to date and up to the mark about ways in which to help this island and its people.
Mr, A. G. Bottomley: While recognising the qualities of the Governor, particularly as underlined by the Minister, may I ask whether he does not agree that if, four days after the accident, the Governor saw the necessity for further medical assistance he ought to have seen it at the time?
Mr. Fisher: He went to the hospital the very next morning and said to the doctor, "I don't want to bother you. You will obviously have a terrible job here. Let me know if there is anything I can do, let me know at once". No request came except for drugs and not until four days later—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-four minutes to Eleven o'clock.

  COMMUNIST COUNTRIES (TOURISTS)
  COMMUNIST COUNTRIES (TOURISTS)
  MOSCOW (BRITISH EMBASSY OFFICIAL)
  MOSCOW (BRITISH EMBASSY OFFICIAL)
  SOVIET ARMY CHOIR (VISIT)
  SOVIET ARMY CHOIR (VISIT)
  HONG KONG (KUO MIN-TANG)
  HONG KONG (KUO MIN-TANG)
  NUCLEAR TEST-BAN TREATY
  NUCLEAR TEST-BAN TREATY
  CONGO (UNITED NATIONS)
  CONGO (UNITED NATIONS)
  EMBASSIES, AFRICA (COMMUNICATIONS)
  EMBASSIES, AFRICA (COMMUNICATIONS)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Cattle, Sheep and Pigs (Guarantee Payments)
  Cattle, Sheep and Pigs (Guarantee Payments)
  Anglo-Irish Sugar Agreement
  Anglo-Irish Sugar Agreement
  Oysters
  Oysters
  Wheat and Bread Prices
  Wheat and Bread Prices
  Toxic Seed Dressings
  Toxic Seed Dressings
  Irish Sugar Company
  Irish Sugar Company
  Fish Imports (E.F.T.A. Countries)
  Fish Imports (E.F.T.A. Countries)
  Meat and Poultry
  Meat and Poultry
ROYAL NAVY
  Polaris Submarines
  Polaris Submarines
BRITISH ARMY
  Infantry Battalions
  Infantry Battalions
  Scots Guards, Pirbright (Guard Duties)
  Scots Guards, Pirbright (Guard Duties)
SCOTLAND
  Derelict Sites
  Derelict Sites
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Aberdeen Port
  Aberdeen Port
  Electricity Boards
  Electricity Boards
  Local Authorities (Capital Works)
  Local Authorities (Capital Works)
  Water Resources
  Water Resources
  Housing, East Kilbride
  Housing, East Kilbride
  Rents, Kirkcaldy
  Rents, Kirkcaldy
  Schools (Modern Languages)
  Schools (Modern Languages)
  Livestock (Emergency Fodder Supplies)
  Livestock (Emergency Fodder Supplies)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Nuclear Tests (Upper Atmosphere)
  Nuclear Tests (Upper Atmosphere)
ROADS
  Crossroads, Darfield (Accidents)
  Crossroads, Darfield (Accidents)
  Junction, West Kingsdown
  Junction, West Kingsdown
  School Crossing, Walkden, (Accident)
  School Crossing, Walkden, (Accident)
  Lorry Route (Islington)
  Lorry Route (Islington)
  M.1, A.5 and A.45 (Accidents)
  M.1, A.5 and A.45 (Accidents)
  Road Programme (Expenditure)
  Road Programme (Expenditure)
TRANSPORT
  Investment Projects
  Investment Projects
  Urban Areas (Traffic Congestion)
  Urban Areas (Traffic Congestion)
  Channel Link
  Channel Link
  Nationalised Transport Advisory Council (Appointments)
  Nationalised Transport Advisory Council (Appointments)
  Mobile Shops and Delivery Vehicles (Accidents)
  Mobile Shops and Delivery Vehicles (Accidents)
  British Railways and London Transport Boards (Co-operation)
  British Railways and London Transport Boards (Co-operation)
SHIPPING
  Shipbuilding Orders (Foreign Yards)
  Shipbuilding Orders (Foreign Yards)
  National Ports Council (Advisory Panel)
  National Ports Council (Advisory Panel)
RAILWAYS
  Woodside-Sanderstead Line
  Woodside-Sanderstead Line
NORTH BORNEO AND SARAWAK
  Legislatures (Members)
  Legislatures (Members)
EDUCATION
  School Building, Nottinghamshire
  School Building, Nottinghamshire
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax (Age Exemption Limits)
  Income Tax (Age Exemption Limits)
HOSPITALS
  Graig Hospital, Pontypridd
  Graig Hospital, Pontypridd
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
HOUSING
  Slum Clearance
  Slum Clearance
EMPLOYMENT
  School Leavers, Central London
  School Leavers, Central London
  Young Persons, Gateshead
  Young Persons, Gateshead
  Bridgend, Maesteg, Pontycymmer and Ogmore
  Bridgend, Maesteg, Pontycymmer and Ogmore
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Advertisement Regulations
  Advertisement Regulations
  Rating
  Rating
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Subscriber Trunk Dialling (Republic of Ireland)
  Subscriber Trunk Dialling (Republic of Ireland)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Coatbridge, Airdrie and Lanarkshire
  Coatbridge, Airdrie and Lanarkshire

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

PRISONERS AND INSURANCE CARDS
2.35 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: 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 why outside contractors who use prison labour are not required to stamp the prisoners' insurance cards.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, an employer is required to pay National Insurance contributions in respect of only those employees whom he employs under contract of service. Prisoners in the hostel scheme, who are granted daily parole in order to enable them to follow the employment for which they have been engaged as individuals by outside employers, are employed under such a contract and their National Insurance cards are stamped by the employer accordingly. Where, however, the prison authorities contract, for example, with a farmer, to supply a working party of so many prisoners for so many days, there is no contract of service between the farmer and the prisoners. They are performing work set them by the prison authorities in the same way as a work party on a prison farm or in a prison workshop; such work is governed by the Prison Rules and is not performed under a contractual relationship.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that farmers, building contractors and others who employ prisoners in this way pay the full trade union rates of wages, and that to deprive the prisoners, who may be earning only a few shillings a week, of their rights in this matter, is really a sort of legal fraud, and has a serious effect on their position
1114
when they come out of prison? If their cards were stamped, as they should be, they would be in benefit. As it is now, they are in a wholly unjust position. Will not the noble Earl have another look at this particular aspect of the problem?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am aware, of course, that the full wages are paid by the outside employers. But I am also aware of two other facts. The first is that the supply of prison labour to outside employers is inevitably regulated by the demand, and that demand fluctuates very widely. A prisoner who is eligible for work outside may therefore find himself employed in that way for only a few days and at irregular intervals, and contributions paid in respect of those few days would be of little or no benefit to him. But there is another fact which I think the noble Lord would also wish to bear in mind, and it is this. I suggest that it would be wrong to treat prisoners working in a party supplied to an outside employer differently from those working outside on behalf of the prison authorities—for example, in a prison farm outside the prison—or, indeed, inside the prison on an order from an outside firm. I feel that those two considerations also should be borne in mind.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, with all respect, is not the proper answer that all prisoners should have their cards stamped?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the whole question of stamping cards, as the noble Lord is well aware, raises other and wider issues. I think there is to be a debate in the near future on the whole question of prison conditions. I should be glad to discuss this issue; but I would suggest, since it involves rather wider matters, that it might be better to discuss them in that context.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the point raised by my noble friend Lord Taylor is entirely relevant. As the noble Earl said, it would be quite wrong to treat prisoners working in prison in a different way from those working outside prison. Therefore, all the cards should be stamped. But is the noble Earl aware that there has been a particular case, of a man who worked for forty years continuously, who found, on coming out of prison on the completion of his only

1115
term of imprisonment, that he had been out of benefit for fifteen months and would not be again in benefit until February, 1964? He worked in Kew Gardens while a prisoner, and if his card had been stamped he would have been all right. He has been rendered destitute, and his case should be looked into.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should be glad to look into any case the noble Lord wishes to bring to my attention, but I suggest that the wider issues here might be better discussed in our forthcoming discussion on prison conditions in general.

RA.F. DAMAGE TO PROPERTY
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name of the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that, on a Royal Air Force exercise starting on March 8 and held at the aerodrome of Steeple Ashton, private property was entered without permission of the owner and that considerable damage was caused; and whether Her Majesty's Government will ensure that such action will not be repeated.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, during this exercise Royal Air Force helicopters used a field adjoining the airfield. I very much regret that the owner's permission was not obtained beforehand. The helicopters were to have landed on a field within the airfield boundary, but when they arrived it was found to be too soft. This in effect produced an emergency situation because they could not land on the main airfield, which was in full use by transport aircraft and Army lorries, and they did not have enough fuel to take them to another one. After the landing the station commander sought and obtained permission for the helicopters to remain on the land. Some damage was caused, and the owner has been told what are the arrangements for claiming compensation. Standing Instructions already require the permission of the owner to be obtained before landings are made on
1116
Property, expect in an emergency such as this.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply and for the personal interest he has taken in this case, may I ask him whether he would make inquiries as to whether it is necessary, in the interests of security in this country, to hold these exercises when the weather is so appalling? Surely they could have been postponed or cancelled. And arising out of that, has discipline become so low that the straw barn of another private owner should be raided, 4½ tons of straw stolen, and, far worse, cigarette ends found in the barn, which meant that men had been smoking? May I ask him whether he can make representations to the proper authorities to preserve discipline, even if they have to hold these manæuvres, which we believe are quite unnecessary in that part of Wiltshire, under 'these appalling weather conditions? Lastly, may I ask him whether he would make inquiries why the Royal Air Force or the Minister do not maintain two-thirds of the road which leads into this aerodrome which they are under contract to maintain and which is now becoming completely derelict and in an awful condition?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I will most certainly look at the two points which my noble friend has raised in his last two supplementary questions, and I will let him have an answer. With regard to the first supplementary question, about whether it is necessary to have exercises in bad weather, while no doubt it is very disagreeable for those taking part, I think we must be careful not to hold exercises only in good weather. I believe that it is good, both for the troops and also to test our equipment, that they should work in bad weather.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, would it not be reasonable for the First Lord to make representations to the Royal Air Force over what steps they take to maintain discipline when men remain on a farm, so that they do not do damage, steal, or smoke in straw barns?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I have already said that I will look into that point.

CONSUMER COUNCIL CHAIRMAN
2.45 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY:
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 they are now in a position to announce the name of the Chairman of the Consumer Council together with the terms of reference of the Council and, if not, the date they expect to do so; and, in addition, if the announcement will be made simultaneously in both Houses of Parliament.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, my right honourable friend hopes to be in a position to make an announcement about the chairmanship of the Consumer Council and its terms of reference within a week or so. It is hoped that we shall be able to give this information simultaneously to both Houses of Parliament.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY:
My Lords, might I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware with what pleasure I am able to say, "Thank you", and leave it at that?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, my great ambition is to give happiness to the noble Baroness.

BRADFORD CORPORATION (CONDITIONING HOUSE) BILL
Read 2ª, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
SHELL CHEMICALS DISTRIBUTING COMPANY OF EGYPT BILL
Read 2ª, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

DANGERS FROM TOXIC CHEMICALS
2.46 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH rose to draw attention to the multiple and increasing dangers to health and to life arising from the contamination of food, air and water by toxic chemicals used in agriculture, in food processing, in drugs, in industry and in the home; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. With this your Lordships may find it convenient to discuss the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Shackleton. Although I have ventured to bring the dangers of toxic chemicals to your Lordships' attention on some previous occasions, I have never felt such a deep sense of responsibility and urgency as I do today. What we now have to face is not an occasional and perhaps transient dose of poison which has accidentally got into some article of food, but the persistent and continuous poisoning of the whole human environment.
Many of the facts, and the conclusions to be drawn from them, have been set down with masterly skill by Miss Rachael Carson, in her memorable book, Silent Spring. Some of your Lordships may say that these things can happen in the United States, but they cannot happen here. Do not let us be too sure of that. The trade in toxic chemicals is world-wide. Many of the leading manufacturers in this country are subsidiaries of American companies. The most noticeable difference between the two countries is that in the United States, because of the activities of Congressional Committees and of other bodies, official and unofficial, many of the facts have been brought to light, whereas in this country they remain concealed and unknown. I hope that in the course of this debate we shall be provided with some information about the quantities of the principal classes of pesticides now used in this country and the corresponding figures a few years ago, so that we may see what is the rate of increase. It is also important that we should know to what extent food sold to consumers contains residues of pesticides and other chemicals. So far as I am aware little

1119
or nothing has been published about this.
Another matter upon which we should be informed is the extent to which toxic chemicals are being stored and accumulated in the human body. It is not always recognised that during the last 20 years or so a revolutionary change has taken place in the whole conditions of life in this and other highly industrialised countries whereby the human organism has become constantly exposed to novel chemical substances of great potency. In agriculture a small range of arsenical and other poisons used in horticulture has been supplemented or supplanted by a wide range of substances of far greater toxicity, and these are used as a routine not only in fruit growing but in almost every branch of the farmer's business. No information appears yet to have been made available in this country, but it was estimated recently in the United States that the annual production of pesticides was about 1,000 million pounds weight, or 5 lb. or 6 lb. per head of population. Only a very small fraction of this, of course, gets into the food supply; otherwise the whole population would be wiped out. The rest sinks into the land.
Many of these poisons are very persistent and with constant use the amount in the soil steps up year by year. Some of them may then be taken up by the plants in the soil and so indirectly contaminate the food of animals and of men. It is known, for example, that carrots take up from the soil appreciable amounts of pesticide residues; hence, although the carrots themselves may not have been sprayed, the edible portion can be affected by this means. Another example concerns tobacco. In the United States chemical arsenical preparations were regularly and extensively used for spraying tobacco. Although other insecticides have been used for a good many years past, it has been found that the tobacco leaves still contain arsenic which has been picked up from the soil. Perhaps this has some bearing upon the connection between smoking and lung cancer.
In nature and in traditional agriculture a balance is maintained which generally prevents the undue multiplication of injurious insects or other organisms. They are the victims of predators or other
1120
enemies which keep them in check, and one of the great arts of agriculture hitherto has been to establish the conditions which will encourage this. On the other hand, most of the pesticides now in use are undiscriminating killers, which destroy both the noxious insect and its predator. The ultimate result of this cannot be predicted with accuracy. Often it leads to the development of strains of pests which are more resistant to pesticides than their ancestors were; or it may lead to the multiplication of the noxious insect simply because its predator has proved more vulnerable to the pesticide than the insect itself. I mention this point particularly because it is one of the reasons why larger and larger quantities of more and more toxic poisons are constantly used. And this practice is facilitated by the invention of powerful sprayers, some of them capable of blowing as much as 80,000 cubic feet into the air per minute. This spray, of course, may drift miles from the place where it is intended to land.
In addition to pesticides there are also powerful herbicides, which are used to kill weeds. Noticeable examples of their dangers are sometimes seen when they are used on roadside verges, killing all vegetation and depriving bees and other useful insects of their food and habitat. Recently I have seen a proposal to use a preparation of this kind for the purpose of killing all the vegetation in arable fields, thereby saving the need for ploughing in the residues of farm crops. What the ultimate results of this may be remains to be seen, but it might well lead to the destruction of soil organisms which are beneficial to crops and thereby to the animals and the men who live on them.
But it is not only through the use of toxic chemicals in agriculture that we run serious risks. Insecticides and fungicides are used in food storage. They are used to spray shops, and they fall on to the wares displayed in them. They are used in the home for killing flies, ants, cockroaches and other pests. These preparations are freely sold in the shops, but they are not always clearly labelled and the purchaser is not aware that he is handling a highly dangerous substance. In many cases the DDT or other active substance is suspended or dissolved in kerosene or other hydro-carbons which

1121
are themselves poisonous, and therefore there is a double danger.
Vaporisers are sold for use in shops, factories or the home which emit a continuous stream of particles of poison which will inevitably be inhaled. Aerosols are used for all kinds of purposes, such as, for instance, applying setting lotions to women's hair, and the spray may then be breathed in or may penetrate the skin. Cosmetics contain dyes, and they may be swallowed from the lips. No one knows what dyes or other poisons these things may contain. New synthetic substances are continually being invented in food packaging or as floor coverings, or for many other purposes—even as casings for sausages. We may assume that most of these things are inert and will not affect human beings adversely, but have we any positive assurance of this? Has anyone bothered to find out? Suppose, for example, that someone buys a timber house in which the wood has been treated with one of the newer preservatives containing a powerful insecticide, such as dieldrin. Will this be slowly evaporated or sublimated out of the timber and gradually inhaled by the occupiers over many years? And what will be the results? No one knows.
The pesticide with which I suppose the public are best acquainted, though it is by no means the most toxic, is DDT. In the United States it has been found that practically every meal contains it. It is found in milk and still more in butter, for it has an extraordinary affinity for fats. Owing to its use, not merely in agriculture but in food storage and manufacture and in the home, almost every article may be contaminated with it. In the United States it has been found that most human beings already have some DDT stored in the body fats.
Little research has been carried out in this country, but a recent paper indicates that many people here are storing considerable amounts of DDT and also appreciable amounts of dieldrin, a still more powerful poison. It has been said that these substances are inert in the human body. This is a very dangerous assumption. There is chemical evidence from competent physicians of illness arising from the consumption of food-stuffs containing residues of DDT and other agricultural poisons. There is
1122
indeed some ground from animal experiments for thinking that it may be a cancer inducing substance. If so, it should not be tolerated in food or used in any circumstances where it may be inhaled or get into the human body.
It is very well known that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons, and the still more dangerous organophosphorus insecticides, are nerve poisons. Perhaps it is significant that in this country hundreds of millions of tranquillisers and sleeping pills are being prescribed and taken every year. These things account for a very large proportion of the prescriptions written and it is also a question whether many of these drugs are not in the long run themselves detrimental and dangerous. But I leave this matter to be developed by my noble friend Lady Summerskill.
So far as I am aware—the noble Lord will correct me if I am mistaken—no regulations have been made in this country limiting the amount of pesticides which may be contained in food offered or sold for human consumption, except in the case of arsenic, lead and fluorides, which are nowadays probably only a small proportion of the toxic chemicals used in agriculture. The public health authorities, who are responsible for the administration of the Food and Drugs Acts, no doubt make some tests of food in order to check whether any substances are present which are expressly prohibited or limited by the regulations. But as almost the whole range of agricultural toxic substances are outside the scope of the regulations, I believe that tests for them are seldom, if ever, made. The authorities apparently rely upon the repeated assurances of the responsible Ministers and of the chemical manufacturers that all these things are perfectly safe provided that they are used according to directions. I, for one, do not find these assurances in the least convincing. I think we need very much more factual information.
I may say, in passing, that I do not consider that the food and drug authorities are freed from all obligation to inquire into these matters merely because there are no specific regulations concerning them. It is, after all, an offence to offer for sale any food which has been rendered injurious to health by the addition of any substance or by any process or treatment. Moreover,

1123
in determining whether an article of food is injurious or not, the Statute lays down that regard must be had not only to the probable effect of that article upon the health of the person consuming it, but also to the probable cumulative effect of articles of substantially the same composition on the health of persons consuming these in ordinary quantities. It seems to me that very little use has been made of these wise provisions and little attempt made to ascertain the facts. I am aware that chemical testing for residues of toxic substances is in many cases a difficult and a delicate operation. It may be that some of the food and drug authorities do not possess the resources to do it adequately, but it is something which should on no account be neglected.
Agricultural chemicals may reach the human body not only through the foodstuffs grown by the farmers but also in indirect ways. Some part of them will be washed off the fields and will get into streams and rivers or into wells fed by surface waters. In a large part of this country the water supply is derived from such sources, and these may also be contaminated by effluents from sewage works or from industrial processes. It is also a possibility that relatively innocuous chemicals may react with one another to yield more toxic ones. A remarkable example of this occurred some time ago in the United Staes where residues from a chemical works were run into a pond. The water from this pond was used for purposes of irrigation and it destroyed the crops to which it was applied. The reason was that these chemicals had spontaneously combined together to form a herbicide.
Where public water supplies are derived from rivers—in the case of London, for example—they may contain considerable quantities of the detergents which are so extensively used, and the effect these may have upon the human body is a subject for serious inquiry and one upon which the Standing Technical Committee has had singularly little to say. We do know that substances of this kind are capable of facilitating the absorption of poisons by the body, and therefore even if they are not themselves toxic they may add to the toxicity of other substances.
The atmosphere also is polluted by dusts and gases evolved in the burning of coal, and although we may hope that
1124
in the long run visible pollution will be reduced, toxic gases from power stations and gas works will still be present so long as these undertakings are located in populous places. Also, of course, the air in the roads in areas of heavy traffic are laden with toxic products emitted by internal combustion engines. Many industrial processes also involve the emission of noxious fumes. The smelting of aluminium and other metallurgical processes, the making of pottery and of bricks, the production of phosphatic fertilizers cause the discharge into the air of fluorine compounds. To make matters worse the Minister of Health is engaged in trying to persuade local authorities to add fluorides to the public water supplies, an exercise in mass medication hitherto without precedent in this country.
It has also to be remembered that, because of the changes which have taken place in the direction of industrial production in recent years, an increasing proportion of the population is engaged in chemical industries of one kind and another which have been occasioned by the invention of a multitude of synthetic materials. The manufacturers of such products undoubtedly endeavour to plan the process in such a manner as will avoid injury to their workpeople. However, it is not always possible to avoid all risks. Substances which were thought to be harmless may in the end be proved toxic; thus, workers in the chemical and other industries which I have mentioned may run a double risk, from their work as well as from the general hazards to which we are all in more or less degree subjected.
Indeed, it is not only in the manufacture of many products that risk may possibly occur. What is even more important is the application of those products. New kinds of paints, varnishes, polishes, wood preservatives and other articles of common use are continually being invented. In many cases they are applied by means of sprays which diffuse fine particles into the air and so into the lungs of the user—something far more dangerous than the occasional drop on the skin from the use of brushes. In the United States there are statutory requirements that many commonly used household articles which have the capacity to cause substantial injury or illness in the home should be adequately labelled, so as to give information about

