Sitting of 5 February 1968

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

    Naval Establishments, Portsmouth
    Mr. Juddasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is the estimated value of work being undertaken by his Department in Her Majesty's Royal Naval Dockyard and other naval establishments at Portsmouth in the financial year 1967–68; and that is the estimated value of work being undertaken by private firms on a contract basis in the same establishments during the same period.
    The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Robert Mellish): £2½ million. About half is done by direct labour and half by contract.
    Mr. Judd: When the Government are rightly emphasising the need for full mobilisation of economic resources, is not my right hon. Friend aware that there
    2
    is considerable concern in the dockyard that outside facilities should be used which could be employed on import substitution and export programmes when there is surplus capacity available within the dockyards?
    Mr. Mellish: If my hon. Friend will bring any specific cases to my attention, I will investigate. But I am satisfied at present that the work done in the yard, the way in which it is done and the form in which it is done, are just about right.

    New Works of Art
    Dr. David Kerrasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is his policy for the commissioning of new works of art for exhibition on sites and in buildings for which he is responsible.
    Mr. Mellish: My Ministry has on a few occasions commissioned new works of art for exhibition in buildings or on sites. Otherwise such works of art as are displayed are in general existing items purchased out of voted funds or accepted as gifts or on loan.
    Dr. Kerr: Will my right hon Friend accept my admiration and congratulations for the courage displayed by his Department in face of often ill-informed criticism about the quality of the work shown on sites for which he is responsible? Will he accept the need for continued patronage of the arts by the commissioning of new works of the kind displayed opposite this House in the shape of the Henry Moore sculpture?
    Mr. Mellish: I think that the most effective way I can encourage modern artists is by buying their existing works, and that I shall continue to do, having received advice from the appropriate committees set up to advise me.

    Parliamentary Building (Alternative Sites)
    Dr. David Kerrasked the Minister of Public Building and Works, what investigations he proposes to undertake of possible alternative sites for a new Parliamentary building.
    Mr. Mellish: This depends in the first instance on the views of the House of Commons (Services) Committee.
    Dr. Kerr: Will not my right hon. Friend accept the plain fact staring us in the face that we cannot have at one and the same time the preservation of the architecture and surroundings of this place and an adequate Parliamentary building to serve the purposes for which it should be created?
    Mr. Mellish: My hon. Friend is a distinguished member of the Services Committee. I wish that he would get it to make up its mind about what it wants.
    Mr. David Steel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are still awaiting a debate on the Services Committee's Report of last summer advocating an extension to the present building? Is it not extraordinary that, throughout the country, we should urge business and industry to be efficient and to modernise while we operate in the most inefficient circumstances?
    Mr. Mellish: We have a site available across the way but Parliament has not yet made up its mind what we are to do with it. Apparently, as Parliamentarians, we cannot get down to making up our minds on this matter. As Minister, I am literally crying out to be told what to do about it.
    Mr. C. Pannell: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when the Selwyn Lloyd Committee suggested a contigous building to this one, it added that it would have to be in Gothic? Will he therefore frown on any idea such as the monstrosity proposed by the Services Committee, which would merely put an up-ended matchbox in New Palace Yard?
    Mr. Mellish: I must say that that idea frightened me too.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: I am not committing myself to what was said by the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr), but may I ask the right lion. Gentleman whether he will expedite a meeting with the Services Committee so that a decision can be reached?
    Mr. Mellish: I am due to meet the Committee shortly, in connection, I understand, with transport proposals consequential upon anything done across the way.

    Housing (Building Materials)
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what will be the effect of devaluation on the price of building materials for housing construction.
    Mr. Mellish: The direct effect of devaluation will be to increase the prices of imported materials by up to about 17 per cent. I estimate that this will increase the cost of building an average house by about 1½ per cent. The increase in the cost of building flats will be less and in some cases may be as low as ½per cent.
    Mr. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that house prices have rocketed since devaluation by about £200? As the building industry seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment by the Government. will the right hon. Gentleman discuss with his colleagues the possibility of relieving it from the Selective Employment Tax or abandoning the Transport Bill?
    Mr. Mellish: I reject the allegation that the building industry has been singled out by the Government for harsh treatment. It is simply not true. If house prices have risen by as much as the hon. Gentleman suggests, not very much of it is due to devaluation.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: The right hon. Gentleman has now gone up ½ per cent. on his last forecast of prices. What will be added by the removal of the regional employment premium, which the former Chancellor of the Exchequer said would have a valuable effect?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is another question.
    Mr. Mellish: I am not changing the figure I originally gave. I said in November that the increase on the average house would be about 1½ per cent. and I have repeated that today. If the hon. Gentleman wants the figures on which this is based, I will send them to him.

    Building Projects (Imported Materials)
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether, in view of the need not only to enforce maximum economy in connection with all building projects but also to insist upon the use of indigenous materials with a view to reducing imports wherever possible, he will arrange for a special appeal to be issued to all architects, civil engineers, and other professional persons concerned with building in order to draw their attention to the national interest involved.
    Mr. Mellish: The Economic Development Committees for Building and Civil Engineering and the Construction Materials Group have this matter regularly on their agenda. I am confident that all the professions concerned with construction are well aware of the need for economy and efficiency and know of the need to dispense with imported materials where there are suitable home produced alternatives.
    I do not feel therefore that I need arrange for any special appeal.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, other than food, the import of building materials is the largest single charge against the adverse balance of payments? Will he not therefore consider a general appeal to support the "I back Britain" campaign and the Daily Express "Buy British" campaign, all of which could make a substantial impact on that deficit?
    Mr. Mellish: I respect the hon. Gentleman's motives, and, in the light of what he has said, I will certainly consult the professional organisations again. The hon. Gentleman will understand that whatever I do must be done through them, for they are the recognised bodies and I must carry them with me.

    Sir Winston Churchill (Memorial)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress he is able to report on the House of Commons memorial to the late Sir Winston Churchill.
    Mr. Mellish: The sculptor, Mr. Oscar Nemon, is now engaged on the full-scale model, which he expects to have ready by the end of this month. I will arrange for the Memorial Committee to see it. If it is approved, and no difficulties arise over the casting, the bronze statute should be completed before the end of the year.

    Stonehenge (Defacement)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what steps are being taken to prevent the defacement of Stonehenge.
    Mr. Mellish: Stonehenge has been daubed with paint, probably by students during rag weeks, five times in the last year.
    This might cause serious archaeological damage, and I am asking principals of schools and colleges round about to try and stop this vandalism. I am also considering further security measures.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Stonehenge has also been daubed with C.N.D. propaganda? Is it not quite deplorable that this tremendous national inheritance should be misused in this way? It does not matter whether it is C.N.D., or "Wilson must go", or "Up the Tories"; it is quite wrong that this should happen. What effective precautions is the right hon. Gentleman taking?
    Mr. Mellish: I do not know who is doing this damage. It is quite disgraceful and the scrubbing with caustic or detergent substances which we have had to undertake will cause, and has already caused, some damage. I am taking special security measures, but I would rather not disclose them to the hon. Gentleman, or some of the queer characters whom he has mentioned will know about them.

    Building Licences
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is the total value of building licences

    7
    granted since the licence limit was reduced to £50,000; and what percentage of such licences has been for building for purpose of entertainment.
    Mr. Costainasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what was the number and value of building licences issued under the Building Control Act, 1966, to the most convenient date; and how many applications he has refused.
    Mr. Mellish: In the period from the enactment of the Building Control Act to 29th December, 1967, 1,068 projects with a total value of f212·2 million have been licensed and 117 projects with a total value of £20·2 million have been refused. Just over 9 per cent. of the licences granted have been for projects classified as entertainment, more than half of which have been for hotels.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: In view of the unemployment in the building trade, is it to be and will it be the Ministry's present and future policy to regard applications indulgently and sympathetically?
    Mr. Mellish: My present policy is very flexible.
    Mr. Costain: In view of that and in order to save civil servants, would it not be a good idea to abolish this licensing?
    Mr. Mellish: As the hon. Gentleman knows, building licences are needed in times of overload on the construction industry, which certainly cannot be said of it today. However, the licences do not apply in development areas, or to houses. or industrial buildings. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to learn that of last December's figures, for which I have responsibility, only 2 per cent. were rejected. I shall be as flexible as possible.

    Public Record Office
    Mr. Longdenasked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he is aware that the accommodation and facilities for research workers in the Public Record Office are inadequate; and what proposals he has for improving them.
    Mr. Mellish: Yes, Sir. Last year, my Department provided an extra 40 places for readers in the main building. This year, a further 50 places for readers and storage space for records are being provided, in premises nearby in Lincoln's Inn
    8
    Fields. The photographic accommodation in the main building is being improved. The longer-term needs of the Public Record Office are being studied.
    Mr. Longden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this building houses what is perhaps the finest collection of historical documents in the world and that during the summer months students from all over the world converge upon it only to find primitive accommodation for reading and writing? May I therefore thank him for his Answer, which will give much pleasure?
    Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman and the House will be interested to know that the work which we are doing in the photographic department will cost £24,000 and that other work will cost £9,000. I am having discussions with the officials of the Public Record Office to see what more I can do to help.

    Whitehall Plan
    Mr. Chichester-Clarkasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement about the position of the Whitehall Plan.
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether the Government intend to implement the Whitehall Plan.
    Mr. Mellish: Planning is continuing for the redevelopment of the Bridge Street/Richmond Terrace site. The requirement for new Parliamentary accommodation on this site is being considered by the House of Commons Services Committee.
    Traffic arrangements in the area are still the subject of study by the authorities concerned.
    Following the public inquiry in to the Broad Sanctuary site by Sir Robert Matthew, the Government have agreed that there should be a comprehensive plan for redevelopment of this site. Consultations have been held with those with property interests in the site, and the authorities concerned.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us a little more about the unified scheme for the Broad Sanctuary site, as one of the owners is the Government?
    Mr. Mellish: There has been a public inquiry and Sir Robert Matthew recommended a comprehensive plan for the use of the site by my Ministry and others. A joint comprehensive scheme is now being pursued by the property owners in consultation with the planning and other authorities concerned.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Pending a decision on this plan, will the Minister continue to frown on monstrosities, whether Gothic or matchbox, proposed to be built in New Palace Yard, which would destroy one of the finest amenities of New Palace Yard, the catalpa trees?
    Mr. Mellish: I am in the difficulty that I have to do in this matter what I am told by the House. I assume that the House will have the chance to decide what, if anything, should be built in New Palace Yard. I can say that as a Member of the House and if there is a free vote, I shall vote against it.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: As by far the most urgent and, I think, unanimous recommendation is that something should be done about the traffic in Parliament Square, can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope for the tunnel bypass, which would get through traffic out of Parliament Square?
    Mr. Mellish: The Ministry of Transport, with the G.L.C., which is the traffic authority, and my Department have been in consultation about traffic and I understand that a report will be given to the Services Committee at its next meeting, a report probably based on those recommendations. I hope that then the Services Committee will at long last make up its mind about what we can do about the Bridge Street site.
    Mr. C. Pannell: Will my right hon. Friend appreciate that the claims of the catalpa trees are greatly over-rated and that they are not as good as they are cracked up to be? However, in order to avoid building over New Palace Yard, may I ask whether he has investigated the possibilities of building over other courts as has been done in Star Court?
    Mr. Mellish: I understand that this Palace has been thoroughly investigated to see how much extra space could be provided for hon. Members. I think that we have reached almost the end of our
    10
    tether in that respect. A building across the road would be a Parliamentary building which would be for the benefit of hon. Members and officers and so on. The whole question is whether the traffic could be routed in such a way as to make it convenient for hon. Members to use some accommodation and I gather that that is the argument now before the Services Committee.

    Balance of Trade
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Public Building and Works (1) whether, in view of the necessity of improving the balance of trade, he will circularise all architects and engineers drawing up plans for buildings for which his department is responsible, to ensure that wherever possible indigenous materials are used for such buildings and the use of imported materials reduced to a minimum; and whether there are existing instructions to architects and engineers in this connection, and of what nature;
    (2) whether, in view of the necessity of improving the balance of trade, he will circularise all architects and engineers drawing up plans for new Post Office buildings instructing them to ensure that wherever possible indigenous materials are used for such buildings and the use of imported materials reduced to a minimum; and whether there are existing instructions to architects and engineers in this connection, and of what nature.
    Mr. Mellish: Professional officers responsible for the building work undertaken by my Department—including work for the Post Office—are already required, before specifying imported items, to ensure that no acceptable home produced alternative of equivalent price, quality and performance is available. Where it is essential to employ imported products, professional officers must use them sparingly and economically.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if a blitz were made on the subject of imported materials, such as by having plastic tiles instead of wooden floors and sloping roofs instead of timber-supported roofs and plastic pipes instead of copper pipes and so on, there could be savings of hundreds of millions of pounds now spent on imported materials?
    Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman must not under-rate the building industry which is a very intelligent industry. The amount of substitution already going on is quite remarkable and I pay tribute to the industry for it. What I have to ensure is that we go on with this process, making sure that we abolish as much importing as we can, although we cannot do so entirely, because we have to honour agreements with E.F.T.A. and so on.
    Mr. More: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Post Office constantly tries to see whether it can find British timber suitable for telegraph poles?
    Mr. Mellish: I do not know the answer to that; I will ask my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General.

    Overseas Stations, Persian Gulf
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is the value of the work done by his Department for the Armed Forces at and adjoining stations in the Persian Gulf since October, 1964.
    Mr. Mellish: About £14,500,000; at Bahrain and Sharjah.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that expenditure is still continuing? Does not the size of this indicate the high cost of the precipitate reversal of Government policy announced recently?
    Mr. Mellish: I would put it to the right hon. Gentleman that if we had stayed on in the Middle East we should have been committed to far more money. I understand that at least about £20 million would be spent. I must concede to the right hon. Gentleman that this does not mean, because we are moving out of the Gulf within a certain time, that no more money will be spent here. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the exact figures but I am prepared to investigate this and will write to him.
    Mr. Shinwell: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, when he ulimately vacates the site for which we have been financially responsible, we will get some financial return for them?
    Mr. Mellish: I cannot answer that. My right hon. Friend will know that I am interested in the present. As to what
    12
    will happen at the end, when we leave the area, I cannot say, but I will certainly investigate this and again let my right hon. Friend know.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Would it not have been a good thing for the British building trade and the British balance of payments, if Her Majesty's Government had not turned down the offer of rulers such as the ruler of Bahrain to finance British military expenditure in the Persian Gulf?
    Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman is asking the wrong Minister the wrong Question. He had better address his remarks to the appropriate Miniser.

    Senior Civil Servants (Office Furniture)
    Dame Joan Vickersasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what will be the cost in 1968 of providing office furniture for senior civil servants; and whether this equipment will be made of British wood by British workmen.
    Mr. Mellish: The Department is the purchasing agency for furniture for a wide range of organisations including United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, hospitals, universities and the Armed Forces and supply furniture on repayment terms.
    I expect to spend about £100,000 in 1968–69, and a good deal of this will be resold to these clients. All is made in this country; as much as possible is made of British wood, bearing in mind the limited supplies available.
    Dame Joan Vickers: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not agree that senior civil servants could give up having new furniture this year? Secondly, can he assure me that a lot of the furniture is manufactured by Remploy?
    Mr. Mellish: I cannot answer about Remploy but I will certainly investigate it. My Department is a main purchasing agency. As to whether some of this is from Remploy I cannot say. With regard to the quality of the furniture for civil servants, I hope that they, like everyone else in this country, will realise the problem that now faces us.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Could my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that he

    13
    will consider purchasing some of this furniture through the prison industries?
    Mr. Mellish: I will certainly look at that.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that over 95 per cent. of the timber used in the country is imported? Would he do his best to see whether the Minister of Agriculture could do something quickly to put this situation right?
    Mr. Mellish: I am advised that in specifying timbers we follow normal commercial practice. Recent purchases of oak have been British but this is not always possible as supplies of British oak are very limited.

    Civil Servants (Accommodation)
    Dame Joan Vickersasked the Minister of Public Building and Works, what have been the cost of providing accommodation for civil servants since 1964; and what is the cost of the accommodation required by the new civil servants, in order to administer the Government legislation passed since 1964.
    Mr. Mellish: From October, 1964, to October, 1967, the annual cost of renting offices for Government Departments—other than the Post Office—and of rates, maintenance, services etc., averaged about £50 million. This includes the cost—now running at about £10 million a year—of additional accommodation taken during that period which was obviously necessitated, for some time after October, 1964, by decisions of the previous administration. Under it the number of civil servants grew from about 375,000 in 1958 to over 415,000 in 1964.
    Separate figures are not available for the cost of accommodating new civil servants administering legislation passed since 1964.
    Dame Joan Vickers: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. may I ask him to make every effort to reduce this number? Surely this could be one of the Government's economies?
    Mr. Mellish: The hon. Lady is asking the wrong Minister the wrong Question. When civil servants are taken on in any of the Government services my job is to provide accommodation for them. My
    14
    policy is to buy rather than rent accommodation, because in the long term it is cheaper for the country.

    Fixed-Price Contracts
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he has received from builders about the effect of devaluation on fixed-price contracts let by his Department; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Mellish: I have received representations from the National Federation of Building Trades Employers and the Federation of Master Builders, and I have said that, if there are exceptional cases of hardship on firm price Ministry contracts, my Department would be prepared to consider making ex-gratia payments if it can be shown that losses on the contract as a whole have been suffered as a direct result of devaluation.
    Mr. Goodhew: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree with Mr. Kirby Laing of the N.F.B.T.E. when he says that the Government-imposed charges like S.E.T. and devaluation undermine the whole basis of fixed-price contracts, which were urged by Banwell, and which he, with his Ministry, supposedly, supports?
    Mr. Mellish: I have great respect for Mr. Kirby Laing and his association, but I do not necessarily agree with their figures. I have said—and I repeat this question—to those who claim to have suffered hardship on the contract as a whole: if they come to us, we as a Ministry will certainly do all that we can to help, but it must be shown that an actual loss has been made on the contract as a whole. I will not give, and I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will support me, an automatic increase apropos devaluation on all those contracts as a whole. It would not be right.
    Mr. Costain: Would not the Minister agree that with the present high Bank Rate a number of small builders are suffering financial hardship? Will he give interim payments when hardship can be proved?
    Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that a meeting has been arranged for 9th February between representatives of the N.F.B.T.E., officials

    15
    of my Ministry, and those from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. These questions will be discussed. There is a great deal of good will and, I hope, understanding on these matters.

    Armed Forces (Building Work)
    Mr. Moreasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what estimate he has made of the level of Government-sponsored building work for Service personnel after the end of 1971, in the light of Command Paper No. 3515; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mellish: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out in his statement of 16th January that time will be needed to work out the precise implications of the decisions announced in Command Paper No. 3515. I am not therefore able to make any statement at present.
    Mr. More: In view of the cuts in the housing programme, announced by the Prime Minister, and the abandonment of the pledge to build 500,000 houses, would the Minister say how it is proposed to house these 70,000 or so Servicemen?
    Mr. Mellish: In his statement on 16th January the Prime Minister said that a further White Paper will be published later in the year embodying the precise implications of the decisions taken. With great respect, the hon. Gentleman will have to ask me Questions then.

    Construction Industry
    Mr. Eyreasked the Minister of Public Building and Works (1) what he estimates will be the effect upon the construction industry of the measures announced in Command Paper No. 3515;
    (2) whether he will now make a statement upon the estimated level of building output in 1968 in the light of Government economic measures of 16th January, 1968.
    Mr. Kitsonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what estimate he has formed of the impact upon the construction industry of Government measures introduced in the current Session.
    Mr. Mellish: As I said when I met representatives of the industry on the
    16
    16th January, I estimate that the total output of new work in 1968 will still be at least 3 per cent. above that in 1967.
    Mr. Eyre: Is the Minister aware that he is confirming the final abandonment of the building targets under the National Plan and also the abandonment of the Prime Minister's solemn pledge about 500,000 new houses in 1970? Would he say whether the industry can expect adjusted targets and adjusted pledges?
    Mr. Mellish: I can only say that the hon. Gentleman is far more pessimistic than the representatives of the building industry. I have already met them. The actual estimated output of new work just after devaluation, we thought, would be about 5·5 per cent. But instead, since the announcement was made by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, we now estimate that this year there will be a 3 per cent. increase—and I am talking of volume at constant prices—over last year. The industry understands this, and the reasons for it. I have been promised its good will and co-operation.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: Can the Minister assure me that the appearance of his name on the back of the Industrial Expansion Bill is a pure formality and that it is not there because he intends to meddle with the industry?
    Mr. Mellish: My name is on the Bill and it is no formality. I have been asked questions on this by the industry and I have assured it that, whatever I did on this or any other Bill. I would certainly consult it before I did it.
    Mr. Urwinasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he has received from the construction industry following devaluation and the announcement of curtailment of public expenditure; and what action he has taken.
    Mr. Mellish: Immediately following the statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 16th January, I saw representatives of the construction industry.
    I told them the effect of the reductions in planned public expenditure, and received assurances that the industry would co-operate in the new situation.
    I have also urged the industry to seek every opportunity to increase its earnings

    17
    overseas, and I have met with a very encouraging response.
    Mr. Urwin: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the speed with which he acted in this very important matter. Assuming that this was a somewhat wide-ranging discussion, was any reference made to increasing emphasis being placed on the use of indigenous materials in the industry, with specific emphasis on brick and stone?
    Mr. Mellish: Yes. The industry, I know, is willing and anxious to do all it can in the matters to which my hon. Friend has referred. I should like to pay public tribute to the industry. It has a bad image with the public in many respects because of the odd individual firm which misbehaves, but it must never be forgotten that year after year the output in this industry has been rising, on average, between 3 and 4 per cent. It is doing a first-class job and I intend to encourage it.
    Mr. G. Campbell: How can these reductions be reconciled with the Prime Minister's broadcast on 19th November, in which he said that the house building programme would be safeguarded in the measures accompanying devaluation?
    Mr. Mellish: I know something about the housing programme, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware. At least half the housing programme is within the private sector over which the Government cannot have any control as far as numbers are concerned. The number of houses completed by the public authorities is the greatest ever known in the history of Britain.

    Excavations, Lairg
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will now take the Chambered Cairn at Ord North at Lairg, Sutherland, into guardianship for the purpose of displaying it to the public.
    Mr. Mellish: No Sir. I am awaiting a report on the recent excavations there. When I have this, I will then be able to decide whether the monument merits being taken into guardianship. I will certainly bear in mind the representation made by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Maclennan: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware of the importance and great interest of archæological sites of this nature, not only to specialists but to tourists in the Highlands? Is he further aware that there is much to be said for speeding up the process of examination and evaluation of the archæological findings in the Highlands of Scotland?
    Mr. Mellish: I respect my hon. Friend's keen interest and I assure him that I shall take his representations into account. My Department has already spent £2,000 on excavation and conservation work at this monument and while it may turn out to be of guardianship class it will have to wait its turn, because at the moment there are already more monuments in my future guardianship programme than I can finance.

    Lambeth Bridge House
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether, once his Department has moved to its new office, building from Lambeth Bridge House, he will make the site available for a new hotel which will have one of the best outlooks in London.
    Mr. Mellish: No, Sir; Lambeth Bridge House will remain my Department's main headquarters, although staff will be moved from other buildings in London. In any case, we do not own either the site or the building, which is held on lease.

    Construction Materials (Import)
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what proposals he has for saving imports of construction materials.
    Mr. Mellish: My predecessor asked the Economic Development Committees for Building and Civil Engineering to study this problem and to consider what action can be taken to promote the use of home produced materials. They have already asked the architectural profession to specify British materials wherever these are suitable in price, quality and performance. I have instructed designers employed by my own Ministry to use British materials where cost allows them to do so.
    Mrs. Short: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend for the action which he has taken. However, is he aware that there are proposals to import Italian pumice via a West German firm to make blocks for building? Is he further aware that we have plenty of very good lightweight aggregates in this country and that the lightweight aggregate industry very much needs his support? Will he ensure that these imports are not permitted?
    Mr. Mellish: I should be obliged if my hon. Friend would let me have chapter and verse about that matter. I do not propose at Question Time to say that I am aware when I am not. She had better let me have the details, and I will certainly have a look at them.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is not chipboard a good example of the kind of industry where the use of a good deal of spare capacity in the home industry might be encouraged?
    Mr. Mellish: That is perfectly true. The chipboard industry is under-producing. I understand that there is a possibility of an increase of about 30,000 or 40,000 tons a year. This is the very thing which we should encourage. The cost is not necessarily all that cheaper, but it is British.
    Mr. Roebuck: If my right hon. Friend is looking for ways of saving foreign exchange, would he consider the leases which he has on property abroad? Is he aware, for example, that his Ministry spends £100,000 a year in rent on accommodation in Brussels and that the Government as a whole spend £200,000 a year there on rent? Would my right hon. Friend do something to cut this expenditure and not play monopoly with the taxpayer's money?
    Mr. Mellish: I am fond of my hon. Friend, but while he was speaking I was trying to see how I could work the Brussels Embassy into this Question. I cannot see how I can do that, and, without notice, I do not propose to try.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that the devastation of the Scottish forests in the recent hurricane damage has created a unique opportunity to save on the import of timber? Will he ensure that this tragedy is made into a source of profit for the country through
    20
    the use of home-grown timber wherever possible?
    Mr. Mellish: I respect the hon. Gentleman's question. I will see what can be done to call the attention of the industry to the point which he has made.

    Agrément Board (Approval Certificates)
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many approval certificates have been given by the Agrément Board to date.
    Mr. Mellish: Five
    Mrs. Short: That is a very brief reply. It would appear that it is not a very high output for the Agrément Board since it was set up. Does not my right hon. Friend think that more use would be made of the Board, perhaps by developers, and so on, if it had teeth put into its possibilities by the introduction of an insurance system, as the French did when they introduced their agrément system?
    Mr. Mellish: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the Board. I am sure that they are good people who are doing a first-class job, but only five certificates have been issued up to date. I am told that a further certificate is due to be issued within the next few days and a further 10 by mid-April. What bothers me is that last year alone 300 new products came on to the market, which means that the vast majority of them were never tested. If the Board is to be worth while, more of us must consider seriously how we can make it effective.

    Prefabricated Buildings, Bromley Common
    Mr. Huntasked the Minister of Public Building and Works when his Department expects to complete removal of the prefabricated buildings at Magpie Hall Lane, Bromley Common.
    Mr. Mellish: Five houses remain to he cleared on this site. My Department was notified by the local authority on 31st January that they were ready for removal, and I expect that removal of the superstructures will be completed by the end of this month. The concrete bases will then be removed as soon as possible.
    Mr. Hunt: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that as long as they remain they are an eyesore and nuisance on land which is zoned as green belt? I am glad to know that the clearance is being speeded up.
    Mr. Mellish: I am much obliged.

    Government-owned Offices, Central London
    Mr. Chichester-Clarkasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress he is making with the allocation of Government-owned offices in Central London as between Ministries; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mellish: The new offices now under construction in Horseferry Road have been allocated to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Ministry of Transport. This will occasion some re-allocation of space in other buildings, including some that are Government owned, but plans for all the moves involved are not yet settled.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: If it is the Government's policy to disperse the Civil Service out of London and reduce the traffic flow, why is the right hon. Gentleman moving the colossus of the Ministry of Transport into central London rather than out of it? What will happen to St. Christopher House?
    Mr. Mellish: St. Christopher House will be used by other civil servants. I am not sure of the position concerning the Ministry of Transport, but I understand that it was an advantage to have both these Ministries together as both of them are concerned with environmental planning.
    Mr. Pavitt: When does my right hon. Friend expect this building to be completed?
    Mr. Mellish: When the workmen move off the site. There have been some delays of which my hon. Friend will be aware. I am glad that all now seems to be well. We had better not start giving any more target dates.

  CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT, 1925
  Mr. Roebuckasked the Attorney-General if he is aware of the confusion among the police and Press photo
  22
  graphers over the interpretation of Section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, arising from the fact that the word precincts has never been judicially defined and whether he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to clarify the matter.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): Although questions have occasionally arisen over the precise extent of the precincts of the building in which a court is held, I do not think that any great difficulty has been caused by this or that legislation is required.
  Mr. Roebuck: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, although no great difficulty has been caused, the sort of photographs which may be taken is a constant source of trouble in newspaper offices? Is he further aware that as a general practice photographs are taken within what are thought to be the precincts of the court and that the precincts of the court are blacked out before the photographs are published? This is clearly undesirable. Would he have another look at the matter?
  The Attorney-General: I am certainly willing to look at any information which my hon. Friend may send me. The purpose of the legislation is to protect those required to attend court proceedings to prevent interference with the administration of justice and to uphold the dignity of the court. The principles are generally understood, but if my hon. Friend has any particular difficulties in mind I will be glad to consider them.

  CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES (APPEALS)
  Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Attorney-General if he will request the Commission on Reform of Judicial Procedure and Law Reform to inquire into possible ways of reducing appeals in both civil and criminal cases to one appeal, which allows for a mistake by the trial judge, and of avoiding the multiplicity of appeals, which imposes unnecessary financial and other hardship on both litigants and accused persons.
  The Attorney-General: Various ways of restricting the avenues of appeal in civil cases were considered by the Evershed Committee on Supreme Court Practice and Procedure and my noble

  23
  Friend the Lord Chancellor hopes that it will be possible to implement its recommendations as soon as a suitable opportunity arises. I am not aware of any grounds for altering the present arrangements for criminal appeals.
  Mr. Hughes: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that the plurality of appeals is an undue and unfair aspersion on Her Majesty's judges? The assumption is that they make mistakes in court after court and that litigants are drawn from one court to another at their own expense because the judge may be wrong.
  The Attorney-General: I am not aware that Her Majesty's judges feel so aspersed, if there is such a word, but the Evershed Committee has considered the idea of a leap-frogging arrangement from the High Court direct to the House of Lords in a limited class of case. My noble Friend hopes to introduce legislation to give effect to that when a convenient time arises.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will the Attorney-General concentrate his noted abilities on eradicating the defects in our system of criminal appeals and set his face against the proposal, put forward by Justice, for setting up a new committee to retry all criminal cases?
  The Attorney-General: That matter has not been considered yet. It is an interesting proposal, but I share the view concerning the risk that the authority of the courts can be undermined by an excess of review procedures.

  LAND REGISTRY (FORM B.10A)
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Attorney-General how many copies of Form B.10A were sent out by the Land Registry during the last year; how many staff were employed on this work; what was the cost to public funds; how many of the recipients turned out in the event to be the bankrupt concerned; and how many did not.
  The Attorney-General: 1,194 forms B.10A were issued in 1967. It is estimated that the work, which was carried out in the nine District Land Registries, would occupy one man for three weeks in a year, with some supervision, at an estimated annual cost of £180. 171
  24
  recipients of the form proved to be the bankrupts concerned; 1,023 did not.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Do not the last figures given by the Attorney-General show how inaccurate is the gunnery in respect of this missive? As every one of these forms sent to an innocent person can cause alarm and involve him in difficulties if he happens to be away, will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider the whole procedure?
  The Attorney-General: The purpose of the legislation is to protect creditors and to prevent a bankrupt from quickly selling a parcel of land which he may own, to the detriment of the creditor. The fact that the procedure has worked with the sort of results which I have indicated shows that on the whole it is, I think, a satisfactory procedure. It is just as important for the question of identity to be cleared negatively as affirmatively. I am not convinced that the procedure is unsatisfactory.

  GAMING (APPEAL COURT DECISION)
  Mr. Mawbyasked the Attorney-General what instructions he has given to the Director of Public Prosecutions following the appeal court decision of 29th January on gaming.
  The Attorney-General: None, Sir. This decision by the Court of Appeal does not call for any instructions to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who was in no way concerned with the case. I understand that, in accordance with an undertaking given during the hearing, the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police has now sent to the Director a number of reports on cases investigated by the police. These are now being examined by the Director.
  Mr. Mawby: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware, however, as long as there is a great amount of uncertainty, it is possible that a number of well-run clubs may founder and crooks take over? Will he ask his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to go ahead as fast as possible with the Gaming Bill so that the whole position can at least be clarified?
  The Attorney-General: I will certainly pass on the hon. Member's suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
  Mr. Alexander W. LyonWill my right hon. and learned Friend also pass on to the Home Secretary the suggestion that the gaming law is now in such a state of confusion that it is, perhaps, time for an independent committee again to consider the position and decide whether the Gaming Act as originally drafted is adequate to deal with the present situation?
  The Attorney-General: There is, I think, a great deal of concern about the operations of the Gaming Act, and I again will see that my hon. Friend's suggestion is communicated to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  TECHNOLOGY

    Satellites (Electrical Propulsion)
    Mr. Martenasked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the progress with electrical propulsion for satellites.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Technology (Mr. John Stonehouse): The first experimental model of an electrical thruster has been made at the Royal Aircraft Establishment and preliminary testing will start shortly. Initial research work is being carried out on very low thrust electrical units suitable for maintaining the orientation of a satellite in orbit.
    Mr. Marten: Can the Minister say whether there is a firm development programme for this project and how much money is involved in it?
    Mr. Storehouse: Yes, there is a development programme on the initial research work. I cannot say exactly how much is being spent on this part of the research as it comes in a wider programme which is costing £3 million a year.

    E.L.D.O. (Planned Launchings)
    Mr. Martenasked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement about planned European Launcher Development Organisation firings in 1968.
    Mr. Stonehouse: The European Launcher Development Organisation plans to launch two vehicles in 1968, one, known as F.7, in September, and the second, F.8, in December.
    Mr. Marten: Can the Minister say what went wrong with the French second stage of the recent E.L.D.O. launching?
    Mr. Stonehouse: There was a fault in the electrical system, which is now being investigated with the co-operation of the French authorities.

    Upper Clyde Shipyards (Orders)
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the order position in the Upper Clyde shipyards.
    The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): The estimated value of orders for new ships on hand with Upper Clyde yards at the end of 1967 was £86 million.
    Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that the prosperity of the lower reaches is not being shared with the upper reaches and that there is a serious position and redundancy? Can he assure us that the new merger will not be allowed to founder by making sure, if necessary, that sufficient naval orders are available?
    Mr. Benn: I am in continual contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence concerning naval orders. The order position is disappointing and I know that there is anxiety, but the Upper Clyde group is now well advanced and we hope that devaluation will help the position.
    Mr. Small: Can my right hon. Friend state what proportion of orders have been placed on the Clyde by British ship-owners within the total of £86 million?
    Mr. Benn: Not accurately without notice.
    Mr. Shinwell: What my right hon. Friend has said about orders being disappointing is an understatement of the position. Is he aware that it is reported that the Russians have placed an order for 50 vessels in Japan? Is any attempt being made by the shipbuilders, backed by the Government, to obtain orders from the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Benn: The possibility of orders for ships from the Soviet Union was discussed and is very much in mind. If my right hon. Friend asks whether anything has been done, of course the major effort is in reorganisation and as this works its way through, with the advantages of devaluation, we very much hope that the position will improve.

    Scientific Officers
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Technology how many persons have been and are employed by his Department on scientific work; the nature of their work; where they have been located during each of the last five years; and to what extent the developments of that work have had an effect on the trade, industry, commerce and employment of the City of Aberdeen.
    Mr. Benn: My Department employs some 2.000 members of the Scientific Officer class. Their location and work described in "Technical Services for Industry", a copy of which has been placed in the Library. There have been no major changes in location during the last five years.
    Aberdeen, like other important industrial cities and towns, has benefited from their work, though it is not possible to quantify this benefit.
    Mr. Hughes: In thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask, as most of this scientific product depends not on its weight but on its scientific excellence, whether it would not be possible to spread it more amongst the depopulated areas of. the North of Scotland?
    Mr. Benn: Apart from the fact that the Torry research station is near my hon. and learned Friend's constituency and is working on problems connected with fish which concern Aberdeen itself, and there are, of course, other establishments in Scotland, I do not think that it would be right to relocate research establishments to meet the point made by my hon. and learned Friend. What is wanted is new industry, not research establishments for this purpose.

    Export Orders
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Minister of Technology why it took his Department two months to give clearance
    28
    to Messrs George Keith and Son of Arbroath to enable them to tender for an export order to Holland; and what steps he is taking to accelerate procedures in his Department to prevent a recurrence of this delay.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Gerry Fowler): This was exceptional and no change in procedures is necessary. The work in checking the design and patent situation should have been completed in four to five weeks. I regret that an error causing a delay of about three weeks upset the priority usual to such applications.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is not the Ministry of Technology taking this matter rather lightly? Is it not wholly scandalous that two months' delay should prejudice an export order of this nature — two months of delay of pure bureaucracy? What is the Ministry doing seriously to correct this disgraceful sort of delay?
    Mr. Fowler: The language used by the hon. Member is a little strong and a little misleading. It was known at the time that this was not a situation in which an export order would be prejudiced, because the Dutch authorities were not likely to take a decision on the equipment, of which the order was a very minor part. until the middle of 1968.

    Wear Shipyards (Merger Proposals)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a further statement on the merger prospects for Wear shipyards.
    Mr. Benn: I understand that the three companies concerned are pressing on with their joint examination of a merger and hope to be able to submit proposals to the Shipbuilding Industry Board shortly.
    Mr. Willey: Will my right hon. Friend continue to do his best to press ahead with these negotiations now that we are prejudiced, as, I am sure, he recognises, by the very good progress which is being made in other shipbuilding districts? I appreciate that there are particular difficulties, but we really have to solve them.
    Mr. Benn: I share my right hon. Friend's feeling of disappointment. The

    29
    consultant's report was available five months ago, but it is a matter for negotiations between the yards concerned, the Shipbuilding Industry Board, and my own Department, and we will do anything we can to help.

    Northern Region (Research and Development Expenditure)
    Mr. Wileyasked the Minister of Technology what factors have caused the fall in the amount spent by his Department on research and development in the Northern Region from £2·6 million in 1963–64 to £1·8 million in 1965–66.
    Mr. Fowler: Most of the Ministry's expenditure on research and development in the Northern Region relates to defence projects, and such expenditure was at an exceptionally high level in 1963–64; it is not, however, possible without disproportionate effort to identify particular items on which expenditure has subsequently fallen to a lower level.
    Mr. Willey: I am obliged for that reply, but will my hon. Friend pay attention to the fact that this sort of research and development is of vital importance to development areas, as all American experience shows it is, and will he do his best to see whether he can steer this sort of development into development areas?
    Mr. Fowler: It is the Ministry's policy wherever possible to channel its support to concerns in development areas including the Northern Region, but in the case of major defence research and development projects, which account for the majority of the expenditure, the special capabilities and facilities involved seriously restrict the choice of firms.
    Dame Irene Ward: In view of the fact that defence expenditure is being cut, which must, of course, cut research, could the hon. Gentleman say what we are going to have in the North to make up For any cuts which may be made in defence expenditure?
    Mr. Fowler: Not all research is in the defence field. In the period referred to by my right hon. Friend in his Question, the Ministry's support, for example, for the Ship Research Association's activities in the Northern Region increased sevenfold.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Would the hon. Gentleman explain why, in view of the cuts in defence which have taken place, largely in the last 12 months, compared with two years ago, the amount spent on research is less than in the two years previously?
    Mr. Fowler: Without notice of that question, no. It is a rather different question.

    North-East (Research and Development Work)
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a statement on the action he has taken to encourage new industrial research and development work in the North-East.
    Mr. Benn: Yes, sir. I have asked my hon. Friend the Member for Middles-brough, West (Dr. Bray) to take special responsibility for developing my Department's regional policies in support of the Government's general policies for development areas. With this in mind I am now seeking and hoping to encourage viable projects.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: While welcoming that Answer from my right hon. Friend, may I ask if he could say in particular, what use is being made of resources which are already there, on Tyneside, for example, in conjunction with universities? It is very urgent that we should not let these resources lie idle.
    Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend will realise that in thinking of regional policy from the Ministry of Technology's point of view we have these sorts of considerations very much in mind. We have increased the number of contracts with I.R.D., and the N.R.D.C. has spent £1·4 million in the North in the last 18 months. In this and other ways we are hoping really to help.

    Concorde Aircraft (Radiation Levels)
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Minister of Tecnology whether radiation levels experienced by passengers in Concorde will be greater than those received in lower flying aircraft; and what maximum dosage is expected.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Radiation levels are higher at these altitudes, but are still far too low to constitute of hazard to

    31
    passengers' health, except on the very rare occassions when there are severe solar flares. Concorde will carry a device to give warning of these, so that the pilot can descend to a lower altitude and continue the flight.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is it not the case that there will be no opportunity., in the event of a solar flare, for the pilot to descend to a lower level, and, as this is only one of the snags for passengers in supersonic flying, would he not be well-advised to devote the attention of the Ministry to more productive fields which convenience more people and inconvenience fewer?
    Mr. Stonehouse: On the first part of the supplementary I am advised that the in-flight device will enable the plane to descend to a height where there will be no danger at all from these flares.
    Mr. Onslow: Will the Minister confirm what it, perhaps, more important, that the same applies to the crew, and will he not deprecate the vendetta of his hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) against the Concorde?
    Mr. Stonehouse: We shall have an opportunity fully to debate questions about the Concorde. We are satisfied that there is no health risk involved in this plane's flying. If we had felt that there would be, the whole project would have been stopped a long time ago. There will be no risk to the crew. The amount of danger to which they will be exposed is no more than approximately five X-rays per year.

    Hearing Aid Batteries (Prices)
    Mr. Lomasasked the Minister of Technology if he has now decided to refer to the National Board for Prices and Incomes the recently announced increase in the price of Mallory mercury hearing aid batteries—RM 675 H2014;1·4 volts—from 11s. to 16s. 6d. for six; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Technology what action he will take over the recent increase in price of hearing aid batteries from Is. 10d. to 2s. 9d.
    Sir J. Vaughan-Morganasked the Minister of Technology whether he will
    32
    now refer to the National Board for Prices and Incomes the recent increase in price for the Mallory R.M. 675 H 14 volt batteries for hearing aids as sold by chemists and others.
    Dr. John Dunwoodyasked the Minister of Technology what action he intends to take as a result of the recent increase in the price of batteries for hearing aids.
    Mr. Benn: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and I have decided to refer the question of these increased prices to the National Board for Prices and Incomes for examination, and the reference will be made shortly.
    Mr. Lomas: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply, but can he also explain why it has taken the Department so long to reach this decision? In view of this outrageous increase in these prices, what action is he taking to ensure that the old prices are still maintained till the Prices and Incomes Board has had an opportunity to consider this matter?
    Mr. Benn: I am sorry if my hon. Friend thinks it has taken so long a time to make this reference, but these references are not made lightly, and I think it is right that we should have thought about it very carefully. As to the second point, I am not able to answer offhand how this will operate. I think it is covered by the arrangements with the Board itself.
    Mr. Allaun: But pending the Board's report, will the Government countermand the existing price increases, particularly as some of us believe that the Board, while strong against wages, is as weak as dishwater about prices?
    Mr. Benn: I will look at the point my hon. Friend has raised about the present price, but I would not accept that we have been slow to refer prices to the Board. Indeed, I myself have referred quite a number of cases, including the recent case of Television Rentals.
    Dr. Dunwoody: If my right hon. Friend is not able to freeze the prices of these batteries till the Board has reported, will he at least consult his colleagues at the Ministry of Social Security to see that additional social security benefits are

    33
    given, to old folk in particular, to cover the increase of the cost of these batteries which they will have to pay in the weeks ahead?
    Mr. Benn: I have promised to look at the point raised by my hon. Friend, but, as my hon. Friend knows, these batteries are not used in the Medresco National Health Service hearing aid.
    Mr. Frederic Harris: Has the Minister come to an understanding with the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Board as to when a decision may be taken as this increase hits hard so many people who can ill afford it?
    Mr. Benn: I think the Board is very well aware, in this as in other cases, of the desirability of producing a report as quickly as possible. I have not in this instance met the Chairman. I think that he and the Board must look at the matter independently and report as soon as possible.
    Mr. James Davidson: Will the Minister consult the Minister of Health to see if possible, that prescriptions for these batteries can be obtained by those suffering from chronic deafness?
    Mr. Benn: That would not be a question for me but since the hon. Gentleman has raised it, I will draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. J. T. Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that only three days after devaluation was announced I was supplied with a copy of an invoice which was issued by a large firm of merchants for a piece of apparatus supplied to a London hospital for biological research and which carried with it a surcharge for devaluation—printed on the invoice—of 17½ per cent.? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that I handed that document to the Treasury, and that, so far as I am aware, nothing has been done about it up to now?
    Mr. Benn: That is a separate question, but if the Treasury did overlook it my hon. Friend's question today will draw attention to it.

    Machine Tools
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Minister of Technology, in view of the rise in the imports of foreign machine tools by a
    34
    third last year over the previous year, what action he is taking to encourage the replacement of types of machine tools hitherto imported from abroad by British-made machine tools.
    Mr. Benn: My Department's £6 million preproduction order scheme is encouraging the development and production of advanced types of British machine tools. In addition, the Government are now making available to the Machine Tool Economic Development Committee, certain Customs and Excise information relating to substantial machine tools imports to help identify the reasons for them and the prospects of supply from Britain.
    Mr. Edelman: But is not one of the reasons for the startling rise in imports of machine tools last year, at a time when exports went up by only 10 per cent., the deplorable practice inside the machine tool industry of certain manufacturers acting as factors and agents for foreign firms? Is that not a major reason for this rise in the imports of machine tools?
    Mr. Benn: It is a fact that the machine tool industry has operated on that basis. In some cases, the manufacture of machine tools has arisen from those who began importing them. But the dangers of a double interest here are well known to the industry, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to them.

    E.L.D.O. and E.S.R.O. (Contributions)
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Minister of Technology what is the estimated British contribution to the European Launcher Development Organisation and the European Space Research Organisation in 1968–69 and 1969–70; and how this will be affected by devaluation.
    Mr. Stonehouse: The estimated contributions to the European Launcher Development Organisation in 1968–69 and 1969–70 are £9·9 million and £8 million respectively. These figures make no allowance for the effects of devaluation, negotiations on which are in progress with our European colleagues.
    The contribution for the European Space Research Organisation for 1968–69 amounts to £5·25 million, this is, of

    35
    course, within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
    Mr. Hooley: In view of the importance of these two organisations for the future development of a European communications satellite system. will my hon. Friend give an assurance that we shall not reduce our net contribution and will make up any effect of devaluation?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I cannot give that assurance, because we have to look very carefully at the amount which we spend on the space programme. There are very many other demands on our resources.
    Mr. Marten: Are we spending more on a national space programme than on these two international organisations?
    Mr. Stonehouse: We are spending more on our investment on work being done in conjunction with our European friends than we do at home.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Mayhew. Private Notice Question.

G.E.C./A.E.I. MERGER
Mr. Mayhew (by Private Notice)Mr. Mayhew (by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade what information he received during his examination of the G.E.C./A.E.I. merger about the impending closure of the A.E.I. factory in Woolwich and what action he now proposes to ensure employment for those made redundant and for the future residents of the new town of Thames-mead.
The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): When my right hon. Friend considered the proposal for this merger, he had regard to the broad national interest, and the merger has been generally accepted as serving the national interest.
At that time, no indications could be given about the eventual reorganisation of the factories concerned, although it was clear that there would be some closures of factories and some expansions, but the Group gave assurances that, as far as possible, these closures, contractions and expansions would be in line with the Government's regional policies.
36
I understand that jobs are being offered to some of the work people affected in others of the factories of the Group, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is making available the full resources of his Department to find alternative employment for those made redundant.
I appreciate that this closure will come as a blow to many work people and, in some cases, families of work people who have been employed there for many years.
As for the industrial development of Thamesmead, I can tell my hon. Friend that I will consider any application for industrial development certificates there from suitable London firms with strong ties to the area.
Mr. Mayhew: Do I understand from that answer that this decision was not referred to the South-East Regional Planning Council? If not, why not, and will the Minister send it to that Council? Is he aware that there is a great deal of anxiety and strong criticism in Woolwich at this sudden decision, which was taken without adequate consultation, and that it will add to the employment problem already caused by the forthcoming influx of 60,000 new residents to the new town of Thamesmead? Will he tell the House what plans he has for alternative employment for my existing constituents and for the 60,000 newcomers who will start coming in May of this year?
Mr. Darling: On the point about consultation, we have reiterated to the firm concerned the importance that we attach to early discussion of these plans. The firm takes the view that it should announce its plans to the trade unions concerned at the same time as it announces them to the Government. Whether that is the right policy is a matter which we are discussing with them.
As for referring closures of this kind to the Regional Economic Planning Council, we certainly could not refer what are commercial decisions to the Council for it to decide whether they were in the regional interest—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This must be a matter to be decided by the commercial concerns in consultation with the Government. I am sure that that is the right policy to follow.

37
As for the provision of new jobs, the present unemployment rate in this part of London is about 1·7 per cent. In view of the fact that the closure will not finally take place until some months have elapsed, we think that we can do a great deal to find alternative work. This is something which we have been able to do rather successfully in this part of London, and we think that we may be able to do it again just as successfully. As I have said, industrial development certificate applications will be considered with these matters in mind.
Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that this large amount of redundancy is in addition to that which has already taken place in the London Borough of Woolwich accompanied by the closure of the Matchless motor cycle factory, and that, locally, the people of the borough do not consider that there are ample opportunities of alternative employment? Would he consider receiving a deputation of civic leaders from the borough to discuss the whole question of employment in the area?
Mr. Darling: I am always ready to receive deputations of that kind.
Mr. Frederic Harris: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that these decisions have also brought about redundancies in high executive positions to men whose ages are such that they will experience difficulty in finding alternative appointments?
Mr. Darling: I am not aware of that, but I understand that discussions about possible redundancies at executive level are taking place with the people concerned.
Mr. Moyle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the company continues to handle this problem in the way that it has started, it is likely to go down as a classic case of how not to handle a reorganisation problem? Will he consult with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to see that the company is advised to behave more intelligently in the months to come? Secondly, is he aware that there is no room for manoeuvre in the employment rate in South-East London? Thirdly, is he aware that the London Borough of Lewisham already has far less than its adequtae share of in
38
dustry, and will he give an undertaking to do what he can to see that that inadequate share is at least maintained?
Mr. Darling: I have said already that we have reiterated to the firm the need for early consultation. On the question of whether this area of South-East London is getting its right share of industrial development, this is a matter on which I would be willing to enter into disputative discussions. However, this is not the appropriate moment.
Mr. Costain: Does the Minister of State appreciate that the Government's policies, including Selective Employment Tax and the like, will encourage comcercial firms to transfer to the North and that they are causing unemployment not only in London but in the whole of the South-East? Will he deny that it is the policy of the Government to do that?
Mr. Darling: Of course I will not. That is what the Government's policy is meant to achieve. As I have said already, the unemployment rate in this part of London is 1·7 per cent. The work now to be distributed from that factory is going to several factories in the North-East and in Scotland, where the need for employment of this kind is very serious.
Mr. Lawson: I am sure my right hon. Friend will appreciate that we all regret hardship caused to anyone in matters of this kind, but will he bear in mind that many parts of our country have had their industry draining away for years, and that we welcome firmness in this connection, which has the object of returning some industry to those parts of our country?
Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir.
Dame Irene Ward: As my constituency will benefit from this transfer, for which I am sure we are very grateful, it had been suggested that there would be transfers from the North-East Coast to the North-West. So that the whole situation may be clarified, can we have attached to the OFFICIAL REPORT the whole decision and an explanation of what is to happen after this merger, including where transfers are to take place, where they are to go, and the whole range of happenings?
Mr. Darling: If the hon. Lady will put down a Question seeking that information, I will give it to her. That would probably be the best way of publicising it.
Mr. C. Pannell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a disaster of the first magnitude to Greenwich, and that I speak from experience, having worked next to that factory before I came to the House'? With all the known devices of planning such as the Board of Trade now envisage them, it is a physical impossibility to clear up this mess in a few months. In effect, what will be the cost at the end of the day, by the time that the Government have paid regional employment grants to take factories to Scotland and then given incentives to bring another firm into the factory which has been vacated? My right hon. Friend must consider this more seriously than his answers today would indicate.
Mr. Darling: These are matters that can be considered. In carrying out regional policies of this kind, we have to take all these factors into consideration. It obviously would be wrong to get a redistribution of industry that was uneconomic and did not make commercial sense. Therefore, we consider all the time what is best both for the regions and in the national interest and we try to balance all the factors.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. James Johnson—Private Notice Question.
Mr. Mayhew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question again at the earliest opportunity.

HULL TRAWLER "ROSS CLEVELAND" (LOSS)
Mr. James Johnson (by Private Notice)Mr. James Johnson (by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the missing fishing trawler "Ross Cleveland".
The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): The House will be profoundly shocked to hear that another Hull trawler the "Ross Cleveland", with a crew of nineteen, has been
40
lost. News of the tragedy is still reaching me, but I understand that around midnight last night the vessel disappeared from the radar screens of the "Odinn", an Icelandic gunboat, and other trawlers who, like her, were riding out atrocious weather conditions off West Iceland. It would be wrong to hold out hope for the vessel or the crew, and I am ordering a preliminary inquiry which will be followed by a formal investigation. Once again, I have to express my deep sympathy with the relatives of those who have been lost.
I am urgently considering what restrictions should be imposed on the operations of trawlers having regard to their size, the area of operation, the season of the year and their stability and freeboard. I am asking representatives of the trawler owners' associations and the unions concerned to meet me immediately to discuss these matters and any other measures that might be taken forthwith to reduce the risks to which trawlers operating in these arduous conditions are subject.
Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware of the total despair felt by the people of Hull over this third tragedy in so few days? I thank him for his sympathy, and I am sure that the whole House will extend to the widows, relatives, dependants and people of my constituency its deepest sympathy at this sad time.
Perhaps I might ask the Minister two questions. First, bearing in mind that the vessel went down in the view of sister ships and an Icelandic patrol boat, does the Minister not agree that there is a serious need now for the utmost care and investigation into the stability and design of fishing vessels, particularly in high seas such as they encounter?
Secondly, will the Minister set up at once a high powered commission on the lines of the Devlin Commission to investigate the fishing industry concerning not only stability and design of vessels, but safety measures as well, the hours and working conditions, and perhaps it might consider a close down of fishing at this dangerous time, which I understand the Canadian fishing fleet does in winter weather? I understand the Minister is meeting a deputation of union leaders and wives tomorrow, and I can tell him that they would demand no less of him when they come to see him.
Mr. Mallalieu: I can well imagine the distress in Hull today, and I repeat my very deep sympathy with those who have been bereaved.
All the questions that my hon. Friend has mentioned will be considered at this urgent meeting I am having with the owners and the unions. Indeed, they are being considered already. We have a working group on safety on trawlers which has been at work for the past six months and I am hoping to have a report very soon. Quite clearly, it seems that more urgent intermediate action must be taken.
Mr. Wall: I associate myself with the sympathy expressed by the Minister on this third terrible tragedy. May I ask the Minister if there is not now evidence to show that all these three ships were overwhelmed in conditions which prevented the use of any known safety equipment? Will he therefore consider calling an international conference to discuss not only the possibility of a closed season in Arctic waters, as has been suggested, but the organisation of an international control, communication and rescue organisation?
Mr. Mallalieu: In fact I.M.C.O. has been considering these matters for the best part of two years, and the first progress report will be available next month, but I will consider whether some further activity is necessary. I cannot say what was the cause of the two previous disasters. It seems obvious that this one was hit with the stern down and a tidal wave coming over.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Minister realise that the disasters that have occurred are a warning not only to the Hull trawlers, but to all the trawlers in the North-East of England and Scotland? Will he say what precautions he is taking to ensure that there are adequate radio connections between the trawlers and the trawler protection fleets in the North Sea and also with the shore?
Mr. Mallalieu: Yes, Sir. On the point of communication, that, generally speaking, is being done. I have two things to say to the House. With all the precautions that one can take, it is not possible to provide absolute safety at sea in certain conditions. Sea states and so forth can be so hazardous that no kind
42
of precautions, other than staying away from them, can possibly be effective.
I would also say that, tragic as these events are, in perspective it is not that trawlers are being sunk all over the place. In the last twenty years, out of an active fleet of about 600, the number of disasters has been twelve. That is too many, but not too vast.
Mr. G. Campbell: Besides considering the safety of vessels as a whole and the possibility of a close season, which these tragic events have highlighted, will the Minister also give urgent consideration to the question of individual safety measures to try to improve the situation and minimise the risks of fishermen being lost by being swept overboard?
Mr. Mallalieu: Yes. That is exactly the sort of question that the working group is considering. We may have to take some steps immediately.
Mr. Dobson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is now a need for his Department to take urgent steps to ask trawler owners not to sail from the port of Hull unless their vessels carry a trained radio operator on board? Secondly, will he have further discussions with the Met Office to ensure that adequate warning of the very disastrous weather that we are experiencing now is received regularly on trawlers?
Mr. Mallalieu: That, of course, is done already. The trouble with that part of the world is that the sea comes up very fast and one may be caught in it however much warning one has.
On the question of radio operators, as I have told the House, we are considering that. But in this instance there was an absolutely first-class radio operator and his reporting was right, but still the vessel went down.
Sir K. Joseph: Will the Minister accept from the whole of this side of the House our deep sympathy for this appalling catastrophe? Can he tell us whether his provisional inquiries show that there is here any change in weather pattern; whether this area is experiencing an un-precedentedly heavy series of overwhelming weather conditions to explain these three disasters in so short a time?
Mr. Mallalieu: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his expression

43
of sympathy. I do not think there is any sign of a change of pattern, but there is not the slightest doubt that during the last three weeks conditions up there have been appalling.

ARMED FORCES (BOY ENTRANTS AND CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS)
3.50 p.m.
The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): I am now able to announce the outcome of my examination of the Latey Committee's three recommendations on boy entrants to the Forces.
I am prepared to accept the first recommendation, namely:
That all boy entrants should be entitled to be released as of right on application within six months (instead of three months) from the date of their entry.
This recommendation will be brought into force by Regulation under Section 2 of the Armed Forces Act, 1966. The details of the arrangements for applying this policy will differ in each Service in accordance with established practice.
I am also prepared to accept the third of these recommendations, namely:
That parental consent to enlistment under the age of 18 should be required.
At present such consent is required up to the age of 17½. If and when the age of majority is reduced to 18 years, this recommendation will be brought into force by administrative action.
I regret, however, that at present I cannot accept the second recommendation, namely, that all boy entrants should be entitled to be released as of right within three months after their 18th birthday. I have considered this matter very carefully. The Forces are unique and cannot be compared with civil industry which is able to bear the easy circulation of labour. It takes a longer time to make an efficient Serviceman, and, with the limited number of suitable men available, it is most likely that, if this recommendation were accepted either in the form proposed by the Latey Committee, or in any substantially similar form, the Forces would be unable to replace their losses, and the ability of the Government to carry out their responsibilities for defence would be seriously impaired. On the other hand,
44
there are the considerations set out in the Latey Committee's Report and advanced by hon. Members of all parties. These considerations are based on the natural desire, which I share, not to bind young men too tightly to long engagements undertaken in their immaturity
In view of the conflict of these apparently irreconcilable considerations, Her Majesty's Government decided to continue studies by all the Departments concerned to see whether a satisfactory solution can be found to meet both the future defence needs of the country and the principles underlying the Latey Committee's recommendation.
I would like to take this opportunity of informing the House of new procedures for dealing with Servicemen who seek to end their service on conscientious grounds. The existing arrangements have for some time been regarded as unsatisfactory, and I am replacing them as soon as possible.
Under the new arrangements applications from Servicemen for discharge on grounds of conscientious objection will be allowed and will be dealt with in general under a system similar to that used in compassionate cases. Commanding officers will be required to establish the merits of cases which will then be referred to higher authority in the appropriate Service for decision. There will also be provision for applicants whose cases are rejected by the Service authorities to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, and a successful appeal will be accepted as decisive on the question of conscience.
Once conscientious objection has been accepted as genuine, either by the Service or the Tribunal, discharge will be conditional upon payment of the standard purchase price. The Services will, however, have discretion to reduce or waive the purchase price where financial hardship can be proved.
The advantages of these arrangements are that they provide a fair and reasonable means of judging whether cases are genuine but do not include the penal provisions which, in some cases, are involved in the present procedure. It is hoped that these arrangements will go a long way towards solving what is an admittedly difficult problem.
Mr. Powell: On the Minister's decision on the first recommendation, may I ask

45
whether he is aware that it appears to us to be a reasonable and useful extension of the initial period from three to six months? As regards the second recommendation, will he accept that it is better to take more time to consider rather than to arrive at decisions which might prejudice the manning of the Forces, already dangerously endangered by the disastrous change in the Government's defence policy? On the third recommendation, may I ask whether his decision means that it will not be implemented unless and until the age of majority is reduced to 18?
Mr. Reynolds: On the second recommendation, which I am unable to accept, I would have liked more time in which to examine it, but I have been under pressure to make a statement. The Government as a whole, and all the Departments concerned, will be looking at this matter. We want to get a lot of information together, and this might take time, but we want to try to find a solution to it.
As regards the third recommendation, the right hon. Gentleman, is right. I intend to introduce this change by Order. if and when the Latey Committee's recommendations are accepted. There is no magic about 17½ or 18. In the Services we are satisfied with 17½, but obviously if the House and the Government decide that 18 should be the age for most other things, we will immediately come into line.
Miss Lestor: My right hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that we welcome his announcement about the two concessions to boy entrants, but when he is considering further representations on this, will he bear in mind that the main recommendation of the Latey Committee dealing with release within three months of a boy's eighteenth birthday was to bring these recruits into line with the legal protection applying to and contained within the Infants Relief Act, 1874? However unique my right hon. Friend may say the Forces are in this respect, these young people are still at a grave disadvantage in law in respect of release from the Forces.
Mr. Reynolds: I would not disagree basically with that, but I must draw attention to the fact that the terms of service
46
of boy entrants were outside the writ of the Latey Committee. It made recommendations without having any evidence of the effect, on manning grounds, which these would have on the Services.
Mr. James Davidson: While welcoming the minor concessions made in the Minister's statement, may I suggest that it might well take more than six months for a young man to assess his own suitability for a Service career, and that an unwilling Serviceman is perhaps worse than no Serviceman at all? Will the Minister do whatever he can to discourage misleading advertising for recruitment into Service careers?
Mr. Reynolds: I do not accept the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, and I do not disagree with the earlier part of it, but we must not over-exaggerate this problem. There was at one time something in excess of 125,000 men in the Armed Forces who joined as boy entrants of one kind or another. Over the last 12 months the National Council for Civil Liberties has been gathering examples of hardship and up to October 1967, covering a pd of 10 years, it discovered 100 cases. This is a small minority, and over the last three years I believe that we have found ourselves able to meet the vast majority of cases. I assure the House that a large proportion of these cases goes to Ministers.
Mr. Maclennan: My right hon. Friend made a surprising assertion that evidence about manning was not before the Latey Committee when it made its recommendations. If he consults the Report, he will see that this is not so, and that some of the evidence which his Ministry put before the Committee was cited.
My right hon. Friend's acceptance of two of the recommendations is very welcome, but will he say whether, in giving this interim judgment on the second recommendation, full account has been taken of the alterations in manning requirements following the cuts announced in January?
Mr. Reynolds: No, Sir, because we have not had time to work these requirements through. Whilst in the past two years it has been necessary to obtain 40,000 recruits a year to maintain the level of forces, the cuts announced last June and July, and speeded, up by the

47
announcement of my right hon. Friend on 16th January, will still mean that we shall need more than 30,000 men per year as recruits into the Forces during the early and mid-seventies. I have no reason to change my statement about the evidence before the Latey Committee. It had no evidence on manning from the Ministry of Defence. A witness was offered, but he was not required.
Mr. Fisher: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that before enlistment boy entrants and their parents are fully aware that they are not entitled to purchase their discharge after the first six months' of service? There is often misunderstanding about this.
Mr. Reynolds: There is often misunderstanding, but I am certain, from investigation and experience, that every attempt is made by service authorities, up to the time when the boy arrives at the establishment to which he is posted, to make clear to him what signing on means, and 'one establishment almost goes to the length of offering him a railway warrant ba me if he wants to change his mind at that point.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: If a soldier becomes a conscientious objector as a result of his re-examination of the position, for example if he sees a film on Vietnam, is it any use trying to make a useful soldier of him? Ought not he to be discharged to civilian life, where he can perform useful work in industry? Why does the Minister think that a commanding officer is able to judge conscience? Surely these officers are the wrong people to do that?
Mr. Reynolds: What I have announced is that the application for someone to be released on conscientious grounds will be considered by the military authorities in the first instance. If the application is turned down, without any need for an offence to be committed, which is the rule at the moment in many cases the individual will have the right of appeal to the appellate tribunal set up by the Minister of Labour under the National Service Acts. This is nothing to do with the Services. It has wide representation on it, and we in the Forces will accept its advice as conclusive on whether the chap has a genuine conscientious objection.
Mr. Wall: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those who join the Services voluntarily form the backbone of the Forces—especially the Royal Navy? Will he, therefore, stand out against pressure coming from the anti-Service section of the community about allowing a right of discharge at the age of 18?
Mr. Reynolds: About 70 per cent. of the entry into the Royal Navy is technically boys. I shall not stand out against pressure for the sake of standing out against it. I wish that we could find an answer to this problem. Other countries have found answers which are probably even more intolerable to my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and to the country. If we can find a genuine solution which is safe from the point of view of defence I shall be only too pleased to take action.
Mr. J. T. Price: Will my hen. Friend accept my assurance that, although I am in no way anti-Service, I am still extremely puzzled by the fact that although there were all these considerations by the Latey Committee and others I have not yet seen any valid reason why a young Serviceman who enters the Services while still a minor is not given the protection available to the rest of the community, in respect of which the law undoubtedly is that a contract made by a minor before he is 21 can be set aside if it is not to his personal advantage. That is as I understand it. I should like to know what information my right hon. Friend has which causes him to say that this should not apply to people who, perhaps indiscreetly or imprudently, enter the Services when they are still children.
Mr. Reynolds: The short answer is that this is not, in legal terms, a contract, and the method by which it is done was approved by the House less than 18 months ago, when only one hon. Member —my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor)—objected. We have to face the fact that if we are to run disciplined Forces, where a unit or a ship has to be prepared to move anywhere in the world at literally a moment's notice, it is not possible to have the normal system whereby any chap can give a week's notice or a month's notice. We must have a stronger form of discipline and of contract, and the form in which

49
we operate at the moment has been approved and confirmed by this House on successive occasions over the last five years.
Mr. Lipton: Why is no basic change contemplated in the regulations governing discharge by purchase? Am I right in interpreting what my hon. Friend has just said to mean that he will judge each case on a kind of ad hoc basis, on its merits, and that nobody quite knows what the position is when discharge by purchase is applied for?
Mr. Reynolds: My statement dealt only with applications by boy entrants for discharge, who had expressed changed feelings. I made no announcement about a change in the system of purchasing discharges. That is the same as it was. When a man has done three years' service in the Army he is eligible to apply to purchase his discharge. The same applies to the Air Force, and it is about six years in the Navy. The only consideration then is that the manning position in the branch or trade is such that the man can be allowed to go without prejudice to the Service.

