Sitting of 17 February 1949

Preamble
The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next at Seven o'Clock.
  CLYDEBANK BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  COAL INDUSTRY

    Opencast Mining
    Mr. Oliverasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the acreage in Derbyshire now being worked and scheduled to be worked for coal getting by opencast method; whether it is his intention to continue this costly process; and whether he is contemplating taking any steps to mitigate the large number of complaints and protests arising out of the noise, dust and loss of amenities suffered by the local inhabitants.
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): At 31st December, 1948, 2,574 acres were being used for opencast coal production in Derbyshire, and another 1,900 acres, or thereabouts, will be needed during 1949. Opencast coal production must be continued at the highest possible level so long as our requirements at home and for export cannot be met from deep-mined production alone. The operations cannot be carried on without a certain amount of noise, dust and loss of amenities, but every effort is made to reduce these to a minimum. All complaints are carefully investigated, and, wherever possible, steps taken to overcome the difficulty.
    Mr. Oliver: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people who live near these sites are really angry about the noise and the dust, and cannot steps be taken to see that the hours of working are regulated so that the people who must sleep can get sleep by reason of these opencast sites being silenced during the night? With regard to the first part of the answer, if good agricultural land must be taken for this purpose, could not proper notice be given to farmers before the land is put down to wheat in order to make certain that the work involved is not wasted?
    Mr. Gaitskell: My hon. Friend and other hon. Members, of course, leave me in no doubt about the attitude to these operations sometimes adopted by the local inhabitants. I should be quite prepared to consider whether any modification of the arrangements could be made in order to ease the position for these inhabitants. I can assure my hon. Friend that, as regards giving notice to farmers, this is certainly done in time, and we should not start operations until the harvest had been collected.
    Mr. Osborne: Am I to understand from the Minister's reply that opencast working will have to continue until we can meet our requirements from deep mining, and will he say when he anticipates that will be?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I would not care to prophesy at this stage.
    Mr. Thomas Brownasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will consider the advisability of setting up a departmental committee of his Department and that of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries to give consideration to the complete and satisfactory restoration of the land, after the operations of the Opencast Mining Branch of his Department, with the objective in view of bringing a degree of contentment to those whose land has been requisitioned for opencast mining.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Restoration of agricultural land is carried out under the supervision of the county agricultural executive committees, and sites are not released from requisition until the committees are satisfied that the restoration has been properly carried out. In the circumstances, there appears to be no reason to set up another committee.
    Mr. Brown: Is the Minister aware that independent inspections have been made of the land which has been restored—so-called—to its previous condition, and that in 95 per cent. of the cases it has been recorded that there has not been that supervision which, is desirable to make this land something like it was before the coal was extracted?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I could not agree with that. I should have thought the county agricultural executive committees were the best people to advise us in this matter. If the Minister of Agriculture were to tell me that there was some other more suitable body, I would, of course, consult it.
    Mr. Brown: Is the Minister aware that the county agricultural executive committees have never been near the land which has been restored?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I cannot agree with that statement.
    Mr. Brown: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply and the apparent complacency on opencast mining, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.
    Mr. Donnerasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of the widespread anxiety caused by the destruction of agricultural land by opencast mining, he will establish a board or commission with power to delay the initiation or extension of such operations until any protests made by those affected and/or by organisations of repute have been considered, such protests to include objections relating to land in the vicinity of ancient and historic buildings or monuments or land of outstanding beauty; and until the National Coal Board has been advised.
    Mr. Gaitskell: There is no need to establish such a board. Before work on any site is begun, the National Coal Board are consulted by my Department, and the Ministry of Works consult on our behalf the local authority; the regional controller, Ministry of Town and Country Planning; the Land Commissioner, Ministry of Agriculture; the divisional road engineer of the Ministry of Transport; the area telephone manager, Post Office: the senior regional officer of the
    1314
    Ministry of Health; and the chief inspector of ancient monuments, Ministry of Works.
    In addition, discussions may be held with national organisations such as the Council for the Preservation of Rural England or the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society, and with local societies, if they show interest in a proposed working. In most regions a lively interest is taken by the local Press, and there is no evidence that projects do not come to the notice of possible objectors. Finally, the National Trust has already been told that none of their properties is ever likely to be affected by opencast coal workings.
    Mr. Donner: Does not the Minister agree that his reply reveals the need for much simplified machinery?
    Mr. Gaitskell: It certainly does not reveal the need for the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. Berry: In view of the absence of the water interests from that very long list, will my right hon. Friend take care to see that those vital interests are also consulted, seeing that they were overlooked in at least one instance?
    Mr. Gaitskell: They are no doubt covered by the phrase "local societies, if they show interest in a proposed working."
    Sir W. Smithers: Will the Minister also consult Mr. Stalin?

    Prices
    Mr. Austinasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what are the prices of the main types of coal, both industrial and domestic, at the pithead and to the consumer, respectively; what are the transport charges; and what are the allowances to distributors.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The price of coal at the pithead varies according to its quality and to the district in which it is produced. The price delivered to the consumer varies with the distance the coal has to be transported and many other factors influencing the cost of distribution. The transport charges vary according to the method by which the coal is moved and the distance of the coalfield

    1315
    from the market. The allowances to distributors vary according to the nature of the service they render and to the costs of distribution in different areas.
    Mr. Austin: As there seems to be some sort of variation in the answer, could my right hon. Friend provide me with some sort of standards on which I could make estimates in regard to these charges?
    Mr. Gaitskell: If my hon. Friend would be more precise in the Question he asks, I will endeavour to give him an answer.
    Mr. McFarlane: Could the Minister say whether the price of domestic coal should be the same in all districts in a City such as Glasgow?
    Mr. Gaitskell: That all depends on the circumstances. At present some of the coal supplied in Glasgow has to be brought from Northumberland and has to carry extra transport charges.
    Mr. McFarlane: Does not the quality of the coal vary a good deal, too?
    Mr. Gaitskell: Certainly.

    Domestic Supplies
    Mrs. Castleasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that the supplies of house coal to the North-Western region for the period 1st November, 1948, to 30th April, 1949, are not sufficient to provide the maximum permitted quantity of 30 cwts. to every customer; and, as this quantity is in any case inadequate for reasonable comfort in the weather conditions of this region, whether he will take steps to have supplies for the North-Western Region increased.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The answer to the first part of the Question is: 'Yes, Sir." With regard to the second part of the Question, I would naturally be extremely glad to increase the allocation of house coal, but I cannot hold out any prospect of this in view of the urgent need to increase exports of this type of coal. Since, however, the North-Western Region has received a slightly lower proportion of its allocation than the average for the country as a whole, I have arranged for some additional coal to be sent to that region in the next few weeks.
    Mrs. Castle: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that almost satisfactory
    1316
    reply, may I ask him whether the amount which he is prepared to send to the region will bring up the consumers' allocation to the maximum permitted quantity?
    Mr. Gaitskell: No, I am afraid it certainly will not. The allocation to the region has for a long time been far below the maximum permitted quantity multiplied by the number of consumers, and that applies to every other region as well.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the statement in the hon. Lady's Question that in any case this quantity is not sufficient for reasonable comfort?
    Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir. I would not deny that there are many people who would like to have some more coal.
    Mr. H. D. Hughes: As there are many complaints about the inadequacy of the supply in the West Midland region, will my right hon. Friend consider taking the same action in that area?
    Mr. Gaitskell: If the proportionate alocation which they are receiving is below the average I will certainly consider it.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that at the earliest possible moment supplies will be adequate?
    Mr. Gaitskell: That question can hardly be answered in one sentence.
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will increase the ration of coal and coke allowed to domestic consumers.
    Mr. Gaitskell: There is a big demand in overseas markets for the type of coal required by domestic consumers, and owing to the necessity for exporting as much coal as possible I see no prospect at present of increasing the maximum quantities of house coal. As stocks of gas coke, on the other hand, are high, it may be possible to increase the maximum permitted quantity before long.
    Mr. Lipson: Until the Minister can increase the quantity of house coal, will he not take steps to improve the quality by asking his regional officers to get into

    1317
    touch with the collieries in their areas and see that the consumer gets better coal than he has been getting up to now?
    Mr. Gaitskell: Steps are always being taken to try to improve the quality, and there is perfectly well understood machinery for handling complaints of that kind. They can go through my regional coal officers, but that is not necessary in every case.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the quality of coal for export of the same standard as that of household coal?
    Mr. Gaitskell: The quality of coal for export varies just as the quality of household coal varies.

  PETROL SUPPLIES

    Commercial Travellers
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if, in the discussions that are about to take place regarding the petrol allowance to commercial travellers, he will specially bear in mind the needs of firms who supply farmers in rural areas and, if possible, make them a special allocation.
    Brigadier Medlicottasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that commercial travellers representing firms who supply farmers are particularly in need of extra petrol; and if he will now arrange for some special additional allowance to be made to such travellers.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) on 3rd February. I cannot agree to a further increase in the maximum allowances for commercial travellers engaged in a particular class of business.
    Mr. Osborne: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when he is likely to make a statement as a result of the negotiations now going on?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I did so on 3rd February.
    Brigadier Medlicott: Is it not a fact that these particular commercial travellers have the maximum area to cover; and in view of the fact that the work of many of them has been brought to a standstill near the end of the period, would the Minister not review this application?
    Mr. Gaitskell: We have just had a long discussion with the representatives of commercial travellers to see whether we could devise a system whereby the ration varied according to the area covered. This has been found to be impracticable, and is recognised to be impracticable by all concerned. I have, however, increased the maximum allowance.
    Sir Waldron Smithers: What is the good of the Minister of Agriculture appealing for increased production when the Minister of Fuel and Power withholds what is really the raw material of agriculture?
    Mr. Gaitskell: There is no evidence that agriculture has been impeded.

    Standard Ration
    Mr. Wadsworthasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will consider restoring the full basic ration to all motorists, irrespective of whether they receive a supplementary allowance or not. by the Easter holidays.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I am afraid that, for reasons which I gave when I announced that the system of deducting the standard ration from supplementary allowances would be brought to an end, it would be administratively impracticable to stop the system of deductions before the end of April without introducing gross unfairness.
    Mr. Wadsworth: Is the Minister aware that the people of this country are conscious of the great saving which has been made since the introduction of red petrol, and that they expect at this time a concession from the Minister in order that they may take their Easter holidays? This would be a great benefit indeed to the seaside resorts.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I am afraid it is quite out of the question to make the change for which the hon. Gentleman asks. It would be unfair to all those people who have already had their ration deducted.
    Mr. C. S. Taylor: In view of the fact that the means of livelihood of a great many people depend on the holiday motorists, will the Minister consider giving a special ration just for the Easter holiday period?
    Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Would it be possible, without increasing the amount of petrol, to allow supplementary coupons to be cashed in the middle of April instead of at the beginning of May, so that without giving more petrol in total, the fuel allowance might be used for the Easter holidays?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I doubt if that would be practicable, but I am prepared to look into the suggestion.
    Mr. Wadsworth: Is the Minister aware that the principle of deducting the basic ration against supplementary coupons was considered unfair by everybody in this country as well as in all quarters of this House? If he would make this concession for the Easter holidays, it would be appreciated by a very large number of people.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I would not agree that it was considered unfair by everybody, in view of the amount of petrol available. In any case, it will be brought to an end by 1st May.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: If the Minister, as he told me a short time ago, has saved 150,000 tons of white petrol in five months owing to the introduction of red petrol, how on earth can he refuse this very miserable concession?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I have already explained that part of the saving which we made from introducing red petrol went to the needs of stocks for defence purposes, but from 1st May all savings will be absorbed by the standard ration.

    FUEL OIL (SUPPLIES)
    Mr. Errollasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what allocations of fuel oil were made to separate industries during 1948; and in what ways allocations will be altered during 1949.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Fuel oil is not allocated to separate industries, but firms authorised by my Department to use fuel oil received their agreed requirements in full during 1948, and will continue to do so in 1949.
    Mr. Erroll: Can the Minister, nevertheless, reveal the allocations which were
    1320
    made to various industries during 1948, which was the subject of this Question, as I understand that the information is available in his own Department?
    Mr. Gaitskell: No allocations were made to separate industries as such. If the hon. Member is asking for the consumption of fuel oil by different industries, I will endeavour to give the information to him.
    Mr. Erroll: I was asking for those figures.

  POLICE FORCE

    Duties
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what duties have been assigned to the 710 policemen who have been released from traffic duty as a result of the use of mechanical signals.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): The process has been going on since 1932, and the men released have been assigned to other street duties such as beats and patrols.
    Sir T. Moore: While apologising for reiterating this, would it not serve the public interest to direct all these released policemen to preventing or detecting serious crimes rather than to dealing with the comparatively innocuous offences or infringements of the law such as those committed by motorists and others?
    Mr. Ede: No, Sir. It is the duty of the police to see that the laws of the country are obeyed.

    Housing Accommodation
    Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of the Metropolitan Police Force have resigned since 1st January, 1948, because of lack of living accommodation for married police officers and those wishing to marry.
    Mr. Ede: Thirty-three members of the Metropolitan Police Force who have resigned since 1st January, 1948, gave housing difficulties as their main reason for resigning. No estimate can be given of the number of resignations, mainly attributable to other reasons, in which lack of accommodation was a contributory factor.
    Mr. Gammans: Has not the right hon. Gentleman reason to believe that perhaps his main difficulty in maintaining the numbers in the Metropolitan Police is the lack of housing?
    Mr. Ede: I am not quite sure that it is the main difficulty, although it is a very serious difficulty. I am very glad to say that the allocation to the police of housing accommodation for the current year will enable me to make a very substantial contribution towards relieving the difficulty.
    Mr. W. J. Brown: Is the Home Secretary satisfied that he is getting the degree of priority that he ought to get from local authorities in this matter?—because it is a common experience that housing is a very important part of the difficulty.
    Mr. Ede: The help I alluded to in my answer to the previous supplementary question was the building that local police authorities will be able to do because of the allocation of housing to local police authorities. I shall still welcome greater co-operation on the part of housing authorities because, for one thing, I do not desire to have to erect terraces of policemen's houses; I think it is advantageous to all concerned if policemen can be placed in single houses dotted about among the rest of the community.

    CHILD CARE (TRAINING CENTRES)
    Mrs. Middletonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many training centres for training in child care and welfare work have been set up under the provisions of the Childrens Act; how many such centres are in process of being set up; how many further centres are contemplated; and what will be the total number of students able to be accommodated when the programme is complete.
    Mr. Ede: The training arrangements approved by the Central Training Council in Child Care include six courses for boarding out officers at Universities; six courses of training for work in children's homes already started, and one about to be started, by education authorities and technical institutes; and three similar courses arranged by voluntary organisations. By the Autumn about 150 persons will have been trained as boarding out
    1322
    officers and 250 for work in children's homes. The programme is being expanded as rapidly as is consistent with giving adequate training, and I cannot at present say what the ultimate output of the courses will be.
    Mrs. Middleton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many local authorities are finding it difficult to recruit personnel suitably qualified for this work and will he do everything within his power to extend facilities for training?
    Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. I know of the difficulties and I hope that an increasing number of suitable people will come forward for training. We are endeavouring to provide training facilities for all who volunteer.

    MAINTENANCE ORDERS (PAYMENTS)
    Mrs. Middletonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of women in Great Britain entitled to receive payments under court maintenance orders; how many such women have been waiting more than three months for payments to be brought up to date; and how many children have been left unprovided for by their fathers for a period of three months or more because of failure to meet the financial obligations imposed by courts of summary jurisdiction.
    Mr. Ede: I regret that the information for which my hon. Friend asks is not available.
    Mrs. Middleton: Cannot my right hon. Friend do something to see that the women who have been granted such orders are enabled to get the money which is due to them? Will he pay particular attention to the large number of children who are left unprovided for by their fathers in this way so that something can be done to bring to the fathers a sense of their responsibility?
    Mr. Ede: Every step that can be taken is taken by the courts and I am quite certain that on occasions they reduce the amount of an order in the hope that a person will pay something rather than pay nothing if the order is maintained at its first high level.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to admit that, although

    1323
    the statistics asked for are not available, a very large number of innocent parties are adversely affected under the present arrangements?
    Mr. Ede: Yes; there is no doubt about that.
    Mr. Lipson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will consider whether the police could not give more assistance to these women in obtaining the addresses of these men when they have disappeared, because apparently at present the police are unable or are not allowed to give that assistance?
    Mr. Ede: The courts do all that they can.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Home Secretary aware that if a woman gets a maintenance order against her husband and he leaves his job and takes a job in an Admiralty yard, that maintenance order cannot be enforced? Can he do anything about that?
    Mr. Ede: I do not know that.
    Mr. William Shepherd: If it is a fact that the police do not give assistance to a woman to trace her husband, is it not time that machinery was evolved whereby assistance could be given to women in these circumstances?
    Mr. Ede: Such help as can be given is given, but I have already been pressed this afternoon to find other duties for the police.
    Mrs. Middleton: In view of the increasing seriousness of the position I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

    ELECTION LAW (CANDIDATES)
    Mr. Goronwy Robertsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied that sufficient publicity has been and is being given to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1948, particularly those governing the conduct of elections; and what steps he is taking to ensure that all candidates at the forthcoming local elections will be aware of the obligations placed upon them by the Act.
    Mr. Ede: Leaflets drawing attention to the new obligations of candidates at local
    1324
    government elections will be on sale from Tuesday next, and I am asking returning officers to bring their existence to the notice of all candidates at the forthcoming elections. I will consider what other suitable publicity can be arranged for the changes in election law as they come into force.
    Mr. Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of having a short speech broadcast between now and the local elections, because there is a general lack of knowledge of these provisions among prospective candidates and their agents?
    Mr. Ede: I will consider whether a broadcast would be helpful. The pamphlets with regard to local elections will be on sale as from Tuesday next. The price is 1d. for the pamphlet on parish council elections and 2d. for the pamphlet dealing with other local government elections.
    Mr. Thomas Reid: Does my right hon. Friend propose to consolidate the laws relating to elections?
    Mr. Ede: That is not a matter strictly for me, but we are hoping to do something on that matter.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Amending Measure providing for the continuance of university representation will be brought forward?
    Mr. Ede: I have never heard of such a Measure.
    Mr. Willis——
    Mr. Wilson Harris: In view of such a Measure being introduced before long by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill)—[Interruption]——
    Mr. Willis: Can my right hon. Friend say whether a similar pamphlet has been prepared for use in Scotland?
    Mr. Ede: I think my hon. Friend should put that question to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Mr. Sutcliffeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he takes to see that candidates for Parliamentary and local government elections are British subjects.
    Mr. Ede: The law provides machinery by means of an election petition for inquiring into a candidate's qualifications and it is not within my province, or that of a returning officer, to determine this question.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Is not this a most important question and should not the Home Secretary or somebody delegated by him be the authority for making the decision?
    Mr. Ede: The matter was debated when the Representation of the People Act was before the House, and the power is not given to me.

    HARVEST WORK (SCHOOL CHILDREN)
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has made to the Nottingham County Council in relation to their proposed by-law seeking to prohibit the employment of school children on the land at harvest time during school terms.
    Mr. Ede: I have forwarded to the County Council the objections which I have received to the proposed by-law and have asked the County Council for their observations.
    Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that many people have been protesting about the fact that they cannot get their children out of school to ordinary employment, would it not be very undesirable to encourage the practice of taking children out of school to work in the harvest?
    Mr. Ede: I am asking the County Council to give me their views on the objections. In other areas in fact I have confirmed by-laws of the type put forward by the Nottinghamshire County Council, but I cannot give any decision on their application until I have considered the various replies to the objections.
    Mr. Scollan: I want to ask the Home Secretary whether the Government are seriously considering using some of the million men they have marking time in the Forces, and keeping the children at school?

    CRIMINAL CHARGES, HAMPSHIRE
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were charged with criminal offences at the last meeting of the Hampshire Quarter Sessions, and of them how many were members of His Majesty's Forces; how many had previous convictions; and how many were under 21.
    Mr. Ede: The figures are 64, 27, 48 and 35, respectively.
    Mr. Hughes: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to the remarks of the Deputy-Chairman of Quarter Sessions about the increase in crime being due to conditions of military service? Will he do something to prevent the Minister of Defence helping to increase crime in this way?
    Mr. Ede: I have seen the remarks of the Deputy-Chairman of Quarter Sessions. I do not wholly agree with them.
    Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Has the right hon. Gentleman also seen the remarks of Sir William Slim, which show how mischievous is his hon. Friend's question?

    REMAND HOMES AND APPROVED SCHOOLS
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent remand home and approved school accommodation has increased; how far it is meeting the existing need; and to what extent the employment of corporal punishment in these institutions has decreased during the last year.
    Mr. Ede: Accommodation is constantly being adjusted to meet the needs of the changing situation, and where an increase is necessary steps are taken to provide it. At the end of 1948, some 650 cases were awaiting admission to approved schools; a sufficient number of schools is in preparation to overtake this deficiency. The figures for corporal punishment show little significant change.
    Mr. Sorensen: Although the right hon. Gentleman has given a general answer, he has not indicated whether, in fact, the demand for remand home and approved

    1327
    school accommodation is being met better than a year ago. Could he give that information?
    Mr. Ede: The situation has improved and is improving.

    JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsayasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what age—group the highest proportion of juvenile delinquency is prevalent during the current year.
    Mr. Ede: Provisional figures for the year 1948 show that the number of juveniles found guilty of indictable offences per 100,000 of the population of their age group was highest in the 14–17 group.
    Mr. Lindsay: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the moral exhortations of a State honesty campaign suggested at a recent conference are not going to affect young people of this age, and that a little more co-operation between the home and the school will save hundreds of these children from getting into the courts? Many of them are merely bored and not delinquents.
    Mr. Ede: I agree with my hon. Friend, but I am certain that it is desirable that every effort should be made to bring home to the general population of the country the necessity of maintaining the highest moral standards.

    MR. SYDNEY STANLEY
    Mr. Nallyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what action has been taken by him to enforce the deportation order made against Mr. Sydney Stanley; and if he will consider requesting the Government of Israel to grant Mr. Stanley an entry permit to territory under its control;
    (2) if he will make a statement as to the result of his representations to the Polish authorities in the matter of the deportation order made against Mr. Sydney Stanley.
    Mr. Eric Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, as the Polish authorities are unwilling to accept Mr. Sydney Stanley, he
    1328
    is proposing to ask the Government of Israel if they are willing to admit him.
    Ede:Until the Polish authorities have replied to the representations made to them I cannot add anything to what the House have already been told about the intention to deport Mr. Sydney Stanley.
    Mr. Nally: If I put down a Question to my right hon. Friend next week, shall I have some hope of an answer? May I put it to him that in any such representation as he may have to make subsequently to the Government of Israel he will emphasise that British, Jewish and Arab lives have been sacrificed for the proposition that every Jew has the right to enter Palestine if he likes, and that a painful impression will be created if it appears that the Government of Israel will take only the best and leave those few parasites who batten on the people of other countries?
    Ede:I am not considering any approach which I may ultimately have to make to the Government of Israel or anywhere else until I have received an answer from the Polish Government, and in view of other negotiations which I have had with that Government with regard to the deportation of aliens, I should not like to promise that I can give a final answer to my hon. Friend on this point next Thursday.
    Mr. Fletcher: Would my right hon. Friend consider the desirability of inquiring, now that the new State of Israel are in the process of forming their constitution, whether on principle they are prepared to admit any stateless Jew who has no home of his own?
    Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I think that it would be very undesirable that I should do anything at this stage which might militate against my getting Mr. Stanley into Poland.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Was it intended as a compliment to the Government of Poland to offer them the first refusal?
    Mr. Ede: Mr. Stanley——
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: Mr. Sydney Stanley.
    Mr. Ede: Mr. Sydney Stanley was originally described here as a Pole, and I think that it is our duty first to try to deal with him on that basis.
    Mr. Austin: Can the Home Secretary say why on earth the people of the newly-born Socialist State of Israel should have this free-enterprise trained crook thrust upon them?
    Air-Commodore Harvey: In the event of the Polish reply being favourable, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that this gentleman is not sent to the Polish Embassy in London as trade commissioner with diplomatic privileges?
    Mr. Ede: I am quite sure if that were to happen my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would intimate that he was persona non grata.
    Mr. Benn Levy: Will my right hon. Friend resist the suggestion behind these questions because they involve an intolerable principle, according to which it could come to be considered proper that, for example, any undesirable Catholic should be transported to a predominantly Catholic country; which is a quite intolerable principle.
    Mr. Ede: I am trying to deal with this man on the basis of race and on no other——
    Mr. Harold Macmillan: No.
    Mr. Ede: If that was understood as meaning Jewish race, that was quite wrong. He describes himself as a Pole. If the House prefer the word "nationality," I will certainly use it, but I would not like any wrong impression to be drawn from a word which I regard in this context as meaning the same.
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the fact that during the Lynskey Inquiry it was stated that Mr. Stanley's presence in this country was known to the Home Office since 1940, how many times he was visited by the police since then; if he notified every change of his address; and why the deportation order against him was not implemented.
    Mr. Ede: Mr. Stanley reported daily to the Police from 10th May, 1940, until
    1330
    17th June, 1943, when the Special Restriction Order requiring daily reports was revoked and since 1940 he has notified all changes of address. The deportation order made in 1933 had not been enforced by the outbreak of war because Mr. Stanley could not be traced and it was impracticable to enforce deportation orders during the war. The deportation order has not hitherto been enforced because until the recent Tribunal of Inquiry nothing to his detriment since 1943 had come to the notice of the police.
    Sir W. Smithers: In the event of the Home Secretary failing to deport this gentleman, will he ask his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to appoint Mr. Stanley as Chancellor of the Exchequer?

    CHILDREN'S OFFICERS
    Mr. K. Lindsayasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Children's Officers have now been appointed; and what is the total cost of the new establishments set up under the Children Act.
    Mr. Ede: One hundred and twenty-two local authorities have now appointed Children's Officers. In seven cases the same person has been appointed by two neighbouring authorities; and in one case the same person by three authorities. Posts in the new establishments set up under the Children Act are now being filled by local authorities and the total cost of the additional staff is not vet known.
    Mr. Lindsay: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he is responsible for the number of assistant officers who are also appointed, and will he see that these staffs are not so swollen that the children become a vested interest, and that they co-operate with the local education committee.
    Mr. Ede: Inasmuch as I have to pay grants on the service, it will be my duty to see that the service is efficiently but not extravagantly conducted.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: Can my right hon. Friend say how many of these children's officers are women?
    Mr. Ede: Not without notice.

    OPEN PRISONS
    Mr. Percy Wellsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the resentment on the Isle of Sheppey, arising from his decision to utilise Eastchurch Royal Air Force Camp as an open-air prison; whether he has taken the views of the local authorities concerned into consideration; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ede: The answer to the first part of the Question is "No, Sir." As regards the remainder of the Question, I am informed that this camp is no longer required for use by the Royal Air Force and, as it is considered by the Prison Commissioners to be eminently suitable for use as an open prison to relieve the serious overcrowding in London prisons, negotiations for taking it over have begun. The proposal is now being considered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning, and it is his responsibility to take into consideration the views of the Kent County Council, as the local planning authority, before a final decision to take over the camp for use as a prison is reached.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is an open-air prison? Do the prisoners live in the open-air permanently, or what?
    Mr. Ede: I do not think that I said "open-air." This is what is called an open prison, which means that the restrictions are rather less than in other prisons.
    Mr. Molsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have escaped from Leyhill since this barless prison was established.
    Mr. Ede: Since this prison was established in June, 1946, 33 prisoners have escaped. The proportion of prisoners that have escaped compared with the total number of prisoners at Leyhill has steadily decreased. Nine escaped out of a total of 141 during the six months of 1946; 14 out of 377 during 1947; and eight out of 437 during 1948.
    Mr. Molson: Is it the case that amongst these escapees one was serving a sentence for murder, another for manslaughter and another for using arms to
    1332
    avoid arrest; and does the Home Secretary consider that this proportion of escapes from this prison is entirely satisfactory?
    Mr. Ede: I think that the figures of the number of escapes show that the position is entirely satisfactory, and from the visit which I paid to the prison I am certain that that is very largely due to the state of corporate feeling that the Governor and the officers of the prison have managed to build up inside it. I cannot, without having a Question on the Order Paper, answer the question with regard to the particular offences which may have been committed by persons who have escaped.
    Mr. Stanley: While having every sympathy with the character of this experiment, I must ask: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is quite a fair risk to the public to include among these people criminals convicted of offences against the person, and others of a violent character?
    Mr. Ede: There is a later Question by the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), on which I shall, I think, answer that point.
    Mr. W. J. Brown: Is the Home Secretary satisfied that the staff at Leyhill is adequate?
    Mr. Ede: No, I do not think the staff is adequate; but the fact that from this open prison, where any man can walk out if he feels inclined to do so, only eight out of 437 have escaped during 1948 does speak very highly of the spirit which the staff have managed to engender.
    Brigadier Head: That only shows what life is like outside.
    Mr. Molsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what disciplinary measures are being taken against the two prisoners guilty of crimes of violence who escaped from Leyhill.
    Mr. Ede: As I indicated in my reply to the hon. Member's Question on 10th February last, both prisoners are now detained at Bristol. The punishment awarded in both cases was: 14 days' confinement to cell, 15 days' "No. 1 Restricted Diet," 168 days' forfeiture of stage, and 280 days' loss of remission of sentence.
    Mr. Molsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what principle prisoners are gaoled in barless prisons; why the two men, one convicted of rape and of wounding with intent and the other of robbery with aggravation, aggravated assault with intent to rob and mutiny, were put into Leyhill Prison; what steps were taken to ensure that they did not escape and become a menace to the neighbourhood; and how many persons convicted of similar crimes of violence are now in Leyhill and Sudbury Prisons.
    Mr. Ede: Open prisons are established for different purposes. Leyhill is a prison for first offenders with sentences of four years' penal servitude and upwards. Sudbury is a training centre for selected men, mainly first offenders, with shorter sentences. Their object is to protect society from crime by training suitable prisoners in conditions which are most likely to divert them from crime and fit them to lead honest and useful lives after discharge. No prisoner is sent to an open establishment until he has been confined in a secure prison for sufficient time to enable an assessment of his suitability for open prison conditions to be made, and the prison authorities attach great importance to careful selection.
    The risk of escape from open prisons must be accepted. The general advantages of the open system for suitable cases has been abundantly demonstrated. Experience shows that the risks attached to it are small, and no prisoner who has escaped from Leyhill has, so far as is known, committed any offence in the neighbourhood. Of the 336 prisoners now at Leyhill 112 were convicted of crimes of violence of varying degrees. Of the 78 prisoners at Sudbury three were similarly convicted.

    HENLEY OLYMPIC REGATTA
    General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Minister of Health for what reasons he sanctioned contributions from local authorities, amounting to —1,201 towards the expenditure of the Henley Olympic Regatta; and why, in view of the fact that some —900 of the expenditure involved was on account of providing dinner to competitors and officials,
    1334
    arrangements were not made for some proportion of the expenditure to be borne by the State.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I am not able to identify the figure mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member, but in respect of the Regatta I sanctioned payments totalling £460 as contributions by the local authorities to a voluntary fund in view of their interest in its success. Questions of Government hospitality are not for me.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Is this not a national rather than a local responsibility; and could it not have been, and should it not have been, appropriately charged to the Government Hospitality Fund?
    Mr. Bevan: I have answered that: Questions of Government hospitality are not for me.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: In view of the amount of money this event brings into the immediate neighbourhood, in one way or another, is it not very reasonable that the local authority should make some contribution?
    Mr. Bevan: It was because I thought the initiative and interest of the local authority were reasonable that I sanctioned the payment.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

    Hospital Management Committees
    Brigadier Prior-Palmerasked the Minister of Health if he will consider allowing local authorities to appoint representatives on the committee of management of the hospitals within their area.
    Mr. Bevan: No, Sir; this would be undesirable and impracticable.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that local authorities are in a better position to judge the suitability of members of their local hospital committees than is the regional board?
    Mr. Bevan: Local authorities are asked for suggestions by the regional boards, but it would be undesirable for

    1335
    local authorities to be directly represented on management committees, because then those management committees would tend to become conferences of delegates and not corporate entities.
    Mr. Gerald Williamsasked the Minister of Health if he is satisfied that the hospital management committees are carrying out his instructions to secure a written undertaking from patients admitted to beds, under Section 5 of the National Health Act, that they understand their obligations to pay all professional charges.
    Mr. Bevan: No. Sir; and I shall be pleased to take up this matter with the committees concerned whenever cases are brought to my notice.
    Mr. Williams: Is not the Minister aware that the orders he has given from time to time are not effective; that there are many cases of people going into hospital expecting to get free treatment and then being faced with large bills which they are unable to pay; and will he give some more publicity to this question?
    Mr. Bevan: I have on two occasions called the attention of the committees to this matter. I hope that the hon. Member's Question will call further attention to it. If there are any individual instances I should like to hear of them.

    Medical Partnerships
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Minister of Health whether he can now give any indication as to when he intends introducing legislation to implement the findings of the Slade Committee on medical partnerships.
    Mr. Bevan: Legislation will be introduced this Session.

    Institution Staffs (Medical Service)
    Sir Robert Youngasked the Minister of Health when information is likely to be given to those concerned regarding payment of basic salary for those undertaking general medical services for the staffs of institutions, seeing they are free from the liability of having persons assigned to them.
    Mr. Bevan: The adjustment of remuneration of practitioners with limited lists is among the matters to be dealt
    1336
    with in the distribution scheme which I am about to discuss with the profession.
    Sir R. Young: Will the consultations to which my right hon. Friend refers be at an early date?
    Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir.

    Medical Treatment Abroad
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Minister of Health whether he will introduce amending legislation to empower regional hospital boards to provide or pay for treatment outside Great Britain in appropriate cases.
    Mr. Bevan: No, Sir.
    Mr. Warbey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the case to which I have drawn his attention, this girl of very high educational attainment could only combine the continued study of languages with treatment for her ailment by going to a sanatorium in Switzerland? As many regional hospital boards are in favour of closing the gap in this legislation, will he do something about it?
    Mr. Bevan: The question whether exchange can be provided for people who want to have medical attention abroad is a matter for the Treasury and not for me.
    Mr. Warbey: I was referring to a case where the treatment could not be paid for by the patient.
    Mr. Bevan: I said that this is a matter for the Treasury and not for me. I certainly cannot add to the obligations of the Health Service by sending people abroad for treatment at this time.
    Sir T. Moore: What about officers and men of the Merchant Navy who are probably out of the country for 50 weeks of the 52 in the year?
    Mr. Bevan: That is an entirely different question.

    Hearing Aids, Nottingham
    Mr. Oliverasked the Minister of Health whether any estimate can be given of the time which must elapse before persons examined at the Nottingham General Hospital in August of last year for deafness are likely to receive their Medresco hearing aids.
    Mr. Bevan: Patients needing aids for their work get them first, and all in this

    1337
    group examined in August have had them. The waiting time depends on the supply of aids, which I hope will be substantially increased in the spring or early summer.
    Mr. Oliver: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement that all the people who were examined in August have received these hearing aids, is not correct? I have seen a card dated August and I know that the holder has not yet got his hearing aid.
    Mr. Bevan: I did not say that all who were examined in August had received their aids but that all who were examined in August and who need aids for their work have received them.
    Mr. Oliver: Will the Minister make arrangements whereby people who have been examined and badly need hearing aids can have them quickly? I have evidence that hearing aids have been received by some people who were examined after August and are not at work.
    Mr. Bevan: If my hon. Friend will bring that case to my attention, I will have it inquired into.

    HOUSING, MERTHYR TYDFIL
    Mr. S. O. Daviesasked the Minister of Health if he will cause an inquiry to be made into the number of obsolescent, insanitary and overcrowded dwelling-houses in the county borough of Merthyr Tydfil, with a view to appropriate steps being taken for the early re-housing of the people who are at present compelled to occupy them.
    Mr. Bevan: No, Sir. For the reasons indicated in the statement on the housing programme in the Housing Return for 31st May, 1948, the stage has not yet been reached when such an inquiry could usefully be made.
    Mr. Davies: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the mistaken decision he has come to; is he not aware that the overwhelming proportion of dwellinghouses now inhabited in Merthyr Tydfil and Dowlais were built 100–175 years ago; and does he not think that a burden of that kind on any local authority merits special consideration on the part of his, I hope, very progressive Ministry?
    Mr. Bevan: The local authorities have already been asked to screen their waiting lists for houses. When we have the replies we shall know what additional accommodation is needed. After that job has been done they can start on slum clearance.

    BLIND PERSONS (GUIDE DOGS)
    Mr. Edward Evansasked the Minister of Health the number of guide dogs for the blind in use in England and Wales; how many training establishments are available and how they are financed; how many blind persons are on the waiting list for guide dogs; and what is the cost to the blind person to secure one.
    Mr. Bevan: The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association maintains a training establishment by voluntary subscriptions and the sale of dogs. About 160 of their dogs are in use in this country and they have some 200 suitable blind persons on their waiting list. Blind persons selected to receive dogs are invited to contribute to the cost but selection does not in any way depend on financial status.
    Mr. Evans: Are local authorities eligible to contribute to the cost of this service?
    Mr. Bevan: I do not think so at the moment but I will certainly inquire into that.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Disabled Persons, South Wales
    Mr. George Thomasasked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of registered disabled persons who are unemployed in South Wales at the nearest convenient date.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): On 20th December, 1948, 12,224.
    Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the appreciation for the vast field of new industry which has been introduced into South Wales in the last three and a half years, there is still considerable disquiet about the employment of our disabled persons? Can he offer any promise that he is hoping to reduce the number in the near future?
    Mr. Isaacs: I appreciate the disquiet in the locality. One of our problems in that area is silicosis. That problem is a little more difficult to deal with than that of the ordinary disabled person. However, I can promise that we hope that by steps now being taken, as I indicated the other day, we can tackle that problem.

    Pools Industry (Disabled Persons)
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Labour what is the nearest estimate he can give of the number of persons employed in the pools industry in South Wales.
    Mr. Isaacs: About 2,600.
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Labour if he is prepared to consider taking action to schedule the pools industry under Section 12 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, to confine employment to registered disabled persons.
    Mr. Isaacs: I have already considered this, but I am advised that I have no power to designate the pools industry under Section 12 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act. I can only designate a "class of employment" irrespective of the industry in which it is provided.
    Mr. Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend consider putting this suggestion before the Commission to inquire into gambling which the Prime Minister recently announced?
    Mr. Isaacs: That is a very interesting suggestion and I will look at it and see if it comes within the Commission's terms of reference.

    Agricultural Workers, Kent
    Mr. P. Wellsasked the Minister of Labour the number of agricultural workers registered as unemployed at employment exchanges in Kent at the latest available date.
    Mr. Isaacs: At 6th December there were 102 men and 1,459 women registered at employment exchanges in Kent for employment as agricultural workers.
    Mr. Wells: In view of those figures, will my right hon. Friend consider releasing agricultural workers from the Control of Engagement Order?
    Mr. Isaacs: The women are mainly seasonal workers. The men are released from agricultural employment if their unemployment extends up to 14 days. We keep contact with them then with a view to returning them to agriculture if need for them arises again.

    CIVIL SERVICE CANDIDATES (FEES)
    Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in the recent open competition for the appointment of principals in the home Civil Service there were some 4,000 applicants for 50 posts and that each applicant had to pay a fee of £1 for the registration of his name with the Civil Service Commissioners; and if he will discontinue the payment of such fees in future.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given on the 8th February to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) and the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys). The reply to the second part of the Question is, "No."
    Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Is it not extortionate to demand £1 just for registering a name?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: When the hon. and gallant Gentleman's party was in power it was a good deal more. It was then £8.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answers to which he referred were highly unsatisfactory, and that there is very strong feeling indeed among the numerous applicants from each of whom £1 was extorted and the great majority of whom were never even interviewed?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: This was a special competition and the Civil Service Commission had to do something to keep down the number of applicants. Actually, 14,000 people wrote in for the forms, although only 4,000 in fact applied.
    Mr. Churchill: Why is it necessary to charge £4,000 merely for this purpose?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: In order, as I said, to keep the number of applications down. Normally, except where the examination is written, even this fee is not charged, but here the Civil Service Commissioners had to charge a fee in order to keep the applications down to those who were in earnest and were serious in their desire to seek a post of this kind. I would also inform the right hon. Gentleman that the posts which were advertised carried salaries of well over £1,000.
    Mr. De la Bère: It is a thoroughly bad principle.
    Brigadier Medlicoft: Would not the object have been achieved by asking for a larger deposit which could be returned to unsuccessful applicants.
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I imagined that the answer was quite obvious and I had no desire to humiliate the hon. and gallant Gentleman. If the fee was returnable to unsuccessful candidates, anyone would apply. The fee would not deter anybody.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Has my right hon. Friend any evidence that any person who is genuinely anxious to take the examination has been debarred by the fee?
    Mr. Erroll: Is not this another case of rationing by the purse?

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Industrial Production (Technicians)
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of his appeal for a 2½ per cent. increase of productivity in industry, he will give his assurance that the fullest use will be made of the highly qualified technical staff available in this country to help still further our productivity drive.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): To be successful we shall need the help of everyone, at all levels in industry, including the technical level, and I hope industry will use the knowledge and skill of its technical staffs to the full.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: While the hon. Gentleman says that, will he give the House an assurance that definite steps are being taken to enlist the help of highly technical individuals in small firms who have special knowledge about production?
    Mr. Jay: It is mainly for industry itself rather than the Government to make use of such services, but the Government are encouraging industry to do so through the National Production Advisory Council and in other ways.

    Government Hospitality Centre (Cost)
    Mr. Errollasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many guests have been entertained at the Government Hospitality Centre, at 2, Park Street, W.1, during the most convenient accounting period; and what was the total cost and the cost per guest.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Ninety-six guests from overseas received hospitality from His Majesty's Government during the period 3rd May to 31st December, 1948, for a total of 2,351 nights. The cost of their accommodation, food, drinks and smokes, was £12,600, the appropriate share of the overheads £15,400. These two figures give an average of £5 10s. and £6 10s. per guest, per night, respectively.
    Mr. Erroll: Is not this a disgraceful example of Government waste?
    Mr. Stanley: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any inquiries of London hotels to see whether it would have been possible to accommodate these gentlemen in just as much luxury for about half the cost?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Government Hospitality Fund did, of course, make such inquiries. The House must remember that during the last few years hotel accommodation has been very difficult to get.
    Mr. Stanley: Is it not a fact that it is now much easier? Is not the cost per night in capital and income, something like £12, which is vastly in excess of anything that would be charged by private enterprise?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is not vastly in excess of what comparable hotels charge at the present time.
    Mr. Cecil Poole: Has my right hon. Friend any comparable figures for the cost of entertaining notable people of this country outside this country?
    Mr. Bossom: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman allow hon. Members of this House to have the same amount to spend when they go abroad?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: That question does not arise out of the Question on the Order Paper, but I would assure the House that this country is a great country and it has to accommodate distinguished guests in a proper manner.
    Mr. Stanley: While fully agreeing that distinguished guests have to be properly entertained, is the right hon. Gentleman really satisfied that in present circumstances, the cost revealed in this answer is not grossly in excess of what could be done by trusting to private enterprise to do it?
    Mr. William Teeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of the visitors who went to that centre complained afterwards that they were not properly entertained and should have been better entertained? [HON. MEMBERS: 'Oh."] I could give the House the names of certain Government guests who complained.
    Mr. Keeling: Mart from the question of extravagance, is the Financial Secretary aware that many guests who are put up at 2, Park Street get the impression, rightly or wrongly, that they are being lodged in a Government establishment because the Government want to keep an eye on them? Would it not be much better to get rid of this lease and use hotels?
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that anyone who has visited 2, Park Street must be deeply impressed at the admirable way in which the arrangements have been conceived and carried out and that official overseas visitors have expressed warm appreciation of the accommodation provided?
    Mr. C. S. Taylor: Are there in this establishment any hosts representing His Majesty's Government, and do they share in the entertainment?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I did not catch the whole of the question, but if I understood the hon. Member aright, he asked me if Members of the Government——
    Mr. Taylor: No, I asked, were there any hosts there representing His Majesty's Government who shared in this entertainment? [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] If dinners or lunches are given at No. 2, Park Street, obviously someone on behalf of His Majesty's Government has to act as host.
    Mr. Erroll: In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Churchill.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Churchill: After making my acknowledgment of that unsolicited tribute, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make about Business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. The Business for next week will be as follows:
Monday, 21st February—Second Reading of the Milk (Special Designations) Bill [Lords] and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution;
Report and Third Reading of the Juries Bill;
Consideration of the Motion relating to the Summer Time Order, 1949.
Tuesday, 22nd February—Second Reading of the Colonial Naval Defence Bill [Lords];
Second Reading of the Social Services (Northern Ireland Agreement) Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution;
Report and Third Reading of the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Bill.
Wednesday, 23rd February—Second Reading of the Consular Conventions Bill;
Second Reading of the Prevention of Damage by Pests Bill [Lords] and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution;
Committee stage of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) [Money].
Thursday, 24th February—Supply (2nd Allotted Day); Committee. We shall resume consideration of the Civil Supplementary Estimates in the order in which they stand on the Paper.
Friday, 25th February—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
Mr. H. D. Hughes: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he will assure the House that His Majesty's Government have given the Opposition every facility to move the Vote of Censure which was promised last week on Government expenditure on Food and Health?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a Business question.
Mr. H. Morrison: I can only say to my hon. Friend that we are quite ready to do so, and following on the vigorous declaration of war by the Leader of the Opposition last week, I expected far more trouble than now appears to be likely. I do not even know whether the right hon. Gentleman will take part in the attack upon the subject.
Mr. Churchill: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his memory is not sufficiently good to enable him to state honestly that I made it perfectly clear last week that the question of whether there would be a Vote of Censure or not, could not be decided until after the three days' examination of these matters in Supplementary Estimates—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—and that it would only be if the three days' Debate on Supplementary Estimates revealed the grossest miscalculations and shameful scandal that we should have to consider our position upon the subject. We are now only about to begin the first of these days. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not consider that it is a very shabby thing for the Government to try to ride off from being criticised on gross miscalculations, by the pretext and pretence that to criticise waste and mismanagement is to attack the principles of large measures of policy for which a Conservative Parliament was responsible?
Mr. Morrison: I myself think—and I know that my right hon. Friends in charge of the Departments concerned share my view—that it is one of the most important duties of the House of Commons to watch Supplementary Estimates, especially if they arise in figures of some substance. Far from resenting the House examining this matter, we think it is an elementary duty of the House to do so. My only feeling is that the tempo of the examination appears to have utterly collapsed between last week and this, because I understood from the high-minded observations, almost amounting to a high-spirited oration, last week that we were to face a first-class attack, whereas now it appears to be an exact examination.
Mr. Churchill: The decision whether the Government will face a first-class attack or not will entirely depend upon the amount of evidence adduced against them in the examination by the tribunal of the House of Commons.
Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: Will my right hon. Friend say how soon we are likely to have an opportunity of dealing with this most alarming document which is euphemistically called, "Statement on Defence, 1949"?
Mr. Morrison: I do not quite follow the purport of the adjectives of my hon. Friend.
Mr. Chamberlain: I can explain——
Mr. Morrison: I do not think my hon. Friend will be in Order if he seeks to explain them now. But he can be sure that early opportunity will be found for Debate on this subject, when the Government will, of course, be perfectly ready to explain and defend their position.
Mr. Churchill: If in the course of the Debates on the Defence Supplementary Estimates, we are forced to commit ourselves to severe criticism of the mismanagement of the money spent on defences at present, I presume the right hon. Gentleman will be quite clear in his own mind that we are not thereby opposing any necessary measures for defence.
Mr. Morrison: I welcome this statement of the right hon. Gentleman. If I may say so, it is a more balanced approach to this subject than he manifested last week.
Mr. Teeling: In view of the alarming and unnecessary rumours about the position in Japan and the Far East, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will give us an opportunity in the near future to discuss the whole question and get some information from the Foreign Office about what is going on in the Far East?
Mr. Morrison: I think that would be a very fitting matter upon which the hon. Gentleman might make representations to his right hon. Friends on the Front Bench with a view to a Supply Day being allocated for that purpose if they so wish.
Mr. David Renton: On the Business for next Tuesday, is the Leader of the House aware that earlier this afternoon the Chairman of Ways and Means indicated that the Second Reading of the British Transport Commission Bill would be taken at 7.0 p.m. on Tuesday and, that being so, will the Leader of the House say how that will affect next Tuesday's Business?
Mr. Morrison: That is not necessarily fatal to next Tuesday's Business. We shall keep the point in mind. Of course, we shall have to see what eventuates on the day. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the Chairman of Ways and Means is quite competent to put down a Private Bill at such time as he thinks fit.