1125
the dangers of the use or misuse of them. This legislation applies to articles which are toxic, or corrosive, or irritant, or strong sensitisers, or which are flammable, or which generate pressure through decomposition, heat or other means.
I do not propose to say much to-day about the synthetic chemical additives and the processing to which food is subjected. These include the bleaching of flour, the hardening or hydrogenation of soft fats to make them resemble butter, the use of dyes, preservatives, antioxidants, stabilisers, humectants, sweeteners, emulsifiers and other substances. The purpose of many of these things is to make the article of food so treated more attractive than it otherwise would be—or, in the jargon of the food trade, to make it more acceptable to the customer. In many cases these food additives have no nutritional value whatsoever, but little regard appears to have been paid to the provision of the Food and Drugs Act which says that in the exercise of their powers to make regulations for prohibiting or regulating the processing of food and the use of food additives the Ministers shall have regard to the desirability of restricting, so far as practicable, the use of substances of no nutritional value as foods or as ingredients of foods.
Aniline dyes and antiseptics are examples of such non-nutritional substances. Although the list of permitted dyes has been shortened at successive revisions of the regulations, still a substantial number is allowed. Dr. Otto Warburg, who has devoted a lifetime to cancer research and was a Nobel Prizewinner for his work, has stated clearly that all such dyes should be banned and that foodstuffs should not be preserved with antiseptics which, to quote his own words:
"certainly harm the bacteria, but which damage the body cells even more."
So long as the use of these things is allowed, Ministers are taking the responsibility of subjecting an unknown number of persons to the risk one day of developing cancer.
We still permit flour to be bleached or processed with chemicals despite the fact that we know that a acne was used for this purpose for 20 years or more before it was discovered that it reacted with one
1126
of the constituents of the flour and formed a highly toxic chemical. As long ago as 1927, the Departmental Committee on the Treatment of Flour with Chemical Substances said:
"The object of maintaining inviolate the purity of the flour supply we regard as inspired by sound instinct, and we think that the responsibility for relaxing the principle is a very grave one, particularly at a time when research is beginning to throw new light upon the existence and properties of the more subtle constituents of foodstuffs."
This Committee expressly deprecated the use of chlorine dioxide, the chemical now employed for this purpose. Shall we have to wait another 20 years or more before something is done about it?
I believe that in this respect we can learn a good deal from the way in which, a few years ago, the legislation for the protection of the food supply in West Germany was improved and amended. In particular, I may mention that this legislation does not permit the use of any bleaching agent or processing of flour, and it also prohibits the use of chemical colouring matter and, with a few exceptions, of any preservatives in flour products. The general principle en which the German legislation is based is a sound one. It aims at drastically reducing the use of food additives. Where such additives are permitted, there is a stringent requirement of exact and informative labelling so that the consumer may know precisely what is being sold to him. Our law on this subject still permits of vague and uninformative labelling. In Germany the requirements are being imposed systematically and generally, so that even in restaurants it is obligatory to state what items on the menu have been treated and what has been added. As a further example, I would mention that the German law, although it permits the use of a certain preservative upon the skin of oranges and other citrus fruits, requires that they must be labelled to show that they have been treated and to warn the consumer that the skins must not be eaten. That is not required in this country.
We have still a long way to go. There is only one safe principle to adopt, and that is to prohibit the use of all artificial substances in foodstuffs unless it is conclusively proved that they are safe. At present we act upon an entirely opposite principle, that in most cases we allow

1127
them to be used until it is proved that they are dangerous. Although, of course, serious accidents occur and people lose their lives through toxic chemicals, that is not the main danger. The real danger lies in the possible cumulative effects through these substances being taken in day after day and year after year. I read recently of a case in which a man who was using a spray got some on his face, and, although he washed it off immediately and went for medical assistance, he died before the doctor arrived. Another case involved a man who had eaten grapes which had been sprayed with an insecticide: he died very quickly as a result. Those cases are exceptional though not altogether unusual.
The question which I think requires the most careful consideration is the effect of small quantities taken in year after year. The human body undoubtedly is provided with a very effective detoxifying apparatus in the liver. No doubt in most cases this is able to protect us against many of the poisons which are found in nature and to which men have been obliged to adapt themselves throughout the long course of evolutionary development. It would be very rash and unreasonable to expect that this bodily mechanism could always protect us against novel and extremely powerful poisons to which human beings had never before been exposed. Even if our bodies can deal with these things to some extent, the day may arrive when the strain thrown upon the liver proves to be too much and the protection which we have hitherto enjoyed ceases. What happens then?
There is already ground for the conclusion that the pattern of human illness is changing. The infectious diseases have in many cases yielded to sanitation and better conditions of living, but other diseases, such as cancer, and diseases affecting the blood, the marrow and the cells have become more prevalent. Many of them are of slow onset and cannot clearly be identified with any specific cause. Therefore we must be extremely careful. It is very unwise to assume that anything is safe unless there is conclusive proof.
We have had an example recently in the case of the drug thalidomide which has brought this fact home to most
1128
people, and it is worth recalling that the manufacturers in the United States distributed large quantities of these pills to some 1,400 doctors upon an experimental basis. None of these doctors apparently made any adverse report. This is a case where the adverse effects manifested themselves fairly quickly. How much more difficult are the cases in which the ill-effects develop only after many years? Cancer, as we all know, is one of those diseases which may be caused by radiation or by many different chemicals in very small doses.
On these grounds, my Lords, I consider it established beyond doubt that the human environment should be protected against all chemicals unless they are proved to be non-toxic, and that a constant watch should be kept on the food supply to ensure that it does not contain residues of agricultural pesticides or other poisons. I conclude with two practical suggestions. One is that far more attention should be paid to research on methods of biological control of pests. In quite a number of cases these have proved to be both economical and effective. There is good reason to believe that they are capable of wide extension. They will not make enormous profits for chemical manufacturers and no research will be made by them. The State, therefore, must be prepared to find the means of encouraging such research. The other suggestion which I have to make is one which I ventured to make to your Lordships some twelve years ago; and that is that there ought to be a permanent organisation capable of finding out the facts about food additives and other toxic chemicals. It should be entirely independent of all connection with both producers and users of such things, and should be armed with statutory powers adequate to safeguard the public. I beg to move for Papers.
3.25 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON had given Notice of a Motion to draw attention to the ecological dangers and the destruction of wild life resulting from the widespread use of toxic chemicals in the countryside and in gardens; to urge the need for further research, education and restraint on their use; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord who allowed me to bring my Motion before the House

1129
at the same time as his. He has covered the ground so fully that I hope I shall be able to make a rather shorter speech than I might otherwise have inflicted on your Lordships. This is, of course, not the first debate we have had on this subject, and I think it is significant that there is a growing interest in this House, judging by the number of names on the list of speakers to-day, and among the general public, in relation to a problem which I am sure your Lordships will agree is a difficult one.
It is not the view of those of us concerned in this matter, least of all is it the view of Rachel Carson—I say this in case anyone has misunderstood the situation in view of the rather angled propaganda against her book—that toxic chemicals, insecticides and pesticides generally have no place. One must clearly acknowledge straight away that in certain undeveloped parts of the world, particularly in areas where there has been much insect-borne disease, they have been of great value. It is also the contention of those who are worried about this matter—this has been the line we have taken in previous debates—that we are dealing with dangerous things and that progress may often conceal certain steps backward which may be very dangerous.
Most of my remarks will be directed to the concern felt among those who are interested in wild life, and what is striking is the great increase of interest on the part of the public in the wild life around us. An example of this is the extraordinary success of a body such as the Wild Life Fund. We realise that, as man's civilisation advances, or appears to advance, there are certain aspects of natural life which it is extremely important to retain and to preserve. It is a fact that for many years now naturalists have been expressing grave concern about the use of chemical insecticides in farming and in other ways. As long ago as 1950 there was a long and powerful plea from a world conference in Sweden for caution in this field.
Our general complaint—and this is the justification for those like Rachel Carson who are putting their views more strongly—is that we have in the past too often been met by an indifference and a refusal to recognise the dangers
1130
and the harm in the use of these particular chemicals. I remember the debates we have had in this House over the last two or three years, and the pleas we made for restraint, particularly in the use of certain chlorinated hydrocarbon seed dressings, and the reluctance at that time of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of the Government to appreciate the dangers. I would concede that we have advanced considerably since then, but the fact still remains that wild life is being menaced to a degree that we cannot regard with indifference.
Figures have been given in this House in the past as to particular examples of wide-scale destruction of bird life. In a previous debate I gave figures in regard to 600 birds that were picked up at one estate in Norfolk—it was in fact at Sandringham—and similar details were reported, in some cases running into thousands. The Government then did take certain steps in the shape of a voluntary ban with regard to the use of certain seed dressings in spring sowings, and they advised that these particular seed dressings—dieldrin, heptachlor and aldrin—should be used only when there was a risk of serious attack by wheat-bulb fly.
Now we know that this very year there is already a warning out from the Ministry, that there is a very serious risk of a new attack by wheat-bulb fly, and it will therefore be necessary to use rather more of these poisonous seed dressings than might otherwise be required. Would the noble Lord like to correct me?
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord has invited me to correct him. I think this will be of help to him. His statement is not quite true. Where he is right is in saying that there is a risk of wheat-bulb fly; a very serious danger growing up. What we have not advised is the use of a dieldrin seed dressing. We have advised the farmers to use dieldrinised fertiliser; that is to say, something which goes into the drill below the seed and produces a kind of cordon sanitaire around the seed, but which is not accessible to the bird and, of course, would not be very appetizing to the bird even if it were.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, that is a statement about which one would like to think a little. I appreciate the fact that the Ministry are clearly concerned in this matter. I wish I could think that there was in fact no danger in the use of seed dressings of a dangerous kind at this particular time of year—all the more so in view of the incidents, which were reported last year, of the misuse of seed dressings. I have here actual examples reported by the Game Research Association, which has done so much valuable work in this field, of large numbers of birds picked up where there was reason to believe that seed dressings had been used either out of season or deliberately for poisoning purposes.
That brings me to the main contention which those of us who have been so concerned in this field would like to make; that is, that we have still failed to get across to the users of these chemicals the dangers of the materials. I do not wish to-day to make any sort of attack on the chemical companies: there are signs that a number of them have been showing great concern about this matter. But obviously it is in the interests of salesmen of these chemicals—and this is only human nature—to sell as much of them as they can. Farmers have written to me and said that they have, in fact, used chemicals without knowing what they were, and have used them excessively. And, of course, the public are in some respects to blame. There may be occasions where fruit and orchards have been sprayed unnecessarily, and, indeed, uneconomically, partly because of the urge to put on the market absolutely unblemished fruit. As my noble friend, Lord Douglas of Barloch made clear, some of these chemicals, both in agriculture and indeed in food additives, are put in simply in order to please a whim of the public, and without adding very much advantage to the quality of the food.
The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, referred to certain chemicals in particular. He talked about the chlorinated hydrocarbons, of which some are more poisonous than others. There seems to be a general impression that benzene hexachloride is now much safer than aldrin, dieldrin and heptachlor. But the fact remains that we are now picking up bodies of birds which have been poisoned
1132
by this particular chemical, sometimes in association with mercury. There have been examples of wild birds in the country, and there have been examples actually in London. There is the example of a tawny owl picked up in Kensington Gardens as recently as last summer, in which benzene hexachloride was found. There is real evidence now that poisoning is going on in our gardens, and that the general public still do not know what chemicals they are using.
I would make as my first plea to the Government that they really set about organising a proper warning and labelling system on all chemicals which are used either as insect sprays or in gardens. I know of people who have used these chemicals and, as people, particularly gardeners, are apt to do, have used them without precise regard to the instructions. They have taken the lid off the tin and poured out the contents. One may say that this is something on which it is impossible to legislate. But the alternative is just to let this go on. I would say that there is a duty on the Government to get much more firmly across, and to press the chemical manufacturers, dealers and others much more to point out, the dangers of these particular materials.
There is one other aspect of the wild life side to which I would refer, and which helps to illustrate the whole of this story; and that is the decline in predators in this country. I referred on a previous occasion to the story of the peregrine. If any noble Lord should be tempted to say that the decline of the peregrine in the last few years is due to the activities of gamekeepers, I can only assure him, and other noble Lords, that there is abundant evidence that gamekeepers, and others concerned with the preservation of game, who in the past wrought such slaughter among predators are rapidly learning, and that, far from being regarded as enemies, predators are increasingly recognised as an important part of the countryside. The story of the peregrine shows conclusively the effect of toxic chemicals. Your Lordships will have read of the recent meeting at Cambridge, at which the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, was an active leader and about which he will perhaps tell us something more this afternoon. I had an opportunity of seeing some of the papers which were read, and it is quite

1133
clear that we are in danger of wiping out birds of this kind.
Here I should like to turn the argument to the ecological question. "Ecology" is a word that is becoming rather popular, indeed, it is even finding its way into general conversation among people who believe that it is some form of economics. I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, because of his responsibilities as Minister for Science and his connection with the Nature Conservancy, is particularly interested in ecology. We fully realise—and nobody would ever suggest to the contrary—that man is not seeking to alter the balance of nature to his own interest. But the ecologist will claim that he knows what he is seeking to do, and understands the risks that he runs.
Therefore, my next plea is for more research in this field. The Sanders Committee Report, which it has sometimes been suggested is a general "whitewash" for the use of toxic chemicals, makes abundantly clear, from the list of subjects which the Committee looked at, that there is hardly a subject in this field that does not call for considerably more research. I appreciate that we have only limited scientific resources. The noble Viscount the Minister for Science is no doubt seeking to increase the number of scientists and, indeed, is seeking to persuade some of those who have left this country to come back again. Luckily, most of them are not biologists, and there is scope for more work for biologists in this particular field.
I have mentioned that it is for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to give a further lead, and I would suggest that a great deal of what they seek to do is very sound and reasonable. Their failure is in getting it across; and it is because they always defend, as they appear to do, the status quo in this matter, and point to the enormous gains from these chemicals, that they have aroused so much suspicion. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, referred to the human side—I am sorry; mean the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSEIAM): There is a Greenhill far away.
LORD SHACKLETON: I hope it will remain green, my Lords. The noble Lord,
1134
Lord Douglas of Barloch, referred to the human side. There is the story of the cannibal in Polynesia who now no longer allows his tribe to eat Americans because their fat is contaminated with chlorinated hydrocarbons.
LORD ST. OSWALD: What is that meant to encourage?
LORD SHACKLETON: This is purely in the interests of the export trade. The figures show that we are rather more edible than Americans. The figures published recently show that we have about 2 parts per million of DDT in our bodies, whereas the figure for Americans is about 11 parts per million. These figures relate only to DDT: I do not know what other figures there may be with regard to other chemicals. There is, as yet, no evidence of a decisive kind that these have produced ill-effects, though there have been particular incidents that are suggestive. There is the problem of the fat man who, in an illness, loses weight—and this would concern the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and myself more than other noble Lords—and is promptly poisoned by the DDT stored in his body. But the danger is not of immediate, lethal poisoning: it is of the long-term effects, and on this we know very little.
As the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, said, we cannot prove the dangers in regard to this at the moment, but there is evidence and there are warnings. There are warnings from scientists—distinguished scientists in this country. It has been pointed out by Professor Boyland at the Chester Beatty Research Institute that there is no safe dose for a carcinagy, or if there is a safe dose it is impossible to say what it is. There is evidence, too, that some of these chemicals are radiomimetic, that they have the same effect as radio-activity, and that they may be mutagenic. And I have here a paper, also written by a member of the Chester Beatty, Dr. Alexander, which points to the possible dangers from the use or the consumption of chemicals of this kind. If somebody suggested spraying our fields with radio-activity, we should think twice about it; yet some of these very chemicals have this effect. The dangers to mutation, the dangers of mutagenic effects, are not simply to future generations; they are to the very cells of the

1135
individual. This is not yet proved as a danger—and, indeed, it is argued repeatedly that there are no dangers.
Recently, Dr. van Allen, who accused Sir Bernard Lovell and others of being "Commies", because, he said the "rainbow bomb" would have no effect, has had to withdraw his remarks; and we know now that there is an area of space which will be dangerous to astronauts for possibly ten years, and it may well be one hundred years. I hope that those scientists who say positively that there is no risk (though they sometimes qualify this by saying that there is no evidence of risk, which is a very different thing) in the addition of these chemicals to our food either deliberately or inadvertently, will be proved right. But we shall not know, quite clearly, for about twenty or thirty years. All we urge is that, in the interests of wild life, the Government should show a great deal more concern; that they should listen to the representations of those who are bothered about it from a wild life point of view; that they really should take some steps to discourage people from using unnecessarily high doses of toxic chemicals, not only in the interests of wild life but in their own economic interests—it is a fact that there is evidence that farmers are apt to put on too much of these chemicals; that they should consider more cooperative research in support of bodies like the British Institute of Biological Research; and that they should face up, if necessary, to the possibility of legislation.
We do not wish to proceed by inflicting penalties upon farmers who misuse these chemicals, but the fact remains that if there were the occasional prosecution—and this, after all, is what the law seeks to do—it might well be in the general interests of protecting society. As it is, we shall have to anticipate a continual report of wild life deaths of the kind we have seen and heard about in this last year, admittedly greatly reduced from the previous year; we shall have this as a continuing problem. My Lords, this is no longer a matter that either we or the public can take lightly. It is not suggested that toxic chemicals should be banned, but it is suggested that a great deal more money should be spent on research and a great deal more effort on seeking to educate the public in
1136
achieving proper labelling. Above all, we urge the Government to show themselves much more concerned than they have been hitherto.
3.49 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, fifteen speakers have put down their names to speak in this debate, and this, at least, absolves me from the anxiety which I had when I originally thought of speaking myself: that the debate would not be sufficiently well supported from the Benches to justify two Government speakers. But, my Lords, I think I should justify my presence here when, on part of the range of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, and the whole, I think, of the matter of the Motion set down by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, the Minister of Agriculture, who is well represented here by his Parliamentary Secretary, is responsible; and I think almost the whole of the rest of the matter of the Motion set down by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, is covered by the responsibilities of the Minister of Health, who also has an Under-Secretary by my side.
The answer is that both Motions have distinctly scientific implications, and before descending to the detail in which my noble friend Lord St. Oswald will reply to the debate, I think it is worth while looking at the whole of the issue raised from a detached point of view. I was going to say "for the voice of science to be heard", but what is the voice of science in this matter? Two conclusions have been so far put before your Lordships and they are not the same. The noble Lord, Lord Douglas (of Barloch, towards the end of his interesting speech put forward the view that the human environment should be protected, as he put it, against all chemicals not proved to be harmless. This is a proposal that I cannot personally accept, and in the course of my remarks I shall try to show why, although I should have thought that it was quite apparent from the range of Lord Douglas of Barloch's remarks that this was not a possibility.
The other proposition, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in the speech to which we have all just listened with enjoyment, is that we

1137
should use caution in this matter. There I think I should heartily agree, provided that for "caution" we are careful not to substitute "timidity". But in making any assessment of this matter, it is as well to bear two broad propositions in mind. First, this is a subject upon which scientists, like most other experts, differ, both in their scientific opinions and in their non-scientific judgments, which are based, like ours, upon non-scientific values. Secondly, we must recognise that at the end of 'the day there is no absolute truth about this to be known.
If we had lived at the end of the Middle Ages, to which at times I thought the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, was urging us to return, we might have been arguing at how much cost in human life and malnutrition we ought to preserve the dense forests in our Southern counties which composed the ecological environment of the wolf and the bear. Doubtless even then the farmer and the land owner, peasant and lord, would have differed. Indeed, we know they did. Even then the sporting interests diverged from the agricultural and the urban from the rural. Doubtless, had the Agricultural Research Council and the Nature Conservancy at that time been giving scientific advice to a mediæval Minister of Science, they would have given divergent advice as they do to-day. Therefore, there must be a balance; and public opinion must in the end make it clear what it desires that balance to be. I would say it is not a subject for extreme attitudes.
Although Lord Douglas of Barloch's Motion goes somewhat wider, both Motions now under discussion are phrased principally in the context of the use of toxic chemicals in agriculture. Indeed, the speeches which have been made have drawn at times fairly closely on Miss Carson's book Silent Spring, to whose English edition the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has composed a notable Foreword. But I should begin by saying that it must by now, at least, be apparent that the use of chemicals in agriculture is only a special case of a much wider question: the use by mankind in almost every field of his activity in this technological age, of increasingly powerful substances whose effects are sometimes unexpected, occassionally dramatic and often undesired.
This is a question which cannot fail to attract the attention of Government in a
1138
variety of different ways, and it is worth while admitting at the outset that no Government on earth can claim to have discovered absolute answers to all the questions. Nor will it ever do so, because the nature of the dangers will continually change with the change in technology and science. What is wanted is not an absolute answer but a proper means of watching issues as they arise and a proper organisation for ensuring that scientific opinion ifluences policy at a sufficiently early stage. By far the most dramatic and tragic recent case of this general question was the side effects of thalidomide on the human fœtus; but it would not be difficult to find examples of many kinds in industrial medicine or public health or, for that matter, in nuclear physics.
There is, in fact, practically no way in which man has not altered his environment. It is one of the permanent and serious dangers of a scientific and technological society and one against which a scientific and technological society must learn to erect substantial defences. We cannot get the benefits of a scientific and technological society without running some of these risks; but in applying new knowledge we cannot do so responsibly unless we make some insurance against the risks. What we cannot hope to do, however, if we are to accept the benefits of a scientific and technological society—which I believe it is the overwhelming desire of the people of this country and, indeed, of the whole modern world to do—is to guarantee that there will never be any unexpected or evil side effects. I should have thought that Lord Douglas of Barloch's speech alone, without any other matter added from any other source, would have established that many of these substances cannot in their nature reveal all their potentialities in purely clinical or limited sample trials, either on animals or human beings. In some cases these results will appear only after the greatest possible care has been taken, after they have been applied over a long period of time and over a wide population.
I would say that this debate has the merit of drawing attention to one important aspect of a most important subject. Whether, however, the book which gave rise to it really deserves all the encomiums which have been lavished upon it is, I think, open to question. I could not help noticing, for instance, that the

