Lords Sitting of 11 April 1961

Preamble
Reassembling after the Easter Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford

SINKING OF THE M.V. "DARA"
2.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, before we start Business, could I anticipate the Leader of the House and ask whether any statement will be made to-day with regard to the sinking of the British steamer in the Persian Gulf?
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, I understand that my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport is to make a statement in another place a little later in the afternoon, and with your Lordships' permission I should like to make a similar statement at some convenient moment at, or soon after, half-past three.

BERKSHIRE AND BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCILS (WINDSOR—ETON BRIDGE &c.) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MERSEY TUNNEL BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

POLICE PENSIONS BILL [H.L.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for the consolidation, with or without changes authorised by the Police Pensions Act, 1948, of regulations under section one of that Act, and to make further provision for the application of the regulations in
226
relation to special constables. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a,—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

FACTORIES BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Consolidation Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I do not wish to debate this matter, of course, but I should like to know whether this is solely a consolidating Bill, or whether it is likely that any Amendments will be introduced. This subject is overdue for consolidation, but I should like to have a careful look at it if there is to be any amendment of the regulations.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge the Bill is purely consolidation. If there are to he any technical Amendments I will make quite sure that the noble 'Viscount is informed.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

WHITE FISH AND HERRING INDUSTRIES BILL
2.40 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, the Bill which is now before your Lordships has two main objectives. First, it gives the Government the power to pay white fish subsidy to the distant water fishing industry and secondly, it enables the White Fish Authority to make additional loans for the building and modernisation of inshore, near and middle water vessels.

227
Your Lordships will be aware of the recommendations for the future of the fishing industry contained in the Report of the Committee of Inquiry published early this year, known the the Fleck Report. The Report is a very thorough and valuable study of the problems of the industry, and we are all greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Fleck, and to the other members of the Committee for the time and thought they have devoted to this work. The proposals in the Report are important, but decisions on them can be taken only after the views of the different interests which would be affected have been obtained and the Government have been able to give these views the attention they deserve. The need to come to speedy decisions on the future of the industry is very much in our minds, and the uncertainty which must prevail until these decisions are reached will be removed as soon as possible. I am sure, however, that your Lordships will agree that it would be wrong to be over-hasty in the consideration of measures which will affect the fortunes of this great industry for many years to come. For these reasons, the present Bill is not concerned with the long-term proposals contained in the Fleck Report. I can assure your Lordships, however, that this Bill does not conflict with any of the Committee's recommendations and will not prejudice the Government's action on the Report.
This Bill deals with two matters of importance to the industry which require immediate attention. The first of these is the change which has come about in the conditions in which the distant water section of the industry operates. Your Lordships will be aware that the longstanding concept of national fishing rights extending three or four miles off-shore is no longer acceptable to many countries, and that there is a movement to extend fishery limits to much greater distances. The Government have recently concluded Agreements with Norway and with Iceland under which we have agreed to observe wider limits off the coasts of those countries. United Kingdom fishing vessels will for some time have special rights to fish in some areas within the new limits, but there is no doubt that our distant water vessels will be deprived of the opportunity of fishing in grounds from which up to now they have
228
been taking a substantial part of their total catch. To enable the lost supplies to be made up, it is probable that the industry will have to find and explore new fishing grounds, and to develop new types of vessels and methods of fishing. All this is likely to be expensive and to take time, and it may be that assistance from the Government will be necessary to make sure that it can be done as quickly as is desirable.
The Fleck Report makes recommendations for assistance to the distant water fleet, and, as I have said, the Government are examining these proposals in consultation with the industry. In the meantime, however, it is important that some immediate help should be given to the distant water fleet in such a way as to assist not only the trawler owners but also the skippers and the crews, who are remunerated partly by a share in the proceeds of the catch. The most convenient way in which such speedy assistance can be given to the distant water fleet is by the payment of a white fish subsidy on similar lines to that now paid to the inner and middle water fleets. This is the purpose of the first part of the Bill.
At present, schemes providing for payment of subsidy to the inshore, near and middle water fleets are placed before Parliament annually for approval. Subsection (1) of Clause 1 of this Bill enables future schemes of this kind to provide for payment to the distant water fleet also, by omitting the limiting words in Section 5 of the 1953 Act. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 enables extra funds to be provided not only to meet the cost of any extension of the subsidy to the distant water fleet, but also to meet any additional sums which may be required for subsidy on the vessels which are at present eligible. At present there is a limit of £22 million on the total amount which may be spent on white fish and herring subsidies, but the Government have power under existing legislation to add an extra £2 million by Order. But this will not be quite enough, so provision is made by subsection (2) of this clause for the Government to increase the sum available by making Orders adding not more than £3 million at any one time. No upper limit has been placed on the total amount, since it is not yet

