( by Private Notice ) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the recent decision of another place to omit the Clause in the Criminal Justice Bill dealing with the death penalty, he is prepared to reconsider his intention to recommend commutation of death sentences in all cases of murder.

Not at present, Sir.

Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government may now wish to make a further statement? It would be a help to us if he could give any indication when that statement will be possible.

Perhaps conversations can take place through the usual channels.

When my right hon. Friend says "not at present," does he mean that he does not want to make a statement or that he is reconsidering his policy?

"Not at present" is the answer to the question whether I desire today to make a statement.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Only a few months ago, I had the privilege of introducing to this House the Animals Bill, small in size but very useful in content, and that Bill was given a Second Reading without a Division. Part I of the Animals Bill called attention to the period during which payments could be made for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis, and in the course of the Debate hon. Members on all sides urged the importance of ridding our herds of bovine tuberculosis as speedily as possible. During that Debate, it was generally recognised that the task was of some magnitude, and that one of the limiting factors to that approach was the supply of veterinary surgeons. It is, of course, not only in bovine tuberculosis and other diseases of cattle that farmers are relying more and more on the veterinary profession. The science and practice of the veterinary art steadily developed and improved by the work of the profession itself, included research work both here and overseas, and farmers are now more and more ready to receive help from the "vet," even more ready than they were in the '30's. The farmers have shown themselves to be very willing to take advantage of new discoveries and new techniques now available.

All this indicates the urgent need for more veterinary surgeons. The main object of this Bill is to provide the means of getting them. The Bill itself is largely based upon the Report of the Loveday Committee on Veterinary Education and that of the Chancellor Committee on Veterinary Practice by Unregistered Persons, and I should like to say how grateful we all are to Dr. Thomas Loveday and Sir John Chancellor for their two very valuable Reports. The Loveday Committee came to the conclusion that we need more and more facilities for veterinary education. As to quality, they recommended that two new schools should be set up, in addition to those in London,

Edinburgh, Glasgow and Liverpool, and suggested that the best locations in the country would be Cambridge and Bristol. On this question of quality, I cannot do better than quote one or two sentences from the Loveday Report:

Clause I proposes that the Privy Council, where it is satisfied, after consultation with the Royal College, that a university has provided courses of study and examinations which will produce efficient veterinary surgeons, should be empowered by order to say that the appropriate degree of the university shall carry with it a registrable qualification as a veterinary surgeon. Those universities approved for this purpose will be able to teach and examine, and their graduates will be entitled to have their names entered on the Register of Veterinary Surgeons.

I said earlier that the Loveday Committee recommended that Cambridge and Bristol should be brought into the picture. I am happy to say that both these universities are already making plans for courses in veterinary science. I want to make it transparently clear, particularly to Welsh Members of Parliament, that the Bill places no limitation on the number of universities that can ultimately be brought in. If time shows that more schools are wanted, the enabling powers are embodied in the Bill. One result of this major change is that the Royal College soon may cease to be responsible for examining students trained at universities, but so long as there are schools which are not part of a university the examining functions of the Royal College will continue. We hope, of course, that within a few years all existing schools will become absorbed in their respective universities, a move which would carry with it university status.

These proposals do not bring to an end, however, the interests of the Royal College in veterinary education. On the contrary, they will be required to exercise supervisory functions of the highest possible importance. At present the control over teaching has to be secured through examinations which they themselves conduct. The proposal in Clause 4 is that the Council of the Royal College should have power to appoint persons to visit universities and veterinary colleges in order to report on the courses, staff, accommodation, equipment, etc., and also to appoint persons to report on examinations held at universities for registrable degrees. They would not interfere with teaching or with examinations. They would merely see exactly what was taking place and their duty would be to report to the Council on the standards obtaining. If any university was found to be at fault—a most unlikely contingency—the authorities would be anxious to rectify the matter once it was brought to their notice. In the last resort, however, Clause 2 authorises the Council of the Royal College to make representations to the Privy Council who, after considering any reply from the university in question, may, if they think fit, suspend or revoke any order which has been made under Clause I.

The exercise of these new powers requires—and the Loveday Committee recommend—a wider constitution for the Council of the Royal College than the present Charter provides. The present Council consists entirely of veterinary surgeons elected by members of the profession. It is proposed that in future the Council should include representatives from those universities with veterinary schools and four persons appointed by the Privy Council. The constitution of the new Council is set out in Clause 9. I am glad to be able to inform the House that the provision made there and the transitional arrangements referred to in detail in Clauses 11 and 12 are acceptable to all the various interested parties.

The Measure does not deal with the money side, but I may be allowed to say that the Government fully recognise the need for more money to enable these plans to be fully carried out. As announced last January, the two Agricultural Departments have appointed a Committee under Dr. Truman, who is the Vice-Chairman of the University Grants Committee, to inquire into the financial needs of veterinary education and to make recommendations for the application of any money provided by Parliament for those needs.

The second main issue is what is called "unqualified practice." This is not unrelated, of course, to the question of increasing and improving the supply of veterinary surgeons. Indeed, the Loveday Committee itself drew attention to the effect of the uncontrolled activities of unqualified practitioners, and on their suggestion the Chancellor Committee was set up. Existing legislation does not prevent any person from engaging in veterinary practice, even if he is unqualified. He can start a practice and carry on so long as he does not state or imply that he is either a member of the Royal College or use the title of "veterinary surgeon" or "veterinary practitioner," or state that he is specially qualified to practice veterinary surgery.

This freedom to take up a practice must have a discouraging effect upon the young man who is thinking of taking the long and arduous course leading to ultimate qualification. Therefore, for this and for other very good reasons, it is proposed to put this profession, as we have put other professions, on a proper footing. It has always been the disposition of Parliament—and I do not think there will be any change on this occasion—when dealing with matters of this description, to deal fairly and sometimes perhaps a little generously with unqualified persons. I think that is right. Apart from the fact that many of them, although unqualified by examination, have had a long experience and gained the goodwill of their clients, we ought not to be unfair or unreasonable towards them. After all, they took up the work when it was legal to do so and their livelihood depends entirely upon their being allowed to continue.

I think it is right, however—and I am sure the House will agree—that such people should be brought under control, although it would be wrong to inflict any genuine hardship upon them. The Bill proposes, therefore, to register those who fulfil its stated conditions, to bring them under the disciplinary control of the Royal College, to afford them the same facilities for obtaining drugs and other requirements as are enjoyed by veterinary surgeons, and to allow them to describe themselves as "veterinary practitioners." They will not be allowed to call themselves "veterinary surgeons." That title is reserved for the fully qualified person. The position is almost analogous with that under the Dentists Act, 1921.

The title "veterinary practitioner" is the one point on which some difference of opinion still exists. The Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons withdrew their opposition some little time ago. I ought to say in fairness, however, that not only did a large number of the members of the Council do so reluctantly, but that a number of them were actually opposed to such a move. This is a matter which may well be dealt with, if at all, at another stage. It would be too much to expect absolute unanimity in a Measure catering at the same time for qualified and for unqualified persons. Hitherto, the title of "veterinary practitioner" as well as that of "veterinary surgeon" has been reserved for those qualified by examination. The Chancellor Committee recommended that only registered men should be given the title of "registered animal practitioner." The merits of that proposal and various alternatives have been the subject of very long and very full discussion, and finally the Government were driven to the conclusion that, on the grounds both of equity and common sense, as well as precedent, the right thing to do was to allow only registered men to use the title "veterinary practitioner," leaving the title of "veterinary surgeon" to the men qualified by examination. I think that conclusion can be defended at a later stage, should that be necessary.

Clause 6 provides for the registration of unqualified men now in practice if they fulfil all the conditions set out. Clause 5 prohibits, subject to certain exceptions, the future practice of veterinary surgery by any unregistered practitioner. There are, of course, exceptions of two kinds. Clause 5 (2), in conjunction with the First Schedule, allows for the giving of first-aid treatment to an animal by, for instance, its owner, and cases of that kind; and further minor exceptions are to be made by order after consultation with the Royal College.

Clause 7 provides for another and different type of exception of a purely transitory character. It relates to employees of animal welfare societies, one of these being the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals of the Poor. They agree with the Bill, but they point out—quite properly, I think—that if unregistered practice were prohibited immediately it would greatly restrict their charitable work, because there are not sufficient veterinary surgeons to go round. The Government have no desire to do that. We propose, therefore, that the Minister shall have power to grant licences to suitable persons employed by welfare societies to continue their treatment of animals where the owner cannot afford to pay for the services of a veterinary surgeon. I want to make it clear—and this will anticipate questions, perhaps—that this is a purely temporary expedient. As the number of veterinary surgeons increases, automatically the number of licences granted will be reduced, until finally, of course, the time will come when no licences will be granted at all.

I want to say a word or two about Clauses 13 to 19, which deal with the disciplinary powers of the Council of the Royal College. The main effect is to provide that in future a committee of the Council, to be known as the Disciplinary Committee, shall exercise the power at present exercisable only by the full Council when they are contemplating the removal of a name from the Register. This Committee will ordinarily consist of nine members, including at least four elected members of the Council and at least one Council member appointed by the Privy Council; but when the committee are to deal with the case of someone on the new Supplementary Register —one of the old, unqualified men—there will be four persons appointed by the Ministers from the newly created Supple- mentary Register. These provisions are included at the request of the Royal College itself to simplify things for them.

I should like to say one word about the arrangements between this country and Eire. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is a body that runs in Eire as well as in the United Kingdom. In Eire no one may practise veterinary surgery unless he is on the Eire register, and before he is put on that register he must have the diploma of the Royal College. There is in existence an agreement with Eire which has received the approval of both legislatures, under which the Royal College can examine students in Eire and Eireann veterinary surgeons have the right to sit on the Council of the Royal College. Changes made by this Bill will make a new agreement necessary. I believe the heads of an agreement have been provisionally settled. Some of the details, however, will depend upon the passage of the Bill through the House. Clause 20 makes provision for reconciling the Bill to that new agreement once it is made. There is every hope and expectation that the good relations that exist, and have existed now for a considerable time, between the two countries will remain unimpaired.

I have endeavoured not to detain the House too long. There are many minor provisions and details which I have not taken time to touch upon. I hope I shall not be charged with an act of discourtesy for not going into more detail. The main points of the Bill are absolutely nonparty, and they command the support of the Royal College itself, of the universities, and of all other bodies concerned. I hope that the contents of the Bill will also commend themselves to the House. The need for the Bill is very great and very urgent, not only for our whole agriculture, where the loss annually from diseases of animals is great, but also because there is a constant demand for more and more veterinary surgeons for our Colonies. I hope, therefore, that with that brief resumé of the Bill, the House will give it a speedy passage.

11.27 a.m.

The right hon. Gentleman need have no fears that any one will think him discourteous. He never is, and he has certainly not been this morning. He has given us a very adequate explanation of this important and useful little Bill. It does not, at first sight, seem to do very much. The cross headings, such as "Provisions as to training in veterinary surgery," "Restriction of practice of veterinary surgery by unqualified persons," "Constitution of Council of Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons," "Disciplinary powers of Council of Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons," "Miscellaneous and general," make it appear to the inexperienced as merely a little machinery Bill. But, of course, it goes a great deal further than that.

The object which the right hon. Gentleman and, I am sure, all of us have in mind today is to facilitate as far as we can by legislation—and, indeed, it cannot entirely be done by legislation: but to facilitate as far as can be done by legislation—the training and ultimate provision not only of more "vets "but better "vets." The two objects are important. Our object will not be achieved by the changing of the name of practitioners, or by reconstituting colleges, or anything of that sort. It will be done only by better education, a higher scientific standard, generally speaking, through the universities, and by making the veterinary profession a real profession. Of course, obviously, there will have to be intermediate provisions. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed that out. No doubt, we shall hear a good deal during the discussions about the position of the man who today is unqualified but who still performs a very useful service, and whose services, indeed, in present conditions cannot be dispensed with in agriculture. That is an important point and it is a point which will, of course, solve itself in a period of years. If hon. Gentlemen are inclined to dwell on that side, we must not lose sight of what we are really doing just because of those conditions.

A much more important problem is to be tackled here. There is a growing recognition of the importance of animal husbandry. The Committee which reported in 1944—the second report of the Committee on veterinary education—at that time gave a figure and made an estimate—I do not know how the figure was reached—on what they thought were the annual losses to this nation in livestock and livestock products due to animal diseases, and they put the figure at £30 million. I dare say that could not have been very much more than a moderately well-informed guess, because I do not see how they could follow out the losses, and certainly not the consequential losses, of disease.

It shows, however, that there is a great deal to be done in this country, and everybody knows that a great deal remains to be done in all parts of the world. It is not only a matter for the Colonies, as the right hon. Gentleman said; but there are many other areas where a great deal is required and where one hopes, as the ultimate result of the raising of the status of the profession in this country, our men and our women—because this is a profession into which women also enter—may be called upon to serve all over the world. They might almost become an invisible export and perhaps, in the long run, help the dollar situation. It would be a great thing if we could so arrange things by the training we give here that the world recognised that our veterinary surgeons are the finest procurable. This Bill is one of the steps which this House can take to bring that about.

My only fear is that possibly in the Bill we are not envisaging anything on a sufficiently large scale. I say that merely because, reading reports of what was said in another place by the Parliamentary Secretary there, the figures of the men and women likely to be required per annum seemed to be rather on the small side. On the other hand, it may be that at the moment there is no great prospect of getting more. I do not know. The right hon. Gentleman said he hopes that money will be forthcoming, but he was a little vague as to what was the source from which it would be forthcoming. After all, we know that a great deal of money is now being devoted to the universities. This House is making considerable grants annually, and no doubt the destination of these grants will be considered by the University Grants Committee and one can hope that more and more will be devoted to this purpose, because this is really a very important subject.

The only warning I want to give is that we should not envisage this as merely a. small matter, but that we should think of it as something really important and make our plans accordingly. That is not to say that the plans made in this Bill are not of that kind; I think they are, and I think they are capable of expansion. If they are capable of expansion, as the Bill now exists, I hope that during the passage of this Bill through the House we may make sure that it deals with the proper training of those men and women as a matter of real importance. It would be a great saving to the nation and to the world if we could properly cope with animal diseases, and obviously one of the best ways of coping with animal diseases is to have fully trained people to deal with the problem. That is the object of the Bill and it is not necessary for me to expatiate any more on the subject, because it is quite non-controversial in a party sense and, so far as I know, non-controversial in any other sense. It is, therefore, an ideal Bill to come before us on a Friday morning. I have very much pleasure in supporting it and I am sure my right hon. and hon. Friends will take the same view.

11.35 a.m.

It is with some degree of diffidence that I enter into a Debate of this kind, but with your guidance, Sir, and your silken rein, I hope to make a few comments on the matter under review. I want to say at the outset that, naturally, I am in favour of the whole purpose and tendency of the Bill as indicated, and after reading its Title:

As my right hon. Friend has said, the first five Clauses deal with that positive side, and that progressive tendency which his Ministry has indicated certainly is a reconstructive effort in the agricultural services and organisation of this country. We are also interested in the negative side. The right hon. Gentleman indicated the necessity of raising the standard of the veterinary services, work and processes, and I assume my right hon. Friend will endeavour, in Committee, to deal with the rather doubtful qualifications of those who have sometimes served agricultural interests in this matter hitherto. I presume that may be a matter for the Committee stage.

I want to bring in rather sharp relief in some ways the prospects and the possibilities for women entering this profession and the fact that they are taking up this important work. Speaking as a governor of several grammar schools, I have had to contend with some considerable difficulty in this matter. I want to stress the point about the need for encouragement for both sexes to take up farming and veterinary surgeon's work. I hope that my right hon. Friend, with his admirable and commendable foresight, will take into consideration the facilities which are being offered for this kind of training. I put very respectfully to my right hon. Friend the fact that the scholarship facilities which are being granted for ordinary folk in my walk of life to take up this kind of work handicaps them rather severely. One thinks of the fees for tuition, which are approximately £50; per term—£150 per year. In addition, there is a maintenance charge of £200 a year.

It is difficult to imagine that it is possible for many people to take up this work unless they are privileged or financially well situated, and I want my right hon. Friend, therefore, to take that matter into consideration. I remember many years ago I consulted two eminent landowners, whose names are very honoured—names connected with raising the stock of pedigree cattle — on the training of veterinary surgeons. They said that women were not suitable and even the men had not arrived, and one gentleman said that veterinary surgeons were born and not made. We should be progressive and encourage the introduction of womenfolk into this class of work. It may be desirable to spread the educational work even among farming interests, to encourage the necessary research work and the necessary training and to increase the high academic standard as well as the high professional standard associated with this work.

11.40 a.m.

I welcome this Measure particularly for its educational value. I think that the attachment of the veterinary colleges to the universities is an admirable idea which should be pushed forward with all possible speed. There is one question which I should like to ask in order to find out what is in the Minister's mind. To which faculty does he wish the Royal Colleges to be attached when they are finally absorbed within the universities? The point made about the number of veterinary surgeons is indeed important, and I hope that the Ministry, during the coming years, will make detailed research into the question whether the amount of output of the colleges, or of the universities, as will probably be the case then, will be sufficient to meet the growing demand. The setting up of clean areas, and the progressive attitude of all farmers in moving towards the view that their herds must be tuberculin tested, will, of course, increase the work to be done. There is a large amount of additional research work to be undertaken, which will mean a considerable number of research workers to make that progress more rapid.

