HC Deb 15 May 1964 vol 695 cc854-72

2.41 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)

I turn the attention of the House to a somewhat different subject. For the last few months the concept of an international health research centre has captured the imagination of large numbers of influential people in Britain, not least in Scotland. Our gratitude must go to the scientists who have laboured diligently and long on this idea within the United Nations Organisation.

The United Nations never hits the headlines until it seeks actively to engage in a holding of the peace operation, often by military intervention; for example, as in Cyprus, the Congo or on the Egyptian-Israeli border. And then the Organisation comes in for such jeering abuse and carping criticism as it receives praise. Meanwhile, the constructive and positive striving for peace continues unabated and, I fear, very much unpublished.

This House is as much at fault for this as any other institution. In my recollection over many years in this House, there has been only one debate on the specialised agencies of the United Nations. Today's short debate gives us an opportunity to express our thanks to the World Health Organisation for its continuing struggle against ill-health on an international scale.

While making my investigations into this problem I came across an example which should be put on the record; the worldwide attack which has been made on malaria in recent years—in my view the only kind of worldwide war which has been worth while.

According to the Director-General of the W.H.O., Dr. M. G. Candau, this has been the largest mass campaign against disease undertaken in history. As a result, the population which could now be regarded as safe from this killer disease had increased 14 times, from 49½ million to 700 million people, and 2 million lives a year were being saved. It is in that context that I want to discuss this idea of a W.H.O. research centre.

Unfortunately, the reports of the debates in the W.H.O. which took place in January and March of this year have not yet been published. They were based on proposals contained in a report made by a number of scientific advisers from various research institutes in many parts of the world. Those proposals were discussed by the W.H.O. Executive Board at its 33rd session last January. Among the scientists involved were such eminent British scientists as Dr. J. Kendrew from the Medical Research Laboratory of Molecular Biology at Cambridge University, Lord Adrian of Cambridge, Professor J. Rotblat of the Physics Department of St. Bartholomew's Hospital in London, Dr. Carter from the Edinburgh Agricultural Research Council, Professor Alexander Haddow, Director of the Chester Beatty Research Institute, and Professor Waddington, from the Institute of Animal Genetics in Edinburgh. I hope that the eminence of those gentleman has been noted.

After the January debate a resolution was adopted requesting the Director-General …to invite comments from Member States and Associate Members and to continue the study of this subject for future consideration". I am reasonably certain that that will be the case of Her Majesty's Government; that this is under active discussion and that it will be under discussion for many months to come. But before considering the attitude of Her Majesty's Government, I want to comment on the W.H.O. Report of Scientific Advisers on the Special Development of International Health and Biochemic Research, dated December, 1963. I have managed to obtain a copy of that Report through the good offices of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Dr. A. Thompson), who has taken an active interest in these matters.

The Report was devoted to a study of certain health problems of great international importance but which are unlikely to be explored adequately on a national scale. To give a few examples quoted in the Report, there are the potential dangers of chemical contamination of the atmosphere, our water supplies and foodstuffs inhaled or ingested by millions of people. There are then given examples of the possible ill-effects of new therapeutic and prophylactic substances and biological products given to or inoculated into millions of people each year.

One need only quote the examples of the recent thalidomide tragedy and the problems of industrial waste and pesticides to realise the extent of the new problems which are being created by scientific advances. One example is cancer, which the Report quoted as not being tackled inadequately. Cardiovascular diseases are quoted as another example. Also quoted are the chronic degenerative diseases of old age and so on, mental health problems and the special problems relating to developing countries, particularly those of malnutrition, parasitic and other infectious tropical diseases.

These are quoted as examples of the kind of problems which can be tackled only on an international basis. We are living in a world of explosive scientific and social change which demands ever higher standards of living. This runs parallel with increasing health hazards as science marches on. The fantastic increase in scientific and medical information, even in the last decade, has become so great that even the individual specialist in his own speciality cannot cope with all the information that is being pushed out to him. In these circumstances, the danger of wasteful duplication of effort becomes obvious, and even if the effort has been made and the results collated there is inevitably considerable delay in worldwide dissemination of that information and of the results of research.

