Sitting of 15 July 1959

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BUCKS WATER BOARD BILL
    READING AND BERKSHIRE WATER &C. BILL
    Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
    EDINBURGH COLLEGE OF ART ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  BRITISH ARMY

    Exhibitions, Scotland
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement on the purpose, nature, and results achieved by the "Meet Your Army" displays now being held throughout Great Britain, indicating how many have been held and in which places, with special reference to the display in Aberdeen on 10th and 11th July, 1959.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Christopher Soames): The exhibition which visited Aberdeen last weekend is organised by Scottish Command to encourage recruiting for the Regular and Territorial Armies. It includes displays by demonstration teams and exhibition stands giving information about various branches of the Service. Twelve large towns in Scotland are being visited.
    One hundred and forty thousand people have seen the show so far, 20,000 of them at Aberdeen. This is a gratifying response to the efforts of the organisers and those taking part.

    Sergeant James Walker
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement on the death of Sergeant James Walker, Territorial Army, 151 Cairnwall Drive, Mastrick, Aberdeen, and of Q Battery, 275 Highland Field Regiment, Royal Artillery, Territorial Army, who was killed during the weekend 4th–5th July while on military service; and what provision will be made for his dependants.
    The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hugh Fraser): I should first like to express my sympathy with Sergeant Walker's family in their loss.
    Sergeant Walker was a motor cyclist on convoy duty with his unit travelling to their annual camp. He collided with a vehicle in the convoy and was fatally injured. His family will be entitled to a pension from the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. The rate and conditions will be the same as for a member of the Regular Army whose death is due to his service.
    Mr. Hughes: Is not the hon. Gentleman in a position to make a more concrete or definite statement with regard to compensation for this death which occurred in the course of and arising out of the man's military service?
    Mr. Fraser: As the hon. and learned Gentleman doubtless knows, the rate of pension will, of course, be that for an Army sergeant. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman also knows that this rate is higher than that for a civilian.
    Mr. Wigg: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House whether a court of inquiry was held, and, if so, what its findings were, and whether, if it found that the soldier was not guilty, the War Department instructed the Treasury Solicitor to take action on behalf of the family of the deceased soldier in order to recover damages from the offending party?
    Mr. Fraser: An Army board of inquiry has been held, but it has not yet published its findings. With reference to the hon. Gentleman's other point, as he knows, in the case of an inquest in Scotland, it is in the normal way for the Procurator Fiscal to decide, and he has not yet decided on this point.

    Okehampton Firing Range
    Mr. Bonham Carterasked the Secretary of State for War why his Department has erected a blockhouse on Okehampton Common within Dartmoor National Park without consulting the local planning authority.
    Mr. Soames: A small hut has been built to hold equipment on the Okehampton firing range. No approach was made to the planning authorities because the building is inconspicuous and does not affect the use of the area by the public.
    Mr. Bonham Carter: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for this information, but will not he agree that it is not altogether satisfactory? Is it not also the case that where an area of common land is enclosed the rights of commoners have to be extinguished by an application to the Minister of Agriculture? Has such an application been made?
    Mr. Soames: The Question referred to planning authority. This is a range which has been in use for some while and we needed moving target equipment which had to be housed in a hut which is 20 ft. by 20 ft. by 10 ft. high. It is nothing very serious, and it does not in any way alter the character of the land in question.

    Guardsmen (Hot Weather Dress)
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for War whether shirt sleeve order will be given automatically to guardsmen stationed at Chelsea Barracks and elsewhere during the hot weather.
    Mr. Soames: It is customary for soldiers who are not on ceremonial or formal duties to work without jackets in hot weather. This is a matter which is left to the discretion of commanding officers.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Minister aware that at Chelsea Barracks men were kept in full dress even on days when the temperature was very high? Will he ensure that instructions go out that when the temperature rises men can work in shirt sleeves?
    Mr. Soames: As to full dress at Chelsea Barracks, presumably the hon. Member is referring to scarlet tunics and
    384
    bearskins. That dress is worn on formal occasions. The soldier is not unlike the hon. Member in this respect. In day-to-day work, in the heat, he equips himself as reasonably and as sensibly as he can, but he is prepared to put his coat on and be formal when occasion demands.

    1st Battalion, Cameronians
    Mrs. Braddockasked the Secretary of State for War what immediate action he is taking to investigate the facts relating to discipline contained in a letter from a soldier serving in the 1st Battalion, Cameronians, a copy of which has been passed to him.
    Mr. Soames: Inquiries are being made.
    Mrs. Braddock: Is the Minister aware that allegations of this sort have a very serious effect upon the families of the men concerned? Will he see that immediate inquiries are made with reference to this matter, and also give instructions to senior officers in an area of this sort that when inquiries are being asked for, and a Question is on the Order Paper of the House of Commons, they should not make comments to the effect that the allegations made are completely untrue?
    Mr. Soames: In answer to the first part of the hon. Lady's supplementary question, the allegations concerned ill-treatment, by an N.C.O., of soldiers undergoing sentence. Charges have now been preferred against the N.C.O. which will settle the matter one way or the other. I have in mind the comment to which I think the hon. Lady is referring, namely, the remark made by the General Officer Commanding, East Africa. What he said was that it was absolute nonsense to talk about any question of mutiny in the unit concerned, and with that I profoundly agree. This is not in any way symptomatic of the very high spirit and morale which exist in the unit.

    N.A.A.F.I. Canteen, Helmstedt
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give an assurance that no steps will be taken to close the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes' canteen at Helmstedt.
    Mr. H. Fraser: I know of no proposal that this canteen should be closed.
    Mr. Fletcher: Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that this canteen has a symbolic and social value, apart from any economic value? His reply will be generally welcomed.

    Personal Case
    Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for War if he has considered the request for the release of Private A. A. Probert from the Army, sent him on 10th June, by the hon. Member for Swindon; and if he is aware that this soldier is due to be sent to Germany shortly.
    Mr. H. Fraser: The answer to both parts of the Question is "Yes, Sir," An account of the circumstances of this case was sent to the hon. Member yesterday.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Since the Secretary of State is also here, may I draw his attention to the fact that this case was taken up with his Department on 20th June, and that it was not until I put down a Parliamentary Question that I got any answer yesterday? If there were special features accounting for this long delay, will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what they were or, if there were not, will he ensure that this does not happen again?
    Mr. Fraser: We have looked into this case with great care. Two points are involved; first, the question of hardship and, secondly, the question of the release of the man concerned as a skilled worker. On both grounds we found that a sufficient case was not made out. For any delays which took place I take full responsibility, and I apologise.

  POST OFFICE

    Stamped Envelopes
    Sir J. Crowderasked the Postmaster-General if he will arrange for larger square stamped envelopes to be available to the general public.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ernest Marples): I propose to put on sale a new envelope in the "international" size 6·4in. by 4·5 in. embossed with a 3d. stamp. I hope this envelope, which is larger than either of the two we sell at present, will meet my hon. Friend's needs. The new envelope will replace
    386
    the present "commercial" size envelope, will be of the same colour, and will be sold at the same price. It will, of course, be a few months before the change can be made.
    Sir J. Crowder: Will my right hon. Friend charge the public a penny for each envelope, as at present, in addition to the cost of the stamp?
    Mr. Marples: It will be the same price as at present. I do not think that it is a penny for the envelope.

    Notepaper and Forms (Standard Sizes)
    Mr. Farey-Jonesasked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the rationalisation of paper sizes used for Post Office notepaper, forms, etc., on the basis of the international standard sizes now in common use abroad, and supported by the British Standards Institution.
    Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir. I have decided to make a start on this, and supplies of Post Office headed notepaper will shortly be produced in the international "A" sizes only. Thereafter, I hope the field of application of these paper sizes will gradually be widened.
    Mr. Farey-Jones: Can my right hon. Friend indicate what advantages are likely to ensue from the adoption of these international sizes? In view of the welcome lead that he is giving in this matter, is he in a position to say whether other Government Departments will follow his excellent example?
    Mr. Marples: I cannot reply for other Government Departments, but if they do not change it will not be my fault. All I can say is that the savings are in time and money. For example, there will be a reduction in the number of sizes. This will mean lower stocks of paper, and standardisation over the whole country. It will also mean that when the paper is bisected one side will still have the same relationship to the other. [Interruption.] That is very important, as the right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) knows. If we can possibly get a standard of envelopes and stationery in this country, so that there is always the same relationship between one side and the other, we shall have made a great advance.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not this the first step to automatic handling of this stuff inside sorting offices?
    Mr. Marples: I quite agree. This is a most important question of saving for the whole country. I hope that I shall be able to persuade the other Government Departments and also the House of Commons to adopt the same sizes.

    Sub-Post Offices
    Mr. Jannerasked the Postmaster-General (1) whether he will give his consent for a sub-post office to be opened on the Mowmacre Hill Estate, Leicester, in view of the fact that old-age pensioners are being forced to walk down and return up a steep hill in order to collect their pensions with the consequent accidents and ill effects on their health;
    (2) whether he will revise the regulation which militates against the opening of a new sub-post office within one mile of an existing office so as to make it clear that it shall not apply when there is hilly ground to be traversed by members of the public, and in particular by old-age pensioners, in consequence of the serious hardship caused in many cases by the close adherence which exists to the regulation;
    (3) if he is aware that old-age pensioners are suffering from accidents and ill health by reason of the excessive distances they have to walk to post offices to draw their pensions; and if he will take powers to enable him to pay compensation for such accidents attributable to his refusal to open sufficient new sub-post offices to obviate these dangers.
    Mr. Marples: With permission, I will answer Questions Nos. 16, 17 and 18 together.
    I am looking into the particular case the hon. Member mentions, and will write to him. In the meantime, I can assure him that in deciding whether a new post office can be justified, we do take into account the points he makes. I am afraid that I could not accept responsibility for any accidents that might happen to people on their way to and from post offices.
    Mr. Janner: May I seek your advice on this matter, Mr. Speaker? I have asked the Minister three Questions which are distinct from each other. The first was a local Question, the second
    388
    a general Question, and the third referred to compensation. It is extremely difficult for me to ask supplementary questions, unless they are very lengthy, in respect of three such Questions which have no direct connection with each other. I should like to know whether I may be entitled to ask supplementary questions on each Question.
    Mr. Speaker: The effect of the right hon. Gentleman's Answer was to say that he did not know anything about the situation and was making inquiries. That was the basis of his Answer, which seemed to be of general application. The hon. Member may ask a supplementary question if he wishes to, so long as he does not choose to turn it into a point of order instead.
    Mr. Janner: I accept your Ruling with a little reluctance, Mr. Speaker. I want to put three supplementary questions First, with regard to the first Question, in which I have asked specifically about a subject with which the Minister should be fully acquainted, because there has been a considerable amount of correspondence about it, is he aware that there are 150 old-age pensioners on the Mowmacre Hill Estate who have to go down a very long, steep hill?
    Mr. Ellis Smith: In Leicester?
    Mr. Janner: In Leicester. From the point of view of old-age pensioners, may I ask the Minister if he is aware that there have been a number of accidents, and that for a considerable time an application has been made for a sub-post office? Is he further aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction about the matter, and will he go into it and see that a post office is provided as speedily as possible? With regard to—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has had an Answer to his first Question, namely, that the Postmaster-General is making inquiries and will write to him when they are completed. I think that is reasonable. On the second point, it seems to me that in his supplementary question the hon. Member covered all his points.
    Mr. Janner——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had an Answer, and I think that ought to satisfy him.
    Mr. Janner: This is a matter in which there is a question of regulations for the whole country, and I have asked a Question of the Postmaster-General. I want to know from him what he proposes to do with regard to the whole matter in respect of the regulation——
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Raise it on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Janner: —and whether he is prepared to compensate people who, owing to disabilities, suffer from accidents?
    Mr. Speaker: The Minister has answered that last part already.
    Mr. Marples: All I can say is that we are making further inquiries on the spot, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman after we have had the inquiry on the spot. The point is that pensioners can always get someone else to collect their pensions for them if they so desire.
    Mr. Janner: In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Advertising Expenditure
    Mr. Boydasked the Postmaster-General how much his Department spent, in the latest year for which information is available, on advertising to persuade people to make more use of telephone facilities.
    Mr. Marples: In the year ending 30th June, 1959, we spent approximately £70,000 on Press advertising.
    Mr. Boyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that this was a useful expenditure of money? Why should people be persuaded to telephone more than they want to? Would it not be better to keep the lines clear for those who really want to get through and not encourage people to add themselves to the waiting list when others are unable to get through?
    Mr. Marples: I can only hope and pray that the hon. Member never becomes Postmaster-General. The more traffic we have the greater profit we make. In 1958 there was an upward trend in trunk traffic, and in 1959, so
    390
    far, we are 12 per cent. above the 1958 figure. The more that people telephone the better it is, because the more profit we make. I am sure that the hon. Member wants a nationalised industry to make a profit.

    Personal Call Service
    Mr. Hirstasked the Postmaster-General whether he will arrange for the Post Office to announce the name of the caller when operating the personal call service.
    Mr. Marples: This is the normal practice, except where the caller withholds his name or asks the operator not to announce it. If my hon. Friend has a particular case of difficulty in mind, I shall be glad to make inquiry.

    Capital Expenditure
    Mr. Croninasked the Postmaster-General to what extent it is estimated that total capital expenditure on telephone plant and equipment and telephone buildings in the financial year 1959–60 will differ from that in the financial year 1958–59.
    Mr. Marples: It will be about £3 million less.
    Mr. Cronin: Is not the situation very unfair to over 140,000 people who are waiting for telephones, a large proportion of whom have no chance of getting a telephone in the immediate future?
    Mr. Marples: Not when we bear in mind that even with this expenditure we hope to continue reducing the waiting list, as we have done in the past. It all depends on the demand, and one cannot forecast that. Although we are spending less on some equipment, and the hon. Gentleman's Question pinpoints that, we are spending more in other directions. For instance, in 1959–60 the expenditure on telegraphs is £3·3 million against £1·8 million in 1958–59. One must take regard of the picture as a whole.
    Mr. C. R. Hobson: Is not this a very serious statement, in view of the reduction in capital expenditure? To increase the number of telephones will require a lot of new buildings, because the present ones are already full up. Why spend this extra money on the telegraph service, in view of the deficit? Would it not be more sensible to develop the telephone

    391
    service? Is the Minister aware that we are increasing our telephones in Britain at a slower rate than any country in Europe?
    Mr. Marples: The waiting list is less than it has ever been. When the hon. Gentleman talks of expenditure on telegraphs he forgets that Telex, the latest and most modern device for sending messages with the speed of the spoken word and the accuracy of the written word, is included in telegraphs. It is important that the use of Telex in this country and elsewhere should be increased.

    Subscribers
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Postmaster-General the net increase in the number of telephone subscribers estimated for the current year; and the net increase for each of the past five years.
    Mr. Marples: For the current year the estimated net increase is 155,000. For the five years 1954 to 1958, the net increases, in round figures, have been 210,000, 270,000, 205,000, 70,000 and 85,000. I am circulating the detailed figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that information. May I ask him if it is a fact that the rate of demand has now fallen very considerably? Does he not think that the time has arrived when extra steps should be taken to stimulate the demand for telephones, especially in view of capital investment on the automation side?
    Mr. Marples: As a matter of fact, the demand in the last few months has been increasing, not declining, and we are quite satisfied that the demand is all right as far as we are concerned.
    The detailed figures are:

    1954

    210,755

    1955

    271,121

    1956

    204,071

    1957

    69,553

    1958

    86,925

    Applications
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Postmaster-General how many persons applied for telephones in the current year to the latest convenient date; and bow many applied in each of the past five years.
    Mr. Marples: Applications received this year, up to 31st May, have numbered 181,313. In round figures, the applications in the five years from 1954 to 1958 have been 450,000, 500,000, 385,000, 365,000 and 375,000. I am circulating the detailed figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The detailed figures are:

    1954

    447,019

    1955

    504,148

    1956

    386,926

    1957

    363,334

    1958

    373,446

    Exchanges (Equipment)
    Mr. Gibsonasked the Postmaster-General to what extent his Department has reduced its orders for the supply of engineering equipment for telephone exchanges; and what plans he has for the further extension of telephone exchanges to meet fully the demand for telephone services.
    Mr. Marples: Orders this year will be appreciably higher than last year. The programme for next year is dependent on decisions to be reached by the Government on public investment, but I hope that we shall maintain, and possibly improve on, the present programme.
    Mr. Gibson: May I ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that some of the men employed in factories making telephone equipment have been warned about redundancy, and that there is considerable concern about it? In view of the admitted increased demand, to which the Postmaster-General has referred, and the waiting list for telephones, can the right hon. Gentleman make a public statement or do anything to assure the people working in the factories making this equipment that they are not likely to be out of work in the next twelve months?
    Mr. Marples: If the hon. Gentleman will send me details of the people who have been told they are likely to be redundant, I will look into the matter. Orders this year will be appreciably higher than last year, and I hope that next year they will be higher still.

    Rayleigh
    Mr. Braineasked the Postmaster-General how many telephones have been installed in Rayleigh in each of the years

    393
    from 1950 up to the latest convenient date in 1959; how many applications are still outstanding; and what provision is being made for increased demand for telephones arising out of the rapid growth of population in the area.
    Mr. Marples: One hundred and fifteen applications are at present on the waiting list and, in addition, 43 are in course of being met. The telephone exchange at Rayleigh has capacity to meet growth. New cables are, however, needed, and will be provided progressively between now and July, 1960.
    With permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the number of telephones installed at Rayleigh in each year since 1950.
    Mr. Braine: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him if he is aware that the population in this area is increasing at the highest rate of growth in the country? While I have no complaint against the telephone engineers, who make do with what resources they have, may I ask my right hon. Friend to see that a more generous allocation is made to enable the waiting list to be reduced?
    Mr. Marples: I am glad to know that productivity in Rayleigh in certain directions is increasing. The cable scheme in hand will provide for all waiting applicants.
    Following are the figures:

    1950

    38

    1951

    84

    1952

    59

    1953

    81

    1954

    154

    1955

    170

    1956

    249

    1957

    300

    1958

    258

    1959

    160 (to 30th June)

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Aden (Schools)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Air what has been the increase since 1955 in the number of children of Royal Air Force parents requiring school places at Khormaksar and Steamer Point, Aden; when this increase became known; and why there has been such a long delay in adjusting the schoolbuilding plans.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): Since 1955 the number of children requiring places at Royal Air Force schools in Aden, including children of naval, military and civilian parents, has risen from 400 to 1,000. The increase has been a progressive one, and it was not until 1958 that we realised the present figure was going to be quite so large. Because of the successive increases the schools now to be built have twice had to be redesigned.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I raised this question on 18th July, 1956, and that the then Under-Secretary of State for Air, who is now Secretary of State for War, then said that he realised that the position was unsatisfactory. He went on:
    "That is why we are planning to go ahead and build this new primary and secondary school. We hope to be able to start early next year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1956; Vol. 556, c. 1185.]
    That is to say, in 1957. Is he aware that nothing has been done to build either a new primary or a new secondary school for these children of the increased number of families there in this period of time? There has been a delay of over two years? Is this not a case of disgraceful neglect on the part of the Royal Air Force?
    Mr. Ward: I do not think it is anything of the sort. I do not want to appear complacent about this, but it was no good going ahead with new schools if they were going to be hopelessly inadequate. We have twice had to start all over again, and that is why there has been the delay.
    Mr. Swingler: Does not the right hon. Gentleman make some plans to provide for the children who are going there? Surely, it is the responsibility of the Air Ministry to see that some sort of educational provision is made for the children of R.A.F. parents who it is known are going to these places? Is it not the fact that for over two years no increased provision has been made?
    Mr. Ward: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the population, both of R.A.F. and of naval, military and civilian personnel, has been rapidly increasing in the last few years. We have had to try to bring our school plans up to date.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Air when it is expected that

    395
    school places will be available for the fifty children awaiting admission to school at the Royal Air Force base at Khormaksar and Steamer Point, Aden.
    Mr. Ward: We hope to have school places for all the children who need them in time for the January term next year.
    Mr. Swingler: Is it not a fact that for a considerable period of time a very large number of the children of Royal Air Force families have been without educational provision? Has not this been due to lack of planning and competence on the part of the Air Ministry and failure to provide for the expansion of schools at this base? Is it not a fact that there is no real reason why this should have taken place, but that it happened because of sheer negligence?
    Mr. Ward: About 160 children of Service families in Aden attend civilian schools. Fees of those who are unable to get into Service schools are paid from Air Votes.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Air when he expects to receive the report of Her Majesty's Inspectors on Royal Air Force schools in Aden; and if he will publish the recommendations contained therein.
    Mr. Ward: I understand that the report will probably be ready by the end of the month. Reports by Her Majesty's Inspectors are customarily treated as confidential and I see no reason to make this an exception.
    Mr. Swingler: Will the Secretary of State for Air make a statement as soon as this report is available? Is it not a fact that it was admitted by the Air Ministry that accommodation for the children of Royal Air Force families at these bases was totally unsatisfactory in 1959 and that nothing has been done during the intervening time, except for the provision of a couple of huts, because of the argument that the plans have to be adjusted to the increasing numbers of families? Is not the result that a large number of children are without provision for education today, and will the Minister promise to take urgent action to see that these children are provided with some opportunity for education?
    Mr. Ward: I told the hon. Gentleman that we are making urgent provision. We hope that all the children who want to go to Service schools in Aden will be able to do so by January.

    Recruits, Worcester
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for Air how many Regular airmen have been recruited through the Royal Air Force recruiting office and publicity centre in Worcester in each of the years since it was established.
    Mr. Ward: I will with permission circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT figures for 1949 onwards. Figures for earlier years in which we were recruiting on Regular engagements are not available.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the expense of publicising the recruiting centre at Worcester is justified?
    Mr. Ward: That is one of the matters we shall look at during the current review.
    Following are the figures for men and women recruited into the ground trades on Regular engagements through the Recruiting Office at Worcester. Comparable figures for aircrew are not available.

    —

    Airmen

    Airwomen

    1949

    31

    Not recorded

    1950

    157

    Not recorded

    1951

    436

    28

    1952

    427

    19

    1953

    308

    20

    1954

    243

    7

    1955

    170

    11

    1956

    129

    12

    1957

    94

    11

    1958

    86

    12

    Recruiting Offices
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for Air in how many towns he has established Royal Air Force recruiting offices.
    Mr. Ward: Forty-four. In three others we have small inquiry offices.
    Mr. Stonehouse: How does the Minister decide where the recruiting centres are to be established?
    Mr. Ward: We review the situation from time to time in the light of recruiting figures. In fact, we are at present reviewing this part of the recruiting organisation. If we find certain changes are necessary we shall certainly make them.

    Aircrew
    Mr. Mathewasked the Secretary of State for Air what steps his Department is taking to ensure that potential recruits for the Royal Air Force are made fully aware that Service opportunities for flying and a full career for pilots are likely to continue for many years to come, notwithstanding current changes in defence policy.
    Mr. Ward: Our continuing need for aircrew and the full and varied career which the Royal Force can offer are emphasised in our recruiting literature, in advertisements in the national Press, and by officers visiting schools and universities. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for this opportunity to emphasise once more that we shall need aircrew of the highest quality for as far ahead as we can foresee.
    Mr. Mathew: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there is a widespread impression among young people who are potential recruits for the Royal Air Force that the airman of the future will be some sort of automatic troglodyte pressing buttons in a subterranean cave? Is it not necessary to give the maximum publicity to the fact that the traditional qualities of pilotship, courage and daring are still required, and will be required for many years to come?
    Mr. Ward: Certainly a year ago there was such an impression, but I believe that statements made recently by my right hon. Friends and myself have done a great deal to put this right.

    Habbaniya
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Air the total expenditure on the air base at Habbaniya from the time of its establishment to that of its abandonment.
    Mr. Ward: About £3,500,000.
    Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister tell us what we had for this expenditure?
    Mr. Ward: Certainly. This base at Habbaniya played a vital part in pre-war days in maintaining internal security by the use of air power. During the war the existence of this base and the gallant action against Rashid AH buttressed the Allied position in the Middle East.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there was some concern when this base was finally evacuated? In the circumstances, can he tell the House whether any claim has been made on the Iraqi Government for compensation? Is the Royal Air Force acquiring any assets for the base? Are we negotiating the terms of the transaction?
    Mr. Ward: Quite a large quantity of movable equipment which was there has been sold or brought out.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Air the total expenditure on the Royal Air Force in Cyprus since its establishment as a base up to the present time; and what further expenditure is to be incurred there.
    Mr. Ward: About £10 million has so far been spent on construction for the Royal Air Force in Cyprus. I cannot forecast how much will be spent throughout our future tenure.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Randolph Churchill said recently that the purpose of this air base is to bomb the Soviet Caucasus? Does not he think it a dangerous thing to invest £10 million of British money in a place which could be so easily destroyed by a rocket?
    Mr. Ward: I cannot comment on what was said by Mr. Randolph Churchill. It is true that Cyprus has become increasingly important as the only base of the United Kingdom in the Eastern Mediterranean from which we can protect our interests in that area.

    Prestwick Airport (United States Aircraft)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Air to what extent additional facilities are being given to the United States Air Force to use Prestwick Airport as a result of the new arrangements for additional United States aircraft to be stationed in Great Britain.
    Mr. Ward: I cannot at present add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence on 8th July.
    Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister do anything to allay the anxieties of the people who live in that part of Ayrshire? Is he aware that there is an opinion that these arrangements will mean that it will be more exposed as a potential target, with greater danger to the people in that area?
    Sir T. Moore: Nonsense.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that there is absolutely no civil defence in this area? What does he propose to do to assure the civil population?
    Mr. Ward: The words used by my right hon. Friend on 8th July were:
    "They will be stationed at airfields which are already in use by the United States Air Force. The detailed plans for the move will be worked out between the Royal Air Force and the United States Air Force."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1959; Vol. 608, c. 1631.]

    Air Lifts
    Mr. Wiggasked the Secretary of State for Air (1) the reasons which made it necessary to ask the United States Air Force to provide aircraft to lift equipment from Britain and Germany to Jordan in July, 1958, in connection with the move of units of the 16th Parachute Brigade to that country; and whether he will make a statement.
    (2) the date on which the United States Air Force was requested to provide aircraft to carry equipment from Britain and Germany to Jordan in connection with the move of units of the 16th Parachute Brigade to that country in July, 1958, the number and type of aircraft provided by the United States Air Force for the purpose, the weight of equipment lifted from Britain and Germany to Jordan, and the corresponding information in respect of the move of equipment from Jordan to Britain and Germany in October and November, 1958:
    (3) whether he is satisfied that sufficient British freighter aircraft are immediately available at the present time for carrying out moves similar to that made by units of the 16th Parachute Brigade to Jordan on 17th and 18th July, 1958; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ward: Royal Air Force aircraft are fully able to carry out an airlift on
    400
    the scale undertaken last year in Jordan and the capacity of our transport force is steadily increasing. The initial airlift of forces to Jordan on 17th and 18th July last year was undertaken by the Royal Air Force. United States Air Force aircraft took part with the Royal Air Force in the subsequent airlift to maintain British forces in Jordan as part of the joint measures for meeting the Jordan Government's request for assistance. Between 22nd July and 10th August, they carried some 1,500 tons of fuel and freight to Jordan. No United States Air Force aircraft took part in the airlift of personnel and equipment from Jordan in October, 1958.
    Mr. Wigg: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the use of Lockheed aircraft by the Royal Air Force was an essential part of the Jordan operation? Will he give the House an assurance that if the same situation arose today, or in the foreseeable future, we could carry on independently of the United States Air Force?
    Mr. Ward: Yes, Sir. It was very good that this joint operation should have happened, because we were working side by side. Having said that, I should add that it would be quite wrong to suggest that it implies any inadequacy in the available forces of the Royal Air Force.
    Mr. Wigg: Then will the right hon. Gentleman say what is all the fuss about the Britannic? Surely, there must be a gap which will last for five years. It is clear that this country must depend on the United States, and that there is no aircraft to fulfil the rôle which the Britannic will fulfil—assuming that we ever get the Britannic.
    Mr. Ward: As the hon. Gentleman knows, most of the equipment to be carried by the Britannic is not yet in service with the Army. It is true that we could not carry it now, but we shall be able to by the time it is in service.
    Mr. Peyton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) about indecent haste over the Britannic is hardly borne out by the facts?
    Mr. Beswick: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the latest publication issued by the Conservative Central Office on the subject of defence, entitled "The

    401
    Missile Years", the impression is given that the airlift to Jordan was carried out by private British companies? In view of the information which the Minister has disclosed, will he see that future editions of the publication are corrected?

    National Service Men, Christmas Island
    Mr. G. Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Air why certain National Service men have been retained on Christmas Island for more than twelve months without leave.
    Mr. Ward: I am making inquiries and will write to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware that a firm promise was given to these men when they departed for Christmas Island that they would receive extended home leave within twelve months and that the failure to redeem this promise has led to considerable discontent and uncertainty, and avoidable anxiety to their families?
    Mr. Ward: I have told the hon. Gentleman that I am making inquiries. The tour of duty in Christmas Island is twelve months. The only thing I can think of which would cause some slight delay in repatriation is a difficulty about transport. I do not know whether that was so in this case.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Belfast Airport
    Mr. Knox Cunninghamasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he has completed his inquiries and will now make a statement with regard to Nutts Corner and Alder-grove airfields and the future of Belfast Airport.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Hay): The report of the joint study has now been completed and my right hon. Friend is considering it in consultation with the Secretary of State for Air. He hopes to be able to announce a decision before the summer Recess.
    Mr. Knox Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I assume
    402
    that he will be aware that the Answer to a Question asked in February, 1958, was that an expenditure of about £500,000 would be made for this airport. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend may have changed his mind since then, but I would ask him to see not only that an announcement is made before the end of this Session but that the work will be commenced at a very early date. I hope that he will give me some assurance on these points.
    Mr. Hay: I told my hon. Friend that we are doing all we can to press on with this matter, but the report is one that has to be studied and considered carefully. We hope to announce a decision before the Summer Recess, not before the end of the Session.

    Independent Operators (Licensing Arrangements)
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in view of the recent Report on the Southall air disaster, he will now introduce, as a matter of urgency, new licensing arrangements to ensure higher standards of equipment, personnel, and efficiency on civil air lines.
    Mr. Straussasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what steps he proposes to take, in the light of Mr. Justice Phillimore's Report on the Viking air crash on 2nd September, 1958, and his criticisms of the aero-plane's owners, to ensure that no similar state of affairs can ever again exist in an aircraft operating company.
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if, in view of the public disquiet about the conditions, as revealed in the inquiry Report, under which Independent Air Travel had operated, he will detail the steps he has taken to ensure that such conditions are not again permitted by companies licensed by his Department.
    The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): The aircraft, premises, operational equipment and organisation of British civil aviation firms engaged on scheduled service work are already inspected by my professional officers who exact a high standard. I have also been considering for some time a system of additional licences whereby no firm could engage in any

    403
    public air transport operations unless they held an appropriate licence. Detailed proposals are now being prepared but they will involve new legislation.
    Mr. Hamilton: How does the right hon. Gentleman square the first part of that Answer with the happenings in this disaster, which has deeply shocked the nation, and still more with the Report on it, which has deeply shocked every thinking person in the country? What does he think the reaction on his own side of the House would have been if a publicly-owned airline had been involved? Does he not think that it is a reflection on his own Department that this kind of murder by private enterprise has to take place—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—before the right hon. Gentleman is goaded into action?
    Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman should not allow his dislike of private enterprise to colour his judgment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If the hon. Gentleman studies this matter very carefully he will find that this company had already been prosecuted by my Ministry and that, in fact, another prosecution was pending when the accident occurred. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Other than that, I have no comment to make on the Report of Mr. Justice Phillimore.
    Mr. Strauss: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the shock which is felt in the country about this accident is very largely on account of the apparent lack of control which the Minister has, and has had for a very long time, over all these companies that operate in the air and which in fact can indulge in tourist activities? Why is it that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken action before? Although no one doubts that, on the whole, the safety of these companies is very high, how do we know—in the absence of inspection by the right hon. Gentleman—that there are not several other bad firms of this sort that may bring about further disasters? Is not the negligence of the right hon. Gentleman, in not taking action before, a contributory factor in bringing about this tragedy?
    Mr. Watkinson: Of course, that is nonsense, if I may say so. The fact is that all these firms are already inspected, including the air Corporations and every other firm, and, as I said in
    404
    my original Answer, they are inspected to a very high standard. The right hon. Gentleman should not draw broad, general conclusions from one isolated instance.
    Mr. H. Morrison: If it be the case that this airline was prosecuted and the Ministry was dissatisfied with the firm, why did the Ministry let it go on flying? Had this firm any trooping contracts on behalf of the Government for the transportation of troops? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Ministry comes clean out of this? This was a terrible disaster. I would renew the question which was asked earlier, which is, what would Government supporters have said if this airline had been B.O.A.C. or B.E.A.? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Why do the Government cover up, merely because this was a private enterprise company?
    Mr. Watkinson: I do not propose to pursue this matter on party political lines. My Department is completely impartial—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—in the technical tests that it makes to, as I have said, a very high standard. This company was not engaged in trooping, if that interests the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), but that is not my concern. My concern is to be impartial about air safety. I have come to the conclusion, as I have said, that there would be some advantage in having a general licence, as indeed the independent operators have so asked me. That legislation is being prepared, but it is legislation, and time will have to be found for it.
    Mr. Beswick: The Minister talks about a new form of licence, but is not the problem here not new regulations but the enforcement of the old regulations? In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman makes a point about the stringency of the inspection which he carries out, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that, although he has this confidence in those inspections, there is evidence, which I can give him, that Lloyds underwriters had refused to insure this firm, even at the time when his Department was allowing the firm to operate?
    Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Member must give me the evidence and I shall consider it.
    Mr. P. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all responsible sections of the industry will welcome what he has said about licensing and that, indeed, members of the British Independent Air Transport Association are keen that the regulations should be tightened so that this sort of unfortunate occurrence should not happen again?
    Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree that B.I.A.T.A. has been very active in seeking broad safety in the air, as it is also the duty of my Ministry, and I do not accept that this one very tragic accident is capable of the conclusions the Opposition are trying to draw from it.
    Mr. Straussasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what reply he sent to the letter of 28th April last year from the British Independent Air Transport Association asking for new licences which would ensure a high standard of operation among all airlines.
    Mr. Watkinson: I welcomed the Association's initiative, all the more because my Department was already considering the same problem, and I arranged for detailed discussions. At the Association's dinner last year I indicated how my ideas on this problem were developing. Detailed proposals, taking into account the Association's views, are now well advanced but, as I have just said, will require legislation.
    Mr. Strauss: Is not it clear that if the Minister had acted much earlier, by legislative means and/or administrative means, to bring about an effective control of these small companies, it is quite likely that this tragedy might never have occurred?
    Mr. Watkinson: I do not accept that for a moment.