229
possible to decide precisely how the distant water fleet will be affected by the changes in fishery limits which have taken place, or what the appropriate rates of subsidy may be.
The Bill does not extend the period during which white fish and herring subsidies may be paid, which, under the present authority, expires early in, 1963. The inclusion of power to pay a subsidy to the distant water fleet constitutes, therefore, no more than a holding operation while consideration is being given to any more permanent measures which the Government may decide upon after they have fully examined the Fleck Report.
To turn to the second part of the Bill, this is also really in the nature of a holding operation. The White Fish Authority has at the present moment power under the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1951, to make grants and loans for the acquisition and modernisation of inshore, near and middle water fishing vessels, but not for distant water vessels. The funds out of which loans are made are advanced to the Authority out of the Exchequer, and there is at present a limit of £20 million on the amount which may be outstanding from the Authority in respect of such advances. In the last year or so there has been a very gratifying increase in the number of vessels constructed with assistance under the grant and loans scheme, and the result has been that the limit of £20 million will very soon be reached. In addition, an increase in the amount available for grants has been made by Order to enable this process of modernisation to be continued. This will involve further loans to supplement the grants, though the scale of new construction may, therefore, be expected to slacken. For these reasons Clause 2 of the Bill raises the limit from £20 million to £25 million. This increase will enable the Authority to provide loans for all the building which ought to be done in the near future.
To sum up, my Lords, this is an enabling Bill, to do three main things which are immediately necessary pending comprehensive legislation for the fishing industry arising out of the Fleck Report. These are: first, to enable the Government to pay white fish subsidy to any fishing vessel wherever it may be fishing —the present legislation excluding the distant water fleet; secondly, to provide
230
funds necessary to pay this subsidy when the Orders under which it is authorised are made; and thirdly, to provide additional funds so that the White Fish Authority can make more loans on those vessels eligible under the existing arrangements—that is, all vessels other than the distant water fleet. I trust that your Lordships will agree that the provisions of this Bill are useful, necessary and noncontroversial. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
2.50 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, the Minister in charge of this Bill has fully explained it, and therefore it does not fall to me to make many comments about it. As he says, it is a holding Bill and is really of a temporary character until the Government have been able to consider what permanent operations should be brought in for the benefit of the fishing industry. It also seems to be mainly a Money Bill and, for that reason, it is not within our powers in this House to oppose it or to throw it out. In addition, full discussion on the Bill has taken place in another place—in fact, I know of no short Bill which has been so fully discussed before arriving in your Lordships' House. Therefore, it would not become me to be as lengthy in what I have to say as were some Members of the other place during that discussion. Serious opposition was provoked in another place, not so much upon the merits of the Bill, but apparently upon the wording of the Money Resolution; and, naturally, we cannot express ourselves upon that particular Resolution, which I believe has now been rectified there.
As the Minister has said, Clause 1 opens up the number of types of vessels to which a subsidy may now be applicable and covers those whose fishing scope extends to deep sea and distant waters. There seems now to be no limit of area outside territorial waters in which they can operate. They can operate not only in distant waters, but also in inshore, near and middle waters. Doubts have been expressed, however, that the new subsidy under this clause, which will be paid when a scheme is brought in and approved by Parliament, will find its way more into the pockets of operators who are already extremely

231
prosperous than into the pockets of those who are in need at the present time. Therefore I think we are justified in advising the Government to exercise the greatest care in this matter and to keep a watchful and investigating eye to see that money paid out in subsidies does not augment profits which are already high, but is used to sustain those who have to struggle on low returns and low incomes, as is the case in certain fisheries. As the Minister has said, at a later date, within a period perhaps not longer than two or three years, the Government may be in a position to brine forth amending legislation after full consideration of the Report of the Fleck Committee, and as experience will be gained by the operations of the provisions of the Bill now before us the future position of our fishing industry can then no doubt be discussed at full length.
The Bill also provides for loans for building and equipping vessels and increases the Government's financial liability. Considerable and significant progress has already been made in the building of new ships and in modernising and better equipping others. This is commendable, and it is essential that our fishing fleets, in whatever waters they may have to operate, should possess facilities of the best and most modern character. No one can work efficiently with inferior or defective tools or equipment. That can be truly said of the fishing industry, the operations of which have sometimes to be carried out in most trying and hazardous conditions. Therefore remedies should be sought and in due course applied, if necessary.
The Bill removes some restrictions which were attached to certain types of vessels. I personally am always in favour of removing any restrictions which may hamper the fullest possible production of food, whether it be from the land or from the sea. Every encouragement should be given to both industries, agriculture and fishing, to supply our national needs with sufficiency and effectiveness. Reports as to some areas and ports may suggest that there has been overfishing in the past. If a problem in this direction is being, or has been, created, a solution must be evolved when our fishing activities come under more intensive review at a later date. I hope that our old saying that there is "just as good fish in the sea as ever
232
came out" still holds good and is as true to-clay as it always has been. We on this side of the House are glad to accord a Second Reading to this Bill and to support it.
2.58 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wise, has tempted me to remind your Lordships that there is no limit to any action your Lordships choose to take on a Money Bill or a Money Resolution. The effect of what your Lordships do is another matter. I would remind your Lordships that since the 1911 Parliament Act your Lordships have amended a Finance Bill and the House of Commons has accepted that Amendment. So that there is no limitation such as has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, on what your Lordships may desire to do with this Bill.
But I wish to take this opportunity—and it is a very good one—of thanking the noble Earl. Lord Waldegrave, and, through him, the Government for the accommodation which they have come to with the people of Iceland. I think this is a most important step. The noble Earl probably knows that this is something which I have been advocating for a long time, and I am glad to see that it has now come into effect. The fact that the Icelanders, who possess one of the most valuable breeding grounds for fish in the world, may themselves plunder and devastate those breeding grounds for money is not really a matter that we can help. As they are a most likeable and educated people, it is to be hoped that they will adopt wise measures to preserve their own breeding grounds.
I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take example from the people of Iceland and do something to preserve our own devastated breeding grounds, which were as good as any in the world. The Minches and the Moray Firth can yield only a fraction of the fish that they used to yield thirty years ago, and they are being steadily more and more devastated. I should like to see a line drawn from Cape Malin, around the Hebrides, to the Butt of Lewis, Cape Wrath and the Orkneys and down to Kinnaird Head, and have properly preserved breeding grounds for our British fish. The Shetlands, of course, would