Fortunately, as the volume of this scientific information increases simultaneously there is and there has been a phenomenally rapid development in computing techniques. The W.H.O. is concerned to marry these two developments—the increasing volume of scientific and medical knowledge and the increasing possibility of computing and collating it and getting it out as quickly as possible to all parts of the world. The problems which the study in the Report poses were listed under three or four main headings. First, there is the study of health and disease patterns of population groups, known as epidemiology, which basically is the incidence of disease; secondly, environmental and other factors affecting genetic developmental and metabolic mechanisms; thirdly, the collecting, processing and dissemination of information on global health problems and bio-medical research; fourthly, the special problems of developing countries.

The study suggested that these four categories of problems can be tackled only on an international basis, for certain reasons which I will try to put as briefly as I can. In the first place, tackling them on an international basis would represent the most enonomical use of finance and personnel. Secondly, the problems involve the close co-operation of a variety of scientific disciplines. Thirdly, the assembly of such top-level scientists in various fields, with all the stimulus and cross-fertilisation of ideas which would inevitably result, could be achieved only by such an international agency. Fourthly, the expensive apparatus and large machinery and animal facilities required would be beyond the means of most, if not all, nation States. The collection of such eminent scientists in such large numbers in one establishment would provide unrivalled research and training facilities for a wide variety of health and bio-medical research workers all over the world.

Lastly, as in any other field, world health problems and needs will inevitably change. There clearly must be an international centre of some kind to collect and disseminate information on these problems as they change, and such a centre could possibly anticipate the changes if sufficient data were being fed into it. The World Health Organisation envisages an institution grouped round three centers—a centre for epidemiology, a centre for health communications and a centre for what is called the study of environmentally induced mutations and toxicities, that is, the dangers of chemical and toxic agents in food and water and the dangers from new medicines and drugs.

I have studied these papers and have found them extremely impressive. It is a salutary discipline and a humbling experience from the point of view of a back bencher who struggles with a mass of paper from week to week. I am in no position whatsoever to challenge the scientific assessment of the problems posed, or the practicability or desirability of the solutions propounded. My immediate instinct is to be immensely excited by the idea of having a vast research centre with the scientists of many nations co-operating in the common world struggle against ill-health. This suggestion of an international centre is one of the most exciting that we have had for many decades.

I turn now to the Government's response. I regret to have to say it, but after looking carefully through all the Questions and Answers posed in the House over the last few months, the impression which the Government have created is, if not of active hostility, then certainly one of very divided counsel and a hesitant if not outright indifference. This may be an unfair impression and I hope that I shall be corrected if I am wrong.

On 28th March The Lancet stated: At the 17th World Health Assembly, Sir George Godber, speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, said that he could not support the idea of a W.H.O. centre for fundamental research in medical and allied biological fields. This was not because of costs but because the scientific concept seemed wrong. Such research activities should be related to national health services. On whose advice was this opinion given? According to the Prime Minister, in answer to a Question on 7th April, it was based on advice given to the Government by the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy. He suggested that the Council had agreed on two points—a centre for epidemiology, and a centre for communications and processing information, but that there was disagreement on the third point, the establishment of what he called a large scientific laboratory for biological research. The Prime Minister went on to say: In this view we have been supported by a great majority of the countries which have considered this matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th April, 1964; Vol. 692 c. 799.] I want to know on what evidence he based that statement and which countries have disagreed with this proposition. I believe I am right in saying that in the debates at the United Nations, certain scientists or individuals disagreed, but I am not sure that the Prime Minister would be correct in saying that countries have expressed their outright opposition to the proposition at this point. Certainly, these statements by the Prime Minister represented a large douche of cold water for the whole idea.

On 19th March, the Leader of the House was asked questions and he said categorically: We are in favour of the idea of a World Health Centre."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1964; Vol. 691, c. 1589.] So we had the Prime Minister saying or implying one thing and the Leader of the House implying, indeed, stating, quite the opposite.