    D.H.121 Aircraft
    Lord Balnielasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware of the redundancy at the de Havilland Aircraft Company works at Hatfield, caused partly by the delay in placing the contract for the D.H.121; and what steps he is taking to urge British European Airways to accelerate this matter.
    Mr. Hay: As explained on 13th July by my right hon. Friend the Minister of
    406
    Supply, the contract for the D.H.121 is a matter between the operator and the manufacturer. I have no reason, however, to believe that British European Airways is not as anxious as anyone to expedite matters.
    Lord Balniel: Whilst I am grateful to my hon. Friend, may I ask if he could emphasise to B.E.A. the extraordinary urgency of this matter, from the point of view not only of employment at Hatfield, but also of the export potential of these aircraft?
    Mr. Hay: I do not think B.E.A. needs any urging on this. It is well aware of its importance.

    Air Accident, Anzio (Report)
    Mr. Ronald Bellasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when he expects to publish the report of the inquiry into the air collision near Anzio.
    Mr. Hay: The report is at present being translated. As soon as possible after my right hon. Friend has had time to study the translation, he will consult the Italian Government about publication.
    Mr. Bell: Will the Minister press the Italian Government strongly for permission to publish this report, which is of great interest to airline pilots in this country?
    Mr. Hay: Yes, the publication of reports made by foreign Governments is normally a matter for agreement with those Governments, but I do not think we shall have any difficulties in this case.

  SHIPPING

    New Cunard Liners
    Mr. Owenasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will now make a statement on Government policy concerning the proposal to build the new "Queen" liners.
    Mr. Watkinson: The Government's consideration of the Cunard Company's proposals is not completed and I am not at present in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Owen: Can the Minister give an assurance that we shall have a statement on the matter before the House rises?
    Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. I am not prepared to give such an assurance. This is a long and very complicated matter and we must have time to study it.

    Shipping Conference, Washington
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what further development he is able to report following his attendance at the Washington Shipping Conference.
    Mr. Peytonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give some further information about the continuing informal machinery which is to be set up to consider international shipping problems, following the recent talks in Washington.
    Mr. Watkinson: Discussions between the European Governments which took part in the Washington talks are proceeding and we are considering what the best arrangements would be. An approach will be made to the United States Government as soon as conclusions have been reached.
    Mr. Shinwell: In view of the parlous state of our shipping industry at present, and also that of some other maritime countries outside the United States, can the right hon. Gentleman offer any prospects of a favourable response on behalf of the United States Government? Does he realise that unless there is a favourable response to the shipping interests of this and other non-American countries we shall be compelled to take retaliatory action?
    Mr. Watkinson: We established in Washington a good identity of view between all the European nations which have a very strong view on this matter. We are most anxious that we should go forward to the Americans with our case quite clearly agreed between us. It has taken a little time to do this, but I think we shall very shortly be arranging with them this informal committee, to which we attach great importance. The delay has at least meant that our representations to the American Government will be joint representations by all the European nations concerned.
    Mr. Peyton: Does my right hon. Friend realise that his initiative in going to Washington was most welcome and
    408
    that it appears that since then there has been some evidence of a change of heart by the American authorities in the case of Ecuador? Will he do what he can to see that the effects of that initiative are not lost and that this is a continuing effort to get something done belatedly, but at all times bring to bear on the Americans the intense resentment felt about any continuation of these wretched practices?
    Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree with my hon. Friend that one does not get quick results in this sort of thing and we must keep up the maximum pressure. I hope I can record it as the sense of the whole House that we should make some progress with our American allies on this very difficult problem.

  ROADS

    Street Lighting
    Mr. Moyleasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will introduce legislation to enable his Department to act as a street lighting authority and to provide that street lighting installations shall rank for Treasury grants on the same terms as other road improvement schemes
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Richard Nugent): Not at present. I recognise that the law in relation to street lighting could be improved, but it would be premature to consider altering it until we know the result of the street-lighting survey at present being made.
    Mr. Moyle: Can the Joint Parliamentary Secretary tell me of any steps taken by his right hon. Friend to induce the Government to support a programme modernising his own Ministry, which would include powers of street lighting similar at least to those enjoyed by parish councils?
    Mr. Nugent: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I undertook to make a survey of street lighting on class 1 roads, but we have to ask for the co-operation of local highway authorities in order to do that. This is still in course of being done, although we are getting near the end. The authorities have not all replied

    409
    yet. When the survey is completed and we are able to study it, we shall be able to take a clear view of what is needed.

    Road Junction, Paddington (Traffic Lights)
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware of the frequent traffic congestion, even outside peak hours, at the junction of Bayswater Road and Westbourne Terrace, Paddington; and if he will arrange for the installation of traffic signals.
    Mr. Nugent: To obtain a satisfactory signal scheme, Bayswater Road would need to be widened by taking in land from the Royal Parks. Victoria Gate itself is now being widened; before deciding on the complicated signal system which my hon. Friend's suggestion would require, we would like to see the effect of this improvement on traffic movement.

    Improvements (Overtime Working)
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what extent, when considering whether to authorise road construction and improvement outside the normal five-day week, his Department compares the extra cost of the overtime working with the additional economic benefit to the community from the consequent reduction in traffic congestion and improvement in the flow of traffic.
    Mr. Watkinson: Contract periods for each scheme are settled individually and take into account all factors including cost, effects on traffic and nuisance to local residents. Within these considerations I am well aware of the importance of road works being completed at the earliest possible time.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large part of the cost of the delay caused by traffic congestion falls on motorists, both private and commercial, who already pay enormous sums by way of taxation for road construction? Are they not entitled to further consideration from the Treasury in this matter?
    Mr. Watkinson: Most of the large road schemes in the country are on schedule and a good many are ahead of schedule. I do not think one can do better than
    410
    that. One has to plan these things with some regard to the fact that some residents do not like road works going on at night.

  TRANSPORT

    Institute of Advanced Motorists
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress he has to report in the contribution to road safety made by the Institute of Advanced Motorists; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Watkinson: I am informed by the Institute that during the three years ended on the 31st May, 17,910 advanced driving tests were conducted. 10,437 candidates passed, and 7,473 failed. The percentage of candidates who return for a retest after failing the first time shows an encouraging increase. The improvement of driving standards is the most important single element in our dive for road safety. By offering facilities for an advanced test of driving technique the Institute of Advanced Motorists is playing a most valuable part, for which I am grateful, in our campaign to bring about safer conditions on the roads.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: While thanking my right hon. Friend very much for that statement, which will be widely appreciated indeed, may I ask whether he does agree, in view of the important lessons which we have learned by the application of these tests, that it would be very good if, say, 100,000 people took these tests next year?
    Mr. Watkinson: There is great scope for this. I think the test improves driving standards and hope that I may commend it to all hon. Members in this House too.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: How many new licences are granted every year?
    Mr. Watkinson: All I can say is that I think the Institute is not testing nearly enough people, I hope that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) will give a lead by taking the test himself if he has not done so.
    Mr. Popplewell: Has the Minister submitted himself to the test?
    Mr. Watkinson: Yes, and I passed.

    Highway Code
    Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will reconsider his decision to omit the overtake signal from the new Highway Code.
    Mr. Watkinson: There is nothing in the new Highway Code which bans the pleasant courtesy of the signal "I am ready to be overtaken", and I hope all motorists will use it when appropriate. It has been left out because on the advice of the Road Safety Committee I decided to limit the signals shown in the code to those indicating drivers' own intentions.
    Dr. King: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask if he is aware that a number of schools of motoring regard this as a most useful signal which leaves following traffic in no doubt as to a driver's intention? Will he give serious thought to the fact that, by cutting this out, he might be depriving some of those who study the code in future of a most useful signal?
    Mr. Watkinson: I think this House is to discuss the matter later this week. All I shall say now is that we must be careful to limit hand signals, so far as we can, to those which must always be made. This signal is a courtesy signal which I hope will be made, but which is not necessarily a mandatory signal.

    Motor Vehicles (Direction Indicators)
    Sir G. Willsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress has been made towards a mandatory requirement for the fitting of direction indicators on all road vehicles.
    Mr. Nugent: We are proposing to amend the present Regulations in order to achieve a greater degree of standardisation in flashing direction indicators Until we have some experience of the effect of these changes, I think it would be better not to make direction indicators compulsory.
    Sir G. Wills: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the sooner we can make some progress in this matter the greater safety there will be on our roads?
    Mr. Nugent: I warmly agree with my hon. Friend. It is a very complicated, technical matter to establish standards suitable for all circumstances at home and abroad. We are near reaching agreement with the manufacturers, and I shall certainly see what can be done to hasten it.

    Learner Drivers
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if his attention has been drawn to a recent case in which a learner driver under instruction was driving six passengers one of whom was killed; and if he will reconsider the conditions under which learner drivers are permitted to carry passengers.
    Mr. Nugent: The information available to us indicates that this accident did not take place on the public highway.
    We are at present reviewing the general conditions governing the driving of motor vehicles by learners, and we shall include in this review the question of the number of passengers who may be carried.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Is my hon. Friend aware of the number of occasions on which one sees a learner-driven car filled with passengers, often children? Cannot we do more than is done at present by instruction and education to let such people know that driving a car is not just a matter of an outing, but is a desperately serious business?
    Mr. Nugent: Yes, we take into account the view of my hon. Friend, but I am sure the House would not wish us to be unnecessarily restrictive about deciding what passengers can be carried by learner drivers.

  RAILWAYS

    Modernisation Programme (Report)
    Mr. Straussasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when he proposes to publish the reappraisal by the British Transport Commission of the financial prospects of the railways; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    Mr. Watkinson: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to my reply last week to the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies).
    Mr. Strauss: Can the Minister tell us specifically that he intends to publish the Report before the House rises, together with a declaration of Government policy on the matter? Can he tell us whether the very important story, published this morning in the News Chronicle about this Report, has any accuracy in it?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am afraid that I have not read the News Chronicle and I therefore cannot answer the right hon. Gentleman. Replying to his main inquiry, I hope that it will be possible to lay the Report before the House some time next week. I must not anticipate the paper, but there is no Government reply called for by this Report, which is a very factual and detailed survey of what the Commission hopes to do to put its own house in order.

DEFERRED PAYMENTS PERSONAL CREDIT SCHEMES (SCOTLAND)
3.30 p.m.
Mr. George Lawson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the deferred payment terms by which goods and services are purchased under forms of personal credit schemes in Scotland.
My proposed Bill seeks to deal particularly with one type of such scheme, the personal credit scheme as operated by Messrs. N. G. Napier Limited of Prestwick Road, Ayr, and throughout Scotland. Most people must regard Napiers as a hire-purchase firm engaged in hire-purchase sales on a very large scale. It is certain that most of the customers of Napier's are exactly those people whom it was the object of Parliament to protect in their hire-purchase agreements. It is certain, too, that they are the type of person who goes to this shop or the many other Napier shops for the purpose of buying or hiring articles on some form of deferred payment terms.
I am not able to say what proportion of Napier's business is carried on under hire-purchase terms, but it is certain that a very large part of the business, and probably a rapidly growing part of the business, is not carried on under these hire-purchase terms at all, but is carried on under a scheme which evades the Hire-Purchase Acts of 1932 and 1954 and the Advertisements (Hire-Purchase) Act, 1957. This evasion or avoidance of the Hire-Purchase Acts passed by the House is carried through by means of a scheme which the firm itself describes as a personal credit scheme or a personal credit account scheme. The firm uses the term "unique personal credit scheme".
Perhaps hon. Members will appreciate something of the nature of this scheme and the efforts being made by this firm to make the scheme attractive to the people of Scotland—because I understand that its activities are confined to Scotland—if I read an advertisement issued by the firm, which took up half-a-page of the Daily Record of 5th March this year. The advertisement was headed in very large print, "The Simple Way to Better Living". It reads:
"Napier's Personal Credit Account. Everything you need … For yourself, Your Family and Your Home—whenever you need it."

415
It continues:
"What is Personal Credit? Simply the granting of credit facilities to you personally, so enabling you to buy whatever you require without any cash outlay whatsoever. No need to touch your savings—buy what you want, repay on easy terms to suit your convenience."
Anyone who cared to look at this advertisement—and there are many such advertisements issued by the firm—would see at once that it violated the terms of the Advertisements (Hire-Purchase) Act, 1957—that is, if what was being dealt with was hire purchase; but the firm will insist—and, clearly, from the behaviour of the firm in court it is enabled to insist—that in this respect it is not engaging in anything which comes within the provisions either of the Advertisements (Hire-Purchase) Act or the main Hire-Purchase Acts. It is enabled to do this because of this personal credit scheme which it operates.
I might say that it would be exceedingly difficult for any ordinary person, anyone who has not a high pass in mathematics, to discover what, in fact, he or she will finally be expected to pay for any article which he or she buys under this personal credit scheme. It operates on the basis of a charge of 2 per cent. per month at compound interest. It is maintained by Napier's that there is no hiring of goods, and that is true. It is maintained by Napier's that the goods are, in fact, sold at cash prices, and that would seem to be true.
What happens is that the customer or client, on going into Napier's and asking for the article or articles, is encouraged to enter into this scheme and is given what Napier's call a credit account. Napier's say, "Open a Bank Account". The client is enabled to draw from this credit account the amount necessary to buy the article. Thereupon, that article becomes entirely the purchaser's article. There is no question of any agreement by which that article can be returned to Napier's. It has been sold.
The obligation which has been incurred is the obligation to go on paying the 2 per cent. per month on the principal and on the interest which is added every month to the principal. This is the basis upon which Napier's are operating this scheme. The operation of this scheme is undoubtedly giving rise to very
416
great misery to many thousands of people in Scotland.
I said earlier that there was no way of contracting out of the liability incurred, not even by death. When a person dies, the liability goes to that person's estate. This applies not only to the purchaser of the article, but to the poor person who has been tricked in many cases—I say "tricked"—into becoming the guarantor of the person who purchases this article. This guarantor, too, can be liable beyond death for the obligation which he or she has incurred. Napier's on all occasions exact their full pint of blood.
Perhaps the situation can be understood if I quote from a signed article which appeared in the People on Sunday, 5th July. The article reads:
"At Kilmarnock an average of 40 Napier customers a fortnight have been coming before the court for defaulting on this 'better living' scheme. At Glasgow Sheriff Court, on one day alone recently, cases brought against Napier clients filled five double pages of the official records. In every case, because of the agreement that was signed, the court had no option but to give judgment for the money. This meant that Napier's could sell up the customer's home to raise the money or follow the practice allowed under Scottish law of 'arresting' a man's wages. They can demand that an employer should hand over all his earnings except 35s. a week."
This is the position in Scotland. I am sure that all hon. Members will appreciate how serious it is and how important it is that we find a way of overcoming it.
The purpose of the proposed Bill is simple. It is to treat Napier on the basis on what Napier is. Napier's has escaped from the provisions of the Hire-Purchase Acts. Napier's is behaving as a moneylender. If the Bill is passed, Napier's would be brought under the terms of the Moneylenders Act, 1927. If this were done, Napier's would not be able to tout for business. It would not be able to advertise in this way. Napier's would not be able to employ canvassers who go round the doors inducing people to take on these obligations. It would have to issue a signed document stating in simple interest per annum the amount of obligation incurred. Napier's would not be permitted to charge compound interest, if it was operating under the Moneylenders Act, 1927. Napier's would not be able to charge what it calls operating costs for running the account.

417
All these things are illegal under the Moneylenders Act, 1927.
Napier's would seem to be a moneylender operating on the basis of truck shops, because that is what is happening in point of fact. If the House gives us permission to bring in the Bill, we could speedily put a stop to this kind of practice and give much merited comfort to the people of Scotland.
3.42 p.m.
Sir Thomas Moore: I have no interest whatsoever in this firm, but Mr. Napier lives in my constituency and his firm operates in it. Therefore, I feel that I must, in common fairness to the firm and its proprietor, offer a few comments, at any rate, on the speech which has just been made.
By a series of dogmatic statements and charges, the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) has sought to create a spirit of prejudice against the owner of this firm, the firm itself and the conditions in which it operates.
Mrs. Alice Cullen: Not before time.
Sir T. Moore: It is unfair to ask the House to pass a Bill, or accept a Bill, without hearing the other side of the story, such as probably would be given by Mr. Napier if he were present in the House.
I therefore think that it is not right. I am not arguing against anything that the hon. Member said, but he made this series of charges which must, and I am sure can be, answered in the proper place. Further, if the Bill is really required by the House or hon. Members feel that it is necessary, let them consult the Law Officers of the Crown, who I am sure will make certain that nothing illegal is done in Scotland, either by Mr. Napier or anyone else. I therefore oppose the Bill and the grounds submitted by the hon. Member.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring
418
in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lawson, Mr. Ross, Mr. Steele, Dr. Dickson Mabon, Mr. McInnes, Mr. Hoy, Mr. Forman, Mr. Hannan, Mrs. McAlister, Mr. Willis, and Mr. G. M. Thomson.

DEFERRED PAYMENTS PERSONAL CREDIT SCHEMES (SCOTLAND)

  DEFFERRED PAYMENTS PERSONAL CREDIT SCHEMES (SCOTLAND)
  Bill to regulate the deferred payment terms by which goods and services are purchased under forms of personal credit schemes in Scotland, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 17th July, and to be printed [Bill 137.]
  3.45 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: On a point of order, Sir. When a Ten Minutes Rule Bill is introduced from one side of the House and the Bill is opposed from the other side, as has happened today, is it not the custom of the House, and is it not a requirement on the hon. Member opposing the Bill, that he should divide the House?
  Mr. Speaker: There is no rule requiring an hon. Member to divide the House, but he ought to give his voice against the Bill. That is a requirement of our practice.
  Mr. William Hamilton: Further to that point of order. I rose when the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) rose to oppose the Bill, and I was prepared to carry my point of view into the Division Lobby. I do not know how one can indicate that when one rises and I do not know how it would influence your decision, Mr. Speaker, as to whom to call. What I want to do is to liquidate Napier's altogether.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) because the firm is in his constituency.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [22ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  SUPPLY

    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1959–60
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a further sum, not exceeding £20, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for the following Services relating to the National Health Service in England. Wales and Scotland, namely:—

    Civil Estimates, 1959–60

    £

    Class V, Vote 5 (National Health Service, England and Wales)

    10

    Class V, Vote 10 (National Health Service, Scotland)

    10

    Total

    £20

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
3.47 p.m.
Dr. Edith Summerskill: We have thought it necessary to devote one of our Supply Days to debate important matters concerned with the health of the people, because there are many questions outstanding and we realise that the week after next the House will adjourn. It seems that, if we had not taken this opportunity, the Government would have failed to give us the time necessary to raise these matters of great social importance. I am very surprised that the Minister of Health has not used his influence with the Government to initiate this debate and that it has been necessary for us, at the end of July, to raise matters which cannot be left for many more weeks, and certainly not for months.
All the matters with which I propose to deal have been raised at Question Time, but have invariably invoked evasive Answers. I do not want to exaggerate on that point. I invite any hon. Member on either side of the House to examine HANSARD on a Tuesday and the Answers to Ministry of Health Questions. We have done everything
420
in our power to evoke Answers on matters which I shall raise this afternoon, and either the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary has tried to evade us, has suggested that more Questions might be tabled and said that perhaps they may have something to say later. So the weeks have passed.
We have waited patiently for statements about the Hinchliffe Report, the Cranbrook Report and the Younghusband Report, but without success. When hon. Members on both sides of the House this afternoon learn the details of those Reports, they will agree that some announcement should have been made. The House should have been informed of the progress of discussions on those Reports. The recommendations contained in them are of great social significance, affecting the lives of large numbers of people. Indeed, some would affect savings, which might well be used for other purposes.
The other aspect of this serious omission to give Government time to discuss these Reports is the discourtesy involved in failing to give public recognition to the debt we owe to the many distinguished men and women who have served on these Committees. Whenever an important Committee is set up by this House, hon. Members on both sides are very anxious to know about those who are to serve on it.
We know that, very often, these Committees are not set up until there has been some pressure, and the Minister concerned has felt that the proper procedure would be to inquire into a matter. Men and women who serve on these Committees feel that a favour has been conferred on them, as it is recognition of their standing in the community and their distinguished services in a special sphere. Therefore, to allow the months to pass without recognising these services is extremely discourteous.
First, I propose to deal with the Committee on the Cost of Prescribing, presided over by Sir Henry Hinchliffe. The increasing size of the drug bill, which is now over £70 million, is attracting the attention of all hon. Members. The dubious methods used by the drug houses to increase sales have been criticised but, invariably, successive Ministers of Health—there have been five, I think, in this Parliament—have

421
assured us that they are only waiting for the Report of the Committee on the Cost of Prescribing for action to be taken.
On other occasions, I have drawn the attention of the House to the costly samples, extravagant literature and presents distributed by the drug firms to doctors in an attempt to increase sales. Last year, the House was called upon to endorse a Supplementary Estimate of nearly £2 million, all of which was for drugs, and the position has worsened.
The joke among doctors' wives today is that when they want to do shopping in town they leave their husbands to have lunch with a drug firm. The following invitation came to my notice last week. It says:
"Bayer Products Ltd. have pleasure in inviting Dr.—to the showing of a new film-strip on rheumatoid arthritis. Any medical colleagues will also be welcome. At the Green Dragon, N.21, on Wednesday and Thursday, 8th July and 9th July. Cocktails, 12.45; Film. 1 p.m., lunch, 1.20 p.m."
A doctor whom I know, who went to one of these shows—rather a cynical man—said, "We were expecting some pep pills at cocktail time." But no, there was an adequate supply of gin. The film was not a film at all, but a few cheap lantern slides. The lunchers were well supplied with wine, and another cynical doctor said, "The most important things given out were leaflets telling us what drugs to prescribe"—all made by the firm, to recompense it for the lunch.
This is not a joke. I hear an hon. Member ask "Who pays for this?" It is not paid for by that firm. It does not come from the firm's private pocket. The cost is put on the price of the drugs and, in the end, the National Health Service pays. Is it surprising, when this is practised on a wholesale scale, that this House was asked last year to approve a Supplementary Estimate of £2 million for drugs, and that we are now spending £70 million a year on drugs?
I would say that because of the publicity that is being given to this abuse of the National Health Service—or, as one doctor said, this "milking" of the National Health Service—certain groups of British firms—the firm to which I have referred is a foreign firm—have now come together, and are trying to
422
establish an ethical code. We should congratulate them. I read the ethical code yesterday, and although I think that it could be improved a little it is, at least, the right approach. They recognise that the practices I have described are really outrageous, and an abuse of the hospitality of this country to some of these firms.
The Committee on the Cost of Prescribing was appointed in June, 1957. It made a very useful interim Report, but most of it was concerned with education of the doctor, and so on. The final Report is the important part, and the implementation of this Committee's recommendations is, in my opinion, extremely urgent.
Having regard to all that I have already said, I want to ask why the Minister, when the Report was published, did not tell the House that he intended to take action on it. The Committee emphasises the importance of expedition. It recommends that
"… a permanent expert body should advise the Minister expeditiously on all matters affecting the trend of costs in the pharmaceutical service."
We want to know, before we adjourn for several months, whether this has been done. If it has been done, who are the members of the permanent expert body? If it has not been done, surely the Minister cannot argue here that there is ignorance of the matter. Surely he cannot argue that there is not a case for taking action. Why is there this delay?
The drug houses and their numerous interested friends have always justified their colossal profits on the ground that they spend a great deal on research. This has often been repeated from the Government Front Bench, and many people believe that it is so. What does the Report say? It shows the falsity of this argument by saying that not all firms are capable or willing to undertake research, and that, furthermore, certain firms make large pofits on new preparations which are not therapeutically superior to those already in existence, and devote no part of their profits to significant research.
On this subject, the Committee recommends that arrangements designed to make full allowance for genuine research and to discourage extravagant overheads or sales promotion—such as I have

423
described—should be made. The Minister has known this for many years. His predecessor has known it. There is nothing new in this. Here, then, is a recommendation that might meet many of our complaints. What is being done? What is the objection? Or has the Minister taken action? We should like to know.
We should also like to know what action is being taken about prescription charges. I notice that one Sunday newspaper said that it was proposed to remove these charges just before the General Election but, having regard to the evidence of the Committee, I am quite sure that the Minister could not be quite so immoral. The fact is—and this is revealed by the Committee—that financially, ethically and socially the Government made a colossal blunder. When the charges were imposed, we on this side gave in detail all the consequences that would militate against success. Many hon. Members present today were present on that occasion, because they take a great interest in this particular social service.
The Hinchliffe Report justifies all our warnings. We said that there would be gross over-prescribing. I myself described the huge bottles of medicine that would be prescribed, the thousands of tablets that would be wasted in the country's medicine cupboards, and the difficulty of disposing of all the drugs prescribed but which were no longer necessary. We warned the Minister, but, far from him taking our advice, he said that he was in favour of doctors over-prescribing because that would meet the difficulty.
Now the Hinchliffe Committee has reported, having investigated the whole question of over-prescribing. According to the Report, the Committee on Prescribing was told that 40 per cent. of the increased cost of drugs since 1956 was due to the prescription of larger quantities.
The Report goes on to say:
"This tendency is a matter of grave concern. … It will give grounds for constant agitation, and criticism … and may destroy confidence in the economic working of the pharmaceutical service as a whole."
The Minister will agree, I think, that this is very strong criticism by an impartial Committee of the Government's
424
inept handling of the most important social service in the country.
Now let us see what the British Medical Association says about it. This body is not in any way affiliated to the Labour Party. The doctors, for the most part, are Conservative. The British Medical Association advises the Minister. It knows that the charges have failed in their objective, and it has urged their abolition. Why, in the face of all this evidence, has the Minister failed to abolish these iniquitous charges? I would say, at the risk of causing a laugh on the benches opposite, that this is one of the first things that the next Labour Government will do.
A question to which I should like an affirmative or negative answer is this, and it has been asked on many occasions. I want to know whether the Minister has agreed that free drugs can be supplied to private patients under the National Health Service. In the British Medical Journal of 11th April it was reported that
"Agreement has now been reached with officials of the Ministry of Health that a scheme for the supply of drugs and appliances to private patients on Form EC.10 is administratively possible. The Minister of Health has agreed to meet representatives of the Council immediately following the final Report of the Hinchliffe Committee."
Is this one reason why there is all this delay? What has been the result of this meeting? Has the Minister, in fact, had that meeting? I cannot understand why this information has to be found in the British Medical Journal and why Parliament is not informed of these facts. These are very important matters which concern the whole future of the National Health Service. Yet we on this side of the Committee have to find this information in a medical journal when it should have been given at the Box at Question Time or in a statement. We want to know, before we adjourn for the Recess, what has been the result of that important meeting. We want to know what promise the Minister has given.
Members are entitled to know this, because in the opinion of hon. Members on this side of the Committee a concession of this nature, making two classes of National Health Service patients, would destroy confidence in the Service and harm the patient-practitioner relationship. I can think of no easier way to

425
destroy the whole basis of the Health Service. Therefore, I say that if the Minister has had this meeting which he promised the British Medical Association, if he has given an undertaking that this shall be done, we must know before the House adjourns.
There are other things, perhaps less controversial, but of a medical kind, which the Minister should undertake. The time has arrived when the general public should be enlightened about the hazards of the antibiotic era. We need a campaign to teach the people that the consumption of medicines and pills may not be the answer to their needs and, indeed, may be positively harmful to them. That is the real test of an efficient Health Service—not the amount of medicine and pills consumed, not the cost, not the buildings nor the number of staff, but how far it meets the medical needs of the people.
During the last twenty years, since the introduction of the sulphonamides, followed by the powerful bactericidal drugs, penicillin and streptomycin, and a whole series of other drugs, a tendency to indiscriminate use followed, and it soon became the custom to treat the mildest temperature with one or other of these drugs. I remember an hon. Member coming to me and saying, "I have got a sore throat. Do you happen to have a penicillin tablet on you?" It is a most dangerous habit, and now we are seeing what it has done.
While these antibiotics have been used, rightly, in cutting short the progress of many serious infections, we are now faced with two antibiotic hazards as a result of indiscriminate use, namely, the hospital cross-infection with resistant strains of staphylococci, and the alarming increase in the number of persons who are becoming sensitised to these drugs. This is not a party matter. Hon. Members opposite, like my hon. Friends here, are becoming sensitised to these drugs. It is a most serious position. I believe I am right in saying that staphylococcal infection in hospitals now constitutes the chief bacteriological problem of the day. It is clear now that the use of penicillin should be restricted to very serious infections, and the indiscriminate use among out-patients drastically limited.
I have raised this because these are matters about which statements should
426
have been made by the Government in the House. They are very serious matters. These are new hazards of the antibiotic era which only the Ministry of Health fully appreciates because it has the statistics and the reports and is in daily contact with the people who run the hospitals. The Ministry knows about staphylococcal infection. An hon. Member asked a Question about it on Monday. But it requires more than Questions in the House. It needs a campaign to direct attention to the risk to the people from the indiscriminate use of these antibiotics.
I have finished with the subject of drugs. There is a lot to say, but time is limited. I come to another Report, the Report of the Working Party on Social Workers which was presented by the chairman, Miss Eileen Younghusband. This Committee was convened as long ago as June, 1955—four years ago—to inquire into the proper field of work and the recruitment of social workers with regard, in particular, to the place of a general purpose social worker. There are many not familiar with the day-today working of the National Health Service who will say, "Surely there is no urgency about the implementation of these recommendations."
On the contrary. I have spoken again and again at this Box on the importance of community care and of co-ordinating the work of the general practitioners, the hospitals and the local authorities. Coordination is not only called for on medical grounds. If we try to direct the available funds into the right direction it is necessary for us to co-ordinate the whole Service. Here the welfare worker can play an important part in this coordination, and, therefore, the welfare worker today is an important part of the medical service.
It is very unpleasant to contemplate, but 10 per cent. of all illness is psychopathic, and the welfare worker can play a valuable rôle in this field. The mentally ill require help with all kinds of problems concerning themselves, their families and their employment. I would remind the Committee that the Royal Commission on the Law Relating to Mental Illness and Mental Deficiency felt so strongly about the importance of bringing welfare officers into the Service that it said that this was a matter of

427
real urgency. I stress that now. We are taking this Supply Day because these are matters of real urgency.
Recently, we placed the Mental Health Bill on the Statute Book.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): Not quite.
Dr. Summerskill: Not quite. The Lords' Amendments are to come next week.
The Minister and I, together with other right hon. and hon. Members, discussed the matter upstairs during, I think, 17 sittings of the Committee. When we considered the staffing of this new mental health service, we said that the service would not function properly unless there were welfare workers of all kinds. We reminded the Minister that there are only 500 psychiatric social workers in the country. It was quite clear to us that the whole Measure would prove abortive unless the new service could be adequately staffed.
Time after time, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, in effect, "It will be quite all right. Let us wait for the Younghusband Report, which may point the way to a solution of the staffing problem." Here is the Report. These workers are needed in every section, not only for the mental health service. What has the Minister done? The weeks have dragged on. Two weeks from now, the House will rise.
These great services, starved of adequate workers, are waiting for a word from the centre. Everyone knows that training, co-ordination and the assimilation of new grades of welfare workers takes a long time. We have waited since 1955 for the Report. Before we rise, we ought to know which of the recommendations the Minister proposes to adopt. If he tells me that he has already done what is necessary, I shall be the first to congratulate him.
I come now to the Report of the Maternity Services Committee, which was presided over by Lord Canbrook. I do not think that anyone will say that maternity is not an important matter. The Committee was appointed in April, 1956, three years ago. The Report was published in February, 1959, six months ago. This was an extremely important
428
Committee, having as its terms of reference:
"To review the present organisation of the maternity services in England and Wales, to consider what should be their content and to make recommendations."
I am sorry to be the first to do this publicly, but I wish to thank the chairman of the Committee, and to say, also, that our special thanks should go to Dr. Arthur Beauchamp. Dr. Beau-champ was taken to task by Dr. J. L. McCullum, in a letter to the British Medical Journal of 28th March, for signing the Cranbrook Report because it contains recommendations directly contrary to the policy of the representative body, particularly in regard to the obstetric list and its retention.
I do not know whether there is any precedent for this. It seems to me to be grossly improper. Dr. Arthur Beau-champ is a man of the highest integrity, highly respected. He sat on a Committee of great importance and did what he considered honestly to be his duty Then, in his professional journal, a colleague criticises him for signing the Report and, what is more, says that he should have signed a minority Report. I congratulate Dr. Beauchamp on his admirable reply. He wrote:
"Our guiding principle was to show how, in our view, the maternity services could be organised so that mothers and babies would be safer"
That is the test which must be applied to the recommendations in the Report. Do those recommendations make mothers and babies safer?
The Minister must be following all this in the British Medical Journal, and I suspect that it is having some effect upon him. Is it responsible for his reluctance to implement the recommendations? What has happened? Does he recall that, on 4th May, he was asked what he proposed to do, and he said that he hoped soon to make a statement? It is now 15th July. On 15th June, the Minister was asked what he proposed to do, and he replied that
"consultations … are still in progress".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th June, 1959; Vol. 607, c. 3.]
No further time should be lost in making decisions on this Report, which is of inestimable value to mothers and babies. Why is the Minister adopting a "go-slow" policy?