OFFICIAL REPORT (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)
Mr. Churchill: May I ask you, Sir, whether you have anything to add to the statement which you made yesterday concerning HANSARD and the OFFICIAL REPORT?
Mr. Speaker: I really have very little to add. It is one of the difficulties of the English language that one word can really have two shades of meaning. That is perfectly true of the word "official."
HANSARD is the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates. That means, it is a report by gentlemen, and in one case by a lady, who have the very difficult job of reporting what is said in this House. It is a report by people who are officially appointed as part of the staff of the House of Commons. That is the extent of the official position of HANSARD. There is no authoritative matter in its record. I put that first. It is official in this respect, that
1348
it is the report of officers who are appointed by this House to report what is said in the House.
But if we are going to take "official" in another sense—and I thought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) yesterday was taking it in another sense, when he adduced proof of "The Times" to show that HANSARD had make a mistake, and that the word should be changed—it would be perfectly simple merely to ask the question if the official record, which was the Votes and Proceedings, showed whether the Amendment had been passed. HANSARD said it had been negatived. The only thing was to ask that the words "agreed to" should be substituted to show that the Amendment had been carried.
However, let us go a little bit further than that, because I want to point out that HANSARD has no effect whatsoever on the proceedings of this House and no authority whatsoever. Neither is HANSARD accepted in the courts of law. I am advised that the courts take judicial cognisance of the order and course of proceedings in Parliament. Under the Evidence Act, 1845, copies of the Commons Journals are admitted in evidence without proof of the printing. Copies of HANSARD, however, are not so admitted as evidence of facts therein stated.
May I add, as further proof of that, that there was a case in 1917 where a common informer sought to recover a penalty from a Member of the House on the alleged ground that he had sat and voted whilst disqualified. The learned judge refused to allow the Member's presence in the House to be proved by the publication of what he called "the Official Debates of the House of Commons." Witnesses had to be called into prove his presence in the House. This explanation, I hope, will prove the two shades of meaning of the word "official" and the meaning which I put on to it when I was replying yesterday to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
Mr. Henry Strauss: Is it not completely accurate to say that the document you referred to yesterday—the Journal—is the official record which is received in courts of law as evidence of the acts of the House with which the courts are generally concerned, such as Amendments,

1349
Divisions and so on, but that, in so far as anything is a report of what is said in the House, HANSARD is that report?
Mr. Speaker: HANSARD is that report but it is not accepted in the courts of law. That is the advice I have received.
Sir Peter Macdonald: In view of the fact very large numbers of people and businesses in this country subscribe to HANSARD, is it not true to say that HANSARD is a pretty accurate record of the Debates in this House and is called the OFFICIAL REPORT?
Mr. Speaker: I should like to say to the Hon. Member that I agree that HANSARD is extraordinarily accurate. It very seldom makes a mistake. It is not any ordinary reporter who can become a reporter on HANSARD. He has to write down the words of some hon. Members here who speak very, very fast. He has not only to do that; he has to he able to name the Member, to say who is speaking and also to have a good knowledge of procedure, to know whether an Amendment has been withdrawn or accepted or what has happened to it. It is not every reporter, however skilled he may be at shorthand, who can become a HANSARD reporter, and I should like to, pay my tribute to them.
Hon. Members: Hear, Hear.
Mr. Chetwynd: Would it not remove all doubt if the word "Official" were dropped from the front page of the Parliamentary Report?
Mr. Speaker: I think not. I have looked into it very carefully. "Parliamentary Debates, Official Report," I think, really means Parliamentary Debates—what has been said, and not procedure.
Mr. Churchill: Your explanation, Mr. Speaker, makes matters very clear. I should like to say we all have great confidence in HANSARD. Its early publication is an immense convenience to Members, who are glad that there is, as it were, a further check, in case large questions of law are involved.
Mr. Gallacher: May I, as one who does his very best to speak English, pay tribute to HANSARD for the way they report my speeches?
Mr. H. Strauss: Is it not a fact that, while HANSARD could not in any event be accepted as evidence in a court of law on account of the rule against hearsay, no court has ever raised the least objection to its being described as the OFFICIAL REPORT?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think I have raised any objection to that. I have merely pointed out that one report is more official than the other.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [FIRST ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [MAJOR MILNER in the Chair]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1948–49
    CLASS V

      NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, ENGLAND AND WALES
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £52,800,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for the expenses of providing a comprehensive health service in England and Wales and certain other services connected therewith, including the central purchase of medical supplies."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]
      3.51 p.m.
      Mr. Assheton: Would it be convenient if these Estimates and the Scottish Estimates for the same Service were discussed together?
      The Chairman: I suggest that that is not desirable. In point of fact, I do not think it was ever done in the past on Supplementary Estimates.
      Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It really becomes very difficult if we are to discuss one segment of the Health Service without the other, especially as the health of the country is now governed in many cases by United Kingdom action. For instance, the Food Ministry reigns over both.
      The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): As far as I am concerned, and I feel sure I can speak for the Secretary of State for Scotland, it would be very much more convenient if we had a general discussion. If there is a desire to vote separately, the Votes could be taken separately. Roughly the same issues are involved and, if it is convenient to the Chair, it would certainly be convenient to the Committee.
      Mr. Scollan: A large number of Scottish Members of Parliament would take very strong exception to that. That is due to the
      1352
      fact that immediately Scottish matters are merged into the national matters of England, the tendency is to have them completely overshadowed and ignored—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Evidently some hon. Members do not know much about it, but if they had the job of trying to raise Scottish matters they would know that that was the case. I am asking the Committee not to accept the suggestion which has been made, but to leave the matter to the Scottish Grand Committee.
      Mr. Bevan: It is the same Statute, with one or two minor differences in the Health Service, which governs Scotland, England and Wales. The Debates will be largely repetitive if they are taken separately. If the Chairman would permit, I support the right hon. and gallant Member for Scottish Universites (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). It would be much better if they were taken together. The right hon. and gallant Member is going to wind up for the Opposition, I understand, and he has some association with Scotland.
      Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Further to that point, may I say, as a Scottish Member, that I think it would be to the convenience of Scottish Members that a general discussion should take place. This is entirely without prejudice to the arrangement secured earlier in the Session by which, first, Scottish Estimates might be separately discussed upstairs and, secondly, at least one or two days might be given specifically to examination of Scottish problems here on the Floor of the House. This is not a diminution but an enlargement of the discussion which Scotland has of her affairs. It is also appropriate that we should discuss the health services and the problems which arise as a whole. That seems an added reason why, if possible, we should have a general and not a particular Debate.
      The Chairman: May I point out that Scottish Supplementary Estimates have never gone to the Scottish Grand Committee. From the point of view of the Chair it would be very unsatisfactory to have a full Debate under one heading. I could not prevent hon. Members from raising Scottish points when I put the Question on the Scottish Vote. I suggest that what would meet the convenience of the Committee,

      1353
      particularly as the point has not been mentioned to me in any way before, would be to let the Debate on the first Estimate, that of England and Wales, run rather widely and then confine any further discussion on the Scottish Estimates as such, to purely Scottish points. I think that might meet the convenience of the Committee.
      Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If I might respectfully say so, it would not really meet the situation because, in fact, the problems are almost identical in the two countries and, as you say, the Supplementary Estimates can be reviewed now or never. The danger of pushing the discussion into a separate enclave at the end is precisely what was feared by the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan)—that it would lead to a perfunctory treatment of them. It is part of the problem of the health of the United Kingdom and I most respectfully submit that it can only be really considered at this stage as part of the general and not a particular problem.
      The Chairman: I have made a suggestion, which I think I must ask the Committee to accept, namely, that general questions and English questions could be raised on the first Vote and purely Scottish questions, if any, on the Scottish Vote.
      Mr. Emrys Roberts: Might it be pointed out to Scottish hon. Members that they are at least more fortunate than the Welsh Members in having separate Estimates, a privilege which is denied to Welsh Members, except in certain items of the Ministry of Health.
      The Chairman: I should have said England and Wales, of course.
      Mr. Carmichael: If we accept your suggestion and deal with England first and the Scottish Estimates are presented later, and if, during the discussion we attempt to relate them, having already completed the discussion on the English Estimates, how far will Scottish Members be permitted to use the English Estimates by way of illustration in the method of the presentation of the Scottish Estimates? How far shall we be in Order, or out of Order, if we try to equate the method of presentation of the English Estimates?
      The Chairman: I do not think I can give specific Rulings beforehand. The hon. Member will have an opportunity, and every latitude that can be given will be given.
      Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Will you, Major Milner, give further guidance to the Committee in regard to the allocation of time? As has been pointed out by my hon. Friend, the whole of the health services——
      The Chairman: The question of the allocation of time, of course, has nothing to do with the Chair. It is my duty to put the Votes to the Committee and for the Committee to pass them as expeditiously as may be. But, short of any agreement, I can do nothing in regard to the allocation of time.
      Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Would it be possible to take the discussion on the Motion for the Adjournment, because the difficulty in which the Committee will be placed in discussing the two separate Estimates simply means, as the Minister said, that in many cases the same Debate will have to be held twice?
      The Chairman: I am sorry but that would be quite inappropriate. If a Motion to Report progress is made the only arguments which can be advanced would be the reasons for reporting progress, or otherwise.
      3.59 p.m.
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I am grateful for the opportunity of addressing the Committee. In the first place, I have sonic pride in presenting the Supplementary Estimates to the Committee, chiefly because they cover the period of the successful introduction of the National Health Service into this country. I think it was understood that this Debate would be held, as my right hon. Friend has already mentioned, in an atmosphere rather supercharged. I for one am very grateful that it does not appear to be so. I am grateful for the fact that these Estimates will be discussed in a serious and, I hope, constructive manner. We appreciate the fact that the Supplementary Estimates are of a very large size and therefore warrant close inspection by the Committee. As I say, I hope that constructive suggestions will

      1355
      be devoted to the aim of helping to secure a strong and developing Health Service in this country.
      Before going into detail on the Estimates it is important that the Committee should be fully seized of the background of the position when these Estimates were prepared. First, it is essential to understand that these Estimates were introduced some seven months before the introduction of the scheme. Of course, at that time there were many factors which could not possibly be properly clarified. For example, it was quite impossible to tell the extent to which this new scheme would be used by the general public. It was impossible to tell just how far the professional services would be available. In particular, it was impossible to tell at that time how far the dental and other professional services would be forthcoming.
      Hon. Members will no doubt remember that at that time the dentists were making quite clear their own view that they would not enter into the scheme, and that of course had to be borne in mind when the Estimates were prepared. A third factor of very great importance, which again could not be evaluated at that time, was just precisely what would be the remuneration of those taking part. Very many negotiations followed on the preparation of the Estimates which it was quite impossible to provide for at that time.
      A matter of great importance covering the whole field was the fact that at the time the Estimates were prepared it was impossible to tell precisely which institutions would be transferred to the Health Service. When the importance of all these major factors is appreciated it is not surprising that we come before the Committee today to discuss a large Supplementary Estimate. Above all these Estimates reflect the very much wider use that has been made by the general public of the services, and to that extent show the lack of provision that had existed up to that time.
      I am anxious that we should consider this matter with some cafe, and go into the precise figures that have been laid before the Committee. In discussing them I shall be referring to figures of expenditure and the additional sums required for England and Wales, if hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies will so
      1356
      allow me. At the head of the Estimates will be seen provisions for hospital services. In fact, this covers the figures in the Estimate both of advances to regional hospital boards and boards of governors of teaching hospitals. A very large figure indeed of additional sums required is laid down in the Estimate before the Committee, a sum altogether of £22,346,000.
      I think we should understand the width of cover to which these figures relate. This hospital service covers altogether something over 3,000 hospitals and clinics together with some 36 teaching hospitals. It covers the whole range of hospitals and specialist services. I think the astonishing feature of this great change over, this revolution in hospital service, is that is has been accomplished in as smooth a fashion as I think it will be agreed that it has been accomplished.
      In coming to the detailed figures relating to this hospital expenditure we find, first of all, that we can sub-divide the amount between capital expenditure and running expenditure. We find that in the field of capital expenditure there has been an additional expenditure amounting to something of the nature of £3½ million. That of course covers a fairly wide field of capital development. It covers very little in actual new buildings, but it does cover a large amount of special work. For example, the enlargement of special departments and, I am glad to say, the re-opening of many closed wards, due to a factor I will mention later, the very encouraging increase in the number of nurses. I am glad to say also that it covers the extensions to nurses homes, which was a very essential measure indeed to help to attract new nurses into this Service. It covers the repair of war damage, and this was perhaps the largest figure of all.
      As I am sure hon. Members will understand, there is a very great backlog of work to be done in the repair of war damage which could not be carried out during the war years, or indeed in the years immediately succeeding the war, and unfortunately there is still much of that work to be done. If hon. Members care to look across the river at St. Thomas's they will see an example of the type of work that is now being carried out, and of much more that needs to be done.

      1357
      The main reason why the figure under capital expenditure has been so much higher than was originally estimated is because, in preparing the Estimates, we had to base upon earlier experience and chiefly upon the availability of supplies, as was then the position. Very fortunately supplies have become rather more available for this particular class of work, and therefore we have been able considerably to speed up the work which I have mentioned. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that this kind of work is something which we cannot develop too quickly. There are very serious arrears to be overtaken and it is merely a question of availability of supplies as to how quickly that work can be accomplished.
      I should also mention that included in this figure is a certain amount of work carried out in trying to bring up to moderate standards the hospitals built and provided during the war years. Hon. Members will have in mind the case of many of the hospitals provided during the war where the heating facilities, as one example, were quite inadequate for permanent hospital use. In many cases these have been altered and proper central heating equipment has been installed for the use of the hospitals concerned. They were vitally needed and are a great economy. The figures for the running costs are by far the greatest in this amount of extra expenditure for hospital services. There has been an increase of nearly £19 million. That is indeed a very large and serious figure. Here the Estimate that was made was based upon returns supplied by both voluntary and municipal hospitals, and some provision was made for rising costs.
      However, I must impress upon the Committee the fact that at the time this Estimate was prepared the question was not settled of which hospitals would be transferred to the National Health Service. There were many hospitals about which the question was still hanging in the balance. It was not at all possible to tell in detail which hospitals would come in. Those remarks apply particularly to the mixed public assistance institutions. Another factor was the heavy arrears of maintenance, again due to the long period of the war years when it was impossible to carry out the ordinary running repairs and maintenance
      1358
      required in hospitals. As in the case of capital expenditure, so too with this type of general repair and reconditioning work it was found possible to undertake much more than had originally been regarded as possible. In fact, a further £5 million above what was originally anticipated has been spent on that side of the work. Hon. Members can see for themselves in many constituencies the value of the work undertaken.
      Of course, in the large figure of running expenses, the major cause of the increased expenditure is the increase in salaries and wages. It is of great interest to know that over half the total of the running costs of these hospitals is covered by salary and wage expenditure. The Whitley Council considered this question after the Estimate had been prepared and submitted their recommendations about rates of pay for the nursing staff, domestic workers and other staff in hospitals. In many cases the Government agreed with the increases recommended. For example, the pay of student nurses has been almost doubled at a cost of some £3 million a year. That amounts, taking some improvements in other nurses' pay, in this Supplementary Estimate, to an extra charge of £1,500,000 owing to the date from which the increases were paid.
      No one would deny that these increases were needed and no one in this House would in any way question the urgent need to increase the number of student nurses coming into the hospitals, with the hope that they will stay on in the profession and continue to serve the hospital world in the future as they are doing now as students. In addition, the increase of pay of domestic workers in hospitals amounts to £2 million a year, of which about £750,000 is involved in the actual period of this Estimate. There have been other staff increases amounting to about £1,500,000 in a year and special provisions have been made for increases to doctors and specialists in hospitals, as a result of the Spens Report, for which provision here has been made by some £6 million. I do not deny that this may not be the end of the wage increases which may be needed in the professions. Negotiations are proceeding at the moment.
      I think that the Committee would like to know that undoubtedly the result of some of these increases has been a very

      1359
      healthy improvement in the recruitment of nurses. Perhaps I should rather say that we appear to be turning the corner in the staffing of the nursing profession so that during the last 12 months we have had an increase of about 3,000 whole-time nurses and 6,000 part-time nurses. I am sure that we all hope that this healthy improvement will continue. It is absolutely certain that no hospital service can possibly work in the way we desire it to work without many more entrants into the nursing profession. I am satisfied that some of the increased expenditure which we are discussing today has brought about that very valuable result. I hope that it will continue to have that effect.
      I should like to refer to a figure in the Estimate of the additional sum required for "liabilities transferred to the Minister." It is convenient to discuss it now because that is a reference to hospital liabilities and it covers such items as bank overdrafts of hospitals, bills owing by voluntary hospitals and, of course, loan charges on capital expenditure by local authorities. Here I should say that the assumption at the time the Estimate was prepared—and it was a reasonable assumption—was that the liabilities, such as they might be, of the non-teaching voluntary hospitals would be largely covered by the provision for recouping from the Hospital Endowments Fund. It was impossible at that time to tell with any sort of precision, or with any accuracy at all, what those liabilities would be. It is difficult enough for hon. Members with bank balances, either to the credit or to the debit, to tell some months in advance what their position will be. It was far more difficult when the bulk of these hospitals were not within the National Health Service and information of their position was of a fairly vague character.
      Although provision is made for the very large figure of an extra £16 million for liabilities transferred, a large part of that will be recouped from the Endowments Fund, although it has not been possible to do that in the Estimate in this year. It will be recoverable, to a very large extent, and what we expect is that there will be a large part of the amounts of the transferred liabilities from the local authority hospitals, amounting
      1360
      to about £2 million, and the liabilities of teaching hospitals, amounting to £3,500,000, where, as hon. Members know, there is no provision for recouping from the Endowments Fund. Therefore, although this figure may appear to be a serious one, when one comes to examine it one finds that the bulk of the amount will be recoverable, will not be a charge against Government expenditure, in future years.
      Mr. Lipson: Will my hon. Friend answer a question on this point? Is it a fact that the amount in the central Endowments Fund is really more than the liabilities—some £17 million against £14 million? Is it proposed to raid this fund, or will the liabilities be met entirely by the Exchequer?
      Mr. Blenkinsop: There is no intention to raid the fund. There will be a set-off one against the other, but we have no intention of depriving the fund at all. We think it right that there should be some set-off.
      I want to turn now to a smaller figure in these Estimates, but one in which I am personally interested, and that is the increased payment to my old late Department, the Ministry of Pensions. It will be noticed that we are providing for an extra sum of £370,000. In comparison with some of the other figures, that is not a large sum, but it is a large increase on the sum originally provided for. I think it is important that we should realise the sort of provisions which will be made out of this extra sum of money which we are now discussing. It covers the provision of artificial arms and legs and artificial aids of most kinds, including surgical boots, motor and hand-propelled chairs, artificial eyes and a multitude of smaller items. I am particularly pleased that it has been found possible to extend to the general public the provision that has been made for many years for the war disabled. It is, indeed, very gratifying to know the work that is being done in this field, and to go to one of the main factories preparing artificial limbs or one of our fitting centres to see civilians now coming in to secure these benefits to which previously they were not entitled.
      Here, of course, is a typical example of the case where no fair estimate of what the demand was likely to be could possibly

      1361
      be made in advance. These are very costly items indeed, but I am sure again that every hon. Member of this Committee would agree that these are vital items of expenditure which are of enormous value to the country as a whole. They are positive measures of rehabilitation which in many cases enable men and women to undertake jobs of work necessary for the country but which they could not have undertaken before. The figures of the total numbers supplied up to 21st January, which are the latest figures I have with me, show that the number of artificial arms and legs supplied to civilians since the scheme came into operation is 2,580, and that figure will be steadily growing less. Already we find that the orders coming in are beginning to slacken. Naturally, there was a great rush at the start, because many people had waited for many long years, but now we are beginning to overcome the great rush at the start and the provision will no doubt steady down to a regular figure for future years. With regard to motor and hand-propelled chairs. I find that we have altogether issued 600 of these chairs during the last nine months.
      I should like to turn now to the grants made to local authorities. Hon. Members will notice that there has been another large increase in the amount required for this service. I think all hon. Members will agree that the wide range of vital services that are provided today by the local authorities in this health field are very important services which we are anxious to develop. Many of these services did not in the past attract any Government grant at all; today, all of them attract a 50 per cent. Government grant. Perhaps it is wise to point out here that, when preparing the Estimates for this particular field, we had not the advantage of the schemes which were later submitted by the local authorities, and again we were in the position that the Estimates had to be made without any very accurate basis upon which to work. Some of the services, for example, which now attract the 50 per cent. grant and which previously had no grant at all include such important provisions as the care of mothers and young children, health visiting, home helps and home nursing and the ambulance services. All these previously had made no charge
      1362
      upon the Exchequer; today, they all attract a 50 per cent. grant.
      To take the example of the ambulance service, I think it is within the knowledge of many hon. Members, if not all, that there were very great gaps indeed in the ambulance services throughout the country in the past, and I agree that there still are, and that it will take some time to fill them all up. Particularly was that true regarding out-patients who needed to visit hospitals for treatment; there was little, if any, provision at all for their transport. I believe it is the case that, because of that fact, many people lacked treatment which they should have had. On that ambulance service, alone there has been an expenditure by the local authorities over the period of nearly £4 million, which attracts a 50 per cent grant.
      There is another factor of importance concerning the grants to local authorities. I have already mentioned that schemes have been submitted after these Estimates had been prepared, so that we had estimated that there would be a greater lag in the actual cash payment than has happened to be the case, and, therefore, a rather greater proportion of this expenditure has come into these Estimates as against future Estimates. Again, these are cases where one must have full regard for the value of the services being provided, and no one would wish to question the value today of the services being undertaken by the local authorities, some of them for the first time, and of great importance to the people in their locality.
      I know that one item which will be of great interest to the Committee will be the increase in administration expenses for executive councils for which provision is made in these Supplementary Estimates. It will be noticed that there is provision for an extra £716,000 for the expenses of administration. That, of course, covers both office expenses and the actual staff required for the administration and running of this great national scheme. Again, it was very difficult at the start to estimate just what would be required. It depended entirely upon one's estimate of how great a use would be made of the whole scheme.
      It has been found necessary to increase staffs in order to enable the work to be efficiently carried out; in order to ensure, among other matters, that payments were made within a reasonable time, and to

      1363
      try to avoid unnecessary delay. Above all, this staff increase has been due to the great pressure upon the whole of the services at the beginning of the scheme. As that pressure eases, as it will when the backlog is overcome, so it may be possible to reconsider some of these administrative expenses. It is also true that some part of this expenditure is non-recurrent. The provision for the setting up of these offices, etc., is expenditure which will not recur.
      I return to some of the final group of figures, first of all those for medical services. It will be noticed that in comparison with the total expenditure on medical services there has been a comparatively small increase in the total amounts required. The reason for that increase is partly because of the speeding up of payments to doctors. It has been found possible to make payments rather more quickly than was originally anticipated. In this instance again we are to that extent merely transferring expenditure from one period to another. Provision is also included for an extra £500,000, which has very properly been added to the mileage fund for doctors in rural areas. It should be understood that that very necessary and important provision, which I am sure is of great value to the medical profession, has been made.
      With regard to the other services, hon. Members will be concerned at the large figures of increased expenditure on the pharmaceutical, dental and ophthalmic services. To take the pharmaceutical service first, it will be noted that an additional sum of nearly £5 million is required. That sum covers the prescriptions made up by chemists as well as by doctors. Those estimates were based on the old National Health Insurance scheme, under which some 50 million prescriptions were issued in an average nine monthly period. We naturally estimated that there would be a large increase. Provision was made for an increase to a little over double that number of prescriptions. In fact the estimates we can make today show that something like 128 million prescriptions will be needed in that period of nine months. This is again an example of the greater use of the service which has followed its introduction.
      1364
      There has been some criticism of the cost of prescribing. The cost of the actual individual prescriptions has not greatly increased over the estimate; the figure is about the same. When considering this figure the fact has also to be remembered that there have been payments to chemists in advance of the normal dates, payments which merely represent a transfer from one period to another. There is no evidence of any general misuse of prescribing by the medical profession. There may undoubtedly be individual cases but full provision exists for keeping a watch upon that matter.
      As for the other large figure of just under £12 million increase in the Estimates for dental services, Members of the Committee may recollect that we had some discussion about this item a few days ago. I do not wish to go over the whole matter again but it should be said that the Estimates for this service were prepared before the Spens Committee Report had been received. There was no knowledge on which to base estimates about payments. The only guide we had was that of the National Health Insurance scheme. Under that scheme about 7 per cent. of those entitled to dental benefit took advantage of it. Under the present scheme that percentage has been multiplied some three and a half times. If calculations had been made on the basis of the use made of the previous scheme by National Health Insurance scheme patients, the total expenditure would have been nearer to £9 million.
      Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: Was the old National Health Insurance scheme free, as the present one is?
      Mr. Blenkinsop: No, of course it was not. There was part payment of the cost of treatment, as everyone knows. The major factor here, as I mentioned at the beginning, was that at the time the Estimates were prepared it was generally believed that a great number of dentists would not participate in the scheme. It was quite impossible at that date to make the assumption that they would do so. Fortunately that has not now proved to be the case; the great majority of dentists, some 90 per cent., are participating. A large part of the expenditure—some 40 per cent.—is for dentures, and

      1365
      as the Committee will appreciate, that is to a large extent non-recurring expenditure.
      Another large increase is shown in the Estimates in the case of the ophthalmic services. The increase amounts to about £11 million. The Estimates could only be based upon National Health Insurance returns. Under that scheme only 5 per cent, of those entitled to benefit actually made use of the provision. As hon. Members in all parts of the Committee well know, that demand has been enormously increased to some four times the estimate which previously existed. It is an example of the greatly increased use which has been made of this service. I think it can be fairly said that it shows the need that had always been there but which could not in the past be satisfied. Up to 31st January last, nearly two million pairs of spectacles had been provided. That figure may be attacked by some, but knowing the conditions under which spectacles are issued, one realises the great need which was there and the value of this new provision. We are not saving that either on the dental or the ophthalmic side we are satisfied with the rates of payment to those who are participating, and discussions are proceeding on that matter which will no doubt assist in future periods.
      I have perhaps dealt in rather a mundane way with the Supplementary Estimates before the Committee, but I am anxious that full consideration shall be given to the facts before discussion takes place upon them. These facts and figures cloak real people. They cloak men, women and children whom we all know. I have the honour to represent a part of the country, an area in which I have always lived, that was bitterly oppressed in past years. It is in areas of this kind that the National Health Service has offered perhaps the greatest hope. The proportion of industrial disabled is very high indeed in these areas. I believe that the figures we have been discussing, serious as they are and high as they are, are proving to be a real contribution to the hopes of working men and women in the area to which I belong. They are a bulwark against the fears of insecurity in the past, and to that extent are an encouragement to the economic effort and the difficult period which lies ahead.
      4.42 p.m.
      Mr. Assheton: I am sure the Committee will have been pleased at the agreeable manner in which the new Parliamentary Secretary has presented his case. I am bound to say, however, that he has been charged by his Minister with a very difficult task. I cannot recollect any occasion when a Government spokesman has had to come to the Box and explain a more extraordinary set of under-estimates. Anyone who understands our financial position and has paid heed to the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in recent months must have been deeply shocked and alarmed by the introduction of a batch of Supplementary Estimates which represent in total practically all the money that is being wrung from the taxpayer by way of Purchase Tax.
      Mr. Messer: A jolly good bargain.
      Mr. Assheton: I do not wonder that the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it necessary to take a short holiday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No one grudges him a holiday, but the fact is that he took a short holiday when these Estimates came out. We thought it right to put down the Estimates for the National Health Service to be discussed first, because these are the largest Supplementary Estimates and are therefore the most alarming from the financial point of view—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—perhaps I may be allowed to develop that. Many of us on this side who were in the Coalition Government and had a hand in framing the post-war social services are feeling very great anxieties lest all the hard work should be brought to nought by the shocking administration of the right hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Bevan: If that be the case, why did the provisional Government suppress the White Paper on the National Health Services in June, 1945, which they had decided to circulate?
      Mr. Assheton: The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that I was not in the Government at that time. In any case, that has nothing to do with this.
      Mr. Bevan: But, with all respect, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the social services which the Tory Party had prepared for the post-war world. The

      1367
      National Government was succeeded by a provisional Government, and both health schemes presented by the provisional Goverment and the Coalition Government to the medical profession were rejected by them. The provisional Government prepared a White Paper, copies of which were printed and then suppressed during the General Election.
      Mr. Assheton: All I can tell the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee is that in the declaration of policy which the Conservative Party put to the electorate the intention was laid down clearly to provide a comprehensive health service, and that has always been their policy. The party for whom I am speaking is as wholeheartedly in favour of the health services as it ever was. [Interruption.] I know quite well that it is the policy of Members opposite, and particularly of certain Ministers, to make speeches in the country suggesting that if the Tory Party comes into power again the National Health Service will go. That is what the Government are trying to suggest, and that suggestion is absolutely false. In the Coalition we worked out the scheme for a National Health Service with Members of the Government, and they know that quite well. When we come to examine the detailed Estimates we must not forget what the Lord President of the Council so rightly told us, that it is the duty of this Committee to examine them with care.
      Do not let us overlook the fact that it is from the pockets of the working men and women that the greatest contribution comes; by far the greatest burden of taxation falls on the ordinary men and women in the country, and they are the people who have to pay for this. These are the people who have to foot the bill, and it is right and proper, therefore, that we should examine these Estimates with every care and without the suggestion being thrown across the Committee that because we do that we are against the health services. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) said earlier, because we may propose to examine closely the Estimates for the Navy, is it to be supposed that the Conservative Party are against having a Navy? The Minister of, Health may be a very great orator, but I suggest that he is not a very great administrator. He
      1368
      is asking for Supplementary Estimates on an extraordinary scale, and I wish to criticise, firstly, the childish underestimation, of which there has been no satisfactory explanation by the Parliamentary Secretary. Throughout his speech the Parliamentary Secretary told us that he had not expected this and that to happen. He did not expect that when a free service was presented more people would make use of it than of the National Insurance Scheme.
      Mr. Blenkinsop: As far as the dental services are concerned, how could anyone estimate how many people would use them when it was not known whether the dentists would operate the service?
      Mr. Assheton: But an estimate was made, and it was a very bad one, which is what we are complaining about. Secondly, we complain of the rising expenditure in the whole field which may imperil the whole scheme. Thirdly, I want to comment on the obvious growth of bureaucracy which these Estimates show. Then I want to refer to the dental and ophthalmic services and to suggest that the failure of the school dental service is one of the consequences of this. Finally, I want to refer to the fact that the Health Service is costing very nearly three times what we were told when the National Health Service Bill was introduced.
      The National Health Service Bill was introduced on 19th March, 1946. In front of it is a Financial Memorandum, and the final figure of that Memorandum is:
      "The net annual expenditure falling upon the Exchequer is £95 million."
      The original Estimate, introduced by the Minister of Health last spring for England and Wales, was £132 million. He has now come along with an additional Supplementary Estimate for £52 million. We have not taken into account the figures for Scotland, as we are not apparently to discuss that Estimate now. None the less, let us not forget that these figures for the Estimate and for the Supplementary Estimate cover only nine months of the year whereas next year we shall have to foot the bill for 12 months; and that the Estimate and Supplementary Estimate before us, without any provision for anything else, mean a total overall figure for both kingdoms of something like £277 million.

      1369
      I do not know what the Estimates for next year are to be. No doubt the Minister has some idea. I hope that they will be a great deal more accurate this year than they were last year. I observe in the Supplementary Estimates that no very great provision is made for capital expenditure, much of which will have to come in the future. I was interested to see, when I was reading the "Daily Herald" on Monday, a picture of what was described as the first of London's great new health centres. I was disappointed to find that it has yet to he built, although there is a beautiful picture of it there. It is a picture of something which has not yet been built and it is not even as good propaganda as the picture of the Duke of Kent, as he at any rate does exist.
      Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. Gentleman against it?
      Mr. Assheton: I am not against it. I am trying to point out to the Minister that these Estimates, which are so large, do not contain a great many provisions for items which he referred to and adumbrated in the Debate when we were discussing the Bill, and when the National Health Service was said to be going to cost £95 million.
      Let us come to some of the details. Let us take the ophthalmic service, about which the Parliamentary Secretary told us something. I find the matter very puzzling. The Estimate for the ophthalmic services was originally about £2 million. The revised Estimate is for £12,900,000, for England and Wales alone. That discloses an error of estimating of 600 or 700 per cent. The Parliamentary Secretary suggested one or two reasons why that is so: he did not expect that so many people would ask for spectacles. He perhaps did not realise that when things are free a great many more people want them and order them than when they have to pay for them.
      I am given to understand that plenty of other people knew that the service would cost more than £2 million. I have a letter which has just been put into my hands from a gentleman who is the honorary secretary of the Institute of Optical Science. He points out that when the original Estimates were first put forward, a meeting was called at Friends' House at which more than 500 opticians attended. At that meeting he
      1370
      said that the cost would be in the region of £16 million. Some people were able to make a closer estimate than were Members of His Majesty's Government.
      I have also gone a little into the details of the cost of these spectacles. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary know what these details are, and I will not trouble the Committee with them except to say that, roughly speaking, the cost of a pair of spectacles is from £2 18s. to £3 14s. Before the scheme came in, there were about four million pairs of spectacles made in England every year. Somebody might have guessed that as spectacles were going to be given away, their cost might very likely be four million times about £3. That would have given an Estimate of £12 million. I cannot understand how Ministers came forward with such a fantastic Estimate as this. If a business firm or a contractor made such a ghastly error in estimating he would go bankrupt, yet——
      Sir Robert Young: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking account of the number of spectacles which were exported in that four millions?
      Mr. Assheton: I do not believe that many spectacles have been exported recently. In any case, the Minister has told us that more than two million pairs have been supplied by his Department. Let us not forget, please, that by far the greater number of people who previously bought their spectacles will now get them free. I honestly suggest that the underestimate in this case was very foolish. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Government are able to forecast in White Papers how much cotton and timber every country in Europe will consume in 1953, and how many groundnuts, and yet for the very year in which these ophthalmic service Estimates were made, they are 600 or 700 per cent. out in those Estimates.
      Now for a word about the Estimates for the dental service. These amounted to £7 million in England and Wales. The revised Estimate is £17,750,000. That is getting on for three times the original cost. I am told that the real cost is very much greater and that there is a considerable backlog to those figures which has been mounting up. I am told that the bill is something like £40 million a year. I do not know what steps the Minister

      1371
      took to get a proper Estimate for this service or what steps he is taking to check extravagance in it. Does he really believe his Dental Estimates Board at Eastbourne, with a staff of 671 people, can be much more than a rubber-stamping set-up? How can they check the dentures that have been provided or the stoppings put into teeth at Newcastle? The idea that a central staff could cover the whole country in that way is an indication of administrative incompetence and is also a sign of the growth of bureaucracy, to which I have previously referred.
      On the general practitioner Estimates, it is quite clear that the amount spent on one or two services alone this year exceeds the total amount spent on family doctoring. There have been critics who have suggested that this discloses a lack of proportion. I suggest that doctors up and down the country are in many cases overworked and have not sufficient time to give attention to their more urgent cases. What is more, in some country districts, as I well know, doctors are being badly hit financially, while they have the mortification of seeing enormous and wasteful extravagance in many directions around them, which wise administration might avoid. On an average, doctors are getting far less than the dentists or the eye-men. That is a matter certainly for comment.
      I cannot refrain from making one observation about the dental service which arises directly from this subject. It was referred to briefly the other evening when we discussed a Prayer. It is that the fees paid by the Government to the dentists have absolutely wrecked the school dental service. A letter in "The Times" from Mr. Hallett, Reader in Children's Dentistry at Newcastle, said:
      "The public dental service lies broken, almost irretrievably, as an instrument of attack upon dental disease."
      That is a direct result of Government action. There is one county, at any rate, where there are no school dentists left at all. In London many have left the service, as they have in many of the counties. That is one of the consequences of the administration of the right hon. Gentleman.
      On the question of hospitals, the Parliamentary Secretary made several excuses
      1372
      for the faulty estimate. True, the faults are not so grave here as in some of the other services to which I have referred. The teaching hospitals were originally to have £10 million and now they want £18 million, nearly twice as much, and the regional hospitals, which were to have £91 million, are now up to £103 million. I can hardly believe that the heavy arrears of maintenance to which the hon. Gentleman referred ere unknown to his Department in the spring of last year. I can hardly believe that the Minister was so ill-informed of the amount of manpower and building material available that he made such a hopelessly wrong estimate. At any rate, there it is.
      How can such estimating be excused? What did the Minister forget? He must have forgotten something. Did he forget that, in future, none of the patients in the public wards would pay? Did he forget that formerly, the specialists and the consultants in the great voluntary hospitals gave their services free, or for a nominal fee? Did he forget that when he was making his calculations, or did he forget, for instance, that the immediate psychological reaction on all boards of governors and management committees was bound to be to some extent a burst of spending? I have no doubt that most of it was expended on highly desirable objects, but did he not realise what would happen? I am challenging him on the Estimate, and I am suggesting that he did not estimate sensibly. He has not told us—although it was put to him in a Question—how many new hospital appointments have been made on the administrative side of the scheme, and at what cost. Perhaps he will tell us that later in the Debate.
      We can see from page 56 of the Estimate that there is a very big increase—nearly 100 per cent.—in the superannuation receipts, which indicates, of course, that there must have been a very large increase in the number of employees. I am told that the administration of hospitals has, in many cases, been removed from the hospital itself, that a great bureaucracy is growing up, and that an enormous number of clerks have to be engaged to read the endless stream of directives which flow down from the Minister.
      What are the causes of all this? I suggest that one cause—and I believe

      1373
      that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will agree with this—is that there is a great over-centralisation of administration. That should be looked into. I also suggest that the Central Health Council was not appointed until much too late. This was a council which had to be appointed under the Bill. It was appointed after the main structure of the Bill and the main structure of the Service had been determined by the Minister's directives. It has been suggested to me that there is no serving hospital officer on that Council and no really freely flowing channel through which the day-to-day experience of management and hospital committees can come up to the Minister. The Minister will probably deny that, and say that he meets the hospital boards and all these people. However, I am told that, in effect, there is no free flowing channel of information from the bottom to the top.
      I suggest to the Minister that he has a lot to learn from the Minister of Labour in these matters. In the Ministry of Labour, the art of consultation has been developed over the years to a very great degree. If the Minister of Health were to learn a little from the Ministry of Labour it would be a great advantage to all parties. I do not know whether the Committee feels the same, but I feel very strongly that the rush and hurry with which the Minister introduced this service has had all sorts of unsatisfactory results. One result has been that the public have been deceived into thinking that there were far more services available than, in fact, there were. We have heard this said from hon. Members on all sides of the Committee.
      We have also to be very careful in saying to people that this is a free service. Of course, it is free to the individual, but it places an enormous burden on every taxpayer in the country, and some means must be found of instilling a sense of responsibility into all those who use and who administer such a service. It is the ordinary wage earner upon whom this burden falls. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the Surtax payer."] Yes, and the Surtax payer. But if we were to take all the money from the people who pay Surtax, and who we may think are the rich, it would have very little relation to the total amount of the Budget. The money has to come out of the pockets of the people, out of their earnings, and out of all they
      1374
      buy. It is up to us to see that they get good value for their money.
      I suggest that it is the duty of the Minister to prove to us that all these items are really meritorious. I suggest that it is up to him to prove to us that this faulty estimating could not have been avoided. I say it could and should have been avoided. We are truly anxious lest the Minister of Health, by running up these enormous bills, should put the whole of our social services in jeopardy. There was a time—and many of us can remember it—when the Unemployment Fund went bankrupt. People will remember the Poplar guardians. We must be very careful in the administration of these huge sums of public money.
      I suggest to the Committee that there is clear evidence of maladministration and extravagance in this scheme. The estimating was hopelessly incompetent unless, indeed, a lower figure than the true one was deliberately put forward, which is a thing I do not like to suggest. However, it was either that or incompetence. At best the Minister has shown himself quite irresponsible in financial matters, and heedless of the best interests of the patients as well as of the medical profession. Therefore, I suggest that he is quite unfit to hold office and should go.
      5.9 p.m.
      Mr. Messer: I count myself fortunate in being permitted to follow the right hon. Gentleman the junior Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton). I never remember hearing a speech which was so lacking a sense of proportion. Certain things were said by the right hon. Gentleman which were a direct challenge, and which, I think, deserve an answer. It may not be my responsibility to give that answer, but I feel it necessary to turn our attention to what is, in point of fact, the greatest measure of social service that has ever been launched.
      Anybody who has had any experience of this very difficult service from the point of view of administration, will realise just what a task the Minister and his advisers had in getting anything like what would be an adequate, let alone an accurate, estimate of the cost. This Supplementary Estimate, if it shows anything at all, indicates the great need that there was

      1375
      for the service. If it shows any ignorance on the part of the Government, it shows that even this Government were unaware of the large number of people who were prevented by poverty from getting the things that those who were rich were able to get. I should like to know what the Opposition are really criticising. Are they criticising the machinery of getting out the Estimate, or do they feel that the Estimate having been made, it should be maintained irrespective of its consequences? Do the Opposition suggest that because the number of people who would benefit by an expensive drug like streptomycin was unknown, tubercular people should die because the Estimate was wrong? These are things we want to know.
      If that is the position, I think this Debate will be the finest ammunition for the General Election that there has ever been. Nobody was in a position to get within easy reach of the actual cost. I have assisted in hospital budgeting for many years. We were never able to foretell actual costs. In this instance there was no method by which we could have estimated precisely the expense of the service. I do not want to spend much time on the question of spectacles, dentures or the general practitioner service, but when the right hon. Member for the City of London refers to this money coming out of the pockets of the people, does he not realise that it is going back into the pockets of the workers?
      In the old days a patient would go to a general practitioner who would do his best and would then say, "You are a hospital case." The patient having been recommended to a hospital, almost the first thing he did at the hospital was to visit the almoner who did her best to find out how much that patient could pay while in hospital. Do hon. Members realise what a deterrent that was? Have they had anything to do with what are called legally liable relatives? Are they aware that a patient in hospital very often had to be maintained by a father or grandfather, daughter or son, granddaughter or grandson? The fact that that practice is not followed now means that money is definitely going into the pockets of the workers. The people ought to understand that this Health Service in itself has raised the standard of the workers by improving the value of their
      1376
      wages. In budgeting it was not possible for the Ministry to have had any idea at all of what this enormous service, with its many authorities, would cost.
      I wish to turn my attention to hospitals. It is not just a question of improved buildings, neither is it a question of constructing new buildings. All over the country there were places called hospitals which had no right to be so called. The regional hospital boards in their task of reorganisation found it necessary to staff these hospitals to ensure that the people should get what the service is intended to give them. We find, therefore, that poor law institutions, for instance, have had to be reorganised so that their medical staffs now possess specialists, consultants and medical teams to enable patients to receive what the service ought to give them. I do not know that it was possible to estimate the expense of that reorganisation, but even if there has been an excessive expenditure over the Estimate, people are getting value for their money. It is not merely a question of money in itself; it is what money brings, it is the value.
      Much has been said about spectacles and dentures. Do hon. Members know that in this country there are working-class families who were regularly compelled to put money aside because one member of the family needed a surgical appliance? They might need caliper splints costing £30, surgical boots, spinal jackets, costing £40, abdominal belts, trusses and things of that sort which were a constant drain on their resources. If the workers are, in part, paying for this service, they are getting something back in return. At the present time in our hospitals there are people who are getting those appliances without having to go to their Members of Parliament or having to get letters from the Surgical Aid Society. The right hon. Member for the City of London referred to the Central Health Services Council. He complained that part of our trouble is due to the fact that the Minister does not consult those whom, for lack of a better phrase, I will describe as being at the point of production. But is that exactly true? What is the function of the Central Health Services Council? That is a body which, in consultation with the Minister, sets up advisory committees.
      Colonel Stoddart-Scott: When was it formed?
      Mr. Messer: It was formed comparatively recently, but in view of the type of chairman it has, it is making up for lost time.
      Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Who is the chairman?
      Mr. Messer: I want to deal with this matter without creating any bitterness, because, in my view, this subject rises above any political consideration. I do not want to make party capital out of this, and if the Opposition are attempting to do so, they are playing right into the hands of the Government. My view is that these are considerations which rise superior to any party political concept. There is the ground of common humanity which in times of stress in this country has brought parties together. There could be no greater disservice to the people of this country than to throw this service into the political cockpit so that one part is charging the other with doing its best to injure the worker. I do not want to talk politics to that extent, but I want to defend the service because I see in the attack made upon it, the possibility of a demand that there shall be a global sum of money which the Minister will be permitted to expend, irrespective of the needs. In my view that would be wrong.
      Let me return to the Central Health Services Council. It would have been formed earlier had it not been for the difficulty of getting those whom the Minister himself required to be there, in the capacity not so much of representatives, as of people who brought experience. It was not the fault of the Minister that it was formed late. It was rather the difficulty of getting the people to agree about proportions. What is its job? The Central Health Services Council does nothing at all in the administration of the service. That is not its job. I will explain what is its function.
      In my view the House can take it that in the existence of the Central Health Services Council there is a protection of the public interest. The British Medical Association are there, and they will do their best to look after the doctors. Those who have experience in local government are there, and they will bring a contribution which will be valuable. There are those who represent, in the truest sense of the word, every aspect of this
      1378
      service. That council, in consultation with the Minister, will recommend the formation of certain advisory bodies. There has been talk of bureaucracy. That Central Health Services Council is the negation of bureaucracy because there will be set up advisory bodies which will be completely autonomous and which will be able to advise the Minister on any point of the service. There will be advisory committees on every aspect of the service and they will be able to advise the Minister without having to wait for the consent of the Central Health Services Council. That will not prevent the Council from telling the Minister not to accept the advice, but nevertheless the advice will be given by the autonomous bodies.
      A great deal has been said about the administration of hospitals—"the over-administration." I have a reference in a book called "The Hospital," which is a technical book, criticising hospital administration. What has been done? The work of fusing the voluntary hospitals with the municipal hospitals is a greater job than the majority of the people of this country realise. In this scheme the Minister has followed what every reformer in this field has agreed is the right procedure by grouping hospitals together, putting them under a management committee, creating a unit itself so balanced as to provide a service for the area in which the hospital is situated.
      In launching a service like this, is no allowance to be made for the necessity of regarding the commencement of it as an experiment? Anybody who ties himself at the beginning of a work of this description to any form, to any set ideas, is heading for disaster. It is essential, in the nature of things, that one should begin with a reservation that, where experience shows adaptations are needed, those adaptations and changes will be made. As a consequence, the management committees of the hospitals inevitably tended, I think, to over-staff, but that is not incapable of correction. Indeed, I think there will need to be regrouping of hospitals in the light of new buildings and fresh interests. There is no reason why we should think that, having launched this enormous scheme, it must travel in the direction in which it