233
also have to be protected. I am told that when the Fort William—Mallaig railway line was projected and there was a Committee sitting, under the chairmanship of the grandfather of the present Lochiel, a very old fisherman got up at the meeting and said that completion of that line would be the ruin of the West Coast fishing in Scotland; and what he said, in the sense that he meant it, has amply come to pass. I do urge upon Her Majesty's Government the paramount duty, the duty we all owe to our grandchildren, to do something to preserve the devastated fish-breeding grounds of the British Isles.
3.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Wise for having indicated our attitude, in general, to the principles of this Bill. I had not intended to join in the debate this afternoon, but obviously, from the very clear explanation that the noble Earl Lord Waldegrave has given of the Bill, it falls to your Lordships to consider a little on Second Reading what are the implications behind this holding Bill, very necessary, as I see it, for financial reasons. The situation is, as he so clearly stated, that the Government have had, perforce, in the circumstances, to make Agreements with both Norway and Iceland. I share very much the view with regard to the breeding grounds and the dangers expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, but I think that the immediate proposal contained in the Bill is quite right.
We have to keep our actual components—the ships, organisation, crews and officers—in good heart in these present circumstances. I would ask that at any lime after my experience in the last great war. With the French ships that escaped early, under the direction of General de Gaulle, there were considerable, though not large, numbers of French trawlers which came across with them, and at the Admiralty our tongues were hanging out to get hold of them and to put them into service. We had hundreds of trawlers altogether, but the numbers were still inadequate. We can never repay the debt that we owe to the trawlermen of our country and those who came over from France at that lime. I am delighted, therefore, at
234
the continuation of what has been the policy of successive Governments, to render assistance in the modernisation of the vessels employed on the main types of fishing in which we indulge. I very much approve. On the other hand, I must say that it does raise questions as to how the loan charges really fall upon us in respect of sections of the industry, some of which are pretty prosperous while others are not so prosperous.
The reason for the Bill's having, to keep this holding position, and for possible further extensions of subsidy, is the gradual eating into the old international position regarding territorial waters. That is the real reason behind the Bill. How far does it have to go before we have to consider this as a larger question of foreign policy, and how far will the Government and Parliament have to go in extending aid to this industry, so vastly important to our country, unless we can get some adjustment of the position more in our favour than in the case of these two specific agreements?
At present, anybody can come and fish around our coasts right up to the three-mile limit. And, be it noted, during the nearly nine years I was at the Admiralty I did not fail to observe that in peacetime we had always to keep a fisheries cruiser here and there in order to prevent even the three-mile limit from being broken; and there have been numerous cases in the courts in the past with regard to offences in that connection. Now the Government have been forced to give way on these two important matters in relation to extending the limit to twelve miles, and I believe that if your Lordships examine all the details of the Norwegian Treaty you will find, if you include the waiters in the many fjords in which people used to be able to fish, at least on the edges that a far bigger square milage is now inside the limit than can easily be imagined. That is very important.
In these days there is the enormous development for example, of the Russian trawler fleet. Those vessels regularly fish in our waters right up to the territorial limit. I suppose that, for the time being, the absence of any specific agreement between us and the U.S.S.R. would mean, generally speaking, that we can fish to within say the three mile territorial limit there. I do not know Whether