I want to refer to the controversy which has arisen over the question of the name. First, I want to make it clear that unintentionally, I am sure, the Minister was misleading the House on the question of agreement on this matter. Perhaps I may briefly run over its relevant history. The Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons passed a resolution in April last that the Government's decision on the name should be opposed by all constitutional means. As a consequence of conversations, I understand that that opposition was to some extent reduced in order to facilitate the passing of the Bill through Parliament, but there was not, and never has been, any agreement about the unqualified practitioners. The Royal College, at their Council meeting yesterday, made it abundantly clear that not only was the majority reluctantly in favour of accepting a compromise, but that they were unanimous, as shown in this resolution, against the use of the words "animal practitioner" for unqualified men, as they are thoroughly misleading to the public. In due course, the Minister will see that resolution.

The opposition is based on the knowledge that the title "veterinary practitioner" means a qualified veterinary surgeon to any ordinary person outside the profession. The objection that the veterinary surgeons are making against this name is based on the public interest. The public should not be misled. There are very good grounds for this objection, and I want to give them in telegraphic form. The first one is the Chancellor Report. I have cut the words to be brief. They say that unqualified men

There is also the very real objection that there is already a body of qualified veterinary surgeons who call themselves the Society of Veterinary Practitioners, and a very large number of veterinary surgeons today have that inscription on the brass plates of their surgeries—"Mr. So and So, Veterinary Practitioner." Surely it is rather ludicrous that, as the result of this Bill, those qualified veterinary surgeons should have to take down their brass plates because the words will indicate that they are unqualified veterinary practitioners.

Finally, I want to try to find out what were the reasons which made the Government so adament on the point of the name. Was it the opposition of the unqualified practitioners? I can hardly believe that that had anything to do with it. I have made researches into the matter, and I find that the largest and most important body of unqualified practitioners—I ask the House to listen particularly to this name—the Association of Unregistered Animal Practitioners, is the body which has agreed to the compromise suggested in the Chancellor Report. I am told that there is also a very small body, possibly with about only 50 members, which has not agreed to the application of the term "animal practitioner."

The second reason may be that "animal practitioner" is bad English. That has been advanced in another place, and, if that is the objection, all I can say is that the Ministry of Agriculture is guilty of the worse form of intellectual snobbery. I am not interested in intellectual snobbery from wherever it may come. If that is one of the objections, I hope that the House will consider it to be a very bad objection.

The third reason attached to it by the Minister was the 27 years' precedent of the Dentists Act, 1921. Even in that there is no actual precedent. In the case of dentists, the older men in practice for at least seven years were allowed to be entered on the Dentists Register, but anyone below that number of years of practice had to pass an examination before he could come on to the register. There is no such safeguard in this Bill. If the Minister will look at Clause 3 of the Dentists Act, 1921, he will see exactly the point that I am making.

The fourth point which may be at the back of the Minister's mind is whether it is fair to the unqualified man. We all desire to guard against any unfairness, particularly when we are making the profession closed to unqualified men in the future. In point of fact, all the benefits of this Bill, so far as the difference between the qualified and the unqualified men is concerned, are on the side of the unqualified men; in fact, this Bill makes the unqualified men into qualified men, and gives to them all the advantages of the word "college" and of the use of drugs, which they have not got today. It gives the unqualified men a variety of advantages which they have not got today, whereas the qualified men will lose one of the terms by which they call themselves at the present time.

We will go into this more thoroughly in Committee; it is, of course, not a reason why there should be a controversy on the main principles of the Bill during Second Reading, because we are all agreed upon the main principles. I believe that on this point the Government's intransigeance is unreasonable. I know from my personal experience of "vets" who work for me, and whom I have met, that in the public interest, they are unanimous in their opposition to the use of the term "veterinary practitioner" for an unqualified man, and that will certainly receive the strongest opposition during Committee. Apart from that controversy, I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward this Bill, which I believe is a good and right step towards cleaning up the disease of animals in the country.

11.52 a.m.

I welcome this Bill, which has been so clearly expounded by the Minister. On the whole, it deals very fairly with the difficult problem of the unqualified practitioner and will be a real contribution to increasing the number of skilled veterinary surgeons. The hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Titterington) made a good point when he said that some encouragement should be given to boys and girls of parents of moderate means, or poor parents, to go in for veterinary surgery. After all, a long and expensive training is required, and any help that can be afforded in that direction would enable the Bill to be more effective in practice.

The Minister referred to Welsh representatives, and as a Welsh representative here I am very pleased to support the Bill. It is a fact that in Wales, although Wales is chiefly a stock producing country, the number of veterinary surgeons is lower, both in proportion to the population and in relation to the number of animals, than either England or Scotland. There is a threefold need for an increase in the number of veterinary surgeons in Wales: first, because so many of the farms are in remote, upland, hilly districts which take a long time to reach and to travel around; secondly, there is the need for veterinary surgeons trained in the particular problems of the large range of distinctive types of Welsh animals; and thirdly, in order to discuss problems with the farmers, it is essential to have an ample supply of Welsh speaking veterinary surgeons.

At the same time, there is in Wales great enthusiasm and keenness for the advancement of animal health, and for progress in the cure and prevention of animal diseases. Perhaps I should say here that in the competition of the Royal Agricultural Society of England for the eradication of bovine diseases, for the last two years both the first and second places have been won by Welsh counties. True, they were counties in the South of Wales, but I rejoice in their success.

The University of Wales has, of course, a well known research department in animal life. That brings me to the position of the universities. The Bill gives the universities an important position in relation to the new Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons; it contemplates the existing colleges becoming parts of the universities in the case of Edinburgh and London, and it contemplates the setting up of courses in veterinary surgery by other univerities—Cambridge, Glasgow and Bristol are the ones named in the Bill. In the transitional period the universities of Edinburgh, London, Cambridge, Glasgow and Bristol—and, in addition, the University of Liverpool—are to have power forthwith to nominate members of the new Royal College before any draft orders are made under the Bill.

We feel rather keenly that the University of Wales has been left out, in spite of all the circumstances I have described. I understand that the provisions of the Bill follow the second Loveday Committee Report, which recommended new veterinary faculties at Cambridge, Bristol and Glasgow, but did not cover the University of Wales. But that Report caused a great outcry in the Principality among local authorities, the Farmers' Union, and the Welsh Parliamentary Party. Although, as the Minister rightly says, ultimately there is full provision for bringing all universities ultimately into the picture, we do think that there should be some recognition now of the needs of Wales, of the keenness in Wales, and of the plans now being made, by immediately giving the University of Wales the power of nomination conferred by Clause 12.

I do not think it is an argument against that to say that there is at present no faculty. After all, Clause 12 provides that in the case of the Universities of Bristol, Cambridge and Glasgow the relevant condition is that the universities should establish qualifying courses in the research field. There is no reason why the University of Wales cannot be put in the same position. I do not want to develop that any further now. It is essentially a Committee point. But I give notice that I shall raise it at a later stage, and I hope the Minister will then give the matter his most sympathetic consideration. That is all I have to say at present, with the exception of a rather special point. I noticed that this Bill exempts members of the Royal College and persons registered in the Supplementary Register from jury service. I think that on the whole that is a good thing. While no one disputes the value of jury service, veterinary surgeons should not be taken away from essential work perhaps on remote farms even in order to perform jury service.

11.58 a.m.

I, too, should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on having brought this Bill to the House. It has taken rather a long time, but better late than never. I am sure everybody will agree on the extent and the importance of this problem, especially when we realise that in this country we have only 94 veterinary surgeons per million head of cattle population, whilst other countries are much better off. I do not know whether the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) realises or accepts that. Denmark has 148 veterinary surgeons per million head of cattle; and in Switzerland, where the milk is so splendid, the number is 247.

Everybody realises that it is of the greatest possible importance that we should recruit people to this profession as quickly as we can, and that we should raise the status of the profession, which is one of the best ways of recruitment. For a very long time I have thought that one of the reasons why young men and women are not anxious to go into the profession of veterinary surgeon is because it has not a university status. If a family is prepared to give a boy the long and expensive training necessary to qualify for this work, the boy will probably move among a group of young men who will be going to the university and he looks forward to university life, and all that university life can give him. He is not likely to choose Camden Town when he might go to Cambridge. That seems to me one of the reasons why many boys and girls are reluctant to enter this profession, and I am very glad to see that we are now establishing university faculties.

In view of the importance and urgency of this question for the animal population itself, do not let us make the mistake we made in the National Health Service Act, which we thought of as an Act mainly concerned with doctors and only secondarily with their patients. We must not think that this is a Bill only for veterinary surgeons. This Bill is as much for the sick animals as it is for the veterinary surgeons. Because of this, and because of the question of food production—the figure quoted from the Loveday Report, of £32 million wasted every year because of disease in our animals, is terrible— because of the figures I gave earlier the suggestion that we should raise recruitment only to 220 veterinary surgeons a year is pitiful.

Another important aspect of this problem is the effect that animal disease has upon disease in human beings. I should like to refer particularly to non-pulmonary tuberculosis in children. For a very large part of my professional career I was engaged in looking after children who suffered from bone, joint and gland tuberculosis; 8o per cent. of this crippling and disabling disease is directly traceable to bovine infection. We know that 40 per cent. of our milk herds suffer from bovine tuberculosis.

That is a pure guess.

It is not a pure guess at all. Everybody knows it is true. The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) has told us that in Wales there are only two clean counties.

No, the hon. Lady is completely misrepresenting me. I said that two Welsh counties had won the first and second prizes in a competition.

Exactly: there are two completely clean counties, and the rest are below that standard.

That is quite a wrong deduction.

In Scotland, only Ayrshire is completely clean. How many completely clean herds are there in this country? Do not let us minimise this problem, for goodness sake.

The very fact that the problem is so glaring is one of the reasons we have this Bill before us this morning. My own nephew's parents had to be called urgently to his public school because he, a perfectly healthy lad, had to undergo an immediate operation on glands in his stomach entirely due to a milk infection. Speaking as one who has been connected with delicate school children for a very long period of my professional career, I feel that the necessity for cleaning up our herds is one of the most important reasons for this Bill. We should hurry up and get as many veterinary surgeons as possible; clean up our herds; have tuberculin-tested herds everywhere; not so that two counties in Wales can win first and second prizes, but so that we have nothing but clean tuberculin-tested milking herds. That from my point of view and interest is one of the first and most important things that we have to do, and is one of the greatest reasons for the recruitment of many more veterinary surgeons in this country.

For a moment I must turn to the question of the Supplementary Register. One or two points have been made about it already this morning. It is a matter which all professions have to face when they, so to speak, clean up their profession. In my own profession we have recently done that, and the unqualified teacher has been treated very generously, in the same way as the unqualified veterinary practitioner has been treated. In this particular kind of work I think there is room for two types of practitioner, if I may use that word for the moment. Just as in the medical profession there are nurses and doctors and in the teaching profession there are qualified teachers and contributory staffs. As far as many of those doing welfare work among animals are concerned, it is going rather a long way to say that even in 10 years' time we must have dispensaries, for the sick animals of poor people, entirely staffed by fully qualified practitioners. I think that is asking too much. I could set a dog's leg, and I suppose everybody else in this House has done something of that kind for their own animals.

I agree it is most important that for big operations and diagnoses there should be a fully qualified surgeon available to every dispensary for sick animals. But I think that in these institutions, run almost entirely on charitable funds, for the sick animals of poor people, it is not necessary to have 100 per cent. fully qualified staff; we should recognise that a different type of trained staff can do much of the work entailed. What is more, in view of the great importance of farm animals and the need for looking after them, I do not know how long we shall have to wait if we also expect that everybody who works in an animal dispensary must be a fully qualified veterinary surgeon. But having said much, I also firmly express my view that we must have qualified people for diagnoses and for serious operations on sick animals.

I now wish to emphasise the point made by the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York), because I have a great deal of sympathy with his point of view, which I believe is the point of view of the veterinary surgeons themselves. I thought that the Chancellor Committee suggested that the people on the Supplementary Register should be called "Registered Animal Practitioners." That, I think, was the actual recommendation. Now, I do not see why we should regard that as being either foolish or bad English. After all, "animal" in that respect is used adjectivally, and is not, therefore, bad English. If we want to be so precious about it, all we need to do is to put in an apostrophe "s" in order to make it good English. It would not perhaps be quite so suave; but if we are to have difficulty over this question there is that way out. I am quite sure that we must not lose the sympathy and good will of this great and honourable profession over a small thing like that.

I have had letters, not from the Royal Society, but from a great many practitioners who know of my interest in the matter of sick animals, who declare that they have been told they will wreck the Bill if they do not give way on this point. That is sheer nonsense, and I do not think any official of the Ministry could have said anything so irresponsible. If it has been said, I hope my right hon. Friend will withdraw it this morning. I know that is a Committee point, but it is one in which the profession has a profound interest, not only to guard their own status —an important thing if we are to get the required recruitment to the profession—but also to guard the public against confusion between the qualified and the unqualified person. After all, "practitioner" is the wider term, and includes the surgeon. If good English is wanted we should not give the wider term to the unqualified man and the select, narrow term to the qualified man. I think we shall be able to get over the difficulty of this point, and in Committee we shall find a way in which to perfect the Bill.

This is a Bill which is long overdue. This is a case in which to save money is to waste money. I thought the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough should have been a great deal more forthcoming about the amount of money that we need to spend, particularly in the direction mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Bradford (Mr. Titterington), that of scholarships to poor boys and girls who want to enter this profession. When we want teachers we give grants for their training. We must give grants for the training of people who want to enter the service of the animal kingdom of our country. I am sure this Bill, which is already a good Bill, can be greatly improved in Committee and I give it a very warm welcome.

12.10 p.m.

Like my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank) and others of my hon. Friends, I take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister on this Bill. It is a very great step forward in looking after animals and improving their health. I was pleased to hear the Minister say a good word for some of the unregistered practitioners. Many of them are unregistered through no fault of their own. They could not get the money to study for the scholarships in the old days, and many of them at the present moment are of necessity in the country districts. Not only are they highly skilled men, but they have a tremendous knowledge derived from practical experience. Whatever the controversy over their name, I hope they will get full encouragement and be able to carry on. They are a small and diminishing number.

There are one or two points which might be cleared up by the Parliamentary Secretary and which are hardly Committee points. Will men on the supplementary register be able to give certificates for soundness or certificates for death after a post mortem, which would be accepted by insurance companies? These are important points because they star-t from now on. Can those on the supplementary register make an examination for insurance companies? Can they go on carrying out tests for tuberculosis? As the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) said, clean milk is of vital importance. Will this new Bill make any difference with regard to the unregistered man being able to carry out T.B. tests, and so on? Will those on the supplementary register be allowed in the future to use the laboratory of the Royal College to get the latest information? Will they be able to get assistance in diagnosis? Will they be entitled to take into their practices a registered, fully qualified veterinary surgeon? Many of these men have sons who have been able to go through college and are qualified now, but at the present moment those sons are not allowed to work for their fathers. Will they be allowed to join their fathers in practice although the fathers are not fully qualified practitioners?

These points need to be cleared up in order to help not only the man who goes on to the supplementary register, but to help the farmer in the country district to know where he stands, as he may be called upon almost any time to call in a veterinary surgeon to make a report on some animal that is diseased. Who can he call in? Has he to give up calling in a man whom he has been calling in for years and must he now go to a fully qualified veterinary surgeon? Answers to these queries would greatly help the farmers of this country.

12.14 p.m.

I wish to add my words of welcome to those which have already been given to this Bill. It is giving due recognition to a profession which has engaged in a very difficult fight against animal diseases. The work in the past has been considered as much inferior to the work of the medical profession. Now that this work is being raised to university standard, I hope that that view will be moderated, because the work is no less difficult than the work in the medical profession. The inferiority which has been attributed to it has been due rather to the fact that it deals with animals instead of humans. In the task of combating diseases and the alleviation of pain it is no less merciful because it deals with animals and not with human beings. In fact, I venture to say that the work is very often more difficult because the animal cannot assist the doctor and very often is in opposition to his work. The range of veterinary surgery is not as wide as that of the medical profession, but that is because it is more merciful at times to destroy the animal than to try to save it. That is something which the medical profession cannot do.

Over the last 30 years tremendous strides have been made in this work. Milk fever, as I remember it as a boy, was in the majority of cases a fatal disease. Today death from milk fever is the exception. There are many other diseases which fall into the same line, but as one disease appears to be cleared another seems to rise. The future training and study of the veterinary profession must be directed more and more to preventive rather than to curative medicine, and the emphasis must be upon research into the causes and prevention of disease.

The veterinary profession is faced with a colossal task, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) said. Statistics show that something like £30 million per year are lost through animal diseases, but that, in my opinion, is on the low side. Figures have been quoted in various journals which show that £100 million is the figure for the year. That is a very big figure, but I do not think it is exaggerated, for if all the circumstances and all the facts of the diseases could be assessed it would reach that figure, because the £30 million which has been quoted is simply the effect of positive diseases, but none of what, for the want of a better term, I would call negative diseases. The effects of negative diseases in animals are very large indeed and I will only quote one—sterility in our dairy cattle. In an agricultural paper this week, I noticed the following statement:

I believe that we must develop a system of co-operation between the veterinary side in agriculture and the National Agriculture Advisory Service. It is often said that the source of disease is in the stomach. There is a great deal of truth in that. We shall have to determine in the future what relationship there is between disease in the animal and disease in the land. We have many questions to examine. I will put only one or two. We shall have to examine very closely whether there is any foundation for the statement that continuous artificial manuring of land produces weakness and disease in animals, as a large number of people claim. I do not know whether it is so or not. Facts are produced for and against. Those facts require the closest examination. If there is truth in the statement, it follows that disease will be carried not just to the bovine animal but to the human, because many vegetables are produced with artificial manures. Research will produce facts which we can follow.