PERSONAL STATEMENT
The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Niall MacDermot): In winding up the debate on 29th January on the growth of the bureaucracy, I referred to an assertion that the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) had made in a previous debate that there could be saving of up to £75 million in capital expenditure by the abolition of the Land Commission. In my reply I said
" As a former Chief Secretary he ought to to know better than that, and I think he does. It is a phoney figure ".—[OFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 1015.]
I then gave the reasons why I thought the figure was misleading.
The right hon. Gentleman has asked me to retract what I said. In so far as my words suggest that he knowingly misled the House, I gladly do so. I have apologised to the right hon. Gentleman for not giving him prior notice that I would refer to him in the debate.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I thank the hon. and learned Member for that courteous apology and withdrawal, which of course I have the greatest pleasure in accepting.

PRIVATE BLACK LISTS
4.5 p.m.
Mr. Tony Gardner: I beg to move,
That this House views with grave concern the growth of private agencies which collect and provide confidential information concerning individuals, a practice which can only be described as blacklisting and which violates the principle that no person is guilty until proved to be so in a court of law, that no person shall be indicted without full knowledge of the indictment and that justice is a public activity and not a private pursuit; and accordingly urges Her Majesty's Government to seek ways of dealing with this manifest threat to the privacy and liberty of the subject.
Nobedy could have been more surprised than I when the No. 66 was drawn from the Ballot Box. Prizes in sweepstakes and even Christmas raffles have always eluded me, and I shall cherish the number 66 for evermore. I am deeply conscious of the privilege which Lady Luck has given me today, and I want to use my time wisely, especially since my hon. and right hon. Friends have already taken a fair slice out of Private Members' Time this afternoon.
There is no need to apologise to the House for raising the subject of black lists at a time when we are gravely concerned about finance, industry, foreign affairs and other great issues of State, because the House has always regarded as its first charge the liberties and freedom of the subject.
The attitude which led me to put down the Motion is, to say the least, slightly emotional. It dates from a long time ago, when a very pleasant half hour on a park bench was interrupted by a rather zealous police constable, who shone his torch upon us and asked for our identity cards. I do not know what happened to the young lady, but the policeman is always with us. The policeman does not always wear a uniform of public authority.
This is International Human Rights Year. Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that:
" No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation "
and
" Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
52
I am sure that these sentiments are readily accepted by the House. In May of last year the Nordic Conference of Jurists gave some detailed definitions of these rights. The Conference demanded, amongst other things, protection of the individual against the following
" Attacks on his honour or reputation—being placed in a false light—the disclosure of irrelevant, embarrassing facts relating to his private life—spying, prying, watching and besetting."
Again, I believe that that is a point of view which is readily acceptable in the House.
Modern industrial society thrives on information, however, and, more and more, individuals in this country and many others are becoming identified, investigated, categorised, tabulated and indexed. Furthermore, science has given the faceless men new tools of investigation and new means of recording information which they get. At the press of a button, it is increasingly possible to obtain a great deal of private information both about individuals and about us all as members of groups of one kind or another. If we are not careful we may soon go about our private occasions under the beady eye of the computer.
On 1st December, last year, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. JohnStevas)—to whom the House was grateful—introduced a Motion on the liberties of the subject. Since it was his aim to attack my hon. and right hon. Friends, he did not offer much substantial evidence to justify his Motion, but he could have done, for the State is one of the worst offenders in infiltrating into the private life of the individual.
All of us in the House would condemn the methods used by the Communist countries—by State agencies in those countries—to obtain information, but we have also witnessed what happened in the home of liberty—the United States of America—during Senator McCarthy's heyday. The point is that this kind of activity continues. Perhaps it gets less publicity today, because we have all come to live with the snooper, and we ask fewer questions about him.
The modern State needs information for various purposes—for social security reasons in the case of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security, in order to establish the appropriate welfare

53
pattern and to make adjustments. In the case of my hon. Friend's Ministry, the Ministry of Labour, the task is to place men and women in the right jobs. This means that a Government do and must amass a great deal of personal information about millions of people which could be used to their disadvantage. I am sure that my hon. Friend and my other right hon. and hon. Friends are conscious of the responsibility placed on them by the amount of personal information which they have, but the mere existence of this information can be a threat.
The test must be, is it all necessary? Obviously, if one is appointing a research worker in an atomic weapons factory his background is important, but I wonder whether it is always necessary to have the kind of background detail which I am told must be obtained when appointing people in other directions in Government service where security is not involved.
The second test must be: is the information available used in a way which threatens the liberty of the individual? Generally in this country, with some remarkable exceptions which have been brought to the attention of the House, this is not the case. The Prime Minister set a good example last year when he announced that he would order the practice of tapping Members' phones discontinued, but the dangers of Government prying are always with us, and the evidence of how these dangers have grown in other countries can give us no cause for comfort or ease.
However, Government agencies are ultimately responsible to someone. At least the investigations of the Ministry of Defence are responsible to my right hon. Friend, who has to answer ultimately for his Department. Questions may be and are asked in the House about problems involving the liberty of the subject in his dealings with Government. It is sometimes difficult to control their activities even then, but how much more difficult it is to control private agencies. It is these that concern me most.
Since the last war, there has been a great growth of private snooping, information gathering and, much worse, information distributing. This is now big business. Hire purchase companies,
54
credit firms and other trading organisations constantly seek information about present and prospective customers, often from the housing and health departments of local authorities. The man behind with his rent for some reason may be considered a poor credit risk, as may be the man who has had a recent illness. However, fortunately, most of these inquiries are met with a polite but very firm refusal.
But the credit rating system of the United States is rapidly being imported into this country on a scale which makes me shudder. The methods of agencies tracing debtors and assessing credit ratings, and therefore obtaining personal information, are sometimes deplorable. Hon. Members may have seen a report in yesterday'sSunday Mirror regarding a certain tracing firm. This firm employs teams to trace people who are in debt and, by careful use of the telephone, they can dupe local authority officials and even those in Government Departments into providing personal information, perhaps by suggesting that they are from the Ministry of Social Security or the local hospital inquiring about an accident or a personal problem, and then using the information to identify someone in debt.
The general manager of this firm, when interviewed, said that he had no knowledge of this, and we must take him at his word, but he went on to say:
" But we like to keep our operations somewhat quiet. I used to be in this business on my own, and we have some very keen rivals who would like to know our secrets."
So now we know. This gentleman is conscious of the growing competition to his firm from other inquiry and investigating agencies, which I suggest threatens us all.
However, prying in employment is the greatest danger, which should concern us all. I have here, for example, an application for employment form issued by one of the best-known and reputable retail organisations in Britain, employing thousands of people and with a considerable turnover. The application is for a job as a hire purchase debt collector. After all the usual requests for information like name and address, length of stay at that address, and whether one owns one's own house—all perfectly proper for

55
someone handling money—it asks the most impertinent question:
" If married, are you living with your wife/ husband?"
If this form were given to me and I was not desperate for employment, my answer to that would be "mind your own business."
This kind of investigation by private companies is growing. I am concerned about the amount of information which employers now apparently need—not merely to employ a senior executive, who may, after all, have to entertain other executives or prospective customers at home, but sometimes down to the level of the lorry driver or engineering fitter.
Black lists have always existed, of course. Throughout the history of the trade union movement, employers have tried to blacklist those who are a bit too active. Those who, like myself, have worked in the building industry, have known about this system and fought it. The names of active trade unionists were passed from firm to firm in the local employers' association, and it became impossible to get a job in that town. Many of my friends in the industry had to pack up, bag and baggage, and move home before the war to find employment, buy a new home, and keep their wives and families. This has always been going on.
However, perhaps we looked at it, as trade unionists, rather whimsically, because it was usually inefficient. The associations were localised and the information did not get around quickly, although some powerful employers were more efficient. What troubles us now is the growth and importation of American business methods, together with the science and technology which I mentioned, which has given the blacklister and the confidential industrial snooper new weapons. I do not suggest that many firms in this business are disreputable. I have come across a number, and the people who run them are honourable, operating under the impression that they are providing a perfectly honourable service.
In 1963, my noble Friend, now Lord Brockway, drew attention to the activities of a firm called Security Services, headed by a former Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. The firm had
56
previously been involved in counter industrial espionage, but in 1963 entered a new field. In its publicity material it offered prospective clients the following services:
" Supplying of undercover agents—a man planted among your employees to provide you with complete appraisal of unauthorised happenings … The following of vehicles used by employees in the course of their work … Reporting on any person who may be suspected of causing dissension or inciting employees to disaffection … The screening of prospective employees—a search into their antecedents and background."
As a result of the great deal of press publicity and the intervention of my noble Friend, this insolent circular was withdrawn. But in withdrawing the circular, the director of the company concerned made no apology whatever, believing, quite seriously that this kind of industrial service ought to be provided. How many similar activities are operating today?
These are difficult problems. It is true that dishonest people can move around from firm to firm and from job to job and can perhaps "con" one employer after another, and obviously an employer has to take action to protect himself against the industrial spy and against the dishonest person. But the question which we need to ask is, how far can we afford to let these agencies go in seeking information and providing it to potential customers?
The latest example of scientific blacklisting is offered under the "Name Records Research Index." In its publicity this agency claims:
"Use of the Records Research Index will therefore provide information faster than is provided by taking up references in the ordinary way—a practice which some companies have abandoned because of the poor value of the replies received, the expense of obtaining them and the frequent delay incurred in assessing the suitability of an applicant."
The suggestion is that the normal personnel procedure is not adequate for the job, and that those employers who have no adequate personnel facilities need not establish them if they use this firm's service.
The firms which subscribe to this agency can, on the payment of a small fee, check prospective employees against the index. I emphasise that this firm is a thoroughly reputable firm, providing what it considers to be a useful service. The director had the courtesy to come to

57
the House to meet me today and to discuss with me the problems of the kind of work which he is doing. He is an honourable man, trying to do an honourable business job, as he sees it. It is true that the information which is available to the prospective client includes only identification details—name, address, age, name of last employer, date of dismissal. That is all the information which is contained and, in theory at any rate, it does not seem too bad.
But perhaps I should explain how the service works. The firm which is a member of this agency and which dismisses an employee, say, for dishonesty, fills out a little card which is sent to the agency, and this becomes the basis of the information which will be fed back to another employer who may seek a reference on that person. The information is very limited indeed, and it is fair to say that some of the Press publicity which has been given is a little misguided. I think that this firm was unfairly criticised in that respect. But the definition of the kind of person on whom one ought to submit a card is:
" A person who has been dismissed or asked to leave for a criminal offence, for any wilful dishonest act, or for any wilful act prejudicial to the security of his or her employer."
I should be grateful if any hon. Member could tell me precisely what the latter phrase means. It could be used to include almost anything under the sun.
In its editorial, on 11th January, the Sun summed up the whole situation very well indeed:
" Even if the information is completely accurate, a black list like this is deplorable. Once on the list you are a marked man, not fit to be employed. You may already have been punished for your offence but you are still on the list. How do you work your passage back to respectability?"
If a man cannot work his passage back, what is there left for him? A life of crime? But would the information always be accurate? Some employers can be vindictive. In any case, very many other issues arise. Let us take, for example, the question of a cashier who has been suspected of dipping into the till or a milk roundsman whose books may not be quite straight. In some cases it is kinder quietly to ask the man to resign or to dismiss him rather than to prosecute and to have a black mark against his name. But how does this man ever get
58
the record straight? How does he ever show that the charge against him was untrue if no charge has ever been made in the open? I have always thought it a fundamental principle of English law that no man is guilty of an offence until he is proved to be so in a court of law.
Other issues arise. How does one get one's name off the list, or does it follow the unfortunate person around for the rest of his working life? I understand that this agency is considering setting a limit of three years or so, but the actual length of time has not yet been decided, and even three years is too long in which the unfortunate person is perhaps driven to distraction—three years during which he can be permanently penalised, if this kind of agency and this service grows and eventually covers the whole community. I do not necessarily criticise this firm, but I have visions of what might happen if this kind of service grows throughout the community.
Mr. David Winnick: Is there not a danger that this black list criticism could be extended to include Government Left-wing Members and trade unionists? I understand that Management Investigations Ltd. is run by a former Director of Military Intelligence. It could be used as a general witch-hunt against the Left.
Mr. Gardner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have no knowledge of the background of the gentleman in question, and, as I have no knowledge, I would not like to comment. I do not think that that is this firm's intention. In fact, in conversation today, he told me that that is not the case. But I agree with my hon. Friend that that is a threat which hangs over us all.
Mr. Winnick: Against the Left.
Mr. Gardner: There were problems in the building industry in London, problems involving some people who were thought to be particularly militant and who were suspected of going around from job to job, carrying their militancy with them. This is a very serious problem. How far ought we to go in combating something which we may not like? Should we go to the extent of condemning a man for ever more, perhaps for political reasons, but more likely for ordinary commercial reasons, simply because he

59
has once committed an offence and we know of no other way of solving the problem?
I should like to ask my hon. Friend for two assurances. First—and this is particularly important—to the best of my information the police do not normally disclose confidential information available on their files, but I ask for a categorical assurance that neither the police nor any public body will be permitted to provide personal information about individuals to private agencies of this kind. Secondly—and this is equally important, and I am even more worried about it—may I have an assurance that neither my hon. Friend's Department nor any other Government Department, nor, indeed, any public body in which the Government have the power to advise and intervene, will be allowed to use the services provided by this kind of private agency.
Perhaps I ought to go further and to ask my hon. Friend to discuss with his hon. and right hon. Friends in Government whether it is not time to set very close limits to the amount of private snooping, collecting of information and supplying of information which goes on in Britain at the moment, because there is much too much of it. Perhaps that might be done by some system of licensing, backed by a code of conduct within which such firms should be asked to operate. Clearly something will have to be done if we are to defend our liberties.
We ought to make it quite clear that these services, though possibly thought desirable on the margin, are not necessary and that we need not sacrifice our liberty for the sake of industrial efficiency. Competent personnel departments ought to be quite capable of assessing the employment capabilities of an individual and assessing his background. In recent years the provisions for recruiting and training personnel staff have greatly improved. My own friends in the personnel service, who have acquired a genuine professional status, tell me that they would be chary of passing on personal records to anyone within their own organisation, much less to anyone outside it. We can, therefore, feel confident that professional departments, manned by experienced personnel officers, are well
60
run and that the information collected remains secret.
Hon. Members can make a great deal of noise, both in the House and elsewhere, about this and other subjects and bodies like the National Council for Civil Liberties can expose the snooper and blacklister in defending our right to have what I would call anonymity—the right to walk down the street incognito.
In our last debate, an hon. Member reminded the House that we were only 17 years short of 1984. Today, we are a little over two months nearer that date. I fear that the matters to which I have drawn attention in my Motion may be but the portent of much worse to come, if we are not careful. It is said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. I hope that the House will agree that liberty at that price is still very cheap indeed.
4.32 p.m.
Mr. John Page: Hon. Members will be grateful to the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) for giving us an opportunity to debate this subject. The longer I am in the House the more I feel that the prime duty of every hon. Member is to defend the personal freedom of the members of his constituency and that that is, above all, his first and most important task. We in this House are the trustees of freedom, and therefore, when there appear to be abuses of freedom, it is important that we should have the opportunity of discussing them.
On the other hand, in view of the flowery words of the Motion, I was expecting the hon. Gentleman to give more examples of what he had in mind. He produced only three, two of which recently appeared in the Press and one of which was raised in the debate we had on this subject four or five years ago. Despite this, perhaps the hon. Gentleman has been pointing to a trend.
As presented by the hon. Gentleman, the discussion appears to be divided into two categories; the status reports provided by private organisations and others in connection with credit-worthiness and trade and the question of service and employment records in connection with employment. The hon. Gentleman did not mention those black lists and records which are kept locked in the two offices

61
just outside the Lobby, the keys to which are held by only the Chief Whips. Those documents might make extremely interesting reading, but would not be in order in this debate.
Hire purchase and other industrial credit business is now running at about;£1,000 million at any one time, a high figure in any calculation. If we agree with credit trading, which I do, it is obvious that traders must be allowed to defend themselves against defaulters. Otherwise it would be difficult for people who wish to obtain credit to get it. The Consumer Council has recently commented on the subject of credit status and has said that it is the duty of a trader to satisfy himself about the creditworthiness of a potential customer before entering into a transaction. The Council even holds that it is the duty of a trader not to allow a potential customer to obtain more credit than he can reasonably be expected to have. I believe that, in the latter view, the Council goes rather further than I would normally expect to go.
Easily the largest credit rating organisation is that operated by the United Association for the Protection of Trade, a non profit-making organisation formed 125 years ago. It has about 14 million names on its books. It is, therefore, truly a national register. It supplies information on credit to only its members. In addition to supplying that information confidentially, it also supplies confidential information about individuals and companies who have defaulted or have had judgments made against them. On no occasion does the Association issue a black list, although occasionally, I believe rightly, it notifies its members in certain districts if a new trick is being used—for example, a new trick to buy cars on hire purchase—or if a stolen cheque book or some other means is being used to obtain credit. This is, I suggest, a fair means of giving warning. There are a few other quite large private credit rating companies, which seem to operate satisfactorily, particularly those which are based on districts.
The hon. Member for Rushcliffe referred to a report which appeared in yesterday's Sunday Mirror about strong arm tactics and other sinister practices being adopted to discover information by a debt collecting company. I believe that
62
there are one or two small companies—the hon. Gentleman referred to them being spurred on by competition—which perhaps use practices such as calling to collect debts with an alsatian dog, or leaving outside the house a van loudly painted as belonging to a debt collecting firm. These practices are surely undesirable, and I suggest that it is up to national and local chambers of commerce and trade to keep an active eye on the types of agencies which may be used by their members.
I come to the more complicated and controversial question on individual employment records and references. As the hon. Gentleman said, when considering national security, it must be generally accepted that deep positive vetting is necessary in the national interest. However, I wish to mention a more difficult sphere and one in which I had a constituency case three or four years ago. This concerns those who have a special responsibility in the community for looking after—and this arose in my constituency case—particularly young people.
In the instance to which I refer, a man was arrested in my constituency for indecently assaulting a boy. It was later found that, at the time, he was holding the position of house father in a reception centre for delinquent boys. This is so wrong that it is obviously very much in the national interest that double and triple checking of references of people being employed to take up posts of great personal responsibility for individuals, particularly for young people, should be carried out. We must be prepared to submit personal freedoms to investigation in such circumstances.
Mr. Gardner: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I accept that in the kind of case he has mentioned this kind of confidential searching must go on, but could he distinguish between that procedure and putting this chap on some kind of list which says, "Do not employ him"'?
Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman has pinpointed a great difficulty. We want that man on the kind of list which says, "This man must not be appointed to any position where he has the care of young people." That is the great difficulty, and that is where the risk comes. I was only pointing it out as a problem area. It is a

63
case where the responsibility lies with the Home Office. The Home Office has to take great care and, if necessary, ask for police records to be checked.
It is in the general category of all those who work in business and industry and who are looking for jobs that the kind of black list which the hon. Gentleman described to us is most likely to be used, and would be unjust and very often disgraceful in its impact. The idea of there being a secret dossier which the individual concerned has no opportunity of seeing. and from which there is no appeal, is offensive, repugnant and objectionable. Except in the kind of cases I have mentioned, I would disapprove of its use.
If by a mistake in a credit rating in the commercial world a man is unable to buy a television set, it is not the end of the world. but if by a mistake which might well happen, or by a subjective report coming from a previous employer, a man is unable, possibly for most of his working life, to get a job, or the job of his choice, we are in a very dangerous position. I am told by people experienced in the employment agency sphere that employers can make mistakes of from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. in the records which they send in. Mistakes can, therefore, easily take place.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the only satisfactory way for an employer to examine the suitability of a prospective new employee of any status for the job he has in mind is for him to take up the man's references himself. This is quite easy for an employer who is employing two or three people, but it becomes more difficult if, for some reason, he has to take on 30 or 40 more employees.
If an employer were opening a new factory in a development area he might have to employ 500 or 600 completely new employees at one time. If the company did not have sufficient backing in its personnel department, it would be sensible and justifiable for it to put the whole problem in the hands of a personnel consultant, or an employment agency, who would then interview potential employees and take up their references on behalf of the client.
I hope—and this is the opening that the hon. Gentleman has created by rais
64
ing this subject this afternoon—that after this amount of publicity a sensible and good employer will insist that individual references are taken up in each case and that there is not merely an exchange of black lists by one agency with another, supposing those to be run. A point to be observed by potential users is that 8 million people change their jobs every year, and a register unless it were on some kind of a national basis, would be completely worthless.
Mr. Winnick: Can the hon. Member state quite clearly that he dissociates himself and his party from that form of black list against people who happen to be politically active on the Left—active or formerly active trade unionists? There is a black list operating now in certain quarters. Does he dissociate himself from such blacklisting?
Mr. Page: If the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps he can tell us about these black lists that he says operate in certain quarters, though they were not mentioned by his hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe.
The hon. Gentleman's intervention comes very appropriately, because I was about to bring up the question of the taking up of references for those who have been described by both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour as being out to make trouble in industry. I have here the report of a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour at Gillingham on 18th October last, in which he said:
" There is now little doubt that the Communist Party are plotting to make this a winter of disruption … They now, unhappily for the well-being of the nation, have entered into an unholy alliance with elements of the Trotskyist Party. Their aim, to destroy our hopes of economic recovery…"
A little later, the right hon. Gentleman said:
" Unofficial, or totally irresponsible, action in key industries threatens the livelihood of many other trade unionists, not only in those industries, but in many others."
In view of that statement, and as the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour have been pressed in the House to say who these troublemakers are, can we be told how it is considered that companies, particularly those taking on large new work forces in a development area

65
or elsewhere, can avoid employing these men whom both right hon. Gentlemen have underlined as troublemakers? We object to the secret blacklist, and I believe that this is the kind of information that employment exchanges would not be able to give.
Again, one finds difficulty when the ordinary reference system of personnel manager to personnel manager breaks down. It can happen that one personnel manager rings up another who is at present employing one of these troublemakers and asks: "You have a chap working for you named so-and-so who wants to work for me. What is he like?" In that case, the currently employing personnel manager will say, "He is a splendid chap. I shall be desperately sorry to lose him but, if he has to go, he has to go"—and then with great glee waits to hear that the man is no longer working for his firm. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to bend his mind to the thought that the employment of the troublemakers who are out to disrupt industry should be largely in the hands of the trade union officers in the particular neighbourhood. It would be they who would be able to advise a potential employer whether or not a certain man should be taken on.
Mr. Gardner: I am sympathetic to the point of view the hon. Gentleman is putting, but will he accept that some of us on this side of the House do not necessarily agree with either my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour about this large group of so-called troublemakers in industry? On at least one occasion I was dismissed from my employment on the ground that I was a troublemaker. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would venture his definition of the words.
Mr. Page: Many of us who have worked in industry can understand when men are out to make trouble in order to disrupt an organisation as opposed to men who are rightly, or possibly even wrongly, but in their own minds conscientiously and justifiably, fighting an attitude on the part of an employer with which they do not agree. I also feel that perhaps it is not really for me, in my humble position. to give this definition, considering that, on a number of occasions, the Prime Minister, I believe, and certainly the Minister of
66
Labour, have refused to give their own definition of what is a trouble maker.
Mr. Winnick Mr. Winnick rose—
Mr. Page: No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman enough. I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour to give us an answer on this definition and, since we on this side of the House are so often criticised for asking questions without giving answers, on this occasion I am, with some comfort, able to give exactly what our answer would be to this problem. It is that we should stop the cause of it at the base.
I believe that, when the new Conservative industrial policy is enacted and working, there will be fewer unofficial strikes, that official trade unions and their officers will have more respect and more power, and that trouble makers—and people may have different views as to what troublemakers are—will be less powerful and have less of an audience. A fresh wind will be blown through our industrial relations system by the new industrial courts, which will allow appeal against unfair dismissal or against bad treatment of an employee by his employer or trade union. All these things will so greatly improve the atmosphere in industry that the private agencies and private black lists, however strongly they may exist, will not in future have to exist at all.
4.53 p.m.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: My heart bled for the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) when he was skewered on the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner), because he was obviously in the gravest difficulty in trying to define whom he would regard as a troublemaker. That difficulty, of course, is at the basis of the difficulty about a black list. If there is a black list for the purpose of passing on information about who is or is not a desirable employee, someone has to assemble it. If that person is putting into his black list clearly ascertainable information, such as whether a man has had a previous conviction for dishonesty, he can note that as a fact. But if he is to put into the black list men who have not been clearly identified as being dishonest in this way but are merely suspected of being dishonest by a previous

67
employer, he is in the gravest difficulty because he is taking away a man's character and, indeed, if the black list is widespread, he is taking away any hope of further employment without giving to that individual the right of appeal to any independent, impartial tribunal or observer who can decide whether or not there is any justice in this character assassination.
Mr. John Page: The hon. Gentleman refers to skewers, to troublemakers and people who are dishonest. What would be his view of a man who had, so to speak, led 10 unofficial strikes in defiance of agreements and trade union rules over a certain period? Would that man be considered a troublemaker or not? I suspect that he would be by his trade union leaders and organisers in the neighbourhood.
Mr. Lyon: I have sometimes wondered whether Mr. Jack Dash is a troublemaker in that definition. He certainly causes real difficulty both for the managements and for the unions in the docks, but he is a representative of thinking among some of the men and the plain fact is that he would have no rôle to play if the management-labour relations in the docks were such as to eliminate the necessity for a Jack Dash. He is a symptom of something much more deep and as a result he may be a necessary reflection of the opinions of the men. In that sense, so far from being a troublemaker, he is a kind of valve which allows steam to get out in the open and tell the employers what is going on.
Obviously, therefore, there could be a difference of opinion about a man as notorious as Mr. Dash, whom most people would generally accept and regard as a troublemaker. One cannot lay down clearly definite classifications for individuals unless one is to pinpoint the known facts which are clearly ascertainable, such as a previous conviction. For this reason, black lists are extremely dangerous.
But what is wrong with a black list—and this is where we enter a subject in which I have taken a great deal of interest—is that it is an invasion of the privacy of the individual. It is not simply that it is assembly of known facts
68
about a man which can be culled by any future employer from Press reports or other easily accessible sources of information; it is an investigation into the background of an individual—into his friends, his marriage and his associates—in order that he can be determined as a likely or unlikely prospect for employment by another firm.
If that is true, it seems to me that this is yet another instance to support the case for some kind of law against intrusion into privacy. This is the third occasion in the last 12 months in which I have spoken in this House on a Motion of this kind and have urged that we should have such a law. It shows the infinite variety of abuses against which such a law would protect us. We should write into the English common law a right of privacy, a recognition of the individual's need to preserve some part of his life from the intrusion of other human beings. Privacy should be protected just as property is protected in the English common law.
We understand the concept of the protection of property. We talk about an Englishman's home being his castle and are very proud of that part of our English common law. It is part of our common law because, in the Middle Ages, that was all people understood about privacy. If one had a home, one could retreat into it, close the door and keep out intruders. That was all one required, because there was a little part of one's life which could be one's own and from which one could keep other people if one wished.
People can now overcome the boundaries of property in order to intrude into one's private life either by an investigation like this for a black list, or by use of mechanical and electronic devices, so that they can now investigate what is going on inside a house even though actually standing outside the property, or by sending newspaper reporters to find out what is going on and publish it in the Press. All these intrusions into privacy mean that the individual's area of life where he can keep himself to himself is being constantly invaded.
We shall never establish a real defence to a person's privacy until there is a general law. In the last 12 months, there has been some movement on this front.

69
The Nordic Conference of the International Commission of Jurists has produced a report recommending that in every civilised country there should be a right of privacy and spelling out in great detail what that right should cover and saying that it should cover this kind of abuse. The Law Commission in England has already held a seminar at Oxford where a number of jurists and people from the Press, television and radio and others interested in the problem produced a working paper, and it is hoped that the Law Commission will shortly be able to produce a report.
Justice, the British Section of the International Commission of Jurists, has had a committee considering the matter and I hope that it will be reporting some time this year. I understand that its committee on civil liberties is also to produce a report on this very problem in the near future. There is, therefore, a mass of information coming together from which it should be possible to evolve a sensible law which considers those who have legitimate purposes for intruding into the privacy of others, but nevertheless establishes the general principle.
I understand from the Press that a Select Committee was to have considered this whole problem this very Session. It was said that the Leader of the House was to establish a pre-legislation committee whose first step would be to consider invasion of privacy covering topics such as today's. I have been waiting eagerly and expectantly for the announcement of the setting-up of that committee and its terms of reference, but we have heard nothing yet.
I know that the reply to the debate is to come from the Ministry of Labour—I wish that it were coming from the Leader of the House—but if we can hear that this pre-legislation committee is likely to be appointed shortly and to begin to take evidence upon all aspects of the invasion of privacy so as to produce draft legislation which may be acceptable to the majority of hon. Members, we shall be getting a move on. It is about time that we did, because the organisation about which my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe is concerned is already beginning to build a large apparatus for its type of invasion of privacy. In the other aspects of its work, the countering of industrial espionage,
70
it claims to safeguard privacy and for that reason regularly sends me information about its activities, but some of its activities, particularly this, horrify me, because they extend invasions of privacy and do not protect the individual.
This kind of organisation is building up its operations as a commercial proposition week in and week out and until we have a workable law on privacy, this kind of operation will go on unchecked.
Equally, other invasions of privacy are proceeding apace and it is vitally important that the House should decide in the near future whether English law should be amended in this respect. I therefore hope that we shall have an affirmative answer from the Front Bench indicating that such an amendment is in prospect.
5.5 p.m.
Mr. Ray Mawby: I agree with the later remarks of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon). This subject is tremendously important. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) pointed out, as Members of Parliament our main duty is to look after the right to privacy and the independence of our constituents. We have many duties, but that is surely our major task. The growth of these organisations denies any cause for joy. They are seeking to provide a service which by their lights they regard as a good service, but if we were to have a Select Committee concerned with the right to privacy and the invasion of privacy, even to the point of being able to consider in advance legislation which might detrimentally affect that right for certain people, there might be many Measures which we would have seriously to reconsider. Some Measures, while helping the majority of people, do some damage to individuals, but if that damage is very small, it can be set on one side. Every day we have to balance the rights of the majority against any damage which may be done to a small minority.
The difficulty with all these organisations, however well they work, is not the definition of who is a trouble maker, but whether mistakes are made and perpetuated. There is no court or tribunal to rectify any damage. We all know,

71
the laws of slander and libel, but this sort of system is like a whispering campaign in which it is impossible to pinpoint where the damage is first caused and by whom. Even if that is discovered, it is impossible to prove that the person causing the damage did so maliciously, and the laws of slander and libel are therefore inoperative for a person affected by a record which is kept secretly and given only to the customer of the agency. Where there is no State investigation into the method of payment for getting information and there is no way of knowing how the information is obtained, there is great danger that the information will be wrong and will damage a person of the same name from another part of the country. As a result, the wrong man may be denied employment, or forced to live elsewhere.
That is why I believe that the growth of these concerns is to be deplored. There are people who will say that in certain respects these agencies do a first-class job, particularly with industrial espionage. A lot of industrial espionage is brought to an end as a result of the activities of these organisations, it is said. I still believe that the only secret organisations which should exist should be those employed by the Government and those under the very strict supervision of the Prime Minister of the day. It is obvious that any nation needs these services. Even they have to be under very close supervision. These are the sorts of things that we accept with reluctance, because we believe them to be essential evils.
I do not believe that these organisations are an essential evil. There are other methods by which an employer can ascertain the antecedents of a prospective employee. Because of that I deplore the existence of these organisations. How do we deal with them? How does one enact legislation to make certain that if they remain in existence the damage that they can do to individuals is reduced to an absolute minimum? The question of the invasion of privacy has been discussed at an international level by jurists, and I hope that we shall have something to bring forward to deal with this in a form of legislation which will protect the individual and his right to privacy without, as so often happens with the
72
Acts of Parliament which we pass here, doing exactly the opposite.
5.10 p.m.
Mr. Raymond Fletcher: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) for raising this question today. This House is always at its best when discussing the rights and liberties of the individual. If infringements of those rights and liberties affect only two individuals, the House is all the more magnificent in that it finds time to discuss those infringements. It is quite clear, as we gathered from his speech, that my hon. Friend has put his finger on a growing practice which I find not only unpalatable but positively dangerous.
I have no experience whatever of industry, but I do have some slight experience of the art of investigation. To remove certain doubts which might arise in the minds of my hon. Friends, I should say that the type of investigations with which I was once marginally associated, for a very brief period of my life, were entirely legitimate and were concerned with the kind of business activities mentioned by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page).
I see nothing wrong whatever in the practice in industry of industrialists investigating the credit-worthiness of their clients, or investigating certain other aspects of a business activity which may affect them. As the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) has pointed out, industrial espionage is now a much more serious problem than the James Bond variety of espionage. There are very old-established businesses engaged in this kind of activity, and I regard it as an entirely legitimate and necessary form of activity.
I was once marginally associated with it, and I know very well how a slight error arising from one conversation can creep into a whole set of reports which eventually produce a memorandum and the original error can be magnified in the final memorandum. Where there is no check, no kind of public activity that can be checked, where there is no kind of responsibility to a public authority, this sort of thing can occur. Many an organisation and many an individual can be damned for ever on the basis of something which, had it been made open and

73
obvious in the beginning, would have been corrected. This is the real danger. Private concerns, and I do not use the term "private" in any pejorative sense, are engaged in this kind of activity, supplying information to employers about potential or actual employees.
All sorts of errors can creep into those confidential reports, and in many cases do. To illustrate how a slight error can grow into a mountain of misrepresentation—I had better do it humorously, because we are all feeling slighty tired at this time of the afternoon—Mr. Malcolm Muggeridge, whom I sometimes think of as one of my own friends until he writes articles in the Sunday Press, and I change the appellation, once pointed out that he was once writing for the New Statesman one of those series of profiles which used to enliven that journal.
He was rather stuck for a phrase, and so he just drew out of the top of his head an observation that this particular gentleman, a well-known public figure, was rather fond of music. This crept into the cuttings. Newspapers keep cuttings files and each cutting represents previous cuttings. This gentleman, he may be on the opposite Front Bench for all I know, this gentleman's love for music, invented by Mr. Muggeridge, became an essential part of his public characteristic.
So far did this develop that finally no profile of this distinguished figure could appear without a reference to the number of times that he went to the Royal Festival Hall and studied the more abstruse forms of music, such as written by Schoenburg and so on. All this arose because Mr. Muggeridge had to fill in a sentence, and what started off as a tiny little observation assumed mountainous proportions, in this case to the obvious advantage of the public gentleman concerned, because it is always an asset to he known to be a lover of music.
When we consider that the profiles, or character studies, or essays, as we used to call them, essays about individuals, are built up in pretty much the same way—not by the same sort of people—far be it from me to suggest that Malcolm, or "St. Muggeridge" has he is now called, should do this kind of thing—one sees the danger. Two or three chance remarks can actually enter into a character study
74
and an assessment of an individual. This I suggest is when an initially slight error can accumulate over the months and years and produce a monstrous wrong at the end of them.
This is why I insist, and I hope that I always shall, that where any person's character comes into question the questioning should be done, as far as is humanly possible, in public, where allegations can be countered, where indictments can be met and where statements and misrepresentations can be corrected. It is no new thing for any Member of this House to feel that he is under a constant process of what I can only call "positive vetting". We are under the eyes of the newspapermen at all times; we are being assessed daily, our characters are being measured and un-measured sometimes in the Lobby; as we speak here or as we do not speak here. This is going on and it is sometimes embarrassing to us, because we are all sterling characters, to find that our own assessment of ourselves is not shared by our friends the Lobby correspondents. But we have the means to correct these mistaken impressions. It is a public activity and we have public methods of correcting misrepresentation.
But it is vastly different for someone in industry who might have made some rather wild remarks at a certain time in his life. Although I am a responsible, semi-public figure, I have made more wild remarks in my life than any Member of the House. Unfortunately, most of them are in print, and, equally unfortunately for me, many of them are frequently resurrected by my hon. Friends. I cannot help that. But imagine somebody who does not have my opportunities to correct the misrepresentations which arise from what was obviously, in my case, a very grievously misspent youth.
I come to my final point. This House spends most of its time considering legislation. I hold the rather archaic view that from time to time it has to discuss another matter of equal importance. There are some things which are simply not done—and I am afraid that I brand myself as a somewhat eighteenth century character when I use that phrase. The branding of people in secret by private organisations which affects their lives and the lives of their families is one of those things which we should say is simply not done. It

75
is not consistent with the codes and practices of a civilised democratic society. If we do no more than define the limits of what is permissive and say that certain things simply are not done, we render a service which the country has a right to expect from hon. Members.
As to legislation, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour has an impossible task. But every job which he has had to do since he took his job at the Ministry has been totally impossible; he knows that as well as I do. No member of the Government has or deserves more sympathy from me than the junior occupant of that large bed of nails, because in the nature of things the problems which he has to deal with defy solution by legislative processes in 99 per cent. of the cases. But I hope that we can have an authoritative statement from the Minister of Labour and his Parliamentary Secretary that certain practices are growing up in industry which are inimical to the rights and liberties of the subject and they should not be allowed. I hope that we shall get the full force of the Government Front Bench behind the assertion which is implicit in the Motion.
5.24 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley): My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) was courteous enough last week to tell me that, although he would deal principally in his Motion with blacklists in employment, he would also wish to deal in passing, or perhaps a little more than in passing, with other related practices which might be described as blacklisting. His courtesy gave me the opportunity of consulting my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Home Secretary on their views about the subjects which more properly fall within their responsibility than mine.
I begin by dealing with the points raised by my hon. Friend about local credit reference bureaux. This is a matter principally for the President of the Board of Trade and I have taken advice from him on it. As the House knows well, credit bureaux exist in many parts of the country. Their incidence and work are growing and spreading, for two reasons. Firstly, because, as hire pur
76
chase increases, local traders are increasingly in need of some sort of protection. Secondly, because, as hire purchase increases, local traders are increasingly in need of some simple and easy method by which that protection can be given.
My information is that such agencies may supply information of two sorts. First, there is the positive sort which tells a trader that a potential hire purchase customer has a satisfactory or, indeed, excellent credit record. Previous debts have been discharged on time and, therefore, he is in every sense the sort of customer who should be encouraged to take out a hire purchase agreement. Secondly, and I suspect more common is the information requested as a result of some doubt in the mind of the trader. When confirmed the information leads him to believe that the potential customer has a low credit rating.
I agree entirely with hon. Members on both sides of the House who have said or implied that a crucial factor in making a judgment about such services is the places from which and the ways in which the information is obtained. I am advised that in the case of credit agencies information is obtained in a variety of ways, not all of which are known to the Board of Trade. But certainly two sources are known. The first is the public records of county court judgments and bankruptcy cases; the second is trading records of existing or discharged hire purchase debts. I am advised that, while it would certainly be illegal for details of income or family or other personal matters, which may appear on hire purchase agreements, to be passed from hand to hand, there is no illegality involved in the simple reporting of a satisfactory or unsatisfactory completion of a hire purchase arrangement.
I take the view that an application for credit in any form—hire purchase, mortgage, bank loan or anything else—carries with it the overt or implicit assumption that some judgment must be made about the creditworthiness of the applicant. As long as such records are kept up to date and obtained only from appropriate sources and used wisely and prudently I believe, and so does my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, that they have two advantages. The first is that they give some much

77
needed security to credit traders. The second, and, in my view, perhaps more important, advantage is that they prevent families which are already in financial difficulties from taking on additional hire purchase commitments and, therefore, finding themselves in even deeper water.
I have said, and I happily reiterate, that one of the crucial facts by which we must judge any of these schemes is the way in which the information is obtained. This is as important in employment as it is in hire purchase. Several of my hon. Friends have expressed or implied disquiet about the possibility of Government sources being used to provide information for such registers. Let me make two points absolutely clear. There is not, and there never can be, any possibility of the Government's supplying information for such purposes. The second point, which is of equal or perhaps greater importance, relates to the relationship of the police forces with such registers. I know that my hon. Friend is to question my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about this on the 8th of this month, but, while he will receive more authoritative answers from my right hon. Friend, I think that the debate can be put in perspective only if the rôle of the police force in these arrangements is made very clear now.
As this matter is outside the responsibilities of my Department, I have received advice from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and what he tells me is this. The provision of information from police records is essentially at the discretion of the chief officer of individual forces and it is not a subject on which Ministers are able to give directions. But there are some generally accepted rules and limits. For instance, details of traffic accidents are regularly given to parties in subsequent civil actions. But certainly other information required by other private bodies for other private purposes is not and cannot possibly be divulged by police forces corporately or by individual officers of any force. The Information which a policeman, of any rank, obtains within the course of his duties comes within the scope of the Official Secrets Act. The Act binds serving officers and officers who have retired from the force inasmuch as they are still carrying with them—in a mental rather than
78
a physical sense—information obtained during their service. That binding is total and irrevocable.
While. an officer is a member of the force, his obligations are norm ally enforced by local police orders. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was kind enough to supply me with an extract from the local orders of the Metropolitan Police, the force for which it is the police authority. Those orders point out obligations which all members of the force have under the Official Secrets Act not to divulge to any person or agency information which they have obtained during their duties. By ignoring the orders and the Official Secrets Act police officers would be liable to the most serious penalties and I am assured that no chief officer would hesitate to institute proceedings.
The source from which information is obtained is, in my view, crucial throughout, and crucial in employment also. Before I deal with this, however, I should make it clear that I accept, as does my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, that a potential employer has the right to make sure that a potential employee is in all ways suitable for the job which he is about to do.
We certainly take the view that a potential employer has the right to take specific precautions in some specific fields—where, for instance, employment provides special opportunities for criminal activity, where there is access to large sums of money and where there is individual transport of or sole care over large packages or valuable consignments of goods.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) drew our attention to offences against the person about which special precautions would have to be taken. Certainly, I believe that where there is a chance that an individual is peculiarly susceptible to one sort of temptation or another, all reasonable steps should be taken to make sure that he is not constantly presented with that temptation. That seems to be no more than reasonable and no less than just.
It seems to me to be essential, therefore, that examination should be made of character and trustworthiness as far as an examination of previous industrial record can point those things out.
Mr. Winnick: Does not my hon. Friend consider that in many cases there is a great danger that a person who is known to be a non-manual worker and keen to attract other employees into a union would be regarded by a prospective employer as a troublemaker, because many employers are still not keen to have their employees, especially clerical staff people, organised into a union?
Mr. Hattersley: Having heard my hon. Friend's three previous interventions on the point, I have been warned that that is a point on which he requires an answer from me. I will give it to him before I finish.
The examination of individual suitability for a job is the purpose of references. That is what they are for. One of the agencies to which reference has been made claims that it does no more than make the reference system more efficient, that it speeds it up and makes the referee more forthcoming—providing a referee in a more satisfactory way.
Certainly, irrespective of that agency, there are a good many organisations which operate formally or, more likely, informally, which are certainly not controllable by the Government but which operate in some sort of locality and within a certain framework, passing informal information from personnel manager to personnel manager and from works director to works director, about the suitability of individual employees. Clearly, that is not a field in which the Government could intervene were they to choose to do so.
If an individual chamber of commerce discovers at its occasional meetings that names are passed of people who have performed a disservice to their company or who have been responsible for industrial misdemeanour, that is not something which the Government can legitimately talk about and certainly not something about which the Government can take practical action. When, however, the system becomes less informal, when it becomes at best sophisticated and when it becomes organised by private individuals offering the service wholesale and carte blanche,it is entirely appropriate that this House should consider it and that the Minister of Labour should have a view about it.
80
It was inevitable that my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe—indeed, many of those who have spoken in the debate—should draw our attention to the Records Research Index of Management Investigation Ltd., whose activities have been so widely reported in the newspapers during the last three or four days.
The intention of that service—and I have no doubt that this was its original intention—was to collect information about individuals and to supply it to employers. Their plans were changed by the discovery that if that simple purpose was carried out they would almost certainly be in legal difficulties and that to supply from one employer to another an account of why a man was discharged might result in the most serious legal penalties. It was for that reason that they limited their activities to a simple list of people. I quote from a report in The Guardian which said that all they aimed to do was to provide "a list of people dismissed in suspicious circumstances". They did not ask the original employer to specify the offence, nor for any details of whether it resulted in criminal prosecution, nor about previous records, but simply the fact that a person was dismissed in specific circumstances. The need to avoid a general description of the reasons for dismissal may well be a legal necessity but, clearly, it opens the possibility of the service being used for a variety of purposes which, I believe, all hon. Members, on both sides, would heartily deplore.
In the hope that I can give all the credit which is genuinely due to the organisation, I ought to say that the organisation is anxious that this should not happen and certainly believes that the cost of the service will prevent malicious notification. The cost of the service is £20 for 10 notifications. It is not my experience—and, I suspect, not the experience of some of my hon. Friends—that at £2 a time, malicious notifications will always appear to be too expensive.
Having said that, however, let me reiterate that certainly such notifications are not the intention of the service and are not in the minds of those who are running it. Indeed, in the notes for guidance which they circulate among participating employers, they ask specifically that the service should not be used for

81
frivolous or malicious purposes but should be limited
" for use against successful petty criminals … and should not result in a reference of a man who is a bad time-keeper, incompetent, … or in any other way not appropriate for this list."
I reiterate, however, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick), that the mere width of definition makes it possible for the service to be misused. It might be misused to include both the militant and the active trade unionist. In my view, the second category is always desirable and the first category is not invariably undesirable. It would be a tragedy were a service of this sort to be seen by unions as a possible threat against enthusiastic participating members. I emphasise it as a possible threat.
Some of the great industrial relations problems which it might cause would not only be caused when the service was used to prevent the employment of a practising trade union militant. Some problems might arise when it was thought that such services might be used to prevent the employment of a practising trade union militant. For those reasons, it produces severe problems in terms of industrial relations—and not only in terms of industrial relations.
It produces problems in terms of the re-employment of ex-prisoners. It is inappropriate for me tonight to go into the merits, demerits, problems and complications of resettlement of prisoners. But, clearly, there may be occasions when a man does not wish his prison record to be known and the knowledge of his prison record might militate against his successful rehabilitation. I feel that I ought to make it absolutely clear that in the experience of my Ministry successful rehabilitation often comes when an employer knows all the facts. But I must also make it clear that my Ministry certainly never divulges that fact without the agreement of the man in question. Certainly we would support the right of a man who has served a prison sentence to seek employment without necessarily having to notify the employer that that was the position.
As for the militant trade unionists, I suspect, as I imagine so does the House, that the rejection of a man as a result of a blacklist is in no small way asso
82
ciated with fears about the nature of the dismissal in the first place. Blacklisting may well often begin with what a trade unionist, or, for that matter, anybody else, regards as an unjust or inappropriate dismissal. It is our view that if the dismissal procedures in British industry were improved much of the fear of blacklisting would evaporate.
The House will know very well that my Minister's National Joint Advisory Council considered last year the whole question of dismissal procedure. It outlined the features of its ideal procedures, and it expressed the hope that voluntary schemes (some of which already operate) should be extended without statutory provision. It also noted that the Royal Commission on Trade Unions is about to report. It is in fact likely to report some time in the spring. That Commission has taken specific evidence on dismissal procedures. The N.J.A.C., like my right hon. Friend, hopes that, when that report is forthcoming, adequate dismissal procedures will become more general and more accepted, because of the encouragement of its reports. Then many of the fears we have heard outlined today will evaporate.
But even before the Royal Commission's report the Advisory Council felt able to lay down four indispensable features which any scheme should include. They are these: workers and management must know and understand what the dismissal procedures are; in appropriate cases the worker's trade union representatives should be consulted. Wherever possible decision should be taken above the level of the immediate supervisor. There should always be the right of appeal to impartial and senior sources, and that it should be built into the arrangements.
I say again that if the average British worker felt he could not be unjustly or unwisely dismissed most of his fear of blacklisting, which could be a consequence of unjust dismissal, would evaporate, and I hope that with the support of the Royal Commission and others we shall be able to extend that provision.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) must certainly be thinking it is about time I turned to the specific question he asked me at the end of his speech. He asked me what my right hon.

83
Friend and Ministry of Labour or, for that matter, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, really advise industry to do about what he described as known trouble makers. I have to tell him that I think our answer is a long-term answer—not quite as long-term an answer as that one described in the industrial Utopia he quoted, but a long-term answer, nevertheless.
Let me say first of all what we think certainly should not be the answer—that as a matter of civil liberties, as a matter of individual freedom, we should not assume that all members of, let us say, a single political party or a single organisation are automatically, ipso facto industrial trouble makers. That seems to me to be an illogical and indefensible assumption and in terms of civil liberties absolutely intolerable. Certainly if a trouble maker took action which amounted to an industrial misdemeanour of a form which was criminal, or very nearly so, everyone would expect industry to take stern and appropriate action.
But I believe that the long-term answer is, the encouragement in union members of faith and confidence in, and support for, their official leadership.
Mr. E. S. Bishop Mr. E. S. Bishop (Newark) rose—
Mr. Hattersley: I will give way in a moment. Secondly, the creation of an industrial organisation that makes that faith in, and that respect for their elected leaders more possible. Before giving way to my hon. Friend, let me give an example of what I mean. When I commended to the House an Order concerned with the decasualisation in the docks I agreed with many of my hon. Friends that one of the great virtues of that Order was that by creating permanent employment we made it possible for the London clocker to be employed in such a way that his shop stewards' organisation was a genuine link between him, the actual working docker, and his legitimate, elected, responsible trade union leadership. By this sort of industrial reorganisation we hoped to create in many industries enhanced status for the official union leadership which, in our view, will certainly result in avoiding the sort of trouble that there has been in recent years.
Mr. Bishop: Will my hon. Friend not agree that a so-called "troublemaker" might want and be able to make improvements resulting in great economic benefits? Looking back to the Tolpuddle Martyrs and William Wilberforce and others, we might have said that they were known troublemakers, but nevertheless, they were responsible for progress, which is sometimes obtained by their means and not obtained by official leaders?
Mr. Hattersley: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that such a term as "troublemaker" does tempt us towards many pitfalls. But I am sure that he will agree, and I am sure the House will agree, that the use of the term on the occasion he specifies and in relation to the persons about whom my right hon. Friend spoke had a clear and precise meaning. Certainly in that sort of case our long-term answer is to erode the troublemaker's power by making sure that the legitimate and much more responsible trade union leadership has a chance to lead and has a chance to lead reasonably and responsibly.
Mr. John Page: I do not want to press the hon. Gentleman unduly because I do not think it is fair to hang round his neck what the Minister said and the Prime Minister said, but I think we can take it that really he has no suggestion to put to the House how the potential employer, taking on a large group of new employees, could avoid employing a man whom he and his right hon. Friend say they could recognise as a troublemaker.
Mr. Hattersley: I certainly do not have any answer which involves one of two things, first of all his obtaining information about that man from sources which I regard as improper. Secondly, making judgments about that man which might be a reflection on his political opinion but not necessarily a reflection on his industrial responsibility.
I repeat that where there is a friction of misdemeanour, and difficulty, the employer must work with my right hon. Friend and the Ministry in creating the sort of industrial climate which minimises that sort of friction, minimises that sort of difficulty.
Finally, let me say what I think the Government's attitude should be, in relation to this new body, a body which has

85
clearly brought this matter to the attention of the House and the enthusiasm with which it has been received by British industry. It may well be that this will not be so serious or widespread as my hon. Friend has feared. British Industry Week published by the Confederation of British Industry was, to say the least, unenthusiastic. It reported that as a result of earlier Press comment some firms taking part in the scheme were reluctant to give their names as they knew how unpopular the service had proved
It may well be, therefore, that my hon. Friend is being slightly overzealous. But it is our view that to be overzealous in the cause of civil liberty is no bad thing. If one is to err on these occasions, certainly one should err in that direction. This is not a Resolution which we would urge the House of Commons to reject. It is the sort of Resolution on which the House must properly make up its mind, and one on which the Government is neutral, but benevolently neutral.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House views with grave concern the growth of private agencies which collect and provide confidential information concerning individuals, a practice which can only be described as blacklisting and which violates the principle that no person is guilty until proved to be so in a court of law, that no person shall be indicted without full knowledge of the indictment and that justice is a public activity and not a private pursuit; and accordingly urges Her Majesty's Government to seek ways of dealing with this manifest threat to the privacy and liberty of the subject.

