Commons Sitting of 1 April 1968

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

  TOKYO CONVENTION ACT
  Mr. Maclennanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when Her Majesty's Government will ratify the Tokyo Convention, 1963.
  The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Frederick Mulley): As soon as possible. In the United Kingdom the necessary legislation has been passed thanks to the initiative of my honourable Friend and the Tokyo Convention Act comes into force today. There is no provision for applying it to our overseas territories separately, and we shall not ratify it until the appropriate action has been taken for all such territories. Consultations with the Governments of the territories about extension of the provisions ex: the 1967 Act to them are expected to be completed shortly.

  PERSIAN GULF (BRITISH FORCES)
  Mr. G. Campbellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have now started discussions with the States of the Persian Gulf about the proposed withdrawal of British Forces.
  Mr. Eldon Griffithsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions he is having with the States of the Persian Gulf about British withdrawals and related matters.
  The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): We are engaged in discussion with the States concerned about the implications of the decision on withdrawal.
  Mr. Campbell: Are the United Kingdom Government still responsible for the foreign affairs and defence of these States and, if so, for how long is this situation expected to last?
  Mr. Roberts: The position is that until there is a renegotiation of agreements and treaties, and until we have withdrawn, as we have said we shall do, we shall remain responsible for those two matters.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the Minister give an assurance that during the transitional period he will do all in his power to maintain the Trucial Oman Scouts, providing them with adequate finance and support from this country?
  Mr. Roberts: I agree that the T.O.S. are an effective and efficient force for internal security in that area, and we shall do everything possible to see that they continue to be so.

  FALKLAND ISLANDS
  Mr. G. Campbellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what negotiations have taken place between Her Her Majesty's Government and Argentina about the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement.
  Sir F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what negotiations have taken place between the United Kingdom and the Argentine on the future of the Falkland Islands; and whether he will make a statement.
  Mr. James Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations he has had with the Government of the Argentine regarding the future status of the Falkland Islands.
  Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what negotiations are taking place with the Government of the Argentine concerning the future of the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present state of negotiations with the Argentine concerning the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Braineasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how far the future of the Falkland Islands is under discussion in the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Argentine Government; whether he will give an assurance that there will be no change in the sovereignty of this British territory without the full approval of its inhabitants; what consultations there have been with representative organisations in the Falkland Islands; and whether he will make a statement.
  Mr. Longdenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the object of the present negotiations between this country and the Argentine Republic concerning the Falkland Islands.
  Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement with regard to his negotiations with the Government of the Argentine on the question of the Falkland Islands.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): I have nothing to add to what I said in the House on 27th March about the Anglo-Argentine talks on the Falkland Islands.—[Vol. 761, cols. 1458–67.]
  Mr. Campbell: As that statement was somewhat vague, will the right hon. Gentleman now give an assurance that the sovereignty of the Falklands will not be transferred to any other country unless a majority of the islanders favour such a course, and have been given a proper opportunity to express their views?
  Mr. Stewart: What I said was not vague at all. I said exactly what the hon. Gentleman has just said, and I repeat it now.
  Mr. Davidson: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what were the exact intentions of the Argentine Government, and what were their demands?
  Mr. Stewart: I think I explained to the House that Argentina raised the question of the transfer of sovereignty. Our object in the talks has been both to preserve the interests of the islanders, and to see that for the future they can live on good terms with their large neighbour.
  Mr. Fisher: I hope that I heard the right hon. Gentleman aright. Will he emphasise, with unambiguous clarity, that in this matter we rest on the principle of self-determination for the islanders?
  Mr. Stewart: I really have been quite unambiguous about this already. I said in the House that one, though only one, of the conditions in which we could consider a transfer of sovereignty was that it was clear to us that the islanders themselves regarded the conditions as satisfactory.
  Mr. Braine: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that part of the difficulty springs from the fact that the negotiations were conducted in secrecy, without the islanders knowing anything at all about them? Will he say whether he

  5
  envisages steps being taken at an early stage to ascertain the wishes of the islanders, already expressed at the United Nations, by means of a referendum?
  Mr. Stewart: That would not arise unless an agreement were reached which was satisfactory in other respects. I trade that clear to the House. If no agreement envisaging transfer of sovereignty at all were reached, this question would not arise, but the wishes of the islanders are an absolute condition. With regard to the secrecy of the talks, I think the hon. Gentleman understands that conversations of this kind are regularly conducted confidentially, and I explained to the House the steps that we had taken to inform the Governor and authorise him to inform the Executive Council.
  Mr. Longden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer this afternoon will bring great relief to the Falkland Islanders, and that we are grateful to him for that?
  Mr. Stewart: I am obliged to the hon. Member for that remark. I may fairly say, however, that I have said nothing in the House this afternoon that I did not say earlier.
  Sir Knox Cunningham: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his refusal to use clear and specific words has caused grave and justifiable disquiet? Is he now saying that there will be no transfer of sovereignty of the Falkland Islands with-out the consent of the inhabitants?
  Mr. Stewart: I said that a few moments ago. The statement that this has caused grave the disquiet is not correct. Mr. Barton, a member of the Executive Council who has been over here recently, described my statement as very satisfactory.
  Mr. Whitaker: Nevertheless, will my right hon. Friend have no objection if he thought it helpful for there to be a referendum in the Falkland Islands under United Nations supervision to establish what the wishes of the inhabitants are?
  Mr. Stewart: I have said that I do not think that this question arises at present—nor should I want to lay down precisely what mechanisms we might adopt in a situation that has not yet arisen.

  ANGLO-GERMAN OFFSET AGREEMENT
  Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the British Army of the Rhine offset talks in Bonn.
  Mr. Mulley: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will answer this Question and Questions No. 54 and No. 77 at the end of Question Time.

  EUROPE (ARMED FORCES)
  Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the progress of discussions within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation of mutual balanced forces reductions in Europe.
  Mr. Mulley: These discussions are going forward in the context of the intensified studies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation on disarmament and practical measures of arms control.
  Mr. Allaun: How soon may we expect a definite proposal—since N.A.T.O. started these discussions four months ago? Secondly, does my right hon. Friend agree that these talks might be started by mutual example rather than by a formal East-West agreement, as the Defence Minister stated on 4th March?
  Mr. Mulley: On my hon. Friend's first point, I should like to be able to assure him that I expect early results, but I am afraid that these are extremely detailed and complicated matters, and I would not expect quick results. On the question whether one should start, and not attempt to put the matter on a basis of mutuality, as he knows there have been redeployments of both the United States and British forces in the last year, and so far there has been no corresponding reduction by the Soviet Union.

  DIPLOMATIC SERVICE (SIR CON O'NEILL AND MR. CHRISTOPHER SOAMES)
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the offer of resignation by Sir Con O'Neill, Deputy Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office.
  Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why he has appointed Mr. Christopher Soames as Ambassador in Paris and accepted the resignation of Sir Con O'Neill at the Foreign Office.
  Mr. Emrys Hughesaskew ale Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Mr. Christopher Soames was appointed to be British Ambassador in Paris.
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Sir Con O'Neill resigned from the Foreign Office.
  Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has a statement to make about the resignation of Sir Con O'Neill.
  Mr. Roebuckasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why there is a shortage in Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service of persons suitable for appointment to such a post as Her Britannic Majesty's Ambassador to Paris; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Croninasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why he accepted the resignation of Sir Con O'Neill, Deputy Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office; and why he appointed Mr. Christopher Soames as Ambassador in Paris.
  Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the reasons for the resignation from the Foreign Service of Sir Con O'Neill; and when such resignation will take effect.
  Mr. M. Stewart: Sir Con O'Neill's reasons for resigning were set out in a personal statement issued, with my predecessor's consent, to the Press. As he then said he will leave the Foreign Office in the middle of April. I share my right hon. Friend's regret that the Diplomatic Service should be losing such an able and devoted officer.
  My right hon. Friend recommended Mr. Soames' appointment as Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris in the confident belief that he would fill the rôle with distinction. I share that view.
  Appointments of distinguished public figures to senior diplomatic posts are not infrequent. They do not imply a shortage of career diplomats qualified to fill these
  8
  posts, but simply that a particular person outside the Service may be especially well qualified to fill a particular post at a particular time.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: With regard to Question No. 7, I accept that the right hon. Gentleman has no personal responsibility for what happened, but is it not indicative of an unhappy state of affairs in the Foreign Office when a public servant of this high intellectual quality and all but unique knowledge of Europe is lost to the Service at a time of particular difficulty?
  Mr. Stewart: No. If we study the terms of Sir Con O'Neill's statement we see that there is no ground for what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
  Sir G. Nabarro: But is not the appointment of a career and professional politician to a post traditionally occupied by a career and professional diplomat calculated to discourage men of the highest calibre from entering the Corps Diplomatique?
  Mr. Stewart: This might be true if it were the regular practice, but it is not the regular practice; it is done in certain circumstances, such as I outlined in my Answer.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether Mr. Soames has now definitely severed his connection with the Conservative Party? Is comrade Soames now supposed loyally and patriotically to carry out the duties imposed on him by a Labour Government?
  Mr. Stewart: The answer to the second part of that supplementary question is, "Yes, Sir"—and I believe to the first part, too.
  Mr. Fisher: As the former Foreign Secretary, whose attitude was no doubt the real cause of Sir Con O'Neill's resignation, has now resigned, will not the right hon. Gentleman invite Sir Con to reconsider his decision, so that we do not lose from the national service such an outstandingly able public servant?
  Mr. Stewart: If we want to know the real reason for Sir Con O'Neill's resignation the sensible thing is to consult his own statement, and not the speculations of others. His statement does not bear out what the hon. Member has said.
  Mr. Cronin: Will my right hon. Friend continue. vigorous policy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) and make it clear that all decisions are made by the Foreign Secretary and are not unduly influenced by the Establishment—in the Foreign Office? On the question of the Paris appointment, as Mr. Soames' appointment will obviously be a popular one in France, was not my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper's bipartisan approach meritorious, especially as Mr. Soames himself is such a partisan person that he probably would not appoint a cook who was not a Conservative?
  Mr. Stewart: I am not sure that I follow all of that question, but I have made it clear that I share my predecessor's view of Mr. Soames' suitability for this post. On the first part of the supplementary question, Sir Con O'Neill's statement itself makes it clear that there is no question but that the appointment of an ambassador to a particular post is the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary.
  Sir Knox Cunningham: But since this resignation took place on a question of personality rather than of policy, and now that the Foreign Secretary has himself resigned, although it might previously have been a question of one or the other, by now should both have to go?
  Mr. Stewart: We have had that supplementary question already, from another hon. Member. The reason given by Sir Con O'Neill for his resignation is not the one that the hon. and learned Member has just suggested. He gave it because hi: was not appointed to a particular post and felt that in all the circumstances the best course for him personally was to leave the Service. I very much regret that decision but that was his decision and the reason for which he took it.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Foreign Secretary must obviously keep postings of civil servants in his own hands—that almost goes without saying—but is it not undesirable that there should be encounters of such a kind, between Ministers and civil servants, as it is common knowledge took place preceding the retirement of Sir Con O'Neill? Does not this do nothing but damage to a Service with a very high record?
  Mr. Stewart: I do not think that there is justification for what the right hon. Gentleman says. I must ask the House to notice what Sir Con O'Neill said, and what he gave as the reasons for his own resignation. He is the best authority on that subject.

  DIPLOMATIC SERVICE
  Mr. Raymond Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider the progressive abolition of the Diplomatic Service, and its replacement by a purely consular service, in view of the declining importance of ambassadorial functions and duties.
  Mr. Mulley: No, Sir.
  Mr. Fletcher: I thank my right hon. Friend for that slap in the face. May I suggest to him that our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary might not run into the difficulties that he had with the previous Question if my suggestion were adopted? Secondly, does not he realise that behind the rather exaggerated language of this Question lies a real concern that our Foreign Service should be more geared to commercial activities of a kind that produced the magnificent Rolls Royce coup this weekend, rather than to diplomatic activities, in the traditional sense of the term?
  Mr. Mulley: It would be an extreme act to abolish the Diplomatic Service in order to avoid my right hon. Friend's having to answer Questions about appointments to it. As to the second point, I entirely agree that priority in the Diplomatic Service lies in the commercial field. That is our policy. There has been a substantial increase in the amount of commercial work. What I cannot agree is that this can be done without any diplomatic activity to support it. The direct contact that we have through our diplomats, with Heads of Government and civil servants in other countries, has not only political but, in my judgment, commercial value.
  Mr. David Steel: In considering the cuts in public expenditure will the Minister undertake to prune some staff, particularly non-diplomatic staff in our embassies? Is he aware that sometimes the proportion between technical supporting

  11
  staff and diplomatic staff is quite unreasonable?
  Mr. Mulley: Without notice I would not be able to go into detail, but obviously, if the hon. Gentleman is concerned with non-diplomatic staff he should address his questions to the Ministers responsible for the people he has in mind.

  VIETNAM
  Mr. Coeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what clarification he has obtained, as co-Chairman of the Geneva Agreement, of the official proposals of the North Vietnamese Foreign Minister of 29th December last on conditions for a cessation of military activity in Vietnam.
  Mr. M. Stewart: The North Vietnamese authorities have given no further clarification of their Foreign Minister's speech on 29th December to a Mongolian delegation than was contained in reports of Mr. Trinh's interview with a French journalist on 8th February and various other commentaries.
  Mr. Coe: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Can he say whether there has been any clarification of how soon talks could begin? In view of the news today, could he say what strength he attaches to this speech by the North Vietnamese Minister?
  Mr. Stewart: On the first part of the question, I regret that there has been no clarification. On the latter part, there is another Question on the Order Paper, when I could more properly deal with this.
  Mr. Coeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as co-Chairman of the Geneva Agreement, he will make proposals to the South and North Vietnamese authorities to reach a settlement without further use of armed force.
  Mr. Barnesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, as co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference, in view of the present rate of civilian casualties on both sides, he will take a further initiative to bring about the end of the war.
  Mr. M. Stewart: As the House knows, we are in constant contact with those
  12
  concerned with the Vietnam war in the hope of bringing about an early end to the use of force in Vietnam and the opening of productive discussions. With regard to President Johnson's latest request for our help in moving towards peace, I would ask my hon. Friends to await my statement at the end of Questions.
  Mr. Moyleasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will dissociate Her Majesty's Government from further escalation by the United States Government of the war in Vietnam in response to the intensification of North Vietnamese activity in Saigon and elsewhere in the South.
  Mr. M. Stewart: As my hon. Friend points out, it is the North Vietnamese who have recently intensified the level of military activity in the war. No American reaction of which I am aware can be described as further escalation, and therefore the question of dissociation does not arise.
  Mr. Moyle: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that my Question has been largely answered by President Johnson's statement earlier today? Will he now make representations to the American Government that they should bomb no targets to the north of the demilitarised zone and thus give the Hanoi Government no excuse for not accepting the American offer?
  Mr. Stewart: I agree that my hon. Friend's Question has been somewhat overtaken by events. I ask him to await the statement I shall be making at the end of Questions.
  Mr. Goodhart: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that another massive assault by the Vietcong on cities in South Vietnam would jeopardise this new American initiative?
  Mr. Stewart: I should have thought that was self-evident, but I do not think we should start putting forward hypotheses at this juncture.

  EASTERN EUROPE (FOREIGN SECRETARY'S VISITS)
  Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what visits he proposes this year to countries in Eastern Europe.
  Mr. M. Stewart: On the invitation of the Governments concerned, I shall be visiting Yugoslavia from the 5th to 10th June and Bulgaria, Hungary and Roumania in the early part of September.
  Mr. Marten: In view of the current political and economic developments in Eastern European countries, and the enormous potential for British capital goads with consumer know-how being exported, may I ask the Foreign Secretary to take every opportunity during his vi its to open up avenues for British trade in Eastern Europe?
  Mr. Stewart: Certainly. On previous visits that I have made to other Eastern European countries I have had this very mach in mind.
  Mr. Molloy: When my right hon. Friend visits these countries, in addition to raising matters of trade, would he raise again the important question of establishing a conference to look at the possibility of setting up the foundations of a European peace and security council?
  Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend knows that we believe that a conference on European security would be desirable. It is a matter upon which we have to keep in close touch with our allies.

  BRITAIN IN EUROPE LTD. (GRANT)
  Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of St to for Foreign Affairs what restrictions are placed on the use of the graint-in-aid of £7,500 made to Britain in Europe Limited of Chandos House, S.W.1.
  Mr. Mulley: Britain in Europe Limited receives its grant-in-aid to assist in promoting a proper understanding in Europe of the British point of view on European affairs. It can only be used for that purpose.
  Mr. Marten: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is a suitable arrangement that an organisation such as this receiving a subsidy such as this from the taxpayer, should harbour in its premises a party political organisation, namely, the Labour Into Europe Movement in the same office? Is this very sensible?
  Mr. Mulley: I take it that the hon. Gentleman does not dissent from the view that the grant would otherwise be acceptable, except for the question of the tenancy of the building. I will make inquiries about that, but I am sure that none of the grant that we give for expenditure in Europe is in any way connected with the rent, in the way that he suggests.
  Mr. Jay: Whatever the facts are about this organisation, is it not completely wrong that public money should be used to subsidise private propaganda of this kind? Is not this a most obvious case for a little bit of economy in public money?
  Mr. Mulley: As my right hon. Friend will know from the Estimates, a considerable number of bodies receive grants-in-aid from the Government, and have done over a number of years, in order to support their objectives. This is a very practical way of carrying on information services at a time when such services, for reasons of stringency in public expenditure which my right hon. Friend has indicated, are under strain. The arrangement is generally satisfactory.

  UNITED KINGDOM—U.S.S.R. (FINANCIAL AND PROPERTY CLAIMS)
  Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the composition of the respective claims which are the subject of the Agreement on Mutual Financial and Property Claims between Great Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which has recently been concluded.
  Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) on 12th February.—[Vol. 758, c. 269.]
  Mr. Blaker: Is the Minister aware that the facts asked for in this Question have been requested on a number of occasions over a long period? Are they not readily available? Why are the Government being so cagey about providing them?
  Mr. Roberts: It is not a question of being cagey, but it would be misleading to publish the figures for claims on either

  15
  side, except in the context of the proposals which we will be submitting to Parliament on the distribution. In isolation these figures would not be a reliable guide of what claimants might expect to receive, since the value of the assets available for distribution and all the claims which will be admitted cannot now be reliably assessed.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that we have been promised, over and over again, legislation in this Session of Parliament to deal with this matter? When is the Bill to be presented to the House?
  Mr. Roberts: Shortly, I hope.

  DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE (NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY)
  Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further progress has been made in the 18-Nation Disarmament Committee at Geneva towards agreement on a non-proliferation Treaty; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Mulley: The 18-Nation Disarmament Committee submitted its report, together with a revised draft Treaty and proposals for security assurances, to the United Nations on 14th March. A copy of this report has been placed in the Library. It will be considered at a resumed session of the General Assembly which is expected to start on 24th April.
  The revised draft Treaty incorporates a number of amendments and in particular strengthens the commitment of signatories to pursue negotiations for further measures of disarmament. I hope that the Treaty will be opened for signature shortly after the conclusion of its consideration in the General Assembly.
  Mr. Hooley: Will the Minister accept that this progress is extremely welcome? Can he say whether assurances given to non-nuclear Powers about some kind of protection by the nuclear Powers will be sufficient to persuade them to adhere to the Treaty? What further initiatives in disarmament have the Government in mind?
  Mr. Mulley: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. On the question of security assurances, these will be set in the framework of the United Nations Security Council and, as
  16
  far as one can judge, should suffice to give the assurance to non-nuclear Powers for which my hon. Friends asks. As to further proposals for disarmament, we still have a little way to go before we have this Treaty satisfactorily signed. I hope thereafter at Geneva that a whole range of projects, including a comprehensive test ban treaty, for example, can be further pursued.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since two of the nuclear Powers will have nothing to do with this Treaty, ought not our enthusiasm to be a little restrained?
  Mr. Mulley: I am sure that we should have every reason to be more enthusiastic if we had the full support of China and France, which I agree we are unlikely to get.

  GIBRALTAR
  Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement on the progress of the Anglo-Spanish talks about Gibraltar.
  Mr. George Jegerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress is being made in the talks with Spain; and whether he will make a statement.
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the breakdown of the talks with Spain on the question of the future of Gibraltar.
  Mr. M. Stewart: Before the talks began we made clear to the Spanish Government that the question of Gibraltar could not be discussed solely on the basis of the United Nations General Assembly resolution of last December, which we thought a bad resolution and against which we voted. The Spanish Delegation insisted, as the talks progressed, that no other basis was possible, and this prevented any real progress from being made.
  Our delegation made it clear that our primary concern was with the interests of the people of Gibraltar. We regret that the Spanish attitude made it impossible to create the better atmosphere in which progress might have been made towards a settlement of the Gibraltar problem.
  Mr. Wall: The Anglo-Spanish talks have now ended. Can the Government say what they propose to do about the decolonisation of Gibraltar, as independence is out? Does not integration or close association remain?
  Mr. Stewart: Those are possibilities, but I do not think that they immediately arise. As the hon. Gentleman says, the talks are now at an end.
  Mr. Jeger: Is it not obvious that the talks with Spain about Gibraltar bring us nothing but snubs and humiliations? Is it not time that the Government considered retaliation against the acts of Spain to the detriment of Gibraltar?
  Mr. Stewart: In order to consider that, one has also to consider a form of action which would be useful and helpful. I am not sure that this is readily available. Meanwhile, we have been concerned to give, and have given, quite substantial help to the economy of Gibraltar.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: While recognising the delicacy of this matter, is it not about time that the Government showed General Franco and his Government that we can take the initiative from this country, whatever it might be, instead of always tagging along behind and letting the world think that they always get the best in any discussions that take place?
  Mr. Stewart: I do not think that that is so or that they always get the best in the discussions that take place. If the hon. Gentleman has read some of the accounts that have been placed in the Library from time to time he will have seen that we have stated our position on the matter clearly and convincingly.

  SOUTH YEMEN
  Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement about the United Kingdom's relations with the Republic of South Yemen.
  Mr. Goronwy Roberts: In accordance with the undertaking given at Geneva in November, we have informed the Southern Yemen Government that we shall be ready to resume negotiations on matters left outstanding at Geneva in the later half of April. A mutually con-
  18
  venient date will be arranged nearer the time.
  Mr. Wall: In considering the question of the continuation of aid, will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind the fact that British officials who were on contract have been dismissed? Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that they receive compensation? Will he also remember that Federal Ministers and civil servants loyal to Britain are still in prison and that we owe them some responsibility?
  Mr. Roberts: The officers to whom the hon. Gentleman refers were, of course, on contract and, in that sense, the Government of South Yemen had the right to determine their period of employment. However, we have made, and are continuing to make, representations to the South Yemen Government on the matter of compensation for these men. On the question of former leaders who have been in prison, the House will share a feeling of relief that none has been sentenced to death, except those in absentia, and that those whom the Government were able to lay their hands on have simply been sentenced to periods of imprisonment.
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. Anderson: Has any progress yet been made in arranging for the repatriation of the bodies of British Servicemen who were killed during the emergency? If not, will the Minister give this matter high priority?
  Mr. Roberts: I will certainly look into that as a matter of urgency.
  Mr. Wood: In view of the number of individuals still held awaiting trial, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that we are not in the least satisfied with what he said? Is he aware that my hon. Friends and I have made considerable representations to his right hon. Friend about this matter? What does he intend to do about it?
  Mr. Roberts: I am glad of this opportunity to add to what I said. We, of course, abhor what has happened; namely, the sentencing, whether to imprisonment or death, of people guilty of nothing more than co-operating loyally with the existing Government. We have made this view abundantly plain to the South Yemen Government.
  Mr. Leadbitter: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us object to the manner of his reply? Will he ensure that negotiations based on an application for a loan will not be proceeded with until justice is done in this matter and until the question of compensation is cleared up?
  Mr. Roberts: I assure my hon. Friend and the House generally that it was certainly not my intention, in answering the original Question, to show any sense of indifference or, indeed, lack of compassion towards these men. I endeavoured in my answers to supplementary questions to make this abundantly clear.

  UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC (LOAN)
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why he approved the decision of the Bank of England to participate in the loan to Egypt.
  Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Now that we have normal relations with the United Arab Republic there is no reason why Her Majesty's Government should not participate in a facility of this kind, in which other Western financial institutions were taking part. An improvement in the United Arab Republic's relationship with the International Monetary Fund should place it in a better position to make satisfactory arrangements for settling its financial and commercial obligations to the United Kingdom. In any case, the facility has now been repaid in full following drawings by the United Arab Republic from the Fund.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the Minister think it reasonable to grant facilities of this kind to a Government who are imprisoning British ships and indulging in warlike preparations against a neighbour at a time when Her Majesty's Government are compelled to restrict investment in, for example, Australia and New Zealand?
  Mr. Roberts: Following the resumption of normal relations with the U.A.R. it was perfectly sensible for us to see whether we could assist in a matter of this kind, in co-operation with other Western countries. As to whether the present dispute and difficulties in the
  20
  Middle East would be helped by our not co-operating as far as we could with the countries of the Middle East, including the U.A.R., I beg to differ from the right hon. Gentleman.
  Viscount Lambton: When was the last request made to the Egyptian Government to free the ships and crews now being impudently held in the canal?
  Mr. Roberts: Since the resumption of relations we have been in constant touch with the U.A.R. about this matter. A promising attempt was made in January—[Interruption.]—an encouraging attempt—[Interruption.]—an attempt which showed signs of succeeding was made in January, but it was overtaken by events. Subsequently we have made further representations to the U.A.R. and I very much hope that there will shortly be a new proposal by the U.A.R. to the United Nations for a further attempt to clear the canal.
  Sir Knox Cunningham: Why should we give loans to a Government who detain our ships?
  Mr. Roberts: The question of the detention of ships is not as simple as all that. Their release depends on there being a general settlement between the two sides. We are making every effort, particularly in support of the Jarring Mission, to see that both Israel and the U.A.R., and the Arab world generally, come to an agreement which, among other things, will secure the freeing of these ships.