429
In early May, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was prepared to take action. By the middle of July, he has done nothing. I hope that he will not say that he must have further discussions and these will take time. Years have passed, during which time we have had one Minister of Health after another. It is only right that we should now have an answer. I hope that the Minister is not aligning himself with those who gave evidence before the Cranbrook Committee and opposed an obstetric list of general practitioners.
This may bore the Minister, but he has never had a baby. I have always noted that obstetrics go over his head. But many women have babies, and the right hon. Gentleman himself would not be here if somebody had not had one. I must insist upon his taking seriously this whole matter of an obstetric list of general practitioners with special experience of midwifery. He may not know much about it. As I have already observed, when the Minister is asked Questions on these subjects he evades them and his Parliamentary Secretary evades them, too—I was going to say even more clumsily.
Unless he has only just learned about it, the Minister will know very well that there has been an obstetric list in operation before. He knows very well what was the evidence given before the Cranbrook Committee. This is a serious matter. There are many women who have babies, and they are extremely interested in the subject. It is not something about which the Minister should laugh or giggle. We want answers. We are challenging him today because we believe that he has not done his duty. This is an excellent example of the way he conducts himself. When he is asked for details about the new maternity service and the recommendations of the Cranbrook Committee, and the word "obstetrics" is mentioned, he feels that he should smile and not really pay serious heed.
Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Lady keeps on saying that I smile at it and do not take the matter seriously. I am sure that the Committee appreciates, even if she does not as yet, that it is not the subject-matter which makes me smile but her treatment of it.
Dr. Summerskill: The maternity services and the obstetric list are not often discussed in the House, and, when they are, it is very difficult to treat the subject lightly. This, incidentally, is typical of the Minister's legalistic response. He should have given an understanding answer on the subject of the maternity services. He should have appreciated that these are important matters. They are not merely academic.
The work of the Cranbrook Committee took a very long time, and the men and women on the Committee took their task very seriously. They recognised the importance of the matter. When the Minister interjected, I hoped that he would say that he realised this. But not at all. We are used to this attitude at Question Time. This is the Minister's approach always. He thinks quickly, but what he thinks out is a snappy interjection. By doing that he thinks that can evade the issue, but the obstetric list to doctors and local authorities throughout the country is of great importance.
May I tell the Minister, in simple terms, what it means? It concerns general practitioners who, in the past, on qualification, felt that they were qualified to treat a confinement, but who, in these days, must have special knowledge. This matter is taken very seriously throughout the country. The Minister should know that in the debate on the Cranbrook Report all these questions were raised, and there were some, I am sorry to say, who held the nineteenth century view that a medical qualification itself, however recent, entitled a doctor to practise on a woman during her confinement at the expense of the mother and baby. Is that a laughing matter?
As the Minister well knows, there is now a movement to prevent the obstetric list operating, as the Cranbrook Committee recommended. I make no apology for dealing with this matter in an academic manner. It is of tremendous importance to helpless, inarticulate mothers throughout the country.
I want to congratulate the Cranbrook Committee. It has not adopted the Minister's attitude. It has not adopted an indifferent attitude; not a bit of it. The Committee having heard the evidence, rejected these outworn ideas. It said that it was of the opinion that the

431
practice of obstetrics required special skill and experience, and decided to recommend an obstetric list and that the criteria of admission should include a six months' resident appointment in an obstetric unit.
I ask why the recommendation—and I shall put it in simple terms, so that the Minister will appreciate it—that a young general practitioner, who perhaps qualifies at 23 or 24 years of age, should have experience of obstetrics and should spend six months in a hospital studying this specialty before practising, has not been implemented? Why has the Minister allowed two and a half months to pass since saying that he would make a statement? I am glad to see that the Minister is no longer laughing at the matter of the obstetric list. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members have seen the Minister's attitude and have heard his interjection. This is a matter which concerns women in every constituency, whether it is held by a Labour or a Conservative Member. What has happened? How long does the Minister propose to wait? Will he give an answer today? I shall be the first to congratulate him if he does. It is said that he is dragging his feet, and he certainly will not get support from certain Conservative Members who oppose his point of view.
I now come to a point which has been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It concerns maternity accommodation in hospitals. I want to ask the Minister what he proposes to do about the expansion of maternity accommodation in hospitals. Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman regard this is an urgent matter? The right hon. and learned Gentleman answered on Monday a Question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) about this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) interjected and mentioned a hospital in Stoke and said that that, also, needed more accommodation. The Cranbrook Committee recommended that accommodation in maternity hospitals should be expanded. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us an answer to this matter?
I should have liked to deal with other reports. There are reports which the
432
Minister may well say are not his, but there are reports which deal with the preventive aspect of medicine, such as the Gowers Report. However, I want to pass to another point. I want to turn to the question of the serious consequences which arise from the increasing pollution of the air associated with our modern way of life. I presume that the Minister has read the Lancet this week, in which he is accused of not paying sufficient attention to pollution of the atmosphere by smoke in the Manchester area.
This is a local matter for Mancunians, and I do not intend to join in the controversy, but, for my part, I am prepared to accept the provisions of the Clean Air Act which provide for the use of smokeless fuel and the control of industrialists. I think that we should congratulate the Lancet, however, on directing attention to the part which polluted air is playing in the causation and aggravation of chest complaints. The Lancet said:
"Last winter the hospitals were overwhelmed, and it must have been ironical to see their chimneys polluting the air of wards crowded by patients with pneumonia, asthma, bronchitis and emphysema."
Many of my hon. Friends took part in the debates on the Clean Air Bill. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) asked that attention should be directed to the amount of sulphur in the atmosphere.
When we ask the Minister Questions about this matter, what are we told? I know the Minister's Answers off by heart. He rises at that Box and says that he is co-operating with the Minister of Housing and Local Government about the implementation——
Mr. Walker-Smith Mr. Walker-Smith indicated assent.
Dr. Summerskill: The right hon. and learned Gentleman nods; I suppose that he must have said this twenty times—about the implementation of the Clean Air Act. May we know precisely what he means by co-operation? How is he helping local authorities to fulfil their functions? After all, it is the Minister's job to deal with bronchitis, asthma, cancer of the lung, and things of this sort. Surely he cannot ignore the fact that dust and dirt in the atmosphere are contributory factors to these diseases. We should like to know precisely what

433
he has done about co-operation, particularly in the provision of adequate staff.
The danger of smoke pollution is not only related to industrial processes. When we raise the question of cancer of the lung with the Minister, and remind him that the commonest form of fatal cancer, cancer of the lung, is today responsible for 20,000 deaths a year, predominantly among men in their prime of life, and ask him whether he is carrying out any propaganda among schoolboys, he says that he is co-operating——
Mr. Walker-Smith Mr. Walker-Smith indicated assent.
Dr. Summerskill: Again the Minister nods; I know the answer—with the Minister of Education and local authorities. We know that for a man of 50 years of age to cut down his smoking is difficult, but I am sure that he would be willing that his son should be invited not to acquire the habit. Cancer of the lung is increasing by 1,000 cases per year, and we should like to know how the Minister is co-operating with local authorities about it.
My last point, and some may consider it to be the most important, concerns the pollution of the air by radioactive material. We have found ourselves in a very curious position in the House lately. Most eminent scientists have told the world of the danger to health of ionising radiations, yet the Prime Minister has taken it upon himself to answer all the Questions on this subject. The health hazards are so serious that I asked the Prime Minister whether he would set up a small group of specialists in the Ministry of Health to answer questions on this subject. On one occasion the Prime Minister said that he did not believe that conditions today called for immediate consideration and that the amount of strontium 90 in the air was not so serious that it called for immediate consideration. This is not very reassuring.
I should like the Minister to give me a specific reply, as far as possible, to these questions. Who is responsible for deciding the form of instruction in the event of immediate consideration becoming necessary? We are told time after time that immediate consideration is not necessary. What happens when it is necessary? We should like to know whether these instructions exist. Does
434
the Minister have overall protection of the health and safety of the people from ionising radiation? Is that the function of the Minister of Health, or is there a division of responsibility? These questions should be answered having regard to this new threat to health, to life and to future generations.
I have asked the Minister a number of questions. I told him that I would raise questions concerning the three Reports and I have mentioned pollution of the air. It should not have been necessary for the Opposition to have to use one of its Supply Days for this purpose at this late time in the Session. Shortly, the House will be adjourning. The Minister should have recognised that there were all these outstanding questions in which the whole country is interested. He should have come to us, answered us at Question Time and kept us well informed, but he has not done that, even though these topics are of paramount importance. Therefore, I give him this opportunity of showing the Committee that he is informed and that he has these subjects at heart.
4.32 p.m.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): I welcome the initiative of the Opposition in using one of their Supply Days to discuss these important matters of the nation's health. The right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), as is her custom, has said a great deal of interest and value, but also, as is her custom, she has exhibited a curiously uneven pattern in the quality of her speech. The right hon. Lady has a genuine interest in these matters, but I could not confidently say that her comprehension necessarily keeps pace with her interest at all times.
We shall, however, have an amiable day, because the whole of the advocacy of the Front Bench opposite is given to the right hon. Lady and to her hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison). If any of my hon. Friends were rather disappointed in the speech of the right hon. Lady to which they have just listened, they must seek consolation in the philosophic words of Dr. Johnson:
"a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hinder legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."

435
In the course of my speech, I shall be dealing with the Reports and other matters of interest which the right hon. Lady has raised. It would, however, be right for me to start by making clear the claim which I shall make to the Committee in this debate. I come here certainly in no complacent, still less in any vainglorious, spirit, but, equally, in no defensive spirit and still less in any apologetic vein. My claim is clear and categorical and it is this. We are making good and steady progress in the health field, in some respects striking progress, and in some even spectacular progress. That is the claim which I make to the Committee. As a lawyer, I shall be expected to produce evidence in substantiation of it, and this I shall gladly do. There is abundant evidence, both long-term and short-term, to substantiate the claim.
In a health debate ranging, at the wish of the Opposition, over the whole of the field of health, it is well to remind the Committee that we come to this debate against the background of a very good health record. After all, the basic test of how we are doing is the simple test of the health and well-being of the country as a whole. In that respect, whether judged on the long term or on the short term, the position is very good.
Let me take one or two examples. We can see it in the longer life of the people and in the healthier life they have at various ages and stages. The expectation of life today is twenty years greater than it was a hundred or so years ago. The expectation of life for boys at birth today is 68 years. I add, for the consolation of the right hon. Lady and of her hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North, in case what I said earlier may seem a little harsh, that for girls the expectation of life is six years longer.
Dr. Summerskill: The Minister knows perfectly well that the reason he is able to give those figures is that the maternity services have improved and the infantile mortality rate has dropped.
Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Lady has referred to the maternal and infantile mortality rates. Certainly, the maternal mortality rate today is 0·43 per 1,000 births, the lowest on record—under a Conservative Government. The
436
infantile mortality rate is also the lowest on record, 22½ deaths of infants under one year of age per 1,000 live births, an all-time record for the country. To get the position in the long-term perspective, I once more quote Dr. Johnson, who wrote to Boswell in 1777, a good deal less than 200 years ago, in these terms to console him on the death of his infant son David:
"You must remember that to keep three out of four is more than your share. Mrs. Thrale has only four out of eleven."
I am glad that the right hon. Lady raised the question of infant and maternal mortality, the figures for which give as striking evidence as any of the progress we have made.
Children not only have a greater chance of survival at birth, but they are born larger, grow more rapidly and mature earlier. In the realm of infectious diseases, we see the same progress. What Bunyan, in his graphic phrase, called "The men of death" are yielding ground. Smallpox is no longer endemic. Diphtheria has dropped to negligible proportions. Typhoid fever is a great rarity and bovine tuberculosis is now seldom seen. These things form an essential background to the assessment of the success of our health endeavour.
I do not want to multiply the evidence, because I gave a lot of it in the corresponding debate last year, when we discussed the first ten years of the Health Service, under three years of a Labour Administration and seven years of a Conservative Government. Progress is continually accelerating and I am glad to say that today we have many additional achievements to our credit in the year which has since passed.
Having said that, however, I think it right to strike this cautionary note, as I have done before. Although our progress is good, it does not remove our problems. That, indeed, is the paradox of the Health Service. The better the Health Service, the longer the life of the citizen. The longer his life, the greater the range of his vulnerability to disease, and the greater his vulnerability the bigger the potential burden on the Health Service. This being so, like Alice, we have to run pretty hard even to keep in the same place. Now, however, we are running just that extra bit harder so as to make good progress.

437
Not the least of our problems are the economic ones. Today, the gross cost of the National Health Service in Great Britain is £718 million and the Exchequer cost is £534 million, the Exchequer cost alone being about five times as great as the total Budgets which Mr. Gladstone introduced as Chancellor of the Exchequer only a hundred years ago.
It does not need much ingenuity for anybody to think of more things to be done given unlimited resources. With a service as deserving as the Health Service, it would be nice to be able to proceed regardless of cost. It would, however, be unrealistic to approach it on that basis. Therefore, the principles which should guide us are, first, to devote to the Health Service as much of our national resources as other deserving claims will allow, and secondly, to get out of that expenditure the maximum benefit for the patient and thereby for the community as a whole. And so our object is to get the highest common factor of efficiency and economy which can bring the best results in terms of the health and well-being of the people.
I think that there are five main lines of advance which we pursue and will continue to pursue to achieve that object: first, the development of preventive measures and the promotion of positive health so that we can reduce the volume of illness; secondly, the development of community care, to which the right hon. Lady referred, so that we can better arrest and treat illness without the necessity of recourse to hospital care; thirdly, the acceleration and modernisation of our hospital provision so that it is attuned to contemporary needs and can deal as quickly as possible with those who really do need hospital treatment; fourthly, the recruitment and training of the necessary personnel, with the improvement of career prospects necessary to stimulate and sustain recruitment, about which aspect of it, on which the right hon. Lady did not address us, I should like to say a word later; fifthly, other aspects of promoting the best use of our resources, research, improvement in our administrative procedures, and so on.
I believe that these five things, taken together, assist the promotion of health, and the prevention, cure and care of disease at all stages and from every angle. Though, in a sense, they are
438
separate aspects and activities they must, of course, he woven into a co-ordinated pattern by co-operation at all levels and between all levels. I agree with the right hon. Lady in attributing importance to co-operation. It is not merely a matter of providing administrative machinery. We have, in fact, done that, and nobody, I would say, would wish to multiply the administrative machinery beyond what is necessary. What is required is an attitude of mind, and there is a great deal of evidence that this attitude of mind is growing throughout the Health Service.
Certainly, we at the Ministry are conscious of the need to keep contact with and to consult all those who may be affected by the plans and proposals which we have under consideration. We try to make our consultations in the early stages and thus give effect in the final scheme to the views of those bodies and representative organisations whose work may be affected, and this sort of consultation has improved many of our schemes. The right hon. Lady mentioned mental health on which, it is true, we have spent many hours in the House this Session. There is the plan for building up community care in the field of mental health to which we attach such great importance and which has been embodied in recent circulars which I have sent out. Those are the product of an immense amount of prior consultation and have been greatly improved in the process.
Coming from the centre to the work of those in the field, I am happy to say that good examples of co-operation are becoming ever more frequent. Just to take a very few examples: the arrangements at Birmingham, Wigan, and the London Hospital to keep general practitioners in touch with hospital staff and their work; the co-operation of health visitors with particular general practitioners, again in Birmingham, and in Oxford and in Hampshire; the cooperation at the Nuffield Trust health centres at Harlow and the work at Sal-ford, to which the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) referred the other day.
We need co-operation between the various agencies both at the level of administration and at the level of case work, and this is the constantly recurring theme both in the reports of the advisory

439
committees, for example, the Cranbrook Report and also in Departmental guidance which we have given particularly in respect of the aged and disabled. Working together at the administrative level is helped by common membership of administrative bodies and voluntary organisations, and at case level by such means as case conferences for the dissemination of information, and so on.
I now come to prevention and community care. Of course, as the right hon. Lady said, prevention of illness and promotion of health is not exclusively a Health Service matter. It ranges much wider than that and through all aspects of public environmental health, housing, water, sewerage, all these things; but there is a big contribution in the strict context of the National Health Service. For example, the reduction in maternity mortality of which I spoke has been much helped by greater use of the facilities provided for antenatal supervision. On a wider scale the provision of dentures, hearing aids, glasses, artificial limbs, and so on, does a great deal to restore to health and active life people who would otherwise be a liability on the community.
Dr. Summerskill: What about the Report?
Mr. Walker-Smith: I am just coming to the Hinchliffe Report, to which the right hon. Lady referred. In the debate of 12th March the Parliamentary Secretary dealt with the progress on the interim Report on which action has now been taken in all cases. On the final Report, the 11 recommendations dealing with medical training have been taken up with the appropriate medical schools. The trial recommendations are about to be discussed with the Royal Colleges, and the drug recommendations with the industry. On the important recommendation in respect of voluntary limitation of drugs, we are having consultations with the British Medical Association and the General College of Practitioners.
The right hon. Lady asked me about prescription charges in this and other contexts. I have already told the House that these charges are being continued at present and that I keep under consideration all relevant considerations relating to the financing of the National Health
440
Service. These circumstances are, of course, both economic and social, and we have recently had the advantage of their consideration by the Hinchliffe Committee.
The Committee advised me to seek an agreement with the medical profession on this matter, to which I have just referred, that the amount of drugs supplied on one prescription should be limited to that required for the patient's illness if it be expected to last less than seven days or to not more than one week's supply with exceptions for chronic or particular cases. It also recommended a trial period of two years at the end of which the use of this scheme could be reviewed. The Committee went on to say, in paragraph 301:
"If a voluntary scheme of the kind we have suggested proved successful in controlling expenditure on drugs, it might be expedient to consider the abolition of the prescription charge."
The Douglas Committee, in its Report on Prescribing Costs in Scotland, did not make a similar recommendation but contemplated an experimental limiting of the quantity of drugs available at any one time.
The Government regard the Hinchcliffe Committee's recommendation as a constructive approach if it is possible to set up such a scheme. If such a scheme proves successful in controlling expenditure on drugs we would, naturally, consider whether the saving justified the abolition of the prescription charge at the end of the two-year period as suggested, in the context of the results of the scheme, the finances of the National Health Service, and all other relevant circumstances.
I have already initiated discussions with the British Medical Association about the recommendations of the Hinchcliffe Committee, including the recommendation for a scheme of voluntary limitation, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has initiated discussions on the recommendations of the Douglas Committee.
Dr. Summerskill: I gave the Minister specific questions to answer. There are two important recommendations in the Hinchcliffe Committee's Report which he has absolutely ignored. I read them out to him very carefully. I may have been

441
preaching, but at least I put them precisely, and I should like an answer. They are most important.
Mr. Walker-Smith: It was so precise that when the right hon. Lady was asked to identify the paragraph to which she was referring she was quite unable to do so. I have the Report here and I will deal with anything in it in answer to the right hon. Lady or any other hon. Member. If the right hon. Lady will identify the passage I will certainly deal with it. I appreciate that she is not fond of accuracy in debate.
Mrs. Harriet Slater: On a point of order. Is it in order for the Minister, just because my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) is a woman, to keep on with this sort of slanging match?
Mr. Walker-Smith: If I may continue on the important matters of prevention and community care——
Dr. Summerskill: I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was going back. I told him that I was asking a specific question. I read it out to him. As he knows, the Committee recommended that a group of experts should be called into being as permanent advisers to him and that on this question of the expense of the pharmaceutical services they should advise him expeditiously What has the right hon. and learned Gentleman done about it? Has he called the group into being? What are their names? The other point was on research.
Mr. Walker-Smith: I have not called the body into being.
Dr. Summerskill: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to evade the issue.
Mr. Walker-Smith: Not at all. I have not called the body into being. The recommendation on the permanent body suggested by the Hinchliffe Committee is interesting. It raises practical and perhaps even constitutional problems. It is a matter which I am certainly ready to consider, and to consider further in the light of the reactions of the professional bodies and others whom we are consulting on the recommendations as a whole. The recommendations on research efforts
442
in the drug industry will form part of the subject matter of the discussions with the industry to which I have referred.
Dr. Summerskill: Why has the Minister not taken action? I feel that I am speaking not only for this side of the Committee. Why has he not taken action about this appalling waste of money and the terrific profits made by the drug firms? Why has he not taken action?
Mr. Walker-Smith: It may not commend itself to the right hon. Lady, but it is not right to take action on these recommendations until we have received the views of the bodies which we have consulted. I have not yet received the views of the British Medical Association.
On the important question of prevention and community care, I should like to give the Committee, in summary form, an account of the progress which we have made with poliomyelitis innoculations. At the end of June, the acceptance figures for Great Britain were: children 73 per cent. and young people 36 per cent.; and 4⅓ million third doses have been given. That, again, is very satisfactory progress.
As to matters of community care, we are here concerned, of course, with the work of the general practitioners, the local health authority services, the health visitors, the home nurses, the home helps, the welfare services, and the voluntary agencies to whose work we would all wish to pay a high tribute. The record of our advance in this respect is best and most simply and shortly told by the figures.
In 1951, we had 17,000 general practitioners, Last year we had 19,600, an increase of 2,600. Local health authority expenditure in 1950–51 was £33·2 million. In the last financial year it was £57·8 million, an increase of £24 million. Local authority welfare expenditure was under £10 million in 1950–51 and over £19 million last year. Expenditure on the mental health services was £1·4 million in 1951 and £4·1 million last year, an increase of £2·7 million.
Indeed, this forward movement is accelerating under the new general grant arrangements, because the amount taken into consideration in determining the aggregate of the general grants in respect of the local health authority services was £61·32 million for this financial year

443
and for the next financial year it is £63·48 million. The element within that with respect to mental health expenditure was £5 million in this financial year and will be £5·9 million next year.
I now come to capital expenditure. Here, in the welfare services we are concerned with the provision of old people's homes and, in the local health services, amongst other things, with mental health training centres and hospitals. Taking the value of building schemes approved for loan sanction, we have figures for 1950–51 of £1·6 million on health and £2·6 million on welfare, a total of £4·2 million. In 1958–59, the figures were, health £3·8 million, welfare £4·6 million, making a total of £8·4 million. This year there is an estimated total of £9 million, of which £4 million are in respect of health and £5 million in respect of welfare.
I give these figures and could give many others showing the gratifying growth in our community care services, but I do not want to retread all the ground so admirably covered by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in our debate on these matters on 5th June. I could speak of the growing number of visits paid by home nurses, the increasing number of cases attended by home helps, the number of beds and homes provided under Part III of the National Assistance Act, and the increasing number of old people for whom local authorities provide accommodation.
These were 57,680 at the end of 1951 and 79,877 at the end of last year, an increase of over 22,000, or about 40 per cent. There were 195 training centres for the subnormal at the end of 1951 and 307 at the end of last year. I submit that these figures tell their own story and one of steady and gratifying growth which shows that we are practising what we preach in relation to the development of community care.
As to the Cranbrook Report, about which the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington questioned me, the Committee reported on 19th February and we are most grateful for its labours. We immediately began to take appropriate action and to enter into the necessary consultations. After consultation with the appropriate organisations, memoranda
444
have now been prepared commending to hospital authorities, local health authorities, executive councils and general practitioners many of the recommendations of the Report. I hope to issue these memoranda by the end of this month unless, of course, printing difficulties supervene. These memoranda will put special emphasis on recommendations about co-ordination and co-operation, the more careful selection of patients for hospital and domiciliary confinements, and improvements in ante-natal care. They will also deal with the provision of hospital accommodation.
Some of these recommendations are necessarily reserved for further consideration and discussion with the medical profession, including those affecting the maternity medical services provided by general practitioners and especially the recommendations about the future of the obstetric list to which the right hon. Lady referred.
Dr. Summerskill: These are the two important recommendations, but, again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he is not going to make a specific statement on them. Why is it that after all these months he is not prepared to tell us specifically, and without all this verbiage, what he is going to do?
Mr. Walker-Smith: It is because we have not finished our discussions and consultations with the professional bodies. Surely the right hon. Lady is not going to be so irresponsible as to suggest that a Minister of Health should issue a diktat to these professional people about these professional matters. Surely that is not her concept of democracy and of the appropriate way of conducting the business of Government. I am very shocked to hear it.
Dr. Summerskill: My concept of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's function is to protect the women and children and not to keep saying that he is putting off these important recommendations while he has further discussions. Months have passed. When is he going to make a decision? These are the two important recommendations about which I am speaking.
Mr. Walker-Smith: I shall make the decision as soon as I am satisfied that

445
the consultations have yielded all that they can. I am satisfied that it would be quite wrong, in order to get some cheap political credit from the right hon. Lady, to try to stampede the matter and take a decision before that. Equally, I do not propose to hold up the memoranda dealing with the other important points until the consultations are completed.
I want to say a word in respect of hospital building. I do not think the right hon. Lady said much about hospital building, but it is an important matter. I am glad to say that we are now vigorously engaged in an expanding programme of hospital building. After the war hospital building got off to a pretty slow start. Until 1951 the highest annual expenditure was £8½ million. Then, in 1955, my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Labour announced our plans for expanding hospital building. We are now doing that. Last year we allocated £20 million, this year we have allocated £22 million, and next year we are allocating £25½ million.
The increase in these allocations is being devoted mainly to the centrally financed programme of major projects which have been expanded each year and now includes more than 120 large projects in course of construction or planning, each costing over £250,000 The first parts of four new hospitals are already in use and ten more new hospitals are in progress in various parts of the country. In addition, we have large new units and major extensions, and, in all, 40 of the large building schemes in our programme have already started.
I should like to add that, in addition to the new hospital and major schemes, much capital and work goes into improvements at existing hospitals which are directed at getting increased and improved service from those hospitals. For example, new laboratories, operating theatres and X-ray departments have all led to a greater and more efficient use of beds. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh, yes, because with a 6 per cent. increase in the number of beds we have been able to treat one-third more patients. About one-fifth of the available capital has been spent on these ancillary departments to help produce this result.
446
We are also devoting much attention to out-patient provision because this, of course, reflects our policy of trying wherever possible to save people having to enter hospital, or, if they do have to enter hospital, to minimise the time they have to stay there. We have concentrated on out-patient clinics which can give diagnosis and treatment which formerly was thought to require inpatient treatment, and also provide follow-up care afterwards.
Mrs. Slater: Does that mean that Stoke is to have a very quick realisation of its out-patient clinic?
Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Lady has some interesting Questions on the Order Paper for Monday, when I think we can deal more efficiently with the mater in regard to Stoke.
Taking the general position, we have built new out-patient and casualty departments or improved existing ones at 100 hospitals at a cost of £7 million.
The other aspect I wish to mention is that of mental and mental deficiency hospitals where, in recent years, we have been able to increase the proportion of the allocation directed to them, which means that they are now getting a larger share of a larger total.
Mr. Kenneth Robinson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what is the percentage of the new share?
Mr. Walker-Smith: The latest figure for regional hospital boards is 31 per cent.
One other matter of hospital provision that I think the House will consider important is that of design and procedure. I am very anxious to improve design and accelerate procedure, and we shall now be assisted in all this by having our own chief architect at the Ministry and also by the expansion of our design unit. The unit has already done a great deal of good work, as hon. Members know, and what I now propose is that the unit should design some hospital departments which will be built in various parts of the country, the first being an out-patient department. I think that such building will illustrate our ideas about hospital design and will show in finished form the guidance which hitherto we have been giving in bulletins.