1139
reviewer in the Scientific American described it as a
"highly partisan selection of examples and interpretations that support the author's thesis".
And it went on to say that neither she nor, for that matter, her extreme opponents had succeeded in placing the controversy in a genuine ecological context. Whether this be so or not, I certainly agreed with the reviewer when he went on to say that in the present state of knowledge
"nobody knows enough to adopt an extreme position in the matter".
I thought it might be useful if at the outset of the debate I sought to give a perspective to some of the more extravagant fears which may have been released by the discussion of this matter.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, will the noble Viscount allow me to interrupt? I think he is being extremely unfair in taking one book review. I have literally dozens of book reviews of Rachel Carson's work and I have studiously avoided introducing the controversial side of it. I hope we shall not find ourselves debating particular points on the book. There are dozens of reviews by distinguished scientists who are wholly sympathetic to Rachel Carson. I do not think that we shall get far if we adopt this line of argument.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think the noble Lord's anxiety to advocate some things may be misleading him as to what I have been saying. I have not referred to any particular point in the book; I have referred to a general criticism, which I myself happen to endorse, up to a point, and I think I am entitled to express that view, if I happen to hold it. I ventured to do so in the language of another to prove that it was not at least peculiar to myself.
Whilst I am on the subject, I would say that I believe that our peculiar scientific organisation, which keeps the Research Councils composed of independent scientists of a wide range of disciplines independent of the executive Ministries but in close touch with them, is itself an important safeguard of no mean value. The Nature Conservancy, the Agricultural Research Council, the Medical Research Council, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and
1140
even the Atomic Energy Authority, are closely concerned with these and cognate matters, and a most important part of my functions is to ensure that their advice is given early and heeded closely in matters of this kind and is not watered down either by political pressure or by administrative convenience.
I must, however, begin with the proposition that, while both Motions appear to me to draw attention to a most serious matter, to which all Governments would be wise to pay continuous and serious attention, both seem to me, though in different degrees, to fall into the error of stressing only one side of the matter. I think, therefore, that it is for me to redress the balance by stressing the other, not because I think it is the only side, but because I think it is necessary to see this matter in perspective.
To begin with, we must remember the desire on the part of most mankind for increased food production. On page 9 of the American edition of her book, Miss Carson asks the rhetorical question:
"Is our real problem not one of overproduction '?"
If this means that there is too much food in the world, to this question I myself would reply with an uncompromising and resounding, "No". No one who has attended the series of debates, the last of which took place on the initiation of my noble friend Lord De La Warr and others of which have been initiated by my noble friend Lord Casey, on the relationship between food and population in the world, can fail to agree with this.
If it means, on the other hand, that agricultural efficiency must always and in all circumstances yield to the ecological requirements of wild life, my answer is a qualified, "No", for I believe that a balance must be struck. The question is where is it necessary to strike that balance? Nor am I prepared to give my countenance, at any rate in my official capacity, to the "muck and magic" school of husbandry and to those to whom all chemicals and food additives are necessarily dirty words. Most people who have even a nodding acquaintance with agriculture will certainly claim that the extraordinary development of agricultural production and efficiency in this country in our lifetime, though in part due to mechanisation and

1141
good husbandry and in part due to fertilisers and Government support, could not have been achieved without chemical sprays and pesticides.
Nor is it in the main true, as I thought at one stage the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, suggested, that the sprays and pesticides used are all becoming more toxic in their effects. I think that too little of what has been said and written on this subject has recognised how much of the undoubted damage has been due to one group of insecticides—chlorinated hydrocarbons. A number of the more toxic chemicals are no longer used in this country on an extensive scale and the use of the group which caused such dramatic losses two or three years ago—aldrin, dieldrin and heptachlor—is now heavily controlled and not used except for wheat, and then only when threatened with wheat bulb fly and in the autumn. It may be the case, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, that the farmer is not yet educated to the proper use of these things, but I agree with him that we must take what steps we may.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Viscount said "heavily controlled". Will he tell us how heavily controlled?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: By the agreement which was arrived at after the incident to which the noble Lord referred. It was the indiscriminate use of these three in the spring which gave rise to much of the quite justified anxiety recently. Indeed, the whole episode of this trouble can be used equally as an example of the danger and as an example of the relative readiness of the defences which have contained it in this country. Many of the older pesticides—the arsenical compounds, for example—are more toxic both to insect and to human life than many of the newer ones, and some of these "natural" compounds which Miss Carlton advocates, such as derris, are at least as dangerous to mammalian life as some of the newer synthetics.
So far as agricultural chemicals are concerned, nothing has been said in this debate or written elsewhere to invalidate the general conclusion of the Sanders Report that the great majority of chemicals and fungicides, insecticides and herbicides, on farms and orchards have no apparent deleterious effects on wild
1142
life. There was no reason, they went on to say, until recently to think that any of them have serious effects and need serious attention. The fact is that, to listen to some people, one would get the impression that the human race in this country was steadily being poisoned by more and more toxic food. In point of fact every health statistic of which I am aware establishes, or at least indicates, the proposition that on the whole we are becoming longer and longer lived and more and more healthy and better fed. On balance, I believe there is no doubt that in this process the use of chemicals by agriculturists and in some of the other ways described by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, has played an important and, on balance, a beneficent part.
I think it is necessary to remind your Lordships that the Sanders Committee, to whose authoritative work I shall be reverting, stated unequivocally, and it is also the view of the Medical Research Council, that there is no evidence at all of death or illness attributable to the presence of toxic chemical residues in food entering the market and (here I quote) there is
"no evidence of chronic effects from the ingestion of traces of pesticides in food."
I cannot accept the proposition urged by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, that on balance the use of preservatives without nutritive value is necessarily deleterious to human health. I can think of many kinds of diseases and poisons which these preservatives prevent. We must not forget the immense benefits conferred by sprays in containing and reducing malaria and other insect-borne diseases. I know that, as a result of Miss Carson's book, DDT is under suspicion or attack, but it is difficult to estimate the human lives which were saved by DDT dust after the war, when the opening of the louse-ridden contents of the concentration camps released potential carriers of typhus all over Europe.
This does not, or need not, involve us in complacency. If we were tempted that way, I think we should reflect, as your Lordships have done, on the thalidomide and dieldrin episodes and on the terrible Cutter incident in America, which followed the use of the Salk vaccine prepared from the Mahoney strain. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, treats rather unfairly the belief, which I

1143
hold, that many of the practices condemned by Miss Carson do not go on in this country on anything like the same scale as in the United States of America, of which she was writing. We have nothing like the savage spraying of roadside and railside verges—this was put an end to when it began to show what I might describe as its ugly head—nor anything like the massive eradication campaigns such as those against the gypsy moth and fire ant she describes. Indeed, the pattern of our agriculture, with its relatively small fields, numerous hedges, and varied crops, does not lend itself to similar methods on anything like the same scale as she describes.
I also think that, thanks to the Research Councils and I think the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, we have acted fairly promptly in anticipating or stopping abuse. In the early 1950's a Working Party under Sir Solly Zuckerman made an exhaustive study of the matter, and their recommendations were carried into effect partly (where the safety of agricultural workers was in issue) by legislation and partly by the operation in 1957 of the voluntary notification scheme administered by the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances in Agriculture and Food Storage. I know there are those who would wish to see this set up on a compulsory basis. But I am sure we should all agree that the real object of Government action in this or in any other field, is the creation of an appropriate pattern of conduct; neither persuasion nor coercion is desirable for its own sake. The only question, in any case, must be which system works better.
Then I must refer to the work of the Sanders Committee. This was a research study group set up by the Government in 1960. It is right to remember that this Committee reported that arrangements in this country for ensuring the safe use of pesticides were working well and were generally effective. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred, both in his Motion and in his speech, to the need for more research. I share the same view, and this was the view also of the Sanders Report. Its recommendations were accepted by the Government and are being acted on by the Research Councils and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
1144
In particular, I asked the Nature Conservancy to undertake research into the effect of pesticides on wild life. They agreed to do so, and are planning to expand it considerably this year, particularly at their new station, which I hope to open later in the year, at Monk's Wood. Research is also going on by the other Research Councils, and in order to ensure its comprehensiveness and to prevent duplication I asked the Agricultural Research Council to set up a scientific committee under Professor A. C. Frazer, of Birmingham University, to keep all relevant research under review and to report progress at intervals. I have just received the first Report of this Committee.
It does not report dramatic successes, but it is a record—like most records of progress in scientific research—of slow and painstaking achievement. May I quote a few examples of research which has been started or intensified in consequence of the Sanders recommendations? The Agricultural Research Council are supporting research at St. Mary's Hospital into the processes by which insects can overcome the effects of chemicals, which was a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, referred. They have intensified research at Rothamsted into the mechanism of resistance to organo-phosphorous insecticides. They have appointed an additional scientist to work on the development of sugar beet resistant or tolerant to virus yellows at the Plant Breeding Institute, Cambridge. The special Pesticide Residues Research Unit of the Government Chemist's Laboratory has continued to improve methods of analysis. The Agricultural Research Council's National Vegetable Research Station is studying the persistence of aldrin, dieldrin, DDT and BHC. (in other words, the common chlorinated hydrocarbons) on farms, and the effect of these residues on ground beetles which prey on the cabbage root fly larva.
The Nature Conservancy are studying the incidence of residues of persistent insecticides in wild birds and their eggs, and in mammals, and they are cooperating with the Ministry of Agriculture in studying the problem of damage to birds and other wild life. They also plan a considerable expansion of their

1145
work on chemicals and wild life during the next year.
In the field of biological control, the Agricultural Research Council now support research at Oxford into the life histories and host relationships of a group of parasitic wasps. Work on polyhedral viruses is being carried out at Cambridge, in the Agricultural Research Council's Virus Research Unit there, and on bacterial parasites at the Pest Infestation Laboratory at Slough. The Agricultural Research Council also support work at Imperial College into the population biology of aphids and their natural enemies and on the best ways of applying chemical control measures so as to interfere as little as possible with natural control. These researches will lead steadily to the growth of our understanding, and will help us to gain the maximum benefit of chemical pesticides with the minimum of hazard.
I hope to have shown that the Government's approach to this problem has been and is serious and systematic. Inquiries by successive Working Parties and study groups have marshalled the facts and assessed the scientific evidence. These studies have led to proposals for action which the Government have put into force, for example, by the setting up of a voluntary notification scheme. We shall continue to take action on the advice of scientists from time to time, and I always make it my business to see that warnings made by the Research Councils and by outside bodies are brought to the notice of my colleagues in the executive departments; and on each occasion when a hazard to human health has been suggested I have asked for special advice from the Medical Research Council and the other Departments. When these recommendations have called for more resources, for additional staff or expenditure to be met from public funds, these resources have been and are being found. Where there was a need for emergency action, as in the case of the birds poisoned by seed dressings, that action has been taken.
I do not believe, having considered this matter very carefully with my scientific advisers, that there is any general cause for concern about the effects of these chemicals on human health. On other aspects, particularly the effect on wild life, I think there is some ground for apprehension. In
1146
particular, I have asked the Nature Conservancy to pay particular attention to the alleged effects of DDT on bird predators which is one of the matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton, referred. Over the whole field there is need for constant vigilance and for constant endeavour to extend the frontiers of our knowledge. I can assure the House that the Government are fully alive to this need, as I think our record will show, and that we will continue to assess any hazards there may be, and to deal with them, when necessary, in what I hope will be found to be a balanced and responsible manner.
My summing up of the whole matter is that this is an important issue requiring constant attention and research. If noble Lords claim that the case against an indiscriminate use of insecticides and pesticides is proved, I wholly agree with them. But if they wish to turn all chemicals and additives into an antisocial operation, then I confess I am on the other side of the barricades. This is where, above all, we need an ability to balance advantages and disadvantages and evaluate scientific evidence in a responsible manner.
4.18 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to make a brief intervention in this debate, which up to now I think has proved a very useful one because it has enabled the noble and learned Viscount the Minister for Science to make what has been a very important statement upon the two Motions standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Douglas of Barloch and Lord Shackleton. It seems to me a curious thing that nine years ago we passed a Bill in this House for the protection of birds, and we are now again talking, among other things, about more danger to birds coming from totally different sources. The Protection of Birds Act which was passed in 1954 was to protect birds from being shot and their eggs from being stolen; now we are talking about the danger which may come to bird life from the chemical sprays which are being used.
The noble and learned Viscount referred to the two that are the most dangerous, the two hydrocarbons called dieldrin and aldrin, both of which can be extremely toxic to bird life, and also, I think I am right in saying, to pet animals,

1147
both dogs and cats—but there, I think, dieldrin becomes more dangerous than aldrin. That was why I was rather surprised to see, in two seed catalogues which I had sent me from Edinburgh to-day, published in January, 1963, both these substances advertised with no warning at all that they might conceivably be dangerous things to use in too large quantities. I wonder whether some voluntary agreement, such as was come to with the farmers that these substances would not be used on farmland in great quantities except where they were needed for special reasons, could not be extended to the gardens, because we may find that the gardens may become a source of death to birds and other things.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think the answer is this—my noble friend beside me will correct me later if I am wrong. The thing which caused all the damage was that the seed sown was dressed. This was dangerous not because the article was poisonous (because in itself it is not likely to be taken by birds or pets) but because the seed is eaten by the birds as their natural food. Then the pets are apt to get it because they eat or play with their mouths with the dead bodies of birds. It follows that to stop the seed deals with the nub of the question. But if more needs to be done we will consider it.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Viscount for what he has said, but I think that possibly these catologues should be encouraged to include some kind of warning of the danger, although I agree that it is not very great.
I was pleased to hear what the noble Viscount said about the work that has been done to deal with strains which may become resistant to spraying with DDT or various other chemicals. This has always been one of the things which has worried me. If such resistance occurs, it may mean using stronger and stronger insecticides and pesticides, which will become more and more dangerous. If work is being done towards that end, that takes away a good deal of the anxiety which I felt in that line.
I should like to say a word upon the human effects, because I think that here
1148
we have to be extremely careful. There appears to be some evidence—not a great deal, I admit—that some of the substances which are used as sprays, certainly in America (and some of what I say comes from Miss Carson's book, but some from workers in this country), can be carcinogenic. One has to be very careful that some of these substances do not turn out to be carcinogenic, because they have been found to cause strange tumours which do not seem to be cancers themselves, though one has to be more than sure they are not. The trouble about cancer is that it takes a long time to develop from any one cause.
There was a case, which may be familiar to many of your Lordships, about girls in New York (I think it was) who during the 1914–18 war were employed putting luminous paint on the dials of various instruments used in aircraft. When they painted on this luminous paint they pointed the brush with their tongue and lips, and they ingested quite a large quantity of this luminous paint. In the course of 15, 20 or 30 years (I think the last one was) a large number of these girls developed cancer of the bone and jaw, which I believe could be attributed entirely to the work they were doing. I quote that merely to show that cancer takes a long time to develop; that it needs a stimulus to be applied for a considerable time. But that does not mean that we should not do what we can to find out whether or not these substances are likely to be carcinogenic. There have been various other substances, used mainly in Germany, which have been dangerous to human beings. They have caused muscular symptoms, even going so fax as paralysis, but I doubt whether they are greatly used in this country. One melathion, does appear in catalogues. But one wants to avoid that kind of thing occurring now.
There is one thing that surprised me. The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, referred to the question of whether water is to be treated with fluorine. I thought that was an old story which was almost settled, because we know exactly what occurs with fluorine—not because we have put it in water for a long time, but because certain waters have fluorine in them naturally, up to the amount it is suggested might be put into the water now. It has

1149
been shown that children who drink that water do not get dental decay. That is a fact. There is no denying it. I saw in one paper the other day the question raised of what would happen if one boiled up water in. a kettle and drank the water at the bottom: would it contain a poisonous amount of fluorine? The answer is that this must occur many times where fluorine exists naturally, and I should not have thought there was any need to bring fluorine into the question of these toxic chemicals and sprays at the present time.
There are two points I should like to raise on the amenity side. I was very pleased indeed to hear the noble and learned Viscount say that there was no intention of going in for spraying the verges of country lanes on a bigger scale, because that would make them frightfully dreary and desolate. The other point is this. It is a sad thing that some of the sewage treated by detergents is doing such damage. I have in mind particularly the sewage from Norwich, which goes into the river Yare and which, because it contains a large amount of detergent, has a deleterious effect upon the aquatic life of the Yare. Provided that it is not discharged in large quantities, untreated sewage does not cause any particular harm to aquatic life in the river but when it is mixed up with chemicals and detergents it can. It is a great pity, and I should like to see something done to check that. I am glad that the noble and learned Viscount agrees that we need to know a great deal more about this subject, and that we need to encourage the various bodies doing research so that we have a clear idea what we are doing when we are using these various sprays, or "detergening", or whatever they call it.
4.29 p.m.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I rise to support in general the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I will not attempt to traverse the side of the case which was dealt with so carefully by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch. I will merely say that I think there is more in what he said about the possibilities of biological control over what are biological pests than is sometimes admitted. On the other hand, I am bound to say that I
1150
feel that in that respect Rachel Carson is far too optimistic. I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who said that one must take a balanced view. I think there is more in that case than is admitted by the other side, who say that biological control is merely a biologist's pipe dream. That goes much too far on the one side. On the other hand, the thought that all these pests can be controlled in any reasonable time purely by biological methods is also a delusion.
But the aspect of the matter with which I should like to deal is the effect upon wild life as we know it to be in the conditions of this country. I would agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in what he said, that conditions in America are different from here. Nevertheless, if the same, or similar, substances are ingested by the same or similar creatures, I do not think it is going to matter on which side of the Atlantic it happens, and it is not much comfort for us to say that quantitively we may be better off, that the amounts distributed here are less than are scattered over the soil of America.
Though it would be inappropriate this afternoon to discuss, or enter into a defence of or an attack on Rachel Carson, I think there is one thing that ought to be said on her side. Admittedly she has presented a one-sided case, and she has done it in an extremely telling and heightened way. But if she needed defence, it would surely be that, on the other side, chemical opinion, industrial opinion, farming opinion and Government opinion were all very slow indeed to admit that any mischief was in fact happening. When it was proved that some mischief was occurring they all said that it was of a trifling character, and that if birds and creatures were dying anyone who walked out into the country would see carcases all over the place. Every naturalist knows that that is not the way in which wild creatures creep to their deaths, and every naturalist knows what an efficient scavenger nature is.
The other great service which this book has done is to bring home the build-up in the food chain. We need not rely upon the evidence of Silent Spring for that. Very careful and well-informed inquiries have been made in this country, at great expense, by two voluntary bodies