  RUDOLF HESS
  Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply Her Majesty's Government have received to their further approach to the Soviet Government with a view to securing the release of Herr Rudolf Hess from Spandau.
  Mr. Mulley: As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary informed the House on 26th February—[Vol. 759, c. 914–5]—the Soviet Government have refused to agree to our further approach to secure the release of Herr Hess from Spandau.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: For how long do Her Majesty's Government intend to

  21
  wait? Are the Western Powers considering any action on their own account?
  Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman knows that this is the result of a four-Power agreement and that a change can be effected only with the agreement of the four Powers concerned. In the meantime, we are considering the possibility of reaching agreement on less elaborate methods of detention for Herr Hess.
  Mr. Molloy: Since even this week some of the appalling atrocities and vulgarities which were perpetrated by the Nazi régime are coming to light, will my right hon. Friend ensure that this matter is not given any priority whatever?
  Mr. Mulley: It is not a question of priorities. We feel, for many reasons, that it would be sensible for Herr Hess to be released.
  Mr. G. Campbell: Since Hess's solitary confinement was never intended but has occurred because all the other prisoners were released from Spandau, will the right hon. Gentleman press this matter further with the Soviet Union?
  Mr. Mulley: All the arguments adduced have been put to the Soviet Ur ion, but their answer is "No".

  U.N.R.W.A. (UNITED KINGDOM CONTRIBUTION)
  Mr. Moyleasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to announce the United Kingdom's contribution to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for the Agency's next financial year.
  Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Yes, Sir. Our contribution to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for the calendar year 1968 should be £1,875,000, an increase over our regular contribution for 1967 of just under £268,000.
  Mr. Moyle: Is my hon. Friend aware that he is to be congratulated on improving the grant which is being made, and grossing it up to take care of devaluation? Could he say whether any suggestions have been made to the Arab Governments that adequate weatherproof camps should be established on the uplands away from the flashpoint of the Jordan Valley?
  Mr. Roberts: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. I think the whole House will agree that in view of the great suffering and distress among the refugees both old and new in these areas, it was right to increase this contribution. On his second point, I would say that it and similar points have been put to the Commission, and I will see that what he has said is specifically drawn to its attention.

  GREECE (POLITICAL PRISONERS)
  Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what decision has now been reached regarding raising the matter of the treatment of Greek political prisoners with the International Committee of the Red Cross.
  Mr. James Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, following his study of the report of Amnesty International on the use of physical tortures on political prisoners by employees of the de facto Government of Greece, he will now request the International Committee of the Red Cross to carry out an investigation.
  Mr. Mulley: I am glad to say that a team from the International Committee of the Red Cross has been working in Greece. In these circumstances I am satisfied that a formal approach to the International Committee of the kind suggested would not help.
  Mr. Winnick: As some terrible torture cases have recently come to light, and have been published in newspapers such as The Guardian and The Times, may I ask why the Government are stalling on this very important matter? If the Scandinavian countries are willing to take action, why do the British Government seem so afraid to offend the thugs who at present are ruling in Greece?
  Mr. Mulley: I am afraid that my hon. Friend has again got things completely wrong. It is nothing to do with the International Red Cross to investigate the issue that a Scandinavian Government have put to the European Commission on Human Rights. We have great sympathy with the motives of the Government that made that reference. That reference having been made, we must

  23
  wait for the European Commission to carry out investigations in the way that it thinks best. The International Committee of the Red Cross can work only with facilities provided by the Government in whose territory it is working. I am glad to say that it is working in Greece, and we look forward to having its reports.
  Mr. Davidson: Is it the Minister's opinion that the report of Amnesty International is entirely reliable?
  Mr. Mulley: I am in no position to form a view, but I can tell the House that a representative of Amnesty International was in Athens last week, and I am glad to say that we were able to be of some service to him. I understand that some facilities were made available to him by the Greek Government. We are looking forward to getting his report as soon as it is available.
  Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of my right hon. Friend's reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

  GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
  Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he intends to make either with the United Kingdom's partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation or unilaterally for the normalisation of relations between Great Britain and the German Democratic Republic.
  Mr. Mulley: None, Sir.
  Mrs. Short: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it is stupid that we should connive at this position so long after the end of the war? Is he aware that some of his right hon. Friends, at least, are trying to normalise our relations with the G.D.R. in regard to trade, much to our advantage? Is he further aware of statements made by the S.P.D.? Will he now look at the whole question, and take an initiative to secure peace and a reduction of tension in Western Europe?
  Mr. Mulley: I agree that it is very unsatisfactory that so long after the war
  24
  there has not been a peace treaty for Germany, but with a policy which is that of the three Governments concerned, one can only consider that the final boundaries of Germany would be those determined by a peace treaty. I understand from the statements of Herr Brandt and the German Government that that is a view they share.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Mr. Ridleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further proposals he has received from the French Government for increasing trade between the European Economic Community and the United Kingdom.
  Mr. M. Stewart: None, Sir.
  Mr. Ridley: Does it not look as though President de Gaulle has now vetoed his own proposal for closer association between the Six and the Seven? In view of the President's intransigent attitude, would not the right hon. Gentleman feel that it would be worth while to go to Paris and really find out what the French do want; and get to the bottom of the matter?
  Mr. Stewart: This is not just a matter between us and the French. Our application for membership was made to the Community as a whole. The E.E.C. Council of Ministers is meeting again at the end of this week, and will no doubt continue discussion of a number of proposals, including the terms of the plan put forward after Chancellor Kiesinger's visit to Paris. We have made it clear that we would be prepared to consider any proposal made to us by the Six as a whole.
  Mr. Jay: Now that we have a new Foreign Secretary, might we not make still further progress and have some new ideas on this whole issue?
  Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on his policy regarding the Franco-German plan to link Great Britain with the Common Market.
  Mr. M. Stewart: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Franco-German Declaration and the German development of it.

  25
  I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) on 19th March.—[Vol. 761, c. 77.]
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: Would the foreign Secretary say now whether a policy of association with the Common Market would be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government provided that it contained a clear timetable for eventual full membership?
  Mr. Stewart: As has been said before, there are great difficulties about an approach of this kind, but, as I said in answer to an earlier Question, this matter is for discussion among the E.E.C. Ministers. We would certainly consider any proposals which came to us from the Six as a whole.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Would the right hon. Gentleman give the House the benefit of what definition there is in this proposal? He says that it is going to be discussed in the E.E.C., but what is to be discussed in the E.E.C.? Could have it published in the OFFICIAL REPORT some time?
  Mr. Stewart: I do not think I could give that straight away in answer to a question. It was not a proposal made to us. I may be able to tell the House more about it at a later stage.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Does not my right hon. Friend think, apart from any proposal for association, that the original proposal for entry to the Common Market is one of the Cecil King policies which have collapsed? Does not my right hon. Friend think that Cecil King owes an apology to the country and to the Government?
  Mr. Stewart: I remind my hon. Friend that it was one of the policies mentioned in the election manifesto.
  Mr. Henigasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what communications he has now had with the Governments of Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands on the subject of the Benelux plan; and whether he has indicated Her Majesty's Government's acceptance or rejection of the plan.
  Mr. M. Stewart: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my predecessor gave to the
  26
  hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) on 26th February.—[Vol. 759, c. 932–24.]
  Mr. Henig: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, given that the French are not involved, the Benelux plan must be a non-starter? Does not he think that there is something slightly illogical in the British Government's being prepared to talk about the future of our relations with Europe with friendly Governments like the Government of the Netherlands whilst not apparently being prepared to talk with the Government of France, who are the cause of the main obstacles to our present policy?
  Mr. Stewart: No. There is a difference here. The Benelux proposals were definite proposals made to us. The Franco-German statements are not at present in the form of proposals to us.

  EUROPEAN TECHNOLOGICAL COMMUNITY
  Mr. Ridleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he now intends to take in order to set up a European technological community open to all States.
  Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I have nothing to add to the Answer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on 27th February to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop).—[Vol. 759, c. 1222–3.]
  Mr. Ridley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the European technological community is probably the only good idea the Prime Minister ever had? Why do not the Government do something to back it, and get it off the ground?
  Mr. Roberts: The technological community—the hon. Gentleman used the word "community"—can only be considered in the context of full membership by this country and other countries in the unified market. On the other hand, it is possible to pursue various projects of technological collaboration not involving the community, and we are actively looking at these matters now.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister went to Strasbourg and there made a very impressive speech on the matter? What has happened to his initiative since that time?
  Mr. Roberts: We stand ready to consider any proposals coming from the Six. As I said, any full working out of the technological community with full British participation must depend on our being admitted to the unified market. In the meantime, there may be other, ad hoc, projects into which British participation can be worked.

  SOUTH AFRICA (EMBASSY COMMERCIAL STAFF)
  Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he has to increase the commercial staff of the British Embassy in the Republic of South Africa.
  Mr. Mulley: The commercial staff of the Embassy at Pretoria was reinforced last year. At the same time, the Consulate-General at Johannesburg was made the central point for handling trade promotion in South Africa and the staff was also increased. Additional staff will be provided as the need arises.
  Mr. Biffen: Could not the right hon. Gentleman confirm that South Africa has been, and remains, a valuable, a welcome and an expanding trade partner? In view of the increased competition to which we are now subjected from the French and others, would it not be a suitable recognition of that fact if the Government were to proceed as a matter of urgency with the strengthening of British commercial representation in the Republic?
  Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman made a very eloquent speech. The only reason why I cannot immediately agree that the representation should be strengthened is that we anticipated the hon. Member's views and strengthened it only very recently.
  Mr. McNamara: Could my right hon. Friend indicate what proportion of total British trade in Africa goes to South Africa, and what proportion to the other independent African States? Would it not be politically better to increase trade with the other African States?
  Mr. Mulley: I am afraid that I cannot give figures like that off the cuff. In any event, they are probably more the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  THE HOLY LAND (SACRED PLACES)
  Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will call a conference of all interested parties with a view to an agreement securing access for members of all faiths to the sacred places in the Holy Land.
  Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Her Majesty's Government sympathise with the sentiment behind the hon. Gentleman's Question, but do not think that any initiative on their part would be helpful whilst the United Nations Special Representative is pursuing his efforts to promote a settlement in the Middle East.
  Since the problems relating to access to the sacred places in the Holy Land arise from the political tensions and divisions in the area, progress towards a lasting political settlement is a precondition for full freedom of access.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does not the Minister agree that the only chance of getting agreement is to keep this question separate from the general political issue, and particularly the issue of internationalising Jerusalem?
  Mr. Roberts: This is, at least, doubtful. Constantly in touch, as we are, with both sides to this problem, it is clear to us that the quickest way to solve this point, like other elements of the general problem, is to secure a general settlement, and we think that the best way to do that is to support Dr. Jarring's Mission.
  Mr. Edelman: Is it not the case that there is already complete freedom of access to the holy places, as was observed recently by a number of hon. Members on both sides who visited the holy places in Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nazareth?
  Mr. Roberts: There is access to citizens from certain countries, but not access—[Interruption.] My information is that citizens of countries declaring themselves to be in a state of war with Israel are subject to certain restrictions not applied to visitors from other countries.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: In view of the great significance which Zion has to all those who live in Israel, will the hon. Gentleman now be prepared to reconsider

  29
  the attitude about this matter as expressed by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) when he was Foreign Secretary?
  Mr. Roberts: There is complete continuity in Her Majesty's Government's policy in this matter from the time when my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) was in charge of Foreign Affairs.
  Mr. Henig: In view of the fact that, for the first time in 2,000 years, there is a Government in control of the holy places which is allowing freedom of access to persons of all religions, does not my hon. Friend think it would be most inappropriate if the British Government, which did nothing for many years to bring about this state of affairs, were now to interfere?
  Mr. Roberts: I have said that there are certain restrictions on citizens of certain countries. We would very strongly support any action by the Israeli Government to remove any remaining restrictions and we would support, preferably through the Jarring Mission which is in the field, a general settlement which would bring this matter within the general context of a lasting settlement.

  RHODESIA
  Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has made to the Japanese Government about the chrome at present being purchased by Japanese firms from Rhodesia and re-exported to the United States; and whether he will name the firms concerned.
  Mr. Goronwy Roberts: None, Sir. I am informed that the United States does not import chrome of Rhodesian origin from Japan.
  Mr. Judd: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is high time we stopped relying on Sunday newspapers and that the Government should publish their own black list of firms undermining sanctions policy and take all appropriate action to bring pressure to bear?
  Mr. Roberts: I assure my hon. Friend that we do not get our information entirely from Sunday newspapers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not entirely?"] I am informed—[Interruption.] The facts as we have ascertained them are that the United
  30
  States does not import chrome of Rhodesian origin from Japan. That is what my hon. Friend asked his Question about.
  Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how much oil he now estimates has reached Rhodesia from Algeria and other sources since the imposition of mandatory sanctions; what are the sources other than Algeria; how much of this oil has come through Total and how much through other companies; what are the other companies; what proposals Her Majesty's Government is now putting forward for the internationalisation of sanction supervision; and whether he will make a statement.
  Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I have no information that oil is reaching Rhodesia from Algeria and I should prefer to say nothing which might reveal the extent of our knowledge of the source of the oil currently reaching Rhodesia. As regards the last part of the Question, this is of course one of the matters now being considered by the Security Council in its deliberations on Rhodesia.
  Mr. Judd: Is my hon. Friend not aware that we are fed up with seeing our own expensive efforts undermined by the connivance of Governments such as the French at sanction-breaking and we believe there must be effective international machinery soon introduced to deal with the problem? What are we to propose?
  Mr. Roberts: I am afraid my hon. Friend is assuming things which have not been proved. We are now engaged in the United Nations in trying to arrange for stricter security measures aimed at the control of this situation and at preventing oil from reaching Rhodesia.
  Sir G. Nabarro: As Rhodesia is getting all the oil supplies she needs and is selling practically the whole of her chrome output, could not the hon. Gentleman confide in the House where her markets really are for chrome and from where she is getting oil? Is not the whole of the Government's policy a leaky colander?
  Mr. Roberts: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that oil and petrol are still rationed in Rhodesia. As to the progress of Rhodesian trade, it shows a very distinct drop on the past year or two.

  SOUTH-WEST AFRICA
  Mr. Maclennanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will take the necessary steps to seek to have the legal status of South-West Africa determined by the International Court of Justice.
  Mr. Goronwy Roberts: No, Sir. A reference to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on this matter would need a request from the United Nations General Assembly or the Security Council. It is unlikely that a majority vote for such a move could be obtained in either body.
  Mr. Maclennan: What view do Her Majesty's Government take of the extension by the Government of South Africa of their own domestic criminal jurisdiction—of very dubious legality—over the South-West African territory?
  Mr. Roberts: It is, as my hon. Friend says, a question of legality. It is at least doubtful whether a reversion of South African rights to administer this territory could legally be made to the United Nations. In the meantime a feasibility study, a study of the position, is being made by Her Majesty's Government. I would hope fairly soon to be able to say something on the question of what precisely are the rights and obligations of the mandated country in regard to this territory.
  Mr. Longden: Seeing that a definitive opinion on this matter was delivered by the International Court of Justice as long ago as 1950, why is another one wanted?
  Mr. Roberts: I am not aware that another has been asked of the International Court. I was simply saying that the legal position is at least dubious.

ANGLO-GERMAN OFFSET AGREEMENT
The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper—
Mr. FRANK ALLAUN: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the British Army of the Rhine offset talks in Bonn.
Mr. RONALD ATKINS: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if
32
he has succeeded in negotiating with the Government of West Germany their payment of the whole of the foreign exchange costs of the British armed forces in that country; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. ELDON GRIFFITHS: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made towards securing agreement in Bonn on offset support costs for the British Army of the Rhine.
The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Frederick Mulley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like now to reply to Questions Nos. 5, 54 and 77.
As I told the House on 21st February, negotiations began in Bonn on 8th February for a new Anglo-German Offset Agreement to replace the Agreement for 1967–68 which expired yesterday. Further talks between State Secretary Lahr and myself took place in London on 21st February and in Bonn on 11th March and on 27th and 28th March.
At the meeting on 28th March we reached agreement on the following proposals for offsetting the foreign exchange costs of British forces in Germany during the financial year 1968–69, which are expected to run at approximately £90 million. The Federal German Government will take steps to bring about offsetting payments to the United Kingdom in that year to a total value of DM510 million—about £53 million. This sum will be made up of about £22 million from purchases of defence equipment and services, at least £21 million from civil purchases by German public authorities, and about £10½ million from certain civil private purchases which the Federal Government will help to promote. These arrangements are comparable with last year's Anglo-German Offset Agreement, under which the Germans undertook to bring about payments in these three categories to a total value of DM550 million—approximately £49 million before devaluation. The element of defence purchases will, however, be slightly higher, and the element of civil public purchases somewhat lower, than last year.
In addition, the new Agreement will include a clause in which the two Governments declare their intention to

33
broaden and intensify technological collaboration, both bilateral and multilateral. Such collaboration will serve the broader purposes of European unity and can be expected, in the longer term, to bring benefit to our balance of payments.
These will be the main elements in the new inter-governmental Agreement. Over and above this, arrangements are being made in the offset context whereby the German Federal Bank will invest the sum of DM200 million, or approximately £21 million, in a medium-term United Kingdom Government bond. This will bring in foreign exchange in the year 1968–69. In addition, we of course continue to receive valuable support from the Federal Bank in the wider financial context.
The total effect of this will be that some 82 per cent. of the estimated foreign exchange requirements of our forces in Germany will be covered by these arrangements.
In addition, we expect to benefit again in 1968–69 from the expenditure in the United Kingdom of the United States Air Force units transferred to this country under the arrangements which were reached tripartitely for 1967–68 and reported to the House by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for Foreign Affairs on 2nd May, 1967. Last year this brought us an estimated £7 million in foreign exchange. Taking this into account some 90 per cent. of our estimated foreign exchange costs in 1968–69 will be covered.
Mr. Allaun: As nearly £20 million of precious foreign exchange will not be offset, would it not be sensible for us to reduce our forces in Germany to that extent?
Mr. Mulley: The stationing of our troops in Germany is not the result of a bilateral arrangement between ourselves and the Federal German Government. It is in pursuit of our commitments to the N.A.T.O. Alliance. That commitment remains.
Mr. Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend remember the promise made by my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary in his Budget Statement nearly two years ago to the effect that the foreign currency cots of the British troops in Germany would be totally met by sales, not by
34
credits? Would my hon. Friend fulfil that promise, incidentally taking Field Marshal Montgomery's advice to withdraw British troops from Germany?
Mr. Mulley: The main point raised by my hon. Friend is the same as that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). Our commitment to be in Germany stems, not from a bilateral arrangement with the German Government, but through our commitments in the N.A.T.O. context. In terms of neutralising the effect on our balance of payments in this difficult year, we have gone further this year than ever before in meeting that obligation.
Mr. Griffiths: I leave aside the question of over-promises which have been made. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, in the light of this fairly satisfactory Agreement, there is now no question of any further unilateral reductions in the Army of the Rhine?
Mr. Mulley: I do not know why hon. Members keep asking that question. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence answered it quite clearly as recently as a few weeks ago when he said that there were no plans further to reduce the size of our forces in Germany.
Mr. Powell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that investment by Germany in Treasury bonds is of a quite different character from offset payments, since it represents simply a loan by Germany to Britain? Further, since the right hon. Gentleman still did not answer correctly and clearly the supplementary question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), will he give a clear assurance that the gap which still remains between our expenditure in Germany and the total, even on the most generous assumptions, of the figures he has given to the House, will not be made the excuse for a unilateral decision once again to withdraw forces from Germany?
Mr. Mulley: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's logic that a loan is not an offset. It is a deferment of obligation in the current year. It will be very important in helping to neutralise our foreign exchange outgoings this year. As so often, I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's logic but find it quite impossible to recognise the conclusions he

35
draws from it. There is no question of a unilateral reduction of our forces, as right hon. and hon. Members opposite have been told many times by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and other Ministers.
Mr. Mayhew: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Agreement he has reached represents a considerable and valuable advance on the previous Agreement? Why do we have to negotiate each year on this issue? What steps is he trying to take to make a longer-term Agreement in future?
Mr. Mulley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said at the beginning of his supplementary question. I agree that this negotiation each year is an extremely difficult and complex matter which tends to strain Anglo-German relations, which, in other respects, I am glad to say are developing well. I hope that we can move away from this in the technological clause, which I think will in the long run be of very great importance in encouraging technological co-operation in military research and in the civil field and perhaps make it possible in the longer term to find a more satisfactory arrangement than the annual arrangement I have just announced.
Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman will agree that purchases will make sense only in the context that they are purchases which would not otherwise have been made. Can he therefore say that all the things that the Germans are to buy would not have been bought by them anyway on normal commercial grounds?
Mr. Mulley: I think that the right hon. Gentleman could well have addressed that very pertinent question to his Cabinet colleagues when they developed this system of accountancy. Nobody can give anyone any assurance of that character. The defence procurement is recognised by everyone as the most satisfactory form of offset against military expenditure. I cannot assure the right hon. Gentleman that, if we had had no such Agreement, certain parts of the defence expenditure would not still have taken place. In each one of these categories we shall benefit as a result of the Agreement I have just announced to the House.
Mr. Barnett: How much of the past offset arrangements has actually been paid? How much does my right hon. Friend expect to be paid of the amount which has not been paid?
Mr. Mulley: Again, my hon. Friend is not so clear on the position. It is not a question of paying money in terms of the German Government's paying money to us. It is a question of their meeting certain targets in expenditure fields. I cannot give the answer for the current financial year, because it ended only yesterday, but the indications are that certainly on the defence side they will be up to their target, and I hope that they will be pretty near their target in the term of public purchases. The only figure which is down on the sums agreed last year is that I have taken DM50 million lower than last year, because we want figures which can be realised in the light of experience. We do not want to write figures down merely to present a nice sum to the House of Commons.
Mr. Ronald Bell: What is the redemptions term of the Treasury bonds which the German Government will buy? Will they be encashable on demand at any time? Is not this merely an increase in sterling liabilities abroad of a kind which we ought to deprecate?
Mr. Mulley: All arrangements of this kind add to one's liabilities. The term is already settled at 4½ years.
Mr. Dickens: Cutting through the maze of offset arrangements, does not my right hon. Friend realise that the basic answer to the problem which we want to see is the withdrawal of the British Army of the Rhine from Western Germany? Is he aware that the offset arrangements do not meet the £212 million of taxpayer's money being spent on maintaining the British Army of the Rhine next year?
Mr. Mulley: I realise that it does not cover the full costs. I spent some time in my opening statement explaining exactly to what extent they were covered. I am aware of my hon. Friend's views about withdrawing the British Army of the Rhine, but I remind him that they are not Her Majesty's Government's views.

VIETNAM
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on Vietnam.
The House will be aware of the statement about the Vietnam war which the President of the United States made last night. Hon. Members will have noted in particular the announcement that the bombing of North Vietnam has been substantially cut back to the area north of the Demilitarised Zone and President Johnson's call to Her Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government to help towards peace in South-East Asia.
The House will also be aware of Her Majesty's Government's statement welcoming this announcement by the President. We believe that it offers a further opportunity, of which all concerned should take advantage, for achieving a just and honourable peace.
We are now examining urgently how we might best give effect to President Johnson's request. Earlier today we were in touch with the Soviet Government in the spirit of the communiqué issued on 24th January at the end of the visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Moscow. The House will recall that in this communiqué the two Governments, as co-Chairmen of the Geneva Conferences, expressed their firm intention to take singly or jointly all actions within their power to achieve the goal of a peaceful settlement of the Vietnam conflict. For our part, we are ready as always to co-operate with the Soviet Government in any measures which, in our judgment, could advance the prospects of a just and lasting settlement.
I wish the House to know that I shall be seeing the Soviet Ambassador in London later this afternoon to discuss what I and my fellow co-Chairman, Mr. Gromyko, can do. The House will understand that it is not possible for me to say more at this stage.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The House will be grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his statement. At this distance, it is rather difficult to interpret the full significance of the President's statement.
38
So far, it seems to mean a limitation of operations of war from one side only. When the right hon. Gentleman sees the Soviet Ambassador, will he remind him that the obstacle to a complete truce so far has been the vulnerability of the American and South Vietnamese forces to a truce which is dishonoured, and bombing pauses have not achieved the result expected so far?
Second, will he, preferably jointly with Mr. Gromyko, but, if not, by himself, get in touch with the Secretary-General of the United Nations so that there might be a force ready to put on the supply routes in order to prevent the truce being dishonoured in this respect?
Mr. Stewart: On a number of occasions already, we have made the point which the right hon. Gentleman made at the beginning of his question. On the second point—I noted the report of what he said at the weekend—the House will remember that, so far, North Vietnam has always firmly maintained that it would not accept any status for the United Nations in this matter. But, as matters now stand, we ought not to rule out any possible channel for reaching agreement, and I shall bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
Perhaps I might add that I hope—I am not sure of this—that it may be possible for me to see U Thant in the near future.
Mr. Coe: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement on the American Government's initiative and their request for our help, a request which justifies the existing British Government's policy on Vietnam. If my right hon. Friend can get foreign Governments to use their good offices to persuade both North and South Vietnam to make an unequivocal declaration that no peace can come from force of arms, would not this help to provide a climate in which we could have a settlement?
Mr. Stewart: I hope that we shall be able to get such a declaration. The British Government have often emphasised that there cannot be a purely military solution to this matter, and this has now been tragically, and at bitter cost, proved by recent events in Vietnam itself. I noted what my hon. Friend said about the Government's whole approach to this matter. The fact that we are now asked to exercise our rôle, either as co-Chairman

39
or in any other direction, illustrates how important it was for us to keep in touch with the Government of the United States throughout all these months.
Mr. Thorpe: First, may we expect a further statement from the right hon. Gentleman after his talks with the Soviet Ambassador, in the hope that this country will be able to take a positive and successful initiative? Second, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the International Commission is recognised by both sides in this dispute? Third, as the bombing is limited to the demilitarised zone north of the border, will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind that only a total cessation of bombing of North Vietnam is likely to produce positive and lasting results?
Mr. Stewart: It would not be wise at this stage to advance that last point. The statement made by President Johnson removes bombing from that part of Vietnam inhabited by 90 per cent. of its population, and it reduces it to an area and to circumstances which have direct military relevance. This is a very important move by the United States Government. It is extremely important, therefore, to see what response, if any, can be obtained to it. The answer to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes".
Mr. Barnes: Will my right hon. Friend take it that he will have the good wishes of millions of people all over the world in the important negotiations now ahead of him, but will he ensure that he keeps in the closest possible touch with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who has done so much in the past to urge the American Government towards the steps which they are now taking?
Mr. Stewart: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for what he said. I think that people all over the world are looking at this question with great anxiety, and now with some renewal of hope which we must all earnestly pray will not be disappointed. It has always been our view that the United Nations and U Thant himself had an important part to play in this matter. We have not so far been able to get universal agreement on that point, but it may be that new doors are opening now.
Viscount Lambton: In view of President Johnson's statement, will the right
40
hon. Gentleman, as co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference, take steps to reconvene the Conference to try to bring the main participants in the war to the conference table?
Mr. Stewart: This might be how events will proceed. President Johnson's message refers to the Soviet Government and ourselves both as co-Chairmen and as permanent members of the Security Council, but I do not think that we should choose at this moment one particular framework through which to do it. We may find that there are other more acceptable alternatives.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Whilst everyone must share the hope of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that a conference may soon be assembled, does he recognise that this dramatic change in American policy is a triumph for the forces of democracy and free opinion in the United States of America and elsewhere? Is it still the Government's policy that the full and honest application of the agreements of Geneva and the promised demilitarisation of South-East Asia are the only way to stable peace?
Mr. Stewart: On the first part of my right hon. Friend's question, I am sure that he would not wish me to make a statement about the internal policy of the United States. The House may remember that nearly two years ago Her Majesty's Government expressed the view that the bombing of the thickly-populated regions, and Hanoi and Haiphong in particular, was in our judgment an error, but I believe that if I had pursued the policy of total dissociation from the United States which was urged on me in some quarters it would have destroyed our rôle as co-Chairman, and we should not now be asked to give this help.
Sir A. V. Harvey: In view of the important statement from the United States, will the Foreign Secretary ask the Prime Minister if he will now go all the way with Mr. Lyndon Johnson?
Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend realise that we welcome his statement but, in the spirit of the Question I ventured to put on the Order Paper which has not been answered, in addition to the decision of President Johnson to limit bombing operations on the North,