DESERTED WIVES
5.50 p.m.
Mr. Gordon Oakes: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the plight of wives separated from their husbands and the urgent need to improve the enforcement and method of collection of maintenance orders.
Any hon. Member who obtains a place in the Ballot for Private Members' Motions is fortunate. In this Motion, I seek to direct the attention of hon. Members on both sides of the House—because this is by no means a party poli
86
tical Motion—to a section of the community which is desperately unhappy and desperately poor. It is a section of the community which is often forgotten because, although publicly and privately we have sympathy for the aged, the disabled and widows, very often little sympathy is given to wives who have been deserted by their husbands and who find themselves in the gravest financial difficulties.
We do not know exactly how many such wives there are or how many children they have. One can only assess the position, but the numbers are considerable. In a Report published by the Ministry of Social Security in the summer of last year called "Circumstances of Families", which goes somewhat intensively into the poorer-off sections of the community and their resources, paragraph 37 suggests that there are likely to be 100,000 such families with two or more children. That does not take into account those families with one child and those wives with no children who are deserted. So one can assess that the kind of figure in the United Kingdom with which this Motion is concerned is approaching half a million, if one considers the wives and all the children involved.
Since giving notice of my Motion, I have had many pathetic and tragic letters from wives who have been deserted and find that they cannot obtain the maintenance which courts of law have ordered to be paid to them. I do not want to deal with exceptional cases today, because this is a subject where there is no need to gild the lily. What I shall do is to mention a hypothetical but typical case.
The average wage of a man in manufacturing industry is about £22 a week. Let us suppose that he has two young children, which is an average family, and that he gives his wife £15 for housekeeping of that £22 a week, out of which she pays the rent and buys food, fuel, clothing for the children, and so on. Suddenly, that man deserts his wife. He may go off with another woman, he may just leave her, or he may have been cruel to her, with the result that she is forced to leave him.
First of all, there is the shock and numbness of the marriage suddenly ending. A widow, for example, knows that

87
her marriage has ended because her husband has died. The deserted wife, however, lives in a sort of married widowhood. Her husband has gone, her financial resources have gone, and for some weeks she gets no money except that which the Ministry of Social Security may give her as supplementary benefit.
Then she gets an Order from a magistrate's Court. That is usually based on something between a third and half of the husband's earnings. That is the usual rule of thumb assessment which courts use in deciding the maintenance that shall be given to a wife and family.
A typical order for the wife would be £4 a week, plus £2 per week for each child. From £15 per week housekeeping, suddenly she drops to nothing, and then, when an order is made, to a figure which is just over half that which she received previously. However, still she has to pay rent and buy food, fuel and clothing for the children. All that has happened is that she has one less mouth to feed. The rest of the family has to be cared for still.
In my Motion, I suggest that this subject requires the urgent attention of the House. I do that, first, because of the desperate state in which deserted wives find themselves, where every day is another day's misery. It also deserves attention because we as a nation have been engaged in painfully pruning Government expenditure, and improved means of enforcement would save the Home Office considerable sums of money which are now wasted by committing to prison those husbands who do not maintain their families. In addition, it would save the Ministry of Social Security something in the region of £24 million a year which it pays to wives and their families whose husbands default on maintenance orders.
Another reason why the matter needs urgent attention is because of the excellent Bill introduced by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) which increases the amount of maintenance which can be given to a wife, an illegitimate child, or the child of a family. However, that Bill is so much waste paper unless there is adequate enforcement machinery so that the money is paid to the wife and family.
At the moment, two Government Committees are considering related problems
88
closely connected with this subject, which again points to the urgent need for this House to consider it. The Jean Graham Hall Committee has just reported on levels of maintenance, and the Payne Committee, is considering the enforcement of civil debt.
A great deal of attention is focused at the moment on the Bill dealing with the reform of our divorce law, which is to come before the House on Friday and will be promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. William Wilson). However, this is the time to remember that although divorce might seem to be the end of matrimonial troubles, often it is only the beginning. Certainly it is frequently the beginning of financial troubles, and in fact very many High Court orders are enforceable through magistrates' courts, rather than through the High Court.
Let us consider now the wife whose housekeeping money was £15, and who finds that it drops suddenly to £8 on a court order. There are difficulties which she has to face if her husband complies with it, and even greater ones if he does not.
First, apart from the financial difficulties, there is the difficulty of collection if her husband pays the order regularly. The wife has to go to the court, usually at a fixed time during ordinary working hours. Many courts will not send the money by post, except in cases of special hardship or difficulty, and sometimes not even then. They will not even inform a wife who telephones whether money has been paid into court. When she goes down to the court, she has to queue with people, some of whom are paying fines, some of whom are reporting for probation, and many of whom are husbands—sometimes including her own—who are paying money in at the time she is taking it out. Meeting the husband at the psychological moment when he is paying money into court is hardly conducive to any good relationship or any desire on the part of the wife to go to the collecting office. For many wives, the moment of collection is a dread in their lives for the whole week. However, they have to do it because they need the money for themselves and their families.
With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will quote the words of a very

89
eminent social scientist, Professor O. R. McGregor of Bedford College, London University, who has recently conducted a very intensive study on the question of maintenance payments both for illegitimate children and deserted wives and their families. This is a quotation from a speech that he made at the Annual General Meeting of the National Council for Unmarried Mothers and their Children in September of last year, in which he said:
" If you wish to see misery and unhappiness queueing up before you in an abject parade, visit the Court Collecting Office. There are often very grave difficulties facing women who are collecting their payments. Some Courts, for example, will not allow them to telephone in advance to discover if there is any money there for them; they have to come to the Court. This is troublesome and expensive—particularly if it means losing half a day's work. Only a very small number of Court offices are open for payment or collection outside working hours. Some collecting offices open for only short periods on two or three days a week. Some Courts won't send money by post unless there are very special circumstances, such as illness, and in only a very small minority of Courts is there a separate collecting office for dealing with maintenance payments. Normally women and husbands and fathers have to go along and pay in the money or take it out by joining the queue with those paying fines and the rest.
"I am not reciting these details of the sort of administrative difficulty that it is very easy to forget about in order to criticise the Courts. It is not that the Court officers are unsympathetic or neglectful. It is very largely that they are desperately understaffed and have to restrict and impoverish the services that they supply because they have not got the staff to provide a better one. You may think that this sort of detail is trivial. It is not. These are the sort of trivia that measure for human beings—most of whom are very poor and most of whom are very unhappy—the difference between dignity and rejection, decency or squalor."
They are the very stirring words of an eminent social scientist who has studied this problem deeply.
The first thing that I want my right hon. arid learned Friend to answer is: why cannot the method of collection at the court office itself be humanised and improved? Why, for example, where a husband is paying an order regularly, cannot that order be paid through a bank so that the wife can collect it from the bank and he can pay it in by standing order, if necessary, and the court can have proof of whether he is paying in by a copy of the bank account? It would relieve
90
pressure on the courts, it would help the husband by saving him from having to take it in, and it would infinitely spare the wife the misery of queuing to take it out.
I have been talking about the fortunate wife whose husband pays regularly. What if he pays irregularly or not at all, as is the position in the vast majority of cases under court orders? She then has to take out a warrant. She often faces great delay in obtaining the warrant and there is delay in serving it because of difficulties in locating her husband or only on a Saturday.
Mr. Kenneth Marks: If at all.
Mr. Oakes: If at all, as my hon. Friend said. A constituent of mine pointed out that she had been sent from the Ministry of Social Security to the court to take out a warrant. On arrival at the court and being asked where her husband was, she said, "I do not know", whereupon the court officer said, "How do you expect us to serve a warrant? You ought to know." But she did not know, and she had no means of knowing. Therefore, she had to go back to the Ministry of Social Security where she was asked why she had not taken out a warrant.
These are the sort of difficulties that a wife finds herself in—like a ping-pong ball going between one office and another almost begging for money and now knowing where her resources will come from.
As a result of this delay concerning warrants, many husbands owe hundreds of £s—sometimes over £1,000. These are the type of arrears which can accumulate and frequently do in magistrates' courts, because of the delays and difficulties in the present administrative system.
Suppose my hypothetical wife takes out her warrant and she and her husband appear in court. What then? There are three courses. The first is that the husband is ordered to pay the arrears—sometimes hundreds of £s—at a derisory amount of perhaps 10s. per week on top of the order. He probably will not pay it, because he did not pay the order in the first place. Sometimes the court will remit a large part of the arrears, not because the husband could not pay at the

91
time, but because it seems too burdensome now. What ever the court does in that regard, the wife has lost that money forever, because it will never be paid to her.
Secondly, the court may make an attachment of earnings order. In this House some years ago we thought that might end our difficulties. It does not, because if an attachment of earnings order is made the husband has only to change his job and the wife is back to square one. She has to start all over again by obtaining another order from the court against the new employer. So it goes on and on, with delay and worry and poverty for the wife during the interim.
The third remedy the court employs is probably the most ridiculous of all. It sentences the husband to 42 days imprisonment. When the husband comes out from serving his 42 days' imprisonment that debt is unenforceable against him. It is still an order against him, but it is unenforceable because he has served six weeks in gaol to cover that debt, and it costs the country about £16 a week to keep him in gaol for those six weeks, as well as the cost of social security benefit to his wife and family during that time.
These are the problems. What are the solutions that I suggest? First and foremost, something which will cost nothing, and I know will appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend at the present time: much more flexibility by court officers; more awareness of the problems that these deserted wives have to face; and certainly the consideration of collecting orders paid regularly through a bank instead of to the magistrates' courts, which should relieve the burden on the courts and also the anxiety on the wife.
Another thing that deserted wives desperately need is advice. Often orders made in the early 1950s, and sometimes before, are for what today are trivial amounts, but at the time were considered adequate—say, 30s. or £2 per week. If a wife has never applied to have the order varied, she still lives on that amount of maintenance, even though the husband's earnings have gone up twofold or threefold since the order was made.
I think that courts should advise wives who have old orders that they may have
92
the right to vary them to a more reasonable and modern level. I think, too—and perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will deal with this when he replies —that legal aid committees should grant wives legal aid for the variation of an order. They have power to do so, but rarely grant it because they argue that a variation is only a matter of figures, no law is involved, and therefore a wife need not be represented by counsel or a solicitor. But the husband often is represented, because he can afford a solicitor and counsel, and little justice is done when a wife appears herself and applies for a variation order when all the legal battalions are ranged against her on behalf of her husband.
The third thing which I would like my right hon. and learned Friend to consider is the more speedy issue of warrants so that vast arrears do not accumulate. A warrant shold be issued by the court, instead of the wife having to sign a warrant and take it out, where there are arrears of £10, in the same way as the court would recover a fine. This is, after all, a court order which has not been paid, and therefore it should be the clerk's responsibility, when a certain amount of arrears has accumulated, to enforce the order without bringing the wife to court to do it.
There should be closer liaison between the Ministry of Social Security and the court office. Somebody at the court, or at the Ministry, I care not, should be available to advise the wife of the many other benefits to which she may be entitled, such as free milk, free school meals, clothing, and so on. In other words, there should be someone to assist her generally, because she has no one to whom she can turn, and no one on whom she can rely. Someone ought to be appointed to do that job. Perhaps one of the Ministry's officers should have this responsibility, apart from the general responsibility of advising those who need supplementary benefit.
What I have proposed would not require legislation, and would not require a lot of money, but I suggest that there is an ultimate solution to this problem which goes much deeper. It is that when a husband defaults, and the wife is in receipt of supplementary benefit from the Ministry of Social Security, the magistrates should have power to make

93
an order enabling the wife to collect the appropriate sum of money from the Ministry each week, and the Ministry should have power to deduct that money from the husband's employer. This would ease the burden for the wife.
It would save the Exchequer a lot of money which at the moment it spends on keeping a person in prison for, say, six weeks at State expense. It would relieve the Ministry of Social Security of a tremendous burden, about £24 million a year, which it now pays to the wives and families of husbands who have failed to meet their commitments under an order. It is true that the Ministry would not get back £24 million, because some husbands may be out of work, or sick, but the sum involved is not much less than that which the Government expect to save by the imposition of prescription charges. This would, of course, require legislation, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider introducing it to permit the Ministry to deduct the money at source, and to pay it to a deserted wife and her family.
I have spoken for longer than I intended. I would have liked to have discussed the problem of the unmarried mother and her child, which is akin to the issue under discussion today. I would have liked, too, to have discussed the ridiculous situation in which both the husband and the wife find themselves on the question of Income Tax. If we were to consider the income of the child, and not of the mother, we might ease many of the problems which exist today. There is, too, the problem of benefit where the husband is out of work, or is receiving sickness benefit, or wage-related benefit, and where this creates difficulty for the wife. Perhaps other hon. Members will discuss these issues.
I conclude by reminding my right hon. and learned Friend that at the beginning of this Session, in the Gracious Speech, the Government promised that during the Session they would look into aspects of family law. I suggest that the topic under discussion today is an aspect of family law involving the forgotten poor, the desperately needy, and the desperately miserable, which urgently requires the Government's attention.
6.15 p.m.
Mr. Norman Miscampbell: It is a pleasure to congratulate
94
the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) on his choice of Motion. It is a particular pleasure to congratulate him on what those who have been here this afternoon have heard, a comprehensive speech lit by sympathy and obvious knowledge. The importance of the problem is surely recognised by anyone who has had occasion to go to the matrimonial courts, and I intend, in this short intervention, to confine myself strictly to a review of what we can do to make the collection of moneys due under these orders more efficacious and certain.
When one goes to a matrimonial court, one is impressed with the care with which the magistrates apply their minds to the decision about whether an order should be made, but one is also conscious that on other occasions, when they are discussing arrears of orders, or why money has not been paid, they show considerable reluctance in dealing with the problem, because they know all too well that they are trying to solve a problem which is almost insoluble, and they are trying to do something which they have little or no power to enforce.
On occasions one is awed at the amount of arrears involved. The husband may be earning £15 or £20 a week. and perhaps by this time keeping another family. The magistrates can do nothing but write off some of these arrears, perhaps by as much as £100, £150 or £200. This is all very well, but the poor deserted wife watches money being written off which could well come to her, and which she needs.
The other perhaps no less important facet of this difficulty of getting payment is that so often the original sum awarded is less than just. It is agreed to by the wife, or by her counsel or solicitor, in the hope that the lesser sum will be paid, rather than go for what she is really entitled to, in the certain knowledge that there will be default in the near future.
Reference has been made to the size of the problem. The figure that I have been given is between 300,000 and 400,000. The hon. Gentleman thinks that 500,000 people are involved. We know that it is costing £24 million a year in social security payments to those families who are not being properly supported by their husbands. The Ministry

95
has to pay, and on Friday of this week we are to debate a divorce Bill which, if approved by the House, will mean that more and more payments such as these will become due under court orders.
How can we cope with the reluctant payer and, more particularly, how can we cope with the reluctant payer who reinforces his reluctance by making sure that it is very difficult to find him by moving from job to job? I have at least one temporary solution to the problem—and I emphasise that it is a temporary solution. I do not see why it is not possible to mark the employee's stamped card with a simple endorsement. This would move from employer to employer. The employer would simply be required to notify the court which was endorsed on the card that the man was employed in Bolton, Blackpool, Liverpool or wherever it might be. The employer would be asked to do no more than that. The court which was looking after the matter would receive immediate notification that the man had changed his job. We should not hide behind the undoubted reluctance on the part of the Ministry of Social Security and others to use that procedure, because a great deal of our money is at stake. It would help if there were immediate and up-to-date knowledge of the man when he moved from job to job.
But that must be a temporary expedient. The hon. Member for Bolton, West made some useful suggestions, and I shall echo some of them. but clearly the fundamental change which must come is that collection must be made by the State from the defaulting husband. I first considered whether it would be possible to use his insurance card by putting on an extra stamp or by so marking the card that the employer took the money directly from the man and sent it to the appropriate authority or the appropriate court, but eventually I came to the conclusion that this would not be the best way of tackling the matter for two quite simple reasons. First, we must recognise that employers do not welcome extra clerical work and do not welcome taking money from employees for matrimonial or other reasons. They do not want to be debt collectors. Secondly, there would be a clear disinclination by employers to take on men who were in
96
those circumstances—and for the man who is paying for two homes, a job is vital. On balance, therefore, that method would be wrong.
It seemed possible not to ask employers to take money from the man but to see that higher contributions were made by the man by putting extra stamps on his card. The money would be recovered in that way. On reflection, however, that would mean that many different stamps of different denominations would be required, and that could lead to endless complications.
In the end, I concluded that by far the best solution was that on which the hon. Member for Bolton. West touched: once the order has been made by the courts, the payment should be made directly to the Ministry of Social Security either through its offices or through the Post Office or by whatever administrative arrangements appear to be the most convenient. It certainly should not be made through the court if we can possibly avoid it. I am reinforced in my view that this is the best arrangement by the fact that at present if the man does not pay, then in nine cases out of ten the Ministry pay, because they have to find any additional assistance which must be given to the family, who are often in financial difficulties. It is therefore not asking the Ministry to do something which they are not doing already. It is simply recognising the practicalities of the situation.
If the Ministry are to pay then, through their solicitors, or officials—and it need not be a solicitor—the Ministry should go to the court to enforce the order. One of the difficulties is that time and time again the wife goes to court, often at the instigation of the Ministry of Social Security, but on each occasion the case is heard by a different bench, there is no continuity, and no bench knows about the promises the man made last time and what he said about getting a job. It would be much better if the Ministry themselves conducted the case in court.
Lastly, the Ministry must take steps to get back the money due to them, and the most simple way would be to use the Income Tax procedure, which means an alteration in the P.A.Y.E. code so that it covers the amount awarded against

97
the man. The employer would be asked to do no more than he does already. He would simply apply the code to the Income Tax. I know that it always is the objection—and no doubt will be the objection on this occasion—that we must not use the Income Tax system to enforce private debts or any debt which is not strictly between the taxpayer and the taxing authority. I entirely agree that if the Payne Committee suggested that this was a good system of collecting civil debts, I should oppose that suggestion, but we can make a clear distinction between debts arising from hire purchase and those arising from social obligations by a man to his wife and family.
I hope that a solution on these lines could be found, particularly because this is a time when matrimonial relationships are becoming more lax. I will not go into whether that is right or wrong, but it certainly makes it important that we should safeguard the results of these marriages by stricter financial discipline. Because of the Motion, the House has had an opportunity to debate this important matter, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, West on bringing it before the House.
6.27 p.m.
Mrs. Lena Jeger: Perhaps a woman may be allowed to get in a few words edgeways in this important debate. I am sure that thousands of women are deeply indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) for bringing this important matter before the House. The time is so short that I can make only two brief points.
First, it is time that we took the whole question of the payment of maintenance orders away from the courts. To the ordinary person the courts have an atmosphere of criminality. They are the places where one goes when one has done something wrong. It is outrageous, degrading and barbaric that we should attach to the tragedy of a broken marriage the criminality of these court procedures, which continue week in and week out, possibly through the whole lifetime of two people who have already gone through the trauma of a broken marriage. I agree very much with what has been said—that the money should be collected either through the Ministry of Social Security or through the Post
98
Office. These women ought to have an order book like the family allowances book, which can be cashed and which entitles them to money over the counter without their having to hang around the courts. The present procedure is degrading to them and time-wasting, it is bad for their children, and it is most wasteful of the time of the officials concerned.
The situation is that, whether the Ministry of Social Security want to take on any extra work or not, in fact they are already doing a very large proportion of the maintenance work. The latest year for which I could get figures is 1965, and I should be glad of more recent figures. In 1965, the National Assistance Board, as it was then, paid out over £32 million to deserted and separated wives, and they managed to get back from the husbands concerned only £2,700,000. In other words, the Ministry's funds are being used to keep these families.
Why is that? One of the reasons lies in the simple economic fact of the situation that one wage packet does not divide into the maintenance of two families. Many magistrates know that when they make the order and they know that any attempt to increase the payments from the husband will lead only to the impoverishment of two families. Again quoting 1965 figures, the National Assistance Board helped 104,000 separated wives, of whom 43,000 had maintenance orders; 21,000 of those were being regularly complied with, 15,000 not complied with at all, and 7,000 irregularly complied with. These figures suggest that the whole system is breaking down and that we are continuing an illusion in maintaining the machinery of court orders and attempting the disengagement of the Ministry of Social Security from the heart of the matter. I know that my right hon. Friend does not wish to be regarded as running a Ministry which is mainly a debt-collecting agency, but to a large extent that takes place already.
A more fundamental question which I wish there were time to discuss this afternoon concerns the whole question of the married woman's insurance status. The Beveridge Report went to the heart of this when it said in paragraph 347:
" But from the point of view of the woman, loss of her maintenance as housewife without

99
her consent and not through her fault, is one of the risks of marriage against which she should be insured; she should not depend on assistance."
There are other references in that Report to insurance against the ending of marriage, whether through the disaster of widowhood through the kind of separation and breakdown which we are discussing.
There will be no sense in this situation until we reconsider the Beveridge proposals for the recognition of housewives as a distinct insurance class of occupied persons, with benefits adjusted to their special needs, including widowhood and separation provisions. That is essential, We are just toying with the periphery of the problem unless we recognise that the breakdown or ending of a marriage through widowhood or other circumstances creates a new relationship of a woman to the National Insurance arrangements which we make.
I hope that, in spite of the shortage of time and the pressures on the Government, consideration will be given to changing the insurance status of the married woman. I hope also that maintenance orders, separation orders and payments can be taken away from the courts and given to the Ministry of Social Security where they belong.
6.34 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Buck: The whole House is grateful to the hon. Member for Bolton, West(Mr.Oakes)of having moved this Motion, and he knows that probably all of us on both sides of the House share his strong feelings on the subject. No one has stronger feelings about the matter than my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), who sends his apologies to the hon. Gentleman and the House for the fact that pressing Paliamentary business of a different kind prevents him from attending.
He at any rate has been able, as the House knows, with the help and co-operation of both sides, to take practical steps to do something about this problem. His Maintenance Orders Bill, which has been through Committee, will assist here by increasing the amounts which can be awarded so as to enable the courts, in dealing with the hon. Member's first category—the fortunate ones for whom
100
an order is made, which is found to be enforceable and is paid by the huband—to make more adequate orders where the financial circumstances of the man permit.
Where I quarrel with the hon. Gentleman slightly is that it is being found that courts are making more considerable orders where the money exists than in the example he quoted. They are moving from the one-third rule, and this is desirable. Perhaps we should consider laying down in legislation a formula to guide the courts; but it is my experience and that of other hon. Gentlemen that the courts are awarding more than a third of the joint income, which used to be the almost invariable rule.
I am particularly grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because all of us involved in the courts and those of us who have constituency surgeries and advice bureaux come across this problem very often. It is a pitiful situation for many of these women. I would like to hear the Solicitor-General's views at the end of the debate. We cannot in this short debate formulate all possible alternatives, though some interesting suggestions have been made.
However, perhaps the Solicitor-General can give us some information about the Payne Committee. It has been sitting for a long time. No doubt he will tell us exactly when it was set up. Before tackling this problem, we need the benefit of the close consideration which presumably it has given this subject. The whole tenor of the debate has shown the complexity of the issues involved.
The hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) suggested that this should be taken out of the ambit of the courts. One has sympathy with this, and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) made some interesting suggestions also. These are difficult matters which demand detailed research and it is clear that something must be done. Let the Solicitor-General call upon the Payne Committee, as a matter of urgency, to submit an interim report containing its views. It must by now have a plethora of information and should be able to make up its mind. It should give its ideas on this most important branch of debt enforcement which is causing so much distress. The position in some

101
cases is near breakdown, so I would urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to call upon the Committee for an interim report as soon as possible, in the next few months, so that we may have proper and detailed information.
Similarly, I hope that he will give us some information on the details which have been raised. The staffing of court offices which deal with the problem is in a serious state. I would be grateful for figures showing to what proportion they are understaffed, since the position varies greatly. Some courts, because their staffing is somewhat more favourable, can deal with the problem with more humanity and flexibility, but I was alarmed to hear that others will not respond to a telephone call. This appals me. Those of which I have had experience are willing to respond to a telephone call from a wife to see if money is available, although I accept from hon. Members opposite that there are court offices which cannot respond even to this. We should hear about the staff position. If it is desperate, as it must be in some areas, what is proposed to be done about it'?
We would like to hear the Government's general thinking on this matter. It is a nonsense that the ultimate deterrent is to send a man to prison for 42 days so that he can purge his contempt. It may be all right for the State but it is of little assistance to the wife to have her husband sent to goal for 42 days, but this probably costs over £100. The wife is thereafter unable to enforce the arrears of maintenance. This situation cannot be tolerated for much longer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpoll, North raised the fundamental question of husbands who seek to evade responsibility by going to another part of the country. He had some interesting ideas to deal with this. But there is one category of deserting husband who makes his position even more secure than the man who goes to another part of the country to earn his living, namely, the man who goes abroad. At the moment we have a degree of reciprocity with certain other parts of the Commonwealth, but it is a cumbrous system and is not working very satisfactorily. I shall not lab our the House with the details.
102
If a man deserts his wife and goes to another Commonwealth country he is liable to have these enforcement proceedings brought against him, but increasingly, with the mobility of lab our within Europe, the problem arises of people who desert their wives and go to the Continent. I have had two cases in my constituency. This may be happening at a quite high level. Now that we have more and more international companies a man can obtain a considerable position on the Continent —perhaps earning £3,000 a year. If such a man deserts his wife and children, as far as I know there is no way of enforcing the upkeep of his wife against him when he is abroad and she may be forced on to what used to be called National Assistance.
I should like to know the Government's thinking on this matter. There ought to be treaty arrangements with European countries. There would have to be reciprocity, but I can see no objection to that. I should like to know whether anything has been done to get this under way. British companies are forming subsidiary branches in France, Germany and Switzerland to an increasing extent, and many people from Britain go there for employment. If they desert their families to do so no one can touch them.
I should welcome an assurance from the Solicitor-General that he will have talks with his right hon. Friends the Lord Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary with a view to making treaty arrangements, with reciprocity, so that we can deal with this increasing category of men who are outside any Act. Under the procedure in this country we have some hope of getting something from a deserting husband, but when he goes abroad there is no hope. This matter should be rectified. It is urgent.
Everybody would feel that the first charge on a husband's income should be the upkeep of his wife and children. At the moment too many people are able to evade their responsibilities. The mechanism to deal with the problem is, to say the least, creaky. The system is not working well. I should like an assurance from the Government that something will be done about it quickly.
6.45 p.m.
The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): 1 am sure that I speak for the

103
whole House when I say that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) has done a service by bringing forward for our consideration the problem of deserted wives. As I listened to him I felt that the quality of restrained eloquence in his speech made it most agreeable.
My hon. Friend has drawn attention to a group of people in our society which is specially subject to hardship and which deserves special attention. He has made clear his view that all too often the existing machinery enables a wife to recover only a small amount of money from the deserting husband, and that such money as is recovered is often colts collected only with undue difficulty. My hon. Friend suggested that the existing machinery of enforcement, by means of attachment of earnings orders and committal to prison, was broadly much less effective than it should be, and that the machinery of collection aggravated the misery of the deserted wife.
In the latter connection my hon. Friend referred to an address on the subject recently delivered by Professor 0. R. Mc-Gregor which, by its content and character, attracted the sympathetic attention of the House. My hon. Friend's basic proposition was that orders should he based on family needs and paid, where-ever possible, by the Ministry of Social Security, which would be responsible for collecting equivalent sums from the deserting husband. I propose to deal with that question at a later stage.
This concept obviously attracted my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) and the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell), but first I want to deal with some of the rather narrower administrative points which have been raised. In doing this I am conscious that it may appear that I am not as responsive as my hon. Friend would like me to be to some of the points he has made and the criticisms he has leveled about the existing system. I can assure him and the House that I am responsive on these matters. If I bring forward certain factors which rather go the other way, my purpose is to try to give a balanced picture of the way in which this procedure operates, so that the situation can be seen as a whole. Although I do not
104
underestimate the tragic situation in which many deserted wives find themselves, I can say that efforts are made in a variety of ways to mitigate their difficulties, and it is right that in order to present a balanced picture I should refer to some of them.
My hon. Friend proposed that there should be more flexibility in the arrangements for payment by postal cheque. He spoke of the need to improve the method of collection. Under the existing law this is a matter for individual courts. Under Rules 32(2) of the Magistrates Court Rules, 1952, it is provided
" that a clerk to a magistrates' court may send by post any periodical payments to the person entitled to them at the request and at the risk and expense of that person."
Under these provisions a number of payments by post are made, but the House will realise that the courts are not necessarily acting unreasonably if they refuse to make use of this provision. It often happens, in their experience, that a woman who has no bank account finds it difficult to encash a court cheque near her home, or to do so without embarrassment as to its origin. This matter gives rise to highly personal factors which it is right to bear in mind. Moreover, it is important for accounting purposes to ensure that the money is being received by the right person and that receipts for payments are obtained.
It has been found that the making of payments by post involves complicated administrative machinery. The House will appreciate that the burden on the staff of a court, which may be administering as many as 2,000 maintenance orders, is considerable. I understand that courts are increasingly experimenting with schemes for payments to be made by cheque, but it must be remembered that this entails new record systems and other facilities, for which accommodation may not be readily available, and that in some instances the lack of adequate accommodation at court houses and justices offices causes difficulties.
Mr. J. T. Price Mr. J. T. Price (West Houghton) rose—
The Solicitor-General: Only a few minutes remain and I have a number of points to answer. I trust, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not mind if I do not give way.

105
Difficulties are created by a lack of sufficient accommodation, especially where the clerk has been unable to arrange for the bulk of payments to be made by post.
In advising local authorities on the pl inning of new magistrates courts, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is always concerned to see that suitable accommodation is provided to facilitate th,3 payment of maintenance moneys to deserted wives and those entitled under affiliation orders, but the House will recognise the bearing which existing economic circumstances have on a matter of this kind. I assure hon. Members that my right hon. Friend fully realises the strength of the case presented by my hon. Friend, but I ask that it be appreciated that difficulties stand in the way of doing all that we would wish. We have no power to require courts to adopt a system of payments being made by pest or cheque to a greater extent than they do at present. No undertakings can, therefore, be given about Government action on this proposal. All that I can say is that the courts will, no doubt, be taking note of what is being said in the House on this matter. My hon. Friend suggested that wives should be advised by collecting officers of their rights to vary orders or that they be given more advice than they are under existing processes. 'There is no doubt that advice of this kind is often given. There is also no doubt that wives are frequently ignorant of their rights, and I undertake that consideration will be given to the question of whether improvements may be made in the methods of informing parties of their legal position.
The position concerning legal aid affecting applications to vary maintenance orders is that such applications are entitled under the law to legal aid if they are regarded as eligible by the examining local committee. There are one or two anomalies affecting a small number of cases where legal aid is not available. One is the case of a High Court maintenance order registered for enforcement in the magistrates court. If anybody seeks to vary an order of that kind in the magistrates court, then, by an anomaly, that application is outside the ambit of legal aid. However, this matter has been referred by my noble Friend
106
the Lord Chancellor to the Legal Aid Advisory Committee.
My hon. Friend referred to the question of automatic warrants and I believe that he had in mind using the word "warrants" in the sense of summonses. He seemed to favour the automatic issue of summonses to bring a defendant before the court as a means of enforcement. The position under Rule 33 of the Magistrates Courts Rules, 1952, is that already there is an obligation on the clerk to give the beneficiary of a maintenance order notice that the order is in arrears by an amount equal to four weekly payments, unless it appears, because of special circumstances, unnecessary or inexpedient for that to be done. Section 52 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952 provides that where payments are being made through a court
"… the clerk shall, if the person for whose benefit the payment should have been made so requests in writing, and unless it appears to the clerk that it is unreasonable in the circumstances to do so, proceed in his own name for the recovery of those sums …"
This is often done. The House will acknowledge that this is another example of the methods that are adopted to try to help these people—some of these methods being of considerable flexibility and requiring, and receiving, initiative and consideration.
I fear that I do not have time to answer all the points that have been raised in the debate and I will have to gloss over some matters briefly. There is the overall point that if the Ministry of Social Security were to expand its responsibility for the collection and payment of maintenance to all persons subject to maintenance orders, that would be a radical departure from the law and practice, would involve vast administrative difficulties and would really constitute the Supplementary Benefits Commission into something quite different from what its legal and existing purpose properly is.
The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) wanted to know when the Payne Committee was set up. It was established in May, 1965. Thus far, the expectation has been, as stated in the House by my right hon. and learned Friend, that its Report would be received by Easter of this year. However, this is now regarded as being a somewhat optimistic forecast. It is now expected and hoped that, at

107
the best by Easter and, failing that, very shortly afterwards, the Report will be available. It must be remembered, however, that it will deal with a vast number of matters—indeed, with the whole subject of the collection and enforcement of civil debt—and will go far wider than maintenance. In view of the time scale I have put forward, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise—if the full Report is expected so soon as I have indicated—that there is no occasion here for an interim report to be presented.
The hon. Member for Colchester raised the question of deserted spouses going abroad. It is true that whereas by virtue of the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act, 1920, provision is made for the recovery of maintenance in Commonwealth countries, there is no equivalent provision where persons go abroad to other than Commonwealth countries. This is because the reciprocal enforcement of judgments treaties do not apply to maintenance. I readily appreciate the importance of this matter, however, and, to answer the hon. Gentleman's inquiry. I assure him that we will give thought to what he said. This may be an appropriate subject or theme for an international convention, and I assure him that we shall have regard to that.
It being Seven o'clock, the Proceedings on the Motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 5(6) (Precedence of Government Business).

SACHSENHAUSEN
7.0 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Third Report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (House of Commons Paper No. 54).
I first want to pay tribute to the determination with which the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and other hon. Friends who have been supporting him have pursued this matter. I find myself dealing with the Report of the Parliamentary Commissioner with mixed feelings. On the one hand, I applaud the office which
108
he holds and would like to take some credit for having helped to bring it into existence. On the other hand, I now find myself dealing with a Report which is critical of the Department for which I am responsible. I have strong feelings about Ministerial responsibility which I would like to touch upon later.
Hon. Members will have read the Report, so I will not go over it or try to recapitulate it. I would, however, ask the House to spend a few minutes looking at the case through the eyes of the Ministers in the Foreign Office who have had to deal with it over a large number of years. The case did not begin with me. I came to it, and I admit it quite frankly, predisposed towards the view of the claimants, and there is a Minute from me on the file which has been made available to the "Ombudsman" as we call him, which is quite clear. I wished to be generous and I questioned at that point whether the Foreign Office was being over-legalistic but, having started from that position, I am prepared to accept the responsibility for being satisfied that all the information I needed was supplied to me.
This is one of the grounds on which disagree with the Parliamentary Commissioner. I was satisfied that all the information I needed was supplied to me. I read every piece of paper on the file and I came to my conclusions by my own processes of judgment. That these conclusions were the same as the Department's does not, of course, invalidate them, and that they were the same as every previous Minister's does not invalidate them. I want to make it quite clear that every Minister who has looked at these things has come by his own processes of judgment to the same conclusion.
I believe that all who have handled this case and other similar cases—and I repeat that I am but one of several successive Ministers—have looked at it in two lights; first, in the very human terms of tragedy and suffering which, as we all know, were associated with all Nazi concentration camps and, secondly, in the light of having to administer fairly, and be seen to administer fairly, a scheme for compensation very tightly drawn in cases of great complexity and difficulty, where it was essential that clear rules should be applied.
This particular case was not a matter which could be judged simply by looking

109
at the human side in conditions of suffering which were immeasurably severe, nor by looking solely at the circumstances of Sachsenhausen. The Foreign Office was dealing with applications from thousands of people who had suffered most cruelly in many ether Nazi camps. It was that terrible backcloth which gave not only the Foreign Office but each of us who has looked at the case a perspective of horror which could not be fully revealed by just assessing the conditions in one camp alone, much less by trying to assess it by reference to one sector of one camp alone.
This difficult problem was further complicated by the need imposed upon U3 by what I call the "Butler" rules—the rules which the then Foreign Secretary kid down which arose from the Anglo-German Agreement which obliged us to distinguish between, on the one hand, those who were held to have suffered the full brutality of Nazi persecution and, on the other hand, those many gallant men and women who were ill treated, and grievously ill treated, as prisoners of war or civilian internees but were not under the rules so regarded.
We must make it quite clear, as I regard, unfortunately—but I was not responsible for it—that under the terms of the Agreement to which I have referred prisoners of war and civil internees were excluded. There are those, including the hon. Member for Abingdon, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) and other hon. and right hon. Members, who can themselves contribute to the body of knowledge we have about this, and throughout the period when I have been dealing with this I have, in 'act, had the immediate evidence of my right hon. Friend, who knows at first hand what went on.
This vital distinction which the Agreement makes between what is called "Nazi persecution", which is related to the concentration camps, and the ill treatment of prisoners of war that is held to be a separate thing and is specifically rued out, underlies the argument, if that is the right word to use, which the hon. Member for Abingdon, my right hon. Friend and others and I have had.
The Anglo-German Agreement of 1964, negotiated by Mr. Butler, as he then was, the Foreign Secretary, provided £1 mil-
110
lion for the United Kingdom victims of Nazi persecution, defined in the very limited terms to which I have just referred, who had suffered loss of liberty or damage to their health or who had died in consequence of such persecution. Whether the Agreement could have been negotiated on any wider basis it is not for me now to say but, of course, I am now in my present office bound by the terms of that Agreement.
In order to distribute the money in this country, the term "Nazi persecution" had to be defined, and Lord Butler, as he now is, decided then that a claimant must satisfy one of two conditions: either he must have been detained in a concentration camp or he must have been in an institution where the conditions were comparable. But, in the very same Agreement, he went on to exclude a large number of institutions where a very large number of prisoners held by the Nazis existed.
We have endeavoured to carry out that Agreement with due regard to its letter and the spirit. I cannot speak for my predecessors but only for myself, but it was always recognised that there would be anomalies. For example, some people who, by good fortune, escaped the worst rigours of a concentration camp, were nevertheless qualified for compensation simply because they had been in such camps.
The Foreign Office took the view—and, speaking for myself, I believe quite rightly—that it would be better to be generous in the small number of such cases rather than risk denying compensation to genuine victims. What I hope the House will understand is that I myself know that life must have been hell on earth for anybody who was kept in a concentration camp, even those who escaped the worst horrors. So compensation has been paid to those to whom we could, without doing damage to the rules, keep inside them.
Cases of Nazi persecution outside concentration camps were also provided for. The Notes for Guidance which the then Foreign Secretary, Lord Butler, approved in 1964—after, as I understand it, discussing them with the hon. Member for Abingdon and others —provided that anybody who had been in an institution where the conditions

111
were comparable with those of a concentration camp would be eligible. Claimants from such institutions had to justify their claims by detailing the actual conditions in their place of detention. Claimants who were held in a concentration camp did not have to do this.
This requirement was made not from any wish to discriminate against one category of applicant as opposed to another, but I understand, rather to cast the net as widely and as fairly as possible, and I would like to emphasise, in view of some of the things written in the newspapers, that officials in the Foreign Office went right out of their way to help applicants. They helped them to make the best of their case. They helped them to get information which they did not themselves have, which also enabled them to make the best case they could.
Having filled in that background, I come to the Parliamentary Commissioner's Report. I would like first to deal with the allegation that there were defects in the procedure by which the Foreign Office reached its decisions on these claims. I have examined this with all the thoroughness at my command and I say quite frankly that I do not believe that I was misled by officials. I regard it as a Minister's job to see that he has all the necessary information. If he does not have it, that is a very severe mark against him. If, having got it, he does not take it aboard, that is an even severer mark against him, and I reject completely the Parliamentary Commissioner's allegation that officials did not submit the evidence that Ministers right up to and including me should have had.
I want to say something else, and I think that the House had better accept this. [Interruption.] I said I think the House should accept this. Of course, it may accept what it likes but I am entitled to say what I think. Hon. Members are entitled to disagree with me, but I must say what I think. I think that the House had better accept this, and before it disagrees with me it had better think seriously about it. It is that we will breach a very serious constitutional position if we start holding officials responsible for things that are done wrong.
In this country, Ministers are Members of Parliament. That is not true of many
112
countries. I think that we have the best Parliamentary democratic system in the world and one of the reasons for this is that our Ministers are responsible to Parliament. If things are wrongly done by Ministers and I think that it is tremendously important to hold to that principle.
If things have gone wrong, then Ministers have gone wrong and I accept my full share of the responsibility in this case. It happens that I am the last of a series of Ministers who have looked at this matter and I am the one who got caught with the ball when the lights went up. But I accept, I repeat, my share of the responsibility. I could not possibly do other. I read every page of all the information. It is Ministers who must be attacked, not officials.
The Office of Parliamentary Commissioner was intended to strengthen our form of democratic Government, but let me say that if that Office were to lead to changing this constitutional position so that officials got attacked and Ministers escaped, then I think that the whole practice of Ministers being accountable to Parliament would be undermined. I think that the morale of the Civil and Diplomatic Services would be undermined and I am sure that many experienced right hon. and hon. Members want to think twice about that situation.
Mr. Douglas Houghton: How does my right hon. Friend relate this doctrine to the existence and practice of the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee?
Mr. Brown: I think that I can quite easily relate it to them. What I am trying to say is that we should not extrude, as it were, that we should not carry, the doctrine of these Committees any further. I think that they are already open to objection, as a matter of fact, but I certainly believe that we in this House should not take them any further and we should stay with Ministers and should deal with Ministers where we think that things have gone wrong. Ministers must, in my view, remain responsible to Parliament, and I am willing to do so. Officials must remain responsible to their Ministers.
Mr. Grant-Ferris: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us where in

113
the Report the Parliamentary Commissioner attacks the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility?
Mr. Brown: No. What he does—because he had to, otherwise he could not have made a report—is to obtain this on the doctrine of maladministration.
Mr. Grant-Ferris: That was the Minister.
Mr. Brown: I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman must read the Report. This is one thing I am trying to get at, and one of the things I want the House to consider is that the Parliamentary Commissioner was set up as the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. He cannot, therefore, deal with Ministers; he can deal only with officials. I think that this is bad. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why establish the office?"] I am not scoring any party points; I am talking to the House as the House of Commons, and I think that the House ought to think about this in that light. Personally —and I am now speaking personally and not for the Cabinet—I happen to feel that if this Report is to be the forerunner of a new doctrine, both sides of the House will regret it very much. I was trying to draw attention to some of the things which the House should consider.
Ministers are responsible to the House, and must be; officials in Departments are responsible to their Ministers, and must be. I assure the House that in so far as there are lessons to be learned from this case, I have ensured that the Foreign Office has learned them. I have issued to the Department the instructions which seemed to me to follow. They will be carried out. It is for the House to hold me responsible for that and not try to hold responsible any officials for whom I speak in the House.
I come now to whether, having considered the Parliamentary Commissioner's Report, as I have, very seriously and very carefully, compensation should be paid. I say straight away that the ill-treatment of these gallant men has never been at issue. One of them, a very gallant man, purported on television to remember something which he said he thought that I had said. His recollection and mine are at odds, but I must say that the record of that meeting does
114
not bear out what he said. Leaving that on one side, everybody who has been in any of these discussions knows that I have made it absolutely plain that the gallantry of these men has never been at issue.
What the Parliamentary Commissioner has not found is that the conditions of these men, bad as they were, were as bad as those suffered by many other gallant men in many other German camps. The Parliamentary Commissioner concentrated exclusively on Sachsenhausen—[HON.MEMBERS: "Those were his terms of reference."] Those were the terms of reference, but because he concentrated on that, he, unlike me and unlike my predecessors, did not have also to take into account the thousands of other cases of other people who suffered even more than these gallant men suffered. He concentrated his report on the narrow issue, the very much narrower issue, and that I was not allowed to do. 1 had to take into account the wider issue.
He concentrated his attention on the very much narrower issue of whether the special camp, the Sonderlager, or the Zellenbau, the cell block, formed part of the concentration camp. I had that in my mind when I came into this office and no doubt my predecessors had it in theirs, but we also had to take into account the wider issue. Whether the Sonderlager or the Zellenbau were inside the perimeter of Sachsenhausen was always an arguable issue. All the Ministers—and there are many of us—who have dealt with this case—and I ask the House to understand that it has been dealt with the utmost compassion and the utmost desire to do the right thing and the fair thing—all the Ministers who have dealt with this case on the basis of the "Butler Agreement" have come to one conclusion, which was that technically speaking they were not inside the perimeter.
Mrs. Anne Kerr: I am one of those hon. Members who have been in this wretched place and I have seen where our men were imprisoned. Would not my right hon. Friend now agree that, in fact, what our men were subjected to was at least as bad as what men outside had to submit to? For instance, they had to see men hanged by a hook and die slowly and men dropped done a hole who had to die slowly.
Mr. Brown: We have taken all that into account. What I am trying to say is not that they were not ill-treated, but that I believe and that all my predecessors believed that there are many others who were much more ill-treated, and we found it very had to find in favour of these men.
Mrs. Renée Short: Irrelevant.
Mr. Brown: It is no good saying that it is irrelevant. May I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West—
Mrs. Short: North-East.
Mr. Brown: The wind blows colder up there. There will be many people—and I shall be surprised if there are not some living in Wolverhampton—who, after we decide what I shall propose tonight, will ask, "Why not me?". The House may well find that some people, who have not had the advantage of the advocates whom these men have had, will now emerge and ask, "Why am I not getting compensation for conditions in which I was treated much worse?".
Mrs. Short Mrs. Short rose—
Mr. Brown: I think that I ought to get on. I have just said that all the Ministers who have looked at this have all separately on the basis of the "Butler Rules" reached one conclusion. The Parliamentary Commissioner, on the other hand, has come to another conclusion.
Mrs. Short: It is the Foreign Office.
Mr. Brown: It is nothing to do with the Foreign Office; it is a group of Ministers. When the Ombudsman has made enough decisions, perhaps we shall have an Ombudsman to look at the Ombudsman's decisions, and if he gets 100 per cent. right, I shall be surprised.
However, all the Ministers who have looked at this quite separately have come to one conclusion and the Parliamentary Commissioner has come to another. I repeat that no one has ever disputed that this was a borderline case. I am bound to say that I do not see any reason for thinking that the judgment of the Parliamentary Commissioner is necessarily
better than that of all of us. [HON. MEMBERS: "Then why appoint him?"] I must be allowed to make my own case.
116
However, I have always wanted to be not only fair but generous in the case of these officers. They performed courageous exploits as escapers from prisoners-of-war camps, and their fortitude under duress was famous. Their gallantry, their honour and their integrity have never been in question.
Having established the office of Parliamentary Commissioner, whether I think his judgment is right or wrong, I am certain that it would be wrong to reject his views. I think that public opinion would be outraged if I rejected his views on an issue which affects personally a few very gallant men.
Having quite firmly, and I hope quite honestly, explained my own view, I have nevertheless decided that compensation will be paid on the appropriate basis to all these claimants or, in a case of those who have died, to their dependants. I want the House to understand that in doing so I am probably being unfair to quite a number of gallant men who have suffered very badly, but who are outside the compensation scheme. It is precisely this difficulty which contributed to my original decision. In applauding the decision that I am announcing tonight, the whole House must accept with me any unfairnesses that flow from it.
In a matter of this kind—[Interrpution It is no good asking "Why?" It is the Butler rules that establish this. In a matter of this kind there can be no absolute certainty as to what is the right answer. Wherever the dividing line is drawn, there are bound to be hard cases on the wrong side of it. For practical purposes tonight, the question must be decided one way or the other, and I have decided to settle it in the way that the Parliamentary Commissioner suggested. All the points at issue between the Parliamentary Commissioner and the Foreign Office, and all the available evidence has since then, been submitted to me.
I have issued the required instructions in the office as to how cases like this should be dealt with in the future. I hope that the House will agree with me that there is no useful purpose to be served by prolonging a controversy which has caused distress and resentment to some very honourable, very gallant and most deserving people. I hope too, that the House will feel that justice has been

117
done to them by the decision I have made and that I have taken all the care I can to ensure that we do not have another problem like this.
Before I sit down let me say this. Newspapers talk about bungling and blundering. It is imperative for me to say that no one has blundered or bungled. This was an issue of judgment. The Parliamentary Commissioner's view is that our judgment was wrong. I am willing to accept that. I have therefore reviewed and revised my decision, but this remains a matter of judgment and on a matter of judgment on an issue as narrow as this anyone can be wrong. I would have wished, since it has come out this way. that I had taken this decision earlier. I did not, but there it is. I have taken the decision now, and I hope on this basis we can end what for me is a very unhappy story.
7.34 p.m.
Mr. Airey Neave: The House will be glad that two and a half years after this case was first raised the right hon. Gentleman has at last agreed to alter his decision. In his final words he said that he was sorry that he had not taken this step before. If he had listened to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who saw him 12 months ago and asked for an impartial inquiry into this matter, we would not be here today and the claimants would not have to suffer from the anxiety and trouble that they have. if he had listened to the points put to him and other Ministers at that time, this would not have happened.
The right hon. Gentleman has proposed some rather unusual constitutional doctrines tonight with regard to the position of the Parliamentary Commissioner. I do not propose to refer to them, but I dare say that other hon. Members will wish to raise them. It is my duty to give a factual account to the House of this case as I saw it.
The right hon. Gentleman has given the impression to the House that this is a borderline case and that there are a lot of other people outside who may be fairly close to it. This was a cast-iron case from the start. This is the whole point, and it is why the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shin well) and many of my hon. and right hon. Friends
118
took it up. The point was, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman understands it, that these men were in the cellblock, in the main compound of the camp, and when we come to that part of the Parliamentary Commissioner's report I should like to refer to it.
This is a very important matter for the House and its power to remedy injustices. The public expect us to see that injustice remedied by searching and full inquiry. It is not for me to say anything about the duties of the Select Committee, to which I do not belong, but it does exist for that purpose. We could not have got the Government to change their mind without the assistance of Sir Edmund Compton, the Parliamentary Commissioner. The Leader of the House is quite right, I could not even with all the assistance that I had from so many hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House, have achieved that result of reversing a decision with regard to these claims without Sir Edmund. He made a really thorough and searching report, and the thanks of the whole House are due to him for unearthing what really happened in this case, about which the right hon. Gentleman has not really told us.
I will now give an account, which I think shows what happened, and that very bad blunders indeed were made, not only by Ministers but by officials. I do not want to talk about officials here; there is another place to do so. Maladministration can be both by Ministers and officials, and in this case the Ministers were shown the detailed facts and plans. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the gallantry of these men, Group Captain Day, Colonel John Churchill and Mr. Sydney Dowse. I have made no personal contact with the others, but it was because these men were of the highest quality and courage, and we owe so much to them, that the attitude described in paragraph 68 of the Report dealing with the Foreign Office was all the more disgraceful.
In a moving passage, the Parliamentary Commissioner refers to their distinguished and gallant war record. He says:
" For these men it is essential as part of a distinguished and gallant war record that they were held in a concentration camp and suffered Nazi persecution there."

119
Further he says:
" Further, this was exceptional treatment which they incurred because of the exceptional bravery and resource that they had shown in working for their country and damaging the German war effort."
It is all the more reason why it makes this case so unfortunate and so tragic.
Group Captain Day was an Albert medallist. He won the Distinguished Service Order while he was a prisoner of war for his escaping activities. Colonel Churchill was a well known Commando leader and Mr. Dowse was the organiser of the great escapes from Stalag Luft 3, as a result of which two-thirds of the officers who escaped were shot on Hitler's orders. The right hon. Gentleman referred to my experiences. It was as an official of the Nuremberg Tribunal that I learned a great deal about Sachsenhausen and the nature of the operation of the concentration camps.
I have an advantage here. I was convinced from the start that the decision was wholly wrong on the facts. The important point was that from the first time that I took this up with the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, in October 1965, I asked for an independent inquiry. I have been asking for that ever since. That was what the Motion on the Order Paper was about in April last year. I asked for an independent inquiry at a time when the Foreign Office was saying that its system was adequate and that it had reliable evidence about the treatment. It is quite clear from the nature of the Parliamentary Commissioner's Report that it did not have reliable evidence about the treatment that these men had suffered. I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman is seized of the point that the Foreign Office had got the story wrong and that the men were in the cells in the main compound of the camp.
1 met a blank wall of incomprehension, and so I sought the advice of the right hon. Member for Easington and many other distinguished hon. Member on the point about the-cells and the Sonderlager to which the Foreign Secretary referred. It is clear from the reply that no homework had been done on this point. The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, then Minister of State at the
120
Foreign Office, said to me on 28th February, 1966:
"The cells in which the men were held, although adjoining the Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp, were quite separate from it and the conditions and treatment in these cases were not comparable with those within the main camp."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1966; Vol. 725, c. 890.]
Did not the Ministers read any documents at all? They already knew that the men were in the cells as a result of our interrogation reports.
There is one damning thing concerning the Ministers and officials. I sent the Foreign Office an aerial photograph of the camp. If the Select Committee wished to do so, it could see the correspondence. The photograph showed the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations where these cells were. If hon. Members look at Appendix E of the Commissioner's Report—this is of the greatest importance as a matter of fact—they will see where the cells were marked in black, where the Sonderlager was, where the execution spot was and where the crematorium was. No one in his right mind could have suggested that those enclosures were other than in the concentration camp. One has only to look at the plan.
I supplied not only the aerial photograph but German documents and plans of the camp. The suggestion that in some way this was a borderline case is wholly unfounded. This was an absolutely certain case. It appeared that certain people concerned with it had not looked at the plans and were not aware of the facts. It is clear from the Parliamentary Commissioner's Report that the men were in cells, that people had been taken out from these cells and shot and that commandos from Lieut. Colonel Churchill's own commando were shot while he was in the cells, because the Foreign Office compensated their dependants. We also know that in the main compound there were two other British subjects who were compensated. We know from the investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, which was detailed and impartial—Irepeat"impartial"—that the treatment accorded in the main compound of the camp was less severe than that accorded in the
cells. This is the real point. This is

121
what the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with in his explanation.
These are the factual matters about which the House wants to know. It knows that this maladministration occurred, but it wants to know why, and why these decisions were made, because Ministers were not personally informed on all the facts. It was not only officials. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) and other of my right hot and hon. Friends had the advantage of seeing the men ourselves. As the right hon. Member for Easington knows, we did our own interrogation of the men. That was not done in the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office never saw these men. It never asked them any question about the detailed position and location of the cells. We as an all-party group asked the men these questions and were satisfied that they were telling the truth.
Mr. George Brown: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to be unfair. Before I came to my decision, which has been held to have been wrong and which I have reversed, I saw the men.
Mr. Neave: The less I say about our discussions on that, the better, because we did not go into any details about where the men were cited in the camp, as far as I remember. The issue at all times was whether the men in the cells were in a concentration camp within the definition of the agreement. The Parliamentary Commissioner found that they were. It is obvious that they were all along. My case has not differed at all over the last two and a half years. It is exactly the case which I put across the Floor of the House to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in February 1966. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. I have not changed my ground one inch.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire severely questioned the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations about the position in the camp. We did not get anywhere as a result of that exchange, and we decided to take the men to see the then Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, now the hon. Lady the Minister of State at the Welsh Office. We were not at all successful. I received a very discour
122
aging letter before I even got there. I was told by her private secretary:
" A negative decision has been arrived at in this case. There is thus no question of reopening it, but as agreed with you she will willingly assure the gallant gentlemen concerned that no doubt is cast upon their good faith."
Paragraph 64 of the Parliamentary Commissioner's Report suggests that it was. That is a very serious matter which I draw to the attention of the House. I do not say anything more about it, but there is a clear implication in the Report.
A further all-party group worked on this matter for some months. I thank the hon. Members for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg), the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) for their great help. This has been a very difficult and long case and without their help I could not have got as far as I did.
We saw the men in November, 1966. As a result, we decided to see the Foreign Secretary. On that occasion, on 20th December, 1966, I had the aerial photograph with me and 1 gave it to him. He remembers that. 1 gave him the plans of the camp. Those plans are identical with the plan in Appendix E. There can be no doubt in anyone's mind, as a result of looking at those plans, that a big mistake had been made at the very beginning of this issue in October. 1965. The evidence is clear. The Parliamentary Commissioner, an impartial judge, has found the Foreign Office guilty of maladministration. The issue was much simpler than the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
The right hon. Gentleman's reply to me of 30th December, 1966, is very significant. He said that he would not be able to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an ex gratia payment, but he said:
" We are agreed that these officers were imprisoned in a special camp and cell block which were within the general administrative perimeter of the Sachsenhausen complex. But I cannot accept, on the basis of the evidence which has been assembled.…, that they suffered treatment in any way comparable to that endured by the inmates of the main camp at Sachsenhausen…."
We know that the evidence was there and that it was not properly investigated. We know that the evidence was that the

123
treatment in the main camp was less severe than the treatment in the cells. There was a failure to make a proper investigatiton.
Mr. George Brown Mr. George Brown indicated dissent.
Mr. Neave: The right hon. Gentleman says "No", but this is not what the Parliamentary Commissioner found. He took six and a half months to go into this case. One must admit that Ministers have a lot to do and that they have a lot of papers to read, but this servant of the House was engaged entirely on this case for six and a half months.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is making very heavy weather of this. [Horn. MEMBERS: "No."] I have already reversed the decision. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to say that what happened to the men in the Sonderlager or Zellenbau even compared with what happened to the major part of the people who were in Sachsenhausen concentration camp proper, he is trying to prove far too much. The Parliamentary Commissioner never got himself into that. I recommend the hon. Gentleman to rest content with his victory and not get too far.
Mr. Neave: I am not prepared to accept that. The House wants to look at this matter factually. I was referring to what the Parliamentary Commissioner said in respect of these men. There may have been worse cases—I do not dispute that—but the failure of the investigation by the Foreign Office was to differentiate one from another and to treat each case on its merits. The Foreign Office never did that. It never got its facts right. It did not do its homework. That has been proved.
Eventually, on 20th February, with the hon. Member for Ealing, North, I took the men to see the right hon. Gentleman. All that he could tell them was that the fund was exhausted. He said that the money had all gone. In case the impression is given that we went there and started our representations too late in the day, it must be remembered that the case was taken up a long time ago before the registration of claims was complete.
Finally, after several meetings with the Under-Secretary of State, before whom all the facts were laid and the arguments
124
and details were put before him, as a last resort I asked the Prime Minister to receive a deputation consisting of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire, the right hon. Member for Easington, the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) and others. The Prime Minister replied on 6th April. His reply is very revealing in regard to whether people were or were not misled. He replied in this way:
"I have examined very carefully the questions raised in your letter of 22nd March about the personnel who were in prison outside the main compound of Sachsenhausen concentration camp."
As late as 6th April last year, therefore, it was being maintained by someone, in face of all the evidence to the contrary, that the men were outside the main compound. The Prime Minister continued:
" I am bound to say, however, that I find myself in complete agreement with the views expressed to you by the Foreign Secretary."
That was what the Prime Minister said.
We not only did our best not to make it a party matter, but we bent over backwards to try to get an independent inquiry. In our letter, which was signed by representatives of all parties, we asked the Prime Minister for a barrister to be appointed from the Department of the Judge Advocate General, with war crime experience, to look into the case. That was refused. That was why we have landed up in this mess and with this serious case of injustices. We then tabled on the Order Paper a Motion for inquiry which attracted the signature of more than 350 hon. Members.
I do not propose to go on any further. The Report showed that the case was very much worse than we thought. In my view, it was a cast-iron case from the first. The facts that the Foreign Office had before it were wrong, because the Department never fully investigated the matter but used evidence in the form of books by other prisoners which were partial and irrelevant. There has been a bad failure of administration.
Nothing that we can do can make up for what happened in Germany 25 years ago, when there were so many cruel deaths and ruined lives, but at least the House should—and I hope will—exercise

125
its power to do justice to those who survive.
7.53 p.m.
Mr. E. Shinwell: Even my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will agree that the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) deserves our congratulations for his advocacy and, in particular, his persistency. What appeared to be an act of injustice was brought to his attention. He took appropriate action, which is what Members of Parliament are for. That is our duty. We have a responsibility to those who approach us and allege injustices. That was what the hon. Member for Abingdon did.
I do not propose to follow the hon. Member in the details of this affair. The newspapers were full of it. apparently much to the consternation of my right hon. Friend, and we now have the Report of the Ombudsman. One thing on which I agree with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is that whatever inappropriate action is taken by officials in any Government Department, whatever errors of judgment there may be, it is the Minister who is responsible.
This, however, is a rather singular case, because my right hon. Friend was the last of the Mohicans. There had been several predecessors of his who had had the matter brought to their attention and they had come to a judgment not dissimilar from that exercised by my right hon. Friend. But although Ministers are to blame, I have not the least hesitation in saying, because I have been a member of several Governments myself, that I would not be the least surprised if—perhaps it is a surmise but I express it in my own fashion; I want to be generous and fair on this occasion—the officials in the Foreign Office were responsible for an error of judgment. I rate it no higher than that.
When my right hon. Friend postulates that in the modern, new-fangled concept of Parliamentary constitutional procedure a senior official, whether in the Foreign Office or any other Department, should never be subjected to criticism, he is going a bit too far.
I have read the Reports of the Estimates Committee. There have been occasions when I have been in opposition, with no measure of responsibility on
126
my shoulders, when I have had to interrogate officials, and often I have thought that they had made mistakes. My right hon. Friend will not be surprised at the nature of the debate this evening, because it is quite possible that some of my hon. Friends who have been keenly interested in this matter—indeed, much more so than myself; my contribution was a most modest one and I will explain it presently—may wish to go into further detail.
I rather imagine that this is not the end of the story, much as my right hon. Friend desires it to be, because the Reports of the Ombudsman have, apparently, to be considered by the Select Committee. Back benchers must not be blamed for the creation of Select Committees. Select Committees are created by the Leader of the House. He will not be alarmed, therefore, if the Report of the Ombudsman is referred, as it must be, to the Select Committee, which may concern itself not with detailed investigations, but with asking questions.
This is what I am concerned about, and I will explain why I played a very modest part. What happened was that the hon. Member for Abingdon approached me. I was sceptical about it, and I shall tell hon. Members why. Almost every hon. Member from time to time is the recipient of communications from men who fought in the First World War and who claim that they were unjustly treated, either because they did not receive the appropriate pension or for some other reason. I know from experience at the War Office back in 1929, when I was Financial Secretary in that Department and had to deal with cases, and again as Secretary of State for War, that a whole host of cases is revived. There is a sort of resurrection of cases every time a new Government is elected. That is what happens, and we are bound to deal with them'.
So I was sceptical. I thought, "This is one of the cases where people come along and say they have suffered, and they submit documents in order to substantiate their claims." But after I examined the evidence—and my hon. Friends behind me who also have examined the evidence will concur with this view—I had not the least doubt that there was the utmost validity in the claim which these men were making; there was every

127
justification for it. I was confirmed in my view when we met the men and interrogated them. I am not without some—I will not say ability—capacity to put questions. My right hon. Friend knows that. I can be very persistent. and I indulged in some interrogation. I wanted to know, and I was completely satisfied, at the end of the interrogation and our meeting with the men, that they had a case. That is why I ventured to assist my hon. Friends and hon. Members on the other side of the House. too. Now my right hon. Friend has come along and said that after all this palaver, all this controversy, all the arguments, he is prepared to provide a solatium in the form of £25,000.
He made a kind of debating point—I thought he made a bit too much of it—when he said in effect that as he gives way on this there will be a lot of others coming along with many other demands.
Mr. Ben Whitaker: On this point of establishing a precedent, which has obviously worried the Foreign Office all along, may I say that I personally think it not only just but also necessary that any other cases are treated with equal generosity? I feel sure that a lot of other people who like myself were too young to be called upon to make such a sacrifice in the last war. would be prepared to forego something in their standard of living in order to see these men recompensed generously.
Mr. Shinwell: My hon. Friend goes a bit further than I was about to go. I am not prepared to go to that length. What I do say is this. I want to put it in a logical and rational fashion. If a number of others come along and submit similar claims, what is to he done about them? I understand that the function of the Ombudsman will continue. Is it really suggested he shall he dismissed because he has submitted a report which my right hon. Friend did not care very much about? The Ombudsman is going to remain where he is and I see no reason why he should not. If somebody comes along with a claim similar to this one which is now recognised by my right hon. Friend and the claim goes to the Ombudsman, can anybody really object? After all, if somebody comes along to a Member of this House and asks that his claim should he considered and it is
128
referred to the Ombudsman, we go through the whole process again. We shall just have to put up with it. What else can we do? Otherwise we shall be accused of rendering aid to only a number of men now being treated more or less fairly after a long period of time because of the persistent advocacy of the hon. Member for Abingdon.
Suppose that the hon. Member to whom the case is brought is not so persistent as the hon. Member opposite. Then there will be injustice and no relief. If the hon. Member is persistent it will go to the Ombudsman. So I am afraid my right hon. Friend will have to put up with it, so long as he is Foreign Secretary. How long he will be Foreign Secretary is in the lap of the gods. I do not know. Perhaps he will not be long enough for another case to be brought to him, and somebody else will be there instead and will refer to what his predecessor—my right hon. Friend—did.
I am satisfied that these men are to get some relief. After all, what is our objective? After a long argument and quarrel and controversy at the end of the day we have met with success—a remarkable success, if I may say so, for which the hon. Member opposite is very largely responsible. So I think we might leave it where it is.
My right hon. Friend, naturally, is a bit incensed about it. I can understand what his position was. Let us imagine the position of a Minister. A submission is made to him. He refers it to his officials. That is what I used to do. I did not come to a decision at once. I referred the case to the Permanent Under-Secretary. He referred it to the Deputy Under-Secretary. He referred it to some Principal. It goes down the line. It comes up again—back to the Minister. The Minister is told, "There is no case". That is precisely what happened to my right hon. Friend. I am certain that when the submission was first made to my right hon. Friend he did not go into all the detail at once; he would not have had the time he referred it to his officials.
Mr. George Brown: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. I accept total responsibility for this. I accept responsibility for this office from the time I went to this office. When this case first came to me I minuted it. When