447
I am very anxious to simplify and streamline the ordinary procedures and to cut out any stages which it is possible to cut out, such as the previous examination of working drawings at the Ministry.
Mrs. E. M. Braddock: Does that mean that particularly in Liverpool, where a scheme has been waiting for a long time—I have here six batches of letters which have gone backwards and forwards to the Ministry since 1950 and the job is not yet completed—that sort of thing is going to be cut out? If I get an opportunity I shall make reference to the matter, because that is what is happening.
Mr. Walker-Smith: I am very anxious to accelerate those procedures and to reduce any delays. I am obviously not going to apportion responsibility for delay in any particular case in the course of my speech, but I think it would be relevant to point out that one can only hope to do this with co-operation, as it were, at both ends. I spent a good deal of my professional working life in the consideration of building contracts, and I know that unless one gets complete clarity from the building owner in regard to his requirements and unless those requirements are then adhered to nothing goes well with building work. Therefore, I am emphasising to hospital boards the importance of getting a clear and unambiguous schedule of their accommodation requirements before detailed planning is started. We shall give all the assistance we can through the design unit and otherwise.
In regard to these matters, we have a number of proposals aimed at putting the emphasis on scrutiny and correction at the earliest possible stage, and these are going to be discussed between my officers and the officers of the hospital boards. I very much hope that this will lead to an acceleration and improvement of these procedures which they would all desire.
If I may, I will conclude by saying a word about——
Dr. Summerskill: What about the Younghusband Report?
Mr. Walker-Smith: I am coming on to the Younghusband Report in this context. The right hon. Lady need not worry.
448
As I was saying, I should like to conclude by saying a word about the people engaged in the Health Services, which is a matter of great importance and one which is rightly of interest to the House. Our aim in this context is to get the right number of people properly trained and to offer them appropriate remuneration, conditions of service and attractive career prospects. We have been making good progress in that respect in the course of this year. In the hospital sphere we have the Working Party under Sir Robert Platt making good progress on the medical staffing structure. It has held many meetings and visited 40 hospitals and received 58 statements of evidence.
In the case of nurses, we have a steady expansion of staff. We have now got over 147,000 whole-time nurses, an increase of nearly 16 per cent. on the 1951 figure, and nearly 40,000 part-time nurses, an increase on the 1951 figure of no less than 61 per cent. As from 1st March this year we have substantially increased salaries for trained staff, particularly ward sisters and more senior grades. Compared with the salaries which resulted from the very first Whitley Review on 1st February, 1949, staff nurses in general hospitals now have a maximum of £625 as against £415, and ward sisters £800 as against £500, while in the mental health field the staff nurse maximum is now £675 as against £435, and the ward sister £850 as against £520.
Hospital midwives also received increases of the same order. With effect from 1st March, staff midwives now have a maximum of £655 and midwifery sisters one of £830 as compared with £435 and £520 in 1949. On a point in which hon. Members have taken some interest in the past, the position of nurses taking midwifery training has been improved. They are now paid as post-registration students instead of as new entrant pupil midwives.
Most of these salary increases are already in payment, and the details for the remaining hospital grades, which will also date from 1st March, will be issued to hospital authorities tomorrow week.
Dr. Horace King: Would the Minister be good enough to add to the picture which has given the whole Committee pleasure by

449
telling us what he has done for domiciliary midwives?
Mr. Walker-Smith: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to that important point. Discussions are now in progress about the salaries of nurses and midwives in the public health and domiciliary services, and the new salaries which will result from those discussions will also take effect as from 1st March this year.
We have an improving figure for hospital midwives, though I will not give the detailed figures to the House because time is getting on. It is also gratifying to record the remarkable advance in the number of student nurses in recent years in the mental and mental deficiency hospitals. All the figures I have given reflect the position before the new salary improvements have really had a chance to make their attraction felt, so they should provide a further impetus to this welcome forward movement.
Another good development is the 88-hour fortnight. I gave the figures of implementation in February. I am afraid I have not got the detailed, up-to-date figures, but I am confident that they would show a substantial improvement on the figures I then gave to the House. There were, of course, some hospitals, in particular mental hospitals, which could not do this without extra staff and cost, and so I included an additional sum in the allocation for regional boards for 1959–60 for the specific purpose of assisting hospitals to introduce the 88-hour fortnight for nurses and mid-wives.
Also there has been good development in regard to the administrative and clerical workers, where the new grading structure is in operation with improved new salaries, which should make a more attractive career prospect. The Whitley Council is now considering the question raised the other day by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) about the designated grades, and I am sure it will get on with that important matter as soon as possible. In addition, radiographers are to have an increase and a circular will soon be issued to this effect. The salaries of hospital pharmacists and assistants in dispensing will also shortly be coming before the Whitley Council.
450
So in pay and conditions in the National Health Service I think we have a pretty general advance all along the line. This is appropriate in respect of employments which have not in the past been in the van of wage increases. I have used the term "career structure", but to many in the National Health Service, of course, their work is not so much a career as a calling, which evokes much that is noblest in human nature and which, while it is not susceptible to economic evaluation, should command a reward reasonably in keeping with their high responsibilities and zealous endeavour.
The right hon. Lady asked about the Younghusband Report. We have speedily got to work on this massive and valuable Report on the training of social workers, which was published two months ago. On this, again, I think nobody would wish us to act without appropriate consultation, and we have therefore sought the views of the local authority associations. We have not yet had their replies, but there is some evidence that the Report has had a favourable reception. While awaiting those views, I appreciate to the full the importance of the matter and the desirability of making our decisions as soon as possible, having regard to the importance of the work they do.
I have taken up a considerable amount of time. If I have not answered all the points made by the right hon. Lady, I will study her speech in HANSARD with the care which I always give to what she says and reply at some convenient moment, or I will get my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to do so when he speaks later in the debate. I am conscious that many hon. Members wish to contribute to it, and I have only taken up the time I have used because this is such a wide-ranging subject, of great and direct importance to the people of this country.
I submit, with I hope all proper humility, that on the evidence the claim I made at the beginning of the debate is substantiated, that we have made substantial and satisfactory progress. I do not know what is the intention of the Opposition, but I hope that this is not a matter on which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to divide the Committee, because a hostile vote on this Estimate would be a vote in face of the facts and in defiance of the merits.
Miss Margaret Herbison: The right hon. Gentleman will soon find out.
Dr. Summerskill: The matter is in no doubt.
Mr. Walker-Smith: If the Opposition divide the Committee, I say this to them in clear terms, that it will convict their political judgment and their sense of fairness. It cannot convict our administration, because the facts and the record speak so clearly and convincingly on our behalf.
Dr. Summerskill: Is the Minister aware that he has not answered one of my questions? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Not one, but perhaps he could answer at least this one. May I ask him again what decision has been reached on the question of free medicine to private patients? The Minister has asked us whether we are going to divide the Committee. He has convicted himself. He has given us a dreary recital of facts but has not answered one question. No wonder he has had to drink water three times. Will he answer at least the one question about free medicine, which is fundamental to the National Health Service?
Mr. Walker-Smith: I met the representatives of the British Medical Association at their request. Naturally, I shall consider all they have to say to me, but I can assure the right hon. Lady that I have not given them any promise in this matter.
5.21 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I am sure the whole Committee is gratified to learn of the improvement in the nation's health and of the development of the National Health Service, which was illustrated by the figures the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given this afternoon.
If he had been content to leave it at that, so should I be, but he was at some pains to emphasise that all this had been achieved under a Conservative Government, that the record levels of maternal mortality and infant mortality had been reached under a Conservative Government, while the National Health Service was administered for only three years by the Labour Government. I must remind
452
the Committee and the country that it was the Tory Opposition which voted against the National Health Service Act in 1946 on both Second and Third Readings. I think it salutary that we should be reminded of that fact.
I do not think we can accept the Minister's statement as an adequate reply to the indictment made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill). On these three Committees—to take one example—the Minister has told us that there are consultations going on or that discussions are about to begin. That applies to every recommendation of importance made by these three Committees.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman and his predecessors have been perhaps more prone than any other Ministers to set up working parties, departmental committees or Royal Commissions into this, that and the other problem affecting their Department. We make no complaint about that so long as the reports of those bodies lead to speedy action, but what so frequently happens is that they lead merely to protracted discussions and very often in the end not to action but to the setting up of another committee. I wish to emphasise what my right hon. Friend said about the main recommendation of the Cranbrook Committee's Report. It is vitally important that the Minister should not be deflected by pressure from any quarter from adopting the very important recommendation of an obstetrical list.
The subject of this debate is vast and one has to limit oneself very severely in the number of aspects to be dealt with. I want to discuss two trends in the hospital service which have been giving me concern for some time. I should emphasise at the outset that, although for about nine years I have been a member of a regional hospital board, the criticisms I make are not in any way directed to the hospitals in the region with which I am associated. I happen to think it is the best regional board in the country. The views I am about to express are the result of information I have received and impressions I have gathered over the whole country. The first matter I want to talk about is public relations, in the literal and widest sense. I do not use the phrase as a euphemism for advertising, which is what it usually

453
means, but literally as relations with the public which, in the context of a hospital, means the patient and the patient's relatives.
I readily admit that once a patient is received into a bed in a hospital he gets care and attention of a quality which probably is second to none in the world. There is nothing too good for him in the way of medical and nursing treatment, and, subject to one or two reservations to which I shall come later, he is treated as an individual human being. Most of the criticism I have to make relates to what happens to a patient before he gets into a hospital ward.
I first take the question of out-patient departments. Most of us remember the old system whereby masses of outpatients came to the department in the early morning, or early after lunch, and waited for hours like dumb oxen until their turn came—it might not come that day at all—to be seen by the doctor. They sat in draughty corridors, on uncomfortable benches, at considerable inconvenience and frequently some suffering. Most of us hoped that the introduction of an appointments system would bring all that to an end. Although probably it is true to say that here and there appointments systems are working extremely well, generally the way they are run has not altogether eliminated the bad features of the old system.
The main trouble is this. There is an over-insurance against the possibility that the doctor might be kept waiting occasionally for a minute or two. The system usually works rather like this. A batch of patients is asked to come at a certain time, probably a quarter of an hour and possibly half an hour, before the doctor is due to start seeing patients. The patient himself is nearly always over-anxious and comes to the department a quarter of an hour, or possibly half an hour, before he is required to come, while the doctor, I regret to say, is frequently a quarter of an hour and sometimes half an hour late. It means that probably the first patient must have been waiting three-quarters of an hour or an hour before he can be seen by the doctor and the remaining patients in the batch have to wait that much longer. The assumption behind this principle is a very simple one. It is that the doctor's time is priceless and the patient's is
454
valueless. Neither part of that proposition is necessarily always true. I think it time that a more civilised appointment system was adopted over the country as a whole.
Another feature of out-patients' departments which sometimes disturbs me is the attitude of the sister in charge to the patients waiting there. They are treated sometimes almost as if they were malingerers and certainly with less humanity than is due towards people who probably are nervous, worried and more than normally vulnerable. Some of the more famous teaching hospitals are among the worst offenders in this respect. There seems to be a different attitude on the part of some senior members of the nursing profession towards a patient who is in the ward as opposed to a patient who has not yet got there.
I think the admissions to hospital beds are sometimes rather thoughtlessly organised. I wish to quote an instance concerning a friend of mine which happened only a short time ago. He went into a very distinguished teaching hospital in London for observation. He was told that he was to have a serious operation but that facilities were not yet available. He was to go home and would be summoned when they were available. He went home and then one morning he was asked to come to the hospital at about 11 o'clock. He duly turned up, but when he got there he was told, "I am sorry, but the bed is not available". He was told to go away, have his lunch and come back in the afternoon. He was fortunate, because he had been brought there by his wife in a car.
My friend was able to go away, have a good lunch and come back in the afternoon, but I wonder what would have happened to many poor people who had not those advantages? This happened to be a sweltering hot day in the middle of the heat wave. Such patients might have come up from a country district and have been told to make their way around London and come back four hours later. That is not good enough. These things arise simply through lack of appreciation and understanding of the effect on the patient of the instructions given. It may not

455
be very common, but the point I am trying to make is that it should not ever happen.
I said I had one or two reservations about patients in the ward. The first of these concerns the ward rounds. The doctors' daily ward round is, of course, the focal point of the organisation of the ward. Frequently the time that the patients are called in the morning is dictated by the length of time it takes to get the ward ready for the doctor's rounds. The doctor sees the ward in apple-pie order—everything is excessively neat and tidy. Sometimes the beds of the patients are tidied so effectively that the patients are lying in a state of acute discomfort. It seems to me that the doctors do not want this; they ought not to want it anyway. I should have thought that a doctor wanted to see his patient in the ward in its normal state.
I am constantly reminded when I see this in hospitals of what used to be called the captain's rounds in the Navy, when the messdecks were "tiddlied-up" for the captain's inspection on Saturday mornings. The cutlery was polished with some obnoxious and lethal substance so that it gleamed, but it had to be washed in boiling water afterwards before it was fit to eat with. This is the same sort of attitude. I am afraid that it stems from the attitude of the nursing staff towards the medical profession. This is something which in this day and age needs serious reconsideration. We want to remember that the patient's getting well will be the result of a partnership between the doctor, the nurse and the patient himself. Unless the other two people are brought in on something like level terms with the doctor, I do not think that the public relations, in the sense in which I use the term, will be good.
Another thing is that the patient is seldom allowed to know anything about his own illness. He is not supposed to ask and it is not his business to know what his body is doing at that given moment. If patients are told little about their ailments, then relatives are told even less.
To quote another experience which happened to a friend of mine recently, he had his small daughter in hospital suffering from an obscure type of fever,
456
one of the features of which was a violently fluctuating temperature. My friend, although a layman, has quite an extensive knowledge of medical matters, and when he went to visit his daughter he asked what was her temperature. The nurse responded as if she had been affronted by such an improper request. This information had to be winkled out of the ward sister. It was his own daughter and he merely wanted to know what her temperature was and whether it had gone up or down.
This sort of thing is much too common. Too many hospitals give the impression that relatives and visitors are rather a nuisance, instead of recognising them as very often part of the treatment of the patient and as something of therapeutic value to the patient. I think that anyone who has been an in-patient in hospital must remember how much it means when visiting hours arrive and some fresh interest is introduced into the scene.
I ask myself—I do not want to exaggerate it, but I think it is important—why we have this comparative failure of public relations? I think it is partly because hospital management committees have become a little too remote from the patients. They have become too swamped with agenda papers, memoranda and administrative detail to have enough time to find out what is really happening in the hospitals which they are administering.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) introduced the National Health Service Act and designed the administrative structure of the hospital service, he was very careful to insure that there should be ultimate lay control of all but purely clinical matters, and control in the interest of the patient. I am afraid that concept has never in the event been fully realised.
That brings me to the question of doctors. Members of the medical profession have been given a very generous share in the management and detailed policy-making of the public service in which they earn their living. Possibly this is becoming a somewhat excessive share. I think it is essential that we should guard against anything in the nature of medical syndicalism in the health service. That is a danger which the Guillebaud Committee recognised

457
and to which certain of its recommendations were directed. I fully agree that it is very important that the medical view should be considered, but it is no less important that outside the clinical field the medical view should not automatically prevail.
There was one example of this which gave me some concern about two years ago when I discovered that in one region the chairman of a hospital management committee was also the medical superintendent of the largest hospital in that management committee's group. He was, I am quite sure, a most excellent medical superintendent and an admirable chairman, no doubt, of his committee, but this is a very dangerous precedent indeed. It should not have happened. On grounds of principle, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has seen that that situation has been brought to an end. I remember calling his predecessor's attention to it.
I want to say a word about the consultant service. I think that most hon. Members who are in any way associated with the hospital service will agree that far too much work which is appropriate to consultants is today done by senior registrars and even by registrars. This is partly due, but only partly due, to the fact that we have not enough consultants in the hospital service, a matter which no doubt very closely concerns the Working Party to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred at the end of his speech.
There is another aspect of this, and that is that none of us either at management committee level or regional board level or in the Ministry has any control whatever over how much or how little a consultant does. Of course, a few people may know. The hospital secretary or a group secretary might know, but he would seldom dare to report anything of this nature that he thought was improper to the management committee or to the regional board, perhaps because he knows the strength of the medical interest and the fact that there would be no protection for himself. Registrars and senior registrars who do work that should be done by consultants would be even less likely to let anyone know what is happening.
I do not want to exaggerate this, and I fully recognise that the majority of consultants
458
are highly skilled, hard working and conscientious, but there is a minority—I think almost entirely part-time; how big or how small a minority we do not not know and we cannot possibly find out—who are abusing the freedom that the service gives to them. There are some part-time consultants who seldom go near the hospital to which they are attached and for which they receive regular payments for services which are nominally, and only nominally, performed—consultants who are always too busy in their private practice.
Then there is the question of the domiciliary consultations. The Minister will remember there was some concern expressed in the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates about abuses in the domiciliary consultant service, on which the Committee received certain evidence. It is quite impossible to find out for certain whether the abuse exists because there is so little control. In my own region, after this Report came out, we wanted to be even more conscientious than in the past about certifying domiciliary visits for payment. The Minister placed an obligation on regional boards to satisfy themselves that consultations were necessary before agreeing to pay. Two consultants in the region refused to give information which would enable the board to decide whether the visits were necessary, and the board refused to pay. The board was threatened with litigation and so appealed to the Minister, who directed it to pay.
That is not good enough. I am all in favour of doctors and nurses being given the maximum clinical freedom, but I think that there must be some more control in order to see that the minority, who are prone to abuse the service for their own ends, do not prejudice the reputation and interests of the majority who do an admirable and a conscientious job.
The part-time consultant is probably the most extravagant part of the hospital service. These consultants are paid at a high rate and they are often paid for long periods when they are sitting in motor cars travelling from hospital to hospital. Furthermore, it is this factor which leads to abuses of pay-bed facilities. We have all from time to time had complaints about the pressure brought to bear upon patients by consultants who

459
are also in private practice. The patients are told that they can circumvent the waiting list if they will have the operation or treatment as a private patient. We all know the effectiveness of the persuasion which can be exercised over an anxious or worried patient. Not long ago in an Adjournment debate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) quoted from a letter written by a consultant who had exercised this pressure in a most overt way and, for once, was foolish enough to put it down on paper.
This sort of thing creates the illusion—I am happy to say that it is an illusion—of a kind of two-class health service; an idea which is also bolstered up by the proliferation of insurance schemes designed to encourage private treatment both inside and outside hospitals. Few such schemes, incidentally, reimburse the patient in full for the cost he incurs by this private treatment. I say, therefore, that the whole question of part-time consultants and pay beds should be objectively examined.
In the meantime, the Minister, in conjunction with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, should remove the special disincentives against whole-time practice in the hospital service, the disincentives to whole-time consultants who are the backbone of the service.
I have called attention, admittedly and perhaps inevitably in rather general terms, to certain aspects and trends in the hospital service which I, at any rate, regard as undesirable. I believe that these trends could be reversed by resolute action on the part of the Minister and his Department. Unfortunately—this point was made by the Select Committee on Estimates—there has not been that leadership and resolution from the Minister or his predecessors which the hospital service was entitled to expect. Because such qualities have been lacking, these tendencies have been allowed to grow, and I suggest that the time has come to do something about them.
5.45 p.m.
Colonel Sir Malcolm Stoddart-Scott: It is now thirteen years since the National Health Service legislation passed through this House and it would have been extraordinary if, at one fell
460
swoop, we could have reorganised our hospitals, the general practitioner service, the dental service and our district nurses, as well as the other auxiliary services associated with the Health Service, and got the reorganisation right first time. Therefore, I think that after thirteen years it is not inappropriate that we should have a committee reviewing the different aspects of the Health Service. I should have liked to have seen the task given to a Royal Commission. I was not very impressed with the Guillebaud Committee, which found everything right in every direction. That was too good to be true. I cannot believe that every department of the Health Service was as good as the Guillebaud Committee said it was.
I was delighted to hear my right hon. and learned Friend speak about the rebuilding of hospitals and to be told that we are spending three times as much money in the coming year as was spent in 1951. In a Welfare State, where we have many welfare services, from time to time each service must get a greater amount of assistance than the others. Immediately after the war, hundreds of millions of pounds were poured into the building of houses. Since we have had to educate an increased number of our population, and while the bulge has been passing through our schools, hundreds of millions of pounds have been poured into the building of schools; and rightly so, I do not criticise it. But I believe that we are getting near the time when we shall have to spend, not just £25 million a year but hundreds of millions, upon the building of hospitals. Some of the hospitals in this country may truly be described as slum hospitals. Some have had to be closed down because of the bad accommodation which they provided.
I was also delighted when the Minister told us of the great increase in the number of general practitioners over the past year. I wish he had told us something about the numbers of dentists in the Health Service. I am anxious about the dental service. Members of the dental profession are retiring and dying at a greater rate than newcomers are entering the service. I foresee that in the near future we shall be desperately short of dentists and I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he replies to the debate, will be able to

461
tell us what steps the Government are taking to attract an increased number of students to our dental hospitals. Have we the facilities in the hospitals to provide an adequate number of students to replace the losses from the dental service? Has a dental hospital been established in Wales where there has been no dental hospital? That was recommended by one of the committees which examined the dental service.
I should like to hear a little more about midwives. The Minister told us that there was an increased number of midwives in our hospitals. I hear that some hospitals have closed down the maternity wards because of a shortage of midwives. Perhaps that shortage is in some regions only, but there is no doubt that the domiciliary service is short of midwives. I should like to hear more about what the Minister is doing to attract women in the nursing profession to acquire the extra midwifery qualifications and to practise on the midwifery side of their profession.
I hope that the Minister will take no notice of the sarcastic and cynical remarks of the hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) about drugs and dressings for private patients. I think this aspect of the National Health Service is most unjust. The House has permited people to have a private practitioner if they wish, and if they choose to do so they are not permitted to have free drugs and dressings although they are called on to pay their National Health contributions and taxes.
I hope that in the near future a little more justice will be done to those who pay rates and taxes like every other citizen but who are not permitted to have free drugs and dressings. If any hon. Member is not feeling very well and comes to me for advice, why should he have to pay for his drugs and dressings while if he goes to another practitioner who is in the Health Service the hon. Member will get them free? That is not fair to him nor to me.
I do not want to say much about doctors' pay, because the Royal Commission must be getting near the end of its work, although it has taken a very long time. When the Royal Commission was set up one heard of it making its findings within six months. It is probably reviewing very much more than
462
just the subject that was at first mentioned, which was the immediate claim of the doctors, but I hope that the Minister will tell us something about the general practitioner pension fund.
The 1955 National Health Insurance Superannuation Regulations laid down that 1½ per cent. of the total net remuneration that a doctor earned while he was in service would go towards his pension, and the Minister was authorised to keep this pension fund account which had to be submitted to an investigation by the Government Actuary every seven years. It was arranged that an investigation and report of the fund up to 31st May, 1955 would be made by the Actuary. Has that Report been made? Has it been published? If it has not, when will it be, and has the balance between the assets and liabilities of this fund been maintained?
This pension fund is very important to the general practitioner, because it is based on a different principle from most other Government service pension funds, where the pension is based on the average earnings over the last three years. This fund is based on the whole of a general practitioner's earnings over the years that he is in the Service, and inflation has affected the value of this pension fund very considerably. There is great anxiety amongst general practitioners about the fund.
The Minister's speech showed that there has been great development in the National Health Service. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) criticised us on this side of the Committee for voting against the National Health Service Bill in 1946. We voted for reasoned Amendments. There were certain things in the original Bill which we did not like, and the amending Bills that followed in rapid annual succession show that we were right and that the Government of the day were not.
The administration of the Act has provided a service which is very popular in the country. Although the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington had some bitter and sarcastic things to say about the Health Service, it is working well. It is popular throughout the country and I believe that it is very acceptable to the large number of people who benefit from it.
5.55 p.m.
Mr. Somerville Hastings: We have listened with great interest to a detailed speech from the Minister telling us what he is doing for the prevention and treatment of diseases. A good deal more can and ought to be done for the prevention of certain diseases, and I should like to consider chest diseases, particularly chronic bronchitis.
There is no doubt that chronic bronchitis is a dangerous and serious problem. The British are said to be chesty people and I think that is true, partly, perhaps, because of the moist atmosphere in which we live. But we have done a good deal for the prevention and cure of some chest diseases. Lobar-pneumonia is no longer the danger that it used to be. Some of our youngest and best people used to be carried off in the prime of life. Now, with the use of antibiotic drugs, the story is very different.
The story is very different also in the case of tuberculosis of the lung because by improved conditions of life it is much less common. There is much less infection and children are less frequently infected in early life—although the disease might become latent until later in life—I understand that in the London area only some 14 to 16 per cent. of children leaving school show indications of previous infection. We have done a great deal also for the treatment of tuberculosis by the use of new drugs.
Then there is cancer of the lung. We know the cause of at least 90 per cent. of the many deaths from this disease. If we do not make use of the knowledge which we as a nation have we cannot blame the Minister but we must blame ourselves.
Chronic bronchitis, however, presents a different story and I should like to stress how serious a disease it is. There are 30,000 deaths a year from chronic bronchitis and that does not include 20,000 deaths from broncho-pneumonia, in many or indeed most cases of which the disease was prepared for by chronic bronchitis. This death rate is twenty times higher than in the Scandinavian countries, but I would not stress these figures too much because it may be that the diagnostic criteria is different in different countries. At any rate the death rate from chronic bronchitis is very much higher than it ought to be.
464
The loss of working days amounts to approximately 20,000 per year amongst insured persons and the numbers suffering from chronic bronchitis among those not employed is also very great.
Some research was done in Newcastle-upon-Tyne a few years ago and probably the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) knows more about it than I do. Men and women over the age of 30 were examined and no less than 36 per cent. of men and 17 per cent. of women showed not symptoms but definite signs of chronic bronchitis. The Minister will know that of all diseases which have to be dealt with by general practitioners in the National Health Service chronic bronchitis comes first in numbers.
It is a very distressing disease. It does not kill quickly. People get attacks of it and go into hospital. When their condition improves they are sent home, but they get worse again when the weather becomes bad. They are kept awake for many hours at night. The complaint leads to other chest diseases such as bronchiectasis, asthma and bronchopneumonia, and it frequently affects the heart. The trouble does not end there, because coughing from infected lungs spreads disease. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summer-skill) referred to the amount of staphylococcic infection in hospital. There is no doubt that the chronic bronchitics in hospital help to distribute these staphylococci. Not many weeks ago I was in hospital. I was exceedingly well treated, and they did everything they could for me. Unfortunately, I brought away with me some of these virulent staphylococci, and for the first time in my life I had a horrible carbuncle. There is no doubt that that was due to my stay in hospital, although I benefited enormously in other ways.
Chronic bronchitis gave a great deal of trouble in the early months of this year. There was an influenza epidemic, although it was not of a very virulent type, and there were fogs, in many parts of the country, although the fogs in London were not of the worst type. Only a few days ago, however, the Minister gave me figures which showed that in February of this year, in the country generally, there were nearly twice as many deaths from bronchitis, bronco-pneumonia and influenza—all chest diseases—as there were

465
in February last year. In the London area there were more than double the number of deaths from these diseases this year. This February there were 8,695 deaths per million, whereas in February, 1958, there were 3,254 per million. That is very serious in itself, and it is also so because these deaths and the exacerbation of chronic bronchitis take up many beds in our hospitals, keeping out other cases which need treatment and thereby increasing waiting lists.
I recently received figures relating to the North-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board, of which I was a member until two years ago. I understand that a warning to take in only acute cases existed in that region from 19th January to 9th March. It appears that in the whole London area the emergency bed service was at its wits' end to find places for the many cases referred to it. Usually it deals with about 1,200 cases a week, mostly successfully, and is able to find places for them in some hospital or other. Those of us who have seen its work will know what splendid work it is. However, I am told that in the week ending 24th February last, instead of about 1,200 cases there were more than double that number, namely, 2,420. Chronic bronchitis is not only a danger in itself, which causes great suffering, but it also blocks our hospital beds in the winter, when they are most needed.
I suggest that the time has arrived for the Minister to try to find out more about the causes of this disease and the way to prevent it. We know something about it already. We know that it is commoner in urban areas. The death rate in these areas is six times as high as in rural regions of England and Wales. Why is this? It is partly due to overcrowding, and the spread of catarrhal infections, which get down into the lungs and start up acute bronchitis, which develops into chronic bronchitis. I am sure that another cause is the amount of sulphur in the atmosphere. Smoke may also have something to do with it. I am talking not of tobacco smoke but of smoke from coal fires. The sulphur is the important ingredient. The fact that many smokeless fuels contain nearly as much sulphur as does coal or coke means that they are also a menace to health. Dust in factories is undoubtedly another cause, and there is
466
also smoking. Richard Doll and others have shown, by careful work, using doctors as guinea-pigs, that more doctors who are inveterate smokers die from chronic bronchitis than do doctors generally.
There are other possible causes that need investigation. I ask the Minister to investigate the causation and prevention of this very serious and troublesome disease. I should like to see either a departmental committee of inquiry or, better still, a Royal Commission, set up to inquire into the cause and prevention of this disease. It may be said that it is a medical problem, but intelligent laymen can understand medical problems quite well, especially if they are explained by intelligent doctors. Those of us who served with the Minister in Committee on the Mental Health Bill came to the conclusion that, though the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not a doctor, there was very little about mental health that he did not know, although whether the knowledge was recently acquired or not none of us could be quite sure.
I want to suggest that a Royal Commission of intelligent laymen might perhaps be even better than a Departmental Committee, but I appeal to the Minister to realise what a danger and disadvantage to so many people this disease is—not only the sufferers from it, but others as well—and how, in some countries, particularly the Scandinavian countries, it is much less prevalent than in this country. I hope he will give his mind to the matter and see whether he cannot have some form of inquiry into the causation of this disease which may lead to its prevention.
6.11 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I wish to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister on the review which he started and completed, in spite of interruptions from the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), on the progress of our National Health Service during the past year. I think that the extra resources which the nation has been able to devote to the Health Service in the past year because of the measure of our prosperity are a source of real gratification to the people of this country. The Health

467
Service is popular, and it is regarded with affection by the people. We are proud of it, we are glad we have got it, and we think it is rather better than anybody else's health service, although probably we do not, individually, know very much about anybody else's health service. That good opinion in which the Health Service is held is undoubtedly due to the devoted administration of those who take part in it and to the wise guidance which successive Governments have given to it since its inception.
I may say, in passing, that I was sorry that the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) revived that ancient red herring about the Tory Party having voted against the National Health Service. It would be just as logical to say, if the Opposition vote against these Estimates tonight, that they will be voting against the National Health Service. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It would have the same degree of logic, though I agree that it is completely untrue. I am very happy that the Opposition say that is absolute nonsense, because, by the same token, it is absolute nonsense for them to say that we voted against the Health Service, when we were trying to get the very best Health Service at the very start.
Miss Herbison: I do not think the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) was in the House when the National Health Service Bill was going through. Perhaps he does not know that his party voted against it not only on Second Reading but also on Third Reading, which meant that it voted in principle against the National Health Service.
Mr. Kershaw: I think that the hon. Lady, who has been longer in this House than I have, will know that that is a Parliamentary device and that we are not deceived by it.
I was particularly gratified to hear of the progress made with the construction of new hospital buildings and to learn that four are already in use and ten are building. We all know the vital importance of new buildings to hospitals in this regard, and it is very gratifying, that—I was going to say almost at long last—the financial position of the country has made it possible for us to embark upon this ambitious programme.
468
The pay and conditions of those taking part in the Health Service are also a vital link in our Health Service which, up to fairly recently, was rather weak. As I understood the figures which my right hon. and learned Friend gave in his résumé, the pay and conditions have risen about one-third in value since 1951, and that must be a source of gratification to all of us.
I had the opportunity the other day, through the kindness of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Finlay) and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, to visit the Harlow Industrial Health Centre. As I believe my right hon. and learned Friend also went there later, I am not telling him anything he does not know, but I was extremely impressed with this industrial experiment, which fills a gap in our arrangements. It is an aspect of the Health Service in an area in which mostly small businesses or small factories are situated. The very large industries, employing many hundreds of people, can afford—and it is financially to their benefit to afford—a health service of their own inside the factories, but in the case of smaller ones employing up to 200 people or so, it would be a waste of their resources, and a waste of medical resources, to have to spend money in this way in the confines of their own factories. It seems to me that this could fill a need in some parts of the country where the factories are of the right size and sufficiently concentrated to provide a sufficient number of patients, and that such provision should be made in such areas.
A centre like this needs a certain amount of money and a certain amount of guidance. In the first place, it needs organisation. It means bringing the general practitioners in, and they should be willing to work it, because they are the doctors who must work it in with their own private practices. All this means a certain amount of organisation and give and take between the parties, and that has to be organised by somebody in the position of Lord Taylor. The best thing would be a whole-time organiser, and, to settle these very difficult questions, he must be a medical organiser as well. A person of that status and calibre must be fairly highly paid. Besides that, we have to have the buildings, we have to pay the staff and we have to acquire the equipment, and

469
all these things need a certain amount of money.
I wonder whether or not—and I think this is a matter for debate—the Government should help in the foundation of health centres of this sort. I know it can be said, and I think with force, that the Government should confine themselves to providing the minimum that is absolutely necessary, and that if private enterprise, industrial enterprise or anybody else wants to provide something a little better, it should raise the money to do so itself. A thing like this needs so much money to start and is so valuable to the community when it really gets going that any loans which the Government were able to make, in the way that the Nuffield Foundation did to Harlow, would soon be repaid, and the saving in industrial health and disease would be very great. I think the Committee is aware of the enormous number of days lost through industrial disease, far outstripping the number of days lost by strikes, which the public generally do not realise. It would be very valuable if that could be dealt with.
In going round the Centre, I was struck by the ingenuity by which X-ray machines had been acquired, often for a very small outlay, and that is illustrative of two things. One is the lavish equipment in the public service which causes these machines, which have many years of life in them, to be cast out so that they can be acquired by an enterprising person at almost derisory prices. Secondly, it illustrates what may become the merit of the block grant by which it is possible to make savings by intelligent buying, if the will to do so is there.
I welcome very much the announcement about salaries, because I had intended to say something about midwives who, as my right hon. and learned Friend knows, have been rather disturbed by their position until recently. In common with other hon. Members, I imagine, I have had a memorandum from the midwives asking that certain things should be done to improve their status and salaries. As I listened to my right hon. and learned Friend, I realised that every point that I had intended to make had been granted in the new arrangements that have been made, with the possible exception of one which my
470
right hon. and learned Friend did not mention. I think that, too, might well have been dealt with. Up to now, the promotion opportunities in the midwifery service have been rather small, and it has been suggested that in each unit of, say, fifty beds in large hospitals there should be a matron's job, so that there would be a little more opportunity of promotion in that service and thus provide an opportunity to those anxious to get on to do so.
I want next to deal with the Young-husband Report. I know that no conclusion about it has yet been reached and that there have to be consultations about it in the profession. However, I think that the House will welcome the largely sensible proposals in the Report and that, in general, it will in due course receive the commendation of the House.
However, it raises two broad questions about which I should like to ask at this early stage. In these days of increasing specialisation leading people to concentrate on isolated points, so to speak, rather than on the whole sphere of their profession, it becomes increasingly the case that some sections of medical or social science are almost left out of account because nobody is particularly-interested in them. That is particularly the field which the social workers cover and which the Younghusband Report says they should be more adequately trained to cover.
However, the Younghusband Report expects that social workers will have far more specialist training than has been the case hitherto. I am sure we welcome that, but I hope that those workers will not become so specialist that in a few years we find that some of their functions are left out and we have to appoint another committee to tell us that specialist training for social work has left some branches of this work uncovered.
Secondly, the Younghusband Report says that the work which will face these trained social workers is constantly expanding. I should like some explanation of what is meant by that. If it means that the work in connection with old people is constantly expanding, then it is easy to understand, because more people are reaching retiring age than has been the case before. But if it means

471
that people other than retirement pensioners will provide increasing work for the social workers which it is desired to train, then I am a little doubtful about it.
Is the assumption that as our bodily needs are met more adequately and as we live longer because of the better medicine which we have today, our moral and spiritual needs will become so great that we shall all have to have psychiatric treatment and call in the public service to help us when we have private difficulties? If that is the assumption, and if it is thought that as a nation we are becoming more juvenile and less adult and less able to manage our private affairs, then my right hon. and learned Friend should study the Report with a certain amount of caution, because that is not an assumption which should be accepted.
Lastly, I wish to refer to the position of the general practitioner who, after material construction, represents the most important factor in the National Health Service today. I hope that it will not be misunderstood if I say that the G.P. is not the man he was. He used to be more respected than he is now. He used to be a very good confident and mentor. [HON. MEMBERS: "He still is."] I say that he used to be more so. That is my point. He had a higher status in the past.
Perhaps I exaggerate in order to make my point, but I think that there is some danger of the G.P. becoming almost a medical mechanic, the chap one telephones to give one a certain note or to renew a prescription for mum's favourite medicine. His influence on personal matters is not exactly what it was. I believe that the mutual trust between the public and the G.P. has been somewhat damaged of recent years. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] I will not attempt to answer that, but I will put one or two facts to show why that is so.
At the beginning of the National Health Service, when many doctors suddenly had to look after longer lists of patients than before, there was bound to be a certain amount of dislocation, but I believe that those long lists have lasted too long and that they should now be reduced. I cannot but come to the conclusion that the basic reason why the lists have remained long is that G.P.s
472
are not paid enough and have to keep long lists in order to earn a living commensurate with their professional status. I know that it would be very difficult to work out, but that is my belief.
I understand that the G.P. is paid approximately £1 per patient per year. In the rural areas, such as that which I represent, making four or five journeys in a motor car, ten miles each way, and making five or six telephone calls to local hospitals to find whether there is a bed available for a patient, can soon eat up £1. That patient, if the doctor is being economic, is thereafter a dead loss to him—[Laughter.]—from a financial point of view. Perhaps that was not a happy phrase.
However, we cannot blame the doctor if sometimes he is slow to turn out when he thinks that he knows what the condition of the patient is and when he knows that the patient is a little fussy about wanting to be visited. There was a letter in the Daily Telegraph this morning which was headed, "Crying Wolf Too Often", or words to that effect, in which there was discussed the case of a doctor who had been disciplined for refusing to make a visit. The writer rightly said that doctors so often get called out on errands which are not emergencies, that if they occasionally make a mistake, that is understandable, although it is very damaging to the relationship between doctor and patient and damaging to the public estimation of the medical profession, which is a great pity.
Mr. A. Blenkinsop: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that all the investigations by the many committees which have studied this point have suggested that there is less calling out of doctors at night or at other inconvenient hours than used to be the case?
Mr. Kershaw: But it still exists. I am talking about how we can get rid of that in order to banish the feeling that the G.P. is not quite the chap he used to be.
Doctors are under pressure to keep their lists long and there are a few patients who abuse the position which they think they have under the Health Service. Many people consider, and I do not disagree with them, that they