41
would it not be advisable now to make a direct approach to the Secretary-General of the United Nations to ask for a complete cease-fire for, say, a week or a few weeks, in order to find time to facilitate the negotiations? Is that not a possible approach, and will my right hon. Friend take it into consideration?
Mr. Stewart: When my right hon. Friend says "a complete cease-fire" I take it that he means by all the parties concerned. That is certainly a possible approach, but I hope that the House will not press me apparently to make choices between one approach and another. At this early stage we must have an opportunity for further consultations with our co-Chairman and, I hope, with U Thant.
Mr. Goodhart: If there is no visible response from Hanoi, how long does the Foreign Secretary believe that the pause can continue?
Mr. Stewart: That is the kind of question that I should not answer at this stage.
Mr. Mendelson: Now that so many millions of Americans have recognised that the bombing policy is both futile and immoral and have forced on President Johnson a limited change of policy, will my right hon. Friend now press the President to stop all bombing operations, as U Thant has demanded? Does he realise that the National Liberation Front in South Vietnam must also be called into consultation at the same time, as was officially indicated to the Swedish Government the other day in Hanoi by the Government of North Vietnam?
Mr. Stewart: At a time when the Government of the United States have made an important new move in this direction, it would not be wise for me to demand—I think that that was my hon. Friend's word—further changes by them until we see whether there is any response to what has already been done.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the American de-escalation, if it is to last, will require reciprocity? In such talks as he has with the Soviet Ambassador, will he underline the necessity, if President Johnson's initiative is to bear fruit, for it to be matched by the stopping of aggression from the North?
Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman will remember that first there was the San Antonio formulation. The President's statement takes that a bit further in that the United States has now made a very considerable restriction of the bombing, and in the statement there is reference to the hope that the United States Government may be able to assume that there is the response by Hanoi of the kind described in the San Antonio formula. My hope is that through one channel or another—and I do not want to be dogmatic about that at this point—we may be able to get a response which makes further progress possible.
Mr. John Dunwoody: I accept that my right hon. Friend cannot be dogmatic at this stage, but does he agree that the Control Commission is an international grouping acceptable to both the United States and North Vietnam, and will he, as co-Chairman, consider making approaches through this channel as well as the others?
Mr. Stewart: I shall certainly consider it.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Regardless of any partisan statements made, does the Foreign Secretary realise that he will have the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House for any initiative he can take now to bring this frightful war to an end?
Mr. Stewart: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I believe that these events and the part we are now called on to play are in line with the Government's approach to the Vietnam problem throughout.
Mr. Heffer: As the Secretary-General of the United Nations has at no time suggested that there should be a United Nations force on the soil of Vietnam, will my right hon. Friend take into consideration that some hon. Members might consider that such a proposition at this stage would be highly dangerous to the prospects of getting a peace settlement?
Mr. Stewart: A good many arguments could be advanced for and against any particular method of handling the matter. That is exactly why I do not think that I should be drawn into further argument at the moment.
Earl of Dalkeith: Does not the foreign Secretary think that it is very wrong that our co-Chairman should be thought to be supplying arms to one of the participants in Vietnam? Will he take the opportunity of his meeting with the Soviet Ambassador to say how regrettable this is in view of the need to make progress?
Mr. Stewart: If I adopted all the suggestions that are being made to me as to what I should say to the Soviet Ambassador the interview might prove to be more long than productive.
Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us who have opposed American policy in Vietnam hope that negotiations can begin to bring this horrifying war to an end? Will he bear in mind that rightly or wrongly Hanoi and the National Liberation Front believe that they are waging a struggle as justified from their point of view as when the Vietminh fought the French and defeated them in 1954?
Mr. Stewart: It very often happens when nations are at war that both sides at the time are deeply convinced of the rightness of their cause. That is what sometimes makes these struggles so bitter and prolonged and makes it necessary for men of good will to snatch at any reasonable opportunity of bringing them to an end.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Will the right hon. Gentleman pay tribute to the President of the United States, who has voluntarily put a term to his own political career in order to achieve peace in Asia?
Mr. Stewart: The hon. and learned Gentleman should understand that I should not say anything that might be construed as a comment on American internal politics. But Her Majesty Government have already most cordially welcomed the President's statement about Vietnam, and I most emphatically underline that welcome.
Mr. James Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend realise that as he meets the Ambassador of the Soviet Union this evening he will carry with him a message from the House and our country, that we hope that both countries will have the wisdom and strength to seize this initiative and bring this horrible war to an end as soon as possible?
Mr. Stewart: I think that my right hon. Friend has expressed what is in all our minds.

ROLLS ROYCE LTD. (UNITED STATES ORDER)
The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): With permission, I wish to make a statement.
Hon. Members will already know that Rolls Royce Ltd. has been successful in gaining a most valuable order in the United States to supply RB.211 advanced technology engines for the Lockheed Airbus.
This order is of particular importance. It constitutes a foothold in the American civil aircraft market far bigger than anything which we have achieved before. It is of special value to the British economy, and is, above all, an outstanding encouragement for the skills and technology of British industry.
Her Majesty's Government gave Rolls Royce full support in its efforts to obtain the order. In accordance with normal practice, the Government have agreed in principle to grant launching aid for the RB.211, subject to agreement on satisfactory contract terms. This aid takes the form of a contribution by the Government to the costs of developing the engine and getting it into production. It will be recoverable over sales of the engine and was therefore reflected in the price Rolls Royce quoted.
Details of the launching aid are being negotiated.
We can be justly proud of the company's achievement in designing the RB.211 engine and in winning the order in the face of determined competition.
The House is aware that the Rolls Royce RB.207 engine, which is of the same advanced technology design, has been adopted for the European Airbus. This aircraft should be complementary to, rather than a rival of, the American aircraft. It will be of shorter range and more economical, and hence should be better suited to many airline routes, particularly in Europe. The securing of the RB.211 order by Rolls Royce does not lessen in any way our support for the European Airbus and our determination, in association with our French and German partners, to do all we can to ensure

45
that this aircraft meets airline requirements and can thus be a commercial success.
Mr. Maudling: This is a great achievement by British industry. We on this side of the House would also like to pay our tribute to the company, to Sir Denning Pearson, Mr. Huddie and all the team who have achieved so much in this remarkable sale. Will the Minister stress, as I think he should, that this is an example of what British firms can do in selling in the American market, despite all that is often said about political difficulties? If people have quality, price and effort, they can sell on a very great scale.
Mr. Benn: I am sure that the whole House would want to convey the congratulations given by the right hon. Gentleman, and it might also, on reflection, want to add that this is an interesting example of a partnership between Government and industry which has made this possible. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is a little less than generous in not making any reference whatsoever to that aspect.
Mr. Robert Howarth: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that this first-class news shows that the British aerospace industry has both an actual and potential in the export field which goes against those who suggested that it should be reduced in size? Will he continue his efforts to give it further encouragement.
Mr. Benn: Yes, certainly. There are many interesting aspects of this order. One of them is that this is a civil aircraft engine which has got into the American market, which promises well for Rolls Royce in this field in future.
Mr. McMaster: While welcoming this news, which will also mean work for Short Bros. and Harland in building the cowls for these engines, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would reconsider building a British airframe, such as BAC.211, in which this engine could also be used?
Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman raises a separate issue in reopening the question of the BAC.211. As the House knows, the Trident 3B has been chosen for the particular application discussed last year. As for the possible repercussions of this on Shorts, in which the
46
hon. Gentleman has a direct interest, it is true that Shorts have worked with Rolls Royce, and the possible beneficial by-product of this contract is one, although not finalised in character, which gives added encouragement to us.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this event confirms that my constituents, Rolls Royce, are the finest aircraft engine manufacturers in the world? Can he give an assurance that no similar mistake will be made in future as that which was made over the VC.10 a little while ago?
Mr. Benn: My right hon. Friend refers to another past story which is a separate issue, but I can confirm that his constituents have not only political wisdom but industrial skill.
Sir G. Nabarro: Forty-seven Tories and seven Labour—political wisdom!
Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the greatest export achievement ever in the history of this country? Will he convey to the workers of Rolls Royce, Sir Denning Pearson and the officers of the Ministry of Technology the warmest congratulations of the House and the country as a whole? Is it not a fact that Rolls Royce gained this order in the face of very stiff competition from the United States and that the RB.211 is better in terms of price, economy of operation and, above all, noise levels? Finally, would the right hon. Gentleman say what savings there will be on the development of the RB.207 as a result of the programme for development of this particular engine?
Mr. Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comment. I sent a message to Sir Denning Pearson immediately the contract was announced. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the work of my Department, which refers particularly to my hon. Friend the Minister of State who has worked extremely hard in conjunction with Rolls Royce. Unfortunately, I cannot, off the cuff, give the hon. Gentleman an answer to his detailed question about the effects which there will be on the development costs of the RB.207. But the two engines have much in common, one being, in a sense, a scaled-down version of the other. But if we get the 207 application in the airbus,

47
as we hope, Rolls Royce will be in the forefront, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, with engines which are cheaper in operation, technically superior and which have the great advantage of reducing aircraft noise, which is of great interest to people in this country and in every other country.
Mr. Edelman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many thousands of aero engine workers in Coventry as well as in the Midlands generally are profoundly grateful to him, to his Ministry and to the Government for the backing which they gave to Rolls Royce in its superb achievement? Would he say what measures he is taking to ensure that an adequate number of aero engine engineers are available, particularly as under the Tory dispensation so many of them left the industry in 1961?
Mr. Benn: I think that my hon. Friend will agree that the appeal of Rolls Royce to engineers of high quality, now that these orders are available to them, will be enormous. If we get more orders of this kind, the problem of the brain drain simply will not exist. I should also mention that the National Gas Turbine Establishment, one of the establishments of the Ministry of Technology, will be available and will be of enormous value to Rolls Royce in the development of this engine. I thank my hon. Friend for what he said about the work of my Department.
Mr. Onslow: While the whole House will welcome the order for the RB.211, may I ask him whether he is satisfied that sufficient financial and physical resources will be available to Rolls Royce to enable the RB.207 to be developed in time for the airbus to meet the specifications which he has set?
Mr. Benn: I made a particular point of stressing that in my statement. We are confident—and indeed it was our duty as the sponsors of the 207 engine for the European air bus to be confident—that Rolls Royce can do the 211 for the Lockheed airbus and the 207 for the European airbus within the time scale. But if the hon. Gentleman says that this will mean a supreme effort by Rolls Royce, there is nothing new about that, and we are confident that Rolls Royce can make it.
Mr. Bagier: In view of the great possibility of an expansion in the aero engine industry because of this order and possible other orders, will my right hon. Friend use his influence to try to ensure that such expansion takes place in the development districts?
Mr. Benn: As my hon. Friend knows, this is a matter of general Government policy. I am trying very hard to ensure that as our own industrial policy develops we at the Ministry of Technology take full account of regional factors, which are of very great importance.
Mr. Marten: Is it not true that the work on this engine was started a number of years ago and has now reached the point of culmination? Is it not rather puerile, therefore, for parties to try to score points out of this order, the great credit for which—let us face it—goes to the industry?
Mr. Benn: I have paid a very warm tribute to Rolls Royce, but in looking at the total story of the success it is evident that the work involves, and has involved, a useful partnership between the Government and Rolls Royce, and it is right and proper that this should be said. [HON. MEMBERS: "All Governments."]
Mr. Whitaker: Further to that reply by my right hon. Friend, despite the extraordinary grudging attitude shown by the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) to pay tribute to public servants who are unable to speak for themselves, will he convey congratulations not only to Rolls Royce but also to members of the Department and to the Commercial Section of the Foreign Office, whose hard work over a long period has contributed towards this magnificent order?
Mr. Benn: It is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend says, that the work which has been done in relation to this contract has involved other Departments besides the Ministry of Technology, and it is quite right that tribute should be paid to their work in this respect. I rather regretted that the party opposite should see fit not to make a reference, in the official comments from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, to the part which had been played both by the civil servants who were working when he was in office and by the civil servants working in the present

49
Department. It is rather unfortunate that the Civil Service becomes involved in political controversy when the party opposite are in opposition.
Mr. Emery: Will the right hon. Gentlemen realise that this side of the House is quite definite in praising what Governments—all Governments, in other words—have done to achieve this order? Will he, however, tell the House a little more about the launching aid, which is the question I wish to ask? The right hon. Gentleman has been slightly vague about this. He said that further information and plans have to be worked out. Can he give any idea of what the total sum is likely to be or any other information?
Mr. Benn: Until the negotiations have been completed—and I should, of course, make it known to the House at that stage what had happened—it is not possible to say exactly what the sum of money will be. We are, however, talking about a 70 per cent. launching aid. In addition, there is the work of the National Gas Turbine Establishment, to which I have referred. It is, therefore, fairly substantial help which we are giving. But since we shall be getting the money back by a levy on sales—and this is reflected in the price which Rolls Royce was able to quote—this is a perfectly normal arrangement. I will, of course, make available to the House such information as I can when the negotiations have been completed.
The only point which I was making was that we hear so many speeches from the party opposite about the Government geeing off the back of industry that it would not be a bad idea when there is a successful partnership to pay rather more tribute to what has happened.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HEALTH SERVICES AND PUBLIC HEALTH [MONEY] (No. 3)
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the National Health Service Act 1946 and the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947 and make other amendments connected with the National Health Service and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State in making payments in respect of travelling expenses incurred by persons in making visits to patients detained in special hospitals within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1959 or State hospitals within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

  HEALTH SERVICES AND PUBLIC HEALTH BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  4.13 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker: As is my custom, I have posted up details of the selection of Amendments. We come first to new Clause No. 1.

  HEALTH SERVICES AND PUBLIC HEALTH BILL
    New Clause No. 1.

      (DISQUALIFICATION OF PRACTITIONERS AND OTHERS DISQUALIFIED IN NORTHERN IRELAND.)
      (1) Section 42(6) of the 1946 Act (disqualification for inclusion in lists prepared under Part IV of the 1946 Act and removal therefrom of persons disqualified under provisions in force in Scotland corresponding to provisions of the said Part IV for inclusion in lists prepared under those provisions so in force) shall have effect with the insertion, after the word 'Scotland', of the words 'or Northern Ireland'.
      (2) Subsection (6) of section 43 of the 1947 Act (which makes in relation to Scotland provision corresponding to that of the said section 42(6)) shall have effect with the substitution, for the words from the beginning of the subsection to the words 'under that Part of that Act', of the words 'If under any provisions in force in England and Wales or Northern Ireland corresponding to the provisions of this Part of this Act a person is for the time being disqualified for inclusion in all lists prepared under those provisions', and the insertion, after the words subsection (1) of this section', of the words that person'.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      The new Clause fulfils an undertaking which was given in Committee. At that stage, the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) moved a new Clause with the same object as the new Clause I now present. I welcomed the hon. Member's new Clause but I considered that its drafting required further examination. The hon. Member withdrew it to enable us to prepare a Clause for introduction at this stage.
      Under the National Health Service Act, certain practitioners have a right, if they so wish, to practise in the Service, as provided under Part IV of the Act, in England and Wales. This right can be annulled only if a person is disqualified from practising under Part IV by the tribunals constituted under Section 42 of the Act. There are similar provisions as regards Scotland and Northern Ireland in the relative Scottish and Northern Ireland Acts.
      4.15 p.m.
      There are three separate tribunals for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Section 16 (6) of the Northern Ireland Act provides that a person who has been disqualified by the tribunal for England and Wales or the tribunal for Scotland is also disqualified in Northern Ireland. Section 42 (6) of the 1946 Act provides that a person disqualified by the Scottish tribunal is also disqualified from practising in England and Wales. Section 43 (6) of the 1947 Act similarly provides that a person cannot practise in Scotland if he has been disqualified by the tribunal for England and Wales.
      Those two provisions do not, however, disqualify a person who has been disqualified by the tribunal for Northern Ireland from practising in England and Wales and in Scotland, respectively. Subsection (1) of the new Clause is intended to remedy the deficiency in the Act for England and Wales and subsection (2) performs the same function for the Scottish Act.
      Mr. Philip Holland: I should like to thank the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for fulfilling the pledge which they gave in Standing Committee
      52
      to introduce the new Clause, which, as the Minister has just said, has the same objective as the one which appeared in Standing Committee in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) and Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) and myself.
      In opposition, there is often a slight tendency to have misgivings about the motives of a Government spokesman who, in a sense, rejects the wording of a proposal which is moved by someone in opposition but offers to put it right at a later stage of the Bill. On this occasion, I should like to acknowledge that the new Clause moved by the Government deals with the situation much more adequately and fully than the more cryptically worded Clause which I attempted to move in Standing Committee. On that basis, I should like to say how warmly I welcome it.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause No. 2.

      (PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF VISITORS TO PATIENTS IN SPECIAL HOSPITALS AND STATE HOSPITALS.)
      (1) The Minister of Health may, in accordance with arrangements made by him with the approval of the Treasury, make payments, at such rates as may be determined under those arrangements, to persons of such class or description as may be so determined in respect of travelling expenses necessarily incurred by them in making visits to patients for the time being detained under the Mental Health Act 1959 in special hospitals.
      (2) The foregoing subsection shall have effect in Scotland, as if, for the references therein to the Minister of Health, the Mental Health Act 1959 and special hospitals, there were substituted references respectively to the Secretary of State, the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960 and State hospitals.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      The new Clause empowers the Minister in England and Wales, and the Secretary of State in Scotland, to give financial assistance to visitors to patients in special hospitals or, in Scotland, the State hospital, respectively. Treasury approval

      53
      is required for the arrangements under which this assistance will be given.
      The special hospitals and the State hospital are different from National Health Service hospitals in that they do not serve any local catchment area but admit patients from anywhere in England and Wales or Scotland, respectively. The consequence is that, in many cases, relatives and friends have to make long and expensive journeys to visit patients, and this can impose hardship.
      The treatment and rehabilitation of patients in the special hospitals and the State hospital who normally have behind them histories of seriously anti-social conduct, is in a great many cases necessarily protracted. It is important that during long periods of compulsory detention, family and localities should not be broken, not only for reasons of simple humanity, but also because the preservation of those ties has a valuable part to play in the treatment of the patients and their rehabilitation to the point when they will be fit to return to the community.
      In certain circumstances, help can be gig en by the Ministry of Social Security through the war pensions and supplementary benefits schemes, but the numbers to whom this form of assistance is available are limited. The usual form of assistance with the travel expenses of visitors is the issue of vouchers enabling recipients to purchase return railway tickets at a cost of one-and-a-half times the single fare. This assistance applies only to travel by rail and is not available for those who may prefer to travel by road in public transport. On the average, nearly 1,000 vouchers are issued annually for the three English special hospitals. If assistance with motor coach and bus fares were also available it is hoped that the amount of visiting would be increased.
      In Scotland little use is made of the concession because the train services to Carstairs are inconvenient and so this concession with bus fares would be of great benefit to visitors.
      It is a quite simple Clause which I am sure will commend itself to the House. We have found that the main difficulty of the existing arrangement is that we cannot give assistance for travel by public road services. We shall be making arrangements with the Treasury, and we hope to keep these as simple as
      54
      possible. The present cost by rail is small, something of the order of £1,000 a year. I do not expect that under this new arrangement the cost of assistance for travel will increase substantially, but I think this is a change worth making, and for that reason we seek to add this new Clause to the Bill.
      Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: I myself would certainly agree with what the Minister has said, and I think that the House will probably want to welcome this new Clause, which will certainly be of great significance to people placed in this unfortunate position.
      The point I want to make is really in the form of interrogation. Will this not open the door to great feeling on the part of people who have relatives in ordinary hospitals and who have to incur the normal expense involved in making visits to them? In my own part of the world some rural hospitals have been most unfortunately closed, and one of the main reasons for the feeling against this policy is the very considerable increase in time and expense involved in people going to visit their relatives in hospitals much farther away. Will there not be a loophole here, and the possibility of involving the Government in very much greater expenditure, if there is the feeling that there is a difference of treatment between patients of the one sort and the other?
      Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I should like to ask two questions. We have read with considerable interest the Report published just last week of the Estimates Committee in which the Committee dealt with the position of the special hospitals, and, having read it pretty carefully, I feel I must pay some tribute to the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) and her colleagues who revealed such interesting facts about the special hospitals and the travel arrangements.
      One point which interested me was the reference to the possible withdrawal of the rail vouchers scheme, and I wonder if the Minister could tell us, in the event of the withdrawal of the rail vouchers, if it is his intention that some percentage of the amount will be made available to those who are visiting their relatives who are patients in these hospitals? Assistance

      55
      with travel was mentioned by the Estimates Committee as being vital to the patients, because, as the Report mentions, in one hospital there were no fewer than 76 patients who have not had one single visit for a period of over one year, and it is pointed out by the staffs of these hospitals that visits are a very important part of the treatment in the hospitals.
      Certainly from the Scottish point of view it will be extremely helpful to have these facilities extended to forms of transport other than rail. As the Minister has said himself, Carstairs is not an ideal place for taking advantage of the facilities. In answer to a Question last week the Minister of Transport pointed out to me that of the figure of 1,000 only a small proportion relates to Scotland. I wonder if the Minister could give us an assurance, in the event of British Rail withdrawing this facility, will similar facilities be made available under this Clause? Secondly, will the amount of assistance to be given be of the same level?
      Mr. James Dempsey: I should like to congratulate, however briefly, my right hon. Friend on introducing this new Clause. I live in the county where Carstairs is situated, and I have constituents who are resident in Carstairs State Institution, and I can confirm that it is a most inaccessible place indeed and to arrive at it requires a very circuitous route indeed. One of my constituents has a very dedicated wife who visits that place three times a week, and the number of hours involved in travelling to and fro is incredible, and the expense quite formidable. Very considerable inconvenience and cost are involved in maintaining links between the patients in the hospital and their relatives at home.
      It is not alway convenient to get to Carstairs even by bus. Travelling by rail is difficult, because the distance from the railway station to the institution is quite considerable. We find in education circles that it is sometimes necessary to use taxis part of the way to supplement the existing public bus services in that part of the county of Lanark. What I would ask my right hon. Friend, without interpreting this Clause too widely or too liberally or too generously, is whether
      56
      taxis would be considered as part of the transport services.
      With all due respect to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon), I do not think one can, in considering travel facilities, compare the specialised hospitals with such State hospitals as this. A patient in a State institution may be domiciled there for years and years, whereas, in another hospital, he may be there for weeks or at the very longest possibly under one year. The situation in the State institution I believe is entirely different, because some of those unfortunates may find themselves domiciled for life in such an institution, necessitating regular weekly travel by their relatives and friends between their homes and the hospital. I have visited Carstairs State Institution and spent a whole day in it and I really appreciate the wonderful work the staff do in institutions of that nature. They maintain that one of the finest tonics for their patients is regular visitation by the patients' close relatives.
      If my right hon. Friend's new Clause means that reasonable expenses will be paid to enable them to maintain those visitations, to maintain the link between home and the unfortunate person in the institution, even, if necessary, partly by means of taxi services, he will, in my view, be doing excellent service, not only to the individual patients concerned and their families, but to the Health Service as a whole.
      Mr. Paul Dean: We on this side of the House welcome this new Clause and the emphasis which the Minister and others who have spoken have given to maintaining contact as far as possible between patients in the hospitals and their relatives.
      I am sorry that the Minister did not see fit to pay tribute to the Estimates Committee on which I have the privilege to serve and which has looked at special hospitals in very recent months and has just produced its Report. I should like, if I may, to pay tribute to the wonderful work which the staff do in these special hospitals in caring for and treating the patients there.
      We found that owing to the remoteness of many of these hospitals, and to the difficulty, which is the result of this,

      57
      of people visiting them, and getting over-night accommodation, a very large number of the patients are literally never visited. We found that no fewer than one in eight in Broadmoor received no visitors. At Rampton, the number is even higher, with three in ten, and only one 20 patients receives a visit more than once a month. We found at the State hospital at Carstairs that about 70 patients are never visited at all. The lack of visits to quite a large proportion of patients in the special hospitals proves the value of the new Clause.
      4.30 p.m.
      I hope that the Minister will be able to answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), which was also raised in the Report of the Estimates Committee, about rail vouchers. If the concession is removed, I hope that the Minister will be able to give an assurance that he will see that it is made up under the arrangements which he proposes.
      In making the suggestions, I hope, too, that the Minister will be able to assure the House that he intends to supplement and not supplant the valuable arrangements already made on a voluntary basis by, for example, the friends of hospitals. We on the Estimates Committee were very impressed by the efforts made by local communities and friends of hospitals to provide funds so that relatives can be helped to visit the special hospitals. I am sure that the Minister will agree that the work of the friends of these hospitals and those who help in other ways is of the very greatest importance to them and that the provisions in the new Clause should be regarded as a supplement to those arrangements rather than an intention to supplant them.
      Mr. K. Robinson: I am grateful to the House for the reception that it has given to the new Clause.
      In reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon), I think that he was answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), who pointed out what I may not have stressed sufficiently in my opening remarks. The special hospitals really are in a special position in two respects. The
      58
      first is that, inevitably, they contain a very high proportion of long-term patients. The second and perhaps more important is that there are so few of them—one for the whole of Scotland and three for the whole of England and Wales—that the difficulties of travel for visitors and relatives is of a quite different order from that for relatives and visitors to ordinary hospitals. That is why we found it necessary to limit the scope of the new Clause to the special hospitals.
      Turning to the points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), I might well have mentioned the Estimates Committee. I did not dare because, strictly, I do not think that it is in order. However, as it has been mentioned, may I say how much I welcome its Report, which is very thorough and constructive? I welcome it because of the warm tribute that it pays to the health departments and staff for the general administration of special hospitals. After three and a half years in this office, it comes as no surprise to me that the only aspect of the Report which received any publicity in the Press was the one major criticism about the inevitable overcrowding at Broadmoor. Nevertheless, the general tone of the Report was most gratifying to my Department.
      In reply to the particular question raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart, I do not normally answer hypothetical questions, and this is hypothetical. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, in the event of these railway concessions being withdrawn, there is power under the Clause, by agreement with the Treasury, to replace these facilities at the same rate as they exist now.
      That is partly an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie. The precise arrangements to be made will have to be discussed with the Treasury and promulgated in due course. I will take note of his point, but, at the moment, we are thinking in terms of public transport. However, consideration will be given to his point.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause No. 3.