      1379
      has set out without the possibility of any divergence to the right or left.
      What is important is to realise that at the present time we are not giving the service which the people need. That is not due to the fact that it is a national service but to the fact that it has been neglected for so many years. It will take years to catch up with the arrears. The people have been without the service for so long that now it has been attempted as a public service, obviously and necessarily it will take some time to catch up with the arrears. I feel that the Supplementary Estimates can very easily be justified. They can be justified on the ground of recognition that human life is more important than cash, that if we are to weigh up the question of whether it is money or life that matters, then life must have priority in our regard.
      5.26 p.m.
      Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I feel disposed to agree with the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) that it would be a pity if discussion of the National Health Service were dragged into the political cockpit. But I am afraid he has spoken too late. For some extraordinary reason, when the National Health Service comes up for discussion there is always a great deal of acrimony. That is strange when we remember that both parties, indeed all parties, at the last Election had a National Health Service in their programme and that it is difficult for the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health to point to any occasion when there has been factious opposition on this score from this side of the House.
      Any hon. Member is surely free to point out the fault in any particular scheme and to vote against it, and that is what we did with the National Health Service Act when it was before the House. Nevertheless, at all stages of discussion in this House, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee upstairs, the right hon. Gentleman was never faced with any factious opposition, and ever since this scheme came into operation he has never had anything but helpful action from His Majesty's Opposition.—[Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman is an expert at laughing when he is sitting in his place, but I challenge him to
      1380
      prove to the contrary to what I have said when he is standing at that Box.
      This is a Supplementary Estimate for £52 million on top of a principal Estimate of £161 million for nine months. I think it is important that the Committee should understand that this Estimate does not by any means present the whole financial picture. The public indebtedness at the end of the present financial year in respect of this service will be far higher than the total amount shown in the Estimates. I am making no allegation against the right hon. Gentleman here, but simply pointing out that there is necessarily a considerable lag in the actual payments. As this scheme came into operation only during the course of the current year, there is no carry-over from the previous year and, of course, in all future years there will be a carry-over from the beginning to counter-balance what is carried forward to the next year.
      As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, the dental service at the moment is running at an annual cost of somewhere between £40 million and £50 million. That is one of the services for which we can at the present produce the actual cost. I venture to say that, taking these services as a whole, the real Estimates for the current year should show a running expenditure of something of the order of £300 million to £350 million. There is some temptation to discuss the figures in relation to the Estimates generally. Hon. Members opposite, on any suggestion that here is a high expenditure for public health, have cheered; but let it be remembered that the resources of this country are limited, and it may well be that by spending £300 million a year on this National Health Service we are stopping directly or indirectly the building of something like 100,000 new houses.
      Mr. Cecil Poole: Nonsense.
      Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I should be out of Order if I were to continue the discussion on those lines, but I think that hon. Members opposite at least appreciate that we are here merely dealing with a Supplementary Estimate, and all that we can do is to look into the particular merits or demerits of that Estimate. It is as extraordinary an Estimate as has ever been presented to the House. The Government's defence is two-fold. They first say that an accurate Estimate was impossible in the circumstances, and, secondly,

      1381
      that they did not realise what the initial rush to use the service would he. I want to examine that defence.
      One must examine it necessarily in detail. I will take one item, which is the most extraordinary, in the discrepancy between the Government's original Estimate and the present Supplementary Estimate. Item D.5 deals with ophthalmic services. It shows an increase of between five and sixfold. The Minister of Health has himself admitted that the production of spectacles in this country in the year before this scheme came into operation was of the order of four million pairs. An hon. Gentleman in this connection recently interrupted from the Benches behind, and asked how many of these were for export. That is a question only known to the Government, but I suggest that well under 10 per cent. and probably less than 1 per cent. actually went for export. The right hon. Gentleman must have known that four million pairs of spectacles were being produced and sold in this country every year, and he must have known that the cost of supplying those spectacles to people in this country was somewhere about £3 a pair.
      Mr. C. Poole: Has the hon. Gentleman no knowledge of the large number of pairs of spectacles which were sold by Woolworths and other stores at 6d. to 1s. 6d.?
      Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that those are in addition to the four million or part of the four million. What I suggest to the Committee is that the demand was of the order of four million. If some of the people were satisfied with bad spectacles from Woolworths, that would be all the more reason for adding to the Estimate because it would increase the demand for new ones. Those who had bought bad pairs in the past would want good pairs for the future. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for reinforcing my argument. The cost of sight testing, of dispensing, of producing the frames, lenses and cases was before the scheme, and is still under the scheme about £3 a pair. Therefore, it must have been know to the Government that the ophthalmic service provided under this scheme would be running at least at £12 million a year, apart from any increased demand by reason of the fact that we have now a free scheme instead of one
      1382
      for which the people had to pay. On this one item we can prove chapter and verse that the Government must have failed in their duty to take into account all the facts. Looking at all these items, there would appear to be an extraordinary discrepancy between what was expected and what actually took place.
      The Parliamentary Secretary, in opening this Debate, said that accurate estimating was not possible. I am quite willing to agree with him, but I say that if an honest attempt had been made to estimate what would happen, the Government would surely have found that some of the Estimates had over-shot the mark instead of all being below it. What we find is that in every single case the Government are far below the mark. The suggestion which I am making, and which I wish to make quite clear, is that the Minister was not only guilty of bad estimating but guilty of reckless under-statement. My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) said that he did not charge the Minister with deliberate under-statement. In the eyes of the criminal law there is a point where recklessness amounts to deliberateness. My suggestion is that, wherever it was possible, these Estimates were put at the lowest conceivable figure, and that it must have been known to the Government that when the bill for this year came to be paid it would be far in excess of what they told the House in their Estimates presented at the beginning of the year.
      The right hon. Gentleman was determined to get this scheme and the whole of this scheme floated. He had many difficulties. I am quite satisfied that one of the difficulties which faced him was Treasury opposition. I am quite satisfied on the facts before me that the right hon. Gentleman must have known that this scheme would cost so much and that it was at least doubtful whether the finances of the country could carry it. I am quite satisfied that the policy of the Minister had been to keep the Estimates as low as possible so that the scheme would, at any rate, be on its feet, and the House would be presented with a fait accompli in the Supplementary Estimates.
      Mr. Bevan: What conclusion does the hon. Gentleman draw from that; that we ought, therefore, not to go on with the scheme at all?
      Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am going to deal with that point. The allegation which I am making now is that the right hon. Gentleman recklessly allowed the House and the country to be misled by bringing in an original Estimate which he must have known would be falsified in the light of events. The right hon. Gentleman, who is an adept tactician, must have appreciated that a large Supplementary Estimate on the Health Service would put his opponents, the Opposition, in a very difficult position. He must have appreciated very well that when a large Supplementary Estimate such as this was brought before the House it would require that the Opposition either voted for or against it. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt calculated to himself that if the Opposition allowed the Estimate to pass without a vote, then he would be able to make a mock of the claim of the Opposition to stand for retrenchment; and, on the other hand, he said to himself that if they voted againt the Estimate, he would be able to describe their action as an attack on the people's health. I am quite certain that that was in the right hon. Gentleman's mind.
      Major Bruce: Well, which is it?
      Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Judging by the smiles of hon. Members opposite, I am sure they appreciate that it was exactly this dilemma which was in the mind of the Minister.
      Mr. Bevan: What we are really smiling at is the embarrassment of the hon. Gentleman, who does not know whether to take the crown of thorns or the thirty pieces.
      Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman puts himself in the position of those elders who thought fit to offer such a price. My charge against the Government on these Estimates is that they have deliberately engineered this dilemma in order to put their opponents in difficulty.
      Mr. James Hudson: Who is being reckless now?
      Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Let me refer the House to an article which appeared in the "Daily Herald" of yesterday's date. The article will no doubt be familiar to hon. Members opposite, and particularly to the
      1384
      right hon. Gentleman whose portrait adorns it. The article is entitled:
      "The Tories Want To Axe Your Health."
      I notice that it was exactly what I was pointing out was in the minds of hon. Members opposite. The article is written by the hon. Member for Barnet (Dr. Taylor), and contains the following passage:
      "The Tories' aim is to slash the Supplementary Estimates amounting to £221 million, and in particular to cut down the extra £58 million required for the National Health Service and the £52 million for food subsidies. Yet the extra millions for health are to be spent because far more people than was expected are now found to be in urgent need of spectacles, hospital and dental treatment, and appliances."
      As regards spectacles, the first item referred to: is it really suggested that when the Government brought forward their original Estimate they thought that the people of this country would take advantage of only £2 million worth of spectacles at £3 a pair?
      Mr. C. Poole: They are not £3 a pair.
      Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That is the cost of producing and supplying spectacles.
      Mr. Poole: No, Sir.
      Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that £3 is not very far off the average price of supplying a pair of spectacles in this country. As regards the greater demand for hospitals: is that really a candid statement? Are these Estimates really swollen because of the additional accommodation provided for the people? What is the additional accommodation? Six thousand beds. That is the total addition so far produced by the right hon. Gentleman. If he suggests that affords any substantial reason for increasing these Estimates, I hope that he will develop it in the course of his speech.
      Mrs. Braddock: What does the hon. Member suggest is the cost per patient per week at the moment?
      Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I think I am right in saying that the present cost is about £350 per bed per year. The hon. Lady can do some quick arithmetic for herself; I cannot make the division for her in the middle of my speech.

      1385
      The fact of the matter is that it is not the increased number of patients in hospitals that is responsible for this treatment. There is a hugely swollen Estimate for the hospitals. I concede to the right hon. Gentleman that a large part of that swollen Estimate is fully justified; I do not deny that; I concede that certain wages and salaries were very properly increased, irrespective of the Government's general policy: I concede also that there was much equipment needed and repair work to be done. But what I do say is that the right hon. Gentleman has devised no means of controlling the expenditure of those hospitals.
      Let me give a specific example. A hospital board has before it at its normal monthly meeting an estimate for, say, £1,500 for some specialised item of equipment. The question will be asked: "Do we need this equipment? It is very expensive." The reply will be given: "The head of the department concerned says that he requires it." On that statement the board will have no option but to say: "Well, the equipment must be got." I think hon. Members opposite would agree with me there. But that does not really raise the essential question. If that hospital were in any way limited in the amount of money it had to spend, would it choose that item of equipment or would it spend the money better in some other way?
      Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member, who is a member of a board of governors of a teaching hospital, is now quite properly addressing to the Committee an argument of very considerable importance, but it is the opposite argument from that addressed to us by his right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton), who charged me with having so over-centralised an administration that I had a huge bureaucracy controlling the whole of it. Now, apparently, I am charged with having no direct financial control over the board of governors. Now, which charge is the Opposition making? That too much responsibility is devolved on the board of governors, or too little? Which?
      Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: In replying to the right hon. Gentleman, I am getting very near to being out of Order. My reply is that this is one of the fundamental flaws in his scheme.
      Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member really must be fair now. So much nonsense has been talked by the Opposition, and indeed by the Tory papers, that hon. Members opposite must now begin to develop a sense of responsibility. Which charge is being made? Is it that the various administrative bodies—the management committees of hospitals and the boards of governors of teaching hospitals—have too much or too little self-government? Is the administration too much over-centralised, or is it too much delegated? Which is the position?
      Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The right hon. Gentleman is assuming that I accept his method of organising the hospitals. He will remember that during the passage of the Act, both in Committee and in the House, we always said that this position would be bound to arise if the hospitals were organized——
      Mr. Albu: Give us the answer.
      Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am giving the answer. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to complete my sentence, we may get on a little faster. The answer I give is that the right hon. Gentleman's question is based on the assumption that I accept the broad basis of his scheme. Now, I do not accept the broad basis of his scheme.
      Mr. Bevan: Which basis does the hon. Gentleman accept?
      Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I would have had a different scheme from this one. I would not have nationalised the hospitals in the way he has done. That is my answer.
      Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman is in an awful dilemma; I know it and he knows it. He has presented to the Committee a concrete case, because out of his experience, he does not remain in the realms of abstraction like his right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London. He comes down to brass tacks. Take the concrete case which the hon. Member has put. It is recommended that an instrument costing a certain sum of money should be purchased. Who should decide whether that instrument is to be purchased? Should it be the Minister or the board of governors? If it were the board of governors, as the

      1387
      hon. Gentleman would have it, and the hospital were not nationalised, who would pay for it?
      Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I will answer the right hon. Gentleman in this way. Taking his scheme as I find it——
      Mr. Bevan: No, under the hon. Gentleman's scheme, what would he do?
      The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles): The Debate must be continued on the basis of the present scheme under the National Health Service. We cannot have any kind of hypothetical discussions about how other schemes might have worked.
      Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I will continue the argument about the intentions of the Government in making this Estimate. I was referring to this article which, if not official, was obviously published on behalf of the party opposite, or at any rate inspired by the party headquarters.
      Dr. Stephen Taylor: I am sure that it was not inspired at all. I am afraid that it flowed from my brain, such as it is, quite spontaneously.
      Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Perhaps we are using the word "inspired" in different senses. This paragraph was accepted by the large number of loyal Socialists who no doubt read it as, if not official or inspired, at any rate a view which was reasonable to Labour Members of Parliament. The paragraph said:
      "In 1938, two and a half out of three and a half million school children needed dental treatment. Among forces recruits, 90 per cent. of men and 86 per cent. of women needed dental treatment. One approved society found that over 12 per cent. of its members under 18 needed complete upper and lower dentures. Dentists in the new service are finding that many people need eight or nine fillings."
      Dr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what is explained in the article. I do not think anybody knew that dentists were going to work 70 or 80 hours a week in order to make good these defects.
      Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Gentleman wrote that article with a view to persuading the country that the wicked Tories were launching a frontal attack on the Health Service and, in particular, that they were trying to do damage to the dental scheme which was so urgently
      1388
      needed because of the position of the younger members of the community. I do not think that I have done the hon. Member any injustice.
      Dr. Taylor rose——
      Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Time is passing and I am afraid I cannot give way. I will now read what was said by one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues—the only supporter of the right hon. Gentleman who has any practical knowledge of the dental scheme—only two nights ago in this House. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Baird) said of the dentists:
      "We all know that they are being paid too much and that the method of the Government to cut them is by saying, 'Let him carry on at the full rate as long as he works 42 hours a week.' Only after he works overtime on behalf of the Government, trying to treat people who need it, is his rate cut by a half, and that is an entirely wrong method."
      The hon. Member for East Wolverhamp-ton also said:
      "Hon. Members are aware of the state of the priority service in dentistry and the dental service for schools. Because of the shortsightedness of the Minister the priority dental services have already to a great extent broken down."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 1088–9.]
      —not because of anything that the wicked Tories have done, but because of what the right hon. Gentleman has done by means of his scheme. There seems to be considerable discrepancy between what the hon. Member for Barnet wrote in a newspaper, where he cannot be cross-examined, and what was said by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton.
      My right hon. Friend has pointed out one feature which may be worth taking a little further. The article has an elaborate photograph of a series of buildings surrounded by roads and growing trees, and underneath is written:
      "First of London's great new Health Centres, to be built on the Woodberry Downs Estate by the L.C.C."
      I was a little surprised when I saw that. I did not know that the L.C.C. had built a great new centre.
      Dr. Taylor: The hon. Member has read out the words "to be built." I do not see how one could make it any clearer than that.
      Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: What this says is:
      "First of London's great new Health Centres, to be built…"
      When that is written under a photograph which has nothing to indicate that it is of an architect's model and not an original, a very large number of people would take it as I did. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the prostituted Tory Press. If the Tory Press be guilty of prostitution, I can only say that this article is the whore of Babylon herself. The Minister is like a plumber who has been called in to repair an old-fashioned and war-damaged water supply. Instead of seeking to put it right he has simply torn off the tap and is now shouting, "Plenty for all; help yourselves." At the same time he is defying his critics to turn off the water at the main. We are not going to turn off the water at the main. It is obvious that the people must continue to receive this health service. What we shall do, having discovered the nature of our plumber, is to sack the plumber and get another.
      5.59 p.m.
      Miss Bacon: I do not propose to answer the points which the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) was trying to make because I am not sure of the line of his argument. I want first of all to congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the way in which he presented these Estimates. He had a very good story to tell and he told it very well indeed. It was quite different from the unintelligible floundering we had from the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton). The fact that the Opposition have threatened a Vote of Censure shows how completely out of touch they are with the feeling of the people. All this hullaballoo has arisen because we have underestimated the amount to be spent on the Health Service. We find from the speeches which we have had from the Opposition that there is no criticism of the actual expenditure but only criticism of the fact that we underestimated what the needs of the people would be. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are in danger of under-estimating something: the popularity of this service with the people. Indeed the National Health Service is the most popular Measure ever passed by any Government in the history of our country.
      1390
      I spent last week-end at Batley and Morley, where, I am quite sure, the people today will give an answer to the kind of speeches we have had here this afternoon. I heard on Sunday night in a large cinema the reaction of the people of Batley and Morley to the threatened Vote of Censure by the Leader of the Opposition. Our health today is extremely good. The infant mortality rate, the maternity mortality rate, and all the other health figures speak for themselves. The two hon. Members opposite who have spoken this afternoon said that this scheme was really the scheme of the Opposition and not of this Government. That is rather like a passage which appeared in the "Sunday Express" on 13th February written by a man who calls himself "Cross Bencher." He said:
      "People know that Churchill stands second to none in his desire for first-rate social services. They know it was he who initiated the National Health Service, in the glory of which Mr. Aneurin Bevan now brazenly basks."
      I put one question to the Opposition: If this is really the health service of the Leader of the Opposition, if it is really the health service of the Opposition, and not ours, why is it that in May, 1946, the Tory Opposition voted against the Health Service scheme, both on Second Reading and on Third Reading?
      I believe this attack today is quite hypocritical. This Government has spent a great amount of money on the social services. There are various groups in the country at present who are asking for more. I shall not go into the rights or wrongs of their case; they may have a good case; but it is noticeable that in recent months the Tories have been encouraging those pressure groups to ask for more services of one kind or another. How then do the Opposition reconcile that attitude with the attitude they are taking up today, which is one of advocating cutting down expenditure in the most vital of our social services?
      I believe that the real reason why these Estimates are being opposed is summed up well in the leading article of the "Evening Standard" of 10th February, which started in this way:
      "The Supplementary Estimates of £221 million deal a vicious blow to the hopes of a reduction in the standard rate of Income Tax this year."
      That is the crux of the criticism. In the opinion of the party opposite money has

      1391
      always been much more important than men. But suppose we had our reduced Income Tax, suppose we had reduced the social services, what would have happened? It would have meant that the old age pensioner, the widow, the person of small means, would not have had the reduction in Income Tax but would have had to do without the health services as they have had to do without them in the past. If it is a choice of a reduction in Income Tax and the provision of proper health services and cheap food for the people, I hope this Government will always choose adequate health services and cheap food for the people of our country.
      We all know that there have been slight difficulties in the working of different parts of the Act, but having regard to the great venture which it was, it is amazing that the difficulties were not even greater. It has been suggested today that the Act should have been postponed. I do not agree. The Parliamentary Secretary said this afternoon that at the back of all the figures were people. We have all seen these people and we all know their difficulties. One case comes to my mind of a woman who came to me two years ago to see if I could get her an artificial hand. She had not had a right hand for 40 years. Two years ago I could not get her a hand from any source. She came to me again in August of last year, and I was able to direct her to the Ministry of Pensions hospital, and the hand is being supplied. If we had postponed the Health Service we should have postponed the date at which these people received the things to which they were entitled.
      The hon. Member for South Hendon referred to health centres. We shall not get an absolutely first-rate general practitioner scheme until we have health centres all over the country. I hope my right hon. Friend will not be deterred in any way by criticisms of expense, from building these health centres as quickly as possible.
      I was pleased to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary of the great increase in the provision of nurses. One of the greatest difficulties in getting young women to enter the nursing service is that they leave school at 15 wanting to become nurses and, by the time they are
      1392
      17 or 18, they have gone into some other employment. In Leeds we have just started a scheme which I hope will be copied in other cities. Our course for girls starts at 14. It encourages the girls to stay at school and take this scheme for three years until they are able to enter hospital.
      I want to say a word about a part of the service which is rather in the background. A good deal of the Supplementary Estimate for which the Minister of Health is asking today is for specialist services and teaching hospitals. I believe there has been some misunderstanding with regard to specialists. Can patients have any choice in asking for a specialist, or must it be absolutely on the first recommendation by the general practitioner? Then there is the question of domiciliary visits. I have heard of one or two cases where the patient or the patient's family thought that the specialist was paying a visit under the National Health scheme, when in fact the visit was a private one and they afterwards received a bill for so many guineas. Would my right hon. Friend make it perfectly clear to general practitioners that unless a patient, or the patient's family, specifically asks for the services of a specialist in a private capacity, that visit shall be regarded as being under the National Health Service? There has been a suggestion in one or two cases that a general practitioner has said that it would take longer to get a domiciliary visit by a specialist under the scheme, than it would to bring in a specialist privately.
      My other point concerns the teaching hospitals, which include some of our greatest and best hospitals. Hon. Members will remember that at the time the Bill went through Parliament, there was a demand from some of us on this side that the teaching hospitals should be under the control of the regional hospital board like other hospitals. This was not conceded, except in the case of Scotland. The Scots hung on, perhaps, a little more tenaciously than we did, and it was granted to them.
      I do not wish to weary the Committee with local matters but a situation is arising in my own city which is likely to arise elsewhere in the country. We have a large teaching hospital—the Leeds General Infirmary—which, together with the maternity and

      1393
      women's hospitals, has 1,000 beds and was regarded by the Goodenough Committee as sufficiently large to be a teaching unit. In another part of the city we have a large hospital which was formerly a local authority hospital. We have reached the position where the teaching hospital is asking for 500 more beds from the former municipal hospital. This request is being strongly resisted by the management committee of the non-teaching hospital, not because the management committee feel they will lose their influence in that hospital or because they do not realise the importance of medical education, but because they feel that they might lose control of the allocation of beds in the hospital.
      In our teaching hospitals we still have a system of control of beds by specialists, and I hope my right hon. Friend will allay the impression that not always do the right people get into the beds so controlled by specialists. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will turn his attention to both the specialist and teaching hospital sides of the scheme. It is a great scheme, it has made a very good start and it is extremely popular with everybody. I hope that the demand by the other side of the Committee for a reduction of expenses in this, our most vital social service, will be greatly resisted.
      6.13 p.m.
      Colonel Stoddart-Scott: I am very glad to be able to follow the hon. Member for North-East Leeds (Miss Bacon), for I, too, have been in at the Batley and Morley By-election, but I came away with a quite different impression from that of the hon. Lady. I shall disappoint her very much, because she has tried to distort and misrepresent what has been said by us on this side. We have never recommended that these Estimates should be cut. One of my criticisms will be that certain moneys have not been spent. I hope I shall not shock the hon. Lady too much by taking that attitude. All of us in the Committee know that a great scheme like the National Health Service meets with many obstacles and difficulties before it is finally put on a satisfactory working basis. We on this side have had no doubt in our minds how much it would cost. My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr.
      1394
      R. A. Butler), in the Debate on the King's Speech, warned the Minister of the increased expenditure on the scheme. It is fantastic that the Minister should have tried to delude himself and his advisers, in preparing his first Estimate, that by the suggestions that the wicked Tories were quite wrong in saying the scheme would cost so much.
      I listened with great interest to the excuses and reasons given by the Parliamentary Secretary of why the Government were so much out in their Estimates. It is quite inaccurate—indeed, it is nonsense and misleading—to say it was because they did not know what demands were to be made upon these services nor the terms upon which they were based. My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) referred to spectacles. It is generally known, or should be known—certainly at the Ministry, for it is known by others—that the annual consumption of spectacles in this country is four million pairs per year. An hon. Member asked how many pairs have been exported. The "Journal of Trade and Navigation," which I have here, shows that all the optical instruments, of every kind, exported last year did not amount to more than one-third of a million pounds. In the previous year the figure was even less, at a quarter of a million pounds. It is impossible, therefore, to understand why the Government should budget for less than one million pairs throughout the country when they must have known that as soon as spectacles were issued free the demand would most certainly increase.
      I am delighted that the Health Services are being used to such a great extent, and that when a mother visits her doctor she takes all her children with her so that they may all be examined at the same time. We are now approaching that desirable state when we shall have not only curative, but also preventive, medicine. This explains to some extent why doctors now have to work so hard. It is, however, essential that they should be contented and happy in their task, for good medicine can come only when you have the contented and satisfied doctors and equally contented and satisfied patients.
      I wish to ask the Minister about the increased estimate of £2 million for the

      1395
      general practitioner service. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that £500,000, I think, was to be applied for extra travelling allowance. Where is the other £1½ million going? Is it payment for work done by doctors in the last six months in treating foreigners who visit this country or holiday-makers and other temporary visitors to our various towns and resorts? Have the methods of payment for that work and the number of people so treated yet been decided? If so, how much of that additional £1½ million will go to doctors for their services in this direction? In holiday resorts and seaside towns this can make a very large contribution towards the income of doctors.
      I am equally pleased that dentists have been so overworked during the last six months for in the past Britain's teeth were not the brightest pearls in our country's diadem. I am glad that such great use is being made of this service and that people are dentally-minded and prepared to visit dentists to have their teeth filled and dentures made. The number of dentists, however, is sufficient to provide only about half the needs of the service. Unless they are to work double their normal hours it will be quite impossible for all the calls which are made upon their services to be satisfied. I must ask the Minister how his estimate could be wrong by anything like as much as £12 million for England and Wales, or by £13 million if Scotland is included. He has stated that he did not know how many dentists were coming into the scheme. Why did he not know? He used fees to bribe the dentists to come in and when he realised the amount of fees his Ministry was prepared to grant he should have known that 90 per cent. of the dentists would come into the scheme.
      Mr. Blenkinsop: I thought it was clearly understood that the Estimates were prepared long before the Spens Committee report had been presented, and that at the time the Estimates were prepared it was quite impossible to say how many dentists would come into the scheme.
      Colonel Stoddart-Scott: The Estimates were prepared, I gather, seven months before the scheme was started. It was
      1396
      obvious that the Minister intended to bribe dentists to come in. He has succeeded by bribery in getting 90 per cent. of them, although almost every branch of dentists throughout the country—and sometimes 100 per cent. of them—expressed their unwillingness to come anywhere near the scheme at all.
      Mr. Blenkinsop: So far from there being any truth in the suggestion of what the hon. and gallant Member calls bribery of dentists, at that time a great body of dentists were insisting that they were not coming into the scheme.
      Colonel Stoddart-Scott: The Minister very soon spoke about the amount of money he had to agree to pay to the dentists as a great public scandal and he showed great speed in introducing a regulation to reduce their salaries. It is an equally great public scandal that doctors are not being better paid. They have never worked for so long or done so much work, had so many patients to attend, and had so many forms to fill in, and received so little pay. The Minister does not show the same speed in dealing with this public scandal.
      Dr. Morgan: Where is the B.M.A.?
      Colonel Stoddart-Scott: I want the Minister to tell us what steps he is taking to prevent abuse of this scheme. What is done to prevent a patient getting two sets of dentures, one from one dentist and another from another dentist? Have the Ministry any method of preventing abuse?
      The ophthalmic service has been underestimated for England and Wales to the extent of £11 million. Why is £11 million extra wanted for that service? Is it to provide the children with splinterless glasses, such as they could obtain before the service came into operation? That is a service which should be provided. If it is not provided from this £11 million, is it intended to include it in the next Estimate?
      Mr. W. Griffiths: The hon. and gallant Member has referred to children getting splinterless glasses before the scheme came into operation. Will he also tell the Committee that they only got them when they paid for them?
      Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Yes, in exactly the same way as they got them under the National Health Insurance scheme. The Minister thought that that was generally known and I thought it was generally known throughout the Committee. What steps are being taken to prevent any abuse of this service or to prevent people from getting two, or three pairs of spectacles? It is possible to get two pairs——
      Mr. Blenkinsop: What is wrong with that? After all, two pairs may be necessary in very many cases.
      Colonel Stoddart-Scott: I am sorry if I used the word "abuse." Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us how many pairs are permitted under the scheme?
      Mr. Blenkinsop: When it is medically necessary to have more pairs, people can have them.
      Colonel Stoddart-Scott: If a doctor recommends that they should have two or three pairs that is all right, but if a patient himself decides that he wants another pair, what check is there to prevent abuse taking place?
      The Estimate for hospitals is £22,330,000 out, and I do not think it includes Scottish hospitals. How did the Ministry under-estimate to that extent, when the demand upon beds and the cost of local authority hospitals and voluntary hospitals over the past few years was known? It seems extraordinary that one could be £22,330,000 out in that Estimate. After all, over 50,000 beds are closed due to under-staffing at present. It is not as though we had put into operation all the vast number of beds previously used in this country. How is it that there is such an enormous number of beds unstaffed at present? The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the number of nurses has greatly increased from 1938 to 1948. The number of nurses has increased by no fewer than 35,000 in the last 10 years from 96,800 to 132,000. There are no fewer than 35,000 more nurses in the Kingdom now than there were in 1938 yet something like 50,000 beds are unmanned at present.
      It is stated that £19 million has been spent on running costs, specialists' fees and maintenance. Can the Parliamentary
      1398
      Secretary break that up and tell us how much went on specialist services and how much on increased administrative services to the hospitals? He referred to the contribution made to the Ministry of Pensions of £500,000 in the whole year. Has the Parliamentary Secretary not yet read the National Health Service Act? He will see in Section 1 the first duty of the Minister. It says:
      "It shall he the duty of the Minister of Health … to promote the establishment in England and Wales of a comprehensive health service."
      Why is it that the Minister permits, alongside the National Health Service, another health service, that of the Ministry of Pensions, and another, that of the Ministry of Education? The duty that Parliament laid on him was to provide one comprehensive Health Service.
      Mr. Blenkinsop: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member once more. This is rather interesting. Does he suggest closing down the Ministry of Pensions service, or was it not sensible to utilise that service?
      Colonel Stoddart-Scott: I do not suggest that the service should be closed down, but that it should be taken over by the Minister of Health. I do not see how we can have a comprehensive Health Service until the health services run by the Ministry of Pensions and the Ministry of Education are all under the same Minister.
      Dr. Morgan: Is it not a fact that hon. Members opposite actually opposed that proposition when it was put forward from this side of the Committee?
      Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Indeed, no. It has always been our policy that all health services in the country should be under one Minister. The National Health Service Act instructs the Minister that he shall set up one comprehensive Health Service in this country. Because the dental officers in our schools are under the Ministry of Education, is that the reason why the Minister of Health has shown so little interest in their welfare? The Minister has spoken on many occasions about the priority dental services for children and for nursing and expectant mothers, yet we find that there are counties in which there is not one dental officer——
      Mr. Somerville Hastings: May I interrupt the hon. and gallant Member to ask which counties have not one dental officer
      Colonel Stoddart-Scott: I think I am right in saying Hertfordshire——
      Mr. John Paton: That is quite wrong. I happen to be a member of the Hertford County Council and I know that is quite untrue.
      Colonel Stoddart-Scott: I will withdraw and put a Question down to find out the correct number. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could find it out and tell us.
      Mr. Sydney Silverman: The hon. and gallant Member should find out——
      Colonel Stoddart-Scott: I will not give way to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) as he speaks so often and interrupts so much.
      Mr. Silverman: On a point of Order. The hon. and gallant Member has made a quite categorical statement that there are county authorities without one dental officer. He has been challenged to give one instance. He has given one instance in which he was mistaken. Is there not some obligation on the hon. and gallant Member to say on what basis he advances the charge?
      The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of Order.
      Sir William Darling: Further to that point of Order, is the hon. Member who raised the point of Order right——
      The Deputy-Chairman: I have already ruled that there is not a point of Order.
      Colonel Stoddart-Scott: If I am wrong I will withdraw. I will challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to clear this up by this evening by producing for us if he can—[Interruption.]—I will put down a Question so that I do not in any way mislead the House. My information is that Hertfordshire is the county that has no dental officer in its school service at the present moment.
      I want to speak about the grants to local health authorities, where the Minister
      1400
      is asking us to vote another £6 million. Will he tell us how much of that is to be spent, or has been spent—because I presume this money is being voted because it has already been spent—on building health centres. Can he tell us how many health centres we have at the present moment? Is he prepared to have temporary health centres set up or must they be permanent and specially built health centres? Because I gather that some local authorities have recommended that temporary health centres shall be established, but the Minister has declined to permit them and says that they must wait until permanent health centres are built. These are vital centres around which our practitioner service must work in the future in this Health Scheme and it is important that we do get health centres at the earliest moment. How much of that £6 million is being spent on health centres, or has been spent during the past six months?
      The Minister also gives a list of anticipated savings, and I wish to ask a question about the wisdom of having these savings during the past six months. The first is Central Health Service Council, £2,000. He anticipates a saving on that. Why is that——
      The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Member is not allowed to discuss savings at all.
      Colonel Stoddart-Scott: I am very sorry, because I wanted to raise that question of the refresher courses. I gather that I shall have to take some other opportunity of asking a Question about why money has not been spent on refresher courses and whether those courses are for doctors, and how important I consider that to be.
      This large additional Estimate is in my view, due to the fact that the Minister has tried to do too much too quickly. He has built up what I consider to be an over-centralised administration. He has collected many new people to go into hospital administration who in the past have had no experience at all of administering hospitals. He has shown a great unwillingness to accept advice, or take advice, or even to seek advice. He has prevented the setting up of his Advisory Central Health Council which could have been set up long before the scheme started. Now he sets it up and

      1401
      expects them to help to solve some of the difficulties and problems which are of his own making. I believe, too, that we could have avoided having so large an Estimate if he had only been a little more honest with the Committee when we had the Estimate last year. Therefore I think that the Minister must face up to this issue, and I hope that he will be willing in future to seek a little more advice and to take it.
      6.33 p.m.
      Mr. W. Griffiths: The hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey and Otley (Colonel Stoddart-Scott), along with the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) and another hon. Member, I think it was the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) spent some time and went into some detail, to prove that the Minister's Estimate for the supplementary opthalmic Service was wildly inaccurate. It was stated that there were statistics available on which he might have based a more realistic Estimate. We have heard from the hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey and Otley a production figure of four million pairs of spectacles per year manufactured and sold. I profoundly distrust those statistics. I do not think there were, prior to the introduction of the National Health Service, any reliable statistics upon which the Minister could have based an estimate of what was needed. Hon. Members must remember that when they speak of production they have to take into account the amount of frames and lenses that go into stock as well as the relatively small proportion sent overseas for the export trade, which is not inconsiderable.
      What I think the Committee should know is whether the Minister's Estimate on the supplementary ophthalmic service was a good one or not. Do the Opposition desire the people in this country to have their eyes examined by people who are properly qualified to examine them, and to be supplied with an accurate pair of spectacles? Or do they prefer that the system which prevailed in the days of their power should be continued, namely, that large sections of the deprived population of this country should have to buy their spectacles from Woolworth's, or have them handed down through generations of the family and so on, or fall into the hands of unqualified
      1402
      quacks? What is the view of the Opposition? It seems to me to make very heavy weather of a relatively small point, as they have done this afternoon.
      I think that these Supplementary Estimates are proof of the extent to which what I call the deprived people in the country failed to receive a health service. That is a position which the National Health Service is now seeking to liquidate. If there is a fault revealed by the Estimates it is that we on this side of the Committee, with all our experience and knowledge, failed to appreciate the size of the legacy we had inherited from the past. It really is not good enough for the Conservative Party to tell us that they too stand for a National Health Service, because we are entitled to say to the people of the country that every old age pensioner who gets a pair of spectacles and every mother who gets the set of dentures she has denied herself for years would not have got them if the Conservative Party had had their way. That is exemplified by their action on Second Reading when they voted against the principle. In my view they are today taking up a completely hypocritical attitude.
      I am not particularly concerned about these items in the Supplementary Estimates. I regard some of them at any rate as being non-recurring items. It is amusing to note the way the Opposition Press talk about the dental service. I am almost terrified when I go to the dentist, whether I have to pay for it or whether it is free. But from the way the Tories talk about it one would imagine that the workers were flocking to the dentists' chairs to get the drill on the tooth just because it is free. I have never heard such nonsense in my life.
      As the Committee knows, I am myself employed in the Health Service. I have an interest in that. I wish to say that in my view the supplementary opthalmic service is a great success. There are administrative faults which perhaps are now revealed, and which I believe will in time be remedied. I always contrast it with my pre-war experience when I first started my own practice in a working class area in the City of Manchester. In those days, four or five years before the war, my prospective patients knew I was in the neighbourhood, but when they

      1403
      came along they very often wanted to pay for their spectacles at the rate of sixpence a week. Very often they could not keep that up, and a large number of them were to be seen—it is a common sight in industrial centres in this country—trying to select a pair of glasses for themselves at the counter in Woolworth's.
      I am not unaware of the financial advantages to the practitioner which are inherent in the National Health Service. I always despise the awful hypocrisy of professional men who pretend that participation in the Service is not satisfactory from the point of view of remuneration. They are all being treated extremely well. A man can say that he does not like the Service because it interferes with his personal liberty. One is entitled to hold that view, though I do not share it. It is absolute nonsense to criticise the Service from the financial point of view.
      I also get a great deal of satisfaction from being able, for the first time, to devote such skill as I have to people who have a need, without having to ask how much money they have in their pocket and whether they can afford to pay for treatment. That is most satisfying. The view that the system is being abused is greatly exaggerated. My own experience and information from my colleagues show that very few people attempt to get something which they do not really need. In any event, the final decision is in the hands of the practitioner. If he is a man of personal integrity, it is up to him to have the moral courage to say that a person does not need an appliance even if he asks for one. I am aware of the fact that, human nature being what it is, when some people are met with a refusal they are a little disappointed because they cannot get what they want.
      I do not think that there is any considerable frivolous demand, though it is true that the demand has been so great that the industry in this country has been completely overwhelmed. Hon. Members will be aware, perhaps from their own experience or from having heard from their constituents, that long delays are involved. I envisaged that this might be the case and I said so in the House in a Debate a month or two before the service came into operation. The main difficulty is the limitation of the industry in its
      1404
      ability to produce ophthalmic lenses. A relatively small industry is concerned, and it cannot be rapidly expanded. I know that the Minister is aware of the difficulty and that steps have been taken to give encouragement to people who want to develop lens production in this country. I suggest that as a temporary measure we might consider the possibility of giving speedier satisfaction to the public by importing lenses from Canada, for example. The lenses could be finished and glazed in this country. I do not know what view the Treasury would take as possibly an exepnditure in dollars would be involved.
      I am sorry that hon. Members opposite did not carry the opposition which they expressed on the Second Reading of the National Health Service Bill to this stage today. I am convinced—and I am sure that they realise it despite the outburst of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) last Thursday—that this service is extremely popular with people of all political parties. They want it to be a success and they deeply resent the attempt by the Opposition—and I think perhaps the Press have been the worst in this respect—to exaggerate the difficulties attached to the beginnings of what I believe will prove to be the greatest National Health Service that the world has ever seen.
      6.45 p.m.
      Mr. Linstead: I was grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pudsey and Otley (Colonel Stoddart-Scott) for putting the Debate on an even keel when it had tended to lose itself in party controversy. I should like to repeat once again that to-day we are critcising bad original estimating on the part of the Ministry and that we are not criticising the service itself. I join with my hon. and gallant Friend in welcoming the way in which this service has been received by the people and in recognising that this money has been spent on something which the country needs and which the country is glad to have. We on this side of the Committee are doing the duty of His Majesty's Opposition, which is to criticise the demands of the Crown for money. So long as there is a House of Commons which remembers its historical task, that will be a duty which will always be discharged even if it is an unpleasant task for the people who have to do it.

      1405
      I was particularly sorry that the hon. Member for Barnet (Dr. Taylor), for whom I have some considerable respect and who I regret is not here at the moment, should have chosen for the title of that article in the "Daily Herald":
      "The Tories want to axe your health"
      because that is just the sort of unjustified political sneer which drags a national service down into the arena of political conflict.
      Mr. Frederick Lee: Would the hon. Gentleman, on the same basis of argument, agree that the same comment should apply to the type of political sneer which can be seen in the leading article in the "Evening Standard" tonight?
      Mr. Linstead: I have not seen it, but if in fact it is as the hon. Member suggests, what I say is as much a criticism of that article as of the other article. I am sure that the Minister will be the first to agree with me that he has found it necessary to cut substantially the capital estimates which have been put up to him by the regions for next year. If I wanted to descend to the level of controversy about which I am now complaining, I would be entitled to publish an article under the heading, "The Minister of Health has axed your health," for that is what has happened. But I say that once we drag a service of this kind into that type of controversy, we are degrading something which we ought to try to keep at a higher level. I most deeply regret that the hon. Member for Barnet should have descended to that type of controversy.
      There were three points in the very clear statement of the Parliamentary Secretary upon which I should like to comment. I consider that he was extremely disingenuous in the story he had to tell and we very properly, and I think very kindly, allowed him rather more latitude than we should have allowed someone else. Really he ought to have said to the Committee that one of the reasons why the Supplementary Estimate is so high is that for something like six months there was no control upon expenditure by hospitals anywhere in the country. Human nature being what it is, no one will be surprised if in those circumstances people who had had to suffer from shortages for ten years,
      1406
      through no fault of their own, begin to spend money freely. The Parliamentary Secretary might have owned up that that was one cause of his having to come to the Committee again. Also he might have said that very hard bargains were struck with the Minister by the doctors, the dentists, and possibly by other professions. If the Minister was to get this service on its feet, he had to give way, when in other circumstances he might have negotiated more toughly. I am sorry that those clear reasons were not given by the Parliamentary Secretary in his speech.
      May I make one comment about the figure which the Parliamentary Secretary disclosed concerning the pharmaceutical services? I think he said that the number of prescriptions had increased to 128 million in nine months, and, if so, it is an amazing tribute to the efficiency of this service that it was able to withstand that strain with practically no additional staff. I am very glad to notice that the Committee is in general sympathy with that remark.
      Speaking as chairman of a hospital management committee, I can touch upon one or two of the main features of the working of this service as we, working in the field, so to speak, see it. There is no need to taunt the service with bureaucracy or any of those easily-spoken words, but there are in any great organisation certain defects which seem almost inevitably to result from its size. Anyone who has been associated with this service must recognise that these defects are showing themselves and they cannot be avoided entirely in any circumstances. The Minister is trying to coordinate, and at the same time to liberate the service from some of the old handicaps under which hospitals were working, but there is a danger that fresh congestion is going to result.
      When he picked up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) about the spending of £1,500 by a teaching hospital, I think he put his finger on one of the fundamental difficulties with which we are faced in the service, namely, the extent to which we must decentralise and the extent to which we must at the same time standardise in the interests of a balanced service. The hospital management committees were told that they

      1407
      would have the choosing of their medical staff of the status of registrar and below. They welcomed that freedom, but along came a directive from the regional board saying, "When you appoint your registrar, will you see that there is a representative of the regional board there, because they are interested in the appointment of these people, from whom they select their specialists." Here we have the regional board coming down to the hospital level. There is at the present time a quite unfortunate and unnecessary competition between hospital groups in the payment of salaries and wages in their efforts to obtain staff, and in offering larger sums to them. How will that be regulated?
      Mr. Bevan: It is stopped.
      Mr. Linstead: But when we see, for example, a medical superintendent's secretary being re-graded as records officer in order that a higher salary might be paid to him, we recognise that there are still ways and means of perpetuating inequalities between group and group. I merely point that out to indicate that it is the Minister's problem how to prevent that kind of thing happening where he does not want it to happen.
      The second point I want to make is that regions and groups want certainty. I do not think they mind very much if they are told that they cannot have certain things, so long as they do know they cannot have them, but difficulties arise when they are not certain whether they will be allowed to have these things or not. I hope the Minister will be able before long to decide finally whether the present groups are to remain. Can he also give some indication of the amount of capital which is to be available for these groups over a period of four or five years, and then, so far as he can, leave the groups to operate the service with a degree of certainty? If they can have certainty, they can do it; without that certainty, it is going to be unnecessarily difficult.
      I think one can also report that there are administrative problems. How are we going to strike a balance between the voluntary work, which means so much to any hospital which has a connection with its own locality, and the work of
      1408
      officials of a service of this kind? A service of this kind is bound to throw more responsibility upon the officials running Somehow, we have to work out a new conception of the relationship between the officer and the management committee and the regional board. It is a new experiment in administration. Officials are bound to have much more interest in policy than in the past. These committees and boards will certainly have to have less to do with day-to-day administration unless they are to be completely submerged, and we must work out a new technique of partnership between the officials and their management committees and regional boards. It will be extremely interesting to see how this works out in practice in a great new national experiment of this kind.
      I would emphasise the necessity that the senior officers of the groups and boards, and may I say also the personnel of the boards and of management committees, should be of the highest quality possible. I rather doubt whether the secretaryships of the boards and of management committees are carrying salaries sufficient to keep the type of man with the qualifications and capacity that are required.
      Dr. Haden Guest: Does the hon. Member want more money?
      Mr. Linstead: What I want to see is that this vast sum of money is competently spent. When we are spending millions of money, it is necessary that the people who have the effective day-to-day handling of that money should be people of adequate capacity. We should not make the mistake of putting vast sums into a machine and then under-manning it in the matter of the quality of the people who have to run it. I am only pleading that, as far as some of the more important officials are concerned, the salaries and conditions of employment should be such as to attract and hold first-class people.
      The last thing I want to say does not really relate particularly to the hospital service. It was suggested by an hon. Member opposite that the record of the Opposition regarding our enthusiasm for a National Health Service was a poor one. I would remind the Committee that it was towards the end of the war that the first White Paper proposing a universal