473
have paid for their National Health Service and they are therefore determined to get the service which they think they ought to have. Of course, anyone who studies it knows that, in fact, that is not the case. Individually, we get the Health Service on the cheap, although as taxpayers we have to put on another hat and come to a somewhat different conclusion. As individuals we do not pay very much towards our Health Service benefits.
If the patient is unreasonable he can and, I am informed, sometimes does, indicate to the doctor that he will leave his list unless he gets the ambulance or other service which he requires. That does not make for good medicine or for that trust between doctor and patient which I should like to see.
Mr. John Diamond: Would the hon. Gentleman explain how an increase in the salaries or emoluments of doctors will prevent certain types of patients making excessive calls on their time?
Mr. Kershaw: My point is that at the moment there is a severe discipline on doctors to behave in a correct manner medically. No one disagrees with that, although whether as professional people they need such discipline is another matter.
Secondly, there is a financial discipline on the doctor in that, because he has to have a very long list to earn a proper living, his status and medical performance are reduced and he cannot afford to permit a patient to leave his list. If his list were shorter, or if he had a larger income, he would be much freer to behave entirely as the medical position of his patient warranted.
I am not saying that doctors should not give every possible medical attention. No one would suggest that for a moment. But, after all, doctors are professional men with long training and may be expected to know their duties to their profession and to their patients. It is a bad thing if a doctor has to have his eyes deflected, so to speak, from this by financial considerations which at the moment, I am certain, cause him a certain amount of anxiety.
It is said that doctors are guilty of over-prescribing. I wonder whether that
474
is so. One must reflect that the provision of an expensive drug may get a man back to work much quicker than if he went on with a less modern drug and less modern attention. This complaint of over-prescribing by doctors has been greatly exaggerated. I once ploughed through a book which set out to show that there was over-prescribing by doctors. It was a big, monumental sort of work, but in the end the only thing I could understand was that the price of prescriptions in Bournemouth was higher than the price of prescriptions in Wigan, which was not very surprising.
Any pettifogging control over the price of prescriptions is something which a professional man of the status of a doctor really ought not to be subjected to. If we could have the status of the doctor restored to a greater extent to what it used to be before the National Health Service came in, that would be to the great advantage of the Health Service, with which we and most doctors are very satisfied.
The status of the general practitioner is slightly reduced by the achievements of modern medicine because the G.P. cannot possibly know all the things that are going on in research and at the same time keep abreast of his practice. Many of his patients are taken away to the large hospitals where he cannot possibly follow them. In country districts that situation is very much better. For example, in my part of the world, where we have the advantage of cottage hospitals, the liaison between hospitals and G.P.s is excellent. In towns where the hospitals are necessarily very much bigger the hospitals cannot have the G.P.s milling around trying to find their patients all the time. It might be possible to make better arrangements for liaison between the G.P.s and the big hospitals. The status of the G.P. is very important. This is one of the growing pains of the National Health Service which can be overcome. One way of overcoming it is by giving to the G.P. a higher financial status than he has at present.
6.33 p.m.
Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw). Since his area got the new British Nylon Spinners factory some months ago, I have always

475
felt a little resentful towards him, but on this occasion I am very pleased to follow him in the debate because he said many pleasant things about my own profession.
I entirely agree that many doctors are so overstretched at work that they cannot give the kind of service that they would like to give, so the relationship between doctor and patient has to that extent been adversely affected and is not as good as it ought to be. Whether that adverse effect is because of the National Health Service is another argument. One has to look at conditions as they were before the Service was introduced, and then one finds that many medical men made very little money, especially if they were practising in industrial and slum districts. The very book to which the hon. Member for Stroud referred—I think it is called Social Aspects of Prescribing—illustrates that situation. Again, the pre-war figures of the number of patients per head of doctors show how lucrative it was to practise in a place like Bournemouth and how different it was in a place like Jarrow. Consequently, there were substantially far more doctors in Bournemouth than in Jarrow per head of the population before the war. It is hardly fair to say that the actual standard of practice has gone down throughout the whole of the profession.
The attitude of people towards doctors has changed, as it has to teachers and to many other professional people. We have become a less distinctive and stratified society since the war. People joined together more readily during the war and began to realise that people in other classes were not quite as snobbish, and on the other hand not quite as vulgar, as had previously been the belief. Social attitudes have changed a lot in twenty years. Doctors also have changed in their attitude to life. The striped trousers and the black jacket are no longer the fashion for doctors, and the tall hat in which—according to legend—one kept one's stethoscope has gone completely out of fashion. But today in many ways the doctors are more familiar with the lives of their patients. Whether that is a good thing or not is probably a subject for a social treatise.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning these matters. I hope
476
that the Royal Commission will bring in a formidable award for the doctors, especially those who have the very difficult task of managing a practice single-handed where group practice is not possible. Then there are doctors in difficult areas, for instance working in slum areas, and there should be some increase in their standard of living as well as some incentive to them to try to reduce their lists. My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) made a comment to me during the speech of the hon. Member for Stroud about the logic of his argument when he spoke of patients ringing up the doctor in the middle of the night. I believe it was said that, somehow or other, the doctor when shortening his list, would try to get rid of them.
Mr. Kershaw: There would be fewer people to ring up in the middle of the night.
Dr. Mabon: Perhaps. But I believe that there would then be an increasing tendency for doctors to report patients when large lists were no longer a primary aim. At the present time doctors do not, save in rare cases, report patients; it is the patients who report the doctors. Logically, doctors are entitled to report patients who lodge, falsely or maliciously, what they call an "emergency" call. There are some patients, one has to admit, who in their own minds regard every call as an emergency one, and the calls may not be regarded by the doctor as false or malicious even then. There are some patients, a minority I am glad to say, who would drag their doctors out of bed on quite ridiculous matters. It is wiser never to quarrel beforehand with those patients, but to fume after the event. Otherwise, as the hon. Gentleman said, we might end up with a dead loss.
I want to base my remarks on the question of waiting lists. I do not want the debate to degenerate into one of those marginal, statistical arguments, but I would argue that the next Government, whether it is constituted by my own party or by the party now in power, should look at the problem of waiting lists and try to do something about it. When we compare one waiting list with another, we find that the lists vary largely from district to district and from

477
hospital to hospital. Trying to link up the waiting lists with the number of consultants and staff employed in hospitals is a very obvious line of country to pursue, but it does not always follow that we can compare the services of the available part-time consultants and equate them with so many full-time consultants.
This is a question for the Ministry of Health and the Department of Health for Scotland. I am sorry to have to put them in that order, but I am afraid that in our administration in this country the Department of Health for Scotland usually trails behind the Ministry of Health in England. I hope that the Ministry will start a national survey of waiting lists and will try to persuade the Department of Health to follow. This should be a national survey based on common criteria to determine exactly what the waiting lists are and what steps are necessary to have them reduced.
I believe that one of the answers to the problem of reducing the waiting lists lies in the problem of the registrars, those much-neglected men of medicine, men of my own age or perhaps ten years older. If they are over forty and are still registrars, I am sorry for them. A number of them have left or are leaving the country because of the complete blockage in the higher reaches of the profession, not because of the intrinsic wickedness of the National Health Service as is often claimed, but because the Government have been unwilling to increase the number of consultant posts. It is ridiculous that we should have large lists of people waiting for important, serious operations, and yet do not provide more consultants. Unless we can make more consultant posts available, and especially more full-time consultant posts, we shall not make up the present back-log. At present many young men of medicine are completely frustrated in their medical careers and may end up by becoming embittered consultants for just a few years of their lives. That would be regrettable, but it will come about unless we do something.
The curious paradox is that if we do nothing about it we shall end up in twenty years with a tremendous gap because many people are being turned away from the specialities of medicine by reason of the blockage ahead of the
478
registrars. The young student tramping the wards with the registrar and the young houseman working alongside the registrar are influenced by the disappointed registrars who say, "It will be many years before I can get promotion. It will be another twenty years before so-and-so dies and I am able to step into a dead man's shoes."
This attitude is very bad. In twenty years' time we may not have the registrars to take the place of those who will then be moving up in the normal process of time.
I know that the Minister will reply that there is a committee inquiring into this subject. As long as I have been a Member of Parliament—and longer—there has been a committee going into this matter. We have been protesting for a long time, but we are getting nowhere. Since 1955 nothing in fact has been done about this. I remember an excellent article by a Scottish registrar in the British Medical Journal as early as 1956 asking for such a committee to be set up. I believe—we have had our Health Estimate debates in the Scottish Grand Commitee—that committee is still meeting on a United Kingdom basis, but we still have no report and I do not know when it will come. Is is tactically dependent on the Royal Commission? Perhaps the Secretary of State will give the doctors some news about that if there is some connection between one and the other and if there is some monetary link.
I turn now from the questions of the staff to deal with those who are waiting for medical attention to the actual facilities. The Tory Party, probably justifiably from its political point of view, takes great pride in its claims about the money being spent on the Health Service. I am glad that it is not substantially less in proportion compared with what the Labour Government spent, but I would point out that the Guillebaud Committee was most unhappy about the amount of money devoted to capital investment in the Service and about the proportion of the national product being put aside for the Service. This is a matter on which hon. Gentlemen opposite are blinding themselves with their own propaganda. They take a delight in saying that so many millions will be spent on hospital development in a certain time. However, the British Medical Association, hardly the

479
most Socialist and radical organisation in the country, has called for an expenditure of £750 million over ten years. That is an average of £75 million a year, which knocks the Government's present programme into a cocked hat. But these are realists. They are not men speaking with a vested interest or with a political return in mind. They are talking about actual need. I wish at times that in our political debates we talked about needs rather than the comparative endeavours of one party and another. That is a barren and sterile field. It may be of some use on the hustings, but it is no use in the House of Commons.
The hon. Member for Stroud—I am surprised that he does himself this injustice—tried to defend the actions of the Conservative Party in the House between 1945 and 1950. Why should he do so? He was not in the House at that time. Why should he take upon himself the sins of his predecessors in the Tory Party? All parties make mistakes. Why should the hon. Member, who was not in the House at the time, take upon himself the mistake then made by the Tory Party? It was an awful mistake, and the Tory Party has bitterly regretted it ever since. The posters which went up at the time of the 1950 General Election caused many a Labour supporter to smile. The Conservative and Unionist Party said, "We fought for the social services." The obvious reply was, "Methinks it doth protest too much." Politically, the National Health Service was a most popular Measure, and medically it was a wonderful step forward that had to come in some form or another when the war was over. To align one-self with the inevitable is a simple prerequisite of any sensible politician.
Mr. Kershaw: My point was not that the Tory Party never makes mistakes but that it did not make that mistake.
Dr. Mabon: I will not answer that point. The hon. Gentleman has not managed to capture his full tone of conviction. In other words, I do not think he really believes that.
On the subject of drugs, I want to say a word about the two Reports. I am glad that we are voting against the Government tonight to chop £10 off the Votes of the Ministry of Health and the Department of Health, for they have been most
480
remiss in respect of the Hinchliffe and Douglas Committees' Reports. Those are very valuable Reports. In a way they provide an answer to many of the charges made by politicians of all parties about the misuse of and extravagance in the use of drugs and so on. In other words, it is a most important part of our discussion politically, and I am surprised that the Government did not provide time of their own much earlier in which we could discuss these Reports.
The debate is, of course, a little ridiculous when one considers that we are trying to cover not only the Hinchliffe and Douglas Reports—and they have interesting variants in recommendations which are themselves worthy of discussion—but also the Cranbrook Committee's Report, the Montgomery Committee's Report—the Scottish equivalent—and the Younghusband Committee's Report. It is silly that the Government have not found more time to enable us to discuss these essential health matters.
Having read the Hinchliffe and Douglas Reports, I think we might be able now to proclaim that a rising drug bill does not necessarily mean wasteful use of drugs. It is high time we agreed on both sides not to talk about a rising drug bill as being evidence of extravagance. We are living in an era of improved medicines, and medicines which are in the initial stages expensive. We ought to recognise that there is a lot of work done in the financing of many of these new drugs which is valid expenditure and should be carried in the initial stages of the drug. What we should not allow to follow from that is that the manufacturer or discoverer should be able to fleece the community for longer than a reasonable period of time to enable him to recompense himself for his initial effort.
The greatest drug discovered since the end of the war is probably penicillin. The discoverer is dead, but it is worth while recalling that Sir Alexander Fleming gave the drug to humanity without patent and without seeking any recompense for himself. It would be a wonderful thing if others would follow suit and if the drug companies were willing to hand over advantages of that kind. That is, after all, the great conflict in medicine. We find it in many of the arguments that we hear.

481
Medicine is primarily a social service, and there should be no place in it for commercialism. It is probably one of the hard facts of life that there must be some private enterprise, some seeking after money, in some way or another, but we in the Committee must try to temper that commercial aspect with what are the fundamental objectives of medicine. I suggest that the fundamental aim is to provide the best drugs and the best treatment possible to the patient at the right time. I hope that the rising drug bill will be accepted by the Committee, that this will mean that we are on the way to better medicine and that this, in turn, may stop the carping about the expense of drugs.
Perhaps I might mention one useful recommendation in the Report to which the Minister referred this afternoon and which may cause a great deal of trouble. The Minister said that there would be discussion with the appropriate authorities on this subject. I refer to the recommended central expert body to decide on the therapeutic value of certain drugs. Several of my hon. Friends and myself met some representatives of the pharmaceutical industry yesterday and had a very long discussion with them. I think that the drug companies have a reasonable point of view in many ways and that their new code, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) referred, is commendable. What a pity that not all drug companies so far are observing this code. I look forward to the time when they do.
It seems to me, however, that we have here a most important question as to how we are to obtain any objective assessment of the merits of one drug as against another without the manufacturers becoming most annoyed at this independent assessment. If the expert body is considering the therapeutic value of drugs, it is bound to have to say at one time or another, "Drug A is therapeutically better than drug B." If these are proprietary drugs, then obviously the firm selling the apparently inferior drug will make a great protest. I suggest that every access to information and every method of communication should be possible between the company concerned and the central committee to make sure that there is no possible misrepresentation.
482
Nevertheless, we should not run away from the idea of a central body. We ought not to decide, simply because it will cause some embarrassment, that we should not have such a body. I remember an excellent article in the British Medical Journal not long ago by two Scottish doctors. It is amazing how the best doctors are so often Scottish doctors; I have to say that, because I should not be allowed back home if I did not. After going through all the various iron preparations these two doctors ended by saying that if doctors continued to prescribe tab. ferrous sulphate, grains three, t.i.d. the matter would be settled and there was no added therapeutic advantage in the other preparations. That is perhaps a little dogmatic, but it is a jolt, when we think of the great number of iron products available, to be told in a medical paper that this was so. It shows that this central body has a very wide field of opportunity open to it.
I remember as a student hearing one professor open his medical lecture by reading the B.M.A. pamphlets of 1909–10 exposing the drug rackets of that time. The B.M.A. has changed much since those early days. These were wonderful pamphlets to listen to as a student, and it was interesting to realise how much quackery went into drug advertising and selling. I do not say that by any means the majority of companies are like that today. Not at all. But there is a fringe which has to be exposed, and we must keep drugs under review to make sure that expensive substitutes are not foisted on the innocent people of this country.
I regard the Minister as one of the best debaters in the Committee, and I mean no disrespect to him when I say that, with the present Minister and the Joint Under-Secretary at the Scottish Office, I feel that we are not getting quite the kind of administration which we need at present. It may be competent. Ministers may tell themselves that that is so. It is not imaginative. So many opportunities are open to the Minister and to the Under-Secretary in medicine which offer a great challenge.
I hope that the positions of Minister of Health and of the Scottish Minister responsible for the Department will not be regarded merely as political posts which M.P.s of one party or another

483
pass through, but rather that the occupants of those offices will become imbued with the ideals of the professions within the ambit of the Ministry of Health and the Department, and that these offices themselves will become vocations. After the battle about wages, salaries and conditions has ended, we have to remember that doctors, nurses and midwives are not in the health professions to make money. I hope that the political heads of this Ministry and the Department, too, will work for the Service with imagination and will not regard their offices as merely timeserving posts in the Administration.
6.57 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: My brief to speak in the debate must be simply as a member of the general public, because I have little knowledge either of the administration or the practice of the National Health Service and can claim only general interest in the whole Service and particular interest in those parts of it which affect my own area.
In that connection I should like to pay a tribute to the National Health Service as it has been and is being administered in my part of the country. Country areas, with the distances involved and the variety of needs for different districts, often present greater problems to a central administration than do urban areas. In addition, the more individual qualities demanded in country practice tend to make uniformity more difficult to apply. In spite of these factors, the National Health Service in Aberdeenshire is extremely successful, although I do not say that there are not quarrels; in fact, there are.
At the moment a controversy is raging there about the projected closure of two small country hospitals. I am very much in favour of these hospitals and this kind of hospitals being kept open, if humanly possible. Every community, however distant, is equally important, those small and far away no less so than the larger and perhaps more compulsive ones nearer the centre. In the country areas, these tiny hospital units, which may look so unimportant on the books of the gleaming, starched frontages of the regional hospital boards, render an incalculable service to the community in
484
which they are situated. They therefore merit preservation in these communities for that reason alone and without necessarily raising consideration of the wider issues which must be involved in connection with larger units.
There has been considerable feeling in the past that certain types of hospital should be transferred to local health authorities. This has been denied, so far, and to my mind convincingly denied, but I think that there might be a case for transferring such small country hospitals to local authorities if in this way they should prove easier to administer and thus to maintain. I am certain that at least when they can preserve themselves they should be allowed to do so. I will go further. In this age of increasing paternalistic Government there is a case for that old function of patronage, under which those distant country areas used to be endowed locally by the leading families. This function of patronage should be transferred, if possible, to the central authority. It might be a little more expensive, but not very much more expensive, particularly when we consider the great contributions, including often large financial contributions, which these hospitals have made already to the National Health Service.
There is another case at Peterhead where a magnificent local effort is producing a large sum of money to contribute towards the building of a maternity home. This is being supported sympathetically by the regional hospital board. I hope that we shall continue to see that kind of co-operation between the central authority and the local community.
In my part of the world the incidence of G.P. beds in the hospitals is very high. That is very satisfactory, and I am glad that it continues to be still further encouraged. Obviously, it is desirable that the closest possible contact should be maintained between doctor and patient, and it is more than ever desirable that it should be maintained throughout the latter's stay in hospital, with the addition of specialist treatment on call should that prove necessary. After the reduction in general practitioner beds which resulted when the National Health Service was introduced, I am glad that the number should have been increasing slowly but steadily over the last five years. I am especially glad that it should be so high in my own area.

485
As a layman, it seems to me a pity that this practice should not extend to district nurses, particularly as regards midwifery. I understand that in the same way as sometimes concerns doctors this would represent considerable administrative and even psychological difficulties, but it might be worth while if those obstacles could be surmounted.
The great benefit we have in Scotland is that our teaching hospitals are, in nearly every case, grouped with ordinary hospitals and come under their direction. There is no question but that this method of administration is highly satisfactory.
There is one feature about the Health Service which tends to annoy people like me who do not know very much about it. It seems to us that foreigners receive just as much benefit from the Health Service as we do, without contributing anything towards it in any way. I have been making inquiries about this and I find that this annoyance is based, to a certain extent, upon misconceptions which I do not think are widely enough known outside. First, the direct contribution towards the Health Service is very small, because most of its expense is met by taxation. Secondly, those people who are supposed to come to this country in order to benefit from the Health Service have to pay. Finally, it has been made clear to me that to find out who are the people who fall sick while visiting this country, and who therefore profit from the Health Service, and to get their bills paid would require extremely complicated and expensive administrative machinery. In addition, the numbers are fairly small.
Provided that these visitors do not receive priority treatment to the detriment of our own countrymen, I think that we should accept the position with more equanimity than we do at present. Obviously, the way to solve this problem is to try wherever possible to make reciprocal agreements with other countries. I hope that everything possible is being done in that respect.
7.3 p.m.
Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I am glad at least to be able to congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) on some of his last comments
486
It is true that many rather foolish things are said about foreigners coming to this country and gaining enormous advantages from our Health Service, but they make some contribution to it themselves in our general taxation, and the numbers are certainly small. Administratively it would be very complicated to recover the money. It is a good advertisement for our National Health Service that we should be doing this. Our attitude should rather be to try to extend this type of facility to other countries. There are already some agreements. I wish that there were none. I believe that it is possible that as time goes by more will realise with shame that they do not provide the kind of facilities which I hope we are proud of in this country. After all, we are only following the practice of some hospitals and monasteries of the Middle Ages. In this case, it is a good tradition to follow.
I wish, chiefly, to concentrate my remarks upon certain points which I felt that the Minister rode away on rather too easily. We are all delighted at and immensely proud of some of the excellent work being done by the National Health Service. We were delighted to hear some of the figures given by the Minister. We are over-joyed that there should be so many receiving such very real and tangible benefits from the service. What annoys us and makes us sometimes rather bitter is the fact that we feel that we have a tool which is not being properly and fully used. We believe that the Health Service is capable of far fuller service to the people and that opportunity is not being taken. We believe that there is a lack of drive, energy and determination on the part of the Ministry. It is not wholly the fault of the Minister. No doubt some of the complaints could fairly be laid at the doors of other Ministers than the Minister of Health, but as head of the Department he must accept responsibility for the disappointment felt by many people at the lack of development over these years.
The account given by the right hon. Gentleman, pleasing though it was, is not encouraging to anyone who thinks about the possibilities and potentialities of the Service, which are not being properly and fully utilised. I will start by examining what the Minister said, for example, about capital expenditure.

487
He can rightly comment on the figures for capital expenditure in the early years at the end of the war when the Health Service was being established. Relatively, those figures were small. How could they be anything else? It is not a criticism to bring those into the argument. In any case, if the right hon. Gentleman cares to examine the figures quoted by Professor Titmuss and Dr. Abel-Smith in their report to the Guillebaud Committee he will see a much more careful analysis of the proper expenditure in terms of assets on the capital side in the Health Service in the years of the Labour administration and the years immediately following in the Conservative administration. That gives a rather different picture. One must look at these figures very critically.
At this moment when the Government are congratulating themselves upon their ability to encourage all kinds of building to take place—it is a rather different picture from a year ago—it is most extraordinary that we are seeing these faceless blocks of office buildings going up all over London. They have no architectural merit. They are built without any architect knowing for what he is building or designing in nearly every case. There are some very despicable efforts to be seen in London. All this is going on at the same time as we are being told that we should be proud that we are to spend on capital account in the current financial year about £25 million, taking into account the capital expenditure in Scotland. That is to be set against the figure which the Guillebaud Committee at the beginning of 1956 recommended for seven years of £30 million per year. In present-day terms of money values that figure would be higher. Probably it would be 10 or 11 per cent. higher.
I am wholly unimpressed by the Minister saying to us that we should be delighted to learn that £25 million will be spent on capital expenditure in the current year. That should be set against some of the facts given in the British Medical Journal of 4th April in the excellent report that it produced on hospital building. The Minister should study the report very carefully. It is a very carefully prepared report. It comments on the position and age of our hospital buildings. On take-over in
488
1948 two-thirds of the hospitals were built before 1891 and one-quarter were built before 1861. That means that a quarter of them were 100 years old.
In such a situation, while it was obviously essential at the immediate outset of the Service to make do and mend in every way we could—and we did miracles in that way considering our resources—it is no longer a sensible policy to adopt. Today, it is a very uneconomic policy to adopt. One is worried by some of the examples still to be seen of the continuation of this policy. As I say, it was inevitable in the early years after the war, but when one looks around and sees the other use made of material and manpower today it is obvious that it is inevitable no longer.
The report in the British Medical Journal gives three examples. I shall not weary the Committee by reciting them all, but I will quote only one, which, incidentally, is similar to a case of which I have personal knowledge. This report speaks of:
"A special hospital where £1 million will be spent on extensions to an already obsolete building because money is not forthcoming for a completely new hospital But after this there will still not be an efficient hospital commensurate with the work to be done."
What we have to ask ourselves is whether, in many cases, we are putting highly expensive equipment into old buildings that are not worthy of that equipment, or of all the other inside alterations that are thereby made necessary.
I could quote many cases where such things are still being done. It seems utterly foolish. If the Minister was facing his problems at all actively, he ought to have got the support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a programme much more ambitious than that announced. I am very disappointed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not been able to say any more than we know of the programmes for next year, with a small advance in the succeeding year.
It makes very poor reading as against either the recommendation of the Guillebaud Committee—and that, I think, was too modest, anyhow—or the rather more ambitious but much more realistic programme set before us by the writers of the article in the British Medical Journal.

489
I hope that we shall soon have a Minister ambitious enough to see the importance of a real new programme of hospital building phased over a number of years; realising that this cannot be done in a moment, but realising, too, that we could probably gain great economies from full exploitation of modern architectural designs truly adaptable to changing uses.
We want no more of the old form of traditional hospital building that forces us, long after its use has passed, to make expensive alterations in a large and heavy structure. Today, we must think in terms of much lighter and adaptable construction, and excellent work has been done in this regard by the Nuffield Trust. That cannot be done unless the resources are made available. The ten years that have passed will not have been utterly wasted if we now have a really ambitious programme to make use of the fresh ideas that have developed in those years. But I see very little evidence of that at present, and I am very sorry that more has not been done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) said that it was not easy to judge waiting lists, as different factors operate in different areas, but he invited the Minister to get on with a national inquiry into this subject so that we could judge it more fairly. I have been urging on the Minister for some time now a fuller examination of the whole question of waiting lists. The same issue of the British Medical Journal points out some quite pertinent facts. It says:
"The waiting-lists should be also considered with reference to the need for more hospital building"
The writers point out that while there has been a great improvement in the treatment of the more urgent medical cases there is a great list of patients with what are, perhaps, less serious conditions, but conditions that enforce a very great deal of hardship on the patient, and possibly upon the whole economy.
They point out, for example, that the hospital service
"… should also consider any other conditions which affect health and efficiency, such as hernia, haemorrhoids, varicose veins and genito-urinary conditions."
In this connection, one could add conditions arising from industrial injuries. They say:
490
"The waiting-list for these complaints is often two years or more, and from the point of view of the country's economy earlier treatment of these less urgent problems should be a major aim."
I cannot detect in the Minister any appreciation of the urgency of this. He passes it off with a good-humoured quip as if it were of less significance. The Health Service should now be in a position to deal with these matters, and it is shocking that after the passage of all these years we should read in the official records that over the last two years the waiting lists have been growing.
That is tragic, of course, and it should give us all great anxiety. While action is probably being taken in some areas to improve the position, it is very unsatisfactory to know that more and more people—and the country, too—are being put to the loss involved in these very heavy waiting lists. In England and Wales alone there were about 440,000 patients on the lists at the end of last year. That is a tragic state of affairs, and not one of which the Minister can for a moment pretend to be proud.
Those waiting lists must be tackled by tackling the problem of the shortage of fully-qualified consultants. There is undoubtedly a need to break this jam in the hospitals. There are far too many junior and senior registrars having to take up work that should be done at the consultant level. That results from a lack of sufficient appointments. If we look at the figures, we can see that the great expansion that took place in appointments in the early years of the National Health Service has flattened out, and there has been relatively little increase in the last few years. This has stultified the whole position, and has frustrated numbers of young and able men who have not been able to advance in the Service.
The position also results partly from the lack of some proper form of self-discipline among senior consultants. Even if it hurts some of my hon. Friends to hear it, one has to face the fact that the members of the medical profession sometimes look upon themselves a little too much as gods. One must try to get a more rational, modern view of the position of the doctor and the specialist. It is fair criticism to say that in some respects the National Health Service, so far from imposing too strict conditions

491
upon the medical profession, has allowed the profession unduly to dominate the National Health Service.
I agree with my hon. Friends who have said that we should ensure that the doctor has proper freedom in his work, but if that freedom is to be assured to the medical profession, the profession must look to the actions of a minority of their number who impose an unfair burden upon the rest of their colleagues, quite apart from anybody else.
We have 56,000 building trade and constructional workers out of work in England and Wales. Why are we not using them to get on with the really imaginative hospital building programme that is needed to deal with these waiting lists? We have idle resources, and surely there is no reason for not utilising them properly.
The Minister dealt too lightly with the question of prescription charges and the recommendations of the Hinchliffe Committee. I notice, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), that the Hinchliffe Committee argues strongly that the effect of the prescription charges has been to stimulate the wrong incentives. The Committee states that these charges have twisted the Service and have given it a wrong direction. The Committee goes on with suggestions for easing the change-over, to make it as smooth as possible, and indeed it would be surprising if a a body like the Hinchliffe Committee did not take this modest view of the matter.
Nevertheless, the Committee goes on to say in firm terms in paragraph 288:
"We consider that the present charge is a tax which stimulates avoiding action and is resented by patients and doctors as a tax on illness."
Then the Report goes on to discuss the position of dispensing doctors and so on, and states:
"We conclude therefore that, besides stimulating the wrong incentives, the charge per prescription has proved disappointing financially."
That is in paragraph 289, if the right hon. Gentleman is following the Report closely.
It seems to me that, faced with a recommendation of that kind with those rather worrying words, and backed up
492
by the other Reports of which we have heard dealing with the effect of prescription charges, besides the investigation that was made and reported in the British Medical Journal and the Lancet not long ago, as well as the recommendations of the British Medical Association, we have a right to expect more from the Minister than the mere statement that he is prepared to consult with the medical profession about the proposal for limiting the quantities of drugs.
In view of that expression of opinion about the serious effect of prescription charges, we have a right to expect the Minister to be more forthcoming instead of merely saying that he is prepared to discuss the quantities prescribed. I recognise that we have a Conservative Government and we cannot expect everything straight away, but we do at least expect a temporary review of the present charges and some sort of undertaking that the Government are prepared to make this kind of gesture——
Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman has referred to several paragraphs of the Hinchliffe Report, but if he wants the Committee to know precisely what the Hinchliffe Committee suggested he must refer to paragraphs 299 and 301, of which he stopped short. If he will read those paragraphs and then read my speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow, which I am sure he will do in any case, he will see that we have recognised the constructive approach suggested in the Report and he will also see how far we have gone.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Yes, but what I am complaining about is that the Minister is following the very modest view expressed in the Hinchliffe Report and has not gone any further. I believe that the Minister, faced with these worrying comments in the Report, should have gone much further and should have said, "In order to prove to the medical profession that we are really sincere in being prepared to withdraw the charge, we will at least take some interim action in this matter." That surely would have been a reasonable approach. I know the recommendations which the Hinchliffe Committee has made. They have been referred to on several occasions and, indeed, the right hon. and learned Gentleman read them out. I am not

493
trying to dodge them. They are very well known. What I am saying is that they do not satisfy us and they are not sufficient. If the Minister were really concerned about the matter I feel that he should have gone much further than he has done.
My right hon. Friend and, indeed, the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the question of the preventive services and called attention to the need for a more vigorous attitude to prevention. Although the Minister fairly quoted the figures relating to the expansion that has taken place—and I do not blame him for doing so—I feel that anyone with knowledge of any of these services, such as the mental health service, will know how little those figures actually cover. The Minister may say that there has been an expansion, or even a doubling of the expenditure, in the local authority mental health service, but in fact every expert with knowledge of this work knows how minute is the work at the moment. They know, and the Minister recognises, that there are certain cities which have made considerable efforts in this field, and we are all full of admiration for them, but over the country as a whole there has been a lack of action.
I have recently addressed members of hospital management committees and local authority health committees, and I have been disturbed by their apparent willingness to "pass the buck" to somebody else to get on with this work. This will not do. The Minister's weakness in allowing the Government and the Treasury to get away with the block grant has shackled him and has made it unlikely that this important work will be properly carried out.
If the Minister really had the drive that we expect from a Minister of Health, there ought now to be a great effort at developing an industrial health service which is now vital to Britain. It could save us an enormous amount of money. We are losing a great deal in terms of economic effort because of the colossal rate of preventable illness and accident in industry.
The Minister has been far too complacent. The need today is for a Minister with real energy, who is prepared to challenge the Treasury and the country, and to reveal the great opportunities which He before us in our National
494
Health Service, of which we are proud but which at the moment, I feel, are not being taken to the full.
7.28 p.m.
Sir Keith Joseph: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) who has delivered a well-informed speech, but I suggest that in two respects he has omitted to mention some of the hopeful elements.
He talked of the hospital building programme. I should think that every hon. Member would like the capital programme to be even larger than it is today, but we must recognise that there is keen competition for many alternative uses of our resources, and I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health on the slice that he has got for the hospital building programme.
I should like to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend also on the fact that he has taken a leaf out of the very successful book of the Minister of Education and his predecessors in both parties. The building development unit of the Ministry of Education has succeeded, ever since the war, in steadily reducing the cost of even better schools each year, despite the rise in the costs of building. If the development unit in the Ministry of Health can, over the years—it will not be a quick job—produce a revolution in the cost of hospital building much the same as has been produced in school building, the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East will find that the money available for the hospital building programme will go very much further than it seems likely to go today.
I particularly congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his decision to use this building development unit in producing prototypes which, when suitable may be built by his Ministry. This is the way to try out the ideas, see to what extent they are successful, and, when they are successful, persuade the regional hospital boards to copy them. I feel that the hon. Gentleman missed a very hopeful point in the capital programme which he criticised when he did not mention that.
It was interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman stress, once again, as the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) did, that the

495
removal of the prescription charge has first place in the Opposition's list of priorities for the Health Service. I have seen very little evidence—hon. Members opposite will give me credit for reading almost everything which comes out on the subject—that, bearing in mind the work of the National Assistance Board, people are, or need be, inhibited by the charge as it is now from using medicines, if they take advantage of the resources available from the taxpayer through the National Assistance Board. If we found that people were inhibited from using medicine, this would be a most persuasive argument against the charge in its present form.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the hon. Gentleman deny the point made very clearly in the Hinchliffe Report and other Reports which have been published?
Sir K. Joseph: No. I admit readily that the quantities seem to have grown with the present form of prescription charge; but my right hon. and learned Friend has said clearly that he is having consultations with a view to meeting the recommendations of the Hinchliffe Committee on this point.
Turning to the general subject of the debate, I will start by saying that the Committee as a whole should welcome the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend for the indications it gave of very remarkable progress. This progress, of course, has been brought about not only by the administrators, and still less by the politicians, but by the scientists, doctors, nurses and everyone working in this vast field of health. There has been most remarkable progress on a score of fronts.
I particularly welcome the creation of the hospital efficiency service, which gives a good start to the expansion of the organisation and methods service which many of us hope will relieve the burden on the manual and nursing workers in hospitals, while improving the service to the public and increasing the value for money.
I wish to concentrate not on the work which falls exclusively within the province of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health. I believe that the subject mooted today in the columns of The Times by a letter from
496
Sir George Schuster—a subject which has been referred to by the right hon. Lady and spoken about also at length and with feeling by my right hon. and learned Friend—the theme of coordination—is something to which we here should pay more attention. It is, as it were, the twilight area in which the citizen often finds himself. With the best will in the world, with all our different organs dealing with health, the citizen who does fall ill often does not derive the best value from the health and welfare services simply because the co-ordination is not as good as it might be.
New Reports tend to steal the limelight from the old. I have here a dogeared copy of the Boucher Report on the Services Available to the Chronic Sick and Elderly, and I feel that this Report has been far too little discussed in the House of Commons. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on publishing it. I congratulate his predecessor on conceiving it. I congratulate Dr. Boucher and all concerned on preparing it. The question now is, what on earth can be done to propagate what it has to teach? Within the pages of the Boucher Report there is an answer to almost every problem. Somewhere in the country, someone has the solution to every difficulty in coordination. There is good practice in every complex situation. How are we to spread the good practice in a field where everyone is either a professional worker or, at any rate, not under the command of my right hon. and learned Friend?
There are four particular obstacles in the way of co-ordination: the problems of direction, the problems of planning and research, the problems of staffing, and the problems of finance. With a blush, I confess that, at one time, I was one who thought that all welfare activities should be tidily packed under one super-Minister. After examination, I have realised the error of my ways. It would be utterly beyond the power of anyone responsible to the House to cover the whole range of welfare activities. Any analogy with defence which I or anyone at one time propounded does not give the right answer in this case.
There is no need to be too ambitious in order to achieve some partial success.