129
the Parliamentary Commissioner had seen it I minuted saying that I did not like the previous stance of the Department, and I asked that it might be resubmitted, and would they please resubmit it with all the papers. I then read every single paper on the file. If thereafter there was a mistake, it is mine.
Mr. Shinwell: Of course, I accept what my right hon. Friend says. It is not unlike the impression I was trying to create. It was that when the first submission was made to him he did not examine all the details but just read the document and then asked for a further opinion, and it was on the basis of that opinion that his original view was confirmed. He did no: indulge in a minute examination at the beginning.
Now, we find that these men are to get this measure of relief. I am very glad. I have not the least doubt or question about my right hon. Friend's integrity, but sometimes there are errors of judgment—and that goes all along the Treasury Bench and my right hon. Friend is not singular in that respect. I do not worry about that. I hope the Leader of the House is not disturbed because I have said that. Of course, I could disturb him if it were necessary.
So there it is. I think the House is to be congratulated, along with the hon. Member for Abingdon, because we have remedied what appeared to be an act of injustice. Having done that, we can congratulate ourselves.
8.8 p.m.
Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has, as usual, made an effective speech, but I rather detected in it an attempt to bring the temperature down a bit. Without wishing to bring in party politics, I think that if this party had been in the Government and a Member on this side had been the Minister in this case and had spoken for 25 minutes, and then in the last few minutes admitted that there had been a mistake, the right hon. Member for Easington would have had a good deal more to say than he has. But I agree in the main with what he has said.
I hope the Foreign Secretary is coming back, because I have several point I wish to address to him. But first of all, I am very glad that the Leader of the House has kept his pledge of last autumn
130
when he promised that there would be a debate about this matter. Now we are having the debate and I am indebted to him.
We are all indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) for his persistence, because, as has been said, it is as a result of it that these men are now to get some money; and, as a result, their honour, which has been in question for some time, is saved. We are indebted to him enormously.
As for the Parliamentary Commissioner, I had my doubts when the Government introduced the Bill to establish the Parliamentary Commissioner. I confess I had my doubts, but now, if he has done one thing which justifies his existence, it is this. He has gone into this matter and produced this Report. He has done it very thoroughly, and it took his six and a half months to go into this matter. He was able to do it, unlike a Minister, without distractions, without trips abroad on Government business, without having to make speeches in this House. He has gone into the matter wholeheartedly and thoroughly, and personally accept his Report wholeheartedly—every word he has said in it.
What does the Foreign Secretary mean by saying that thousands suffered more than these gallant men? Of course, one can pick out some who suffered more than they did, but these men were in a concentration camp, and they suffered, as I shall try to show in the course of my speech.
The right hon. Gentleman then said that the Parliamentary Commissioner's judgment is no better than ours, but who is the Foreign Secretary to question the Parliamentary Commissioner's judgment? We have his Report before us.
Reluctantly, the Foreign Secretary agrees that the Government should pay up £25,000 and says, "Now let us all be friends and forget it." However, Parliament does not look at these matters like that.
Mr. Houghton: The Parliamentary Commissioner is not allowed to substitute his judgment for that of a Minister. The Parliamentary Commissioner is asked to report on matters involving alleged maladministration. Those are the conditions leading to the Minister's judgment. That is an important distinction which we have to keep in mind.
Sir A. V. Harvey: I take that point, but, with my hon. Friend and others of my hon. Friends, I had the privilege of seeing the Foreign Secretary, and we know exactly how this worked over 18 months. I am satisfied that there was maladministration by the Foreign Office, The right hon. Gentleman said that the controversy should not be prolonged. Having been in this House for 23 years, he must know that Select Committees are set up to go into these matters. They can summon anyone to give evidence before them. I have no doubt that this matter will be gone into further.
The House of Commons is a generous and very forgiving institution. If someone realises that a mistake has been made and has the courage to come and say so, the House will forgive him. Instead, the Foreign Secretary chose to prevaricate for 25 minutes in defence of his officials. while agreeing that this was wrong and that was wrong. If he had spoken for 10 minutes and said, "I am sorry. The decision was wrong, but I accept full responsibility", that would have been the end of it. He has brought this trouble on himself.
Of course, in the first place, I blame the Conservative Government for getting only £1 million out of the German Government. It is true that it was an exgratia payment, but it was not enough to make up for the suffering of these people, and they are concerned about their honour and integrity, which have been in question for a very long time. This is a clear case of maladministration on the part of the Foreign Office, although I do not propose to mention the names of any officials. The Select Committee can make further inquiries at a later date, if it so chooses.
When we saw the Foreign Secretary a year ago last December, he had been in his post for a matter of weeks. It may be that the Christmas spirit was in the air, but that did not stop us from going into the matter in detail. We showed him an aerial photograph, and the plan of the camp which was appended to the Parliamentary Commissioner's Report. At the end of our interview, he said, "I am very sorry. All the money has been spent, and there is no more left. It is bad luck ".
However, I want to be fair, 1 hesitate to repeat a private conversation, but I
132
saw him afterwards and, in the course of a conversation, 1 said, "I do not think that you have heard the end of this, George. There will be more. "He replied," We shall see. There is no more money". I had the impression that he was acting on the brief of his advisers. Somehow, one can always tell when a Minister is acting on a brief and when he is using his own judgment. The right hon. Member for Easington said that when he was Minister of Defence, he used to take advice but frequently ignored it. I can remember many occasions when he did not act on the advice that he was given in his Department, and I gave him full marks for it.
Much has been said tonight about the suffering of these very gallant officers, and I want to give the House one or two examples of what happened. Group Captain Day was one of the bravest R.A.F. officers ever to serve. He was flying on operations at the beginning of the war when he was a good deal older than the average officer in charge of an aircraft. Today, he is a comparatively old man in very poor health, and this matter has caused him tremendous distress. He was a persistent escaper. There must have been hundreds of Germans searching for him all over Germany at one time or another when they should have been pursuing the war against the Allies. After recapture, he was returned handcuffed to Sachsenhausen. He was put in a condemned cell, handcuffed and chained to the floor. He was in solitary confinement with the lights on day and night for weeks on end. Next door to him, people had committed suicide, and there was blood still on the floor when others were put in the cell. The Foreign Office says that these men did not suffer as much as many others did. I do not know how much suffering a man has to endure to satisfy the Foreign Office.
Eight other prisoners, some of whom had been in the Zellenbau for two or three years, were suddenly executed. One can sec from the appendix that the cells were next door to the punishment blocks. The Foreign Office argues that they were outside the camp compound, but it is clear that they were close to the punishment blocks.
Particularly bad treatment was meted out to Colonel Churchill. Because of his

133
name, the Germans thought that he was related to Sir Winston Churchill, and he was held as a hostage and treated very badly.
There was Mr. Dowse, another R.A.F. officer. He was given solitary confinement on recapture, had a ball and chain placed round his ankle and his hands handcuffed behind his back. There was Mr. James; also Colonel Stevens, who was handcuffed day and night for six months and chained to the wall of his cell at night. There was Captain Payne Best, whose weight dropped from 12 stone to eight stone. There was Mr. Falconer whose weight dropped from 11½ stone to six stone.
When these men were released at the end of the war, they were asked by various Intelligence officers to write reports on their captivity. However, they were in no fit state of health to write about what had gone on. They ought to have gone on six months' convalescence before being asked to write their reports. However, frequently the Foreign Office has quoted from the reports which they produced the day after they came out of the camp.
Mr. William Molloy: We are examining a cruel and heartrending case. The way in which these officers were almost pounced on by people with pens in their hands asking them to tell them what had happened is a matte:- of which note should be taken when one considers the condition that they must have been in.
Sir A. V. Harvey: I agree entirely. Let us hope that the occasion will not arise again. Unfortunately, the world is not at peace.
Later, the Foreign Office was inconsistent in accepting the statements of some claimants as wholly reliable while rejecting others as untrustworthy and exaggerated. Naturally enough, Mr. Dowse and others were incensed at the slur cast on their honour and integrity. Their friends knew about the treatment that they had received, and the attitude of the Foreign Office was quite wrong.
According to paragraph 40 of the Report, the Foreign Office accepted evidence without corroborating it. Why did officials of the Department not see the officers? They were never interviewed.
134
It is true that the Foreign Secretary saw them at a later date in company with my hon. Friend, but that was merely to say, "We are very sorry, but there is nothing for you. The money has been spent. Good luck, and goodbye." I am sure that he did it very well, but that was not a very satisfactory way of handling the case. It is unbelievable that the Foreign Office officials looking into this affair maintained that these men were not in a concentration camp. If they were not, where were they? They were never interviewed.
Last year, 350 hon. Members on both sides of the House put down a Motion. It was probably the strongest Motion to appear before the House for several years. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House was one of the few to take note of it. No doubt, he was anxious to clear up the matter, and I can understand that because he is a good Parliamentarian in these respects. But it was surprising that no other Minister took note of it and did anything about it.
My hon. Friend referred to the letter from the Prime Minister, who is so active in all these matters. In the course of it, the right hon. Gentleman said:
" As I am sure you know, Mr. Brown has gone into this matter personally and in very great detail on three separate occasions, and it has also been studied independently on other occasions by no less than three Ministers. In the circumstances, I am afraid that I do not think there would be any advantage in our meeting to discuss this further."
In the face of a Motion signed by 350 hon. Members, the Prime Minister should have received a delegation, because he might have been able to clear up the matter in the course of discussions. He chose not to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon saw Ministers on eight different occasions. He certainly showed extreme patience in dealing with the whole affair. The Foreign Secretary can say what he likes, but he must bear the responsibility. I do not want to blow this up into a great issue, but other Ministers in the past—in the case of Crichel Down and so on—have had to accept full responsibility. If the Foreign Secretary wants to excuse officials in the Foreign Office, then, he, and he alone, is to blame. The Foreign Secretary knows that he could have judged this matter 18 months ago.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): Of all the things of which one can accuse the Foreign Secretary, surely not taking the blame is not one. Did he not make it quite clear that he totally and absolutely assumed personal responsibility?
Sir A. V. Harvey: I do not think that he did. He spent 25 minutes querying and questioning the Parliamentary Commissioner's Report, and at the end of his speech rather reluctantly said, "I accept the blame."
Mr. R. W. Brown: Nonsense.
Sir A. V. Harvey: If hon. Members are in doubt, perhaps they will read HANSARD tomorrow and see for themselves.
Dr. M. P. Winstanley: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that what the Foreign Secretary said was that if there was any blame he accepted it?
Sir A. V. Harvey: There is a great deal of blame, but that will be gone into at a later date.
Mr. Charles Pannell Mr. Charles Pannell (Leeds, West)rose—
Sir A. V. Harvey: I will not give way. i have nearly finished.
The right hon. Member for Easington talked about other possible claimants. I hope that if another 12 come along the Government will deal with them equally generously. The sum involved is £25,000. We hand out over £200 million a year in aid, with which agree in many respects, but why are we so niggardly over £25,000 when it comes to dealing with our own people who have served and fought for this country? It is a nonsense. I hope we shall deal with the men fairly and that they will get their money quickly. I hope that when the Select Committee gets to work it will look into the matter in more detail than we have done tonight.
8.22 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Houghton: In one respect, the statement of the Foreign Secretary will give complete satisfaction to the House. He has decided to put this matter right, and we applaud his
136
candour and his courage in doing so. What dismayed me about my right hon. Friend's speech was his animadversions on the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner and his relationship to Ministerial responsibility and the relationship between Ministers and the House. It seems to me that we shall have to be clear where the Parliamentary Commissioner stands, what are the duties and responsibilities of the Select Committee, and how we are to order our affairs.
My right hon. Friend claimed to have some share in setting up the Parliamentary Commissioner. So do I. I was Chairman of the Cabinet Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner, and I drafted the White Paper. It was made clear throughout our deliberations on the institution of the Parliamentary Commission that we would put him in a position comparable with that of the Comptroller and Auditor General and we would create a Select Committee to which his reports should go.
There is one dissimilarity, one must admit, between reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General to the House and reports of Parliamentary Commissioner, namely, that the Parliamentary Commissioner is dealing with a matter referred to him by an hon. Member of this House to whom he is under a duty to report his findings. But in this case the Parliamentary Commissioner decided that, in view of the public interest in the matter, he should make a special report to the House. That is why we are discussing the Third Report of the Parliamentary Commissioner. However, I am sure it is a mistake for a debate to take place on the Floor of the House before the Select Committee has examined the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner. We are prejudging the issue, but I sincerely hope that the Select Committee—I see the chairman in his place on the benches opposite—will not regard this debate as in any way prejudicing its right to pursue its investigations into this matter to its own satisfaction and to report back to the House. That is the proper procedure and I hope that it will be followed.
I recall a report made to the House by the Comptroller and Auditor General on what was known as the Ferranti affair. Immediately it came to the notice of the Government the then Chancellor of the Exchequer decided to appoint a committee

137
of his own to look into certain disturbing aspects of that report, but the Public Accounts Committee was not diverted from its duty by that action in pursuing its own inquiries and making a special report to the House.
We have to get very clear in our minds the rights and duties of the Select Committee that has been appointed not by the Leader of the House, but by the House. Although it is appropriate in such circumstances as these for a Minister who is ready to make redress for maladministration to announce it to the House without delay so there need be no uncertainty, it. is enough, with respect, that such an announcement be made and the rest of the matter left to the Select Committee to make its report upon to the House in due season.
My right hon. Friend in his, I think, ill-judged remarks about the Parliamentary Commissioner seemed to have mistaken the function of the Parliamentary Commissioner. That is why I intervened a short time ago in the speech of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey). When the Foreign Secretary says that he thinks that his judgment is as good as that of the Parliamentary Commissioner, he is mistaking the function of the Parliamentary Commissioner. It is expressly clear that the Parliamentary Commissioner may not substitute his discretion for that resting with a Minister and he may not substitute his judgment for that properly exercisable by a Minister, unless in either case the discretion or the judgment rested upon an element of maladministration.
The point is that in Paragraph 53 of the Report, the Parliamentary Commissioner says:
"I am obliged to report that there have been defects in the administrative procedure by which the decisions on these claims were reached in the first place, and defended when subsequently challenged."
That is the genesis of the criticism of the Parliamentary Commissioner. The House and the Select Committee should know how these defects in administrative procedure arose, how they came to be tolerated for so long, and how they appeared to sustain Ministerial judgments right up to the Minister himself. I submit that that is the job of the Select Committee.
138
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will consider what has been said about the position of the Parliamentary Commissioner, because it will be very disturbing if, on future occasions of this kind, we are plunged into a debate in this House, the Minister comes down and says that he is going to remedy the grievance, at the same time asks the House to call it a day, and makes some comments about the relative merits of his own judgment and that of the Parliamentary Commissioner. We must sustain the Parliamentary Commissioner, and we must sustain the Select Committee which we have appointed. I think that this is the right procedure.
Before the debate began 1 thought that we might be making a mistake. Now, 1 am sure that we are, and I think that it will disturb those of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite who have a duty as members of the Select Committee. I hope that nothing has been said in the debate so far, or will be said later. which will deflect them from that duty.
8.30 p.m.
Mr. Richard Wood: I hope that 1 may be forgiven if I make an intervention, which I assure the House will be brief, but I feel that in a matter of this great importance something should be said on behalf of the Opposition, although I assure all hon. Members that nothing is further from my thoughts than to reduce in any way the serious and impartial consideration which the House has been giving to the claims of a number of very brave men.
As has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), the anxiety which has been felt on this matter has been felt by Members of all parties, and anxiety about certain aspects of it continues to be felt by Members of all parties. In no sense does this seem to me to be a party matter. The concern of Parliament, as it was the concern of the Parliamentary Commissioner, is primarily to see that justice is done. and it is clear, from what I have heard in this debate, that in the light of the Report the House of Commons and the country will be satisfied only if the claims which were formerly rejected are now, as they have been, accepted and discharged in full.
The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary took a long time, as it seemed

139
to some of my hon. Friends and to some hon. Gentlemen opposite, to say the one thing that we wanted to hear. I do not intend, if he will forgive me, to follow the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) in his important comments on the whole theme and duty of the Parliamentary Commissioner and the Select Committee. I would like to concern myself with the sentences which seemed to matter most in the Foreign Secretary's speech, and they were the concluding ones.
Most of us, I suppose, find daunting the problems which were implicit in the definition of Nazi persecution, contained in paragraph 9 of Rule I of the Anglo-German Agreement. The subsequent attempt to differentiate between the purpose and the quality of the ill-treatment meted out in the main compound of Sachsenhausen, on the one hand, and in the Sonderlager and the cell block on the other, seems to me almost beyond the range of human wisdom, and I do not find it the least surprising that this attempt to differentiate completely failed.
Had it been clearly recognised that the Sonderlager and the cell block, although separated from the main compound, were integral parts of the camp, within its main perimeter, and under the same S.S. management, perhaps the differentiation would never have been attempted and the case would have been immediately admitted. But the attempt to differentiate was made, and a judgment was reached which included Sergeant Kemp and Captain Starr, imprisoned in the main compound, but excluded those in the Sonderlager and the cell block, notwithstanding that they were under constant threats of execution and continued uncertainty of their fate, and notwithstanding the branding of Group Captain Day as
" an enemy of the Reich and a criminal."
Having listened to the debate, and having thought about the Report, I do not think that it is the basis of this judgment which causes us the greatest disquiet, because the judgment was based, originally, on a set of criteria sincerely designed to implement the intentions of the 1964 Agreement, even though those criteria inevitably involved harsher tests of past
140
suffering for those who were not in a recognised concentration camp than for those who were, and even though that basis of judgment led, in the words of paragraph 61, to the
"actual case of the main compound claimant awarded compensation who was more leniently treated than Zellenbau claimants refused compensation."
I believe that the disquiet which we feel flows from the defence of this judgment, once it was made, when it was questioned, by reliance on evidence which was favourable to it, and disregard of evidence less favourable. For example, Captain Churchill's acceptance of the Foreign Office's decision was urged in defence of this judgment even though he had had no experience whatsoever of the cell block, and Sergeant Kemp's vivid account of his seven months in the main compound was widely accepted as evidence of the cruelty there, but it was wrongly taken to refute other accounts of events in Sachsenhausen which was described as "fantastic".
In this grim and unhappy consequence of the Nazi inhumanities of two decades ago, I find it hard to think that anything can be gained now by attempts to apportion blame, either in the near-impossible tasks of judgment which were posed by the 1964 agreement itself or in the misjudgments which have since been made and the attempts to defend those wrong judgments on incomplete evidence. We must all owe a great debt of graitude to the Parliamentary Commissioner for his careful evaluation and admirably lucid Report. Above all, we owe a debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and a great many other hon. Gentlemen for the persistence of their advocacy of these claims.
Most important of all, as the Foreign Secretary recognised in his speech, is the need to discharge the debt, as far as it can be discharged, to a few very brave men, both in financial terms and in terms of any damage to their integrity and reputation which they have suffered. I hope that, in the light of the right hon. Gentleman's announcement tonight, that debt will be discharged fully and generously without delay.
8.36 p.m.
Mr. David Ginsburg: This is a short but very important debate on an issue which has moved me personally

141
as much as any since I have been a Member of the House, and it is, for many reasons, a significant Parliamentary occasion. Most important of all, restitution has been made. The Foreign Secretary has announced that the detainees are to be compensated and the House has shown that, even when mighty Ministers like the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have behaved unreasonably in a case affecting ordinary citizens, the citizens, through the exertions of hon. Members, can have their grievances redressed. I think that, on further reflection, both my right hon. Friends would admit that this is no bad thing, that it has done good for Parliament and for democracy.
The second reason why this is an important occasion, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) both said, is that the matter which we are resolving has been a major achievement and vindication of the Parliamentary Commissioner. Although we have amongst us here a very determined group of campaigners, my colleagues and I would all admit that, without the Parliamentary Commissioner and his very special powers, but also without his great personal skill on this occasion, we might never have broken through.
Perhaps, if it is not too embarrassing to him, I might add a word of praise to the Leader of the House. He is the guardian of hon. Members' rights as well as the manager of Government business, and I think that he appreciated far earlier than most Members of the Government the political significance of this case and the part which the Parliamentary Commissioner could play in resolving our dilemma.
Lastly, the occasion is important because it involves the wider issue of public administration as such. I speak as one who has been a civil servant, and even, for a short period, adviser to a political party, and now is a Member of Parliament. It is important that we should have a just and efficient public administration. Properly handled, our Civil Service can emerge stronger from this case and not weaker, as some Ministers fear.
I. urge those colleagues who have not done so to read or re-read the Parliamentary Commissioner's Report, because
142
it is a classic of narrative and detection. In particular I would urge them to read paragraphs 64, 65 and 66. This brings me to the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby. One can see here the shrewd way in which the Commissioner drew a line between administration and politics—
Mr. Crossman: Policy.
Mr. Ginsburg: Policy and politics. He has been concerned to examine the administrative processes whereby Ministers, and, in the circumstances of this case, particularly the Foreign Secretary, reach their decisions. Quite rightly, the Commissioner does not—this is important—pass judgment on Ministers. One ought to have in mind the precedent of Lord Denning and the Report of the Profumo affair in saying that that is surely for us in this House. But, having said that, we as Members of Parliament have a duty to say things about Ministers, and to say them frankly but, I hope, without any vindictiveness.
I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary is not in his place at the moment, because there are some things which I want to say about him and his colleagues. Despite the question of maladministration which the Parliamentary Commissioner rightly brings out, he was not set up to question the judgment of Ministers, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby said. I was amazed at Ministers' judgments in this case. As the hon. Member for Abingdon indicated, none of us was making party points. None of us was seeking a Ministerial scalp. All that hon. Members were saying, for months and indeed for years, was that we believed that a mistake had been made. We simply asked for an inquiry, and we asked for it time and time again.
I have here letters from the Secretary of State, as well as letters from the Under-Secretary of State, who is in his place. The Under-Secretary of State will remember that on 6th March, at the Foreign Office, with the hon. Members for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), I specifically put to him a suggestion that even at that very late hour someone from the Judge Advocate-General's Department, within the Government machinery, responsible to the Lord Chancellor, could examine this

143
case. He will recollect that suggestion, and he knows that, subsequently, the answer was, "No". The point came up again in the letter from the hon. Member for Abingdon to the Prime Minister, and once again the answer was "No".
Ministers were warned in letters and orally, time and time again, by many hon. Members—and the Under-Secretary of State will remember the time that the hon. Member for Abingdon and I spent with him—that on the facts, their advisers were wrong. I should like to read to the House a personal letter which I wrote to the Foreign Secretary. I also submitted it to the Parliamentary Commissioner. Although it was written in almost indecipherable handwriting, I wrote to him because I wanted him to read it instead of it going through his official machinery. I wrote:
" I am indeed grieved that we seem to be on a collision course over the Sachsenhausen affair. May I earnestly put the following item to you. Squadron Leader Dowse has stated that he was in the Cell Block ' for some time —the neighbouring cells were occupied by Thällman (leader of the German Communist Party, allegedly killed in an air raid but presumably murdered by the Nazis) and the Bishop of Munster, arrested by the Gestapo for his anti-Nazi sermons and made a cardinal before his death, in recognition of his suffering and courage. Surely incarceration with such people must constitute Nazi persecution as defined in the Notes for Guidance."
These are the crucial words:
"I do not know whether you were aware of this fact but would be glad if you would give it full weight. I still hope you will see your way to appointing someone to conduct an independent inquiry as to the facts in these cases which are in dispute."
I received no personal reply from the Foreign Secretary but I received a reply from the Under-Secretary of State in which the point was totally ignored. In his reply, the Under-Secretary of State made one extraordinary statement to which I must draw the attention of the House. On the subject of the Notes for Guidance he said:
" Our legal advice is that the Notes for Guidance upon which the distribution of compensation was based were administrative instructions authorised by the Foreign Secretary at the time. As such they were not creative of rights and only the authority issuing them is competent to say what they mean."
I am frankly staggered that the Minister could sign a statement of that kind, at least without satisfying himself that no
144
mistakes were made. I have today been re-reading the regulations and notes for guidance. They are so complicated that it must have entered Ministers' heads that it might be possible for errors in the rules to have arisen. Why did not the Minister, even at this very late stage, insist that the officers be interviewed?
The hon. Member for Abingdon, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North and I were so staggered at the obduracy of Ministers—at their conviction that they were right—that, in the end, we began to think that perhaps the Government had some hard facts and information which we did not have and that perhaps we had weighed the whole thing up in the wrong way. At one interview, in the interview rooms downstairs, we spoke to three of these gallant officers. It could not have been pleasant for them because we went over their statements as if we disbelieved them. However, at the end of the interview, we had no reason to doubt their words. When we saw the interrogation reports at the Foreign Office—on which that Department was resisting the claims—we saw very little by way of inconsistency but very much to confirm what these gallant men had told us and were telling us.
Many interrogation reports were compiled after the war. They were essentially intelligence documents and were never used in evidence in war crime trials or at courts-martial. They were, so to speak, pointers or clues to be followed up; and that follow-up work had to be done by the appropriate judicial processes and interviewing. We still do not know why interviewing was not done by the Department. Once we wrote to the Foreign Secretary and he knew that there had been no interviewing—we wrote to him about this and told him of it on enumerable occasions—he should have given firm instructions for it to be done.
To sum up on the Ministerial aspect, although one is pleased at the outcome in this case, this has been, in a sense, an unnecessary crisis because I still believe that the Foreign Secretary could have saved the day far earlier by ordering an inquiry. I am not saying that, unaided. the Foreign Secretary would necessarily have detected subtle acts of maladministration by his officials, but that there was no need for the matter to have got as far as it did.

145
As for the officials concerned, I will not say much about them tonight, except that I was disturbed at some of the tendentious—I use the word advisedly—material emanating from the Foreign Office. I say with regret that the facts in this case were being over-manipulated to make out a certain case. Perhaps in a controversial matter that might sometimes be excusable, but it cannot be excused in this case.
I recall that after 1 asked Questions in the House, in November 1966, I was sent a memorandum by the then Minister of State at the Foreign Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White)—I have given her notice of my intention to raise this matter tonight—arid I feel that she, apart from the officials, must accept a degree of responsibility. She wrote to me a short letter and sent me a memorandum on the case in question. The memorandum was not sent to the hon. Member for Abingdon, presumably because, by that stage, he was regarded as being past redemption. Perhaps I was not so regarded.
I was surprised at the picture of a concentration camp which appeared in the words of that memorandum. Considering the experiences of these gallant officers, the memorandum referred to Red Cross parcels, cigarettes, music, walks, bridge and so on. The examples were quite fantastic. There was no reference to the atmosphere of fear, of sudden death, in which these men lived all that time. Anyone looking at the memorandum would agree that it should not have been drawn up in quite that way; and that the Minister concerned should not have sent it out.
Again, using Parliamentary gamesmanship, in order to try to make our case I put down Written Questions which were answered by the Minister of State. In regard to Group Captain Day, I asked her specifically
"… by what branch of the German armed forces he and his colleagues were administered when to Sachsenhausen concentration camp •"
The argument was that where they were in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp was not a concentration camp. That was the Foreign Office argument, and the reply that was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East was that
146
the Sonderlager was administered by units of the Waffen SS, a part of the German armed forces. In my opinion, that was special pleading.
The point is that neither the Sonderlager nor the main camp ever came under the German armed forces at any time, and the Foreign Office Ministers should have known it. The concentration camp, as many hon. Members know who have experience of the matter, came under Himmler and under the senior officers serving under him who were concerned with these matters—first, the Lord President of the Council will remember, Heydrich and subsequently Kaltbrunner.
The SS units concerned were subordinated to the State Security Organisation. And even, of course, if it is true that many SS men served in fighting formations, the Waffen SS, and even if it is true, as the Parliamentary Commissioner reports:
" The Waffen SS absorbed the…Death's Head units…"
what the Minister was trying to say was totally academic. All concentration camps —whether Sonderlager, Zellenbau or the main camp at Sachsenhausen, or any of the others—Dachau, and Buchenwald were all guarded by these Death's Head units. So if it is argued that the guards of the Sonderlager which guarded these men were part of the German armed forces then, too, it would follow that the guards of all the concentration camps were part of the German armed forces. I put it to the Ministers that that, of course, would make nonsense of all their arguments and rules that they have applied in the notes for guidance.
I believe that there has been maladministration—the Commissioner says so—and it cannot be a very happy story. But we should be charitable. The compensation fund was inadequate. Let us say that officials got into a muddle and were never able to make a fresh start. They just got deeper and deeper into this administrative mess. Perhaps, therefore, we can hear a little more from my right hon. Friend of what the Foreign Secretary has in mind in the administrative instructions he has given.
I urge the Government to conduct an administrative review. Let them appoint someone who would command respect, not only at the Foreign Office but outside

147
the Foreign Service. In due course, that gentleman could report to the Foreign Secretary, and his administrative report could then be available to the Parliamentary Commissioner and the Select Committee. As other hon. Members have said, the Committee must retain the right to crossexamine officials—that is a vital safeguard for our administrative process —but I do not believe that the House wants any scalps that those who fought the case so hard did so to get redress and to vindicate the honour of some gallant men. This has been done, and we are well content.
8.55 p.m.
Sir David Renton: My connection with the subject of the debate started on a lovely afternoon during the General Election of 1964. I was going along a country road, and spoke to a party of roadmenders. One of them, with a broad Irish accent, drew attention to the Anglo-German compensation agreement of which he had seen mention in the newspaper. He asked me whether I could do something about it. He saw me after the election, and told me his story.
The man was Gunner J. Spence, the last name in Appendix A. He was an Irishman who, fairly early in the war, volunteered—he did not have to, for he was living in Ireland—to serve in the British Army. He joined the Gunners and was captured. The Germans apparently tried to persuade him, as they tried to persuade many Irishmen, but Gunner Spence, like the others, remained loyal. This annoyed the Germans very much and he was put into Sachsenhausen. Mr. Spence tells me, incidentally, that although it is not mentioned in Appendix A, he was put into the cell block for some months.
In Sachsenhausen his health suffered badly. He has been able to do only very light work recently. When I said that I would take up his claim, he told me that he was not looking for a lot of money and did not expect it but that it would be nice to have some compensation to give him some of the comforts in life that he lacks. I put his case fairly early in 1965, when I wrote to the then Minister of State rather than to the Foreign Secretary. The Minister of State saw me. I spent a lot of time with him. Shed
148
ding tears he said, in effect, that my constituent had not got his facts right about himself—which I took a bit hard—and, secondly, that if he had got them right he was not qualified because he had not really been in the concentration camp.
Now the Parliamentary Commissioner records that Mr. Spence was in Sonderlager A from November, 1943 to April, 1945, and, as I have said, my constituent maintains that he was in the cells. The fact that his version of what had happened to himself was not accepted draws my attention to one of the more deplorable things said by the Foreign Secretary tonight.
The right hon. Gentleman had the face to say that the gallantry, honour and integrity of these men had never been in question, but I think to have questioned them and doubted their word—men who went through this experience—was in fact calling their integrity into question. But for the efforts that have been made on their behalf—and the major credit must go to my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave)— this gross injustice would never have been put right.
Another thing which I thought extremely aggravating in the Foreign Secretary's speech was the way in which he accused my hon. Friend of making heavy weather when deploying his case. That was below the standard we expect of the Foreign Secretary and, to be fair, to him I must say I think that the whole of his performance tonight was uncharacteristic of the man himself because I think all of us who have known him know that he is a man who does not bear grudges, that, whether one agrees with him or not, he is the type of man to remain friendly. But tonight he made a speech which was in every way inappropriate and grudging.
The right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) was quite right in drawing attention to the remark made by the Foreign Secretary when comparing his own judgment with that of the Parliamentary Commissioner. It misses the whole point of having a Parliamentary Commissioner if a Minister, as soon as the Parliamentary Commissioner has reported and even before his report has been considered by a Select Committee, makes a remark of that kind on the Floor of the House, and I hope that, when the time

149
comes, the Select Committee will heed the words of the right hon. Member for Sowerby.
We have to get this interrelationship between the House, the Government and the Parliamentary Commissioner right. In a way, it is a very good thing that fairly early in his experience and in our experience of him, the Parliamentary Commissioner has been able to fasten his attention on such a glaring case as this, and ore only hopes that out of the misfortune which this case first appeared to be, some good will come.
I can hardly find a word to express my dislike of something the Foreign Secretary said. He said that one day we might have to have an Ombudsman to survey the Ombudsman. If ever there has been a more complete defiance of our own attitudes towards the Parliamentary Commissioner and the desire of both sides of the House to see the Parliamentary Commissioner serving the House and serving our constituents in the way we all hope, it is not easy to find, and that remark was most regrettable.
As so much that is wise has already been said, it would not be right for me to take up the time of the House further, but I am sure that my constituent would like me on his behalf to express thanks to all those who have fought this matter for these 12 men of whom he is perhaps about the humblest. I should like especially to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House—and I am sure that he will not take it amiss—for ensuring that this matter is properly dealt with and ventilated on the Floor of the House.
9.2 p.m.
Mr. Charles Pannell: I have been touched, as most of us have been, by these stories when people in our constituencies have told them to us, so that we have become part of the wider story which has had its culmination this evening.
The Foreign Secretary is not now here and so l will address my remarks to the. Minister of State, who will know of my long personal association with the Foreign Secretary. The last thing I want the Foreign Secretary to do is to read in cold print something which I could
150
have said far better to his head, and I would far sooner that he had been here. The Foreign Secretary did himself an ill turn this evening. I could follow the argument in the early part of his speech, and the rationalisation of his position was impeccable, but my right hon. Friend sometimes betrays himself in parentheses and goes off at half-cock, which he did this evening.
The difficulty about this matter is that by his attitude this evening the Foreign Secretary has made a reference to the Select Committee a "must". There is no question about that; that is the way it turns. In paragraph 61 of his Report the Parliamentary Commissioner said:
" The Foreign Office have represented to me, I think correctly, that as Parliamentary Commissioner I am not authorised to question the merits of the rule."
What he was really saying was that while in the last resort policy must rest with Ministers, he was questioning how the rule came about; he accepted that position.
I know the Foreign Secretary as well as anybody in the House does, and certainly far better than anybody in his Department does. He has a vein of quixotry in his nature. He is a gallant man and is very loyal, and I can honestly say that he would never have been as loyal to himself as he has been to his civil servants. He would have come cleaner on his own trouble, but he spoke as he did because he was caring for his civil servants.
We really did not want that long lecture upon him accepting responsibility. In a notable speech my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg) made it perfectly clear that the course of events was not as the Foreign Secretary set them out. I can remember the present Commonwealth Secretary giving his analysis. I was a Minister at the time, sitting beside him on the Front Bench, and his words carried to me a complete lack of conviction. The Foreign Secretary has followed this course all the way.
He really does not seem to understand the contradiction in terms. He continually referred to these "hon. and gallant men" but did not seem to appreciate that it had been a denial that they had been hon. and gallant all the way through the piece. Their veracity had

151
been questioned, they had almost been accused of mendacity. They had never been given the benefit of the doubt. Take one small example from the Foreign Secretary's Parliamentary replies, through which I was browsing this afternoon. There was one thing in which he must have been betrayed. He said in one of them:
"To my knowledge these men certainly received Red Cross parcels …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 7th November, 1966; Vol. 735, c. 978.]
That is not true. That is a careless statement. I want to deal with this on a narrow basis and, because the Foreign Secretary is absent, I must address my remarks to the Leader of the House. Whatever the procedures that we envisaged, after this the argument about the demarcation line between the Foreign Secretary and the Parliamentary Commissioner and any future Minister must be a matter to be settled once and for all.
Mr. Crossman: I made it clear in the business statement that the fact that we would debate and take note of this Report now had absolutely no effect whatever upon the investigations of the Committee. This cannot possibly affect its decision. It has its own powers and terms of reference.
Mr. Pannell: I take my right hon. Friend's point, but he will not mind me pointing out to him that there are some of my colleagues who thought that we could dispose of this here. The right hon. Member did not. Whatever doubts I have had on this have been resolved by the Foreign Secretary.
What is the cause of this thing? We have been through correspondence and representations, we have been through the Parliamentary Questions. We have been through an appeal to the Prime Minister, and at that stage someone said that the Parliamentary Commissioner should inquire into this. Acting within his terms of reference he does so. If I had been the Foreign Secretary I should have said, "The buck stops with the Parliamentary Commissioner" and we would call it a day. The House would have accepted that, without any denigration of the Foreign Secretary, and would have left the Foreign Office alone. But what the Foreign Secretary has put up is
152
the curious false proposition that the buck does not stop at the Parliamentary Commissioner but "the buck stops with me." We do not intend to accept that. The arguments about the Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee are correct, because we must not put the Parliamentary Commissioner in this position in future. There must be no argument at the end of the day.
This is almost like a judicial procedure, when one calls in an arbitrator. One cannot argue afterwards. All of us, certainly those of us who have been Ministers, accept the idea of Ministerial responsibility. At no time did the Foreign Secretary say, "I dealt with my civil servants". It is his job to deal with maladministration in his own Department. The anonymity of the Civil Service is always preserved, and it is the Minister at the end of the day who has to take it, as the unfortunate Sir Thomas Dugdale took it, on very insubstantial grounds. But, having done that, it is for the Minister to turn on the Department. What are the administrative class for in the Civil Service if they are not to protect the Minister? That is the question which we must ask. They have failed to protect their Minister, and I hope that the Select Committee will do a good job when the time comes.
9.10 p.m.
Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I shall be very brief since we have been reminded that this is a short debate and other hon. Members wish to speak. In any case, the Foreign Secretary has made a statement about which 1 think we would all want to think carefully before we finally expressed our opinions. I welcome the opportunity to place one or two points on record.
First, I should like to add my congratulations, and those of my hon. and right hon. Friends, to those which have been conveyed to the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) for the diligence, pertinacity and energy with which he has pursued this matter and on the manner in which his diligence and energy have finally and rightly been rewarded. I do not wish to dwell particularly on the merits of the case, which have been made absolutely clear to hon. Members by the hon. Members for Abingdon, Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg) and others so familiar with the

153
details of the case. They have convinced every one of us, I think, that no other action could have been taken than that which the Foreign Secretary has announced.
I endorse what the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said about this not being a party matter. It certainly is not a party matter. The doings and activities of the Parliamentary Commissioner and the way in which he works must concern all hon. Members. At some time there may be another Government. There will be other Ministers. There will certainly be other complaints. There may indeed be other Parliamentary Commissioners. But the way in which the Parliamentary Commissioner deals with these cases will be of great importance to every Member wherever he sits in the House.
I felt that after we passed the Bill dealing with the Parliamentary Commissioner there would be some difficulties. I did not expect things to go smoothly. One seldom expects anything to go smoothly in the House of Commons. We knew that complaints would be investigated and that, in some cases, the Parliamentary Commissioner would uphold them and that in others he would not. In the cases in which he upheld the complaint, clearly a Minister sooner or later would have to give an answer. There was nothing in the Act to compel the Minister to follow the directions of the Commissioner. Therefore, we knew that in some cases the Minister would accept the Parliamentary Commissioner's findings and that in others he might not accept them.
What I should not have thought would happen, however, was that a Minister would come along to the House, as the Foreign Secretary did today, and both accept them and reject them. It seemed to me that the right hon. Gentleman's speech could be understood only if he concluded it by saying that he would not accept the recommendations of the Commissioner. Having virtually argued that the findings were wrong, he went or, to tell us what he would do about the matter—in other words, that he proposed to accept the recommendations. The point has been put very eloquently by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) that it would have been better if his right hon. Frend had
154
merely said, "Very well; a mistake has been made, and I accept it".
The Foreign Secretary made much of the point that it was not only he as Foreign Secretary but his predecessors also who were concerned. Surely this is the whole point of the Ombudsman. When a decision has been taken there is a tendency for the decision to be perpetuated by future Ministers, and the fact that two or three successive Ministers take the same decisions does not add to its validity; it is merely a repetition of a decision which has already been taken. It is because a cycle of this kind can be set in motion that we need an officer of the kind we have now in order, sooner or later, to break the vicious circle.
What I was even more concerned about was the fact that the Foreign Secretary seemed to cast doubt on the whole concept of maladministration. He said, very clearly, that "if things have gone wrong, then Ministers have gone wrong." He returned constantly to the point that the Minister was always responsible. In other words, he appeared to reject utterly the concept that the Commissioner must deal only with maladministration. The Foreign Secretary seemed constantly to tell us that the only thing that could arise was a Ministerial decision. In other words, he seemed to be rejecting the terms of the Act. This clearly is a matter which must be looked into carefully, not only by the Select Committee, but by the House. It seemed that in his statement the Foreign Secretary was rejecting the basic idea underlying the whole work of the Parliamentary Commissioner.
I was interested, too, in the point made by the Foreign Secretary that, "We have opened the door. There may be other cases like these in which there is just as much injustice. Other people will say, 'Why not me?' ". Why indeed?
Sir Douglas Glover: Why not?
Dr. Winstanley: If there are too many of those cases, and if, in some way, people who do not have a valid claim are now induced by these proceedings to make a claim, the Foreign Secretary has nobody but himself to blame. If he stresses that some kind of compensation is being paid which should not really

155
have been paid but that since the Parliamentary Commissioner has recommended it he will agree to it, that almost amounts to an invitation to other people to make a claim.
Would it not have been better for the Foreign Secretary, and for the House, for him to have said that the Parliamentary Commissioner has made his decision, has looked at all the papers, decided that proper consideration was not given and has made his recommendation, and then fully to accept it? Had the Foreign Secretary said that, he would have had much more of the sympathy of this part of the House than he now has.
I would like to make a brief point concerning the holding of this debate. As a member of the Select Committee dealing with the Parliamentary Commissioner, I was inclined, like other hon. Members, to wonder about the wisdom of deciding to hold a debate of this kind before the Select Committee had an opportunity of discussing the matter. I took the view, and I still do, that, in general, the proper thing when a report of this kind has been made is for the Minister to come to the House and make a statement, on which there can be the normal exchange of questions. That would be valuable and there would be valuable further information for the Select Committee to consider. I was inclined to take that view and, in many ways, I still take it.
At the same time, I would like to say to the Leader of the House that in view of the nature of the statement made by the Foreign Secretary, it is not surprising that he decided that the statement should have been made to the House in this form. Certainly, it was not a statement in the ordinary sense. It was not the kind of statement which could have been answered by the normal exchange of questions. It was an unusual statement to make on the kind of report which is being considered. I hope that on future reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner, we do not have that kind of statement from Ministers, no matter to which side they belong.
Mr. George Brown: What was so difficult about my statement?
Dr. Winstanley: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was not here when I began
156
my speech. I said that it seemed to me to be a surprising statement in that it both rejected the findings of the Parliamentary Commissioner and, at the same time, accepted his recommendations. This seems to me to be a curious procedure. Whilst Ministers might from time to time reject a report and at other times they might accept it, to do both seems to be unusual and certainly requires the kind of debate which would not normally follow a statement.
Mr. Brown: I thought that that was what the hon. Member meant. There is no difficulty about this. I made it plain and gave my own judgment that I thought that the Parliamentary Commissioner was wrong. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I said that earlier. Nevertheless, having helped to establish his position, I said that I would accept his judgment even though I thought that it was wrong. I cannot see anything surprising about that. I think that it is the right thing to do. So I have accepted his judgment. I have, therefore, authorised payment to people—
Mr. Paul Hawkins: What makes the right hon. Gentleman think that the Parliamentary Commissioner's judgment was wrong?
Mr. Brown: I personally think it is wrong, but the Ombudsman thinks it is right, and I do not propose to start him off with a situation in which I argue against his judgment. So as the Minister—
Mr. Michael Jopling Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland) rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have an intervention upon an intervention.
Mr. Brown: As a Minister I have agreed to accept the view of the Parliamentary Commissioner. I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman thinks that is so ridiculous.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Molloy.
Dr. Winstanley Dr. Winstanley rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I understood that the hon. Member had made his peroration and challenged the Foreign Secretary to comment. He has made his comment.
Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. If the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) had made his peroration, the Foreign Secretary was out of order in his interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member ought to accept the Chair's guidance on what is in order.
9.23 p.m.
Mr. William Molloy: For those of us who have been very closely concerned over the past eighteen months, nearly two years, with this issue, this evening has been a notable milestone in a continuing story. This may not be the end of the story, but I think it is the happiest part of it—if that is the word to use in these circumstances. Back benchers, led so ably by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), have been campaigning against the administration by both parties, the previous Conservative Government as well as this Government. I think it is right and proper that hon. Members on both sides who have been concerned with this case should express our thanks to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for allowing this debate. I think we should also say a word of thanks to the hon. Members on both sides who signed the Motion which, I believe, contributed to pointing out to the Leader of the House the desirability of having this debate.
The facts of this matter are redolent of the degrading filth associated with all the evils of Nazism, and the terms used in this debate are terms which caused terror, anger, annoyance to millions of people all over the world, and not only to those British officers who were involved in this case—terms such as concentration camp, extermination camp, gas chambers, torture chambers, the S.S. They are all horrid and repugnant terms which caused annoyance and deep anger all over the world. To quality for treatment in any of those places was simply to have opposed the Nazi regime.
We have to be fair in examining this question at the stage which it has reached. I hope that the Select Committee will continue its examination of the matter by examining all the points which have been made in this debate as well as other matters which will be laid before the Committee, and I hope it will take note of this, and that the House will take note
158
of it, too, that those of us who campaigned for these British Service men who suffered this sort of treatment felt ourselves tightly restricted when we realised the implications of what I would call the "Butler Agreement", which was too narrow, which was too mean, which was too hastily devised. It was an appalling agreement, and it placed shackles upon our endeavours to try to get justice for these people. That has to be acknowledged. Instead of drawing up these nice, tidy, legalistic documents, all that was necessary was to say that anyone who suffered the vile and barbarous behaviour of Nazism should be entitled to consideration for some form of compensation, irrespective of where they suffered it. That is something of which cognisance should have been taken early on, when the Butler Agreement was negotiated.
Mr. Michael English: Would my hon. Friend agree that it would have been sufficient to say that any prisoner who was not treated in accordance with the Hague Convention was entitled to full compensation, instead of the Foreign Office inventing an agreement of its own?
Mr. Molloy: My hon. Friend has missed my point. I am of the opinion that any British national, in or out of uniform, who suffered at the hands of these barbarians should have had the right to compensation after the war.
Those of us who have been involved in this case are mindful of the fact that there are thousands of cases which are just as horrible and thousands of people who suffered in the service of their nation, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said. The agreement and the formula which had to be devised to suit it made it very difficult for anyone to be generous. There were Servicemen who were taken prisoner and shot out of hand. Their relatives will not qualify under the formula. Prisoners were put underground in solitary confinement for seven or eight months at a time, with hardly any food. According to the Butler Agreement, they were not in a concentration camp.
We have arrived at a situation where the officers concerned are to receive some measure of justice. Without it, it seemed that the only possible way of convincing

159
the Foreign Office would have been to get the guards who locked them up to come and tell the Foreign Office about the treatment these men received. That is how absurd the situation was.
For those who qualify under the Agreement, this is a test case. If there are others who believe that they qualify, I hope that they will make representations to have their case re-examined. However, I do not believe that this is a test case to end all test cases. Surely that cannot be.
What has happened this evening is a compliment to Parliament as a whole. We hear so much these days from gentlemen who write to the Press, but they are not involved in the private and personal problems of our constituents, who tell us in confidence about them. On this occasion, I hope that the gentlemen of the Press will acknowledge that Parliament has done a good job, but it must not be forgotten that our success has been contributed to in large measure by the establishment of the Parliamentary Commissioner. Without it, we would have got nowhere.
Fundamentally, the reason for our success tonight is the tenacity and courage of the hon. Member for Abingdon, who started this off and has seen it through to the end. Above all—the Parliamentary Commissioner, the Foreign Office, and the rest—he has upheld the great traditions of the House. The Parliamentary Commissioner was appointed to establish where injustice had been done because of maladministration and, inevitably, to expose it. If it were otherwise, we should have to accept a blank cheque from him. I believe that it was right for him to act as he did. I know full well that if this could have been done solely by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—if he was given almighty power—not only these officers, but thousands of others would have been compensated by as much as he could have given them.
I know his true feelings on the matter. He has taken a gallant stand concerning his officials, but at the same time I think that one can be too loyal. He has even taken the risk of damaging his own name in defending officials of his Department. But he has to reconcile, somehow or
160
other, that he, too, can share the credit in establishing the Parliamentary Commissioner whose job it is to winkle out the sort of cases that we have had in this instance. I hope that he will recall this.
This case had another aspect; namely, that in years to come the record will no doubt be examined. If it had gone the wrong way, historians and people in the future might have said: "Were these men telling the truth? After all, they put up a good case. We believe they did, but the fact of the matter was that in the end they were turned down." I believe that would have impugned their honour. I know this from personal contact with these officers. The aspect which was giving them concern and worry more than anything else was that the future record might have doubted their story. They have been living with this agonising frustration for many months indeed.
Under the most able leadership of the hon. Member for Abingdon, I believe we have made two contributions. First, we have made a contribution in re-establishing the authority and dignity of Parliament and, secondly, we have cleared these gallant officers of any doubt that might have hung about their names. If there was any doubt, it has now been removed. This exercise has been worth while, if only for that.
I know that the Leader of the House wishes to wind up the debate. I would add, however, that this has been not so much a triumph, but a mark of approval by the House of Commons and the British people of the efforts of the hon. Member for Abingdon, of those who supported him, of the whole procedure of the House of Commons, Parliament itself, and, last but not least, what we have added to the power of investigation of the Parliamentary Commissioner to defend individuals. This is not so much a triumph as a vindication of gallant men whose service to the nation was never in doubt. It has shown that they were right to engage upon this issue and, in my estimation, it was right and proper that we should make our contribution to ensuring their success in clearing their honour for evermore.
9.22 p.m.
Dame Irene Ward: I have but a few minutes, because I know

161
that the Leader of the House wishes to rise at 20 minutes to 10, and we are all wanting to hear what he has to say.
I would like to have one thing put on record. Criticism was made of the Butler Agreement that was obtained from the Federal German Government. It should be pointed out that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), when the Conservative Government were in power, who started the original agitation to get a substantial contribution from the Federal German Government to deal with this kind of case. That arose from his knowledge and experience of what certain people had to face during the time of the German war. But it was a very long time before the House of Cornmons realised how necessary and essential it was to obtain such an agreement from the Federal German Government. It is a long time ago, but I think I am right in saying that though the Treaty was made between the Conservative Government and the Federal German Government, the actual conditions for distribution were laid down by the present Government when they took office. In other words, the Conservative Administration sent out all the advertisements to get people to put in their applications to be considered when the fund was allocated but the present Government had the responsibility of distributing the funds. It is important to get the record straight on this, because we do not want any inaccuracies creeping into our debate.
I am glad that I am a member of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner, because I hope that this whole matter will be fully discussed by it. I would like to say, because it has not been said in specific terms, despite all the congratulations which have been offered to my hon. Friend and those who have supported him, that if it had not been for him, and if there had not been a Parliamentary Commissioner, whatever the Foreign Secretary might have thought about it, we should never have won the case.
I listened carefully to the opening remarks of the Foreign Secretary when he was discussing the constitutional position. Originally, I was not particularly in favour of having a Parliamentary Commissioner, but after this success I see all sorts of possibilities for extending his
162
powers. However hard my hon. Friend worked, if we had not had the Parliamentary Commissioner we could not have obtained the decision of the Foreign Secretary to compensate these men who were in this portion of the camp. This proves that even in this great Parliamentary democracy of ours we can sometimes improve our constitution to the benefit of the public whom we are supposed to serve.
9.37 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): This has been an extremely interesting, and for once one can justifiably use the cliché unprecedented, debate, because this is our first debate on a well-known case presented to the House in a special Report from the Parliamentary Commissioner.
I say right away to the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) that she is right about the facts. The actual distribution of the fund was carried out by this Government, but I think the hon. Lady is also right to emphasise that the principle was laid down by our predecessors in two particulars, and they were two vital particulars. I shall deal with the one about policy later. One principle was that we should, broadly, compensate those who were in concentration camps, without much criticism or discussion, but those outside should be subjected to the suffering test. That was the first Butler principle. The second was that we should do it administratively, that we should speed it up and not hand it to the War Claims Commission which would look at it judicially and spend years on it. We should take the risk of not being quite so meticulous, and distribute the money quickly to those involved. These are the two principles which we inherited. These are the principles on which the actions took place which were criticised by the Parliamentary Commissioner.
I think we can all agree that the debate this evening demonstrates the effect which an individual back bencher can have. We sometimes say that individuals cannot do anything, but here we have a good example of a few back benchers—I do not know how many formed the nucleus—getting something done. The matter was pushed by back benchers, and, as I was

163
reminded, pushed by Early Day Motions, which have their effect on Leaders of the House. When they are signed by many hon. Members it becomes awkward for him to decide what to do week after week, as I know, and therefore the existence of the Parliamentary Commissioner came as a merciful deliverance to the Leader of the House. He was able to persuade the highly sceptical inner group who said that they wanted justice at once, and doubted the Commissioner's powers, when he staked everything on being able to surprise the hon. Lady by the way he acted.
Before this debate the Parliamentary Commissioner was a figure of fun in some circles. During the debates on his appointment it was fashionable on the Conservative benches to say that we were laying down and limiting his powers in such a way as to make him hopelessly ineffective. In many ways, one became anxious about whether his powers were so limited that he could not be effective. One of the things which the Select Committee will examine is how far his powers extend, and whether Schedule 3 can be used to extend them further. These are all areas for discussion. What we have now admitted for the first time—there were some sceptics on this side as well—is that the Parliamentary Commissioner, when a case falls within his jurisdiction, does a thorough job.
I would remind the House that the powers which he was given—again, something which was not accepted at the time —are unique. He has a power of investigation greater than any back bencher or Minister because he is empowered to look at the most secret documents and all the files, to cross-examine every official and Minister from the top to the bottom, and has in his one personality, greater power of investigation than anyone has ever had before. What we look at in the Report is the top of the iceberg. What he has been able to print is but a fraction of the amount which he obtained, upon the basis of which he built these conclusions.
One must remember, therefore, that he has had an absolutely unique six months, to which British administration has not been subjected previously. We have invented here an instrument of investiga-
164
tion sharper, more precise, going deeper, than ever before. Ministries must now accept the fact that this is a constitutional innovation, that they are subjected to this kind of examination. Of course, when the first examination comes, it produces constitutional innovations. Some back benchers were deeply suspicious of the Parliamentary Commissioner taking their work away, and said that they did not want him because he would do it for them. I hope that these views are reduced, now that we see that there are cases in which the back bencher cannot get through without this kind of deep examination.
For Whitehall and the Government, the existence of a Parliamentary Commissioner with these powers creates constitutional innovations which will take some time to sort out. From time to time, as in this case, a man can say on a well-known case, "I disagree with the Government or with the Foreign Office in certain particulars", and that he thinks that there has been "maladministration", in his own word. That is a constitutional innovation, that any one has the authority and power to say so in something which is printed and put to the House.
Thus, when we are discussing it, we are discussing both our delight—at least my delight—that a redress of grievance has been achieved in this remarkable way and the House can be pleased with that, but I am also interested and delighted that we have now been able, thoughtfully for three hours, to discuss this constitutional innovation, and what should be the proper reaction of the Government and the House to it.
Some members of the Select Committee were critical of me for putting it to debate now. It was done for a simple reason—that anyone who heard the debate would know that the speech which the Foreign Secretary felt it his duty to make, and was proud to make, could not be made as a statement at the end of Question Time. If we were to understand the issue involved and if the Select Committee were to understand whatever maladministration there was, we needed the kind of statement which could not be made at the end of Question Time but only in a debate in the House. We got our general debate to study how we would swallow and assimilate this innovation—
Mr. Buck: On this point of constitutional innovation, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can assist the House further. The Foreign Secretary implied, on his personal behalf, that he did not accept the conclusions of the Parliamentary Commissioner. Is this the view of the Government, that they do not accept these conclusions, or is it just the personal position of the Foreign Secretary? This also would raise constitutional innovations.
Mr. Crossman: My right hon. Friend deliberately put the matter to the House because the House must face the fact that a Department of State and a Minister have taken a certain view. They have conscientiously done the job and then the Ombudsman says, "You were wrong in these particulars". The view of some hon. Members is that one should automatically accept not only the conclusion hut all the findings as well. It is not my view that this is automatically so. Frankly, the House must proceed by experiment in this relationship between Government, the Parliamentary Commissioner, and the House. It is an innovation, and we shall have to work our way towards a procedure. What my right hon. Friend said was quite clear. He said that he personally did not accept all that was found in the Report. This seems to me to be the logical and sensible position to adopt. No doubt, the Government will consider the Report. Like the Select Committee, no doubt we shall consider the constitutional innovations which arise. It is difficult to do this except in practice, because we need to proceed by experience of how it works in practice.
I have one or two further points to make about the investigation. First, if it is a remarkable constitutional innovation, at the same time its extent is extremely limited. That is a point which the Parliamentary Commissioner emphasied. He said that he could deal only with maladministration; he could not challenge any of the so-called Butler rules. He could not challenge the principle on which the distributions were made, although he made it clear that he thought that the principle led to some extraordinary results. He was not entitled to decide Government policy. He was entitled only to take the narrow question, assuming that the policy was right
166
"Has anybody suffered injustice as a result of the administration of the policy in a false or improper way, or without attention to all the relevant facts?"
He came to the conclusion that even if he accepted the policy—which may in many ways be unacceptable—and accepted that if the distribution were done administratively and not through a court there must be a much greater chance of imperfection, then his view was that there were still two particulars in which there was maladministration; but they were within this narrow limit.
I personally listened to some of the speeches today with some amazement. At the end of the war I spent the last days in opening concentration camps and I saw a great deal of this opening process. I saw it as it actually happened, and I saw the last Nazi concentration camps being destroyed. If anybody tells me that it is easy to know what went on in a concentration camp, I do not believe him. In a concentration camp—and here there were 40,000 people—there were people living in a town which was separated from outside, as it were, by Chinese walls, with a dreadful sense of isolation, one section isolated from another. A point which puzzles me is that the whole principle upon which compensation was paid was the view that everybody in a concentration camp must be assumed to have undergone terrible suffering. But anyone who studied concentration camps knows that inside them there were those who exploited and those who were exploited. These camps were organised systematically by the Germans with the inmates as exploiters and exploited. There were the few rich and comfortable inmates, and there was, on the other hand, the vast mass of suffering. Nothing was simple and no generalisation was true.
Out of this came the difficulty that any simple rule which we made for deciding how to distribute this fund was bound to produce anomalies. Under the rules, anybody in a concentration camp must be assumed to have had a rough time and anybody outside a concentration camp must prove that he had a very rough time, and in a number of cases that produced grave injustice.
A second question concerned the definition of "inside" and "outside".

167
It was on the geographical definition of "inside" and "outside" that the difference of opinion between the Parliamentary Commissioner and the Foreign Office is sharpest. He simply said that in his view they were wrong about Sonderlager, although it was a doubtful case, and that they were certainly wrong about Zellenbau, because that was within the perimeter. It is interesting to note that it is in this area in which he blames the Foreign Office for faulty judgment. It is no more than that because we must remember that we are talking about something 20 years later. We are talking about whether something happened inside or outside a concentration camp.
It is my guess that this faulty judgment, as it has been called, arose because of what I have described as the astonishing variety between the types of life that went on. When one discovers that some people were living, so to speak, in the lap of luxury compared with those who were living inside and were suffering appallingly, one might wish to define them as being outside, but one is inclined not to do so because of saying, "If I define them as such, it will spoil my theory."
I mention this to show that we must see this in a reasonable perspective. It is in this light that we must see the area of difference between the Parliamentary Commissioner and the Foreign Office. It is in that sense that we must consider where these two places, inside and outside were. The judgment is of importance only because of the rule that the people inside are likely to get compensation while those outside are unlikely to get any. Without that rule the distinction would not have been sufficient.
I come to the second point of maladministration, the reaction of the Foreign Office when its initial judgment was challenged by this group of people and the new evidence which they had produced. The Parliamentary Commissioner rebukes the Foreign Office for its disregard of the evidence and for claiming that it knew better. Here we are dealing with a question of judgment. and not of improper motives concerning something that happened 20 years before.
Sir A. V. Harvey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Foreign Office would have been able to have formed a better judgment if it had inter-
168
viewed these officers personally, rather than for the Foreign Secretary to have done so at the end of the day?
Mr. Crossman: I ran a Department and, in this position, I consider that if a Minister says, "I will do this myself; the Department need not do it", then that Minister must take the decision himself and do the interviewing himself. This is not maladministration in any normal sense. It is merely a Minister saying. "I will take on the job and I will interview them." If a Minister, who is entitled to do so, says that, then it is up to him to make the decision and to do the job.
I come to the remarkable speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). Of course, it is true—I said it earlier when asked—that the Select Committee's right to investigate or examine this Report—which is presented to it as well as to the House—is absolutely unaffected by the fact that we are now taking note of the Report and having an initial discussion here on the role of the Ombudsman. It is a good thing that this is happening. Perhaps the Select Committee, being aware of this discussion, may to some extent profit in the deliberations which it will no doubt have on the Report.
On the whole, what struck me as strange was the reaction of hon. Gentlemen opposite to my right hon. Friend's assertion that, in this particular case—and he was referring to this particular case—he did not feel that there was much to investigate by way of the conduct of civil servants. Why did my right hon. Friend say that? I suggest that he had good reason for saying it, and I say it as a Minister.
My right hon. Friend said that this is one of those cases in which Ministers have been concerned throughout. It is not one of those cases where Ministers are brought in at the last moment. From the start to the end, Ministers—in other words, politicians—have been intimately concerned. They drew up the rules at the beginning. They were Ministers and politicians' rules, with civil servants advising them. We took the whole thing over and the policy was unchanged. Ministers administered the thing in a certain way and, as I said, test cases and anomalies came up. They were anomalies which we inherited from this method of

169
saying, "Everybody in a concentration camp will have the benefit of the doubt." As I explained, a good many did not deserve it, but they got the benefit of the doubt.
The point is that once one observes rules, one gets into a semantic interpretation of. them and those rules become odder and odder—that is, if one keeps to them. And the rules had to be kept for this method of distribution. The Foreign Secretary says, "I give you my ward that throughout this I personally took all the decisions. I took the matter out of the hands of my civil servants. I did it myself." When a Minister says that, then that is what happened. That is why I do not understand why this is being treated as being such an astonishing statement, for it is clearly true in this case.
It was true of the Minister and his team. They took the keenest interest in this case; and if the Minister concerned says, "I came to this decision. It was not the same as the Ombudsman's view, but I am still inclined to think that I have some right on my side ", then that seems a not unreasonable attitude for him to adopt. It does not seem to be constitutionally improper. Indeed, a Minister ought to stand up for his power of decision, especially when he actually took the decision, as there is no doubt my right hon. Friend did on this occasion. He agreed with it. He now says, "Right, I have listened. I have read this Report and I have admired it, but I have to admit that, though I shall pay up, in some ways I still think I am right." That seems to be rational. If we were to take the view that Ministers had automatically to stand on their heads and say the opposite of what they thought directly the Ombudsman came up with a view, we would have an impossible position.
The fact is that the creation of the Ombudsman has produced a complete constitutional innovation here—
Mr. Molloy Mr. Molloy rose—
Mr. Crossman: No, I am sorry—I want to finish this point.
170
To say that an official of the House shall, first of all, have powers of investigation greater than those of any Minister or anyone else in this House and, on that basis, shall publish his conclusions about the working of the administration in Whitehall is a revolutionary innovation. We always knew that it would work only if we chose the right man for the job, and only if he did the right kind of work, which is what the Report represents. The Report is a magnificent example of something that has shaken things up, made people think twice, reversed what many hon. Members thought was an injustice, and persuaded the Foreign Secretary to change his mind. Those are good and healthy things to do, but it is also good and healthy for the Government to say that they will not always agree to change their minds—
Mr. F. V. Corfield: The right hon. Gentleman is saying that the Foreign Secretary has come to the conclusion that those men did not suffer the degree of hardship that was regarded as necessary. Is it not clear that that is against all the evidence, and against all the conclusions drawn by every hon. Member?
Mr. Crossman: I do not think that the hon. Member was present during most of the debate. That is not what the Foreign Secretary said, and the hon. Member knows it. What the Foreign Secretary said was that these were—heaven knows—border line decisions about things of 20 years ago on which opinions can differ. We have an Ombudsman for the purpose of settling disputes. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary says, "Thank you, Ombudsman, for making a difficult decision. I grudge it you a bit, but I give it to you just the same." That seems to be a healthy position.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Third Report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (House of Commons Paper No. 54).