I hope that the Government will be generous to the entrants into the profession. If it is true, as many agriculturists and veterinary surgeons assert, that the animal loss in disease is worth from £30 million to £100 million per year, it is a good investment for the Government to be generous with as many students as they can possibly find to put into the profession, and to give them the greatest possible encouragement. We all know something about the unqualified man. He has been of great service to agriculture in the past. The little difficulty with which he is confronted now in the Bill will be overcome. It does not matter what we call him in the Bill—he has always been known as "the vet," and so long as he comes to the farm to attend the diseases of animals he will always be known as "the vet," irrespective of whatever name he is given on his doorplate or in the Bill.

At the same time, I am glad that elimination is coming about, because we shall gradually lift up the standard of the profession by it. Where we are breaking new ground there will always be fellows to be looked after until we have come to the end of them. The unqualified man has served a great purpose in the past. What he lacks in scholastic knowledge he certainly possesses in experience. We who have many times had the value of his experience feel that we should deal with him in a generous manner.

This Bill raises the standard of the profession and it can do tremendous good. As to women coming into the profession, they are already there, and are doing as well in the veterinary profession as they have done in every other profession. We welcome them. I feel sure that, as a result of the Bill, the status of the men and women in the profession will be raised and that tremendous good will come to agriculture from it.

12.27 p.m.

I join with other hon. Members who have welcomed the introduction of the Bill. After the comprehensive discussion that we have had I will confine my remarks to one or two points only. I am sure that it will be of immense advantage to the profession that it has been able, under the guidance of the Minister, to consoli- date its educational arrangements. I am particularly glad to see that the universities are coming into the new organisation, and that they have been content to keep the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons as the governing body of the profession. I am certain that proper professional development is not possible in any profession until it has a governing body directed by its own elected practitioners. It has always been the fashion in this country in professional organisations to put the profession under the guidance of its own elected heads. I am sure that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons will be strengthened by the continuation of their Council in authority.

Among the early Clauses of the Bill I draw attention to a minor, but possibly important, omission from Clause 2. The provisions of the Clause are directed to terminating recognition of the degree of a university when the Privy Council are satisfied that the standard has fallen away. Students in a particular university will be there for three, four or five years, taking their courses. It will be particularly important, if the recognition of their university is withdrawn under the procedure of Clause 2, that it shall be done without prejudice to students who have already been accepted on the understanding that they get their degree and are registered. I hope that the Minister will look at this matter. He may find that it will be possible to deal with it by administrative action. However, the matter is probably of sufficient importance for there to be some safeguarding provision in the Clause itself.

The other two provisions of the Bill to which I should like to draw attention are those relating to the restriction of practice and those relating to the name, because the two things must be looked at as one. They are quite clearly part of a general settlement within the veterinary world. Those Fellows or Members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons who are concerned because a number of unqualified practitioners are coming in must remember that that is the price they are paying for closing the door behind those practitioners and thereby enormously enhancing in the years to come the status and scope of their profession.

The difficulties which have arisen over the name or title for these people ought to be looked at by all veterinary surgeons on that basis, that it is a small price to pay to a very few people—only 400 or 500 probably—in order to get the veterinary profession once and for all put on a fully satisfactory basis. As the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) has said, I would agree that the name itself does not matter because these people are certainly going to be called "vets" whether the law says they are veterinary surgeons, veterinary practitioners or animal practitioners. That is the convenient common phrase.

In connection with the restriction of practice, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) has drawn my attention to some correspondence which he has had which raises a question of some importance. The First Schedule to the Bill contains a list of treatment and operations which may be given or carried out by unqualified persons. My hon. Friend has had his attention drawn to the fact that there is no provision in the Schedule for various forms of electrical treatment to be given to animals. In particular, he has had his attention drawn to work in this field which is being carried out by a physio-therapist. This physiotherapist is primarily concerned with the treatment of human beings but he has discovered that the treatment applied to human beings in the field of electro-therapy is extremely effective in the case of animals.

Is not that point met in line 18 of the First Schedule in which reference is made to the destruction of any animal by painless methods?

This is for reviving animals, not destroying them.

This is not the electric shock. It is not the successful operation where the patient dies. It is electrotherapy with a high likelihood that the patient will survive and benefit. That is a point which has not been in the minds of those responsible for drafting the Bill and is something which the Minister might very well look at. I will see that particulars of this matter are brought to his attention, and it may well be that in the First Schedule provision can be made whereby electrical treatment given by people possessing the appropriate qualifications can be given without the necessity for the person giving the treatment to be registered under the Bill. Having drawn attention to these points, which merit further thought by the Minister, I join with the other hon. Members in welcoming the Bill.

12.35 p.m.

I would like to add a short welcome to the Bill. I am glad that it has come to us at last. Eighteen months ago I asked a Question as to when the Chancellor Report would be implemented, and so I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning), who said that the Government have been a little tardy. The Government might have been better employed in bringing in this Bill a little sooner rather than trying to curtail the powers of the House from which it has come. Nevertheless, we have it, and it is an extremely good Bill.

However, I have one other small criticism. All the good points of this Bill will be lost unless we get the "vets." It is like training an excellent Test Team to go to Australia and then finding that we have only five players. Without the "vets" the Bill will not be as good as it should be. There is great and urgent reason for requiring more veterinary surgeons at once. As the Minister said, under the Animals Bill for eradicating tuberculosis more "vets" are wanted, and more are also wanted for the annual licensing of stallions under that Bill. There is also the Government's policy for increasing livestock, which is extremely important if we are to live at all in the next 20 or 30 years, and more "vets" are also required for the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals of the Poor. It has been estimated that disease among livestock costs £30 million a year, but no one knows if that is exceeded or not. It is true that the life of a cow is estimated at only four and a half years, or, as the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) put it, three lactations, which is roughly the same thing. There are also human lives to be considered which must be affected by the health of animals.

In spite of all these vital and necessary requirements for "vets," only 150 new ones are coming out each year at present. I did a little mathematics last night and find that if there are 5,000 registered "vets" in the country at the moment, supposing they all averaged 30 years of useful service to the community, the death rate alone would require more than 150 every year. It is hoped to step this up to as many as 220, but I believe 320 or even 400 would be far nearer the mark. I would like to know a little more about what further assistance will be given. What is the number of scholarships given to enable people with slender means to obtain proper veterinary training? I do not often encourage the Government to spend, but I have asked them to spend money in the past in buying raw materials to be made into the finished article here and sold at a profit to the country. For the same reason I urge the Government to spend money on the training of veterinary surgeons because I know it to be an economic proposition, just as it is to buy raw materials.

As to the unqualified veterinary surgeons who will be on the Supplementary Register, I do not know how many there are at present, but however many there are, that small number will be very valuable to the community. We must help to raise their standard of efficiency and do all we can to encourage them to improve their science. The hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown) asked very important questions about how they will be helped. Are they to be allowed the full use of the Government's research institutes at Cambridge, Reading and other places? The Minister did say that they were to be able to get drugs and sera and vaccines of all sorts, but we would like to know about the institutions and if they will be able to use them, and also about partnerships—if a father will be able to take his son in, although he is only on the Supplementary Register.

This is a good Bill and I think it has been most carefully put together. In all ways it is very fair to those concerned, but if it is to be the success it deserves to be, we must take every possible step to increase the number of applicants.

12.40 p.m.

One has listened in the last few years to so much legislation brought forward in this House which one has felt the country could do better without, that it is extremely pleasant to take an interest in a Bill of this kind. I add my congratulations to the Minister on the Bill being so clear and well drafted and non-party, with one reservation which I will refer to in a minute or two. There has been so much said about the need for this Bill that I do not want to go into that to any great extent. Every time I go abroad I come back to this country feeling that, in spite of some of the inflictions which we have to bear at the present time, this is the best country in the world to live in. But there is no question about it that in some ways we are almost shamefully behind some other countries, and one of those ways is in our veterinary organisation.

Various hon. Members have called attention to the difference between the veterinary organisation in this country and in other countries. They have also called attention to our terrific losses from sterility, contagious abortion and mastitis and to those herds riddled with tuberculosis which add to our bill for medicine and human misery. There is no question at all that to the extent that those diseases are preventible both in animals and in the human diseases that may follow, the veterinary service plays a very important part in our national economy. Several hon. Members had referred to the number of 220 in the Love-day Report. I agree with the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) that that number is nothing like enough. I have recently been wandering about Africa and I was told, both in the Union and in Southern Rhodesia, that they require many specialists there, and particularly "vets." Therefore we want "vets" for our teaching staffs, for research, for our farms in this country, the Empire and the Dominions, and for Government services. I think that the target of 220, which after all is the target only in five years' time, is nothing like big enough. That brings us to the question how we are to get the men.

I feel that this Bill will give a new status to the profession which will attract the right young men. It will encourage the profession to organise itself as a sister profession to the medical profession. There is no question that today many of our young men want new fields to conquer. The horizon of opportunity is shrinking in many directions. That fine service, the Indian Civil, is closed once and for all. So is the Indian Army, the Indian Navy, the Burma and Ceylon Services and the Palestine Police. In the veterinary profession our best youngsters will be offered dangerous reefs to chart, new fields to explore, and even dragons to slay. They may well feel that, by going in for this job of trying to give some security and comfort to millions of animals, and thereby to millions of human beings, they are taking up a very fine career.

I hope that the great universities that are being brought in will tackle their new task with enthusiasm. Our universities are inclined to regard anything new with some suspicion. I hope that they will not seek to relegate their new responsibility for veterinary teaching to the position of a sort of poor relation taken in on charity—to the attic. I hope they will not bring veterinary science into one of the existing faculties, but will establish a new faculty for veterinary science and also acquire the necessary farms for practical experience and research.

That, of course, means money, and we shall have to find the money. I, like so many other hon. Members on this side of the House, do not like suggesting to the Government that they should spend more money—we are already spending far more than we possess—but in this case it is an A.1 investment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bring that home to the Treasury, and that he will point out that money spent on our veterinary services will pay large dividends to the country in due course.

I would refer to the vexed question of the unqualified practitioner, which is dealt with in Clauses 6 and 8. I agree with the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) that although the Minister said that these Clauses were best dealt with on Committee stage, it is a very big question and it is reasonable to deal with it during a Second Reading Debate. There is so much feeling about it in the profession that the Bill to this extent is being brought forward in the wrong atmosphere. I feel, therefore, that it is right that it should be referred to now. I find that many of my veterinary friends are very annoyed with the Council of their college for giving way to the Minister on the question of the name of the unqualified practitioner. They are almost as annoyed as are some of my doctor friends with the B.M.A. for climbing down in front of the Minister of Health.

As has been pointed out by several hon. Members, we require the unqualified men today in every direction. Some of them are first-class men and others are not so good. But there is a great deal in this name. The word "veterinary" does not come very easily to the tongue. It is not like "dentist" or "doctor." If the word "veterinary" appears anywhere in the description of an unqualified person there is no doubt that he will be called "the vet." I do not think he should be called a "vet." My reason for feeling so strongly about this is mainly on the question of bringing in a really good young intake. They will be frightened off if they find all sorts of unqualified people carrying on jobs for which they themselves need to be trained for five or six years.

May I make two brief suggestions to the Minister? Among the unqualified practitioners there are some first-class people, men who have gained experience over many years. I wonder if it would be possible to establish a board at the Royal College which as a once-and-for-all measure could admit these really first-class unqualified men as honorary members of the College on the full Register. That kind of thing has often been done. In my own corps, Royal Signals, many officers were given the honorary degree of A.M.I.E.E. by the Institute of Electrical Engineers without passing any examination, but merely because they had had certain practical engineering experience in wartime. The College might bring a few of the best unqualified men in on those lines.

In regard to the less qualified men and the definite quacks, why not call them farriers? The history of veterinary science is that the London Veterinary College, established in 1791, made veterinary surgery the science and art of college trained men. Before that the title "farrier" had been used for the craft of veterinary practice which had succeeded the title of "marshalcy" in the time of the Tudors. The title "farrier" for practitioner to sick animals was actually adopted in 1451 by Act 33 of Henry VIII. I do not see why the Minister should not consider revising and bringing into use that fine old English description for the unqualified practitioner.

12.52 p.m.

:I suppose it is quite natural that Tories should welcome this Bill establishing as it does another trade union, although, of course, with conditions less rigid than some of those in modern trade unions. Having been responsible for legalising the trade associations now known as trade unions, it is comforting to note that the Socialist Government are following our example, and I trust that this union will be as useful as others have proved in the past.

The veterinary profession has been fighting and planning for this Bill for the last 15 years. It is the culmination of a tremendous amount of work, effort and research. While over-delayed and far too late in its inception, we now have a Bill which, in the general opinion of the House, will do the job for which it is designed. Whether it will do it sufficiently soon, or provide the veterinary surgeons in sufficient numbers are, I think, the only questions open to doubt. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will agree that it has been greatly assisted and benefited by its passage through another place. We are all accustomed now to regard that process as natural, and recent experience has confirmed us in that view. Yet, despite efforts in another place, and despite the Government's good intentions, there are one or two points on which the Bill is not yet perfect, and one or two ways in which it can be bettered.

I do not criticise the standards of education required for admission to the Royal Veterinary College, which I think are quite admirable. I entirely agree with the duties attached to the Council, and I cannot find any fault with the process of registration. Three things have been secured: the position of the practising surgeons has been safeguarded, protection is given to those who have served with His Majesty's Forces throughout the war, and they lose nothing, and, thirdly, anyone who is hurt or dissatisfied with the decision of the Council to refuse his application has the right of appeal to the High Court. That is one of the more beneficial provisions in the Measure.

In Clause 7, however, there is distinct room for improvement. In referring to this Clause, I am speaking on behalf of a number of large societies whose chief interest is the care and protection of animals. That applies only to the remarks I am now about to make. They think, and I agree, that there should be some words incorporated in Clause 7 giving authority to such societies to have their unqualified employees, whose sole duties are, and have been, ministration to sick and injured animals, included in the Supplementary Register. Practically every animal clinic throughout the country is manned by an unqualified practitioner. All the mobile ambulances are manned by unqualified practitioners, of course under supervision by qualified veterinary surgeons.

These men have given many years of their lives to this service and have gained tremendous knowledge and experience in doing so. The average poor person whose animal is so eagerly brought to the clinic or travelling dispensary is happy to have the knowledge and capacity that these men so fully place at their disposal. I believe it would be wise to insert definite words in the Clause in order to give guidance to the Council of the Royal College when considering such applications and also to obviate unnecessary and probably expensive appeals to the High Court in cases of refusal. It would be a good thing, if it is the intention of the Government to allow these unqualified men to come on to the Supplementary Register, to put in some definite words to that effect.

Also, in Clause 7, it is not made clear on what grounds the Minister may decide that qualified veterinary surgeons are not available. The trouble is that none of our great animal societies could possibly afford a qualified veterinary surgeon to look after each of their clinics or travelling dispensaries and they have to rely on so-called unqualified men. We all recognise that this is a transitional period and we hope that eventually the Supplementary Register will die away because it is no longer necessary when all this vast instrument for training, education, and producing more veterinary surgeons fulfils its full purpose. But, in the transitional period, which may last 10 or 15 years, I suggest that the unqualified man be given definite status and not have to act merely by virtue of a licence. That does not place him in a sufficiently strong position with those who come to him for help and rely on him for guidance.

These may be quite small points, but if they are cleared up in the Debate today, comfort would be given to these great societies which do so much to ameliorate the lives of our domestic animals. I think the disciplinary side, which is very important, is adequately controlled, and the penalties are not excessive. As to the composition of the Council, there is only one other point which arises, and that concerns the qualifications and the type of people to supply the additional four members to be nominated by the Privy Council. The Minister must have something in his mind on this matter, and, while we all have the utmost confidence in the discrimination and judgment of the Privy Council, it would be interesting to the House to know what is in the Minister's mind in regard to these appointments.

Clause 12 of the Bill deals with the rights of the universities to appoint members of the Council. As a Scottish Member, I am somewhat concerned about the method of these appointments to the Council by the universities. We are told that Liverpool is to have two, and yet Edinburgh and Glasgow only get one each. In Edinburgh, we have the finest veterinary college in Britain, the Royal Dick, and in Glasgow there is the Royal Glasgow Veterinary College. Although I am very proud of it, I do not know whether the fact that Ayrshire is the only county in Britain which is absolutely clean is due to the high quality of veterinary surgeons produced by the Edinburgh and Glasgow colleges, so I suggest that some explanation is needed as to why these universities should have only one member on the Council when Liverpool has two.

I am glad to note that, when a member is removed from the Register, he has a right of appeal to the High Court. That provision was eliminated in some previous Measure of this kind, and it caused a great deal of unhappiness, so I am glad to see that it has been rectified in this Measure. But I have one question to put on this subject. What about restoration for those removed from the Register? So far as I can discover, there is no mention of it in the Bill, yet machinery exists, under other great Acts dealing with the registration of architects, doctors and dentists, by which restoration can be effected. I think some machinery should be inserted in this Bill to secure the same ends.

Those are all the comments I wish to make on this Bill, and, apart from them, I give it a general and almost unqualified welcome. I trust that it will have the effect of raising the status and efficiency of this very fine profession, to which the country owes so much for its magnificent services both in peace and in war.

1.3 p.m.

There is no need for me to follow my hon. and gallant Friend in the points he has raised, either in regard to Scotland, which is one of the most important areas of our agricultural production, the Scottish universities or the great animal societies, which have also done most valuable work. My hon. and gallant Friend has put these points with the clarity and distinction which he always shows in this House, as well with the kindliness and commonsense which always comes from Tory Members.

It is a very great pleasure today to find myself being able to speak on behalf of the Government in this kindly atmosphere which now surrounds us after the rather difficult and torpid position of not many hours ago. As I propose to deal with one or two points in the Bill, may I, in the first place, say how much I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will succeed in carrying this Measure through, and also express the opinion that anything he can do to gain strength against the greatest enemy of agriculture today—the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—he will do, and that he can appeal to the House for help and that we will help him in his fight?