Then we had the Secretary of State for Education and Science, again in answer to a Question, saying on 9th April: The representations received by the Government do not suggest that there is widespread and general support among the scientific community for an establishment of this nature in its present form."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1964; Vol. 692, c. 1199.] That again suggested that the Government were lukewarm in their approach to the problem. I regret very much that that has been the response of the Government to the proposition.

We as ordinary Members of Parliament are left completely in the dark as to the intentions of the Government. I should like the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to say whether we are to have a full statement by the Government in a White Paper or by other means on the advice received from the Advisory Council. What are the reasons for not supporting the plans for large scientific laboratories for biological research, the point on which the alleged differences occur? What is the extent of division of opinion among the scientific community on this issue, and to what extent would it be possible to establish a World Health Organisation research centre without the third contentious element?

Do the Government intend to formulate any alternative proposals? If they do not agree with those now put forward, do they intend to formulate their own? If, as the Government may claim, the idea is still nebulous, how can they explain that several countries—I understand Czechoslovakia, Austria, France and Italy—have already staked a claim for the centre or are about to stake a claim for the siting of a centre in their countries? Are there any other countries which have staked a similar claim?

Further, to what extent are we in active consultation with members of the Commonwealth on this specific issue? I appeal to the Government, through the Under-Secretary of State, to put this item high on the agenda of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting in July, because many of the problems with which the centre would be concerned are very much the health problems in many of our Commonwealth countries—for example, parasitic diseases, malnutrition, tropical diseases and the like.

The Under-Secretary of State might legitimately be saying to himself at this point, "What has all this to do with me and with Scotland?" I have deliberately left this as a relatively minor part of my speech lest I be charged with excessive parochialism, but I want now to try to bring the hon. Gentleman into the picture. In the detailed facts and figures which the study of the scientists provide, it is envisaged that by the fifth year the total number of scientific and technical staff would be 1,273, supported by 304 locally recruited secretaries and clerks. The estimate of total cost must be very tentative, but the estimate provided by the W.H.O. is in the region of £100 million over the first 10 years, including capital investment for buildings, equipment and staff.

That estimate visualises, for instance, the housing of half a million mice and other mammals as part of the research organisation and the provision of six meeting rooms and a students' residence hall to accommodate 100 fellows. It is, clearly, an enormous undertaking and would be one of the greatest concentrations of top-quality scientific manpower in the world. Speaking as a representative from a Scottish constituency, I take the view, which is widely shared in Scotland, that to win this prize for Scotland would be the greatest victory in 100 years. There is no good reason why we should not have it.

In the estimate of cost that I have given, it is assumed by the World Health Organisation that the land required will be free of charge. Fife County Council is the first local council in Britain that has come along and said, "We will provide the site free." It wants to meet either the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister of Health to discuss this proposition and I hope that either the Secretary of State or the Minister of Health, or both, will agree to meet the Council later this month. It would also fit in admirably with the ideas put forward by the Scottish Council to the Secretary of State in the paper "The Next Stage in Regional Plans". The argument which the Scottish Council then put up was summarised in these words: The first necessity is thus the adoption of policies for deliberately spreading the research and development work commissioned by Government and nationalised industries more evenly over the principal industrial areas of the country". The Government, and the Secretary of State in particular, have it in their power to strike a mighty blow for Britain, for Scotland, for the Commonwealth and for international co-operation of the most invaluable kind.

I cannot see any reason why, in the first instance, Britain should not put in a claim for this centre, and why having put in a claim and, I hope, succeeding, Scotland should not then put in a claim for it to be sited north of the Border. After all, we are one of the most regular subscribers to the United Nations. I do not think that we are laggard in that respect. We have not yet a single specialised agency in this country, or any United Nations institution at all. I feel this is a glorious opportunity to marry enlightened self-interest to the ideals of international brotherhood and co-operation, and I hope that the Government will not wantonly cast it aside.