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (PLOUGHING GRANTS)
9.58 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): I beg to move,
That the Ploughing Grants (Emergency Payments) Scheme 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 22nd January, be approved.
Many farmers who have suffered as a result of the foot-and-mouth epidemic will have set about reorganising and rehabilitating their farms, and some who have latterly had the disease on their farms will be considering how to reorganise and rehabilitate. It is our intention to provide special assistance to all those farmers in going about this task. In particular, we are anxious to ease the pressure for replacement stock. Hon. Members will be aware of the Register of Livestock being organised by the National Farmers Union, and of the special effort which the National Agricultural Advisory Service is making to advise farmers on how best to get on their feet again.
The special ploughing-up grant will supply assistance of a different kind. We hope that by offering farmers a material contribution towards getting a different kind of income for a season, the pressure for going into the market for replacement stock will be reduced, and any upward tendency in the level of prices will, we hope, be considerably moderated.
Hon. Members will have noted that the Scheme is applicable to England and Wales only, and will have appreciated that this is because the outbreak has spread no further.
We have every confidence that the measures which have been adopted will prevent any widening of the infected area and are encouraged by the declining numbers of new cases over recent weeks. I must add, however, that every fresh outbreak—and there have been two tonight—emphasises that great vigilance is still required. In spite of the decline in the incidence of the disease, I cannot emphasis this too much.
We at the Ministry are not infrequently accused of devising unnecessarily compli-
172
cated schemes, but I think that right hon. and hon. Members are aware that the reason for this is usually the need to ensure that public money is spent wisely and where it is needed most. Particular care has been taken that the £10 ploughing grant, which is an emergency measure designed to help farmers in particularly difficult circumstances, should be as simple as possible to understand and with as few strings as possible. The only point which it has been necessary to set out in some detail concerns eligibility. We have had to be careful here in order to ensure that the grant is available to those for whom it is intended and that unreasonable advantage is not taken of it.
There are two main classes of farmer to whom the grant will be available. The first is the man whose livestock has been slaughtered on his holding due to the disease. This is the circumstance that will apply in the majority of cases. It will also take in the farmer whose neighbour has suffered an outbreak of the disease and whose stock has been slaughtered as a firebreak to prevent the spread of infection. Sometimes in this circumstance the stock is driven on to the infected holding before being slaughtered, but this will not debar land ploughed up on the farm where they were kept previously from receiving grant aid.
The other main category of farmer who will be eligible is the man whose stock had been sent on agistment or which was being grazed out on common or moor land associated with the main holding and there caught the disease and was slaughtered. Although the animals were destroyed away from the holding, their owner will still be able to plough up his fields and obtain grant, but if he has several holdings he will only be able to select one of these, which must be one from which the animals came before being agisted or grazed out, because we think it would be unreasonable for a farmer who had livestock on, say, the Welsh hills destroyed because of the disease to obtain grant for ploughing up several farms in, perhaps, Wiltshire or Norfolk, on the strength of the Welsh outbreak.
As I have said, the other conditions of the Scheme are simple, but perhaps hon.

173
Members may wish me to run through them quickly. The land ploughed up must have been continuously under grass since before 25th October, 1967, which was the date of the first outbreak of the disease, and at the time of ploughing. The fact that it may have benefited under previous ploughing grants schemes will not render it ineligible, except for land which has been grant-aided under the 1967 scheme.
We thought it unreasonable to permit land which had been ploughed up and re-seeded since 1st June, 1967, to be ploughed up again under the Emergency Scheme, but considered that, since farmers may have to revise their planning drastically because of the consequences of the disease, benefit under earlier schemes should not debar them from this one. Prior inspection is not required. We wished to ensure that farmers who had already ploughed up following an outbreak were not thereby debarred from grant and also to avoid delaying those who wished to go ahead at once.
Hon. Members will note, however, that it is a condition of the Scheme that the land must be suitable for ploughing and cropping, and applicants who are in any doubt on this score are being advised to seek guidance from the N.A.A.S. immediately.
We are, as far as is practicable, arranging to follow up all inquiries with technical visits in order to ensure that farmers have proper advice and do not harm their own long-term interests by ploughing up unsuitable land. Grant is payable on completion of ploughing and one of the subsequent operations listed in the Schedule to the Scheme—for example, harrowing, discing or the spreading of lime or fertiliser. The subsequent operation is necessary because it is a condition of the Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) Act, 1952, under which this Scheme is being made. There is no requirement to sow a particular crop, but the main emphasis of the Scheme will be to assist farmers to augment their incomes with a cash crop, and we hope that farmers will take advantage of that.
I do not think that I need take further time to explain other provisions of the Scheme, many of which will be familiar to hon. Members from earlier ploughing
174
grants schemes. They include the dates during which operations may be carried out, the provision of adequate facilities for inspection, requiring applications for grant to be made in due form, and so on.
I am sure that hon. Members will join me in welcoming this special form of assistance for those who have suffered as a consequence of this disastrous epidemic, and I commend the Scheme to the House.
10.6 p.m.
Sir Clive Bossom: The Minister's action in giving additional ploughing grants has reassured the farmers and they are most grateful. It will especially encourage dairy farmers to delay restocking in order to ease the pressure in the market for dairy stock and thus avoid the creation of artificially high prices.
However, in Herefordshire we have a rather special problem, as the Minister is aware. There are many types of farmers, but we have two types, both small farmers, the hill farmers and the commoners, who feel that they have been slightly cheated as they are unable to take advantage of the additional ploughing grant. The Minister well knows that in England and Wales there are about 1,500,000 acres of common land, and in a small county like Herefordshire 89 pieces of common land had been registered by Hereford County Council by 31st December, last year.
As the Minister knows, some of these are commons of only half an acre. Eleven are of more than 100 acres, and there are several, like Bromyard Downs and Bircher Common, of approximately 300 acres. Most of them have stock on them and the commoners have little or no other land which they could plough. I hope that the Minister will look into these special cases again, as these farmers feel that they have been left out in the cold.
Past legislation provides for compensation at market value, which has been quite fair, because, generally speaking, there has been very little delay, but on this occasion market values have increased as the numbers of stock slaughtered have increased. There is also the problem of continuing inflation. That is why I want the Minister to try to persuade the Treasury to have a

175
second look at exempting from Income Tax the compensation money paid for young animals and beef cattle—I understand that the Minister is now considering a scheme to restore some of the money in the form of a grant and he knows that that would be most welcome for those who are trying to buy young beef cattle.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss taxation exemption on this Order, which deals with giving money to certain farmers.
Sir C. Bossom: At the same time, I hope that during these next few weeks the Minister will consider raising the level of farm prices and grants for this year's Farm Price Review.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We certainly cannot discuss the Farm Price Review on this Order.
Sir C. Bossom: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, but I was trying to back up my hill farmers and commoners who do a good job in difficult conditions. I appreciate that it is difficult to help them under this Scheme, but I hope that the Minister will not forget them.
10.9 p.m.
Mr. Grant-Ferris: I am sure that the overwhelming majority of farmers stricken by this terrible plague, and certainly the majority of farmers in my constituency, will greatly welcome the £10 ploughing grant which the Minister has introduced. The news came in those dark days before Christmas when the plague was only just past its height, and it brought a ray of hope for the future.
I want to show some of the difficulties which the Ministry will have in administering this grant with fairness and justice to all farms. I would like to give a particular instance which I have investigated in the last few days. On Saturday afternoon I called a meeting of my constituent farmers in a particular area, centred on the not inappropriately named parish of Wettenhall, to find out what their views were about the grant in view of the fact that it would be virtually impossible for them to make any practical use of it.
What I want to give to the Minister is the size and scope of their particular
176
area. It is, in fact, about 4,500 acres, virtually in a ring fence. It represents 30 or 40 farmers farming on average about 150 acres, or something of that nature. During the war they did plough up their land and some of it has not yet recovered. It seems very unlikely that any of them will want to take advantage of this £10 ploughing grant, and there is nothing in that which can particularly help them.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has read out paragraph 4(b) which says:
"…in the opinion of the Minister, suitable for ploughing and cropping;".
Is the Minister, in the shape of his advisers in the area, to allow an over-keen farmer to plough land which is obviously not really fit for ploughing, and if he does so what about paragraph 6(a) which says:
"the ploughing or any other operation in respect of which grant under this scheme may be made has been inefficiently carried out•"?
Having been allowed to plough he may, as the hon. Gentleman knows, make a terrible mess of it. We are dealing with land which has a very thin top-soil, about 2½ to 3 in., and ghastly clay underneath. Something will have to be done to help here.
I know that you are watching me very carefully, Mr. Speaker, because you may be expecting me to make suggestions which might not be in order—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is one of my Chairmen and would never get out of order.
Mr. Grant-Ferris: I was afraid that you might say that, Mr. Speaker, and I will do my best not to get out of order. If I may very briefly be allowed to make a suggestion, I promise that if you so much as lift an eyebrow I will cease immediately. If something could be done in the nature of the £10 grant to help with drainage and option given to choose this then those farmers could use that to the immense and permanent benefit of the countryside there and of the country in general. I will not press that now because to go any further, Mr. Speaker, would not meet with your approbation at all.
I know that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who is an expert in this, quite apart from being a Minister, will know

177
exactly what I am driving at. If he would say that he will, not necessarily give his sympathetic consideration, because that implies that I expect that he will do it, but if he will really consider the matter and see what can be done for these unfortunate constituents of mine, not only in this ring fence of which I have spoken, but as well as for farmers in other parts of the county, where ploughing is absolutely impossible, it will be the just, right and proper thing to do, I welcome this draft Scheme.
10.14 p.m.
Sir John Foster: I should like to ask the Minister whether, when he administers the Measure, he will have in mind the fact that it is a little unwise for him to be judge in his own cause. In paragraph 4(1)(b) he has the power to decide whether land is suitable for ploughing or cropping. In most Acts and rules and regulations there is a form of appeal, if it is only to an independent inspector who might be a member of the Ministry. Should we leave it to the Minister to decide whether land is suitable for ploughing and cropping? There might be a genuine difference of opinion. I hope that we shall have an assurance that the Minister will bear that in mind and that if it comes to a dispute with a farmer he will appoint somebody in his Ministry who can be regarded as independent to decide the dispute.
The same point applies to paragraph 6(a). There the matter is a bit more serious because the Minister may decide that ploughing has not been efficiently carried out. Having acted in a judicial capacity and decided that the ploughing has not been efficiently carried out, the Minister can withhold the grant or reduce the amount. I am surprised that one of the bodies which are meant to consider these Orders in Council did not make this point. One does not want to pray against the Scheme because it is for the benefit of the farmers, but I hope that the Minister will bear this point in mind and that we shall have an assurance that he wi11 deal with it in such a way that his judicial function is separated from his executive function.
In my constituency there is some land which would not have paragraph 4(1)(b) in its favour because it is unsuitable for ploughing and cropping. I should like to reinforce the plea made by my hon.
178
Friends. It is not the farmer's fault that their land is not suitable for ploughing— it is in the nature of things—and some grant, perhaps for draining or some other agricultural improvement, would meet the case.
10.17 p.m.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Like my hon. Friends and others who have spoken, I welcome the Scheme. It will give some help in those areas which tragically have been afflicted by this disease in the last few months. Principally, it will allow a breathing space to farmers in these areas before they restock their land for animal husbandry, for which their farms and land is most suitable. To grow arable crops is a bit of a gamble and a bit of a hedge, but a subsidy of this sort will make it just viable.
Paragraph 2(2) of the Scheme provides that the land can be reseeded with grass. This I applaud. I do not want to go into the merits of grassland improvement, but the Minister knows that a great deal of the grassland in this country cannot be improved by reseeding. The breathing space which the Scheme gives will be enormously valuable and will mean that in years to come grassland will be very much more productive than it has been in the immediate past.
I wish to ask a specific question which has bothered me before. It bothered me particularly when we last debated Ploughing Grants Schemes on 23rd May, 1966. I asked the Minister—and I ask the same question tonight—why the 1967 Scheme could not be extended to include the new methods of grassland reseeding about which I know he is well aware because he referred to them in c. 176 of HANSARD for 23rd May, 1966. As the Minister knows, the new methods of killing off the old sward by chemical means and then, three weeks later, doing direct reseeding into the killed sward with a tool such as a rotor seeder can be extremely effective. I say that because I have done this on my own farm.
On the sort of land about which we have been talking tonight, particularly of the description given by my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. GrantFerris)—strong, heavy land—that type of husbandry for reseeding could well be effective. It may well be that that wet,

179
strong, often ridge and furrow, land could be better reseeded by these chemical methods and that a machine such as a rotor seeder, which, in my experience, is very good at getting over uneven ground, could be an extremely effective method.
I ask the Minister, when he replies, to expand on something which has worried me and to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) has referred—that is, the meaning of paragraph 4(1,b), which provides that the grant can be paid only when the land ploughed up is
"suitable for ploughing and cropping".
I hope that the Minister tonight will tell us exactly what criteria his officers will use when they say that land is suitable for ploughing and cropping. There is much land which is not suitable for ploughing but is suitable for spraying and rotary reseeding. I could find a number of the Minister's advisory officers who would agree with that view. I hope that we shall hear from the Minister tonight concerning appeals, to which reference has already been made, and what criteria his officers will use concerning suitability for ploughing and cropping.
10.22 p.m.
Mr. Peter Mills: I, too, would like to echo the statement by the Minister that there is need for vigilance in this problem. It is always with us and there must be no relaxation.
In principle, of course, I accept the need for help for these farmers who have suffered so considerably. Emergency payments and help are vital to get them on their feet again. I accept that the Scheme tried to do this and tries also to ease the pressure on the buying of dairy stock. If everybody started to buy replacements, the cost would be enormous. I accept fully that in the Scheme that is what the Government are trying to do
I disagree, however, with my hon. Friends on this side of the House. I question whether the Scheme is the right way of helping those farmers in the problems which they are experiencing. The ploughing up of grass, which the Scheme encourages, has its drawbacks and its dangers. On farms with land
180
which is suitable for ploughing up and for the growing of cereals, that is the right way of doing it, but I suspect that much of this land, because it has been used for milk production and dairy farming, is not really suitable for ploughing up. Therefore, I am sorry to say so, but I believe that although the Scheme has been brought forward to help those farmers, it will not do so in the long run.
When they plough up under the Scheme, many of these farmers will not have the necessary equipment to deal with the grain or whatever crop is grown. They will not have the ploughs, the combine harvesters or the storage facilities. It would certainly not be worth buying this equipment for one year. I question, therefore, whether the Scheme will bring the help that many farmers need.
I should like to raise one or two practical points about ploughing up. When ploughing up for cereals, there is always the danger that it will be difficult to get the land back into grassland. When the land is ploughed, ridges and depressions are formed and this is not helpful in reseeding when the modern grassland equipment is used. Certainly if in these unsuitable areas they do plough up, which is what this Scheme encourages them to do, we shall find that the yields will be low and the benefit of this £10 an acre will soon be wiped out.
Then I would submit to the Minister, too, that the cost of reseeding these days is so great that again the £10 an acre given under this Scheme will be wiped out. Personally, I feel that there ought to be some other method of helping these farmers rather than using this Scheme.
Although I do not want to appear to be difficult, I do not want to appear to be, as it were, stopping the farmers from having the benefits of this Scheme, I do believe for the reasons which I have given, that this is an unwise move. I would have thought it better to have provided for the raising of store cattle and Irish cattle and so on to use this grass and to provide the cash necessary for that, rather than ploughing up. It would mean the grass could be used and the stockmen could be kept, and it would not be necessary to have the purchasing of implements to do this ploughing up job. In the long run it would help with our beef supplies, and we must

181
admit that too much ploughing up might produce more cereals than we require.
Therefore, although I do not want to run the Scheme down and I fully accept that the Government have brought it in with the best of intentions, I feel that there are some very real dangers here, particularly in the type of area and type of fields which probably will be ploughed up. I hope the Minister will be able to allay some of my fears.
10.27 p.m.
Mr. John M. Temple: May I make it clear on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself that we welcome this Scheme as a very small piece of assistance to some of those who have suffered so much as a result of this foot-and-mouth epidemic. I emphasise that it is "some" of them because it is quite clear that not all farmers who have suffered will gain anything at all out of this scheme, and I emphasise as well that the money involved under he Scheme is not substantial. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, unfortunately, did not quantify either the acreage likely to be affected or the sum of money which will be expended. I think those are important points.
I would like to thank my hon. Friends who have taken part in this debate and I would say that they are some of the faithful Members who have spoken up in recent weeks and months on behalf of their constituents who have suffered so very severely.
I would emphasise that the farmers themselves, in taking up grants under this scheme, will be facing difficult decisions because they wish to get back into the livestock business as soon as possible. Passing reference is permissible, I believe, to the labour force. Today the labour force in agriculture is highly specialised and it is not possible to turn a herdsman into a ploughman and vice versa, at the drop of a hat.
Therefore my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) was perfectly right when he wondered will the farmers have the tackle? I would add, have they got the skilled men who can plough a field? Only this morning I was speaking to my foreman and he was saying how difficult it is to get men today to plough a field properly. When one is ploughing in grassland it takes a
182
good deal of skill to plough in the grass in a satisfactory manner.
I should like to pay tribute to the versatility of the farm worker. It is amazing that we expect them to turn from being experts in one field to being experts in another almost overnight, and that is a consideration which is very relevant to the operation of this Scheme.
I am surprised that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary did not give any estimate of the acreage which he expected to be ploughed. I have seen one estimate of about 25,000 acres, and, if the ploughing grant is at the rate of £10 an acre, a sum of £250,000 will be involved under the Order. Put in the context of the total loss which the farming community has suffered, that is a very small sum. It works out at about 1 per cent. on the compensation values, and that in itself is less than the margin of error of an extremely competent valuer. So the assistance to the farming community will be extremely small, and the incidence of the help will be very uneven.
On 30th January, when speaking about the ploughing grant, the Minister was very fair. He said:
"… it will make some contribution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 1180.]
He might have said that it will make "some small contribution". Nevertheless, we welcome it.
Putting the matter in perspective, I calculate that some 2,400 farms will have been affected by the epidemic. Those holdings probably average about 100 acres, which means that the amount of land involved is about 250,000 acres. In other words, we are discussing a grant of the order of £1 for every acre affected.
Again taking an average, the grant will amount to about £100 per farm, and one of the aims of the grant is to ease the pressure on restocking and tide over these farms while they are not properly in business. I have consulted farmer friends of mine, and they estimate that, at best, they could not possibly be back in business to any extent for six months, and that they will not be back fully in business for a further 18 months, making two years in all.
Estimating the loss to them at just over £4,000 and putting it against the nominal £100 which, in theory, each

183
could get, it means that the average farmer will lose some £4,000. In other words, the only supplementary grant proposed by the Ministry so far will be one-fortieth of the loss suffered.
The last debate on a ploughing order took place on 23rd May, 1966, when other ploughing grant orders were under discussion. To give the House some idea of the relativity of the proposed grant, for 1965-66 there was a £5 million ploughing grant order for England and Wales covering one million acres, and a £500,000 grant for some 40,000 acres under what was described as Part II of that Order. Those figures compare very favourably with the £250,000 which I postulate as the figure involved under the present grant. This is fairly small stuff, by any standard, and it occurs to me to ask the hon. Gentleman if this additional money is to come out of the Price Review or whether it will be an additional supplementary estimate.
The Minister has said that the prime object of the grant is to encourage cash cropping, and he mentioned grain. There is also the possibility of horticultural crops, but I rather discount that, because very little of the land involved will probably go to horticulture. On the other hand, there is direct reseeding, which I think will be used to an extent. However, in the counties which have been most affected, Shropshire and Cheshire, there are very limited drying facilities for grain. If another 50,000 tons of grain is to be grown, which is what we can expect from 25,000 acres, will the drying facilities be available for it, and will the combines be available to deal with it? We do not have an enormous surplus of combines in the livestock areas. Normally, there is no call for them. But this is an emergency operation, and I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will say that his advisers are bearing this point in mind.
Again, will the standard quantities be altered because of this decision to put an extra 50,000 tons of grain on the market? I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with that when he replies. Those are my few thoughts on the grain side that may result from the operation of this Order.
Turning to reseeding, I was exceedingly interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling)
184
said about direct reseeding as a result of rotovating a field which has previously been killed out by chemical spraying. I adopted this practice experimentally a few years ago and now use it as a regular part of the reseeding programme on my own farm, so I do understand it.
I took the trouble to look up the debate on the Ploughing Grants Order on 23rd May, 1966, and the Parliamentary Secretary made a very important statement about this matter:
"I know that the whole question of chemical treatment of grassland for reseeding—or, for that matter, cropping—is now on the cards. We have not included it yet, but, naturally, we are looking into every method of reseeding."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1966; Vol. 729, c. 176.].
It seems surprising, as the Parliamentary Secretary knew about this nearly two years ago, that in fact this modern method of reseeding is not proposed at the present time. I cannot think of any method of reseeding which would be more suitable for much of the rather unusual land that was referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Leominster (Sir Clive Bossom) and Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris). I shall come back to this point, because it is important.
The Parliamentary Secretary, in a letter to me of 31st January relevant to reseeding of the whole area of a field which in fact contained the graves of cattle in one part, said,
"Direct reseeding will not be prohibited."
I have been in conversation with the Secretary of the Cheshire branch of the National Farmers Union and he tells me that at county level it does not seem that the Minister's advisers are very keen on direct reseeding. Would the Minister make it clear that his advisers are keen on direct reseeding and will advise and indeed encourage direct reseeding? I believe that in counties like Cheshire and Shropshire direct reseeding may be the most effective way of making use of this particular grant.
I now turn to a couple of points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Leominster and Nantwich about those unfortunate farmers who are not eligible for this grant, because they have land whch is not suitable. Concerning the observation of my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich, I was a bit disturbed with the section that he brought to our

185
attention, because I understood that farmers were able to get on with this job without approval of the Ministry. However, they may find at the end of the day that their operation has been one for which they will not get a grant. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with this particular matter.
I do know that during wartime a certain amount of land was ploughed up which turned out to be a farming disaster, because the drainage on that particular land was ruined. If the method which I have described of chemical spraying followed by rotovating was carried out the drainage would not be affected. I cannot understand the present Ministry, knowing two years ago that this was a first-class method, not having got round to including it in an Order of this nature.
Mr. Grant-Ferris: I do want to assure my hon. Friend that in some places in the Nantwich constituency the top soil is even too thin to be available for rotovating.
Mr. Temple: I am surprised at that, because one can rotovate to the extent of an inch or possibly half-inch only and get a fairly useful seed bed. I take that from my hon. Friend, but I assure him that shallow rotovation is effective.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster mentioned the special problems of those who have common land, and only common land. This emphasises what I said at the beginning, that only a certain number of people who have been affected by the foot-and-mouth epidemic will benefit from this grant. I think that this is most unfortunate, because they have the special difficulty of re-establishing their flocks. I believe that the correct terminology is the "hefting" problem, in that flocks are attached to the ground and they take many years to acclimatise themselves to a particular area. It is therefore doubly unfortunate that sheep farmers have been left out of the scope of assistance under a scheme of this nature.
When I heard the Minister explaining this grant on the radio or on television in. November, I thought that it was going to be a tremendous encouragement. It certainly sounded as though it was. I thought, "Here is a Minister who is determined to give massive first-aid", but it has turned out to be the first and
186
last special aid that the industry has had. I am disappointed that this is not described as the first of a series of first-aid operations to help the farming industry which has gone through this unprecedented and devastating disaster.
I know that everyone in the House is sympathetic to all those who have suffered so much in this disaster. This grant will go a very small way to assist some. I hope that it will hold back the rush for restocking, but I emphasise that farmers who wish to take advantage of this grant will have to do so now, because the time for ploughing is at hand, and if it is left for only a few weeks the season for it will have passed. I hope that the message will go out from the House that although this measure is small, it must give encouragement, and I trust that the encouragement will mean that some additional grass will be ploughed.
I hope also that the Minister will be able to reply to some of the points which have been put to him, and that the grant will be of some real benefit to the farming community.
10.42 p.m.
Mr. John Mackie: With the permission of the House, I would like to reply to as many of the points which have been raised as I can.
I am sorry that at least two hon. Gentlemen have suggested that this is a very small scheme. I do not think that it is. It may be small in comparison with the major ploughing schemes of the past, but it will be of considerable help to farmers. It will give help all along the line, and it will give direct help to some farmers. I know that advantage has been taken of it to a considerable extent, that not all farmers will rush in and stock, and this will give help to farmers who must stock because they cannot plough. It will provide general help all along the line, although it may not be of direct help to some who cannot plough.
The hon. Member for Leominster (Sir Clive Bossom) said that Herefordshire had a special problem. This applies to quite a few areas, to hill and common land, and I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the problems of areas which do not get the help of the £10 an acre ploughing grant will be considered.

187
We are looking closely at the problem of how to help those who cannot plough. We are having discussions with the N.F.U. to see how it can be done, but it is not an easy problem.
The hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) thanked us for what we were doing. He raised an interesting point about the wet areas. I noticed that hon. Members said "Hear hear" when two hon. Members referred to land having been ploughed during the war not benefiting from it, and still not having recovered. I am an arable farmer, and I have great difficulty in believing that. I am sure that today we have skills which we did not have 20 years ago or during the war. I am sure that if there is land in Britain which can be ploughed, this is the right way to do it. I should like to be shown some of this land. I am always willing to be educated—I have never said that I cannot be educated—and I am willing to go to see any land which the hon. Member feels could not be improved by ploughing, if it is possible to plough it.
He made an interesting point about assistance in drainage. 1 can see difficulties in this proposal. He should remember that we give a 50 per cent. grant for drainage, with another 10 per cent. if it is particularly difficult hill land, and I certainly could not promise to introduce a system whereby we looked at land and said that £10 an acre should be granted for that instead of for ploughing. But I will look at that interesting suggestion.
Mr. Grant-Ferris: What I had in mind was in order to administer this easily everybody should have the option of either £10 for ploughing or £10 for drainage.
Mr. Mackie: That would be a very wide option, but I will look at the interesting point which the hon. Member made.
I could not quite follow the argument advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster). He is a lawyer. He said that the Minister must not be judge in his own court. I thought that a judge was always judge in his own court, but I may be wrong. He asked whether there was any form of appeal. There is always the opportunity of appeal to the county agricultural
188
executive committee, and many appeals are made. The same right of appeal will exist under this scheme to the C.A.E.C. as under the normal ploughing scheme. I admit that if they disagree with the original decision the final appeal must be to the Minister and that he is the final judge, but somebody has to make the ultimate judgment.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also emphasised the need to help those who cannot plough, and I give him the assurance that we are looking at that matter very carefully, and that my right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement about it, one way or another, sooner rather than later.
The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) said that we had to give these farmers a breathing space and that the scheme would be a help. He hopes, as I hope, that much of this land can be improved by ploughing. He also mentioned direct reseeding. With other hon. Members, he spoke of new methods of improvement by spraying, cutting into the grass and reseeding in that way. We are looking at that proposal. The hon. Member for the City of Chester is right; I said something about it two years ago. But he must remember that we were phasing out the ploughing grant scheme, although we still have the £12 an acre for difficult land. We had not got round to the point which he made. Indeed, we did not expect this kind of situation. But we will keep in mind the question of this modern method when we have an emergency such as this.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) was so pessimistic, as were some other hon. Members, about the versatility of the farmer and the farm worker. I remind hon. Members that when he was Minister of Agriculture during the yar, the late Lord Hudson urged the Cheshire farmers to plough and plough and plough, and that the more they ploughed, the more milk they produced. We should learn that ploughing in what are considered non-arable areas is not as bad as it is made out to be. During the war these Cheshire farmers, no doubt with much less equipment than they have today, managed to plough up to 50 per cent. of their land, and the milk production increased, too.
We should not be worried about farmers not managing to do the job because

189
of lack of equipment, because there are a great number of contractors available. The Minister will give all the assistance he can and, if necessary, he will encourage contractors to go into these areas. The National Agricultural Advisory Service will give advice in this way. But I think that we shall find that where they have the will, the farmers will find a way. I do not think that there will be any difficulty about combining, but there might be difficulty with drying if we have a very wet harvest. We shall need to watch that situation. I do not think that there would be any difficulty there—
Mr. Temple: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman took up my point about grain drying. Few grain crops in Cheshire come off the thresher sufficiently dry to be stored immediately.
Mr. Mackie: I appreciate very well, since I come from the North of Scotland, the problems of drying grain.
One hon. Member was worried about the extra production of cereals and wondered whether this would affect standard quantities. We think that the area affected will be 25,000 or 30,000 acres, and the sum involved perhaps a quarter of a million pounds, and we do not think that the standard quantities would be affected
I doubt whether there would be any difficulties over labour. Some hon. Members were worried about fields not being levelled or ploughed properly. I am reminded of the story of the Royal Show held at Ipswich before the First World War, when Ransome's had a beautifully ploughed field bearing the notice "Ploughed by Ransome's ploughs", and the night before, Howard's flattened it all out and put up another sign, "Harrowed by a Howard's harrow". I think this illustrates that it is the subsequent operation which counts most so that we need not worry about the kind of ploughing about which hon. Members are worried. I said that there is no requirement to sow a particular crop as a condition of this Scheme. We would encourage farmers to sow a cash crop, but there would be nothing to stop them reseeding if this is the best way, to improve a bad ley but I cannot imagine that they will plough up a good ley to reseed
190
The hon. Member said the scheme represents a small proportion of the total loss to farmers. In answers to Questions 10 days ago, I said what we were doing to help farmers. The most important is augmenting the advisory services in the area to a tremendous extent. Many men are engaged there already and we are prepared to put in as many as are needed to give advice not only on arable farming but on buildings or anything else. That in itself is one of the main things which we are doing. We are also, of course, considering those who cannot get this type of assistance—
Mr. Temple: Will this amount of money come out of the Price Review?
Mr. Mackie: No, it will not. This is an extra for this emergency.
I am glad that the Scheme is generally welcomed, and I am certain that it will help farmers. I hope that the House will accept it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Ploughing Grants (Emergency Payments) Scheme 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 22nd January, be approved.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS (CO-EDUCATION)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]
10.55 p.m.
Mr. Denis Coe: In the recent debate on education, I drew attention to the fact that while 98 per cent. of children in State primary schools are educated co-educationally, only half of them, when they go on to secondary schools, will continue in co-educational secondary schools. However, from the age of 15 onwards, we expect our young people to work together and mix in colleges and universities and be capable of forming stable emotional relationships. My contention is that co-education at the secondary level helps to provide this link between the primary level and adulthood.
It is for this reason that I am initiating this debate. If I am correct, then I

191
believe that the opportunities for coeducation at the secondary level are poor in many areas. This is of added significance since, at this time, many local education authorities are deciding on comprehensive secondary reorganisation. My interest in this subject stems from personal experience both as a teacher—in co-educational and single-sex secondary schools—and, fortuitously, as a pupil in both types of school. I therefore start with a bias in favour of co-education.
It is difficult to discuss this subject in view of the limited amount of research which is going on into it and the fact that the research which is going on seems to be concerned only with academic comparisons. This appears to be the sole criteria. I argue that all educationalists believe that education is much wider than academic achievement. Preparing a child for life means developing his whole personality as well as his academic prowess. Mr. Derek Miller of the Tavistock Clinic has argued that because society has changed, so the emotional demands which adolescents make on schools have changed. Thus, schools must provide social networks for young people and act as an anchor point for psychological development. Whether a school is a co-educational or single-sex one, if it is bad it cannot achieve this development. If I am nailing my colours to the mast tonight in favour of co-education, I nevertheless pay tribute to the fine work which is done in single-sex schools, not least by those in my constituency
I wish to discuss the influence of coeducation under two headings: first, its effect on the social development of children and, secondly, its effect on the academic achievements of children. On the social development side, I believe that co-education provides a realistic environment for youngsters. It does so because there is no unnatural break from the primary stage, where companionship is accepted as being normal and desirable. If this is carried on into the secondary stage, this conveys to the child a stamp of official approval on this normal and desirable relationship. In other words, there is no suggestion, as there might otherwise be, that such a relationship is not quite nice. It helps, rather than hinders, a satisfactory attitude towards the sexual problems which face young adolescents.
192
For example, Mr. Miller argues on clinical evidence that the assertion sometimes made that co-education makes boys less manly is wrong and that the opposite is true; that boys feel more secure in their feeling of manliness. Mr. Miller also claims that early sexual behaviour is more common among girls educated at single-sex schools. These are some of the problems which are not always recognised as much as they should be.
Co-education means that the family unit can be maintained, with brothers and sisters going to the same school. This consequently means that parents are more easily involved in the life of the school, with the result that, being more easily identified with the school, family life is closer, since interest is concentrated on one school and not on two or three. I believe that co-educational secondary schools give particular help to a large number of children who are denied a complete family background by the absence of one parent for one reason or another—bereavement or some other family difficulty—and this is particularly so for girls.
Also I cannot help feeling that the staff of common rooms in co-educational secondary schools are likely to be happier than in single sex schools. They will be more outward-looking, and if this is the case it will have a beneficial effect upon the children.
Again the range of common activities which boys and girls can enjoy together are so much greater in co-educational secondary schools. I find it one of the most attractive features of the co-educational school to see the way in which musical, dramatic and social activities can be enjoyed together. Therefore, I believe for all these reasons that the development of the personality can take place best within the environment of a mixed secondary school.
If we look at the academic development, we find, as I said earlier, that the sole criteria for judgment between single-sex schools and co-educational schools is academic achievement. I would argue that there is a danger in assessing any difference of standards solely on the basis of segregation. In fact, if we look at academic standards in secondary schools generally, we find that they are affected by a number of

193
other factors—for example the percentage of academic intake which differs considerably in different parts of the country, the difference in the tradition and standing of particular schools, the quality of the staffs, and the dominant social class.
All these are factors which are difficult to measure when trying to assess the relative academic achievements of different schools, particularly between mixed schools and single-sex schools. Therefore, the evidence I have been able to discover is very limited and often conflicting.
A number of findings have been based an O level results in the G.C.E. On these it would seem that boys in coeducational grammar schools are better than boys in boys' grammar schools. Yet a recent survey has tried to show that the very opposite is the case, and there are similar difficulties in assessing whether or not girls in single-sex schools do better than girls in mixed schools. Again there seems to be a conflict of evidence. In any case, the difference between the two is so small that I believe that the social reasons that I have advanced outweigh any slight disadvantage, if there is one, in academic achievements.
There are one or two other points of significance. We are told that qualified female staff are becoming more and more difficult to obtain for single-sex girls' schools and that this must obviously affect the quality of the education which can be given there. I believe also that the range of courses in co-educational schools will tend to be greater, and also that the traditional barriers between different courses are being broken down so that we do not just talk about woodwork for boys but wood sculpture for girls as well. The use of buildings in co-educational schools is probably much more effective than it is in single-sex schools. For all those reasons I believe that it is desirable that we should have co-educational secondary schools.
I should now like to look at the national and local picture concerning the actual provision of co-educational education. For the years 1964, 1965 and 1966 the percentage of mixed secondary schools in relation to the total number of secondary schools maintained by local education authorities was 54·87, 55·56
194
and 56·89 respectively. In other words, there is a slight movement towards an increase in the provision of co-education. However, when we examine the number of mixed secondary schools maintained by each individual local education authority the variation is truly immense.
Out of 45 county authorities, only seven are below the national average of 56·89 per cent. Kent—3·.5 per cent., and Cheshire—36·3 per cent. are the lowest, while Suffolk, East-90·9 per cent.; Leicestershire—88·9 per cent., and Bedfordshire—87·9 per cent. are very much above the average. The Welsh counties have an even higher percentage. All thirteen are above the national average, and Anglesey, Cardiganshire, Flintshire, Merioneth, Montgomeryshire and Radnorshire are all 100 per cent. co-educational. I think that I should move my family to Wales.
In the county boroughs and inner and outer London education authorities the position gives me much less satisfaction. For example, in England, out of 99 local education authorities, 73 are below the national average and the percentages are even more startling Hastings and Smethwick have no mixed secondary schools at all, and they are closely followed by, for example, Birkenhead—5 per cent.; Bootle—6·3 per cent.; Gloucester—7·7 per cent.; Portsmouth—7·4 per cent.; Southend—5·9 per cent.; Wigan—6·7 per cent., and Bromley—6·1 per cent. At the other end of the scale, we have places like Bury and Oldham with 100 per cent., followed by places such as Barnsley—83·3 per cent., and Preston—81·8 per cent. The county boroughs in Wales range from 18·2 per cent. for Swansea to 80 per cent. for Merthyr Tydfil.
These figures demonstrate that in most centres of population the opportunities for parents to send their children to co-educational schools are not very great. Unfortunately, I cannot see any quick change in this state of affairs, yet the question is of paramount importance at this particular time, because local education authorities are changing to comprehensive secondary education. It is difficult at this stage to assess the figures for comprehensive secondary school education, but it is interesting to notice that counties such as Anglesey and Leicestershire which are highly comprehensive are also highly co-educational.

195
The national figures, however, are not all that encouraging. For example in the three years I have quoted—1964, 1965 and 1966—the national figures for comprehensive schools which are also co-educational were 67·18, 70·61 and 67·67 per cent. It is by no means certain that the change over to comprehensive education in the county boroughs will necessarily mean a change to co-education.
What can be done about this position? I recently asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State what general advice he has given to local authorities on the desirability of establishing co-educational secondary schools. He replied that he had given none, and that this was a matter for local authorities to consider in the light of local circumstances. In view of the figures I have quoted, I believe that advice—not direction—should be offered. What is required, first, is an authoritative full-scale inquiry, and I ask the Minister tonight to impress on his right hon. Friend the need for such an inquiry so that such authoritative advice would be available to local education authorities. Thinking on the subject is so often clouded by prejudice and tradition, without a real appreciation of the full implications on the development of the child, that only an authoritative inquiry could dispel it.
I end as I began. Education is aimed at developing the potentialities of the child to the full. Therefore, I think that we have to be certain that the setting in which we are trying to do this is the one most likely to achieve the aim. I believe that co-education in secondary schools will help in this process. I hope that I am proved right. But it is at least certain, from the figures I have given, that there is need for greater opportunity for co-education in many areas and for a great deal of research into this vital problem.
11.10 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Denis Howell): I am sure that we are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Coe) for raising this subject and, indeed, for the Questions he put which led him to this debate on a most interesting and important topic, on which he speaks with great personal knowledge and practical experience.
196
Although, in fairness, I have to put both sides of the argument because, as he himself has suggested, this is not something in which my right hon. Friend can impose his will, my hon. Friend made a very convincing case.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend on this debate because in the last three years there has been more proper debate about the content of education than we have had probably in the previous 30 years in this country, and those of us who are passionate educationists must be heartened that this House should debate not just the structure or organisation or salaries of education but also the important principles involved in the practice and content of education.
The information we were able to send my hon. Friend proves to the hilt his contention that there is a tremendous variety of practice among local authorities in this matter. I will not give the figures he quoted again but I agree with him wholeheartedly that Wales comes out of this—if one is a co-educationist—very honourably, for 15 out of 17 of its local authorities have more than half their children in co-educational schools.
On the whole, the counties of England similarly come out well: 40 out of 45 are over the half-way mark. But from this point of view the boroughs of England present a disappointing picture and it is here perhaps that much of the propaganda work has to be carried out for co-education. Only 26 out of 78 boroughs in England have a co-education provision of more than 50 per cent.
I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned that this is a secondary school problem and not a primary school problem. But the figures for the primary schools are amazing, for they are 99·9 per cent. for infants' schools in England, 99·5 per cent. for junior and infants' schools and 91 per cent. for junior schools. The battle, if one can call it that, has been well won in that sector.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the difficulties in relation to comprehensive reorganisation. It is part of our case that the movement towards co-education is being considerably advanced at present. It is true that, in the last two or three years, there has not been a significant improvement in the figures but, as we get further into secondary reorganisation, it is clear that the momentum is

197
gathering, and this should be seen throughout the country as the reorganisation schemes take effect.
If my hon. Friend initiates another adjournment debate and puts down Questions in three or five years' time, he will, It am sure, be struck by the amount of advance we shall have made by then. Although I have to be careful about my right hon. Friend's duties and his position in relation to local government, nevertheless there have been some very interesting experiences with some of these reorganisation schemes. All the following authorities have proposed to base their secondary reorganisation plans on co-education and to amalgamate single sex schools—Worcester, Ealing, Croydon, Normanton, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, Gateshead, Sunderland and St. Albans. Hertfordshire. There are others, but I mention those because in each case there were objections against reorganisation proposals, and my hon. Friend will be glad to know that in each case the Secretary of State over-ruled the objections on the ground that the proposed amalgamation was an integral part of the reorganisation plan. That is perhaps the most heartening evidence which I can produce for my hon. Friend.
I should like to mention some of the principles which have to guide us in the matter. There seem to be three main principles to which my right hon. Friend should have regard. There is, first, the extremely important matter of the right of parental choice. I know that we all pay regard to parental choice and would not wish the Secretary of State to disregard it, except where it proved to be absolutely essential to do so, as in the cases which I have mentioned. The opposition to the movement towards co-education would be strengthened if it involved closing schools to which parents were understandably attached.
The second principle is the autonomy of local authorities, which my hon. Friend asked us to advise, recognising that they cannot be instructed. It is fundamental to the whole basis of educational administration that local education authorities have autonomy within their own fields, and so they should. One of the things needed is an informed public dialogue and controversy in this matter, probably particularly at election times. That is the meaning of demo-
198
cracy and if my hon. Friend has done anything tonight to further that, I am sure that he will be as delighted as we shall be.
Finally, we must not forget the position of the teachers. Some teachers are extremely uneasy about being asked to teach in mixed classes. They desire to teach only boys or only girls, for many reasons, and one has to respect their desires in this respect.
Briefly to sum up what seems to us to be the main case against co-education, before turning to the case for co-education and doing so as impartially as I can; girls and boys mature physically, mentally, emotionally at different rates and, therefore, it is argued they ought not to be at the same school, or in the same class together while that process is going on. It is said that it is all right to have co-education in primary schools and that after the early years of puberty it may be all right, but that this is an extremely important physiological consideration to be borne in mind.
Secondly, associated with this it is said that boys suffer because of the earlier intellectual and emotional development of the girls, and the opposite side of that coin is that girls often resent the sarcasm and insensitivity which they find in boys at this period of their lives.
There is then the subject of academic results, to which my hon. Friend rightly drew attention. I have to tell him that there is no evidence available to us at the moment which would convincingly prove that co-education produces any better academic results than do single sex schools. There is a little evidence the other way, but we and our inspectorate are inclined to discount it because it has never been properly assessed, and no firm sociological studies have been made. Perhaps one of the important by-products of the debate will be that we shall get such a proper assessment of the evidence. I have said that some teachers find it difficult to discipline a mixed class, and there are many religious schools with a strong preference for single sex education. That sums up the case against co-education.
My hon. Friend might think that in part this is based upon the prejudices of people and it probably is. Part of the price that we pay for living in a democracy is the right of people to

199
exercise their prejudice if they wish to do so. We have to be careful to hold the balance properly so that they can do this.
I now turn to the case for co-education as we see it. This is again based partly on social and partly on educational grounds. I agree that the school is a preparation for life. The social advantages of co-education are obvious for all to see, and separation of the sexes is really unnatural and illogical. Certainly children educated in single sex schools are more likely to grow up to be awkward in the presence of the opposite sex than those educated at coeducational schools. Secondly those who benefit from co-education enjoy much less of a strained relationship with their friends at a very sensitive time in their lives. The social advantages of coeducation were well summed up by my hon. Friend when he spoke of the development of the personality and its importance.
The educational advantages are first of all the interplay of different attitudes and styles on the mind, both of pupils and teachers, secondly a much wider choice of curriculum and thirdly the extra-curricular activities in such schools, particularly in plays and music societies and so on. Finally, some teachers, contrary to what is said by teachers at single sex schools, find that discipline is much easier in a co-educa-
200
tional school. The Schools Council is carrying out research into this and we await its findings with much interest.
One of my other responsibilities is the administering of the youth service. I have often said, and it is an argument here in favour of the case being put forward, that one of the most important things in life for this country is the need to have boys and girls brought together in a good, wholesome atmosphere, in circumstances favourable to the development of their personalities. I believe that the case for co-education has been made out. The movement towards co-education is gathering momentum and will continue to do so.
By causing us to debate this matter tonight my hon. Friend has performed an extremely useful service to his cause and perhaps more good will come out of it than in any other way. In the long run this debate, and this general propaganda approach to the problem will probably do more good than any direct intervention by any Department of State, or any attempt by a Minister of the Crown to impose his will. Since those possibilities are not open to us we must rest content for the moment upon my hon. Friend continuing to take advantage of his opportunities to further his cause.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Eleven o'clock.

PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Government Whips Clerk's Office
  Government Whips Clerk's Office
  Timber (Increased Costs)
  Timber (Increased Costs)
  Building Costs
  Building Costs
  Westminster Hall
  Westminster Hall
  Building Activity Overseas
  Building Activity Overseas
  Whitehall Plan
  Whitehall Plan
  LEGAL AID
  LEGAL AID
TECHNOLOGY
  Machine Tool Industry
  Machine Tool Industry
  Shipbuilding Industry
  Shipbuilding Industry
  Hearing Aid Batteries (Price Increase)
  Hearing Aid Batteries (Price Increase)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Dental Technicians (Selective Employment Tax)
  Dental Technicians (Selective Employment Tax)
  Municipal Busmen (Pay Increase)
  Municipal Busmen (Pay Increase)
  Construction Industry Training Board (Glass Processing)
  Construction Industry Training Board (Glass Processing)
  Service Industries (Employees)
  Service Industries (Employees)
  National Minimum Wage
  National Minimum Wage
  Skilled Tradesmen (Retraining)
  Skilled Tradesmen (Retraining)
  Older Men and Women (Employment Restrictions)
  Older Men and Women (Employment Restrictions)
  Government Training Centres, Wales
  Government Training Centres, Wales
  SUEZ CANAL
  SUEZ CANAL
  PEACE-KEEPING OPERATIONS (U.N. SPECIAL COMMITTEE)
  PEACE-KEEPING OPERATIONS (U.N. SPECIAL COMMITTEE)
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Blackpool Central Office (Typing Facilities)
  Blackpool Central Office (Typing Facilities)
  Social Security Benefits (Coloured Immigrants)
  Social Security Benefits (Coloured Immigrants)
  Departmental Staff (Local Offices)
  Departmental Staff (Local Offices)
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
  Unemployment Benefit (Retired Persons)
  Unemployment Benefit (Retired Persons)
  National Insurance Contribution (Scotland)
  National Insurance Contribution (Scotland)
  Unemployment Benefit and Supplementary Allowances (Rhondda)
  Unemployment Benefit and Supplementary Allowances (Rhondda)
  Sickness and Industrial Injuries
  Sickness and Industrial Injuries
  Supplementary Pensions
  Supplementary Pensions
  Supplementary Benefits
  Supplementary Benefits
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Married Quarters
  Married Quarters
  Precision Mechanisms
  Precision Mechanisms
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Surplus Land (Sale)
  Surplus Land (Sale)
  Health Centre, Waterlooville
  Health Centre, Waterlooville
  Dental Practitioners
  Dental Practitioners
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  General Dental Services (Expenditure)
  General Dental Services (Expenditure)
  Family Doctor Service (Improvement)
  Family Doctor Service (Improvement)
  Medical Certificates
  Medical Certificates
  Hearing Aid Batteries
  Hearing Aid Batteries
  Rheumatic Diseases (Research Expenditure)
  Rheumatic Diseases (Research Expenditure)
  Home Helps
  Home Helps
HOSPITALS
  Psychiatric Patients (Discharge Statistics)
  Psychiatric Patients (Discharge Statistics)
ROADS
  New Street, Chipping Norton (Inquiry)
  New Street, Chipping Norton (Inquiry)
  Track Costs (Report)
  Track Costs (Report)
RAILWAYS
  Loss Per Route Mile
  Loss Per Route Mile
TRANSPORT
  Survey of Transport from Manufacturing Establishments (Report)
  Survey of Transport from Manufacturing Establishments (Report)
  Victoria Line
  Victoria Line
PORTS
  Administrative Offices (Scotland)
  Administrative Offices (Scotland)
AVIATION
  Argonaut Aircraft (Tests)
  Argonaut Aircraft (Tests)
  Trident Aircraft
  Trident Aircraft
BOARD OF TRADE
  Import Quotas
  Import Quotas
SHIPPING
  Trawlers"St. Romanus" and "Kingston Peridot" (Inquiries)
  Trawlers"St. Romanus" and "Kingston Peridot" (Inquiries)
  Merchant Shipping Acts (Revision)
  Merchant Shipping Acts (Revision)
  Trawlers
  Trawlers
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Late School Leavers
  Late School Leavers
  Nursery Schools and Nursery Classes (Pupils)
  Nursery Schools and Nursery Classes (Pupils)
  C.E.R.N. (British Contribution)
  C.E.R.N. (British Contribution)
  Manor School, Uckfield
  Manor School, Uckfield
  Undergraduate and Post-Graduate Students
  Undergraduate and Post-Graduate Students
  Orchestras (Grants)
  Orchestras (Grants)
  The Arts, Yorkshire (Grants)
  The Arts, Yorkshire (Grants)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Television Interviewers (Rules)
  Television Interviewers (Rules)
  Television Programmes (Violence)
  Television Programmes (Violence)
  B.B.C. and I.T.A. (Expenditure Reductions)
  B.B.C. and I.T.A. (Expenditure Reductions)
  British Overseas Broadcasting Service (St. Andrew's Night Programme)
  British Overseas Broadcasting Service (St. Andrew's Night Programme)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Waiting List (Newark and Southwell)
  Waiting List (Newark and Southwell)
POST OFFICE
  Post Office Vehicles (Replacement)
  Post Office Vehicles (Replacement)
  Telecommunications Buildings
  Telecommunications Buildings
  Stamp Advisory Committee
  Stamp Advisory Committee
  Stores (Expenditure Reduction)
  Stores (Expenditure Reduction)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Pulpwood
  Pulpwood
  Argentine Meat
  Argentine Meat
  Pigs
  Pigs
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia (Gold Reserves)
  Rhodesia (Gold Reserves)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Municipal Busmen (Pay Increase)
  Municipal Busmen (Pay Increase)
  Welsh Development Area (Grants and Loans)
  Welsh Development Area (Grants and Loans)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Budget Poster
  Budget Poster
  Local Authority Debt (Short-Term Loans)
  Local Authority Debt (Short-Term Loans)
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  Public Companies (Government Shareholdings)
  Public Companies (Government Shareholdings)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Attachment Orders
  Attachment Orders
  Matrimonial Orders (Committals to Prison for Non-Compliance)
  Matrimonial Orders (Committals to Prison for Non-Compliance)
  Civil Defence Corps (Disposal of Vehicles and Equipment)
  Civil Defence Corps (Disposal of Vehicles and Equipment)
HOUSING
  Council Houses (Construction Periods)
  Council Houses (Construction Periods)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Public Health Inspectors (Salary Scales)
  Public Health Inspectors (Salary Scales)
  Capital Debt
  Capital Debt
COAL
  Colliery Disasters (Documents)
  Colliery Disasters (Documents)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Steel Prices
  Steel Prices
SCOTLAND
  Auxiliary Fire Service
  Auxiliary Fire Service
  Civil Defence Corps
  Civil Defence Corps
  Prescriptions (Cost)
  Prescriptions (Cost)
  School Milk (Midlothian)
  School Milk (Midlothian)
  Criminal Justice Act 1967 (Scottish Courts)
  Criminal Justice Act 1967 (Scottish Courts)
  Scottish Court of Criminal Appeal (Increased Sentences)
  Scottish Court of Criminal Appeal (Increased Sentences)
  Spinal Injury Patients
  Spinal Injury Patients
  Hunterston 'B' (Tender)
  Hunterston 'B' (Tender)
  Sheriffs Substitute
  Sheriffs Substitute
  New Houses
  New Houses
  Islands (Ferry Services)
  Islands (Ferry Services)
  Ware Potatoes (Producers' Price)
  Ware Potatoes (Producers' Price)
  Illegal Fishing (Fines)
  Illegal Fishing (Fines)
  Third Lanark Football Club
  Third Lanark Football Club
  Local Authorities
  Local Authorities
  Court of Appeal
  Court of Appeal
  Fire Service
  Fire Service
  Sheriff Court (Summer Vacation)
  Sheriff Court (Summer Vacation)
  Chartered Insurance Institute
  Chartered Insurance Institute
  Potato Stocks
  Potato Stocks
  Scottish Special Housing Association (Increased Rents)
  Scottish Special Housing Association (Increased Rents)
  Sanitary Inspectors
  Sanitary Inspectors
  Murders and Crimes of Assault
  Murders and Crimes of Assault
  Royal Infirmary, Glasgow
  Royal Infirmary, Glasgow
  Royal Infirmary, Glasgow
  Royal Infirmary, Glasgow
  Primary School Teachers (Surplus)
  Primary School Teachers (Surplus)
  Falkirk-Grangemouth Regional Survey (Report)
  Falkirk-Grangemouth Regional Survey (Report)
  Leasehold Tenure
  Leasehold Tenure

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

ARMED FORCES: DISCHARGE RIGHTS
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 decisions have now been made on

(a) the period of service in the armed forces of boys who join at 15 and 16 years of age; and

(b) the procedure for conscientious objectors within the forces.]

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., a Statement which my honourable friend the Minister of Defence for Administration will be making in another place.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, as my noble friend has indicated he will be making a Statement, I will reserve my supplementary questions until then.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether the contracts of service of girls will be similar to those of boys?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I cannot quite hear the noble Baroness. Perhaps it is the lights.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I was asking the noble Lord whether the contracts of service will be
910
similar for girls as for boys, because I believe some girls join at about 16 or 17.
LORD SHACKLITON: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving me advance notice of the supplementary question she is going to ask.

BOARD OF TRADE FLIGHT INSPECTORATE
2.36 p.m.
LORD VIVIAN: My leave to ask the Question my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the present staffing of the Flight Inspectorate of the Board of Trade.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, to meet the increased work resulting from the growth in civil air transport and the more advanced types of aircraft employed, the strength of the Flight Inspectorate has been substantially increased. The Board of Trade cannot be satisfied, however, until it is at its full planned strength. It is estimated that 33 inspectors are needed to carry out a fully effective inspection of airlines holding or applying for air operators certificates. Thirty officers are in post, including four under training. Recruitment is continuing, but of course the Board of Trade must maintain a very high standard in recruiting for this work.
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for his very full and, I think, fairly satisfactory reply. But may I ask him whether he is aware that on January 29 (I think the noble Lord admitted this) the number of flight inspectors employed in the Flight Inspectorate numbered 30 to cover some 4,000 pilots and 400 aircraft of 40 commercial airlines operating from this country?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there are 40 companies now holding the air operator's certificate. I think the 33 inspectors will be able to cover these satisfactorily.

CONSUMER SPENDING
2.38 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what measures they propose to take in advance of the Budget to curtail the present alarming increase in personal consumption and consumer spending.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the arguments against taking additional measures to restrain personal consumption in advance of the Budget were set out in some detail in the speech of January 23 by the Lord Privy Seal, and by myself in my speech on January 24.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for answering the Question, but is he not aware that there is a record spending spree going on at the present time? Is it right to maintain this uncertainty up to the Budget? Surely one of the halves of the devaluation package was some restraint on consumer spending. Is it not about to get out of hand?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the answer to the last part of the noble Lord's question is, No. As for his assertion that there is a record spending spree, I am not certain to what figures he is referring. The fact is that there are no really reliable statistics about it, although there is a lot of speculation in the Press. If the noble Lord will look at the speech to which I referred, he will see that a great many of consumer durables—in the case of washing machines it is 75 per cent.—come from the depressed areas, and we want to build up demand there. There is no evidence—and I shall be glad if the noble Lord can provide the figures on which he bases his assertion—that home demand is impinging on export demand.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, surely it is within the noble Lord's knowledge, with all the Press reports and even one's own experience, that people are buying motor cars, washing machines and all the rest of it. If his contention is right, is there any need for cutting consumer consumption at the time of the Budget? What is so magic about March 19?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, one of the things the noble Lord ought to know is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not make decisions based on Press reports. So far as motor car production is concerned, I am advised that in the last three months of 1967 production was still 12 per cent. below what it was three years ago. There is slack to take up, and until that slack is taken up we need not get alarmed about hindering exports.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may we take it that the Government are quite happy that this is having no adverse effect on the export drive?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord can take it that the Government are not getting alarmed as the noble Lord is.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, apart from Press reports, many people think there is a great deal of reason to believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not well advised in the reasons he gave on January 23. Will the Government keep a very careful watch on the position and be prepared to revise their estimates and change their decision before March 19, in the interests of our export drive, if they think it necessary?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as the noble Earl will remember, one of the things I said in that speech was that it was much easier to be dogmatic if one did not have the responsibility for executing the decisions taken. The fact of the matter is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has two factors to take into account. One is confidence at home, and although additional measures would no doubt have assisted the creation of favourable opinion abroad, it was still necessary not to undermine confidence at home. While there was this slack to take up, in so many of our industries, it was unwise to take premature action.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while I congratulate my noble friend on his answers, will he take into consideration that the expenditure of the rich on consumption, even of one meal, would be a day's wage to a worker, and that that fact should also be taken into consideration in any reduction of consumption?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, this may well be the case. Here we are talking, in the main, about consumer durables, and there is no evidence at all as yet that the present demand is anything more than anticipatory buying which later on will fall away, at a time when we hope the export demand will be building up.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Government statistics are usually at least three months out of date?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, what the noble Lord is saying is that the Treasury assessment of economic trends is made four times a year, and therefore so far as his statistical proposition is concerned I agree with him. But the most recent Treasury assessment is not yet available. It will be available within the next week or so, and it would be much better, I should have thought for the Chancellor to wait for that and not base any decision upon Press statements.