      (TREATMENT OF PATIENTS AT TEACHING AND UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS.)
      No patients may be refused admission or denied treatment at a teaching hospital or a university hospital because they refuse to be used for teaching purposes.—[Mrs. Joyce Butler.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mrs. Joyce Butler: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      Under the Bill as at present drafted, the scope of teaching hospitals will be greatly extended to other hospitals, and this will take place at a time when the scope of surgery also is extended considerably. At one and the same time, there will be more teaching hospitals, with wider techniques beginning to be practised in them.
      The majority of patients going to a teaching hospital know that they wilt be expected to co-operate with consultants. They know that students will attend them when they go to the out-patients' clinic or when they are in-patients in those hospitals. They accept the situation and co-operate willingly.
      With more new hospitals becoming teaching hospitals, many patients are uncertain about the position. There is a widespread idea that they must accept teaching when they go into hospital and that they have no opportunity to refuse.
      It is the practice in a number of teaching hospitals of which I have some notes that, where a patient refuses to be used for teaching purposes, in some cases he is asked to wait until the end, when the consultant will see him privately. That seems to me quite reasonable. In other cases, a patient may be transferred to a junior doctor. In most cases that may be satisfactory, but it may not be if the case is a particularly difficult one which the consultant should see himself. Other cases are transferred to a non-teaching hospital, and that may seem reasonable if there is a non-teaching hospital within a reasonable distance.
      In practice, these hospitals issue a leaflet to incoming patients, but I am informed that the leaflets do not always get to the patients and, in any case, they
      60
      do not state any right that a patient may have to object to teaching. The leaflet says that because it is a teaching hospital, the patient will be expected to accept teaching, and it does not give any alternative. There is no doubt that a number of intending patients do not go to teaching hospitals if they receive the leaflet and do not wish to have students present during consultations.
      I have notes of one or two cases which perhaps I might mention. The first is that of a former nurse who refused to have students present at a consultation, whereupon the consultant walked away and left her without treatment. Another case, details of which have been sent to my right hon. Friend, concerned a hospital for nervous diseases. The woman in question had a back injury and was wheeled into the consultation begging all the time not to be seen by students. Nevertheless, the consultant proceeded with the consultation in front of students, with the result that the woman became completely incoherent in answering questions put to her. Then there was a recent case of a woman who felt very embarrassed, which is fairly common, and did not want to discuss her condition in front of students. But the consultant insisted that she could not refuse because this hospital had been designated as a teaching hospital. After a very unpleasant scene and, for her, a most humiliating experience, she was finally passed to another doctor.
      Finally, a man who regularly attended the out-patient clinic at a teaching hospital had the feeling that the doctor was more concerned with the students than with the patient. He therefore asked to be seen privately so that he could discuss his case with the doctor. He was refused the opportunity for private consultation. Because he was about to have an operation he was afraid to complain, so he did not make any protest.
      These cases are typical of a number. Although the Minister, when he spoke to the Teaching Hospitals Association in February, 1965, said that he would deprecate any effort to make co-operation in teaching a condition of treatment and although he assured the hon. Lady the Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) in Committee that he had given guidance to hospital authorities and teaching

      61
      hospitals that co-operation in teaching should not be made a condition of treatment and that that would apply to university hospitals as well, the position is by no means clear. I ask my right hon. Friend when he gave this guidance, what form it took, and whether it was to each teaching hospital authority. Patients ate not aware of their rights in this respect and many have to go through humiliating experiences if they want to assert their rights. It comes down to whether teaching hospitals have the right to refuse treatment. I would be glad if my right hon. Friend could give a categorical reply to that.
      I do stress one point which I think is sometimes overlooked. Where doctors, consultants and students are absorbed in the work that they are doing, they do not always appreciate that for an average person going into hospital is a considerable ordeal. While most of them may not go all the way with Alf Garnett in recent assertion, that if he went into hospital he was afraid that the surgeon might look at his kidneys and say, "That's a nice healthy pair of kidneys. I'll just whip them out and use them myself", there are many apprehensions in the minds of patients when they go into hospital and very often they have to use all their reserves of courage to face the ordeals before them. Therefore, it is necessary, when people are in this frame of mind, that they should know their rights. They should know how far the teaching hospital can go in compelling them to have students present at the consultation or the operation. This should be made abundantly clear and should be written into the legislation. That is why I ask my right hon. Friend to write it into the Bill. I am not very happy about the wording of the Clause—it was somewhat hurriedly drafted—but the intention is clear. If the Minister will not accept it as it is, I hope that he will find an opportunity at a later stage of the Bill to put in something on those lines.
      As a London Member, I am particularly concerned about the position in the London area. There is a great extension of teaching hospitals in the London area and it is becoming increasingly difficult, and will be even more so in future, for patients to go to a hospital which is
      62
      not a teaching hospital. Therefore, this practice of transferring patients to non-teaching hospitals, if they do not want to be subjected to teaching, may become almost impossible in the London area. Because of this, and because this is now such a rapidly developing situation, the rights of patients should be clearly written into the Bill, and I ask my right hon. Friend to accept the spirit of the Clause when he makes his reply.
      4.45 p.m.
      Miss J. M. Quennell: I congratulate the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) on her speech in moving this Clause. She has put on the Order Paper in printed form succinctly and clearly a great many of the worries that beset members of the Committee when, in its third sitting, it considered this problem.
      As the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green said, it is quite obvious that soon patients will find their choice of hospitals more and more limited. Whether they like it or not, they will find themselves admitted to the big new hospitals which are the result of the rationalisation of the hospital service and which are in their nature teaching hospitals.
      The hon. Lady has described some of the incidents that have come to her knowledge concerning patients who have disliked the idea of finding their persons exposed, as shall we say, guinea pigs. Let us consider the most important person in the hospital service. With great respect, it is not the doctors, nor the nursing staff. Unquestionably it is the patient, and the patient is the one person who appears all too seldom in this very complex Bill.
      In the type of constituency which I represent, people who have to be admitted to hospital generally come from rural villages, and they have a long journey to make before they get to the hospital. They are admitted into a rather strange, bewildering and slightly frightening institution and are then faced with the request that they should be prepared to allow themselves to be used for teaching purposes. It is intolerable that anybody should be pressurised in any way, shape or form into allowing himself to be so used. To my mind it is an offence against human dignity.

      63
      The Minister said:
      "I have certainly given guidance to hospital authorities and teaching hospitals that cooperation in teaching should not be made a condition of treatment. Whatever I have said on the subject in the past I stand by, and it will go for the university hospitals as well."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D; 30th January, 1968, c. 137.]
      Though welcome, it is nevertheless imprecise.
      I welcome the Clause, because it gives expression to a defence of the patient about which he can know and be reassured. I accept that the Minister may not feel that the wording is quite as happy as his expert draftsmen would produce, but, if he is prepared to accept the Clause, or a version of it which could be introduced at a later stage, I think he would go a very long way to meeting the real worries of many people about these constant reports of over-pressurisation on patients newly admitted into hospital in circumstances which are, to say the least, rather frightening when they are somewhat upset and certainly not feeling very well. He would also go a long way towards ensuring his niche in the annals of hospital history and record as being one of the patient's best friends.
      Dr. Shirley Summerskill: In general I support the Clause, but I should like to make some comments so that the result of this discussion will not present an exaggerated picture of what a patient is submitted to when he or she is admitted to hospital. I think that some rather extravagant phrases have been used, such as "guinea pig", and patients being pressurised into being examined by medical students.
      Like any other doctor in the House, I was trained at various medical schools, such as hospitals for skin diseases, hospitals for nervous diseases, hospitals for children, as well as my own medical school, and never in all those years did I see a patient being pressurised into being examined, or even talked about, by medical students if he did not wish that to be done. In fact, the last thing that a consultant, or a registrar, or a medical student would do, would be to force himself on an unwilling patient.
      The cases mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) are extremely rare, and far from
      64
      typical. When people are admitted as emergencies to the casualty department, or to wards, there is never time for a group of students to be assembled to discuss, and examine. Usually those who are taught upon—I object to the word "used" in the Clause—and taught about are those who have been admitted from the waiting list, and not as casualties. Before they are admitted they are warned by means of a booklet, that they are entering a teaching hospital, and that one of the things that happens there is that medical students have to learn their profession.
      The attitude of patients to medical students is not the general attitude described by the hon. Lady the Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell). Many of them are extremely flattered by the attention which they receive from medical students. They feel that instead of getting only one doctor to talk to them, and having only one doctor interested in them, and asking about them, they are being attended by a whole group of doctors.
      I suggest that the wording of the Clause should be altered. Perhaps my right hon. Friend can find a more appropriate way of expressing my hon. Friend's intentions. I am sure that no one will deny that unless we have patients who are willing to co-operate with medical students, we will never be able to train our future doctors, because they cannot go into general practice without seeing cases the like of which they may never see for many years, and of which they must be aware if they are to recognise them when they do see them.
      It is not for nothing that the status of the teaching hospital is often regarded by patients as higher than that of a general hospital. I am merely putting the case for many patients who prefer to go to teaching hospitals rather than to others. They learn more about their own cases. Very often patients complain that they are not told anything about their treatment, or the diagnosis of their illnesses by the doctors in charge. At teaching hospitals, if anything, they know too much about themselves, because day in and day out they are surrounded by medical students who discuss among themselves the ins and outs of the case. Very often patients are suffering from complicated diseases, and more than one mind is put to work on making a diagnosis. The majority of medical students

      65
      are sympathetic and understanding, and, if anything, reticent. They do not push themselves on to a patient without his understanding the purpose of them being there. I do not say that students are mare qualified than their seniors, but it may be that many of them are more sympathetic in dealing with patients.
      Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I do not dissent from much, if anything, of what was said by the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler), but my views approximate much more closely to those of the hon. Lady the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summer-skill), which is perhaps hardly surprising, since we share a common background.
      The hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green described cases which she said ware typical of many, but I think she w ill agree that complete satisfaction with the way they are treated in teaching hospitals is typical of many more patients. There may be occasions such as those described by the hon. Lady, but if there are, there should not be, and if something can be done to obviate them so much the better, but I hope the idea will not be spread that teaching hospitals and university hospitals are teaching factories in which the patients come second to medical students. This is certainly not the view of the students. They always feel that they are a long way behind everybody. It is not the general feeling that our teaching hospitals are less humane than other hospitals, and I hope the idea will not be spread that they consider patients to be of less importance than they are considered to be in other hospitals.
      As is to be expected, the attitudes of patients towards medical teaching vary considerably. I accept that from time to time there are patients who find it embarrassing to be examined in front of a group of students. Different patients have different temperaments, and naturally their reactions vary, and on occasions some of them are embarrassed. I am not surprised that one does not receive constant complaints from patients about being used for teaching purposes simply because some patients do not want to raise objections. I think that the small number of complaints does not necessarily prove that there are not people who have some misgivings about this practice, but I agree with what has been said about this being a matter of communication. If
      66
      things are properly explained to patients, and they fully understand what is required and expected of them, many of the difficulties can be ironed out.
      Hospitals are often criticised for a lack of communication. We know that this is due not to any lack of desire to explain things to patients, but to a shortage of staff, and a shortage of resources, which make it impossible for doctors to go into the detail that one would like. I hope that the Minister will improve the present situation. The story is told of a 'phone call being made to a teaching hospital and a voice saying, "How is Mr. Smith in Ward C?", the operator answering, "He is very well, and is going home tomorrow. Are you a relative of his?", whereupon the voice answers, "No, this is Mr. Smith speaking. They tell you nothing here." I think we all agree that medicine is a co-operative business between those who practise it, and those on whom it is practised, and that we would all welcome anything that can be done to improve communications.
      I hope that the Minister will say that he agrees with the spirit of the Clause, but that he will not recommend its acceptance by the House, because it would give rise to difficulties. First, what is a teaching hospital, or a university hospital? We know what it is. But teaching is going on in almost every hospital nowadays. It would therefore be a mistake to pick out certain hospitals.
      5.0 p.m.
      Secondly, it is very difficult to say what teaching is in terms of the wording of a Clause of this kind. If an operation is being performed in an operating theatre and doctors are present who are not there to assist but to watch, is it something that one ought to object to? Teaching is difficult to define. In many cases consultants, although being assisted by their registrars, are necessarily teaching at the same time.
      I do not want to put forward all kinds of technical objections, but if this Clause were interpreted in a certain way it would bring many hospitals almost to a halt. It should be made clear that no patient is refused admission or denied treatment on the ground of his objection to being used for teaching. I hope that the Minister will confirm that this is the case. It is my view, and that of colleagues

      67
      of mine with whom I have discussed the matter. We feel that this is not the way in which hospitals are conducted. It would be wrong to agree to the Clause in this form because it would imply that a procedure which had hitherto been in general operation was now to be stopped.
      I have worked in hospitals and have taken part on both sides of the teaching processes. I do not object to the hon. Lady's putting forward her case. I agree that we must be mindful of the efficiency of the Health Service and the wellbeing of patients, and that it is necessary to have the fullest consultation and consideration when embarking on any procedure—not only that of teaching.
      Whatever is taking place should be explained to the patient. It should be made clear that any patient is entitled to object to any procedure, whether or not it be teaching.
      Mr. Herbert Butler: The hon. Member is a member of the medical profession. If he were lying in bed with four or five students round him and he had a pain in his stomach and did not know what it was, how could he object to the presence of the four or five students?
      Dr. Winstanley: I referred to that point earlier, and said that it was difficult for such a patient to object. But I went on to point out that it was not only in respect of teaching that patients had the right to object; there were other things to which they could object. I say that the fact that a patient objects to being subjected to teaching processes should not result in his being denied treatment at a hospital of his doctor's choice. I agree with much of what the hon. Lady has said, but for various reasons which have been made clear by hon. Members on both sides of the House I take the view that it would be a pity if the Clause were accepted in its present form. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something to help us to achieve the end that we all have in mind.
      Mr. Laurence Pavitt: In spite of the eloquent protestations of the two doctors who have spoken on this matter, I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the Clause, or a Clause in a similar form. It makes explicit a trend
      68
      which has been going on for some time. Many years ago the prime responsibility of teaching hospitals was to teach. It used to be almost their exclusive function. Recently, however, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend, there has been an extension of the domain of teaching hospitals. They now take in geriatrics and mental health. A trend has been established for teaching hospitals to take on more responsibilities.
      The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) talked about the definition of a teaching hospital. When a consultant does his ward rounds with his registrar or house man teaching takes place. We are merely trying to preserve the right of a general practitioner to refer his patient—whether he be an outpatient or an in-patient—to the consultant of his choice. If too dominant a feeling should arise that teaching comes first a general practitioner may refer a patient to a teaching hospital because he feels that the facilities at that hospital are those which will most benefit his patient. If the patient has an objection to being used as teaching material the general practitioner's wish cannot be fulfilled unless it is specifically provided that, in spite of the fact that that patient does not wish to be used or exhibited for teaching purposes, he can obtain treatment at that hospital.
      Most teaching hospitals have a higher staffing ratio, and there are more nurses per patient. Such hospitals seem to have more of everything. In acute hospitals in my area it costs £46 a week for a patient in hospital, whereas in London it is nearer £67. A general practitioner may wish his patient to receive the benefit of the facilities available at a teaching hospital because of his diagnosis of the treatment that his patient desires.
      There can be—there has been in the past—a depersonalisation of the patient. Two or three years ago a constituent of mine who went to Westminster Hospital was told to strip off in the waiting room. She was then taken by a nurse through a door and found herself stark naked in front of 40 students, after which the consultant gave a demonstration. She received a shock, which may have had a bad effect on her. She was not warned beforehand what might happen. I hope that that is a thing of the past.
      Mr. Dempsey: Can my hon. Friend develop this point? At what stage and in what circumstances, what sort of procedure is used to acquaint any patient with the fact that he or she can opt out of such an examination?
      Mr. Pavitt: As my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) said, on admission the patient is often given a booklet or some kind of material which sets out the rules and regulations concerning what may happen. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) and the hon. Member for Cheadle that in the main the kind of thing to which I have just referred does not happen; there is a I attempt to make sure that the patient is fully aware of what is going on. Nevertheless, for some time, the Patients Association and the Socialist Medical Association have been waging a campaign to protect the rights of patients—including their rights in situations of the kind to which I have just referred.
      The only place that I know of where one is talked at and talked over is in a hospital bed with a group of students sanding round. A person feels like an inanimate object and there is a continual conversation going across him concerning what is the matter with him—usually in technical terms. It has been said that this adds interest for the patient, especially if he is a little morbid. But many people cannot understand what is being said.
      Dr. M. S. Miller: Would not the best way to overcome this problem be to encourage communication between doctors and patients? There should be discussion not merely as to what is wrong with a patient but also as to what kind of treatment the doctor proposes to give.
      Mr. Pavitt: My hon. Friend is right. That is part of the thing that we are trying to move towards. The medical profession may be doing its best, but the process still needs the kind of pressures that my hon. Friend has mounted. It should be made clear that a person who does not want to be talked at, looked at, or used in this way should nevertheless have a right to be treated in a teaching hospital if his or her general practitioner recommends treatment for that patient at that hospital.
      70
      In London this is a more acute probblem than ever, because about 50 per cent. of the total number of beds are in teaching hospitals. In the last few weeks Paddington General Hospital has gone over to St. Mary's. Another district hospital has become a teaching hospital. That is the trend. There are about 8,000 beds in the pipeline for designation at the moment. This might be right, because there is an urgent need for more doctors. But there is also a need to protect the rights of an individual.
      A person may go into a teaching hospital with his eyes open. He may say, "I am prepared to go to this hospital. I am grateful to the hospital and glad to be of some service in respect of teaching." But other people who may want treatment in a teaching hospital for their sickness or disability should have the right to object if they wish to. Personal feelings enter into the matter. They should have the right to say that they want to go to Guys, or Barts or the London Hospital, although they are not prepared to be used for teaching purposes by consultants.
      Dr. Winstauley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the tendency to which he has referred, for teaching to take place in more and more hospitals, has the effect of reducing the student to bed ratio and is, therefore, doing something to reduce the difficulties about which the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) complains?
      Mr. Pavitt: I accept that. That is another argument. I would prefer that they should not be designated in that way.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I do not think that the argument arises on the new Clause.
      Mr. Pavitt: It is possible to have more students per bed without necessarily designating the hospitals, because there can be the type of arrangement which the Central Middlesex Hospital has with the Middlesex. Even if my right hon. Friend cannot accept the precise wording of the Clause, I hope that he will write such a provision explicitly into the Bill. This is part of a general trend in which he has played his part.
      Mr. Tim Fortescue: All hon. Members have

      71
      assumed that the patient who is to be taught on, so to speak, is an adult capable of speaking for himself and of deciding whether he wants to be taught on. Children have not been mentioned. I have had direct experience of this, because one of my children unfortunately broke her arm in a complicated way. Her arm was skilfully and effectively set in a hospital. This was, apparently, something of a medical miracle and my child was used extensively, together with the X-rays of her broken arm, to demonstrate to students what had been done and how much use she had of her arm after the setting.
      My wife and I were a little taken aback by this, because this was done without our permission. The child was asked whether she would mind. She said that she would not, although she had not the faintest idea of what was involved. When she had to appear before a large body of students, she was rather frightened, but the kindly treatment of the doctors and nurses coaxed her round and in the end she was happy about it. When children are involved, I believe that there is room for abuse of any safeguard which at present exists. I therefore urge the Minister to consider this proposal very carefully.
      5.15 p.m.
      Mr. Herbert Butler: I hope that the Clause will be accepted. I have been a member of a regional hospital board since the appointed day. I have been the chairman of a management committee covering five hospitals. I say this only to indicate that I have had experience of what happens in hospitals. I am amazed that my medical friends take the view that hospitals are there merely for the purpose of teaching medical students. Hospitals are there to ease the pain of those who are in pain and who cannot be treated at home. They are also there to cure diseases. People in pain and with diseases are the objects upon which doctors can gain experience. However, hospitals do not exist specifically for the purpose of teaching doctors. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), who gives television lectures, must live in cloud-cuckoo-land if he believes that patients are told that they may be the subject of lectures to students.
      72
      When I was a very important Member of the House—Parliamentary Private Secretary, running about with pieces of paper for the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty and my hon. Friend the Civil Lord—my Minister was in the London Hospital. I went to see him. The First Lord wanted to go to see him as well. I happened to be a member of the regional board, and I went to see him. As I was talking to him in the ward about one or two things which Parliamentary Private Secretaries discuss with their Ministers—I am not sure what happens today, but I know what happened then—a bunch of people were running up and down the ward. I heard all the conversation that went on around the bed opposite that occupied by the Civil Lord. I thought how dreadful it was.
      I want to discuss, not what happens on designation, but what happens in regional hospitals with association, where numbers of beds are allocated to teaching hospitals. In my case down in Hackney we have had to make it clear that patients must be made fully aware that they cannot be used as specimens unless they agree. By the time the person is aware of the true position, he is already a victim in the hospital. How much resistance does a patient have once he is in hospital? How effective is any notice that a person who is going into hospital may in certain circumstances be used for the purpose of teaching?
      I believe that payments are made to those who agree to become specimens for people to examine, investigate, comment on, and prognosticate on. In view of the new developments in the hospital service, I ask my right hon. Friend to say, in the words of the Clause, that
      "No patients may be refused admission".
      Even this is not the substance of the matter. We want it established that a patient should not be forced to act as a specimen unless he agrees to do so voluntarily. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the spirit of the Clause and act upon it.
      Mr. K. Robinson: My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green, (Mrs. Joyce Butler) must be very gratified at the almost universal assent of the House to the general idea embodied in the Clause, which she moved so moderately. The House will know that I agree entirely with

      73
      the principles set out in the Clause. I have made it clear on countless occasions that, although I hope that as many patients as possible will co-operate in the teaching of medical students, a willingness to co-operate should not be made a condition of treatment by teaching hospitals.
      This view of mine is very well known indeed to every teaching hospital in England and Wales. Apart from having answered a number of Questions on the matter in the House, I addressed the Teaching Hospitals Association on this subject in 1965. Copies of my statement were sent to all teaching hospitals following that meeting. My Department has on several occasions stressed my views at meetings of teaching hospital administrators and doctors. Only recently—in Committee on this Measure—I said that the same principle would apply to the new university hospitals which are being set up under the Bill. I am not aware of any teaching hospital which does not accept this principle.
      My hon. Friend referred to leaflets and I am inclined to agree that the leaflets on this subject in some hospitals could be improved. Most of the leaflets do not make it clear enough that the patient has a right to refuse. Interestingly enough, however, Hammersmith Hospital does this and apparently it has made no difference whatever to the proportion of patients who agree to be treated. I am considering whether leaflets should make this right clearer, but I should like to await the Report of the Royal Commission on Medical Education which is expected shortly and which is considering the whole of this subject of teaching on patients, among other topics. I should like to consider further guidance in the light of whatever the Royal Commission may have to say on the subject.
      However, although I agree with the idea behind the Clause, I do not think that it is an appropriate subject for legislation. The Clause seeks to legislate for the treatment of a particular type of patient at a particular type of hospital in a particular situation against a background of legislation for hospital treatment which is deliberately and necessarily couched in very broad and general terms. It rather prompts the question: why should we not, if we are to pass this Clause, legislate for other
      74
      particular types of patient of whom there is an infinite variety.
      Occasionally—very occasionally indeed in relation to the number of patients who are treated in teaching hospitals—I receive complaints by patients about teaching. My hon. Friend mentioned one or two instances but I think she would agree that it is not appropriate to discuss particular cases on the Floor of the House. I assure her that I carefully investigate any such complaints that are made to me or my Department. When I have looked into them I have sometimes found that there has been a misunderstanding, sometimes that a doctor has not been as thoughtful as he might have been and sometimes that a doctor has made a mistake. I do not see that if we were to accept the Clause it could have any effect on the number of occasional misunderstandings and mistakes. It would be a law directed against people because a refusal of treatment, if it were ever to happen, would be a refusal by an individual person. What sanctions would operate if the occasional individual did not abide by the law?
      Even if the situation were to arise in which a teaching hospital did not carry out my policy, I would still think that the Clause was not necessary. I say that because I already have ample powers under present legislation to direct hospital authorities to act in accordance with my policies. Fortunately, the need for a direction on the sort of matter covered by the Clause has not arisen, but I assure the House that I would not hesitate to use my powers if I thought that it were necessary to do so.
      Mr. A. P. Costain: What would be the position if a G.P. recommended that a patient should be excused being the subject for teaching?
      Mr. Robinson: I am certain that if a G.P. were to tell a consultant that a patient whom he was referring to the consultant did not wish to take part in teaching procedures, that would be helpful all round, since the consultant would then decide whether he would treat the patient himself, despite that proviso, or suggest that another consultant might better take on the treatment. I would certainly hope that that would be the case.