1151
whose work I know well, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the British Trust for Ornithology. They proved, by having analyses made, that these chemical substances, or toxic substances which we must not call poisons, do build up in the food chain in a very remarkable manner. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred to the case of birds of prey which was recently discussed at a very representative meeting at Cambridge. There it was shown that a variety of these toxic substances are found not only in the bodies of hawks and of owls but in their eggs; and it is not surprising in these circumstances that the eggs have been infertile or do not hatch, or that such chicks as do hatch die within a few days.
The same kind of evidence hay been accumulated by similar organisations on other creatures. How does a heron in Norfolk become full of mercury, dieldrin, aldrin, heptachlor and benzene hexachloride? Those toxic chemicals can have accumulated only by its eating small rodents or fish on which it feeds; and the curious thing is that, though the quantities distributed to kill and absorbed by insects in the first instance are minute, by the time a fish has eaten the insects which have been killed and a grebe or heron has eaten the fish, the quantity has become very large, building up in its fats to a level beyond the capacity of the creature to excrete the poisons. Perhaps it could be said that this has only recently been realised sufficiently by biologists and naturalists themselves, but what has impressed me is the fact that it was denied by the chemists and most of the people on the other side that it was or could be happening. I think one of the explanations for this is that far too much of the research that has been done has been done by chemists for chemists, or perhaps by agricultural or economic entomologists who have been under directions or working with the intention to discover means of eradicating or eliminating some particular insect. Therefore, they have in fact been working in blinkers, and it is only very recently that a general ecological point of view has been brought to bear.
I have for many years been a member of the Nature Conservancy, and recently its Chairman, and the Nature Conservancy would be the first to admit that
1152
they were slow in getting off the mark on those lines of inquiry. That has been due to lack of manpower and lack of resources; and we cannot but be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, for having seen recently that they are better enabled to get on with the research which is now being undertaken under very competent scientific direction. But I would suggest that as a result of what has already been done we know enough to take much more vigorous action than has yet been taken. Here I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that the Government should come off the defensive and show more initiative and determination to solve and cope with the problems which we now know to exist. What we have heard this afternoon from the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is encouraging. There is a great deal more to do, but it is only fair to say that a start has at last been made.
I do not want to take up your Lordships' time or to read out to you a lot of resolutions, but many of the bodies interested in the protection and conservation of wild life have recently been giving this matter very serious attention, and they have formulated a number of resolutions, which I will endeavour to cover by way of summary, as to what we think can and should be done here and now. They turn mainly on three points. There is the direction of the research which should be undertaken; the question of enabling both the users and the sellers of these substances to know and say more clearly what they are and what their effects are. Then there are perhaps one or two more general lines of possible action, and I would suggest more definite control over certain of the things which are known to be most dangerous.
Perhaps I might deal first with the aspect of research. I think it is almost generally agreed, and certainly agreed in all parts of the House, that more research is required; and, of course, that means more money and more staff. I cannot press that point too far or too hard this afternoon, and I have noted with great interest and satisfaction that research is moving more quickly than it seemed likely to do two or three years ago. We want research into long-term and side effects, to some of which the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, has referred, but also

1153
into immediate ways and means of mitigating damage which could perhaps be found. We want research by biologists into the ecology of particular pest species, on which something has been done though not enough.
Surely we want much more research (and here perhaps it can best be done by chemists) into alternative pesticides and weed killers which will be sufficiently effective but not so devastatingly lethal to all sorts of creatures at which they are themselves not directly aimed. I believe that much more could be done on these lines by full consultation between chemists and the Nature Conservancy and other biologists, and that they might be directed to devote their attention to finding out things which will be less lethal and less persistent. Persistence is a point of great importance about some of these more destructive agencies which cause great concern. Would it be unreasonable to say that there should not be any new developments in the use of these toxic chemicals without consultation between the biological and the chemical side?
I think it is true that we are unlikely to go so far in this country as they have gone in America in dosing the land. But one never knows; and it has been suggested that if the Forestry Commission, for for example, were to start spraying its new plantations with highly toxic substances for the destruction of voles, we should at once have a new threat to many of the birds of prey and to some interesting mammals. Indeed, there would be devastating results incurred—I will not say thoughtlessly, but again without full ecological consideration of the consequences. I hope that whichever noble Lord responds for any points affecting forestry in this debate will take note of that particular danger.
In the direction of research I feel also that much more attention ought to be paid to the use of sprays. It is quite fair to say that after considerable pressure the Ministry of Agriculture took a helpful and enlightened view of the question of seed dressings, but I hope they will not feel inclined to rest on their oars and on that particular achievement, to the neglect or insufficient consideration of other equally pressing and urgent dangers, in particular (I will come back to that in a moment), the use of these chemicals by
1154
gardeners. There is, so far as I know, no control over the sale or use of many of these substances by gardeners, and it is very disturbing that a great deal of the advertisement of these substances leaves the ordinary amateur gardener quite unaware of the damage he may be doing by using many of these things.
Recently, I am told, it was stated by a well-known gardener in a broadcast that none of the substances used for destroying greenfly or other garden pests could have any possible adverse effects upon wild life. I will not discuss the truth or otherwise of that statement; I will merely content myself by saying that that at least is not a scientific view. The amateur gardeners are not subject to what perhaps is a limiting factor upon agriculture. The agriculturist does not want to waste his money; he will not, except in rare cases, use more or pay for more than he is bound to have. But that does not apply to the gardener. Naturalists generally have come to the conclusion that a great deal of damage is, in fact, being done by the use of chlorinated hydrocarbons in gardens, and I think that problem requires some urgent consideration by the Minister of Agriculture. I have a label here on one kind of aldrin powder. It gives no hint that it could be damaging to wild life. It says that it will remain active in the soil for a year, and also says "dust freely". I think there is too much of this "dusting freely", and dusting often, with a great many of these things without any control over them whatever. Apart from their use for agricultural purposes, the use of these things for gardening purposes, and some control over it, want very urgent attention.
The next point I would raise is the one to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has already referred, that there should be much clearer labelling of these substances. All toxic chemicals known to be harmful to wild life, even these sold in retail trade, ought to be clearly labelled to indicate the dangers. I understand that there are considerable difficulties about labelling them as poisons. Apart from the fact that the manufacturers and the trade much prefer to call them toxic chemicals, and do not like the word "poison", there are, I believe, some real difficulties connected with the administration of the Food and Drugs Acts. But I feel that it is a

1155
perfectly sound suggestion for them to be labelled as harmful to wild life, in whatever is the suitable language.
If I might also say so, I feel that the approved list of agricultural chemicals is defective in that respect. It is wonderfully well arranged and very clearly printed and it gives a good deal of information, but so far as I can see it never says more than that some particular chemical is harmful to bees or harmful to fish. To take one instance, that is true of the part of the list dealing with aldrin. When you get to the aldrin seed dressings it goes a little further, but it merely says:
"(a) Risks to users.
(b) Risks to wild life: dressings containing aldrin, dieldrin and heptachlor.
Should only be used … on autumn-sown wheat …",
and so on. It never says it is harmful to wild life. That seems to be avoided, but I think that in a new edition of this list that point wants reconsideration. I think those are the two main points about which those for whom I can venture to speak feel most concerned—much more research and clear labelling—so that everybody knows what they are using and what are the risks of damaging wild life. All manufacturers and vendors in their publicity and sales methods should take all reasonable steps to warn their customers of the risks, and especially of the cumulative effect of repeated small doses—a point which Lord Douglas of Barloch has stressed.
I think it would be only fair to say that, in some respects, when their attention has been drawn to the matter, members of the Government have taken action. I am particularly grateful to the Minister of Public Building and Works. Recently I drew his attention to the fact that the death of insectivorous birds in London, which was not due to agricultural practice, might be due to the use of some of these substances in gardens or parks. The particular case I had in mind was the London song thrush, which had obviously eaten worms or other insects. The Minister of Public Building and Works promptly wrote back and said this to me—and I have his leave to quote it to the House:
"All Royal Parks staff are now being given a formal instruction that preparations contain-
1156
ing aldrin, dieldrin and heptachlor must not be used in the parks".
He went further than that, and said that after consulting the infestation control laboratory of the Ministry of Agriculture, and finding out that there were some preparations which were considered safe and others which involved risks, he had also given instructions that those that were not safe were to be avoided if there was any alternative method of control. He concludes by saying:
"We shall proceed with the utmost caution before we introduce any new chemical which may come on to the market in future, into the Parks"
If I may say so with respect, that is the approach which we feel should be the ordinary approach by the Government to these matters. The resolutions to which I have referred, and which are being sent in detail to the Ministers concerned, press for a restriction of or prohibition on the use of the substances which are known to be dangerous, save in cases of emergency. As has been said by other speakers in the debate, that particularly applies to the chlorinated hydrocarbons.
This is a most difficult and complicated subject. But I am satisfied that we have got far beyond the stage where we can be content with mere generalities or saying that the situation is being watched, and things of that sort, or even that we are going to embark upon researches which may yield some guidance in years to come. I think at this present time we know enough in many directions to do much more than has been done, and I would earnestly ask the members of the Government to look at the part of the field which comes within their respective control and to see whether we cannot take definite steps which will prevent the situation from deteriorating, as otherwise it is certain to do.
4.54 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, most noble Lords so far have addressed themselves to the pollution of the air by pesticides and other chemicals which are associated with agriculture, but I think it should be put on record here, for the sake of those who follow us in years to come and who read the report of this debate, that most people are more concerned with the pollution of the air by nuclear fall-out. Lord Douglas of Barloch's Motion is, of course, concerned with pollution generally. I

1157
am fully aware that if I now spoke on the effects of nuclear fall-out either on the health of the people now alive or on the health of future generations, a member of the Government would wind up—with due respect to the noble Lord who is to wind up, who is a most courteous man—and would say, "Pooh, pooh!"—
LORD ST. OSWALD: No, never. I should never dream of it.
BARONESS SUM MERSKILL: —and would rather adopt the attitude of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, to-day, which rather surprised me, when he said, "There is no evidence of human beings suffering from any serious condition". Well, I want to put it on record again that at this stage we do not know the etiology of new diseases.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I was only—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: The noble Viscount must not interrupt.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It is customary in this House to give way.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: It is an occupational disease with the noble Viscount, as a politician, and he worries me.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It is customary in this House to give way.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: He worries me. He leaps from that side to the Box, and one day I shall have to rush across and give him medical help. He really must allow me to proceed. I do not agree with him, but at least I sit back and do not interrupt him. However, for some curious reason, I seem to provoke him.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Baroness always misquotes me.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I listened to the noble Viscount. I realise what tremendous power in this matter the noble Viscount has, and that is why I listened to him carefully and tried to learn what he proposes to do. I cannot help agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, who has just said, as a result also of listening to him, that
1158
he is sorry to see the Government so much on the defensive. The noble Viscount has diverted me. Perhaps he will let me continue, and afterwards he can tell me where he disagrees.
What I wanted to say was that it would be curious for future generations to read this debate and to see no reference to that form of air pollution which concerns people all over the world—namely, nuclear radiation. I again say to the noble Viscount that when he said that, after all, our expectation of life is longer than it has ever been, so many of the diseases from which people die have now been defeated, he must recognise that the etiology of new diseases has not been established. And, who knows?, in this debate to-day what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, on the question of carcinogenics and the effect of hydrocarbons may be later quoted as being the first indication that perhaps we are now groping, at least we are pointing, at what may be the beginning of new diseases. So let us all recognise it, as so many of the speeches in this debate detected it.
I would ask the noble Viscount, as Minister for Science, not to be so dogmatic. In the whole field of chemical science people have risen up and suggested something and others have laughed and have called, "Crank!" and "Idiot!". We can think of Pasteur; we can think of Lister; we can think of many men in the field of medical science who have been ridiculed and afterwards proved to be right.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, if the noble Baroness is passing from that point, perhaps she will allow me at least to get a word in edgewise and to say that she has attributed to me sentiments which I never expressed and words which I have never used. I offered no opinion of my own, except that I quoted the Sanders Report which is generally conceded to be authoritative and which I said also corresponded with the Medical Research Council's opinion, which is even more authoritative than that of the noble Baroness. I said that no evidence of chronic effects from ingestation of traces of insecticide in food had been found. I also said that there is no evidence at all of death or illness attributable to the presence

1159
of toxic chemical residues in food entering the market. I said nothing whatsoever about fall-out, I said nothing about disease, I did not quote my own opinion, and I was not dogmatic.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, with respect, I noticed the noble Viscount's remark when he made it, about there being no evidence of food contamination. Has he looked at Davis & Lewis, British Medical Journal, 1956, Volume 2, page 393, which says:
"Outbreak of food poisoning from bread by means of endrin-contaminated flour"?
I give him that reference. It is rare; it is the only reference I know of; but it is, in fact, the reference in Poisonous Chemicals on the Farm, prepared by the Agricultural Department and endorsed by the Standing Medical Advisory Committee.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Lord must address himself to the Medical Research Council. I was merely quoting their opinion.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has reassured me that my hearing was not faulty and I was correct in what I was saying, perhaps I might now be able to continue without any more interruptions. As I was saying, no doubt when the social historians, on examining comparable morbidity statistics, come to consider air pollution in the 'fifties and 'sixties, they will indict the Governments of the Great Powers for permitting the upper atmosphere to be polluted with material possessing lethal properties. What we are discussing now is almost trivial compared to this deliberate pollution of the upper atmosphere.
I am now going to echo—and I am sure the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, will be pleased to hear this—perhaps rather mildly, some of the things he has said regarding seeing this whole question in proper perspective. Listening to my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch, who was a little gloomy, I came to the conclusion that there were only two items of food free from any form of treatment chemically or otherwise. The two items are fresh fish and wild fruits.
LORD TAYLOR: Ah! But did my noble friend hear what the noble Lord,
1160
Lord Hurcomb, was telling us about fish which had eaten insects; the fish themselves were then eaten by heron, and the heron then died as a result? So even fish are not free from it.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: But they were fish that jump out of the water. I am talking about fish in deep water. I have come to the conclusion that it leaves us with only those two foods. Which of us—certainly not myself—would decide to go and live on a desert island so that we could live solely on fresh fish and wild fruits? I would say that whatever the hazards, dietary and otherwise, I would prefer to be within easy reach of the National Health Service. It is a complete fallacy to suggest that nature produces food in all respects best for man and that man can do nothing to improve it. What is cooking but a successful attempt to improve on nature?
When we hear about the number of additives (a most curious word which has grown up in our vocabulary) I recall—and I hope my noble, medical friend Lord Taylor will agree with me without leaping up—that the fortification of food began with the addition of calciferol to margarine in recognition of the limited distribution of this vitamin in nature. There have been hundreds of other instances. Iodine has been added to food in the most obvious centres of goitre, with the most beneficial results. And the fluoridation of water is now recognised as making a contribution to preventive medicine.
There are those who still affirm that only a natural soil can produce the sort of food which can keep man healthy, and they attribute to nature a kind of universal benevolence. Nature is not benevolent. Nature can be harsh, cruel and ugly, and even its soil can be improved. It is beyond doubt that good soil, scientifically treated with skilful husbandry, can improve the yield of various kinds of produce and therefore profoundly affect man's welfare. I should like to remind noble Lords that this debate is being held in the middle of the Freedom from Hunger Week. Those who are collecting money for it are making an important contribution because they are focusing the attention of people in different countries on the needs of half the world's population. But money is not the long-term answer. The needs of the hungry millions can be met only by producing more food.

1161
Having recognised the contribution which artificial fertilisers and pesticides make to agriculture, it is equally important to examine with great care their harmful properties. I must confess that for many years we regarded DDT with a kind of warm appreciation, almost with affection. To a doctor a tin of DDT was something which brought hope, comfort and health to millions of people in the world. DDT, dichloro-diphenyltrichloro-ethane—it is sad to think it is a toxic chemical with a selective action, and, although it has achieved tremendous good for man, we are finding that it is affecting man in another way.
I should like to have an answer to this question. I find it very curious, having read certain medical papers on this matter, that twelve years ago in the United States the Food and Drugs Administration found that the insecticide was ingested. In the first test over 75 per cent. of a group of 75 United States citizens, not occupationally exposed to DDT, had traces of this insecticide in the body; furthermore 30 out of 32 samples of human milk contained DDT. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that it was estimated that in the fat of British bodies a certain amount of DDT can be found, but I find no record of any examination of the kind conducted in the United States being made on this. Although Lord Hailsham shakes his head, the British Medical Journal says that examinations of this kind have not been made. I should like to know why we are behind on this prospect. It seems that there are something like 500 pesticides on the market, and I wonder whether in this field the testing is as inadequate as, or even more inadequate than, that of the hundreds of drugs put on the market for human consumption. It seems that the position is very similar.
I must say to the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House and Minister for Science, that he was much too complacent, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, would agree. I should like to remind him that in 1960, at the Commonwealth Entomological Conference, Dr. J. L. Martin of the Long Ashton Research Station made the following statement—I am sorry to give these quotations to the noble Lords. but Lord Hailsham may well dismiss anything I say on this subject. I do not pretend to be an authority on the
1162
effects of pesticides, and therefore I must quote authorities. Dr. Martin said:
"The rapid pace at which innovations occur raises serious problems for those engaged in research, advisory and regulatory work. It is becoming increasingly difficult to carry out tests on which to base sound recommendations for the growers … We have therefore to rely more and more upon the manufacturers' assessments of the capabilities of their products."
This authority on the matter is saying that we are so limited in capacity for research and investigation that we must leave it to the manufacturers. I am mindful of those who are prepared to leave the investigation of drugs such as thalidomide to the manufacturers. It has always been said in this field that this work must be left to the manufacturers.
But, my Lords, at the same conference another authority, Dr. G. Watts of the Padwich Plant Protection Limited, said:
"The ultimate testing of the chemicals…is beyond the resources of even the largest industrial concerns, and it becomes necessary to invoke the help of local government experts and research stations in carrying out field tests."
At the same conference one authority says,
"Our capacity is so limited we must leave it to the manufacturers";
another one says,
"Even the manufacturers cannot do this work."
Now I come to the rather lighthearted manner in which the noble Viscount dismissed the health aspects of these questions. I would refer him to the British Medical Journal article on July 15, 1961, one year after the authorities had told the country that it was difficult to have proper research made into these matters because of a lack of proper facilities. The B.M.J. article said:
"The Minister of Agriculture…"—
that was Mr. Soames—
"… arranged for restrictions on the use of three insecticides. But it is clear … that much more must be done to ensure that all potentially toxic chemicals used on the land are rigorously screened by independent investigators before, and not after, they are placed on the market."
My Lords, this is my theme this afternoon. I have spoken before, and no doubt wearied your Lordships, on the question of independent investigation of drugs which are put on the market for human consumption. Here, again, we

1163
are faced with exactly the same problem. The medical authorities realise the danger much more than the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the medical authorities say in their book: "Let us examine these things before they are put on the market—not by the vested interests; of course not; the vested interests cannot look at these matters objectively—but by independent investigators." It seems to me that these repeated warnings of possible danger are ignored, just as they are ignored in the field of drugs.
My Lords, there is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action, and I was very disappointed to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, speak disparagingly of Dr. Carson. Perhaps he will remember this: it was a woman doctor—Dr. Frances Kelsey—who in the United States refused to allow thalidomide to be distributed. Dr. Frances Kelsey was disparaged in the same way. She was disparaged by the vested drug interests. I remember that one big drug manufacturer in the United States said: "This stupid woman doctor! She will not let us distribute thalidomide". I am quite sure that the vested interests, the interests which are making a fortune out of pesticides and fertilisers, recognise that Dr. Carson is their enemy. They try to ridicule her, diminish her, in precisely the same way that the drug manufacturers tried to ridicule and tried to diminish the doctor who refused to allow thalidomide to be distributed in the United States.
Now I come to the question of drugs. It is the same theme. Noble Lords will remember that at long last the attention of the world was directed to the irresponsible manner in which drugs were distributed without adequate trial, and only the thalidomide tragedy focused the attention of Parliaments and Governments throughout the world. I want to say this, because this is included in the Motion. Noble Lords will recall that thalidomide was withdrawn from the market. Scandinavian Governments and the American Government immediately tightened up their regulations, so that the thing could not happen again. On July 28, 1962, after thalidomide was withdrawn, three of the most brilliant obstetricians in this country wrote this to the British Medical Journal:
1164
"Until more is known we consider it of extreme importance that every doctor should think carefully before giving drugs to women in the early months of pregnancy, particularly drugs having less than ten years' widespread use behind them."
That was said last July, after thalidomide had been withdrawn. Nothing has been done, no action has been taken. A Committee has been set up, but drugs are sold and advertised as being an antidote to nausea in the early months of pregnancy, and young, innocent, ignorant, pregnant mothers throughout the country buy them. Here we have the same story. I can hear the clanking of the crocodile tears of the Minister of Health as I say this. Always something is going to be done, but it is not yet time.
I should like to know when we can expect action in this matter. There should be an independent authority for pesticides, fertilisers, and these materials which contain toxic chemicals; and an independent authority, also, to examine drugs which are made and sold for human consumption. These authorities must be independent of the commercial interests, and the substances must be tested and supervised by these authorities. It seems to me that the Minister of Health, and perhaps even the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, is intimidated by these powerful interests whose standards of ethics leave much to be desired.
When we think of 500 pesticides, with only nineteen active ingredients among them, we realise that these are distributed throughout the country to be bought by anybody who is absolutely ignorant of their contents. There is no control. The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, obviously is doing what he can, but if the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, will read his speech, he will see that the noble Lord suggested in a nice, kindly way that he had not the power, he had not the people, he had not the means of research; and, indeed, the Nature Conservancy is not the kind of independent authority that I should like to see having this supervisory rôle.
I would say to the noble Viscount the Minister for Science that in this field he could have enjoyed his finest hour. He will never have a greater opportunity of service. I deplore the fact that he was on the defensive, that he was complacent, that he did not come to this