Clause 5 raises an extremely difficult point in regard to the name for people known as unqualified "vets." The veterinary surgeon who has once practised, if he has done well and continues to live in the same district, will always be known as a "vet." We may call him any "blinking" thing we like, but the fact is that he will still remain a "vet" in the country districts. As one who has had more occasion to use these "vets" than most in this House, I should like to pay a tribute to them from all of us who are farmers, and say that we owe a terrific debt to them and to their profession for what they have done in the last few years. They have made a great contribution to our national and country life, and I am rather sorry that more hon. Members have not paid a real tribute to what they have done in the same way as it was paid not long ago by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Totnes (Brigadier Rayner).

I feel sure that, on this question of name, the common sense which the Minister shows—and he has undoubtedly received inspiration from another place—will help in building up a service of those newly trained veterinary surgeons with no actual experience apart from training. and dovetail them into that highly qualified section of the profession which has great knowledge and experience. We cannot breed veterinary surgeons like we can rabbits. There are a large number of people who think that we have only to get up and say that we want more "vets," and that we can get them, but we cannot do it like that. This is a profession in which the men engaged must have a natural interest in and inclination for the job. We cannot even breed them like we do civil servants. At the present time, there is nothing like the number of "vets" that we need, and the Government will have the fullest support from all hon. Members in their efforts to meet that need.

May I now emphasise two points which have already been made? The first is one which was made so clearly and ably by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) concerning the value of pedigree cattle for export. In this matter, we have reached a very high standard, but I would emphasise that it is not just a matter of building up for a few years but over many generations. Anything we can do in this Bill to improve the physical quality of these cattle, by using the services of the veterinary surgeon not only in keeping them alive but in improving their stamina, is to the good, but there is also the point, which I think has not been made that, where one of these valuable pedigree animals is concerned, if it is attended by a veterinary surgeon when an accident occurs, there is often a much better chance of saving its life. One of the great difficulties with which farmers have to contend at the present time is caused by innumerable people travelling around in motor coaches and throwing glass bottles about, which causes a great deal of work for the "vet." An immense amount of other work is also caused by the carelessness of these people.

The last point which I have to make is in connection with the development of these colleges. It is proposed that we should have one at Bristol, which is hardly an agricultural centre. It would be very valuable if it could he placed in the best agricultural country of the whole world, which is Devon, and Exeter university used. It is a natural centre for the training of countrymen, much more so than Bristol can ever be.

I must emphasise the importance of agricultural research. Today the average dairy cow has only three or four periods of what is known as lactation. If these animals had a stronger constitution the figure should be at least seven or eight. This represents a terrific loss in milk and animal life and is the cause of one of agriculture's biggest losses. This is a matter into which I could go at considerable length. I have some remote knowledge of breeding cattle and other things and can emphasise the urgency of this problem.

May I say how glad I am to be able to help the Government in this Bill? I congratulate the Minister on the work he is doing in this field but must warn him to be very careful after some of the things we have heard in the last 24 hours. If the present Chancellor goes on much longer, as he did last night, the Minister will not only find himself at the end of the queue but will run the risk of finding himself on the shelf, and I very much hope that will not happen.

1.12 p.m.

In recent times the veterinary profession have found themselves at loggerheads with the Minister of Agriculture, but today I think we can congratulate both the leaders of that profession and the Minister in having brought to Parliament a Measure which will serve the best interests of the agricultural community, who live by breeding and managing livestock, and the human community, who depend for their food on the products of those labours. The House can feel well satisfied that we are helping forward a small but much overworked profession.

Just how small is the veterinary profession may be judged from the figure mentioned today, that the output from veterinary colleges is no more than 150 recruits a year. That is a small recruitment for any profession. It was suggested in the reports which have been quoted that the proposals we are discussing for encouraging universities to provide veterinary training opens wider the door; that they will allow an annual output of trained "vets" up to a figure of 220 a year. I fully agree with my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite who have urged the Minister to think in much bigger terms even than 220. Looking, ahead over the next 10 years, if no further, I am quite sure that we in this country and in the Empire will need an annual output of trained veterinary surgeons of 500 a year.

I have recently been in East Africa where the Colonial Office employs a number of veterinary surgeons trained in this country. The surgeons there do much more than those in this country; they have charge of all the livestock husbandry under the Colonial Office service. Not only are the British Colonies crying out for more veterinary surgeons; we need them here, and urgently, to press ahead with cleaning up our dairy herds and bringing them under the attested herds scheme. There will be full employment for at least 500 new recruits each year over the next 10 years.

Indeed, we shall not be able to pursue the plans for cleaning up our dairy herds and ensuring a purer and safer milk supply for our people unless we get more veterinary surgeons to ensure that this cleaning up is carried through satisfactorily. When the Minister goes to the Treasury as result of the current examination of the question of grants to universities working the scheme, I hope he will be more ambitious and think not in terms of merely 220 entrants into the profession each year, but of a figure nearer to 500. We want these surgeons both here and in the Empire. Healthy livestock can add greatly to the sum of human happiness at home and in the Colonies.

We have heard a good deal this morning about the unqualified man. I am not quite clear whether it is a new departure to allow the unqualified man to use the word "veterinary" in describing himself. The Bill suggests he should be put on to a supplementary register under the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and be able to call himself a veterinary practitioner. He cannot do that today, neither can he call himself a veterinary surgeon, but can he use the word "veterinary" in describing himself? if the Parliamentary Secretary can give an indication on this point it will help to clear our minds as to whether any new advantage is, in fact, being given to unqualified men, or whether we are trying to tidy up what must be an increasingly more difficult position as we get more recruits through the qualifying channels of the universities.

Unqualified men will be a disappearing class. Clause 6 hedges them round sufficiently; there can be no new entrants, and only those already in practice at the age of 28, who have practised for seven out of the past 1o years and are of good repute and so on, who can come on to the supplementary register. The entrants into that register are fully covered in Clause 6, but I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us whether the unqualified man can today use the word "veterinary" or whether we are conferring a new privilege on him.

I endorse what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown) about the need for giving to unqualified men who are accepted on to the Supplementary Register the full means to do the best possible job for the farming community—that is to say, giving them access to research institutes and such other facilities as are provided through the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. We are very short of man power in this profession; these men are experienced—perhaps not fully qualified by examination, but experienced nevertheless—and we need to use their services to the full. There is a great field of endeavour ahead for the veterinary profession and we wish the Ministry of Agriculture, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the universities all success in their efforts to raise the status and the numbers of this vital profession.

1.19 p.m.

I ought to begin by saying how pleasing it is to take part in this Debate, in which a Bill of such importance has been welcomed in all quarters of the House. My pleasure in this only serves to increase the gratitude and pleasure which I feel to those Members who have stayed to the end to support me in replying to the comments made by so many of our colleagues who have had to leave us. I will try to deal with the number of points which have been raised.

The main issue is that of the title to be used by the unqualified man, and I will deal with that in due course. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), who opened the Debate, on the whole welcomed the Bill, as most other speakers have done since. He raised a point which other hon. Members have since raised and to which the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) referred, and that was whether we are setting our sights high enough, whether in fact we are aiming too low and whether we should have taken a figure of 500 instead of 200.

On that point I would say—and this gives me an opportunity of mentioning a personal experience—that I had the very great privilege of sitting for some period under Dr. Loveday on the Loveday Committee. I know the extraordinary thoroughness with which he approached this question of what field there was and how many people we could really bring in. I know from personal experience how very reluctant he was to seem to hold out hope to many ambitious young men which they might grasp, only to find, when the young men had trained themselves at great expense, that the market was not as wide as they had been led to believe That is an important point.

We should not set our sights too low, however, and it may well be that the demand for veterinary surgeons not only will not be met in the next ten years, but that veterinary surgeons will be increasingly in demand. It will be noted that this Bill gives power to authorise new universities if the existing universities, which we are bringing in, cannot meet the need. It seems to us, and clearly it seemed to the Loveday Committee, that the right thing to do is to make the best estimate of the requirement that could be met as people become qualified. They examined the possibilities of teaching in the immediate future and then gave the best estimate they could of the number we could reasonably get and the number for whom decent posts could be found, either here or in the Colonial Service. The figure of 220 has been reached after very considerable examination of this sort of factor, and it seems to us that it would be a mistake, in order to be ambitious, or in order to get ourselves into trouble with the Treasury—which seemed to be a view held elsewhere—arbitrarily to raise the figure for no other purpose than that.

There is one other point which was raised and which perhaps closes this part of the discussion; there is no difficulty at present in getting new recruits or in persuading good youngsters to come along and take the training. The limiting factor is capacity. In fact, if this Bill helps at all it will help in increasing the capacity and will thus enable us to push the figure immediately up to 220; and there is no reason why, as we develop, we should not use the powers in the Bill to make new universities, thus increasing the capacity even further.

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of numbers, will he say whether he has considered the requirements of the Dominions and the Empire? Has he considered what these requirements may be in arriving at the target?

My right hon. Friend and the Loveday Committee certainly gave very great attention to the situation in the Colonial and Commonwealth services, and what the demand would be, and what we should be aiming to meet in that respect. That was one of the considerations.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Bradford (Mr. Titterington), who has now left, made a point about the entry of women into the profession. The position under this Bill, as in all others, is that "man" embraces "woman," except where otherwise stated, and there is nothing in this Bill which raises a sex bar, nor, indeed, does a sex bar exist. In fact, the Department employs a few women veterinary surgeons and there is no reason why that practice should not be extended. On the other hand, it must be known that the enthusiasm of farmers for women in this field has a little distance to go before women are fully accepted, and that, perhaps, is the limiting difficulty. The hon. Member for South Bradford also raised the point, as I believe did the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) of making it possible for folk of limited means to get the necessarily long and expensive training in this field. The only answer I make to that is that the normal scholarship arrangements and subsistence schemes apply in this field as in other fields of education, and that there are, moreover, a limited number of scholarships specially given for this special purpose by the Animal Trust which serve to supplement the other field.

May I make this suggestion? Would the hon. Member urge great local authorities, like the London County Council, to give special scholarships for the veterinary surgeons where they do not do so already? That would help.

I will certainly think about the point which the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) has raised and see what can be done about it. The hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) asked me a question—to which faculty does the Ministry think the veterinary science schools in the universities should be attached? There are many fields in which I should not become involved and this, I should have thought, was the outstanding one. Later, we had another hon. Member who made a statement as to what he thought was the answer, which was that it should be a faculty of its own and not be attached to any other faculty. I understand that in one case—I am not quite sure and I shall not, therefore, name the university—it has been attached to the medical faculty. In other cases negotiations are going on. This seems to us very much the sort of thing which will be decided by proper discussions between the people concerned.

The hon. and gallant Member for Totnes (Brigadier Rayner) raised a point to which most hon. Members have referred from time to time, and that was the question of the title we are to give to the unqualified man. This is a difficult thing. The Bill is seeking to do two things. First and foremost—and this is the important thing—it seeks to extend the field of veterinary education. That is its big job—so to extend the field that we get more and more thoroughly qualified people coming in. The second feature is to bring to an end the situation in which unqualified men may, in fact, practise. I emphasise that. The hon. and gallant Member for Totnes was inclined to talk about discouragement, and I think he said this would discourage young entrants because they would come in and find all sorts of people practising all over the field.

The very existence of the Bill seeks to prevent that from ever again being the case. It will bring to an end once and for all the practice of veterinary science by unqualified men. If we are to do that all over the field, and if we are to have a closed shop or something of the kind, it is as important to be fair to the people who are in the field as it is to do anything else. The hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown) took up the same point, as to how far we could do this job properly and at the same time be thoroughly fair, even to the point of being generous, to the people who are already in the field, many of whom have done a very good job of work. I am sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Epping is not here. She and I have disagreed on this issue before. I believe there is no one so unkind to his fellow worker as is the professional person on the subject of professional standards—he can be very hard and very unfriendly, and I think the hon. Lady for Epping approached near to that here; it can occur where a professional man is setting himself up at the expense of his fellow worker, who may be unqualified in the academic sense for all sorts of reasons which may not at all be held against him.

The position now will be that there will be some latitude for young men whose war service prevented them from getting in their seven years' training, which we insist on, out of the last 10 years, and that is a proper latitude for young men of that kind. With that exception, the only academically unqualified people who will be permitted to practise and who will be placed on the Supplementary Register will be those men who are at least 28 years of age, are of "good repute"—this is a phrase which always frightens me; I am never sure whether I could get by under that—and have made this their form of livelihood for seven out of the last 10 years. Indeed, if I have any strong feelings about it I should say it was a little less than generous.

If a man has practised for seven out of 10 years, earning his living mainly at that work, he will have built up in others a real sense of confidence in him, and to have that sort of man on the supplementary register will not be at all unreasonable. The size of the problem is not as great as hon. Members seem to think. I understand it is not likely to be much more than 500 as compared with 4,000 thoroughly qualified people on the other Register. There is, therefore, no fear that the qualified people will be heavily outnumbered by the unqualified. The obvious need as the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) said, is that veterinary science shall be in the hands of thoroughly qualified people.

The question has been asked whether we are right in saying that the Dentists Act is a reasonable analogy to this Bill. Section 3 of the Dentists Act not only laid it down that unqualified people should be admitted to the Supplementary Register, but rendered that Act a little less stringent than this Bill. We are permitting registration of unqualified people under conditions similar to those which one part of the Dentists Act provided; but in addition that Act allowed dental mechanics to be added to the Register if they could pass a test of skill. There is of course no such corresponding provision in this Bill. The Dentists Act is a very good analogy indeed, but here we are strengthening the position of the qualified man.

There is another point I should like to add about the fully qualified people. This Bill brings in professional discipline. If we subject them to the obligation of accepting professional discipline, then we must give them professional status, or otherwise it would be extremely unfair. If one looks back into the history of the thing, one finds that there was a time not so long ago when men with little knowledge were permitted to call themselves veterinary surgeons.

There were some rather scathing comments about intellectual snobbery, and as to whether the term "animal practitioner" is good English. Normally, it is difficult to persuade me to enter with any sort of enthusiasm into these arguments about what is good English and so on, but, clearly, the term "registered animal practitioner" is the most fantastic one I have heard of, in the field of medicine. For one thing, the practitioner is a human being and not an animal. We have considered very carefully what term to use. There was a suggestion that we should call these people "farriers." Whatever we call them, they are bound to be men of long standing in the profession and bound to have been known to many people for a long time. Generally, the public know them as "vets," because they do not know what else to call them. I think the term we have in the Bill is a sufficiently good one.

Will an unqualified man be allowed to use the description "veterinary"?

I wanted to tell the hon. Gentleman the answer to that, because he did ask me, and I was coming to it. The answer is that an unqualified man is now prohibited from calling himself a veterinary surgeon or from so using the word "veterinary" as to suggest that he is a qualified man or a member of the R.C.V.S.

The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) raised the question of the University of Wales. I know that nothing I can say to him will assuage national feelings and aspirations, nor, indeed, will I try. Looking at this question apart from all sentiment, I think the right place to put the teaching centre is at Bristol, at a place that can serve that part of the Kingdom and Wales. Were it placed in the South of Wales it is still very likely that people would go to Liverpool. Bristol is not far on this side of the Border. Since it is uneconomic to found a school for less than 20 students a year even if the number of veterinary surgeons practising in Wales increased twofold, with all replacements being filled by Welsh students, still some two-thirds of the people coming from the Welsh teaching centres would have to go outside Wales to find their practices. That was an important factor in this matter.

There is also the other factor, which has to be considered in these matters, that in the six southern counties of England which would be served by the same centres, there are two to three times as many cattle as there are in the six southern counties of Wales. Therefore, we feel that all these important considerations indicate that the proper place to have the centre is at Bristol, and, leaving sentiment and national aspirations aside, no one will suffer by having the school placed there.

Surely the opinion of Wales and of the University of Wales and of the Universities of Bristol and Liverpool was considered in connection with this proposal?

Yes, but I still think that the proper place for the teaching centre is at Bristol, having regard to the need that has to be met.

The hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds asked me some specific questions as to whether veterinary practitioners will be allowed to issue certificates of soundness or of death or to act for insurance societies or to make T.B. tests. They will be permitted to make T.B. tests, and they will be permitted to issue certificates and to act for insurance companies, provided that there are no conditions imposed by the persons calling for the certificate. Subject to that, there is nothing in the Bill which prevents a veterinary practitioner from doing that work. As to whether they use the library of the R.C.V.S. and will be permitted to take veterinary surgeons into partnership, that is not a matter for this Bill or for the Department. That is a matter to be settled by discussion between the R.C.V.S. and the organisations of these people. It is a domestic matter for them.

The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) asked questions with regard to the circumstances arising from training at a university from which at some subsequent time recognition may have to be withdrawn. I am not clear how the persons concerned will be taken care of, but they will be taken care of and anyone who gets a degree will not lose the right of recognition because recognition is subsequently withdrawn from his school. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) asked whether we would widen the position of the unqualified employees of the sick dispensaries. I would endorse what he said about the great work which those dispensaries have done and are doing. His argument was whether we ought to have a special category by which these paid employees could get recognition. I think that he missed the point that Clause 7 specifically provides that a technical officer as he is called, of a sick dispensary can qualify, under Clause 6, for registration on the Supplementary Register like anyone else. He is subject only to the limitations of Clause 6. We have tried to make the best arrangements that we can by the licensing procedure to see that the valuable work of these dispensaries is not harmed while there are still not enough qualified men to go round. We have to make the best arrangements we can in that field.