      1409
      and comprehensive health service was introduced, when we had a Conservative Prime Minister and Minister of Health, Mr. Willink, and that that was approved by a House of Commons which was overwhelmingly Conservative.
      Sir Henry Morris-Jones: May I remind the hon. Gentleman, for the sake of accuracy, that the first Minister of Health concerned was a Liberal National?
      Mr. Linstead: Then it is even more broadly based.
      Mr. Bevan: Those were the two failures.
      Mr. Linstead: We are not yet in a position to assess the position of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to such a claim. I readily accept the hon. Member's correction and will say it was begun by a Liberal National and was continued in the House of Commons by a Conservative Minister.
      Two hon. Members opposite have asked why the Conservative Party divided against the National Health Service Act on the Second and Third Readings. There were several reasons. One of the main ones was that which I shall give in this last point I wish to make. We believe fundamentally that if we are to get a good health service we must grant independence to the professional men and women who have to work it. We believe that they must be primarily the servants of their patients and not primarily servants of the State. That is one of the three or four reasons why we divided against that Measure.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—Hon. Members opposite will perhaps allow me to make the point, for I proposed the rejection of the Measure on its Third Reading, and I have some memory of the reasons that I gave. That Measure having been passed, I am prepared to do what I can to see that it is made to work satisfactorily. It seems to us essential that the profession should be the servants of their patients and not have. as they now have, a divided loyalty.
      In so far as the right hon. Gentleman is able to leave professional freedom to the professions, so will he build up a better service than if the professions are confined as direct servants of the State working within State instructions. That is practice as against theory. For example, when we came to prepare the
      1410
      formulary which was published only today for the use of this service, containing certain standard medicines which may be prescribed, the Secretary of the British Medical Association and myself went to one of the right hon. Gentleman's officers, and asked "Are you proposing to prepare a formulary for the service?" We were told "Yes." Our reply was "If you prepare it in the Ministry it will be assumed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be sitting on the Committee which prepares the formulary, and it will get the reputation of providing for cheap and nasty medicines"—I say that not with any particular relationship to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time. We said "It will be far better if this is prepared by the medical and pharmaceutical professions and afterwards adopted by the Minister. Then there will be no question that it is a Ministry of Health production and that the Treasury has therefore had a hand in it from the point of view of cost."
      That book has been prepared and I assume that it will be adopted by the Minister. It is in that kind of way, by not attempting to do within the Department things which are better done outside, by not attempting to circumscribe the freedom of the professions an inch further than there is any need to do so, that the Minister will be able to get the finest type of service out of the operation of this Act.
      The main problem with which we shall all be faced in working this service is that of co-ordination versus freedom. I hope that whenever a directive has to be sent out, the right hon. Gentleman will pause and consider whether that directive is really necessary. If it is not, I hope that he will give instructions that it shall not be sent out. I hope that he will leave the professions, the regional boards and the management committees the greatest amount of liberty to put their enthusiasm into doing their job with the very minimum of central control.
      7.6 p.m.
      Mr. Fernyhough: It is not normally my nature to be rude or offensive, but I seldom remember having listened to so much humbug as I have heard this afternoon. Last Thursday, when the charge of the grossest carelessness was levelled at the Minister of Health, we were led to believe that the party opposite intended to go into battle

      1411
      in earnest and demolish once and for all the Minister of Health. What has happened? We now learn that the Minister of Health is high on their priority list from the point of view of esteem and affection. We also know that, it having revealed to the public that this attack was to be made, discretion has become the better part of valour, because the newspapers, almost without exception, have made it perfectly clear that if ever there was a vote-winning Measure, if ever there was a Measure which was popular with our people, it is this new National Health Service.
      It is amazing to me that from the fighting attitude of last Thursday till this afternoon, there has been a gradual climbing down. We have now reached the position where hon. Members are all agreed that this service is most desirable. What is more important, they, are trying to make out that they have always stood for a comprehensive National Health Service. They had unlimited power from the years immediately following the last war, with the exception of two brief intervals, right up to 1939, yet millions of our people went without these services which are so necessary to a well-run community. [An HON. MEMBER: "So did the hon. Member's party in 1929 and 1931."] The first time we have had the power we have done the things which, for a generation, hon. Members opposite neglected to do.
      It is true that, generally speaking, their attitude is that they believe in a comprehensive Health Service, provided that we can get it on the cheap——
      Sir W. Darling: A good idea.
      Mr. Fernyhough: —but if it is to cost money, then, of course, there are other considerations. One hon. Member opposite talked this afternoon about the fact that the cost may reach £300 million a year. What does it matter what the figure is if the needs of our people for medical, dental and hospital treatment which they require call for such a figure?
      Mr. Osborne: The Americans have to pay for it.
      Mr. Fernyhough: The Americans are not paying for our Health Service. I shall be quite prepared to debate the American loan when the occasion arises.
      1412
      The Minister is blamed for not having been able to foresee the number of people needing treatment. Yet who could have expected what happened? For example, when the mass-radiology unit goes round our factories, it is revealed that hundreds of people are suffering from tuberculosis, and no one was aware of it. The same is true of a service such as we are discussing. Once we begin to provide it, the people who were denied that service previously because they were too poor, go along and take advantage of it. The right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate for the party opposite, was most concerned because he said people had spectacles because they got them free. Has anyone ever heard such foolishness? People have spectacles because they need them. The point of view he advanced is the same as saying that one gets a hearing aid simply because it is free.
      Major Bruce: Or a monocle.
      Mr. Fernyhough: Yes, or a monocle or anything else. One makes use of these services as and when one needs them, and the people who have taken advantage of them have obviously needed them. I can quite understand the attitude of Members opposite. As far as they are concerned, and as far as their friends are concerned, nothing has been wrong with the health services, because if a man has a deep pocket, hospitals, specialist treatment and all the rest are open to him.
      Mr. Linstead: Will the hon. Member explain away the White Paper that was introduced before the end of the war?
      Mr. Fernyhough: That is only one of the many promises Members opposite have made to our people. Had they been returned in 1945, I believe they would have betrayed the people in that respect, just as they betrayed the people in the years before the war.
      Let us look at the Estimates. Twenty-seven million pounds is, in the main, covered by the treatment given by doctors, dentists and opticians. Therefore, if there is extravagance it is a reflection upon the members of the medical and dental professions, because they are the people in whom the Minister must have complete trust. I am sure no Member opposite would go into the country and say that the dentists or doctors are prostituting

      1413
      their profession by giving treatment which people do not require. What is bothering Members opposite is not the Supplementary Estimate, because we know they are willing to pass Estimates of even bigger dimensions in other connections, but that this scheme has worked substantially better than they anticipated. They thought there would be so many complaints and breakdowns that they would be provided with ammunition for their party propaganda. They have been terribly disappointed. The people have given the scheme a welcome, which augurs well for our prosperity at the next election.
      Mr. Osborne: That is all that matters to the hon. Member?
      Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. Member is now conveying the impression that we had no right to introduce this scheme.
      Mr. Osborne: No.
      Mr. Fernyhough: He either believes that we should have introduced this scheme, or that we should not have introduced it.
      Mr. Osborne: That is not my point. The hon. Member made a statement that the scheme augurs well for the prospects of his party at the next election as if that were the only consideration, apart from whether it is good for the people, or whether it is costing all the money we are getting from the Americans. It was as if all these other things did not matter, and that the only thing which did matter was whether this will do his party any good at the next election.
      Mr. Fernyhough: If the hon. Member reads HANSARD, he will see that he has forgotten my preceding sentence. I said that the people had given this scheme such a great welcome that it augurs well for our prosperity at the next election. The people will see that the Socialist Government have done something which no previous Government undertook, and have done it at a time when the difficulties are far greater than any difficulties any previous Government has had to face.
      Mr. Osborne: The argument of the hon. Member is that this will be a grand thing for his party at the next election because it will get them votes.
      Mr. Fernyhough: If the hon. Member will cast his mind back, he will remember that we made a pledge in "Let us
      1414
      Face the Future" to create a comprehensive Health Service if we were returned. What is strange to Members opposite, and what makes them so upset, is that a party observes its pledges when it gets into power.
      I agree that £58 million is a lot of money, but I should like to know how many people are better off in health as a result of this expenditure; I should even like to know how many people are alive who would otherwise be dead. If we have a proper sense of values and believe in the real things of life, we must acknowledge that expenditure on the sick and to combat disease is the noblest expenditure a nation can make.
      Mr. Osborne: The hon. Member is claiming that because of this vast expenditure, the health of the people is much better than it was in the bad old days when the Conservative Party was in power. Will he ask the Minister how many hospital beds are standing idle today? He will find that it is something like 60,000. Those beds were being used in the bad old days to help people to get better.
      Mr. Bevan: I am very glad the hon. Member has asked that question. When Members opposite come to debate Estimates they ought to inform themselves of the facts. There are very many more beds and nurses now than there were before the war.
      Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. Member should realise that because people now have a free medical service, many more are receiving treatment that necessitates going into hospital. Under the old system, people who could not afford medical treatment had to carry on struggling against adversity. These Estimates ought to be considered in relation to their effect on our people. The old age pensioners, the Service pensioners, as well as the workers, would be very much worse off had these services not been provided. There is no doubt that this scheme has tended towards stabilisation during these critical years. For the enlightenment of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) I will quote something that appeared in the editorial of last week's
      "Sunday Observer":
      "In principle it is hard to quarrel with the present social policy of the Government, bitter though its price is. It is frankly in many

      1415
      respects a policy of re-distributing individual income in favour of the poor at the expense not only of the rich (there are not many rich left) but of the moderately well-off."
      I think that is true. It is a policy with which as a party we agree and which, as a Government, we were sent here to accomplish.
      The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Mathers): The hon. Member must relate his remarks to the Supplementary Estimate. At present he is travelling rather far away from it.
      Mr. Fernyhough: Surely this is part of the Government's expenditure on the social services. I am using the quotation as an illustration. It went on to say:
      "It is natural for the middle-class to grumble at that, but its sacrifice is not without reward. It has saved this country from the bitter class struggle which threatens others."
      The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member must do as I tell him, and relate his remarks to the Supplementary Estimates that are before the Committee.
      Mr. Fernyhough: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Mathers, but I venture to say that if mine have been extraneous remarks, then many others have been extraneous in this Debate.
      I believe that this expenditure in the Supplementary Estimate is justified, if only because it has tended to give to our people in the poorer sections an opportunity of good health that might otherwise have been denied to them. Anything which does that, tends to strengthen the forces of Social Democracy. The article from which I read a quotation stated that it has saved this country from the forces of Communism. When hon. Members opposite criticise the Supplementary Estimates, as they are perfectly entitled to do, and use arguments such as they have used tonight, I wish they would remember to use those same arguments when they are battling on behalf a shareholders and the privileged people, on questions of compensation.
      7.23 p.m.
      Sir Henry Morris-Jones: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) brought the Debate on to a rather more constructive line. I am sorry that the hon. Member who followed him did not follow
      1416
      that example. It is easy for hon. Members opposite to speak upon a subject of this character. They are on an excellent wicket, the health of the people. They can argue against the Opposition and put the onus upon the Opposition to reduce the Vote or to attempt to reduce it, and so make political capital. The hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer), whose contributions to our Debates we listen to with the greatest respect on account of his knowledge, said that this was a subject not to be considered on party lines. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Leader of the Opposition?"] My right hon. Friend did his fundamental duty as Leader of the Opposition in this House of watching the expenditure of the State. If he had failed to discharge that duty, he would not have been worthy of the position of Leader of the Opposition.
      Mr. Leslie Hale: Has the hon. Member seen the "Evening Standard" tonight. It is headed: "Vanishing millions." They have not vanished. They are still circulating. It goes on:
      "Mr. Churchill fired the opening shots in a Parliamentary battle when he criticised the Government's demand for another £220,000,000 on the Civil Estimates, as evidence of gross financial mismanagement and the most wild miscalculations. Tonight there will be an attack on Mr. Bevan's administration of the Health Service."
      Sir H. Morris-Jones: I am sure that the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) will appreciate that I have no more responsibility for "Evening Standard" editorials than he has for those in the "Daily Herald," from which we have already had a very spectacular quotation. I am sorry that I did not have the opportunity of listening to the hon. Member who introduced the Supplementary Estimates. I say at once that the Minister of Health and his Department have faced with great enthusiasm, great vision and a certain amount of courage, the tremendous task which they had to undertake. They had to face a number of interests that were involved. It is only right that we should pay a tribute to the Ministry of Health, because of the immense task which it had to undertake in launching the health scheme upon the people.
      Now I revert to the speech of the hon. Member for South Tottenham. In order

      1417
      to bring the Debate on to what he considered was a very high level, he said that we must not count the cost because it was a matter of human life. That sentiment is shared in every part of the Committee. Questions of human life and human health are not the monopoly of the Government of the day but concern the whole House of Commons. I defy hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to prove that any hon. Member on this side is not as interested in the health and welfare of the people as is anybody on the other side of the Committee. When it comes to the expenditure of the State, it is then the duty of the Opposition to challenge it, where there appears to be waste.
      I remember the day when a Socialist Administration was challenged in the House and beaten in the country on this very issue, and when the unemployed actually voted for a reduction in their own pay because they realised that the financial situation of the country at that time was in peril. I saw the Socialist Party come back to this House 58 strong, almost annihilated, because people realised that there is not a bottomless purse from which we can draw, even for health or for any other service. I would emphasise what is stated today in a leading article in "The Times," which can never be charged with any lack of benevolence towards this Government. The leading article enjoins the Government to bear in mind that however good the object of the expenditure may be, it should not exceed what the nation can afford. The Opposition know that quite well. On these Supplementary Estimates I consider that the Opposition can make a case—[An HON. MEMBER: "Make it then."]—that there is unquestionably on the administrative side, a waste of money going on.
      Mr. Hale: Where?
      Sir H. Morris-Jones: I could speak for a long time.
      Mr. Hale: Tell us where it is?
      Sir H. Morris-Jones: The hon. Member has challenged me. I will take the hospital side, which is only one issue. I have a letter from a working man——
      Mr. McGovern: We have seen these working men before.
      Sir H. Morris-Jones: He goes into some detail, with which I do not wish to weary the Committee. He analyses the money that is spent on the administration sector of a large hospital in London, at the expense of the efficiency and equipment of the staff.
      Mr. Hale: Tell us where it is?
      Sir H. Morris-Jones: I have the name here.
      Mr. Bevan: This is an extraordinary doctrine. Under the Act of Parliament, I am responsible for the administration, through the various agencies, of every hospital in Great Britain. They are all included in this Supplementary Estimate. If a charge is being made that a hospital is being extravagant, it is the hon. Member's public duty to give the name of the hospital.
      Sir H. Morris-Jones: I dissent from the right hon. Gentleman. If a man employed by a certain hospital chooses to write a letter to his Member of Parliament giving detailed facts and information, he has the right to expect that Member of Parliament to respect his confidence.
      Mr. Bevan: I am not asking the hon. Member to give the name of the informant, but only to give the name of the hospital. How do we know that his informant is telling the truth if we cannot investigate his charges?
      Sir H. Morris-Jones: The right hon. Gentleman will be informed of the name of the hospital in due time. The Committee forces me to read some of this letter. It says:
      "A handsome tiled fireplace and surround was purchased for one of the administrative offices—it was the wrong size so was hastily removed to be erected in another room. A fresh surround was ordered, delivered in a few days and erected by a bricklayer working all day Sunday at double time. This bricklayer has now put in another Sunday (at double time) to erect an elaborate brick fireplace surround and arch in the board room—very intricate work—but is it necessary? An office was decorated—the colour scheme was unsuitable—the office was promptly redecorated. An expensive lino adorns offices and board room, walls are newly painted, a three-figure sum has been mentioned as the price paid for velvet board room curtains. Several clerks have been taken on in the administrative staff, at least two at increased salaries. A supply officer has been created at, we are told, a four-figure salary. Now for the other side."

      1419
      Now I am going to give the Committee the other side. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the name of the hospital?"] The letter goes on:
      "One boiler house bunker"—
      [Laughter.] I see nothing for hon. Members to laugh at in a boiler house bunker. They are very necessary to the hospitals—
      "One boiler house bunker has water all over the floor when it rains—the stoker must work in water to get his coal. The other boiler house is most depressing, ill-ventilated, has rats at night, no bath. Because of bad coal, complaints are continual from the theatre, yet nothing is done to prepare a road leading to the emergency coal dump—a lorry stuck up to its axle and was towed out two weeks ago. Iron gratings in the kitchen scullery are ill-fitting. Many drain and manhole covers need replacing or repairing."
      Mr. Hale: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee whether, in fact, he knows that the writer of that letter exists, whether he has checked that he works at the hospital, whether he has seen that there is anything at the hospital to guarantee the truth of it, and would he permit me to point out that, according to the Registrar-General of Births and Deaths, the infant mortality rate for the first three months of the scheme fell to the lowest figure in history, 13 below the normal average. Surely, that is a much greater testimony than this anonymous letter.
      Mr. H. Hynd: Before the hon. Gentleman replies to my hon. Friend, may I ask whether what he is now reading does not contradict the argument which he is trying to lay before the Committee, because, as I understand it, he is mentioning a lot of defects which ought to be put right and is, in effect, asking for more expenditure.
      Sir H. Morris-Jones: I am asking for expenditure for the right sort of things. I hope the Committee will allow me to proceed with the letter.
      Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member has either a lot of nonsense or a piece of important evidence. If it is the latter I should be delighted to have it. If I rightly interpret what he is saying, there is a hospital management committee who have a defective heating system which ought to be repaired immediately, but who, instead of repairing it, have, in fact, spent their money on an expensive board
      1420
      room. That is a very interesting and important point. If the hon. Gentleman would give me and the Committee the information, we should be delighted to investigate it. Why, therefore, does he not give us the name of the hospital?
      Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman is not so simple as he appears. Time and again Members of Parliament have, by virtue of their position, to maintain a confidence which has been reposed in them. My hon. Friend is maintaining such a confidence, and he is being urged, I think foolishly by some hon. Members, but with full intelligence by the right hon. Gentleman, to break that confidence.
      Mr. Bevan: I am sorry that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not done me the honour to listen to my request. I am not asking for the name of the writer of the letter. I appreciate that communications are sometimes confidential, and that without the permission of the writer it would be improper to give the name. All I am asking for—and I am sure the Opposition are anxious to assist me in my administration—is the name of the hospital.
      Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It will not have escaped the right hon. Gentleman that on many occasions, by virtue of giving the name of the hospital, the name of the writer is revealed.
      Sir H. Morris-Jones: I have been compelled to detain the Committee a good deal longer than I had intended. I wanted to refer to many other matters, but I have not yet finished this letter. I am bound to point out to the Committee that there has been extravagance under the Act, and that this Supplementary Estimate could have been avoided but for that extravagance. It is right that I should quote a detailed letter which shows that on the administrative side of a large London hospital at the present moment the expenditure is concentrated on the administrative headquarters at the expense of the hospital and its equipment.
      Mrs. Middleton: Is the hon. Gentleman quite sure that this expenditure to which he refers is not expenditure by the local Conservative club, spending their money out of the Woolton millions?
      Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Funny.
      Sir H. Morris-Jones: I regret that I must ask for the indulgence of the Committee to allow me to finish this letter. It goes on:
      "Recently a door was required for erection in the probationers' quarters—an old workhouse block. The girls naturally require privacy when bathing. An old door was brought from a bombed building where it has stood for four and a half years. The very same day a carpenter was sent to another to take down a handsome mahogany door to be removed and re-hung at the entrance to the administrative block. A wireless set, intended for the use of the nurses, was placed in the chairman's office for his personal use."
      I say that the things that are done in this hospital for the comfort of the board are done at the expense of the essential requirements of the hospital service.
      Mr. Tiffany: Which hospital is it?
      Sir H. Morris-Jones: I had intended, as I have already said, to refer to many other matters.
      Mr. H. Hynd: The hon. Member said he was going to finish the letter, but he has not finished it because he has not given us the name of the hospital.
      Sir H. Morris-Jones: It is no wonder that Sir Frederick Menzies, the late County Medical Officer for London, stated on 11th December that if some drastic steps to reduce hospital costs were not immediately taken, those enormous costs might have serious repercussions on the medical services other than hospital work. I invite the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to that statement. If the costs of the hospital service at present are likely to be £200 million for a full year, next year they will be something in the nature of £240 million for hospital services alone, and at that rate of expenditure the whole of the health scheme will be jeopardized——
      Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 59 per cent. of the cost of a teaching hospital goes in salaries and that 54 per cent. of the cost of a non-teaching hospital goes in salaries? Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the salaries should be reduced?
      Sir H. Morris-Jones: I do not suggest anything of the kind. I have given only one example. I am going to give another example from within my knowledge, concerning the cost of administrative services
      1422
      of local authorities. Let me refer the right hon. Gentleman to the ambulance service. I know of a town in the Home Counties—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which town?"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite are very sensitive about names.
      Mr. Hale: On a point of Order, Mr. Mathers. The hon. Member who has the Floor has read what purports to be an original document which has not been laid on the Table, and in the course of doing so he has made what is either a true allegation or a gross and nearly criminal libel upon the chairman of some well-known hospital in London. He has told us that it is a large hospital. He has narrowed the field to two or three people who in the public Press tomorrow morning will be pilloried as having filched radio sets from the nurses and having spent public money to their own advantage.
      An Hon. Member: Ridiculous!
      Lieut.-Colonel Elliot Lieut.-Colonel Elliot rose——
      The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) is in the course of putting a point of Order to me.
      Mr. Hale: I said "On a point of Order" when I rose. I did not realise that it was necessary to make it even more intelligible to the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). I seek your Ruling on this, Mr. Mathers. Is it not an obligation upon an hon. Member when he is quoting from a document to lay that document on the Table of the House, having made such an allegation?
      The Temporary Chairman: No. The hon. Member takes the responsibility as a Member of Parliament in quoting from a document which he has received. He is under no obligation, so far as I know, to lay upon the Table of the House a document from which he quotes.
      Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Hale: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Mathers. Is it not a gross violation of the decencies of this Committee that when a point of Order is put to the Chair, an hon. Member opposite should shout "Ridiculous" before you give your Ruling—[Laughter.]—and should interrupt your Ruling with shouts of "Hear, hear!" and cacophonous

      1423
      laughter of the kind to which we are now listening? Is not this a gross violation of the rules of elementary decency?
      Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: May I draw your attention, Mr. Mathers, to the fact that interruptions of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Jones) have gone on continuously during his speech, and that it has been impossible for him to deliver his speech as he wished?
      The Temporary Chairman: I was inclined to regret the interruptions which the hon. Member received. In reply to the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale), I must say that I cannot from this Chair be asked to become an arbiter on matters of taste.
      Sir H. Morris-Jones: A good deal of my speech might have been more effective had I been allowed to deliver it in my own way, and had I not had constant interruptions from the other side. It is quite clear that hon. Members opposite are somewhat hypersensitive about some of the points in my speech.
      I am going to conclude by referring to this instance of waste under local, authority administration. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I am not bound to tell the Committee the name of the place. I think that by now I can claim to be an old Member of this House. Over and over again, I have heard instances quoted by Members on the Floor of the House. It is in my discretion whether I shall tell the Minister the name of the town. All I am prepared to say is that I can verify the facts from my own knowledge. I wish to refer to the ambulance service in a town with a population of 4,000. Previous to the Health Act, at a little hospital there the ambulance service was looked after by a porter at the hospital. He was available day and night for any call. There is no record that I have been able to ascertain that he failed to attend any call to which he was summoned. In that town two whole-time men are now employed in the ambulance service at £6 a week.
      Mr. H. Hynd: About time, too.
      Sir H. Morris-Jones: Even with two whole-time men one cannot get any service there after 11 o'clock at night; one
      1424
      has to go to another town. There is a nationalised industry. The Minister was quite right to introduce established officers into the ambulance service but, as is the whole tendency in State and nationalised services, constant log-rolling goes on all the time. With those two instances alone out of the large number I could have quoted, I have established that there is a gross waste in the administration.
      7.47 p.m.
      Dr. Haden Guest: I am afraid I cannot congratulate the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) on his speech. While I agree that the hon. Member should not reveal the name of his informant if that would jeopardise the employment of his informant, he might, for instance, have handed the information to another member of the medical group in the House, who could give it to the Minister in such a way that the man's name would not be revealed. There would be no difficulty whatsoever if the hon. Gentleman really wished to co-operate in making the service efficient. He is not; he is merely attacking it.
      Sir H. Morris-Jones: I do not think there is any basis for the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
      Dr. Guest: The basis has been provided by the hon. Member in his speech. I must say that I regret very much that a Member of this House—a medical man of long standing—should have tied himself to what, in fact, is opposition to this service.
      We have been asked what is the need for the rush and hurry to get things done so quickly. I shall give one or two very simple reasons. I am not going to discuss hospital administration in detail. One of the reasons for rush and hurry was to get the very large number of women and children, who were not provided for under the panel system, into the National Health scheme. During the operation of the panel system there were many thousands of women in this country who, because they had to pay for medical assistance when they were suffering from the after-effects of confinement and other troubles from which women suffer, did not go to the doctor because they could not afford to pay with the result that many women in this country are suffering

      1425
      from complaints which could quite easily have been cured if they had been dealt with at the proper time. That is one of the great advantages of the National Health Service. The same thing applies to the health of children who, before the National Health Service came into operation, could not be treated without paying for it.
      There is another very important thing. I said I would not go into details, but I shall deal with just this point in general. There was a most urgent need for the grouping of hospitals in this country to secure their proper administration. Hon. Members opposite have been talking today as though the administration of hospitals was something which was marvellously efficient, which was perfect, before the introduction of the Health Service. The exact reverse is true. Those of us who had to do with hospital administration and hospital affairs and with health propaganda generally know perfectly well how very many hospitals in the past have been abominably badly conducted, most inefficiently conducted, most extravagantly conducted, and also without much consideration for the patients. I will not pursue that point but there is no doubt about it. Any hon. Member can find out by delving back a little into the past.
      I want to say a few words on the subject of what are called health centres. I want to bring some reality into the situation and I hope I shall not offend any hon. Members if I suggest that they should not lay too much emphasis at the present time on the building of new and expensive buildings for health centres. Rather we should spend our energies and our efforts on building up teams of doctors working together in whatever accommodation they can find. The difficulty is not to get doctors into buildings; it is to get groups of doctors to work together. What is needed is drive in the country for the organisation of teams and I hope some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite will help in this drive, if they are really sincere. I hope they will help the doctors in little towns in the country, in areas in London, in the suburbs and in other great cities, to get together and to work together as a team so that the team as a whole will be able to supply what is required in a health centre.
      A health centre should be a team of doctors working together. When we have
      1426
      them working together it will be easy enough to find places in which they can work. At the present time there are many old-fashioned, small hospitals in the country with about 20 beds which could be used for the purpose in the country districts. In London and other towns there are places which have been used as general dispensaries for the relief of the sick poor. They could be used as places for health centres. They are not ideal, but they could be used and we could get health centres working in those places. I hope the organisation of health centres will follow the lines of the organisation of teams; put the function before the body, put the corpus around the function.
      Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that the health centre is not a group of doctors but is a centre where the people can be treated, no matter what their trouble may be, whether it is body, eyes, teeth, ears or whatever it is; a place where they have all the equipment for giving people the very best treatment?
      Dr. Guest: I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). When I am talking about a team of doctors I mean a team of doctors working in one place, which will be a health centre. It can be any house, any building, any dispensary, any cottage hospital which provides a suitable building. If we lay emphasis first on the building of these places, we shall find that we indefinitely postpone the coming into effect of the health centres. If we get the teams of doctors working together and then get those doctors to choose a place where they can work together and provide the services to which the hon. Member for West Fife refers, and which are necessary, we shall find that the health centres will get to work much more quickly. It is really a way of looking at the thing from the commonsense, materialist, down-to-the ground, point of view. That is the way to get the health centres working.
      I must say that when I recall tonight the long history of the improvement of the medical services in this country, I can see it has been very largely the work of the Socialist organisations in the past, even before the Socialist Party was formed—the feeding of school children, the institution of school clinics, and other things. Many of these projects were violently opposed by the Conservatives and Liberals in the past, despite

      1427
      the propaganda of the Socialist Party. I do not think the parties opposite can complain if we do not think they are so sincere in their desire for this health work as we are on this side of the Committee, we who have worked in our party for a couple of generations to this end.
      One point in conclusion. There was another urgent reason for bringing the Act into operation very quickly indeed. Medicine itself is taking very revolutionary steps forward. It will not have been forgotten how the discovery of penicillin revolutionised medical science in the war and there are many other discoveries which are being made from day to day. Purely coincidentally, I should like to mention that this week in the medical Press—in one article in "The British Medical Journal" and another in "The Lancet," two leading medical papers in this country—there are reports of staggering progress in medical work. In "The British Medical Journal" there is the account of a series of 5,000 childbirth deliveries without one maternal death—very astonishing and very great progress.
      In "The Lancet" there is a description of a new discovery which has been made—I do not know where, whether in this country or elsewhere, but it has been confirmed by treatments here in St. Helen's Hospital, Lancashire, in Belgium and in America—for treatment for that most terrible affliction of Parkinson's disease, a disease which leads men and women to tremble and which finally reduces them to a condition where they are only able to lie in bed, unable to turn round themselves, unable to feed themselves or look after themselves. This new drug referred to in "The Lancet," following work done in a number of places for more than two years, throws a new light on this old disease for which at present there is no cure at all and gives a new hope. I mention these two things as indications of the immense work which is now going on.
      I want to give an answer to a great deal that has been said from the other side of the House by some hon. Members who seem to regard the payment for medical services as to some extent a waste of money, or at any rate as money which is not going to bring the return they hoped it would bring. I say that money invested in health, as it is being invested
      1428
      in the National Health Service, is an investment of fundamental value to the whole nation. It is not a cash payment; it is not a payment out of income; it is a capital investment in health which will be of most enormous importance and value in the future. We can improve health in this country to even higher standards than is our present view, but we certainly cannot do it if we adopt the narrow, mean and critical attitude adopted by His Majesty's Opposition.
      8.0 p.m.
      Mr. David Eccles: I have not the medical knowledge of the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) and I cannot follow him into a discussion on Parkinson's disease. He ended up by saying that what we were concerned with was the investment of money in the Health Service and that is more the subject on which I wish to speak, namely, the size of this Supplementary Estimate. It makes one pause to ask whether we are really getting our money's worth. This is an enormous sum of money.
      May I detain the Committee for a few minutes on the financial aspect because I do not wish to speak about individual sections of the Health Service? The Estimate is so much larger than the original cost that one asks oneself how far we are going. The Minister who opened the Debate gave us on several occasions glimpses of the fact that this is only the beginning of the Health Service. No real expansion has yet taken place. It is merely that the existing assets are being used to the full. We welcome that very much, but £52 million, added on to the cost which we were aware of before, does make one ask where this is going to end.
      We have to look at these Estimates in quite a different way from the way in which we looked at them in the past. In the old days, the Treasury control over expenditure such as this, was imposed in the interest of the minority of the population who paid most of the taxes. They saw to it that the Treasury controls were there. Those days have gone, and the social services today constitute an immense transfer of wealth, not from one section of the population to another, but from everybody to everybody. That means that the Treasury control over this vast expenditure is now the concern of everybody, and, therefore,

      1429
      it is necessary to see how we can get those who are going to receive all these benefits as much interested in the efficient expenditure of the money as, in the old days, a very small minority of Income Tax payers were interested in Treasury control.
      I do not think that at the moment the Minister has control over the way this money is spent. Let us take the cost of hospitals. Would the Minister describe to us just how he keeps control over the expenditure of the local hospital committees? In the county of Wiltshire, as I go about my business, I constantly meet people associated with either the little committee which runs one or two of the small hospitals or members of the county committee. They all say, "We are spending at a colossal rate. There is no check on us at all. We do it because now is our opportunity." We should know what sort of control there is over these hospital committees. Before the war, I was for many years a member of the King Edward Hospital Fund Distribution Committee, and that Committee took the greatest trouble to compare the accounts of the hospitals in the London area. Cost-accounting in hospitals is a new art, and it is exceedingly difficult to do. I would ask the Minister whether he is drawing on the experience of a man like Captain Stone and other accountants who advised the King Edward Hospital Fund. They appeared to me to be far ahead of anyone else in experience of comparative accounting in the hospital system.
      What is likely to be the total cost of this service in the next year or two? So far as I can judge from the Supplementary Estimate, the cost borne by the taxpayer would be about £275 million in a full year. How much is that figure short of the truth already? We know that enormous teething troubles occur when one sets up a new service. The book-keeping falls into arrears and all kinds of work is beginning which entails further expenditure, a full account of which has not been rendered. What really is the cost? Would it be fair to say that now in February, 1949, the cost to the taxpayer is running at something like £320 million? I think that the Minister should be able to give us some idea on that point.
      1430
      We have now reached a stage where it is absolutely necessary to depart from the sort of stand taken by the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) and the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough). They both stated that the need of the people is the only criterion of the amount of money to be spent. We should all like that to be true, but, in point of fact, the choice which presents itself to us is: Shall we spend the revenue on new houses where people will be prevented from getting ill, shall we spend it on education which will teach them their way about the world, shall we spend it on Health Services to cure them when they fall by the wayside or on pensions to support them in their old age? We have now reached a point where it is absolutely necessary to balance one social service against another.
      The doctrine of the hon. Member for Jarrow and the hon. Member for South Tottenham is one which will delude the people. It is perfectly possible to come to this House and make out a cast-iron case for any one of the social services. I should like to see the health centres built quickly. I have always been a supporter of the Health Service in principle. I should like to see, especially in the rural districts, many more maternity beds. There is no argument against them, except money and material resources. But, of course, it is very unpopular to produce the argument of money, and, no doubt, it is very bad electioneering tactics to tell the people of this country that we cannot afford to have all the improvements in all the social services at one and the same time.
      Mr. Alpass: Supposing a member of the hon. Gentleman's own family were in need, would he put the money question before the remedy?
      Mr. Eccles: The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that in the circumstances he has described, one would do all that one could; but the nation is also only capable of doing all it can, and the question that this £52 million raises in my mind is, first of all, is all that money necessary? Cannot we cut out some of the waste and get the same services for less with better administration? That we must leave to the Minister because it is a new service which is shaking down, and I do not know the answer, but I strongly suspect that a lot of money is being

      1431
      wasted. Having done that one must then say: Is it to the best advantage of the people to go on spending more money on these Health Services—and it is obvious that they are going to expand very quickly; it is implicit in all these figures that the expansion is only just beginning—is that the best way to spend the revenue, or would it be better to spend it on one or other of the alternative services?
      When we are accused of not wanting the Health Services that is not true at all. What we on this side of the Committee are anxious about is that the maximum amount of money which can be devoted to the Civil Estimates as a whole should be divided in the best interests under the different headings. It is not, I repeat, right for a man so respected as the hon. Member for South Tottenham to say that nothing but the criterion of need in health matters should be applied. He must know that the need is practically unlimited, but that the money that can be applied to it is limited, and that, popular or unpopular, those two things must be threshed out, and we must face our constituents, whether Labour or Conservative, with the obvious truth that we cannot take more than a pint out of a pint pot.
      Not only is it very necessary, now that this Estimate is getting so enormous, to decide the priority of the Health Service among the other social services, but surely this Estimate shows that inside the Health Service itself the priorities are not right. I am all for anyone who attempts to cure anybody with anything wrong, be it bad eyes or bad teeth; I am all for their getting a decent living. But can it really be right that the general practitioner's slice of the Health Service should be weighted against him in comparison with the others? It looks to me as though the Minister had got the priorities wrong inside the service.
      If it should be, as I believe it will be before long, impossible for us to expand all the social services at once, what is the best part of the Health Service on which to concentrate? Well, the Minister knows quite well, because I have said this in previous Debates. My view has been that we ought to get the hospital system right first. This Estimate is proof that we are trying to go dangerously fast.
      1432
      If the Minister can assure us that the national revenue will be buoyant, that we can take £320 million this year and more and more as the years go by, well and good, nobody would be more delighted than myself. But I see in this kind of increase in expenditure the very negation of all the appeals for restraint which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been making.
      I do not think that is the Minister's fault, except in so far as there is waste. Having introduced and passed the Act, all this expenditure flowed from it. Yet popular though the Health Service is, I very much question whether there is not something more popular with the people, and that is the value of their money.
      Lieut.-Colonel Bromley - Davenport: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Eccles: My hon. and gallant Friend supports me at a very critical moment. The effect of the Estimate upon those of us who are trying to see how the total demands upon the resources of the United Kingdom can be matched with those resources is that this galloping increase in the demands for the Health Service must be watched very carefully or the result will be inflationary. If the result is inflationary we shall not be doing the best thing by the people.
      I yield to no one in desiring that the sick of our country should be cared for in the best possible way and to the maximum amount of money we can divert to that purpose. But sickness is only one portion of life; there are other things that happen. Sickness can be prevented, and there are many other aspects of life for which Parliament must care. I ask the Minister when replying to give us, if he can, some picture of how he relates his enormous increase in demands for money, materials, and labour to the whole of the Government's programme, which we should be trying to keep within bounds.
      8.14 p.m.
      Dr. Santo Jeger: We have had a series of violently contrasting speeches from hon. Members of the Opposition. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) got as near as he could to saying: "Cut these Estimates. I do not care where they are cut, but in the sacred name of our other social services, we must have a cut." True, he said he did not regard that as very good

      1433
      electioneering. Previously we had heard a speech by the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones), who gloried in the fact that in 1931 the unemployed man voted for a 10 per cent. cut in his own unemployment pay. He spent much of the very considerable time for which he spoke attempting to build up a case based upon a phantom and a nebulous collection of unsubstantiated details.
      We also had a speech from the hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey and Otley (Colonel Stoddart-Scott), who almost convinced us that he really did believe in a comprehensive health service; but he made one mistake, for when the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) was speaking about nationalisation of the hospitals and indicated that he did not believe in them, the hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey and Otley nodded his very vigorous approval; he also did not believe in the nationalisation of hospitals, which of course indicates that the comprehensive nationalised health service in which he professed his belief, had to break down at some fundamental point.
      The right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) rather sneered at the idea of free spectacles. He took the view that people only applied for these spectacles because they were free. He did not, however, go into the question of whether or not there was a need. He also made use of the term "extravagant" when talking about the dental service. Well, we have there the complete measure of the whole range of the opposition that we are getting in this Committee.
      So far nobody has referred to one very important aspect of these Supplementary Estimates. I see on page 54 under E.5:
      "LIABILITIES TRANSFERRED TO THE MINISTER:
      (a) Liabilities transferred in respect of voluntary hospitals"
      nearly £14 million. Not a single Opposition Member who said he did not believe in the nationalisation of the voluntary hospitals ventured to criticise the fact that our voluntary hospitals had liabilities of £14 million because they had not been run on a paying basis; they were not paying propositions, and their liabilities, the resultant glory of the now extinct voluntary hospital system with its begging and squeezing from public and patients, had to be passed to the Minister
      1434
      to deal with. That £14 million is almost the largest item in these Supplementary Estimates.
      We have been told that there has been a severe under-estimate of the expenditure. There has been under-estimation, but it is not under-estimation which could be measured in financial terms: it is under-estimation of the extent to which our previous maladministration had dealt with health problems and the problem of the poverty of our people. The major under-estimation in these Estimates today is the exact mathematical measure of the failure of those previously in office to deal with these problems which they have left behind.
      We are told that an estimate of £2 million for ophthalmic treatment has now become an expenditure of £12 million. To which do the Opposition object? Do they object to the Estimate of £2 million or to the expenditure of £12 million? They have not said, so far. They have criticised both; they swing from one leg to the other, but never do we get a definite statement of their policy. Do they want to cut the expenditure of £12 million, or do they want to cut entirely the granting of free spectacles?
      What is the Opposition's policy on dentistry? Do they want us to cut down still further the payments that dentists receive, or do they want us now to say that no more dentistry shall be provided without payment by patients? Let us have their policy instead of merely criticism and carping. Instead of saying definitely, "We do not like this service; we do not like this aspect of the service; we do not like this expenditure," instead of coming out along one of those lines, they merely criticise and carp. What is their policy? What is their policy about free dentistry and the payment of dentists? We are driven to the conclusion that they are afraid to give us their policy in this matter, as in so many others, because, as we have been told by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles), these things are not good election winners.
      I wonder how many hon. Members here have sat on a hospital management committee. In the old days when the voluntary hospitals were dependent upon voluntary contributions or what they could squeeze out of the patients. they were very niggardly and weighed each

      1435
      penny of proposed expenditure very carefully. There is a difference now. I have in mind a large teaching hospital in London. The people on those committees who were so cheeseparing about vital necessities in the old days now go round the hospital looking for ways to send up their estimated expenditure. I know a hospital where one of the officials pointed out that the electrical system of the hospital had to be reconstructed, the whole place had to be re-wired. When it was pointed out that this was a rather expensive and perhaps unnecessary business, he said that it was the committee's job to raise the expenditure as high as possible. That is one of the reasons why I do not think that autonomy in expenditure should be given to hospital management committees and why it is necessary for the Minister to retain control at the centre.
      We have had no policy from the Opposition on this. Because the expenditure and the Estimates are mounting, do they want to cut the expenditure in hospitals and run the hospitals on the cheap? Do they want the treatment and care of the sick in the hospitals to suffer? They do not tell us that. They are very careful here, as everywhere else, not to say what their policy is. However, we have had hints of what their policy may be. Some hon. Members have said "Cut" and others "What is your hurry? You are making haste far too rapidly and getting on far too much. This is really our policy. We were going to do this, but we were not going to do it as quickly as you are."
      We are not told even by hon. Members opposite who take that view how long their delay would be or how many people would die unnecessarily of preventable disease while they were busy working out what the interval should be. We get nothing from the Opposition in terms of human happiness and health; when we do get something concrete, it is only in terms of money. That is the real difference between the two sides of the Committee. We look at things not in terms of money, but in terms of the best possible service we can provide, but the Opposition look at things only in terms of what they will cost.
      Mr. William Shepherd: Does the hon. Gentleman tell us that cost
      1436
      is the only factor preventing the most efficient service? Does he say that cost is stopping many of our sanatoria from being fully manned at present?
      Dr. Jeger: I am not saying that cost is the only factor. What I am saying is that hon. Members opposite talk about cost as being by far the most important factor, and it is of that sort of attitude that I disapprove and that attitude which I condemn and will continue to condemn, and no amount of protest from hon. Members opposite will make any difference. Theirs is a totally different attitude to life from ours. Our attitude to life is not based on money, but that of the Opposition is almost entirely a monetary one.
      I now come to a different matter. The Minister knows well that I have been one of his most vigorous and enthusiastic supporters in regard to the health scheme and putting the scheme across in the country. I therefore hope that he will not take it very unkindly if I criticise one aspect of his Estimates. I refer to something which I have tried to raise in the House before, the transfer of child welfare functions from the Metropolitan borough councils to the London County Council——
      The Chairman: Will the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to indicate where this appears in the Supplementary Estimates?
      Dr. Jeger: Certainly, Major Milner. On page 54 there appears:
      "C.—Grants to local health authorities:
      Grants in respect of health centres; care of mothers and young children."
      These services have been transferred to the London County Council. The London County Council have set up nine divisional offices with nine divisional administrative officers. They have also appointed a nursing officer in each division, and each of these officers will have his subordinates in each of the divisions. At County Hall there are a number of chief medical officers, most of whom were formerly engaged in the hospital administrative work which has now been taken away from the London County Council. However, we still have medical officers of health in the 28 metropolitan boroughs, and there are a large number of other people in the public health departments of those boroughs who do not seem to work any less despite the

      1437
      fact that so much work has been taken from them and that so many other officers have been set up at the County Hall to do the kind of work which the 28 Metropolitan borough councils have been doing.
      I do not know how accurate my information is, but I am informed that the cost per head in respect of the day nurseries which used to be run by the borough councils and which are now run by the London County Council has gone up from 5s. to 10s. and that most of the increased cost is entirely due to the changed method of administration. I hope I am wrong about this, and that the Minister will give a reply which will satisfy me. That is the only criticism I have to offer about the service. I approve the Supplementary Estimates, and I think that the way the Opposition have dealt with them has been shifty, dishonest, and not to the best advantage of the people of the country.
      8.28 p.m.
      Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras (Dr. Jeger) was enjoying himself so much that it seemed a pity that anybody should stop the flow of his eloquence for any reason at all. It is true that he fell into one or two fairly grave errors. For instance, he did not realise that the liabilities transferred to the Minister in respect of the voluntary hospitals, according to the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary, were balanced by the assets of the voluntary hospitals which are being taken over. Although the hon. Member attacked us very vehemently for using a financial criterion in considering these Estimates, he wound up by using exactly the same financial criterion when criticising the administration of the child welfare centres by the London County Council as opposed to the boroughs. I might retort to him, "What does it matter whether it is 5s. or 10s.? You think only of money, and we think of the welfare of the children." However, that would be silly. I trust that the hon. Member and other hon. Members who have adopted that argument will realise how silly it is when their own spokesmen find it impossible to discuss these matters without using some sort of yardstick.
      It is a fact that the cost of these services is the most convenient yardstick with which to measure the efficiency
      1438
      which the country is getting for the effort it is putting into this. The important things are not money but labour, material and resources of one kind and another, which the money represents, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) and other hon. Members have criticised the use which the Minister is making of them. This is not a demand for £100 million or £200 million by the Minister; it is a demand for a draft upon the resources of the nation for that amount, and what has been asked from this side is (a) is this draft really necessary, and (b) is the proper priority being applied, both within the social services in general and within this social service?
      That is the whole function of the criticism of Estimates; indeed, it is why the Minister brings forward Estimates. We all know that the resources which the nation has to spend are low and that drafts must be carefully measured one against the other. The simplest example is the housing programme, where the Minister has said time and again that if it were possible to take the controls completely off and throw the reins on the horse's neck, houses could be built more rapidly than they are now. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The argument has been put forward that if, for instance, it were possible to purchase a much larger amount of timber abroad—[An HON. MEMBER: "Is this on the Vote?"] The argument I am bringing forward is very much on the Vote. The Minister is asking for a draft upon the resources of the country, not merely for a sum of money, and the illustration which I was giving is, I am perfectly sure, in Order or else the Chairman would have called me to Order.
      The Committee has had some difficulty tonight in getting to grips with the problem, and there is a wide divergence between the two sides of the Committee. We are only beginning a long series of Debates, and there will be a great deal more hammered out on these problems. The plans for the social services are now becoming so large a part of the redistribution of the income of the country that it may well be necessary to have some sort of unified vote under which they can be discussed as a whole; just as we have found it necessary in the case of the Defence Services to bring forward a generalised vote upon which general

      1439
      defence issues can be debated, subsequently proceeding to an examination of the individual Estimates.
      We have been in some difficulty tonight in discussing at the same time both general issues and the particular issue of administration. My hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) found himself at loggerheads with hon. Members opposite because he did exactly what one wants to do in the examination of administration—he went into considerable detail. I thought it was a little ungenerous of hon. Members opposite first to interrupt him and, secondly, to demand that the details which he was not desirous of giving should be given. [An HON. MEMBER: "Even if hon. Members ask for them?"] Hon Members themselves will have to give instances in this House, where they are not willing to make a public declaration, of the source of, or the area where the incidents referred to are taking place; and that is not confined to one side or another but is a general experience of Members of Parliament. My hon. Friend really went into considerable detail which, of course, Estimates have to deal with, but then they also have to deal with broad, general questions. If I may, I will address myself more to these in the closing stages of this earliest examination.
      I was Minister of Health for some years, and it is interesting to recall that it must be 10 years or more since a Debate on Health Estimates took place. Before the war the Opposition did not challenge the Health Estimates because the progress of the health of the nation was satisfactory. I shall give figures in a moment to show that the improvement in the health of the nation which has taken place since the war—which we are all most glad to see, and upon which we compliment the administration—is a continuing improvement in the health of the nation which was taking place before the war and dates back for a long time.
      The rate of the curve has not sensibly altered although it moved differently in certain instances. Maternal mortality has dropped rapidly, other things not so rapidly, while in some cases the curve has turned against us. In general, however, the social services in this country, the health services in particular, are the result of many years of effort by people
      1440
      of all parties and of all kinds of political opinion, and that result is a shining glory to the people of this country.
      During the war, and before, I had the great responsibility of bringing into being the Emergency Medical Service. I had the task of organising at short notice a comprehensive service such as the Minister is organising now. I would not be too meticulous in complaining that this particular sum or the other sum has been over-estimated. But I do say that these large Supplementary Estimates demand first, the most careful consideration and, secondly, pruning wherever possible, because they represent a draft upon our national resources which are now so limited.
      The accusation has been brought against us by hon. Members opposite that we were either careless of, or actually hostile to, improvement in the health of the people—a strange accusation to bring against the heirs of the party of Disraeli, who was the first man to introduce public health into the politics of this country. And will anyone say that Joseph Chamberlain and Neville Chamberlain were ignorant or careless of the health of the people? We are perfectly willing to put our record in interest against the record of any other party. I will go further and say that we are perfectly ready to state and to justify that the Health Service which is being discussed now is the embodiment of schemes brought forward, discussed, and in some cases carried into effect, by previous Governments.
      Mrs. Middleton: Oh!
      Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Hon. Members seem surprised at that. Will anyone say that the milk in schools scheme is not one of the most important of our health schemes today? I had the honour of introducing that, and placing it upon the Statute Book. I do not claim to have done more than added a brick to this rising edifice; but that the bricks had been added before right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen moved into the seats of power, is absolutely undeniable.
      The Government spokesmen seemed to me to defend these Estimates on the two grounds, first, that facilities for treatment have been greatly improved and, second, that the public health has been greatly