497
My right hon. and learned Friend will realise that it is no reflection on him personally—anything but—when I say that the pattern in Scotland is one which we in England could learn from. In Scotland, there is the conjunction of housing, health and local government. There is no reason, therefore, why it should not, at least, be considered in England.
It would bring under one political control those activities which, we know, most directly affect the citizen, the local authority preventive services, the hospital services and the medical services. To those it would add the vital service of housing, particularly important in preparation for the increasing proportion of the old in our population. It would mean one Minister fewer, but it would, after all, merely restore the arrangement under which this country was governed until fairly recently, and I believe that much good would come out of it.
Only in this way, perhaps, could the lessons of the Boucher Report be really driven home by one man at the top of the local government, executive council and hospital pyramid. Only then would one stream of circulars be sent out, and only then would all the officers concerned, the planning and executive officers, have their place in the same pyramid and be answerable to the same Minister.
A Minister with power but without research or planning staff is almost valueless, just as a planning and research staff without a unifying Ministry is impotent. There is much to be learnt from Sir George Schuster's excellent pamphlet, "Creative Leadership in the Health Service". He drew attention there, as many others have done, to the need for more research.
I speak diffidently here because I am, obviously, not claiming that we need a great research staff in order to discover several things which commonsense tells us should be done today, if we have the money and the staff. I do suggest, however, that there are subjects whose solution might baffle the most conscientious civil servants, who are, after all, kept very busy. The civil servants are not free to roam away from their immediate preoccupations, and they are not, usually, equipped with statistical or
498
other such specialised research knowledge. Besides, it cannot always be easy for people in the Departments to criticise policy.
The sort of research I have in mind has been pleaded for by Younghusband, by Hinchliffe, by the National Corporation for the Care of Old People, by Lady Wootton in her book, and by many other pundits. Might it not be that this kind of research could be done best outside the Government machine altogether? I know that the Ministry of Health, in its Part II Report this year, pleads for more research through the local authorities, outside its own door. But might it not be that there is a place in the social services for, as it were, a Chatham House, an independent body, supported, perhaps, as Chatham House is, partly by subscriptions from corporate bodies and individuals and partly by Government grant?
Such an establishment could fill out the work at present being done by the Nuffield Foundation and the King Edward Foundation, for instance. It would not only be able to initiate new research and, perhaps, experiments, but it would be able, also, to absorb and digest the countless disparate ideas about the social services which are flooding forth from so many different sources today. I am sure they cannot properly be absorbed by Ministries which are separate and concerned with health, on the one hand, and local government, on the other. The civil servants in the Ministries are desperately busy with the myriad activities for which they are responsible daily in their separate Departments. I very much feel, therefore, that there is room for more research.
It is with even more diffidence that I mention a relatively new type, namely, operational research. This is the study of the cost and service resulting from different combinations of variable factors. It is a new technique used in plenty by Government Departments, particularly by the Service Ministries. It is used by the nationalised boards, particularly the National Coal Board, and it is used ever more progressively and increasingly by private industry. All of these—public bodies, the nationalised boards and private enterprise—find that operational research pays. May it not be—and I say this very humbly—that

499
the social services might find that it would pay also?
I realise that in private enterprise and public enterprise profit is a motive which lends itself to easy measurement. If the question is "Shall we have a coal mine here, or a coal mine there?" then, "Which will be cheaper in cost?" gives a starting point for comparison. It is not possible to do the same with welfare, because so many social factors are involved. If we are to make use of operational research we should start now by setting up a small unit, either within the Government or encouraged by the Government, in a sort of Chatham House outside the Government which will begin to formulate the criteria which one day will permit us to use these new and remarkable techniques for the more effective service of the public in the social services.
If I were asked to give examples of what sort of work such a body would do if it were in action, I would ask where study is being given to the comparative results and costs of the normal mental health service in comparison with the Health Service being provided at Worthing, Oldham, York and Nottingham. I would ask where consideration is being given to the remarkable work of Martin in his book called "The Social Aspects of Prescribing ". I would ask which Ministry or Department is conducting research into the question whether it is better in an ageing population to expand our domiciliary services—that would involve higher wages for more home helps and possibly constant attendance allowances—or whether it is better to expand Part III accommodation or geriatric wards in hospitals.
I do not believe that the Ministry as at present constituted can handle academically—and there is some academic work to be done before a practical policy can be arrived at—these issues which span the frontiers of several Ministries and which often involve the accumulation of detailed information which no Ministry is equipped to obtain. I therefore plead for more research to help the Ministry.
Thirdly, I want to deal with the question of staff. I realise that the Young-husband Report was so recently published
500
that very few of us can have had time to arrive at a clear view. I believe after one reading that it is a splendid Report, taken as a coherent whole. I am disappointed only that in its panoply of social work it has not made provision for the training of people at a policy level. How does the Committee think that in future we shall get the heads of local authority welfare departments? These are people who would benefit possibly from university courses after they have had some experience in the field. I believe that that is the only omission in the Report.
I very much welcome the idea of a national council for social work training and I hope that the staff college, which would be of infinite value in spreading good ideas as well as in teaching and carrying out the functions which the Report suggests, will get a favourable wind from any voluntary bodies which it is hoped may support it.
I now turn to the most obdurate problem of all, namely, finance. As we all know, even with the best will in the world, bodies required to co-operate and which draw their finances from different sources often find that they have contradictory interests. As we all know, the running cost of the Health Service is paid for by the taxpayer above the line in the Budget, while the Health Service capital cost is borne below the line in the Budget. Local authority preventive services are borne by the grant-aided rates and the preventive service capital costs are at the moment paid for through the normal money market. These are different sources and it must mean that any problem that falls to be decided for the benefit of a whole area or region is often decided by parochial considerations. These are not unnatural considerations to be taken into account.
How can this problem be overcome? The suggestion of coalescing the services under one Ministry will not overcome it. It is true that Professor Chester, of Manchester, suggested that the Health Service should be run on similar lines to the National Assistance Board, as a quite separate executive body looking to a political Minister purely for political policy and, within that, carrying on as separately from politics as possible. I do not think that Professor Chester deals with the delicate financial issue, namely,

501
from where would this supposed board get its money? I believe that one day it might be possible to set up a board in each area which would draw its income partly from the taxpayer and partly from the ratepayer but spend it impartially. That is a far cry from where we are today and would have the gravest implications for local authorities. I put the suggestion forward very tentatively.
I put forward these structural comments on the Health Service, particularly these remarks about the Ministry, research and finance, so that the common purpose of co-ordination may be achieved without damaging any other factor. I do not believe that there is need for a dramatic jump. If there had to be a dramatic jump, I think that there would be far less chance of making progress.
We should move forward stage by stage, leaving the big financial hurdle until last, because the previous stage of coalescing Ministerial control, if it were considered practicable, and serving that Ministry with either internal or external research facilities, may possibly avoid the need to tackle the financial obstacle altogether. The obstacle may disappear, but I am certain that, if we do not take a step towards the structural changes soon, we shall still be considering the problem of co-ordination in ten years' time. Even if we start making these changes soon, it will still be some years before we begin to bring the benefit of this sort of combined operation to the people for whom the Health Service is designed, namely, the citizens of this country.
7.48 p.m.
Mrs. Mary McAlister: We have heard a lot today about the improvement in public health since the advent of the National Health Service. I am sorry that the Minister is going away.
Mr. Walker-Smith: I think that the hon. Lady will be fair and realise that I have been here all day, except for about five minutes, and, much as I would like to listen to her speech, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will listen to her with great care. I shall certainly give myself the pleasure of reading her speech tomorrow.
Mrs. McAlister: As I was saying, we have heard a lot about the revolutionary changes in public health since the advent of the National Health Service. Even if I sat on the Government benches—which heaven forbid—I could not deny a word of that. There is no doubt about it. It is not long since I told the Scottish Standing Committee of the revolutionary changes which I have seen in my lifetime, such as the virtual disappearance of diphtheria and the changes in the treatment of tuberculosis, pneumonia, and so on.
I was also interested to hear the Minister of Health refer to nursing as a calling when he was dealing with the improvement in the recruitment of nurses. There is no doubt that nursing is a calling. Unfortunately, however, this fact has been used as the basis for exploitation of the profession over a large number of years and ultimately it did the profession a great deal of damage. Because service cannot fully be paid for in money, it does not follow automatically that the minimum of money need be paid for it. We are glad that there is now at least a step in the right direction concerning the remuneration of nurses and midwives. Those are the comments that I particularly wanted the Minister to hear me say.
Although I have always had a great aversion to repetition and to saying anything that has been said over and over again, I am unable to make any apology for returning to the serious matters affecting public health in my own city of Glasgow. Year after year, in the annual reports of the medical officer of health, attention has been drawn to the serious—indeed, tragic—shortage of maternity beds in Glasgow. "Tragic" is not too strong a word to use—it certainly is not an unfair word to use—if we take account of the infant mortality figures of Glasgow. In the natural order of things, these figures should be falling. Far from showing any decline, however, last year they were actually up. They stood then as the highest in Scotland and by far the highest among comparable cities in Britain.
The serious disadvantages that Glasgow suffers have been frequently referred to and are clearly reflected in the percentage figures of mothers who are unable to have their babies in hospital.

503
Only 63·5 per cent. of Glasgow mothers have this facility, as against no less than 91·4 per cent. in Aberdeen. There is room for difference of opinion as to the advisability of all mothers having their children in hospital. Not even obstetricians and gynaecologists are agreed about this, as was made clear to me when giving evidence before the maternity committee about a couple of years ago.
Other things being equal, or anything like equal, I do not say that all mothers should have their children in hospital—I am not qualified to do so. I am dealing not with a medical matter, but with a social question. Housing conditions over large areas of Glasgow are such that there could not possibly be any two opinions as to where mothers from certain areas of Glasgow should have their babies.
It is only a few weeks ago that the Minister agreed with me that housing in certain areas of Glasgow constituted a public scandal. He was widely quoted to that effect in several Glasgow papers. The Report on maternity services drew attention to another result of bed shortage in the city, that is, the necessity to discharge patients much earlier than they should be discharged. The Report stated that while a ten-day period was desirable, indeed, was necessary, discharge in seven or eight days was fairly common. To be fair, however, the Report stated that some gynaecologists and obstetricians think that with the present shortage of beds, more admissions and shorter stays would be preferable. The witnesses from the Royal College of Nursing, however, who probably know more about social conditions than anybody else, said that the discharge of mothers before the tenth day made it much more difficult to establish good feeding habits and to get mothers into the right routine, and, in addition, placed a terrible strain upon the domiciliary services.
The Secretary of State for Scotland said in answer to a Question only the other day that it was not within his knowledge that there was a general shortage of domiciliary midwives. That is not my information, and I am in fairly close touch with those who should know. I know that the Royal College of Mid-wives is presently engaged in compiling
504
evidence on the whole question of mid-wives in Scotland and hopes shortly to meet the Minister on this very matter and to put before him the state of affairs regarding domiciliary midwives in Scotland.
What kind of response have we had so far to Questions on this subject? We have been told in a vague sort of way that progress is being made in Glasgow. I do not blame the Minister for being vague, because things are not progressing at all, or, if they are, the progress is so slow that nobody in Glasgow seems to notice it.
As I have said before, I do not want to harass the Minister or anyone else, but what are the facts? The proposed increases in maternity accommodation in Glasgow are fifteen additional beds in Redlands, twenty additional beds in Robroyston and the conversion of pavilions at Belvedere Fever Hospital to give fifty beds. This additional accommodation, however, will not be ready until the end of 1960. With regard to Yorkhill Hospital, at which it is proposed to build a maternity hospital, the piling of the site begins this autumn, and, according to somebody who ought to know, it would appear that the hospital will be ready in about five years from now.
The new hospital is to accommodate 112 patients, but the accommodation at Lennox Castle, which has approximately 80 ante-natal and lying-in beds, must be offset against this because, we understand in Glasgow, the beds at present being used for maternity purposes in Lennox Castle are to revert to their original purposes for mental defectives. I do not say that this is correct. I simply put it to the Minister. I understand that these units will be closed. There is one gynaecological unit there which, I presume, will also be given back for the accommodation of the mentally handicapped.
I want the Minister seriously to consider these figures which I have given. The medical officer of health for Glasgow and everybody connected with child welfare and maternity in Glasgow are seriously concerned about the position. I know that the Minister has a great deal to do and that he cannot know everything. I do not know who is

505
advising him on the question of maternity services in Glasgow, but he has certainly been ill-advised. I implore him to look at these figures and to find out whether what I am saying is correct. I am positive that it is correct. I have a fairly long experience of maternity services in Glasgow. I served on the Health Committee for a great number of years and was its chairman for three years and I know something about the conditions in the city.
I have already drawn the attention of the House of Commons to the housing conditions in the constituency which I represent. I tried not to be dramatic, but I pointed out that in some of the houses the people had become so accustomed to rats on the premises that they did not complain unless the rats got really cheeky, such as facing up to the cat, as, in one case, they are said to have done. That illustrates the condition of housing in some parts of my constituency. I implore the Minister to look into this matter, if only because I am continually being harassed by officials, by mothers and by all sorts of persons in the constituency and throughout Glasgow on account of the state of affairs in the Glasgow maternity services.
The same degree of complacency, I am sorry to say, seems to exist in regard to geriatric beds. When the famous X-ray drives were in the offing, we were told over and over again that when the beds were evacuated by tuberculosis patients they would be available for other purposes. We have been told over and over again that this, that and the other place is not suitable as a hospital for old people.
Nobody will tell me that any hospital bed or any hospital ward in the City of Glasgow, or even in the precincts of the City of Glasgow, however primitive, is less suitable for old people than some of the places in which they are presently living in Glasgow. Nobody will tell me that, because I simply will not take it in. Apart from that, a geriatric specialist told me only about four months ago that the closing of any beds at this time was quite unjustified.
We have been told today by the Minister—I do not know whether it applies to Scotland or not—that nursing recruitment has been speeded up. I am very glad to hear that. I gather that that
506
cannot be put forward as an excuse for closing beds. It may have been a legitimate excuse at one time that we could not find the staff, but that is no excuse at this moment.
I implore the Secretary of State to look at these figures and to find out for himself whether what I am saying about the City of Glasgow is true.
8.1 p.m.
Dr. Donald Johnson: Anyone who has had the honour to participate in this debate has been offered scope for a wide variety of comments in the multifarious activities of the National Health Service at the present time, and one is tempted accordingly to offer one's opinion on this wide variety of activities. However, it is my intention to resist this temptation in what I have to say tonight and to concentrate on an aspect which has figured prominently in the speeches of one or two of the previous speakers, an aspect which is, perhaps, in the most critical state of any part of the National Health Service at present, and an aspect also on which I think I can claim some right to comment. I refer to general practice and my own position as a former general practitioner. I am only sorry, in the light of what the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) said a little earlier, that I appear to be improperly dressed for the occasion—in the light of what he had to say about modern doctors' garb.
General practice can be rightly said to be in a turmoil at present. On the one hand, as we know, the Royal Commission on doctors' pay is sitting. On the other hand, in the background there is the rumble of threats from the doctors that they are making preparations to withdraw their services from the National Health Service. In my remarks I am glad to support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw). I think that that is mistakenly put. I should have said it the other way round. I am sorry to say that I have to support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud when he spoke about the present general decline in the position of the general practitioner.
In the light of the various comments which that provoked from the other side, I hope I can be excused for putting my

507
exact credentials, even though the numbers left to interrupt on the opposite benches have rather dwindled in the meantime. I was not only brought up in a general practitioner's home, for my father was a general practitioner in the town of Bury in Lancashire for forty years, but I was myself trained as a general practitioner and practised for some seven years wholetime when I started doctoring. Then I had the unique experience some fourteen years later to return to the same area of practice on a part-time basis, in which capacity I helped my former colleagues. I was doing that right up to the time I entered the House of Commons in 1955. In view of what I have to say, I think I must make it clear that my experience was confined to the most successful practices in the district, though I have to admit that it was confined almost to urban practice and I have very little experience of country practice in which the circumstances are different and, I think, perhaps a little happier at the present time.
As one who has spent a substantial part of his life in the practice of medicine, I share the aspirations that realised themselves in the National Health Service, but I consider that the National Health Service in this respect of general practice is an imperfect vehicle in its present shape for those aspirations.
We have had scrutiny of the Service from time to time in recent years, particularly in the Guillebaud Report. I regard the Guillebaud Report—I think I am repeating what I have said before—as a generally unhappy document, in that it encouraged a mood of complacency towards the structure and the organisation of the Service. It tended to make us relax into a mood of complacency, a feeling that all was well in the organisation of the Service, when in fact, in this respect of general practice on which I am concentrating my remarks, one cannot but feel that things are far from well.
I have to emphasise my qualification of what I have just said in using the word "generally", because I think there is immense value within the pages of this Report, even if that value is concentrated at the end in the few pages of Reservations which were signed by Sir John Maude. Indeed, it is my intention in the first place, rather than base the opinions which I am expressing on my
508
own still limited experience, to draw on the authority of what Sir John Maude said and on the other authorities he quotes. He concentrates his remarks in particular on the tripartite division of the Service. We have heard in these debates on the Service a great deal about that. We have discussed it generally. I have myself made general remarks on the subject of the tripartite division. Of course, it is a thing which is permanently under discussion. Therefore, it is not my intention in this debate to indulge in any general comments on the subject. I merely want to concentrate my remarks through the medium of what Sir John Maude says on the question of general practice.
In paragraph 13 he says:
"The mischiefs to which the division of the Service gives rise fall broadly under two heads (a) the administrative divorce of curative from preventive medicine and of general medical practice from hospital practice and the overlaps, gaps and confusion caused thereby and (b) the predominant position of the hospital service and consequent danger of general practice and preventive and social medicine falling into the background."
He goes on from there to make some extremely pertinent and able extracts from various evidence given to the Committee which, if time allowed, I should like to read out in full, but I know that there are other hon. Members waiting to speak in the debate, and I shall therefore merely commend those passages to hon. Members opposite, who were sceptical of the remarks which have been made on this subject. I will read only one, and that is from the evidence of that austere and very distinguished body, the Royal College of Physicians, in which it suggests that the general practitioner is in danger of becoming a mere "disposal agent". Three or four lines of the most pertinent paragraph read:
"In the technical revolution of medicine general practice has lagged behind. With the rise of specialism, the scope of the work undertaken by the average practitioner has steadily narrowed, and the public has come to believe that all but the most trivial ailments need the attention of a specialist."
In those few lines we have the key to the situation, and they are remarks which I can endorse thoroughly and wholeheartedly from the depths of my own experience.
The position of the general practitioner today is that on one hand he is being inundated with compliments. Even on

509
Monday my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister was kind enough to use some of his most flowery phrases with reference to the work of the doctor, but there has been little talk and still less action devoted to improving his position. In the absence of such action, the internal stresses and strains have built up inside the Service with the present somewhat threatening result.
We anticipate, I hope not wrongly or prematurely, that the Royal Commission may recommend some form of increase in doctors' pay. The question is what form it will take. It is rumoured or mooted that it might possibly take the form of merit awards for general practitioners. I say straight away that I am against merit awards for general practitioners, and I ask my right hon. and learned Friend that when, as I hope, he reads my remarks he will view any suggestion of that kind with the greatest reserve. I put my reasons forward in a letter in the Daily Telegraph as far back as last autumn, and I hope that I may be excused for repeating them now in brief.
When we consider merit awards, the question arises of how the good practitioner is to be judged against the other general practitioner who is not so good. Who is to judge him and what form is his remuneration to take? What will be the criteria of judgment? Will he be judged by his seniors? If so, the danger will be that the Service will be still more weighted in favour of the seniors than it is at present.
Will he be judged by the administrators? The visiting regional medical officers seem the most likely people to be familiar with the general practitioner's work. But are we to say that excellence in administration, the filling in of cards, the making of returns and the writing out of certificates in better handwriting and without making mistakes in dates are to be considered more desirable qualities and more deserving of merit awards than attention to patients?
There is a great deal in this point. I should like to give an instance of a doctor who got into trouble with his senior administrators. It is the custom in general practice—and this is inevitable and I am not criticising it—that in order to check drugs a doctor is sent a blank
510
prescription form to fill in and send back to the Ministry. The Ministry's representatives then go to the chemist, draw out the drug on the prescription and test it to see whether the chemist gives the right weight and that sort of thing. Now and then, there are doctors who do not co-operate in this, for good reasons of conscience of their own, and they get into a good deal of trouble as a result. Will that sort of thing count in making merit awards. How much will it count if the administrators are to be the judges in these matters?
If the merit award system is introduced, what can be said generally is that the general practitioner will be even less independent than he is at present and even more subservient to the adminitration of the Health Service, which I personally would regard as an extremely undesirable thing to happen. Another alternative put forward is the making of seniority payments. That has been put forward in good faith, but some of those who favour it are not aware that any system of that kind will be going half-way to having a State medical service which, whatever hon. Members opposite may think of it, is extremely undesirable in the view of the doctors themselves.
The general practitioner has two needs. One is to retain his independence in the interests of himself and his patients and the other is to widen the scope of his work and regain public confidence in so doing. At the moment, the general practitioner has neither the incentive nor the opportunity to do this, in face of the very considerable public pressures which those of us who are familiar with the general practitioner service know quite well. I would say to my right hon. and learned Friend that unless he uses funds available to increase general practitioners' remuneration in order to break somehow this vicious circle, he will be virtually throwing money down the drain as far as improving the quality of the general practitioner service is concerned.
If we are to have an all-round increase of payment, such as has been advocated in the debate today, there will still remain problems which may be pacified for the moment but which will recur in new forms in the future. Perhaps it may

511
be permissible for me, in making suggestions of my own on the subject, first to reminisce briefly on general practice as I knew it twenty-five years ago. Even though our scope was even then very limited, we tackled many things which it is not the custom of general practitioners, particularly in the urban areas, to tackle today. We tackled accident cases, we stitched up quite extensive cuts, we did minor operations, we removed sebaceous cysts, and we removed tonsils under what probably would be regarded today as deplorable conditions. The child was put on the kitchen table. One doctor gave him the anæsthetic and the other yanked the tonsils out. It was a pleasant and indeed profitable occupation for a Sunday morning. But we did the job and we had no long waiting lists for the removal of tonsils. One realises, of course, that the days for that sort of thing are gone and that a better standard of treatment is expected today.
If I may say so in parentheses, it is worth reminding the Committee that in those days we dispensed our own medicine and, while service was our main aim, we learned the need for economy in drugs because we had to buy them ourselves. I have taken the occasion in previous debates here to mention the benefits of sodium bicarbonate, epsom salts and so on, which are frequently forgotten in these days. If I may add to my advice in this connection, I remember that the doctor from whom I took my practice, who was trained in the 1890s, was a great man for rhubarb powder. He got most remarkable cures from administering it, but I imagine that rhubarb powder is hardly ever dispensed nowadays in the National Health Service, although I can recommend it. That was the state of general practice twenty-five years ago, and it has, of course, altered considerably since that time.
Now I turn from rhubarb powder to my main argument, which is the scope of the work which in urban practice in large areas of the country the general practitioner has lost. This needs to be restored to him if we are to restore heart into the general practice. A little while ago I had the pleasure of sending to my right hon. and learned Friend the
512
Minister of Health a rather lengthy letter from a doctor who had emigrated to Australia. The point he made, and the reason why I sent the letter to my right hon. and learned Friend, was that he was more happy in his practice in Australia than he had been in this country because he was regaining skills which he had lost in general practice here. This is the primary need in the general practitioner health service today.
In this connection, the idea of the health centre comes to mind. In recent years, it is one which has caught the imagination. I think it is on the right lines, provided that the health centre does not become merely a multiple surgery, which has been the tendency where any have been established in recent years. If the health centres become multiple surgeries, where doctors are doing the same type of work as I have described—writing certificates and referring people to hospitals—we shall get the worst of both worlds. We must try to arrest that unfortunate trend.
Although I admire the criticisms of Sir John Maude, I do not agree with his recommendation that general practitioners should be put under and become a branch of local authorities. It will be the patient more than anybody else who will be in danger if general practitioners work in local authority health centres. For instance, a patient will find that if he offends one doctor in the health centre all the rest will gang up against him. We know that there are awkward patients and that perhaps members of the profession should defend themselves against such people, but sometimes the awkward patient in the end is found to have something seriously wrong, and it is only by going from one doctor to the other that at last he finds a doctor who has the specific cure for his complaint.
What is far more important is that we should have a link, even if it has to be created, between the general practitioner and the hospital, because a closer link is needed than we have now. Perhaps the health centres could be halfway houses, where general practitioners could perform minor operations, pathological examinations, and even tonsil operations under more desirable conditions than are available in their individual surgeries, at the same time retaining their main practice in their own home surroundings.

513
It seems to me that the extra payments which might be available could well be used to encourage this type of work in such cases, even if it means some reorganisation and revolutionary thinking about the organisation of the National Health Service. I am sure we must think of the Service in that way. I must say quite unashamedly that, although I was not in the House at the time, I am a 1946 man as regards the National Health Service. I am sorry I was not in the House then, but I was going about the country putting the doctors' point of view on the Service and criticising the propositions that were being put forward. Already I have seen my criticisms about general practice amply fulfilled. I say it now, and I will say it again, that we need a fundamental examination of general practice in the National Health Service.
In conclusion, I think we make the mistake on both sides of the Committee in thinking of the National Health Service as a kind of sacred cow in our new secular religion of the Welfare State instead of regarding it as a fluid, dynamic and changing thing, as it should be, ready to be adjusted from every point of view. I am glad to be the first publicly to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) on his admirable speech. The suggestion he has made about having a social service research centre may meet the need felt by many of us to develop our opportunities in this connection, and for the lack of which many of us who are interested in these matters feel extremely frustrated now. There ought to be a sorting house for ideas such as was suggested by my hon. Friend. That cannot always be done in the House, and it cannot be done in the Ministries. If we can achieve this we shall make big strides forward in the Health Service.
8.28 p.m.
Mr. R. W. Sorensen: I am sure that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) will not mind if I do not follow him in his interesting reminiscences except to say that I gathered that he was somewhat critical in many respects of the Guillebaud Report. He seemed to be disappointed that it was more eulogistic than critical, and he seemed to have a certain amount of nostalgic desire to return to the good old
514
days when, apparently, he operated on children's tonsils with a carving knife on the kitchen table. That may be a slight exaggeration, but it was the impression that I got.
Dr. Johnson: The hon. Gentleman could not have listened to the last part of my speech.
Mr. Sorensen: I listened to every word of it, unfortunately in one sense, because I would rather have been elsewhere obtaining nourishment for my body. The hon. Gentleman's speech was most interesting, though I must say that I detected a certain regret that he was compelled by force of circumstances to recognise that the National Health Service was a great British institution. One of his hon. Friends earlier had more openly praised the institution.
I shall be much more generous to the Minister and say that I appreciate the record which he has registered today of still further progress in our public health Few people, perhaps, realise what a remarkable silent revolution has taken place in the last fifty years or so. One of the criteria that I frequently use to illustrate this progress arises from the very simple fact that when I was born the infant mortality rate was 145 per thousand whereas it is now generally 23 per thousand and in some districts 18 per thousand. This contrasts with the situation in other parts of the world. I remember visiting a part of Borneo where the rate was 400 to 500 per thousand, and when I visited the Yemen some months ago I estimated that possibly half the children born there died before reaching their first birthday. That reminds us of what conditions were like here years ago. We must have had the same conditions as still obtain in certain parts of the world.
We can register advance in public health standards in another respect, and that is longevity. It is estimated that a boy born today has an expectation of life of about 68 years and a girl about 74 years. In other parts of the world it is very much lower than that. In India, it is 30 years. Ten years ago it was only 27 years, and so in ten years India has added three years to the expectation of life of her inhabitants. In the last 100 years we ourselves have added 30 years to the expectation of life of our children

515
compared with that of their great-grandfathers.
This striking improvement has arisen in two ways. First, there has been a striking increase in medical knowledge, skill and treatment. The curative side has been mentioned more than once. In a variety of ways we are tackling the incidence of disease. On the other hand, the remedial side has made just as much advance. Undoubtedly a great deal of disease, both psychological and physiological, is due directly or indirectly to lack of proper hygiene or sanitation, to the stresses and strains of modern life, to bad housing and to bad industrial conditions. I am persuaded that it is just as much in the latter category that we have helped to reduce so strikingly the incidence of human mortality as in the first category. That surely explains why the numbers in children's wards in hospitals are diminishing. The fact that the number of children in hospital is far fewer now than it was years ago is due not merely to improvements in medical knowledge and treatment but to improvements in social conditions.
The National Health Service is concerned with both these aspects, but I would urge that far more attention should be given to the remedial than the curative side. More time and money should be devoted to research in that direction. Take, for example, the sphere of diet. It is not many years since our hospitals and doctors almost scorned the subject of diet and the effect that diet had on human health. Nowadays the effect of diet is accepted, and all hospitals now have dieticians carefully trained in that subject.
I should like something much more than that to be done. I should like more efforts made to inform the general public about the right kind of foods and balanced diets. I should like the general public to be told what foodstuffs are deleterious and what foodstuffs are healthy and lifegiving. Although there has been a very great improvement in this matter in hospitals, there is still much room for improvement. It is not enough to have a theoretical knowledge of how to produce the right balance of vitamins, calories, carbo-hydrates and so on. The way food is cooked and served is equally important. There are some
516
hospitals where there is still a great deal to be desired in that direction.
Besides that, I should like to see much more research into the inter-action between the mind and the body. I am not a Christian Scientist and I believe that a certain amount of nonsense is attached to that theory, but there is a certain truth beneath all the accretions and the dross, and that is that the mental attitude of people does have a profound and comprehensive effect upon the physiology of health. Here is where much more should be done than is being done at present. I know that a great deal of negative research is proceeding, but I want positive research to be performed and for it to be made public.
I am not inferring that I am inclined to believe that natural primitive man was more healthy. Rousseau's "healthy savage" was merely a fiction in his own mind. I would say, on the other hand, that man is born in chains pathologically and sociologically and struggling to be free, rather than the other way round as we have often heard. Nevertheless, I agree that there are certain by-products of modern conditions peculiar to our own age. In particular—and reference has been made to this already—there is the effect on human health of smoke, dust the fumes. To that extent, I welcome the advent of the Clean Air Act which. I believe, has done some good already.
But what of the increasing effect on health of diesel-engine exhaust fumes? Nothing has been said about that today. Nor has it been sufficiently recognised that the streets of our great cities are becoming increasingly polluted by the filthy mess emitted by diesel-engined traffic. In my own district, we have a gas works, which was privately owned but which has now become part of a great national service, from which was emitted a good deal of this nuisance of fumes, grit and dust to the wretchedness of the people in the neighbourhood. We had an alkali inspector down and conferences and, in the end, some amelioration was effected. Even though that was so, nothing was said and nothing was done about the fact that 200 yards away from that gasworks, up and down the Lea Bridge Road go these heavy vehicles emitting this nuisance and danger to health.