1165
House and say, "We will set up an independent authority free of all vested interests, in order to protect the public" He must not think that I am being too harsh with him, because I want to remind him that it is not my voice which says this. I take it that he has had brought to his attention the article written by the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, in which they asked him to abandon his "politically expedient" efforts in the North-East and to start helping them and the country in the field of research. My Lords, may I echo those sentiments on behalf of those humans and animals who are the victims of the drug and pesticides commercial interests?
5.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF AYLESFORD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for giving us this opportunity of discussing this most vital issue. From a scientific and ornithological point of view, most of the noble Lords who have spoken so far, or who are yet to speak, are far more qualified to do so than I am: I trouble your Lordships only as a very worried landowner. We have had thrown over our heads to-day a wealth of fact and, I suppose, some fiction—or so both sides seem to admit—which has left us quite staggered. All we can see is this dreadful flag which has been flying since 1959 saying that something is wrong; that things are dying. Where are the birds getting to? What has happened to the insects? We are extremely worried by the fact that nobody seems to be able to answer the question: How persistent is this stuff? How long does it stay in the ground? All we have so far, or all that I have been able to get so far, is that it is excreted in five or six months. But what happens to it then? We find that it gets into the water supply; it goes down and nets picked up by the fish; and then it goes down and is swallowed by the heron, as we have heard to-day.
This chain of food is another thing which is worrying us very much—this build-up which goes on from the lowest form of life that picks up a dose of this stuff (one-fiftieth of a part per million, it may be) until it finally builds up, through the food chain, to the top, where the predators are getting quite a lot: 200 to 300 parts per million. If we
1166
lose our predators—and they are much the least hard-breeding: the lower you get in the table, so to speak, down to the bugs, the more prolific they are—we are always in danger of a breakout; and that seems to have been missed to-day.
What am I, as a poor, wretched landowner, to do about it? I can, I suppose, try to restrict the use of these chemicals on my own home farm, but I cannot remain for ever in a sort of oasis. I could not, for instance, stop the County Council, if they wished to do so, from spraying my hedgerows on the side of the roads, although fortunately my particular Council are an enlightened body, and would not do so. I cannot stop dead and dying birds from landing on my ground, and passing the chemicals back to me that way. I cannot stop what birds inhabit my home from going outside the boundaries and getting a lethal dose there. Finally, I cannot prevent the chemicals from getting into the water supply and coming up underground. Incidentally, talking of the water supply (nobody has mentioned it to-day), I wonder how many of our water undertakings in fact test for any of these aldrin or dieldrin groups of chemicals—or, in fact, even know how to. All I think can be done, so far as I am concerned, is to keep my land as uncontaminated as possible. This, at least, will have the effect of slowing down what, if it were 100 per cent. stable, would be an inevitable contamination of the around.
What is going to be done, my Lords? Individuals, it seems, can do practically nothing; small groups seem to be able to do practically nothing. We therefore have to ask for help from the Government, and I hope that we do not ask in vain. First, I should like to urge—and I was horrified, in a way, to think that we do not do this—that we should treat this as a matter of urgency. Secondly, please, no recriminations and no verbal postmortems, as we have had so far. Let us not waste time trying now to allot blame or to shift it on to somebody else's shoulders. The noble Viscount said that we are ignorant on this subject. Let us admit that we are, and get on with the job. We do, I feel, urgently need much more information and more education on this particular subject. If we are so short of scientists, why cannot we use the

1167
schools, why cannot we use some of our universities, and not these official bodies which have been mentioned to-day? Can we not find some means of getting a decontaminant going; something to clean the land again? This is the sort of thing that a landowner wants to know.
The other thing that I think we must do is to get everybody in on this. As to the ornithologists, we have heard the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, talking today; but they do keep their light very much under a bushel. If they have something to communicate they write it in one of their own papers. Gamekeepers are another branch. A gamekeeper tells only another gamekeeper. We are also inclined to be narrow and to stick to our own specialties, and not let the rest of the world know what is going on. To a large degree this is the cause of what is happening now. We need more biological research. I am perfectly certain, in my own mind, that in nature everything is balanced; everything has its place and its use. I know that when one is being "eaten alive" by midges it is rather difficult to believe that, but I am sure that midges are useful servants, and that they should be worthy of their hire.
We in game-preserving circles are today tending more and more, as the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, told us, to adopt the motto "Live and let live", and to budget for a certain amount of loss, and not be quite so greedy. Keepers long have fed foxes artificially, by dropping the odd rabbit here and there, to stop them getting on to the rearing fields. Surely this principle could be carried a little further. Could we not, by this sort of means, make sure that our predators and such creatures are a help to us? I am quite certain that both pheasants and rooks are quite capable, in correct proportions, of controlling the wireworm population. Whatever highly wonderful scientists tell me about that, I do not believe otherwise; I think it is true.
Obviously, we must restrict the indiscriminate use of these sprays and dressings. We must treat them for what they are: as deadly and, so far as I can see, very stable poisons. For many other chemicals one would have to sign a poison book, if it were an ordinary drug—and we are drenching our lands in this
1168
stuff. I feel that we should now try to re-establish the furred and feathered predators—we used to call them "vermin"—and try to build up a train of control from the top downwards, to safeguard ourselves from a biological outbreak of one of the lower species. It is to be noted—and I think we are purely lucky in it—that sparrows and mice have both reacted in this way. There are many more sparrows than there were, and the mice population are so much on the incline that even the pheasants have started to eat them. I feel that we ought to do something in that line. Lastly, let us learn our lesson now: not to think more highly of ourselves than we ought to. After all, from nature's point of view, we are only animals—highly developed and immensely powerful, it is true, and some of us really quite nice. Nevertheless, we are animals, and we are the greatest predators of them all.
5.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I was very disturbed to hear the speeches of the first two speakers this afternoon. I think we must all have been both moved and disturbed by their speeches, and perhaps even more so by the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the Leader of the House, which seemed to me far too complacent on a subject which is extremely menacing. I, too, have read the book Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, and was again very much disturbed and impressed by what seemed to me to be an extremely well-documented case. The general thesis, as has been pointed out this afternoon, is that these very strong, poisonous chemicals are gradually poisoning the world around us—the soil, the plants, the wild life and, probably, ultimately, ourselves.
The fact which has been stressed on all sides, that this poisoning is slow, makes it far more dangerous. If this were a violent poison, if people were dropping down and developing extraordinary symptoms, there would be a wild rush to investigate what measures could be taken, measures would be put through, and the problem would be faced and, probably, overcome. But it is the very fact of the insidiousness of this poisoning, its slow moving, the uncertainty of the many cases of poisoning, which I think makes the ultimate facts of its deadly menace more real than if it were immediate and active. I must

1169
say that I follow the school of thought which believes in the general interdependence of the world and of the balance of nature. We may alter this balance a little in our own or in something else's favour, but unless a balance is kept we are going to run into very serious danger. The theme so beloved of the science fiction writer, of the insect and the bacteria taking over this world completely, may in the end be no fiction.
I have great sympathy with the farmers and I think we all ought to understand their point of view. They see some pest which is destroying their crop, maybe birds or insects or anything else, and they read or are told of some pesticide or weed killer which is going to eliminate or nearly eliminate it. They buy it and use it. Why should they not? The Minister of Agriculture is obviously fully aware of the danger of this, and, as we have been told this afternoon, there is a gentleman's agreement with the farmers that they should be very careful in the use of these pesticides; that they should be very careful to use the quantity prescribed; and that they should use it only at certain seasons. That is what the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, calls "control". It is not what we look on as control.
We must take human nature into consideration. There are many farmers who will be exceedingly careful and there are many others who will not be. There are many people who do not read the small lettering on the packet. There are many farmers who will say, "Now I think I'll add a bit more. It will make a thorough job. I have a little left; I'll use it up. I'll give it another spray so as to be absolutely certain" There are farmers like that. But, in any case, there is a large population of gardeners and allotment holders who are completely outside the agreement. It seems to me that this "control" that we are imposing by agreement is a faulty and a weak one.
The real trouble—and this has been pointed out by the first two speakers—is that these poisons are very violent ones. They kill man's friends just as much as his enemies. That is the whole crux of the matter. The poisons that kill the weavil or bug will also kill other things and will kill its natural enemies. You may have greenfly on your roses; you spray them to get rid of the greenfly
1170
and the ladybird is also killed. That is happening on a wide scale. I do not think it has been stressed in the debate but in Dr. Carson's book it was brought out how these different pests are gradually developing a resistance against sprays. That is going to be the serious problem that we have to face.
For instance, she states in the book that, in America, in order to cope with various sprays, something like 500 new chemicals come every year on the market and are used in pesticides, weed killers and so forth. As the noble Lord who has just spoken emphasised, these should all be more thoroughly tested. I will give one example. In Sheldon, Illinois, in 1954, there was considerable spraying against the Japanese beetle with dieldrin, which is five times more toxic than DDT. As a result, the beetle was eliminated, but the spray also killed all the birds; the starlings, the pheasants and the larks were all wiped out. Later, rabbits, muskrats and squirrels also died. Two years later the beetle reappeared as strong as ever. The dose was increased; a stronger chemical was used; and this time even sheep began to die, farm cats were almost wiped out, and still the beetle goes on from strength to strength.
The real trouble is that when pests are sprayed, only the extremely strong members of the species, those with exceptional strength and virility, survive the spray. They breed progeny with a new resistance. This breeding goes on and there is no way of controlling it. There is a limit to the chemical arsenal. The same thing occurred with the codling moth which threatens apple orchards; the blue tick in South Africa; and, in Southern Italy, the housefly and the Culex mosquito. They all gained tremendous resistance against DDT and other chemicals.
The World Health Organisation in one of its bulletins says
"Resistance is at present the most important single problem facing pest control."
That seems to me the menace and why we are all stressing the danger of strong toxic chemicals when used to kill everything indiscriminately. Ultimately pests can resist the sprays and those predators that should have controlled the balance will have been wiped out and you are worse off than you were before. Those of your Lordships who are concerned with agriculture and the land must

1171
realise that the soil itself if not a dead and inert thing; it is a very live thing. It is full of bacteria and organisms and especially earthworms, which Darwin showed to be so useful to the soil. We sterilise the soil by indiscriminate spraying at our peril.
Mention was made of tobacco in America which used to be sprayed with arsenic. This practice was stopped, I think, in the middle 1940s and no more arsenic was used; yet between 1932 and 1952 it was found, from analysis, that the arsenic content of tobacco increased 300 per cent., although no sprays were used. The arsenic came from the soil. It got into the soil, and years later it is still coming up in the plants. I must stress that there is no proof of this, but it is surely a strong presumption. There is a tremendous increase in lung cancer among cigarette smokers. May this not be due to the arsenic put into the soil?
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, may I ask one question? There are many soils which naturally contain arsenic. Can the noble Earl say whether it is certain that the soils he referred to did not have the arsenic before, and irrespective of, the spraying? It is important not to overstress the matter.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for introducing this point. I am not certain whether originally there was arsenic in the soil, but, as I said, this is an example, not a proof; but there is a strong presumption. Arsenical sprays were used for a long time, but there may well have been some in the soil. That is the sort of thing we have to look for and be careful about.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, may I interrupt? In fact, steps were taken with the growers in America to alter their spray. I do not have the facts with me, but I recall that it was about 1952 or 1953. The tobacco industry in this country then made urgent representations to the American growers to alter their spraying methods.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Yes, my Lords, I think that the noble Lord is right and that from now on we may have a cessation of those dangerous sprays. However, I have quoted this as only one example of what might happen. The same thing
1172
might happen also with fruit and vegetables. The difficulty is that washing and cooking does not seem to get rid of the poisons. One would think that the poison would be dissolved into the water used in cooking but it is not. It can enter the human system and become a menace to one's health for goodness knows how long. This is a great danger that confronts us.
It has been said that there is no proven case that these poisons actually caused illness. I wonder if that is true. Again I quote from Dr. Carson's book, where she says that at the Mayo clinic Dr. Malcolm Hargreaves examined a hundred cases of diseases of the blood-forming organs and found that in every case the patient had been exposed to toxic chemicals. I do not pretend that this is a hard and fast proof, but it may well show that the building up of poisons inside the human body ultimately has disastrous effects. But what is important is what we can do about it. Here is a very dangerous situation that needs more than watching. I would suggest that the Government, although they may be fully aware of this, are perhaps being a little too complacent. We have already heard of the meeting of ornithologists in Cambridge who are worried about the loss of birds and infertility of eggs. They passed a resolution asking that
"the agricultural, horticultural and forestry use of such chemicals, especially the poisonous chlorinated hydrocarbons, should be clinically examined and where necessary reduced."
They are very worried about this, but according to The Times of March 4, the only comment of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which might almost have come out of "That Was The Week That Was", was
"There was no cause for alarm over the birds".
I must say, in fairness, that they went on to say that they already had an agreement with the farmers and were quite happy that it was being carried out.
I do not think that complacency is what we want in a situation which is so menacing and fraught with possible dangers for all of us. The biggest of all the problems we are up against is that there is an enormous vested interest in this. There are firms making, not thousands but, I suppose, all over the world, millions in selling weed killers, pesticides, insecticides and all the rest.

1173
They axe not only those who manufacture the chemicals but also those who make the equipment for spraying, and the contractors who carry out the work. Though I am not accusing these people, the big firms especially, of being indifferent to the results which may occur, it is only human that if there is any doubt they will resolve that doubt in the way most favourable to themselves and say that, until it has been proved up to the hilt to the contrary, so far as they know these things are perfectly harmless.
We are not trying to advocate to the Minister that we should stop all spraying. Not for one moment should one forget the enormous benefits that have been brought about. But what we do ask is that the very toxic chemicals should be limited and controlled and in many cases forbidden, because there are others which still do the job very well and are less toxic in their effect on animal life. For instance there is pyrethrum, a chemical produced mostly in Kenya, which comes from the root of the chrysanthemum, which is an extremely good insecticide and which, although I do not say that it is completely non-toxic, is toxic to only a small degree compared to chemicals like DDT and the other violent poisons that we use.
In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, said, I think that biological control can play a big part: for instance, by introducing its enemy to a pest, or sterilising the male pests or introducing among them other members of the pest. These means select and kill what you want to kill without being indiscriminate. If we are going to do this we must have a great deal more research, and I would beg Her Majesty's Government to give more money and attention to research on this important subject. Lastly, I would ask the Government to try to educate the public more. Sometimes it is the small gardener who is irresponsible in his use of pesticides, but once the public are really aware of the dangers not only to our wild life but also to ourselves, I am sure people will co-operate and be careful of what they use. I think that we must have not just a gentleman's agreement but real control of dangerous drugs. They must be properly labelled and when shown to be
1174
harmful they must be banned altogether.
5.47 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I find myself almost surprised at taking part in this debate, but the person really responsible is the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I have endeavoured to follow the advice of the noble Lord in the very impressive introduction which he wrote for Miss Rachel Carson's book, entitled Silent Spring, to which much reference has been made this after-noon. He says in that introduction that it is urgently necessary for nonscientists (by which polite term, I take it, he means the ignorant layman like myself) to understand the serious and threatening problems about which we are concerned in this debate. So I have read that book, which leaves me horror-stricken at the enormous biological potency of synthetic insecticides, the possibility of reckless eradication of plants that are performing functions necessary to the health of the soil or the indiscriminate destruction of beneficial insects and birds and animals; the disturbing of the vital processes of the human body, the wrecking of our genetic heritage and so on, with which the book deals.
This book, I take it, is a plea for biological control as against chemical controls, for the development of control by beneficial insects; in fact, a plea for the maximum use of natural controls and the minimum use of chemical insecticides. Miss Carson quotes an authority who says that we are walking in nature like an elephant in a china shop, and with due respect to the speech of the noble Viscount the Leader of this House, it seems to me that that is precisely what we are doing. I should like to take this opportunity to say something about natural insecticides, notably pyrethrum, and to publicise the Commonwealth interest in this particular drug, in addition to any scientific preference for its performance. Granted, as I take it that it is granted by everyone, that natural controls are better than chemical controls, what minor action (if you like) can the Government take while this research, education and restraint for which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, pleads, and which I think everybody would agree is so very necessary, are going on?

1175
The development since the war of a large range of relatively cheap and effective synthetic insecticides caused traditional and national insecticides to be pushed aside to some extent. Synthetic insecticides have without doubt played an important part in increasing crop production since the war; but they have their limitations and hazards. Natural insecticides, such as pyrethrum, also no doubt have their limitations. But it is fair, I presume, to say that both synthetic and natural insecticides have a part to play in combating pests. Extensive research on natural insecticides has been carried on in the last twenty years in parallel with the research which developed synthetic insecticides. Pyrethrum, in particular, has been developed out of recognition, and is several times more effective to-day than the powdered flowers which have been used for centuries, or the primitive extract formerly used in Flit and Keating's Powder.
Pyrethrum has special qualities which have not been reproduced in the synthetics and which make it safer in use. It is relatively non-toxic to warm-blooded animals—this is confirmed by a recent report published by the Huntingdon Research Centre. It is also extremely quick-acting. It is therefore possible to see quickly whether the spray has been effective, and it is unnecessary to use an excessive amount to ensure success, as is frequently the case with slower-acting insecticides. The most important pyrethrum quality is probably that no insect has yet built up effective resistance to it, while insects which are resistant to DDT and other synthetic insecticides have always appeared within a few years of the introduction of such insecticides, so necessitating the development of new synthetic insecticides with unknown long-term effects. Further, under conditions of heat and light pyrethrum breaks up, so that when the pests at which the spray has been aimed are killed, residues quickly disappear and useful insects, such as bees, are not endangered.
The one drawback is that pyrethrum is relatively expensive. To use it for any particular job probably costs about twice as much as using a synthetic insecticide. In the 1930's it was discovered that the tropical sun and cold nights of the Kenya Highlands were ideal for growing the
1176
special variety of pyrethrum flower which is required for this purpose. But for nearly 2,000 years the pyrethrum flower, the heads of which contain a high percentage of natural insecticide, has been used to control insects. It was introduced into East Africa in the early 1930's on the recommendation of the Imperial Institute, following research at Rothamsted. Before the war production was small, but during the war pyrethrum became a strategic material of considerable importance; in fact, the first aerosol bomb was developed so that pyrethrum could be used in the most economic fashion.
After the war, widespread use of synthetic insecticides hit the pyrethrum industry in East Africa very hard. However, from 1950 onwards the advantages of pyrethrum and the shortcomings of the synthetics became apparent, and pyrethrum production in Kenya has grown from less than 2,000 tons in 1950 to about 10,000 tons in 1962. About 30,000 acres of pyrethrum flowers are grown in Kenya. The bulk of the crop is produced on 1,000 European farms, but about 30,000 African smallholders now produce one-third of the annual production. The flowers are dried on the farms and sent to the Pyrethrum Board of Kenya's extract factory in Nakuru. From Nakuru concentrated pyrethrum extract is shipped in drums to all parts of the world. The United States of America take more than half the annual production.
However, it is unrealistic to suggest that the use of synthetic insecticides should be given up entirely. Modern insecticides have led to huge increases in crop production since the war, and only very few accidents from their use in the United Kingdom are reported each year. It is suggested that the request for research, education and restraint in the use of insecticides, as contained in Lord Shackleton's Motion, is the most fruitful way of approaching the question. Silent Spring emphasise the special dangers of widespread saturation spraying with insecticides. Because synthetic insecticides are cheap, there is a tendency to use large quantities with rather inefficient equipment. In many cases a far smaller amount of insecticides, sprayed efficiently at the right time and in the right place, would be at least as effective. Further research on these lines could

1177
overcome the difficulty that safer pyrethrum is more expensive than the synthetics. Again, it has been found that more effective control of insects—in orchards, for instance—is achieved by selective spraying with the right insecticide at the right time, rather than by saturation spraying with cheaper and more dangerous synthetics. Further research on these lines is a vital necessity and may show that a more expensive but safer insecticide costs no more in the long run.
Nevertheless, education about insecticides is almost pointless while many insecticides in this country are placed on the market under proprietary names and with no clear indication on their labels of the ingredients and strength. In the Queen's Speech this year the Government anounced that they were to set up a Consumer Council. We learnt in answer to a Question to-day that early action is to be taken about that. But no action has yet been taken to set up such a Council. When it is set up I presume that one of its first jobs will be to investigate proper labelling for insecticides and toxic chemicals. The greatest danger to health is where insecticides are used continually in enclosed spaces. The regular use of a toxic insecticide, for instance in a restaurant, may cause no danger to those who visit the restaurant, but could have considerable effect on the health of the staff who work, day in, day out, in an atmosphere impregnated with toxic chemicals. The same danger exists in aeroplanes, food factories, glasshouses and so on, and to animals living in cow byres or pigsties which are regularly sprayed with toxic chemicals. Legislation should surely be brought in to protect workers from these dangers.
The need for Government action to stimulate more careful use of insecticides is clearly indicated by the present state of the pyrethrum industry in Kenya. Pyrethrum is one of the few insecticides which can be considered safe for general use. It is harmless to man, animals and birds, but consumption represents only a small percentage of world insecticides. Because of its extra cost, for instance, the Pyrethrum Board of Kenya cannot sell all that it produces. Currently, the stock of 5,000 tons of pyrethrum flowers, equivalent to six months' production, remains unsold. In other words, the public
1178
are prepared to use cheap and potentially dangerous insecticides rather than pay a little more for pyrethrum. Legislation may well be necessary to compel the use of safe insecticides and, indeed, such legislation already exists in the United States.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? He is talking about pyrethrum, but the general body of gardeners do not know pyrethrum as such. If he mentioned proprietary names such as "Abol", it would come home much more to them what the noble Lord was talking about.
LORD MILVERTON: I gather that all that ties in with the proper labelling and description of these things. If the Government could take action to stimulate the sale of pyrethrum on the lines which have been suggested, they would not only be protecting the health and well-being of people in the United Kingdom but be doing a great deal to assist the economy of both Kenya and Tanganyika. Pyrethrum exports from Kenya are worth approximately £3 million a year, and it is the Colony's fourth largest export. If world demand was increased, production in East Africa could easily be doubled in a few years, and the African smallholders would take an increasing part in the production. I need hardly say that contented peasant farmers, who are earning a good living from growing pyrethrum, would be a great stabilising factor in modern Kenya. I hope that the Government, while they are considering research and other things, will take some minor actions of this kind in the interval to help the general cause.
6.5 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, in his rather specialised plea for pyrethrum, but I listened with some interest to his suggestion that regulations should be made for the control of toxic chemicals in restaurants, aircraft, and so on, for the protection of workers. That is, indeed, the subject with which I propose to deal. I do not know much about wild life, except human wild life, and my concern is entirely with the Motion of my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch, drawing attention to the dangers arising from the contamination of food and air