235
the noble Earl the Parliamentary Secretary would, on short notice, be sufficiently advised upon that point. Certainly we get reports from various quarters of the world with regard to the operation of Russian trawlers for one purpose or another, and it raises the question with regard to other parts of the world as well. When Her Majesty's Government come to Parliament to ask for money, although it is a matter which it is the concern of another place and not of ourselves to assess and authorise, it raises the question of how far we ought to be considering in general the world position in regard to territorial water limits and how far we should at any rate take all necessary steps to protect our own breeding grounds and to make sure that our own fishing industry, and the needs of our own consuming population, are not further endangered.
My only other point is quite an ordinary one which perhaps the noble Earl can answer. He said that we should need to have this early agreement by Statute for some time because we should not be able to know for a fairly long period exactly what would be involved. But we know from his own speech this afternoon (and I agreed with him) that a very substantial share of the recent catches of fish brought to British ports by British trawlers have been obtained from within the twelve mile limits now imposed, and therefore I should have thought it would not be too difficult to forecast that with those particular areas shut to us the provisions of the holding Bill now before the House will have to be extended into a Statute of some permanence. It is therefore all the more important that the larger and wider question should be examined as soon as possible.
3.9 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wise, to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition and to my noble friend Lord Saltoun for their support of this Bill. I do not think there is much to which I ought to reply. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, was quite right in saying that this is a Money Bill, and probably my noble friend Lord Saltoun is also correct (I am not such a skilled constitutional lawyer as he is) in saying
236
that we can take action with such a Bill; although how effective such action would be in practice I should not like to hazard a guess at this moment. The Bill had full discussion in another place, though not entirely, I think, on the merits of the Bill, but rather in connection with other matters engaging that House at the time.
My noble friend Lord Saltoun said Her Majesty's Government must always bear in mind their duty to preserve the breeding grounds around our own coasts, and I would assure the noble Lord that we indeed have that matter very much at heart. These are largely matters of international agreement, as I have said before in this House, and we do not really need any urging on the importance of the problem which is always before us.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, asked if the subsidies are going and will go into the right pockets. The orders for payment of subsidies, which will include the distant water fleet, have not yet been made. But that is a matter that is always very much in mind. It may be that some of the trawler owners are substantial people, but it must be realised that the catching side of the industry is not as profitable as some balance sheets might indicate. The figures given to Lord Fleck's Committee show that very clearly. Profits may be being made in distribution, but not all trawler owners are interested in all sides of the fishing industry, and I think there will evidently be a case for paying subsidy to the distant water fleet when we have considered the Report.
I must thank the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, for his valuable contribution. He will not, I think, wish me to go into the wider matters. As he said, they are very much Foreign Office matters—territorial waters, and the trends in this matter. It is an undoubted fact that more and more countries are wishing to extend not only territorial waters but fishery limits, and sometimes they are the same and sometimes they are not. I should not like to suggest what may be in the minds of the Russians; I do not know. The noble Viscount would not expect me to answer that. But he asked me a question which I think I can answer in this way. I am advised that about half of the distant

237
water catch, worth about £10 million, has been taken off Iceland in the past, and under the Agreement British vessels have a limited right to fish up to six miles inside Iceland's 12-mile fishing limit, for three years. This means the loss of some very valuable fishing ground, but at this juncture it is really impossible to make any precise estimate in pounds, shillings and pence of the net loss, because it is impossible to assess the extent to which it can be made up elsewhere in other fishing grounds by other methods of fishing. I hope that I have answered the various points that have been raised, and that this Bill will be given a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL
3.13 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. On February 1 of this year, my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House announced the various financial adjustments which the Government proposed for the administration of the National Health Service. They were the subject of a Motion of censure upon the Government and that Motion was debated by your Lordships on February 13. In the course of my speech I explained at length the basic considerations which the Government had in mind in putting forward their proposals, and so did my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House when replying to the debate. On March 9, on the initiative of the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, we debated the new prescription charge, and I again referred to the underlying reasons for all the financial changes. I will, therefore, not weary your Lordships by repeating those arguments this afternoon.
This Bill is concerned with charges for dentures and spectacles, and it introduces no new principle into the National Health Service. There have been charges for appliances under the Service ever since it started. The charges for dentures and spectacles were introduced by the
238
National Health Service Act, 1951, when some noble Lords opposite were in office. Apart from correcting an anomaly in the charge for bifocal and multifocal lenses, this Bill, in so far as it raises charges, does no more than bring the 1951 charges into line with the movement since then of costs and personal incomes and the purchasing power of the pound. If the Bill is enacted, people who are supplied with dentures or spectacles will still get at least as good a bargain under the higher charges as they did in 1951.
It is worth recalling why in 1951 dentures and spectacles were selected for charges to people obtaining them. First, given the financial decision that a limit had to be set to the cost of the National Health Service falling directly upon the Exchequer, the Government concluded that these particular charges would do the least harm of any conceivable charges, largely because they would fall to be paid to a large extent by people who were well in health and able to make their way. Secondly, there was, so far as the dental services were concerned, the aim which has held ever since 1951, to encourage and give priority to the conservation of teeth, and especially the teeth of children and adolescents, as against extractions and the provision of dentures. Thirdly, there was the recognition that, like medical prescriptions, dentures and spectacles constitute a field in which patient pressure is possible, at least to some extent. Indeed, when the then Minister was moving the Second Reading of the 1951 Bill in another place, he referred to the possible deterrence of abuse.
In the debate on February 13, when I referred to this point about patient pressure, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, questioned the validity of it in so far as it applied to dentures. Well, my Lords, odd though in may seem, there are people who want dentures when they do not really need them. Personally, I am thankful to be able to say of my teeth that they are poor things but mine own; we have been through thick and thin together and suffered a lot in the cause of conservatism, and so I have become attached to them and they are still attached to me, notwithstanding the gloomy warning of my excellent dentist who wants to pull a lot of them out. Nevertheless, there is the opposite point of view which is