      1441
      improved by the expenditure of these monies; that, as one hon. Member said, there are many people alive now who otherwise would have been dead. That is a strong claim, and one to which we must naturally give the utmost consideration and deference. As to facilities for treatment, the greatest of all facilities is a hospital bed for a sick man. I thought the Parliamentary Secretary rather skated over that aspect of the Estimates when he was commending them to the House. Admittedly the hospital estimate has gone up. It was originally put at £115 million for nine months, and it is running now at a cost of £136 million for nine months or an annual cost of something like £180 million. What extra beds are we getting for this money? The Parliamentary Secretary indicated something like 6,000 beds. That, surely, is too modest a figure to justify this expenditure.
      Mr. Blenkinsop: I did not mention beds. I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is confused with my reference to nurses.
      Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I appeal to any of my professional colleagues. The two are what we might call pretty closely connected. When we speak of a bed we do not mean something on which to lie down, but somewhere that one can get treatment for illness. When I say that so many beds have been opened I do not mean that somebody has laid down a number of sheets, but that there should be staff ready—[Interruption.]
      "O woman! in our hours of ease,
      Uncertain, coy, and hard to please…
      When pain and anguish wring the brow,
      A ministering angel thou!"
      Surely, then, I must press the Parliamentary Secretary and, indeed, the Minister. He stated that there were many more beds available than there were before the war, but how many more beds are available than during and since the war? It is well known that great sections of hospital accommodation are closed because they cannot be staffed. The Minister is asking for £180 million. How many more beds does he expect to open? That is the acid test of these facilities. I know of one large hospital region with 35,000 beds, 4,000 of which cannot be opened because they cannot be staffed. If the Minister tonight asks for this money, and if we
      1442
      give it to him, how many beds will he be able to open? What is his estimated bed-state for, say, this time next year? When we are dealing with facilities that is the sort of question we wish to ask and to press, because it is vital.
      The Chairman: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will appreciate, I am sure, that these Estimates cover a period only to 31st March next. It is not possible, therefore, for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to deal with any later period.
      Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Let us ask, then, how many beds he hopes for up to 31st March. I wish to give the Minister more range, but on your Ruling, Major Milner, I shall hold him narrowly to the point: how many beds does he expect to be able to open as a result of this greatly increased Estimate which he now brings before us?
      The shortfall, as we all know, and as, I think, the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) will agree, is greatest in the field of tuberculosis: 18 per cent., I believe, of the tuberculosis beds of this country are unoccupied because they cannot be staffed. How many of these beds does the Minister expect to have open as a result of this expenditure? What is the shortfall now? What would the shortfall have been if he had not had this money? When hon. Members accuse us of wishing to cut down these grants and to stop the treatment of the sick we are entitled, I think, to reply by saying that at present there are many, many beds which are not being used for the treatment of the sick. The Committee is voting money for them tonight. We ask what the results will be, not only in the cash figure about which the hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras was so scornful: let us, then, take the bed criterion, which, he will not deny, is very germaine to the subject of health.
      Our resources are again, I think, being maladministered, if I may say so, by the position in which the general practitioner is now being placed. It is admitted that the betterment factor, the Spens supplement to payments which is being allowed for the general practitioner is something like 34 per cent. These are figures far below those given by expert economists. The Oxford Institute of Statistics put the cost of living for May, 1948, at 90 per. cent. above 1938 and the National

      1443
      Income White Paper showed a price index in 1947 as 85 per cent. higher than in 1938. The Minister may say, "Ah, but you are pressing me here for more expenditure." But the fact of the matter remains that the fundamental factor, the foundation stone of the whole thing, the pivot—to change the metaphor—upon which everything turns, is the general practitioner; and if for the general practitioner—the dentist, the ophthalmic surgeon, the actual skilled man administering the skilled treatment; that is the practice of medicine—the payment factor of betterment is so far below the factor which is brought out by economists, we shall find a further draft upon our resources coming forward, and a draft to which every hon. and right hon. Member in the Committee would need to give careful consideration. If the remuneration of the general practitioner comes out far below what the statistical figures show that it ought to be, then I think we should all say that
      "The labourer is worthy of his hire"
      and that the general practitioner would need to be adequately remunerated.
      The Committee will see that then the question of balance comes up again. If the money is to come, where is it to come from? That question, again, the Committee will need to address itself to now and, of course, in its major discussions later on when it is faced with the balance sheet for the whole nation in the shape of the Budget. As was said by the hon. Member for Chippenham, it is no longer a Budget which affects the rich or which can be balanced by soaking a few wealthy men. These enormous sums now inevitably fall back upon the people as a whole. The drafts which are made upon the resources of the people are reflected directly in an increased cost of living. The repeal of the Purchase Tax for instance would certainly bring down the cost of living, but until an adequate revenue is available that cannot be done. In so far as unnecessary demands are made upon the people by these Estimates the reduction of the cost of living is postponed. That is the argument we wish to address specifically to the Committee in our criticism of expenditure.
      The improved health figures were referred to by the hon. Lady the Member
      1444
      for North-East Leeds (Miss Bacon) and other hon. Members. This is a great improvement, they said, in the vital statistics. They do show a steady and great improvement, but a steady and great improvement which was paralleled by the improvements before the war. The movement of the curves is steady. For the period 1945–47 the fall in the infantile mortality, for instance, has been eight points. That is a great and noble achievement, an achievement upon which the Government is rightly to be complimented. But in the years 1937–39 the fall was also eight points.
      Mr. Blenkinsop: But it is a smaller percentage.
      Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: All right. If the hon. Gentleman likes, we can go further back. The percentage is smaller as it continues to fall. But, indeed, to hear hon. Members, and even right hon. Members, talk one would sometimes think that no fall at all had taken place till the doors of Number 10 Downing Street opened to a Labour Prime Minister and hon. Members took up their seats on that side of the House. What I am saying is that the fall which has taken place in the vital curve is in many cases a fall which is paralleled by similar falls taking place during the period which hon. Members opposite are fond of referring to as "Twenty years of Tory misrule"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The familiar cliché and the familiar cheer, even when it is launched from the other side of the Committee.
      The figures of improved heights and weights of school children are very important; but these also can be paralleled by a similar improvement which was taking place before the war. The fact is that a steady and marked improvement in the health of the nation was taking place before the war and, therefore, we must not measure these expenditures against a fall which has been initiated by these expenditures, but against a fall which was continuing before these expenditures were undertaken and is continuing now. That needs a very different angle of examination of the problem.
      Furthermore, the curves are not in every case moving in favour of the Government. We do not blame the Minister for, let us say, the figures as to cancer which, as everyone knows, are

      1445
      moving against us; although, if Ministers and their supporters claim, as they do claim, every movement of every curve in their favour as due to their administration, they must also expect that curves moving against us all may be quoted against them. I do not say that the Minister is responsible for the rise in cancer deaths which rose from 71,688 in 1944 to 75,607 in 1946. But that shows that the main vital curves have to be considered as things of far too long standing to be altered by the operation of any particular Minister in any particular administration.
      Mrs. Middleton: In quoting the figures concerning cancer, is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman leaving altogether out of account the Skill of diagnosis?
      Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am surely not leaving out altogether the skill of diagnosis, but these are actual deaths.
      Mr. Bevan: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is labouring very hard to pull something out. Having been Minister of Health, he should know that cancer is of all diseases, the disease most associated with old age and, as the age of the population rises, it is inevitable that the incidence of cancer should rise.
      Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Certainly, that is why I said I do not blame the Minister. But I now come to a curve which is not specially associated with old age and which is admitted to be one of the diagnostic curves of public health in general, the curve of tuberculosis. The Minister will know that while the curve in general in this country is satisfactory it shows a very strange slope. While it is satisfactory in the south, as one moves northwards it becomes stationary, and as one crosses the Border, it turns sharply against us. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Housing."] No, housing has not got worse. [Laughter.] Is the contention of the Government that housing has got worse? [Interruption.] Is it the contention of the Government that the maladministration of the Government has been so great that housing has greatly improved in the south of the island and fallen off in the north? Government supporters are so unfamiliar with any counter arguments that they laugh in the wrong place. The deaths from pulmonary tuberculosis in County Durham, a great industrial county, have
      1446
      moved up. In 1945 they were 430, in 1946 they were 414, and in 1947, 474.
      The Chairman: I am sure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman must agree that the figures he is quoting have no relation to Supplementary Estimates for 1948 and 1949.
      Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The difficulty in which the Committee are is that the figures for 1948 are not yet fully available. I can quote, and I will quote as an instance only, the only figures for 1948 which are available. I quote them as an illustration, from north of the Border. Deaths in Scotland in 1939 were 2,717 and in 1948, 3,415, a very sharp movement of the curve against us in the year for which the Minister is asking for this Supplementary Estimate. The difficulties in which we are are very acute, but I do not think we can brush aside the fact that there are 18,000 unoccupied beds in the tuberculosis hospitals and a movement upwards in some areas of the mortality curves. As I say, in one case the deaths have moved up in 10 years from under 3,000 to 3,400. These are movements which it is certainly necessary to take into account when the Minister is asking for money he has expended on the health services.
      I do not desire to detain the Committee for too long—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."]—I should be willing to go on for longer, but this is the third day the Minister and I have confronted each other across the Floor and I see no reason indefinitely to prolong that. But, if hon. Members wish, I should be perfectly willing to continue for a long time yet; for these are things which will have to be said and these are the foundations of the discussion upon which we are now embarking.
      The real danger is that a consolidation of our expenditure at a level away above the level before the war may take place. If the cost-of-living figures are established at something like 95 per cent. above pre-war, or, still worse, if at figures 300 per cent. above pre-war, as in the case of building, the shock to the economy of the country will be profound. These are the risks that we run in passing these great expenditures, and still more in justifying them by some of the arguments which have been used here tonight. I say that the impact of taxation upon the ordinary

      1447
      man and woman is profound; that the diminution, the keeping down of that impact by every possible means, is the urgent duty of this House of Commons. It is no longer a matter of the public purse. It is now the matter of the ordinary man's pocket. That is what we are searching. It is the pocket of the people which is being searched by the taxation under which we are now labouring.
      We consider that the examination of these Estimates which has taken place, although not as fruitful as one would have wished, has, at any rate, been the commencement of the large examination which will need to be carried out on many subsequent occasions—occasions when the greater issues can properly be debated. I do not in any way complain, Major Milner, that on more than one occasion you have reminded me that we cannot embark on a wide discussion tonight. But when the hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras was urging me to declare the whole Tory policy on health, I could not help thinking that I would run into a very immediate condemnation by you if I were to try any such line.
      Dr. Jeger: Not now or ever.
      Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member is entitled to his opinion. Certainly I am entitled to mine. I am willing to put my record as Health Minister against the right hon. Gentleman if he wishes on any occasion or on any platform in this country or indeed in his constituency.
      Dr. Jeger: If the right hon. Gentleman really means that, I am quite prepared to take him on.
      Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: When the hon. Member has become a Minister, I am perfectly ready——
      Dr. Jeger: I am sorry, I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman lessons in running away.
      Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: When it comes to a question of running away I think the hon. Member would be ill advised also to leave his record to be compared with mine. I am perfectly ready to put my record of running away against his also.
      1448
      I wish simply to say in conclusion that in our view the miscalculation in these Estimates is certainly very great indeed. It is very difficult to believe that the Government having made these calculations, and re-calculations as they have explained tonight, are in every way satisfied that the new Estimates they are bringing before the Committee are correct. We therefore ask and have asked for further information. For, in general, while yielding to none, either on work on health in the past, or our desire to see a successful and comprehensive measure of health service in the present, we say that that must be combined with a rigorous scrutiny of every penny expended so that value may be obtained for it; because the nation is in no position to expend money, without a reasonable return, on any object, however desirable it may seem in itself.
      9.2 p.m.
      The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I think I am entitled to start off what I want to say by a protest, and that is a protest against the absence of the Leader of the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the Prime Minister?"] There is no obligation on the part of the Prime Minister to be here. Anyone who has been present during the Debate—and a very large number of hon. Members opposite have not been—will know by now that, while the Opposition is in need of the sustenance that may be afforded by the Leader of the Opposition, I am in no need of the support of the Prime Minister.
      We really have reached the point where we should ask the Opposition to try to prevent the Leader of the Opposition from so grossly misbehaving himself as he does on many occasions. Last week he made a statement, and as usual —it has become so much the practice now that we have noticed it—he was egged on by the Conservative Press in blatant, provocative, sensational headlines about extravagance in the Health Service. He came down to the House and said that these Supplementary Estimates are indications of extravagant expenditure and maladministration. He then said, "We will examine them"—having declared the verdict first. If he had used that language after having had the three days' Debate on the Estimates, there would have been some sense in it.

      1449
      But he told us today that he will consider at the end of the examination whether a Vote of Censure will be moved on us.
      If indeed it is the case that this Supplementary Estimate is evidence of gross mismanagement and financial maladministration, then there is no need for the Debate, because the decision has been made by the Opposition. He said it at the very beginning. Whatever the Opposition may do about a Vote of Censure when the three days' Debate on the Supplementary Estimates is over, I am entitled to ask for a verdict on this Supplementary Estimate tonight. Obviously, after being asked for a Debate, and after being asked for it in so provocative a manner, the House and the country are entitled to receive a verdict as to what is the opinion of the Members of the House upon what has been done. Therefore, I hope that the Opposition, after I have sat down and if I have not convinced them of the error of their ways, will go into the Division Lobby against the Government.
      The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) accused me of having miscalculated through incompetence. He was out of the Chamber when the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas.-Tooth) accused me of having deliberately provoked a Supplementary Estimate by Machiavellian cleverness in order to put the Opposition to the embarrassment of having to decide whether or not they would vote against it. I am not sure, therefore, whether I am to answer to a charge of duplicity or of ignorance—but I cannot be guilty of both. The trouble with the right hon. Gentleman, may I say with all respect, is that he has generally a most amiable presence, but it is always a foolish spectacle for a weak man to use strong adjectives. It is certainly foolish for him, because it creates a sense of melodramatic anti-climax to wind up so pathetic a speech by the kind of peroration that is usually reserved only for highly dramatic moments.
      I say with all sincerity that I regret the atmosphere in which the Debate on this Supplementary Estimate was begun by the Opposition. The House of Commons—and I am not now speaking of any particular part of the House—
      1450
      ought not to allow Supplementary Estimates to go by without examination. That is a duty of the House of Commons. Indeed what I object to is not that a Debate has been requested. What I object to is the utter incompetence of the Opposition in the examination of a Supplementary Estimate and, what is much more serious—and I hope the country will take notice of it—the indifference of the Opposition. The benches opposite have been empty, or almost empty, all the evening. I have here a long list which was taken every quarter of an hour of the attendance of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have the advantage that my Parliamentary Private Secretary counted the number present. He takes an interest in this matter. These are extracts: Conservative, 19, Liberal, 2, Labour, 72; Conservative, 35, Labour 57. I regret to say that for a considerable period the Liberal Benches were a complete blank.
      Sir H. Morris-Jones: The right hon. Gentleman cannot surely be referring to the Liberal National Party?
      Mr. Bevan: I have never regarded the hon. Gentleman and his friends as anything other than Conservative deputies.
      Brigadier Mackeson: On a point of Order. I accuse the right hon. Gentleman of a deliberate political trick——
      The Chairman: I do not think that is a point of Order.
      Brigadier Mackeson Brigadier Mackeson rose——
      The Chairman: I do, however, think the right hon. Gentleman might now apply himself more directly to the Supplementary Estimate.
      Brigadier Mackeson: Will the right hon. Gentleman deny that he saw me behind the Speaker's Chair, when I was there as a Conservative Whip, and said that he wished to get into the Debate early, and that I told him that probably Conservative Members could not be there in the strength we wished to be?
      Mr. Bevan: That has nothing at all to do with what I have said. I am not complaining about the number of Conservative hon. Members present now. I

      1451
      was discussing the numbers present throughout the evening, and I say that, in view of the highly sensational way in which this Debate was launched, the absence of hon. Members of the Opposition this evening is a disgrace to the House of Commons.
      It has been difficult to find out from the Opposition what it is that the Minister of Health is accused of, on this Supplementary Estimate. Is it that the Opposition say that they do not mind that the money has been spent, but that there was a miscalculation? Is it the arithmetic that they quarrel about, or the policy? It has been hard to find out what they are complaining about. Are they saying that it would have been all right to have spent this money in this way if it had gone in the original Estimate, or is it that they object to the spending of the money at all? It is very necessary for us to know which of these two positions is being taken up by the Opposition.
      If it is that this represents a grave miscalculation, there was no need for this Debate to proceed after what I thought—and I think most hon. Members will agree—was the very excellent opening speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. The Parliamentary Secretary broke the Supplementary Estimate into its constituent parts, and showed, one by one, how the additional expenditure arose. There was one part of his speech to which no attention has been given, and that was that, when we put in the Estimate seven months before the money started to be spent, I was still in negotiation with practically all the professions, with the chemists, with the dentists, with the ophthalmic opticians and with the British Medical Association, negotiations with whom had not then ceased. Further, the Spens Committee on specialist remuneration had not reported. All these negotiations were proceeding, but it was necessary, because of the financial procedure of the House of Commons, to put an Estimate in.
      How was I to know at that stage what would be the outcome of these negotiations? I want the Committee to recollect this point, because it is a very serious matter. When Ministers, whoever they may be, are in negotiation with sections of the community, it is a very serious
      1452
      matter if a Minister in the middle of those negotiations is subjected to pressure lobbies and log-rolling by the sections concerned. He is engaged, or should be engaged, in defending the public interest against the sectional interest with which he is negotiating.
      Mr. Dodds-Parker: What about the second front now?
      Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member really should go back to his school days. It is therefore vital, if the public interest is to be properly protected, that he should not disclose his hand. Suppose I put into the Estimates assumptions that could have formed the basis of a negotiation by those professions, I should immediately have been helpless. If these figures of dental expenditure and if these figures of expenditure on the ophthalmic opticians and the chemists had been put into the Estimates by me, my negotiations would have been hopelessly destroyed from the very beginning. It was absolutely essential not to do so. I think every man who has had any experience of negotiations knows very well that if they could read in the Estimates what I estimated I was going to spend upon those services they would know at once what to ask for and what to expect. It is essential, therefore, that in such circumstances the Minister of the Crown, whoever he might be, whatever party he represents, should be able to—[interruption]—did the right hon. Gentleman say "deceive the House"?
      Mr. Assheton: Is that not what the right hon. Gentleman did?
      Mr. Bevan: How on earth could I deceive the House when I did not know what the figures were going to be? All I could do was to put in figures based upon the past basis of remuneration. How on earth could I? If I had put in figures based upon a prospective settlement, that itself would have vitiated the negotiations. And these are the people who call themselves competent administrators! The fact is that we had to wait. For instance, there is a Whitley machinery established now, and before the Whitley machinery there is an application from the nurses for an increase in salary. I do not know what may happen to those negotiations. I do say now, however, at this moment, that I do know that a slight increase at least in nurses'

      1453
      salaries is essential. I know that. I do not know how much.
      Therefore, when I put my Estimates in I have to put them in based upon past remuneration and if, in the meantime, in between the Estimate being presented to the House of Commons and the Vote being spent, there is an increase, there must be a Supplementary Estimate unless there is a fall in expenditure in some other place. That is not the consequence of any maladministration. These are the ordinary accompaniments of our constitutional practice for making up our Budget. It is therefore really quite foolish for hon. Members opposite to adopt the line they have adopted and to suggest either that false figures were put into the Estimates or that any miscalculations have occurred. I am astonished at the line some hon. Members have taken.
      The fact is that I consider, without I think much immodesty, that the launching of the National Health Service has been one of the greatest pieces of civil administration in the history of all civil Government in peace time, and what shocked me last Thursday was the frivolous irresponsibility of the behaviour of the Opposition, and especially of the Leader of the Opposition in saying what he did, because this hospital administration and health administration is carried on in this country by 11,000 devoted volunteers drawn from all parties in the State. What the Opposition were actually doing was accusing all those bodies of maladministration. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones), who could not give us factual evidence, charged one hospital with maladministration. I cannot even get the name of the hospital from him. It may be that when I find the name, the majority of the members of the management committee may conceivably be members of the Conservative Party. These bodies responsible for the administration of the Health Service over the last year have given more selfless dedicated service in bringing this great scheme into operation than has ever been known in the history of peace-time government.
      What we should have had from the Opposition is some commendation of the work of these men and women, and not, as we have had from them, the suggestion
      1454
      that in nine months already evidence of maladministration and financial irresponsibility has arisen from the administration of the hospital services. I think it is a little hard; indeed, one of the reasons why the Opposition are now running away is because they have already found out that what the Leader of the Opposition said last Thursday is almost as unpopular among Conservatives in the country as it is among Socialists.
      Furthermore, the Opposition are in a greater difficulty, because as time goes by it will be necessary for us to evolve inside the administration of the Ministry of Health and inside the whole health service proper principles of administration such as those referred to in what I thought was the most thoughtful speech that came from the Opposition; I refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles), who put this whole matter in its proper perspective. Nobody suggests that the hospital authorities should be permitted to spend whatever amounts of money they like. The service has got to be in operation at least one year before there are any comparative statistics available to show which particular management committee is not behaving itself properly.
      As I understand and envisage the operation of the administration of the hospital system of the future, it will go something like this: we shall have global budgets determined for the regional hospital boards and the management committees of hospitals. Those global budgets will be worked out on principles with which hospital administrators are already quite familiar. Within those global budgets the management committees will have discretion to spend what they wish on this or that item of administration. If they spend more on one, they spend less on another. What would be undesirable would be if no management committee or board of governors could repair a pane of glass without first of all having the consent of the administration, because there bureaucracy would arise.
      What we are trying to do is to work out a system of resilient administration with as little bureaucracy as possible, with as much local self-government as possible, and yet at the same time protect the public purse against extravagant administration. I believe we shall do it. In fact,

      1455
      I am convinced we shall do it. We shall show the world how we can centralise financial responsibility and decentralise day-to-day administration in a great service of this sort. I seriously suggest to hon. Members that it is not possible until we have, first of all, at least one year's experience behind us. That is the main answer to the charges made by hon. Members opposite who were so anxious to denigrate the Health Service.
      Let them read the newspapers of the last fortnight or three weeks—the newspapers that support the party opposite. Their leading articles have been full of it. There was the case of the "Evening Standard" tonight. All their newspapers have been full of this misrepresentation, and, therefore, I at once give the hon. Member for Chipperrham his reply. That is how we conceive that the hospital administration of the future is going to work. That does not mean, of course, that where a hospital management committee is spending money extravagantly on a particular item and is neglecting its duty to the patients, it will be permitted to keep on with that neglect merely because it is not spending more money than the total. It will still be necessary for the central administration to protect the patient against the misbehaviour of any management committee or regional hospital board.
      But what we have to do is to try to prevent the very thing we are charged by hon. Members opposite with having done—having a great bureaucracy. The fact is—it is a fact which other nations of the world cannot understand, and we ought to italicise it here because it is something of which we should be very proud—that the National Health Service is not administered by bureaucratic officials; it is administered, as I have said, by 10,000 or 11,000 volunteers of the various executive committees involved. What has been a source of intense pleasure to me is that I have never had any difficulty at all in getting volunteers. I have always had very many more than I could make proper use of.
      Mr. Osborne: Surely, these volunteers were working in their voluntary hospitals years before the Minister took over?
      Mr. Bevan: We need not argue that. It is also common ground, and has been for some time, that the voluntary hospital
      1456
      system was financially failing. Indeed, ever since—the hon. Member should really learn the facts of life before he speaks—I took office in 1945 we have been making grants to voluntary hospitals in order to keep them alive.
      Mr. David Renton: Would not the right bon. Gentleman bear in mind that he has taken over the voluntary hospitals' assets, which are worth many millions more than their liabilities, and also their voluntary Endowment Fund of £17 million?
      Mr. Bevan: We had this all out when the Bill was before the House. The amount of money we are finding with which to keep the voluntary hospitals, vastly exceeds all the money in their Endowment Fund. Once again, the hon. Member does not know what he is talking about. If he wishes to have the figures, and if he puts down a Question for that purpose, I will give him the figures, and then on this matter he will be for ever silent.
      One of the items of expenditure which has produced this Supplementary Estimate was the increase in the remuneration of student nurses. I was asked by the right hon. Gentleman how many hospital beds would be brought into use by this expenditure. How can I tell? I cannot tell until I know what the wastage is going to be, and what is going to be the effect of increased pay on student nurses. I cannot tell what is going to be the effect on recruitment in the nursing field of having raised the standard of remuneration of domestic staff. But I want to point out to the Opposition that this is a profession in which we were having great difficulty to recruit girls because of the bad way they had been treated by the Opposition. It is a matter of pleasure that the Parliamentary Secretary has been able to announce that not only have we reversed the tendencies of the last 10 years or so, but in the course of last year we have actually added 6,000 to the number of nursing staff.
      Mr. Osborne: But the right hon. Gentleman is not using all the beds.
      Mr. Bevan: Of course we are not using all the beds that we have in our institutions, but if this increase had begun earlier these beds would now be occupied by patients.
      Mr. Osborne: The right hon. Gentleman has 60,000 beds empty today which were full before the war.
      Mr. Bevan: I suggest that the Opposition should organise a little school and take some of their back benchers into that school. I have already informed the hon. Gentleman that there are many more hospital beds in existence today than there were before the war. There are many more beds occupied than before the war, but the need is very much greater now than it was before the war, and that accounts for the fact that some beds are still empty.
      Mr. Linstead: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a little lesson which will explain this point? Why is it that one of the greatest areas in the matter of the difficulty of recruiting nurses was the London County Council service which for 25 years has been under Socialist administration?
      Mr. Bevan: I will give the hon. Gentleman his answer. It is because in London it was the practice to take all the interesting cases into the teaching hospitals and the chronic sick into the L.C.C. hospitals. As the hon. Gentleman wishes to be taught, I will give him another answer. It is this: the teaching hospitals of London have, for reasons obvious to everybody, always been more attractive to nurses and, therefore, it was very much more difficult to get nurses in the local government hospitals. Those two facts combined resulted in what the hon. Gentleman has described, and that is why the committees responsible for reorganising the hospitals have insisted that the teaching hospitals should take their proper proportion of the chronic sick. If there are any more questions, I shall be delighted to answer them.
      It was obviously impossible for us to know to what extent spectacles and dental operations would be required. I have been accused of not having made use of the statistical information that was available, but there was no statistical information available. The National Health Insurance statistics have not been of any use since 1939. How did we know what was going to be the demand? But I will point out to hon. Members that, both in this field and in many other fields, whenever we have been able to
      1458
      relieve in any way the burden of suffering of the people of Great Britain, the burden has always proved to have been heavier than we ever thought it would be. The same thing is true in the housing field; the same is true of pensions. It is an unhappy fact that past conditions concealed a vast amount of inarticulate misery and pain. As these great services come into operation that darkness is now moving into twilight; and before very long will move into the light of day, and we shall see exactly what it is. In so far as these figures represent relief of genuine need, everybody ought to be proud of them; but in so far as it is suggested they represent abuse, point out where the abuse is. If there is abuse, let us co-operate in getting rid of it. But first identify the abuse, and do not merely make generalisations that smear the whole service.
      Although the newspapers and hon. Members' letters are full of complaints from this or that person about this or that doctor, dentist, optician or hospital, I would remind hon. Members that only malice is news. Remember the vast majority of people who are really satisfied with the service but never mention it at all. This service was not launched in harmonious circumstances. In fact, no medical service in the world has ever been launched in harmonious circumstances. As our example here is followed by other nations—and they will follow it —we shall read of the difficulties that other Ministers of Health will be going through; and I venture to suggest that it may be that even the Conservative Party will have a few fleeting moments of pride about their Ministers of Health, because they will find that those other Ministers of Health might not be able to get this great scheme into operation so easily.
      I could, of course, have emerged from this examination perfectly clear of any charges of arithmetical inexactitude. All I need have done was to have failed as an administrator to have emerged successfully as an arithmetician. And why? Who suspected before 5th July last that in six months, before the end of 1948, these figures would have emerged? Who would have said that we would have in the service many more general practitioners than we ourselves thought would have come in? Who would have suspected that 95 per cent. of the population would have registered with general

      1459
      practitioners by the end of the year? Who would have said that by now even in the most obdurate of all the professions—I do not want to make too strong a statement—the profession whose ethical standards as a profession are not as high as they might be, the dental profession, we should have got 92 per cent. of the dentists in? As these people came into the service, naturally the expenditure went up. But that mounting expenditure was an expression of an administrative success, because if they had not come in I would not have had a deficit: I would have had a surplus, and I would then be praised by the Opposition for being a financial success and a failure as Minister of Health. It is just because all these services expanded so quickly, so harmoniously, and so fruitfully that we find ourselves with this deficit.
      Although this financial burden is great, we must nevertheless set off against it the enormous sum of misery we have already alleviated, the general hopes we have already created, and the good health that already starts to flow from what we have done. Why do not right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite start ceasing to be so sour? Why is it that as the health of the population goes up, their spirit goes down? The Tory Party used to represent itself as a jocund party. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] They do not understand English now. I will give them a clue:
      "How jocund did they drive their teams afield."
      However, that has all gone now. Pale and miserable lot, instead of welcoming every increase in the health of the nation, the buoyancy of the nation and the vitality of the nation, they groan at it. They hate it because they think it spells electoral defeat.
      I have sympathised with hon. Members opposite this evening because they have had a really difficult task. They began by attacking this scheme. Especially in 1947, their hopes were raised because they thought that the economic difficulties into which the country was getting over the balance of payments would result in the jettisoning of the health scheme. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have spent most of their time saying how much they approved of the health scheme. I am perfectly entitled
      1460
      to rejoin by saying how much they tried to stop its birth. They always hoped that it would be shipwrecked on the initial difficulties of launching. Indeed, not only did they hope that, but they connived at it.
      We have only to go back to 1947 and 1948 to see what the Conservative newspapers were doing and how the Tories were conspiring with some of the most reactionary elements in the medical profession at that time. Mark this, they voted against the Second Reading and they voted against the Third Reading. It is a convention of Parliamentary practice that if one votes against the Bill on Third Reading, one objects to it in principle. One very rarely votes against a Bill on Third Reading if one does not object to the Bill root and branch. That is what hon. Members opposite did. As the scheme has gone on and grown in popularity, they have been trying to forget that dreadful past and they are trying to pretend that they were for it all the time. The Conservative Party has always been in favour of reform in the abstract and against every reform in particular, and exactly the same thing has happened on this occasion.
      Later on, when we had negotiations with the dentists and the other professions, we met with hostility. I met with pressure in the House, and every Thursday I was pressed as to why I did not come to an agreement with the dentists and why I did not come to an agreement with the doctors. Instead of supporting Ministers in the negotiations with the professions, the Conservative Party organised itself into a series of pressure lobbies in the Press, pressure lobbies all over the country against every single thing. What they are now saying to the country is, "We were never against it. It is quite true that we voted against it, it is quite true that we agitated against it, it is quite true that we plotted against it, but we were really in favour of it all the time." They say, "You must not read our intentions from what we have said, because we really mean the opposite of what we are doing." Therefore, when the Conservative Party tells the country to vote against us, they do not really mean it, they mean that the country should vote for us.
      Really hon. Members opposite ought not to have started this Debate. I say

      1461
      that as this great scheme unfolds itself, it will be necessary for anybody who occupies this position to have the support of the House of Commons in seeing to it that the money which is spent upon the health services is spent where it is intended the best good should be done, and that is not upon doctors. That is for the hon. Member for Denbigh, too, because the hon. Member was organising himself into a small pressure lobby for the doctors.
      Sir H. Morris-Jones: The right hon. Gentleman has been enjoying himself very much for the last five minutes, during which he made more inaccuracies than I have ever heard. Would the right hon. Gentleman deny that during the Committee stage of the Bill most of the constructive Amendments were moved from the Opposition side?
      Mr. Bevan: I say it is necessary that the money be not spent upon the most articulate members of the community who might be the chemists, the doctors, the dentists or the ophthalmic opticians, or it might be even the health workers, because each one of these sections is highly organised and is able to bring pressure to bear upon Parliament and upon Ministers. As the hon. Member for Chippenham said, inevitably there is only a limited amount of money to be spent at any time on all our social Services. Therefore, I say in all seriousness—because this I think we share with the Opposition—if it is spent prodigally in one direction, it is not there for another. I am anxious that the money be not spent on the persons who can organise themselves into loud pressure lobbies, and get their columns in the Press, but on the patients who have to make use of this Service.
      I end by saying that I welcome the discussion which has taken place. I believe it has shown the hypocrisy of the Opposition. I believe it has shown the soundness of the Service. The best thing the Opposition can do is to resign its position, or admit it is wrong, or walk into the Lobby and vote against the Estimate.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Resolved:
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £52,800,000, be granted to His Majesty,
      1462
      to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for the expenses of providing a comprehensive health service in England and Wales and certain other services connected therewith, including the central purchase of medical supplies."

    CLASS V

      NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, SCOTLAND
      Motion made and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,655,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for the expenses of providing a comprehensive health service in Scotland and certain other services connected therewith, including the central purchase of medical supplies."
      Mr. Snow (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLASS II

      COLONIAL OFFICE
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies and the salary of the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs.—[Mr. Rees-Williams.]
      9.50 p.m.
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): The purpose of this Supplementary Estimate is to cover expenditure on "Travelling and incidental expenses," due to the increase in travelling by the Colonial Office staff, and the members of advisory and other committees which have been a feature of my right hon. Friend's administration. The increases are in part due to the higher cost of travelling and railway fares, and also to an increase in the amount of subsistence allowances. The item "Advisory and other posts abroad" relates to expenses of the organisation for Closer Union and Development of Welfare in the West Indies which as a result of my right hon. Friend's policy was extended to its present form, in May, 1948, and to outstanding charges for post-war recruitment for the Colonial service in the

      1463
      Middle and Far East. These items are offset by a saving, or an anticipated saving, under the subhead of the Directorate of Colonial Surveys.
      I understand that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) desires to put some questions concerning this Vote. Perhaps, therefore, I may be permitted to speak a second time to answer any questions which he raises.
      9.52 p.m.
      Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman in asking for this Supplementary Vote did not use the argument that mounting expenditure is proof of administrative success. I am glad, too, that we have passed into the comparatively harmonious waters of Colonial administration. We are very pleased if the Secretary of State and his officers travel around the Empire. The more they travel, the better for the Empire and, incidentally, the better for themselves. In fairness to the Government I think, looking at the history of the past year, that they have fairly well covered the Colonial Empire. There is one conspicuous exception, however—Northern Rhodesia. I think I am right in saying that none of our three Ministers has visited Northern Rhodesia. The charge, in fact, is made a general one by my belief that no Minister has, in fact, been in Northern Rhodesia since 1924. In view of the talks on federation between Northern and Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, of which we have lately been hearing with interest, and the prospect of a Central African Federation emerging, I hope that this deficiency will be remedied.
      I should not be in Order in commenting upon the way in which money has been saved, because we are not allowed, on Supplementary Estimates, to discuss savings, but I say in passing that I wish it had not been achieved at the expense of that Colonial survey without which we can never properly develop the Empire. We have very few further points, at least I personally have, in regard to this Vote, but the next and subsequent Votes raise matters of great importance to our Colonial fellow subjects. Tens of millions of people are interested in the decision this House will reach on the further Votes. I think it would probably commend itself to everyone if it were possible
      1464
      to arrange that we do not start a discussion on further Votes at this late hour. If no other hon. Member has any further question to ask on this Vote, I think we should report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Resolved:
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies and the salary of the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs."
      To report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Snow.]
      Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.
      Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow.

  EAST AND WEST AFRICA (SOIL EROSION)
  9.57 p.m.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]
  Mr. Skeffington: I am very glad to have this chance of directing the attention of the House to a problem which is of fundamental importance to the whole world and of particular significance to the British Commonwealth. Some of us have had our thoughts directed to this problem by the very remarkable book written by William Vogt, called "Road to Survival." Although I do not want to be associated with all the conclusions of the book, I think there are a large number of figures and a great many facts in it which we cannot afford to ignore. A great deal of the future happiness and prosperity of the world will undoubtedly depend on how we treat the subject of soil erosion, particularly in the British Commonwealth.
  In this connection we have to realise that since 1939 the pressure of world population has been growing and there are 130 million extra mouths to be fed since that year. Yet the acreage for food throughout the world has probably been decreasing. It was interesting to recall that in 1938 Dr. Hugh Bennett, giving evidence before a Congressional Committee

  1465
  on soil erosion, pointed out the position in the United States, and I only give this as an example of the world problem. He said:
  "We are losing every day as the result of erosion the equivalent of 200 40-acre farms. We have lost that much since we were here yesterday. It has gone, gone, forever."
  Earlier he said:
  "It takes nature 300 to 1,000 years or more to bring about a single inch of topsoil and we sometimes lose that much topsoil as a result of a single rain if it is an especially heavy torrential type of rain."
  That is the problem as it affects the United States. Tonight I wish only to direct attention to areas in Africa. In any case the continent of Africa is particularly exposed to the menace of the removal of its soil. Apart from the northern and southern extremities, it lies entirely within the tropics, most of its elevation is an average of about 2,000 feet, and so blazing temperatures are experienced over a very large proportion. Rainfall is in many places hardly adequate for cultivation and in the few places where there is excessive rainfall, if the rain forests are removed the soil is removed as well. In addition in most of the continent a coast mountain barrier prevents the moderating influence of maritime factors.
  The problem of East Africa was brought home to me very vividly when I flew over considerable areas last year, and saw those horrible red scars on the earth where soil had been removed, sometimes through hill cultivation and sometimes, of course, by nature——
  It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. Adams.]
  Mr. Skeffington: I can remember particularly areas in Kenya where I was told that a hundred years ago a very considerable proportion was covered by rain forests and where today less than two per cent. is now so clothed with vegetation. The Kikuyu tribe is in a measure responsible for some of this devastation. In 1910, before they could be stopped, they had destroyed very considerable portions of the forest land, which made soil erosion much more
  1466
  rapid. Mr. Vogt says in his book that the arid land south-east of Lake Rudolph, which I also visited, is being lost to the desert at the rate of about six miles a year. It really is a very menacing problem. Flying over the Tana River, particularly at its mouth, one can see that the Indian Ocean is stained for 30 miles or more with soil brought down from the Mount Kenya area—another fertile area.
  In the inter-war period, there was a good deal of hillside development by Europeans, sometimes coffee, cotton and even corn plantations going up the slope elevations as much as seven degrees, which means again that soil erosion has taken place from this very scarce but fertile land.
  I was interested to see that this fact was realised by a number of the responsible leaders of African opinion. Mr. Juno Kenyatte, President of the Kenya African Union, whom some people regard as the devil incarnate, I think quite wrongly, in talking to a group of Africans at Ndeiya said, according to a report I have, "he was extremely angry with the people of Ndeiya. He said that they were particularly bad offenders in respect of the cultivation of land. When it had been given them it was good fertile land with plenty of trees, but now it was bad. Trees were most important and anyone who cut down one should plant another in its place." I am very glad to think that at least one leader of African opinion is talking to his own people about the problem, because this is the sort of difficulty that can only be solved by co-operation and measures of a very comprehensive kind.
  I do not want to say very much about West Africa, because to me it is only a book problem. I have heard a great deal about the de-forestation of the Niger and its delta and the consequent erosion. I am told that in the north and east and the great central forest area there has been very considerable cultivation without appropriate preservation methods being taken, so that there is a very grave chance that in that particular spot we may find soil erosion developing at an alarming scale in the next few years.
  I should like to ask the Under-Secretary if he has any particular news or views

  1467
  about that. What can be done? I think the Under-Secretary has said on a previous occasion that regulations in regard to cultivation must be most strictly enforced. Perhaps we ought not to go to the extent to which the old tribesmen used to go in Madagascar where anybody who cut down a tree was beheaded on the stump of the tree which he had felled. Undoubtedly, people who do not take the appropriate measures, whether they are individual African cultivators or others, are exposing the territories to the most grave consequences, particularly when one remembers the increasing population of the areas. The present African population of British East Africa, as far as can be estimated, is about 10 million, and that figure is likely to double itself in the next 10 years. In most of these areas it is necessary to import food. At the present time, if a considerable area of the remaining fertile land is not preserved, then the direst consequences will follow.
  Regulation, however, is only a negative approach. We must do something much more positive. I should like to know whether there is any general scheme for East or West Africa, and whether indeed we have even got the data. I was shocked to find in Kenya that only one per cent. of the territory had yet been mapped on a one-inch scale. Until one has a general over-all picture of the places where this problem is most acute and where it must be tackled immediately, piecemeal measures will not get us very far.
  I imagine that a great deal could be done for African cultivation by African agricultural advisers. When I was in East Africa it was obvious that there were far too few of them. Many are being trained at Makerere College, where excellent work is being done. The trainees are given a two-year course. But it is clear that only a small number of people are being affected and that much more precise instruction must be given to many more African cultivators. The work will have to be done on a fairly large scale. I should like to hear something of what is being done in the way of contour ploughing and strip cropping. I should like to know whether there is a general plan which will give us some idea how far the seriousness of the problem has been realised in Africa and what
  1468
  measures are being taken to meet it. There is much more that I could say, but I know many hon. Members want to speak and I should like to give other hon. Members the opportunity to take part in this Debate.
  10.9 p.m.
  Mr. Baldwin: We are much obliged to the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Skeffington) for calling the attention of the House of a tragedy. Anyone who has been to Africa, whether he has flown over the territory or travelled through it, must realise that something is happening there which should be tackled without delay. Books have been written on the subject. Many men who have devoted a lot of time to the problem have repeatedly called attention to the trouble, and yet no drastic steps are taken to stop it. We are creating a dust bowl in Africa at a fast rate. Stronger steps should be taken in the way of compulsory powers to ensure that this is stopped.
  A great deal of the trouble is caused in the native reserves by over-stocking and over-cultivating—corn after corn—and also by the fact that not sufficient trees are being planted. That is what is happening in the native reserves, and I think that the same thing will happen in Tanganyika under the Government scheme unless they start to plant some shelter belts there to replace the bush. This problem needs tackling. I know the difficulty of getting the natives to cultivate their land properly. They look upon cattle as the only wealth and they do not sufficiently contour plough the land.
  The way to tackle the problem is to train some of the African people themselves as cultivators. I know that we have got Makerere College. I admit that I have used strong terms about it in a little debate with an hon. Gentleman opposite, but I feel that that college should be turning out African agriculturists—because Kenya and that part of the world is an agricultural country which must maintain itself by agriculture—instead of training lawyers, and so on. This college ought to be producing trained cultivators who will be able to get a response when they go back to their own reserves, and will be able to instruct their own people on how the job should be done. I think

  1469
  the natives are much more likely to respond to one of their own community who will have responsibility, and that they will cultivate their land properly and encourage their people in the right way.
  This problem, as I say, is not one that wants talking about but one that wants tackling, and I hope that the Colonial Office will tell us without delay how they propose to deal with it. In this country, we are being led to believe that Africa is the future provider of food for this country, but Africa is going to have the biggest job in the world to maintain itself. When I was in Kenya two years ago, one of the native reserves was having to buy maize from the Argentine to feed its own people, and yet we are led to believe that they will provide this country with food. With a population which doubles itself every 20 years, owing to the actions of the British people in stopping tribal warfare and preventing the spread of disease, if they do not tackle the cultivation of their land properly they will run the risk of starvation.
  10.12 p.m.
  Mr. H. D. Hughes: I want to add briefly to what my hon. Friend the Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Skeffington) has said about the urgency of this problem of soil erosion, and I speak with some brief firsthand experience of West Africa, in support of what he said about East Africa. I have recently seen the terrible devastation of soil erosion in the Eastern provinces of Nigeria, where the great gulleys of ruined soil are a monument of neglect and decay. There is in that part of Africa a tremendous pressure on the land because of a tremendous surplus population. I recognise the efforts that are being made by the Colonial authorities to tackle this problem. They are experimenting, not only with contour ploughing but with the planting of new crops, and there are hopes of an improvement in a reasonable space of time.
  I would stress the inadequate number of skilled technicians available at the moment to tackle this problem. In Nigeria, at present, there are only two trained agricultural officers for every million of the population, and the population is dependent almost entirely upon agriculture. It is obviously quite impossible for a personnel of that limited
  1470
  scope to be able to get round the peasants, teach them new methods, break down the prejudices of the past, deal with the difficulties of land tenure, and so on. There is no solution to this problem other than pressing on far more rapidly than has been done so far with the training of African technicians to do this job among their own people. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give some encouraging figures of the number of agricultural students from the Colonial territories who are now in agricultural colleges in this country, because I am quite convinced that only in that way shall we get a solution to this problem.
  10.15 p.m.
  Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: I wish to reinforce the remarks made by hon. Members on both sides of the House tonight. This is the most important problem of our generation. On the one hand, we have a great responsibility for this increasing erosion in Africa, and, on the other, we have a great responsibility in the fact that we administer a great Empire, that we are the leading nation in the world, and that we have to lead other nations to salvation. The one nation on which we are all depending at this moment has great flaws in its armour, such as we have being informed about tonight.
  This is an urgent problem. We must get the Africans into it, but besides that—and, after all, there are some very primitive races in many of the places of Africa—we must husband all the resources we can in this country to get from Africa every possible blade of grass that can grow there. We must apply all the research, experience and knowledge that we have in this country of matters of agriculture, apart from industry. I was discussing this matter only this morning with a scientist who had visited all these territories we are discussing tonight. He pointed out the fact that a man in this country could dig down to two feet of soil, but that in Africa the soil is only a matter of inches deep, and is a prey to swift downpours of rain. Up to now, the natives have been largely ignorant of the uses of agriculture, and have, I am afraid, been inveigled largely by us, to grow cotton in Uganda which has ended in eroding the soil more than if it had been left alone.