      75
      I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Herbert Butler) that there is no question of any payment being made to people who are patients in hospital. I understand that some medical schools make payments to people who come back specially to be taught on, but that is a rather different matter.
      Perhaps I can sum up by saying once again that I entirely agree with the principle expressed in the Clause. I am sure, however, that there is no need to legislate on these lines because teaching hospitals accept this principle and because, if they did not, I could direct them to do so under existing legislation. I also believe that it would be wrong to particularise about the treatment of a defined group of people in legislation which is otherwise in very broad general terms. Additionally, the Clause would not carry penalties against individuals who did not observe it. Thus, it would be bad law, and, accordingly, I ask the House to reject it.
      Mr. Dempsey: My right hon. Friend says that he has ample powers under present legislation to take action or give a direction. How would he get to know that an individual who had refused had, in fact, declined to be examined in this way?
      Mr. Robinson: I was saying, in somewhat general terms, that if a teaching hospital did not accept the policy which I have outlined and which I have commended to hospitals, then I could direct them to abide by it—as I say, in general terms—but obviously if a particular situation were to arise I would not be likely to hear of it until after it had arisen.
      Mr. J. T. Price: I intervene because I have been deeply impressed by the speeches which have been made in support of the Clause. I also intervene because my right hon. Friend has wide general knowledge of the medical profession and might be able to answer a question about medical practitioners in view of his past association with the profession, particularly in view of the medical experience of previous generations of his family.
      Where does the Hippocratic oath come into all this? I have always understood
      76
      that a qualified practitioner, whatever the level of his skill or expertise, undertook to give his services to any member of suffering humanity, regardless of conditions. I would have thought, therefore, that the intervention of a condition imposed by any hospital authority—by a medical member of a hospital or by a member of the administrative staff—would, by implication, be a breach of the Hippocratic oath. This question raises a genuine issue of conscience and hon. Members who do not frequently indulge in the luxury of carrying their consciences on their sleeves will agree that we are right in pointing out forceably to the Government that matters such as these are not trivial.
      When a "quack"—I use the word affectionately—is registered, he is able to do certain things. If he is experienced he can perform operations, but he would not perform one merely for the heck of doing it or for the joy or interest that performing it would give him. However attractive an operation may seem, he cannot perform it if it offends against the ethical principles of his profession.
      It is against this background that I regard my right hon. Friend's answer on this occasion as a bit of flannel. He said that in certain circumstances he would be prepared to use his powers of direction. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) pointed out, he would be unlikely to use them because he would have no means of knowing of people who had been turned away from hospitals in the circumstances that have been described. For this reason the Clause is worthy of further consideration. If I were not such a loyal member of the Labour Party I would probably feel inclined to abstain on this issue if a Division is called.
      5.30 p.m.
      Mr. Will Griffiths: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) for not hearing her open this debate, but I have heard sufficient of the speeches, and particularly the slightly astonishing reply of my right hon. Friend, to persuade me to add my support to the Clause.
      The Minister has not contradicted what any of my hon. Friends have said. He admits that though complaints are

      77
      few they do exist. He says that if the Clause were passed there would be no sanction against any misbehaviour, if that is the right word; against doctors using patients for teaching purposes without the patients' consent. If the Clause were written into the Bill, an obligation would be placed by Statute on the medical profession to make it absolutely explicitly clear to patients that their consent must be sought.
      As I say, my right hon. Friend does not deny that these cases occur. He says that there are few of them, and I do not think that anyone would contradict that statement. He has not refuted the stories I have heard recited to the House, but says that in any case he has reserve powers. He is therefore saying that there is mistreatment, or that the correct procedure is not always applied in all teaching hospitals, but that he proposes to do nothing about it. On the other hand, if he were to accept the Clause, a statutory obligation would be placed on the Minister to take direct action through the regional boards to make sure that those in teaching hospitals observed the law. I see nothing improper in that being done.
      I am quite sure that a large number of the doctors in our teaching hospitals are impeccable in their behaviour in this respect, but we all know from experience, either personally or within our families, that in the medical profession, as in other professions, there are those who behave with the utmost arrogance. An example is their attitude towards patients. It is well known that constituents go to the out-patient department of a teaching hospital—and not necessarily a teaching hospital—and very often have not the slightest idea who the doctor is who may be carrying out the most intimate examination. They may be attending Mr. Smith's clinic, but they are not at all certain, as they ought to be, that it is Mr. Smith who carries out an examination of considerable intimacy. Often it is not Mr. Smith at all. This amounts to thoughtlessness on the part of the doctors in the clinics.
      I have often suggested to individual members of the profession that I see no reason why on their white jackets they should riot have labels bearing their names. That practice is observed by matrons, sometimes by theatre sisters,
      78
      sometimes by sisters in the out-patient department, and sometimes, perhaps, by many doctors. At the same time, many doctors still like to cloak themselves in an aura of anonymity which I believe to be undesirable. Whether they are fearful of the patient knowing who they are I do not know—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's argument does not appear to have any relevance to the new Clause.
      Mr. Griffiths: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should have thought that the relevance is that I am illustrating the attitude in general of some members of the medical profession towards some patients.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. The new Clause merely deals with the question whether patients should be refused admission to a teaching hospital.
      Mr. Griffiths: I bow to your Ruling, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely trying to illustrate in connection with the new Clause that there are certain sanctions which may be exercised in certain circumstances against the patient. However, I leave the point at once.
      Sufficient has been said by hon. Members—and the Minister has done much to reinforce their arguments—to persuade me that even now my right hon. Friend should look again at the Clause. It is not enough for him to adopt the attitude he has adopted so far.
      Mrs. Joyce Butler: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said about the difficulty of writing this provision into the Statute, it would not be right to press the Clause. However, I would ask him to see whether some form of words could not be written in later; and, in any case, whether he would accept, as I think has been made abundantly clear on both sides of the House—and in many cases outside the House—that there is need for better guidance, if that is the right word, to the teaching hospitals. If my right hon. Friend cannot insert this provision into the Bill later, perhaps he will consider achieving its purpose by a letter or by instructions to teaching hospitals.
      Mr. K. Robinson: I will certainly accede to my hon. Friend's request to consider what further guidance should be given. It is my intentiton in due course

      79
      to give further guidance after we have had the advice of the Royal Commission on Medical Education. I will consider what has been said in the debate, but I ought not to leave my hon. Friend to think that it would be possible to find a satisfactory way of achieving in statutory form a situation which all of us want. This is not a matter for statutory provision. But, I repeat, we all agree—and hospitals have been told that this is my policy—that it should not be made a condition of treatment in a teaching hospital that patients co-operate in the teaching process. That being so, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the new Clause.
      Mrs. Joyce Butler: In view of what has been said by my right hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new Clause.
      Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause No. 5.

      (DEFINITION OF 'SERVICES OF THE CROWN' FOR PURPOSES OF PROVI SIONS OF PATENTS ACT 1949.)
      For the purposes of sections 32, 46, 47 and 48 of the Patents Act 1949:

      (a) 'the services of the Crown' shall be deemed to include any sale or supply of a patented invention for the purpose of providing services under Part IV of the National Health Service Act 1946 or Part IV of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947, and

      (b) any use of such an invention for the purpose of providing those services shall be deemed to be a use of the invention for the services of the Crown.—[Mr. W. O. J. Robinson.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. W. O. J. Robinson: I beg to move, That the Clause be now read a Second time.
      It will be generally recognised that the Clause is prompted by the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Relationship of the Pharmaceutical Industry with the National Health Service—Cmnd. 3410—colloquially referred to as the Sainsbury Report. Recommendation 11, in page 2 of the Report, states:
      "That, since the negotiation of prices may sometimes fail to result in agreement, a procedure must be available to which Ministers may have recourse; and that Ministers should
      80
      consider amendment of the National Health Service Acts to bring the General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services within the definition of 'services of the Crown' for the purpose of Section 46 of the Patents Act, 1949."
      This is the first National Health Service Bill that has been brought before the House since that Report was published, and I strongly suspect that it may well be the last such Bill for some time. It was therefore thought right to seek to insert the Clause in implementation of that recommendation, more particularly because in Clauses 24 and 63 the Minister is seeking to obtain extended powers for the purchase and supply of goods and materials both by the Minister and, through him, by the executive councils for the purpose of Part IV of the 1946 Act.
      I suppose that I should summarise the provisions of the Sections of the Patents Act, 1949, to which the proposed new Clause relates, but I propose to do so only in general terms, first, in order to economise in time and, secondly, because I have no wide knowledge of a very specialised branch of the law.
      I take first Section 46. That Section enables any Government Department or person authorised by that Department to "make, use and exercise" any patented invention in the services of the Crown, free in general terms, from the restrictions of the patent, but subject to various specific conditions. One condition is very rightly a requirement that appropriate terms for the use of the invention shall be agreed between the Government Department and the patentee and, if agreement is unable to be reached between them, the matter shall be determined by the courts. It is important to realise that there is adequate protection for the patentee when the invention is used in this way.
      Section 47 protects the rights of any persons, other than the patentee, who may have acquired property rights in the patent. Section 48 requires the reference to the court of any dispute in regard to the matter by any Government Department or any authorised person of these powers and, secondly, as to the terms on which the invention shall be used. The provisions of Section 32, so far as it is material to this new Clause, empower the court on the petition of a Government Department, to revoke a patent if it is satisfied that the patentee has without

      81
      reasonable cause failed to comply with a request from the Department of the use of the invention for the services of the Crown upon reasonable terms. I am sure that the House would agree, in view of these provisions, that it is not necessary to argue the merits or demerits of patent rights being dealt with in this way. Clearly this has been the law, not only since the Patents Act, 1949, but as far back as the Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Act, 1883, and possibly even earlier. It is not necessary to have to argue that the provisions of the Patents Act, may be exercised, at least in part, in relation to the National Health Service.
      It has already been established that the National Health Service in one part has been permitted to take advantage of these Sections. It was clearly established, true by a majority decision, in the case of Pfizer Corporation and the Ministry of Health in the House of Lords in November, 1965, that the use of a patent invention for the treatment of both inpatients and out-patients of National Health Service hospitals—I stress the importance of the right to use it for outpatients—was a use
      "in the services of the Crown"
      and, therefore, permitted the Minister to invoke the powers of the Patents Act.
      I believe and hope that the sole question which has to be argued on the new Clause is whether or not the right inherent in that judgment ought to be tended to cover the services provided under Part IV of the National Health Service Act, 1946, generally referred to as the general medical and pharmaceutical services. I believe I am right in saying that the court was not called upon to make any decision on this particular point. I gather that the Ministry made no claim to be entitled to invoke the Act for the purposes of the general medical and pharmaceutical services since it was apparently advised that these particular services could not be regarded as a "service of the Crown" for the purposes of the Section.
      I find it extremely difficult to understand how this distinction could be drawn between what clearly are two parts of one comprehensive Health Service. The distinction seems to be both illogical and anomalous. I am fortified in saying that by the fact that the anomaly was acknowledged by one
      82
      of the Lord Justices in the Pfizer case. Lord Reid, who said, as reported in All England Law Reports, 1965, page 454:
      "It seems anomalous that there should be this distinction depending on the nature of the organisation which Parliament has set up and not on its purpose."
      One of the purposes of my argument is to establish the proposition that the Health Service is one service. Although it might be divided into parts for convenience of operation and management, it is still one service.
      5.45 p.m.
      I will outline a little of the history of this matter The Ministry of Health was established in 1919 by the Ministry of Health Act. This provided for the appointment of a Minister for the purpose of promoting the health of the people throughout England and Wales. The Act made it the Minister's specific duty to take all such steps as might be desirable for the effective carrying out and co-operation of measures conducive to the health of the people. He was to take full steps in every direction to promote the health of the community. This clearly indicated that it is one service and the Ministry is concerned with each and every branch of the service.
      This is certainly confirmed by Section 1 of the National Health Service Act, 1946, which places on the Minister the statutory obligation to promote the establishment of a comprehensive Health Service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people. Surely the provision of a hospital service forms only a part of the obligations of the Minister. How can it be said that it is in the "service of the Crown" to secure the improvement in health of the people when treatment is given in hospital, but not when the same objective is pursued through the general practitioner and the pharmacist?
      I am comforted to know that my doubts and difficulties are echoed in far more authoritative quarters. I quote from paragraph 329, on page 30, of the Sainsbury Committee's Report:
      "To most observers it will seem surprising that the General Medical and Pharmaceutical 'Services are not in law a service of the Crown', while the Hospital Services are. Both of these services are provided for under the same legislation (the National Health Service Act, 1946, in England and Wales, the

      83
      National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, in Scotland, both services are under the ultimate authority of the Minister of Health (or, in Scotland, of the Secretary of State for Scotland); the administrations of the two services overlap at many points."
      However divided may be the organisations, the general medical and pharmaceutical services are equally as much Exchequer-financed as the hospital service. The manner of financing is a good test in finding whether or not one branch differs from another.
      Further to illustrate my argument, I will read an extract from the judgment of Lord Justice Wilberforce in the Pfizer case. This was a dissenting judgment and the quotation was used by the Lord Justice as an argument against the application of the provisions of the Patents Act applying even to the hospital service. I quote again from All England Law Reports, 1965, page 475:
      "it seems to me rather strange that the Minister should seek to cut the National Health Service in two, saying (as he does) that he is responsible for a service of the Crown for Part 2 services and that Part 4 services are a service of some authority (most possibly a function of the Crown) when the whole service, a national service, is the Minister's responsibility and when he bears the cost under one part as under the other."
      Then comes a particularly cogent argument:
      "Does the patient, who consults a general practitioner, or who takes his prescription to a chemist really think that he is using some local service? Or would he find it easy to accept that while he is in hospital he can be supplied, as a service of the Crown, with Italian tetracycline and may continue to be so supplied while he remains an out-patient, but that when, in the course of his convalescence, his G.P. takes over and continues the prescription, the same chemist supplying tetracycline is not doing so in the service of the Crown?"
      That summarises more adequately than I can my argument.
      There is an additional distinction, which was not referred to by the Lord Justice, between the hospital and the general practitioner service. This again is an example of no logical difference between the two services. What if the treatment of a patient is carried out in a general practitioner hospital or the general practitioner wing of a general hospital?
      Here we have the same patient, being treated in a hospital by a particular doc
      84
      tor for a particular complaint, and receiving a particular treatment. By the Pfizer judgment, there is no question that the medical attention and treatment, even though by a general practitioner, is rendered as part of the services of the Crown. The patient is then discharged, to lie in his own bed. He is visited again by the same doctor who treated him in hospital, he receives the same treatment, and undoubtedly the same medicine. The only difference is in the bed and in the four walls.
      Yet this treatment is no longer regarded as being in the service of the Crown. Again we could look fit the patient receiving treatment as an outpatient at the hospital. He receives a prescription which he may take to a local chemist if the hospital pharmacist is not able to undertake the work for one reason or another. All this is in the service of the Crown. He is then referred by the hospital back to his own general practitioner, and again receives the same treatment, the same medicine is prescribed, and the same chemist supplies the drugs. In the first case it is in the service of the Crown, in the second it is not.
      To illustrate this a little more I refer to the question of disposable sterile syringes. I do so, as hon. Members opposite will recognise, because this, as the Minister said, was what triggered off the insertion of the provisions in the Bill. It the sterile disposable syringe is supplied by a hospital doctor, is used by a hospital doctor in a hospital building, it is within the ambit of the provisions of the Patents Act. If it is used by a general practitioner, for the same patient, for the same complaint, in the same arm, it is not. Can this anomaly really be justified?
      It may be argued that the distinction lies in the fact that the doctor and chemist are not employed by the Crown and their work is done on their own behalf. I would argue that they are all taking part in carrying out the duty imposed upon the Minister of Health to provide a comprehensive Health Service. Whether he chooses to carry this out by persons directly employed by him or others, under a contract of service, surely cannot make any difference.
      Let us examine this a little further. Suppose it were decided in future that general practitioners should be paid on a salary basis. Would the situation then be

      85
      changed? Certainly in the eyes of the patient there would be no difference. The only difference would be in the way in which the doctor's remuneration was calculated and paid. I believe that there is at least a tentative agreement between my right hon. Friend and the medical profession that an opportunity might be presented, some time, for groups of general practitioners who so wished to be paid on a salaried basis rather than on fees. If that were adopted one would presumably have two classes of general practitioner.
      Again it must be acknowledged, even though there are two different groups in relation to payment, that there could be no difference whatever in the services which they performed. Is it to be seriously suggested that these two groups might be practising next door to one another, one being remunerated by salary and performing services to the Crown, and the other not doing so? Not only is this anomalous, it is absurd.
      I realise that if the new Clause were adopted it might lead to a further infringement of the protection granted to patentees. I am sure that if my right hon. Friend found it necessary to invoke these additional powers he would not do so unless it were absolutely necessary, and a last resort. I share the view of the Sainsbury Committee that he would undoubtedly in such an event report his action to the House and his use of the powers would then be open to Parliamentary discussion and control.
      I have not referred at all to the advantages which might accrue to the Exchequer, and the benefits which may result to the Health Service by the application of these Sections of the Patents Act to the Part IV services. I have not done so deliberately, because I am concerned purely with the mechanics and logicality of the situation. It may be that some of my hon. Friends, if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will try to raise this point. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at this new Clause, and that it will commend itself to the House.
      Mr. Nigel Fisher: Not for the first time I have to declare an interest in the pharmaceutical industry. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. W. O. J. Robinson) has said, this new
      86
      Clause extends the use of Section 46 of the Patents Act to the pharmaceutical services as a whole, instead of merely to the Hospital Service. The hon. Gentleman called in aid of his arguments the Sainsbury Committee Report. For me that is no recommendation, because I thought it a very superficial report, in this as in other respects.
      I am not concerned to argue as the hon. Gentleman did, as between the pharmaceutical service generally and the hospital service in particular. I do not think that Section 46 should apply to either. I want to argue the case on much wider grounds than he did. He should not need reminding that patents are the life-blood of the pharmaceutical industry, and its main protection against the piracy of a new discovery. There is no incentive whatever to carry out expensive research if the result of it can be copied by a rival and sold, without any research on his part.
      Without adequate patent protection research would not be worthwhile, innovation would cease, and in the end this would kill our valuable export industry. Section 46 of the Patent Act enables Her Majesty's Government to obtain supplies for the services of the Crown of patented drugs from unlicensed sources abroad. It was used for this purpose by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) when he was Minister of Health. It was a mistake, which I understand he now acknowledges and it has not been used since. In parentheses, I may add that it was somewhat surprising to me that the great exponent and high priest of free enterprise should have struck such a blow against it when he had the power to do so!
      This loophole in the patent law of which he took advantage was never intended to apply to pharmaceutical products, but was intended I believe to apply to defence equipment or something of that sort. It remains a threat in the hands of the Minister, and this new Clause, if the right hon. Gentleman accepts it, would extend his powers and encourage fears in the industry that he intended to use them. If he does not intend to do so there is no point in his accepting the new Clause.
      The use of this big stick by the right hon. Gentleman would no doubt in some

      87
      cases produce an ephemeral short-term financial saving and that is presumably the point of the new Clause. It would certainly result in a long-term loss to our balance of payments, and in serious discouragement to research. Its use is also dangerous to health, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to note that point particularly, because he has a responsibility to do so. I say this because continental imports might well be sub-standard and would be very difficult to check for quality if spread through the whole pharmaceutical service.
      I agree that they might be cheaper. Italy, for example, sells abroad at prices much lower than her domestic prices in order to encourage exports. There is no other way in which she can encourage exports because, due to her own lack of patent protection, expenditure on research in Italy is only 1·5 per cent. of sales, whereas in Britain it is about 8·5 per cent., and Italy has understandably produced only one significant new drug. As we know, she has an adverse balance of payments for pharmaceutical products whereas our own balance of payments is a very favourable one indeed.
      Paradoxically, I understand that Italy is now likely to introduce legislation to give some patent protection—indeed, she may already have done so—because of these very considerations. It would be ironic if, at the same time, we were to weaken the protection which we give to our own pharmaceutical industry. It is extraordinary that hon. Gentlemen should seriously recommend discriminating against this industry of all industries in the patent protection which we afford to it. I think I am right in saying that the inventor of a new type of machine gun has better protection than would be allowed to the inventor of a cure for cancer or for coronary thrombosis—quite extraordinary state of affairs.
      The pharmaceutical industry is of the greatest importance both to the health o: our people and to our exports and balance of payments. Acceptance of the new Clause would in my view be a classic case of penny wise and pound foolish, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and the House will decisively reject it. The proper way to deal with this issue, if the Minister wants to deal with it at all, is to leave it to the Banks
      88
      Committee to consider. He certainly ought not to introduce it through the back door in this Bill against the interests of the industry and, incidentally, against the strong advice of the C.B.I.
      6.0 p.m.
      Mr. Pavitt: Not for the first time, I find myself following the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) and disagreeing with all that he says. I listened with interest and admiration to the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. W. O. J. Robinson), a massive and well argued case which showed beyond question the anomaly which exists when half of the National Health Service is counted a service to the Crown and the other half is not. The case was so formidable that, if my right hon. Friend cannot accede to our request, I shall be very disappointed, and so will a good many of my hon. Friends.
      The hon. Member for Surbiton has no regard for the Sainsbury Report. I, on the contrary, have considerable regard for it, though I shall not try to out-Sainsbury Sainsbury, as I have been accused of doing in another Committee elsewhere in this building. We waited for the Sainsbury Report for a long time, and the pattern was set by a most important report, in which the health services throughout the whole world have been interested, the Kefauver Report in America, which made an examination in depth of the way in which drugs were supplied in that country. That report is relevant to this debate because of the amount of medicines supplied on prescription and paid for by the British Exchequer through the National Health Service and the proportions represented by the different countries of origin of the companies supplying them: 49 per cent. are American, 14 per cent. Swiss, 10 per cent. other European countries, and only 27 per cent. of British manufacture by British-owned companies. Therefore, when the hon. Gentleman talks about protecting the rights of the British pharmaceutical industry, he is talking not so much of British manufacturers but, in effect, of a vast international concern.
      The hon. Gentleman's hope is that the power to purchase drugs for the service of the Crown should not apply either to

      89
      the hospital service or, as we now propose, to the general medical service. I agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)—the only point, I think, in the whole of my experience in the House on which I have ever agreed with him. The hon. Gentleman said eloquently that patents are the life-blood of the industry. I remind him of a similar comment made when the equivalent debate was going on in the United States over the Kefauver Report. The question of patent monopolies was being discussed, and it was said that the opposition point of view, that is, the view of the manufacturers and a minority on the investigating committee, would lead one to believe that patents are a God-given right to the United States of America, that without them free trade could not go on, and the whole American system of free enterprise would crumble. A similar argument is now advanced by the hon. Gentleman, who thinks that this is a vital interest of the industry.
      The hon. Gentleman argues that to do w Tat we propose would give a short-term gain but a long-term loss. In my view, neither would necessarily follow. We would hope to have, at least, a permanent gain if one were able to negotiate from a position of strength a better price for the drugs which the Minister needs for the service. When we are spending £169 million on drugs, in other words, a quarter as much again as we spend on the whole of the general practitioner service, the Minister of Health has a direct responsibility to reach the best possible bargain he can for the taxpayer. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West took powers under Section 46 of the Patents Act to purchase drugs for the hospital service, he was absolutely right. He did his duty to the House and to the country.
      Previous experience of this practice has set the precedent of reporting to the House. Any action taken by my right hon. Friend, if the new Clause were added to the Bill, would inevitably be open to Parliamentary discussion and control. This is a safeguard which should allow my right hon. Friend to yield to the considerable pressure which I and others have been putting upon him.
      90
      Section 46 is a selective instrument, which was used to very good effect by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. The amazing feature of that action was that the right hon. Gentleman is noted for being an extreme supporter of the value of a market economy. But even he found, because of the monopoly position given to drug manufacturers under the Patents Act, that it was necessary to take power of that kind. It is right, therefore, that we should take similar power in respect of drugs administered under the general practitioner service for patients treated not necessarily in hospital but in their own homes.
      I come now to some of the effects of taking such a power. On Tuesday, 14th April, 1964, The Times published a report about contracts for £300,000 which were placed by the Ministry of Health with three British firms to import drugs for the hospital service. The report told us:
      "Proprietary tetracycline is marketed at present at about £45 for 1,000 tablets. Last year, imported tetracycline was sold to the hospitals at about £6 10s. for 1,000, and the new contract may bring the figure down to about £4–£5 for 1,000".
      If that was possible, it must be in the interests of the taxpayer that this weapon should be used to bring such price levels down from £45 to between £4 and £5 for 1,000 tablets. One could cite other examples where it is necessary for my right hon. Friend to bring pressure to bear if he is to secure the right sort of bargain.
      In view of the 49 per cent. of drugs used in our Health Service which are made by American firms. I refer again to the Kefauver Report and give the example of the tranquilliser Sparine. In Canada, the price was 3·15 dollars, in the United States 3 dollars, and then, at the end of a list of countries with varying prices, one finds that in Germany the price was 0·80 dollars. In no case was the difference due to a different standard of living in the country concerned. Mexico, for example, paid twice as much for this tranquilliser as did Germany.
      The market economy goes haywire and shows up the false situation which exists when there is a monopoly and any price can be demanded. The House will be familiar with the example of Mallory

      91
      batteries used by the users of hearing aids. These also are subject to patent rights. There is only one company producing these batteries for people who wear post-aural hearing aids in this country. On 1st January, the price was put up by 50 per cent., from 1s. 9d. to 2s. 10d. There may be as many as 1½ million people who have paid £40 or £50 for such hearing aids, but this one firm could decide that all those hearing aids were useless if it ceased to manufacture the batteries without which the aid will not operate. In an attempt to find a way round this, and knowing the ingenuity of Japan with exports, I tried to find out if it would be possible, should the firm decide to go out of production, to import similar batteries from Japan. I found that the Japanese did export batteries of that type but that there is a patent which covers them owned by Messrs. Mallory. Mallory is an American firm which controls the supply of batteries in this country, and has an agreement with the Japanese that they will not export Mallory batteries to Great Britain.
      Therefore, because of patent rights not only is there a monopoly in the nation seeking to buy a drug or invention that might be of use to people suffering from illness and needing treatment under its national health service but there can be an international cartel or monopoly which prevents it from obtaining them from any other point of the compass. Last year 31 million man-days were lost to production through bronchitis alone. With the extension of the provision that the Minister may buy in bulk common drugs used in large quantities for treatment of ailments like bronchitis he would know that where a specific drug which can be purchased in bulk more cheaply he has the right to all the weapons in his armoury that Sainsburys would use when buying groceries and Marks and Spencer when buying commodities for their stores. There must be power for the Minister to provide in the best possible way.
      Another case where the discrepancy because of patents is so large concerns the firm of Bayer, which the hon. Member for Surbiton mentioned. In a letter in The Guardian just after the Second Reading debate it was stated that the retail price charged by Bayer for
      "… 2 × 500 Tabs Panadol each containing 0·5 gram of the drug Paracetamol was 67s.,
      92
      while the retail price of 1,000 Tabs Paracetamol 0·5 gram B.P. from the same pharmacy was 36s."
      This is not just a question of a few shillings either way. It is a large discrepancy.
      Therefore, I hope that the House will accept the new Clause so admirably moved by my hon. Friend. I do not suppose that my right hon. Friend the Minister would need to use its provisions, but they will mean that when he is negotiating and seeking to bring down the amount the taxpayer pays for drugs, he at least has an alternative on his side which helps him to secure the best possible bargain for us all.
      Mr. Fortescue: I think that the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) said that only 27 per cent. of the drugs used in this country were of British manufacture. It should be made clear that all drugs used in this country are made in this country, but that a large proportion is made by firms belonging to American or Swiss companies. I think that the hon. Gentleman implied that all these were imported, but that is just not so.
      The 11th recommendation of the Sainsbury Committee was that:
      "… Ministers should consider amendment of the National Health Service Act 1946 to bring the General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services within the definition of services of the Crown' …".
      Two important medical Bills have been published since the Report was issued, the Bill we are discussing and the Medicines Bill. In neither is there any implementation of that recommendation. There was no mention in the Second Reading debate on this Bill, there is nothing in the Bill, there was no mention in 12 sittings of the Committee, and no Clause has been introduced by the Minister today. Likewise, there is nothing in the Medicines Bill to show that the Minister is willing to do anything about that recommendation. It seems to me that in those circumstances it is highly unlikely that the Minister will accept the Amendment. If he does, the House, and especially hon. Members on this side, will want to know what has made him change his mind at the very last minute.
      As has already been said, a previous Minister of Health used Section 46 of the Patents Act, 1949, to cover supplies of