CONSUMER PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
2.44 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 3a—(Lord Brown.)
On Question., Bill read 3a.
Clause 42 [Short title and commencement]:
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Consumer Protection" and insert "Trade Descriptions". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move to change the Short Title of this Bill from "Consumer Protection Bill" to "Trade Descriptions Bill". I do not propose to make a long speech about this; I think we have already debated the subject almost ad nauseam. My first reason for disliking the title "Consumer Protection" is that I loathe the word "consumer". To me the word "consumer" conjures up a picture of somebody in a café, sitting in front of a plate of fish and chips. In any event, it is not a particularly meaningful word, because although most of us do not like to think of ourselves principally as being consumers,
914
we are consumers, and so this Bill, if it is a consumer protection Bill, is a Bill for the protection of the whole of society. Of course, the whole of the criminal law, of which this Bill is but a small part, is for the protection of the whole of society. So the title "Consumer Protection" does not get you very far in any event, and it does not tell you what the Bill is about.
I thought the purpose of the Short Title of a Bill was to explain as briefly as possible what the Bill was about; and what this Bill is about is trade descriptions. There is no question about that. If it were called the "Trade Description; Bill" nobody would have to look it up in order to discover that it was about trade descriptions; whereas if it is called the "Consumer Protection Bill" nobody" coming upon that title will have the faintest idea, within wide bounds, what the Bill is about. They will have to look it up in order to find out that it is about trade descriptions.
A second Amendment is down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I am certainly not going to attack that alternative title, because if my Amendment is not accepted I will certainly support the alternative of using the expression "Consumer Protection (Trade Descriptions)". My criticism of the second Amendment (which nevertheless I shall be pleased to support) is that we do not already have in the field of consumer Protection Acts called the "Consumer Protection (Weights and Measures) Acts"; we do not have Acts called the "Consumer Protection (Food and Drugs) Acts", so why must we have an Act called the "Consumer Protection (Trade Descriptions) Act"? I think we should go on in the same way as we have been going on until now. Let us describe this Bill in its Short Title simply by describing what it is about, and call it the "Trade Descriptions Bill". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 34, leave out ("Consumer Protection") and insert ("Trade Descriptions").—(Lord Airedale.)
2.48 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord has been good enough to refer to my Amendment, and I take it that it would be the wish of the House

915
that we should discuss these two Amendments together. I should first like to say that we have discussed this Bill throughout in a spirit of compromise. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, has been extremely good in meeting points wherever he could and in amending the Bill to meet points that have been made. We have had only one Division so far, which resulted in a tie, and that was on a comparatively minor drafting point.
It may seem odd to some of your Lordships that we are discussing this point at all. I think there are two reasons. The first is that we have always reached this point at a late hour of the night; and the second is that, to my mind, there is a question of principle—indeed, two questions of principle—involved here. I think there are at least three good reasons why "Consumer Protection" is not a good title. The first is that there already exists an Act of that name, the Act of 1961, and if this Bill were to go through it would have to be called all the time the "Consumer Protection Act 1968", to distinguish it. I do not think that is particularly desirable.
The second reason is that the previous Act, based on the first Molony Report, deals with a particular aspect of protection: that of protection of the person; whereas this Bill, I suppose, deals with protection of the purse of the customer. That being so, I should have thought that it would be desirable at least to differentiate this Act, if not to give it a totally different name. The third point is that this Bill protects not only consumers. It protects any trader—anyone in trade or business—from the actions of a competitor or supplier of his in misleading as to the quality, and so on, of the goods. Therefore, as it protects not only consumers, it seems to be a mistake to call it the Consumer Protection Bill.
The fourth point is that there would be some argument for saying that it would be a good idea to call this the Consumer Protection Bill if it were completely comprehensive, but it is not completely comprehensive. It is true that this Bill is based on the Report of the Molony Committee, which was called the Report of the Committee on Consumer Protection, but it deals with only a part of that Report. If it is to have the title "Consumer Protection Bill", then it should
916
specify that part of the Report with which it is dealing, which is trade descriptions. It has been said that nobody knows what "trade descriptions" means. I should have thought that it was perfectly clear what it means. We all know—and everybody soon will know—that this Bill deals with what is said or written or portrayed about goods and services, and lays down that it should not be false—that is, false to a material degree,—or misleading.
The point that weighs with me most against calling this the Consumer Protection Bill is that it would be most unfortunate if the idea were to be given that this was a protectionist Bill. In another connection the noble Lord said that he wanted to remove the "slur of protectionism". I do not think that this ought to be a protectionist Bill. I take the same view as that taken earlier on by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, that the time for pure consumer protectionism has passed, and that what we want is consumer education and consumer information. We want a Bill that is fair all round.
There is no doubt in my mind that the psychological effect of calling this the Consumer Protection Bill will be to slant the Bill to influence magistrates and enforcement officers, in favour of the consumer, whereas I firmly believe the Bill should be fair to all.
We have acted in a spirit of compromise throughout the Bill. If the noble Lord is prepared to accept my Amendment, which will faithfully reflect the Molony Report, then I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in the same spirit of compromise will agree so that we may avoid a Division. If, on the other hand, the noble Lord is not able to do that, then I, for my part, would support Lord Airedale's Amendment. I realise that the noble Lord's Amendment is not acceptable to all noble Lords, some of whom would be prepared to reach a compromise on this matter. Therefore, if the noble Lord's Amendment were defeated, I hope that the noble Lord would be able to support me and that we should carry the second Amendment.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I wish that the Government could do something on this particular matter. I feel very strongly about it and

917
I have spoken about it at various stages of the Bill. I am afraid that this is one of those awkward subjects where at one time or other one faces a question of principle. I dislike intensely the term "consumer protection". I hope that we have now reached the stage of discussing these matters round the table with consumers and industry or shopkeepers alike, and not on a basis of the consumers on one side of the table and industry or shopkeepers on the other side. I feel that my noble friend Lord Brown is in a difficult position here. He has had the honesty to go on record in this House as saying that he does not like the present title. I do not think he has committed himself to liking either of the Amendments, but I believe he was not happy about the present title.
We have been told quite often that it is not necessary for anything we send from this House to another place to be in a perfect condition, and I wish that the Government would feel able to accept one of these Amendments. If an amended title goes to another place, their Members can amend it and send it back to us if they so wish. Furthermore, if the title put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale., is not acceptable to the Government, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has put forward a compromise and has left in the words "consumer protection", which I dislike as much as he does, and has suggested something else in addition. I very much hope that in this year of 1968 we do not use the phraseology of the 1950s but that we move forward. If the noble Lord could see his way to accept one of these Amendments, it would give satisfaction to the progressive side of the consumer movement in this country.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, although I must confess I have always regarded this Bill as a consumer protection Bill, and very much of a consumer protection Bill, I still think that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is a very good compromise. I myself would support it.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, and as her designated successor on the Consumer Council, I should like to report that I have consulted my colleagues, with the
918
exception of the noble Baroness, who does not quite agree, and we are content with the Government's chosen title. We take the view that the original 1961 Bill was well entitled and deals with one particular part of consumer protection, and that this Bill is generally entitled and deals with a more general part of consumer protection. We are unable to think that any consumer will be confused in any way at all by this title. We do not feel passionately about it. We do not dislike the name in the title so much as does the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. We do not think that "trade descriptions" is a self-evident phrase. One thing the Bill does not mean is what that title says, which is that it is the description of a trade. On this view we would favour the Government's title, but, as I say, without passion.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I support what my noble friend has said about the title of the Bill, and also what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, on his Amendment. Of the two Amendments I much prefer that of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. Indeed, I suggested a compromise on these lines during one of the later stages of the Bill on Report. The advantage of that Amendment is that it retains the words "consumer protection" but includes the words "trade descriptions", for the good reasons put forward by Lord Airedale, and I hope that the Government will accept it. The title of the previous Bill, which came to nothing owing to the General Election, was Protection of Consumers (Trade Descriptions) Bill. The title of this Bill is Consumer Protection Bill only. If it were to become "Consumer Protection (Trade Descriptions) Bill", it would still be shorter by one word than the title of the previous Bill. I think it would also answer the various objections put forward to the words "consumer protection", which do not describe the aims of the Bill adequately and also are rather loaded against the great majority of traders, both retailers and manufacturers, who are honest and who are protected in the Bill as much as is the consumer. I very much hope that the Government will see their way to accept the second of these Amendments.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, surely it is what is in the Bill that matters, and

919
personally I do not regard this as a question of principle. I do not think it matters two pins.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, If Clause 11 had stood it would have been possible to call this a Protection Bill. But, as we know, Clause 11 is to be withdrawn, because we have proved conclusively that it cannot possibly work in any guise that any human being has so far managed to suggest. As for the rest of the Bill, it protects the purchaser, the wholesaler and everybody else just as much as the consumer, and therefore I feel certain that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has the right sort of Amendment down.
3.1 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy with the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, as the House already knows. I have some sympathy, though a little less, with the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will no doubt move in due course of time. But I am in the unfortunate position, as spokesman for the Government, that I am unable to accept either of these Amendments. I must appear to the House to be extremely unaccommodating in saying that, but there it is. It is possible to put up some sort of rough logic in defence of these Amendments, or indeed against these Amendments. Personally, I feel that in the last analysis the matter is one of choice, rather than of logic, and the House knows my own feeling about it.
I feel that, really, we have two courses open to us to-day; and I do not want to take up a great deal more of the time of the House in debating this matter. Either the noble Lord should agree to withdraw his Amendment, which I doubt if he will do, or we should divide on it and possibly send a new title to the other place. Whatever happens, I think it is sound that those who influence my stand in this House should be subject to the arguments which have been put forward here. I do not know what the outcome will be. It might well be that the title of the Bill would be amended in the other place, even if the Amendment were withdrawn here. But, of course, I can give no guarantee at all of that. I shall not try to pursue the argument further.
920
I am sorry to be unaccommodating, but there it is.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, surely the Minister is going to give us some sort of reason for preferring the one title to the other. I came here with an open mind on this matter. Reasons have been given in favour of the Amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has said that it does not matter two pins. I dare say that it does not matter very much, but surely the fact that reasons have been given for the Amendment, and no reason, apparently, has been given for abiding by what is in the Bill, would tend to make the House vote against the Government, unless they give some reason in favour of what is in the Bill.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, as the noble Lord forces me to my feet again on this Amendment, I can point out that it is indeed a Bill which started with the primary objective of offering protection to the consumer, and, although it is concerned with the matter of trade descriptions and the like, the fundamental purpose of this Bill is in fact to protect the consumer. It is not setting out to enforce on the trader the onerous task of, perhaps, describing his goods differently or conducting his affairs differently merely for the sake of doing so. It is doing all that in the interests of protecting the consumer, and the logic of calling it the Consumer Protection Bill lies in the fact that that is its objective. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has argued the logic of calling it the Trade Descriptions Bill on content and not on purpose, and that is the other sort of logic which one can attach.
One is therefore left with a choice as to whether one decides to base the title of the Bill on its content or on its purpose. The Government have thought fit to choose the latter, and the noble Lord has chosen the former. I do not know which is right. I have already expressed my sympathies with the line in which the noble Lord wishes to go, but I am just one single person. But that is the argument here. I am sorry that the noble Lord was disappointed when I did not give this explanation, but as the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has said, it is not a matter of enormous importance. I do not want to occupy your Lordships' time any further.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether he can give us some guidance as to the normal practice. From Bills I have seen passed here, my impression is that they have generally been called after their contents, but I may be wrong. Is a Bill sometimes called after its purpose?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I am sorry, but I am afraid that is not a question I could answer. It would involve a good deal of research work which I personally have not done.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, of course I am sorry that the Minister finds that he has to be unaccommodating, but the noble Lord, Lord Brown, on this occasion, as on all occasions through all stages of the Bill in this House, has been unaccommodating in the most charming possible way. To the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, I would only say that when he says that "Consumer Protection" as a title would not confuse
consumers, I certainly never suggested that it would do so. What I said was that consumers would not know what the Bill was about without looking it up and reading it, when they would find out that what it was about was, in fact, trade descriptions. That is why I so firmly feel that it is much better to describe, the Bill in its Short Title by its content than by its purpose, which, after all, is the Government's social purpose. The content is surely a much better basis for the Short Title of a Bill.
I shall not pursue the matter any further. If I thought I could pick the winner between these two Amendments, I might save time by not dividing the House upon this one. But I feel pretty sure that your Lordships are going to accept one or other, although I do not know which, so the only thing to do is to put the matter to the test.
3.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 41.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, D.

Craigavon, V.

Jessel, L. [Teller]

Ailwyn, L.

Derby, L.Bp.

MacAndrew, L.

Airedale, L. [Teller.]

Derwent, L.

Mansfield, E.

Albemarle, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Milverton, L.

Alport, L.

Dundee, E.

Mountevans, L.

Amulree, L.

Dundonald, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Effingham, E.

Nunburnholme, L.

Asquith of Yarnbury, Bs.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Oakshott, L.

Atholl, D.

Falmouth, V.

Ogmore, L.

Auckland, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Bannerman of Kildonan, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Redmayne, L.

Barrington, V.

Hawke, L.

Rowallan, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Headfort, M.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Buckton, L.

Henley, L.

St. Helens, L.

Byers, L.

Hives, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Cawley, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Coleraine, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Conesford, L.

Ilford, L.

Vivian, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Ironside, L.

Windlesham, L.

Woolton, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Greenway, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Hankey, L.

Raglan, L.

Brown, L.

Henderson, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Royle, L.

Burden, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

Champion, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Crook, L.

Hunt, L.

Shannon, E.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Latham, L.

Soper, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Listowel, E.

Sorensen, L. [Teller.]

Faringdon, L.

McLeavy, L.

Southwark, L.Bp.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L

Strang, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Milner of Leeds, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Mitchison, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Moyle, L.

Resolved in the Affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

3.15 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In moving this Motion, may I make some comments? Since this Bill was read a second time, your Lordships have spent something like 24 hours discussing it in Committee and on Report. In that time you have made a large number of Amendments, both to the drafting and on points of substance; and it is worth remembering that when this Bill was first presented to this House, in November last year, it already took account of a number of suggestions made during your Lordships' discussion of its predecessor, the Protection of Consumers (Trade Descriptions) Bill, which lapsed in 1966. This Bill has therefore been the subject of long and detailed consideration; and I should like to thank your Lordships, not only for what I consider to have been most valuable and fruitful discussions, but also for the extremely co-operative and constructive spirit in which these debates have been conducted.
Together we have achieved a good deal. The first six clauses have been clarified in several respects. In particular, I hope that no one doubts now that the purpose of Clauses 2 to 6 is to interpret expressions used in the Bill and not to change the meaning of those expressions in other parts of the law. We have extended Clause 12 to false claims that goods or services are of a kind supplied to any person and not just to claims concerning the Royal Family, Government Departments and local authorities. We have taken out the power to order the forfeiture of offending goods proposed for the courts in Clause 17. We have introduced a six-month time limit for the institution of summary prosecutions for oral offences in Clause 18. Clause 20 has been entirely redrafted. The defence in Clause 23, subsection (1), now expressly covers cases where the commission of an offence was due to reliance upon information supplied to the defendant or to the act or default of another person. We have also accepted an Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, which will require the giving of notice to the prosecution where it is alleged that the commission of an offence was due to such act or default.
We have redrafted subsection (1) of Clause 27, and have modified some of
924
the powers which it would give to the authorised officer of an enforcement authority. For instance, he could now require the production of books or documents only where he had reasonable cause to suspect that an offence had been committed. The new Clause 35 would provide an exemption from Clauses 1 and 8 of certain market research activities; and Clause 38, subsection (2), would protect all genuine editorial comment published in a wide variety of media. These and other changes made by this House add up to a valuable improvement in the Bill. We think that it was a good Bill when we introduced it, and thanks to your Lordships' help it is certainly now a better one.
I recognise that there are points on which some of your Lordships are still not happy. There are, for example, the fears that have been expressed about the wide scope of the powers sought in Clause 9 to require the inclusion of information about goods in advertisements. We still think that these fears are unjustified, but we have tried to meet them by omitting the power to require instructions to be included in advertisements and by making it clear that the Board of Trade must not make a blanket order covering all descriptions of advertisement in respect of any class of goods. We think it would be wrong to restrict this power any further. My Lords, there is nothing sinister about this. We are simply concerned to be able to protect the consumer as and when the need arises. In preparing for the unpredictable, we have to assume that if an advertisement is an advertisement for the goods which will be supplied to people, then it is an advertisement in which sooner or later we might find it necessary in the interests of consumers to require that certain information should be included. The point of such an order would obviously be to ensure that the consumer was forewarned of some significant fact about the goods which might otherwise not come to his notice before he had committed himself to the purchase of the goods. This is not simply an issue where mail order is involved; in some cases the buyer may have been so conditioned by the advertisement that by the time he goes into the retailer's premises to buy goods of a certain class, he is likely to ask for the particular brand by name, without inspecting the goods closely

925
enough to notice the information printed somewhere on them. Your Lordships may wish that shoppers would not be so impulsive, or that they could be taught not to be so impulsive; just as you would wish that every motorist could be relied upon always to drive carefully and sensibly.
But, my Lords, we have to deal with the shopper as he is, not as we would wish him to be. He takes the advertisement to have disclosed the material facts, and merely asks at the counter for a packet of "Blotto" or a bottle of "Squish". The advertisements that achieve this effect on him will not necessarily have been issued by the retailer, or issued in any particular physical form; nor will they necessarily amount to an "offer to supply", or to an "invitation to treat", or to any other special legal concept of that kind. Nor can it be assumed that it will be only in the case of goods of some particular type or price range that the need arises, or with regard to some particular consideration such as safety. That is why we are convinced that, to deal with the many diffierent circumstances that might arise, it is essential to leave this clause as it stands.
Perhaps I may here return to a question which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, asked me on Report stage. He asked whether this power would extend to information about the price of goods, or credit or hire-purchase terms or—as the National Board for Prices and Incomes recommended in relation to television rental—total changes over a period of years. I regret that I inadvertently misled the House when I said that I thought it would. For I am advised that there is room for doubt whether Clause 9 as at present drafted would enable us to make an order covering all these matters. We shall, therefore, have to decide in the course of our consideration of the National Board's recommendation whether some further amendment to this clause may be desirable.
The drafting of Clause 11, which deals with false indications as to the price of goods, has given us a lot of trouble. I will not weary your Lordships with another account of the possibilities which we have, one by one, considered and regretfully rejected. As matters now stand we have a clause covering false comparisons with a recommended price, false
926
comparisons with one's own previous price, and false indications that the selling price is less than it really is. The clause deals with these three mischiefs in a perfectly satisfactory way. As far as it goes, it is—with all due respect to the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke—a good clause. The objections that have been raised to it are that it does nothing to repress "phoney" recommended prices, and that it does not attempt to deal with false comparisons with other people's prices, or with false statements as to worth or value. There is no disputing that it would be sound if we could add something to the clause to deal with such abuses; the question to which we have as yet found no satisfactory answer is how to devise something which is helpful, fair, and enforceable. As I have assured your Lordships we shall keep on thinking and trying I have already indicated in debate one of the possible avenues of advance which, we are exploring. We do not, however, yet know whether it will be possible to add to Clause 11 in a manner which will both yield further protection to the; consumer and he enforceable.
Finally, some of your Lordships are concerned about the possible consequences of making oral mis-statement an offence. I fully appreciate the sincerity with which noble Lords have argued the difficulties in which shopkeepers might find themselves, and have advanced various proposals for mitigating these problems. But our view is that it is right and proper to make these misstatements an offence, and that as the Bill stands the difficulties will not in practice be anything like as serious as may be theoretically supposed. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Brown.)
3.26 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, first I should like to thank the noble Lord for having given a résumé of what we have done in the course of this Bill. I think we can all claim some modest credit for having improved the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, not only listened to arguments put from both sides of the House, but has taken great trouble to meet them wherever he judged it possible. Indeed, as he has said, he has undertaken, at least on Clause 11, to

927
go on trying to meet them. Although he was able to accept only three Amendments or substance moved from this side of the House, I reckon that he has himself introduced 15 Amendments of substance to meet points from this side, often with support from his own side. I am sure that we are all grateful to him.
As the noble Lord has covered the Bill so fully, I do not want to go over the ground again before we part with it to another place. But there is one aspect of the Bill which I think needs further consideration: that is the enforcement provision in Clause 25. This Bill not only brings the law on trade descriptions up to date; it breaks new ground in extending it to cover misleading indications that might be taken as trade descriptions about goods, and to cover misleading statements about services. In other words, at present the criteria for determining whether a trade description is false are wholly objective, matters of fact ascertained from tests or records. The only subjective element lies in whether they are false to a material extent. In future there will be a further subjective element: whether what is written or said or portrayed is likely to give a misleading impression. In such cases the enforcement authorities will not themselves have been misled. Before bringing a prosecution, they will have to exercise their own subjective judgment whether others are likely to be misled, as well as whether the implication is false to a material degree. It is, therefore, important to know who are to enforce the law and how they are to be trained and equipped to do so.
Who are to enforce the law? Clause 25 says it is to be the local weights and measures authorities within their areas. But whom are the local weights and measures authorities to employ to do this? For my part, I have assumed throughout that they will employ the Weights and Measures Inspectorate; although, in matters involving the whole country or a large part of it, as the noble Lord knows, I think the Molony Report was right to recommend that the Ministry concerned, mainly the Board of Trade, should regard itself as the appropriate prosecuting authority. On Re-commitment, the noble Lord, Lord Brown, said:
928
"The Government have set out to use the local authorities' weights and measures inspectors; and they believe that this will work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22/1/68, col. 48.]
I must ask the noble Lord this question. Has the Board of Trade changed its mind since it submitted its evidence to the Royal Commission on Local Government in England? In paragraph 21 of its evidence the Board of Trade said this:
"The designation of weights and measures authorities as the authorities charged with the duty of enforcement is not intended to imply that the work should be done by weights and measures inspectors. Indeed, the Board of Trade would hope that the time of qualified inspectors would not be taken up by enforcement duties in the greater part of the field covered by the Bill which would not be of a kind to require such qualifications. It would be for the authorities concerned to decide what staff to employ for the purpose."
Surely we must be clear on this point. In the past year we have also had the Mallaby Report on staffing local government which had a lot to say about recruitment and training. There can be no doubt that the officers who are to enforce this Bill will have to be trained, and it is important that they should be properly trained. We cannot entrust powers of entry, inspection, seizure of goods and documents to half-trained or untrained officers. Indeed, my Lords, I know think that the Bill could have been, and could still be, improved by providing for qualification standards. The Mallaby Report observes that the profession of inspectors and weights and measures was one
"which has limited prospects and appears unattractive to good school leavers and graduates."
The Inspectorate as a whole was short of qualified staff. In the spring of 1966 the Mallaby Report recorded that there were 43 posts in Greater London alone, out of an establishment of 123, which were vacant, although elsewhere the proportion of vacancies was smaller. Yet there is no suggestion that the Inspectorate is inefficient. It is just, in the view of the Committee, rather unattractive as a profession.
My Lords, it would surely be a great mistake if the local weights and measures authorities were to be left free to lay the responsibility for forcing the provisions in this Bill on whichever branch of their local government services happened to have spare capacity at the time. Surely

929
there should be uniformity in this matter throughout the country. Surely, also, the responsibility for enforcing the wider provisions of this Bill should be laid on the Inspectorate which has already been dealing with trade descriptions. If one reason why a profession is short staffed is that it is relatively unattractive, surely there is a very good chance offered in this Bill of making it more attractive by entrusting to it the wider responsibilities involved and providing a better ladder of promotion and one reaching higher.
A great advantage enjoyed by the Weights and Measures Inspectorate is that of a personal contact. The local inspectors are already in close contact with manufacturers and distributors of goods in their area, though not as yet with suppliers and services. I believe that the success of this measure depends upon personal contact and on the ability to enlist the co-operation and enjoy the confidence of consumers and traders alike. That is why I should like executive authority for enforcement to rest with chief inspectors of weights and measures in England, Scotland and Wales.
Perhaps I may be allowed a personal reference and to say that my work in Government, and elsewhere, has brought me into contact with the Weights and Measures Inspectorate. I have greatly admired the way in which the Inspectorate approached their task under the Weights and Measures Act of 1963. They explained the requirements of the Act to those of their flock who inadvertently infringed them, and for the most part they have brought prosecutions only where they were satisfied that an offence was deliberate, or that there had been irresponsible negligence. This is precisely the approach needed under this Bill—and particularly in that part of the Bill which deals with misleading statements and indications. The Bill does not require proof of intention to mislead, but it is greatly to be hoped that prosecutions will not be brought unless the enforcement authorities are unable to enforce the law without doing so. This is the approach with which weights and measures inspectorate are familiar. At local level they are well fitted to carry it out.
Naturally they will require guidance from the Board of Trade to ensure reasonable uniformity of enforcement.
930
This is one general point with which the noble Lord, Lord Brown, did not deal—the matter of guidance. Is it the intention of the Board of Trade to issue circulars to local weights and measures authorities guidance circulars on how to carry out their functions?
My Lords, in practice, if I am right, prosecutions will be brought only where the law has been deliberately and flagrantly flouted, or where the enforcement authority think an offence has been committed, but the alleged offender disagrees. In such cases the courts must clearly decide what is the law and whether it has been broken.
Of course, not all weights and measures inspectors are equally endowed with tact and common sense. Occasionally somebody may be, as the noble Lord, Lord Brown, put it, "over-zealous". But, by and large, they are good judges of men and succeed in keeping a sense of proportion. I suggest that the enforcement authority must be, and must be known to be, completely fair and impartial, and should not be too closely identified with either traders or consumers. This again is a good reason for using the weights and measures inspectors. Distributors and manufacturers may sometimes feel that they are harried by the Inspectorate, but I have been impressed by the realisation of the Inspectorate that they are enforcing the law just as much in the interests of the honest trader as in the interests of the honest consumer. They are there to see fair play for all. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give me some information about enforcement.
There is one other general point that I should like briefly to mention: it is a point with which I am intimately concerned. I know that, like the Molony Committee, the noble Lord wants to see the voluntary system of control in advertising playing its full part. Certainly it would be a long step backwards if the voluntary system, which has grown in influence and effectiveness in the past six years, were to be allowed, or indeed compelled, to wither away as a result of this Bill. That is certainly not a necessary result; but it is a real danger unless the authorities, at both local and central level, are as willing to work with the voluntary system as I may say the voluntary system is willing to work with them. There are many aspects of advertising in which control is exercised voluntarily and where

931
it would be quite impossible to exercise effective control under our present legal system. That side of voluntary control could scarcely survive if the other side were undermined. By "the other side" I mean the side which does a great deal to ensure that advertisements likely to infringe the law do not appear, and that, if any do, they are amended or withdrawn as soon as possible.
My Lords, I hope very much, therefore, that before bringing prosecutions for offences in advertisements both the local and the control authorities will inquire what steps, if any, have already been taken under the voluntary system. I should like to make it clear that I am not saying that no prosecutions should ever be brought where the voluntary system has already succeeded in having advertisements amended or withdrawn. I suggest that, if we are to get the best results for the public, the closest understanding and co-operation between the statutory and the voluntary controls are desirable. I believe that this can be a good Bill, provided that the keynote of its implementation is co-operation between enforcement authorities and the Board of Trade, on the one hand, and between both and the voluntary system, on the other.
3.37 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I would wish this Bill well in its journey through another place. As the House knows, I have certain reservations, and I hope very much that these will prove to be ill-founded by the time the Bill comes back to us. As my noble friend Lord Brown said, we have still not yet decided how the law should operate on the vexed question of the value of goods, and I shall await with much interest the discussions and Amendments which take place elsewhere, particularly on the framing of an adequate Clause 11; because I still believe that acceptance of the Amendment deleting the words "or are being offered by others" on page 6, lines 32 and 33 of the Bill as first printed, was a grave mistake and a significant weakening of the Bill. Having said that, my Lords, I should like to pay my tribute to my noble friend Lord Brown. I am sure he thinks that some of us have been trying, and that probably I have been
932
more trying than others; but obviously, if one feels strongly one has to speak. Although I did not get anywhere with my protests I should like to say how much I appreciated his comments.
3.39 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I, too, should like to associate myself with what noble Lords have said about the Minister, his patience, good humour and hard work, and the kindliness he has shown through all the stages of the Bill in this House. I wish to say only a word or two about enforcement, which was mainly the subject the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, had to discuss. I cannot allow this opportunity to pass, I am afraid, without saying this. There is, in my humble opinion, still a black spot in this Bill under the enforcement provisions. It is this: that Clause 27 empowers a magistrate to give a warrant to a local government officer, or an officer of the Board of Trade, to enter by force into a shopkeeper's warehouse or store, or even into part of the shopkeeper's house, if goods are stored there. I imagine that a great many shopkeepers keep part of their stocks in part of their dwelling houses above the shop. The inspector can be empowered by a magistrate to break into those premises to inspect goods in them, without his having the faintest suspicion of any kind against that trader or that there is anything the matter with any of the goods in the warehouse or at the back of the shop or wherever it may be.
I think it is extraordinary that the Board of Trade should have come to Parliament to ask for a power of this kind to be inserted into a Bill in peacetime, Socialist England. I am comforted in several ways. To begin with, I do not believe that this power will survive the passage of the Bill through another place. I believe that it will have been removed when the Bill comes back to your Lordships' House. If it has not been removed, I have a certain amount of faith that no local government inspector will ever go before any magistrate to ask for a warrant to enter by force into the premises of any shopkeeper if that inspector has no suspicion of any kind against that shopkeeper.
Thirdly, I have a good deal of faith in the magistracy and I do not believe that any magistrate is likely to give a

933
warrant to an officer who comes to ask for one to burst into some shopkeeper's premises when he has no suspicion about that shopkeeper. Fourthly, I believe that on the first occasion that happens, if it ever does happen, though I do not believe it will, there will be a public outcry and people will say, "Are we living in Socialist England in peace time or in Nazi Germany?". I am sorry to speak so strongly about this matter, but that is what I feel about it. If it were Parliamentary to have a bet with the Minister that this provision will not survive the passage of the Bill through another place, I would do so; but I do not think that it would be Parliamentary to engage in a wager with the Minister upon this.
Finally, as I ventured to suggest on Second Reading, the Bill perhaps errs on the side of being too grandmotherly and that our duty in this House would be to try to see that it left us in not too grandmotherly a state. But it has now a nice refreshing new title, much less grandmotherly than the old one, and I hope that another place will discuss this Bill in the spirit of that much more refreshing and less grandmotherly new title. I wish the Bill well in its remaining stages through Parliament.
3.45 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, not only for the consistent courtesy which he has displayed through these proceedings but also for the fact that his business knowledge has helped him to pilot the Bill with a great deal of skill. Nevertheless, some of us are not entirely satisfied with the product as it has so far revealed itself. The test of the Bill, as of any consumer Bill—and I have had experience of three or four in this House—is its enforcement and the spirit of good will among all those concerned with its enforcement—the weights and measures authorities, the factories, the wholesalers and the retailers and ultimately the persons who really matter so far as any business is concerned, the consumers.
One clause about which have some reservations is Clause 7, which empowers the Board of Trade to assign definite meanings to expressions used in relation to goods. As the Bill stands, there is nothing to prevent those meanings from
934
being quite different to the consumer from those which the Board of Trade intends. I have read paragraph 593 of the Molony Report which recommends this, and also Clause 36(a), but they seems to me only to strengthen the case for looking at this point again. Of course, the Board of Trade must have the power to designate meanings in legislation, but so far as I can see there is little or no right of appeal. Possibly this matter will be pursued in another place, because I think it is an important point.
I am particularly grateful for Clause 35, dealing with market research, which, as I said on the last stage, has never been of more importance to our home and export markets than at the present time. This clause will be greatly welcomed by all those engaged in this vital profession. So far as Clause 9 is concerned, I know that the Government did not accept health and safety as the criteria in the Amendment which I moved at an earlier stage, but I hope that they will give further consideration to making this clause slightly more flexible, because, though I appreciate that it has been looked at and changes have been made, it is still an inflexible clause. Having said that, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, who has piloted the Bill with such skill from this side, and once again to thank the noble Lord, Lord Brown. I think that this House has made this a very much better Bill.
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, I have: talked a lot at various stages of this Bill and I shall say little more. I want to add my personal tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, for the patience and good will he has shown to my own personal suggestions, and in particular to the Amendments to Clauses 6, 12 and 20 which he has made. I think that his conduct of the Bill has been an example to all Ministers in charge of Bills.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to those of the speakers who have preceded me to my noble friend Lord Brown for piloting this Bill so skilfully through the House; and also from this side of the House I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for the constructive way in which he has approached the Bill on behalf of the Opposition. I should also like to thank him for treating it in a non-Party way. This is not a

935
Party Bill: the matter is too important for Party politics. As other noble Lords have said, we have, I think, improved the Bill considerably during its passage through this House.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, I am somewhat disappointed that Clause 9 remains virtually unamended. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, has not told us—indeed, he has probably not been able to tell us—exactly why the Government need these powers, but we have received the assurance from the Board of Trade that they will consult with all the interests concerned, and we welcome that. This is really an important matter, and I hope that this offer by the Board of Trade to consult will never be forgotten in the years to come, because we are legislating for a great many years. I am very concerned about this matter. One hopes that there will be nothing in the same light as the Food Labelling Regulations, which have been brought in without adequate consultation, and where really first-class packaging design has been so stultified and ruined that it begins to look rather like something primitive produced by an emergent country or by a first-year student. This is an important matter. The whole of our prosperity depends, to a large extent, on successful marketing and advertising. One welcomes the assurance that the Board of Trade, while they may wish to bring in the necessary regulations to include certain information in advertising, in doing so will not wreck this important side of the whole marketing operation.
With those few words, I welcome the Bill. It is a good Bill. It has, as I say, been considerably improved. I have no doubt that it will receive careful consideration in the other place, and any improvements that we have not been able to make here one hopes will be considered during the passage of the Bill through the other House.
3.52 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships for long, but there are one or two points to which I must respond. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for what he has done during the passage of the Bill, and I must do my best at once to rescue him over his agony of mind on Clause 27. I assure the noble Lord most sincerely
936
that he is misreading the clause, because no justice of the peace can under this Bill give an officer the right to enter premises by force unless—and I refer to Clause 27(1)(b)—
"he has reasonable cause to suspect that an offence under this Act has been committed"
et cetera.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, would the noble Lord please read paragraph (a)?
LORD BROWN: I do not want to start a debate on the meaning of the clause, but I may point out that Clause 27(3) refers to the duties of a justice of the peace, and says:
"If a justice of the peace, on sworn information in writing—
(a) is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that any goods, books or documents which a duly authorised officer has power under this section to inspect are on any premises",
then he may give authority to break open. But that is consequent on Clause 27(1)(b).
LORD AIREDALE: No.
LORD BROWN: I think we shall have to leave it there. I honestly believe that the agony of mind expressed by the noble Lord is unjustified, but perhaps we can discuss this point afterwards. I had hoped to take him out of this state of mind. Obviously I cannot do it now, but perhaps I may do so subsequently.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, drew attention to the fact that inadvertently I have spoken of weights and measures inspectors in some words that I have used when I meant to say weights and measures authorities. It is, of course, an easy slip to make, but I apologise to the House. I can assure your Lordships that the views of the Board of Trade remain as stated to the Royal Commission on Local Government in England in relation to the original Protection of Consumers (Trade Descriptions) Bill. While we recognise that it will be for the local weights and measures authorities themselves to decide what staff to employ on the work of enforcing this Bill, we think that much of it will not call for the special qualifications and expertise of weights and measures inspectors, and that it will, therefore, be a pity to load it on to these scarce officers in all cases.
The reason for designating the enforcing authorities, in Clause 25, as those

937
authorities which are weights and measures authorities is that this is a short and convenient way of specifying the larger local authorities who we think should have this duty. It carries no implication at all that the work ought to be done by the weights and measures inspectorate. We are only too well aware that this service is at present understaffed. In the early days, however, when the Bill first comes into force, it seems to me probable that many authorities will rely largely on the staff of their existing weights and measures and public health departments who are now engaged on the enforcement of the weights and measures and food and drugs legislation and, in some cases, of the Merchandise Marks Acts, as well. They can be expected to take time to assess the extent and nature of the new duties arising from the Bill and to build on to their existing organisations. In the longer run, one would expect that while some parts of the work under the Bill might conveniently be combined with the other duties of weights and measures and public health inspectors, a good deal of it could appropriately be handled by officers with less specialised qualifications, perhaps under the general supervision of the senior staff of the authority's weights and measures inspectorate. But, as I have said before, it will be for each local authority to decide how best to organise the work and what kinds of staff to employ.
Having said that, I have noted carefully the words of wisdom spoken by the noble Lord about the general relationships between local authorities and their inspectors and those who come under scrutiny as a result of the new provisions of the Bill. I will undertake that in the course of the consultations and discussions, of a probably fairly detailed and lengthy nature, that will take place between the Board of Trade and the local authorities the text of the noble Lord's remarks this afternoon will be considered fully. I consider them to be words of wisdom, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for having said what he has this afternoon. Other noble Lords have referred to different points, but I will not deal with them now, because I do not think they require a direct answer. I have noted them. All that now remains for me to do is to thank noble Lords very much indeed for the kind words they
938
have said about me. I am one of those unusual people who very much like praise, and I have had some this afternoon. I am grateful to noble Lords for giving it to me. With that, I think I have said all that I need to say.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

RELEASE RIGHTS OF BOY SERVICEMEN AND CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS
3.57 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement which my honourable friend the Minister of Defence for Administration has just made in another place about the Latey Committee's recommendations on boy entrants to the forces, and also on the procedure for dealing with conscientious objectors. My honourable friend's words were:
"I am now able to announce the outcome of my examination of the Latey Committee's three recommendations on boy entrants to the Forces.
"I am prepared to accept the first recommendation; namely, that all boy entrants should be entitled to be released as of right on application within six months (instead of three months) from the date of their entry. This recommendation will be brought into force by regulation under Section 2 of the Armed Forces Act 1966. The detail of the arrangements for applying this policy will differ in each Service in accordance with established practice.
"I am also prepared to accept the third of these recommendations; namely, that parental consent to enlistment under the age of 18 should be required. At present such consent is required up to the age of 17½. If and when the age of majority is reduced to 18 years, this recommendation will be brought into force by administrative action.
"I regret, however, that at present I cannot accept the second recommendation; namely, that all boy entrants should be entitled to be released as of right within three months after their 18th birthday. I have considered this matter very carefully. The Forces are

939
unique and cannot be compared with civil industry which is able to bear the easy circulation of labour. It takes a long time to make an efficient Serviceman, and, with the limited number of suitable men available, it is most likely that if this recommendation were accepted either in the form proposed by the Latey Committee, or in any substantially similar form, the Forces would be unable to replace their losses, and the ability of the Government to carry out its responsibilities for defence would be seriously impaired. On the other hand, there are the considerations set out in the Latey Committee's Report and advanced by honourable Members of all Parties "—
and, indeed, by noble Lords in this House.
"These considerations are based on the natural desire, which I share, not to bind young men too tightly to long engagements undertaken in their immaturity.
"In view of the conflict of these apparently irreconcilable considerations, Her Majesty's Government have decided to continue studies by all the Departments concerned to see whether a satisfactory solution can be found to meet both the future defence needs of the country and the principle underlying the Latey Committee's recommendation.
"I would like to take this opportunity of informing the House of new procedures for dealing with Servicemen who seek to end their service on conscientious grounds. The existing arrangements have for some time been regarded as unsatisfactory, and I am replacing them as soon as possible.
"Under the new arrangements applications from Servicemen for discharge on grounds of conscientious objection will be allowed and will be dealt with in general under a system similar to that used in compassionate cases. Commanding officers will be required to establish the merits of cases which will then be referred to higher authority in the appropriate Service for decision. There will also be provision for applicants whose cases are rejected by the Service authorities to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, and a successful appeal will be accepted
940
as decisive on the question of conscience.
"Once conscientious objection has been accepted as genuine, either by the Service or the Tribunal, discharge will be conditional upon payment of the standard purchase price. The Services will, however, have discretion to reduce or waive the purchase price where financial hardship can be proved.
"The advantage of these arrangements is that they provide a fair and reasonable means of judging whether cases are genuine but do not include the penal provisions which, in some cases, are involved in the present procedure. It is hoped that these arrangements will go a long way towards solving what is an admittedly difficult problem."
4.2 p.m.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that Statement. We on these Benches agree that the increase of the extension from three to six months of the right to be released is reasonable. But, in view of the serious decline in recruiting, and the fact that 60 per cent. of naval entrants, and a high percentage of Army and Royal Air Force recruits, join before the age of 18, we think it is the absolute maximum. We also agree with the decisions expressed in the rest of the Statement. But I am slightly confused by paragraph 3, which possibly the noble Lord could clarify. The Government say that they are prepared to accept the third recommendation (in the first sentence), and then they say,
"If and when the age of majority is reduced to 18 years, this recommendation will be brought into force …".
Does that mean that it is not being brought into force now, and will be only if and when the age of majority is reduced?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I welcome the provisions in it. I should also like, on behalf of my colleagues, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, upon the persistence he has shown in this matter. May I ask the Leader of the House one question on the matter of Servicemen and conscientious objection? Is it not an odd

941
principle, if I have understood it correctly, that although a man satisfies a tribunal completely that he has a genuine conscientious objection he should nevertheless have to pay the full purchase price to get out of the Army? This seems to me a very odd principle indeed, and one which might be reconsidered.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I know that my noble friend Lord Brockway has a prior claim in these matters, but may I deal first with the two points that have been raised? In any case, I think that Lord Brockway will be referring to the second question. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, will not be too dogmatic about the possibility of some further arrangement. The object of further consideration is to see whether there is some way of harmonising this very difficult problem which causes the Service the anxiety, which I hope we all feel, of immature young men committing themselves for many years.
The noble Lord also asked about the interpretation of paragraph 3, which referred to the Latey Committee's third recommendation:
"That parental consent to enlistment under the age of 18 should be required,"
instead of age 17½. This recommendation is not going to be put into force at once. The Government have not yet come to a view on all the Latey proposals. There are complications here, of course, because adult pay is tied to the 17½ age, and I think there could be mixed arguments either way. None the less the Government have accepted this proposal, but I do not think anyone will reckon this a very important issue. It is normal, for instance, as I understand it, in industry to ask for parental consent up to age 18.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers—and I thank him for his remarks—touched on this question as to whether conscientious objectors should be called upon to pay. I should like him to address himself to this argument. Young men or older men, or whoever they are, have voluntarily entered the Service they are not conscripts. That is to say, the situation is very different from that which prevailed during the war. In the course of their service they changed their minds, and we are prepared to recognise this. But, none the less, they have incurred,
942
and possibly at an early stage they may have incurred, pretty expensive training. I think it is right that we should allow due recognition of a conscientious objection, but I would remind the noble Lord that there are other people who may have reasons which are as compelling to them, acute compassionate reasons, and it seemed to me quite wrong that somebody who leaves the Service for some acute compassionate reason should be called upon to pay, and the conscientious objector should not.
If the noble Lord wishes to challenge that he is going very much wider, and he had better deal with that on a wide question. But I ought to make clear to him—and I have had some experience of administering this—that the Services will always waive the purchase price if circumstances are difficult. My experience is that they do this on the generous side they do not try to screw the last penny out—far from it. They will take into account all the circumstances: family circumstances, ability to pay. So, although I see that there is a difficulty, and the noble Lord raises an interesting point, when he sets it in the wider background I hole he will agree that at least in this respect it is right that, once they are allowed to go we should treat them in the same way other Servicemen who have been allowed to leave the Service for other reasons.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I hope the House will give me permission, in view of the fact that I took the initiative in raising both these issues in this House, not to content myself with just a supplementary question.
A NOBLE LORD: Why?
LORD BROCKWAY: Then I will try to put my point as a supplementary question. In the case of conscientious objectors, is the noble Lord aware that we appreciate the strength of his argument that the cost of training, while they were content to be in the Services, is a justifiable charge? I accept that at once. But is he not in agreement that there is also a service which they have given to the Armed Forces and which that can be balanced against? Thirdly, does he not appreciate that there is something a little repugnant to a person whose conscience is affected by service in the military Forces if he has to buy himself

943
out? This is a bargain with his conscience. I will content myself with that first supplementary.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, could the noble Lord clarify the position a little on the scope of conscience under these new arrangements? I can perhaps make it clear by saying that he will remember that just before the First World War a number of officers would have sent in their papers if they had been asked to fight against Ulster, though I do not think it would have been possible for other ranks to get out under that heading. What is the position under these proposals? For instance, would this apply—it does not at the moment, of course—if any Government decided to use force against Rhodesia?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, let me take Lord Brockway's point first. I agree, and I share a slight feeling of discomfort about this question of payment; but I should make clear that the rate of purchase price is tailored to the length of service the individual has given, and obviously somebody right at the beginning of his service will have to pay a higher figure than someone near the end.
I would rather not be drawn into the difficult subject of people sending in their papers, or indeed the particular circumstances of the Curragh Mutiny, which is what the noble Lord has in mind. But in those days I think I am correct in saying that officers were enabled to send in their resignations and they were automatically accepted. For a long time now officers have not been entitled to assume that their resignations will be accepted.
The question of Rhodesia is one I would rather not go into. I appreciate that this question could cause an acute difficulty for a particular individual. I have encountered such difficulties myself as a Service Minister, and I can only say to the noble Lord that these matters, like other matters, are treated by the Services with intelligence and sympathy.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether since Question Time he has had an opportunity of finding out about the contract for girls?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I have checked that. Of course my Statement related only to boys, and I understand that this problem does not arise in relation to girls. I hesitate to use the word "contract", because the question of contract is a rather difficult one, but most girls do not join until they are at least 17 years of age. Even if they sign on for six years most of them have an option at four years, and a girl who marries (and indeed in other unusual circumstances) is released without difficulty. I do not think this is a problem, but if the noble Baroness would like to pursue it perhaps she will put down a Question.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in relation to the first part of the Statement which has been made, regarding these boys of 15 or 16 years of age, and whose period of service is 15 years until they are 30, while I welcome the acceptance of the first and third recommendations in the Latey Report I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he is aware of the grave disappointment felt by many of us in the rejection of the second recommendation? Was it not the recommendation that within three months of these boys reaching the age of 18 years they should have the right to decide whether to continue their service? And is not this period of 15 years' service in effect conscription applied to an underage and unprivileged section of our community? Many of these boys come from orphanages.
Will not the Ministry, in the serious consideration it is giving to this problem, regard this human right of liberty before the considerations of the demands of the Department, in connection with which the Latey Committee has said:
"We doubt very much if manning requirements and planning would be seriously affected by our recommendations"?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am again in difficulties, in the first place because the Latey Committee, although offered the opportunity, took no evidence from the Ministry on manning requirements, and with due respect I must say that it is very difficult for them to express an opinion on a matter on which they did not receive direct evidence, although it was offered to them. I do not think my noble friend will want to bandy words

945
on this particular question. As he knows, I am well aware of the anxiety that he has expressed. I must point out that the number of boys who sign on for this lengthy period are certainly not the majority, but I do not think we are even concerned with total numbers. It may only be a very few individuals to whom the principle applies. For this reason the Government, having found almost overwhelming reasons why a concession should not be given, having felt the force of the arguments expressed by my noble friend, are again considering it, and they will consider it in the widest sense.
I cannot agree with my noble friend that this is really conscription. I think "conscription" has a precise meaning, but without going into emotional terms I understand the force of what the noble Lord has said. He must also realise that there have been a number of particular cases, and in the great majority of those cases one way or another some solution is found. But I promise my noble friend that the matter will be carefully considered.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, can my noble friend say when that consideration is likely to be concluded, so that we may raise the matter again?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot say that. I do not doubt that my noble friend will raise the matter again if he thinks it is too long delayed.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House what criteria will be used for these boys to be released on conscientious grounds? It may be that some boys join the Services because they are attracted by an adventurous life. Then as time goes by they may feel that they might be called upon to serve in some threatre of war which they did not like, such as Vietnam, and may feel a conscientious objection to remaining in the Services.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, whether it is Vietnam or Rhodesia, the fact is that I will not be drawn into the question of what is a conscientious objector. A conscientious objector is somebody who conscientiously objects to war, and I think my noble friend Lord Brockway might talk to the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, and explain it to him.
946
There is a great deal in this question, and I do not think the House would wish me—however much we desire to help the noble Lord—to go into all the questions as to what is a sincere and genuine conscientious objector. By and large, the record of this country in recent years has been much better than in the past and indeed, if I may say so, is better than a number of other countries.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, if my noble friend is not prepared to accept my noble friend Lord Brockway's description of this service as "conscription", I wonder whether he will accept that it is in fact indentured labour, and as such is possibly fairly objectionable.
LORD FRASER OF NORTH CAPE: My Lords, may I say that I joined the Royal Navy at 15½ years of age and, with all the ups and downs of a midshipman's life, I have been happy ever since.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, I think we can attach all sorts of names to this. I take his point about "indentured labour". The happy thing is that the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of North Cape, is not alone in finding great satisfaction in a Service life, even if not all members of the Services are as successful as he has been.

ACCIDENTS IN FACTORIES AND WORKPLACES
4.20 p.m.
LORD CROOK LORD CROOK rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take arising from the Annual Reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Factories (Cmnd. 3358 and Cmnd. 3359), and the Report of the Minister of Labour for the year ended December 31, 1966, presented to Parliament pursuant to section 79 of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, 1963. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In the past twenty years I have been in your Lordships' House I have sought on a number of occasions either to move a Motion or to raise a question on accidents in factories and workplaces. I make no apology for doing so again, because, unlike the sensational accidents on railways or in the air, or indeed the normal toll on the

947
roads, the kind of accident to which I am directing attention this afternoon secures little publicity at all. Yet there is a terrible loss of life and a shocking future for the injured people, and a very great loss of production in the country. There is no committee of inquiry in these cases, no investigation, nothing which will rivet public attention. The most reportage that accidents of this kind get, unfortunately, is the odd few lines in a local newspaper about some unfortunate fellow's death being dealt with by an inquest.
Unlike the strike which paralyses the country, the toll of accidents at work goes unnoticed except for the valuable Annual Reports to which I am directing attention at this moment. Paralysis in the docks, paralysis in the car industry, all these losses arouse the interest and indeed the wrath of the nation. Last year by that means we lost 2½, million working days—a very bad picture. But my Lords, the Ministry of Labour Reports show that in the same period we lost 23 million working days as a result of these accidents. That means not only the suffering of the people who are concerned, the suffering of the families dependent upon them, it means many more things as well. It means, of course, the great loss of production, it means that tens of thousands of days of hospital beds are occupied to the detriment of those who may be awaiting operations, it means that tens of thousands of pounds are poured out in accident and sickness benefits. But not only is there suffering and loss of production; in all too many cases this means death and the resultant misery in the families who lose father or husband. My Lords, this day two workers will die from accidents in factories and workplaces.
Once again notified accidents rose from 627 dead in 1965 to 701 dead in 1966. And I accent the words "notified accidents" and "notified deaths" because not all accidents in this country have to be notified—only those that are covered by the Factories Acts and covered in the Reports to which I am now directing attention. The slightest examination of these Reports will show that 296,610 reportable accidents were notified during that year, which led us to the 23 million lost working days. As the
948
Chief Inspector of Factories said in presenting this, his farewell Report:
"Nearly 300,000 reported accidents a year is not a figure which any of us could accept with equanimity."
And it is certainly true, as he said, that it should be unacceptable to any society such as ours, indicative as it is of the complete and inhuman waste of the material of this country.
A number of the accidents are painfully described in some detail, and shocking reading that provides. The Report says that in fiction these accidents:
"… might well provoke the reader to incredulity; in the real world they provide a sad commentary on the level of competence that prevails in certain sectors of industry."
There are all too many top managers who apparently neither cared nor understood about the problem. Top management, the Chief Inspector says, and I think quite rightly, should plan as much for the safety and security of those who work for them as they plan for production or for research or development. The worker, whose great investment is his labour, is as entitled to leave his workplace alive and fit as the investor, the shareholder, is entitled to look for a dividend. Every year in this Report attention is drawn to the fact that those who are in greatest risk are very often young people in industry. Once again the Chief Inspector says:
"Employers remain utterly unconcerned or inactive until a serious accident occurs."
I am sure we shall all agree with him when he says in this Report that this shows a complete and wanton disregard of the responsibilities that employers have.
Having said this critically of the employers, may I go on to say something about the workers themselves, because they have their blame too. Possibly half the accidents could be prevented by a little greater care, at any rate on the part of the men and women concerned—not only the men and women concerned in the actual accident but the men and women with whom they work, who are part of the community inside the factory or workplace. One of the things which I could criticise again, as I have in past years, is the failure to establish joint consultative committees. The Minister of Labour has been pressing workers and employers to get these committees set up.

949
There has been the rattle of a whip, the threat of compulsion. No one has ever gone on with compulsion. It has been the general feeling that in this case, as in the case of first-aid, if it is possible to get people to do these things voluntarily then it is very much better to do so. But the time is coming, I have no doubt, when compulsion will have to be a serious consideration of the Minister, and I and others here today would like to hear something, when the reply comes to be given, as to where the Ministry of Labour stand on this matter.
I was very glad to note in the course of the year the special attention that was given to accidents on the constructional sites and the special report that was made on this matter. On one item of particular interest I should like to ask the Minister, when he comes to reply, whether he can tell us anything of the steps the Government propose to take to deal with the horror of the nail gun. I know from talking informally over lunch that many of your Lordships have never heard of it. It is a gun which fires nails or screws or threaded bolts at high speed into solid objects in order to construct quickly—and in principle a good idea. The matter has come to a head by a recent report of the first notifiable death from this means at the beginning of this year, in January. It was said that this was an accident which was quite rare, but those of us who read the British Medical Journal have soon discovered it is nothing of the sort.
In the Southampton Chest Hospital we learn of a case where a gun was fired at a brick wall and the nail unfortunately went through the plaster between two bricks, straight through into the next room and straight through a woman standing in the next room; and she has had 14 months in hospital to recover. In St. Thomas's Hospital, over the road, we learn of the shocking case where one of these screws lodged in the spinal cord of a man, who lies there and continues to lie there, never likely to recover again, completely paralysed, completely conscious, kept alive only by artificial means. From the medical officer of the Ford Motor Works of Liverpool comes a letter saying, "This is not new; it is not fresh in any way." He has dealt with four cases in his factory in the past five years. He goes on to suggest that those who use these guns should be licensed to use
950
them, and that licences should not be issued until the men have been trained in the use of the gun. In the light of all that the Ministry of Labour are doing to train people under the new training Acts, that probably has something in it.
I am bound to say that it is probable that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the noble Lord who represents the Home Office will also have in mind another thought about these guns, now that there has been all this publicity in the daily newspapers about I hem, which can be read not only by your Lordships but also by those gangsters who find it possible to go with all sorts of instruments to hold up banks and to threaten the police. Although it is not appropriate to my Question, I throw out as an aside comment that the Home Office might like to look at these grossly offensive weapons now coming into general use.
There is another section in the Report to which I should like to give some special attention. It is to be found at pages 13 to 15, and it deals with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. The Report speaks with approval of the establishment by agreement with the Ministry of Labour of ROSPA'S regional organisation for industry. Indeed, I have recollections of the Minister speaking last May at the Jubilee Celebration Safety Conference when he praised the organisation on this matter. He said that it was no mean achievement to do what had been done, and continued:
"… without this most valuable provision many firms would have been in serious difficulties in meeting their obligations under the new Power Presses Regulations."
He went on:
"It is equally praiseworthy that this heavy load did not prevent ROSPA from expanding its other courses."
Alas! my Lords, this expansion is not proceeding as planned because ROSPA, like others, has suffered from the current economic situation. I understand the financial situation of the country and the difficulty in which Ministers are placed, but I hope that this regional scheme will continue to receive sufficient help from the Government, and that, at the least, the Government will give sufficient help to keep it in being. Even if its full reinstatement and subsequent

951
expansion may have to wait for better times, I hope we may be assured that that is the intention of the Government.
Time will not permit of my saying much about the second Report, that on health. But I would refer in passing to the reference at page 76 to cancer of the lung. As long ago as 1934 the first regulations on the effects of asbestos dust were issued. We in this country now use six times the asbestos that we used in 1934. What is more, it is the most dangerous form of asbestos, crocidolite asbestos, as it is called. Medical opinion is now clear that the use of this material can subsequently cause cancer in from as little as 20 to up to 40 years after first inhalation. Professor Case, Reader in Social Medicine at the University of London, has expressed great concern, which I believe is shared by the Minister of Labour, and I hope that the Minister replying to-night may be able to tell us that new regulations will be formulated, in the light of present medical knowledge, and embracing those branches of the profession and trade which are not at present covered.
This leads me to mention the third of the Reports, that as to accidents in offices and shops. I suppose that most people in their ordinary daily lives, whenever they think of accidents (if they ever bother to think about them) and certainly when they read about them, think of them happening in factories and workplaces, in the mines or in the docks. The reports under this more recent Act which your Lordships and Parliament passed as recently as 1963, give us the most savage reading. The total number killed in offices and shops last year was 29; and no fewer than 14 of those were actually killed in offices. The total injured in shops and offices was 18,162. Over 6,000 of those were injured in offices, and over 6,000 of them were injured in shops. It is not sufficiently realised that one innovation under the 1963 Act is that there are now registered in this country over 700,000 shops and offices employing over 7½ million employees.
I should like to congratulate the Ministry of Labour on an addition they made this year to their valuable quarterly publication, Accidents, in which, in July, they developed a new
952
feature dealing with offices and shops. Many of your Lordships who have bothered to obtain that document will have seen the graphic, and indeed quite horrifying, pictures of death and disaster. The accounts cover a wide field, including falls, knives, gassing, food-slicing machines, printing machines, lifts, electric conveyors, fires in hairdressing establishments from the alcohol solutions used to make ladies look beautiful. It all makes most horrifying reading. Once again, it is the young workers who are shown to be at greatest risk.
But I think the worst thing this Report discloses is the difficulty of enforcement. Your Lordships will remember that when the Bill passed through your Lordships' House in 1963 there was a great deal of argument as to whether enforcement should be by way of the factory inspectors or whether there should be some more local form of inspection. Finally, the Act divided up the authority for enforcement between 119 fire authorities and 1,219 local authorities, a few other odd authorities, the remainder going to the Factory Inspectorate. Let it be made clear that the local authority rate of enforcement and inspection has been deplorable. In 44 cases there was no inspection at all within the year; 76a little under 10 per cent.—had bothered themselves to inspect. Only 191, that is to say, 16 per cent., have done their job properly. And after two years some authorities have taken no steps at all to enforce the Act. The position as to fire authorities shows a similar pretty dim picture.
The Ministry of Labour Report before us could not, quite properly, include the evidence which the Ministry gave to the Royal Commission on Local Government. But that evidence happens to be available in the Printed Paper Office to all of your Lordships and, for better information, I obtained a copy. In that evidence (I quote from page 10) the Ministry of Labour said:
"The only conclusion … to be drawn … is that despite all advice and guidance, both quantitative and qualitative, uniformity of enforcement by local authorities is an unrealisable ideal."
The evidence shows that there is a vast difference between enforcement in premises for which the Factory Inspectorate is responsible and enforcement by the 1,338 authorities throughout England.