517
I beg the Government to take further action along these lines. This nuisance has a direct physical and mental effect. There is not only the effect on the lungs in the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) described but the effect on the nervous system as well. I ask the Minister to do what he can to concentrate more thought upon this particular aspect of the abomination of smoke pollution, and not merely to assume that all the danger and nuisance is derived from factory chimneys and the like.
On the remedial side, the National Health Service has already proved an example to the world. All of us ought to be proud of that fact. It is significant that 97 per cent. of the people of this country now patronise our National Health Service. It is as much a boon to the middle class—in fact even more of a boon to the middle class—as it is to the working class, and we are now coming to realise that. Whatever may have been the open or secret enmity and hostility on the part of some Members of this House years ago when the National Health Service was first introduced, I am certain that there is not a Member today who would dare to come out openly to advocate scrapping the National Health Service without fear of being scrapped himself in the process. There is a great difference between now and not so many years ago.
Those of us who have been to America know full well how interests from this country have fed the American Medical Association and similar bodies with a perfect travesty and unscrupulous misrepresentation of our National Health Service. Many times when I have been lecturing in America I have been asked questions about our "socialised medicine", sometimes, though not generally, with a curl of the lip. On one occasion I was very glad to be able to say that if the questioner would kindly read a report on one of his own newspapers, he would find it there stated that a Conservative Member, still a Member, was openly saying in the United States that all parties in Britain now supported the National Health Service.
Of course they do, and I am glad, because it is a nationalised service. The Institute of Directors would be hard put to it to discover anything like 60 per cent. of the people of this country
518
opposed to that kind of nationalisation. It is a pity that the Institute does not make that more clear.
Equally, it is now coming home to us that, according to the Guillebaud Report which seemed to receive a certain amount of indirect criticism, we are today spending proportionately less on the Service than was the case ten years ago. I remind the Committee that, according to that Report, in 1948–49 the cost of the Service was 3·51 per cent of the gross national product and that when the Report was issued it had fallen to 3·24 per cent. So it has been a good investment and it is costing the country rather less than it did. That should help to disabuse critics of a certain amount of bias and prejudice on financial grounds.
Of course, the Service has had its defects and difficulties. Until recently, one of the difficulties has been the shortage of nursing staff—and to some extent that difficulty still exists. I am very glad to know that there has been some improvement, and I hope that that improvement will continue, thanks partly to the services of West Indian and other girls from overseas who have come to this country, but also thanks to the response of British girls to the better pay and conditions which fortunately now exist.
I agree that we can no longer exploit a noble vocation as we once did. Many girls who have entered the nursing service have done so conscientiously as an avocation, but not necessarily as a vocation. We cannot make people have a vocation, and I am not disparaging people who have merely an avocation and who do a job well, but without putting their whole heart in it. However, I make the plea that every effort should be made to increase the number of girls and women in nursing to take up the work not merely as an avocation, a job to be well done, but a vocation, to which to devote their lives.
One matter I wish briefly to mention is this: why it is that there is such a gross overstaffing of the London teaching hospitals as compared with the general hospitals? I understand that the ratio of nurses to patients in a teaching hospital is about one to one, while in many general hospitals in other parts of the country the ratio is one nurse to two or three or even more patients. According to the Guillebaud

519
Report, that partly explains, perhaps, why the cost of treating patients in a teaching hospital is £23 18s. 7d. while in the general hospital it is £13 13s. 4d. Apart from that, something should be done to balance things up so that there is not this gross and unfair disparity in nurse-staffing between the teaching and general hospitals.
Is it not a question of assuming that there is a social prestige in being trained in a teaching hospital? If that is the case, I appeal to those thinking of getting their daughters into teaching hospitals and those responsible for teaching hospitals to try to draft into the general hospitals an increasing number of girls who would like to go to teaching hospitals. I would not use so harsh a term as snobbishness, but there does seem to be a discrimination between the different types of trainees in the nursing profession, and I hope that the Minister will carefully consider that matter.
I support the pleas for more attention to be paid to our industrial health service. Although much is being done in that direction, it should be part of the whole National Health Service. Where there is a large factory owned by a wealthy firm, a fine health unit may be set up, but the smaller factories cannot afford to do that. Why should the smaller factories be at a disadvantage compared with the larger ones? I make my plea for the integration of an industrial health service into the National Health Service so that all industries shall be able to have the service in their factories, workshops, and similar places.
Had I more time, I, too, would support the pleas that have been made for the abolition of the charges on prescriptions. It is all very well to say that if the people concerned are poor and old they can go to the National Assistance Board to get relief. One knows that, but those who do not or cannot get that relief have to pay relatively more for their prescriptions than those people who belong to the higher-paid classes. Because this is an anomaly, and virtually a waste, because it is a fiddling interference with the general principle, I make my plea that these charges should be abolished at the earliest possible date.
As usual, many of the things that one would have said have been said by
520
others. It is now recognised that we can proudly face the world with an example of a National Health Service of which we can be proud. When we go abroad we ought to claim it to be one of our great British institutions. Though it requires constructive criticism at times, do not let that criticism be of the mean, erosive type which, while we offer external praise, nevertheless tends to undermine a splendid national service.
8.47 p.m.
Mr. J. C. George: Minister after Minister has been able to come to the Box from this side of the House and make a first-class progress report, and no Minister has more progress to report than my right hon. and learned Friend. The advance in medicine has been massive. Why should my right hon. and learned Friend not claim credit for the Government? If the progress had been bad the Governmentwould have been blamed. If the progress is good, why not say so? We want to give credit not entirely to the Government, but in large measure to the researchers, doctors and those in the National Health Service who have brought the tools to bear on the problems of effecting cures which have spread happiness throughout the length and breadth of the land.
In our time we have seen many diseases almost defeated. Fever, diphtheria, and other diseases are being defeated one by one. Prevention was the fundamental purpose of the National Health Service. If there had been no prevention the Service would have been a failure, because Lord Beveridge said that the fundamental purpose of the Service was prevention. In the short time that I have available I want to deal entirely with that aspect.
I go to America every year and I am impressed with the tendency amongst American businessmen—and men not very high up in business—to have a full check-up by doctors twice a year. That is a fundamental step towards prevention. It may be impossible to think about a nation-wide check-up twice a year, or once a year, but I wonder if my right hon. Friend would comment on the position. If a member of the National Health Service went to his doctor with nothing obviously wrong and said: "I want a check-up from top

521
to toe", how would he be received? Is that a service he can claim? If we could have a systematic check-up once a year we would be taking the first real step towards prevention.
If one studies the present killers, one is impressed by the fact that a great deal of the prevention in the future lies in our own hands. A great deal can be done without the doctors. We have lung cancer and bronchitis as two vicious killer, and we know, in the main, why they are killers. It does not need the doctors to tell us to stop smoking. I read yesterday that last year we spent £1,000 million on tobacco in this country, although all the time we know that lung cancer is being caused among thousands and thousands of persons. Are the Government doing enough to bring the facts home to the people and to tell them that this is the cause of a killing disease? I wonder whether more publicity should not be given to the effect of this continual smoking. I wonder whether there is not a tendency to respect the revenue more than the prevention of disease. I think that a campaign, almost as important as the X-ray campaign, should be conducted about the prevention of lung cancer.
Bronchitis is also a killing disease. We had a bad winter in Scotland as well as in England; we have had fog off and on for three months, and in Scotland there have been many more deaths than usual. One hon. Member said this afternoon that twice as many people died in this country this winter as died last winter. The Report of the Department tells us that in 1957, 10,747 people died from cancer, and of these 2,078 died from cancer of the lung and bronchus. We are told that in the four weeks January-February twice as many people died from bronchitis in the seventeen largest cities as died last year.
I want to deal with Glasgow. In Glasgow 468 people died this year compared with 197 during the same period last year. It was the worst year for many years. This could be reduced, as we know. Smoking could be reduced if a campaign were conducted against it. The other aids to bronchitis are fog and smog. I wonder whether we are moving fast enough in Scotland in dealing with these problems. I wonder whether my
522
hon. Friend is satisfied with the progress made by local authorities in applying the Clean Air Act. A great deal could be done. I remember seeing a great city like Pittsburgh, when it was a black city, and I visited it after it had been cleaned, when the sun shone through to places where it had never shone before. We could do the same in Scotland, but we are not doing it nearly fast enough.
In the Report we are told that the incidence of bronchitis is "the highest anywhere." Does that mean anywhere in the world or anywhere in the country? If it is the highest anywhere in the world, surely we need to spur on local authorities to deal with the Clean Air Act as it ought to be dealt with.
Another killer disease in recent years has been coronary thrombosis. Again, we are told by the authorities that the cure for this lies in large measure in our own hands. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) mentioned that. We are told that diet plays a tremendous part in the prevention of coronary thrombosis, especially among males.
In paragraph 33 we are told that the experts consider that
"a sedentary life coupled with over-indulgence in food and the excessive consumption of certain types of fat has an influence"
on the incidence of this disease. The hon. Member for Leyton suggested that more publicity should be given and that people should be better informed about these matters. I wonder whether we can devise ways and means of bringing the facts about these killers home to people to tell them that they can help to reduce the death rate and to keep people out of hospitals, which was the original idea of the Service.
In America television is used widely by the insurance companies. They have found it a good investment to put the facts to the people about cancer, bronchitis and thrombosis by means of television. The people in America hear these facts on the radio and see programmes about them on the television, all bringing the facts into the home. I know that it has had a good effect. I know of one lady who was listening to a radio programme one morning which asked, "Have you recently checked for lung cancer?" She thought that this was a good idea and obtained an interview that day. It was found that she had

523
cancer in its early stages. She has been cured and is still alive. It pays the insurance companies, and I wish that our insurance companies would use television for that purpose.
What progress is being made towards certification of physiotherapists and chiropodists? The physiotherapist has come to stay and is doing marvellous work. There is much disappointment in the profession that nothing is being done towards certification. Chiropodists feel the same way. These two branches, which have come to stay and are very important, should be put on a basis of certification at the earliest possible moment.
I should like to have had time to say more on prevention. We are not driving nearly fast enough towards prevention. I spent some years on a health committee. I have great admiration for health visitors. I believe, rightly or wrongly, that the main purpose of the health visitor is to spread the gospel of prevention of illness. These ladies are well trained and intelligent. They can disseminate the basic fundamental purpose of the Health Service by spreading the gospel of prevention. I read a report recently that in Scotland the Service is seriously short of personnel. The Scotsman of 6th April said:
"… there is a shortage of 490 full-time visitors in Scotland ".
At the Scottish Health Visitors' Conference, where that statement was made, it was further stated:
"In recent years the preventive services in general and health visiting in particular have not received their due share of attention or of funds."
I believe that health visitors can play a tremendously important part in the prevention of illness by spreading the knowledge which we have about what causes certain diseases and how they can be prevented. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to look into the position of the health visiting service. I see that it is stated in the Department's Report that it is up to strength. That conflicts with the statement I have just read. In any case, I believe that this service should be expanded, with the fundamental purpose of preventing illness by taking knowledge of how it can be prevented into every home visited.
I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's action in setting up three
524
industrial chest disease centres in Scotland. We in the mining areas have all our life had the dread disease of pneumoconiosis all around us. We have seen fine men shrivel up and die from this terrible and painful disease. We should spare neither effort nor expense. If anything can be done, by spending money or bringing in expert technicians, to tackle this subject and to cut down the misery that we have seen in mining areas, a great debt of gratitude will be owed to my right hon. and learned Friend.
We have heard a lot today about Reports. I wish to say something about the Piercy Report on rehabilitation, which is a very important Report. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend has taken certain action. A suggestion was made in that Report for resettlement clinics. It would be a fine thing if members of hospital staffs would get together when a patient is nearing discharge to do all they can to find him another job and advise him, so that the period when he leaves hospital will be free from worry, with the beneficial effect that that will have. What has been done about the creation of this resettlement service?
I want to say a word about the Report on Hospital and Community by Professor Ferguson and Dr. McPhail of the Department of Public Health of the University of Glasgow. They checked 548 unselected patients. They saw them at the hospital. They saw them three months later and two years afterwards. They wanted to check what happened to the patients after they left hospital. Three months later they found that 55 per cent. were working; 10·8 per cent. were aged and beyond the possibility of working; 33·7 per cent., or 183, had not returned to work and were still idle. After two years they went to see them again. They found that 106, or 22 per cent. of the total, were still not working; 129, or 27 per cent., had gone back to hospital for further treatment as in-patients. That emphasises that a great deal can be done to prevent patients returning to hospital. I should like my right hon. and learned Friend to say what he thinks about that Report and about rehabilitation.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Irving: I appreciate that I have only two or three minutes in which to speak, but I want to make two points from my own constituency experience which, I think, have

525
relevance in the wider field. On 7th November, the South-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board announced to local authorities and other organisations that it was proposed to carry out fairly soon a comprehensive reorganisation of the Dartford Hospital Group.
By 2nd March the board was saying to a local authority that wanted to consult it that there was no useful purpose to be served by a meeting between the board and the local authority. That authority had been seeking for some weeks an opportunity to meet the board. Although the four months between November and March may seem a long time, Christmas had intervened, the Parliamentary Recess had intervened and so had the local government Christmas recess. My point is that when there is a major reorganisation of this kind, involving the closing of a general hospital, public relations could be much better than that.
The bald statement of intention is not good enough, and I hope that when such major reorganisations as this are contemplated the board—for whose efficiency I have the greatest admiration—will invite the much closed co-operation of the local authorities and other bodies, without whose support we cannot get proper administration or that support for the hospital service that the work of those in the hospitals deserves. This could be done by meetings and special conferences.
It would be wrong if I did not tell the Committee that there is much dissatisfaction among local authorities about the way in which members are appointed to the hospital boards. The public does not know the method of nomination and many people regard the boards as self-perpetuating organisations. I would urge the Minister to examine relations between local authorities and hospital services generally, and to find ways of improving them. We have no argument now with the regional board. With the help of the Minister, relations with it have been much improved, and I hope that this will continue.
My second point is one that was touched on in general terms by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) and relates to the piecemeal development of the hospital service, particularly in relation
526
to building. This proposal in Dartford involves the closing of one general hospital, and the improvement and upgrading of two others. A sum of £½ million is involved. What disturbed people locally was that there seemed no clear indication that the building of a new hospital had been considered as an alternative. The local people appreciate that the money may not be immediately available or, if it is available, that there may be others with higher priority.
In Dartford, however, when we have spent the £½ million, our two main general hospitals will still consist of one that was built as a workhouse over 100 years ago, and another, which is built by the London County Council on the marshes as an isolation hospital. That £½ million will be well spent. I have no criticism whatever to make of the work of those in the hospitals—for whose work I have the greatest admiration—but there can be no doubt that their work would be even better if it were done in first-class surroundings instead of in the difficult circumstances existing in these two outdated buildings.
I therefore urge the Minister to allow regional boards to plan more for the future than has been the case so far. The money may not be available to carry out that policy immediately, but in my constituency we have eight hospitals—two general, one maternity, one T.B., three mental hospitals, and a mental deficiency hospital, and the local hospital authority owns about 650 acres of land there.
We know that with the new knowledge, the new approach and the new medicines, the whole concept of the service will change, and I would like to think that forward planning was taking into consideration all aspects of the service, and that each area had a blueprint for the future so that, while we could not expect an immediate improvement and a first-class new hospital in every area, the money put into the service, and all the efforts made would be with that ultimate goal in view.
As the decision has been taken to close the Southern Hospital in Dartford, I ask the Minister to invite co-operation and consultation with the local authorities and local bodies concerned so that the

527
hospital buildings do not become derelict but are put to the best use at the earliest possible moment.
9.5 p.m.
Miss Margaret Herbison: Today we have had an excellent debate. From both sides of the Committee we have had contributions which in almost every instance have been constructive. The speech which I thought the least constructive was that of the Minister of Health himself. He apparently found that he had such a poor case to make that he began it with a personal attack on my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill). He enlarged that attack to an attack on women in general. Does the Minister not realise that at least 85 per cent. of all the workers in this wonderful National Health Service are women? Quite a part of the Minister's speech was an insult not only to the intelligence of hon. Members but to the country as a whole.
I listened carefully to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, and to me it seemed that it showed a great degree of complacency. Much of it dealt with what the Government were going to do, what they were planning to do in the future, particularly as regards hospital building. In other words, it was "pie in the sky". He talked about the Ministry having set up its own architects' department and about the streamlining of procedure for the building of hospitals. This was going to happen in the future. But the present Government were not returned last year. They were returned in October, 1951, and they have had almost eight years in which to carry out the things that the Minister now tells us they are about to do. That is what he now tells us on the eve of another General Election. It is so typical of so many of the speeches that we have had in the last few months from Ministers.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington put a number of very pertinent questions to the Minister, the majority of which he did not answer at all. He did not even touch on them. It seems to me that in a debate such as this—a debate, I would remind the Minister, which we would not have had at all unless the Opposition had been ready to give one of its precious Supply Days—the Minister ought to have been
528
in a position to answer the pertinent questions that were asked. The Minister is a lawyer. He tries to give "smart-Alec" replies. Indeed, his whole speech reminded me very much of the old university debates that we used to have in our union. I hope that when the Secretary of State for Scotland replies we shall get an answer to some of the questions that have been asked.
I go on to deal first of all with this question of hospital building, which affects the whole of the United Kingdom. Much has been said today about the long waiting lists for hospital accommodation. In some parts of the United Kingdom these waiting lists are much longer than in other parts. I wish to deal particularly with accommodation in maternity hospitals.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington spoke about the Report which has been issued for England and Wales. In Scotland, we have our own report, from a Committee appointed by the Scottish Health Services Council. The Minister spoke about the infant mortality rate and the maternal mortality rate and told us that they were the lowest ever. So they are, and we are very glad indeed for that. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mrs. McAlister) showed, this does not apply to the great City of Glasgow.
Many factors account for both these rates being lower. In many instances, people have better housing. Many young mothers today have had throughout their lives the chance of better nutrition than their mothers. All these factors go towards the improvement in the mortality rates. I earnestly hope that as the years go on the improvement will become greater and greater.
In this matter also, however, the Minister showed great complacency. The figures, particularly in respect of infant mortality, are still too high. No one should be complacent about them.
In paragraph 82 of the Report on Maternity Services in Scotland, it is said:
"As to overcrowding"—
that is to say, overcrowding in maternity hospitals—
"and length of stay in hospital, the average length of stay in obstetric units in the Western Region is again markedly shorter than in the

529
other Regions, and it is obvious that there is very little margin for the occasional emergencies, great or small, which are bound to arise in maternity units, from the closing of an entire unit because of infection, to the closing of one ward while it is painted"
Those words from that high-powered Committee present a serious and, I would almost say, a frightening picture for mothers and babies in the thickly populated part of Scotland. In the region covered by the Western Region Hospital Board there is about half the population of Scotland, and this is the region referred to by the Committee.
In paragraph 28, the Committee recommended that the time in hospital should be ten days. Yesterday, in answer to a Question, the Secretary of State told me that, in the County of Lanark—again, a very thickly populated part of Scotland—the average length of stay for mothers in maternity hospitals is seven days, three less than the number recommended by the Committee. If that is the average time, are some mothers being sent out in under seven days, or is it that seven days is the absolute minimum, and, on the seventh day, they are sent out?
My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) has time and again raised in the House the need for better maternity provision in Lanarkshire. I have discussed this matter with members of a committee representing the maternity service interests in Lanarkshire. What I say applies to many places in Scotland and to many thickly populated places in England and Wales. I have been told that the staffs in the maternity hospitals are seriously overworked. I have been told by the matron of one of the big hospitals that the staff has not time to talk to mothers in hospital, has not time to train them in the care of their babies when they leave hospital or in the handling of their babies, even for the mother having her first child. That is a very serious matter.
The Committee recommended that there should be what it terms "lying-in beds" for between 70 to 80 per cent. of the total births, but what do we find? In Lanarkshire there is provision for only 58·5 per cent. In Glasgow, where housing conditions are shocking, the figure is only 63·8 per cent. One of the bright spots is Aberdeen, where there is
530
provision for 91·4 per cent. I have a suspicion that a great deal of the credit for the situation in Aberdeen must go to Professor Dugald Baird, Professor of Midwifery in the University there. He knows very well the importance of proper maternity services for our women.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove, in a very good speech, raised the question of maternity provision in Glasgow. She spoke about the Yorkhill Hospital. In March this year, in reply to a Question, the Minister said that plans for a new hospital had been cleared and that building would start in 1960. It seems to me that, knowing the conditions which prevail in that part of Scotland, building of the hospital should have commenced immediately the plans were cleared; but that did not happen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) tabled a Question in the House about the Dunfermline Maternity Hospital. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George) will know, there has been a great increase in population in Fifeshire. The families of many displaced Lanarkshire miners have gone to Fifeshire. They have been provided with work in the mines and with houses, but, under the Government, little or no provision has been made for community services and there has been no new provisions for hospital services to meet the needs of the growing population. The wives of many of the young miners who have gone from Lanarkshire are having their families in Fifeshire. There was an article in the Sunday Pictorial on this point.
As I have said, on 9th June, my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West, in a Question, alleged that the conditions in the Dunfermline Maternity Hospital were shocking. In answer, the Joint Under-Secretary of State said:
"I agree with the hon. Member to some extent"—
meaning that conditions there were difficult—
"… we must concentrate on areas like Glasgow where facilities are below average."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th June, 1959; Vol. 606, c. 785.]
What is the state of the hospital about which my hon. Friend spoke? In the corridors of it women are in labour waiting to be delivered of their babies. What could be more shocking that that? The

531
Joint Under-Secretary, however, in his own language, said that these conditions were better than those in Glasgow. Is it any wonder that we accuse the Government of great complacency in the matter of hospital building? They cannot say that they do not have the material or the building labour with which to build hospitals.
I have looked at the figures and I find that, on 11th May, 64,500 building and contracting workers were unemployed in the United Kingdom. For Scotland, the latest figure shows that 11,020 building trade workers were unemployed. During the six years from 1953, the lowest number of unemployed building trade workers in Scotland has been 6,140. If the Government had used their resources in Lanarkshire, in Glasgow, in places like Liverpool and in all the congested, thickly-populated areas, we might have had proper maternity provision for our people ere this.
We are told that many of our domiciliary midwives are trained. They are trained in the hospitals, but when they finish their training they prefer to choose other work. As one matron said to me, "No wonder, because it is indeed a dog's life that they have." Why did that matron describe it as a "dog's life"? Again, in some of the overcrowded areas, I find that these domiciliary midwives are working 55 hours a week. Very often they are called out two or three nights a week. They get one day off a week, but when a midwife has her day off there is no replacement for her. Her work has to be done by another harassed midwife, who has to do two jobs and both of them very difficult indeed.
Although the salaries of these mid-wives are at present being considered by the Whitley Council, there is no doubt that if the employers' side of the Whitley Council realised that the Government were ready to grant more money for better salaries for these people more money would be forthcoming in the negotiations.
Before I leave the question of the overcrowded areas in the whole of the United Kingdom, I must condemn the Government on yet another score. In Liverpool, in London, in Glasgow and, indeed, in all the big cities, we have the
532
most serious overcrowding, and in insanitary properties. My hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove reminded the Minister of conditions. I shall not weary the Committee tonight with the number of one-roomed and two-roomed houses in Glasgow. I would, however, remind the Minister that yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) had a number of Questions concerning Glasgow's overspill. Glasgow has an overspill problem of about 300,000 people. It is the most serious in Britain. And what did he find? The Government passed a Bill which was supposed to take care of overspill, and in two years and two months since the passing of that Bill thirty-eight families have been removed under overspill agreements.
We had a Budget not so very long ago in which the Government found they had about £400 million to distribute. It seems to me that if we were at all concerned with the health of our people—and again I stress particularly those who are in the overcrowded areas—the Government would have decided in England and Wales to give again a subsidy for general need housing, because in England and Wales there is no subsidy at all for general need housing, and in Scotland they would have decided to give an increased subsidy for that type of housing.
One hon. Member opposite, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), spoke about the need for housing. He felt that it would be much better if in England and Wales there were one Minister responsible for local authorities, for housing and for health. It has not turned out so in Scotland. I hope that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East, who made, I felt, a most constructive speech, will examine the set-up in Scotland before he tries to have it imposed on England.
Whether it is the supply of maternity beds or of beds to take care of these great waiting lists, it seems to me that during the years of the Tory Government ever so much more could have been done in hospital building. There is no need for the Secretary of State to ask, what did the Labour Government do in hospital building? We had the National Health Service from 1948 to 1951, and if one examines what was done during

533
that time one sees that by the time the Tory Party came to power almost all the teething troubles had passed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and then they had the chance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Indeed they had. The hon. Members interrupting now from the Government benches are people who had not spent a minute on those benches all day until we came to the winding up speeches. If they had, they would have heard even some of their hon. Friends giving praise to this wonderful National Health Service.
Mr. William Ross: They are the people who voted against it.
Miss Herbison: I turn to another point, the care of the aged. I was interested in the speech made by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon). He said there was a great controversy in his part of Scotland about the closing of small hospitals. This is a matter which we on this side have raised time and time again, and yet this Government have closed hospitals, and if we look at the number of staffed beds at the end of 1958 we find that there were fewer than there were at the end of 1957.
I say to the Government, how wrong it was to close one single hospital in Scotland. When we find that so many of our old people, not those who can benefit from geriatric treatment, those who have got beyond any hope of benefiting from geriatric treatment, spend their last few days and their last few weeks in mental institutions, those hospitals ought to have been used for that type of old person instead of being closed. It seems to me that it was one of the most disgraceful actions of the Government, particularly when we look at the figures in 1956 to 1957, when 40 per cent. of certified admissions to mental hospitals were of old people over 65 years of age. That seems to me to be a very great indictment.
My last point concerns the prescription charges. Reports have been submitted by some high-powered Committees from which it will be seen that the increase in the pharmaceutical bill since 1956 has been 40 per cent. and has been due to over-prescribing. The Committees say that the reason for over-prescription is that doctors are providing on one prescription for much more than is really
534
needed. That seems to be a further indictment.
The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East said that there was little evidence that people were not getting the medicine they needed and, after all, there was always the National Assistance Board. There is a cat and mouse game going on at present. I give one instance which could be multiplied by similar instances from other parts of the country. Before the last increase in pensions, a couple in my constituency were receiving 1s. from the National Assistance Board. They accepted it not because it helped them but because the wife was chronically sick and by accepting the 1s. they were able to have prescriptions paid for by the Board. When pensions were increased they lost their 1s., and whatever increase in pension they received had to go on prescriptions instead of helping them generally in their livelihood. I took the matter up with the area officer of the National Assistance Board. Inquiries were made and I was told that after 7th September the couple would be again within the range of National Assistance and would again have their prescriptions free. That is a cat and mouse way of dealing with ordinary, decent, fine people.
In this matter of health, neither the Minister nor the Secretary of State for Scotland has shown energy or enthusiasm or given the direction which ought to be given, and the sooner we have a Labour Government, with Labour Ministers, the better for the country.
9.33 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): On the whole, we have had a very constructive debate, though I also would make an exception of two speeches, the first being the opening speech by the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summer-skill). I listened with interest to certain parts of the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison). I know that she feels strongly on the subject of maternity beds, and I also hold strong views on the subject, but there were parts of her speech which were not constructive.
It is true to say, however, that generally, speeches from the back benches have been interesting and have properly drawn attention to matters which cause

535
hon. Members concern, either in their constituencies or in more general terms, in certain parts of the National Health Service. This is the value of a debate like this. We have, of course, listened to most of the speeches but reports of debates of this kind are also studied carefully and we make progress through considering both what has been said in debate and what is said in follow-up letters.
I am puzzled by the fact that, as I understand, there is an intention to divide the Committee. Why? What about? Interesting detailed suggestions have been made and there has been a general recognition that the health of the country as a whole has improved admirably. We know, of course, that there are flaws—[HON. MEMBERS: "Serious flaws."]—but the sum total of attack, which will mean a Division, and of the fury of the opposition of the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington, seems to be derived from the fact that the Minister in England has failed to implement immediately a number of Reports, all of which have been received this year.
The right hon. Lady was quite right to want speed, but it would be unbelievable to think that the Reports, which have taken years to produce, could be fully implemented in a matter of weeks or months, particularly as it would be utterly irresponsible to try to impose on the people who will have to implement them the recommendations in the Reports without proper consultation. I listened with the greatest interest to the right hon. Lady's opening speech to see what the Committee could be divided upon. That was all I could discover, and it does not justify a Division.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North, in winding up the debate, dealt with one point which concerns us all, the provision of new hospital beds, which can never go on as quickly as we would like. Without making a party point of this—[Interruption.]—if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite accept it as a party point then the blame lies on them for not doing more when they were in power—let us see what has happened. The period between 1948 and 1954 was undoubtedly one in which, whoever had been in power, we had to catch up with the years of war and the
536
shortage that followed. I admit that there was lack of planning. It does not matter whether we or the party opposite were in power, because we would each have been forced to do precisely the same thing, namely, to do our best to catch up with the years of war and shortage.
Then we entered the second phase, in which we are now. About half the capital expenditure is on minor schemes of improvement and the other half is on large new schemes of hospital development. I will give the Committee the Scottish figures. We are providing 1,750 new beds for mentally defective patients, maternity services, radiotherapy services and other purposes. The third stage will start in 1960–61 and it will be improvement by rebuilding or by major additions to hospitals.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why he did not accept the recommendations of the Guillebaud Committee to carry out capital expansion to the extent of £30 million a year?
Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman knows well from his own experience that at any given moment only a certain proportion of our national resources can quickly be diverted to any one purpose.
Another difficulty common to whichever party is in power is that, when we are planning new hospitals and hospital extensions, there is a continual desire to have the building as up to date as possible. Indeed, sometimes I feel that the desire for perfection is the enemy of the good, and that time can be lost at the critical moment by trying to incorporate everything of the newest, thereby slowing down what might have been done earlier. I have seen that happen in my work in dealing with regional hospital boards. The only part of the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North which sounded as if it might justify a Division was that dealing with hospital building, with which I have dealt. I do not believe for a minute that the party opposite could have moved into any phase other than that into which we have moved, and moved extremely effectively.
Now I come to the hon. Lady's questtion about maternity services. If the Committee will forgive me, I will give Scottish figures but they also bear on