      93
      five drugs to National Health Service hospitals in 1961, with repeat orders in 1962 and 1964. In 1965 a case was decided by the House of Lords arising from the use by the Minister of Section 46. Three of the five Law Lords who beard the case came to the conclusion that the use of Section 46 represented a very serious impairment of the protection given to inventors by patents. The strongest comment was by Lord Wilberforce, who said:
      "My Lords, such a definition of the powers of the Crown, to use or authorise the use of patented inventions, seems to me to be alarmingly wide and to make a formidable incision into the supposedly valuable monopoly rights which the Crown has granted to the patentee."
      Those views were echoed by Lord Pearce and Lord Reid.
      6.15 p.m.
      National Health Service hospitals use between 10 and 15 per cent. of the drugs prescribed in this country, the balance being used by the general pharmaceutical and medical services. Therefore, the Clause would expand very largely the incision, as Lord Wilberforce said, into the rights of the patentee which have already be en made by the decision in the Pfizer case. We on this side of the House believe that that incision should be entirely eliminated and that supplies to the National Health Service hospitals should also not be covered by Section 46.
      The proposed new Clause goes very far in the opposite direction and proposes further to erode the rights of patentees granted to them by the Crown. A formidable case has been made by hon. Members opposite on the need to do something. We on this side of the House perhaps have the responsibility to make alternative proposals as to what should be done instead of extending Section 46 to the general and pharmaceutical services.
      I propose, first, that if Section 46 is to be used by Ministers—not only the Health Minister, but any Minister, for this could apply to any service of the Crown and not only the Health Service—it should be subject to a prior authorisation procedure whereby, before the Minister could by a stroke of the pen tell a patentee that his patent rights no longer exist in regard to a certain product, he would have to submit that proposal to an independent person. A High Court judge or someone of that status would be a suitable
      94
      person, and he would examine whether the proposed use of Section 46 would be in the public interest, and whether the patentee had been unreasonable as regards his prices or in any other matter. This would restrict the Minister's power to take away property—and a patent is the property of a patentee—arbitrarily and without good reason.
      Mr. W. O. J. Robinson: Does not Section 48 provide that any dispute as to the exercise of the power may be referred to the court for decision?
      Mr. Fortescue: It does. I am proposing an extra stage in that procedure whereby, outside the courts, semi-judicial inquiries should be held before the stage of going to law is reached. I understand that a proposal on these lines will be submitted to the Banks Committee, which has been set up by the President of the Board of Trade to examine the patent system and patent law in general. We should await the report of the Banks Committee on the whole patent law before more consideration is given to the Clause.
      There is another point that was partly made by the hon. Member for Waltham-stow, West (Mr. W. O. J. Robinson) in his speech, which I thought very persuasive, although I did not agree with it. What should happen if there is a deadlock in price negotiation between the Minister and the manufacturer, if the manufacturer's price appears to the Minister to be too high, and the manufacturer replies, "That is my price, and that's it"? The public must obviously be protected. If the Minister thinks that the price is too high something should be done. I believe that such a deadlock is very unlikely, because any manufacturer in his senses would see that he could not win, and would thus be very reluctant to come to a. point of complete deadlock. But it could happen, because the Minister's advisers, admirable as I am sure they are, are not always right. We all make mistakes. Even Minister's advisers have been known to nod. So there could be a case where the drug manufacturer says, "No. I am certain that in this case I am right and they are wrong, and I want to take this to arbitration." An independent and broadly-based tribunal could and should be established to which such cases could be referred, because they raise points not only of the price and efficacy of drugs

      95
      but of the balance of payments, the research effort of pharmaceutical companies, and many other matters. They can easily be matters which cannot be fully investigated and ruled upon by the advisers to the Minister of Health.
      I urge the Minister not to accept the new Clause at this stage but to give further consideration to the whole question.
      Mr. Herbert Butler: One of the main difficulties with which committees, and particularly management committees, are concerned from year to year is the increasing cost of drugs and dressings. Each time we review our estimates during the year, one of the things which we find most difficult to control is the cost of drugs and dressings. Our medical advisory committees indicate to us in no uncertain terms that they are responsible for the treatment of patients and that they do not control the price at which we have to purchase the drugs.
      My hon. Friends who drafted the new Clause have put their finger on something about which even the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) could do nothing when he was Minister of Health. He was appointed for the purpose of cutting the cost of the Health Service. He tried to do the job, and eventually left the post. He visited anonymously one or two hospitals in my constituency, but we never got much assistance from him in devising a better service for the patient. That was not his job. His job was to cut the cost of the Health Service.
      Mr. Dean: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to be fair. Would he concede that my right hon. Friend introduced a major hospital building programme?
      Mr. Butler: It is not appropriate to discuss it now, but we had a beautiful Blue Book and a ten-year programme which meant nothing at all. When I served on the regional board and we discussed the proposed developments embodied in the Blue Book, we were not talking about facts at all; we were talking about fictions of the Conservative Party.
      Anyone with any experience of the National Health Service knows that it is
      96
      most difficult to control the cost of drugs and dressings. We have increased the number of nurses, which is a contributory factor in our expenditure. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite are talking in legalistic terms or about what happens to the patient, but any Minister in control of the National Health Service must do something about the cost of drugs and dressings. Whether the Patents Act is an impediment in doing that, or whether somebody in the Law Courts has done something, does not interest me. I want my right hon. Friend to have power, as a result of the Sainsbury Report, to deal with the ever increasing costs of drugs and dressings to the public. One of the most terrifying things is our lack of power to control the cost of drugs. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the new Clause so that we can deal with it.
      Mr. Raymond Gower: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue), I was surprised that the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. W. O. J. Robinson) should attempt to hang such a significant change on a new Clause on Report. I was amazed, as possibly you, Mr. Irving, were, at the wide divergence of view expressed by the hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher). It seemed to me that their views were irreconcilable, although my hon. Friend the Member for Garston attempted to reconcile them in his closing remarks.
      I object to the new Clause for another reason. What hon. Members opposite are saying, in effect, is that drugs subject to patent are disproportionately expensive and that their price should be reduced. In other words, they are saying that the value of patent protection should be diminished. They are going about it in a most objectionable manner. They are proposing to cut down the value of the patent protection vis-à-vis the manufacturer abroad, the foreigner. He is the only person who would not benefit from the new Clause. There would still be protection for the patentee in this country who has evolved a new and valuable drug as against someone who sets up a rival manufacture in the United Kingdom. Hon. Members opposite propose to take no action against him; the protection remains. But the protection will

      97
      be diminished against the products of a manufacturer in a foreign country.
      It is quite objectionable that we should give preference to a manufacturer in Italy, Germany, America or any other overseas country as long as he manufactures abroad and write down the protection vis-à-vis those who manufacture in this country under similar working conditions, similar wages and similar taxes. It would be deplorable if the Minister were to accept the new Clause.
      Mr. K. Robinson: The new Clause, which was very clearly explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Waltham-stow, East (Mr. W. O. J. Robinson), derives from the recommendation of the Sainsbury Committee. The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) does not do the pharmaceutical industry any service by constantly denigrating the Sainsbury Report. I have asked him before to compare it with the Kefauver Report in the United States.
      Mr. Fisher: I did not like that Report either.
      Mr. K. Robinson: I gathered that the hon. Gentleman might not, but the attitude of the Sainsbury Report to the British pharmaceutical industry was very different from that of the American Report.
      The purpose of the new Clause is to apply to the services provided under Part IV of the National Health Service Act the provisions relating to the Crown use of patents contained in Sections 32, 46, 47 and 48 of the Patents Act, 1949. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East explained, the principal provision is contained in Section 46, which enables any Government Department and any person authorised by a Government Department to make, use and exercise any patented invention for the services of the Crown. The conditions specified in the Section include a requirement that the terms for the use of the invention shall be agreed between the Government Department and the patentee or, in the case of a dispute, determined by the court.
      Section 48 deals with the reference of disputes as to Crown use, and, frankly, I doubt whether there was any need for my hon. Friends to include this in their new Clause. Section 47 deals with the
      98
      right of licensees in respect of Crown use, and Section 32 deals with applications to the court for revocation of patents.
      6.30 p.m.
      The hon. Member for Surbiton rather suggested that the application of Section 46 to the Part IV services was somehow an action which should not be taken in advance of the general review of the patent system and patent law by the Banks Committee. The Sainsbury Committee did not take that view. As the hon. Member knows, there were a number of issues on which the Sainsbury Committee said that it did not want to pronounce and which should be referred to the Banks Committee. The Sainsbury Committee did not, however, recommend that this aspect of patent law should be referred to the Banks Committee. It clearly envisaged that action on it might be taken in advance of the Banks Committee's recommendations. The Sainsbury Committee, no doubt, considered that the proposal did not raise any major patent issues. This seems to me to be the right view to take.
      Executive council services are, in practice, closely allied to Crown services in that unlike, for example, the nationalised industries or the local authority services, they derive all their funds from the Exchequer. Moreover, although the status of the doctor who prescribes and the pharmacist who dispenses drugs under the Part IV services is different from that of their counterparts under the hospital service, the situation concerning the patient and the public interest is the same.
      The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) seemed rather to be arguing that Section 46 offends the rules of natural justice in that it empowers Government Departments to take away part of a patentee's monopoly rights arbitrarily and without any reference to an independent body.
      Use of Section 46 is not completely arbitrary, in that compensation in lieu of royalty is determined either by agreement or by the court. The court can ensure that the patentee gets a fair reward for his invention. In practice, Section 46 is likely to be used only if the difference in price between drugs from licensed and unlicensed sources is very great.
      Mr. Fortescue: Would not the Minister agree that the terms of compensation under Section 46, and as used in the past under that Section, have never been acceptable to the patentee, who reckons that he is getting the bare minimum of compensation, which by no means compensates him for his loss in his patent being exercised?
      Mr. K. Robinson: I am aware that most commercial organisations never think that they get enough for their products. The fact is, however, that the provision exists for this figure to be determined by the court. In other words, it goes to arbitration. The essence of arbitration is surely that neither side is satisfied or that both sides are satisfied with the result.
      The hon. Member also asked why this provision was not included in the Medicines Bill or in the present Bill as drafted. The short answer is that all the Sainsbury recommendations were under consideration at about the time the Bill was being considered on Second Reading and at the beginning of its Committee stage. We were concentrating first on the Sainsbury recommendations which had relevance to the Medicines Bill so that the drafting of the Bill could be finalised. Emphatically, the new Clause is not relevant to the Medicines Bill. It is for that reason there was no consideration of including it in that Measure.
      Reference has been made to the one occasion when Section 46 was invoked by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Surbiton, who has now left, say that his right hon. Friend felt that it was a mistake to have done that. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is on record as having said that. It might be interesting to know whether he confirms or contradicts what his hon. Friend has said. I do not think that it resulted in any serious encroachment on the patent rights of pharmaceutical firms.
      Certainly, the most sparing use has been made of the Section and no new application has been made during the lifetime of the present Government. I know that people will argue that there can be no guarantee that Governments will continue to act reasonably, but Governments will always have an interest in
      100
      a strong pharmaceutical industry and will be strongly inhibited from using the Section in any way that is damaging to the industry. Moreover, practical difficulties are involved in the application of Section 46. That alone suggests that it is unlikely to be used except in circumstances envisaged by the Sainsbury Committee, which is mainly as a procedure of last resort.
      I have listened carefully to all the speeches in this debate and to the discussion of what is, I accept, an important new Clause. One or two points have been raised which I would like to consider further, and there is always the possibility of further Amendments in another place. I am, however, satisfied that the balance of argument of principle is in favour of the new Clause and I am prepared to recommend the House to accept it, on the basis envisaged by the Sainsbury Committee that this power would be used only as a procedure of last resort where there might be deadlock after full negotiations.
      As regards pharmaceutical products, I share the Sainsbury Committee's hope that revised arrangements regulating prices, which I am currently discussing with the industry, will greatly reduce the chances of my having to resort to the use of these powers. Like the Committee, I recognise the strong feelings which were aroused in the industry by the action of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. I do not, however, think that the legitimate interests of the industry would be in any way prejudiced if the Section 46 procedures were used in the way which I have just indicated.
      I would find it difficult, and, perhaps, rather embarrassing, to advise the rejection of the new Clause when I recall how I pressed the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West to extend the application of Section 46 in this same direction when he invoked it way back in 1961. Since I became Minister of Health, my record has been blameless in this regard concerning the industry, because I have not had occasion to make any new application of this procedure. I have, in fact, terminated the use of Section 46 in respect of those products for which it was in operation when I became Minister. As a result, I probably got a better bargain for the National Health Service.

      101
      There is a strong Crown interest in ensuring that patented inventions required for the purpose of Part IV services are supplied promptly and on reasonable terms. Whether drugs are prescribed by a general practitioner or a hospital doctor, the Exchequer meets the cost and Ministers of the Crown have equal responsibility for ensuring that prices are reasonable. It is right that they should have the same powers available to assist them in their responsibility in respect of both services.
      The new clause does not appear to me to raise any major new issue affecting patent law and the patent system, and I share the Sainsbury Committee's view that it need not wait upon the Report of the Banks Committee. The Report of that Committee when received will, however, provide an opportunity for reviewing this provision.
      As regards inventions other than drugs, while it would be right in principle that the same procedures of last resort should be available, I do not foresee circumstances in which I should need to use these powers for products or services other than the general medical and pharmaceutical services. If the House accepts the new Clause, I should like to consider further whether it should be limited to general medical and pharmaceutical services, which, I imagine, is what my hon. Friends have in mind.
      Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Even the assurances and qualifications which the right hon. Gentleman introduced towards the end of his defence of this new Clause, which has come in at the last minute, do not convince me that we should accept it or in any way further it on its course.
      The whole argument of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. W. O. J. Robinson) seemed to show how right we on this side in Committee were to oppose the Minister's attempts to extend unduly his manufacturing and purchasing powers, since whatever the intention of the new Clause may be, and although the Minister assures us that he will use it in only a limited way, it writes on to the Statute Book a very considerable increase in the powers which he has already been given by other parts of the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Walthamstow, East made some reference to the anomaly
      102
      which exists in making the criterion whether Section 46 of the Patents Act should or should not be used not the purpose but the nature of the mechanism which was set up. This may or may not be an anomaly, but it is certainly the criterion which in nearly all cases of Purchase Tax is operated, for the perfectly adequate reason that it is very difficult to make an effective definition of purpose and easier to do so of mechanism. I really cannot accept the argument which came from the other side of the House, notably from the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East and the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), that because a principle is being juridically stretched to create an anomaly, that anomaly should be removed by stretching it still further. In other words, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) that if there is anomaly the right way to remove it is not to extend the provisions of those Sections of the Patents Act but to introduce legislation which limits their existing use.
      The hon. Member for Willesden, West made it clear that his real purpose—I am not saying it is a disreputable purpose—was to buy drugs cheap for the National Health Service, really by doing so in a manner which enables the taxpayer to avoid paying research and development costs. It is rather as if he were recommending the Secretary of State for Education and Science to get cheap books for State schools from pirated editions which did not give the authors royalties—a practice which, alas, is extending overseas, but, happily, despite hon. Gentlemen opposite, not in this country yet. I think that the argument that monopoly works only one way was rather overworked by hon. Members opposite. In other words, if it is true with regard to any particular product that the manufacturer has a monopolistic power which could be abused, it is equally true, as far as products in general are concerned, that the Government are a sufficiently important customer to make it a very foolish commercial activity to antagonise them in any way at all.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton declared his interest. I have none in this, except that which was mentioned by the Minister towards the end of his speech—the efficiency and the development and research of the pharmaceutical

      103
      industry—and I hope that by the time we have finished with the Bill and the Medicines Bill some future Lord Platt delivering the Harleian Lecture in twenty or thirty years' time will be able to pay the same tribute to the contribution of the pharmaceutical industry, untramelled by attempts to direct its development by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, as Lord Platt was able to do so long ago.
      Of course, we all of us share in the desire to develop confidence in the industry and its future. This is an exporting industry, and it is important not to do anything which will prevent investment in research and development in the pharmaceutical industry, and I should have thought that Members on the Treasury Bench would have thought it important not to do anything which will inhibit investment of foreign capital in the United Kingdom.
      I think the only special interest which I have which the Minister has not is perhaps rather more concern than he showed about possible abuse by the State monopoly, as much as and in addition to any private monopoly.
      6.45 p.m.
      My arguments against the new Clause, despite the right hon. Gentleman's acceptance of it, are really threefold. First, it is wrong in principle to attack patent rights in this rather piecemeal way. Secondly, it is mistaken in practice to seek to deal by this means with this problem—whichever it is, because hon. Gentlemen seemed somewhat confused as to whether they were seeking to find a method of preventing disagreement on prices or merely seeking to prevent misuse of monopoly rights. Whichever it is, I think it is mistaken in practice to seek to deal with the problem by this means, particularly as there are other methods open to the Minister, both under the Patents Act and in other ways.
      Thirdly, I think the method by which this new Clause has been introduced, at a very late stage of the Bill, is underhand, to say the least of it. It is really no good the Minister saying he was so busy thinking about the application of the Sainsbury recommendations to the Medicines Bill that he had not time to think about their application to this Bill, especially when he was so proud
      104
      of the pressure which he put upon my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) at the time my right hon. Friend used Section 46 for the hospital services—pressure which he put upon him to extend it even further.
      This new Clause extends to other parts of the Health Service these provisions of the Patents Act. I do not think I need argue in detail the case put by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, but I would just add one suggestion, that this use of Section 46 rather calls into question the whole value of patent rights granted by the Crown in circumstances where the main customer of any goods or end product produced through those rights is becoming more and more the Crown. We are dealing, in all this legislation on medicines, with a situation where the Minister is obtaining—and we shall argue about it later this evening—greater powers to manufacture, to sell, to distribute various goods, appliances, and so on, and I am beginning to wonder what exactly is the value of patent rights granted by the Crown in cases where the sole customer or the main customer of the end product is the Crown, and so that, under this new Clause, any use of goods is at a licence fee to be agreed, other than that set by the manufacturer.
      This, to me, speaking as a publisher, is an extremely familiar process. It is exactly the argument put forward by the developing countries to justify their producing, in their own countries, educational textbooks for educational purposes at royalties decided by themselves rather than those set by the author upon his copyright. It seems to me that the Minister, in all his arguments, was really using very much the same attempt to justify this practice.
      I think that in general principle this new Clause is bad. I think the way it extends the powers of Section 46 is the wrong way of doing it. I deplore the fact that the Minister should have seen fit, without any serious attempt to argue it, to accept the new Clause, which appeared on the Notice Paper only last Friday. As far as I know, it was hardly discussed with outside interests affected. It was argued rather thinly by the Minister in a way which leads one to believe that he is more concerned with agreeing with his hon. Friend the Member for

      105
      Walthamstow, East on at least one aspect of his whole policy that he is with the contents of the new Clause. I must, therefore, ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject it.
      Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 116.

      Division No. 103.]

      AYES

      [6.50 p.m.

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Alldritt, Walter

      Hamling, William

      O'Malley, Brian

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Harper, Joseph

      Oram, Albert E.

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Orme, Stanley

      Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

      Haseldine, Norman

      Osborn, John (Hallam)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Hazell, Bert

      Oswald, Thomas

      Barnes, Michael

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Owen, Witt (Morpeth)

      Baxter, William

      Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

      Padley, Walter

      Bence, Cyril

      Hooley, Frank

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Horner, John

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Binns, John

      Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

      Pavitt, Laurence

      Bishop, E. S.

      Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

      Pentland, Norman

      Booth, Albert

      Hoy, James

      Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

      Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

      Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

      Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

      Brooks, Edwin

      Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

      Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

      Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

      Hunter, Adam

      Probert, Arthur

      Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

      Hynd, John

      Randall, Harry

      Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

      Irvine, Sir Arthur

      Rankin, John

      Buchan, Norman

      Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

      Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

      Jeger, George (Goole)

      Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P' c' as)

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow. E.)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Jones, Dan (Bumley)

      Ryan, John

      Coe, Denis

      Jones, J, Idwal (Wrexham)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, s.)

      Coleman, Donald

      Judd, Frank

      Sheldon, Robert

      Conlan, Bernard

      Kelley, Richard

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Craddock, George (Bradford, s.)

      Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

      Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Cullen, Mrs. Alice

      Lawson, George

      Silverman, Julius (Aston)

      Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Skeffington, Arthur

      Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

      Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

      Slater, Joseph

      Dell, Edmund

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Small, William

      Dempsey, James

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Snow, Julian

      Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

      Lipton, Marcus

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Dickens, James

      Loughlin, Charles

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Doig, Peter

      McBride, Neil

      Symonds, J. B.

      Dunn, James A.

      MacDermot, Niall

      Taverne, Dick

      Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

      McCuire, Michael

      Thornton, Ernest

      Eadie, Alex

      Mackie, John

      Tinn, James

      Edelman, Maurice

      Maclennan, Robert

      Tuck, Raphael

      English, Michael

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Ennals, David

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Varley, Eric G.

      Ensor, David

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

      Manuel, Archie

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mapp, Charles

      Wallace, George

      Finch, Harold

      Marks, Kenneth

      Wellbeloved, James

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Maxwell, Robert

      Whitlock, William

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mendelson, J. J.

      Wilkins, W. A.

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Millan, Bruce

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Garrett, W. E.

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Willis, Rt. Hn. George

      Gourlay, Harry

      Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Woof, Robert

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Wyatt, Woodrow

      Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

      Moyle, Roland

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Mr. Alan Fitch and

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Newens, Stan

      Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

      NOES

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Buck, Antony (Colchester)

      Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

      Astor, John

      Campbell, Gordon

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Baker, W. H. K.

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

      Bell, Ronald

      Cary, Sir Robert

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos, & Fhm)

      Clegg, Walter

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Biffen, John

      Cooke, Robert

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Blaker, Peter

      Cordle, John

      Eyre, Reginald

      Boardman, Tom

      Costain, A. P.

      Farr, John

      Body, Richard

      Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Crowder, F. P.

      Fortescue, Tim

      Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

      Cunningham, Sir Knox

      Foster, Sir John

      Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Dance, James

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Goodhart, Philip

      McMaster, Stanley

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Goodhew, Victor

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Royle, Anthony

      Gower, Raymond

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Grant, Anthony

      Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

      Scott, Nicholas

      Gresham Cooke, R.

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Sharples, Richard

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Monro, Hector

      Silvester, Frederick

      Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

      More, Jasper

      Stodart, Anthony

      Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Teeling, Sir William

      Hill, J. E. B.

      Murton, Oscar

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Holland, Philip

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Onslow, Cranley

      Walters, Dennis

      Hordern, Peter

      Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Hunt, John

      Osborn, John (Hallam)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

      Webster, David

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)

      Peel, John

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

      Percival, Ian

      Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Pounder, Rafton

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Prior, J. M. L.

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Pym, Francis

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Loveys, W. H.

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Lubbock, Eric

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Mr. R. W. Elliott, and

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      Mr. Humphrey Atkins.

      Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

      Clause added to the Bill.
      It being Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

  STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [14th March.]
  That the Amendment to the Standing Orders relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in the Schedule be made:

  STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)

    SCHEDULE
    Standing Order 95, line 7, at end add—
    (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing paragraph, where any society, association or other body, sufficiently representing amenity, educational, travel or recreational interests, petition against a bill, alleging that the interest they represent will be adversely affected to a material extent by the provisions contained in the bill, it shall be competent to the Court of Referees, if they think fit, to admit the petitioners to be heard on such allegations against the bills or any part thereof—[Mr. Carol Johnson.]
    Question again proposed.
    7.1 p.m.
    Mr. Carol Johnson: It might at first seem a little strange that the time of the House should be taken in discussing what seems to be a minor procedural matter and, moreover, one which is related solely to the Private Business of this House. But, as I shall show, the point raised by the Amend-
    108
    ment is of some importance and it is in the public interest that it should be ventilated. Moreover, one must realise that the change which I propose and consider to be necessary can only be made by this House.
    My task this evening has been considerably eased by the fact that I learned earlier today that Her Majesty's Government are disposed to lend a sympathetic ear to the proposed Amendment. Having heard what I have to say, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to say a few words in support.
    What the Amendment seeks to do can be put very shortly. It is to ensure that voluntary societies like the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the Commons Society, the Ramblers Association, the Youth Hostels Association and other non-commercial bodies representing broad sections of the general public shall in appropriate cases continue to have the right to petition against Private Bills and Special Procedure Orders. I use the phrase "continue to have" advisedly. Many right hon. and hon. Members have in recent years served on Private Bill Committees and are familiar with these types of petitions.
    Of many examples in recent years I refer to two in which I was involved: the City of London Bill of the Session of 1961–62 concerning certain Clauses relating to Epping Forest, which was petitioned against by the Commons Society; and, more recently, the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill, 1966, which contained provisions relating to Hainault Forest, to which both the

    109
    Council for the Preservation of Rural England and the Commons Society objected, and which was also the subject of a Petition. It is interesting to recall that in both those Measures the Petitioners succeeded in their objections.
    The two examples which I have quoted were Private Bills, but for the past 20 years or so the same considerations have applied to Special Procedure Orders, and Parliamentary Agents, as well as Government Departments, in addition to right hon. and hon. Members of this House, have acted on the assumption that amenity and other interested bodies have the same locus standi for petitioning under Special Procedure Orders as they enjoyed in respect of Private Bills.
    There is just one technical matter to which I should draw the attention of the House, so that right hon. and hon. Members may follow what I have to say. Whilst in the case of Private Bills questions of locus standi and, therefore, the right to petition are determined by the Court of Referees, in the case of Special Procedure Orders the decision is made jointly by the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Lord Chairman of Committees of the Lords. That, I think, sets the scene for the event which has led to the tabling of the present Motion, an event which caused surprise in many quarters concerned with this sphere of legislation.
    In 1967 a number of amenity bodies, including the Commons Society, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the Ramblers Association, the Youth Hostels Association and the Dartmoor Preservation Association, petitioned against the North Devon (Meldon Reservoir) Water Order, which had been made in 1966 under Special Parliamentary procedure. On this occasion the locus standi to petition against the Meldon Order was denied to the bodies mentioned, though at the meeting at which this was done they were not represented and had no opportunity, therefore, of putting forward arguments why the Petition should be admitted.
    That decision certainly seemed contrary to what was considered to be the well-established practice in such cases, and it was explained in another place by the Lord Chairman on 4th April, 1967. I will quote two extracts
    110
    from his speech which I think quite succinctly put the basis for the Ruling which he had given. He said:
    "Whenever the locus standi of an amenity society has been challenged by the Promoters of a Bill in the House of Commons it has been disallowed by the Court of Referees. It is because their locus standi has not been challenged in this House that amenity societies have been able to petition against such Bills as the Tees Valley and Cleveland Water Bill … They are able to appear against the Bill because, in effect, the Promoters allow them to do so."
    Later, dealing with the different considerations which apply to Special Procedure Orders, referring to the Standing Orders of the House of Lords, which are similar to the Standing Orders in the House of Commons in this connection, he said:
    "They"—
    that is the Standing Orders—
    "limit locus standi to cases where the Petitioners can show injurious affection, and Petitioners must be a large number of the local inhabitants of the area affected by the Order."
    A few lines later he said:
    "The only case in which an amenity society could be granted a locus standi to petition against a Private Bill would be if the society represented the inhabitants of the area, the whole or any part of which was alleged to be injuriously affected by the Bill. That is to say, the Petition would have to be that of the inhabitants speaking through the society, and not the Petition of a society, such as a national society, which happened to include in its membership some of the inhabitants."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 4th April, 1967; Vol. 281, c. 951–2.]
    When one comes to consider the relevant Standing Orders relating to Private Business in the Commons the only justification that could be advanced why amenity and similar bodies are not covered and protected is because of the very narrow legal interpretation of the word "interest". Standing Order No. 95 permits locus to bodies
    "sufficiently representing any trade, business or interest",
    but the Ruling which I have mentioned—that is, the interpretation that it may be limited only to the inhabitants of a local area and that a national society may not take advantage of it—shows that the word "interest" has been interpreted as meaning the interest of a commercial business or trading nature. Thus, the present Standing Order has been interpreted to mean that a body representing a property

    111
    interest can be heard by way of petition, but national bodies, representing a wider public or amenity interest, cannot. This decision raises a matter of vital importance not only for the amenity societies to which I have referred, but many other non-commercial bodies. I should mention that no problem arose in respect of the Meldon Order, for it was first withdrawn by the Government, a new Order was laid, and, in respect of that, the promoters agreed not to challenge the petitioners' locus standi.
    But the general position is left in a most unsatisfactory state and my Amendment is designed to put matters right by restoring the previously accepted practice. Unless Standing Order No. 95 is amended, national societies will in future only be able to petition if, in the words of the Lord Chairman
    "the promoters allow them to do so."
    One may agree or disagree with the views of voluntary organisations who petition, but at least their activities have meant that relevant issues connected with Private Bills or Special Procedure Orders have been argued out before an appropriate Committee either of the House or of another place. Indeed, it is probably true to say that Ministers in many successive Governments have often paid tribute to such bodies, and have recognised that they provide a corpus of responsible and informed knowledge reflecting aspects of the public interest which it is desirable—indeed in many cases essential—should be brought to the notice of Parliament.
    That, then, put quite shortly, is the case for the Amendment. If approved, it will restore to bodies
    "representing amenity, educational, travel or recreational interests"
    the undisputed right to petition this House. If not approved, promoters of Bills and Special Orders will, in effect, be given the right to deny such petitioners audience before this House and its Select Committees by challenging their locus standi.
    I have only one further point to make, and that is to reassure hon. Members that the change proposed is not likely to open the door to wholesale petitions. The number of cases in which petitions are presented is small in relation to the total number of Private Bills and Special
    112
    Orders. This is so for two reasons. First, because petitioning Parliament is a costly business. Secondly, because the societies to which I have referred have a high sense of responsibility, and undertake it only after the most serious consideration, and when they think it important that Parliament should be made aware of all the issues involved. Unless they can do so in appropriate cases, something important to the welfare of the community will, I fear, be lost.
    7.14 p.m.
    Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments. I think that we are grateful to the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) for what he has said. There are a number of Private Bills coming forward to do with highways, motoring, parking meters, and so on. I was on the Portsmouth Corporation Bill, and I was surprised to learn that national bodies such as the A.A. and the R.A.C. had no right to appear, but appeared by grace of the Examiner.
    I represented that to the hon. Gentleman, and he allowed me to suggest to him that we should add the words "travel or recreational amenities" to the Amendment to the Standing Order. If accepted, it will allow such bodies as the A.A. and R.A.C. to appear as of right before Private Bill Committees. I support what the hon. Gentleman said. If these words are added, the motoring interests will be able to appear as of right when they are affected by Private Bills.
    7.15 p.m.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): Perhaps it will be convenient if I indicate the Government's views about the Motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) which seeks to make a change in the Standing Orders, and to clarify the position of amenity societies.
    I am conscious of the fact that this is really a matter for the House of Commons, but I think the House would like to know that the Government have no wish to see amenity bodies refused appropriate hearing in legitimate circumstances. Indeed, speaking as I do for the Ministry which perhaps has more to do with

    113
    amenity societies than any other, I should like to place on record our great appreciation of the essential work which they have to do in dealing with a whole variety of matters which are almost inevitable in the development of a modern society.
    The Government have no desire in any way to frustrate these serious bodies from having the appropriate opportunity of putting their case. The Government therefore do not wish in any way to oppose the Motion. My only point—and this is a point of tactics rather than of substance—is whether sufficient time has run since the change was made, to which my hon. Friend referred, to make this further change. But this is a matter for the House, and I do not desire to oppose my hon. Friend's proposition.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the Amendment to the Standing Orders relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in the Schedule be made:—

    SCHEDULE
    Standing Order 95, line 7, at end add—
    (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing paragraph, where any society, association or other body, sufficiently representing amenity, educational, travel or recreational interests, petition against a bill, alleging that the interest they represent will be adversely affected to a material extent by the provisions contained in the bill, it shall be competent to the Court of Referees, if they think fit, to admit the petitioners to be heard on such allegations against the bills or any part thereof.

  BRIGHTON MARINA BILL
  Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.
  Motion made and Question proposed, That the Lords Amendments be now considered.—[Mr. Hobden.]
  7.17 p.m.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: I beg to move—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not selected the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member. This does not affect his right to oppose the Motion.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. Mr Speaker, my Amendment was put down in the regular way on the Order Paper in good time. I am at a loss to
  114
  understand why you refuse to call an Amendment so regularly submitted.
  Mr. Speaker: I have explained the position to the hon. and learned Member. He wants to consider the Lords Amendments in six months' time. This is tantamount to refusing to consider them. The Question before the House is that the Lords Amendment be now considered. The hon. and learned Member may oppose the Motion. He loses nothing.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: I take objection to a number of the Lords Amendments, and I think that it will be for your convenience, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, if, at the outset, I say which Amendments I object to so that we can deal expeditiously with those to which I have no objection.
  Mr. Speaker: I am with the hon. and learned Member in wishing to proceed as expeditiously as possible. When we come to the Amendments to which he objects, he may speak to them.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly.
  Lords Amendments agreed to.

  HEALTH SERVICES AND PUBLIC HEALTH BILL
  Postponed Proceeding on Consideration of the Bill, as Amended (in the Standing Committee), resumed.
  HEALTH SERVICES AND PUBLIC HEALTH BILL
    New Clause No. 6.

      (SUPERANNUATION OF CERTAIN CLASSES OF REGISTERED OPTICIALS PROVIDING GENERAL OPHTHALMIC SERVICES.)
      The Minister may make regulations extending the provisions of section 67 of the 1946 Act to such classes or categories of registered opticians providing general ophthalmic services, and on such terms and conditions, as the Minister may determine.—[Mrs. Knight.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      7.20 p.m.
      Mrs. Jill Knight: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      I shall be very brief, because the principle of the Clause was discussed in

      115
      Committee. I put it forward again now only because I fear that the information which led the Parliamentary Secretary to turn down superannuation for opticians was not altogether accurate in every detail.
      The Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee that the reason for the difficulty of conferring a superannuation scheme on this profession was that some opticians indulge in trading activities. Those were his precise words. Whether this rather loose phrase was meant to convey the fact that some opticians sell cameras, binoculars or microscopes, or whether the Parliamentary Secretary was thinking instead of the chemist-optician, I do not know. If he was thinking of the latter category I can tell him that the chemist-optician is a member of a fast-dying race.
      I understand that when the profession of optician began it sprang from two sources—the chemist-optician and the jeweller-optician. Time has passed, and with greater knowledge has come a longer qualifying period. Those two sources have almost passed from the scene, and we almost invariably now have only the straight optician. I should have thought that very few people now enter the profession as chemist-opticians.
      A small minority of opticians still sell cameras, but the vast majority are engaged solely in their professional work of sight examination and the supply of glasses or even contact lenses. The ones who still sell cameras and microscopes are dwindling in number. Ophthalmic optical practice today is almost wholly based on work for N.H.S. patients.
      The number of sight tests conducted in England and Wales each year is 6¼ million, of which, as I pointed out, nearly 80 per cent. are carried out by ophthalmic opticians. Very few private tests are given. The overwhelming proportion of the work is National Health Service work. It seemed to me that there was little excuse for excluding opticians from the benefits conferred on others who care for N.H.S. patients.
      I draw the attention of the House to the fact that entrants to the ophthalmic profession today come from university degree courses. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember what I said
      116
      earlier about the origins of this profession, which no longer apply because the course is now very long and involved. It takes at least six years to train a modern ophthalmic optician—that is if he passes all his examinations first time. Six years of training is a long time, and he will not waste that by spending his time selling cameras, microscopes or anything of that sort.
      A high proportion of the profession is in the upper age limits. I am sure that the Minister has had occasion to feel that this is rather a dangerous situation. As I understand it, not sufficient people are coming into the profession, and the Minister will recognise that it is essential to provide for the future by maintaining recruitment. The Minister's earlier refusal to recognise the right of these highly-qualified men to participate in National Health Service superannuation schemes, even though they spend their time on N.H.S. work, must be detrimental to recruitment. I should like him to examine this part of my case carefully.
      7.30 p.m.
      The profession has demonstrated a very usefully flexible approach to participation in providing general ophthalmic services in health centres. The whole concept of a health centre rests on all the services being maintained and provided in the centre. It is a little unfortunate that an ophthalmic optician employed by an executive council to provide ophthalmic services from a health centre will be unable to benefit from a superannuation scheme, although everyone else in the centre working with N.H.S. patients will be able to do so.
      I am sure that the Minister will take the point that it is a rather unfortunate position for such ophthalmic opticians. In Committee the Parliamentary Secretary made it clear that when the opticians shook off all connections with trading the law could be amended. Amending legislation to the National Health Service is very rare. The optician has moved almost completely away from the situation that would preclude him from receiving superannuation. He has moved a long way from the time when they were trading partly in appliances and partly by sight examination.

      117
      If we lose this opportunity to amend legislation, thousands of perfectly deserving members of the profession would be excluded from any superannuation scheme. I particularly draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to the wording of the new Clause, which is deliberately left very wide so that a provision can be included, about the 100 per cent. conditions being fully met and a superannuation scheme being introduced. He may decide that it will be wise to have a time factor or something similar. My point is that when we have legislation of this kind it would be a great pity not to include any kind of hope for the ophthalmic profession that a superannuation scheme may be possible in future.
      Mr. J. T. Price: I have no idea what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is to say in reply to the very nicely and moderately phrased request by the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight). I would not wilfully withhold from any professional body acting wholly within the National Health Service benefits similar to those given to other professional people. We have here a hybrid group of people who have in recent years, perhaps, divested themselves of some of the fringe commercial activities which the hon. Member has pointed out were part and parcel of their business.
      I am old enough to remember that opticians were not always qualified. There were a good many people who were commercial interlopers, many of them very competent. There was a good deal of fringe activity in the optical world, not by any stretch of the imagination to be described as professional activity, because many people were as much qualified to test sight as myself.
      I have often submitted myself to examination by opticians because I need to wear spectacles, but it is the patient who examines his own eyes in the long run. Unless the patient is able to tell the optician what his reactions are, the optician is largely working in the dark. I do not say that in any derogation of opticians but it has struck me as ironic that whenever one is tested by opticians, the patient tests himself by recording his own reactions—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must now come to the new Clause.
      Mr. Price: I am sorry if I digressed, but there are apparently so few hon. Members interested in this debate, which, although it is on a small point, is interesting.
      These people wish to be brought within the sphere of superannuation benefits. I know something about this because one of my hobbies is dealing with superannuation. I am a member of the Council of the National Association of Pension Funds. I have gained some technical knowledge, and have had a great deal to do with providing pensions for people. To speak with immodesty, I am about the only Member who has toured the country from Aberdeen to Penzance in a previous incarnation extolling the benefits of superannuation, properly applied to the working population. I therefore speak with some knowledge.
      One of the important factors to be taken into account by actuaries advising on the financial implications of paying pensions to people at a given age, 60 or 65, is the age distribution of the people who are to get the benefits. The hon. Lady has rightly pointed out that the optical profession, like the dental profession, is unduly overloaded with elderly people approaching pension age and that recruitment is not as satisfactory as some would wish. The new Clause seeks to bring in this rather aging group of opticians who, by definition, do not contain within their numbers a sufficiently wide spread of younger people to balance the liability. This is a very important factor at which the Government must look, if not unfavourably, then at least critically, circumspectly and prudently.
      It is important to know the conditions which would attach to these pensions if they became payable. For example, would there be a minimum age to qualify? To provide pensions even on the usual basis of one-eightieth for each year of service, with a maximum of forty-eightieths or, in some cases, forty-sixtieths, presents difficulties for a lifetime's service. When dealing with older people, however—those in the middle-aged group, to which I belong—one must make a vaster provision in capital funds because one does not have the advantage of a great many younger people making payments for the whole of

      119
      their working lives before receiving pensions.
      Mrs. Knight: I was not arguing the case for purely elderly ophthalmic opticians being able to gain some of the benefits of the superannuation scheme. I pointed out that the Clause had been drafted so widely—and in it I was attempting to do something for the profession as a whole—that the Minister could add to it if he thought that that was desirable. I drew his attention to the serious recruitment problem—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady cannot make a second speech as an intervention.
      Mrs. Knight: I wanted to make it clear that my intention was not as limited as the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) supposed and that the Clause had deliberately been left very wide to enable the Minister to make whatever alterations he thought were necessary.
      Mr. Price: I assure the hon. Lady that I accept that her motives are laudable. I agree that people should be encouraged to join this important profession which provides optical services to the nation. However, is it true that by superannuating people on a proper basis we necessarily provide an incentive to young people to join a profession? I remember addressing many meetings on this subject, after which some young people would ask, perhaps rather stupidly, "These pension provisions seem quite a good thing, but we are not particularly interested in pensions at our age. What is the use of making oneself miserable when young by paying contributions on the chance of enjoying the benefits when one becomes old?"
      I have had a considerable amount of experience of industrial pension funds. In most of them there is a maximum age for admitting new members. Parliament has leaned over backwards to be generous in the provision of pensions, but the stipulations in industry are more severe. If I were challenged I could quote many examples of how people are not accepted into contributory pension funds if they are over 50. To accept older people obviously places a greater liability on pension funds, particularly since within 10 or 15 years they expect to receive pensions which are
      120
      commensurate with their professional status.
      7.45 p.m.
      I assure the hon. Member for Edgbaston that I am not being the Devil's advocate in this matter. At a time when hon. Gentlemen opposite are always criticising the Government for wilfully overspending the nation's resources and for not handling the economy as it should be managed—this is the only party point I intend to make—we must be extremely careful in considering projects of this and every type. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that if he is favourably disposed to bringing opticians within the national superannuation scheme, there will be a maximum age for admission and that other conditions will apply.
      Pensions once granted by the State are subject to an escalator. That does not apply in industry. The Civil Service has a pensions review arrangement, and this takes the cost of living into account. What would be the age distribution of those who might fall within the benefits proposed in the Clause? Under what conditions would the Government be prepared to introduce such a scheme? I hope that I have not given the impression that I am against this type of proposal. I approach the matter in a broadminded, Lancashire way, and I want to see sufficient conditions imposed before the Government are criticised for taking the sort of step the hon. Lady wants them to take.
      Sir Ronald Russell: I support the Clause and apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) for not being in my place at the beginning of her remarks. I think that she appreciates why I was not here. I support the Clause because I have been a member of the General Optical Council since its inception. However, I do not speak on behalf of members of the Council, although I know that I am voicing the views of many opticians, both ophthalmic and dispensing.
      In Committee the Parliamentary Secretary said, when replying to an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Will Griffiths), that trading activities were the main cause and he likened opticians to

      121
      pharmacists. While I do not wish to say anything detrimental to pharmacists or pharmacy or make comments which might be disadvantageous to the members of that profession, I submit that the hon. Gentleman's argument was not valid, because there is all the difference in the world between the scope of the trading activities engaged in by the two professions. I therefore ask him to reconsider the matter.
      Consider the average premises occupied by opticians, both dispensing and ophthalmic, and compare them with the premises occupied by pharmacists or chemists. The optician's premises are filled with optical appliances, including spectacle frames in a variety of shapes and colours in accordance with modern fashion, spectacle cases and magnifiers which may be used to supplement spectacles or are purchased by philatelists to examine the small designs on stamps. I gather that about one-tenth of 1 per cent. of opticians engage in selling other appliances such as cameras, binoculars and so on.
      In a chemist's shop One sees all kinds of things on view besides drugs and medicines; perfumes, shaving materials, hair oil—often cameras and other photographic goods, and the offer of developing and printing services; electric torches—I have even seen ladies 'silk stockings in packets for sale in chemist's shops. As everyone knows, one famous firm of chemists had a library service at one time, but that was abolished because it became unprofitable. I do not think that one would find any opticians, corporate bodies or otherwise, carrying on trading activities on anything like the same scale—
      Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Gentleman is quoting the case of Boots, the largest multiple chemist in the country. What he says is quite true, but it is also true that the qualified chemists who work for Boots and for other large multiple firms do not receive their superannuation benefits from Her Majesty's Government but under the industrial pensions scheme of the firm that employs them. That is why I want some information about the distinction that is being drawn.
      Sir R. Russell: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman on that point, which is valid. I suggest that the volume of
      122
      goods, other than optical appliances, sold by opticians is far less than the volume of goods, other than medicines and medical appliances, sold by pharmacists. There is no comparison between the two professions in that respect. The majority of opticians devote most of their time to the testing of sight and to supplying spectacles.
      I can testify to the fact that the optical profession, as I see it as a member of the General Optical Council, is highly professionally minded, and very conscious of the professional conduct aspect of its work. It devotes a great deal of time to this part of its work, and has rules which are very firmly enforced, governing the conduct of opticians. Anything to do with trading or advertising is frowned on.
      I urge the Minister to take powers now, even if a scheme cannot yet be worked out and put into operation. Otherwise, it might mean waiting for another 10 years before a suitable Measure amending the National Health Service Acts in any way is ready to be brought forward. If the Minister has the powers in this Bill it does not matter if they are not used for three or four years, because they will be there to be brought into operation by regulation at the appropriate time. I appreciate the difficulties involved but, given good will on both sides, I believe that something can be worked out. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to reconsider the attitude he adopted in Committee, and hold out some hope that the Clause may be accepted.
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): The hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) very fairly quoted what I said in the Standing Committee, but I am afraid that my right hon. Friend is not persuaded that he should accede to the request. I took her point that recruitment might be adversely affected if it should be seen by potential recruits that there was no proper personal security scheme within the profession, but I must say to her that the discussions that have been held with opticians' representatives have laid bare the fundamental objections which I explained in Committee, in the sense that we were aware that the representatives felt that the optical profession is rapidly evolving towards a personal practice in private

      123
      consulting rooms, and moving away from the trading activities that have been mentioned.
      I cannot confirm what the hon. Lady stated, that all but a minority now come within the category of opticians who are not trading. That is not quite my information. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) who pinpointed the fact that the whole nub of the question is whether these opticians are wholly providing the service for the National Health Service. I followed my hon. Friend's point about the metaphysical journeys he had been taking to establish what was right and proper in this case and equivalent cases—
      Mr. J. T. Price: They were not metaphysical, either.
      Mr. Snow: I thought that was an expression apposite to what my hon. Friend said. In any event, there may be a very desirable trend towards this purely personal practice not involved in trading. We accept that this is the trend, and that at some future date we shall reach a stage where the profession is, generally speaking, not involved in trading, which would not be suitable for the sort of service we try to obtain under the rules of the National Health Service.
      I gave an assurance in Committee that when this stage was reached we should be prepared to consider very seriously whether the best interests of the profession and of the Health Service would be served by a provision bringing opticians into the scheme, and that if it were thought, in principle, that opticians as a class should become members of the scheme the Minister would take the first opportunity to bring in the necessary legislation. I said that it was highly unlikely that there would be such a delay as that suggested by the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell).
      The hon. Member made the point that in Committee I had over-emphasised the similarity between this and the pharmacy profession. I accept at once that in terms of turnover and proportion of trading done by a pharmacist relative to that done by an optician it is not a very impressive argument, but it is a matter of principle here, and not so much a question of
      124
      defining the actual turnover of the trading categories concerned—
      Sir R. Russell: Is there not a question of principle in regard to dentists? Dentists also make dentures: is not that, to a limited extent, a form of trading?
      Mr. Snow: The contractual arrangement with dentists as incorporated in the Act is that dentists work either on the National Health Service basis or in private practice. Therefore, the two things are not quite the same.
      The new Clause would have the same effect as an Amendment moved in Committee would have had, expect that it seeks to give the Minister power to admit to the scheme such categories of registered opticians as he may determine. As I understand it, the hon. Lady's intention is that those individual opticians who meet our principles—that is, are solely engaged in ophthalmic practice in a personal capacity—should be brought in as an initial step. But we do not think that this would be satisfactory to the individual.
      Any superannuation scheme can attempt to provide reasonable benefits only to those who remain members throughout their lives, and such an optician would find either that his freedom of movement within the profession was severely handicapped or that, on joining a limited company or commercial firm, which is very common these days, the normal course of his career would be forfeited and virtually all his accrued superannuation benefits would be lost. An individual optician might make several moves in the course of his career, and if the hon. Lady's proposal were adopted he could finish up without any real sort of superannuation protection.
      The hon. Member for Wembley, South suggested that general powers should be taken now so that they would be available when they were needed. We do not think that such a step would be very proper. The Minister would not at present be prepared on principle to bring opticians or groups of opticians into the scheme, and it would be wrong to seek general powers when the Minister has not accepted the principle. The Minister would not want these powers until he could give the House a reasonable assurance that there was every prospect of their being used. A number of practical difficulties would need to be resolved

      125
      before an appropriate superannuation system for opticians could begin to operate. Even after agreement had been reached in principle there would be sufficient work and negotiation to fill in the time while waiting for legislation.
      All this may sound rather unsympathetic and contrary to the sort of evidence that the hon. Lady produced, but assure her that we are not dogmatic in this matter. We have to protect the whole operation of the Health Service, within the context not only of this fairly narrow element but of the other services provided. For those reasons I cannot accept the new Clause.
      Question put and negatived.

    Clause 13.

      (DOMESTIC HELP AND LAUNDRY FACILITIES.)
      8.0 p.m.
      Mr. Snow: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 12, line 17, leave out 'ill' and insert 'suffering from illness'.
      I think it would be helpful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if we could consider this Amendment with Amendment No. 2.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the House agrees I think it would be agreeable to take the two Amendments together.
      Mr. Snow: In Committee, when considering Clause 13, the Opposition moved an Amendment to insert, "mentally or physically handicapped" after "aged" in line 18, on the ground that handicapped persons might not necessarily be suffering from illness as defined in the National Health Service Act, 1946, and in consequence might not be included among the categories of persons for whom domestic help should be provided. I undertook to consider the matter further and, if it proved desirable, to bring forward an Amendment on Report. I also said that we thought there was possibly a small element who might not attract support in this way and we would look at that matter.
      Examination of "physically handicapped persons" after the debate in Committee showed that there are certain categories who are not ill and so are not covered by the Clause as drafted whom it would seem right in principle to cover
      126
      as they are as much in need of domestic help as others for whom help might be provided. This Amendment, therefore, is proposed to cover persons handicapped as a result of illness, which includes injury by virtue of the statutory definition, or by congenital deformity. This is wide enough to include blindness, about which questions were asked. Blindness and other handicapped conditions, if not caused by injury or congenital deformity, can have arisen from illness.
      Mental disorder, which would include the mentally handicapped, is also covered by the Clause as originally drafted because the mentally disordered are ill. In the absence of its own definition, the word "ill" should be interpreted in the light of the definition of "illness" in the National Health Service Act, 1946, as amended by the Mental Health Act, 1959. Illness includes mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act, 1959, and any injury or disability requiring medical or dental treatment or nursing, but, in order to remove any possible doubt, it is proposed in these Amendments to substitute "suffering from illness", for "ill". That would be achieved by these Amendments. I hope that that explanation and the reasons I have given for these Amendments satisfy hon. Members who may have had some doubts, and carry out what we undertook to do.
      Mr. Gower: No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) will comment on the second Amendment, which appears to be an attempt to deal with the point made in Committee, and I submit that the first Amendment is nonsense. To ask the House of Commons to substitute for "ill" the words "suffering from illness", seems the acme of absurdity. From the Oxford English Dictionary it is obvious that the word "ill" means "suffering from illness". I was always warned against circumlocution. I do not think we should agree to the Government putting in such a bad circumlocution as this. We must insist upon the simpler term "ill" rather than "suffering from illness". This may seem a trivial point, but sometimes we should stand up for the purity of language.
      Mr. Snow: I do not comment on the suggestion of triviality, but the word

      127
      "ill" does not have the same definition. It is more suitable to use the word "illness", for which there is a proper definition in the Act.
      Mr. Dean: The House is obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for his explanation, particularly of Amendment No. 2, which appears substantially to meet the point we made in Committee. It is of the greatest importance when dealing with services such as home help and laundry services that people suffering from illness or recovering from illness should have those services as comprehensive and wide as possible to cover all categories. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned the blind, mentally disordered, and other categories which were debated in Committee. We are glad that the points we made have been taken by the hon. Gentleman and that he has brought forward these Amendments to make the Clause much more comprehensive than it was previously.
      Dr. Winstanley: I appreciate that the Parliamentary Secretary explained that we are using the statutory definition of illness contained in the 1946 Act and that this includes injury. Where "handicapped" is picked out in a special way there seems to be a remote possibility of misinterpretation, and I wonder whether we are defining a particular kind of handicap arising from illness or by congenital deformity. Is the Parliamentary Secretary entirely satisfied that no further explanation is necessary to make quite clear that "handicapped" arising from injury also qualifies, as I know he intends it should?
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: No. 2, in line 18, after 'aged' insert
      'handicapped as a result of having suffered from illness or by congenital deformity'.—[Mr. Snow.]