3.8 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Millan (Glasgow, Craigton)

I am glad to have this opportunity to say a few brief words in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton), who has made an extremely comprehensive, interesting and effective speech about the World Health Organisation Research Centre. I know that the time is limited, but I should like to underline a few of the points made by my hon. Friend.

In the first place, I also had the chance of looking briefly at the Report of the Study Group of scientists under the Director-General to the W.H.O. Assembly in March. It is an extremely impressive document. The scientists concerned in its preparation are all world-renowned authorities and include a number of British scientists. It would be presumptuous of me to try to judge in any way the medical and scientific basis of the Report. It does, however, not seem to be just an attempt at any kind of empire building on the part of the World Health Organisation, but to deal realistically and sensibly with a number of major health problems and to produce practical proposals for the establishment of centres for their solution. I hope that the Government will treat the proposal with the seriousness which it deserves, because it would seem that originally the Government were almost inclined to dismiss the whole proposal out of hand. That may or may not have been the intention of the British delegate when he went to the world Health Organisation Assembly in March this year. We are glad to see that, partly because of the pressure from this country itself, the Government are now adopting a much more accommodating attitude towards the whole proposal, but at most the Government's attitude at the moment is simply one of neutrality, and one would like to see the Government being a little more enthusiastic about it and showing a little more initiative about this very imaginative proposal.

On that point I would ask the hon. Gentleman, when he replies to the debate, on the question of the scientific advice which the Government have been receiving, to try to distinguish between the three separate proposals which are included in the overall conception of the research centre, because I think it is common ground, accepted even by the Government, that for two of the proposals there is a strong case for establishing this kind of research centre. It is only on the question of the bio-medical research centre part of the proposal that there are differences of opinion, which, of course, are valid differences of opinion, as to the desirability of the establishment of such a centre. I hope very much that the Government are not going to take a rather antagonistic attitude towards the whole proposal simply because there are differences of opinion on one particular part of it.

I hope, too, like my hon. Friend, that we are going to have some kind of White Paper about the Government's attitude. The Minister of State for Education and Science, answering a Question in the House on 9th April, promised to look at the question of publishing the advice which the Government have received on the whole idea, and the Minister of Health, on 16th April, mentioned that within the next year the Government's comments on the proposal would, of course, be sent to the World Health Organisation. It seems to me that the two things could be married and that we could have the Government's comments—and, indeed, a bit of background information—published in a White Paper.

As to the site, obviously one would not want to see this centre established simply because of the possibility of its coming to the United Kingdom if scientifically or medically speaking it were not a realistic proposal, but, on the other hand, if it is a realistic proposal and it is eventually decided to have it established there is no reason at all, as my hon. Friend has said, why Britain should not stake a claim to have it sited in the United Kingdom.

In particular, as a Scottish Member, I am interested in the possibility, and I hope the Under-Secretary of State is also interested in the possibility, of having it established in Scotland, where many of the kinds of problems which the centre would be dealing with are already being dealt with in the University of Edinburgh and the University of Glasgow.

It does seem to me that this would be a tremendous boost to the economy of Scotland, and, of course, it would do a good deal to stop this continual brain drain, which affects the United Kingdom but affects Scotland even more seriously than the rest of the United Kingdom. The whole thing does seem to me to be an imaginative project which one hopes the Government will deal with imaginatively in turn.

The sums of money involved, an annual expenditure of between £10 million and £12 million, are in fact minute in comparison with the vast sums of money which are spent on military research not only in this country but in other parts of the world, and spread among the 100 members of the United Nations Organisation the expenditure of £12 million a year on basic research of this sort, which would have potentialities for making a very effective attack on world problems of health, seems to me to be essentially a very modest proposal. One hopes that the Government will greet it with a certain amount of enthusiasm rather than the hostility or neutrality they have so far.

3.14 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson (St. Pancras, North)

I am very pleased, and I am sure the House is pleased, that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) has raised this matter. It gives the Government the opportunity of clearing the air in a matter which has been extremely obscure so far. I have already expressed my views on the merits of the World Health Organisation's proposal and I certainly will not reiterate them now, particularly in view of the forceful and persuasive speech of my hon. Friend and the endorsement of his remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan).