953
Indeed, the evidence shows an absurd position. As the Ministry says in this document:
"It is a ground for general criticism that an Act which provides safety, health and welfare protection for all office and shop workers should vary in its application according to the degree of enthusiasm of the enforcing authority."
The position of multiple stores like Boot's, Marks and Spencer, Woolworth's, and Sainsbury's is absolutely ludicrous. They do the best they can. If they establish a standard which suits the inspector in county X and they put that standard into operation in county Y, they will find that the inspector in county Y does not approve of it and wants something completely different. That in itself is bad enough, but industry and manufacturers are suffering from it too. The manufacturers produce something that is wanted; it suits the inspectors in local authority A, who pass it and agree it. But there is no agreed standard in respect of authority B or authority C, since the local authorities there require something different. What must come is a national scheme of enforcement, which some of us were pressing for in 1963.
My Lords, I have reached my final query—and I know that I have been far too long on an Unstarred Question. I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government intend to introduce a new comprehensive Factory Act shortly. Can the noble Lord say whether Parliament will be asked to amalgamate the provisions of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 with the general provisions? Most of us would regard this as a sensible step. Thirdly, can we hope that such a Bill will seek to end the blunder of the division of responsibility for enforcement in regard to shops and offices, to which I have already referred? So, again apologising for speaking at such length, I beg leave to ask the Question.
4.42 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Crook, for raising this matter. However, I wish that he had found it possible to put down a Motion on this subject, as there is enough in these Reports to fill two whole debates. Since to-day we are being followed by a most important further small debate, we shall have time only to touch on one or two matters and therefore one will have to
954
keep one's speech short. I should like to say how glad I am that the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, is replying to this debate. In his non-political life he has had a good deal to do with these matters and is something of an expert on them. It is much easier to ask Questions of somebody who knows what he is talking about and is not just speaking from a brief.
I am not going to say much about the Industrial Health Report. I was going to say a word about asbestos, but that aspect was dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Crook. This is one of the two Reports from the Chief Inspector and is the one with the most hopeful outlook. Medical knowledge and research is keeping up to a considerable extent with both new and old industrial diseases, many of which are caused by the new techniques and new materials which are being used. It is clear that the doctors are keeping up with this problem, and for some reason both management and employees seem to take a greater interest in industrial health than they do in industrial accidents.
The picture is much more gloomy when one comes to the Report on industrial accidents. As the noble Lord, Lord Crook, pointed out, the appalling problem of industrial accidents does not seem to get much publicity in the Press or among the general public. Although one often hears people say "Aren't these road casualties too awful?", one does not very often hear people say "Aren't these industrial accidents too awful?" The problem is very much greater in industry, and the loss to the country is also very much greater even than the very bad losses caused by road accidents.
The noble Lord, Lord Crook, stressed the lack of responsibility of certain firms and managements in their duty as regards accidents; but the Chief Inspector pointed out, as the noble Lord indicated, that there are many firms, both large and small, with a very good record. I only wish that there were more of them. The Chief Inspector also implies that the problem is much worse and the supervision much less in small firms than in large ones. This is quite understandable, although very regrettable. In a very large concern it is not too difficult to alter the workload, whether among

955
management or on the shop floor, so as, by reorganising the work, to take a little of it off one man and put in on to another; and the man who has had a little work taken away from him can be made a member of the committee which looks after industrial accidents and welfare. That applies whether or not the man is in management; it is easier for a large firm to arrange these matters than for a small firm. In the very small firm, both in regard to management and the men operating the machines, there is probably only one man doing a particular job, and there is great difficulty if one tries to switch some of his work on to another man. In a small firm it is also difficult to give to a member of the management additional work when he is already probably very much overworked, but this has to be done.
The most horrifying part of the Report is that dealing with the enormous number of accidents to the young. The Chief Inspector points out that the prime reason, though not the only reason, is the lack of training and supervision. Training should start, if possible, at school, and it most certainly ought to happen in technical colleges. I know that there are certain difficulties about finding enough lecturers, but it is being done. Some of the big firms are helping the technical colleges, and when they run courses in their firms for their own employees they allow people to come from the technical colleges to join in the discussions and the lecturing.
May I ask the noble Lord one question on a matter of information? Are the Ministry of Education taking a really active part in this instruction about industrial accidents and industrial safety? They may already be doing so, but if they are not now taking an active part they ought to be urged to do so, since this is part of the education of anybody who is going into industry. The Ministry of Education ought to play their part. I regret to say that a great many of the accidents to young people are caused by older men. When a man has been handling dangerous machines for years he gets a knowledge of the machine and does not always obey the regulations. He finds one way easier than another and, as a rule, because of his great experience, he does not have
956
accidents. But if a younger man is working near the experienced one, the young man copies the older man. If the older, experienced man leaves the machine for a few minutes and the young man takes over and copies what the older man has been doing, he is in very great danger of losing his fingers or even his hand. One of the duties of management is not only to impress on their older, more experienced workmen to obey the regulations, but to teach them that when they have young people working near them they must obey the regulations even if they appear to be rather fussy, otherwise the young people will continue to suffer accidents as they do now.
The noble Lord, Lord Crook, mentioned the nail gun. There are other weapons of this kind—I use the word "weapons" advisedly—which can get into criminal hands. There are new steel-cutting tools. We have had a case recently, and perhaps the less said about that the better. The noble Lord, Lord Crook, asked whether it would not be wise to license people to use these modern tools which might be useful to criminals? I would go further and ask whether it would not be wise that certain tools such as the nail gun should by regulation be kept under lock and key when not in use? I would ask the noble Lord whether anything has been done in that direction.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with this point, since it might be a repeated theme. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Crook has used a nail gun, but I understand that it calls for considerable strength and an exceedingly passive and willing victim.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, that may well be, but I was thinking more of the modern steel-cutting tools. Of course it may need a strong man to use a nail gun, but I believe that some of our criminals are quite muscular.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, when the noble Lord goes out to shoot a bird or a man, he would prefer not to have a 10lb. pressure before he can discharge his missile.
LORD DERWENT: Yes, my Lords, I quite agree. But certain of these tools can be dangerous if they get into the

957
wrong hands, and the question is whether they should not by regulation he kept locked up when not in use. Another question which I should like to ask—and again I am asking for information—is this. Is there a regulation that all safety orders and regulations, which are posted up in factories and mills, and so on, where there are large numbers of immigrant workers, have to be in the language of the people working there? I ask that because many of them do not speak English. I am really thinking of the mills in Bradford. It is no good putting up safety notices in English, if many of the immigrants cannot understand them.
Finally, I come to the Report on the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act. I want to deal with only one point with which I have been concerned for some years, and that is the question of light. In most shops and offices—though not in all cases—the lighting is adequate in that part of the premises to which the public have access. That is quite a common thing. But there are some offices in old buildings where the lighting is absolutely Dickensian. It really is quite atrocious. Bad lighting is not only injurious to health, it also causes accidents. The sort of thing one finds far too often in the backs of offices or shops is that the store rooms are badly lit, the passages are badly lit, and the lavatories are badly lit.
Firms vary enormously, but in some of the old buildings one finds a dark passage with, perhaps, three stairs and with no lighting at all; not because there has not been a light put there but because somebody, working in an office just off the passage, has taken the bulb and used it in his own office because he is too busy to go out for another one. Then five minutes later somebody comes along, forgets the stairs and breaks his leg. This happens in many firms because it is nobody's responsibility to see to the lighting every day, and in many cases the lighting is in any case inadequate.
I am not blaming this Government, the last Government or the one before that, but the whole lot of them together. It has been the general policy to send out advisory booklets on lighting, but not to have legislation or regulations. The theory behind this policy is that if you
958
lay down a minimum standard of lighting—and it has to be a fairly low standard because of certain old buildings—then those who have good lighting now, or who are thinking of putting in better lighting, will then say, "We need not do more than the minimum", and will reduce their standard of lighting. I have heard this argued and I used to agree with it, but, quite frankly, I no longer believe in it. A good employer will have good lighting, and a bad employer who has totally inadequate lighting should be made by law to bring it up to standard. I would ask the noble Lord what the Government view is on this. I know that the view I have expressed has been the official view for a long time, but I have come to the conclusion that it is wrong.
My final point is about the Inspectorate. One is rather horrified to see in this Report that the establishment is 533 inspectors, but that only 482 have been recruited. Unless we have a full staff of inspectors, we are not going to get anywhere with this accident problem. I know that things are difficult economically at the moment, but I would ask whether the shortage is because, as a career, the Inspectorate is under-paid. If one increased very largely the pay of the Inspectorate it would not amount to very much in total, when one thinks of the appalling wastage and cost of all the accidents. So I would ask the noble Lord to say whether he considers that the Inspectorate is adequately paid. If it is not, would it not be wise not to wait till our economic circumstances are better, because we really cannot afford the accidents which are occurring in industry. Industry cannot afford them, and the country cannot afford them.
4.58 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I do not want to follow the two noble Lords who have just spoken, who have dealt in the main with accidents and the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories. I should like to touch briefly on one or two points which have occurred to me from reading the second of the two Reports dealing with industrial health. This Report makes fascinating reading, because it shows what a lot of curious and unexpected preventable conditions can be found in industry, and that there is a need for doctors to keep a very careful watch upon people taken sick in

959
factories, when the doctors are not quite sure what the people have wrong with them.
So far as I can see from reading the Report, a great deal of their work is successful. I do not want to quote a great many details from the Report, but one figure in which I was particularly interested was the figure of deaths from cancer of the scrotum, which occurred among mule spinners at the cotton mills. Dr. Henry of the Home Office made a long inquiry into this disease, and in 1943, the last year he quoted, there were 50 deaths. But in the year 1966, which the Report also covers, there was only one death from that disease, which I think is a very fair example of what is going on in factories in regard to these preventable diseases. The numbers who die are falling, which I think must mean that the numbers who become sick are falling, too.
There is one thing that has always occurred to me about the Industrial Health Service, and I should like to mention it briefly to your Lordships. It has always seemed to me that, since we have a National Health Service, it might well be possible for the Industrial Health Service to be part of that Service. At the present time, for various reasons, there is a shortage of doctors in this country, and one wants to make the most effective use of them possible. I wonder whether, if we are going to have all these little health services in various Government Departments, we are really making the best use of them. There has been some suggestion, I think, that the Prison Medical Service might be combined with the National Health Service, but I do not know that that has gone any further than being a suggestion. But one can quite well see how it might be possible for a man working in a factory to be under his general practitioner for something, to be under the care of his factory doctor for something else and at the same time to be going to the town hall, to the Public Health doctor, for the same or some further condition. One would have thought that it might be possible for that man to be dealt with by only one doctor instead of by a great many of them.
I believe, too, that it would be a great help for general practitioners if they could have some finger in industrial medicine. I think that we might require
960
at the top a certain number of what I might call consultants, who could deal with the really difficult diseases and pathological conditions which occur; but I am sure it would be much easier for a general practitioner to recommend his patient to go back to work, or to recommend his patient to stop work temporarily, if he had some idea of what the work in the factory was like and what were the processes in which the man was going to be involved. I do not know whether the noble Lord will be able to give me any answer to that question—I did not give him very much notice of it—but it has occurred to me that there might be a possibility of a saving of doctors in that way.
I think there is one health centre in Manchester which deals both with National Health Service patients and with industrial medical patients; but, so far as I know, that is as far as the scheme has gone at the present time. Shortly before Christmas the Minister of Health said, I think, that he was proposing to make a survey of, or an inquiry into, the administration of the National Health Service, and I wonder whether that will be one of the points that he will consider. Because in my view that is where the future will lie; that the inspector of factories will be dealing very largely with the safety angle—which I entirely agree with the noble Lord should be increased a good deal—and not with the general health angle.
I should like to deal briefly with the Report on the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act. According to the Report, there were 700,000 premises registered under the Act, very few of which did not need something done to them because they did not meet all the requirements of the Act. There were a large number of visits made by inspectors—600,000 odd—partly in the first instance and partly to follow up what they had seen before. Then, in paragraph 21, the Report says:
"In Crown and local authority premises the standard of compliance was generally good. There were no glaring cases of deficiencies …"
My Lords, here I want to put in a purely personal plea that the premises of your Lordships should become liable to inspection by the inspectors under these Acts of Parliament. I do not say that in any lighthearted way; I say it quite seriously. Because two years ago, when

961
the Lord Great Chamberlain gave up his care of the buildings of the Palace, his functions devolved upon the Administration Committee. I had the honour to be a member of that Committee, and we paid a visit to the whole of that part of the Palace occupied by your Lordships. Quite a lot of it was perfectly good; some of the offices were probably not quite satisfactory (though I am not technically able to deal with the details), but there were one or two places which were beyond belief shocking.
One was the room where carpets are repaired. That is in the basement or sub-basement—heaven knows where, but it is somewhere a long way down—and it consists of one long tunnel with no ventilation and no outside window at all; it is lit entirely by electric light. It has some hot pipes running through it, which makes the room very hot. It is down on the lowest floor, and they tell me that when there is a storm the storm-water sewers overflow and the premises become flooded. We reported that over two years ago now, but when I went down and saw the same room one day last week there had been no change at all.
I know that things take a long time to do. I remember that the washbasin in what is rather euphemistically called the lavatory next door to the Printed Paper Office took, at my personal effort, five years to install, although in that so-called lavatory there was one water closet and two urinals. Now that a basin has been installed the room is going to be turned into a lift for the Printed Paper Office—whether you call that progress or not I would not say. The point I want to make is that I think that your Lordships' House should be an absolute model of all propriety everywhere. I know that this building was built a long time ago, and that it is difficult to make changes; but one sees things where, if the person involved were some little shopkeeper outside, he would be jumped upon and forced to put them right. I think the same principle should apply to this House.
5.8 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I feel tempted to follow my noble and medical friend in his description of some of the domestic offices of the Palace of Westminster. I could give a very vivid description of the kitchen which I
962
examined thirty years ago in another place, but if I did I should cause considerable ill-feeling. Not, of course, that that deters me, but I feel certain that the conditions which I saw then have been remedied. I will go with the noble Lord who has just spoken, if I may, and accompany him to the "torture chamber" where people sit and mend our carpets, without daylight. I presume that they are women.
LORD AMULREE: No, my Lords; they are men.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I wonder if I might interrupt my noble friend. I am not quite sure who the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and my noble friend are addressing. I do not know whether they are addressing me as Leader of the House or the spokesman for the Government. I was very tempted to ask what the members of the Administration Committee, whose responsibility this would seem to be, should have done about it. But I will note everything that has been said.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I apologise to my noble friend; I was just trying to continue the debate. However, the House will recall that it was about a year ago that we debated a Motion very similar to the one on the Order Paper to-day, and many of us spoke very strongly about the comparative failure to improve the conditions of the industrial workers in the field of health and accidents. We were given then all kinds of promises; but, so far as I can see from reading these Reports, no change has taken place at all. In fact, the position has gravely deteriorated. It would appear that our words last year fell on deaf ears in those places where policy and action should be co-ordinated, for there has been yet another increase in the number of accidents. It now stands at 296,610. I do not know what consolation the permanently mutilated or the relatives of the dead will derive from the euphemism used in the Report that this figure may represent a "plateau". And even this figure does not present the ugly picture in its true light, because it represents only the accidents notified in our factories.
When I listen to the repeated demands on television and radio for greater production, it seems a little incongruous that

963
while Jekyll lectures the workers, Hyde reveals a smug complacency concerning the loss of productivity resulting from accidents and the cost to society which, including industrial injury benefits, amounts to more than £325 million a year. We were told just now that the Press were not interested in accidents which stemmed largely from bacon-cutters and from slipping on dirty floors, but I hope that the newspapers will be more interested to learn that the cost of this to the country is £325 million a year. The tragedy of it—I am tempted this time to say the "scandal"—is that most of these accidents could have been prevented and that so many of them occurred to the young and ignorant boys and girls.
It is now 11 years since the Minister of Labour's Joint Advisory Committee recommended the establishment of joint safety committees. Last year we asked, we pressed—and I remember my noble friend spoke very strongly on that occasion—that these should be made compulsory, having regard to the report that there had been little progress in the last ten years. However, we were then told in the winding-up speech that the Minister still believed that these should be left to voluntary effort. Surely this evidence of further deterioration in the position does not justify further delay. I hope my noble friend when he comes to wind up will give us a little more help than we received last year.
My Lords, may I give you a brief history of this matter? As a doctor, I feel strongly about it. It was over 170 years ago that the first factory legislation made provisions regarding cleanliness and the health of the workers. Then, at the beginning of this century, Sir Thomas Legge made a plea for the protection of the workers by ensuring overall cleanliness, including that of the air. Despite the passage of 170 years, there has been a failure to respond to the pleas which have been made in your Lordships' House and, I suppose, in the other place and by many people other than politicians.
The part of the Report which I found most interesting was where the Senior Medical Officer for Factories found it necessary to appeal for elementary
964
hygiene. I should like to put this on record, for it surely should be regarded as an anachronism that we should be called upon to-day to discuss matters of elementary hygiene. On page 81 of the Annual Report of H. M. Chief Inspector of Factories on Industrial Health, under the heading "The concept of cleanliness", the Chief Inspector writes:
"All concerned in industry are, it sometimes seems, too ready to accept not only dirty conditions in their simpler forms—dirty floors, work benches, walls and ceilings—but also dust and dirt, whether harmful or not, in the atmosphere they breathe. If standards of general cleanliness are low, it is all too easy to accept that the evolution of dust at a particular process is nothing out of the ordinary, and management and workers alike can come to accept it is part of the background of their working lives.
"Before it is possible, therefore, to tackle in detail the problems of industrial dust in any particular plant or industry, there needs to be a general awareness of the problem itself and a sympathy to the ideals of cleanliness which will make control measures effective."
I find this elementary, but sound, advice very difficult to reconcile with the Chief Inspector's statement in a preface to the Report. He writes:
"To-day we are left with only the difficult problems; the easy ones have been solved."
If the Chief Inspector over the years has approached the problem in that way, I really am not surprised that the situation deteriorates every year.
Again, I wonder whether the Minister—and I mentioned this last year—has given careful thought to the fact that the high incidence of chronic bronchitis among middle-aged workers in our industrial areas is not necessarily due to some toxic substance but to the general filth, dirt and dust of their surroundings. As I said last year, my last constituency was in an industrial area of the North, and I was shocked to find the number of men who fatalistically accepted chronic bronchitis at the age of 40 or 50. When I taxed them with it they said, "My father had it, my grandfather had it, and died from it." Both father and grandfather were in the same works at the same time.
On our television screens, we often gaze at the Minister of Labour being, sometimes, a little critical of the behaviour of his fellow men. I wish—and I say this to him sincerely—that he could spare a little time to examine the disgraceful conditions of the factories so

965
graphically described by his senior Medical Officer. While I consider, for example, that the asbestos industry regulations should be extended to all persons engaged in handling and using asbestos, I do not ask the Minister of Labour to try to master the mysteries of highly technical processes. All I do is to invite him to examine the dirty and accident-inducing conditions under which men and women are compelled to spend a large part of their lives in the latter part of the 20th century.
5.18 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Crook, for putting down this Question. Like the noble Lord, I am a Vice-President of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. My own particular interest, as some of your Lordships will know, is on home safety. But I believe the time has come to consider safety not in isolation but as a composite matter. Because the person who exercises safety on the road, and does not overtake on every double white line, who makes sure that the electric fire is switched off before he leaves the house, is the kind of person who, if he is the manager of a department in a factory or an office, will do his best to ensure that safety regulations are adhered to.
My Lords, I have put to the Leader of the House—whose secretary was good enough to telephone me over the weekend—one or two questions which I should like to repeat now. My noble friend Lord Derwent has already mentioned the matter of education, and this is something about which I feel very strongly, particularly education in the sphere of safety in the home. It can also be applied to safety in factories. I believe that films can play a vital part in education. They could be shown in schools, at evening classes and in technical colleges. Last year I attended a seminar on the subject of marketing. A film was shown of a certain type of shoe which is used in heavy industry. The purpose of the film was to help to sell the shoe, but there was also a message about safety. A young factory worker, wearing light fancy type shoes, was shown walking round a factory. He tripped over various steel castings and things fell on his feet; and generally he became accident prone. He was advised
966
by a mate to wear the type of shoe advertised in the film, and when he did so and was subjected to the same hazards he did not suffer such bad injuries. I think the message was that one vital factor about safety in factories is that people should be properly clothed. Where necessary safety helmets and masks should be worn and, of course, the right type of footwear.
Reinforcing the point made by my noble friend, I should like to ask the Leader of the House how much attention is currently being paid at schools to visual aid education in an age where technology is growing in importance and obviously more people will be receiving industrial training. I would also ask the noble Lord whether the grants to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents will be maintained, and indeed increased, at a time when, admittedly, there are serious financial problems. It is also a time, as was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Crook, and other speakers, when there is an increasing number of accidents and an increasing number of man-hours are being lost. Therefore there is a growing need for education and training. I know from experience of the very valuable work which the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents does, and I hope that the grants to the Society will at least be maintained, and if possible, increased.
At a time when most of us, at any rate, are fully behind the "I'm backing Britain" campaign (putting aside any reservations which we may have on certain aspects of it), it is all the more important that we should cut the accident rate so that those who are loyally supporting the campaign and producing more do not become accident victims, which would, to some extent, negative the value of the campaign. May I say a word about construction sites, where a large number of accidents occur? Many of us may have seen lorries backing our from construction sites at speeds which are too fast. Other types of accidents occur, such as heavy objects being dropped from a height and falling on people who may be on the site or in the street. I hope that attention will be paid to that aspect.
Finally, my Lords, I think we should look to the future, and I should like to

967
put this question to the Leader of the House. I have not given him notice, but perhaps the matter may be considered by the relevant Department. With the large number of industrial estates now being built where there are new factories and new machinery, will there be an increasing amount of safety training going on? I know that we are moving into a computer age and therefore we may need less labour, but there will still be a number of modern devices which can go wrong and cause accidents. So while it is important that existing machinery and factory techniques should be geared up to a high standard of safety, I hope that the Government will bear in mind not only what is contained in this Report but the need to look to the future, so that when we receive similar Reports in a year or two they will indicate a considerable improvement. My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Crook, for giving us an opportunity to discuss this very important subject.
5.28 p.m.
LORD GEDDES OF EPSOM: My Lords, the discussion so far and the consideration of the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories prompts the question, are we spending enough time or money on the prevention of industrial accidents? I suggest that the only conclusion which may be drawn is that we are not. I wish to concentrate particularly on the Inspectorate and whether it is effective. Within the limitations placed on it undoubtedly the Inspectorate is efficient, but is it as effective as it should be? We know, for example, that at the end of 1966 there was a shortage of 50 inspectors and the inspectorate was 10 per cent. below the authorised establishment. It was considered that there should be 532 inspectors when the establishment was decided, and there was a shortage of 50, so the Inspectorate cannot possibly be as effective as it ought to be.
In 1963 (reference has been made to this) a large number of shops and offices were brought within the purview of the legislation. About 700,000 shops and offices were concerned, and 170,000, in which over 3 million were employed, were placed under the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour Inspectorate. They are quite different from the local authority people who inspect offices and
968
shops on a part-time basis. I am dealing only with the Ministry of Labour Inspectorate. As a result of this increase in the volume of work, 18 inspectors were added to the establishment. It may be that this was given careful consideration and the conclusion drawn that the inspection of another 170,000 premises employing 3 million people could be done effectively by 18 more inspectors. From the purely lay point of view, one can have some doubt about this.
Some idea of the task facing the inspectors can be gained by looking at the skeleton map on page 98 of the Report. By making a comparison with the actual map one can reasonably conclude that the North Division, for example, covers Cumberland, Westmorland, Northumberland and Durham. This is an area of some 5,300 square miles and to look after that area there are 28 inspectors. It could be argued that this is largely a rural area, but it certainly contains shops and offices requiring inspection. And what about the North-East and North-West coasts? In Division F there is a broad segment stretching from Hampshire in the South right across the southern half of the country to the East coast, including Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk. For the whole stretch there are 37 inspectors.
One thing necessary to make legislation effective is general inspection; general inspection being that inspection which is undertaken without notice and which does not arise as a result of complaint or information given. One would have thought that this sort of inspection would certainly help to guarantee that the present statutory regulations were being observed. With the present staff, it is possible to have a general inspection in factories and shops under the control of the Inspectorate only once every four years, and in some cases only once every five years.
We are certainly not spending the time necessary to prevent accidents. One of the difficulties with which we are faced is the complacency which arises from the view that accidents will happen anyway. Of course they will happen. I doubt whether it is possible for any legislation, any Government, any inspectorate, to completely prevent accidents, but surely it should be accepted

969
that every accident that can be prevented should be prevented.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, referred to the question of whether or not the Inspectorate is being properly paid. I suppose it is true that paying more money does not necessarily result in the recruitment of more qualified staff, but there can be no doubt whatever that it helps materially towards that end. This is accepted by the Prices and Incomes Board, which has accepted the principle that where it is not possible to recruit sufficient qualified staff, then they can be rewarded more. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that the question of salaries ought to be closely looked at in view of the apparent inability of the Government and the Inspectorate to reduce the appalling number of accidents which take place.
On pure economics alone, any small expenditure of money to increase the Inspectorate must be more than justified. I submit to the House that we cannot expect to get properly qualified people—and they must be of graduate standard—unless some further look is given to whether this is a rewarding and satisfactory career for the type of people we want. Incidentally, it is interesting to know that in an attempt to bring the Inspectorate up to establishment the standard of entry has been lowered, and people who would not normally he accepted have now been accepted to do certain inspectorate work.
This gives rise to an important point. At the present moment the Government have decided—whether rightly or wrongly, I am not saying—to put a ceiling on Civil Service expenditure. The popular view—certainly the view expressed in another place, and often in the national Press—that all you have to do in the Civil Service is to hold up a hand and say, "Please, I want another ten people," and you get them next day, is as far from the truth as anything can possibly be. Not only have you to prove need, but, having proved your need, you may be told that you cannot have them.
In this situation, when there is a ceiling on Civil Service establishments, I should like to know—although my noble friend who is to reply may admonish me for asking this—whether the special study which was undertaken in 1966 to examine the facts, the result of which
970
would appear to indicate the need to increase the establishment of the Inspectorate, is being held up because it might be found necessary to increase the establishment. It should not take many years for a special study to be made of an establishment of 533 inspectors and for the experts in the Ministry of Labour and the Treasury to decide how many more inspectors are required. It is not like examining an inspectorate of 5,300. It would be interesting to know when this report will be presented. This may be an unfair question to put to my noble friend, but would he assure the House that if, in an endeavour to increase the numbers, a decision has been made to increase salaries, the present clime to of opinion with regard to increases of salaries and wages will not interfere with this increase.
The only other point I want to raise concerns joint consultation. I believe it is impossible to get effective safety measures in factories and shops without getting co-operation between management and workers; and this depends on joint consultation. It is often said that it is not possible to get effective joint consultative machinery in a factory because it is not big enough or because the employer does not want it, and therefore there cannot be a safety committee. That is not the truth. Any factory can have a safety committee, even though it does not have any joint consultative machinery at all.
We have to remember that in many cases where employers have set up safety committees, they have not set them up out of any altruistic ideas of their own: they have done it because it pays them to do it. The more they can reduce industrial accidents, the more manpower they can use effectively, instead of ineffectively, and the less sick pay they have to pay. Obviously this is a great advantage to the employer, but it is also an advantage to the employee. If there is this mutual interest, surely the best possible way in which it can be exploited is to have it discussed jointly round the table.
What can such a committee do? One thing it can do—and I am not sure that this is not particularly important—is to ensure that bonus schemes do not encourage workers to take short cuts, to take risks and ignore regulations, in order to see that they get the maximum bonus.

971
They can agree on propaganda within the factory, and the best way in which to put safety across. They can agree on training. They can agree on a number of things which are absolutely essential if we are going to get the most effective means of reducing—not preventing—to an absolute minimum the number of accidents that are now taking place.
I hope that the noble Lord, when he replies, will be able to give the House some assurance that it is in the Government's mind that we are not spending enough, that we are not using enough time, and that it is about time that we started to do it.
LORD SHACKLETON: Before the noble Lord sits down may I say that I was listening with great interest to what he was saying on the subject of safety committees and joint consultation, but I was not quite clear whether he was asking me to express approval and encouragement or compulsion.
LORD GEDDES OF EPSOM: As it had already been referred to, I did not refer to the statement made in the other place in July, 1966. But if the noble Lord wants me to, I will do so, because I think it is evidence of the attitude of mind of the Government at that time. Mrs. Shirley Williams, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, made this statement:
"The Government regard the voluntary machinery for consultation as preferable to machinery established under compulsion "—
with that, of course, I entirely agree. But she went on to say:
"but unless there was more satisfactory progress in the establishment of joint works safety committees on a voluntary basis in the next few years the Minister would feel obliged when the next major revision of the Factories Act took place"
and so on. That statement said,
"in the next few years".
But surely we cannot wait for the next few years.
5.43 p.m.
LORD COLLISON: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, hinted when he mentioned the "I'm Backing Britain" campaign, it is quite clear to most of us that we as a country are fighting an economic battle for survival, that the battlefront lies in the factories, and that
972
the campaign is organised and controlled by management and workpeople. But when it comes to accidents and the danger involved in doing a job, the work-people are those who are in the front line. There is not a trade union official alive who has not had the experience from time to time of dealing with cases of serious accidents occurring at work, sometimes involving handing over large sums of money because unions have taken action under the Common Law. Although we recognise that we perform a service for our people in helping them in this way, we know that we cannot replace an arm or an eye, and we certainly cannot give back a husband to a widow. So we in the trade union movement take this question very seriously indeed, and over the years the General Council of the T.U.C. have been pressing hard for an improvement in those lines of activity which may help to reduce the toll of accidents in our factories.
After all, what do we see? To-day we are discussing the last Annual Report, and I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Crook for giving us an opportunity to say a few words. I, too, wish that this had been a Motion so that we could have spent more time on it. We are told in the Chief Inspector's Report that the number of accidents has increased again—he says this with regret, this being his last Report. He adds that the increase has been somewhat smaller than in 1965, and much smaller than in 1964, and that therefore we may be reaching a "plateau". Frankly, I think it is dreadful that we should have to talk in these terms. We should be battling away at this mountain and not be satisfied with the prospect of arriving at a situation where the number of accidents does not increase.
Like my noble friend Lord Geddes of Epsom I, too, question whether we are doing enough within the Inspectorate itself. The Report says that the establishment is now 533; that there are 482 inspectors in post, and that this is 51 short. At a previous date when the establishment was 442, the actual postings were 388. Certainly there has been an improvement, but I do not think the extension of the service has been nearly enough, particularly when one can telephone Mr. Charles F. Kerr, the Chief Deputy Inspector of Factories, who had

973
to admit the other day that only 7½ per cent. of all accidents reported could be inspected by the Factory Inspectorate. This indicates a lack of manning and an under-staffing.
We are also told in the Report that one of the problems is to find people of the right calibre and experience. This may well have something to do with the salaries they receive and the conditions under which they work. Most certainly this small body of men, dealing with countless factories in this country, must be very much over-worked and under great stress. This may be one of the reasons why the job does not attract people; and I think the salary may be another.
The General Council of the T.U.C. have been pleading ever since 1959 for a substantial increase in the Inspectorate. They said in 1959:
"… that the Factories Inspectorate must necessarily be regarded as under-staffed so long as it is unable to ensure adequate inspection of all factories at reasonable intervals …"
They pointed out then that:
"The International Labour Convention of 1926, which was adopted by Great Britain, provided that as far as possible there should be annual visits to every factory".
This has never been achieved, and it does not look like being achieved. Indeed, over the years there has been an increasing departure from this high standard. In 1930 a departmental committee recommended the visitation of important factories once a year, the visitation of less important factories every two years, and the whole of every factory to be thoroughly inspected within an average period of four years. We have not hit that target yet. If I may quote the International Labour Convention of 1947, again ratified by Great Britain, this required inspection to be as often and as thorough as necessary to ensure the effective application of legislation.
We have had a number of surveys carried out seeking to estimate the degree and size of the problem. I would mention in passing the Halifax Survey of 1958. That Survey was quite independent,
"and established that the level of health, welfare and safety conditions in many workplaces is below even minimum acceptable standards."
The surveyors pointed out that Halifax is no different from any other place;
974
the conditions there are no worse than elsewhere. They said that it could be regarded as typical of the country as a whole. The Report said that conditions were generally unsatisfactory in no fewer than a quarter of factories surveyed; that is, in some 200 out of approximately 800. They mention some of the major lacks; bad ventilation; washing facilities; dirty conditions; littered floors. And how can our Inspectorate, small as it is, visit all those thousands of little, dirty, miserable, backstreet factories where we know the worst conditions apply and where we know most of the accidents occur?
Finally on this subject, may I say a word about the safety committees? My noble friend Lord Geddes of Epsom has already mentioned them, and I mentioned them in your Lordships' House the other day, but since then I have obtained new figures. The survey which was undertaken at the request of the Trades Union Congress covered all factories in which more than 50 people were employed, and this covered approximately 80 per cent. of the total employees in factories. It was found that, of the 22,211 works within scope, 7,793, which is 37 per cent., had formal machinery for joint consultation, and this figure compares with 5,826, which is 27 per cent., on June 30, 1966. The Report went on:
"This represented a 34 per cent. increase in the number of firms with committees…"
But the figure of 34 per cent. is misleading. The figure we have to anchor on to is the fact that, even after the efforts made by the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. Joint Committee, after all the persuasion we could bring to bear, only 37 per cert. of factories employing more than 50 people had safety committees; and really this is quite unsatisfactory. The T.U.C. for years supported the voluntary prilciple. It was bitter experience that convinced us we would not get safety committees on a voluntary basis; there would have to be compulsion; there would have to be legislation. My right honourable friend the Minister of Labour pointed out in the other place that he felt that progress was not being made quickly enough, and he said that if things did not improve he would be prepared to introduce legislation when the next occasion came, when they reviewed the Factory

975
Acts. If I may say so in passing, I am very glad indeed that a total review of the Factory Acts is taking place, which will be much more comprehensive. But I have not time to go into that.
May I say one or two words about accidents in the construction industry. There has been a very terrible increase over the years. In 1960, 20,584 accidents were reported; there were 277 fatalities, and the number of operatives employed was 1,432,000. In 1965 there were 44,381 accidents reported—over twice as many—and 230 fatalities, while the number of people employed was about the same, 1,491,000. So it is quite clear that we have not made very much progress in reducing accidents in the building and construction industry. Recently a survey has been undertaken by two factory inspectors, who published a report. If I may, I should like to quote one or two of the paragraphs of that report because they are highly significant. Paragraph 15 says:
"The extent to which full compliance with legal requirements would have modified the accident picture"
is answered, but
"it is extremely difficult to assess the position".
But it is believed that
"about one-fifth of the accidents could probably have been prevented had there been full compliance with statutory requirements".
Again, the report says:
"The safety supervisor"—
in this industry or in the firms concerned in the industry—
"has achieved only a small measure of the success which might be expected from the requirements of regulations 5 and 6 of the Construction (General Provisions) Regulations 1961. In some cases safety supervisors lacked detailed knowledge of safety legislation and in some cases they had insufficient background knowledge of the industry. On some large sites the safety supervisor had insufficient time to carry out his duties effectively".
Another paragraph states:
"There was evidence that some site foremen and agents did not possess a good working knowledge of statutory requirements".
I could go on, my Lords, but I really think that the time has come when Government, and all of us in industry, must take steps to ensure that this dreadful toll of life and suffering that is taken of our workpeople in factories every year is reduced. I believe it could be reduced.
976
So far as the trade unions are concerned, they are prepared to play their full part—and I am not pretending that everything in our garden is particularly lovely. I could quote cases. There are one or two in the Report, and I will quote just one, from page 33:
"We think a frequent cause of accidents to young workers is the imitation of bad example by old hands."
One of the examples is quoted. A young boy had three fingers amputated by a revolving circular saw which he was operating without a top-guard. And this happened in the presence of the foreman. That is bad enough, but before it happened the foreman himself had operated the saw in the same condition, and the youngster just followed suit.
One could give other examples. But, clearly, one of the things that we can do, in addition to improving the Inspectorate, is to see to it that safety training is a "must" in industry; that injunction courses are really effectively undertaken by management. I would suggest that it should be a requirement, and that the new training boards should make safety training part of their curriculum. I agree with the noble Lord who said that you cannot start too young, and I think that young boys and girls should be given general safety training at school, particularly since, as they leave school and go into industry, it is necessary to give them a specialist training in what is going to appertain to their job. I must not go on. A number of very potent questions have been asked of the Minister, and I have asked one or two. It will be very interesting indeed to hear the replies. This is a problem which has been with us too long, and we want to see some progress made in its solution.
5.58 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, I am sure that we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Crook, for introducing this particular Question on the Order Paper, thus allowing this particular debate on such a very important topic. Twenty-three million days per year lost in accidents is a staggering figure. We are seeking to increase productive effort. How much more we could increase productive effort if we could check this figure to a considerable degree! Most accidents are preventable. Very few accidents in industry can be, as it were, attributed to

977
an act of God; most of them are preventable. They arise chiefly through some incident—a little neglect, a little carelessness; or the skilled worker, or other worker, taking a chance with a view to doing his best.
Custom breeds contempt, and those of us with experience in industry in the past know very well what a large part custom plays so far as accidents are concerned, particularly where the younger people try to follow the customs of the elderly. I had an interesting experience a little while ago when I went up to Scotland to see the Tay Bridge being built. Talking with the contractors I found that they had suffered initially with a considerable number of accidents through falling debris and such things. Although they had provided adequate tin hats, there was great difficulty in getting them used. Eventually, as a result of joint consultations, they hit upon a colour scheme, and as soon as they introduced blue hats it was astonishing how the accident rate fell. I suggest to your Lordships that this is an interesting feature, and I wonder, when industrialists and trade unionists are taking part in joint consultations with a view to seeing what can happen in the more enlightened industries, in order to reduce the accident rate, how much attention is being given to colour schemes and various gadgets which are interesting features in the reduction of accidents.
Various pleas have been made for an increase in the number of the Inspectorate. I should like to add my voice to that view. If we take the vast area which they have to cover, as was outlined by my noble friend Lord Geddes of Epsom, and take the industries and the number of workpeople they have to cover, that alone indicates that there is a tremendous need for an increase in the numbers. But it is not just the Inspectorate themselves. I endorse what my noble friend Lord Geddes said. The inspectors appointed should be progressive, enlightened, far-seeing people, and not necessarily university graduates. Many people come out of industry whose help would be most useful in this connection. If we had this type of inspector they would be most useful.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, and other noble Lords have suggested the need for increasing and intensifying propaganda
978
so far as safety gadgets are concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, spoke about films for propaganda purposes. We know that many firms to-day, and particularly more progressive firms, have this type of film and try to get it across to their workpeople. The smaller firms are not so forthcoming, and one can understand the reason why. Therefore it might be a question not just for that particular firm itself but for the industrial group, as it were, connected with that particular product, and also for the Government Inspectorate, to take a more active interest in trying to increase the attentiveness of the workpeople in order to reduce the tremendous accident rate.
At the moment the nation is shocked by the great tragedy of the loss of the North Sea trawlers. I do not know whether it is correct or not, but it has been suggested that had there been a wireless operator on board some of these trawlers the total loss might have been prevented. The nation, reading this in the Press, is shocked; but still we have the large number of accidents taking place daily, as my noble friend Lord Crook has enumerated. We see men and women maimed as a consequence of these industrial accidents. We hear of the 23 million days lost last year as a result of accidents, and still it is taken without even a flutter of the nation's nerves. Of course the spectacular ones shock everyone, but we as a Government, and my noble friend know that he requires no urging by us in this particular direction, because he is sympathetic and wants to do everything possible), must do all we can to remedy this situation. It is a question of finding ways and means to improve the approach of the industrialists. In the smaller firms, and even in some of the larger ones, the supervisors are inclined to wink an eye when they see a breach of the safety regulations taking place.
Above all it is essential to instil into the workpeople themselves the great need for care in every possible direction. They do not think about the possibility of accidents: they get on with the job; carelessness develops from time to time and custom breeds contempt. This is the type of thing that is responsible for such a large number of accidents. A joint co-operative effort is required, and while I am sure that my noble friend needs no

979
urging to achieve this, we are adding our words in order to spur everyone concerned to greater efforts in this direction.
6.6 p.m.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, this is an interesting subject and one which has engaged the attention of employees and employers for many years. I came into contact with it first when I started work at 12 years of age in a woollen factory. The only thing that mattered then was to get one's name on a register and be examined by the doctor who came eventually, so that if, in the course of his duties, the factory inspector ever came he could look at the register and see how many small children were employed in that particular factory. I remember that when the doctor came, after I had been there for about six months, a tiny fellow stood next to me. The doctor looked down paternally and said, "Oh, you're only a very little chap, aren't you?". So the little chap spoke up and said, "What do you expect. My father was a little 'un, and my mother was a little 'un, You can't expect rats off mice". That was the answer the little boy gave to the doctor. This situation has changed over the years, but nothing like enough. We are nothing like so good as we should be on this question of conditions in factories and accident prevention.
When I began a factory of my own I had some ideals about it, and one of the subjects I was particularly interested in was that of lighting. If you are aiming for an increase in productivity every year, it means that you must have better machines, and more often than not they are faster running machines, making it more difficult to see at the point where the operative is doing the work. In that event, surely the regulations with regard to the standard of lighting on which the factory inspectors have to insist should be altered as time goes on and in view of the experience gained by working on machines which run faster. One can still see, in London and the principal cities, and generally in the North of England, when going around the factories in those areas at night, lighting which is a disgrace and a scandal to an enlightened community. If this is due to the paucity of numbers of the factory inspectors the answer must be to increase the numbers.
980
Step them up, because this is good business. Better lighting means that it is easier to work on a job which is becoming increasingly more demanding.
I must say at this point, in the light of what I am saying now, that the lighting, the measures against noise, and the provision of colour, mentioned by my noble friend, which are in operation in my factory, are still in current textbooks taken from industry—mine was one—in the series on factory building published by the Ministry of Public Building and Works. On noise, may I say that very often if a machine runs faster there is more noise. It is a fact that very little is done in this country to take away the reverberations of noise on ceilings back to the ears of the workers. The example that can be taken from Sweden on this matter should be studied by everybody.
It is not compulsory yet to keep the noise down in a factory. Neither is it compulsory to do anything about colour. But it is in the employer's own interest to do something about colour. I remember when we had an exciting colour put on the side wall of my factory. It was a stimulant and may not have been a colour that the eve could dwell on for a long period. It was good business, because the workpeople attended to their work and it helped everybody. I make a plea for more thought on these three points: lighting, noise and colour. The little document that I am as proud of as any that I have is a round robin when I left my factory, which thanked me for having made the factory a joy to work in.
6.14 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said, this has now become perhaps a bigger subject than an Unstarred Question; and in saying that, I certainly mean no reflection on my noble friend Lord Crook, who very properly takes the view that this is a subject of such importance that it is right to return to it annually, to review the progress, if any, and to give what stimulation is possible. He has done it this year, but it has given rise to a much longer and a much more powerful debate than it did on other occasions. Of course, one of the most powerful speeches of all came from the noble Lord, Lord Crook, himself. I am very grateful to him for letting me know the points he was going

981
to raise and for the very moderate way in which he put forward a matter which at times, when I listened to the speeches and to the reading of the reports of inspectors, made me feel rather desperate. It is rather appalling, and I think that people in future ages will look back with the same astonishment on this age as the astonishment with which we look back on the circumstances of the Industrial Revolution.
As a result, it becomes more difficult to get down to a humdrum discussion and an examination of the, as I believe, real, steady, but not very striking progress that is made against a situation which almost calls for heroic measures. I want to point to some of the improvements, not because I believe that this is something other than a horror story; it really is. If one reads this document and the examples of what has happened to people, one wonders how society can tolerate this running sore on our industrial life, for which we pay a very heavy price in human suffering and, as noble Lords have pointed out, in the hard economic factor of lost production. Of course, everything must be done, and we all feel, as I say, that it calls for heroic measures; but when it comes to the point, one finds that both the capacity of Government to do something and the willingness of the community to react to it is limited. This is a chapter of accidents; and this particular chapter is one that should not be written and should not go on being written, year after year.
I should like to refer to some of the points raised. Although I hoped I should be able to answer every point, or every major point, that was raised, the debate has gone on so long and has been so interesting that I am afraid I may not be able to deal with them all. If there are specific points which I omit I will write to noble Lords; I will write to noble Lords and answer anything that I am unable to cover to-day. I have such a lot of material, and there is another debate to come, that I may not manage it all.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Crook, will accept that comparisons in regard to statistics, one year with another, are not entirely satisfactory. That, of course, is a reflection on the collection of statistics, and it is a reflection on the amount of effort we put into it. It is improving
982
year after year, and one consequence of improvement in effort is to make comparisons more difficult. A great deal of action has been taken by the Ministry to remind factory occupiers and others of their legal obligation to report accidents, and this is thought—I do not give this as an excuse; we genuinely believe it—in part responsible for the rise in reported accidents during these years. Of course, there is no objective or constant measure of the severity of industrial accidents. The three days' absence criterion of reportability is quite arbitrary, and the pressure to return to work after an accident has not remained constant over the years. It is not that I am against the three days' period. At least it provides a point at which a report has to be made, and of course this is now extended over a wider field into shops and offices.
A number of noble Lords, and my noble friend, Lady Summerskill, have referred to the size of the Factory Inspectorate. I have some defensive briefs here; they are quite good, but I would not attempt, in the face of the evidence propounded to-day by noble Lord after noble Lord, to say that the Factory Inspectorate is large enough to do the things that we should like it to do. It is being expanded. Its total strength at the moment is 520, less than its possible establishment. My noble friend Lord Geddes of Epsom referred to pay. The Report of the Departmental Working Party on the Duties and Staffing of the Inspectorate is now being considered. It is true that 175,000 premises were added, and not enough provision was made for this. It is very much better that we should recognise this, though I must say that the number was unknown at the time. This was a miscalculation under the Act. That is no reflection on the previous Government, which introduced this Act.
It is now apparent that the staffing provision was inadequate. Standards of entry have not been lowered, but recruitment to the general inspectorate has been going slowly, and of course pay is a factor. This is being examined. But with 207,000-odd premises subject to the Factory Acts, many of which are large, with the extra ones added under shops and offices, and with the responsibility for the enforcement of the construction regulations, even a considerably enlarged

983
Inspectorate would be able to visit them only from time to time. I think we ought to recognise, as I think noble Lords do, which is why they are so keen to increase it, what is possible and what, in the circumstances, is practical politics.
There has been acceptance by industry of standards of guarding machinery and of maintenance and inspection, and to this extent industry is to-day a much safer and better place to work in. But we should need a vast increase to achieve a really spectacular improvement through this one means alone. I can only say that the Government will listen on this point, and I do not doubt that the Chief Inspector of Factories will find his hand strengthened in this particular argument. But when we know that cuts are being made in certain other increases, it is not an easy time to make this increase, desperate though this particular problem is.
I should like to detail some of the other action the Minister has taken, and to defend him to my noble friend Lady Summerskill. I know that he takes a deep interest in this matter. One may as well recognise that one of the problems is the extent to which Ministers in any Government are under continuous pressure from day-to-day problems of industrial peace and matters of that kind. The same remarks applied to the last Government. It is a fundamental problem that confronts all Governments. But I would say to my noble friend that I know the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Labour is deeply interested in this subject, and has himself taken the initiative, and continues to give a lead, in certain areas.
In April of last year the Industrial Safety Advisory Council was set up. Its membership is one that I will not dwell on, but it includes representatives from both sides of industry and from outside, and it is one which noble Lords will expect. It is already at work. It has three sub-committees—on Safety, Research and Statistics and Safety Training. Perhaps I may say something on the Sub-Committee on Joint Consultation on Safety, because this is a matter to which most noble Lords have referred. My noble friends Lord Crook, Lord Collison and Lord Geddes, and others, referred to the question whether there should be some form of compulsion. It is true that
984
the Minister said in 1966 that unless there was satisfactory progress with the establishment of joint works safety committees on a voluntary basis he would feel obliged, when the Factories Act was next amended, to seek power to require the establishment of machinery for joint consultation in appropriate cases. Since then there has been some improvement. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, gave certain figures which had been given to me already in order to strengthen my case. To some extent he has destroyed them in advance, and he is entitled to do so. I suppose it is better to have your figures destroyed in advance rather than afterwards. But there have been certain improvements. In the case of 80 per cent. of the total of employees in factories employing 50 or more persons there is now some form of joint consultation for safety.
There are a number of figures that I could give your Lordships, percentages which I could present in a particularly encouraging light. It is not entirely satisfactory, but I am sure all my noble friends, particularly those who have experience of the trade unions, would prefer, if it is still possible, to proceed by voluntary means. It is only 22 years ago since I remember moving in another place an Adjournment Motion on joint consultation, and being told by one of my trade union colleagues—it may be one who is here to-day—that I had much better keep to things I knew something about. Therefore I am a little cautious on this subject. But there is no doubt that progress has been made, and there is also no doubt that you will not get improvement in one of the areas where real improvement can be made until there is effective joint consultation.
This arises to a large extent out of the general atmosphere in industry itself. Safety committees by themselves should arise out of the right kind of good joint industrial relations that we see in good industry, and it is therefore more difficult to impose from outside. The Sub-Committee for Joint Consultation on Safety is taking a number of steps. It has sponsored a booklet on Work Safety Committees in Practice. Of the other two sub-committees, the one on Research and Statistics is studying the possibility of introducing a severity classification of accidents reported under the Factories

985
Act, again a matter which I think is of importance and will enable us to judge of and to deploy our forces more effectively.
There is also the Sub-Committee on Safety Training, which is looking at the problem of training and safety matters. A number of noble Lords referred to safety training. First of all, under both the Factories Act and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act there are provisions prohibiting young persons from cleaning machines where these expose them to risk of injury from moving parts; and no young person may work on a machine specified as dangerous unless he has been fully instructed in its use or is under the supervision of an experienced person. I have had occasion myself to deal with managements who have failed to carry out the requirements.
These statutory requirements are supplemented by a number of training schemes. Here again, there is quite a story of progress being made. The industrial Training Boards have been advised by the Central Training Council of the need to include specific provisions for safety training in their plans. It must be taught as an integral part of all training. They draw attention to the contribution which can be made by technical colleges and other establishments of further education. There is, of course, a good deal of voluntary effort by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, prevention groups and so on. There will be some important developments in new Government proposals in legislation, to which I will refer in a moment. I will not go as fully as I should like into the question of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. I am not able to answer the noble Lord as to the further assistance that the Society will receive, but it is the Government's firm intention to support this body, and the financial assistance is at the moment being negotiated. I would endorse all that has been said about the value of its work, and particularly its regional safety organisation.
My noble friend Lord Crook and other noble Lords referred to the dangers of the nail gun. This is a most tragic story, and I talk now of the accidents from an industrial point of view. It is not, of course, a new one; it is part of the risk of the technological changes
986
under which we live. The Factory Inspectorate did a great deal to persuade the various manufacturers to improve their designs so that some of the dangers of those early models were obviated. There is now a British Standard for these tools. With an explosive device of this kind which drives a nail there is a great danger that, if it is not properly used, the nail may ricochet. In fact, it is surprising that there have not been further accidents of this kind. Certainly in regard to any legislative provisions this is a problem on which we shall certainly give advice and try to concentrate attention.
The noble Lords, Lord Amulree and Lord Crook, referred to a number of aspects of industrial health, the problem of asbestos dust, and the further problems which come from the use of orocidolite. These are matters to which the Government and the Inspectorate have given a good deal of attention. I have with me now, if my noble friend Lord Crook would like to see them, the draft regulations on the subject of asbestos which will replace and revise the 1931 regulations. We intend to press on with the making of these regulations as quickly as we can; and consultation is taking place on them now.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, referred to the possible development of what one might call an industrial health service. This is such big subject, and a matter in which I am so interested myself, that I hope the noble Lord will consider this as a subject to be discussed on another day. The noble Lord, Lord Collison, also referred to this matter. I am quite satisfied that it pays an employer to have a good health service within his own organisation. It is as much a part of management as the provision of canteens. But it is not going to be easy at this moment to visualise how this could be tied up with the general Health Service. It is a matter which I personally have pressed on a number of occasions, and I see the difficulty Therefore, I feel this is a matter which we ought to leave to another occasion There will be further occasions to discuss this, because there will be a new Act of Parliament. At present there is the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, which came into force only in 1963, but it is proposed that at some time in

987
the next two or three years—it is a complicated business—there shall be a new Act of Parliament.
Preparatory work has begun on a comprehensive revision of the Factories Act 1961 and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963. This is not to be just a new consolidation Bill to replace existing Acts, but is to be a thorough overhaul of existing safety, health and welfare legislation and an extension of that legislation to as many as possible of the working population not yet covered. The first proposals have already been circulated to interested organisations. We accept that it is very important to get on with this as soon as possible. I promise your Lordships that we will press on. I know that my right honourable friend is very keen, but it will probably take a couple of years, or something of that kind, before the Bill can come into the legislative programme.
There is the question of whether there should be divided enforcement as between local authority inspectors and the factory inspectors. Here again I would say to my noble friend Lord Crook that there has been a great deal of improvement both as to performance and in the attention which is being paid to this matter. It may be that local authorities were perhaps a little slow to react to the responsibility put on to them. It may be unfair to say that they have been gingered into action by the Factory Inspectorate; it may be that they were merely laying their plans. But undoubtedly the majority of local authorities are now fulfilling their requirements. This is a highly technical question on which there is controversy. I myself have dealt with both kinds of inspector and in the London area I found both equally helpful. My instinct as a manager was to go in the first instance to my local Ministry of Labour inspector, for we always knew that we should get excellent technical advice there. This again is a complicated subject which we shall have to leave to future discussions.
There were a number of interesting small points raised, among them the problem of the carpet room in your Lordships' House. I am not sure whether this is really a matter for the Government to answer. I am advised that it appears to be a rest room for carpet workmen in
988
the basement area of the Palace of Westminster and that these workmen are normally working around the Palace. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, that he and the Administration Committee had better get on to deal with this matter, but I myself will cooperate with the noble Lord in it. I should mention that, by a curious chance, the message from the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, that he was going to refer to conditions in the carpet workroom in the Palace of Westminster came to me not in the form of a reference to the Palace of Westminster, but as a reference to Buckingham Palace. These, of course, are residential premises occupied by Her Majesty. But your Lordships may be glad to hear that I was authorised to say that arrangements were being made, as a result of Lord Amulree's misdirected initiative, for a factory inspector to visit Buckingham Palace and the part of the premises to which the noble Lord referred. Whether or not that will now be necessary, I do not know. None the less, I think this shows willing.
My Lords, time is pressing, and I am very conscious that there is so little that I have been able to say on the many interesting points that have been raised, such as the problem of deafness and the problem of standards generally. But there is one general point which I should like to make, in conclusion, and that is that whenever we are confronted with a social ill in this matter we always look for somewhere to put the responsibility for curing it. We look to the Government; we look to the workers themselves.
I personally strongly echo the views expressed by the Chief Inspector, when he emphasised how important it is for top management to take an interest in safety. This is something which, as the Chief Inspector said, management should plan for just as much as it plans for production or for research and development. This suggests that the responsibility in this field is spread over a wide area. It is spread over the Government, in the resources they provide for the Factory Inspectorate; it is spread over the trade unions, to the extent to which they can make their particular contribution in persuading workpeople and others to cooperate. Indeed, a particular responsibility has been on the trade unions themselves, in bringing to light bad working

989
conditions and initiating a continual dialogue.
Great progress has been made as a result of this, but I think we have to look to the whole basis of our society. What matters is the education system, the general environment, and the unwillingness, as I hope, to tolerate the intolerable. I would say to my noble friend Lady Summerskill that I think that real progress has been made. Even in the parts of industry in which I have been concerned I have seen improvements in cleanliness. There is this steady progress. However, it is only as a result of the energy and the "gingering" which noble Lords and others give that Governments, and others, will make a contribution towards the progress that we need. I hope that my noble friend Lord Crook is satisfied by the reaction to his debate, and I hope that this will become an annual event, if not on the same theme on allied themes, because I believe that this is a subject for which your Lordships have once again shown that you have a fitness for constructive discussion.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, by leave of the House may I say, "Thank you" to the noble Lord?

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE: CONTROL POLICY
6.43 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what terms of reference and conditions they will attach to the Committee of Inquiry which they are about to set up to inquire into the current foot-and-mouth outbreak and future policy for control of the disease. The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I put this Question on the Order Paper I felt the subject was one which would be of some interest to your Lordships, and the large number of names which has now appeared makes it quite evident that I was right. Before I put one or two points to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who, I believe, is going to answer the Question, I should like to express my sympathies to the farming world, to the farmers and stockmen, who have suffered so grievously in these recent months. This has been the worst outbreak for nearly a hundred
990
years, and the losses to the farming world are, of course, far more than cash. It really is a heartbreaking experience, both for farmers and stockmen and for their families, to lose a herd which they have built up over many years. Happily, the epidemic seems now to be drawing to its end, and this is perhaps the time to make one or two points with regard to the Inquiry.
I should perhaps say one personal word to the Chief Veterinary Officer, Mr. John Reid, and his veterinary officers who have done such a tremendous job. I would pay my warmest tribute to them and to the contractors who worked so hard for them. I am sure the Minister is right to set up this Inquiry, and to set it up on the basis that he has already indicated, as an Independent Inquiry. It might be thought that it is a bit soon to have another Inquiry after the Gowers Inquiry of 1953, which reported in 1954. That was a very good Inquiry and was very comprehensive in the hands of the Chairman, Sir Ernest Gowers. It made a first-class Report which has been of the greatest possible value to this country in the interim years.
But although that Report was quite emphatic, that the balance of advantage then was to continue the slaughter policy here as against the vaccination policy, in the last 15 years there has been a great deal of experience in Western European countries of wholesale vaccination as a method of controlling this disease. Of course, those countries, being attached to each other, could not perforce use a slaughter policy, and they have adopted a vaccination policy which has, in the event, turned out to be a great deal more successful than I think most of us expected it to be. Both the techniques of doing it, and the vaccines used with more than one valency have turned out to be a good deal more effective than any of us expected. Therefore, I am sure it is now right to look at this subject afresh and to weigh up again the pros and cons of whether or not a slaughter policy is paying us better here than would a vaccination policy. To put it in simple terms, we have had this devastating experience of the last few months. Should we sleep easier in our beds if we continued with the slaughter policy, or do the Western European countries sleep easier in their beds?
I think a good many of the community are coming to the conclusion that the logic of a slaughter policy is so strong, and that if you continue with a slaughter policy you should ban imports from countries with endemic foot-and-mouth disease, that this is a point which I hope the Committee of Inquiry will look at very closely. Last autumn I was visiting the American Foot-and-Mouth Research Station at Plum Island, and it was a very interesting experience. It was set up with our assistance some 15 years ago. They have no doubt at all that a slaughter policy worked for them, because they had a 100 per cent. ban on the importation of meat from infected sources. So this is the first point that I hope the Committee of Inquiry will look at.
At this late hour, I feel that I should not discuss one or two of the points of the epidemic which I should have liked to discuss, but I wish to make the point that during this epidemic the number of outbreaks rose to the appalling figure of 70 a day—490 in the last week of November. The Minister, quite rightly, then equipped himself with a stock of vaccine in case it was thought necessary to make ring vaccination in order to check the spread of the disease.
A further question which I hope the Committee of Inquiry will examine and answer is: If we continue with a slaughter policy in this country, at what level of outbreaks, when an epidemic has struck us, should the Minister decide that he will start ring vaccination in order to protect the rest of the livestock of the country? There must be some level at which the amount of infection let loose by this huge amount of outbreaks becomes uncontrollable, and when the slaughter policy really fails. I think we were very near it during this epidemic. This is a point which should be examined. In the meantime, this prudent step of getting a stock vaccine and holding it as a last line of defence having been taken, I ask the Minister that this stock should be preserved in being until such time as the Committee of Inquiry has reported. The existing stock, of course, has a limited life; its efficacy will end some time during the summer months. I would therefore ask the Minister whether he will ensure that this stock is then renewed,
992
so that we have on hand a supply of vaccine in case we are unlucky enough to be struck again.
Finally, my Lords, there is the major question of the continuation of the temporary ban on meat imported from countries with endemic foot-and-mouth disease. I am sure the Minister was right—and I congratulate him—on making the ban; but the whole of the farming world is now asking that this ban should continue throughout the period that the Committee of Inquiry is investigating and making its Report. I believe the Minister has instructed his veterinary officers to make a report to him as to the course of the disease, the probable causes, the agents which affected the spread and so on; and I imagine that that report will soon be in his hands. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, whether he would ask the Minister of Agriculture to consider very carefully the report that he gets from his veterinary officers before he takes his decision about the future of the ban on imported meat. I cannot help feeling that that report is almost certain to advise that the ban should be continued for the time being, in the interests of the livestock of this country. Certainly this is my hope; but the Ministers have heavy burdens on their shoulders, and I should not like to put it higher than that.
The view that I would express, in conclusion, is that we have suffered an epidemic of a kind which we should not wish to see repeated; that the slaughter policy is not sufficient to control an epidemic of this size; and that the gigantic losses and the crudity of the methods have really affronted the whole community. We therefore look to see the control arrangements for protecting our livestock against this devastating disease strengthened in one way or another.
6.53 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has asked this Question, because our discussion on it is in no way parallel with the debate that took place in another place last week; it is complementary to it. In fact, we begin at the point at which they ended. They asked the Minister of Agriculture what he was going to do about his Inquiry

993
and what its terms of reference were going to be, but the Minister was then unable to give an answer. The noble Lord has raised this Question to-night, and I hope that the Government will be able to tell us exactly what they want to do.
I was also extremely glad to hear that the noble Lord is not among those who are pressing for an inquiry to take place at this very instant, before we have had time to think about it. There has been a lot of pressure for this; but there is a question that must be decided, not by a Committee of inquiry, but by the Minister of Agriculture, before that Inquiry takes place; that is, whether or not he is going to relax the ban on imported meat. This is not a question for the Inquiry: this is for the Minister. It is a difficult question to discuss—there are many difficulties involved in it, and I hope to touch upon them—and yet it must be settled before the Inquiry is put into being.
Furthermore, one cannot put an Inquiry into being suddenly, without being able to choose the right men for it, and, in particular, the right chairman. Often the right men are not available at the time they are wanted. Do not let us Forget that there are a great many things that they have to discuss, some of which the noble Lord did not touch upon: not only what has happened this time, in this last outbreak, and what is at present known about the latest evidence on this very difficult disease, but what should be done in the future. And there are not only the questions about the disease itself, but questions about all the sideeffects—taxation, questions of rehabilitation and of compensation. These are questions which I think the Inquiry ought to consider very closely.
My Lords, I take the view—as, I think, do professional bodies such as the Veterinary College, and so on—that the ban should not be relaxed. But, as I say, this is a question which the Minister and not the Inquiry has to decide. The important thing about the Inquiry is that the right men should be chosen, even if this takes some time, and that they should take a fairly long time to decide what we should do I agree that this subject was investigated very fully by the Gowers Committee in 1953, but there has been a certain amount of evidence since then, and all this must be mulled over before
994
we decide what we are going to do. It was suggested that the ban was temporary but I do not think this necessarily means that the intention cannot be reviewed. No pledges were given, either in this country or to countries overseas, which alter this situation. It was hoped that the ban might be temporary, but if it cannot be temporary I do not think that this matters very much.
What are the things that this Committee of Inquiry must examine? First of all, there is the one which the noble Lord raised—the slaughter policy. I should be very surprised indeed if, after considering all the relevant evidence—and, indeed, all the latest evidence on new vaccines, and so on, that come front Western Europe—this Committee changed its mind on what the Gowers Committee suggested. All the present evidence seems to me to point to the fact that to go back on our slaughter policy and to adopt a policy of vaccination would be an acceptance of defeat. I agree with the noble Lord that there comes a point when one must accept defeat; and this again is a question into which I hope the Committee will inquire.
At what point are we defeated? The noble Lord suggests that we were very nearly defeated this time. I do not think we were, my Lords. The epidemic spread over a wide area, and it was bigger than any that had happened before. But even if we count all the compensation that has been paid, and all the compensation that we should like to pay but cannot, because it is consequential, it still does not amount to the sum of money which most countries with this problem endemically in fact have to face in terms of loss of meat production and loss of milk production. Nor, in fact, strangely enough, does it amount to the cost of the vaccines, and, as we know anyway, the vaccines are effective only to certain strains, not to all of them.
But I agree with the noble Lord that if this Committee of Inquiry comes to the conclusion that we should go on with the slaughter policy—and, as I say, I shall be very surprised if it does not—then we shall have to consider very seriously making the ban on imported meat permanent. Such a step would have a number of effects which I think the Committee of Inquiry ought to

995
examine. It may be said that they are not immediately connected with this disease; but they are the side-effects, and it is these side-effects that make the problem so difficult.
First of all, there is the effect on our balance of payments; and the to some extent conflicting interests of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Food, which are together, and the Ministry of Agriculture and exporting industry. Secondly, if it can be shown that the outbreak is attributable to imported meat—and we must remember that at present we still know that only something like 56 per cent. of all the outbreaks that have taken place can certainly be attributable to imported meat; that is strong evidence, but it is not conclusive—then a slaughter policy is difficult to maintain without a ban on imported meat.
If we have a ban on imported meat, there are other things which we have to consider. How are we to mitigate the adverse effects on our trade with, shall we say, the Argentine? So far as we are concerned, we import from the Argentine something like 10 per cent. of all our beef, a negligible amount of our lamb and none of our pig. It is not really a very desperate problem so far as we are concerned; we could make it up by increasing our own production. But so far as the Argentine is concerned, they import large quantities of manufactured goods from this country. If I were speaking solely as a farmer I would say: "Let that go, let us make up the difference, so far as our own production is concerned". If we ban meat from the Argentine, we must try to find means of mitigating the damage to them so far as trade is concerned, and, next, we must try to do something to help them to overcome their own foot-and-mouth problem. This, I think, is probably a question of research. Pirbright is doing this. We are researching into vaccines and manufacturing them for places where the disease is endemic and where they have to inoculate.
Lastly, if we do not have a permanent 100 per cent. ban on all meat, it seems to me that there is one slight variation which we might do well to think about. That is the question of importing only that meat which has been deboned and from which the offal—heart, liver, kidneys and
996
so on—has been removed. The evidence seems to point to the fact that the virus does not live indefinitely in the meat itself, but that it remains in the bone, the kidneys, the liver, and so on. It seems to me not impossible that we could come to some arrangement with countries like the Argentine by which we import only boned meat and no offal. These are the sort of things in connection with the question of imported meat that I hope this Committee of Inquiry will look into.
Next, I hope it will look into the problem of compensation, because if we are going on with the policy of slaughter—and I think it more probable that we shall than that we shall not—there are a number of problems which I think must be looked at fairly closely and which must be resolved with, shall I say, some degree of fairness. Some of these problems have already been looked at, and I think we may find some of them easier to cope with than was at first thought. They are those things like compensation for people who lost their stock many months ago. Prices have risen since then. What are we going to do about those people? There is the difficult question of replacement value or market value. I do not want to enlarge on these, perhaps, technical difficulties. Other noble Lords may wish to do so. This is an extremely difficult problem and one on which, I think, a committee of inquiry could probably help us.
There is also the question of consequential loss. Some consequential losses you can insure against. You can insure against loss of profits, for instance; but you cannot insure against be so short of cash that you cannot pay your expensive stockman and you have to ask him to go elsewhere. The Government may be able to help in this matter, and this, too, is the sort of question that a committee of inquiry could look into. I admit that there are a number of similar consequential losses which I think this Committee probably cannot look into and which a Government cannot deal with: those kind of consequential losses which occur to persons like myself whose stock has not had the disease, but who were totally unable to sell a lot of stock when they should have been sold. I must keep them over the winter at an expense to myself that I had not envisaged. I shall have to sell them at markets which are

997
not suitable at a date when they ought not to be sold. I am in a difficulty here. This is a consequential loss against which I cannot insure, and over which the Government cannot help me.
LORD KILBRACKEN: The noble Lord may get a better price for his cattle than if he had sold them earlier.
LORD HENLEY: I am hoping that some of my losses may be recouped in that way. But I shall not recoup them all. I shall have to buy hay at inflated prices in order to keep stock which I would not otherwise have kept. I shall have to sell them at markets they were not meant to be sold at. As your Lordships know, certain kinds of cattle are sold at certain markets. If you go to another market at the wrong time of year you will not get what they are worth. These are the sort of consequential losses about which I am afraid no Committee of Inquiry can help us. The same applies to auctioneers, hauliers seed merchants, and so on.
The Committee of Inquiry may possibly help us over things like rehabilitation. The Government have two minor schemes of rehabilitation. There is the ploughing grant and early payment of improvement grant. Both will help in a small way. I believe we are to talk about the ploughing grant later this week, so I will not enlarge upon it now. These are the sort of things which a committee of inquiry can look into, because they are the kind of things the difficulty of which is not realised until they are upon you. And this applies most of all to the question of taxation. I am rather encouraged to think that the question of taxation may be a little less difficult than we in the agricultural world thought it would be some months ago.
I will not go deeply into the question of taxation as I have spoken long enough and other noble Lords have yet to speak. But there are taxation problems of an extremely difficult nature with regard to compensation for stock and setting certain expenses against income tax, and so on. The encouraging thing is that the inquiries to the Inland Revenue on this problem have been fewer than one would have imagined. I think it is possible that this may be because the problem will prove less intractable than we had
998
feared. Nevertheless, this is the sort of thing that this Committee of Inquiry should be looking into.
Lastly, my Lords, there is the question of future containment of these sorts of outbreaks. I am basing my argument on the assumption that we shall go on with present policy, that no new evidence will come to light which will change the vaccination policy, that we shall go on with the slaughter policy. There is the question of what are we going to do next time, when the next time arrives—because the next time will arise; you cannot prevent it altogether. In 1839, when the first outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease occurred in England, it swept over the country and there was neither the means nor the know-how to contain it. In the course of the century the disease became endemic. Then towards the end of the century the sort of policy was adopted which has led to our present position, in which the disease is more or less controlled. But when this last and worst outbreak struck us, we had to improvise all the means by which we did contain and control it. It seems to me that there are certain routine matters which a committee of inquiry could establish by which we could do better next time. When I say "better", I mean no criticism of the Ministry or of the veterinary profession in this, because I think that in the circumstances they did a magnificent job. But there is no doubt that were this laid out as a drill, we could possibly do it even better next time. It is not only a veterinary problem; it is a political and tactical problem is well. Which market do you close, and when? At what point do you ban people going on farmers' roads and so on?
Lastly, there is the problem which always terrifies me, and which nobody has really considered closely and which I hope the Committee will consider—the question of hill sheep. On an unenclosed hill which may stretch from Cumberland to Derbyshire, with no fences or hardly a road in between, sheep will wander. But they will not wander fir because, like your Lordships, they are hereditarily trained to the ground. They move surprisingly small distances, and for that reason it is possible to keep them in a certain defined area, to shepherd them and look after them. But let us suppose they are all slaughtered because

999
of foot-and-mouth disease. Where do you stop? Normally, you stop at the next farm. But if the next farm is not fenced you may well consider that you have to go on from Cumberland to Derbyshire. What happens? If you take the sheep off that land you can put them on again only by shepherding them extremely closely for approximately five sheep generations. The expense of doing that is so prohibitive that nobody would attempt to do it and the land would go to forestry, which would be the only answer. There may be ways to decide how this may be contained, but none has been thought of, and so far as I know there is none. That is the sort of thing that this kind of Inquiry could undertake.
In conclusion, my Lords, I wish to press strongly that this Committee of Inquiry should not be appointed in a hurry, because the Minister has the awkward problem of deciding about banning or not banning meat imports in future. The members should be chosen very carefully and enabled to work very slowly. The Committee should consider all the problems, not only the extremely difficult problems relating to the virus itself and what we know about it, but also problems of taxation, rehabilitation, compensation and other allied matters. I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate will be able to give us some idea that this is what is in the mind of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and that he will appoint his Committee on those lines.
7.11 p.m.
LORD HIVES: My Lords, as a "new boy" addressing your Lordships for the first time, I ask for your indulgence. I have been in your Lordships' House long enough to realise my shortcomings as a speaker. I also realise that there are many Lords on both sides of the House who know a lot more about agriculture than I do. But, as a full-time farmer, I hope that I may contribute something to this discussion. As your Lordships may guess, I have given a lot of thought to what I should say. After reading all that has been said in this House and in another place on the subject, I decided that it would be useless to weary your Lordships with a repetition of it. But I should like to make a few points which I hope will be
1000
included within the Inquiry's terms of reference.
As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has mentioned, the Committee of Inquiry will first consider the banning of meat imports from South America. If it was right to impose the ban, it would be wrong to remove it until it is certain that the suspected danger is non-existent. Regarding consequential loss and compensation, I suggest that the Inquiry should consider whether an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease should be considered a national disaster. To do so would result in action being accelerated, and compensation to losers would be underwritten. I hope that the Inquiry will also consider the advisability of a vaccination policy, which again was discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and whether the time is right to look at that matter again.
Then, more scientific research should be carried out at the research centres into the movement of the virus due to wind, birds and wild animals, and into the best methods of disinfecting vehicles and people. This industry, my Lords, to which I am proud to belong has an outstanding record of rising productivity. During the last war, and since, it has met all the demands made upon it, and more. It has a labour force whose loyalty and interest in the job is second to none. I say that it is up to all of us to do all in our power to see that the industry is not made to suffer a second disaster.
7.15 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, it falls to me to express to the noble Lord, Lord Hives, the congratulations of this House upon the excellence of his maiden speech and upon the way in which he has acquitted himself in the awesome experience of addressing your Lordships for the first time. I am only sorry, on his behalf, that the noble Lord's maiden speech had to be made upon such a sad and unhappy subject. However, this House always appreciates a speech which comes from the heart and the experience of a particular noble Lord, and therefore, for that reason especially, we appreciate the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hives; and we hope that we shall hear him very often in the future. My Lords, I must express a personal word to the noble Lord who will be replying to the debate.