  1471
  In this country, which has the finest mechanised system in the world, and still produces wonderful crops, we have one of the most closely living industrial communities in the world, and also the finest agriculture in the world. We are the only people to use all the methods we have in Africa, and I hope that we shall do everything to prosper a great plan which is going to bring salvation to us in the years to come.
  10.18 p.m.
  Mr. Rankin: In the very brief time at my disposal, I wish to support what has already been said tonight about this tremendous problem. There is one little aspect which has not been emphasised, and that is the fact that we could see, when we entered into the Continent of Africa, that we entered into a place where there was already a balanced economy. It may have been primitive, but, nevertheless, it was balanced, that is, the population did not exceed the carrying capacity of the land. One of the results of our advent and that of other white races into Africa has been that we have upset that balance at both ends—at the population end and at the agricultural end. If we would reach a solution, we must approach it not merely from the point of agricultural regeneration, but also from the point of view of population.
  10.19 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Skeffington) for raising this subject on the Adjournment tonight, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies and I myself believe that there is no more important subject than this, not merely for this country, and not merely for the Colonial Empire, but for the people of the world. The facts which the hon. Gentleman gave in his speech are facts which anyone who is concerned with government must treat very seriously. It is the constant preoccupation of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies to see that the best possible measures of soil utilisation, stocking policy and the rest are adopted. We recognise, therefore, the importance of the facts to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and we realise that the problem which is now before the House is fundamental
  1472
  to the wellbeing of the territories for which my right hon. Friend is responsible.
  There are five ways in which we propose to tackle this subject. The first is by the extension of contour terracing. I believe there are photographs of such contour terracing on show in the Library; and hon. Members have, no doubt, seen them. The second method is by the conservation of rainfall and proper irrigation. We recently had a report on this very subject from Professor Debenham, the professor of geography at Cambridge, who was a member of Scott's famous expedition to the Antarctic, and I am glad to say that he is exceedingly optimistic about water supplies in Africa so long as they are properly conserved. The third way is by the control of stock generally, and cattle and goats in particular.
  Mr. Baldwin: And forestry.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: I am coming to that; I should like to deal with the methods one by one. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) talked about this question of animals and of how they are used as a post office savings bank or for a bride's price. He is perfectly correct, but I feel that to some extent the blame is not all on the African, because I am informed on very good authority that up to now there has been very little incentive for the African to sell his cattle at an economic price. I am glad to say that the Government of Kenya, under the inspiration of the Governor, Sir Philip Mitchell, is remedying that state of affairs. They are erecting an abattoir and a factory——
  Mr. Baldwin: Liebigs?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: Liebigs did not do it. I cannot go into the pros and cons of it, but the Governor is hoping that this factory and abattoir will manage to do what Liebigs could not do; that is to say, use the whole of the animal and not just the prime joint, as it were.
  Fourthly, we come to the conservation of forests and the control of the burning of forests for agriculture. I have seen this done all over the world in various places, especially by hill tribes, where it is difficult very often for them to get

  1473
  land on the plains. I have seen it on the frontiers of Burma, for example, where whole regions are burnt out with disastrous consequences. Therefore, we have a very strong policy for the conservation of timber forests. The fifth point is the conservation of the existing soil by good husbandry and methods of improved cultivation. I am glad to say that in Kenya in 1946 a £1,500,000 scheme to build up a soil conservation service over the next 10 years was started, and the necessary staff is being engaged and the necessary assistants trained. At Makerere College which has been mentioned before this evening there is already in existence a scheme to train these agricultural assistants and many of them have already earned high praise.
  The question of getting trained agriculturists from here is one of our biggest difficulties. Owing to the war and the cessation of training of these people, they have come into extraordinarily short supply. Therefore, we have urged upon governments to take diploma students if they cannot get degree students, and if necessary also to take students from the schools which the Ministry of Agriculture has set up in this country. Only last week my right hon. Friend's assistant adviser on agriculture went to one of these schools to discuss the whole question of our needs with the students. There is no lack of activity on our part. The fact is that we are in competition with agriculture in this country, with the Dominions and with others who need the services of these students.
  The problem placed before us tonight is of immense importance at this moment in view of the recent scientific discoveries such as the new drug antrycide and others which may, and we hope will, prove of immense benefit to the cattle situation in Africa. My right hon. Friend has decided that this particular time in history is so important that it calls for an examination by all the Governments of East and West Africa of their stock policy and also of the control of their land.
  Mr. J. H. Hare: Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that he is taking into consideration the great knowledge which exists in Southern Rhodesia and South Africa. This is not merely a Colonial problem. Will he take
  1474
  into consideration what is already learned by the two self-governing Dominions?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: We have taken that into consideration. My right hon. Friend wants to be assured that in these vast areas which possibly may be opened up for cattle and husbandry over-stocking will not take place and that there will not be soil erosion, as unfortunately there has been in the case of some of the older areas. He has, therefore, invited the Governments in East, West and Central Africa to meet in Nairobi in June when these matters will be discussed, we hope, and when suggestions will be made to the Governments for land utilisation and stocking policy. We regard this as of immense significance at this particular moment and it would be a tragedy, not only for our own people but for the human race, if we did not make the best possible use of the land which may become available to us through the inventions of science and the work of the scientists. We are also having in Jos a little later in the year another conference on aspects of the problems of Africa, mainly to consider the mixed farming which may be possible with the discovery of the new drug. Furthermore, we have held in the Congo an International Conference at which all powers responsible for African territories have had these matters under consideration.
  Hon. Members can rest assured that the very proper and indeed reasonable fears they have expressed tonight on this problem are having my right hon. Friend's constant attention and that he is taking all the necessary steps to ensure that the evils of the past shall not be repeated in the future. At this Nairobi conference it is intended that members of the various governments in East, West and Central Africa shall be present—that is those territories for which my right hon. Friend is responsible—and that observers shall be present representing other powers who have responsibilities in Africa. I agree that that point is important. Southern Rhodesia will be invited to be represented as well as South Africa, Belgium, France and Portugal, but they will be represented by observers.
  I hope that in the short time available to me I have convinced hon. Members that we are taking this matter extremely

  1475
  seriously and doing everything possible to meet the very proper fears that have been expressed.
  Mr. Skeffington: Before my hon. Friend concludes, would be say whether it is possible to step up the number of students at the Makerere college? There seems to be such a disproportionate number on other subjects, with only 20–40
  1476
  students a year for agriculture. That seems to me one of the practical solutions.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: Here again the question of teachers arises. My right hon. Friend's adviser is in Africa and that is one of the subjects he is looking into.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Nine Minutes past Ten o'Clock.

FUEL AND POWER
  Regional Offices (Address Slips)
  Regional Offices (Address Slips)
  Miners' Hostels (Charges)
  Miners' Hostels (Charges)
  Electricity (Differential Tariff)
  Electricity (Differential Tariff)
  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS (LAW)
  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS (LAW)
  CARLISLE STATE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
  CARLISLE STATE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Anglo-Argentine Negotiations
  Anglo-Argentine Negotiations
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Poultry, Gambia (Dollar Expenditure)
  Poultry, Gambia (Dollar Expenditure)
  Italian Currency
  Italian Currency
  Speedway Racing (Taxation)
  Speedway Racing (Taxation)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Candidates (Fees)
  Candidates (Fees)
  Higher Grades Salaries (Committee's Report)
  Higher Grades Salaries (Committee's Report)
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Hospital Management Committees
  Hospital Management Committees
  Doctors, Port Dinorwic
  Doctors, Port Dinorwic
  Emergency Dental Treatment
  Emergency Dental Treatment
  Foreign Visitors (Treatment)
  Foreign Visitors (Treatment)
  Sanatorium, Denbigh (Food)
  Sanatorium, Denbigh (Food)
  Hospital Laundry Workers (Wages)
  Hospital Laundry Workers (Wages)
  Analgesia Apparatus (Supply)
  Analgesia Apparatus (Supply)
  Nurses (Uniforms)
  Nurses (Uniforms)
  Hospital Staffs (Conditions)
  Hospital Staffs (Conditions)
  Opticians (Private Patients)
  Opticians (Private Patients)
  Plastic Dentures
  Plastic Dentures
  Benefit Applications, Cardiff
  Benefit Applications, Cardiff
  Doctors' Surgery, Cardiff
  Doctors' Surgery, Cardiff
HOUSING
  Sutton and Cheam
  Sutton and Cheam
  Local Authorities Lists (Ex-Service Men)
  Local Authorities Lists (Ex-Service Men)
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Alpha Tocopherol (Supplies)
  Alpha Tocopherol (Supplies)
  Central Health Services Council
  Central Health Services Council
  Afan Ro River, Conway Valley
  Afan Ro River, Conway Valley
  Smallpox Deaths
  Smallpox Deaths
WATER SUPPLY
  Enborne Valley Reservoir
  Enborne Valley Reservoir
  Bullingdon District
  Bullingdon District
  Market Rasen
  Market Rasen
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES)
EDUCATION
  Closed Schools, Wales
  Closed Schools, Wales
  General Certificate (Examination)
  General Certificate (Examination)
  Sex Education
  Sex Education
  Arab Students
  Arab Students
  Schools (Prefabricated Construction)
  Schools (Prefabricated Construction)
  Teachers (Advisory Council)
  Teachers (Advisory Council)
  Large Classes
  Large Classes
  Teachers and Students (Exchange)
  Teachers and Students (Exchange)
  Teachers (Training)
  Teachers (Training)
  School Milk and Meals
  School Milk and Meals
  School Building
  School Building
  Welsh Joint Committee (Secretary)
  Welsh Joint Committee (Secretary)
  Development Plans
  Development Plans
  Grants (Local Authorities)
  Grants (Local Authorities)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Exports (Certified Invoices)
  Exports (Certified Invoices)
  Wool Control (Staff)
  Wool Control (Staff)
  Steel Exports (Canada)
  Steel Exports (Canada)
  Woollen Textile Industry (Yarn Supply)
  Woollen Textile Industry (Yarn Supply)
  Timber (Felling Restrictions)
  Timber (Felling Restrictions)
  Herring Drift Nets
  Herring Drift Nets
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Machinery Production
  Machinery Production
  Weapon Tests, Australia
  Weapon Tests, Australia
  ARMED FORCES (DENTAL AND OPHTHALMIC TREATMENT)
  ARMED FORCES (DENTAL AND OPHTHALMIC TREATMENT)
  UNIVERSITIES (ANGLO-AMERICAN EXCHANGE)
  UNIVERSITIES (ANGLO-AMERICAN EXCHANGE)
  RETAIL PRICES (INDEX)
  RETAIL PRICES (INDEX)
  ROYAL NAVY (DISCHARGE ROUTINE)
  ROYAL NAVY (DISCHARGE ROUTINE)
EMPLOYMENT
  Medical Practitioners
  Medical Practitioners
  Building Operatives
  Building Operatives
  COMBINED HARVESTERS
  COMBINED HARVESTERS
  PIGS (SLAUGHTER)
  PIGS (SLAUGHTER)
  POST OFFICE (MAIL COLLECTIONS)
  POST OFFICE (MAIL COLLECTIONS)
  SCOTTISH HYDRO- ELECTRIC BOARD
  SCOTTISH HYDRO- ELECTRIC BOARD
  ST. HELENA (ECONOMIC SITUATION)
  ST. HELENA (ECONOMIC SITUATION)
  JEWISH CAMPS, CYPRUS
  JEWISH CAMPS, CYPRUS
  AFRICAN VISITORS, LONDON (ACCOMMODATION)
  AFRICAN VISITORS, LONDON (ACCOMMODATION)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  NEWFOUNDLAND (LIBERATION) BILL [H.L.]
  LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, in the debate last week on the status of Newfoundland, I gave notice at the time that I proposed to submit a Bill touching that matter. Therefore, I ask leave now to present this Bill entitled "Newfoundland (Liberation) Bill," a Bill to restore self-government to Newfoundland. I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a First Reading, which I now beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Sempill.)
  On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

  SPECIAL ROADS BILL
  2.35 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, the main object of this Bill, which I think is a fairly non-controversial Bill, is to secure the recognition of motorways or single-purpose roads as a part of our highway system. But motorways are not the only type of single-purpose road, and the Bill also provides for the construction of other routes confined to one class of traffic, such as cycle-ways reserved for cyclists, or footways reserved for pedestrians. The motorway, however, is obviously the most important type of single-purpose highway from the standpoint of our national system of transport and communications. Therefore, I shall confine my remarks this afternoon mainly to the subject of motorways. I think that that would be the wish of your Lordships. Since the introduction of this Bill in another place, the advantages of the motorway over the all-purpose road have been widely canvassed. I do not propose to examine the details of the various savings in time and transport costs resulting from a motorway system, as it would be difficult, if not
  938
  impossible, to make a precise estimate in terms of time or money.
  But, however reluctant and indisposed one may be to pin conclusions down to the nearest pound or hour, or miles per hour, or journeys per day saved by a motorways system, few would disagree that in broader terms the case for the motorway has been established. To do this fairly, one should not compare the motorway with a typical existing all-purpose road. I think that would be an unfair comparison, for no one seriously visualises a motorway being created out of an existing road, though of course it may incorporate short lengths here and there. The proper and fair comparison is between the motorway, on the one hand, and either the new all-purpose road (which, of course, is likely to be confined, as a rule, to by-pass roads or ring roads) or the all-purpose road that has been as radically improved as practicable, on the other hand. Those are the two types of road which I think it is fair to compare with the motorway when we are trying to estimate the advantage of a motorway over other forms of road.
  EARL HOWE: If I may be forgiven for interrupting, I should like to make the position quite clear. As I understood him, the noble Earl mentioned the "new all-purpose motor road." Would I be in order in suggesting that the noble Earl probably meant "new single-purpose motor road" as compared with the all-purpose road which we have now?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am much obliged. I certainly intended to say "single-purpose motor road." I may have slipped up on that word. The question of building a new motorway—that is to say, a single-purpose motor road—arises only when the present road is so inadequate that it must be replaced by an entirely new road, or drastically improved by a mixture of new construction and widening. The first alternative will normally arise only when we are dealing with a relatively short mileage—that is to say, by-pass roads, ring roads, internal relief roads and the like. For the long mileages of the cross-country routes, the old road will normally be replaced only in parts by new construction, and elsewhere by widening and reconstruction of the present alignment.
  In the first case, we can make a direct comparison between the motorway and

  939
  the all-purpose road, since both will be entirely new construction, and we find that even on the initial score of cost of construction the motorway has the advantage. It is cheaper, for it will not have to cater for cycle-paths or footways, and the overall width can be reduced from some 120 feet for the all-purpose road to about 93 feet for the motorway. This reduction in width means something of the order of a 15 per cent. saving in expenditure on materials and labour that go to the making of a road. Equally important, it represents something like a 10 per cent. saving in land, and the cost of purchasing land is therefore considerably reduced. Similar comparisons between the new cross-country motorway and the reconstructed all-purpose cross-country road are much harder to make. The cost of reconstructing the all-purpose road, and the amount of land required, will vary greatly from one section to another, according to the amount of new construction undertaken. However, we can certainly assume that if these motorways are not built, the cross-country routes of exceptional importance which we have in mind will require a very extensive mileage of new construction in the form of diversions and by-passes to make them anything like adequate, as well as expensive works of widening and other improvement to bring them up to a reasonable standard.
  A detailed investigation has been carried out on what is considered to be a typical case—the road between Bristol and Gloucester. I should like to give this example because I think it brings the point vividly before one's mind. In this case of the road between Bristol and Gloucester, it was found that to bring the existing road somewhere near modern standards, thirteen miles out of twenty-three would have to be rebuilt on a new alignment, and the other ten miles widened or otherwise improved. The cost of building a brand new motorway to replace this twenty-three miles—that is, the whole length of the road between Bristol and Gloucester—worked out at only about 1 per cent. more than the cost of improving the old road. We can, therefore, reasonably assume that the motorway by-pass will be a more economical proposition than the all-purpose by-pass, and that the cross-country motorway will be either no more,
  940
  or very little more, expensive than the improvement of an existing cross-country route.
  In addition to its many advantages over the improved old road, the motorway has one outstanding advantage over any all-purpose road, even the entirely new all-purpose by-pass, laid out to modern design, with strictly controlled frontage access and the total elimination of road intersections on the level. That advantage is the segregation of traffic, which is the essence of the motorway. The presence of the horse and cart, the pedestrian and the cyclist on a fast modern road carrying a heavy load of motor traffic, can mean only increased danger to everyone and a higher tendency to traffic congestion. The motorway, therefore, not only has the advantages of economy, to a greater or less degree, in cost and land use, and the further advantages that any new road can have of a scientific alignment, modern treatment of junctions, and restriction on private access, but it has also the unique and outstanding advantage of assisting the segregation of the through traffic from local traffic, and of slow from fast traffic.
  There is a further point which I think is of considerable importance: the motor-way will be a new road "by-passing," so to speak, an existing road. It will naturally attract to itself the fast, heavy, through traffic. It will therefore not only be in itself a much more efficient and safe means of through communication than the old road would ever be, but it will also render the old road much less congested, safer and pleasanter as a route for the traffic that has to continue to use it after the new road has been built. I think it may fairly be said, without any element of exaggeration, that as a result of the construction of motorways our system of road communications will become both more efficient and far safer for road users. I have listened in years past (and the time that I recollect goes back quite a distance before the war) to many debates in your Lordships' House on the subject of road safety, in which the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, has always been a strong advocate of road safety. I am sure that he and other noble Lords who are interested in this subject will welcome this Bill, because it will go a long way to reducing the toll of the roads.

  941
  There is every reason to expect—and experience of motorways in Germany and of parkways in America bears out this expectation—that the motorway will offer nothing but gain if we start from the assumption that it will be built only where the alternative is a new or drastically reconstructed all-purpose road. Our highway system is, in its present state, not so inadequate that we need to duplicate every main road in the country with motorways; that would be an absurd and extravagant cost. But where the most vital of the main national roads are concerned, we are confident that as time passes the motorway will become the one really efficient, safe and economical answer to the problems of road transport.
  I am sure that many of your Lordships will ask yourselves: what bearing motorways of this kind will have on agriculture. There are many noble Lords who have always taken a keen interest in agriculture, and they will no doubt envisage the building of motorways from the point of view of the effect on the farmer. So far as one can judge the attitude of the farming community in general from that of such responsible and representative bodies as the National Farmers' Union and of various spokesmen in another place, it appears on the whole to be favourable to the Bill. The effects of the motorways on agriculture fall to be considered under three main heads: first, the use of agricultural land for the construction of these new roads; secondly, the possibility of inconvenience to farming operations through severance of land—also the result of road construction; and, thirdly, the advantages to agriculture of a more efficient transport system. Summarised, those are the effects of this Bill, both harmful and beneficial, on agriculture.
  I think it can fairly be said (and I hope this view will not be unjustified by the course of this debate) that the attitude of the farming community is that any disadvantages that may be feared under the first two heads—that is to say, under the head of the taking over of land for road construction and of the effect of severence on the utility and efficiency of farms—will be outweighed or set off by the advantages to be derived under the third head. It has been stated, during the discussions on this Bill in another place, I believe, that the efficiency of agriculture, as of all other industries, is entirely dependent upon an
  942
  adequate system of transport. Your Lordships are well aware of the importance of transport charges as an element in farmers' costs, and I sincerely hope and believe that the improved system of transport will outweigh the disadvantages to the farming community. As regards these possible disadvantages, I have already suggested that the motorway has some advantages of economy in land use, because it is not so wide as the all-purpose road; and that is, of course, another benefit to the farmer.
  On the question of severance, it is of course true that motorways cannot be built without considerable disturbance of agricultural land, but that is inevitable whenever a new road is built, whether it be a motorway or any other form of road. Whether we build motorways or not, we shall as time passes certainly have to build new roads to make good the results of the ordinary process of wear and tear. It is the sincere wish of my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport that any disturbance caused to agricultural land should be reduced to a minimum, and when it does arise adequate alternative facilities will be provided. I will say something more on the subject of compensation and severance if the matter is raised (as I anticipate that it will be) by noble Lords in the course of the discussion, when I rise to wind up the debate.
  Let me now tell noble Lords, quite briefly, what we are thinking of in broad outline in relation to this motorway system. We are thinking in terms of a motorway system of some 800 miles—that, of course, takes in many country roads—plus a number of by-pass or radial routes in urban areas. This will inevitably be an expensive programme, and to it we must add the very considerable expenditure that must be incurred to modernise the rest of the highway system. It must be plain to everyone that at the moment we cannot afford to divert the labour and materials necessary for anything so ambitious. In case there is any possibility of misunderstanding, I want to emphasise that this Bill is not being presented now with any such idea in mind. We have no intention of starting these ambitious road projects in the immediate future, or of giving any encouragement to highway

  943
  authorities to act in that way. Motorways must take their turn, and even within the highway programme itself we do not propose that arrears of improvement to existing roads should suffer a reduced priority in favour of extensive new construction of motorways. We must be able to keep a reasonable standard of maintenance in all our existing roads.
  The reason for asking Parliament to approve this Bill at the present time is to enable highway and planning authorities, if they so wish, to plan for motorways. Many miles of new road are now being planned as part of the development plans in preparation under the terms of the Town and Country Planning Act, and much of this mileage should eventually be constructed as motorway. If the motorway principle of segregated traffic is accepted by Parliament, and receives statutory recognition by this Bill's becoming law, then these new roads can be designed and located as motorways from the start, as they should be, and not as all-purpose roads. Both the public and the highway authorities will know where they stand, and preparatory work on the more urgent projects can go ahead in certainty, without that element of doubt which would be present if Parliament had not sanctioned the construction of motorways. This, of course, will reduce delay in starting the actual constructional work as soon as the national resources allow it to be undertaken.
  I should like now to draw attention to some of the salient features of the Bill. The construction of a motorway, obviously, requires a power to segregate motor traffic from other forms of traffic using the roads, but this power is not provided for by existing legislation. Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill, therefore, enable highway authorities to provide special roads for special classes of traffic; and these classes represent the most important change that the Bill proposes. A highway dedicated for public use as a carriageway—that it to say what is ordinarily called a road, as opposed to a footpath or a bridleway—cannot normally be restricted to a particular class or classes of users. That is the position under existing law. There are certain powers by which traffic of a certain specified class can be prohibited from using a given road for some particular reason; but in general anyone with any
  944
  form of vehicle may use a road. The highway law of this country, broadly speaking, recognises restriction of the use of highways only if they are dedicated for public use as footpaths or bridleways. The highway dedicated as a carriageway—that is to say, as a road—is free for all—for the pedestrian, for animals, for carts, for cars, for lorries, for motor cycles, and so on.
  This basic principle of existing law the Bill proposes to modify, so that highway authorities will henceforth be able to say that the highway they are to provide can be used only by a certain type of traffic, to the exclusion of other types. This power to control user will distinguish the motorway or other special roads provided under this Bill from ordinary highways. Access control and the lay-out of junctions, which are equally important from the point of view of these new roads, can be dealt with even if this Bill does not become law, because they are provided for under existing Statutes; but without the power to restrict user of the road it would be impossible to dedicate the road as a motorway. That fact throws one important point into relief. The special road of this Bill will be a special road primarily because of this control. In all other respects it will be a highway like any other highway, and highway law will apply in the normal way, subject to relatively few modifications made in the Bill. Accordingly, the Bill provides primarily for this control over user. Only in the second place does it provide for other matters considered necessary for special roads, such as the powers of Clause 3 to alter side roads, or the powers of Clauses 4, 5 and 6 regarding mains and sewers, and so on.
  Then there are matters of procedure in relation to the machinery of the Bill. These procedural matters are set out in the Schedules and in the remaining clauses of the Bill. What we have in mind is that the Bill should operate in two distinct stages, which may be termed respectively the scheme stage and the order stage. Under Clause 1, a highway authority—which includes, of course, the Ministry of Transport—may be authorised by a scheme made or confirmed, as the case may be, by the Minister (it would be confirmed in the case of a highway authority, who would draw up the scheme subject to the approval

  945
  of the Minister) to provide a special road. The scheme will prescribe the route of the special road, and the class or classes of traffic which will be allowed to use it. There will be two stages in the scheme. The first will be in the planning of the motorway, and then, when a scheme has come into effect, it becomes possible under Clause 3 for orders to be made authorising various matters consequential to the provision of the special road. These will include the alteration or stopping-up of other highways which enter or cross the route of the special road, the elimination of intersections on the level, the construction of junctions with the motorway, and the provision of alternative facilities as may be required for local and other traffic now using the existing roads. It is provided in particular that no existing highway may be stopped up unless the Minister is satisfied that a reasonable alternative is available, or will be provided before stopping-up takes place. That is the second stage which is necessary before the detailed plan of the motorway is completed by the highway authority.
  I am confident your Lordships will agree that it is right and proper that this country should have an up-to-date road system, equal to any which exists elsewhere in the world, as soon as the economic situation permits work on such a system to be started. I have no hesitation at all in commending this Bill to your Lordships, because I think it will be the desire of every member of the House that this scheme should go forward when the proper moment comes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
  3.0 p.m.
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, we have listened to a pure exposition from the noble Earl of what is in this Bill, and those of us who sit on these Benches do not in any way contest the proposition that His Majesty's Government should take powers to construct roads of the type which is adumbrated in the Bill. But we intend to look carefully at this Bill and we may wish, either now or at a later stage, to draw attention to certain defects which we think it contains. We would also like to
  946
  consider the Bill in relation to the transport policy of His Majesty's Government and I therefore invite the noble Earl, when he replies to this debate, to tell the House how these proposals fit in with the avowed aim of the Government to "unify, co-ordinate and integrate" all inland transport—I use the terms which have been used on those Benches in previous debates. The noble Earl has made it clear, and I should like to underline the proposition, that the Bill does nothing of itself; it is an enabling Bill. As I conceive it, it is not so much a Bill enabling the Government to construct roads, because they have powers to do so already under the Trunk Roads Act, as a Bill to exclude certain classes of traffic from certain roads. It is, therefore, literally a restrictive Bill, although I say that in no condemnatory sense.
  The other provisions of the Bill are necessitated by this exclusive purpose of the Bill. That does not mean that it is in any way diminished in importance. May I give an example? It would be a restrictive act to deny access to the Public Galleries of your Lordships' House to any member of a particular category of the public, but it would also be a matter of prime importance, especially if we excluded the Press. By ancient usage the King's highway has been open to all users. Our roads have served alike the traveller on a far journey and the people of the countryside going about their lawful and, I regret to say, sometimes unlawful purposes. A special road will undoubtedly look like any other trunk road. It will be, as some unkind person described it, a gash through the countryside. But although in appearance it is similar, in effect it is very different. A special road reserved for traffic in Class I of the Second Schedule of the Bill—namely, motor traffic moving at more than twenty miles an hour—will be constructed to serve long-distance traffic moving between two or more important centres. It will cease to be at the service of local communications.
  It seems to me that two main consequences flow from this. First, these special roads will improve (as indeed is designed) the conditions for long-distance road haulage, especially for heavier categories, including long-distance passenger coaches. Other things being equal, it must be and can be expected

  947
  that operating costs of running such long-distance road haulage will be diminished. In fact, there would be little purpose in building these roads unless there were a good chance of that object being achieved. Secondly, special roads will offer few benefits to the agricultural industry except, possibly, indirectly. I do not think the noble Earl, in moving the Second Reading, seriously disputed that fact. On the other hand, the construction of special roads must inevitably rob agriculture once again of much valuable productive land, and certainly will cause disturbance to agriculturists. I conceive it to be the duty of the Opposition in this matter to direct the attention of His Majesty's Government to the need to state now the policy which informs this request for these enabling powers. It is our duty to see, so far as we can, that special roads are constructed in a manner causing the minimum disturbance and discouragement to agriculture.
  I hold that in the nature of things the construction of these special through roads for fast-moving commercial traffic must offer competition to railways. That competition is little affected by the question of ownership. It arises because many classes of goods can be carried either by rail or by road. The problem existed before the war, often in an acute form, and I maintain that, despite the Transport Act, it still exists. This problem is not solved by saying that road and rail traffic should be complementary. In some cases that is true, but in many cases it is not. I am glad to see that the Minister in another place has given an assurance that transport users will not be compelled by restrictive ordinances to use one form of traffic or another; they are still to have freedom of choice. Therefore, it seems to me that those in charge of our transport system cannot lay aside the task of influencing the users of rail or road by comparative rates. If road costs are reduced by the making of these special roads, we must consider what effect that will have on rail receipts. If road competition proves formidable, will fares have to be raised to meet the railway deficit? Or will the Transport Commission have so to adjust their rates that traffic has to be diverted back to rail? The Minister of Transport cannot evade responsibility by declaring that the question of rates is a matter for the
  948
  Transport Commission, for, by initiating the constructions of these special roads, the Minister must vitally affect the task of that Commission.
  By granting these enabling powers we are possibly forgoing the opportunity of discussing again this problem of the special roads as a whole. Having given the powers, we shall necessarily have to allow the Minister of Transport to avail himself of them. Therefore, we ought to hear to-day what are the considerations in the mind of the noble Lord and his colleague the Minister of Transport, and how the Minister relates his scheme for these roads to his declared object of integrating inland transport. After all, we are asked in effect to approve the expenditure of a great sum of money, not yet declared. The noble Earl was good enough to give us some idea of the mileage of these special roads—something over 800 miles—and we know that at present estimates the cost per mile is something like £150,000. We can see how large a sum is involved in this Bill. It is commonplace to say that our resources are strictly limited, and it follows, as I see it, that the more we spend on capital improvements to our road system, the less we are likely to be able to spend upon our railway system, in which the State has now invested a very large sum of public money.
  It may be that the Minister has given careful and exact thought to this problem. It may be that he has a scheme which will reconcile these competing interests and these competing claims upon the national resources. He may have a good idea how railway traffic will be affected, and he may know exactly how he is going to keep the railways solvent without making road users foot the bill. If the Minister does know all these things, I hope he has shared his knowledge with the noble Earl who is to reply to the debate, and that the noble Earl in turn will inform us. If this problem is not considered and we hear nothing of the grand policy of His Majesty's Government for inland transport, I hope the noble Earl will not blame us if we suspect that there is no grand plan and that the sacred words "unification, co-ordination and integration" are really incantations. My noble friend Lord Swinton, when he was speaking on the Transport Bill, said that he hoped the policy of the Minister of Transport

  949
  was not solvitur ambulando. There is a great opportunity in your Lordships' House to-day for the fears expressed on that occasion by my noble friend to be proved groundless.
  It must not be forgotten that the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Transport told another place that, given five years of power, his Government would do more for transport than my Party could do in 500 years. That was a boast not very precisely expressed, and we must make allowances for the occasion. But this is a great opportunity to show that His Majesty's Government do expect, in something less than 500 years, to have a plan for transport. We should like to hear the recipe for success which obviously animated the Minister when he made this large and resounding boast.
  Having invited His Majesty's Government to use this admirable occasion for declaring a policy for which we are all waiting, I should now like to turn, as the noble Earl has already done, to the question of agriculture. As the noble Earl has so rightly said, a considerable amount of land must be taken if these roads are to be constructed. He has touched upon the awkward problem of severance. Many holdings will be divided, and their management gravely impaired. Therefore, from the light of agriculture, we must look extremely critically at this Bill, and, so far as in us lies, see that where the need for a special road is proved the burden on agriculture is lightened. So far as that industry is concerned, a special road resembles far more a railway than a road of the ordinary type. A special road is driven through the countryside and is not available for normal local traffic; in fact, the kind of traffic which is the main concern of farmers—namely, tractors, trailers, cattle, horses and so on—will be prohibited from using these roads. Therefore we must examine this Bill with those considerations in mind.
  We want it set down in the Bill that detailed plans of any special road scheme shall be made available in good time to all interested parties so that anyone adversely affected, or likely to be adversely affected, may be able to gauge the extent of the disturbance before the inquiry takes place and have ample time to make objections. We doubt whether this matter
  950
  is adequately safeguarded. Certainly we should like to see that agriculturists are, under this Bill, in at least as favourable a position as their predecessors were in the days when railways were being constructed through our countryside. We want to see that in the matter of accommodation they are not less well treated. By "accommodation" I mean, of course, proper crossings, either over or under the roads, such things as "creeps," drainage, conservation of drinking places and other matters. It ought to be a principle of the Bill that compensation for disturbance is paid only where it is not possible physically to make amends for disturbance. There are certainly doubts as to whether this point is adequately met in the Bill.
  We are also disturbed by the almost unlimited discretionary powers asked for by the Minister in regard to the acquisition of land for special roads. It is clear that if a special road is to meet its purpose, there must be land acquired for such things as "fly-overs" and for other ancillary matters. It is true that it is difficult to lay down in a Bill the width of land which the Minister may acquire, but we must look carefully at the relevant clause to see whether we can prevent the Minister from being entirely the judge in his own cause. These are matters which will concern the Committee. I thought it right to tell noble Lords opposite how our minds are working on this subject.
  Great demands have been made on the agricultural industry for a decade or more. I am sure everyone agrees that the response of the industry has been beyond all praise. The threat that further land may be wrested from agriculture for these purposes is bound to be discouraging. If the discouragement is not to be followed by cynicism about the good will of the Government towards the agricultural industry, it must be apparent within the Bill itself that the Minister of Transport will give due consideration to the requirements of agriculture, as is set down in the early clauses of the Bill. As we have often said before on this side of the House, ministerial assurances of good intentions are no substitute for proper legal safeguards. There is one other point which is a matter of detail, though not a minor point. We should like to know whether, as the Bill now stands, it envisages pedestrian crossings on the level of special roads. If there are to be

  951
  crossings, it seems to me they would in part interrupt the main object of the Bill, which is to have unimpeded flow of traffic. Perhaps the noble Earl will turn his attention to that point when he replies.
  As I said in my opening remarks, we have a duty on this side of the House and, indeed, the whole House has a duty, to give this enabling Bill the most careful scrutiny. The Minister charged with the task of providing public roads must, we agree, take powers adequate to achieve its purpose, but the Minister has voluntarily shouldered a much larger self-appointed task of unifying all inland transport. In granting him the powers which he seeks, we have a right to inquire from noble Lords opposite how the Minister relates this request to his claim that in nationalisation he has found the right solution of our transport problems. Moreover, we have a duty to see that justice is done to all those whose interests and livelihood are affected by these schemes. In this spirit, and with the provisos which I have stated, we shall examine and, I hope, pass this Bill.
  3.22 p.m.
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I do not propose to occupy more than a few minutes of your time in the observations which I desire to make upon this Bill. My noble friend Lord Listowel was kind enough to refer to the fact that I had taken part in a good number of debates dealing with safety on the road. That is true. I think in almost all of them the main burden of my observations were critical of the Government of the day—to whatever Party that Government happened to belong—but in this particular case I am glad to find myself in a position of being able to support the Government of the day. I think this Bill is a good Bill, so far as it goes, and I think it is very necessary that we should do something to improve the safety of the roads. It is from that point of view that I look upon the provisions of this Measure. My noble friend who has just spoken treated it, I thought, as a restrictive Bill. I understand what he means by that, and I do not disagree with him, but I would prefer to say that it is rather for the regulation of the roads than for the restriction of their use. That is the real aim of this Bill.
  Some reference was made to the somewhat similar problems which arose when
  952
  the railways came into the country and began to transform entirely the traffic of the country. The difficulties which arose then will no doubt arise in this case. I have said this before in your Lordships' House, but I venture earnestly to press upon all your Lordships again that the restriction in the regulation of the traffic on the railways has been made more extreme than anything contemplated in this Bill. The railways are now almost completely fenced off from the rest of the world, and nobody can go on the railways unless he is in the employ of the railway authority, or is a traveller or user of the railways. In the same way, even though the railways are kept strictly to one particular kind of use, there is a very limiting provision which insists that that shall be use consistent with the safety of the users. Therefore, I welcome the precedent of the railways, and I hope that Governments will recognise as they proceed that the modern invention has so altered the problems that have to be dealt with on the roads, that it is essential for traffic to be regulated in quite a new way. It is for that reason that I personally welcome this Bill.
  It gives definite approval to the proposition which some of us have often advanced—that it is quite unscientific to expect the ordinary roads to deal with traffic consisting of machines travelling at fifty or sixty miles an hour—or more—and at the same time deal with traffic which travels at the rate of two or three miles an hour. It is unreasonable to expect that the conditions which are suitable for one kind of traffic will be equally suitable for the other kind. There is, therefore, a very strong case for some kind of classification of traffic—my noble friend Lord Listowel called it segregation, though I would prefer a rather less offensive term—perhaps classification of traffic. Whichever way one looks at it, that is the principle, as the noble Earl candidly announced, which lies at the root of the most important part of this Bill, and it is that principle which I support.
  The Bill, as your Lordships know, provides for the creation of these special motor roads and gives facilities for their creation and their use, apparently by the fast traffic. I hope that that is what is meant. That is not actually stated in the Bill, but there is power to exclude all

  953
  traffic which is not of that character from these new roads. I welcome both those provisions, and I hope that they will necessarily lead to the exclusion of the fast traffic from the ordinary roads, because then we shall take a real step towards the safety of the roads. It is possible to limit the ordinary roads to traffic going at a moderate speed. I have always believed (though I know there are other members of the House who do not share that view) that that would make a great difference to safety in the use of these roads.
  This classification is not a new principle, even in regard to roads, because, of course, all footpaths are designed, at any rate, to accommodate the pedestrian traffic, leaving the main roads to deal with the vehicular traffic. I warmly hope that once the Government have launched these ideas they will press more strongly for a great increase in the number of footpaths. I think there ought to be a footpath along every reasonably frequented ordinary road. It is all very well to say that people do not use footpaths. Perhaps they do not use them so much as they should when the paths are first established, but my experience is that when people get used to the fact that there is a footpath, they begin to use it more and more. And if there were ample footpath facilities it would be reasonable to consider whether there should not be stringent regulation of the use by pedestrians of roads intended entirely for vehicular traffic.
  I must repeat what some of us have said—too often perhaps: that the present condition of slaughter and accidents on the road is a great scandal. A great deal has been made of the fact that it is not so great as it was; and the improvement is attributed to the persuasive character of the Highway Code. That Code may have something to do with it, but I think the restriction of petrol has more. But whatever may be the real reason, this broad fact remains true: that every year hundreds of people, largely children, are killed, and thousands of others are maimed. So long as that condition of affairs exists in this country, we have no right to boast that we have the best civilisation in the world. It is because I regard this Bill as a first step towards a practical remedy for this state of things—going a very little way, I
  954
  admit, but still a first step—that I venture to give it my support.
  3.32 p.m.
  LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I think there must be other noble Lords besides myself who find it a little difficult to feel an acute and immediate interest in this Bill. The noble Earl who has spoken has given us the reason. He said that it would be a very long while (I think those were his words) before anything could be done in this matter. In another place the Government went further, and mentioned a term of years—I think it was ten years. In ten years the interest I shall be taking in motor transport will be extremely small—and that, no doubt, applies to other noble Lords. Nevertheless, I am a great admirer of optimism; and I have yet to hear anybody accuse the present Government of any lack of that excellent quality. They are surely somewhat optimistic in this matter, because they are taking powers now for a date ten years hence (or it may be less) to install a system of roads which will cost, we are told, £150,000 a mile. I have heard a similar estimate before, but I think that was for dual-purpose roads. The noble Earl said there would be a saving of 15 per cent. on that £150,000 a mile, but the estimate of £150,000 was made a considerable time ago, and the cost has risen by at least 25 per cent. since the time the estimate was made—and it was made by most reputable people.
  Many things may happen in ten years. It may be that by that time a large proportion of our traffic will be carried by air. What I regard as being more likely is that by that time the world's supplies of petrol, which are not illimitable, may be sinking rather low; what is even more probable is that we in this country may not have sufficient money to buy all the petrol we want for these new roads. Noble Lords opposite laugh, but I suggest that it is a possibility.
  I take it that one of the reasons which prompted the introduction of this Bill is the desire to transfer from the railways to the roads a considerable amount of traffic. I wonder whether that is altogether wise. Many notable authorities have stated that if the fact is taken into account—as it must be taken into account—that the railways have to keep up their own tracks whereas the roads

  955
  are kept up by the general public, railway transport is distinctly more economical than road transport. Personally, I should be much happier to-day if, instead of taking powers for the making of these special roads at some future date, the Government would take some immediate steps to improve our rolling stock and our railway facilities. I think that that would be a better contribution at the present time than the steps which they now propose to take. Nevertheless I find it a little ironical (and I think other noble Lords besides myself may find it so, especially those who have the duty of maintaining county roads—which, after all, are the roads that farmers and the general public will use to a far greater extent than these special roads or the great main roads) that we should have our grants cut and our labour force curtailed, and be forced thereby to experience the greatest difficulty, not only in improving but in maintaining our roads. Roads are like buildings: you do not maintain them, the ultimate cost of restoring them is much greater than their regular maintenance would have been.
  I cannot express any great enthusiasm for this Bill as a whole. There is one clause—namely, Clause 10—which arouses my immediate interest, because it has immediate effect. The Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Tom Williams, is, in my view, a very good Minister; one has to go a long way back before finding a better. If I had any criticism to make, it would be that he seems somewhat unsuccessful in fighting other Departments—if he does fight them. Mr. Tom Williams—and, indeed, other Ministers, when they can find time to spare from the more congenial task of general destruction—is frequently in the habit of addressing the farming population and telling them that the vital need is production of food. He has many times explained that the need is as great as it was during the war and calls for the same effort as the farmers made with such success in those days. He has set them a good target and they are straining to hit it. But, from time to time, they find themselves flabbergasted. Those of your Lordships who are in touch with branches of the National Farmers' Union (I personally am fortunate in having an extremely good branch) will know with
  956
  what extreme perturbation the farming community have noted the fact that good agricultural land is continually being filched from them. Some of your Lordships probably remember that before the war we lost every year over 60,000 acres of agricultural land—roughly 100 square miles every year—and as it is computed that one acre of arable land feeds two people each year, 120,000 fewer people can now be fed off our land.
  That, in itself, is a serious matter, but this filching of agricultural land has now greatly increased. It would seem that there is a sort of competition among the Ministries as to who can get the most. They are all at us. The Ministry of Town and Country Planning will, in all probability, win in the long run—at any rate, they are trying very hard. Then the Minister of Health has his "whack." The Fighting Services naturally—I must confess I have more sympathy there than I have in some of the other cases—take their share. The Ministry of Education like their bit. Perhaps some of your Lordships are unaware of the fact that when a school for 100 infants is to be built, the minimum requirement of the Ministry of Education is four acres—and it must be the best land in the neighbourhood!
  The Ministry of Transport have had a good "whack" in the past, but apparently they are not satisfied, for, under Clause 10 of this Bill, they take power not only to acquire all the land in the fairly generous limits of 220 yards from each side of the centre of the road—that is a quarter of a mile from side to side—but as far beyond it as ever they wish and upon any sort of ground they like, without consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture or anybody else. According to this Bill, as I understand it—it is fairly plain English—they can take land where-ever they like. For instance, they can make a by-pass and make provision for the parking of cars. Then, with their 300 yards of road, they can say: "This is a good position for a rest house. Let us have a rest house here." But, not resting there, they can say: "Let us see if someone wants to put up a cinema." Next they may add: "After all, people will not want to be indoors all the time, so let them have a football ground adjoining." They can do all that under the Bill. Perhaps the noble Earl will tell me what in fact

  957
  it means. Maybe in due course he will explain what are the powers.
  In his most lucid explanation of this Bill, the noble Earl expressed—I know quite generally—his interest in agriculture. When I ask him whether he believes that it is of vital importance to the nation that we should produce every iota of food that we can, I have no doubt his answer will be emphatically "Yes." Therefore, with every confidence, I ask that he will in due course permit such amendment to this Bill as will not only have the effect of removing the fears I have expressed, but will show the farming community that the Government really mean business in getting the utmost out of the land. I ask him to disperse the fears which are only natural to common-sense people when at one moment they are asked to produce all that they can and at the next moment as much as possible of the best agricultural land is taken from them.
  3.44 p.m.
  LORD ELTON: My Lords, like the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, and most persons who have interested themselves in the ghastly problem of road accidents, I have always regarded the building of segregated motor highways—with due respect to the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, I am not afraid of the word "segregation"—as eminently desirable. And if I support the Bill only with a number of cautionary reservations, I hope that the noble Earl will not think that I am looking a gift horse in the mouth, if indeed that is a metaphor appropriate to this particular context. When considering the case for an enabling measure—and every speaker this afternoon has reminded us that this is merely an enabling measure—we are a little apt to allow our imaginations to run away with us, and to picture the process for which powers are taken as a completed achievement; and then to go on to consider the effects of that imaginary achievement upon some vaguely generalised conception, such as British agriculture, or the future of British commerce or the British countryside. It is sometimes helpful, first to remind oneself that this measure represents what in fact it obviously does represent—the prospect of a highly tentative and piecemeal process—and then to go on to try to forecast the effects of that process upon some
  958
  particular clear-cut community of which one has first-hand knowledge. Therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to try for a few moments to foresee what appear to me to be some of the probable effects of this measure upon the little community in which I happen to live.
  This is a small and lovely North Oxfordshire village of stone and thatch, strung out over about a mile of secondary road, across the extreme eastern end of which cuts the main Birmingham—Oxford—London highroad, carrying—and carrying round at least one blind corner—a steady stream of light and heavy traffic, 75 per cent. of it paying no regard whatever to the speed limit. Naturally, the first need of the residents in a village of that kind, and of the residents in so many other villages of the same kind all over the country, is a by-pass. In this particular instance, the plans for a by-pass were completed and approved before the outbreak of the late war. Naturally enough, they have since been shelved; and that although a few miles away in the same county gardens and farms are being cut up and walls and even houses are being pulled down, in order to broaden and straighten a stretch of highroad to enable motor traffic between Oxford and Stratford-on-Avon to save some three or four minutes in transit—though what those who save them do with them I have no idea! Unfortunately most highway authorities seem to regard speed of travel as infinitely more important than the safety and comfort of resident communities, and the by-pass has been relegated to the Greek kalends.
  What is likely to be the effect of this Bill upon that situation, which I am sure reproduces itself endlessly all over the country? Well, it may be said—I am not sure that the noble Earl did not in effect say it—that in due course the construction of some such segregated motorway in our neighbourhood will relieve the road through the eastern extremity of our village of a large proportion of the traffic which now passes along it, night and day. I do not want to be a pessimist, certainly no more pessimistic than the noble Lord who has just spoken; but I cannot help feeling doubtful whether a road of this new kind is likely to be built in our neighbourhood