What I want to get clear is this. I think that we are entitled to know what the Government's position was last March at the World Health Assembly meeting. The first occasion on which the ordinary man in the street knew anything about this proposal was when the Daily Telegraph reported the speech of Sir George Godber, the delegate to the World Health Assembly, in March. Sir George is, of course, also the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health. As my hon. Friend mentioned, the substance of that report was confirmed in a report in the Lancet at about the same time, and in the absence of any official record that is all that we have to go on. There is no doubt, according to those reports, that the British delegate poured cold water on the whole scheme. It was that which prompted me to put down a Question to the Minister of Health immediately. As I understand it, Sir George clearly suggested that the kind of research which it was proposed to carry out in this centre was better handled on a national rather than an international basis.

When I asked the Minister of Health to instruct the delegate to withdraw his opposition to this scheme, the Minister did not deny that opposition had been expressed. I had a kind of temporising answer saying that the matter was still under review. The next thing was that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was asked by some of my hon. Friends representing Scottish constituencies whether he would use his best endeavours to get this centre situated in Scotland. It was clear from the hon. Gentleman's replies that he was in favour of the project and, as far as he knew, the United Kingdom was in favour of the project. All that he was concerned about was getting it established in Scotland. I should like to know whether the Under-Secretary of State discussed this matter with the Minister of Health before answering at the Dispatch Box on that occasion.

That prompted us to put down some Questions. I asked a Question which was answered by the Leader of the House in the absence of the Prime Minister. The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave us a third view. He suggested that we had opposed only this one of the three aspects of the World Health Research Centre and that apart from this aspect—the biological research side—we were in support of the proposal. Although he did not say it absolutely clearly, he suggested that we had always been in support of it.

We had further Answers from the Prime Minister whom, I thought, supported the Leader of the House in a broader way than my hon. Friend thought he did, but it was not exactly along the same lines; nor was the Answer of the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I therefore repeat that we should like to know the Government's attitude to this project, and we also want to know why and to what extent we opposed the project at the World Health Assembly in March.

I come briefly to the question of location. It is not quite true, as my hon. Friend said, that we have no specialised agency of the United Nations in the United Kingdom. I understand that we have one very small organisation connected with maritime matters. It is not a specialised agency which nobody has ever heard of, but I believe that it is located in the United Kingdom. We have no specialised agency of any importance here. Therefore, if this World Health Research Centre comes into being, there is an excellent case for it being located in the United Kingdom. I think that it would be admirable from our point of view as well as from the United Nations point of view if it were located here. I speak as an English and London Member, but we do not want to hog every- thing for the Metropolis. A very good case can be made out for this centre being sited at Edinburgh, Fife, or even, perhaps, in Glasgow, but certainly in Scotland.

If we are, or appear to be, hostile or even lukewarm to this proposal, we shall certainly not get the centre sited in this country, even if it comes into being against our opposition. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will take the opportunity to clear the air and to let us know precisely where we stand in this matter.

3.20 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. A. Stodart)

There are several reasons for my being glad to be able to take part in what has been an interesting debate and I am sure that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) will be as pleased as I am that we have had the interest of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) in our affairs.

The first reason is that I think that it was I who had the privilege of answering, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretaty of State for Scotland, the first of the series of Questions asked about this matter.

Mr. K. Robinson

The second. The first was mine to the Minister of Health, when he did not deny that there had been opposition.

Mr. Stodart

Then I have my dates wrong.

All the same, I think that hon. Members were left in no doubt from my reply on that occasion of my hon. Friend's interest in this matter if it were decided to establish a research centre and if it were to be sited in this country.

The second reason for my interest is that the World Health Organisation is a sister organisation of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, and my interest in food and agriculture is not exactly unknown. Thirdly, I think that some misunderstandings have arisen about the World Health Research Centre, and I hope that I may be able to clear some of them up.