    Clause 18.

      (PROVISION OF OPHTHALMIC SERVICES BY EXECUTIVE COUNCILS IN ENGLAND AND WALES TO BE ON PERMANENT BASIS, AND FACILITIES FOR PROVISION THEREOF TO BE AVAILABLE AT HEALTH CENTRES.)
      Mr. Snow: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 15, line 13, leave out from 'provision' to end of line 18 and insert:
      'by persons of each of the descriptions aforesaid of such (if any) other ophthalmic services as may, in the case of a particular health centre, be so determined in relation to persons of that description.'
      The purpose of this Amendment is to extend the range of private ophthalmic practice which the Minister may determine shall be permisible in any particular health centre so as to include other ophthalmic services in addition to the provision and repair of private optical appliances already included in the Clause as drafted. Amendments were moved in Committee which would have had the effect of permitting private sight-testing and other ophthalmic services by ophthalmic opticians at health centres in addition to the Part IV services and private dispensing proposed in the Bill.
      The Amendments were, in our judgment, defective, in that this extension of private practice would not have applied under the terms of those Amendments to ophthalmic medical practitioners. My right hon. Friend was not prepared to accept any of the Amendments without consulting their representatives. The Amendments were withdrawn on my right hon. Friend's undertaking to seek the formal views of the bodies representative of ophthalmic medical practitioners and of opticians on this question. My right hon. Friend gave an assurance that a suitable Amendment, which is this one, would be tabled on Report should these consultations indicate that this would be desirable.
      My right hon. Friend has sought the views of the representative bodies concerned on the question of private sight testing, and they are in agreement that it would be right to include this in the field of private practice at health centres which could be the subject of the Minister's determination. The Amendment

      129
      would permit ophthalmic medical practitioners and opticians to provide ophthalmic services. I am advised that this includes the professional services which each branch of the profession respectively is competent to perform, including the resting of sight by ophthalmic medical practitioners and ophthalmic opticians as well as, as was proposed in the original Clause, the provision, replacement and repair of appliances by both ophthalmic and dispensing opticians.
      The Minister's power to determine the extent, if any, of the private practice permitted in the case of each health centre will still remain. It is envisaged that the Minister would not exercise his power except in those cases where general ophthalmic services were being provided or agreed to be provided from a health centre and where local consultation between executive councils, the local representative of those providing ophthalmic services, and the local health authority showed that there was a need for private ophthalmic services also to be provided from that health centre. Therefore, the Amendment would give effect to the intention of the Amendments which were proposed in Committee. I think that it wholly meets the point then raised.
      Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for meeting the spirit of the Amendments which were tabled in Committee.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 19.

      (GENERAL OPHTHALMIC SERVICES IN SCOTLAND.)
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 17, line 23, leave out from beginning to end of line 27 and insert:
      'by persons of each of the descriptions aforesaid of such (if any) other ophthalmic services as may, in the case of a particular health centre, be so determined in relation to persons of that description'.
      This Amendment does in Clause 19 for Scotland what we have already done by Amendment No. 3 in Clause 18 for England and Wales. Clearly, the Amendment will be acceptable to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 21.

      (ADDITIONAL DENTAL AND PHARMA CEUTICAL SERVICES FOR WHOSE PRO VISION FACILITIES CAN BE MADE AVAILABLE AT HEALTH CENTRES.)
      Mr. Snow: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 18, line 24, at end insert:
      () A local health authority shall not, in the performance of the duty imposed on them by subsection (2) of the said section 21 to provide staff for health centres, employ registered pharmacists at a particular health centre for the purpose of providing pharmaceutical services under the said Part IV, unless they were doing so on the 22nd March, 1968; and, if they were doing so on that day, they shall not employ registered pharmacists at that centre for that purpose to a number greater than that to which they employed them there for that purpose on that day.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment the House can also consider Amendment No. 6, in line 24, at end insert:
      (3) In subsection (2) of section 21 of the 1946 Act (duty of local health authorities to provide, maintain and equip health centres at which facilities for various purposes shall be available) the proviso (which prohibits local health authorities from employing medical or dental practitioners at health centres for the purpose of providing general medical services or general dental services under Part IV of the Act) shall be amended as follows:

      (a) after the words 'dental practitioners' there shall be inserted the words or registered pharmacists';

      (b) for the words 'or general dental services' there shall be substituted the words 'general dental services or pharmaceutical services'.

      Mr. Snow: Except in one case, the two Amendments are largely the same. The purpose of my Amendment is to preclude local health authorities from employing registered pharmacists for the provision of pharmaceutical services under Part IV of the National Health Service Act, 1946, while safeguarding the existing arrangements at eight health centres in England and Wales. It seeks to amend the Clause with the object of qualifying Section 21(2) of the 1946 Act, which provides:
      "A local health authority shall to the satisfaction of the Minister provide staff for any health centre provided by them:
      Provided that a local health authority shall not employ medical or dental practitioners at health centres for the purpose of providing general medical services or general dental services under Part IV of this Act."

      131
      It has been felt by some pharmacists that their position was somewhat invidious. The Amendment which the Opposition moved in Committee aimed at precluding the employment by local authorities of registered pharmacists That Amendment was defective, in our judgment, in that it did not include any saving provision to allow existing arrangements to continue; and it was withdrawn on my assurance that I would consult the local authority associations and the associations representing the pharmaceutical profession and bring forward an Amendment on Report if any consultations showed this to be desirable.
      8.15 p.m.
      The pharmaceutical professsion has reiterated its strong support for a change in the law along the lines of my Amendment. It points to the specific provision in the proviso to Section 21(2) of the 1946 Act precluding the employment of doctors and dentists at health centres by local health authorities for the provision of
      "medical … or … dental services under Part IV of"
      the Act. The associations also instance the fact that a Government Amendment to Clause 18 was accepted in Committee so as to preclude local health authorities from employing opticians as well as medical practitioners at health centres for the provision of general ophthalmic services.
      The pharmaceutical associations contend that, as professional contractors providing services under the Act, they should be treated like other professions in this respect. My right hon. Friend has a great deal of sympathy with this attitude. The other arrangements for a pharmacist would, it is thought, be inequitable. In the view of the pharmacists, the present position of the local health authority employed pharmacist in a health centre is invidious and not very desirable. If the present service is to be the best possible, there must be provided at a health centre where there is a local agreement a pharmacist who can play his full part in the medical, dental and pharmaceutical team.
      The pharmaceutical profession does not object to the continuation of the existing arrangements at those health centres where pharmacists are already employed
      132
      by local health authorities for the provision of pharmaceutical services, but it has expressed the hope that it may be possible to establish a chemist-contractor relationship at these centres at some date.
      It became clear from my right hon. Friend's consultations that the local authority associations were not very enthusiastic about the proposed change. They are, naturally, concerned at the prospect of any curtailment of the existing powers of local health authorities. One of the major associations takes the view that, although very little use has been made of the power of the local authority to employ health centre pharmacists—it has been used only once since 1948—there may be occasions in the future when such a power would be useful. It thinks that it is not impossible to envisage circumstances where the local health authority may find that the only way to provide the pharmaceutical service under the Act at a health centre is for an authority to employ pharmacists itself. Although it is not in favour of the proposed change, I do not think that it will press this opposition to a change very hard, because it feels that existing arrangements should be safeguarded.
      The pharmacists, on the other hand, apparently feared that it was intended to take advantage of the present development of health centres—which, incidentally, are rapidly increasing in number—and of the wording of Section 21 of the Act to develop services in health centres through salaried pharmacists employed by the local health authority, against the wishes of and at the expense of local retail chemists.
      As my right hon. Friend said in Committee, in the discussion on Amendment 58, it seemed that the profession's fears were based on a misunderstanding. I do not disagree with the view that the interests of the public can often best be served by the traditional retail pharmacist. It is an extremely fine form of retail distribution which serves the public well. Also, pharmaceutical services should, I think, be provided at a health centre only when these needs are not being satisfactorily met by conventional retail pharmacists. It seems to me that consultation with the executive council and the local pharmaceutical committee should tidy up any possible misunderstandings or inequities. Any question of

      133
      a local health committee employing a pharmacist at a health centre is, in the first place, a matter for local consultation and agreement, and pharmacists have full opportunity to express their views when the issue is discussed with the executive council or is referred to the Focal pharmaceutical committee in respect of any particular project.
      However, although we feel that the pharmacists' fears in this respect are not well based, it is true that, under Clause 18(3)(b) as amended in Committee, a situation would arise in which pharmacists alone of the professions providing services under Part IV could be employed by local authorities at health centres for the purpose of these services. The House will, no doubt, accept that there is an anomaly here which ought to be removed and that the 1946 Act should be further amended so as to ensure that in this respect the pharmacist is treated on a par with the doctor, the dentist and the optician.
      At the same time, it is necessary to ensure that existing arrangements are not disturbed. There are still in operation seven pre-National Health Service health centres with pharmaceutical services pro-sided by a salaried pharmacist employed by the local health authority—five in Wales and two in England—together with another health centre opened in 1956. In each case these arrangements have been found suitable to meet local circumstances, and both the profession and the associations agree that they should be permitted to continue until such time as there is local agreement for their modification. Existing arrangements have been taken to be those existing at the date of the publication of the Amendment.
      In the circumstances, I hope that the House will accept that we are trying to make a small alteration in the law which will give pharmacists some comfort in the knowledge that they are being treated exactly the same as any other profession providing services under the Act.
      Mr. Dean: The House is obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for his explanation of the Amendment and for meeting substantially the point which we made in Committee. It was a fair point. Pharmacists feared that, under the Bill as then drafted, they were being treated differently from doctors, dentists and opti-
      134
      cians; but this Amendment would bring them into line and substantially meet that point.
      However, I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would clear up one question. Were there to be local agreement to discontinue the present arrangements in any of the eight health centres where a pharmacist is now employed on a salaried basis, the Amendment would, I take it, in no way prevent a local agreement operating in that way? That is the only point we should like cleared up.
      Mr. Snow: I confirm that, subject always to the retention of power in my right hon. Friend, in the case of particular projects, to determine a matter, the hon. Gentleman's construction is correct.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 40.

      (POWER OF THE MINISTER TO DISPOSE OF GOODS AND, IN CERTAIN CIRCUM STANCES, TO PRODUCE OR MANUFAC TURE THEM OTHERWISE THAN FOR PURPOSES OF HOSPITAL AND SPECIAL IST SERVICES.)
      Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 23, line 23, leave out 'produce or manufacture such goods' and insert:
      'in the case of goods such as aforesaid which are prescribed for the purposes of this section by regulations made by the Minister, produce or manufacture them'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient to consider at the same time Amendment 8, in page 23, line 23, after 'goods' insert:
      'prescribed by regulations made by the Minister being goods which it appears to him are not readily obtainable from other sources'.
      Mr. Robinson: The purpose of Amendment No. 7 is similar to that of the Amendment which we have already made in Clause 23, namely, to allay the fears expressed in Committee that the powers conferred by the Clause might at some future time be used in ways which were found objectionable.
      In Committee, I promised that I would make a genuine effort to limit the applicability of the Clause, and, having considered various alternatives, I now recommend this Amendment as the most satisfactory solution.

      135
      The Amendment would make exercise of the powers to manufacture goods in excess of the needs of the Hospital Service dependent on the existence of Regulations which would specify the goods concerned. I repeat that the purpose of the Clause is simply to enable me to respond to requests which I may receive from outside the National Health Service for various types of goods, for example, appliances for the disabled, which are at present, or may in future be, manufactured by my Department or in the Health Service. As the need arises, I shall introduce Regulations specifying any goods for which a demand has arisen and which could best be made by facilities under my control, and these arrangements would accordingly be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.
      Perhaps I might say a word about the parallel Amendment No. 8 put down by the Opposition. I considered other ways of inserting some limitation, and one of these was to provide for regulations based on the criterion adopted in this Amendment. However, I decided that this was not a practicable solution. The difficulties of interpretation imposed by the words "readily available" could be endless and could, conceivably, defeat the whole object of the Clause. For example, there could be no sensible way of describing the type of surgical appliance or component which I might be asked to make available which would distinguish it from similar appliances or components which could be considered to be "readily available" from other sources, within the meaning of the Amendment. The words would impose a limitation which in practice could be unworkable, and I cannot, therefore, recommend the Amendment to the House.
      Amendment No. 7 goes as far as I think practicable and, I believe, meets any reasonable anxieties which could arise from the Clause in its present form.
      Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I do not wish to press the Amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friends. We selected the form of words in it in an attempt to do just what the Minister has done in his Amendment. Our Amendment could leave him as wide powers as his
      136
      Amendment does, but I accept that if it is interpreted differently, it could be tiresomely restrictive and meaningless. I am grateful for the way in which he has sought to meet, and I hope succeeded in meeting, all reasonable objections which could be had to the Clause and allayed all the fears the industry might have had.
      It seems to us on this side of the House that there is almost a curious resemblance between the two Amendments which, even before the debate started, would guarantee that it would end so amicably. I thank the Minister.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 34.

      (PAYMENT OF ALLOWANCES AND RE MUNERATION TO MEMBERS OF CERTAIN BODIES ESTABLISHED BY OR UNDER THE 1946 ACT AND MEMBERS OF CERTAIN OTHER BODIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES.)
      Amendments made: No. 10, in page 26, line 24, leave out 'under' and insert 'by virtue of'.
      Amendment No. 11, in page 26, line 25, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 27.
      Amendment No. 12, in page 26, line 33, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 35.—[Mr. Snow.]

    Clause 35.

      (PAYMENT OF ALLOWANCES AND RE MUNERATION TO MEMBERS OF CERTAIN BODIES ESTABLISHED BY OR UNDER THE 1947 ACT AND MEMBERS OF CER TAIN OTHER BODIES IN SCOTLAND.)
      Amendments made: No. 13, in page 27, line 29, leave out 'under' and insert 'by virtue of'.
      Amendment No. 14, in page 27, line 30, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 31.
      Amendment No. 15, in page 27, line 37, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 38.—[Mr. Snow.]

    Clause 40.

      (ORDERS AND REGULATIONS.)
      8.30 p.m.
      Mr. Dean: I beg to move Amendment No. 16. in page 30, line 31, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 32 and insert:
      'not take effect unless approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament'.
      The Amendment seeks to make subject to affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament the various powers which Part I gives to the Minister to make orders. The intention is to ensure that the House has an opportunity to debate what may well be exceedingly important regulations under Part I, which is the main part of the Bill. Part I gives the Minister very wide regulating power. I calculate that rather more than a quarter of the 40 Clauses in it give him power to legislate by regulation. They deal with some wide-ranging matters, such as university hospitals under Clause 5; care and after-care under Clause 12; various matters concerning health centres under Clause 22; the power of executive councils to supply goods and materials to doctors. dentists, opticians and pharmacists under Clause 24; the power, under Clause 30, which we have just been discussing, for the Minister to produce and manufacture in excess of his own requirements in the National Health Service; and, under Clause 31, the power to make regulations with regard to invalid vehicles. Those are just some of the Clauses in which the Minister has power to regulate, t present subject only to the negative procedure. They are matters of considerable substance, and because of their importance they should be subject to the affirmative and not the negative Resolution procedure.
      Mr. K. Robinson: The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) and other hon. Members who were present during the Committee stage will understand what I mean when I say that we have been here before. We had a number of discussions in Committee about the use of the affirmative or negative procedure. Of course, Oppositions traditionally press for the affirmative procedure, and when they become the Government they wish that they had never done so on the rare occasions when they succeeded. I can only assume that the
      138
      hon. Gentleman does not expect his party to form the Government for a very long time to come.
      As I have said at previous stages of the Bill, the use of the negative procedure is in line with the National Health Service Act, 1946, the main Act, in which the powers to make regulations dealing with superannuation and the transfer and compensation of officers are the only ones made subject to the affirmative procedure. It would be quite inconsistent with the main Act and earlier National Health Service legislation to make all the Regulations and Orders under Part I of the Bill subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure.
      I do not have to tell the hon. Member for Somerset, North or the House that there need be no less Parliamentary control over delegated legislation through the negative Resolution procedure than through the affirmative Resolution procedure. Full Parliamentary debate must take place when a Prayer is laid against a regulation. The experience of the hon. Gentleman and his vigilance concerning National Health delegated legislation does not suggest to me that he is likely to miss an appropriate opportunity to table a Prayer. It is important that there should be a degree of flexibility so that the many minor Amendments to existing regulations which must be made from time to time can pass without debate. It is desirable to have extra flexibility if no hon. Members wish to debate the Amendments.
      For these reasons, I hope that the Committee will not accept the Amendment.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 43.

      (PROMOTION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES, OF THE WELFARE OF OLD PEOPLE.)
      Mr. Millan: I beg to move, Amendment No. 17, in page 33, line 44, leave out from 'thereof' to second 'and' in line 2 on page 34 and insert:
      'the words "except as respects the councils of county districts" were omitted'.
      It would be convenient if we took at the same time Amendments Nos. 30, 38, 39, 40 and 41.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the House agrees, so be it.
      Mr. Millan: The Amendments look rather complicated, but their purpose is quite simple. It is to make clear that the power of small burghs and district councils in Scotland to assist voluntary bodies to provide meals and recreation for old persons is unaffected by alterations in the power of the councils of counties and large burghs to provide welfare services for old persons.
      Clause 43 gives the councils of counties and large burghs a general power to promote the welfare of old people. It was decided consequentially to repeal the provision in Section 31 of the National Assistance Act, 1948, which enables county councils and large burghs to make arrangements for the provision of meals and recreation for old people and to assist voluntary organisations making this provision.
      However, under Section 31, the small burghs and the district councils in Scotland are enabled to assist voluntary organisations in providing meals, and so on. We wish this power to remain. That was the intention of the original drafting. However, it was not very clear, and we had representations made to us about it. We hope that the drafting of these Amendments will be acceptable to the House.
      Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I should not dream of entering into the complexities of Scottish matters, but we on this side of the House have consulted our Scottish colleagues and we fully support the Amendments.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 57.

      (AMENDMENT OF NURSERIES AND CHILD-MINDERS REGULATION ACT 1948.)
      Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 39, line 44, to leave out 'or'.
      Subsection (7) of the Clause requires that an application for registration under Section 1 of the Nurseries and Child-Minders Regulation Act, 1948, should state for each person who is to look after the children and for anyone over the age of 15 who normally lives on the premises whether that person is disqualified under Section 6 of the Children Act, 1958, from
      140
      taking foster children without the local authority's consent for any of the reasons mentioned in that Section. Section 43 of the Adoption Act, 1958, provides for juvenile courts to order the removal of certain classes of children from unsuitable surroundings.
      The Amendment gives effect to a suggestion by the Association of Child Care Officers that subsection (7) of the Clause should be extended to require such orders against the persons mentioned in that subsection to be revealed when an application for registration is made under Section 1 of the 1948 Act. The associations of local health authorities have been consulted about the Amendment, and fully support it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: No. 29, in line 46, at end insert:
      'or (d) an order has been made under section 43 of the Adoption Act 1958 (removal of protected children from unsuitable surroundings) for the removal of a child from his care'.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

    Clause 62.

      (FINANCIAL AND OTHER ASSISTANCE BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO CERTAIN VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS.)
      Amendment made: No. 30, in page 47, line 2, leave out from 'if' to end of line 28 and insert:
      'for subsections (3), (4) and (5) thereof, there were inserted the following subsections:—
      "(2A) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on local authorities by the foregoing provisions of this section, a council to which this subsection applies may assist any voluntary organisation whose activities consist in or include the provision of meals or recreation for old people to provide such meals or such recreation by contributing to the funds of the organisation by permitting them to use premises belonging to the council on such terms as may be agreed, and by making available furniture, vehicles or equipment (whether by way of gift or loan or otherwise) and the services of any staff who are employed by the council in connection with the premises or other things which they permit the organisation to use.
      This subsection applies to the town councils of small burghs and to district councils.
      (2B) In this section—

      (a) 'local authority' (except where used in the expression 'public or local authority') means, in relation to a county including any small burgh situated therein, the county council, and, in relation to a large burgh, the town council;

      141

      (b) 'large burgh' and 'small burgh' have the same meanings as in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947, and 'district' means a district constituted by a district council scheme within the meaning of section 38 of that Act;

      (c) 'the relevant enactments' means Part III of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947, Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948, section 3 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1958 and Part I of this Act and section 43 thereof;

      (d) 'relevant service' means a service the provision of which must or may, by virtue of the relevant enactments, be secured by a local authority; and

      (e) 'voluntary organisation' means a body the activities of which are carried on otherwise than for profit, but does not include any public or local authority.

      (2C) This section shall have effect in place of the following provisions authorising the giving of assistance to voluntary organisations, namely, sections 22(3) and 27(3) and (so far as it authorises local health authorities to give assistance to such organisations) section 63 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947, and section 26(6), 30(2) and 31(3) of the National Assistance Act 1948 "'.—[Mr. Millan]

    Clause 63.

      (POWER OF THE MINISTER OF HEALTH AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO PUR CHASE GOODS FOR SUPPLY TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND EXECUTIVE COUN CILS.)
      Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 47, line 36, leave out 'he may determine' and insert:
      'may be agreed between him and them'.
      The intention of the Amendment, as its wording makes clear, is to remove what appears to be an anomaly in the wording which gives the Minister power to purchase goods for supply to local authorities and executive councils. In tlie cases covered by subsection (1), the Minister of Health "may", in paragraphs (a) to (e) "purchase and store". Where the matter concerns local health authorities, either for the purposes of Part III of the National Health Service Act, 1946, or for the other purposes mentioned in paragraph (c), the terms on which the Minister may supply to those authorities are referred to in the wording
      "as may be agreed between him and them".
      The same wording is used for supplying councils of county districts by which the functions of county councils are for the
      142
      time being exercisable. The wording is again
      "as may be agreed between him and them",
      and similarly in connection with local education authorities.
      The only odd man out, so to speak, is the case covered in paragraph (b), which relates to
      "purchase and store and, on such terms as he"—
      the Minister—
      "may determine, supply to Executive Councils".
      It seemed to us that this limited the freedom of executive councils compared with the other bodies to which the Clause refers.
      I could, perhaps, anticipate part of the Minister's argument in understanding that executive councils are in some sense his creatures, but not to the same extent as regional boards since they have a measure of independent representation upon them. It seems to us that the criteria which have led the Minister to say that in other cases the terms will be agreed between himself and those whom he is supplying should apply equally in the case of executive councils.
      Mr. K. Robinson: I fully appreciate the motives of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) in moving the Amendment, but I do not think that it would be appropriate for a Minister to be put under a statutory obligation to have the agreement of executive councils before he could move in such a matter as is covered by the Clause. Unlike hospital authorities, the councils are not the Minister's agents but, like hospital authorities and unlike the other authorities mentioned in the Clause, they are wholly financed from the Exchequer.
      This does not mean that there would not be the fullest consultation between my Department and excutive council interests before any action were to be taken under the Clause. Indeed, there was such consultation leading to agreement when the present arrangements were introduced for councils to supply surgical syringes and needles to general medical practitioners.
      8.45 p.m.
      There is a practical objection to the Amendment also. Under the other subsections of the Clause I envisage that

      143
      arrangements might be made from time to time with individual local authorities who wish to take advantage of purchasing arrangements mady by my Department for some particular goods or materials. It is very hard, however, to imagine that executive councils, with a wholly different structure and function, would have anything other than a collective interest in arrangements for supply, and it would be impracticable to consider making separate agreements for each council. I think the hon. Gentleman will see that executive councils cannot be put on a par with local health authorities in this matter, and that such a limitation would be inappropriate. I repeat that of course there would be the fullest consultation in all matters of this kind.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 72.

      (GRANTS TO CERTAIN AUTHORITIES IN SCOTLAND IN RESPECT OF FUNCTIONS RELATING TO IMPORTED FOOD.)
      Amendments made: No. 32, in page 53, line 22 leave out 'within the meaning of' and insert:
      'and joint port local authorities constituted under'.
      No. 33, in line 23, leave out 'port local'.—[Mr. Millan.]

    Clause 75.

      (SHORT TITLE, CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT.)
      Amendments made: No. 34, in page 54, line 16, after '1968', insert:
      'and the National Health Service Acts 1946 to 1967, the National Health Service (Family Planning) Act 1967'.
      No. 35, in line 17, leave out from 'Wales' to 'may' in line 19.
      No. 36, line 20, after 1968', insert:
      'and the National Health Service (Scotland) Acts 1947 to 1967'.
      No. 37, in line 21, leave out from 'Scotland' to 'may' in line 22.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

    Schedule 4.

      (ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)
      Amendments made: No. 38, in page 62, line 17, column 3, leave out from 'Wales' to end of line 20.
      No. 39, in line 20, column 3, at end insert:
      In section 33, in the proviso, the words from ' and in subsection (3) of the said section thirty-one' to the end of the proviso.
      No. 40, in page 63, line 47, column 3, at beginning insert 'As respects England and Wales'.
      No. 41, in line 51, column 3, leave out from 'districts' to end of line 54 and insert ' and, as respects Scotland, the whole Act '.—[Mr. Millan.]
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    DOUBLE TAXATION.)
    Resolved,
    That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Shipping and Air Transport Profits) (Brazil) Order 1968 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 18th March.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]
    To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.
    Resolved,
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (British Honduras) Order 1968 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 18th March.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]
    To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.
    Resolved,
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (British Solomon Islands Protectorate) Order 1968 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 18th March.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]
    To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.
    Resolved,
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Falkland Islands) Order 1968 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 18th March.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]
    To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.
    Resolved,
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Incomes) (Montserrat) Order 1968 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 18th March.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]
    To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.
    Resolved,
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Virgin Islands) Order 1968 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 18th March.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]
    To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

    ADJOURNMENT
    Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]
    Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Nine o'clock.