  959
  within the lifetime of anybody taking part in this debate—and I say that, despite the fact that the average age of noble Lords who speak on road topics is considerably less than that of those who take part in other debates.
  After all, we have to remember that we are still "in the red," I think I am right in saying, by at least £280,000,000 in the national income; that we are still living on charity. The British Road Federation has told us that it is going to cost at least £150,000 a mile (and Lord Cranworth suggested 15 per cent. more than that) and we are dealing with 800 miles. My arithmetic is somewhat shaky and I speak subject to correction, but I think that means a total figure of something like £120,000,000. Are we entitled to think even of beginning to spend that sort of sum while we are still in effect almoners of our friends on the other side of the Atlantic? The Government, quite recently, and very rightly, have made a cut in road expenditure of, I think, £21,000,000. Is it likely, in view of all these considerations, that we shall, in fact, see a road of this kind (if I may continue to think in terms of my own neighbourhood) within the lifetime of anyone now living in the village?
  And there is this further consideration. If the Minister takes these powers he will be under immediate pressure to use them. Your Lordships may have noticed that during the Second Reading in another place numerous Members seized this, the earliest, opportunity, to recommend warmly to the Minister a bridge for the Severn, a bridge for the Forth, a bridge for the Tay and numerous other projects. What I am afraid of is that local authorities may find themselves tempted to say, "With all this talk of new great improvements in the air, surely we should be recklessly ill-advised to spend much on improving the state of the existing roads."
  Again, my Lords—and this is a very important matter indeed, and one to which I think every speaker has paid some attention—the Minister has virtually no compulsory powers whatever to ensure that those for whom we are to construct these roads, at enormous expense, will use them. This is, in fact, in a double sense an "enabling" measure. It gives the Minister powers which he may or may not choose to employ, and it proposes to build roads which the motorist may or
  960
  may not decide to use. The experience of Oxford and other show-places is that not only light traffic and public service vehicles but quite a proportion of heavy traffic also prefers to continue to use the old road through the town rather than the by-passes which have been constructed at not inconsiderable expense round their extremities. I hope that at the very least the Minister will think it desirable to make it a condition of the licences which he gives to public service and other vehicles, that they should use the roads which are to be provided for them, if and when they are forthcoming. And, of course, there is the further consideration, that the present stream of heavy traffic has long been accustomed to the amenities provided on the present roads—the pull-ins, the cafeterias, rest-houses, garages and so on. It may be a long while, certainly unless we are very quick in providing amenities on the new roads, before they are prepared to abandon the amenities with which they are familiar, constructed beside the existing roads.
  All things considered, then, it seems to me extremely unlikely that the discomforts to which I have referred in the small village of which I am thinking will be removed by this measure in the foreseeable future. I very much hope, therefore, that local authorities will not see in this measure an excuse for still further postponing the necessary improvements on the existing roads. I noticed that the noble Earl in his opening speech did say that of course it was necessary to maintain the existing roads, but I was somewhat afraid that, in the context, he was referring merely to the surface of the roads rather than to the removal of such dangers as blind corners and roads through built-up villages. Perhaps he would be good enough to make that point clear in his final reply.
  There is one more point that we must not forget—namely, the problem of amenities. There is bound to be, if and when there is a road, the familiar ration (I almost said "the familiar rash") of garages, petrol stations, road-houses and all the rest of it. As I have just reminded your Lordships, we are not likely to get the heavy traffic off the familiar roads until we have provided those amenities elsewhere. In my reading of the Bill, which may be defective, I am unable to see that the Minister of Town and

  961
  Country Planning is expected to take any particular interest in this very real problem of the building of all these adjuncts to the new roads. And that, of course, is closely akin to another problem which very much concerns those interested in road accidents—that of severance. These roads, as Lord Cecil has reminded us, carrying a steady stream of high speed traffic, will be much more dangerous than railways to those who live near or beside them. They will be slashed across the countryside, occasionally between neighbouring village communities which have shared their amenities perhaps for centuries. They may, unless we watch this matter closely, impose long detours upon farm vehicles and cattle, upon pedestrians and cyclists. That is a matter in regard to which Amendments may have to be moved at a later stage. I do not know what Ministry is specially concerned with the problem of severance. Presumably it is the concern of a number of Ministries, and I trust that, whoever they are, they will pay due attention to it.
  My Lords, I hope the Minister will not feel that I am not supporting the Bill. I do welcome it, subject to the one or two reservations I have tried to put before your Lordships. And if I may return to the point with which I started, I do urge almost above everything else, that the prospect of what may one day eventuate from this measure should not cause local authorities to delay in making the sort of safety improvements in the existing roads to which I tried to draw your Lordships' attention at the outset.
  3.59 p.m.
  EARL BOWE: My Lords, I wish very much that I could welcome every Bill introduced by the Government Front Bench as wholeheartedly as I do the measure which they have produced this afternoon. The first reason for my welcome of the Bill is that it is the first tangible expression of the point of view that roads should be made to fit the traffic, rather than the traffic to fit the roads. That I consider to be a most valuable principle. We have had a number of speeches this afternoon, mostly, I think, if I may be allowed to say so without offence, rather damning the Bill with "gin and water" praise. Surely the point is this. There are 3,500,000 motor vehicles registered at the present time in the British Isles, and they are struggling constantly to use a road system which was
  962
  designed certainly more than a hundred years ago. If we allow that state of things to go on without trying, at any rate, to take direct steps to improve it, there is no doubt but that road transport in this country will be slowly strangled. That will affect every commodity produced in this country. Every single thing that is produced for export, or for that matter for any other purpose, will be affected. Defects in road transport strike at the very root of our production in this country, for the increased costs must be borne by everyone.
  More particularly, I welcome this Bill from the point of view of the hope which it gives of a possible reduction in road accidents. This is borne out by the experience of every other country where these motor roads are now in existence. There are at least six such countries from which we have data—Holland, Belgium, Italy, Germany, the United States and Denmark. All these countries have a modern road system, and in practically every case when the new roads have been constructed the accident figures have gone down in an amazing way. In the case of Germany, when the autobahn system was brought into use the accident figures were reduced by over 80 per cent., the same is equally true of America, though conditions, of course, are very different there.
  I am sure that noble Lords—particularly Lord Elton (who we know has made the promotion of road safety one of his principal tasks) and the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil (to whom we have always listened on this question with great attention and respect)—will share my feeling when I ask: If by constructing a new road system in this country we can secure even a 40 per cent. reduction of road accidents, can we afford to wait another hour? Do not let us forget that during the ten years ending 1947, 67,000 people were killed on the roads of this country and about 1,421,000 were injured. Those are frightful figures, and I am sure that we all deeply deplore them. Surely we must do everything that we can to encourage the construction of new roads, if there is reason to believe that it will produce a drop in the accident level. Consider the Outer Drive at Chicago, which is used by 10,000,000 vehicles in the course of a year. The accident rate for the last year was eight. Think of that: eight accidents only! Normally the

  963
  figure would have been something like 189.
  The Oxfordshire County Council—a body in which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is particularly interested—have said that in their judgment by proper road construction, according to modern methods, the accident rate can be reduced by something between 58 per cent. and 73 per cent. Therefore, it seems to me that we must try to do something about this, from the point of view of reducing the number of road accidents, if for no other and better reason. It is a melancholy thought that as we sit here this afternoon, in nice comfortable circumstances, people are being killed and injured on the roads of this country who should not be killed or injured if the roads were properly designed. People are losing their lives at this present moment. How can we wait and spend time arguing about niceties connected with these matters? We ought, I submit, to go ahead. I only wish that this were not merely an enabling Bill, and that it embodied a forecast that within the next year or two we should really see a start made in dealing with this question. Up to now, all Governments in this country have proceeded on the patchwork improvement system.
  The noble Lord who spoke last mentioned his hopes of a by-pass being constructed. I was not clear where the road is to which he is referring, though I know most roads in that part of the world fairly well. It seemed to me that he was advocating what has already taken place at Daventry—the construction of a by-pass to by-pass the by-pass to the by-pass. That is more or less what has happened in several instances. A plan is brought in for a road to by-pass some little village and you merely divert traffic from one bottle-neck to another. No wonder that in a number of cases drivers do not consider it worth while using the by-pass in preference to the old road! A good illustration of that is afforded by the case of Crawley. Often it is a simpler matter to go through Crawley than to use the Crawley by-pass.
  Up to now, as I have said, we have had a policy of patchwork reconstruction, and what has it cost us? We are told that the cost of this new road improvement will work out at £150,000 a
  964
  mile. There was a main road in the Bristol area—no doubt the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill will be able to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" in the account of this matter—which was widened to 120 feet, to Ministry of Transport standards, at a cost of £221,600 per mile. Adapting, patching, widening or improving our existing roads is about the most expensive way in which we could deal with this matter. There are only two perfectly new roads in this country to-day. One is the road in Scotland which runs between Glasgow and Edinburgh, and that is not perfect. It does not include any fly-over or fly-under junctions, and it is not a twin-track—at least, it was not when I last used it—for the whole of its length. It is an all-purpose road used by all forms of traffic. The other new road is the one between Liverpool and East Lancashire.
  Surely we ought to try to do something about this problem. Look at the existing trunk roads. Not one of them is adequate for the traffic using it. There are 1,400 level crossings on our main trunk roads; that is an anachronism if ever there was one. The noble Lord who spoke last (I hope he will forgive me for referring to him so frequently) instanced the difficulties experienced at a little village in Oxfordshire. I wonder how many of your Lordships would care to live in the little village of Markyate. It is just possible to get two big lorries in most parts of the road there—at some places it is not possible to get two side by side. Yet that road is a main artery for all the traffic between Birmingham and Coventry and London Docks. More than 5,000 vehicles use it every day. Imagine the feelings of any of your Lordships who has children if you had to live in that village. Think how you would feel if you had to leave the children in the house. You would probably have ten thousand fits as the result of worrying over what might happen to them if they were to run out of doors and cross the road. In these days it is incredible that such a narrow road should form a main artery for traffic. Surely we ought to do better than that.
  The illustration which I have just given is of exactly the sort of situation which this Bill will try to remedy. Take the case of the Birmingham road. It contains at different points no fewer than twenty-three different road surfaces Take

  965
  the Bristol road. It varies in width nineteen times between London and Bristol. Take A.1, the Great North Road—for the first 200 miles of its length only is there a twin track road. Surely we ought to be able to do something better than that. Noble Lords have spoken as if this were a Bill likely to finish in a road-rail war. Surely it is not that, but simply a Bill to enable the Government to look ahead and take steps in time to try and provide the country with a worthwhile road system.
  It seems to me that nobody has stopped this afternoon to consider the saving that may result. The noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, said that we might have difficulty in buying more petrol. I should like to submit to the noble Lord that traffic using these special roads will secure a saving of fuel of roughly 40 per cent. An ordinary road operator using a 10-ton lorry will save roughly 30 per cent. in operating costs. All these savings will eventually become effective in the charges made for the operation of these vehicles and will represent a saving to industry as a whole. Therefore I feel there will be certain counter-balancing savings to put against the cost of constructing these roads. Every time a lorry is held up on a main road and started up again, it uses more rubber off its tyres than in one mile of ordinary running. These are not haphazard figures, but figures which have been ascertained after a great deal of research by the tyre companies.
  I welcome this Bill, but there are one or two points that I think require clarification. I was glad to heard what the noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, said about the question of crossings. If we are to have crossings at every and any joint across the new roads, it will nullify the use of these roads, as the noble Lord so rightly said. If the crossings are made, there will probably have to be lights. Once we have lights we get back to exactly the same state of affairs as exists on the old roads. Where crossings are necessary, they should be made by fly-over or fly-under bridges. Another point of the greatest importance is the laying of mains—water mains, electrical cables and the like. Nothing does more damage to a road than constant excavations. People dig up the roads at intervals and destroy the surface, potholes develop and it is very difficult to put the road back in repair. Where
  966
  mains have to cross the new roads, they should be taken across in culverts specially constructed, and in no case should mains of any description be laid along new roads. If they are, repair parties will be constantly at work, and the moment that happens there will have to be restrictions of one kind or another on the use of the roads themselves. Therefore I hope that during the passage of this Bill the Government will be able to assure us that it is not their intention to lay mains along these roads, and that where mains are taken across, they will be taken across in culverts.
  There is much else I would like to say about the Bill, but I do not want to delay your Lordships unduly. Much has been said about cost and I would like to add a word about that. The cost of the autobahnen in Germany (although I do not know whether their cost bears any relation to the estimated cost of our new special roads) was £74,000 a mile. Of course, that was the pre-war value and probably the cost to-day will be double. There is a considerable difference between £74,000 a mile and £150,000 a mile. I do not know any more than the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, where the £150,000 comes from. I think we ought to be told something a little more definite on the subject of cost. When talking about autobahnen in Germany, it may be of interest to your Lordships to know that construction proceeded at the rate of 650 miles per year. Construction went on at the rate of 240 yards a day with a single shift, and 440 yards working a double shift, and the actual rate went up as high as 580 yards a day. Whether we shall be able to achieve anything like that I do not know, but I do not see why we should not, using the most modern machinery such as was no doubt used in the case of the autobahnen. I do not think the Bill is an unduly expensive one, because I believe there will be certain savings to offset the cost. I feel that at lone last there is a chance that we may have roads made fit for the traffic, instead of having traffic made fit for the roads. I consider that while the cost may be large, it would be most economical to construct these roads as early as possible. I do not think we can afford to wait.
  4.17 p.m.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in moving the Second Reading of a Bill to build roads

  967
  at some distant date in the future which he thinks are needed to-day, expected universal, if not praise, at least acquiescence. I think he must feel now that he has been led somewhat into an ambuscade, because I have heard little praise that was not distinctly qualified. I personally am extremely glad that he has not proposed to build these roads now, because to do so would be utterly and completely at variance with every other aspect of the plan which the planners have unfolded to us from time to time. If and when national savings are available for such purposes, I sincerely trust that houses and schools will have first call on the type of resources which the noble Earl wants to see used for speed tracks. I gather that the length of these speed tracks is some 800 miles. I simply fail to see how it is that 800 miles of new roadway in this country can create a transformation in the entire transport problem of the Island. Of course, it is ludicrous to suggest any such thing. They provide for but a small fraction of the traffic going on in the Island.
  What is the situation with which we are faced to-day? We have an expanding commercial road haulage traffic; we have a contracting nationalised rail traffic; we have a fleet of private cars being gradually worn out, and private incomes which are wearing out as fast as the cars. I submit that to-day's conditions are no basis on which one can tell the type of roads we are going to require in ten years' time. I am afraid I have always regarded His Majesty's Government—I do not know quite the right expression to use—as "suckers." If there is any grandiose scheme going, I feel they will always fall for it. This is one of those schemes. I think my noble friend Earl Howe has also fallen. I have come across propaganda by road interests all over the world. It always runs on the same lines; it is extremely clever, but very specious, and it takes in a lot of people. I believe His Majesty's Government have been taken in.
  We have to consider the problem of traffic generally. Any of us who has had anything to do with traffic knows that in regard to capital improvements, which are guaranteed to produce savings within a guaranteed time, the sky is the limit. There is absolutely no limit to the amount of money which can be sunk into
  968
  improving the transport of this country, or of any other country. In some cases there may be a return on it; in some cases there will not—and often it will be incalculable. To take it to its logical conclusion, the transport of this country would not be complete until Britain was a cap of concrete, across which the noble Earl could plough his way at a speed which I have no doubt would suit him rather than me.
  The practical limit to transport is the amount of money which one is prepared to devote to the matter, including, of course, men and resources; one has to take in everything—road, rail, coastal shipping and the air. His Majesty's Government have inherited (I was going to say stolen, but I want a word between the two) the best railway system in the world. To put any goods on that system costs the community approximately 20 per cent. of the freight that is charged. We also have a very fine road system, and to put goods on that road system costs the community something like 80 per cent. of the freight charged. For the carriage of the goods it is generally more convenient to use the road, because in that way the goods are carried from door to door, and the user does that which is most convenient to him. How does he calculate the cost? He calculates the cost on what is charged to him.
  That is where what I call the great road fallacy creeps in. If you carry a ton of goods by road you are paying about 16s. for men and machines. If you send the same ton of goods by rail you are paying only about 4s. extra; the balance goes on overheads. So that by putting a ton of goods on the road the community is taking only 16s. from the man who sends them, but it is in effect costing the community 32s.—16s. for the men and vehicles employed on the road, and 16s. for the overheads the railway have not received. In that way the men and materials used in transport in this country are duplicated. The figure will be found in the Green Book of Statistics, and though I feel certain that planners would like to see it going down, it will not go down, of course, if you improve the facilities for using the road at the expense of the rail. The price system is bound to prevail. The use of the road increases, and the rail overheads have to be spread over a smaller and smaller

  969
  traffic. So the taxpayer has to step in and pay more, either as a consumer on his coal and his season ticket, or as a plain taxpayer in taxes.
  Of course, the remedy is to put the long-distance goods on the railways, where they were always intended to go. Why the Transport Commission have not taken this vital decision, I do not know. They have bought the road hauliers, and they have bought the railways. By now they ought to have decided whether they are to operate the railways at a perpetual loss, and the road hauliers at a profit, or whether they are going to close down the road hauliers, take the congestion off the road, and operate the railways at a profit. We expect a decision from them, but they will not face up to it. Until we get that decision, I feel it is premature to consider a Bill of this sort, because if the Transport Commission take that decision, which I and others believe to be right, a great deal of the need for these 800 miles of arterial speed track will no longer exist.
  4.27 p.m.
  LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, speaking as a "sucker" of some fifteen years "suckering," I must heartily support this Bill. Like most previous speakers, I propose to deal mainly with the road side of this Bill, and I want to speak rather on the economic aspect. The noble Earl who introduced the Bill dealt with the cost of the roads themselves, but he did not deal with the saving that would result from them. We have heard to-day various opinions as to whether or not those savings are illusory. Certainly the suggestion has been made that one person who will not benefit from these roads is the farmer; all he will do, it is said, is to lose his land or suffer severance. But I suggest there is another way to look at that question. The farmer will certainly gain one benefit, in that he will get his goods more quickly to market, which to him and to the consumers of those goods is a very important point.
  It must not be thought, however, that he gets his goods more quickly to market only because they travel on these roads. That is limiting the matter, and ignoring one of the main results of building these roads. One of the results will be that the parallel road, which at the present moment is suffering so much from congestion, will become much freer, the
  970
  farmer's lorry will be able to go at a more even pace, and therefore in the end more speedily, without going at a fast maximum pace. It is probable that the farmer who suffers severance or loses his land will not reap that particular form of benefit, because the road which has been relieved may not be in his own immediate neighbourhood; but that advantage will go to other farmers, and must be borne in mind.
  We have also had mentioned the problem of the railways and the roads. I would suggest that a very short-sighted view has been taken in that respect. Unless we do something soon, the Minister of Transport, who, as has been said, has the road haulage on one side, and the railways on the other, will find that his railways are running all right, but that he cannot operate his road haulage because there is no room on the roads. It is a very serious situation, and it is becoming increasingly serious every month. Anyone who uses the roads as much as I do must notice the monthly increase in the traffic on them. When the Government see fit to release a few extra lorries and a few more cars for home consumption, the situation on the roads is going to be really serious, and economically the road haulage side of nationalised transport is going to find itself stranded. That, to my mind, means that, if that side is to survive, we must build these roads, and I do not see in the least why road haulage should place unnecessarily severe competition on the railways. I believe there is room for the two side by side.
  From the point of view of the private owner and the holders of C licences in this country, these roads will make a great difference. As my noble friend Lord Howe has mentioned, the saving in the cost of operating will be 32 per cent. for a 10-ton vehicle, and 17 per cent. for a 3-ton vehicle. But it is not only those people who will benefit. The firm with its commercial traveller, the big business operative who has a business in Liverpool, a business in London and, possibly, businesses in between, will be able to save his time; and time is something for which everybody in this country has to pay. Waste of time is just a waste of a national asset.
  On every ground, so far as I can see, there is an imperative demand for these roads, but the one upon which the most

  971
  imperative demand arises is that of road safety and the saving of life. The value of those lives to this nation would pay a dividend which, if any business man dared to pay it from a company to-day, would cause the Chancellor of the Exchequer to "twist his tail" for him. Without any of the other savings, this Bill is justified on the ground of the economic saving of life and accidents. We have lagged behind every other nation. Our roads suffered through two wars, and modernisation between the wars was completely neglected. We are at the moment the most backward nation in Europe, so far as road design is concerned, while we are the most forward nation in the number of vehicles per mile of road. Those two things do not marry. Our trade, if it is to compete with the rest of the world, will be dependent on our transport. If we waste money on our transport, we waste money and lives and we put up the price of our goods for export. We cannot afford to do it. We have to bring the price down; and proper roads will help us to do it.
  4.34 p.m.
  LORD SELSDON: My Lords, I do not intend to detain you for more than two or three minutes, because other noble Lords have said practically everything I wanted to say. I do want to support this Bill, however, because it is one which is long overdue. I may be a "sucker," but I still think it is a good Bill. We have had reference to speed tracks which are going to slash their way across the country. Speed tracks! Well, all I can say is that the secret of getting anything moving is to keep it moving. I will give your Lordships an instance. I live on a main line railway and there is a business train which, unfortunately, does not stop at my station but stops at one five miles away. There are about thirty business men who use that station in the morning and the evening, and we asked if it were not possible for the train to stop there for a minute. The answer came back that if it stopped at that station for a minute it would delay the "Cornish Riviera." Now the same thing happens on a road. A road jam fifty miles away can affect people coming out of London. If we have these motorways which will allow a free, uninterrupted flow of traffic, they need not necessarily be straight, so
  972
  long as the traffic knows that it can keep on moving. It is ridiculous to think that anybody wants to use these roads at sixty, seventy or eighty miles an hour. Their whole purpose is to get the traffic moving and to facilitate the egress and ingress to and from the big towns.
  I do not know how many of your Lordships have been to America, but possibly some of you have landed at Newark and have gone through the tunnel-way there. You do not stop from the time you leave Newark Airport until you get practically into the centre of New York. There is not a single traffic light. There are two lanes in the tunnel; there are policemen stationed about every 400 yards, and if you do not keep moving, or if you try to cross from the "slow" to the "fast" lane (to use a colloquialism) "you don't half get it!" The policemen get very annoyed, but they keep the traffic moving. Or take, for example, New York when the offices close. There is a mad surge out to Long Island. They go out by East End Drive or West End Drive, and the traffic keeps flowing right across and gets away. That has all been done by the construction of these motorways.
  But the most important point to which my noble friends Lord Howe and Lord Sandhurst have referred, and to which I want to refer again, is the fact that it is going to keep death off the roads. It is going to help by keeping the heavy traffic on these motorways, where they know they will not have to apply the emergency brake. I do not know whether any of your Lordships has driven a tank transporter with a tank on it on wooden blocks, and have had to put on your brakes. The result is rather alarming. Those heavy vehicles, if taken on these new roads, will relieve the problem to a large extent, and the old roads will be left for the person who wants to travel slowly and admire the scenery. I hope that this Bill will be passed and that it will not be put into a pigeon-hole and forgotten. I remember the little man with the little nose who used to appear during the war peering over the wall, and if this Bill is forgotten I shall be sending the Minister one of those Mr. Chads with the words: "Wot—no motorways?"
  4.40 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the response

  973
  which your Lordships have given to this Bill, and I will do my best to answer some, at least, of the points raised during the debate. I should like, first, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, on his first appearance at the Despatch Box. I think your Lordships will agree that his speech this afternoon shows that he is a considerable acquisition to the Opposition Front Bench. I can assure him that we shall always welcome any criticisms made by him in the spirit in which he made his criticisms to-day. He was good enough to give me advance notice of some of the points he intended to raise, and I shall, therefore, deal fairly fully with what he said.
  The noble Lord asked what was the relationship of this Bill to the transport policy of the Government. Our aim is the unification and co-ordination of all forms of transport. I can assure the noble Lord that this is not an incantation; it is a real and practical policy which we believe will do a great deal of good to British transport. There is nothing in this Bill that conflicts in any way with the aims set up in the Transport Act: the provision of a properly integrated system of public transport, in which all forms of transport will play their due part.
  In time, of course, the British Transport Commission will be the main provider of long-distance transport for goods. When acquisition under the Transport Act has been completed, the Commission will own or control 42,000 goods vehicles, of which 32,000 will engage permanently in long-distance road haulage. The operation of these vehicles will be greatly assisted by the provision of special roads, as will the activities of the Commission in connection with road passenger services. It is our main aim to ensure a proper transport system, embracing both good roads and good railways. Our first duty to the public is to provide a cheap and efficient transport system, and for this purpose we want to improve both our roads and our railways. The different forms of transport are surely complementary, and if we go ahead and improve our railways pari passu with the improvement of our roads I see no reason why the roads should undercut the railways or throw them out of business. That is our aim.
  The noble Lord asked me another question, concerning the form of compensation for injury resulting from the building of
  974
  these roads. I think the noble Lord would have liked a requirement in the Bill to provide accommodation for the agricultural interests disturbed, and that he would prefer this form of compensation to a compensation in money. I cannot see, however, why the new motorway should raise any greater difficulty than exists at present.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Surely the answer is that a man can go across a special purpose road but will not be allowed to go across this one.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: He will be compensated in the same way, however he wishes to cross.
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: He will be prohibited, as I understand it, under this Bill from crossing the road with his cattle, or whatever it may be. It is possible at present for him to have access to the main roads, but that will not now be allowed.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: It is true that in the interests of safety access to any new single-purpose road must be controlled. There will inevitably be problems, and these problems are dealt with in other legislation. If there is any case for altering the arrangements with regard to compensation, this should be done generally, and not solely in relation to the special roads. I cannot agree that there is a special case so far as these motor roads are concerned. We have no reason to suppose that the current code will not continue to work satisfactorily. Under the current code, owners and tenants have statutory rights to compensation for the value of land taken and for severance or injurious affection caused thereby. Their claims can go to independent arbitration. It is the experience of the Ministry of Transport that negotiations with owners and other people interested rarely break down on this point. Arrangements are normally possible whereby other accommodation is made available, or the owner is left with money compensation.
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: The point was that in order to cause the minimum disturbance to the permanent interests of agriculture, it would be much preferable, as a matter of policy, to offer accommodation rather than financial compensation.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I accept what the noble Lord says, and I believe that in many cases accommodation is provided by the highway authority.
  I should like to say something about the question of powers of land acquisition under this Bill. This question was raised also by the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth. This Bill does not enlarge to any considerable extent the existing powers in relation to compulsory acquisition of land. To suggest that would, I think, be to misunderstand the Bill. The noble Lord will observe that in Clause 10 there is no provision for general powers of land acquisition, and the reason is that these general powers are already available to highway authorities under other Acts. Clause 10 provides for an extension of those powers of compulsory acquisition, so that they can be used for certain purposes in connection with the special roads. I should like to point out that the extension of these powers is very carefully set out and carefully limited.
  The land acquisition powers of Clause 10 are extended beyond the usual limit of 220 yards from the centre of the road for two purposes, and these two purposes are specified in terms in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Clause 10. The two purposes are, in the first place, to provide petrol stations and other facilities, garages and whatever works may be necessary when they are directly connected with the construction and use or maintenance of the motorway. The second purpose is for the alteration or diversion of side roads which is essential in order to make the motorway an effective road for the use of transport. Noble Lords will agree that these new powers are very limited, and that they are set out distinctly in Clause 10 of the Bill.
  I should now like to pass to a question asked by the noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, and by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about pedestrian crossings—
  EARL HOWE: Crossings, but not pedestrian crossings—I was referring to Clause 12.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Yes, crossings as distinct from tunnels or bridges. What I think both noble Lords were afraid of is that these crossings might interfere with the main purpose of the motor road, which is to provide a steady
  976
  uninterrupted flow of traffic. In Clause 12 it is made permissible for a crossing for pedestrians to be authorised on the level, as opposed to a bridge or a tunnel. I should like to emphasise that it would be very rarely desirable to permit such crossings in practice. They would not be contemplated where there is any question of danger to the road users or interruption of the flow of traffic. However, there might be some instances in which it would be safe to allow pedestrians to cross on the level, and it would be absurd for this Bill to prohibit any such thing and to make it essential for the expensive alternative to be provided—that is to say, a tunnel or a bridge. Suppose, for example, there was a long stretch of straight road; why should not pedestrians cross at a point on this long stretch of straight road where they could see for a considerable distance in both directions? That would be reasonably safe. In a case of that kind it would be absurd to go to the expense of providing a tunnel or a bridge.
  I should like to say how grateful we are for the support offered to this Bill by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, because it makes us doubly sure that the Bill will contribute to the safety of the roads and will lessen the number and seriousness of road accidents. If this Bill is underwritten in that respect by the noble Viscount, we may feel really sure of ourselves; because if it had failed in any degree we could be certain that the noble Viscount would have dropped upon us like a ton of bricks. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, that we share his desire that agricultural interests should be considered. I know he appreciates that we are at one with him on that matter. We sincerely think—and I believe this view was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, in the course of his remarks—that agriculture will benefit by cheaper transport and that in the long run, especially as these roads develop, the farmers will find it easier and cheaper to get their goods to market. The noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, thought the figure of £150,000 per mile as the cost of these new roads was out of date; but it is in fact the present estimate—an estimate based upon present-day costs. Of course, I am not offering that as a firm estimate of what the cost will be at the time that these roads are built. Maybe the cost

  977
  would be higher. I do not think anybody would offer to hazard a guess as to what the precise cost will be in terms of pounds, shillings and pence.
  EARL HOWE: Does the figure of £150,000 per mile cover the construction of the road, or is it just a charge for compensation, or something like that?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I should not like to answer that question without consulting my advisers on the point. I have not the noble Earl's knowledge of what, as a rule, goes into these estimates. I would wish to see a breakdown of the figure. If I may, I should like to thank the noble Earl warmly for his support. We all listen with great respect to what the noble Earl says about road safety and the use and construction of roads, because he has made himself a leading authority on the subject. We are accustomed to hearing him as such when these matters are debated in this House. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, for their support. It was encouraging for us on this side to observe that most of the Back Benchers on the opposite side of the House, with their characteristic and (if I may say so) admirable independence of mind, were so strongly in favour of the provisions of the Bill.
  May I now reply to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Elton? Your Lordships have a great deal of other business to which to attend to-day so I will, if I may, confine myself merely to his main point about amenities, because that is the point that was not touched upon earlier by myself or by others in the course of the debate. I think that this question of the proper and agreeable appearance of the motor roads is a point of great importance. Of course, we all look at the motorway first from the point of view of its use. Possibly some people would say that if it serves its primary purpose of being a good road for road users, we should not worry about anything else. But I am sure that noble Lords and all other far-sighted people would say that we should go further and ask ourselves what these motorways will look like. Will they disfigure the countryside? Are they to be ugly necessities, or can we combine their practical virtues with success in making
  978
  them an adornment, or at least a neutral factor in their surroundings rather than an eyesore?
  A great deal of thought is being given to technical matters of construction and design, but, rightly so we think, attention is also being paid quite as much to the look of these motor roads. Thoughtful design can easily avoid the bleak monotonous effect of endless straight stretches of concrete and bridges starkly silhouetted against the sky. We are planning for motorways that will fit in unobtrusively with the countryside, taking advantage of natural features like woods and hills to mask the road and its bridges, and swing the alignment of the road in gentle curvatures rather than dead straight lines. Building materials can be chosen to suit the locality, and there is a considerable art in correlating the vertical and lateral lines of a road to avoid disharmony and to achieve, it may be, a measure of beauty.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: The "New Look," in fact!
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: We hope that the new roads will also have the "New Look," in the sense meant by the noble Viscount. Designing a road so that it will be efficient and also look good is not a short nor an easy task. And it is rendered the harder and the longer because of the congested condition of the roads of the country at this moment. Our road engineers must survey to find, not only an alignment that is efficient and æsthetically inoffensive, but, in addition, one that causes the minimum interference with property and makes the minimum demands upon land which is useful for agricultural purposes. In no other country in the world do the location and design of a new road give rise to so many difficulties and problems. The blue-print of a major highway may take years to complete, and the road engineer needs all his skill to produce the good-looking and efficient road that everyone wants, because he also has to satisfy the requirements of planning, of agriculture and of private interests. It is a difficult task, but one which is not beyond the outstanding ability of the road engineers of this country. Theirs will be a great opportunity when the time comes, and I believe that they will be worthy of it. I thank your Lordships

  979
  again for the support you have given to this Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  CINEMATOGRAPH FILM PRODUCTION (SPECIAL LOANS) BILL.
  4.59 p.m.
  Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee on recommitment of the Bill.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2:
  Loans by the Corporation
  (3) The Corporation shall not, except in such classes of case as the Board of Trade may approve, make a loan to any person unless he is carrying on the business of distributing cinematograph films to persons carrying on the business of exhibiting such films to the public, and the loan is to be employed in financing the production of such films.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, in subsection (3) to omit "except in such classes of case as the Board of Trade may approve." The noble Viscount said: I understand that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has a proposal to make, and so I will be content with formally moving this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 30, leave out ("except in such classes of case as the Board of Trade may approve").—(Viscount Swinton.)
  5.0 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: When this Bill was before your Lordships in Committee last time, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, deployed some very powerful arguments against the definition of the "classes of case" in which my right honourable friend proposed to give his initial instruction to the Film Finance Corporation, to enable them to loan finance direct to the independent producer and not through the
  980
  ordinary channels as set out in the Bill—namely, through the distributive agencies. The noble Viscount's point was, I believe, that the proposed definition would defeat the very argument I had previously used as to the risk which the Corporation would have to bear. If your Lordships will allow me, I would like to quote exactly what I said from Column 597 of the Official Report of February 8:
  "In proper cases the Corporation must be prepared to run proper risks. They will be expected—and I think your Lordships will agree, rightly expected—to operate with reasonable prudence, but it must not be forgotten … that the Corporation are being established for the purpose of supporting and encouraging the production of films. If, at the end of five years the £5,000,000 which is being made available remains undiminished, but if that result has been achieved only because the Corporation have in fact done very little business, this Bill, which has been received so warmly … will have failed to achieve its purpose."
  My Lords, I was so seized with the powerful nature of the noble Viscount's argument, that I undertook to take this back and have consultations with the noble Viscount and also with my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade. May I take this opportunity of thanking the noble Viscount for affording me the benefit of his long experience, with the result that, after further consultations with my right honourable friend, he has agreed to adopt the principle of giving the Finance Corporation a free hand in their decision as to how finance should be arranged. And his initial instruction to the Corporation will be altered to cover that position.
  I think perhaps it would be as well if I now read the instruction, as my right honourable friend proposes to amend it, which defines the "classes of case" referred to in the noble Viscount's Amendment. My right honourable friend proposes, as soon as the Corporation is set up, to authorise the directors to make loans to companies organised to carry out a programme of production of cinematograph films and equipped with the necessary experience in a relevant type of production, provided that there is an adequate amount of private investment ranking with or behind any money lent by the Corporation. My right honourable friend the President is prepared to make that an initial instruction. I think it is also as well to repeat once again that it is his intention that

  981
  this Corporation should take wide and long views. And if, in the end, the £5,000,000 is diminished or—as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, would like plain language—is lost, but the Corporation have achieved their purpose in establishing the production of independently-produced British films, I think the noble Viscount will agree that the Corporation will have justified their existence. In view of that undertaking and assurance, I hope the noble Viscount will withdraw his Amendment.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am much obliged to the Minister. I think this is a satisfactory arrangement. I do not mind whether the provision is inserted in the Bill or in a regulation or directive—the Minister of State likes "directive," the President of the Board of Trade likes "regulation"—but at any rate, it means the order given to the Corporation as to how they are to do their job. My whole anxiety was that they should be left a full discretion in this business. I say at once that in a particular case I think they ought to have the right to require the borrower to take an ultimate risk. I do not believe that that will be the mass of cases, but I can well suppose that the Corporation might say "Here is a case where we think the producer ought to reduce the costs a little." Obviously, they cannot go in and manage the business and get them down.
  Alternatively, there might be a case where the Corporation think that he or his colleagues are taking a little too much out in fees or costs as the business goes along. I can readily imagine that in such a case the Corporation might say, "We are not going to become a joint adventurer with you in this. We cannot control you directly. We cannot do your job for you. If this is the way you are going to do it, we think you are entitled to some finance, but you have got to bear 10 per cent. (or whatever proportion it may be) of the final risk yourself, and we shall come in between the banks and you." On the other hand, they may well find that it is a good venture, that the film ought to be a success, though of course they have to be satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect that the earnings of the film, both here and overseas, will meet the costs. In such a case they may say: "This is a well-managed business; we think that the budget of costs seems
  982
  reasonable, and we do not think anybody is getting excessive remuneration out of it. This is a scheme into which we ought to go as a joint adventurer." And they may say, "It is the last 20 or 25 per cent. of the money that has to be found, and we will go into that as a joint adventurer, each taking our risk pari passu."
  I think that would be a perfectly proper thing to do. As was originally proposed, the Corporation could not do that; they had always to come in as, what I called, for the sake of convenience, "second mortgagees." I do not think that was right. Here they will be in a position to judge every case on its merits, and to go in as joint adventurers if they think that is the right thing to do. But if they think they ought to be stricter in their financial terms, they can come in more or less in the position of secured creditors or mortgagees. I think that is a right discretion to give them. These regulations have now been given to us in a convenient form, but I would like an assurance because the President should not be tied to this process, because we have to learn as we go along, and he may want to alter this. I would like the assurance—I rather think it was given last time, but it might be repeated—that if the Minister finds it necessary to make any change he will inform Parliament. I think this is part of our general understanding, but I take it that in that case he will not hereafter change the regulations in such a way as to make the financial terms more onerous than they are made here.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I would like to answer that question straight away. The President has no intention of altering these instructions which he is empowered to give the Corporation without affording Parliament the opportunity of expressing its opinion.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am very grateful for that assurance. It is extremely satisfactory, and I think that probably it is in the interests of the Corporation to give them a direction of this kind; I think it will strengthen their hand. I think the Corporation have to be tough, practical and imaginative. I sincerely hope that they will secure people with all those characteristics. I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. I think we have had a useful debate in this House, and that in consequence the Bill

  983
  leaves here—as I hope most Bills leave this House—a better measure than it was when it entered. I hope that the Corporation will be successful in its endeavour. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported without further amendment.

  CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  5.12 p.m.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Morrison.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, before putting the Motion for the Third Reading, I have it in command from His Majesty to signify to the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, has been pleased to place at the disposal of Parliament the interests of the Crown in so far as they are affected by the said Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 3a.
  Clause 19 [Borstal Training]:
  LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words from and including "subject" to the end of subsection (2). The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment consequential upon the Amendments made at the Report stage to subsection (2) of Clause 56. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 27, leave out from ("Act") to the end of subsection (2).—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 70 [Expenses and grants payable out of moneys provided by Parliament]:
  LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved to add to the clause, after subsection (6):
  "(7) Any increase attributable to this Act in the sums payable out of moneys provided
  984
  by Parliament under Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948, shall be defrayed out of moneys so provided."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is required to ensure that payments made by local authorities under the Bill shall rank for Exchequer equalisation grant under the Local Government Act of 1948. It is in common form. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 47, line 40, at end insert the said sub-section.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments (Privilege) made.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Morrison.)
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I refer to one of the points raised in the Committee stage? This Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, is, of course, only part of the story; the rest of the story is contained, though not extensively, in the English Criminal Justice Act which was passed last Session. I suggested in Committee that a short-circuiting method should be employed for introducing part of that Act into this Bill, but the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack thought that that method was objectionable. I am bound to admit that when I examined more closely the arguments advanced by the noble and learned Viscount, I came to see that there was great force in them. The Lord Chancellor said he did not see why it should take an indefinite time to bring about the final consolidation of the Criminal Justice Act affecting Scotland. I cannot say that I hope to obtain a promise from him, but I would like to press him that so far as possible he will see that the matter is expedited. I am sure he appreciates the inconvenience of the administration of criminal justice in Scotland coming under two Acts.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as the noble Earl was good enough to say that he was almost convinced by what I said on the previous occasion, I feel that I must do my best to meet him now. I cannot give him any promise, for, as I said before, to do so would be far more than my place is worth. On the other hand I give him my sympathy, and I will put this measure before those who

  985
  are concerned to consider the order in which we undertake our consolidation. He will realise that there is rather a long queue of Bills waiting for consolidation, but I should think that the consolidation here involved would be comparatively simple and would not take very long. Therefore, not only will I put this Bill in the queue, but I shall see if I can jump it up a few places. I cannot say more than that. The noble Earl has the satisfaction of knowing that he has my sympathy and I have told him what I will endeavour to do.
  On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  AGRICULTURAL WAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  NATIONAL THEATRE BILL
  5.17 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill. I confess that the speech I have to make is more agreeable to me than the one which I had to make yesterday. Then we were treading on ground which was only a thin crust over burning fires of political controversy underneath. To-day I hope we shall not have to indulge in any controversial matter. As we always disclose interest, I ought perhaps to disclose that I am the President of the Travel Association. That is not a body which has any ulterior motive for making money, but it does try to attract foreign visitors to this country, and I think it is having a not inconsiderable measure of success. In my view, it is vitally important to push on with this all we can, and to achieve a still larger measure of success. I hope and believe that if and when this theatre is built it will be an added inducement to visitors to come to this country.
  On the other hand, quite frankly, I do not support the Bill on any materialistic ground, I support it on other grounds, and for reasons which in due course I will expound. The genesis of this scheme undoubtedly is due to the work of the Shakespeare Memorial National Theatre
  986
  Committee. They worked for a long time on this project and by about the year 1930 they had amassed a sum of something like £150,000. I believe I am right in saying that the fact that they had succeeded to that extent was largely due to the tireless energy of Mr. Geoffrey Whitworth. By the year 1937 they had acquired a site in South Kensington, and thereafter a project arose for the exchange of that site with the London County Council for a site on the South Bank, in the area which is to be reconstructed. Mr. Oliver Lyttelton succeeded in amalgamating the National Theatre Committee with the Committee of the Old Vic. I think that was a very happy amalgamation, because the National Theatre Committee's function is to build a theatre and the Old Vic is concerned in the successful running of a theatre.
  Ever since the days of Miss Lilian Baylis and before, the Old Vic have done excellent work in putting on good plays. The exchange has been effected and that exchange, as well as the dealings with the Government which followed, have been largely in the hands of the noble Viscount, Lord Esher. Apparently he knows how to handle the Chancellor of the Exchequer better than anybody else! To his efforts and to his enthusiasm a very great deal is due, and those of us interested in this project would like to pay our tribute to the work he has done.
  It is at long last the intention of the London County Council to develop the South Bank—I think I may say, not a decade too soon. It is to be developed, I hope and believe, on a grand and imaginative scale. It has been described as a "future cultural centre." I agree with Mr. Lyttelton about that phrase. It is a phrase which fills me with gloom and despondency. It is Teutonic; it is dull, and it lacks the sparkle and gaiety which are of the essence of the whole idea. But somebody, no doubt, will invent a better and happier phrase. The centre is to have a concert hall, and those who have had to listen to music in the arid wastes of the Albert Hall will realise how much that is needed. It is to have two theatres, one with a seating capacity of about 1,200 and the other, a smaller and more intimate theatre—and that is very necessary—with seating for about 500. Here we have private enterprise, municipal enterprise and State enterprise all working together, each playing an appropriate part.