The hon. Member also raised the point about the unfairness to Glasgow and Edinburgh of Liverpool getting two members on the Council and the others only one. The hon. Member was in error. Liverpool gets two members now, because it is the only place where the school of veterinary science is part of the university. The others get one member and get their second member once the school is absorbed into the university. There is, therefore, no harm being done to Scottish feelings. He also asked what kind of people would be appointed by the Privy Council to the Council of the R.C.V.S. to fill the other four posts. The answer is that they will be distinguished people, academically or professionally or otherwise, who would seem to be able to contribute some service to the work which the college in its reconstituted form will have to do.

If there are any other points of substance which I have not met, some of them could perhaps be more properly considered at a later stage. The Bill seems to us to be a very valuable and important contribution towards carrying on the work which we tried to begin a little while ago with the Animals Bill. This is the next stage. We must get a bigger supply of well-trained qualified veterinary surgeons to carry on the fight against disease in our herds and the practice of husbandry. I, therefore, commend the Second Reading of the Bill to the House in that spirit.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, to leave out from "practitioner" to the end of line 38.

This part of the Bill relates to the selling and supplying of any substance containing more than a prescribed quantity of radioactive element. My first point is that what we are dealing with is not the harmless preparations of radioactive material, but the concentrations which are sufficiently intense to be dangerous. In my submission, the danger attaching to the handling, selling and dealing with these materials is so great that public safety would be better served if the registered pharmacist and various sellers of poison were not designated as people appropriate to do this kind of trading. In any Bill, whether a Clause is included or left out depends on whether that particular Clause serves the purpose of the Bill. In the Explanatory Memorandum, we are told that frame by these radiations, X-rays and gamma radiations. The danger has been known for a great number of years, and the injury, which at first took everyone by surprise, has been studied and understood for a long period. The fact that the injury takes a long time to develop and may be undetected for a considerable period means that the danger is all the greater. To avoid these dangers needs highly specialised skill, very elaborate precautions and training and knowledge which are right outside the range of the education of the ordinary pharmacist, and outside the range of a good many medical practitioners.

It seems to me that to handle these substances is the field not of the pharmacist, but of the physicist. These substances are not things which can be sold over the counter of a chemist's shop. They have to be prepared with processes which involve an extraordinary skill and those preparing them must have a long period of training. In the past there has been a lot of experience in the use of radium and radon, and never has it been the practice to sell them in small quantities all over the country. Rather they have been prepared in establishments and institutions equipped for the purpose and then taken direct to the hospitals Where they have been used. Even so there have been accidents and losses between the place of production and the place of use. Every additional link in the chain is an additional source of danger, and at the present time it seems to me quite unnecessary that any further links should be contemplated at all.

It will be some time before these goods are produced in any large quantity, and at present there is a place ready for every bit that can be produced. The process is to transmit it from the place of production to the place of use, and the trading suggested in this Subsection does not seem to come into it at all. Those are the reasons which I put forward as indicating that this particular Clause is not only unnecessary but positively harmful. It may be that I am not fully informed on the matter and that the Minister has some reason which I and my colleagues have not discovered for having this particular Clause. If that is so, the burden of proof is upon him. He is the defender of the health of the public, and if, by this Clause, the public health is better safeguarded, clearly it ought to go in, but if that cannot be established, it seems to me that it would be far wiser if this Clause were dropped altogether.

I should like to make a brief comment upon this Amendment. I feel that the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Major Vernon) took a restricted view of the possibility of the use of radioactive substances, particularly in the future. Even looking at the field as we know it today, there is not only the type of preparation which clearly he has in mind, but there are also preparations in which very minute quantities of radioactive substances are introduced. For example, we have radioactive mud and waters of various kinds used in medicine. I hope that the Minister is going to make very little use of his power to exclude substances from this Clause, and that, on the whole, he will endeavour to bring under control a number of substances with very small quantities of radioactive material in them, which, at the present moment, are sold without control and which could quite easily be used to exploit credulous people.

The safeguard provided in paragraph ( b ) is a safeguard for the medical prescription and one to which the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich did not refer. I myself would have said that the coming of the National Health Service, with the possibility of future developments in all sorts of ways which we cannot at present foresee, very probably means that there may be preparations in addition to those which we now know, which could quite properly be prescribed by the general practitioner for use by a patient under his direction, and which will not require the elaborate machinery which otherwise, is provided for treatment by these substances.

I rise to support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dulwich (Major Vernon). I agree with everything he said, but there are one or two additional observations which I should like to make. I noted that on the Second Reading of the Bill my right hon. Friend stated that the words "duly qualified" meant not only ordinary specialists but persons who, he said, would be particularly qualified for this kind of work and who would be designated by the Advisory Committee which it is proposed to set up. It seems to me that if the nomination of properly quail- fied people is to be left to this Advisory Committee, it should not itself be too rigidly tied down to the four classes of people nominated in the Bill—medical practitioners, dental practitioners, registered physicists or authorised sellers of poisons. There are quite a number of persons who do not come under any of those four categories, but who in my submission possess the requisite qualifications, both academic and practical, for handling, retailing and even prescribing these radioactive substances for which the Bill legislates.

I think I am correct in saying that the main use of the substances at present is largely concerned with aetiology of disease rather than the treatment of disease. I am not myself very impressed with that class of radiocative mud and waters which the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) mentioned. The person to handle these substances should be a duly qualified physiologist or duly qualified physicist who would be quit capable of investigating the causation of disease without possessing a medical degree. Indeed, I believe there are one or two hospitals in London particularly interested in research into X-rays and radioactive substances which have on their staffs physicists who are not necessarily medical practitioners and yet who by their qualifications in physics and possibly also in physiology and by experience in hospital work would be ideal persons to handle and prescribe these substances in certain cases.

Is there anything in the Clause as now drafted which prevents such a person from giving such treatment? It deals only with selling or supplying.

I take it that if a person were not allowed to supply it, he would hardly handle it, nor can I concede that such a person ought to work solely under the direction of a medical practitioner. I think I am right in saying that Pasteur, to whom medicine owes so much, was not himself a doctor, although later in life he was admitted to the French Academy of Medicine.

My hon. Friend is mistaken here. The Subsection with which we are dealing at the present time is a Subsection authorising and limiting the activities of a pharmacist or an authorised seller of poisons, and they come into operation at the instance of a person who has got a special qualification which is referred to in another part of the Bill.

Who must be a medical or dental practitioner. I am trying to make the point that a person need not be a medical or dental practitioner to be qualified to supply the substances.

That, in my respectful submission, should be dealt with on another part of the Bill.

2.0 p.m.

I would further like to point out that in paragraph ( d ) of Subsection (5) there are escape provisions which, in my submission, give tremendous latitude, for instance, to clinics and nursing homes, and other medical institutions.

The hon. Member is getting away from the point of the Amendment. The question we are debating is whether certain paragraphs of Clause 3 should or should not stand in the Bill. That is the only question before the Committee.

It seems to me that the Minister has been unduly rigid in framing paragraphs ( a ) and ( b ) of Subsection (I), with which I believe we are dealing, and in limiting the categories of persons who can deal with these substances to medical and dental practitioners, registered pharmacists and authorised sellers of poisons. I would ask him to examine the Clause again to see whether there are not, in point of fact, other duly qualified people who are capable of handling and of retaining these substances.

I am afraid that my hon. and gallant Friend has misunderstood the purpose of the Clause and of the Subsection to which the Amendment is directed. The purpose here, as the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) has pointed out, is to deal with persons who are selling or otherwise supplying these substances, and not with persons who are using them. It would be perfectly proper for the physicist to use radioactive substances in the course of his experiments. We are dealing here with the sale of radioactive substances. The purpose of the Subsection which it is proposed to take out is to enable pharmacists and sellers of poisons to sell or supply radioactive substances, under definitions to be subsequently laid down and on certificates given by properly qualified practitioners.

All kinds of radioactive substances, such as ointments and hair restoratives, may contain dangerous percentages of radioactive substances, and it is essential that they should not be allowed to be sold freely. Provided there are proper safeguards, however, there is no reason why an authorised seller of poisons or pharmacist cannot sell them, or supply them through the ordinary channels of supply. They are then no more dangerous than the poisons which have to be supplied now. They will have to be used under conditions that will protect the public health. I hope that my hon. Friends, in those circumstances, will not press their Amendment.

I would point out that substances that are harmless are expressly excluded from the Bill. The Clause deals only with substances which are above the danger line. Clearly, precautions are needed which are much greater. These materials are not like ointments that can be put into a bottle and regarded as fixed. They are disintegrating the whole time. The time element comes into it. The protection needed for the vessels that hold them and for the implements that are used in handling them has to be much greater. That fact makes this too elaborate a business to expect the qualified pharmacist to deal with it.

Does my hon. Friend realise that many of the substances kept by pharmacists deteriorate, such as sera and vaccines?

We ought not to pursue this matter in great detail. Rapidity of change makes a great difference to these substances.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in page 4, to leave out lines 1 to 7.

The next matter to which I wish to draw attention is found on page 4 of the Bill and my Amendment is similar to the previous one, in that my intention is to increase the safety to the public. To make the matter clear I will read the paragraph at the bottom of the preceding page of the Bill:

May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to consider what those practitioners are doing at the present time? During the first three or four months they will simply be allowed to continue what they are doing now.

I am thinking that the appointed day will be a historic sort of occasion and that a great deal of attention will be drawn to it. There may be a real temptation to people to say, "Before the appointed day I have freedom for three months," and to start a practice hoping to get a licence. But for that temptation, such people might not otherwise try to start a practice.

I hope that the Committee will not agree to the removal of this escape Clause. Doctors and dentists do not undertake treatment by radiological methods lightly or inadvisedly. Only a very few doctors specialise in this line of treatment and they do not undertake it lightly or inadvisedly for two very good reasons. The first is that the apparatus is very expensive and not easy to obtain, and the second is that, as is realised by this Bill, there is a very considerable risk. Those undertaking this treatment are liable to be sued for negligence if their patients lose a patch of hair or suffer in any other way. Only a very few practitioners will be engaged in this line of treatment. This treatment is often prolonged. It is not a case of a single dose and then one has done with it. It often takes a fortnight or three weeks or even some months to carry through a line of treatment. If, when this Bill comes into operation, the doctors have suddenly to stop treatment in a middle of a course, it will not only be unjust to the doctors and the dentists but exceedingly unjust to their patients. We must have an escape Clause of this sort so that treatment which has been commenced can be carried on in the short interval which elapses between application for licence and its being granted.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) has already answered the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Major Vernon) adequately. This is an administrative convenience. This work is being done now. We cannot make an appointed day and then say that as and from the appointed day all work stops. We do not know how long will be required to grant the licences and we do not know how many applications there will be. We must therefore have a period during which they are being considered and during which it is perfectly legal for people to do what they have been doing all the time and what they are doing at the moment. I hope that in the circumstances and with that explanation, my hon. and gallant Friend will be content.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Advisory Committee.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

2.15 p.m.

I was particularly glad to hear the most comprehensive list which the Minister gave last week of the bodies which would be consulted with regard to the membership of the Advisory Committee, but I would like to say a word on behalf of the scientific societies who are particularly interested in the application of X-rays, etc., to the metal industries. They ought to be included because they represent probably the principal users for routine work outside the medical profession. I wondered whether perhaps the Iron and Steel Institute and the Institute of Metals, acting jointly, might be able to express the views of the metallurgists who are not specifically mentioned in that list. Perhaps they are already covered by what the Minister told us last week when he said that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research would be concerned in it. I should be grateful if he can tell us either that is the case, or that the matter will be given further consideration.

May I again, as I did on Second Reading, say a word for the dermatologists. They should be represented on the Committee because they have a very important duty in connection with radiological work. Not only do they carry out radiological work themselves, but they are concerned with the conditions of the skin, and, as is well known, the troubles caused by radiations in many cases show themselves first in the skin. I know that the College of Physicians was in the list of organisations to be consulted which the Minister read out during the Second Reading Debate and I know that some Fellows of the College of Physicians are dermatologists. Would it be possible for the Minister to suggest to the College of Physicians that among the nominations, one at least should be a dermatologist? The knowledge which dermatologists can provide will be of the greatest possible value.

One question needs to be cleared up. The Clause reads that the Minister shall appoint the Committee after consultation with these bodies. Hon. Members seemed to treat it as if the people who are to be appointed will be representatives of these bodies. There is all the difference in the world between the Minister consulting a great number of people, as it is his duty to do, in order to get his list of appointees, and going to a society and saying, "I am proposing to take one or more representatives from your membership," which would lead to a very long list. If it means that the Minister consults a great number of people in order to make a comparatively small Advisory Committee, that is altogether another story. Perhaps the Minister will explain this.

I feel that the Pharmaceutical Society should be consulted. I had not intended to speak and was going to have a private word with the Minister about it, but as various suggestions are being advanced, I will make reference to it now. On Second Reading the Minister referred to the Society and particularly to the extent to which it may be said to represent distributors. Of course, he is here looking more upon the scientific side of the use of radioactive substances than the establishment of standards and so on. In that connection he has already found it desirable to have a representative of the Pharmaceutical Society on the Advisory Committee under the Therapeutic Substances Act. In view of the book of standards which the society has produced, he may find it convenient from the standards side, as well as the distribution side, to consult the society.

I fully sympathise with the interest which hon. Members take in the composition of this Advisory Committee because it is an exceedingly important committee charged under the Bill with quite unusual powers of representation to the Minister. As I was careful to explain on the Second Reading, they are powers of initiative as well as powers of giving advice on matters referred to them. If the regulations are to command universal acceptance, it is essential that the composition of the committee should equally command acceptance among those concerned. I am quite sure, therefore, that what has been said this morning will be noted by the various bodies which comprise the faculties to which reference has been made, because the various colleges break down into a quite a considerable number of specialists, including dermatologists. As dermatologists are immediately connected with the kind of therapy which is carried out with radioactive substances, their claims to special consideration ought to be taken into account when the recommendations are made by the Royal College of Physicians or Surgeons as the case may be.

The same thing would apply to the metallurgists, and, of course, it will be recognised that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply is immediately interested here and I am quite sure that he will see that the appropriate people are on the Advisory Committee. With regard to the pharmacists, I certainly will keep in mind the extent to which they ought to be consulted. They are interested mainly as distributors, but I will bear this in mind and see to what extent consultation with them is essential.

My point was on the composition of the Advisory Committee and not necessarily on the Committee itself.

I will certainly examine it. I cannot see at the moment how they will be directly interested in the composition, but we are not writing letters of brass here, and we will look into the matter.

Since one of the principal objects of this Bill is to protect the workpeople, could the claims of the Association of Scientific Workers, to which most of the work people belong be considered.

As I announced on Second Reading the T.U.C. which embraces that, will be consulted.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Regulations and orders.)

There is one point on this Clause on which I should like some enlightenment from the Minister. It is one of the most important Clauses in the Bill because, while, as we all admit, this Bill does give Ministers quite exceptional powers, under this Clause are provided fairly exceptional safeguards against the abuse of those powers. I should have thought that one of the greatest safeguards was the holding of a public inquiry. If someone felt himself to be injured by the regulations under Subsection (3) the Minister can either call a public inquiry to be held, or he can appoint a person before whom the complainant should appear. I take it that in the latter case that would not be in public, but in private. Generally speaking, it would be desirable, in cases of that kind, that the first method should be used, the method of public inquiry, and that the second method should be used only in exceptional cases. Could the Minister give the Committee an idea of how he expects that particular Subsection to operate? Would the private inquiry be merely for cases that might concern security, or for some such reasons, or would it be normal?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the point. I think he will agree that it would be practically impossible to define in the Bill itself the procedure that would have to be followed because we could not make an appropriate classification. For example, objection might be by a body of persons, or merely by one individual. It would be a very cumbrous instrument to have to make a public inquiry in each case of any particular individual, who might object and who might be riding his individual idiosyncracies rather than commanding any special knowledge. In such case I think it would be appropriate that an inspector should make the inquiry.

There is, of course, a safeguard against the inadequacy of the inquiry itself. When we come to consider the actual phrasing of the proposed regulations, and when we come to the negative procedure in the House, it will be open to hon. Members to say, "You did not give proper attention to this objection, you ought to have held a public inquiry and not dismissed the individual merely by having an inquiry by an inspector." In such circumstances, if no security considerations were involved, I should imagine the Minister would be bound to put the report of his inspector before the House.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE. —(Expenses of Ministers.)

[Any expenses incurred by the Minister of Supply in the exercise of functions under this Act and any administrative expenses incurred by any Minister of the Crown or Government department under or by virtue of this Act, shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.—[ Mr. Bevan. ]

Brought up and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clauses 12 to 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended considered; read the Third time, and passed with an Amendment.

I beg to move, in page I, line 7, to leave out "or mainly."

The object of this Amendment is to get a statement from the Government of how far they mean to extend the definition of private dwellings. I appreciate that, if we leave out these words, some other words will have to be substituted, but my object is to ask the Minister and his advisers to look at this again and give us some further definition of what classes of persons under (1, a ) and the classes of persons under (1, b ). The classes of persons under (1, a ) are dealt with more strictly than are those under(1, b ). If I may refer generally to Clause 7, where we have a certain number of offences which can be charged against persons looking after children, it will be seen that in the case of persons registered under (1, a ) there is a right of entry; the authorities may enter their houses as a right; whereas under (1, b ), which is obviously more of a home, there must be certain procedure before the authorities can force their way in.

People who commit offences under (1, a ) are dealt with more strictly than are those under (1, b ). Therefore, I can see there may be trouble and litigation, and inquiries before summary courts or local authorities as to whether persons are in homes of their own, or are being received into a dwelling which is not mainly used as a private dwelling. I do not know whether I have made that clear to the Parliamentary Secretary. If there is an institution where there is a caretaker, or a school where the principal lives on the top floor, how are we to know whether it is mainly used as a dwelling or not? What is to be the dividing line? Are we to leave it to the individual to be taken to the courts to find out what "mainly used as a private dwelling" means, or is there some definition in previous cases which can be used as a precedent. If we are merely going to say, "mainly used as a private dwelling for a substantial part of the day" it is not definitive enough. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will say whether he is satisfied with the phrase and, if not, that he will look into it again. The matter might be dealt with in the definition Clause, in order to show what is and what is not a private dwelling.