1179
—air in particular—by toxic chemicals as they affect the worker. I spend two days every week looking after workers in factories, and I am acutely concerned with the problems of industrial hygiene which are arising every day, and which are becoming more complicated and more difficult all the time.
I wish to draw attention particularly to the extreme difficulty in assessing toxicity. This applies not only to chemicals in the workshop and in food, but also, of course, to chemicals in agriculture when one is dealing with very small amounts. There are three kinds of toxicity that one meets. First of all, there is straightforward easy to recognise poison, where a set dose of something like mercury, arsenic or strychnine is known to be poisonous. One knows that anybody who takes more than this set amount is likely to die, or at least to be extremely ill. Those set amounts of acute poisons have been determined, and are quite easily determined, by animal experiments, and they are widely known. All these poisons are widely known, and on the whole they are well controlled in Britain and present little problem.
The second kind of poisoning is individual susceptibility. This creates a much more difficult problem. May I take an example with which I happen to be familiar, that of beryllium? Beryllium is a semi-precious metal which is very poisonous only to very few people. I look after a firm which works with beryllium. Its people have handled beryllium perfectly safely for many years, yet we have had two cases of beryllium poisoning. I think that altogether about fifteen cases of beryllium poisoning have been recorded in Britain. These two people were both exposed to microscopic and minute quantities of beryllium—less than the tea girl pushing round the tea trolley in the factory was; far below the recommended maximum permissible concentration in the atmosphere, and below the recognised safety level. In some extraordinary way these two were sensitive to beryllium. This individual sensitivity is such that cases of beryllium poisoning have occurred in the United States in people living fifteen minutes walk away from a beryllium-producing factory, simply because they were sensitive to the stuff.
1180
Nobody knows how to determine a person's sensitivity to beryllium. It is possible to skin test, but there are risks in this. Even the skin test itself, the patch test, is not reliable unless one does a biopsy—that is, removes part of the skin through which the beryllium has been injected in order to discover what cellular changes there are. That test is quite impracticable in dealing with workers in the ordinary course of events. Nobody knows why so few people are sensitive to beryllium; yet it is so. Some chemicals had both kinds of poisoning. One which we are increasingly meeting in industry at the present time is that caused by the epoxy resins—these excellent, quick-setting resins which harden in the cold and may cause dermatitis. They may cause dermatitis directly when applied to the skin and left there for quite a time, or their vapour may cause a sensitivity reaction in susceptible people. How to detect these susceptible people is not known.
The more I see of industrial chemicals, and the more I think about them, the more I am driven to the conclusion that any substance in this world—even the necessities of life—can be toxic if you take the wrong amount. Even if you take common salt, for example, it is perfectly possible to poison someone with this by giving him too much. You can poison a person even by giving him too much water: you can produce a drowning of the tissues with water alone. I do not know of any substance which is completely safe when used in some extraordinary way. This shows the amazing difficulty which we face when we set out to try to define toxic limits. As my noble friend Lady Summerskill was saying in the case of food additives, adding vitamin D to margarine is a splendid thing to do, yet over-dosage of vitamin D can produce renal stones.
So one can go on with a vast list of chemicals which in small quantities are safe, and indeed, in some cases, essential for life. Cobalt is a case in point: traces of it are essential. Lack of traces of cobalt produces a kind of anæmia, yet large doses of cobalt are extremely poisonous. Arsenic and mercury are well-known poisons, yet both of them have been of great value in medicine in the past. Mercury used to be used, as your

1181
Lordships know, for the treatment of syphilis before better drugs were available. It was not a very good cure, but it did something.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: As your Lordships know?
LORD TAYLOR: The point I was trying to make, before my noble friend Lady Summerskill properly interrupted me, is that mercury, which can be a nasty industrial poison if improperly handled, can also be of considerable value to the human body. And these pesticides, as she reminded us, have been of immense value to medicine in the control of human disease and particularly malaria, filaria, schistosomiasis and so on.
In a chapter of his book on modern trends in occupational health, my friend Professor Schilling says this:
"In almost every country, especially in temperate climates, the bulk of pesticides used are materials of such low toxicity and hazard that their sole risk appears to be accidental or deliberate gross ingestation."
In Great Britain there have been eleven fatal pesticide poisonings in thirteen years. It is always a sad thing that there should be eleven fatal pesticide poisonings, but when we compare that with 130 fatal farm accidents a year one sees the matter in proportion. I think that the handling of pesticides in this country from the industrial health point of view has so far been remarkably successful—far more successful indeed than the situation in Japan, for example, where the number of deaths due to pesticides has been appallingly high. The number of fatal cases in Japan, where they use parathion mainly because of its value in the rice tembora, were running for some time at 70 a year. They have now, however, introduced pretty stringent regulations and, as regards fatal accidents from this stuff, they are now down in the twenties, though the consumption of parathion has gone up substantially. The extraordinary thing is that this has proved a very popular method of suicide in Japan. Whereas in 1953 there were 120 suicides due to parathion, in 1960 the number was 468.
These are very lethal things, because, they can penetrate the human skin. They, penetrate the integument of the insect extremely efficiently, and the average integument of an insect or covering of a fungus is tougher than the average
1182
human skin. It is for this reason that these are of value as a pesticide. There are one or two chemicals occurring in industry which can get in through the skin but they are not commonly used and we are very careful with them.
It is easy to be emotional about poisonous chemicals, and it is very important not to be. One can think at once of certain substances which are obvious poisons but which, when combined, become obviously beneficial. Concentrated hydrochloric acid is an extremely corrosive substance. So is metallic sodium. Put the two together and they form sodium chloride, which is a necessity of life. The same applies to fluorine and hydrofluoric acid, as my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch mentioned. Hydrofluoric acid is a corrosive substance; yet it is also a necessity, so far as we know, for the satisfactory metabolism of teeth. It is needed in water, at about one part per million, to reduce the incidence of dental caries. Mottling does not occur until one gets to 3·5 parts per million. Fluorine occurs naturally in flour, cheese, meat, fish and eggs. It occurs in beer to the extent of 0·8 parts per million; or, if one does not like beer, in tea to a proportion of 1 part per million. So one cannot avoid taking in fluorine. Indeed, it is perfectly desirable that one should take it in.
I must say, my Lords, that I am amazed at the way chemicals are handled in industry with complete safety. Cyanides are a case in point. Cyanides are used in every plating shop in the country, yet one almost never hears of a case of cyanide poisoning. I do not think there is one case recorded each year in the annual report of Her Majesty's Inspector of Factories.
I want to say a word or two on how toxicity is assessed and measured. It is expressed in what are called M.A.C. values—maximum allowable concentrations in the atmosphere—and there are figures for the maximum allowable concentration of almost every known chemical. These things are published, and there are really two sets of figures. One is the American figures and the other is the Russian figures. These are worked out by exposing animals in sealed boxes to these particular chemicals, to see how much they produce toxic symptoms, and

1183
then by making deductions about human beings. It is not a satisfactory way to do it, but it is the best that can be done; and when there is human experience the figures are adjusted appropriately. The extraordinary thing is that the Russian figures are ten times as stringent as the American figures.
The reason for this is that the Russians use different tests of toxicity: they use conditioned reflexes. They train cats, or other animals, to perform a certain task for which they are rewarded with food. It is really a learning process induced in a cat, and it takes about six to eight weeks to train a cat to do a particular job every time for which it gets the food. The cat is then shut up in a chamber and exposed to an atmosphere of parathion, or whatever it may be, and the maximum allowable concentration is the smallest quantity which upsets the conditioned reflex in the cat. This is about ten times less of the substance than produces any physical change in the cat when the substance is given by the Americans. I may say the Russians do not apply these figures in practice. They are far more stringent than they are able to achieve in practice. And unfortunately they do not control their experiments very well. If a cat is shut up in a tin chamber for so many hours a day it does not like it and, in consequence, tends to lose its conditioned reflex in any event. Therefore, it is only valid if one has two cats, one shut up without the chemical and one shut up with the chemical. The expense and difficulties of doing this are so considerable that the Russians have not controlled a lot of their experiments sufficiently to obtain accurate figures.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: Perhaps the Russian cats are different, tougher.
LORD TAYLOR: I saw some of them. They looked just like English cats. They were very well behaved. I do not think we should accept the Russian figures at their face value. I think the figures we use, which are American, are rough but ready and fairly reliable guides. We have in this country a very good toxicological research unit at Carshalton, part of M.R.C. under Dr. Barnes, but we do not
1184
do these massive determinations of maximum allowable concentrations such as are done by our colleagues in America.
It is fairly easy to determine acute effects, effects from large doses, but it is extremely difficult to determine effects from small doses spread over long times. This is really a most difficult technical job to do. It is difficult for this reason. After a certain time the animal begins to show effects of old age, and those effects of old age confuse the picture and make it very hard to tell what is an ageing process and what is a chemical process. Some of these substances accumulate in the body fat. We do not know whether they do harm or not. There is no evidence that they do, but that does not say they do not. But we do know that, in certain circumstances, they can suddenly be liberated from the body fat and can then produce toxic symptoms. This can happen with chlorinated hydrocarbons: for example, dieldrin. If it happens in blood cells it does not matter because they have a life of only 30 days. If they accumulate, like mercury, in kidney cells, they have a much longer life and it is a much more serious matter.
There is only one other point I would stress, and that is about the treatment of people who do suffer from these conditions, and here I think the Government have done a very good job. They have produced an excellent booklet called Poisonous Chemicals on the Farm, which is distributed to general practitioners and which gives very good and helpful advice about how to treat cases of toxic chemical poisoning. The organo-phosphorus insecticides are particularly important in this respect because there is a specific treatment available; it was discovered by the Japanese who, of course, had all the experience of these poisonings through parathion, and it is called PAM; it is a blood cholinesterase activator. It is stored at a number of hospitals in Britain and can be got hold of in cases of need where they occur.
There is one small practical point I think worth emphasising, and that is that sometimes artificial respiration is required in these cases. Your Lordships probably know that mouth-to-mouth artificial respiration is being increasingly taught to first-aiders throughout the country. This is one of

1185
the few cases where artificial mouth-to-mouth artificial respiration is not appropriate; one has to use some other method, and for this sort of reason I think it is important that we should continue to try to teach both methods.
I want to say one final word about research. I have tried to emphasise its extremely difficult nature. As I read through the Sanders Report I was struck by the fact that here was a case where directed research was in fact being done by the Research Councils where a purposive effort was being made, and I am quite sure this is right; I am quite sure we must do more of it, as my noble friend Lady Summerskill was emphasising. It is something that is very important to study. It is, however, incredibly difficult to study, for the reasons which I have set out. I think that the need for studies of these kinds will grow as the amount of chemicals used in industry multiplies and increases. It is very difficult for those of us who work in industry to get toxicological studies done on new chemicals because there are no available research institutes which can give direct help other than the small places at Slough and Manchester, which are really routine laboratories rather than research laboratories arid where new chemicals are concerned they can help very little.
It is comparatively easy to study the acute effects of new chemicals, but very difficult to study the long-term effects. The body is a remarkably adaptable machine. It seems capable of storing all sorts of chemicals inside itself with remarkably little effect. Whether there will be unsuspected long-term effects we cannot say, but judging from what has happened so far in industry—and this is from approximately a hundred years' experience of industrial medicine—the long-term effects have been confined to very few things, to aniline and to certain other carcinogenic agents which are fortunately very rare, and here the effect has become pretty obvious over a short time. I think the problems will get more difficult in the future, particularly where specific sensitivities are concerned. I am very glad to support the plea of my noble friend Lord Shackleton for more research, but I would once more emphasise its difficulty.
6.27 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I join with all your Lordships who have already spoken in support of my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch for initiating this interesting and important debate. We are very fortunate to-day to have had a similar subject for debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, a debate of similar importance and complementary in character. Your Lordships will, I am sure, much regret that the late noble Lord, Lord Hankey, did not live to add his wise experience to this discussion. He told me but a few weeks ago that he intended to participate in this debate.
From time to time in your Lordships' House reference has been made to the importance of initiating a system of the quality control of drugs, and your Lordships will agree that the Birmingham drug testing scheme not only stands out ahead of all others but is unique, the single organisation of its kind in the country. This scheme commenced operation early in 1956 and has grown in power and efficiency steadily since then. Your Lordships who have studied such matters, like the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will recollect that the Birmingham laboratory operating the scheme was extremely active early in 1950 looking for some system of testing the ever increasing number of modern drugs. A comparison between the pharmacopoeias of 1932 and those of 1948, 1953 and 1958 will show immediately the extent of the problem. The differences between the later pharmacopoeias, great though they are, are nothing like so startling as that between the 1932 and 1948 editions. I think I may claim that the Birmingham laboratory is quite unique in this field.
As the result of the recent tragic experience associated with the use of thalidomide, there is now a more widespread public demand than ever before for the establishment of some competent authority to test and license new drugs. There are two distinct aspects of drug testing, as your Lordships will be aware. Apart from the testing for safety in usage, there is the extremely important testing for purity and conformity to official standards. Mention has frequently been made of the American Food and Drug Administration. Both testing aspects are implicit in the American system, and it

1187
would be folly to exclude testing for purity and conformity with standards from any proposed new competent authority which may be instituted over here.
The setting up of such an authority is a matter to which I would suggest the Government should give earnest consideration, and the failure so far to institute an effective system of drug control is surprising when one realises that in this instance the consumer has no possible means of protecting himself. The Birmingham drug testing scheme has now been in operation most successfully for some twelve years, and has proved its essential usefulness, and merits adoption as a national instrument as drugs and their use become even more widely developed and applied.
6.33 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I have had the pleasure of supporting my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch on more than one occasion in these debates in the past, and I should like to add a word in support of his speech this afternoon. I think that he has done the country a great service. I remember in the agene debates encouraging him to go on, and telling him that in due course he would find public opinion much more responsive to the sort of outlook which he was putting before your Lordships' House and, through your Lordships' House, to the country; and I must say that, as these debates have gone on, I feel that has been so. Even the response of the noble and learned Viscount to his speech this afternoon was more welcoming, I think, than some of the responses which my noble friend has had in the past.
On the other hand, I never quite feel that I can go along 100 per cent. with him, and I still cannot quite agree with him when he says, as I understood him to say, that no new chemical insecticides or pesticides should be put on the market unless it can be affirmatively proved that they are safe. Sometimes I think that we have to take a risk. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, pointed out in his most interesting speech—a rather more constructive speech than we have had from the Government Benches on these occasions in the past—that tens of thousands of lives were saved at the end of the war by the use of DDT. Even if it had been known that DDT was more
1188
toxic than it is—there is not a great deal of evidence, as I understand it, as to its toxicity—I think it would still have been right and proper to use it in the circumstances of that time. To that extent I agree with the noble and learned Viscount.
But in that case the risk would have been a calculated risk, and although the noble and learned Viscount, as I said a moment ago, seemed to go further than some of his predecessors, he still seemed to be a little too lighthearted in encouraging the manufacturers to take these risks. It seemed to me that there was really not enough emphasis on the fact that when we take these risks there should be a calculation, a careful calculation, having regard to the undoubted dangers which frequently supervene and are difficult to calculate, as Lord Taylor was emphasising only a moment ago. I do not like the rather too great a willingness, which seemed to be apparent in the noble Viscount's speech, to take risks of this sort.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, who unfortunately is not in his place now, mentioned some horrible cases of jaw cancer, a peculiarly distressing form of that terrible disease. No doubt at that time it was not even realised that there was any risk in the girls pointing their brushes in the sort of way that he described. But now we know perfectly well that there is a risk in things of this sort, that we are in fact "playing with fire", and it is no longer right to approach these things in this rather happy-go-lucky way. I should have argued with considerable conviction that the responsibility should be fairly and squarely put upon those who introduce these new chemicals for these purposes. We should remember all the time that great profits are being made out of the manufacture and sale of these chemical substances, that the competition is severe, and that it is to a large extent an international competition. I have no doubt that the standards of the manufacturers and salesmen are, on the whole, at least as high in this branch of industry as in other branches. I also agree with what I think Lord Shackleton said, that they are now distinctly higher than they were not so long ago. Nevertheless, we have to remember all the time that our society is based largely on the profit motive.
Gardeners have come in for a certain amount of criticism this afternoon. I

1189
can remember the intensive advertising of aldrin and dieldrin only a few years ago in the gardening papers: how we were urged to buy this new and absolutely stupendous insecticide which would rid the garden of all its pests, without the slightest suggestion that there could possibly be any sort of danger. I do not suppose for one moment that the merchants who were selling it, or the industrialists who were manufacturing it, had any appreciation of the danger which, in fact, it contained. But they ought to have been more careful, and I should think that there probably was a Common Law obligation upon them to be more careful than they were.
It is difficult to bring this matter home, particularly to manufacturers, and it seems to me that the time has now been reached when it ought to be not only a matter of moral responsibility but a matter of legal responsibility to be placed on the shoulders of the people who bring out these new insecticides and pesticides to make them answerable in damages for anything that may supervene from their use. It is difficult when tens of thousands of birds and small animals about the country die as a result of these things. Nobody can claim, because nobody owns them. But some sort of responsibility, even if it be to make a contribution to charity or something of that kind, would be a valuable thing. A financial responsibility should be put upon the people who in this way earn large profits without giving adequate consideration and attention to the risks to which they are subjecting society.
From many points of view, I think the risks are really too great for it to be left to the interested parties, to those who are in the business largely for the purpose of making profits, to lay down the controls and safeguards which I think Lord Douglas of Barloch and Lord Shackleton have amply proved to be necessary. Thalidomide, which has been referred to several times this afternoon, is a good example of this. Undoubtedly it was put on the market much too soon, and without proper attention being given to the necessary safeguards, which was largely a result of the international competition to which the German manufacturer was being subjected by his rivals in other parts of the world.
1190
The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, is absolutely right when he says the Government have the responsibility of laying down the necessary safeguards and of exercising the necessary control. The Government must accept the responsibility because there is no other institution which can do so. Indeed, not so long ago Parliament passed a Statute in regard to licences to be issued to new manufacturers of nuclear installations. In that connection it was very properly felt necessary to look at the damage which might flow from the establishment of such nuclear installations, and to alter very substantially the ordinary Common Law rules. It may well be that risks from nuclear installations are a good deal greater in many ways than the sort of risks we are discussing this afternoon, but the risks with which we have been dealing are much more insidious and may be even more troublesome in other ways.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I interrupt him for one moment. He is making an interesting point, but I should like, if I may, to put a gloss on it. The difference between the nuclear licences and the substances which we are discussing this afternoon is this. Thanks to the work of a Committee which we set up, the scientific validity of the tests in the nuclear case are sufficiently adequately established. The difficulty in the present case is that we have not as yet been able to establish scientifically valid tests. I am, in fact, trying to do it through the agency of the Medical Research Council. If and when this emerges, I hope the noble and learned Lord will be gratified by what we do; but he must appreciate that it depends on the existence of an adequate procedure, or at any rate an adequate discipline, for establishing tests. Until that is done, it is very difficult to establish institutions.
LORD CHORLEY: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, and I am glad to know that he goes so far with me. Of course, I, as a lawyer, appreciate perfectly well that nobody can be made to pay compensation unless the case can be proved against him. It is implicit in what the noble Viscount has said that, if he can establish these tests, he may be ready to support legislation