  987
  The Bill authorises the payment of £1,000,000 of taxpayers' money towards this project if and when the theatre is built. Some of your Lordships may ask yourselves: "Are we justified in expending State aid on this sort of project?" Unfortunately in the conditions of to-day, Mæcenas is dead, and I do not see any new Mæcenas arising, unless it is the people themselves. We have to try to interest the whole people in this sort of project so that they will encourage and support it. I believe that the theatre is by far the greatest means of encouragement that exists for the mass of men to widen their horizons. The theatre is a meeting place for all types and all classes. It is the popular market-place for the exchange of ideas and, together with the concert hall, the chief centre, outside sport, for collective enjoyment. Because of this, the power for education it possesses can be a natural and an unpedantic influence, an influence that I believe to be of first importance. After all, the stage provides a world in miniature, where every form of experience and emotion can be portrayed, history revealed, poetry and satire expressed, laughter enjoyed and the power of language be immediately felt. Our English drama holds first place in the literature of the world. It is unbelievably rich and exciting and varied. Yet we have never had a National Theatre; nor have we used our national heritage to the best advantage.
  I hope if will be possible to cheapen the price of seats so as to bring innumerably more people within its magic circle. Not only would the general public benefit but a new incitement to invent would be given to architects, authors, designers of scenery and properties, producers and actors, and work would be found for them. As I have said, I believe that visitors will be stimulated to visit London from all over the world. I confess that I am proud that it is under a Government of which I am a humble member that, for the first time in our history, such a plan is being realised. We have been criticised for our red tape, for our concentration on the material aspects of life, and no doubt it has done us good. But, of course, these things are the preliminary necessities, the means to an end; and that end, surely, should be the raising of the mental standards of our people. Men
  988
  cannot live by bread alone, nor by comfort and health alone; nor, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has shown us recently, even by duty alone. Man at his best must be stimulated by his imagination. It is his great incitement to be and to do something beyond the commonplace. So we have endeavoured to improve education, and to encourage the appreciation of the arts through the Arts Council. I believe that one of the most hopeful features of our life to-day is the added interest which the people are taking in good music and in good works of art. More people than before the war are visiting our picture galleries, concert halls and museums. We now ask the authority of Parliament to allow us to finance this National Theatre, with its surrounding workshops, and to animate, by this means further artistic achievement.
  I suppose it is a fact that under existing conditions it is impossible to put on first-rate shows with first-rate actors, except by charging high prices. In such circumstances, it is only by a subsidised theatre that the best can be made available for all. I believe that what turns men's minds away from war, and from exaggerated and extreme political movements, is the opportunity for personal creation; and there we have ever been in the forefront. Perhaps Britain can now show, with the coming-of-age of her working classes, that they can emulate, and must emulate, the standards and quality and example given them by their parents and guardians, her old aristocracy. By the building of a National Theatre on the Thames side we shall, I hope, make a real contribution towards the ideal of a people's civilisation.
  Now, my Lords, I can avail myself of this opportunity—because no one can stop me—to add a few irregular observations, which will no doubt indicate my prejudices, and probably my ignorance. I devoutly hope that this theatre will have attached to it a really good restaurant. When I go to the theatre nowadays, not being a man who takes much exercise, I must say that my arms begin to ache with the constant passing and re-passing of cups of tea, which I think would be much better taken outside in a restaurant. Next, I would say that I sincerely hope that this theatre will be set in a district which has a life and vitality of its own. I do not

  989
  want to see this National Theatre surrounded by all sorts of academic buildings and Government offices, from which everybody has gone before the theatre begins; or to drive to some place like the City, through all those ghostly habitations, as they are in the evening, peopled only by cats. If those are the surroundings in which this theatre has to work, I think it is rather a gloomy prospect for the theatre. I hope the area around it will be an area throbbing with interest and vitality.
  What I have to say now is even more irregular than anything I have said so far. I hope that the area which can be devoted to this theatre will be as large as possible, if one is to have the added workshops, and so on, that are necessary. That I believe to be very important. A new National Theatre is now being built in Stockholm (of course, they have had one for a long time, because they are a highly civilised people) and I am told that they are devoting no less than two and a half acres to it. At Malmo in Sweden, which is a town only about the size of Exeter, where they are also building another National Theatre, they are devoting to it a space of two acres. I am well aware that land in London is a very different proposition from land in Malmo and I am not suggesting that we can possibly entertain a scheme on those lavish lines. But I do hope that, within the necessary limitations imposed upon us, we shall remember that it is important to get as much land as we can.
  There my irregularities end, and I can only hope that no one will ever use them in evidence against me. So far as building at the present time is concerned, that, of course, is out of the question. We cannot contemplate it for some time. First of all, this site will be covered by the Exhibition, and the possibility of building will not arise until after that. Nevertheless we had to bring this forward at the present time, because if the London County Council are now making their ultimate plans they must know whether they have to provide for this National Theatre—in short, whether it is to be a reality. That depends upon whether we can provide the money to build it. And we have to answer that question to-day. Although we cannot build the theatre, we have to tell the London County Council that in their ultimate plans they should provide for it. This also must be
  990
  said. When the times of depression come—and we shall be very foolish, my Lords, if we think they will never come again—we must have our plans ready (we have been discussing to-day an illustration of that) to put into force. This is one of the plans which I hope will be put into force. My Lords, I believe, on material grounds, that it is a wise thing to do; I believe, on wider grounds, that it is the right thing to do. I shall be very happy to have (as I believe I shall have) support from all quarters of the House for this project. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  5.35 p.m.
  LORD SOULBURY: My Lords, I have not troubled your Lordships with many observations during the past few years, because the position which I held made it a little difficult for me to engage in controversy. I confess that on more than one occasion I have suffered in silence, and refrained even from good words. My freedom is now restored, but I am certainly not going to use it now in a controversial speech. Indeed, I feel that it would satisfy my own conscience, and your Lordships, after hearing the admirable introduction of this Bill by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, if I confined myself to the one observation that I concur with what he has said and have nothing to add to it. But perhaps your Lordships will allow me to make a few remarks in support of what the noble and learned Viscount has said.
  My only regret, which I am sure your Lordships share, is that a measure of this sort was not put on the Statute Book a long time ago. If it had been, we should now possess a National Theatre which would have been built at a very much lower cost than the estimated cost of the one that is now proposed; we should have learned and appreciated a great deal more of the works of Shakespeare and other dramatists, ancient and modern; we should have had a better-educated public and a higher standard of acting. I believe it is true to say that the plays of Shakespeare provide the best training there is for the young actor. According to such researches as I have made, only once in the past thirty-six years has a serious attempt been made (apart from to-day) to achieve a purpose

  991
  of this kind. That was in another place in 1913, on a Private Member's Motion, which sought to establish a National Theatre, with trustees, and to secure support and assistance from the Government of that day.
  The mover of that Motion was himself a member of the Shakespeare Memorial National Theatre Committee. In those days, I believe, they had already secured about £100,000 of the £500,000 that it was estimated would be required. The object of the Motion was to persuade the Government to contribute a portion of the balance. The Government were not to be persuaded—and, surprisingly, it was a Liberal Government. But, as the old poet said:
  "Even good Homer nods, and long toil is an excuse for slumber."
  Arguments used on that ocasion—I do not agree with them—may still have some relevance in the minds of some people. One was that it would be unwise for the Government to take on the responsibility for a theatre for the production of plays if private commercial enterprise had not thought it possible to produce a profit in that way. Another argument was that the public were not educated, and that the Government ought not to step in until they were satisfied that they had an enthusiastic, interested and educated public. It was also argued that it was not the Government's business to initiate a project of that kind, but to crown it. I am very glad that none of those arguments appeals to His Majesty's Government to-day. The only offer that was made at that time was a very tentative one, that the Government would consider the provision of a subsidy, of an indeterminate amount, when—and only when—the promoters acquired the site, built the theatre, equipped it and endowed it.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: What is called the "end" money.
  LORD SOULBURY: That was not a very expensive form of coronation for the Government to indulge in. Of course, one has to remember that in those days, with a Budget of £190,000,000, the provision of anything in the neighbourhood of £500,000 was considered formidable.
  992
  In fact, the Government in those days were restrained, curious as it may sound, by the fear of losing money. It may be said for His Majesty's Government to-day that they have demonstrated on more than one occasion that they are not in the least perturbed by any such fear. The National Theatre is not, I think, likely to be a paying proposition. In the course of the debate in another place, an expert admitted that something like 300,000 to 400,000 persons would have to see a play in order to ensure its success. That means a long run. I am hoping that the National Theatre will be more in the nature of a repertory theatre, and that we may be able to see in the course of three or four years all or most of the plays of Shakespeare. Then again, I understand the idea is that the seats should be cheap, and I sympathise with that view. The figure was put at prices varying from 6d. to 2s. 6d. The noble and learned Viscount has said there are to be two theatres, one to seat 1,200 and another to seat 500. At those prices the larger theatre cannot charge much less than the theatre seating 500.
  Besides the £1,000,000 initial cost, there are the running costs to provide; and may I say that I hope they will not be placed on the rates? I was attracted by the suggestion of the Government spokesman in another place that the deficit, if deficit there is, should be met by the Arts Council. I think we must face it that the National Theatre may well not be self-supporting. Personally, that does not worry me much, because, as the noble and learned Viscount has indicated, I think we shall get repayment in many other ways. Your Lordships will recollect that Demosthenes once complained of the Athenians that they were prepared to spend much more money on dramatic festivals than they were on a naval expedition. Not many people now remember, or very much care, about Athenian naval expeditions, but their drama has lived for ever. I say this to reassure the stricter economist than myself that, although there may be losses, I think it will be a very long time indeed before the National Theatre can lose as much as we have already lost in one year on potatoes.
  The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has informed us, quite rightly I am sure, that because of the Exhibition

  993
  we shall not get this theatre before 1951. He said that it may be some years after that, and he also stated (although I do not entirely agree with him) that this delay would in some ways be excused—I will not say welcomed—because the project could be put in a pigeon-hole and brought out against a trade depression. I am not altogether enamoured of that proposal—and for this reason. I can foresee the time when, perhaps from one of these Benches, in reply to a request that the authorisation to commence this theatre be given, a noble Lord may rise and tearfully say that the is sorry he cannot authorise the commencement of the theatre because, to his lasting sorrow and deep regret, the slump has not yet arrived! May I ask whether, before this depression arrives, it would not be possible to give a somewhat lower priority to one or other of the Government offices in course of erection or contemplated?
  I frankly admit that between the two wars the predecessors of this Government were considerably to blame in not initiating a project of this kind, and it would have been a useful step to combat the depression which was prevailing. Of course, in those days, State interference was by no means so fashionable as it has now become, and even to-day, it seems to me one has to watch anything like State control over art with a considerable amount of suspicion and care. Such a delicate, sensitive and indefinable thing as genius does not take kindly to bureaucracy; much less can it flourish within the prescribed limits of some ideology or political or economic faith. We have seen what happened to art among the Nazis, and I make the same prophecy with regard to Russia to-day, where I think it is highly imprudent, if not dangerous, for an artist to produce a play with a bourgeois or Western flavour, unpalatable to the authorities. It is a great pity that the rulers of Soviet Russia do not refer to the works of Aristophanes, because if they did they would read what he said about the head of the Athenian State in the Peloponnesian War and yet got away with it. Had he said the same things about our Prime Minister, I think he would have spent the rest of his time writing his plays in the Isle of Man! Yet the theatre of Athens was a public institution, and the State was entirely and
  994
  completely responsible for Athenian drama.
  In Clause 2 of the Bill, the Treasury are given a voice in the appointing of additional trustees for this theatre. That is inevitable. Public money is being spent, and the public must have a voice. To that extent we are admitting a Trojan Horse into the Borough of Lambeth; but I do not think we need fear the Treasury in this case, even when bringing gifts, subject to the most important proviso that the private management should consist of those who know something about managing theatres, and of the people of the theatrical profession, and not people selected from gifted amateurs or æsthetically-minded politicians. The Government's spokesman in another place said that it was too soon to consider the question of management, and I think he is probably right. But it is a vital point, and I for one would be happy if it were left in the hands of the Old Vic.
  I noticed, also, that in the debate in another place, a suggestion was made that there should be a Minister of Fine Arts. I hope there is nothing of the sort. This gentleman, it was said, would stand apart from Party politics. A Minister, whatever Government appoint him, cannot usually stand apart from Party politics, and such a political hermaphrodite is unknown to our mythology.
  There are few more points with which I want to trouble your Lordships. The noble and learned Viscount mentioned the site, and I think your Lordships agree that the new site is preferable, both from historic associations and, I think, from its proximity to the great centres of population. I share his views in regard to the term "cultural centre." To me it is too redolent of earnest-minded, professorial zealots and long-haired intelligentsia. Like all your Lordships, no doubt, I should welcome an invitation to dine at the National Theatre, and see a play; but if I were asked to attend the "Lambeth Cultural Centre" I should have a vision of nut cutlets and a lecture on eurythmics. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack with regard to the environment: I think it is most important that it should not be austere and highbrow. After all, as regards the drama, Piccadilly Circus, Leicester Square and Shafesbury Avenue at present form our cultural centre; and

  995
  although it may not be possible or desirable to imitate all the intimacy and irregularity of that area, at any rate I hope that the new lay-out will try to develop something of the charm and, if you will, the romance which have endeared that part of the world to Londoners for generations.
  When the new scheme is complete, I think its benefits will immensely outweigh its cost or any possible losses that may accrue. After all, it will do a great deal to preserve the English language—and that is certainly in need of preserving. It will improve the spoken word; we shall be able to hear English pronounced as it ought to be pronounced by people who have studied the subject. It will set a standard, much as the Comédie Française has set a standard in France. It will provide further inspiration for our great creative dramatic genius. It is of much more value to hear poetry spoken—and particularly dramatic poetry—than it is to read it. There were few books in ancient Greece, and few people read or could read Homer; but thousands upon thousands heard him recite his poetry and knew his lines by heart. No one can estimate the colossal contribution that those lines made to the poetic and dramatic genius of the Greeks. With ourselves, the Bible has played a similar part—I wish I could say it still played that part. In past times, I imagine, the majority of the population regularly heard passages from the Bible; and there again, nobody can estimate the contribution that the Bible and its translators have made to our literature. The plays of Shakespeare himself were written not to be read but to be heard and seen; and hearing and seeing them will, I am certain, prove one of the greatest inspirations to thought and literature in the world.
  The National Theatre should provide a very valuable stimulus to the dramatic profession. Dramatic actors and actresses in the provinces may graduate to the National Theatre, and the competition which would result would do much to ensure a high standard. I believe that is the practice in Sweden to-day. Then there is the question of employment; it should be possible to subsidise the theatre to provide employment. There are at present many actors and actresses,
  996
  especially younger ones, who are constantly in and out of employment.
  Finally, the National Theatre must not be regarded as being for Londoners only—nor indeed for the United Kingdom only. It is in London because London will be a centre for the whole of the Commonwealth. Nor must the theatre itself be solely a memorial to Shakespeare. There is no other land in the world so rich as ours in either the quantity or the quality of its dramatic art; and we can now look forward to the time—and I hope it will not be far ahead—when the National Theatre will be presenting to visitors from all over the world examples of our dramatic art from the sixteenth century to the present day and onwards.
  5.55 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, I have been connected with this project for longer than I care to remember, and it gives me the greatest pleasure to know that this measure is at last going to reach the Statute Book. For many years I have belonged to a small band of enthusiastic people working in that obscurity which is always the lot of people who are active in an unpopular cause. But we were united in a conviction that it is a disgrace to this country, which has the greatest dramatic literature in the world, that we should be the only civilised country in Europe without a National Theatre. Nevertheless it seemed an impossible thing to achieve, and for a very long time we made no headway at all. I sometimes think there are certain tides in politics, so that you can succeed at one moment and fail at another. No one can account for those tides. For instance, your Lordships will remember the case of slum areas in our urban towns. For about a hundred years people lamented the existence of those slums, and all through our richest hour they said it was impossible to do away with them. Now they cannot leave them standing for another minute—when we are poorer than we have ever been before. It is curious how at one moment no one will listen to what one has to say, and the next minute it becomes quite easy to carry a thing through both Houses of Parliament without any opposition at all.
  This, of course, is a great day for all of us who have struggled to see the accomplishment of a National Theatre in

  997
  England. We are also very gratified that a pleasant link with the London County Council has been forged and that we are to be part of their noble plan for reconditioning the South Bank of the Thames. Once again we find the same situation. All my life I have heard people lament that the South Bank of the Thames was a disgrace to an imperial city such as London. People used to come back from Paris saying how beautiful and wonderful was the lay-out of the Seine and how marvellously it has been incorporated into the city. So far as London was concerned, nothing was done in the time of its greatest wealth; it is only now that we are determined to sweep away the ugly slums on the South Bank and create a noble lay-out there. The London County Council have been very friendly to our idea from the start and the exchanges that we have made with them really mean that the London County Council has provided £185,000 as a contribution to the cost of the National Theatre.
  The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has referred to the approaches which I have made to the Government. My colleagues were not hopeful of those approaches—not as hopeful as I was myself. But I was surprised at the warm welcome I received from Mr. Dalton when I saw him about this measure. Then, almost immediately, Mr. Dalton fell into misfortune and I had to begin again with a new Chancellor of the Exchequer whose formidable austerity had been rubbed into me by every newspaper during the last five years. I imagined that he was going to be rather like that puritanical Roundhead, Prynne, who during the Commonwealth wrote a pamphlet and succeeded in getting the theatres closed during the whole of the period of Cromwell's reign. I did not find Sir Stafford Cripps in the least like that. On the contrary, I found he was just as cordial about the idea as Mr. Dalton had been. I think your Lordships will agree that it is not the sort of thing that one would have expected to have appealed to this Government.
  The theatre is essentially an individualistic profession. There are good parts and high salaries for some people, and bad parts and small salaries for others. Your Lordships will have observed the grossly unfair advantage that pretty women have over plain ones in the
  998
  theatrical profession. Nevertheless, in spite of all that, this idea has received cordial and enthusiastic response from the Government, untainted by a theoretical equalitarianism. It only shows that the Government are in much closer touch with public opinion than many people think. That is proved by the unusual debate which took place in another place, where there was a discussion of several hours and there was no opposition to this measure at all—which I have been told is an almost unprecedented event in that place.
  I share the optimistic view which the Government have of the future. This country has had a great loss of military power and of wealth. These things have passed to those two remote monsters who live to the East and West of Europe. Their way of life, though very different one from the other, has no real appeal to us. But I am convinced that Shakespeare's countrymen are about to enjoy an Athenian summer of great interest and charm. The Arts Council and the B.B.C. have created and found vast new audiences who are keen and vitally interested in all these artistic questions. It is true that they are not yet educated. I have the greatest admiration for Mr. Oliver Lyttelton, who has given long service and loyalty to this clause. He is terribly afraid of this expression "cultural centre," a fear which apparently is shared not only by the Lord Chancellor but also by the noble Lord, Lord Soulbury; but no one ever produces another phrase for it. The other day I was talking to a woman who lives in Battersea, where they have just made a cultural centre. She was extremely proud of the fact that her community had a cultural centre. She said, in fact, that it was going to be opened shortly by Edgar Wallace! I was not priggish enough to insinuate to her that he was not the sort of man I should have selected to open a cultural centre. I only pointed out to her that he had been dead for many years, and it was really extremely unlikely that he would be opening the centre. She said: "Oh, then, it must be Shakespeare who is coming!"
  This seems to me to show that cultural centres are necessary in some districts of England. Mr. Oliver Lyttelton and the Lord Chancellor do not reach for their

  999
  revolvers when they hear such words; they reach for their satirical witticism, which is a much more dangerous weapon in this country than Goering's revolver. It is all very well for them to do that, but I do not think they realise what an important work these centres accomplish in districts where there is enthusiasm but not sufficient education. I myself have found a universal appreciation of this movement. Those who are in contact with the new democracy know that it is alive with genius. I have perfect confidence that it is going to produce a civilised life equal both to the aristocratic life enjoyed in the eighteenth century by the great families, and to the middle-class civilised life which prevailed in the nineteenth century.
  I have no anticipation that I shall myself live to see the National Theatre built, still less to see the chain of civic theatres which will bring the drama to the starved provincial towns. But I should like to congratulate the Government upon their courage and imagination in bringing in this measure. Nearly everything that Governments do is inevitably, perhaps mercifully, forgotten. The political and economic issues about which we fight get out of date, lose their virulence and become unimportant. But what we are building to-day will stand for ever as a lasting monument to this Administration.
  6.7 p.m.
  LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, I should be sorry to strike any discordant note in the spirit of harmony which prevails at this moment, particularly as all my life I have been a great lover of the theatre. Probably I have seen as many plays and films as any member of your Lordships' House. When Mr. Oliver Lyttelton said, as he did in the debate in another place, that the object of the National Theatre was to set the highest standard for the drama, those words expressed my sentiments entirely. But this is a Bill which involves extra expenditure. It seems only fair to remind ourselves that all the bankers have recently issued their annual pronouncements. They are unanimous on one point—namely, the overwhelming necessity to ease the burden of taxation. The only way of easing the burden of taxation is to reduce expenditure. Therefore, any Bill which seeks to increase expenditure, however small it may be in comparison with the
  1000
  gigantic expenditures which are made in other directions, must surely receive a careful scrutiny. We should assure ourselves that the two theatres which are envisaged in this Bill are necessary.
  The first thing we must remember is that the expenditure on this project will by no means be confined to the £1,000,000 envisaged in this Bill. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor made that clear in his speech, when he spoke of wishing to add a restaurant and to build the theatre with workshops in an area of some two and a half acres, and when he expressed the hope that prices of between 6d. and 2s. 6d. would be the highest prices paid by the spectators. Obviously, any such project would entail a heavy annual subsidy, and we must be prepared to face that. Then, in regard to this theatre, would it, in fact, be a National Theatre? That certainly was not the unanimous opinion of speakers in another place. One of the Members from the North of England said that up in Manchester they were tired of paying taxes, or their share of taxes, for projects from which only Londoners reaped the benefit. Another, from Wales, said that his idea was to have a National Theatre in Wales, and if this Bill passes he would approach the Treasury for a grant in order that his country should have its own National Theatre. A third Member, from Scotland, said exactly the same in respect of his country, and Mr. Oliver Lyttleton in his closing speech in that debate offered his services to back him up in obtaining a grant for Scotland to have its own National Theatre. Let us therefore not be under any delusion that the amount of finance involved is confined only to the not considerable sum which is asked for in this Bill.
  I wonder whether we are right in thinking that the South Bank of the Thames is an ideal place to construct this National Theatre, if indeed it is decided to construct it. If that is so, how is it that every other theatre is on the North Bank? How is it that no theatre, except Miss Baylis's effort, has ever flourished on the South Bank of the Thames? I venture to think that Miss Baylis's effort should not be taken as a precedent. She was a lady of great ability and personality, who created a vogue and who carried on her theatre—although not everybody will admit it—on the lines of presenting the

  1001
  drama in its highest standards. She did wonderful work, but she did not do such work as would be required of a National Theatre. I am very doubtful, therefore, in spite of the eloquent testimony of Lord Esher and the Lord Chancellor, whether in fact, from the long-term point of view, a site on the South Bank of the Thames will be successful.
  Am I not right in thinking that Lord Esher is also a sponsor for the creation of a highly important music centre in the area of Portman Place, which would surely be a strong competitor with a similar cultural centre on the South Bank?
  VISCOUNT ESHER: There is no proposal whatever to build a theatre in the Regent's Park area; that is merely in connection with music.
  LORD BLACKFORD: But a concert hall is to be built there, I think, and at Portland Place there will be the counter-attraction to that which it is now sought to have on the South Bank.
  Lastly, in that connection, are there not enough theatres already for the presentation of drama? In these hard times, before we commit ourselves to the construction of two new theatres, would it not be wise to make quite certain that there is a demand for a permanent National Theatre company in London? Surely it would be possible, if such a plan were considered desirable, to start with it straight away? What is the matter with the Gaiety Theatre? It has been empty for some years. It is true, that the lease on the theatre has recently been taken up by Mr. Lupino Lane, but I have no doubt that as he is not at present able to obtain a licence to repair it he would be willing to lease it for such purposes as this. It would appear to me that the Gaiety Theatre offers many advantages. It is in a good traffic centre; it is in the middle of theatreland; the road amenities round it are good, and it was run very successfully for about twenty years. If a small theatre is desired quite close why not lease the little Kingsway Theatre? I have been to many good shows at the Kingsway Theatre in my time, and I do not know why it has been neglected in the last few years. There seems to me no reason why a short lease should not be taken of that theatre in order to try out this proceeding without
  1002
  committing the country to a heavy capital expenditure.
  My Lords, this Bill deals only with the actual building, and I submit that the construction of a building is not at present advisable, for the reasons I have stated. But, surely, the more important things about a National Theatre are the play and the players. Buildings are no good without the men and women who write the plays, and those who produce and act in them. Surely, we are already doing a great deal to propagate the drama in that respect. We are, to the best of our ability, taking the drama to the people. I have no doubt that many of your Lordships have read the last annual report of the Arts Council. It seems to me that the Arts Council are doing a fine job at very little expense. Their chief work in London is to subsidise the Old Vic Company. What is the Old Vic Company if it is not a National Theatre Company? For the last four years it has been producing repertory at the New Theatre, with the best actors and actresses, and with the best producers. Yet according to Mr. Benn Levy, speaking in another place—and he ought to know all about it—in only one year out of the four during which the Old Vic Company has been performing at the New Theatre has it broken even; in all the other three years it has required a subsidy from the Arts Council. Whenever I have been to the New Theatre it has always been full to capacity. If that is the position, it only shows what a grave loss would be suffered if an attempt were made to produce national drama at prices from 6d. to 2s. 6d.
  But in addition to the Old Vic Company in London, there is a small theatre called the London Mask Theatre, also subsidised by the Arts Council and carried on in the nature of a repertory theatre. It has produced one highly successful play called The Linden Tree, and two or three others of a cultural value without the same box office appeal. In addition to that, the Arts Council entirely run three repertory companies in the country, at Bristol, Coventry, and Salisbury; and they are interested in, and help the finances of, no fewer than thirty-one companies all over the country, including Scotland and Wales. I have not worked out the number of plays which were put on by those thirty-one companies during the year 1947–48 which is the year with which the

  1003
  report deals, but it is well over 150. All this has been achieved at a cost of £63,000—£56,000 being for England and £7,000 for Scotland. I see that the Lord Chancellor is shaking his head. It is true to say that the total grant to the Arts Council was £428,000, but much the greater part of that was spent on art exhibition, music, ballet and so forth. The actual expenditure on the drama was only £63,000 for this last year, and I maintain that a great achievement has been accomplished by the Arts Council at that very small expenditure.
  I am in favour of increasing those efforts because I believe that that is doing a great deal more good than would be done by erecting a building in London. Quite apart from that, however, it seems to me inconsistent that we Conservatives, who are always blaming the Government for their excessive expenditure, who are at this very moment moving in another place a vote of censure on the Government for the gigantic miscalculations of such gargantuan wasters as the Ministers of Health and Food, should in this small matter be persuaded by the eloquence of the Lord Chancellor and the attraction of the project to depart from our consistent principle—namely, that only reduction of taxation, among many other things, can save this country from the economic blizzard which will one day come upon it.
  6.20 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have little to add to what I have previously said. I was sorry to note that the noble Lord, Lord Soulbury, did not much like my remarks about trade depression. I rather agree. I did not much like them myself, but I put them in to try to get over the sort of difficulties which we have just heard enunciated. However, as they obviously have not got over those difficulties, I withdraw them. Of course, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord said about management. It is obvious that it is necessary that the management should be in the hands of someone who is an expert and skilled manager. I hope to goodness that no Government, whatever their complexion, will be foolish enough to think that they should concern themselves with managing a theatre.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Esher, expressed surprise that this Government
  1004
  should entertain such a project. After all—and I do not want to strike a controversial note—this Government have a very good record in these matters. There has never been a Government before which contributed something of the order of between £400,000 and £500,000 a year to the Arts Council. We believe that in these directions we are spending the taxpayers' money in a very useful way. I am afraid that I should never convince the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, but he has had his say and "got it off his chest," so to speak; and I hope that, having done that, he will be good about it in the future—indeed, I think that he will. He says that we really cannot afford this expenditure. I cannot help feeling that it was just that sort of attitude—if I may use Lord Esher's illustration—which kept those slums with us for so many years. If we had only made up our minds that we would afford it, and we had afforded it, we could have got rid of those slums years ago at about one-tenth of what it would cost now. We should have eliminated a vast amount of human misery and human suffering if we had made up our minds that we were going to afford it, and had afforded it. We should, moreover, have had a National Theatre at somewhere about the same time that Louis XIV gave France a National Theatre. It was always the "cannot afford it" attitude that stood in the way.
  I am not saying that the situation to-day is one in which we can be permitted to indulge in any wild extravagance. But I do not believe this is wild extravagance. I believe that anything which is going to contribute to the moral, spiritual and mental welfare of the people is very wise expenditure—expenditure which we not only can but ought to afford. Therefore, I disagree with the noble Lord with regard to his other suggestion. Particular theatres were mentioned. The noble Lord will realise that some of those theatres would be quite inappropriate to the project we have in mind. To play repertory in some of the theatres would, of course, be foolish. I am grateful for the reception which this Bill has received. Though I have not quite succeeded in convincing Lord Blackford, yet I think he realises there is something to be said for the project which I have brought before your Lordships.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  ROAD AND STREET PLANTING
  6.24 p.m.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE rose to ask His Majesty's Government what is their policy with regard to road and street planting; what Department is at present dealing with this subject; whether they will reconsider their attitude towards the Roads Beautifying Association; and to move for Papers. The noble Duke said: My Lords, I make no apology, even at this late hour, for raising this subject, because it is one of very great importance. On what is done in the next few years will largely depend the aspect of England 100, 200 or perhaps 300 years hence. We have been discussing a Bill affecting roads this afternoon. How those roads are planted, and how the lay-out is worked, is a matter of vital importance now.
  This business of planting trees alongside roads is very difficult and highly technical. It requires the most expert advice. There are a great many pitfalls. You can fall into error in many ways. You can fall into error concerning the kind of tree to plant, having regard to the particular soil or the climatic conditions. You can plant trees which will not have room to develop properly and which will be a constant source of trouble and expense. In these days of petrol restrictions, we do not have much chance of travelling about the country by motor car, but I did have the opportunity of driving along the Great West Road the other day and at one place—I believe it was somewhere in the vicinity of Ealing—I saw a most lamentable sight. The local authority has used birch trees for roadside planting. I suppose there is no lovelier tree than our native English birch, given a proper chance to develop. But, in this instance, the local authority had seen fit to plant the trees under telegraph wires. The result was that they had had to be sawn off horizontally, about twelve feet from the ground. It was a dreadful and horrible sight: a greater eyesore it would be difficult to imagine. As I say, this planting of roadside trees is a matter which requires expert advice.
  Some years ago—it was in 1928, I think—the then Minister of Transport, Lord Mount Temple, brought the Roads Beautifying Association into being. He found a man of whom think it is not too much to say that he was a man of genius, Dr. Wilfrid Fox—and he has really been the driving force of the Roads Beautifying Association. He became the Honorary Secretary of the Association and collected around him a band of people who were real experts, and who devoted a great deal of time and trouble to the work of the Association. The Association was, of course, purely voluntary—that is to say, it existed, and local authorities could either go to it or not go to it. I think the Association may be said to have done its work well because it never once lost a client. Once a public authority, whether a borough council or a county council, approached the Association they invariably continued to make use of it and became subscribers.
  We had men of real knowledge and experience, such as Lionel de Rothschild, who was Chairman of the Royal Horticultural Society, Mr. F. R. S. Balfour, Sir Arthur Hill, Mr. W. J. Bean (author of that great standard book Trees and Hardy Shrubs in the British Isles), Colonel Stern, who knows a great deal about planting in chalky soils, Mr. Cotton, who was the keeper of the herbarium at Kew and is now the President of the Linnèan Society, Mr. Gardner, Secretary of the English Forestry Association, Sir Charles Bressey, a very eminent road engineer, Lord Aberconway, who is now President of the Royal Horticultural Society, Sir Edward Salisbury, the present Director of Kew, Lord Robinson, and also representatives of the A.A., the R.A.C., the British Road Federation, representatives of Kew Gardens and (this is very important) representatives of the nursery trade, such as the Hilliers, father and son, who gave a great deal of time and trouble to the work of the Association and whose advice was of the greatest value. Not only have such gentlemen a tremendous knowledge of what to plant and where, but they also know where the right trees are available. I remember that we were once consulted by the Cumberland County Council about a windswept and spray-swept stretch of road. We recommended a particular tree for this which we thought would thrive. Mr.

  1007
  Hillier thought it was excellent, but that the combined resources of the trade could not, without some years' notice, produce one-tenth of the number of trees required. In that way the Association was able to give valuable service.
  We went on for some years on these lines, constantly increasing our circle of acquaintances among local authorities and doing more and more work, until, in 1937, we were given a grant from the Ministry of £200 a year and local authorities were urged to consult us. In 1944, when Mr. Noel-Baker was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, he invited us to formulate plans by which our powers would be considerably increased. Mr. Noel-Baker was going to suggest that we should have executive powers as well as the advisory function we were already performing. But then a change of Government took place, and all this came to an end.
  The Association (perhaps rather rashly), in order to advertise the fact that we were in existence, and that our advice was available, held a sherry party and, still more rashly, invited the Minister to it. As I watched the Association's sherry going down his throat, I almost saw the mental processes going on inside his mind. He was thinking, "This will not do at all. Here are people who know their jobs doing something for nothing. This might be of advantage to 'the boys.' It might be one of their 'rackets.'" Soon after that, out of the blue, with what I might call brutal rudeness, the Minister dismissed Dr. Fox. Dr. Fox had done a tremendous work over a period of twenty years, and had devoted his great knowledge and an enormous amount of time and energy to his job. The Minister spoke very disparagingly of the work of the Association and told us to get rid of him. He also told us that the small subsidy of £200 a year would be discontinued, and that local authorities would in future be told to come to the Ministry, which was setting up its own department to advise on road planting.
  I want to ask the noble Earl who is to reply what this service is costing. I understand that two officials are employed, at a cost of between £1,500 and £1,800 a year, and they must have their own staff—clerks, secretaries, typists, draftsmen and so on—and any of us who
  1008
  have had any experience of Government affairs realise that the cost of that increases year by year. What is being spent now and what services are being obtained? I want to know why this sudden change of attitude took place. What had the Roads Beautifying Association done to incur what seemed to be the very definite hostility of the Government? Maybe, since I was President of this Association, the Government did not like Dukes, or did they not approve of people who really knew their jobs? They certainly did not like something about the Association. When we found we had been dismissed, Dr. Fox was greatly discouraged. We felt it was no good trying to fight the Government and the Minister, so we called a meeting to wind up the Association.
  At that meeting I put it from the chair that the Association be wound up. It was unanimously rejected. And, if I remember rightly, an Amendment moved by the county surveyor of Hertfordshire and seconded by the county surveyor of Surrey, that the Association be temporarily carried on, was passed unanimously. Since that time the County Councils' Association have repeatedly asked the Minister that the Roads Beautifying Association might be kept in being, and have asked to consult that body instead of his officials. At first I thought it was a case of "a job for the boys," but I did the Government an injustice. They did not get an old retired trade unionist for the job, but gave it to a young man from Kew, in his early twenties, who had done fifteen months' training at Kew before the war and who, during the war, had something to do with sowing grass on aerodromes. This young man was put in the place of a body with the experience and accumulated wisdom of the Roads Beautifying Association. He was a brilliant young man, but he could not get anything done because he was so tied up with red tape; and after a year he resigned and went back to Kew.
  I do not know who the Government experts are now. A new advisory body was to have been set up. The noble Lord, Lord Aberconway, agreed to be chairman and we were to have some representation. From what I am told, this new body has never come into being, and, for reasons of economy, is being held in abeyance. Whom do the Government employ to give advice to local authorities? It is a

  1009
  matter of vital importance, because a mistake is not easily rectified, and pitfalls are numerous. Such trees as laburnum or flowering cherry, which can make an extraordinarily beautiful picture of an urban or suburban street, can be an absolute outrage in a bit of unspoiled English countryside. There are a great many questions of that kind, and in the combined wisdom and experience of our Association the Minister had a useful instrument which he could have utilised.
  I do not say that the Roads Beautifying Association is the best body. But I do not think a young man can possibly have the knowledge or experience which the members of that body had. I resent the way in which, after years of service, Dr. Fox was thrown aside and a young official appointed in his place. The Association's system, when approached by a local authority for advice, was to send a panel of three or four members to the spot, to go over every inch of the ground, to examine the soil, what verges there would be and how much room there would be. This panel made recommendations which went before the whole technical sub-committee, which then advised the local authority, who might take that advice or not, as they pleased. Now they have to go to an officer who cannot have the breadth of knowledge and accumulated experience which was available in the Association. I ask the Government what this service is costing and what their plans are for its future. I should rather like to hear the views of the noble Lord who sits beside me, because in fact the views of the present Government are worth about as much as Tumbledown Dick's in the closing months of 1659.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF TRURO: My Lords, the beauty of Great Britain has been for many years a steadily wasting asset. Societies like the Council for the Preservation of Rural England have been valiantly trying to stem the tide of waste, but it is high time that we had something more positive to increase the beauty of our main roads. The Roads Beautifying Association have been pioneers. Examples of their achievements are the Colchester by-pass, the Guildford-Godalming by-pass, the Oxford-Woodstock road, the Henley-Oxford road at Bix, the Romsey by-pass, the Woodbridge by-pass and the Leicester City road. I should like to add to the tribute already paid by the noble
  1010
  Duke to the great value of the long service of Dr. Wilfrid Fox.
  But what of the future? We are facing great developments. First, there is the construction of the new motorways, of which we have heard this afternoon. That will be undertaken by the Ministry of Transport. Then there is the improvement of trunk roads. That will be paid for by the Ministry, and the work will be carried out by the various county authorities. Other first-class roads will be the responsibility of the local authorities, but I understand that they will receive percentage grants from the Ministry of Transport. Let me ask your Lordships briefly to consider what is required under each of those headings. The great motor roads will be entirely new. There is no need in this small country for those roads to be constructed for very great speed, like the Pennsylvanian Turnpike in America. By all means let us avoid the German autobahn, which ruthlessly overrides the land forms for the sake of maximum speed. What we want is rather what the Americans call the fitted highway—the road which is adapted to the configuration of the district through which it passes. The new motor road should combine a high degree of efficiency with speed, comfort and general pleasure. The fitted highway, gently winding in response to existing forms, may be slightly longer between two given points than the inflexible autobahn, but it will be less costly, both in construction and maintenance, and will easily admit of a speed of 75 miles an hour without fatigue or boredom. Further, the cruising speed of cars along these roads will prohibit any detailed examination of specimens along the roadside. Anything like an elaborate collection of rare and interesting trees and shrubs will be out of place, except possibly at parking places and road junctions.
  I must not go into details. I hope I have said enough to illustrate the importance of obtaining the right kind of technical advice from the outset. Both as regards the siting of the roads and the roadside planting, what we really need is the advice of a good practical landscape architect. As to the plants to be chosen, the details of planting and the upkeep, what is required is the help of a small committee, including expert horticul-

  1011
  turists. These considerations also apply, with appropriate modifications, to the trunk roads and the first-class roads. A good deal of work is still desirable in connection with the trunk roads of the country. Various improvements should be considered. Why, for example, should the two carriageways always be so close together? Why should there not be, for some length at least, a break of, say, 100 feet between them, with well-designed planting which would obviate dazzle at night? I must not detain your Lordships at this late hour on further points of this sort. They are points which may well be referred to a competent landscape architect. The honorary secretary of the Institute of Landscape Architects, Miss Brenda Colvin, last year published a very interesting book under the title Land and Landscape, which some of your Lordships may have read. That book seems to me to indicate the kind of help needed in connection with the improvement of our trunk roads.
  As regards the other first-class roads, which are the responsibility of the county authorities, less planting will be required because the countryside has been less disturbed. I am glad to know that the Minister of Transport takes a keen interest in the whole subject. I should like very strongly to support the noble Duke in asking that the Committee which the Minister has in mind to form should be formed without delay. Such a Committee would naturally include representatives of the Roads Beautifying Association, of the Institute of Landscape Architects and of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. I am delighted to hear that Lord Aberconway may be the chairman; no better chairman could be found. I hope this Committee will meet at once and work out for the Minister a set-up and a scheme for securing appropriate and economical treatment and upkeep of roadside planting.
  I would venture to offer two or three suggestions for the consideration of that Committee when it meets. The first is that the Minister of Transport should keep in close touch with the Institute of Landscape Architects and retain one or more landscape architects in the capacity of consultant. A good landscape architect should be employed from the outset in siting and planting these great new
  1012
  motor roads, and a good landscape architect should also be available from time to time for consultation in connection with the trunk roads and the first-class roads in the counties. Detailed work on these will be undertaken, not by the Ministry, but under the officers of the local county authorities. In addition to the advice of a landscape architect, called in as occasion requires, each county, I suggest, should have a county committee ready to co-operate with him and to supervise the carrying out of his recommendations. It should not be difficult in each county to form a small committee of local people, familiar with local conditions, who will be able to superintend the actual planting and aftercare of the plants. The committee should include experienced horticulturists, a representative of the county branch of C.P.R.E., and so on. It would certainly arouse local interest, and would give encouragement on the spot to the protection and aftercare of the planting. In some cases suitable trees and shrubs, some of which are at present in short supply, might be presented to the committee by local growers.
  Each county, I suggest, should have such a committee. All the counties differ a good deal as to their soil and climate. Cornwall, for example, should not be bracketed with Devonshire; if Cornwall should be bracketed with another area it should be with the West Coast of Scotland. Let Cornwall, Devon, and all the other counties have their own horticultural advisory committees. I need not remind your Lordships that some planting is essential—embankments and cuttings must be clothed with vegetation, if only to prevent erosion. If there is to be any planting, let it be good planting, with local knowledge. If unsuitable plants are chosen, if the top soil is removed and no provision is made for aftercare, the failure will be miserable. I had an incident brought to my notice not long ago. Certain planting was undertaken by an authority along a stretch of road. The farmer who farmed the adjacent land disapproved of what was being done. "I will plant a tree which will live," he said, "and yours will die." That actually happened; the farmer's tree did live, and the other plants died. I would urge that all the committees, whether local or central, should be small committees. We do not want twenty-five

  1013
  people to plant a few shrubs; we do not want representatives of every Government Department remotely concerned to survey the planting of every little group of trees.
  I hope, the Minister, in consultation with his new advisory Committee, will give most careful consideration to the whole question of personnel. Is a special permanent staff of the Ministry for this one purpose really necessary? The advice of a landscape architect should be readily available as required, but what is needed over and above that might be supplied, in my submission, by the new Committee working at the centre, and the county committees supervising the planting in each county. Further, if the Roads Beautifying Association, which has done such valuable pioneer work in the past, is represented on this central advisory Committee (as it certainly should be), might it not be better for it to pass its life into this new Committee rather than to continue its own separate existence? I am not at all in a position to give a categorical answer to such questions as these. I should be quite content to have them considered carefully by the Minister and his new advisory Committee, but I feel it is very important that they should be duly considered without delay.
  There is one other action I hope the Minister will take. The Ministry pays for the new motorways, and also for the trunk roads. Thus, the lay-out and planting of these roads will naturally be under the Minister's control, and I hope he will make definite provision for it. The other first-class roads are the responsibility of the county authorities, but as they are eligible for percentage grants from the Ministry, the Ministry is fully entitled to ask the county authorities to submit schemes for the beautifying of these first-class roads which are neither motorways nor trunk roads. I hope the Minister will do that. The House is very much obliged to the noble Duke for raising this important matter. It vitally affects the future attractiveness of the British landscape. I would add this thought: that the judicious expenditure of a comparatively small sum of money will confer a benefit on our children and grandchildren, and their children and grandchildren, for which I believe they will be sincerely grateful.
  6.52 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure the noble Duke need not apologise for drawing the attention of the House to this important work of road planting which, as the right reverend Prelate has said, contributes so much to the beauty of the English countryside. I assure the noble Duke that my right honourable friend the Minister is keenly interested in this work of road planting, and I hope that what I have to say will convince him that as much as possible is being done at the moment.
  I should like to direct myself to the terms of the noble Duke's question, or rather to his three questions. I should like to deal first with his second question. The Ministry of Transport are the Department dealing with the road amenities to which the noble Duke has referred, and the Minister of Transport, therefore, is the responsible Minister. He takes responsibility because he is the highway authority for trunk roads, and because of the expenditure on classified roads out of the Road Fund. My right honourable friend also has general responsibility for roads and road safety. But in the exercise of his responsibility the Minister is, of course, in close touch with the Minister of Town and Country Planning and the Secretary of State for Scotland, who are concerned with the wider planning and amenity issues with which they deal under the Town and Country Planning Acts of 1947. The Minister of Health also comes in where the appearance of housing estates is concerned.
  I will now pass on to the first question asked by the noble Duke, when he requested the Government to say something about their policy in regard to road and street planting. Before I go on to outline this policy, I should like to emphasise the importance of distinguishing between the policy that we wish to carry out—which all people who are interested in this matter wish to carry out—and the limitations to the implementation of that policy, due to difficulties arising out of the present economic situation. The Ministry of Transport has for a long time past—and indeed the noble Duke bore witness to that in his remarks—been fully alive to the importance of providing suitable trees and shrubs, as well as grass verges, as part of the design of modern highways. This is desirable, not only to improve the appearance of

  1015
  the roads, to make them more attractive in themselves and to prevent them from clashing violently with the country landscapes through which they pass, but also from the point of view of road safety.
  The Ministers concerned have issued a number of circulars to highway and planning authorities on the different aspects of this problem of improving the appearance of roads and streets. I will not weary the noble Duke or the House by drawing attention to the details of these publications. I should like merely to point out that they demonstrate the interest and concern which this Government, and its predecessors, have felt about this matter. I would add that where my right honourable friend is directly responsible, in the case of trunk roads, he will endeavour to set an example to other highway authorities in the effective treatment of roads and in the practice of the precepts he has enjoined on local authorities. But what we can do at the present time—and I hope I shall have the noble Duke's sympathy in this matter—is, of course, severely limited by the general economic situation. The noble Duke is aware that, as a result of the reduction in highway expenditure, and of the cutting down of materials and man-power in 1947, road improvement schemes which can be undertaken at the present time are limited to those which are of vital importance. For the same reasons, severe cuts have also been made in road maintenance, and in the employment of labour for highway purposes.
  It is therefore undesirable for the time being that either the Minister or local highway authorities should embark on any large-scale scheme of road planting. My right honourable friend has reluctantly decided that expenditure from the Road Fund must be limited for the present to small schemes, mainly those which are essential for road safety. For example, there is no objection to the provision of shrubs on central margins which will prevent the risk of dazzle from the headlamps of motor vericles, or of boundary hedges for the safety of road users. I am also informed that, to meet the Ministry's future requirements on trunk roads, a contract to the value of £4,373 was signed in 1948 for the supply of plants and trees from 1951 to 1957, and that further contracts will be
  1016
  entered into, according to the scale of requirements. Naturally we cannot anticipate at this stage the full amount of the requirements that will have to be met over a long period of time. My right honourable friend particularly regrets the necessity for going slow at the moment, as he has extensive plans for the planting of trees and shrubs on trunk roads. Indeed, he had hoped, as part of the post-war programme of road construction, to demonstrate how effectively this can be done.
  May I now turn to the third of the questions asked me by the noble Duke, the question relating to the attitude of His Majesty's Government to the Roads Beautifying Association? Before the war, as the noble Duke has reminded the House, the Ministry of Transport relied almost wholly upon the advice of the Roads Beautifying Association. The Association, which was formed in 1928 as a voluntary body, worked in close touch with the Ministry of Transport and the local highway authorities, and besides publishing useful literature gave effective help and advice in the preparation of schemes throughout the country. Following the legislation of 1936, which made the Ministry of Transport the highway authority for trunk roads, the Association advised the Minister on schemes of trunk roads, and arrangements were made for an annual grant of £200 to be paid to the Association from the Road Fund for their services. The Association played their part in most of the important road planting schemes carried out in England and Wales, and the Government gratefully acknowledge the work they have done. Of course this acknowledgment applies perhaps with special emphasis to the work of Mr. Fox, the Honorary Secretary, who played such a very important part in the activities of this Committee. We are equally sensible of the valuable contribution made by the noble Duke himself, as President of the Association, and I should like to take this opportunity on behalf of my right honourable friend to thank him for what he has done.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Is the noble Earl going to say why, being so grateful to this great body, the Minister sacked them?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am coming to that. In Scotland much assistance has been given to the Ministry by

  1017
  the Royal Scottish Forestry Society, whose work the Minister also wishes to acknowledge. Now I am coming to the next point, which deals with what has happened recently, and what we expect will happen, in connection with the relationship between the Government and the voluntary bodies who are prepared to help. In planning his post-war policy, however, my right honourable friend—and this is due particularly to the considerable increase in the mileage of trunk roads under the Trunk Roads Act, 1946—has felt that fresh measures were required to ensure the effective carrying out, supervision and co-ordination of schemes, and to achieve the greatest economy in the supply and use of plants and trees and in their subsequent maintenance. The Roads Beautifying Association was, of course, an advisory and not an executive body. Early in 1947 my right honourable friend, therefore, instituted a new post of horticultural officer in his Department and a fully qualified horticultural expert was appointed. An assistant horticultural officer has also been appointed—
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Could we have the amount of the salaries?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: That point was not mentioned in the noble Duke's Question on the Paper. I am afraid, therefore that I cannot at the moment give the figure for the salaries, though I will gladly supply it.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Perhaps it could be put in the form of an answer to a Question. It is important to compare the £200 which was the cost of this voluntary Association with the cost of the new officials, plus any other branch of this Department which has been set up. Perhaps if a non-oral Question is put down, the figure can be given.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I will certainly obtain the information. The work to be done has enormously expanded since 1946, and the whole-time experts are justified on that ground, and not in the least because my right honourable friend would not have preferred to use a cheaper agent.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think the noble Earl told us that owing to the need for economy, practically none of this planting was now to be done except for
  1018
  a few thousand pounds worth of trees between 1951 and 1957.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I think the noble Viscount has misunderstood me—but the OFFICIAL REPORT will appear to-morrow and he can read what I said. These officials have responsibility for exercising continuous supervision over the matters I have just mentioned; and as a result of these arrangements my right honourable friend was obliged, from the end of 1947, to terminate the grant made from the Road Fund to the Association. Under the new set-up of the Department it was no longer necessary for him to ask the Association for advice on the preparation of individual schemes. My right honourable friend regrets this step, because it has evidently caused considerable discouragement to the Association. But he does not feel able to reconsider his decision, as the preparation and supervision of schemes of trunk roads will henceforth be done by his Department. Nevertheless, a wide field of activity remains for the energies of the Association, and my right honourable friend is most anxious to continue to receive their co-operation.
  Many local highway authorities, especially those who do not employ their own horticultural officer, have in time past received valuable help from the Association, and will undoubtedly wish to continue to receive it. That is one function which it is hoped the Association will continue to carry out. The Association could also become a useful independent critic of the Ministry's schemes. My right honourable friend welcomes constructive, independent and honest criticism. When a more active policy becomes practicable, my right honourable friend considers that it may be desirable for him to appoint a small advisory committee of experts which he can consult from time to time on questions which are likely to arise. If he decides to do this, he hopes that the Association will join with other bodies in suggesting one or more names for the committee. I very much hope that the noble Duke and one or more of these experts may be willing to serve on this advisory committee which will help the Ministry of Transport in dealing with these matters.
  I suggest that this is quite a normal arrangement. It happens in many cases that voluntary bodies do the pioneer work

  1019
  on a part-time basis. Then the work expands by reason of legislation and the consequently greater responsibility means that the Government have to employ a whole-time State paid expert. That is not to say that the Government wish to cut out the work of the voluntary body; it means merely that the voluntary body will be expected to carry on in a different way, and will discharge other but no less useful functions. I wish to assure the noble Duke that it is my right honourable friend's most anxious desire that the activities of the Roads Beautifying Association should continue, and that he will welcome any assistance that this organisation is still willing to provide for him and, of course, for the other authorities in the country.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF TRURO: Can the noble Earl give us any hope that the advisory committee is now being formed, and will soon get to work?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I cannot go beyond my instructions, but I will certainly bring the point to the attention of my right honourable friend, and emphasise that the matter is one of very great urgency.
  7.6 p.m.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for the courtesy of his reply, and the charming way in which he has given it, but I am not very satisfied with its matter. He said one thing which interests me in particular, and I have no doubt that the county councils will take note of what the noble Earl has said. Our clear impression in the Association was that local authorities were told they must not come to us but to the Ministry's officials. I am glad to hear that local authorities are not forbidden to seek advice from the Roads Beautifying Association. I think that statement will be of great value. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  MID-NORTHAMPTONSHIRE WATER BOARD ORDER, 1949
  Reported from the Joint Committee with Amendments; Minutes of Evidence laid upon the Table.
  House adjourned at seven minutes past seven o'clock.