2.30 p.m.

Having had an opportunity of considering the Amendment I am quite satisfied that the way in which we propose to divide the two types of premises is the best way. The effect of the Amendment would be to make a house mainly used as a dwelling registrable as a nursery and I do not think the hon. Member wants that.

No.

I tried to draw this distinction on Second Reading. We are distinguishing between nurseries and private homes. A nursery can be built as such, or can be part of a factory which has been converted, or it can be a house used as a nursery. That is one group. Then there are private dwellings primarily used as private houses. I mean by "mainly" the ordinary sense in which the term is used. If a place is either wholly or mainly used as a private home for a family we want to deal with that case, not by registering the premises, but by registering the person as a minder. Under paragraphs ( a ) or ( b ) there are covered all the people who are looking after children, subject to Clause 4 (2) where there is a slight qualification. Subject to that, we are covering all the people engaged in looking after children either in a nursery, or in their homes. There is a difference in treatment in respect of right of entry, but I do not think it is true to say that there is a distinction in respect of penalties for offences, nor is there a lower standard in the case of the minder than in the case of the nursery. There is the difference that in the case of the nursery, the authority may require certain things to be done. But in considering whether the premises or the person should be registered both cases are on all fours.

I am satisfied, using the word "mainly" to mean more than half, that this is as good a way of dealing with the matter as we can find. It would be difficult to define it more closely. I am not very bothered, because the local authority will use its common sense and can deal with anyone looking after children under one provision or the other. I cannot see any harm coming to anyone, and I think the rights of both the person looking after the nursery and the minder are fully safeguarded. I hope that after that explanation the hon. Member will not wish to press the Amendment.

The explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary has been interesting, but still leaves us a little confused. When he spoke of a dwellinghouse of which more than 50 per cent. is used as a house, we were surprised that he had in mind so large a proportion not being used for normal dwelling purposes. Supposing that in a dwellinghouse six out of the eight rooms are so used, what type of use has he in mind for the other two rooms not used as a private dwelling? One has in mind cottage industries, where two or three rooms are used as a small factory, or shop. What is the limitation on the use of premises as a dwellinghouse, as he suggested more than half may be used for other purposes?

I think there is a misunderstanding. Suppose two rooms were used by a minder to look after children, such a case does not constitute a nursery. If the situation were reversed and a caretaker and his wife lived in two rooms, while six rooms were devoted to nursery purposes, we would register that as a nursery. I do not think this will create practical difficulty because it is clear that the only distinction is about rights of entry, and here the bias is wholly in favour of the person who lives in the private dwellinghouse.

Some difficulty may arise in cases where under Clause 2 the local authority requires various things which are not there and a prosecution follows. It is not only a question for the local authorities to make up their minds about. I dare say they can quickly evolve some sensible rule, but the courts have to deal with this and the courts' interpretation of these words might perhaps interfere with the local authorities rules, leading to a great deal of confusion. Few subjects have been litigated more thoroughly in the courts than the question of what is "a private dwellinghouse" and what is "business purposes." Under our system of precedents, we have a great bulk of rules evolved through years of practical experience and we can find the various definitions there. Therefore, I would urge my hon. Friend to have another look at this, particularly with regard to the definition which the courts have put upon dwelling-houses and upon business premises, to see whether any of these interpretative words will suit his purpose so that there can be a common reason in the courts and with the local authorities. This might waste a lot of money in divisional court litigation if it does not tie up, and I think something ought to be done about it.

The hon. and learned Member for North ampton (Mr. Paget) has raised a point with which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary can deal, either in the present discussion or when we come to Clause 2, because I think it is important to the proper understanding of this Bill. My hon. and learned Friend referred to rules, and may have suggested that local authorities will lay down rules of general application—

If my hon. Friend will permit me, may I say that I presumed that what the local authorities will do is that they will have a policy which they will apply, if they do not have specific orders for the purpose.

As I understand it, the difficulty which the hon. and learned Member has in mind ought not to arise, because each case will be dealt with by the local authority by a separate order. When premises are to be registered, the local authority will make a specific order laying down the conditions which they think appropriate, although it is to be observed that they are not obliged to lay down any conditions. In each case it will be for the local authority to prescribe the appropriate and suitable requirements for those particular premises. As I understand it, the object of the Bill is to give the maximum flexibility to the local authorities which will enable the special circumstances of any building to be taken fully into account.

My hon. Friend has missed the point entirely. If there is a prosecution for infringement of one of these orders, it would clearly be a defence to say that the order is a nullity, because there is no power to make such an order in respect of those premises.

I think the Committee is getting rather far from the point of the Amendment, and perhaps there may be another opportunity of raising the questions the hon. Members have in mind.

I find it difficult to understand what the wording of the Clause means. May I ask the Minister to explain to me whether the use of premises as between a private dwelling and a nursery is intended, or whether it is as between a private dwelling and anything else that may take place in that house? This Clause does not make that clear. It can either be a private dwelling in one part and a nursery in the other, or it may be a private dwelling in the one part and some kind of industry or anything else in the other part.

2.45 p.m.

I think the Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate that there is some disquiet in the Committee on this point, and I would suggest to him that he might ask his legal advisers to look at it again, in which case I should be prepared to withdraw the Amendment. If people come under the definition of Subsection (1, a ) they are liable to more impositions by the local authority, which, if it thinks fit, may make them liable to more penalties. I think that the hon. Gentleman himself saw the difficulty which we may be in when he said that it will be used as an ordinary dwelling, but, when further pressed, he said something about it being "half-used." I think that, on reflection, he will realise that that is not necessarily so. We may have a fairly big building, with people living in flats at the top, but with slightly more than half of the building used for child minding, so that it will come under the definition of Subsection (1). The local authorities can march into those flats without giving proper warning, and, if the Parliamentary Secretary could give us an assurance that he would put this point to the legal advisers of the Government, I should be willing to withdraw.

I have appreciated the discussion on the point, and, in reply to the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd), I assure him that it could be either. I was talking about premises partly used for nursery purposes and partly not. I think the wording is all right, but I will have the matter looked at again in the light of the present discussion, and, if it does seem necessary to make an alteration, I think that perhaps we could make it in another place.

In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I think it will be convenient to take the next two Amendments together.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, to leave out "any," and to insert "the."

As you have indicated, Major Milner, this Amendment and the one following it—in page 2, line 3, after "employed," insert "as principal"—deal with the same problem and could most usefully be discussed together.

May I clear up a point first? It is the second " any about which we are talking?

Yes. I should have made that clear.

Among the powers that the local health authority will have, if it cares to use them for premises as defined in Subsection (1, a ) is the power to approve not only the person who is running the nursery, but every individual who may be employed in that nursery as a fit person to look after children. I suggest to the Minister that it would be a great simplification if the approval of the local authority were confined to the person managing the nursery. If that person is unable to choose suitable staff, I should have thought he was, for that reason, unfit to receive the approval of the local authority as the manager of one of its nurseries.

I cannot see that anything is gained by giving the local authority this more sweeping power, and I think something might be lost, because it would tend to take away from the status and authority of the person concerned, particularly the manager of the nursery. I hope the Minister will be able to consider the Amendment favourably. I think I am right in saying that, when the National Assistance Bill was before the Committee, a similar Amendment was accepted by the Government, and I hope that in this case the Minister will be able to accept this one.

I am sorry, but I cannot accept the view of the right hon. Gentleman. When this Bill was being read a Second time, he said that, at worst, it would not do any harm, but, at best, it might do some good. I am quite convinced that, if we were to accept this Amendment, we should make the Bill less effective than it is now. After all, the effect of these Amendments together would be to deprive the local health authority of the power to decide the fitness of any person who was given the care of children except the person who was employed as principal. I do not think that is advisable.

If the health and welfare of the children are to be safeguarded, I think it is certain that the fitness for the job of any person concerned with the care of the children ought to be taken into account. If in the case of a factory nursery, we limit the provision to the matron only, we leave out the deputy matron, warden nursing assistants, deputies and so on, which I think would be making a big mistake. If we are really to care for the children who are being looked after in this way, we must be as certain as we can, both on medical and moral grounds, that we have the right people.

I would not want the local Medical Officer of Health to be asked to take this considerable responsibility unless he had some sanction, especially on the medical side. It may be said that the principal —the matron, for instance—ought to be able to do this, but, if for any reason she did not do so, we should have a long and involved process before we could deal with the situation. I do not think that this matter is on all fours with the case of the National Assistance Act which has been referred to and I am not able to agree to what I think would be a weakening of the Clause.

I am very glad the Minister has resisted this Amendment because I do not think it would work. If, in fact, we had to discharge the matron or whoever was in charge for being unfit, it would be a very cumbrous business and would dislocate the whole organisation of the place. It might easily happen that the matron was extremely good in her capacity of looking after children and directing work, but she might be a very bad judge of the capacity of others. It is vital that every person employed in a place of this kind should be medically fit and not, for instance, a germ carrier; and that the local authority should have power to get rid of one—it might be only one—disturbing person, or a person not suitable in some way for the work, without disorganising the whole place.

I speak from intimate practical acquaintance with the running, not of a centre of this kind, but of clinics in four areas. The work of those clinics and similar organisations can be seriously disturbed by the wrong kind of person. If the local authority had not the power to discharge we should run into all kinds of difficulties. I do not think that any hon. Member opposite would wish to persist with this argument. If he does, he should see some of these places and their actual conditions. The proposal in the Amendments just would not work.

We share with the other side of the Committee the desire that the local authority should have the most effective means at its disposal to ensure the right type of staff in these nurseries. I feel, however, that the provision for a local authority to be able to dispose of any member of the staff is unnecessary. The defence put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary is that, without the provision in its present form, they would not be able to secure the dismissal of an unsuitable member of the staff. Surely that power is given later in Subsection (3, b ) of Clause 2. The local authority has the opportunity of insisting on the removal of an unsatisfactory subordinate person, by the power to insist that the premises shall be adequately staffed.

Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that the local authority, knowing that a person proposed to be employed was unfit, should register the premises, and then proceed by order to tell them they had to get rid of the particular member? This is a most extraordinary proposal.

The registration obviously would not be made in the first place. The point would be made that the premises were not adequately staffed as regards the numbers, qualifications or experience of the people. Therefore, no such registration could take place until the premises were adequately staffed. Even if our Amendment is accepted, there is still the power of using the registration. The situation will be adequately covered by concentrating on the principal and leaving any corrections to the powers which may be necessary to our consideration of the Clause to which I have referred.

Would the hon. Member take that view if, for example, one of the subordinates was a typhus carrier?

I would like to ask, in reply, how the local authority would proceed in ascertaining whether that person was a typhoid carrier, and whether the Parliamentary Secretary really supposes that the principal of the really supposes that the principal of the establishment would not be very glad to dispose of the services of the typhoid carrier. We must not take the view that all principals are evilly disposed persons. They are, in fact, anxious for the welfare of the children in their care. As soon as such a situation was revealed the principal of the nursery would be very glad to dispose of the services of such a person. It is extremely unlikely that the local authority would require to exercise powers under Clause I to secure that person's removal.

There is another point to which I must refer briefly. If approval is given by the local authority to subordinates, it may be very difficult for the principal subsequently to dismiss them if they prove unsatisfactory. Such an individual will say that, having been approved by the local authority, he is entitled to remain in his post. A good deal of quarrelling and dispute would result from such a ruling, which might be given only casually, but would lead subsequently to a great deal of trouble and inconvenience.

I do not think we are likely to get very much further. We have reached a fundamental difference of principle between the opposing sides of the Committee. We think that in this, as in other things, there should be control at the top and that the people below should be left to deal with their own problems. People on the other side, however, believe in taking the control right down to the lowest level. We have seen instances of this in a great deal of legislation. In the Army the battalion commander should be left to look after his own troops, but Socialists say that we must go right down and control even the troops themselves, the whole way down. That is an old argument. and we are not likely to get much further in pursuing it now. I do not know whether my hon. Friend wishes to press the principle to a Division, but the principle is there and argument is not likely to help us. I suggest that we now proceed further.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

3.0 p.m.

I want to raise a point on Subsection (4) which refers to the powers of the local health authority which:

" may by order refuse to register any person if they are satisfied that that person, or any person employed or proposed to be employed by him in looking after children, is not a fit person to look after children or that the premises in which the children are received or proposed to be received are not fit for the purpose."

It seems to me that that Subsection refers to the fitness of a person. There is, in my view, an important factor which should be taken into consideration. The person who is looking after the children may be a person with children of her own; in other words, some of these children may be admitted into families which contain any number of children. There are cases, to my knowledge, where children have been admitted to families in which children have been suffering from disease. I would like to know whether this definition "fit person to look after children" actually covers other persons in the home, because I can assure my hon. Friend that cases have arisen, to my knowledge, where children have been accepted into homes and have mixed with other children suffering from T.B. and other diseases. That is undesirable. It may be that it is cowered by this Subsection. I hope so.

I think it is.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the register which local authorities are required to keep will be open to public inspection, so that anybody who desires to know can find out whether the nursery or the child-minder is, in fact, registered?

I would not like to be categorical, but I expect the generality of the National Health provisions would cover that.

There are some small points I would like to make. First, it is stated in the first two lines: a register, I do not know. I should have thought the wording should have been, "Every local authority shall, where application is made, keep a register." If not, this is an impossible burden on the local authorities. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can assure me that it is not so.

The second point I wish to raise is that in lines 8 and 9 there is reference to "a substantial part" of the day. What does the Parliamentary Secretary mean by that? Surely it is possible to say "12 hours or six hours"; there must be a figure. Why cannot he differentiate, because "a substantial part" of the day must mean so many hours. Surely it would be simpler to say a period of three, or four, or six hours? I do not know what is meant by "a substantial part" of the day; it is helping our legal friends to get their remuneration.

It is very difficult indeed to cover all the various circumstances in which day nurseries or childminding exist without using terms like "a substantial part" of the day. If there are difficulties, no doubt they will be resolved in due course, but I do not think there are. Turning to the first point made by the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. P. Roberts), I cannot see it at all. The sentence means what it says; the local health authority has to keep registers.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Power to impose requirements in connection with registration.)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 42, at the end, to insert:

" ( e ) that there shall be adequate arrangements for feeding the children received in the premises and that an adequate and suitable diet shall be provided for them."

When we were discussing the Bill on Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law) drew our attention to the fact that we had not specifically covered the point of feeding the children who are being looked after. I then gave as my opinion that we had covered the point by our reference to medical care, which would include nutri- tion. Since then, however, I have looked at the matter further and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for South Kensington for raising it. I have come to the conclusion that it would be a good thing to act on his suggestion and I, therefore, move the insertion of another paragraph here in terms which I hope will meet with the right hon. Gentleman's approval.

I appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary's motive, but I would like to ask him one question—what about rationing? Who is to provide the food? He well knows the difficulty which making adequate arrangements in feeding the children must impose on the local authority—

Perhaps I may interrupt the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. P. Roberts) in order to cut short this discussion. After all, we are concerned with nurseries in this point and we are not concerned with child minding. Nurseries can obtain rations by becoming licensed with the Ministry of Food as catering establishments. They can also, by taking the appropriate action through the local medical officer of health, obtain free milk, cod liver oil, and so on. That side of the matter is completely covered.

That helps me considerably, but these are premises where children are received to be looked after for a substantial part of the day. That is not the definition of a nursery. If it had been the Parliamentary Secretary would have said "nursery." I wonder if he can assure me that it covers the provision of food for the people there. He used the word "nursery," and I understand that there are certain regulations which cover nurseries. That is under Subsection (1, a )?

Yes.

I am much obliged.

There is an industrial nursery in my constituency, and it has not got cooking facilities. I do not say that it is a particularly modern building We cannot get all the buildings we want these days. But it is probably a great deal better for the children to be there than to be put out to neighbours. Down the street there is a school which has cooking facilities. The industrial nursery was prepared to provide containers in which to fetch meals and to pay for them. Everybody was prepared for all the arrangements except my hon. Friend's colleagues at the Ministry of Education, who refused to permit such a practice. We corresponded for weeks on it. Can the Parliamentary Secretary get their assistance in that sort of thing? If the Minister of Health thinks it right and proper that feeding should take place in the nurseries, will the other Departments concerned collaborate?

That question does not arise here.

I think the Amendment is a definite improvement to the Bill, because it does safeguard the position, but the hon. Gentleman has not said anything about the cost of these feeding arrangements, which have to be "adequate." On whom does the cost fall? On the local authority? It may be that in the case of a large nursery the cost will be considerable.

The hon. Gentleman, I think, is completely misunderstanding the position. We are here talking not about local authorities, but private bodies that are running nurseries; also we are talking about private minders, and at no place in the Bill is there any suggestion that the cost of this should be borne by public funds

We feel the Amendment improves the Bill, but we are rather concerned whether the staff employed in the kitchen preparing meals come within the scrutiny and purview of the local authority, because they will not actually be minding the children but preparing meals as kitchen and scullery staff. On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman referred to the possibility of a typhoid outbreak, and the necessity of excluding it. It is important that these provisions should extend to the kitchen staff.