239
illustrated by two stories which were told to me by noble friends after the debate of February 13.
One of my noble friends, soon after the announcement on February 1 of the Government's proposals, went to the dentist, and the dentist said to my noble friend, "What the Government ought to do is to charge everybody under the age of 50 the full economic cost of dentures, because so many patients come to us dentists and when we tell them that their teeth need a lot of filling they demand that we extract them and give them dentures instead." The other noble friend met a woman acquaintance in the street with a child, who was crying. "We are going to the dentist," the woman said. "His teeth are very troublesome. Unfortunately, he is too young to have them all out".
As I have said, ever since 1951 the aim has been to encourage and give priority to the conservation of teeth—and, in fact, there has been appreciable success. Immediately after the 1951 Act, which imposed charges for dentures, the annual number of cases in which dentures were supplied sustained a sharp drop; and, since then, it has risen again only to slightly more than the figure for 1952. In 1959, for instance, it was half the number of cases in 1950. On the other hand, and by contrast, the amount of conservative dentistry done has risen steadily, notwithstanding the introduction in 1952 of the charge for dental treatment, and to-day it is nearly double what it was in 1951. Furthermore, and even more important, this increase includes an even bigger increase—an increase of over three times—in the number of courses of conservative dentistry provided for children and adolescents. I feel sure that your Lordships will agree with me that this is a most satisfactory and welcome development. One is bound to conclude that a significant cause of it was the introduction of charges for dentures in 1951; and I say with absolute sincerity that, in my opinion, credit is due to the 1951 Government for the wise, although controversial, decision then taken. I would further say to your Lordships that I believe that the modestly higher charges imposed by this Bill will help to maintain this desirable trend in the dental service.
240
The Bill exempts from charges for dentures the priority classes—that is to say, expectant and nursing mothers, children under school age and children who attend a maintained school. At present, these priority classes can get dentures for nothing provided that they obtain them through the local authority services, but they have to pay statutory charges at present if they get dentures either through the general dental service or as outpatients attending any hospital other than a dental teaching hospital. So this proposed reform in the Bill, which is obviously desirable in itself, also removes an anomaly; and it is also to be hoped that it will be beneficial to the local authority dental services, because parents in the priority class will not have to bother about money when deciding from what source to seek to obtain dentures. So it is to he hoped that this reform will relieve the local authorities of some of their denture work, and will enable them to provide more dentistry of a conservative kind for the priority classes.
I turn now to the actual charges proposed in the Bill and will take dentures first. For a single denture of one to three teeth, the 1951 Act imposed a charge of £2: the proposed increase is 5s. For a single denture of four to eight teeth, the 1951 Act imposed a charge of £2 5s.: the proposed increase is 5s. For a single denture of nine teeth or more, the 1951 Act imposed a charge of £2 10s.: the proposed increase is 5s. For a pair of dentures, the 1951 Act imposed a charge of £4 5s.: the proposed increase is 15s. As for spectacles, it is proposed to raise the 1951 charge of 10s. for a lens to 12s. 6d. for a lens—an increase of half-a-crown. These are modest adjustments to the 1951 Act and, as I say, they do no more than bring the 1951 charges into line with current conditions.
The Bill also makes two other changes as regards spectacles. First, it raises the charge for a bifocal and a multifocal lens from 10s. to £1, and thus corrects another anomaly. These lenses are, of course, more expensive than the ordinary ones, but at present the owner of a pair of bifocals virtually gets two separate pairs of glasses for the charge of one; and it is obviously unfair to somebody who, perhaps for clinical reasons, buys two pairs of glasses, one for reading and the other for long distance, that someone