I should like at this stage to agree with the tributes paid by the hon. Member for Fife, West to those agencies of the United Nations like the two which I have mentioned on which much too little of the searchlights of public attention is played. It may be as well if I fill in a little of the background of the subject. The health organisation of the League of Nations was situated in Geneva and the agricultural one was in Rome. Both the successors to those bodies have their headquarters in the same cities, and it has now been suggested that an offspring of the World Health Organisation should be created, in the shape of a World Health Research Centre, and it is this idea with which we are dealing this afternoon.

It may be helpful if, at the outset, I distinguish between two aspects of the matter, or two stages in the development of the proposal. First, there is the question whether a World Health Research Centre should be established at all and, if so, what form it should take. There is, secondly, the question which arises only when a decision on the first has been taken—where the centre should should be established.

As hon. Members know, the objective of a proposed World Health Research Centre is to deal with major health problems which are not being adequately explored through national efforts. To meet these needs, an advisory council of the World Health Organisation suggested that the centre might comprise, first, a centre for biological research; secondly, a centre for health communications, that is, the assembling and processing of information; and, thirdly, a centre for epidemiology, which means the study of the incidence of disease, how it starts and how it grows.

The Executive Board of the World Health Organisation, of which this country is not a member at present, considered the proposal for a centre for the first time at its meeting last January. There has been some criticism of the attitude taken at a subsequent meeting of the World Health Organisation Assembly on 5th March by the United Kingdom delegation. It is true that our representative spoke against the proposal which had come from the Executive Board. However, that opposition was not in any way intended to reject the whole proposal out of hand.

We are in sympathy with the suggestion that there should be an international

centre for health communications, and for research into epidemiology, and any proposal for a centre in which research into this particular subject could be carried out would have our support. We are not, however, entirely convinced that there is a need for an international centre for biological research.

I am quite aware that the proposal that came before the World Health Organisation had been prepared after an extensive canvass of expert opinion. I know, too, that there is some—I do not know how much—support for the proposal within this country as well, but the Government must be guided by the advice they receive from the most authoritative sources available to them and, in particular, from the Advisory Council of Scientific Policy, which includes some of the most eminent scientists in the country, headed by Lord Todd.

The advice that the Government have received from the Advisory Council and from other sources is to the effect that the establishment of an international centre for biological research on the lines proposed would not only be unjustified at this time, but could affect adversely the work of the scientists who might be concerned.

We are assured that to withdraw scientists from the national centres in which they now work would be a retrograde step, since it would deprive them of their existing contacts with established laboratories and other workers in associated fields. I absolutely agree that there can be two opinions on whether the Advisory Council is right, but it was with these considerations in mind that our delegate to the Assembly of the World Health Organisation spoke against the proposals.

The Assembly met again later in March, and the proposal about the research centre was discussed once more, largely in order to give information. I should like to emphasise that the proposal was presented only for the information of the Assembly, and there was no suggestion that a definite decision was likely to be taken at that stage.

When the proposal was discussed, it became abundantly clear that we were not alone in our opposition to the proposal in the form in which it was presented. I understand that, in fact, only two of the member-nations of the World Health Organisation—Czechoslovakia and Peru—give their unreserved support. As a result of the deliberations of the Assembly on this point, the Director-General of the Organisation was asked to continue his inquiries. This means, in effect, that a decision on the project is deferred until at least the next meeting of the Assembly, which is not due to take place until next year.

It should not be thought that in view of this postponement we shall not take any action with regard to the proposal. I can assure hon. Members that we shall give all the help we can to the Director-General to assist him in the further inquiries he now has to make, but I am sure that they will understand that it will be for the Director-General himself to decide what line his inquiries shall take, although our willingness to help has been made known to him so that he may take full advantage of it.

This is the stage that has been reached in the Organisation's consideration of the proposal, and it will clearly be some time before it is in a position to decide whether the project should go ahead and, if so, in what form and on what scale. As I have said, and I will say it again, the Government are very ready to help the Director-General when he makes his further examination of possibilities.