I am glad that the hon Gentleman has been converted to my point of view.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I should like to bring up one point regarding Subsection (3) ( a ). The Subsection says:

But there is an even more important question than food, and that is infection. I feel that the person in charge of these nurseries should have some knowledge of infectious disease in children and should be able to pick out any child when it comes to the nursery in the morning, if she has any reason to suppose that it may be suffering from the early stages of infectious disease, and send it home. I note under paragraph ( e ):

I want to issue one word of warning on this Clause to the Parliamentary Secretary and the Committee. We have heard a great deal about the protection of the children, and that is quite right and proper and the main principle of the Bill. But there is another side to it. There is the point of view of production. We have been very successful in the Midland areas, and in Sheffield in particular, in providing these nurseries and child-minders, so that women are free to go out to work and thereby increase production. The danger of Clause 2 is that, in the desire to control as far as possible the health, etc., of the children, we are going too far in that direction and imposing too many controls and restrictions upon people whom we want to open schools and nurseries.

The time may come when harassed and overworked firms will say that it is not worth while opening a nursery because there is so much trouble involved. There is a danger that we may damp down in that way the efforts which have been made during the last four or five years to help production and industry. I do not want the Parliamentary Secretary to misunderstand me, and to think that I am suggesting that there should be bad conditions and that they should go unlooked at. I am not suggesting that for a moment. I am putting the other side of the case. If because of a few poor institutions we overdo it by putting too many restrictions on people who are carrying out their job properly, we shall do the very thing which we have set out to avoid; we shall damp down the enthusiasm of the people to help production by child-minding.

Clause 2 imposes all kinds of restrictions, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider whether it does not go further than it should. In some instances, I think it goes too far along those lines. There must be a balance between the protection and the security of children on the one hand, and on the other hand the desire to open these institutions, in order that we can have increased production and prosperity.

3.15 p.m.

I do not entirely agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) said about this Clause, which, after all, goes to the root of the question as regards the discretion local authorities should have and the amount of control which should be exercised over these nurseries. I think that the Bill in its present form strikes the right balance, in that it does not make it obligatory on local authorities to lay down any regulations, but gives local authorities permissive powers, and thereby provides the maximum degree of flexibility, which I think is what is wanted in a matter of this kind.

We are embarking on new ground; we are seeking to regulate private nurseries and private minders of children. For the reasons which have been stated, both on Second Reading and today, it is obviously necessary that private nurseries and private minders should be supervised and controlled by local authorities; but they should also be encouraged, because this is a social service which, although relatively new in this country, is capable of very great expansion. It has progressed far more in other countries, notably in Russia. When I was in Russia I saw some of their crèches and nurseries, which are organised on a very high standard. I do not admire everything that goes on in Russia; but there are some things we can learn from Russia, and one of them is the way in which they provide for young children in happy, comfortable surroundings, to enable such a large number of women to take part in industry and production.

We all know the difficulties which exist in this country today as a result of the shortage of premises. Conditions vary from one local authority to another, but I do not think that in present circumstances it would be right—although this may have to be reviewed later on—to impose on all local authorities the obligation to make regulations in each of the matters specified in Subsection (3). Perhaps at some stage the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us whether the Ministry propose to give any general guidance as to the kind of regulations that will he laid down. Will there be anything in the nature of standard or model regulations? Will there be minimum standards of staffing laid down? What is to be laid down under this Subsection? It may be much better, in the interests of flexibility, to lay down nothing.

Nevertheless, as this is a new social service which by this Bill we are entrusting to local authorities—we in this House shall hope from time to time to hear how local authorities in different parts of the country are interpreting the powers which are given in Clause 2—I hope that this Clause will be left in its present form.

I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he will look at the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings), because if he examines Subsection (3) he will find that paragraphs ( a ) and ( b ) conflict. Under paragraph ( a ) the person who will be in charge may have certain qualifications, according to the discretion of the local authority; but under paragraph ( b ) it is insisted that those who are employed under that person shall have "qualifications or experience." I suggest the position might easily arise of a person in charge, not being required to have qualifications, controlling people who it is insisted shall have both qualifications and experience. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look at that again.

I think my hon. Friend the Member for West Bermondsey (Mr. Sargood) is wrong in his interpretation of this Clause. The position so far as the local health authority is concerned is that in the first place it may specify the qualifications of the person in charge of the establishment, but in the second place it has to be satisfied as to their qualifications. The hon. Member for Ecciesall (Mr. P. Roberts) took a strong view about all this. The truth is that he is prepared to take risks that I am not prepared to take. If we are going to have—as I think—an extension of nurseries in factory premises and so on we cannot afford to take any risks at all. If we thought that we could get away with things that should be avoided without this supervision we should find that a scandal would bring us to our senses and we should have to do in the second resort what we ought to have done in the first resort.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) wants more positive direction to local authorities. I would put it to him that here we are dealing with the major local authorities—the councils of counties and the county boroughs. These are responsible self-governing units in our constitution, and on a number of occasions I have gone out of my way to say that we have the greatest confidence in them. Therefore, I would not want, knowing them as I do and also their staffs in whom I have great confidence, to have this Clause reading:

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Penalties for failure to register and for breach of requirements under Section two.)

I beg to move, in page 3, line 37, to leave out Subsection (2).

I now return to the attack which I started on Clause 2. The Parliamentary Secretary at that time misrepresented what I was saying and I want to put the matter to him quite clearly. The whole object of this legislation is not to encourage people to send their children to nurseries for the sake of doing so, but to regard the nursery as a place where their children can go when the parents go out to work. I would impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary with all the earnestness of which I am capable that, if he is going to put heavy and onerous burdens on the people opening up these extensions, he will kill the whole project at the very beginning and stifle the growth which he intends to encourage.

When we were talking earlier about regulations and various impositions I pointed out we were discouraging responsible people from undertaking care of children. If we have faith in responsible people then there is no need for civil servants, sometimes young clerks of I8 or I9, to come along to try to supervise trained nurses and matrons. I do not think we are going to avoid risks by passing too many of these regulations. When we come to penalties and offences the deterrent is much more serious. In the Subsection I am asking the Committee to delete we are dealing with a person who looks after the children of a neighbour in his or her own home. A person may say to a neighbour, "I am going out to work. Will you look after my three or four kiddies in your home until I come back?" What we are saying under this Subsection is that if these people contravene regulations which may be issued, they will be guilty of an offence.

In the case quoted by the hon. Member they would not be guilty of an offence.

I understood that persons who are child-minders in their own home would be.

If a person has four children and leaves them with a neighbour no offence can be committed even if those people are not registered.

I apologise. I gave the wrong instance. It is if she receives more than two into the house.

Coming from different households.

Yes, if they come from different households. Then there is an offence. I am sorry that I forgot to mention that they must come from different households. I do not press this point.

We are asking people to take children into their homes. If the Clause is passed as it stands, some good women, perhaps in Sheffield, who want to help the production drive may find themselves fined as much as £25 for offending against a regulation that they may not understand. What will be the result? The result will be that a lot of well-intentioned, reasonable and honest people will say that they will not risk it. They will say to the mothers: "Thank you very much, but will you take your children somewhere else?" That is the very thing that we want to avoid. If we put on severe penalties, such as sending housewives to prison, we are not going forward along the right lines. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will withdraw the Subsection and put in something milder that will not discourage honest people.

For women who flog children or behave in a cruel manner, there are plenty of other provisions of the law under which they may be taken up. There is no need to impose these penalties in order to catch a flagrant case. I therefore suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he ought to consider this matter very seriously. I hope that he will address himself to this point.

I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give us some explanation of the figures chosen in this Subsection. As I read the Bill, three children at least have to be involved, coming from two households before the local authority has the power of inspection. That means that if there are four children from one family or two children from only two families, the local authority has no power under the Bill to intervene. The real test, where children are being looked after for reward, whether there is only one child or two children, should be whether they are properly treated. I can imagine that one child looked after by elderly child-minders might provide almost the worst example of the conditions that the Bill is intended to rectify.

3.30 p.m.

I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary has made any inquiry in Blackburn about the popularity of this proposal that an individual must go down to the town hall and register if she proposes to look after two or three of her neighbours' children. The number is unnecessarily small. The Clause says that all those small neighbourly arrangements which go on in the back streets and of which we never usually hear, have now to be solemnly registered at the town hall. Suppose three women get together and discuss going back to work in the mill. They may agree that two of them shall go there, if the third will look after their children. The third person has solemnly to go to the town hall to register the fact that she is going to look after her neighbour's children and get a little money for doing so. That is what the Clause says.

Either that will cause a good deal of indignation or it will be ignored as plain duff, to use their own terminology. The figures ought to be raised to, say, six children from three families. It is not just a matter that the local authorities have powers to inspect the child-minders but that the initiative must be taken by the potential child-minders who have to go to the town hall to register. That may mean that a number of potential minders will say, "It is not worth the bother. We will not trouble," or, "We will not bother to register and then they will not find out." It is an undesirable situation, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will do something to remedy it.

I should have thought that on the whole, the Subsection was all right, but perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with one point. I imagine that it will not apply where child-minding is really a casual occupation for a relatively limited period. I imagine that the obligation to register will only arise where it is a more or less regular business for a substantial period of time, and that no hardship will be inflicted on a person who occasionally or only for short periods looks after a couple of children for holiday periods or periods when neighbours are ill or away. Provided that this is interpreted reasonably and that it is only intended to operate where the child-minder, carries on that occupation regularly, I should have thought that there was no hardship in these provisions.

I feel in some difficulty here because I am being urged from two opposite angles. One side is saying in effect that the Clause ought to be strengthened so that anyone who minds a child, other than a relative, is brought within the registration, and the other side is saying the Clause goes too far already. We wanted to try to distinguish between those people who really make a job of child-minding and neighbours or relatives who look after children while the mothers are at work. We hoped that that was what we had achieved. We have excluded relatives altogether. We have not made registration obligatory, although people may agree to register all the same, unless we have the two conditions, that the number of children exceeds two and the children come from more than one household. That seemed to us to be going a considerable way.

I must admit that I was to a certain extent influenced by what was said about the nature of the penalties, and it would be worth while considering again whether the penalties for the two categories should be the same as they are in the Bill and whether it might not be fair to recognise that some people will not necessarily know they have to do this and may unwittingly break the law, at any rate on the first occasion. I am prepared to look at that, but I certainly cannot even begin to accept the proposal that we should leave out the Subsection altogether. The effect of that would be completely disastrous. The hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. Roberts) for the second time apparently, has put down an Amendment, in which he does not believe, in order to be able to argue about something else. We must keep restrictions on people in cases where, in their own homes, for private profit they make a job of child-minding. In cases brought to my notice there have been circumstances which were very distasteful and, to some extent, even dangerous. When there is a woman who is prepared to take in a dozen children and look after them in a room, we must regulate those conditions. I think we have gone as far as we ought. I do not wish to go either backwards or forwards, but I shall consider whether the penalties against child minders are appropriate.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary give some consideration to the elimination of the prison sentence part of the Clause? There are plenty of regulations governing cruelty to children and it does seem, in a humanitarian Bill like this, a great pity to introduce the threat of prison.

The hon. Member will appreciate there is no threat of imprisonment in respect of a first offence. I am concerned about the fact that on the first occasion the child-minder may unwittingly break the law and the penalty for that ought not to be so severe. After the first offence, there would, of course, be no excuse. The reason for this Bill is that the category of children involved here is not covered by the Child Life Protection provisions or by the Children Bill, as it is before the House. It is to close that gap that we have brought in this Measure and we must have adequate penalties against people who ill-treat children in their care.

The Parliamentary Secretary is a little unfair when he says that I do not believe in this matter which I have brought forward. It is a perfectly normal procedure to move to leave out a Subsection in order that one may have a discussion upon it, and, if it were left out, some other wording could be put in which would be more acceptable. The issue here is how far are we to distinguish between neighbourliness and those who make a business of child-minding. I would refer to what the Parliamentary Secretary himself said:

The Parliamentary Secretary seemed to go half way along the path and then turn back. I hope that he can give the Committee the assurance that, while he is looking into the question of the first offender, he will also look into this question of the neighbourly point of view. If he took the advice of large municipalities in this matter he would find there is a great deal of support in what I am trying to say to him. I hope we may have that assurance.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Cancellation of registration.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Where there has been a contravention of the provisions of this Measure, the local authority may cancel registration. I presume that the permissive nature of this instruction to the local authority is in line with the general policy of not making anything compulsory under local authority in this developing field? Cancellation of a registration may presumably occur on account of premises having been unsuitable or on account of extensive mismanagement or cruelty or neglect of the children in the care of the establish- ment. It is important that everyone should know about this, and, if there is any doubt about whether premises formerly registered are still registered, that a person should have access to the registrar at the town hall or be able to find out from the local newspaper whether or not registration has been cancelled. I hope that full publicity will be given to cancellation.

The hon. Member is right about the first point that he raised. On the second point, I will make certain when the Bill goes to another place that we get proper publicity by way of making registers available and I will see what general advice can be given to local authorities in the matter of publicity.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(Inspection.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill "

The Clause states:

" Any person authorised in that behalf by a local health authority may at all reasonable times enter any premises "

This is the same argument as "substantially" and "mainly." Why cannot the Parliamentary Secretary say what he means by "reasonable times "—between the hours of so and so? I will not say it is idleness on the part of the draftsmen, but they are not prepared to take the responsibility of saying what they mean. In a borderline case the question is left open to the whole procedure of appeal. People living above such nurseries are people of small means and we cannot ask them to go through all the procedure merely because we in this Committee cannot say what we mean by "all reasonable times." It would be quite possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to say what he means—

indicated dissent.

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head and says he will not do it. I should like to know why.

I cannot say what is reasonable in a particular case until I come to that case. As everyone knows, the variety of shift working and the extraordinary variation of hours during which nurseries are open, makes it necessary that there should be an element of discretion. There is the right of appeal to the courts to deal with matters of doubt. I cannot begin to do what the hon. Member wants to be done as we are not dealing with standard nurseries, standard hours or standard conditions, but with a multitude of conditions.

May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary how the quota of members of the committee going round making the inspections will be appointed?

It is entirely a matter for the local authority to organise as it thinks fit.

In cases where it is necessary for the local authority to enter premises at any time, I should have thought that the word "reasonable" constituted a reasonable safeguard. They must be able to go into these places at any time to be sure that the conditions are satisfactory, and, if we use the word "reasonable," I think we have the necessary safeguard there.

I appreciate that, but we are here dealing with small children. It is not likely that they would be available only at midnight, but I should have thought it might be reasonable to say "between 9 or 10 a.m. and 7 p.m." My point is that the introduction of the word "reasonable" brings in an element of doubt as to what is reasonable and what is not. I should be quite prepared to support the use of the words "any time," which are clear and without distinction. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary not to use ambiguous words, the meaning of which the people may not follow.

This is a form of words which has been used for 300 years, and it has not go us into all the difficulties which the hon. Gentleman imagines.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 8 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE II.—(Prosecution of offences.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

3.45 P.m.

May we have a word of explanation about this Clause?

We put this Clause into the Bill in order that the local authority may be given the right to prosecute. It means what it says and nothing but what it says.

May I ask what is the position in regard to Scotland?

This Bill covers Scotland, because Scotland is not expressly excluded, and the local health authority, in the case of England and Wales, is the local health authority as defined in the National Health Service Act, 1946; and, in the case of Scotland, as defined in the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 12.—(Payments out of moneys provided by Parliament.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Could the Parliamentary Secretary give us some idea of the amount of money likely to be expended under this Clause and the Money Resolution which goes with it? It means increasing the Civil Service, and means more people having to go on the books of the local authorities. It would be useful to the Committee to know how much it is expected, in the first year or two, we shall have to expend through the local authorities for this service.

I am afraid it is not possible to give that information, and I cannot add to what I said on Second Reading. We do not know, but we do not anticipate that there will be increases of staff. We think that the existing staff will be able to do the work, and we do not think that any extra expense will be very great.

Question put, and agreed to

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered.

Motion Made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

3.49 P.m.

In general, we on this side of the House accord the Bill a most hearty welcome. There are, however, one or two points to be raised before its Third Reading is completed. There is the legitimate fear that by imposing too heavy a mass of regulations a number of people who would otherwise have become child-minders will be deterred from doing so. It is most important that nobody, from a fear of the Regulations and the subsequent powers of inspection which the Regulations confer, should be deterred from placing himself or herself in work which will play an important part in encouraging production by freeing a number of mothers who otherwise would be engaged in looking after their children.

The Regulations are wholly desirable in the cases of nurseries attached to industrial premises and those where a large number of children may be cared for. Mothers must have the assurance that local authorities can ensure that the conditions and standards maintained are adequate. It is not likely that any prosecutions or cancellations of registrations will take place under this Measure. Local authorities must not set an unnecessarily high standard. We do not want to lose a number of potential child-minders through, perhaps, an insistence on standards in the home of the child-minder being far in excess of those of the family from which the child has come. I hope that mothers will be able to guide local authorities in the kind of standards upon which it should insist and that such questions will not be left solely to the dictates of people without practical experience. This is an opportunity for mothers to see that the power given to local authorities is wisely, generously and sensibly interpreted.

3.52 p.m.

I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) and wish to bring just one matter to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary. Can he tell us what are the arrangements for ensuring the building of nurseries and facilities provided in the Bill? In Sheffield we have a great need—and a. great desire —to forward this project as much as we can. It is important that it should not be tied around with too much red tape, but we are frustrated on all sides—industry as well as socially-minded people —by the lack of building and raw materials.

One of the Subsections to which approval has been given provides that the premises must be properly maintained. The Parliamentary Secretary must know of the difficulties of getting licences for that kind of work. I ask him seriously to approach other Ministers concerned to see whether he can give us an idea of our hopes and chances of getting—I will not say extreme priority —at least the licences to do the work within a reasonably early time. Nothing could be worse than to pass an Act of this nature and give it publicity, and then leave room for frustration amongst workers when they find they cannot get on with the job because of a lack of building licences and materials.

I impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary the necessity of granting licences and building for this work. It is vitally important, for we are likely to get a very great deal of extra production if mothers and other workers are enabled to enter factories as a result of this Measure. I hope that if he deals with the allocation of material and priority, he will be able to impress that point on his colleagues. I would like to hear what is in his mind on this point.

3.55 p.m.

During the Second Reading Debate I did say that in areas like Lancashire where we were developing factory nurseries considerably we were giving priority in materials and help in every way we could. While that drive is at the moment restricted to certain areas, I will do all I can to help forward any case in which the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. P. Roberts) is interested.

May I clear up one point on which I made a mistake in a discussion in Committee? We were discussing Clause II, dealing with prosecutions, and I should have made it plain that under English law it is necessary to put this power in the Bill whereas in Scotland it is not necessary. I am sorry to have misled the Committee on that point, and I hope I have now made the position clear. This Bill is a very useful Measure. I hope it will mean that, as the years go on, we can improve the conditions in which children are cared for either in private homes or in day nurseries not provided by the local authority. I think that will help to reassure the minds of the married women with children upon whom we are placing very considerable burdens at the present time and to whom we owe so much.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

I am very pleased to have this opportunity of raising a Debate on Civil Aviation. I must congratulate the noble Lord who has now taken over the duty of Minister of Civil Aviation. We are pleased to see that the Parliamentary Secretary is still with us and that he was not a casualty in the events which took place last week. It will not be difficult for the newcomer to the office of Minister to do a greater service to civil aviation than did his predecessor; the flying Marco Polo did little to enhance the lustre of British Civil Aviation since the war.

I am today dealing with a relatively small point in the rather sad story, indeed the very sad story, of British Civil Aviation in the past few years. The story of British Civil Aviation has been a sad story almost inevitably because of the failure and wrong decisions taken in high places. It is probably true that the sufferings of Civil Aviation, more than anything else, and the difficulties it is going through, are due not to the efforts of the ordinary man, the man conducting the day-to-day business, but due to the folly and the lack of foresight on the part of those who are responsible for high policy.

The House may or may not be aware that for some years we have been maintaining the Constellation Fleet which operates our North Atlantic service at Dorval, Montreal. That is a very fine airport and the facilities there are of the highest order, but it is remarkable that we are the only nation which operates its main maintenance base outside the country—the only nation of any substance in the field of civil aviation operating its main maintenance base outside its own borders—and the cost of that maintenance base has been to the extent of £500,000 in dollars annually.

That is an exceptionally high cost for us to have to bear out of Canadian dollars. For some time the good grace of our Canadian friends helped to make the Canadian dollar position less difficult than the position of American dollars, but today our Canadian friends are in almost as difficult a position as we are over American dollars and, therefore, they are not able to afford us the facilities they would otherwise like us to have. It is essential today that we should save Canadian dollars just as much as we should save American dollars. Why have we had this hanging on so long? Why is it the Minister has taken so long to move this base? We have lost something like £2,000,000 in dollars over this period of time—

It being Four o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn.—[ Mr. Snow. ]

I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why we are involved in the enormous cost of £500,000; why it takes £500,000 worth of maintenance each year to maintain five aircraft, and why it should be necessary to have 500 people doing this job. It seems to me entirely outside what is reasonable to spend on the maintenance of five aircraft. I know the Parliamentary Secretary will say we have maintained a high degree of utilisation. It is true that our Constellations have been going at eight hours a day, which is probably a higher performance than that of any other civil air line in the world.

However, I would point out that this expenditure of £500,000 in Canadian dollars is not the sum total of the loss we are sustaining, because it does not, so far as I am aware—the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—include the cost of paying the pilots in Canadian dollars. We have to pay the pilots on the North Atlantic service in Canadian dollars because, since our base is there, they must reside in Montreal instead of in this country. Moreover, this cost does not include the cost of dead flying time, and the dead flying time between Montreal and New York is very substantial indeed. I do not know what it costs to fly a Constellation in terms of the amount per hour, but it must run to many hundreds of pounds an hour; and we are flying these aircraft a distance of nearly 300 miles for maintenance. It is an obviously ridiculous situation.

Indeed, I feel that as a consequence of this drain—and others—our civil aviation, in its operation, involves us in a loss in balance of payments. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary—I have given him notice of this question—to tell the House whether it is true or untrue that in the operation of British civil aviation in 1947 we were involved in a loss on the balance of exchange. If that is so, it is a grievous thing because other nations, and particularly the Dutch with their K.L.M. line, are able to maintain a very satisfactory balance between internal and external payments. I believe that through lack of foresight it is more than likely that our civil aviation at the present time is resulting in a drain on our dollar exchange resources.

We have been told that this uneconomic state of affairs is to come to an end some time towards the end of this year. I should like to know at what time exactly this base is to be removed. I should like to know more than that. I should like to know why the base should be removed to Filton and not to Heathrow. If we are to move the base to Filton we shall still be involved in dead flying time. It is true that the dead flying time will be less than it is in the case of the Montreal to New York line, but it is still dead flying time, and it is still time that has to be paid for in dollars. Petrol has to be paid for substantially in dollars; spares have to be paid for in dollars; the aircraft has to be paid for in dollars. Therefore, all that dead flying time is a drain on our dollar reserves, and I am quite certain that it will mean a very substantial sum of money.

This is even less satisfactory when one realises that it is the intention, apparently, of the Minister to move the base back to Heathrow as soon as conditions permit, so that this device at Filton is an entirely temporary device which will involve us in additional expenditure without any return. I should have thought it obvious that what we ought to aim at doing is to get a central base for maintenance at Heathrow, and there maintain all the aircraft which we now maintain variously at Whitchurch and Hum, and intend to maintain at Filton.

To get these aircraft maintained at one base ought to be a priority. I am certain that such maintenance would result in hundreds of thousands of pounds being saved to British aviation each year. I ask the Minister whether B.O.A.C. have been consulted on this matter, and is it their desire that an aircraft base should be put down at Filton, and accommodation should not be arranged for at Heathrow? How much are we spending on the arrangement at Filton? How much is this temporary arrangement to cost us?

I know that the argument will be put forward that at Filton we are making these arrangements to house the Brabazon, and that the facilities are not being specially provided for the Constellation. It is designed primarily for the purpose of Brabazon production and maintenance. I think that it is about time that we stopped all this nonsense about the Brabazon. In this country, we are in a particularly difficult position economically. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that the Brabazon will never earn us a penny of money. He knows that it is an aeronautical monstrosity, and commercially has no more chance of flying than the early products of the I8th or I9th century. There is no aerodrome except Heathrow where it can take off and land. From the point of view of practical aviation, the Brabazon is a waste of time. It is very satisfing to produce prototypes of advanced design and to take the lead in the field of aeronautical developments, but commercially we cannot afford to do so. I cannot see any sense at all in launching on further expenditure at Filton on the Brabazon type when we could be utilising that expenditure to more practical commercial value.

The practical commercial value to which our capital resources should be put is in preparing at Heathrow a proper maintenance base suitable for all aircraft of B.O.A.C. There is no reason why that should not be done. What is the good, in present circumstances, of saying that we shall cut down the projected improvements at Heathrow, the building of hangers, etc., and continuing with the development of the Brabazon and the facilities for it when everyone connected with civil aviation knows that from a commercial point of view the Brabazon is not likely to earn us anything. It is ridiculous that the Government should cut down on capital expenditure which is essential for us to develop the airport at Heathrow whilst continuing uneconomic development elsewhere.

It seems fantastic that this country which could conduct 1,500 bomber raids on Germany cannot maintain five aircraft at Heathrow. at is a shocking commentary on the incapacity of those who are at present running civil aviation that they have not sufficient knowledge and ingenuity to get some sort of hangarage erected at Heathrow to maintain five aircraft. If we cannot do that, we are not likely to succeed in the wider field of civil aviation. If this were war time, and it was necessary to maintain five bombers at Heathrow, something could he arranged over night, and some one would be on the job the next morning, getting the necessary facilities there.

The hon. Gentleman has for I8 months past been fiddling about with this problem. Then he decides that he could not put them at Heathrow, which is the economic way to do it, but must put them down at Filton. It is a sad commentary upon the capacity of those who organised this, that with all our experience during the war we cannot now provide the simple facilities needed for the maintenance of five Constellations. I suppose that when another disaster overtakes us—when we get some Stratocruisers as well—another mistake in policy in high places, we will have to maintain them.

This is a case where the Government have, for the past 18 months, dillied and dallied with the problem, which is cost ing us dollars we cannot afford to lose. There is no possibility of getting any real economic value out of the expansion now taking place at Filton, and the obvious thing, in the interests of the economic operation of B.O.A.C., is to get a collective and central maintenance base at Heathrow, with the minimum loss of time; and all the money that is now being spent down at Filton ought to be spent at Heathrow in providing the facilities which are essential if our airways are not to lose as much money in the next year as they will lose in this year.

4.12 p.m.

We are indebted to the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) for raising this question. I, like him, am glad that in spite of the Government reshuffle the Parliamentary Secretary is still here to reply. At least he knows his subject, and has recently been to Dorval and looked at this problem at first hand. I cannot join the hon. Member in approving the recent appointment in another place. Frankly, I think we have not enough people in this House responsible for civil aviation, and I would like to see the Minister appointed sitting in this House.

After a long time, the Government have finally made up their minds to dam the drain on dollars. With regard to the move, I do not agree with my hon. Friend but I have not time now to give my reasons. I think Filton was a right choice, for a variety of reasons. Of course, it does affect a considerable organisation, on both sides of the Atlantic, affecting maintenance staff, and so on. Now that this has been done and a move made, I cannot help thinking there is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says, and that there has been undue delay. I remember being at Dorval on one occasion, just before I was to be a passenger on an inaugural flight in a Constellation from New York to Prestwick, but I was unable to book a passage on the American line from Dorval to New York. The very Constellation which was to fly us on the official inaugural flight from New York to Prestwick was standing there, but we were none of us able to get a lift down on that 300 miles trip. That is an aspect which ought to have been tackled before. It has gone on for a long time, and it causes a tremendous drain on our dollar resources. We go on, with Department after Department spending dollars, and I believe that we may be the loser on dollars on the actual operation. We have nearly reached the time when this House must call for a Commission of Inquiry into the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the working of these three corporations, otherwise they will be in danger of becoming white elephants. They are constantly spending our dollar resources, and I hope that the Prime Minister, and certainly the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will issue a directive to all these Departments and corporations which are concerned with dollar expenditure. Are they really looking at these things from the point of view of every dollar spent? In the autumn we will have an economic crisis; next year we will have the worst economic crisis we have ever faced, seriously affecting our standards of living. We have Debates here about saving dollar expenditure, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary in his reply is going to say that the move will be sooner than the end of the year, which would save this country a large expenditure of dollars.

4.15 p.m.

I should like to refer to the remark of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Glanville) when he said that he hoped the transition would take place before the end of the year. I agree with him, but might I also ask that it should not be taken for granted that when it is actually taking place our Transatlantic service should have a month's interruption. When we raise this question of moving the base from Canada to this side of the Atlantic it was suggested from all parts of the House that we might indulge in a bit of improvisation. The Parliamentary Secretary quite reasonably said that improvisation was not possible over a period of time, but I think for a short period of a month or two we ought to do all that we possibly can to maintain our services at the same time as the actual transfer is taking place. As my hon. Friend also knows, there are at least two other bases on this side of the Atlantic which could be utilised one way or another to help us out in this transitional period. I emphasise that I hope we shall find ways and means of keeping up the excellent services we have managed to maintain so far over the Atlantic at the same time as the transfer of maintenance bases takes place.

4.16 p.m.

I am glad that we have had the opportunity of this Debate this afternoon, because quite a lot has been said from time to time in regard to the installation of the base at Filton and the maintenance of the base at Dorval. May I first of all say that I would not like any impression created other than that this group of men at the maintenance base have done a first-class job which we in this country fully appreciate. Dorval, as an airline operating base for maintaining aircraft, has achieved a high utilisation of aircraft. The staff over there, both British and Canadian, in the employ of B.O.A.C., has done splendidly. These men have given us a British airline of which we have every right to be proud, and sometimes I wish that hon. Members on the opposite side of the House would say something in praise of their own countrymen instead of always praising the foreigner.

I must remind the hon. Gentleman that I did refer to that aspect of it in my speech and said that on the North Atlantic service we had achieved a utilisation greater than any other airline.

I was not thinking altogether of what the hon. Gentleman said today but, having regard to what he did say, it seemed to me that he was rather more proud of K.L.M. than he was of B.O.A.C., so far as the Atlantic Service was concerned. No other airline in the world has a record of service utilisation like B.O.A.C. That this high standard has been attained has been due in large measure to the men who work on the ground, though I would be the last to withhold any praise from the pilots, stewards and other members of the air crews who have also done a splendid job.

Therefore I was pleased when the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) in his speech said that if there was any criticism of the base being at Dorval, it was not criticism of the maintenance done there, but of the policy in high places. Thus far we are on common ground. Now, when we started the North Atlantic Service in 1946 there was no other place in which we could set up a suitable base. A base requires hangars, workshops and workers to do the work. We had no hangars. It is true that we had a number of workers with the necessary qualifications, but they were distributed all over the country. A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) gave particulars of a number of airfields where they believed, from their own experience, there were hangars which could accept Constellations. But these hangars which could be adapted were in isolated parts of the country without a house for miles. Workers at a base require housing, and that is why we cannot have them at London Airport.

Is it not a fact that the workers at Dorval live in Montreal, I0 miles away?

Yes, Sir; some live in Montreal, some in Dorval and others in other places. But they were already there and already housed. Even at Filton, those who do the bulk of the work live at Whit-church, some way away. It is always a better arrangement to have men housed reasonably close to their work, rather than living in hostels and other such places.

Is it not better arranged across the Atlantic than in this country?

I am saying that when we first started the North Atlantic service with the Constellations, which had been under the control and operational charge of the Ferry Service during the war, every facility was there; workers, works, hangars, machinery and spares. We had not the necessary facilities in this country. In order to get the service quickly into operation and to get the greatest utilisation from it, Dorval was used pending the establishment of a base in this country. It was always intended that the base should be London Airport, where the facilities and the general layout of shops are designed for that purpose. We have had considerable difficulty about labour and materials, which are resources universally needed to get going the production machinery on the transfer from war to peace. Other industries have had first call on the resources of this country and, at the time the decision was made, it was only fair and reasonable that the base should be at Dorval, pending the taking over of London Airport.

The dollar situation and other developments have made a considerable difference to the economic position, not only of this country but of the world at large. Our own position in relation to world economy made it yet more urgent to reduce to an absolute minimum all dollar expenditure incurred at Dorval. I will give figures now, lest I forget to do so before I sit down. In the first year, taking expenditure against revenue, there was a loss on both American and Canadian dollars. This year we had hoped to break even, by making a profit on American, despite a loss on Canadian dollars.

Next year, had the base remained at Dorval, we should have made a profit on both American and Canadian dollars. That does not mean, however, that if we had had a base in this country profits would have been markedly higher. We should anyway have had expenditure at Dorval; and nobody should think that because the base is moved, there will be no expenditure on the American route. The general training of pilots, particularly in American let-down procedure and air traffic control, is so complicated that it could not be done from this side. There will still have to be some sort of training—

Is it possible for an arrangement to be made for Trans-Canada to do the servicing for B.O.A.C. at Dorval and B.O.A.C. to do the servicing for T.C.A. at Prestwick or Heathrow?

There is a lot of difference between servicing and maintenance. If it were normal servicing, we should still have to have maintenance at Dorval. We are dealing with complete C. of A. checks, engine maintenance as well as air frame checks. As far as is humanly practicable, every airline operator likes to be responsible for his own maintenance. This aircraft maintenance is perhaps the biggest factor not only in the utilisation rate of aircraft but also in their safety, and when responsibility is divided between two sets of persons it is never entirely satisfactory. To resume what I was saying, arrangements are being made for the base to be transferred to this country.

The hon. Gentleman will not get international aviation.

I hope we shall, but there is a lot of difference between having an international airline and general arrangements as between nations for particular responsibilities in an international set-up. The hon. Member was suggesting that we contract out the aircraft maintenance of an airline, over which there is single ownership and to which single operating factors apply, to another and competing concern.

The question was asked: Why 500 men? On the North Atlantic service we have a very high utilisation rate, and I must emphasise that an aircraft is a very delicate machine. There are those who think of an aircraft and aircraft maintenance as if the machine were a bicycle. Using 500 men over 24 hours a day, seven days a week and 365 days a year, we are maintaining daily scheduled services. If we are to get a quick turnround, aircraft have to be serviced and the various phases of checks carried out as and when the aircraft land; and this necessitates a 24 hours service. To provide a 24 hour service, sufficient staff for three shifts are needed.

I have checked my figures with other airline operators—I repeat that, with airline operators—and I would emphasise that there is a great difference between running a scheduled service, on which aircraft operate strictly to time, and running a charter company. And from these checks I have made with scheduled airline operators about the relation of numbers of staff to aircraft-hours in the air, I can say that the B.O.A.C. staff at Dorval is not excessive. There are not merely six Constellations based there, but also training aircraft and the Liberators for the mail and freight service across the North Atlantic.

I was asked what the cost of Filton would he. It will cost £200,000 to establish works, workshops and offices at Filton for the Constellations, Stratocruisers and their related organisation; a very heavy capital expenditure. I thank the hon. Member for Bucklow for having raised this question, and I can assure the House that everything possible will be done to complete this move by the end of the year, which, in relation to the responsibility of the operator, is as quickly as it can be done.

The Question having been proposed after Four o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Four o'Clock.