241
else who buys a pair of bifocals for the same purposes should not pay his proper, fair contribution.
The other change concerns children. At present, under the 1951 Act, children up to 16, or above that age if they are attending school full-time, may obtain both lenses and frames free of charge if, but only if, the lenses are fitted to one of the four standard children's steel frames. Now that provision is unaltered by the Bill; but the Bill also provides that children between 10 and 15, and over that age if still at school full-time, will be able to have their lenses free of charge if they are fitted to any one of the National Health Service frames. This provision is in accordance with the views of the Standing Ophthalmic Advisory Committee of the Central Health Services Council. The frames will be charged for at cost price unless they are one of the four standard steel ones which I have mentioned. This is a reasonable provision, because frames other than steel ones are not necessary from the clinical point of view.
All the changes which I have outlined to your Lordships are contained in Clause 1 of the Bill. Clause 2 enables these charges, and the charge for dental treatment in future, to be varied up or down, or abolished, by regulation instead of by legislation or Order in Council. Those are the main provisions of the Bill, but perhaps I should just add, in conclusion, that the National Assistance Board will continue to pay the charges of those people who are receiving weekly assistance and of those people who, by the Board's permitted standards, cannot afford to pay the charges, either in full or in part, without hardship. My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Newton.)
3.30 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, your Lordships' House has already had two debates on the underlying principles of this Bill, and it is not our intention to repeat any of the arguments which we advanced on those occasions. That does not mean that we agree either with the principles or with the details, but we do not intend to vote against this Bill on Second Reading. Indeed, of the various charges which are being increased by the
242
Government these are, perhaps, some of the less objectionable increases.
The noble Lord, Lord Newton, explained what has happened about the supply of dentures over the last nine years, and he attributes the reduction largely to the original introduction of a charge for dentures. But in my view this is by no means the whole story: because when the National Health Service was first introduced there was an enormous backlog of work, particularly dental and ophthalmic work, which had not been done because people could not afford to have their dentistry done. Over the years the teeth of the nation had decayed to such an extent that very often dentists were faced with an honest decision whether to make a total extraction of the teeth in both jaws at the outset, because people just had not bothered about conservative dentistry. I think that a very large factor in the reduction in the demand for dentures, and also, of couse, in the reduction in the demand for spectacles, is that, the initial backlog having been satisfied, people are now behaving much more sensibly. I entirely agree with him that they are behaving very much more sensibly and are much more ready to have conservative dentistry (with a small "c"), and do not exert anything like the same pressure on the dentists which they used to. The noble Lord. Lord Newton, is fortunate in that he has poor teeth, but his own. I have good teeth, but not my own. They are, indeed, National Health Service dentures —and very satisfactory ones, too!
It is, I think, a pity that we should be increasing the price of these dentures, because most people nowadays have dentures only when they have to have them. It is a thing which happens particularly to older people, and it is in some ways sad that only those who are in receipt of National Assistance should now be able to get their dentures without charge.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, unless, of course, they are members of one of the priority classes.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, yes but I was thinking only of the old people. With regard to the priority classes, I think that this Bill is a very definite advance, because the situation has been that there has been a great shortage of local authority dentists throughout the

243
country. Indeed, in our new town of Harlow, where we have good dental services, we have not a single local authority dentist, and therefore all the children's dental work is done, in general, by National Health Service practitioners. Therefore, it is a good feature of this Bill that this work, both for children and for expectant mothers, should now be available free, and I warmly welcome this particular section of the Bill.
With regard to the question of spectacles, the increases in charge are not very onerous. However, I think that in the case of the bifocals it is arguable that, where these are required for a person's work, that is a reasonable clinical need. Usually they are prescribed only where somebody is doing a job which involves his looking at a near object and then at a distant object. They are frequently prescribed for doctors for that very reason, because they are examining patients and reading notes and have continually to be altering their focus, and it saves their trying to get by with two pairs of spectacles.
I may say, again, that in respect of the children we warmly welcome on a simple clinical ground the proposal that lenses should be available in any type of National Health Service frame. One of the difficulties is to get young girls of school age to wear spectacles, particularly those between the ages of ten to fifteen, when, for cosmetic reasons, they do not want to wear them. If spectacles are supplied with the iron or steel frame, they are extremely unpopular. Therefore, it is a very good thing that in future they should be able to get any kind of National Health Service frame to carry their National Health Service lenses, and get the lenses free. I should have liked to see them get any type of frame, and not necessarily a National Health Service type of frame, because one of the great successes of ophthalmology has been in getting girls and young women to wear spectacles by making them cosmetically attractive, by giving the frames a butterfly shape with a little decoration. If parents are prepared to pay for such frames, as a sort of reward to the girls for wearing spectacles, I cannot see the slightest objection to fitting National Health Service lenses into privately supplied frames. I hope that the noble
244
Lord, Lord Newton, will look at this one particular point to see whether it would have any effect (I cannot believe that it would have any substantial effect) on the cost, because presumably these people will be getting their glasses anyway. Therefore, although we do not feel happy about the principles of the Bill in regard to these increases in charges, we welcome as sensible and reasonable the two concessions which have been made, and we shall not further oppose the Bill.