1191
for putting the obligation on the manufacturers responsible.
I have been reading recently some of our earlier debates on problems of this sort. It was because I felt myself very much in agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, said earlier as to the attitude of complacency which had been taken up in the past, the attitude that there was no danger, that I thought I should intervene in this debate to-day. I would refer to the debate on agene, to which Lord Douglas of Barloch referred in his speech. It is ten years since we had that debate, and on that occasion two eminent medical experts, one of whom was Lord Horder, who, I suppose, was the outstanding medical man of the time, asserted quite categorically that there was no danger in putting agene into bread.
The Government spokesman, in a rather jocular speech, said that if they got something better than agene which was quite clearly without danger they would no doubt susbtitute it. He did not think any case had been made against agene. It had been fed to dogs, and no doubt if human beings were fed on dog biscuits they would not be very healthful as a result. That was the kind of levity with which this serious subject was treated by the Government spokesman on that occasion. But a short time after that the Government were so persuaded that the addition of agene to bread was dangerous that it was prohibited. That is a significant example, and strongly supports what Lord Hurcomb said about medical and scientific experts being only too ready to get up and say quite categorically that there is no danger in these things, when frequently, quite shortly afterwards, within a matter of years or even months, the opposite is satisfactorily proved to be the truth.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, would my noble friend allow me to say this on the subject of agene, which is an interesting point? I was recently shown a paper by Professor Boyland which had been published in America, in which a certain chemical component in agene had been used as—I think the word is—a cancer inhibitor in advanced cancer cases. It had the effect of inducing acute psychotic conditions in the
1192
patients. The basis of the paper was that when the experiment was carried out in a certain way the fears that were expressed with regard to agene, which had only produced fits in dogs, were demonstrated as being equally applicable to human beings.
LORD CHORLEY: I am grateful to my noble friend. That was the gravamen of the charge which Lord Douglas of Barloch and I were making against agene on that occasion. I remember Lord Horder saying that it may be dogs do get hysterical, but human beings are not dogs and it is altogether wrong to deduce from the fact that does suffer that human beings are going to suffer. I have on these occasions detected a certain similarity in some of the speeches put forward from the Government Benches. Like Lord Taylor, I am particularly interested in the human animal. I think it is right that so many people should be interested in the protection of birds and animals, but, after all, the human animal is still more important. Because small birds and small animals may succumb in quite a short time to these pesticides and other chemicals which are being used and because human beings and larger animals with better powers of adaptation do not possibly for quite a number of years show any very obvious ill effects, the theory that they are therefore immune and that nothing very much need be done about them—which to some extent did appear in the noble and learned Viscount's speech this afternoon—is really altogether wrong.
Looking through the last debate we had, I see that the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, who replied for the Government, did not at any point concern himself with the danger to the human animal, although he agreed that there might be some dangers to the birds and the beasts. This seems too complacent an attitude. I entirely agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, said about the complacency which has been shown in this matter. We are concerned at the present time with the protection of the people of this country against all these things which are put upon the market by manufacturers and merchants without proper attention being paid to the safety and the safeguarding of the people. We feel that the Government of this country are

1193
taking the matter altogether too lightheartedly.
6.50 p.m.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, first of all I must disclose an interest, even a commercial interest, in these toxic substances which we have been discussing this afternoon. I am, and have been for many years, a director in a great company which makes and markets insecticides, pesticides, and so on. Having said that, I would acid that I have found this debate immensely valuable and stimulating, and in almost every case the speeches to which I have listened have been eminently reasonable and fair-minded. Like others of your Lordships, I am most grateful to the two noble Lords who instigated this debate.
I believe that it is immensely valuable to have a debate of this kind every now and again. We are living pre-eminently in the age of humanism, of humanism possibly run riot. As never before, man looks around and sees himself as the Lord of Creation, the monarch of all he surveys, and it is salutary for us to be reminded that it is a limited monarchy, and that the limits may be drawn closer than we sometimes realise. It is salutary to be reminded of these things, and that there are hazards, the extent of which we imperfectly know, in the application of modern science, and particularly, perhaps, in the application of chemical science.
But, my Lords, it must be a mistake to be so weighed down by the hazards involved that we reject the possibility of advance. It seems to me that if the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, had been taken earlier on, if the attitude of mankind had been that we never made any experiment or gave any treatment unless we knew beyond peradventure that no risk was involved, modern medical science as we know it to-day would simply not have existed. Equally, I think it must be unreasonable to take the view that, because a substance that is of value may be abused, therefore it should be prohibited. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said in his interesting speech a few minutes ago, vitamins which are of great value can be abused, but nobody would suggest that it was a pity that Professor Mellanby ever went into the question of vitamins.
1194
On this whole question I think it is necessary to see both sides of the picture—as, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, did. On the one side, there are risks which cannot be defined and which may never be more than hypothetical. On the other, there are positive and known benefits which have been achieved. Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of lives have been saved by DDT, and there is for the first time the possibility of giving mankind enough food. Certainly, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Summer-skill, indicated, there is no chance at all of freedom from hunger without these toxic chemicals. There is no chance whatever of increasing production, especially in the under-developed countries, without them. If we tried to suppress them, we should also be suppressing the whole campaign for freedom from hunger. Nevertheless, there are dangers; and it is necessary to heed them.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said—I think not altogether justly—that the chemical manufacturers were a little lighthearted in their approach to the problems involved in these toxic substances. I believe from my own experience that the industry as a whole is very conscious of the reality of these dangers, and all the time it is taking steps to meet them. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, also Said—
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him? It was the Government that I said were too light-hearted. I did not feel that it should be left to industry to do this: it is too much its own judge. My point was that the Government ought to hold the balance, as it were.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I did not mean to misrepresent the noble Lord, But I do not think he is right in saying that in these matters the industry is its own judge. What happens before a new product is put on the market? It has to be referred to a very highly qualified committee, or series of committees, and until it has been passed by that committee, with all the information that can be accumulated on the problem, that product is not put on the market.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is the noble Lord referring to what is known as the Cohen Committee?
LORD COLERAINE: No.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: May I ask which committee he is referring to?
LORD COLERAINE: It is the committee under the auspices of, I think, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I think that that applies only to products used in agriculture; not to products generally.
LORD COLERAINE: Yes, my Lords. I was, in fact, thinking and speaking of products used in agriculture, and not of products generally. I was not following the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, through the whole field that he covered. But one extremely interesting feature of this set-up, as it seems to me, is that it is voluntary. In spite of the fact that it is voluntary, and that there is no compulsion on the manufacturer to use this machinery, there has been only one case in which the manufacturer has not used it and has put a product on the market without using it. In that case the manufacturer did not know that the machinery existed, and as soon as he discovered it, he withdrew the product and it went through the usual processes.
I suggest to your Lordships that there is no complacency in the industry in these matters. It does take its responsibility seriously, and is not simply out to make profits at any cost to the consumer or to the public. It is in my belief a very responsible industry, and it acts in a very responsible way. I do not deny that there may be room for more education, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, suggested. I think there probably is. There may be room—I do not know—for further regulation. But if these things are necessary, I am pretty sure that there will not be any obstruction from the industry, only co-operation.
6.57 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, this has been a long debate, but a highly interesting one, as well as a very balanced and well-informed one, as might have been expected from those noble Lords who have taken part in it. As the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, has just said, we are extremely grateful to my two noble friends Lord Douglas of Barloch and
1196
Lord Shackleton for having given us the opportunity to discuss this matter and, above all, for the extremely valuable speeches which they made.
Many noble Lords have said that we need a balanced approach; and that is eminently true. Yet a balance is something which is dynamic. As the weight shifts on one side of the scales so, in order to redress the balance, you have to shift more weight to the other side. For that reason, it is only just that many of us should find ourselves shifting our own position somewhat. I freely confess that a few years ago I was wholeheartedly in favour of what are now called toxic chemicals, and I believe that at that time I was right to be so in favour. Because, after all, at that time many influences were at work which made difficult the adoption of these new-found means for increased production and increased efficency in production.
There was, of course, the normal conservatism of farmers, of food processors and of others; there was the normal opposition to change; there was the fairly vocal group which has sometimes rather rudely been called the "back to the earth-closet" school, which has tried to oppose anything of this kind—the "devil's dust" that people spoke about when referring to nitrogenous fertilisers; and all the rest of it. I think that at that time it was very important that help should be given to the initiators, the people who wanted to see these new methods adopted. Many noble Lords have to-day mentioned DDT. What would have been the effect had DDT not been brought into play when it was? Admittedly, it is dangerous; but as both Lord Chorley and Lord Coleraine have said, how many people would in the meantime have died from malaria had it not been used?
But now, my Lords, the picture has changed. Farmers, food processors, gardeners, local authorities and many other people are now well used to making use of this whole group of substances, and would find life extremely difficult if they were forbidden to do so. In other words, quite apart from the manufacturers themselves, serious and substantial vested interests have grown up which make it difficult now to attack the growing use of some of these chemicals; and, of course, tied up with that are the very real economic forces backing up their use.

1197
I should here like to take issue with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, when he spoke rather derogatorily of Dr. Rachel Carson's book, in which she mentions the fact that, at any rate in the United States, they are suffering from over-production, and that justification for the use of these toxic chemicals could not stand on the ground that the food was needed. I think I am right in saying that the noble and learned Viscount said that in this country that was not the case—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: No, my Lords. I do not want to interrupt this excellent speech, but what I said was that if it meant that there was too much food in the world I had to contradict it, because there was not—and I stick to that.
LORD WALSTON: I agree that if it meant that, then obviously that is something to be contradicted. But it did not mean that. I will not weary your Lordships by reading the exact page on which this comment appears, but if the noble and learned Viscount had read it, or had remembered it, he would know that it related solely to the United States. The same argument holds in this country. I am quite certain that the noble Lord who is about to reply would have a very much easier time if there were somewhat of a less good production of many agricultural products in this country than there is at present. So I do not believe there is any case that can be made out for continuing to use toxic chemicals solely on the ground of the need for food in this country, or in the United States, where the use of such substances is greatest.
On the other hand, it is only right to say that, although we do not need more food, in the present context, in this country, undoubtedly we need cheaper food, and these chemicals are of the greatest value in enabling farmers to produce their food more cheaply. That is a point which has not so far been mentioned, but it is, I think, worth mentioning at this stage. Just to give your Lordships one example, the use of pre-emergent sprays in sugar beet cuts down by a very large percentage the number of man-hours required in cleaning the crop. It may cut it down by as much as 40 or 50 man-hours per acre, which undoubtedly is a great saving in expense to the farmer and, indirectly, a saving
1198
in expense to the taxpayer and to the Treasury.
Leaving that point, and moving on to the specific speeches, my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch painted a frightening picture of the sort of world towards which we were progressing: a world in which, on the one hand, we take stimulants to keep us going and then, because we have possibly overdone that, tranquillisers to calm us down; and in which little food is fit to eat. I must say that I think my noble friend Lady Summerskill was rather too optimistic when she said that fresh fish and wild fruit were the only things left. Somebody pointed out to her that the heron died from the fish. I think she does not know very much about heron: they do not eat fish when they jump out of the water; they go into the water after them. But I think she would find it extremely dangerous if she had a meal of wild blackberries at certain times, after the roadside hedges had been sprayed by the local authority with some of these dangerous substances. So the position is getting even more serious, perhaps, than she thought.
My noble friend Lord Shackleton was not quite so despondent. There were many points in his excellent speech with which I found myself in complete agreement; and with all of them I found myself in some agreement. In particular he reminded us that toxic chemicals have a large part to play in our economic life and in our production, and he went on to say that, particularly in underdeveloped parts of the world, they were of special importance. With that, I do not disagree, but I would say that there we have additional responsibility (I think the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, also mentioned the under-developed parts of the world) for two reasons. One is the generalisation that reactions take place, or tend to take place, faster in tropical climates than they do in temperate climates, and any results that these chemicals and substances may have on soils, on plants or on fauna in this country, in temperate climates, are likely to be enhanced and operate far more quickly if they are used in tropical conditions. The second reason is that the opportunities for observing the effects of the use of such substances are very much less than they are in a country such as our own, where not only do we have

1199
reasonably well-educated farmers and others ready to observe any untoward happening fairly quickly, but we have a fairly high density of scientists up and down the country, in contrast to the under-developed countries, where it is possible to go for hundreds or even thousands of miles without coming across such a person.
My noble friend Lord Shackleton also said, very rightly, that one of the essential things was to get across to users the dangers of these chemicals, and that farmers do not always know. In particular, he stated (and other noble Lords also stated) that amateur gardeners are particularly susceptible to the misuse or abuse of these chemicals. He finished up by stating, very rightly, that man should seek to alter the balance of nature—and I think that is a very important thing to remember, because we are much too inclined to think of the balance of nature as being something sacrosanct—but must be aware of the risks; and for that reason he rightly advocated, as did many other noble Lords afterwards, a far greater use of research.
We then, of course, came to the memorable speech of the noble and learned Viscount, who said many things which made most of us think and some of us, possibly, disagree. But with his customary diffidence he told us that the Government have not discovered absolute answers to all questions—and I was pleased to hear him say that. He also indicated that he had, at least, read part of this book.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I read it all, from cover to cover, twice.
LORD WALSTON: And he has read at least one review of it with which he found himself in agreement. I feel, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, indicated at the time, that the noble and learned Viscount was rather less than fair in picking out one adverse review.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not think the review was adverse. I read one adverse phrase and one favourable phrase. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, wanted me to quote two favourable phrases.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, at least one adverse phrase was quoted,
1200
and the noble Viscount indicated that he was in agreement with that adverse phrase. Perhaps he would tell us whether it is the view of his Ministry, and the official policy of his Department, that to much of what is stated in the book scant attention should be paid.
On the question of health statistics, which is a very important one, and to which various noble Lords have referred (in particular, my noble friends, Lord Taylor, in the later stages, and Lady Summerskill), it is undoubtedly true that there is little evidence—although it is possibly not true to say there is none—of diseases arising indirectly from toxic chemicals. But the absence of evidence is not equivalent to the presence of proof. All it means is that nobody has yet discovered a direct correlation between the toxic chemicals and any known disease or series of symptoms or syndromes. But that cannot be put forward as an argument that there is nothing to fear from this. It can be put forward as an argument that there is a need for far greater research in order to prove or disprove. One can say that there are certain diseases and disturbances, particularly of the mental type, which are increasing at the present time. I am not suggesting that those are due to toxic chemicals, but the possibility needs investigation.
We have had some suggestions from certain noble Lords, for example, of hysteria in dogs due to the use of agene, and of the extremely interesting experiments in Russia with cats, which were discussed by my noble friend, Lord Taylor. It struck me, as he spoke, that possibly a far more satisfactory way of testing the effects of such substances is to test the nervous reactions, rather than the purely physical reactions, of animals. This is particularly so in view of the present spread in this and many other countries of nervous disease of one kind or another. I hope that the time will come when we shall not have to rely on Russia or the United States for information of this kind, and that we shall be able to do some experiments of our own. I am not saying this in a Chauvinistic way. I do not think it matters in what countries research is carried out, so long as it is good and the results are made available to all. But there is room for more

1201
research of this kind and this is something in which I believe scientists of this country, with their great reputation in this type of research, should play a leading part.
There was one minor point in the noble Viscount's speech that interested me. I was tempted to interrupt him, but knowing that he prefers not to be interrupted, I refrained. He stated that the savage spraying of roadside verges and railways has been ended. As I understand it, it is still quite common practice to spray roadside verges and railways. Possibly the spraying is no longer savage, but I am not certain how to distinguish between savage and normal spraying.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, forgive my interruption. I was seeking to draw a contrast with the United States. The noble Lord will no doubt remember from his visits to the United States, the extraordinary brown strips which go along the railways and the roads for quite long distances, both in the United States and in Canada, which are due to the use of herbicides of some kind or another. I was seeking to point out that we had put an end to this practice, although there was at one time a danger that it might spread here.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I accept that our spraying in this country is not so widespread or comprehensive as in the United States; but it is still a matter on which we should not be complacent and where considerable damage, if not to human life at least to wild life, can and is being done. Finally, the noble Viscount made two statements which in my opinion gave good justification for the charges of complacency that various noble Lords have since levelled against him. He said that the Government have acted promptly in these matters, and he referred first to the Zuckerman Report and then to the Sanders Report.
These are both admirable works, carried out by admirable people. But if your Lordships refer to the Reports you will find in the Zuckerman Report (which, it will be remembered, was made in 1955) various recommendations, in particular, for further research and investigation. That is in paragraph 2, on page 21—further research and investigation, which has already been referred
1202
to above. The Report suggests what fields that further research and investigation might cover: the effect of the main agricultural sprays on wild life in sprayed fields, and so on. But I will not read it to your Lordships. The Zuckerman Committee in 1955 strongly urged that there should be further research into these matters.
We move on to 1961, to the Sanders Report, and there on page 37, again in the Recommendations Summary, you will find this statement:
"There is need for more knowledge of the effects of toxic chemicals used in agriculture and food storage, though we consider that some of the fears expressed about these effects have little foundation."
But in spite of the recommendations of the 1955 Report, that more research was needed, we again find in 1961 a similar highly qualified body urging that there should be more research. And to-day, in 1963, other noble Lords, many with great experience in these matters, are still urging further research and investigation. So I do not think that any of us, and I hope certainly not the noble Viscount, can feel that we have any cause to be complacent at all. And it is clear that there is still a great deal of uncharted land to be explored. Although efforts that have been made so far are good, and I happily agree that the progress in the ground work over the last eighteen months has been most encouraging, there is still a long way to go; and my one regret is that steps which are being taken now were not taken five or ten years earlier. I hope that five or ten years hence we shall not be saying the same thing.
I will not weary your Lordships by going through the other speakers who made such very interesting points, but I think it is worth drawing the attention of your Lordships in particular to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, about the cumulative effect on wild life of these poisons. It has been a great mistake to assume that these sprays and insecticides disappear from the soil within a few months of their being used; that no more is heard of them, and that we need no longer concern ourselves with them. Even though they may disappear from the soil, from the point of view of chemical analysis, there is now ample evidence that they are accumulated in the organs and tissues of wild life; and

1203
whether that is going to constitute a serious menace to human health or not is still an open question. But it cannot be an open question that wild life itself is suffering as a result of these cumulative effects.
There was an interesting hand-out from the Ministry of Agriculture, which some of your Lordships may have found in the Printed Paper Office, dealing with the results of a certain amount of work that has been done already On page 2, paragraph 10, is a summary of field and laboratory work and its results are given. In one case, it is suggested that out of 47 bodies examined 17 might well have died from the effect of insecticides used as dressings, and that in the spring period, 26 out of 76 bodies examined might have so died. That is approximately 35 per cent. of the actual bodies examined. Clearly that is not an exact percentage of the total number of deaths that have taken place. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, said, all animals that die cannot be picked up. Other animals take them away and eat them and there are always a certain number who die in inconvenient places. It may be that the majority of those picked up and sent for analysis have died under unnatural conditions, as opposed to those who die from other causes and are never seen, but I think that when 35 per cent. of animals examined have been proved to have died from the ingestion of insecticides in some form or another, the problem is becoming serious.
What worries me more than anything about this is what I might almost call the impression of complacency given in this particular document. It says:
"It is evident that the number of casualties was quite small during this spring."
That gives the impression, to me at least, that the people who have been carrying out the survey do not feel that the matter is of any great importance or urgency.
My noble friend Lady Summerskill, in her normal conciliatory type of speech, for which she is famous in your Lordships' House, made many points of value and in particular made out a strong case for the use of innovations in agriculture and for the independent testing of drugs and toxic chemicals in insecticides. I hope that her words have carried weight with your Lordships. At one part of his speech, my noble friend Lord Huntingdon struck
1204
me as being for the old school of compost and that kind of thing, though I found myself in agreement with some things that he said. He felt that there was some innate superiority in natural, as opposed to chemical, insecticides; and that view was shared by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, who gave us a fascinating account of the value of pyrethrum, which I am sure will help many noble Lords to decide what form of insecticide to use in their gardens.
I myself cannot see why an insecticide or poison is any less virulent or dangerous because it happens to occur naturally rather than be made in a laboratory. Arsenic occurs naturally; strychnine, mescalin and curari occur naturally, and are used by people who have never seen a chemical laboratory in their lives. All are poisonous to a varying degree, some of them being extremely sudden in their effect, some of them cumulative, and some of them building up resistance. To my mind, there is little difference, if any, between them and comparable preparations that emerge from the chemical laboratories. They should all be treated in the same way, with the same caution. Do not let us regard something which occurs in nature as innately healthy and right, and something that emerges from a test tube as innately unhealthy and wrong. I have already referred to the interesting remarks of my noble friend Lord Taylor. I come to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, with his valuable exposition of the Birmingham scheme, which I, for one, should very much like to see extended. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Chorley that we should be prepared to take risks in this matter but they should be calculated risks.
In summary, having listened to all that noble Lords have had to say, I would say that three things emerge from this debate. First of all, the Government are doing a great deal more than they have done in the past to deal with this problem. While I still detect certain elements of complacency and defensiveness in some of their statements, it is good to be able to say that they are doing more. But there is still more that can be done, and to my mind none of it is extremely difficult or expensive. First of all, I would suggest that the notification scheme, to which the noble

1205
Lord, Lord Coleraine, referred, which in my opinion has worked extremely well, should be extended so that it covers not only those products which are used on farms but also those used on road verges, waterways, ponds and lakes, railways and forests. I hope that we may have an assurance from the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, when he replies, that there is no intention to have any widespread aerial spraying of forest land in this country. Above all, I suggest that the scheme should be extended to products which are used in gardens. It should be made abundantly clear just what these garden products contain.
Secondly, in spite of the difficulties which my noble friend Lord Taylor mentioned, I do not see why we cannot have far more informative labelling of products, even in the simplest form. Can we not simply label products as being proved safe, on the one hand, or, on the other, as products which are known to be poisonous, (a) the poisonous effect being immediate or (b) the poisonous effect being cumulative, or—and presumably this third group would be found to be the largest—as being still unproved? In this way, the public would know what they were using without a whole mass of technical details which they could not understand, and they would know whether the things they use are poisonous or not, which nobody can tell at this stage. In this way, I think that far greater care would be exercised in their use. Finally, while thanking the Government for the steps they have already taken, particularly at the new station at Monkswood, to which the noble Viscount has already referred. I would say that I still think they have not gone far enough in this respect. This is not a matter which can be dealt with solely in laboratories or by small-scale experiments. In order to ascertain quickly enough what is the result of wide-spread use of products of this kind a large area of land must be put at the disposal of people who have to carry out these tests. I would suggest that at least 1,000 acres, and preferably double that area, should be made available to one of the Government research institutes specifically to enable one of the controlled tests to be carried out, so that the whole 500 acres, 250 acres, or whatever the scientists say is the right amount, can be treated over a period of
1206
years with a certain chemical, with a controlled block opposite it where no treatment is done. That will, I believe, enable us to get these results, not rapidly, but to short circuit some of the delays which are inevitable if we rely solely on the laboratories and the small-scale experiments. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, will be able to give us some encouragement in this respect. Meanwhile, I should like to add my thanks to those who have taken part in this most interesting debate.
7.31 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, this has been an absorbing and practical debate, and my gratitude, as much as anyone's, is owed to the two noble Lords who launched it. Too many questions, I am afraid, have been left for me to attempt to answer in a winding-up speech at this hour. Before replying to the debate proper I should like to say a word about the book which has been quoted from or referred to by almost every noble Lord who has taken part in the debate, and certainly by all those who have concerned themselves with the work of my Department. I am thinking of Miss Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. With other noble Lords, I have read this book with the greatest interest and, I hope, with benefit. It is a truly remarkable book in which the layman can learn a lot about how we, the human species, live, and not only about how Miss Carson thinks we are all going to die.
It is a little surprising, I think, to find that the opening pages of the main text should be a passage of pure science fiction, as the author, indeed, describes them. All the same, this seems to me a perfectly fair gimmick for capturing the reader's attention, by a shock process, by standing his hair on end. With the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I am a reader of science fiction, and I would class this very high; and, as I say, I count it a fair gimmick for the limited purpose I mention. What I think is not entirely a fair gimmick is the one employed at the end of the same passage, to ease—in fact, to force—the reader out of the science fiction groove into the purported factual, serious groove. I mean the two very startling assertions, clearly intended to be read as serious fact:
"A grim spectre has crept upon us almost unnoticed, and the imagined tragedy may easily become a stark reality we all shall know."