1001
I must ask him to excuse me if I have to leave before the end. I came from Cheshire especially to take part. I have to be back in Cheshire to-morrow and we have lost the one really good train which would have enabled me to stay until the end of the debate.
My purpose in addressing your Lordships on this subject is to express the hope that when the Committee of Inquiry is set up it will look into this epidemic on the broadest possible lines; that it will consider not only the scientific aspects of the matter but also the social aspects, and the impact which it has had upon people. In this hope I am joined by my right reverend brothers, the Bishop of Lichfield, who would have wished to be here had that been possible, and by the Bishop of Derby, because it is our three dioceses, with Flintshire, which are most deeply involved. Of the three dioceses my own has suffered the worst. Of the 2,320 outbreaks confirmed by January 26, 1,012 were in Cheshire and 715 in Shropshire. In Cheshire, the farmers have lost 32·5 per cent. of their cattle, 16·2 per cent. of their sheep and 32·9 per cent. of their pigs. This loss has included a great many fine prize herds, and a number of herds that were the subject of scientific experiments, the results of which will largely be lost because of the slaughter.
Cheshire has a wonderful and lush countryside which has been made hideous by the experiences of the past months. There has been the smoke of the fires, the stench of burning flesh, the obscene sight of blackened limbs of the carcases protruding from the flames. Everywhere there has been a sense of frustration which has fallen as heavily as anywhere on the clergy. They have been unable to carry out their pastoral duties of visiting and bringing some comfort, help and encouragement, because they knew that if they visited infected farms they might well be the cause of further epidemics.
As so often happens with tragedies on this scale, there has been called forth a volume of service for which we all ought to be grateful. I know that the farmers concerned are particularly grateful to the Ministry and to the veterinary service, but we should not forget also what has been done by the Army, by the Police and by the Fire Service, all
1002
of whom have carried out their very unpleasant duty with efficiency and understanding.
But it is upon the people immediately concerned that the main burden of this disaster has fallen. For so many people a life's work concerned with the rearing and care of animals has suddenly been broken. This work creates a special and intimate bond between man and beast. It may be a bond of scientific research. It may be a bond of a lifetime of planning, which has created a splendid prize herd, of which its owner is rightly proud. It may be the bond of livelihood, in the possession of a small herd. It may be the bond of a stockman who has reared a particular beast and known it for three, four or five years and has a special affection for those animals in his care.
Think what it means when suddenly this disease is discovered, and within a few hours the horror of slaughter has descended upon a farm and the fires of destruction have been lighted. There follows a week of complete isolation, in which the farmer and his family are immured in their home. The children may not go to school. Then follows a long period of segregation, for anyone who has been on an infected farm is not welcome elsewhere. It means the closing down of all kinds of social contact and activities. This has been almost as bad, even worse, for those who have not had the epidemic in their farms but who have the agony of waiting, day after day, to know whether or not this is to be their lot. Indeed, there have been stockmen who have not left their farms for three or four months, so that there should be no possibility of infection. It is no surprise, therefore, that accompanying this awful epidemic there have been cases of illness, of break-down and of despair, which should call forth from as all the depth of sympathy. For the hand of death has been laid upon the afflicted countryside.
The Committee of Inquiry will have the duty of restoring confidence to those who have suffered in this way. On the evidence that I know I should not myself agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said about the immediacy of appointing the Committee. I believe that there is a very real ease

1003
that this Committee should be set up as soon as possible. I know that the Minister concerned is very anxious to get the best possible people to serve on it. In another place he has talked of the difficulty he is having of getting exactly the right people. Nevertheless, as my friend the Member for Chester said in another place—and he has himself wide experience as a farmer—time is not on our side in this matter. For soon turning-out time comes; the cattle will be going out into the fields, and there will be the danger of a recurrence of infection. Indeed, I think it is desirable that, so far as possible, the members of the Committee should have some opportunity of seeing what it has meant to the countryside to have this affliction laid upon it. So I think that the first thing that will restore confidence is that a really effective and powerful Committee should be set up as soon as possible and set to work as soon as possible.
Secondly, there is the question of the continuance of the ban on the import of meat from countries which have uncontrolled foot-and-mouth disease. I know that Her Majesty's Government have great difficulty over this. On Tuesday I listened very carefully to the speech of the Minister in another place. He did not say, Yes; he did not say, No; but he gave the impression that he was doubtful about continuing the ban. I found the logic of his argument difficult to understand because, as the noble Lord has said, if it has been right to impose this ban at all, surely it ought to stay on until there is abundant evidence that these meat imports are not the source of infection. I should have thought, again in some disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that this is a matter which ought to be considered by the Committee of Inquiry, and that it ought to be done as soon as possible.
The third matter which will help the restoration of confidence is that of compensation, a matter that has already been touched upon by noble Lords. I hope that this compensation will be upon the basis of replacement rather than some notional form of payment. I hope that there will be some way in which those who first suffered from this disease will not be worse off than those who have contracted it on their farms later. I hope
1004
that there will be some adjustment about the difficult matter of taxation. I hope also that, so far as possible, consequential losses will be taken into consideration. I know that there must be some limit to this. Nevertheless, the main business of the livestock farmer has been clamped down during these months, and losses have been very heavy.
I know that in Cheshire especially there is anxiety about the position of the stockmen on the farms. The Minister said in another place that there are other schemes, such as giving temporary employment in forestry work and elsewhere. He mentioned the figure of only 40 men who have come into the labour exchange in Chester during the epidemic, but I am told that in Cheshire there is a fear that the figure may be much higher. Also, a number of people are doubtful about the policy of giving temporary employment elsewhere, lest the very valuable and experienced stockmen should be lost for ever from the work for which they are so well fitted.
This has been a national disaster. Nothing can compensate for the personal strain and tension through which those immediately concerned have passed, and are passing. But the nation can share the burden by carrying the responsibilities of compensation and by making available all those resources necessary for investigation and research, so that we can ensure, so far as is humanly possible, that never again will an epidemic on this scale befall our countryside.
7.28 p.m.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, I am privileged indeed to be able to follow the right reverend Prelate in what was a moving and most constructive speech. I have a common local interest, and if I may I shall refer in a moment to some of the things which he said. I would follow the right reverend Prelate in adding my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Hives on his maiden speech. It is refreshing indeed to listen to a speech from a practical man who really knows what he is talking about and who puts it so clearly and concisely. In agricultural debates in your Lordships' House in future we shall benefit greatly from my noble friend's contributions.
I would express my thanks to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford for having put down this Question and so

1005
given us the opportunity of a short discussion about this problem. This is not the moment for a full examination of this great calamity. When the Committee of Inquiry reports, then we shall have concrete evidence which will enable us the better to judge all the circumstances of what, as the right reverend Prelate said, has been a national disaster.
Over the last month, at Question Time, I am afraid I have been inflicting myself on the House rather often on this subject, and I would respectfully thank your Lordships for the patience that you have shown to me, and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, also, for the understanding of my feelings about this subject which he has always shown to me. I am afraid your Lordships must be only too well aware by now that I come from Cheshire, too. I have lived through and in the middle of the two worst outbreaks of this century, first as a young man in 1923–24, and again now. So I have had an opportunity at first-hand to see a little, although not a great deal, of the awful consequences: the blow to the national economy; the losses of the farmers—and I think Particularly of the smaller tenant farmers, of whom we have so many in Cheshire—the sick anxiety of waiting for the blow to fall, and the helpless anger when it does. These things leave their mark on those who suffer.
My noble friend dealt fully with the Inquiry, and I do not think there is much about it that. I would add generally, although there are one or two points that I should like to mention in a moment. I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, about the urgency of the matter. In my view, the Committee should be set up as quickly as the Minister can possibly arrange for it to be set up. I realise that he has had difficulties. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that it needs to be a strong Committee. I am glad that it is to be public, as I understand that it is, and I should like it to have, if possible, a tinge of the judicial about it. It should be presided over by a senior member of the legal profession. I may be told that these eminent gentlemen do not know very much about foot-and-mouth disease. But who does? They do know, however, the right sort of question to ask, and they know how to
1006
assess the value of evidence. Therefore I hope the door is not closed to the possibility that the Committee may be presided over by a lawyer.
It is certainly not for me to tell the members of the Committee their business, but I am sure that in their deliberations they must examine the present regulations for dealing with foot-and-mouth disease, with a view to having framed a new set of emergency regulations which can come down anywhere like a safety curtain the moment an outbreak takes place. I think we must be even tougher and more stringent in the future than we have been in the past. This I believe to be one of the most important general lessons that have come out of the present outbreak.
I should now like to make two or three small points about the Committee itself I hope very much (I have spoken privately to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, about this) that among the members of the Committee there may be some representatives from Cheshire or Shropshire, or both: people who have experienced this outbreak at first-hand—a practical farmer, perhaps, for one—and, what I regard as most important, a senior veterinary officer who has actually done field work in this particular outbreak. I think this would add greatly to the usefulness of the Committee.
Secondly (and I raised this at Question Time about two weeks ago), should not the secretariat which is to serve the Committee be set up now? I know that the Animal Health Division of the Ministry are doing certain preparatory work, but over the last four months they must have been just about the most overworked of any Government Department. They have laboured magnificently, and I should like to pay a most warm tribute to what they have done. But memories are short. Is there not a lot to be said for having a secretariat body at work now, which can build up a dossier while memories of events and experiences are still green, which can sift truth from rumour—and, goodness knows!, there are plenty of rumours—and provide authenticated instances of things which have happened and perhaps should not have happened, or risks which have been run which should not have been run? This might save a lot of time in an inquiry which is going to take many months, and I think

1007
it would prove useful to the members of the Committee.
I had intended to say something about the taxation problem (the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, may remember that I raised this with him about two months ago), but at this late hour I will not do so. I would, however, ask the noble Lord whether he can say anything definite about it, because it would be helpful.
Lastly, I pass to the vexed question of imported South American meat. Other speakers have already mentioned this, and no doubt it will be referred to again. A short time ago, in discussing this, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, spoke of a balance of odium over the retention or the removal of the ban. I accept that there are real difficulties here, but in all my experience I have never known the farming community as united as now over the retention of the ban. In addition, there is strong evidence, which convinces me, at any rate, that we really ought to keep a free hand in this matter, at least until the Committee has reported. There are the percentages; and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, mentioned 56 per cent. This may not be conclusive evidence, but it is a very high figure. There was the Gowers Committee in 1954, and on the subject of imported meat, your Lordships may remember, they said:
"This is thought by the Ministry of Agriculture to be responsible for more primary outbreaks in England than any other single cause."
Then there is the evidence of the disease-free countries which do not allow the import of meat. Perhaps the most interesting case is that of the Republic of Ireland, who banned imports of meat in 1940, and have not, I think, had an outbreak since 1941.
As the right reverend Prelate said, the noble Lord's right honourable friend in another place undertook that he would listen carefully to points of view and any arguments about this matter. I urge on the Government that, in spite of the difficulties—and I acknowledge that they exist—they should retain the ban until the Committee has reported. After all, the question of imported meat relates only to the primary outbreak of the disease, not to the consequential effects or to the spread of the disease. Would
1008
it not be possible, therefore, for the Government as it were to isolate this particular part of the problem and give it priority for immediate inquiry, so that an early report could be made? Meantime, as a matter of general policy, and within the limits of our present knowledge—and I think it is important to qualify it in that way—I believe the Government are right to continue with this sort of policy. No one who has seen all the slaughter and what follows it, or who realises the waste involved can think of this without sadness, and without a feeling almost of nausea. But I believe it to be right, if we are to have any hope at all of preventing this disease from becoming endemic in this country.
My Lords, it is a mistake, in trying to take a cool look at a disaster like this, to allow one's feelings to be one's guide, and I hope I have not been guilty of that. But may I finish by saying just this—and this really relates to the opening part of the right reverend Prelate's speech? When we are thinking about the material losses of the farming community and the nation, let us remember too the suffering and the heartbreak of so many farmers. There must be many of your Lordships who have been in a cowshed—in Cheshire we call them "shippons"—at milking time on a winter evening like this. It is a warm and friendly place. To-day far too many of them are cold and empty, and that is what so many farmers have to contemplate every time they open the doors of their houses. And that is the sort of thing I mean by "suffering". I suggest that this should only harden our determination to see, so far as lies in our power—by the encouragement of scientific research, by a refusal to accept risks, by the establishment of new and comprehensive emergency regulations which can come into action anywhere at the click of a switch, so to speak—that ravages on this scale do not happen again.
7.42 p.m.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, I should like first of all to congratulate most warmly the noble Lord, Lord Hives, on his maiden speech, and I am quite sure that, not only on agricultural subjects, of which he is such a master, but also on other subjects, we may hear him on many occasions in the future.

1009
We were struck by the practical value of his approach. And who could have listened to the moving speech of the right-reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chester, without being moved himself? I should like to save time by associating myself with every word he said.
I do not believe that we can afford to put off this inquiry; it must be done at once. We are coming into another season on the farm, and there are many people who will have to decide the future of their methods of farming by the compensation they are paid and the possibility of getting back into the industry those stockmen who have left because there is no job for them. It is going to be a big problem and one not easy to settle. The sooner we get down to the job of investigating the whole question, the better it will be for us. There is one more thing I should like to say. I hope this inquiry will be an open inquiry to which the public can have access. I should like to stress the importance of allowing any evidence to be brought before it for discussion. We cannot afford to put aside any idea, however "haywire" it may appear, because it is not always the clever solutions that solve the problem; it is very often the simple things that work.
I remember my own experience when I started giving magnesium to stop grass tetany some fifteen or twenty years ago. Even now many people do not realise the simplicity of it. During the past fifteen or twenty years I have simply sprayed my pastures with 28 lb. of magnesium sulphate at the beginning of the season, and I have lost only one cow, and that occurred when my dairyman failed to carry out instructions about waiting until the spray was on before he turned a newly-calved cow into new lush pasture. I was called all sorts of things. I could go on talking on this subject for a long time, but that is not the problem to-day. However, I want to emphasise that some things which appear utterly futile and silly none the less work, and we must keep an open mind on this problem and not turn things down because they are not felt to be worth investigating.
The hour is already late, but this is an urgent problem. We cannot afford to wait. Those who have been deprived of their livelihood for the past four months
1010
must get a start—and immediately—if this industry in Cheshire and those other fertile parts is to get back to normal again. So I hope that the Committee will be appointed at the earliest possible moment and that they will be given priorities, or will establish priorities for themselves. One of the first priorities should be the question, which I hope they will decide in the right way, of retaining the ban on imported meat from countries in which the disease is endemic, until at least we have conclusive evidence that imports are not the main cause of the disease. It would be disastrous to have another epidemic such as we have just gone through; in fact, it would shatter the agricultural industry, and it would take many, many decades to recover.
7.48 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am the first to speak on this side of the House following the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hives. As a result of my association with Derbyshire, I knew his father; he was very much "Rolls-Royce". I spoke with him on a number of platforms but, I can assure the noble Lord, not on a political platform. But it was always a delight to hear him, and I am sure it is a delight for us to hear the present Lord Hives and we shall (although it is a bit of a cliché, perhaps, I really mean it) look forward to hearing him again.
Unlike many noble Lords who have spoken to-day, I have no immediate association with Cheshire; I do not live there. But I took advantage of a period in the Christmas Recess when I was staying in Cheshire to go and see what was actually being done there. I looked to see what they were doing about carcase disposal—a very important matter—and on the veterinary side I had a look at diagnosis and control generally. I must admit that I was enormously impressed, and I am not easily impressed by the things see, and certainly not by glib talkers, although fortunately I did not meet any of them in this particular field. On the disposal side, I found the operation in charge of a river board engineer who had been seconded to the Ministry for the purpose of carcase disposal: an excellent arrangement because he knows the height of the water table in the county of Cheshire and he was able to bring to the task of carcase disposal his knowledge of where

1011
earth-moving equipment, and the sources of supply of that sort of equipment, were.
The operation was based at Winsford and run as a very efficient Army operation would be. Indeed, some Army personnel and their techniques were used in this connection. Having regard to the emergency nature of the task this man was carrying out, he appears to have been given a free hand, and at one period he had accumulated at his disposal something approaching £1 million worth of equipment. This was in order to ensure that no carcase was left above ground, or in some cases unburned, for a moment longer than was necessary. There was no stint by the Ministry on this engineer's operations.
I also saw the work of the Crewe centre, where an emergency headquarters for the veterinary side had been set up. Here there was a group of highly efficient professional men engaged in an emergency operation. Two months after the outbreak in late October there had been built up an organisation which, except for the "scratch" nature of the premises, might have been used had it been a permanent feature of the work of those engaged.
My Lords, it may well be the case that there is a need for some kind of emergency regulations and a system available for putting into operation immediately—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Oakshott, about this. It was inevitably something of the nature of an operation of a "scratch" type initially, but by the time I got there and had a look at it, I found it really was working extraordinarily well. I imagine there were difficulties at the outset, which had been overcome by this time, and some of these difficulties might have caused trouble and might have added to the spread of disease in some cases. I cannot quote cases, but there was a suspicion in my mind that it had taken some little time to get to the point which this operation had reached when I arrived.
There was one most unusual feature, the international character of the veterinary surgeons that I met. There were men from the United States of America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland. In most cases these qualified
1012
men came wholly at the expense of their own Governments. In one or two cases, I think, we were paying their expenses here, but certainly not their salaries. Admittedly they were learning here, but I was satisfied by the veterinary officer in charge of the whole operation in Crewe that they were greatly assisting him in his work, in addition to learning the job of how to handle outbreaks of this sort.
I talked to these men, and in no single case was any doubt thrown on the policy of slaughter stamping out. Not a single one of these veterinary surgeons had any doubts about stamping it out by our method. Each said that, faced with our island conditions, he would have no hesitation about recommending the slaughter policy to his own authorities concerned. I remember one of the veterinary surgeons from the United States of America saying that he not only favoured the policy but deplored the fact that in the United States of America they had not adopted a similar policy 60 years ago to stamp out what he called "hog fever", what we know as "swine fever".
Incidentally, on asking one of them about the spread of the disease I found that he strongly favoured the "wind-borne" theory. He said that, watching one of the infected animals slavering at the mouth in a high wind, one could see the globules of sputum being carried away, but I think he would agree with the note I saw in The Times to-day, which read:
"Points for further investigation include the physics of airborne spread …"
This aspect needs looking into, and of course it would be one of the tasks of this Committee to look into it particularly, because this is one of the things we shall have to find out: how to prevent the spread of the disease if it strikes here again.
Perhaps I should have declared an interest a few minutes ago, for I am an honorary Associate of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Your Lordships might think that, because of that, I am biased: but biased or not I came away from Crewe with a feeling of pride in my association with the profession, and also with a feeling of our indebtedness to those who made it possible for these overseas veterinarians to be here at such

1013
a time. Our thanks are due to them as individuals, and to the countries and organisations they represent.
My Lords, we have heard a lot to-day, and rightly so, about the unfortunate people whose livelihoods have been affected by this awful catastrophe. Farmers immediately spring to the mind, and here I strongly support those who have said that we shall have to look carefully at the compensation being paid and to the difficulties which the farmers are experiencing as the result of the taxation mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Oakshott. It is obvious that those who were compensated very early on may not find it easy to replace cattle, because, as a result of slaughter and the lessening of the number of cattle available, the value of cattle is bound to go up. This is inevitable when we have slaughtered so many animals. It is something that the Ministry will have to look at, and I hope they will look at it sympathetically. But, of course, there are other people who are suffering difficulties as a result of this epidemic. For example, veterinary surgeons are finding themselves without their livelihood. Animal slaughter makes it inevitable that their income will be going down. There are many people involved.
As to the cause of this severe outbreak, no one seems to venture what might be called a well-grounded opinion. It will be one of the tasks of the Committee to try to find out just how it happened. When I heard that it seemed to have started with pigs at Oswestry I immediately thought "Unboiled swill", only to be told that this was not the case because they had not fed unboiled swill at that particular time. Whatever the cause was, imported meat is bound to be heavily under suspicion. I am not going to mention the points that have been raised in this connection, except to say that if anyone looks at the reports of the Animal Health Service through the years, and also at the Gowers Report, it has been made clear that always imported meat comes under suspicion as being the source of primary infection in so many cases. I am sure this is so. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that the infection is merely in the marrow in the bone. It is not. The Pirbright Institute looked into this, and as a result of precise experiments they said that there is
1014
equal risk of other tissue, including lymph nodes, blood in the large vessels, liver kidneys and the rumen, remaining infective for very long periods.
I need not say any more about this matter, except that I have a tremendous sympathy with my right honourable friend who has to take a decision in it. The Minister is under pressure to lift the ban on meat imports. He is under pressure because inevitably prices will go up, and if this happens he will be under severe criticism from a large section of the people in this country—and perhaps rightly so. But I believe that, despite that criticism, having regard to the catastrophic nature of this outbreak which has hit Britain, he must resist the pressures which are being brought to bear on him at this time to take off the ban. I will support him strongly if he continues this ban, at least until there has been a careful examination as to the source of this last outbreak and of the possibility that it did in fact come from imported meat, and in the conviction that we ought never to allow it again.
Of those veterinarians to whom I talked—I have mentioned all their names—not a single one of them has experience of foot-and-mouth disease. Why? Because not one of the countries concerned imports meat. It is true that we import 10 per cent. of our meat from the Argentine, and if that is the source of the disease we just cannot afford to go on importing meat and suffering the sort of expensive catastrophe which the country has suffered during these last three months.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, the noble Lord said that 10 per cent. of our meat comes from the Argentine. I think he meant beef. I think the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is correct in saying that we import hardly any lamb or pork.
LORD CHAMPION: I agree.
8.0 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I should like at the outset to thank my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford for having put down this Unstarred Question and enabled this debate to take place. It has certainly been extremely interesting. I would also offer my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Hives on his maiden speech. As so many noble Lords

1015
have said, that speech came from someone with immense experience in this industry, and we look forward to other occasions on which he will address us.
This particular disease has had the most devastating effect to farmers throughout the country. Not only have they lost their cattle and their income, but very often they have lost also their livelihoods. Some of these farmers who have had this disease on their farms are not going to be able to start up again for a variety of different reasons. I was glad that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester pointed out the other very important thing, which is that this is a very human problem as well. I was talking last week-end to somebody who came from a district infected with foot-and mouth disease, and he said that in his area five farmers were already in a mental home. This gives some indication of the devastating effect which this disease can have.
Of course, when it comes, the first thing to do is to get rid of the disease and stop it spreading. This has very largely been achieved now, thanks to the excellent work of the people in the Ministry and the co-operation they have received. A great tribute should be paid to them. But what does one do afterwards? Does one say, "Now we have got rid of the disease let us hope it does not come again"? The Government have said they are setting up a Committee of Inquiry. I think they were right to do so, but there is one reservation to be borne in mind, and that is that there is a tendency to think that Inquiries are a panacea for all evils and if one sets up a Committee of Inquiry it will provide many of the answers. There is one great danger about this. Committees of Inquiry enable you to get the facts, but often their very existence is an excuse for, or a cause of, inaction. One has to try to balance the desirability of having the full facts with the necessity of taking action, and I believe taking action is extremely important in this situation.
Like so many other noble Lords, I am afraid that I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Henley. He did not find many friends in his argument that the Minister should choose the Committee slowly and take plenty of time to pick
1016
the right persons. I think it is imperative that this is done with speed. We want to know when the Committee will sit; we want to know when it will report; we want to know whom it will consist of, at least who the Chairman is; we want to know what its terms of reference are and indeed what kind of Committee it is. All we know from the answer the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, gave to a question earlier is that it will not be a Royal Commission.
I press upon the Government that there is a degree of urgency. We must have this Committee, if it is to be set up, set up quickly so that its members can get down to their work with great speed, because the material which they have must be hot, it must be readily in people's minds, and the material must be fresh. The Inquiry needs to be quick and to be concise, and of course it needs to be impartial. I think I am right in saying that the Inquiry is going to be public. This is very important, and, like my noble friend, Lord Oakshott, I should like to see a tinge of the judiciary about it. If it is not presided over by a judge, at least it should be somebody of substantial legal stature.
It must surely inquire into the actions that have been taken and the effects that they have had over this last outbreak. Did the rules and regulations which were necessarily imposed work? If they did not why did they not work? The right reverend Prelate said that these disasters bring out a volume of voluntary service. They also regrettably bring out a volume of criticism. I think it is extremely important that this Inquiry should look into the facts to try to see, if the rules and regulations did not work, why they did not work, and not in any way to try to apportion blame. After all, many decisions were taken. They had to be taken in a hurry. Of necessity, many of those decisions must have been wrong. If they were wrong, let us know why, so that the mistake cannot be made again, rather than just apportion blame for mistakes that may have occurred.
For instance, many restrictions were put on people going to race meetings and so forth, and yet people were allowed to attend football matches. Is this kind of thing sensible? I can give a case I know of where a person in Lincolnshire, where there was an outbreak, was not

1017
allowed to go to Norfolk to shoot, but he was allowed to send his cattle, because they were not in an infected area, to Norwich Market. It is ridiculous when a person cannot go to another county to shoot but can send his beasts to the local market. These regulations may be correct in intention, but obviously there were some shortcomings somewhere. I hope that this Committee will look into what was done to combat this disease when it broke out and how successful it was. Like my noble friend Lord Oakshott, I should like to see it produce a set of rules that would be brought into action should another outbreak occur.
The right reverend Prelate suggested that compensation should also be considered and that it would be a pity if the people whose animals got the disease at the beginning were worse off than those whose animals got it at the end. I do not know whether this should be considered, but I could not help being slightly amused that the right reverend Prelate's cloth did not persuade him on this occasion to accept the parable of the labourers in the vineyard.
This Committee must also consider the advisability of the slaughter policy. If this inquiry is to be as far-reaching and as comprehensive as it should be, it must inquire into the slaughter policy if only to vindicate it, and I would be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, could say whether this will be one of the points to be considered. I personally have strong feelings that the slaughter policy is the correct one, but there are others who take a contrary view, and I think it would be advisable for this to be considered.
To put it in its perspective, I would venture to tell your Lordships something I was told when I was reading Agriculture at university, which was that over the years the cost of the slaughter policy had averaged about a quarter of a million a year, whereas to adopt a policy of vaccination, with its expense and its lowering of production, would in fact not have cost a quarter of a million a year but £20 million a year. The lecturer who told me that is now, oddly enough, one of the most senior people in the Ministry of Agriculture at Tolworth. If he should read these words he may be pleased that something he said had been retained by one of his pupil-s, but I am bound to say his enthusiasm must be mellowed by the
1018
fact that not all his remarks received such ready retention.
Obviously what caused the outbreak must be of prime concern for the Committee of Inquiry. But should we as a matter of policy import from countries where this disease is endemic? I must also add a plea to those already made that this ban on imports should be continued. After all, why was the ban put on in the first place?—because there was a possibility that the infection came from abroad. The Minister said that the ban was imposed because he was frightened of another primary outbreak. I think this is important. I believe that he was quite right to be so frightened. But the ban itself did nothing to control the existing outbreak; it was merely imposed to prevent the possibility of a further outbreak.
This outbreak has cost us nearly £30 million. Can we risk another outbreak? Everyone would say, "No". But if the ban is removed, that same possibility of infection which caused the ban to be imposed in the first place will return, and I believe that we should be most unwise to allow it to do so. The Minister did not give a firm reply in another place the other day. He was frightened of breaking a pledge, which of course is entirely understandable. The pledge was to review this ban after three months; it was not a pledge to lift it. The impression which the Minister gave was that this ban would be removed. I would ask the noble Lord opposite to impress upon the Minister that, in spite of the real feeling that many people have that this ban should be lifted, in fact he will not be breaking his pledge if he does re-impose it. The pledge was to review it, and I think that the Minister would be entitled to say that this outbreak has been so serious, that the consequences of re-infection are so dangerous, that we cannot really import meat until at least the Inquiry has reported. Therefore, I hope that the Inquiry will get started quickly, and that it will report quickly.
8.12 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I think that this debate has come at a most opportune moment, and I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Nugent for initiating it and giving us a

1019
chance to express our views on the present outbreak of foot-and-mouth and on the ban on imported meat from South America. I want to say but little about the way the present outbreak was handled, and what I hope the Committee will look into in this respect. I personally am quite convinced that the slaughter policy is right, and I should like to commend the Minister of Agriculture and his Ministry for sticking to this policy when the number of cases was running at between fifty and seventy a day. It was extremely brave of him to do this and I think he deserves our thanks for so doing. I am sure the present figures have shown that his decision was right.
I should like to say a few words about the mechanics of the slaughter policy. What worries me is that people are paid, and rightly, extremely high sums of money for burying the carcases; but nearly always these people take on the job as a part-time job. There are some who are doing it whole-time, but quite a number are doing it part-time. I heard of a milk tanker driver who was so engaged. Quite soon after he had done this work, a village to which he regularly drove his milk tanker got foot-and-mouth on their common land. The whole village is quite convinced that this was due to the milk tanker driver's doing a part-time job burying the carcases.
Obviously, this is an attractive part-time job. As I have said, it is highly paid—and probably, although I do not know, it is not returned in everyone's tax return. Therefore I can see the attraction of it. But I should think that one thing the Committee might consider in future is that the military should do this; that people subject to military discipline and only people who do nothing else, having no other normal job which takes them travelling round the countryside, should do this work. I should like the Committee also to look into the question of whether there might be issued special clothing which could be burned afterwards. I believe that nowadays ladies' dresses can be made of paper, or the near-equivalent of paper. Possibly some such uniform might be issued to people who are disposing of carcases. I personally am quite convinced
1020
that much of the carrying of foot-and-mouth is due to the human element.
May I now say a word about disinfectant? I feel that, as in everything where this disease arose, we have lacked guidance on the type of disinfectant to be used, the strength at which it should be used and the way it should be used. Exactly the same applies to salmon disease. Anglers were asked thoroughly to disinfect their wading boots and their rods and reels after fishing an infected river. They were never told what sort of disinfectant to use, or how to mix it. I should hope, therefore, that the Committee will look into the type of disinfectant that should be used and its effectiveness, because I believe that it is no use using a disinfectant which is not 100 per cent. effective. I believe commercial firms are working to produce a 100 per cent. effective disinfectant. I think this is a point which the Committee should look at. I hope it will.
Now a word about the straw baths which are put at the end of each farm road. Most people thought straw baths absolutely useless. I do not think they do any good at all, because I do not see why the virus should be on the tyres of a vehicle any more than on its body, or even possibly on the boots and shoes and clothes of the people inside the vehicle. I think the Committee might give us guidance on that. Straw baths cost a lot of money, and a lot of trouble arises in seeing that they are full of disinfectant. Also, if there is a disinfectant which is effective. I hope that the Ministry of Agriculture will keep a large stock of it, because one of the difficulties in dealing with this outbreak was the difficulty of getting a suitable disinfectant. We in our area were told that we were a long way from the outbreak, and that sheep dip would do. I strongly doubt, even if the disinfectant does any good—of which I am not absolutely convinced—that sheep dip would be any use at all. But it is a nice psychological idea.
Now I should like to refer the noble Lord to the way they dealt with the clearing of tsetse fly from Kariba in Rhodesia. To me, this was a more thorough way than anything we did with the foot-and-mouth disease. I, and I know many people in Scotland, are most

1021
disappointed that the Secretary of State turned down the offer of Scottish Command to man posts on all the Border roads. It may not have done any good, I do not know, but psychologically I think it would have been most comforting to the Scottish farmer. From that point of view I am sure that it would have done some good.
I turn to what I regard as the most important part of this debate because it is most immediate; namely, whether or not this ban should be kept on meat from the Argentine and other South American countries. I think I am right in saying that this affects only the Argentine, because Brazil is a net importer and not a net exporter of beef. There have been odd outbreaks outside the infected areas in the Midlands. I am thinking particularly of one near Coventry, and one in Northamptonshire. These were all fairly recent, and the suggestion was—I do not know; the noble Lord can confirm or deny it—that some deep frozen Argentinian meat was released in Birmingham just before this time, and that the disease came from this meat. I have seen this suggestion in the Press. It may well be wrong. I have no personal knowledge of it. But if this were the case, I think every effort should be made to trace where the meat came from and that the people who produced it should suffer due penalty for so doing. But if it was the case, I think it makes it abundantly clear that it is essential to keep this ban on, at any rate until the Committee have reported.
As we heard from the right reverend Prelate, whose speech I admired enormously—I think I approved of everything he said—psychologically the farmers are near breaking point in the areas affected by foot-and-mouth disease. I think that one of the things which might tip them over the edge would be if the ban were lifted. Presumably, there are three reasons why the Government are considering lifting the ban. First, possibly they have given a pledge to the Argentine in much more detailed terms than they have so far admitted. If this was the case, it is only right that they should have told us they had done so and not try to pretend that they had given the pledge for three months and would look at it again. We have had so many pledges broken in the last three
1022
months that I should not have thought one more would matter, when it might do some good and might be popular with a large number of people in this country. Secondly, they are probably frightened of Argentinian reprisals, but as I said in a Question I asked of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, we have already incurred much of the odium that we are likely to incur in putting on this ban. If we take it off and reimpose it, we shall incur even more odium when we reimpose it and remarkably little credit when we take it off.
We have already suffered considerable loss of bloodstock sales to the Argentine, which happen to be the most immediate thing they could strike at after the ban was put on, and I believe that they are not going to buy any bulls at the Perth bull sales this week. But I believe that we can survive these things. I refuse to believe that the rather horrifying stories in some of the newspapers to-day about the amount of trade that we are likely to lose with the Argentine over the next three years if we keep on the ban are really true. The Argentinians are as commercially-minded as any other nation. If our prices and our delivery dates are right for our manufactured goods, then they are going to buy from us rather than pay more and buy from America which also has a ban on their meat. Therefore I do not think that in the long term this will cost us a great deal of trade.
The third reason, presumably—and I see the Government's difficulty—is the rise in the price of meat. I would point out that this has compensating factors. We are saved a certain amount of foreign currency through not being able to buy our 10 per cent. of beef from the Argentine. The Government have been saved quite a lot of money in deficiency payments through the price of meat in this country having risen way above their figure for paying deficiency sums. And if we go into the Common Market there will be this rise in the price of meat anyway, and perhaps we are just anticipating going into the Common Market. I think that possibly it is a salutary lesson for housewives and the people of this country to realise how much it costs to produce the beef and the lamb which they take for granted and which is undeniably the best in the world. I think that now our people are beginning to realise that they

1023
have been very lucky to have their meat so cheaply in the past, and possibly they will be prepared to pay a certain amount more for it in the future. I beseech the Government to keep on this ban. Psychologically it would be the last straw that broke the farmer's back in the areas which have been affected by foot-and-mouth disease if the ban were to be lifted. I very much hope that the Government will keep it on.
8.24 p.m.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, may I join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Hives, on his maiden speech. Thirty years ago in my maiden speech I introduced a debate in this House on foot-and-mouth disease, so I have every sympathy with him. I will not go into great detail in what I have to say to-night, but I read in the Horse and Hound (which may not be read on the other side of the House very much) a very good article by George Forbes. He gave various reasons for the spread of the disease one of which was rats, which are more likely to carry the disease than birds. He based his argument on migratory birds from South America not introducing foot-and-mouth disease into North America. Therefore, if rats are one of the main carriers I would urge the Minister to ginger up his ratcatchers, or pest controllers I think they are called, to go to work throughout the country and do their job, and if necessary perhaps the numbers of control officers could be increased. Another point that George Forbes made in his article was the fact that infection can be airborne. He suggested that helicopters should be sent up over an infected farm after the carcases had been disposed of and that the air should be sprayed until a sufficient quantity of disinfectant was in the area to kill the virus.
I will not talk about deboned meat or offal, because that has already been mentioned, but I should like to appeal to the housewife to boil all the bones from her meat, whether it be for the dogs or whether she is going to throw them into the dustbin. Also she should boil offal, so that the rats cannot take it out of the dustbin and carry it away. This applies to imported offal or bones, or whatever it is. If we urge the housewife to do
1024
this, I think it would be beneficial. There is one final point I should like to make. As store sales have now been introduced in non-infected areas throughout the country, farmers can go to them and buy by licence, and bring back the stock to their own farms and not move them for twenty-one days. I wonder whether this order could also be extended to the fatstock market, because all cattle going to a fatstock market have to go to the slaughter house.
8.28 p.m.
LORD CRAWSHAW: My Lords, I should like to start by commending the speech of my noble friend Lord Hives. He and I both come from the same part of the country. We have both had outbreaks of foot-and-mouth on four sides of us, and I know how strongly he feels, and rightly so, about this particular subject. I hope that we shall be supported by him in debates on this subject again.
Important as it is to trace the cause of this outbreak and to act on it promptly, it can be said that the only good thing that can come out of this outbreak is that it affords a golden chance for a completely new reappraisal of the whole situation and an opportunity to put wrongs over a very long period right once and for all. I feel that it is wrong to criticise this particular Administration at this stage. We have for far too long exposed ourselves to this plague. We have risked the lives of millions of cattle, sheep and pigs and the livelihood of countless thousands of families.
The farm livestock of this country is one of our greatest national assets. We are the stud farm of the world. The Ayrshire, the British Friesian and the Channel Island breeds are renowned milk cattle throughout the world. Perhaps even better known are our Herefords and Aberdeen Angus. It is impossible to go, as I have done recently, to the Panhandle of Texas and other such areas and see 30,000 head of Hereford cattle in one feed block, without a feeling of pride that these animals all stem from this country; and it is extremely satisfactory to remind the Americans of this as well. Strains of sheep and pigs have been carefully bred over hundreds of years in this country and are unequalled anywhere. So much for the animals.

1025
We have heard about the people involved. The plight of those farmers, stockmen, pigmen, shepherds, veterinary surgeons, and so on, cannot be too strongly emphasised. But as well as those directly affected by this plague, many other thousands of farmers have had their lives and businesses disrupted. Add to them the vets, the auctioneers, all those connected with National Hunt racing, for whom I have a particularly high regard, the Hunt servants, the blacksmiths, the woodmen and so on—these are the yeomen of England.
Yeomen service has meant something stalwart and substantial for many hundreds of years. These people are the most uncomplaining, the least demanding members of the community. They have no shop stewards. The word "strike" never comes into their vocabulary. I cannot help being reminded of Gray's famous words when he said:
"Far from the madding crowd's ignoble strife
Their sober wishes never learnt to stray."
We here should and could put their case. We must have the most searchng inquiry possible. Some foreign meat is clearly suspect, and I believe that any trade conducted by this country which involves the possible import of the foot-and-mouth virus as part of the package cannot possibly be viable, particularly if we stick, as we should, to the slaughter policy.
I end by asking the noble Lord who will reply to the debate whether, when the present vets' inquiry has been completed, if concrete evidence is produced, the Minister will be able to act immediately upon it.
8.34 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, when the Minister comes to read this debate to-morrow he ought to be very grateful to this House for its understanding, and also for the very firm message which it is sending him. At least three former Parliamentary Secretaries of his Department have spoken during the debate, and they may be expected to have special understanding of his problems and responsibilities, not just as Minister of Agriculture, but also as Minister of Food—and I am glad to see one noble Lord nodding his agreement. I have very clear recollections of responsibility during a previous outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.
1026
At this late hour I want to follow up only one point, and that is what the noble Lord, Lord Oakshott, described as the safety curtain, because the Ministry of Agriculture does attempt to operate something in the nature of a safety curtain. Yet I think it is very nearly impossible to guarantee that in each and every circumstance that curtain will fall in such a way that nobody will be given any grounds for criticism. I remember visiting the headquarters during a previous outbreak and being greatly impressed by its efficiency and the way information and instructions were passing quickly and confidently. On the perimeter, the impression was less impressive, and understandably less impressive, because of the difficulties to which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has referred.
A great many people and a great many authorities are involved. Action has to be taken very quickly, and there is no time for the sort of consultation which one would like to have in order to avoid the small rubs which are always given such prominence. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, paid tribute to the many people who are involved, but there is one group I was very sorry he left out, and that is the Territorial Army. They have done good work in some places, and I should like to think they were going to continue to be able to help if this or similar disasters befall us again.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I mentioned the Army personnel, and of course I included all Army personnel in those two words.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I stand rebuked. None the less, I think that the Territorial Army who have come in for so many knocks recently deserve at least a special word of commendation. Noble Lords will know that this safety curtain does not fall just once—it has to fall twice. It is quite easy to say that the infected zone will be a radius of, I think, ten miles around an outbreak. But a circle of ten miles on a map is a very different thing from defining the actual line on the ground which all the local inhabitants, people passing through and everybody who has to go about his business in the area, will recognise at sight and will observe because he appreciates that it is fair.

1027
Even more difficult is defining the wider safety curtain which forms the boundary of the controlled areas. I should like to think that, in the light of the experience we have just had, if needs be we risk pushing such boundaries further out and bringing more people under the control if in so doing we are going to save the risk of confusion and uncertainty around the perimeter. I say this with some experience, because during one of the outbreaks since the war such a boundary ran through a small hamlet at the opposite end of the parish from where I live, and right across some fields which I was farming at that time. It was a corner of England where the parish boundary wobbles from one side of the road to the other, and I think it even leaves the road in one place to take in one field on the other side of the road. No farmer knew for some days whether he could take his cows across the road or not and we had a new police constable who with the best will in the world did not know exactly what he or we ought to do in those circumstances.
I mention this not in any sort of unreasonable criticism, but just to follow on what two noble Lords have said about how these difficulties are bound to happen in the early stages, particularly if the Department commendably tries to disturb the life of the minimum number of people. Parish boundaries are very deceptive. Roads and rivers are probably better.
There is one further point which affects the safety curtain, and that is the nature of our farming when so large a proportion of our livestock is permanently on wheels or passing through auction markets When a primary outbreak has been recorded it is the duty of the Department to try to trace the movements of all cattle which may have been contacts. I can distinctly remember one case where a group of cattle from an infected area was traced to an auction market in the Midlands, and before we could catch up with them they had gone through a second auction market a few miles away during the afternoon of the same day. This is not a very good farming practice and it does not do stock any good moving it about in that way.
We have so many part-time dealers as well as professional dealers who are out
1028
to buy animals and sell them a day or a week later if they think there is a small return that it makes the Ministry's task in these circumstances particularly difficult. I can remember, too, how a railway truck full of cattle was lost. It was routed while we kept our fingers crossed. It was routed from Northumberland to somewhere in East Anglia and was found near Aberdeen, yet it managed to reach its destination without, I think, the popular Press discovering, or in fact any unhappy results.
Having mentioned this question of all this stock moving about, I turn lastly to the question of farmers moving about. There has already been a reference to some meetings being banned while others were allowed. In my part of England, the North-West, we are reopening store markets, and there have been unhappy feelings among our people that some of those who come to the marts—maybe to do business; maybe just to see what the business is now like—have come from heavily infected areas. An appeal has been put out, I think, asking them to stay away for the time being. I mention this again, not with any nasty feeling of unpleasant criticism but just to show the sort of difficulties that arise all the time. The safety curtain has to control the movements of stock and to a certain extent the movements of men. If the noble Lord, Lord Oakshott, or any other noble Lord can devise improvements to avoid criticism, it will indeed be a remarkable achievement, and welcome.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, that is precisely what I want this high-powered Committee to suggest.
LORD INGLEWOOD: I was coming to that point. I do indeed hope that they will look into the matter and see whether they can in fact find ways of improving on the present system, if need be inconveniencing more people, where it can be shown as in the interests of the whole.
8.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I should like first to add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Hives on his most knowledgeable and temperate speech. We all hope to hear him again, and very often. As one who is no stranger to farming in Shropshire, I can sympathise very much with what he said, especially as, fortunately, I gather that

1029
he, like mystelf, has so far, by the grace of God, been immune.
I do not think that I should have trespassed on your Lordships' time at this hour of the night had it not been that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester decided, most fortunately, to speak. I think the honour of Shropshire demands that I should say one word or two tonight, particularly as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield, we were told, whose diocese covers the North of Shropshire, is not able to be here. Because, my Lords, the main course of the epidemic has covered not only the best part of Cheshire but also most of the northern part of Shropshire; or, in other words, the southern part of the Cheshire Cheese country. Our experiences in Shropshire were broadly the same as those in Cheshire. The type of farming affected was the same, the only difference being that we had the hill sheep problem, which Cheshire had not, but fortunately that problem was prevented from escalating to any serious proportions.
I should like, as other noble Lords have done, to echo the praise which was given to the officials of the Ministry of Agriculture in the field, who spared no effort to discharge their most unpleasant task with the greatest friendliness and helpfulness to those affected. And also, of course, to the soldiers, Regular and Territorial—not forgetting the members of the Civil Defence, who have not been mentioned yet—who did so much, under expert guidance, to carry out work which was so much better left in expert hands instead of being handed over to contractors employing labour, who might easily have made matters worse.
That, my Lords, is all I think I need say on the general points, because they have been covered so fully in this debate, so may I go back to the terms of reference of the Inquiry, which are in fact the subject-matter of the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford? There seem to me to be two important things. The first is that, as so many noble Lords have said, the Inquiry should start soon, while the scent is still hot and while the members of the tribunal, however it is constituted, can obtain first-hand evidence, and not second-hand. They can obtain it now,
1030
but they will not be able to obtain it very much longer, let us hope—certainly not in the same volume.
The second thing, my Lords, is that the members of the tribunal, and particularly its chairman, should be people who have the determination and the ability to obtain the whole truth about the matters into which they are going to inquire. That may sound rather a brutal thing to say, but let us face the fact that while, on the one hand, there will be considerable vested interests setting out to secure that all the truth comes out in one direction—the National Farmers' Union and, no doubt, the National Union of Agricultural Workers will be very much concerned that their side of the case is brought out. Here perhaps I may say how glad I was that in Shropshire the affairs of the Shropshire Branch of the National Farmers' Union were in thoroughly competent hands during this particular year; it helped us a lot—on the other hand there will be other interests which, though perhaps one should not say so, may equally be at work to see that evidence in certain directions is not given the same highlight. One has only to take the problem of importing Argentine meat, which has been talked about so much to-night. We all know that the agricultural interests have a strong case for banning such imports. We equally know that other Departments—not the Ministry of Agriculture—have good arguments why such imports should not be banned; and it will take a fairly strong tribunal and a fairly strong chairman to make quite sure that the evidence is all collected.
There are other things, too. There are what one might call the "hard-line" stories. Many "hard-line" stories have been told about the foot-and-mouth scourge, not all of them representing the real facts as they appear to most people. To take one example, there have been "hard-line" stories about people sacking their herdsmen. To my mind, that is a deplorable thing to do. But, equally, I think that the vast majority of farmers have looked after their farmworkers properly, in the interests of both master and man, and that the cases in which herdsmen have been stood off wrongly are indeed in the minority. Then there

1031
will be what one might call the fringe effects—not the effects concerning the actual farmers and farmworkers themselves, but all the consequential effects concerning the auctioneers, the merchants and the ordinary shop people in the small towns. Every kind of effect will arise, because in the districts badly affected the whole of the life—not only the whole of the agricultural life, but the whole of the life—has been completely seized up.
This is going to be a long and hard task for any Inquiry. That is why I agree so strongly that it should be started at once. I think that it will be a long time before the members of the Inquiry are in a position to make their Final Report. But I hope that it will be possible, when they reach conclusions, when they reach some finality about certain matters, for them to make Interim Reports so that the Government will be able to act on them without delay.
8.50 p.m.
LORD COLLISON: My Lords, I am moved to rise because comment was made about the situation with regard to the farmworkers in the industry. I would certainly agree with the noble Lord opposite that we ought not to boost this problem to proportions which are unrealistic. On the other hand, it is true that we have been advised of a number of cases where farmworkers have been dismissed from their jobs. We know that in Cheshire alone there could be over 1,000 farmworkers who might be affected in this way. The situation, so far as my union, the Agricultural Workers' Union, is concerned, is that we have evidence that 42 farmworkers have been dismissed up to the beginning of the week before last. I had a letter from my Cheshire organiser last week advising me that a further 18 had been dismissed and that three of them were involved in tied cottages, and that application had been made for the tied cottages.
I think this is not the full extent of the problem. It is also true that a number of farmworkers have had their earnings reduced, in the sense that they are put back on to minimum wages and that overtime has ceased. There is an issue here which goes beyond the present crisis of foot-and-mouth disease and which affects the national interest and, in particular,
1032
the interest of the dairying industry. It is that if these men leave the land, it is certain that they will be gone for good. This is disadvantageous both to the industry and to the country, in the situation in which we now find ourselves. And there is, of course, another problem involved, one to which at the moment I have not been able to find an answer. We have suggested to the Minister of Agriculture that in the circumstances farmers should be encouraged not to dismiss their men, and not to reduce wages, but to keep them on.
There is, of course, a money issue involved here. Farmers certainly get compensation and should get insurance. There is the £10 ploughing grant which they also receive. I hope that this House and the Minister will plead with farmers not to dismiss their men, because they are going to need them later on when restocking their herds. There is a further problem which I shall mention briefly, since I am on my feet. A grant is made for disinfection services and cleaning-up operations. The evidence that we, as a union, have is that in different counties different rates apply. I have been informed that 13s. 6d. is payable by the Government to farmers and contractors who use men for this operation, but that the rate paid to the men varies from county to county. The variation has been between 8s. 6d. and something like 6s. This cleaning-up operation helps the industry retain the men it is going to need in the future, and I think it is rather unfortunate that there should be a situation where varying rates can be paid and where contractors pay varying rates. I have written to the Minister about this problem and have seen him twice, but if my noble friend who is going to reply can add anything to help, then I should be most grateful.
8.54 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent has initiated an important debate. It was also at times a moving one. It was understandable, fair-minded and constructive. I hope in the end it will be considered to have been useful. Most of the matters raised are essentially questions which the Committee of Inquiry itself will have to consider. I know that the noble Lord will not expect me to give him answers

1033
on all the points raised. I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Hives. Hitherto, I am bound to say, I had associated the name with another love of mine, the aero-engine industry. But from now on I shall think in terms of agriculture, and I congratulate the noble Lord. I hope I will hear him again on this and other subjects.
If I may, at the outset, I should like also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and all noble Lords who expressed their thanks and admiration for the work done in the field by the devoted servants of the Ministry of Agriculture and also the Armed Forces, including the Territorial Army, the police forces, the fire service, the contractors and all who in this very difficult period have lent a hand. I express my admiration to the farming community for the way in which they have borne themselves. There has been no question here of anybody begging for charity. They have in every case expressed the desire for fair treatment, but they have never, so far as I know, been plugging the hard luck line.
There are one or two points which were asked of me and with which I ought to deal before going on to the two more important aspects of the discussion. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, about the advisability of renewing stock pending the report of this Inquiry. No decision has been made, but the suggestion that he made has been noted and consideration will be given to it. There was also the question of consequential loss raised by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, by Lord Henley, by my noble friend Lord Champion and by others. Here we are dealing with a most difficult problem. Of course, the Government understand the concern over the losses incurred by a larger number of people, both inside and outside the livestock industry, as a consequence of this outbreak. Some of them have been named. There are the contractors, the merchants, the auctioneers, the hotel owners, the meat traders, the jockeys, the bookmakers and so on. All have suffered in some way as a result of this outbreak. The fact of the matter is that no Government, I believe, can accept the principle that compensation should be paid from the Exchequer to all those who suffer consequential losses. Once we start down this road there can be almost no
1034
chance of stopping. For this reason the Gowers Committee came down so firmly against the principle of compensation for consequential losses, and since that time successive Governments have accepted this view. I hope the House will recognise the force of these arguments.
The noble Lord, Lord Collison, mentioned another consequential loss, one which, to those concerned, hits most grievously; namely, the loss of employment and the possibility also of the loss of the homes in which the people live. It is not possible here to consider separate compensation by the Government, but I echo his plea to the farmers to stand by the men who helped them. And in the main the response among the farmers has been notable. Very few farm labourers have been stood off; the figure I have is about 40, the same as Lord Collison. I trust that the best interests of all concerned, the farmers and the farm workers, will be served by keeping on these skilled men until they are needed again.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that this is not quite the same as consequential loss? It might possibly be a field in which the Government could help. Consequential loss, I agree, is something for which no Government can compensate. But the problem of having to stand off labourers is not quite within the field of consequential loss. This is something which the Committee of Inquiry might well look into.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it is something which the Committee of Inquiry might well consider they should look into, but in the sense in which I was talking about it I think that it could be regarded as a consequential loss.
There is also the question about equity of compensation. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, referred to this, as did my noble friend Lord Champion. It is clear, as they and others have said, that since the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak began on October 25 the levels of valuation of some types of stock have risen significantly. I believe that dairy cow prices have increased by the order of about 30 per cent. since the start of the outbreak, and this clearly places those farmers whose herds were affected early at a disadvantage in competing for replacement.

1035
Here there has been a good deal of useful help, notably from the National Farmers' Union, with their restocking scheme. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are doing all they can to improve supplies of replacement stock; there is the £10 rate ploughing grant scheme, and other actions which will reduce the demand on the livestock market. I hope that these measures will do much to take the pressure off livestock prices and consequently make re-stocking easier and compensation go further.
My Lords, there still remains the question of equity and the Government are considering very carefully to see whether there is anything else that can be done. I hope that a further statement on this question will be made shortly. I was asked about taxation. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester and the noble Lord, Lord Oakshott, asked about it and its effect on compensation. This is a point which I hope, with good will, will be solved satisfactorily. The problem is being discussed at present with the N.F.U. and with the Inland Revenue, and I hope that these discussions will shortly be completed and that an announcement can then be made.
The noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, asked about fatstock sent to the market, which if it did not fetch the price the farmer hoped for, nevertheless still had to go to the slaughterhouse. I agree with the noble Lord that this is a point which ought to be looked into and is now being considered. I will write to the noble Lord and let him know the outcome of that consideration.
I was asked about the composition of the Inquiry and when it will be established. May I make it quite clear, my Lords, that the setting up of this Inquiry is being considered as a matter of urgency? Indeed, I hope that the appointment of the Chairman may be announced in the fairly near future. But I would also make clear to those noble Lords who seemed to think that the issue of compensation to be paid as a result of this outbreak must depend on the recommendations made by the Inquiry that of course that is something quite separate, and there will be no delay, so far as compensation is concerned. Moreover, there is also the inquiry by the Ministry's staff
1036
to which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, referred, as did the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, now looking into the immediate causes of the outbreak. A report from these veterinarians should be in the hands of the Minister before very long, and although, obviously, one cannot say what will be in it, and I cannot comment on its likely outcome, I am sure that my right honourable friend will take into account the information available to him from this report when reviewing the temporary ban.
As to the Committee of Inquiry, the precise terms of reference have not yet been decided. It would be wrong to make a decision about them until they have been discussed with the chairman. But the Minister has already made clear that he intends the Committee to be independent, and it will make a thorough investigation into the present epidemic and the lessons which we can learn from it. The terms of reference are likely to be similar to those given to the Gowers Committee. Noble Lords will remember that the terms of reference of the Gowers Committee required the Committee:
"To review the policy arrangements for dealing with foot-and-mouth in Great Britain, and to advise whether any changes should be made in the light of present scientific knowledge and the technical and administrative experience gained in recent years in this and other countries."
If the Committee works to these terms of reference, I think that all the points which have been raised will be covered satisfactorily.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Oakshott, whether it would be possible to include on the Committee a veterinarian with experience in the field during the current outbreak. Almost certainly a veterinarian of experience will be included on the Committee, but it is essential that he should be independent of the Ministry, and I understand that those who served in the recent outbreak were either members of the Minister's staff or employed by him for this outbreak. Evidence will almost certainly be taken from them, and I hope that it will be agreed that their experience could best be made available as witnesses rather than as Committee members. The noble Lord, Lord Oakshott, made another very constructive suggestion, to the effect that a secretariat ought now to be established,

1037
so that the work of the Committee could go ahead as early as possible after its appointment. I am glad to say that a working party has already been set up, and it is now collecting and collating evidence, and at least one of the secretaries of this working party will act for the proposed Committee of Inquiry. A working party is not exactly a secretariat, but I think that it will serve the very relevant purpose to which the noble Lord referred.
On this matter of the import ban I understand, and indeed I sympathise with, the feelings of noble Lords who have spoken on this very contentious matter. As several noble Lords have said there are differing views in the country (this was brought out very well by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman) about whether the ban should be lifted before the findings of the proposed Committee of Inquiry. A number of conflicting interests are involved. In this or in any other issue Her Majesty's Government have to consider all the interests and make a decision which reflects the right balance.
To-day we have heard in the main the point of view of the producers. I would say that it was a very persuasive, even compelling, argument that was used. Nevertheless, we must recognise that there is another point of view, not least that of the housewife who is now paying some 30 to 40 per cent. more for beef, partly—only partly, of course—as a result of the ban. And this temporary change in our import arrangements has caused considerable difficulty and disruption not only to our overseas suppliers but also to traders. It has been accepted by them as a justifiable short-term measure.
The House will remember that when the Minister introduced this change on behalf of the Government he stated in good faith that it was only a temporary measure, designed to avoid our desperately overstretched veterinary resources from being overwhelmed by a new primary outbreak while we were still struggling to get the original epidemic under control. The undertaking was given that we would remove the ban once the outbreak was under control, and in any case would review the position in three months from the date of its introduction—namely, December 4 last year.
1038
The Government recognise the absolute tragedy this epidemic has been for areas of the farming community, and accept the importance of doing everything feasible to avoid another major outbreak. However, in considering future policy in relation to imports, Her Majesty's Government must take into account wider considerations of policy, including the interests of consumers, both in the short and in the long term, and the important issues of national commercial policy that are involved.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, would the noble Lord make that slightly clearer? Did he say that it was an undertaking to review the ban, or to remove the ban? I thought that he said both.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I said first that it was only a temporary measure. This was made quite clear. The ban would be reviewed within three months of its imposition—"reviewed" was the term used. But it was only a temporary ban; it was not there permanently. It was accepted by the trade on that assumption.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, about the report of the veterinary advisers. I have already said that when that report is received, as it will be quite soon, it will be considered by the Minister. I was also asked about the possibility of controlling imports, if they are allowed again. Of course, we have arrangements with all our overseas suppliers to ensure that any animal health risks from imports are kept at the lowest possible level. These arrangements are reviewed from time to time, and this is something which we shall need to have very much in mind when the time comes to remove the temporary import ban.
I regret that I cannot give the assurances that noble Lords would like me to give on import policy. I know that they will understand why. But I assure them that I will do all I can to ensure that what they have said is properly considered; and I trust that the discussions we have had will be thought to have been useful.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past nine o'clock.