SINKING OF THE M.V. "DARA"
3.38 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think it might be convenient if I intervened at this stage to make a statement similar to that which has just been made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport in another place.
I am informed that the British India Steam Navigation Company's motor vessel "Dara", of 5,030 gross tons, was anchored in the port of Dubai on Friday evening, April 7, when she was struck by another vessel which had dragged anchor. The master decided to put to sea as the weather was deteriorating, intending to return in the morning. A total of 770 persons, including 132 members of the crew, are known to have been on board.
Early on Saturday morning, an S.O.S. was sent reporting the outbreak of fire, and the ship was abandoned at about 6.30 a.m., when some 40 miles from the shore. An Army tank landing craft, a number of ships of the Royal Navy, and several British and foreign merchant ships proceeded to the scene and picked up survivors. Five hundred and eighty persons were saved, but it is feared that the 190 who are missing, including 30 members of the crew, have lost their lives.
After the ship had been abandoned, fire-fighting operations were undertaken from alongside the vessel in difficult conditions by three Royal Navy frigates. She was taken in tow, but finally sank on Monday morning some five miles off the coast before she could be beached.
My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has ordered a formal investigation, which will be held in public, into the tragic circumstances

245
attending the loss of this ship, and the necessary preliminary inquiries are already in hand. The House will wish me to express its deep sympathy with the relatives of those who have lost their lives and with the injured, and to pay tribute to the efforts of all those who took part in rescue operations, without which the loss of life would undoubtedly have been even more serious.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving the House the statement made in another place on this shocking disaster. We join with him in extending our sympathy, as I am sure all Members of the House will desire to do, with the relatives of those who have lost their lives. I do not think that it is possible at this time to make any comment on the incident. There will be an inquiry. One wonders how such a thing could have happened so suddenly, and I do not know whether we shall ever be able to get the true facts. I hope that as soon as the Minister is able, he will publish a report of the inquiry and give us a chance of studying it.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches, I also should like to thank the Minister for the statement he has made, and to associate my noble friends and myself with the sympathy expressed to the relatives of those who have lost their lives in this disaster.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL
3.41 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, I accept the Bill now before the House as a logical sequel and completion of the National Health Service Contributions Bill which we discussed in this House, on February 13 and on March 27. On each of those two occasions, I explained that I could not object to the new charges as they affected wage-earners, but I was less happy about their varying effect on others than wage-earners and on old people. Like the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, I welcome the exclusion of certain classes from these charges by Clause I (3) and (4) and the power to vary the charges which is
246
given by Clause 2. Until I hear to the contrary, I shall assume that power to vary includes power to deal differently with different classes of people—for instance, such a class as the old people. If I am wrong, I hope that it will be regarded as possible to put this matter right when the Bill goes into Committee.
When the National Health Service Contributions Bill was before us on February 13, I mentioned my intention to make a study of the aged poor and lonely in our present society my next task, and I wish to lay my conclusions before Her Majesty's Government to-day. My second statement of my proposed study and laying of conclusions, made on March 27, was received most sympathetically by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who spoke on that occasion on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. It also received a great deal of publicity in a number of newspapers. As a result, my Easter was largely occupied in opening and reading letters from aged people or friends of aged people, who desired me to take up their problems and put them to the Government. I spent Easter week entirely on studying the conditions and needs of our old people to-day and writing about them. I ought to say that my study was by no means concentrated on these letters. There is much other material about old people which needs study.
I came to certain definite conclusions and I hope that I may lay these conclusions before the House and the Government for their consideration. The main conclusion is that old people in Britain to-day and to-morrow, in many ways, and not in one way only, need more thorough looking after than they get today. I shall be happy to give my reasons for that conclusion to Her Majesty's Government, but I do not think I need trouble the House with them to-day. I have said, "in many ways" —that means things like income, housing, occupation and companionship—but to-day I am concerned only with health.
On the question of health, I Would venture to lay two practical considerations before Her Majesty's Government for consideration. First, I would beg of them to provide machinery to secure the regular visiting of old people by competent persons, in order to discover need of health treatment before illness or