1207
If the words I have quoted are addressed to the British public in the British edition as serious, scientific assertions, then they will not stand up to serious scrutiny. I realise that in saying this I am contradicting the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, who appeared to accept this prognostication for us, as well as for the Americans. As my noble and learned Leader has already said, scientists within and without the Ministry of Agriculture have known of these dangers for many years before Miss Carson's book appeared, and the most comprehensive precautions are being taken against the sort of disasters that she and the noble Lord envisage.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, wrote an introduction to the book upon which I should like publicly to congratulate him, as an erstwhile writer myself, and to congratulate Miss Carson, also, on securing the services of the noble Lord. If I were ever asked to write an introduction, I should hope to make it as reasonable and as readable as his. His introduction contained one well-intentioned and well-received, but also slightly wounding, reference to the Ministry of Agriculture. The noble Lord wrote:
"The Ministry of Agriculture, however bland its public face, now exercises effective control to prevent the poisoning of agricultural workers, and is doing a good deal more work in other parts of the field than it is generally given credit for. The same is true also of the chemical companies."
May I say that I welcome that statement, and would not wish to appear ungrateful? All the same, I have to be aware that the public face of the Ministry of Agriculture which the noble Lord has to look at most constantly is mine, and I would appeal to him to see it as battered rather than bland. Any lack of mobility or expressiveness can be put down to the harsh and continual weathering it has endured over the years.
But let me say this with some emphasis. No serious charge of complacency in this important context can be made, or in any way sustained, against the Ministry of Agriculture. My noble Leader, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and others have referred to the work of the Sanders Study Group and to some of its results. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has claimed that nothing like enough research is being done and that this was clearly
1208
revealed in the Report of the Sanders Committee. He said to-day that hardly any branch of research was adequately served, and that this was revealed in the Report. My impression is that the emphasis is rather different. What was, in fact, established by the Sanders Study Group, and published in the Report, was that no sphere of inquiry was being neglected, but that in certain directions research could be intensified. This is being done in every case where it was recommended; and I hope that brings the sort of encouragement for which the noble Lord, Lord Walston, was asking.
This requirement has naturally needed extra staff, and extra staff has been provided. Eight additional scientific and experimental officers have been appointed to my Department, together with four supporting clerical staff. Additional staff have also been taken on by the Research Councils. My noble Leader identified some of the bodies and some of the spheres of research. I have here a list of committees and sub-committees with their particular responsibilities. It is eight pages long; it contains the names of 155 highly qualified men and women, the majority of them with science degrees. I have calculated that it would take me 25 minutes to read the whole list aloud, and I do not intend to do so, but I have selected a certain part of the list and of the work covered which seems to have particular reference to the matters which have been debated to-day: the Operator Protection Panel; the Cancer Panel; the Wild Life Panel; the Panel on Residues and Pesticides in Foodstuffs; the Panel on Water Reserves and Farm Chemicals.
Some details of this work have already been given by my noble friend, and some of the results described. All this is being co-ordinated by the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances Used in Agriculture and Food Storage, of the Food Standards Committee. What little has been published or circulated about their investigations is, not surprisingly, less dramatic than Miss Carson's published work. That is inevitable. Miss Carson is a very successful and striking writer. She is not a Doctor of Biology, nor primarily a scientist; she is primarily a publicist with a mission—a most important mission. But the scientists in and out of the Ministry of Agriculture also have a mission, to which they are dedicated.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt. What authority has he for saying that Miss Carson is not a biologist?
LORD ST. OSWALD: I am sorry, but my voice could not have been clear enough. I did not say that she was not a biologist; I said she was not a Doctor of Biology; and what I implied was that her fame had come to her as a writer and publicist, rather than as a biologist. I think that is true.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord why there is this sustained feline attack?
LORD ST. OSWALD: I am not aware of being feline, and I do not feel feline.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: You sound it.
LORD ST. OSWALD: That is the strangest cat the noble Lady has ever heard.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord is being fair. Miss Carson is a graduate in biology. Not everybody goes on to take a doctorate. This seems to me to be a most unjust attempt to run down her reputation. She is a qualified biologist, who worked for a long time with a United States agency in this field, and specialised in the end in the public relations side of it. This does not mean that she is not a competent scientist.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I have not suggested that she is not a competent scientist. I am saying that her book is intended to be publicity, and dedicated publicity. I do not think I have been unfair to Miss Carson.
I was speaking of the scientists in this country and of their sense of mission. They have, in fact, a double mission and a double responsibility—protective and productive. I shall touch again on that theme before I am finished. But they are modest and cautious people, by nature and by training. They believe in understatement rather than overstatement. They prefer to publish results rather than prophecies. But their findings, the meticulously checked and advanced findings, are as impregnable as anything in science can hope to be, and
1210
there is a limitation which they themselves are the first to recognise. That accounts for the caution. A cautious publicist would not get very far. Scientists, to whatever compass point of learning they may turn their faces or their intellects, whatever the goal they may conceive, are obliged to advance on two simultaneous fronts. They must, for instance, improve health, even save lives, without unduly endangering health as a side effect. They must expand production, both in the factory and in the field, while safeguarding those who work in factory and field and those who may handle or consume the products of both. What they cannot and should not—let us say must not—accept, is a scientific standstill. But some of the advice offered to-day would seem to me to involve a scientific standstill.
Here I join issue with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who is nothing if not scientifically minded. He has given it as his studied opinion that
"until a thing can be shown to be positively safe, we ought to reckon that any contaminant should be avoided ".
Those were his words.
LORD SHACKLETON: No.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Yes, as printed. I will show them to him. The noble Lord must take my word for it, and if necessary I will deal with it later. Let us take an example of that very sweeping principle, had it been observed. Hard words have been spoken in the debate about the use of DDT. My noble Leader has already referred to the danger of typhus in the concentration camps of Europe at the end of the war. There were over 1,200 deaths from malaria in Singapore in 1947. Ten years later, the indigenous disease had been eradicated from the island. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, made this general point. On the other hand, I was rather surprised to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, had changed sides against chemicals at a time when the general tendency is to evolve and apply chemicals of lower and lower toxicity. This is not a time, I should have thought, with his views, to go out of the use of chemical pesticides.
The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Bar-loch, asked for information about the quantities of pesticides used. The Sanders' Research Study Group, to

1211
which my noble friend referred, estimated that in 1960, 923,000 acres of crop were sprayed with pesticides that are sufficiently poisonous to require regulation. The acreage sprayed with these chemicals, although less than 10 per cent. of the total under crops, was about twice as much as in 1955. But while the use of chemical sprays has been increasing, there has also been a very important trend towards the use of the less toxic chemicals in this class. As the chemicals are divided into two categories according to the degree of their toxic properties (details of this classification are explained in the Sanders' report), it is found that the more toxic chemicals were used on over 95 per cent. of the acreage sprayed with regulated chemicals in 1955, but on little over one-third of the acreage sprayed in 1960. In consequence, the use of the more toxic pesticides declined substantially between 1955 and 1960, and it is believed that this trend is continuing. I should add that the most widely used chemicals are the hormone weed killers which are of low toxicity to mammals.
The noble Lord also asked to what extent is food, as it reaches the consumer, affected by residues of such chemicals. Many chemicals leave no residues in crops, for example; they are sprayed as pre-emergence herbicides or they quickly break down into harmless compounds. Where a residue might occur, the use of the chemical as recommended ensures that any residue is far below the amount that can do any harm to human health, even if it should be ingested in the food daily. To check up on this, my Department is arranging a series of surveys of residues in home grown and imported food, as I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, on November 22 in reply to a Question in this House.
The noble Lord also asked me whether the Medical Research Council is studying the effect on the human body of possible intakes of DDT and dieldrin. The Medical Research Council has been carrying out studies of DDT and dieldrin in animals with a view to understanding their possible effects on man. Results have shown that at levels much greater than those normally found in man, these substances have no effect
1212
on the metabolism of the animal's fat, which is where they are stored. The need for further research will be reviewed in the light of the results of a survey now being carried out in collaboration by several organisations at the request of the Government's Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances used in Agriculture and Food Storage, into the levels of DDT and dieldrin in human fat and milk. The latest information is that the survey is about to begin. The Government Chemist's Laboratory has perfected the technique for analysis. Many of the forensic pathologists and milk banks have accepted the invitation to take part and the containers for collecting samples were being sent out yesterday.
The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, also inquired why it is that no regulations are made under the Food and Drugs Act either prohibiting or limiting the amount of toxic chemical residues in food. The answer is quite simply that we do not think it necessary. The information which we have at present does not reveal the need for regulations because, it seems to us, of the successful and effective operation of the scheme for approved chemicals used in agriculture. But I hasten to add that this does not mean that there is an open door in our powers under the Food and Drugs Act. The noble Lord is quite right in assuming that we could, if necessary, make regulations which could exclude any specific chemical from food sold to the public. We would certainly not hesitate to do so if evidence became available which showed that it would be necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has referred to the statement of Professor Boyland of the Chester Beatty Institute, a statement that there is no safe test for a carcinogen, and if there were we would not know what it was. One can say that about many things. Equally it can be said that in London there is absolutely no safe moment to cross a road, and if there were we should not know when it was. I trust that will not discourage any noble Lord from trying to get home tonight.
The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, also asked about the building-up of DDT in human fat. Surveys of the accumulation of DDT and other chlorinated insecticides in human fat have been carried out in this and many other countries. A recent

1213
survey published in the British Medical Journal showed that the levels in the United Kingdom are lower than in West Germany and considerably lower than in the United States. There are indications that an equilibrium in the levels in fat have been reached. Further surveys in the United Kingdom are being planned by the Ministry of Health and other organisations in consultation with the Government's Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, have referred to bird deaths, and I think, this was largely dealt with by my noble and learned Leader. But the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, made a particular reference to a resolution passed at a recent conference in Cambridge which discussed the problem of the decline of certain birds of prey in the United Kingdom. The evidence that the decline in the population of the peregrine falcons and other birds of prey is due to toxic chemicals is, at present, mainly circumstantial, and the direct evidence so far is relatively slender. It seems likely that the use of toxic chemicals is one factor in the decline, and it may prove on further investigation—
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but this argument that the evidence is circumstantial is precisely what his Department was saying three years ago about the effect of the toxic seed dressings. Evidence is partly circumstantial, as all evidence is, and it is partly statistical, as all evidence is, but perhaps he would like to account for the fact of toxic chemicals getting into the birds' eggs. If that is not scientific evidence, I do not know what is. I do not in the least accuse him of complacency, but I do say his Department is very slow to admit facts; and it will be very disturbing and destroy very much of what his noble Leader has said this afternoon if he now reverts to this position that the evidence is really circumstantial, that he does not accept it, that it is very doubtful, and so on.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The noble Lord himself said that the evidence needed to be both circumstantial and statistical. The statistical evidence is not convincing.
LORD HURCOMB: It has convinced every other interest except yourself.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The noble Lord also mentioned the amount found in eggs. That amount was measured and it was not found sufficient to addle the egg. It may have had sufficient, but it was not sufficient in itself.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, you do not need to addle an egg; you need only to make it infertile, and there is abundant information on infertility of eggs. I have reports here produced by scientists. Could the noble Lord tell us one ornithologist of repute in this country who agrees with this view which he is expressing?
LORD ST. OSWALD: I do not know quite what view the noble Lord is referring to. The view I have given is that the amount of DDT discovered in the egg was not, in fact, sufficient by itself to make the egg infertile.
The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, suggeted that the solution of the problem of high toxicity of insecticides is to replace those currently in use with less toxic chemicals such as pyrethrum and synthetic pyrethins. This is, of course, the normal approach of synthetic chemists working on pesticides and, in fact, the Sanders Research Study Group directed attention at the importance of studies on the mode of action of pesticides as a basis for the search for less toxic and more selective chemicals. Unfortunately, a solution to the problem is not quite so simple as this. Pyrethrum and synthetic pyrethrins have limited uses. Certain pests have developed resistance to them. Also, of course, dermatitis is found to develop in sensitive persons handling pyrethrum.
The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, referred to the use of arsenic in pesticides. Although arsenic exists naturally in the soil, as my noble friend Lord Stonehaven pointed out, arsenic as a herbicide has not in fact been used since the end of 1960 and for other applications it is being replaced by diquat. Obviously there are other dangers in the countryside which we have been less successful in overcoming: perils not even mentioned by Miss Carson or by any noble Lord, which we and animals, both wild and domestic, have to survive. I am thinking of one that must be familiar to most of us. This particular danger will soon be asserting itself, because it is widespread in the countryside during

1215
both spring and autumn, and is consumed by many animals, sometimes with fatal results. The first signs of poisoning are vomiting and diarrhœa, followed by stupefaction. Death may occur within six days. The poison may be secreted in the milk and young animals, and even humans can be affected. I am referring, of course, to the autumn crocus.
LORD HURCOMB: Would the noble Lord allow me to say one word again? The peregrine egg was, in fact, addled, as I am informed on the best authority; and the eggs of two Montagu Harriers, also birds of prey, which contained these chemicals were similarly found to be addled. I am sure that all naturalists have the utmost respect for the biologists who advise the noble Lord. They have always found them impartial; but I hope that we are not going to get into controversy on facts of this sort and have all the evidence which has been so laboriously accumulated discredited by statements which I think he will find, on reflection, are not completely well-founded.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My information was precisely on the Montagu Harriers, and my information is that it was not convincing.
A number of noble Lords have mentioned the dangers to hedgerows. Hedgerows are, in fact affected only in a few selected spots in our 195,000 miles of roads, selected spots where vegetation represents a positive danger to motorists. If the death of wild flowers is balanced against the death of human travellers on the roads, I think most noble Lords would make the former sacrifice. But there has been, and there will be, no wholesale spraying of roadsides such as Miss Carson described, with natural horror, in America. This is another assurance I can give to certain noble Lords.
Anxieties have been expressed that the labelling of these chemicals, especially for domestic use, is not sufficiently clear or controlled, and even that certain chemicals, such as aldrin, dieldrin and heptachlor, which are already proscribed, are appearing under other names. We are now advising that all pesticides of this kind should be passed and approved and should be properly labelled. This, I
1216
think, will also be a matter of reassurance to certain noble Lords.
I have expressed my admiration for Miss Carson's book, including the science fiction passage. I think it is worthy of praise and gratitude, so long as it is not read as a treatise—and I am certain that the author does not intend it to be read as a treatise. It would be, I think, unfair to her to treat it as such. What she has written is a brief—a brief for the prosecution. She is out to put the American authorities in the dock. Happily I am neither competent nor called upon to defend the American authorities. But it seemed possible that a slightly extended and here and there Anglicised version of Miss Carson's brief might have been used by certain noble Lords in this debate, which is concerned with conditions in this country.
What stands out at the end of the debate is that in Great Britain there does not begin to be enough evidence to bring such a case to court. There have been exhortations—I remember particularly the one from the noble Lord, Lord Walston, in winding up for the Opposition—but no direct accusations. Miss Carson's book has served, so far as we are concerned, to highlight the dangers that might arise if our authorities and Legislature were not so alert as they are. What matters—and from this I derive great encouragement—is that we all have the same purpose in mind; it must he to the benefit of all if we can meet halfway. My Lords, I hope that I have been able to show, in assisting my noble and learned Leader, that the Ministry of Agriculture have already gone halfway to meet and greet Miss Rachel Carson and the two noble Lords. I hope that this valuable debate may establish that meeting of minds and mutual intentions to the reassurance of the country at large.
8.3 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and whose contributions I think have helped to support the view that very great care needs to be taken with regard to these matters. That, I feel, was the general tenor of all the speeches which have been made. I was a little disappointed that my noble friend Lord Taylor thought I should not have introduced fluorides into my speech, but I

1217
would beg him to remember that the human race have, since prehistoric times, managed to have very good teeth without having their water containing fluoride. The noble Viscount, Lord Hail-sham, treated us, as usual, to a philosophical discussion of a very wide range. We are always interested to listen to what he has to say, but I felt that when he came to the concrete account of what was being done in these matters it was a little thin.
I am glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, a little more about what his Department is doing, but I think there is a very great deal more still to be done, and it seems to me to be very late in the day to be only now endeavouring to find out how much of these toxic chemicals used in agriculture is in fact getting into the food supply, because that is the crucial question. I was also extremely surprised—I think the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, said it—to hear that DDT was not a dangerous substance. This is really quite ridiculous. I have in my hands a paper dealing with the public health aspects of these insecticides, which cites more than a hundred references to the literature and which contains this particular statement, which I feel I must read:
"Without exception, every one of the chlorinated cyclic hydrocarbon insecticides is a liver poison."
I would also draw attention to the fact that the study group of the World Health Organisation as far back as 1956 said:
"It is well known that DDT, BHC. and dieldrin are eliminated in the milk of lactating animals, and DDT has been found in human milk. It has further been observed that the toxicity of many members of the chlorinated hydrocarbon group is much greater for the very young, who normally receive milk as a large part of their diet. It should therefore be a normal precautionary procedure to require that milk should not contain these substances at all."
We have done nothing, so far as I am aware, to make certain that that is the case in this country: there is no regulation which governs it. In fact the noble Lord admits that the Government do not know about it, and that they are only now beginning to make inquiries. I think that is a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs.
1218
I think I should also read this extract from a more recent report of the World Health Organisation:
"Confirmation of correct use …"
of agricultural toxic substances—
"… should be obtained by repeated analysis of treated foods for residue content."
This is extremely important, because until this information is obtained and collated systematically, we shall not know what is happening. I did not say, as the noble Viscount suggested, that the use of all agricultural chemicals should be prohibited. What I said was that we should make sure that toxic chemicals did not get into the food supply. Neither did I say that all new chemicals of every kind should be prohibited—that is obviously quite impossible. I merely drew attention to the fact that steps can be taken to protect consumers, and that substances which are commonly used in the home, or for industrial purposes, ought to be properly labelled so that people understand that they are handling dangerous substances. And as the chemical industry progresses, that will become more and more important. I am grateful to those noble Lords who have stayed so long. I do not want to detain the House any longer, and therefore I ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw this Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
8.9 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I had not intended to move my Motion, but I now rise to do so only because it enables me to correct the Record. My Motion is:
To draw attention to the ecological dangers and the destruction of wild life resulting from the widespread use of toxic chemicals in the countryside and in gardens; to urge the need for further research, education and restraint on their use; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, really was unfair to Miss Carson. I can only say that I have in my pocket a letter from a very distinguished English biologist, a Fellow of the Royal Society, who says (and his opinion is of some worth) that not only is this a first-rate book but she is a first-rate biologist. The fact that she happens to be able to write English as well does not mean she is not a first-rate biologist. She not only

1219
took her degree in it but also did graduate work in genetics.
I am rather shocked, as was my noble friend Lady Summerskill, by the almost hysterical reaction of the Ministry of Agriculture. The noble Lord knows that I would never apply the word "bland" to any person, and he knows that there is no Minister in this House who is better liked or whom we hold in greater affection. But it is part of an almost hysterical form of guilt—the sort of thing that produces literature sent to all the papers, with a request to pass it on to their big reviewers, sent out by the Association of British Manufacturers of Agricultural Chemicals. I am frankly disappointed, because I had hoped that we were reaching a measure of agreement and moderation. The noble Lord said that we had not accused the
1220
Government, although we were critical. I am now inclined to accuse the Government that they are still indifferent to this problem. It would be only fair at this moment to allow the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, to reply to this debate; but if he does not wish to do so, I thank noble Lords who participated and those other noble Lords who have refrained from speaking on this occasion for their attendance; and I ask leave to both move and withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AND HAVEN BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past eight o'clock.