Some hon. Members, and particularly the hon. Member for Fife, West, have urged that this is not good enough, and that we should be pressing this country's claims, or the claims of some particular area in it, to provide a site for the centre when it is established.

I suggest to the House that it is premature at this stage to talk of particular sites for the centre. Certainly, we see the advantages of having an international research centre in this country—advantages both to the centre and to this country. I give an absolute undertaking that we shall certainly see that, at the appropriate stage, the claims of this country, and of particular sites, are fully considered. But I must remind the hon. Member that where a research centre will be situated, if one is set up, will be decided quite democratically by the votes of the 118 members of the W.H.O., of whom we are one. I welcome the interest that has been shown in many parts of the country in providing a site for the centre; but I do not think that it would be right to canvass the advantages of any particular site in this country for a project which is still very much at the formative stage.

Today's debate has shown the extent of the interest in the research centre. Much of that interest—and I am delighted to see it—has come from Scottish Members who feel, with considerable justification, that Scotland's background in scientific and medical education suggests that a suitable site for the centre should be found somewhere in Scotland. The hon. Member for Fife, West has already mentioned the willingness of Fife County Council to provide a site for the centre. Other authorities, in Scotland and furth of it, have also shown interest in providing a site for the centre.

Some local authorities in Scotland have already been in touch with the World Health Organisation to let the Organisation know of their willingness to provide sites for the proposed centre. Replies have been sent to them indicating that their offers have been noted, but that in the view of the W.H.O., consideration of the siting of such a centre cannot be undertaken until such time as a decision on the centre itself is reached. This appears to be the only reasonable reply which can be given at this stage.

I can assure the House that the interest shown by these authorities is appreciated; but I am sure I shall not be expected, even if I were able, to comment on the suitability of these or any other sites. We are still a long way from knowing the size of the centre, what the detailed requirements will be, and what ancillary buildings and accommodation will be necessary.

Furthermore, I have no doubt that the World Health Organisation, if and when it comes to a decision on this matter, will have its own ideas about the type of site and facilities which will be required. It would, therefore, be very wrong of me to pretend to be able to comment on the suitability of any particular area. What I can say is that the interest shown by all these authorities will be kept in mind should a decision to set up the centre be made.

It has been suggested that steps should now be taken officially to inform W.H.O. that a suitable site in Scotland will be provided. I have already referred to our willingness to help the Director-General in any way that we possibly can, and I can assure the House that at the appropriate time Scotland's claims to provide a site for this centre will be considered very closely. Because of the further inquiries which the Director-General has still to make, however, it would appear to me to be premature to make any recommendations about sites at this stage.

The Government have been accused of dragging their feet on this matter. What I have said will, I hope—and it is perhaps difficult for me to speak with complete detachment—show that this is hardly a fair statement. We are very ready to help the Director-General in his further studies, and I can assure the House that should this proposal reach fruition, the claims of the United Kingdom to provide a location will be fully considered.

I think that the timing of the putting forward of such a claim is extremely important. It should be put forward not only forcefully, but at the right time. I am very much aware of the advantages to be gained should the centre be located here, and I need hardly say that, as a Scotsman, I am particularly aware of the special claims of Scotland. I know, too, what advantages the centre itself could gain from coming to this country and I can assure the House that no opportunity of pressing our claim will be missed.

The hon. Member for Fife, West asked me about the other bids that are being put in and whether, if bids are being put in, we ought not to do likewise. My information is that no formal approaches to the World Health Organisation have been made. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the matter will be discussed at the Commonwealth conference and whether it can be put on the agenda. I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will take note of this suggestion.

The hon. Member also suggested that he might bring a deputation to see either my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, or both. My right hon. Friends fully appreciate the interest which the hon. Member and others are showing in this matter, but they think that to receive a deputation at this stage would not serve any very useful purpose. When the proper time comes we shall not be remiss in pressing on the World Health Organisation the advantages which are to be gained from sitting a centre of this kind, should it be decided to establish one—and I emphasise that that is the first stage in this whole proceeding—on a suitable site in this country.