247
failure has gone so far that it is too late for any cure. There is no question at all that many old people suffering from an illness of one kind or another could, and would, have been kept alive if they had been visited, the need for treatment discovered and treatment employed in time. Old people are shy, do not wish to leave home, apt to be careless and make "getting through somehow" the full occupation of their thoughts. I beg for some kind of machinery for regular visiting. That is my first suggestion. My second suggestion is that Her Majesty's Government should set up and announce some body to which the needs of old people—
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord and ask him a question? Where is this reference to the care of old people in the Bill before your Lordships' House?
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, the question is before the House now as it was before the House when the predecessor of this Bill was discussed in your Lordships' House. That is the simple answer. I come to the second suggestion: that Her Majesty's Government should set up and announce some body to which the needs of old people coming to the notice of private citizens could be make known, with a view to necessary action. I know that there are many kinds of need which escape notice and I am concerned to-day only with health, but I desire and hope that the Government will provide one address for all the needs. What the visiting machinery and the machinery for receiving information from private citizens should be I leave naturally to the Government. More than one Department may be involved—health, pensions, housing and all the rest of it.
I think there is something to be said for the National Assistance Board as the central agency. Though I regret that, through inflation, the Board has to give assistance subject to a means test to so many old people who ought to have full pensions through social insurance, I know that the National Assistance Board, from its very foundation in 1934, has regarded human welfare as its aim. It would be an excellent central body to
248
entrust with this task. But there is the alternative of local authority bodies. I think that, on the whole, so far as local authorities are concerned, it would be sufficient to deal with boroughs, because I believe that this is more a town problem than a rural one. That again, however, is a detail to be considered by the Government, if they will kindly pay attention to my suggestions. I am not asking them to answer to-day but only to consider these suggestions, I hope sympathetically.
Meanwhile, I would add one small point. I happen to have my Easter letters at hand. They are not all concerned with health, but a good many of them may well deserve an examination. Would it be possible for the Government to suggest to me some address of a person less continually occupied with important things than a Minister of Pensions, of Health, of Housing or whatever it may be? If they will be kind enough to give me that address I will see that the information in the letters is passed on. Let me end with a quotation from a speech made in this House, I think in 1954, by the noble Viscount, Lord Soulbury:
"The prestige and reputation of a civilised community rest in a high degree upon its treatment of and care for the aged."
Let us in Britain set ourselves to pass that test with flying colours.
3.52 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, told us that the reason why the Opposition were not going to divide against the Motion I have moved was not the fact that he agreed with the principles. That I understand, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for the moderation with which he expressed his disagreement. But perhaps I might also say that I recognise that it is easier for him, on behalf of the Opposition, to put across that point of view, because he was not a Member of either House of Parliament when the 1951 Act was going through. I should like to say again that all this Bill does is to bring the charges of that Act into line with modern conditions. I went out of my way to say that, in my view, for what it is worth, it was a wise decision of the then Government to introduce the Bill of 1951.

249
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has said that the welcome increase in the amount of conservative treatment and the decline in the supply of the number of dentures since 1951 could not be wholly attributed to the 1951 Act. In that I should entirely agree with him. He spoke of the "backlog", as he called it, of demand for dentures which was to an appreciable extent worked off by the time the Act came into operation. I do not dispute that either. What I said was that one is forced to the conclusion that the 1951 Act was a significant cause of the trend which I described to your Lordships, and which I am sure your Lordships welcome as much as I do. I am firmly of that opinion.
The noble Lord welcomed the reform in the Bill which provides free dentures far the priority classes when they get them other than as patients of the local authority services, and I am grateful to him for that. He also welcomed the change proposed in the Bill in the arrangements for providing spectacles for children over 10 and until they leave school. He asked me to consider the question of why free lenses could not be provided for this category of children in any frame and not only in a National Health Service frame. That is an interesting suggestion. But if one were to do that, where would one draw the line? There might be attractive young women who have left school and who might take the view that it would be easier to obtain a husband if they wore frames which were not National Health frames. Again, I rather doubt whether there is much evidence to show that the range of National Health Service frames is not attractive enough.
LORD TAYLOR: With great respect, I think the recommendation of the Ophthalmic Committee of the Central Health Services Council shows the importance of the attractiveness of frames as a means of getting schoolgirls to wear spectacles. I think that is the basis behind their recommendation, and that is why they have said that these other frames should be available. The noble Lord asks where we should draw the line. I think we should draw the line with children, because the difficulty lies in getting children to wear glasses.
250
That is why I should like to see these young girls, particularly, enabled to have the most attractive kind of spectacles, in order to encourage them to wear them, when these lenses are going to do corrective ophthalmology, as opposed to supporting ophthalmology, which we oldsters have.
LORD NEWTON: I do not think it would he quite so easy as that to draw the line; and other categories of people would put forward what they thought were equally good claims. I agree with what the noble Lord said about the reasons underlying the recommendations of the Standing Ophthalmic Advisory Committee; and I did not deny that in my opening speech. All I said was that I did not think there was any evidence to show that the National Health Service range of spectacles (and I am not talking about the steel ones) was not sufficiently attractive to fulfil the purpose which the noble Lord has in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, asked me about Clause 2 of the Bill. The answer to the noble Lord is that Clause 2 does not give power to vary the charges for different classes of people. The reason is that the Government think it would be wrong if alterations in the liability of the particular persons to pay charges were permissible by subordinate legislation, and that any question of discrimination between persons in respect of charges ought to be reserved for Act of Parliament.
The noble Lord told us about the conclusions which he has reached as a result of his study of the problems of old people. We all know the great interest the noble Lord takes in the welfare of these old people, and I certainly, and I think my right honourable friend the Minister, too, will be interested to know of his conclusions in greater detail when he has finally formulated them. If the noble Lord will be goad enough to let me have a copy of his report in due course (if he issues his conclusions, as such) I shall be most interested to read it and to invite my right honourable friend the Minister to do the same. The noble Lord recognised in his speech that what he was saying covered a much wider field than this Bill, which, as I

251
said to your Lordships in my opening speech, is concerned only with charges for dentures and spectacles. But in view of what the noble Lord has said, I know he does not expect me to give any sort of authoritative reply this afternoon to the suggestions which he put forward.
I hope that I have covered the main points which were put to me by the two noble Lords, and that your Lordships will now be willing to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOLY TRINITY BROMPTON BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.