537
the question of the right hon. Lady about what is happening with regard to the Montgomery and Cranbrook Reports. This is the Scottish side of the Cranbrook Report. Of course my right hon. Friend and I are extremely grateful to the members of those Committees, and especially to the Chairmen, for the contribution they have made to the development of maternity services. I emphasise that both Reports were received in February, 1959. There has not been much time to deal with the Reports.
However, a great deal has happened. I will explain what has happened in Scotland. Circumstances differ on the two sides of the Border. The recommendations of the two Committees show a considerable measure of agreement about the type and scale of the provision considered necessary for the maternity services. I will not go into too much detail now, but perhaps I may speak briefly of the progress that we have been able to make—I am speaking for Scotland for the moment—towards implementing the recommendations of the Scottish Committee.
The Western Regional Hospital Board, in whose area the shortage of maternity beds is greatest, already has plans for additional accommodation which will bring by far the greater part of the region up to the level recommended by the Committee. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mrs. McAlister) made a moving speech on this subject. I know her intense interest in it, and I want to give some figures to show what is happening. Of course, if we could have had this years ago it would have been far better, but we are going as fast as we can at the moment.
Mr. James McInnes Mr. James McInnes (Glasgow, Central) rose——
Mr. Maclay: I cannot give way. I have very little time and want to answer as many questions as I can.
On the basis recommended by the Maternity Services Review Committee, about 850 maternity and ante-natal beds would be needed in Glasgow to reach the 75 per cent. figure. There are at present 693 beds. Plans have been completed for the building of a new maternity unit of 112 beds at Yorkhill and for a 53-bed unit at Belvidere Hospital, and
538
work is expected to begin on these projects about the end of this year. The regional board is now preparing schedules of accommodation for a 90-bed unit, with 30 additional beds for abortion cases, at the David Elder Hospital to serve the south-western part of the city, and a 70-bed unit at the Royal Samaritan Hospital to serve the south-eastern part of the city. This is even more than we need to provide the additional beds to attain the 75 per cent. figure. These developments will enable the board to replace 91 beds in accommodation at the Lennox Castle Maternity Hospital which is needed for mentally deficient patients. That will be not a subtraction but an addition.
Mrs. McAlister: Is it not a fact that it will be five years before Yorkhill is available? The right hon. Gentleman has now admitted that we shall lose the maternity beds at Lennox Castle. They must obviously be put against the beds that we are getting in other places.
Mr. Maclay: I have been trying to make this point clear. This balanced programme will secure the balance that we need and we shall be able to release the beds at Lennox Castle.
Perhaps the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North will forgive me if I do not give detailed figures to show what is happening in North Lanarkshire, but I will send them to her. I referred to the Bellshill proposals and the other additions in that part of the country.
I should like to move—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The trouble is that when hon. Members are given facts which refute their charges they always want to get out of it and try diversionary activities. That is understandable on the part of hon. Members who are in Opposition, but it is not good for a National Health Service debate.
I want to say a little more about the Committee to which I have referred. On reading its Report—[Interruption.] I wish the right hon. Lady would not mutter. If she wishes to interrupt, would she care to rise to do so?
Dr. Summerskill: I would tell the right hon. Gentleman not to get excited about maternity questions. We understand that he cannot possibly know what he is talking about.
Mr. Maclay: That is the kind of abuse which brings the House into disrepute when it comes from the Front Bench. That is the sort of thing to which I am used occasionally otherwise, but when it comes from the Front Bench it is not good.
Dr. Summerskill Dr. Summerskill rose——
Mr. Maclay: I am sorry, but the right hon. Lady cannot expect me to give way again after making a remark like she did. I shall have to leave some of the points with which I was going to deal because my time has been wasted by that interruption. [Interruption.] I will keep my present temperature; it suits me very well.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Sir M. Stoddart-Scott) made a very interesting speech. He asked what was happening about dentists. I feel that he was thinking back to the McNair Committee's Report. He raised the problem of whether there was a crisis developing and what we were doing to meet it. As he probably knows, the McNair Committee reported in 1957. It was appointed to consider the reasons for the shortage of dental students. The Committee recommended the expansion of the output of dental schools so as to produce an annual output of 800 for Great Britain as a whole. This recommendation has, of course, been accepted by the Government. The necessary expansion of the schools is at present being planned. The expansion includes plans for a dental school at Cardiff as part of the new hospital and university centre, which is at present the subject of an architectural competition and which has had some publicity. The expansion also includes extra places at Glasgow and Dundee.
I say to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), who in his speech said that the Department of Health was always behind the South, that I profoundly disagree. Sometimes it is in front and sometimes behind. Scotland already has had more than its proportional share of dental places and we intend to maintain our lead.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock raised one other point with which I should like to deal briefly. He asked specifically whether the working party on hospital medical staffs under the chairmanship of Sir Robert Platt had
540
any close connection with the Royal Commission. They are entirely separate bodies and will make separate reports.
Dr. Dickson Mabon: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect the Royal Commission's report to be presented? We have now waited many years for it. When will it come?
Mr. Maclay: I cannot make a definite forecast, but I would expect it to be before the end of the year. I cannot be certain about that now.
Turning back for a comparatively short time to some of the things which have been happening and which, I think, can be regarded as part of the progress we are making, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George), in a most interesting speech, raised the question of rehabilitation. I should like to say something which I do not think has previously been announced. It does not precisely deal with what my hon. Friend asked but it is, I think, of very considerable interest.
This is the first time that I have been able to announce it. It has been decided with the approval of the National Advisory Committee on the Employment of the Disabled to begin detailed planning work for the building and equipment of an experimental comprehensive rehabilitation and assessment centre at the Belvidere Hospital in Glasgow. This combined medical and industrial establishment is the first of its kind to be set up in Great Britain, and it is being planned on lines suggested by the Piercy Committee to provide the advantages of having both medical and industrial rehabilitation facilities on one site in close proximity to an existing hospital. The new centre will be planned jointly by the Ministry of Labour and the hospital authorities and it is hoped to begin building on the site in 1961–62.
That is yet another sign of extremely interesting and constructive progress. [Interruption.] If I report what is to happen, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite say that it will never happen. That is nonsense, because an enormous amount does happen. It is equally interesting that if I report on what has happened, hon. Gentlemen opposite ask what is to happen, so that they do their best to get it both ways. Tonight I am dealing with some of the things which

541
are to happen and with some of the things which have happened and that seems to provide a nice balance.
I will give the reasons why it is absurd for hon. Members opposite to dream of voting against us on this matter tonight and I shall take my illustrations from Scotland rather than from the United Kingdom as a whole. Do not let hon. Members opposite say that this is too small: the number of staff beds in Scotland has risen from 58,000 in 1948 to 64,000 at the end of 1958. I do not say that those are dramatic figures, but we must realise that the acute problem is to get the best beds at the right place properly used. [Laughter.] The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North laughs, but to judge from the debate it sounded very much as though hon. Members opposite thought that absolute figures were all that mattered. That is not so and progress has been very reasonable.
The number of medical staff engaged in the hospital service in Scotland rose from 1,900 in 1948 to 2,800 by the end of 1958, a very big increase. The number of in-patients treated increased by 40 per cent. and the number of new out-patient attendances more than doubled.
Expressed in purely quantitative terms, we can claim that that is all good progress and that many people, not only the Government, deserve a great deal of credit for it. Before there is all this talk of things going badly, it should be appreciated that the number of doctors in the National Health Service in Scotland increased from 4,460 in 1948 to 5,700 by the end of 1958.
Of themselves, those figures do not amount to a great deal. What matters is the quality of the accommodation and the services we provide. I accept that it is our obligation to make certain that the quality is in accordance with the highest standards of modern medicine. I agree that we have been able to do things which hon. Members opposite were not able to do in the earlier years of the Service, even if they wanted to do them.
Mr. A. Woodburn Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire) rose——
Mr. Maclay: I have very few minutes left.
Mr. Woodburn: We appreciate many of the things which the right hon. Gentleman is saying. A number of problems have been raised, including pollution and the question of prescription charges. It would be interesting to know whether the Government tonight intend to announce the abolition of prescription charges.
Mr. Maclay: I think that the right hon. Gentleman was present when my right hon. and learned Friend dealt with that matter and I do not propose to repeat what my right hon. and learned Friend said. The right hon. Gentleman will find precisely what was said if he reads HANSARD tomorrow. If I had not been interrupted so much, I would have been able to deal with pollution and many other things.
If I may continue with my own speech and conclude by dealing with other speeches, another piece of progress mentioned by the hon. Lady for Lanarkshire, North was that connected with infant mortality. She seemed to think that our figures were bad and that Scotland was relatively very much worse off than England. I agree that our figures are still worse than those of England. The comparisons between 1948 and 1958 are that the infant mortality rate for 1,000 births was 44·7 in Scotland against 32 in England, while at the end of the period it was 27·7 in Scotland against 23 in England. That shows a remarkable improvement. The figures are not good enough, but nothing is ever good enough in the National Health Service. The hon. Lady must agree that that is more evidence of genuine progress.
I should have liked to deal in much more detail with many of the topics which have been raised. Pollution has been mentioned by several hon. Members and obviously it has a relationship with various illnesses which have been mentioned. I confess that I am not very happy about the speed with which Scottish local authorities are getting on with making smoke clearance schemes. I have recently been in touch with them pressing them for more schemes. Everybody knows that this is a difficult problem.
Mr. Thomas Steele Mr. Thomas Steele (Dunbartonshire, West) rose——
Mr. Maclay: This is very important. I have given way a good deal and there is not more more time for me to deal with the points which have been raised.
Mr. Steele Mr. Steele rose ——
Mr. Maclay: I must get on.
Mr. Steele: Is the Minister aware that the Dunbarton Town Council made an order on 1st January, 1958, and it still has not been confirmed?
Mr. Maclay: There are technical reasons for that. That is clearly a constituency point and it has prevented me dealing with other points that have been raised.
It must be remembered that the party opposite are going to divide the Committee. They have not made their case, but let us look at what is happening apart from building and in addition to the improved figures that I have given. There has been a remarkable achievement in dealing with tuberculosis in Scotland. I do not claim full credit for the Government. I claim credit for the medical profession and all those working on the problem, but I also claim that this Government have made possible and encouraged the greatest anti-tuberculosis campaign conducted in any country at any time. The work that we have to do must be a combination of work by the Government, the medical profession, voluntary workers, staffs of the National Health Service, research workers and all those involved in this very great service.
Hon. Members opposite do not like the figures that I have given. Let us consider
what is happening, because this is an interesting and relevant reflection of the high standard of health that exists. The high birthrate may well be regarded as an index of a very healthy community, provided it is associated with a declining infant mortality rate and stillbirth rate. I have already given the figures for the declining infant mortality rate, but the birthrate figure in Scotland in 1958 at 19·2 per thousand was as high as it was in 1948 towards the end of the post-war bulge.
Why do hon. Members opposite intend to divide the Committee? The right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington, accused my right hon. Friend of laughing and smiling. She has sat there completely irresponsible throughout my speech, muttering to herself and unable to give any justification for dividing the Committee. I used to have some respect for the right hon. Lady, but she has lost it all today. Her charge against the Government was that they had failed to implement Reports which had been introduced so recently that it was physically impossible for them to be implemented. I deplore the fact that she made a personal attack on my right hon. Friend in the course of his absolutely first-rate speech.
Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, That Item Class V, Vote 5 (National Health Service, England and Wales), be reduced by £5.
Question put:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 240, Noes 301.

Division No. 168.]

AYES

[9.58 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Burton, Miss F. E.

Donnelly, D. L.

Ainsley, J. W.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

Albu, A. H.

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Callaghan, L. J.

Edelman, M.

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Carmichael, J.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Awbery, S. S.

Champion, A. J.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Baird, J.

Chapman, W. D.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Balfour, A.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Cliffe, Michael

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

Coldrick, W.

Fernyhough, E.

Benson, Sir George

Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)

Beswick, Frank

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)

Blenkinsop, A.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Fletcher, Eric

Blyton, W. R.

Cronin, J. D.

Foot, D. M.

Boardman, H.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Forman, J. C.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Fraser Thomas (Hamilton)

Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

Bowles, F. G.

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Gibson, C. W.

Boyd, T. C.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Gooch, E. G.

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Brockway, A. F.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Greenwood, Anthony

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Deer, G.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Diamond, John

Grey, C. F.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Dodds, N. N.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

MacDermot, Niall

Ross, William

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

McInnes, J.

Royle, C.

Hale, Leslie

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Hall Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

McLeavy, Frank

Short, E. W.

Hamilton, W. W.

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Hannan, W.

Mahon, Simon

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Hastings, S.

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Hayman, F. H.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Skeffington, A. M.

Healey, Denis

Mason, Roy

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

Mayhew, C. P.

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Herbison, Miss M.

Mendelson, J. J.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Mikardo, Ian

Snow, J. W,

Hilton, A. V.

Mitchison, G. R.

Sorensen, R, W.

Hohson, C. R. (Keighley)

Monslow, W.

Sparks, J. A.

Holman, P.

Moody, A. S.

Spriggs, Leslie

Holmes, Horace

Morris, Percy (Swansea W.)

Steele, T.

Houghton, Douglas

Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Mort, D. L.

Stonehouse, John

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Moyle, A.

Stones, W. (Consett)

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Mulley, F. W.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Hunter, A. E.

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

Swingler, S. T.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Oliver, G. H.

Sylvester, G. O.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Oram, A. E.

Symonds, J. B.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Orbach, M.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Oswald, T.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Owen, W. J.

Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Janner, B.

Padley, W. E.

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

Paget, R. T.

Thornton, E.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

Tomney, F.

Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Usborne, H. C.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Viant, S. P.

Johnston Douglas (Paisley)

Pargiter, G. A.

Warbey, W. N.

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)

Parker, J.

Watkins, T. E.

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Parkin, B. T.

Weitzman, D.

Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Paton, John

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Peart, T. F.

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Pentland, N.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Wigg, George

Kenyon, C.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Wilkins, W. A.

King, Dr. H. M.

Probert, A. R.

Willey, Frederick

Lawson, G. M.

Proctor, W. T.

Williams, David (Neath)

Ledger, R. J.

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Randall, H. E.

Williams Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Rankin, John

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Redhead, E. C.

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Reid, William

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Lewis, Arthur

Reynolds, G. W.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Lindgren, G. S.

Rhodes, H.

Woof, R. E.

Lipton, Marcus

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Zilliacus, K.

McAlister, Mrs. Mary

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

McCann, J.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

MacColl, J. E.

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Pearson.

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Cary, Sir Robert

Aitken, W. T.

Bidgood, J. C.

Channon, H. P. G.

Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

Biggs-Davison, J, A.

Chichester-Clark, R.

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Bingham, R. M.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Bishop, F. P.

Cole, Norman

Arbuthnot, John

Black, Sir Cyril

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Armstrong, C. W.

Body, R. F.

Cooke, Robert

Ashton, Sir Hubert

Bonham Carter, Mark

Cooper, A. E.

Astor, Hon. J, J.

Bossom, Sir Alfred

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Atkins, H. E.

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

Corfield, F. V.

Baldwin, Sir Archer

Boyle, Sir Edward

Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

Balniel, Lord

Braine, B. R.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Banks, Col. C.

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Barber, Anthony

Brewis, John

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Barlow, Sir John

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col, W. H.

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Barter, John

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Cunningham, Knox

Batsford, Brian

Brooman-White, R. C.

Currie, G. B. H.

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Browne, J. Nixon (Cralgton)

Dance, J. C. G.

Beamish, Col. Tufton

Bryan, P.

Davidson, Viscountess

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Deedes, W. F.

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Campbell, Sir David

de Ferranti, Basil

Bennett, Dr. Reginald

Carr, Robert

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

546

547

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Johnson Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Doughty C. J. A.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Pott, H. P.

Drayson, G. B.

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Powell, J. Enoch

du Cann, E. D. L.

Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Duncan, Sir James

Joseph, Sir Keith

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Duthie, Sir William

Kaberry, D.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Keegan, D.

Profumo, J. D.

Elliot, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Ramsden, J. E.

Emmet Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Rawlinson, Peter

Errington, Sir Eric

Kershaw, J. A.

Redmayne, M.

Erroll F. J.

Kimball, M.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Kirk, P. M.

Remnant, Hon. P.

Fell, A.

Lagden, G. W.

Renton, D. L. M.

Finlay, Graeme

Lambton, Viscount

Ridsdale, J. E.

Fisher, Nigel

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Rippon, A. G. F.

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Leavey, J. A.

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Freeth, Denzil

Leburn, W. G.

Robson Brown, Sir William

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Gammans, Lady

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Roper, Sir Harold

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

George, J. C. (Pollok)

Liewellyn, D. T.

Russell, R. S.

Gibson-Watt, D.

Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R

Glover, D.

Longden, Gilbert

Sharples, R. C.

Glyn, Col. Richard H.

Loveys, Walter H.

Shepherd, William

Godber, J. B.

Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Goodhart Philip

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Gough, C. F. H.

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Gower H. R.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

Graham, Sir Fergus

McAdden, S. J.

Speir, R. M.

Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)

Green, A.

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Gresham Cooke, R.

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Stevens, Geoffrey

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich W.)

Grosvenor Lt.-Col. R. G.

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Gurden, Harold

McMaster, Stanley

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Macmillan, Maurice (Hallfax)

Studholme, Sir Henry

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

Maddan, Martin

Summers, Sir Spencer

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Teeling, W.

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Temple, John M.

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Hay, John

Marshall, Douglas

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Head Rt. Hon. A. H.

Mathew, R.

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

Mawby, R. L.

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

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

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Medlicott, Sir Frank

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Hesketh, R. F.

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Moore, Sir Thomas

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Vane, W. M. F.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Vickers, Miss Joan

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Nairn, D. L. S.

Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

Holt, A. F.

Nicholls, Harmar

Wade, D. W.

Hope, Lord John

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Hornby, R. P.

Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

Hornshy-Smith, Miss M. P.

Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Sir Allan

Wall, Patrick

Horobin, Sir Ian

Noble, Michael (Argyll)

Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Nugent, Richard

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

Webbe, Sir H.

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

O'Neill, Hn. Phellm (Co. Antrim, N.)

Webster, David

Howard, John (Test)

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.

Whitelaw, W. S. I.

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Orr-Ewing, C. Ian (Hendon N.)

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Hurd, Sir Anthony

Page, R. G.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

Partridge, E.

Wood, Hon. R.

Hyde, Montgomery

Peel, W. J.

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Peyton, J. W. W.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Mr. Legh and

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Colonel J. H. Harrison.

Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

Pitman, I. J.

Original Question again proposed.
Mr. Ray Mawby Mr. Ray Mawby (Totnes) rose——
It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

KENYA (TELEVISION SERVICE)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bryan.]
10.11 p.m.
Mr. David Webster: Since I entered this House, I have been increasingly aware of the consciousness there is in all parts of it that the battle for the defence of democracy is not won by weapons alone. We are frequently told that this is an age of conflicting ideals and that the important task before us today is the influencing of the opinion of the uncommitted millions in all sectors of the world.
If I may say so, I was particularly impressed, in the defence debate on 25th February, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Head) asked the House:
"May not our undue concentration purely on weapons, and atomic weapons, if it is pressed too far, become our kind of Maginot Line?"
And, as we are discussing Kenya tonight, it would be quite right to turn to another part of my right hon. Friend's speech, when he said:
"… I would rather see a £5 million education scheme for Kenya than a couple of Blue Streaks."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1959; Vol. 600, c. 1169–73.]
We are aware that today there is a stirring of the nations and peoples of the Middle East, that there is a spread of nationalist ideas, and that this movement is spreading from the deserts of Arabia, through the Horn of Africa into the centre of this mighty and powerful Continent. This, of course, is a natural development in the affairs of people, and what we wish is that this development of nationhood should be allied to a firm belief in the rule of law, and development towards democracy along the lines that we know.
There are, of course, essential differences that must be applied to render this adaptable to the African and tribal traditions. Above all, it is the minds of men that are important. Whenever one speaks on this subject in general terms in this House one meets with approval, but what I am trying to do tonight is to carry the general principle forward one stage by considering the problems and the practical applications of this matter. The fact is that the
550
Government of Kenya have pledged themselves to provide a television service within the next two years, and it is for this reason that I think it is worth the time of the House to consider this important matter now.
We all know that in Kenya, since the alarming days of Mau Mau, there have been courageous and enlightened attempts to win the confidence of all shades of opinion and of all tribes and types of people. Here television can have a unique influence. As we know from our experience in this country, it is a medium that has interest and attraction for all types of people. In addition, while the "Voice of Cairo" over the sound radio transmission emits noises which, if I may say so, are not necessarily favourable to the United Kingdom, it is impossible to flood Africa with television propaganda from afar and from an alien source because the thing just is not possible. A new television service in Kenya would have the stage to itself and would not have to compete with or reply to a hostile source. We know that the Kenya Government are exploring the best method of installing such a service, and it is right that we should consider this problem. I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the interest that he has shown in the documents that I have sent to him.
I think we shall all agree that there are two problems to be overcome. If television is to have the confidence of the people not only in Kenya but in the Continent of Africa, and if it is to be of any service to democracy and to the cause which we are trying to defend, it must have the confidence of these people. If it is to have this confidence, it must not be seen to be completely controlled by government, because if it is it will be regarded purely as an instrument of government, and agitators—because we must not delude ourselves; there are plenty of those in other countries—will say that it is simply a scheme for keeping white domination in the Colony of Kenya. If this were to happen the service would immediately become discredited.
At the other extreme, this service should not become excessively commercial. I would not suggest that television advertising should be excluded from such a service, but it is said that we

551
in the United Kingdom are gullible to the beguilement of television advertising, and I should like to preserve the Africans from the African or Swahili equivalent of "Omo washes brighter". I do not know how that translates into that dialect. I should think it goes pretty well, but I think we want to keep these things down to a moderate degree.
It would be wrong that excessive profits should be made in Kenya for interests outside the Colony, because if this were to happen the service would be discredited. On the other hand, if we limit both the Government control and the potential advertising there is a serious financial problem. There is, however, influential opinion that it would be better to start this service on economic lines and not in too elaborate a fashion, in order to avoid the crushing expense that would render it dependent on an outright Government grant or complete commercial control.
At present we are seeing the development of the Kenya Broadcasting Service, and the present Government Department which controls broadcasting in Kenya it to be developed into an independent corporation. I should like to see an independent corporation for television, with African, Asian and European representatives giving honorary and unpaid service. It is right that the Government should be represented, but I should not like to see it have an overriding power, except in the last resort as a reserve power,. As to day-to-day functioning, it would be better to have a director responsible to the corporation.
On analysis, I think we would agree that the function of television is to provide a news service, education and entertainment, and I think that many of us, particularly those who have greater experience than I have in the use of this medium, would also agree that greater economy could be effected by the use of films than by the use of live transmissions because of the high labour charge that would be involved. I have received estimates that give running charges between £50,000 and £200,000 according to taste, and in these estimates salaries play the highest part of the running charges. For that reason the use of films whenever possible can be well understood.
552
To continue the revenue aspect, income could be derived from licences, from an Exchequer grant and from advertising revenue from the limited amount of advertising that would be permitted. As to coverage, a transmitting station might possibly be set up in the west of the town where the ground is high and might provide a suitable site for a transmitter. At a relatively small cost, repeater stations could be set up for the rest of the Central Province, the Highlands and Machakos. This area would include only one-sixth of the population, but apart from the quantitative basis, this is the "heartland of the Colony." It contains the most politically and economically advanced elements, and we should rightly concentrate upon them first.
In Kenya, as in most of Africa, it is the communal unit which is the most important. Probably, in urban areas, arrangements for reception would be established in bars and community centres. In the villages, it would be done in the village centres.
As regards the capital charge, we have received quotations for a transmission service of between £60,000 and £145,000. One would not wish to go into excessive detail at this stage. In Canada, one transmitting station is established in a private house. It seems, therefore, that, if one went to the lowest level, one could do things very economically indeed. It would be unwise at this juncture to go deeper into detail. These matters will be considered by the Government of Kenya in the near future.
The details to which I have referred tonight are important if the service is to retain the independence which is necessary if it is to have the confidence of the people of Kenya in the years to come. This is the point at issue tonight. We all know that the struggle for the minds of the uncommitted peoples is paramount today if democracy as we cherish it is to survive and spread at this time of great challenge. It is easy to obtain applause by proclaiming this general principle. It is prudent to carry the argument one stage further and investigate ways and means.
10.22 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Julian Amery): My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare

553
(Mr. Webster) has done the House and the Government a service in raising this important matter tonight. The prospect of television in Kenya is arousing a good deal of interest and receiving fairly urgent consideration out there. I have no doubt that what my hon. Friend has said will be noted in Nairobi.
As my hon. Friend said, there is already a strong sound broadcasting organisation in Nairobi, and this is to be further improved this year. The existing African programmes, which have been the concern of a Government Department so far, and the European and Asian programmes, which have been run by Cable and Wireless, are being taken over by a Kenya Broadcasting Service. This arrangement will come into effect on 1st October, and the service will have the advantage of backing from Britain in two ways. It will receive what I think is the biggest broadcasting grant ever made by this country overseas, namely, £234,000, and the British Broadcasting Corporation has made available to it key personnel on both the directing and the technical sides.
My hon. Friend will agree, I am sure, that we should give first priority to sound broadcasting. It has a Kenya-wide coverage. Receiving sets are relatively cheap in Africa, and, of course, it is fairly easy to arrange programmes of music, talks and news. As my hon. Friend pointed out, however, television has very great and, in some respects, superior attractions over sound broadcasting. The appeal of the visual medium, though difficult to define, is very real, as we know from our own experience in this country. It can be a powerful medium not only for entertainment but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Head) has said, for education, also. It is something which only a local station can give. It is something, therefore, which offers us both an opportunity and an obligation which no foreign Power can fulfil or undertake.
There are, however, very real difficulties to overcome. A television service in Nairobi would not have a Kenya-wide coverage. It would be possible to have a television service to cover Nairobi and the surrounding area, and it would probably be possible fairly soon to duplicate its facilities in Mombasa, but where there is no electric main current I am
554
advised that reception would be impracticable even near towns. Further afield from the towns, it would not be possible to receive television. Even Lord Boothby, that shining star of television, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) once called him, was not seen by his constituents in Aberdeen for some years after television was introduced in this country. It would certainly be quite a time before a television service from Nairobi would be receivable in the villages at any distance from Nairobi.
Television sets are, in terms of African income, still very expensive to buy and to maintain. The European and Asian population could, of course, afford them, but it will be some time yet before a wide African audience could be developed to view on an individual basis, though there might be a good deal of scope for communal viewing in cafes and clubs and places of that sort.
One would also have to overcome the shortage of engineering and programming staff, who are in fairly short supply, even in the developed areas of the world. The programmes themselves are much more difficult to arrange and much dearer than sound broadcast programmes. News, music and talks are fairly cheap to organise, but when one uses the visual medium one must produce a wider range of entertainment and employ more personnel, usually more highly paid personnel. I think that one could draw a good deal on local talent, but in the early stages this would be limited.
I think that none of these difficulties is insuperable, but they must be faced and overcome. As my hon. Friend said, one of the problems about how they are to be overcome is to find the right organisation to deal with them. There is, I suppose, a broad choice of having a commercial television service, a Government-run television service or an independent corporation. We in the Colonial Office have never taken a dogmatic view about which is the right solution. The Kenya Broadcasting Service is a Government Department, but it is intended that it will in due course become an independent corporation.
We have advised Colonial Governments that in some cases financial circumstances may make it necessary that their television services should be commercial—this does not apply to all

555
Colonies, only to some. We have accordingly encouraged United Kingdom programme companies to take an interest in the development of television in the Colonial Territories. A number of proposals have been already made for associating a commercial television company with the operation of a television service in Kenya. Some would include more Government control, some less. We have not a rigid view on this point.
My hon. Friend sent me a very interesting memorandum by Dr. Williams on this subject which we in the Department have read with interest and which we regard as a thoughtful and useful contribution. We have passed it on to the Government of Kenya, and I am sure they will give it very close consideration. However, the final decision, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, is primarily a matter for the Government of Kenya.
A good deal of interest has been aroused inside and outside political circles in this matter. At the end of May, the Chief Secretary announced in the Legislative Council that, in the Kenya Government's view, there was a need for an impartial examination into all the problems raised by proposals to set up a television service in Kenya.
He said that the Government of Kenya had therefore decided to set up a Commission to investigate all the relevant factors and to report. This proposal follows a precedent which Kenya successfully adopted over the introduction of sound broadcasting. It set up a commission for that and it is now proposing to set up a commission to investigate the introduction of a television service. Three members of the commission are to be from Kenya and two, including the chairman, are to be from outside Kenya. The Governor is seeking my right hon. Friend's help in suggesting suitable persons for the chairmanship and the other member from outside Kenya.
The commission will consider the problem in all its aspects. It will consider the economic aspect—the cost of operation. It will consider the technical aspects—the provision of the necessary staff and the question of the range and instruments best suited to Kenya. And it will consider the problem on which my hon. Friend dwelt most, the organisation of the service and the extent of
556
Government participation or guidance in its operations. It will also consider—it is not the least important aspect of the problem—the social implications for Kenya of the introduction of this new medium of entertainment and education.
It would be wrong for us here tonight to try to anticipate the findings of the commission, but, as I have said, I think my hon. Friend did a service in expressing his views in the matter, because I am sure that the commission in Nairobi would want to have before it all possible ideas on the proper development of the service. The introduction of television in Kenya is a revolutionary development. As yet there is no television south of the Sahara. Western Nigeria will be the first among the Colonies in Africa to have its own television service—in the next few months, we expect. The Central African Federation already has proposals which are far advanced.
I can say that my right hon. Friend entirely endorses what my hon. Friend has said about the importance of this problem and the great advantages that would flow from the setting up of a television service in Kenya. I think the House will agree with me that the Kenya Government are wise to arm themselves with the best advice they can get before they decide on the method, the structure and the organisation of their television service.
Mr. Ness Edwards: Do I take it that the commission would be invited to this country to see our experience in these matters, and to see the types of programmes being transmitted under both systems so that it can judge for itself which would be the most suitable for its territory?
Mr. Amery: I am sure the B.B.C. and, I have no doubt, the independent corporations as well would make any advice which they have available to the commission. As I have said, two of its members will come from outside Kenya, probably—not necessarily—from this country. Any advice which we can persuade others to give or which others voluntarily give—I am sure they will give it lavishly—will be made available to the commission.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Eleven o'clock.

BRITISH ARMY
  Nationalised Industries (T.A. Camp Leave)
  Nationalised Industries (T.A. Camp Leave)
  Officer Recruitment
  Officer Recruitment
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Louth
  Louth
  Cheshire
  Cheshire
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Charitable Appeals
  Charitable Appeals
TRANSPORT
  Rural Transport (Committee)
  Rural Transport (Committee)
  Transport Undertakings (Compensation to Employees) Regulations
  Transport Undertakings (Compensation to Employees) Regulations
  British Transport Commission (Dividends and Interest)
  British Transport Commission (Dividends and Interest)
  Woolwich Free Ferry
  Woolwich Free Ferry
RAILWAYS
  Passenger Facilities, Leek
  Passenger Facilities, Leek
CIVIL AVIATION
  London and Prestwick Airports
  London and Prestwick Airports
  Renfrew Airport
  Renfrew Airport
  Low-flying Aircraft, Willesden
  Low-flying Aircraft, Willesden
  Aircraft Accident, Southall
  Aircraft Accident, Southall
  Blackbushe Airport (Radar)
  Blackbushe Airport (Radar)
  B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. (Dividends and Interest)
  B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. (Dividends and Interest)
SHIPPING
  Flags of Convenience
  Flags of Convenience
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Water Supplies, Kennet Valley
  Water Supplies, Kennet Valley
  GERMANY (ATOMIC ENERGY)
  GERMANY (ATOMIC ENERGY)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police (Uniform)
  Police (Uniform)
  Statutes (Maximum Fines)
  Statutes (Maximum Fines)
ADEN
  Federation
  Federation
UGANDA
  Makerere College
  Makerere College
KENYA
  Education
  Education
TANGANYIKA
  African National Union
  African National Union
BASUTOLAND
  Political Meetings
  Political Meetings
SWAZILAND
  Usutu Pulp Company Limited
  Usutu Pulp Company Limited
  AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT, SOUTHALL (INQUIRY)
  AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT, SOUTHALL (INQUIRY)
EMPLOYMENT
  Fife
  Fife
GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES
  C.O.I. (Films)
  C.O.I. (Films)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Cable and Wireless Limited
  Cable and Wireless Limited
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Consumer Protection (Committee)
  Consumer Protection (Committee)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Aircraft Industry (Output)
  Aircraft Industry (Output)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Wingfield Manor
  Wingfield Manor

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury

THE LORD BISHOP OF LICHFIELD
Arthur Stretton, Lord Bishop of Lichfield—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD ROBBINS
Lionel Charles Robbins, Esquire, C.B., having been created Baron Robbins, of Clare Market in the City of Westminster, for life—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

SUBMARINE FREIGHTERS
2.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF HARROWBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation will set up a Committee of scientists, industrialists, insurance and underwriting interests, with Naval and Treasury assessors, to consider the
2
possibilities of launching a pilot scheme, of large ocean-going submarine freighters, with a view to an ultimate large-scale service, irrespective of its war time value, or alternatively if the Government have any statement to make.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, the development which the noble Earl envisages may be one which will come to be of importance in the future. It does, however, present formidable difficulties, not only in the construction of the type of freighter suggested, but also in the provision of adequate terminal facilities for a ship of this character. We are watching the possibilities in this field, but Her Majesty's Government cannot at present see sufficient commercial prospects in this development to warrant the action which the noble Earl proposes.
THE EARL OF HARROWBY: My Lords, may I ask exactly what is involved in the watching mentioned by the noble Earl?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: We are watching the position. There are various feasibility studies going on which we are watching at the present time.

LABELLING OF MEDICINES AND PILLS
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, under the National Health

3
Service (a) dispensing chemists (and medical practitioners who dispense their own medicines) are permitted to dispense medicines and pills without labelling them in such a way as to make contents and dosage recognisable by the patient; (b) dispensing chemists are instructed not to label medicines with their contents and to obscure, or remove, the labels affixed to proprietary brands of medicines, and, if so, what is the reason for this; and whether Her Majesty's Government do not agree that, in the case of patients whose condition calls for the use of a large number of different pills and medicines, there is a grave danger that failure to label them may lead to patients taking the wrong drugs or the wrong dosage.]
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, the arrangements which Her Majesty's Government make under the National Health Service with pharmacists and doctors for the dispensing of medicines are on the general understanding that professional services will be provided according to the normal practice in their professions. It follows that pharmacists and doctors are not given any permission or instructions as suggested in (a) and (b) of the Question.
As regards point (a), Her Majesty's Government understand that a pharmacist would regard it as professionally incorrect, either in private or National Health Service dispensing, to label medicines to show the nature of their contents unless instructed by the doctor to do so. The dosage would be shown on the label if the necessary instructions were given by the doctor on the prescription. In the absence of such instructions, the pharmacist would indicate on the label that the medicine was to be taken as directed by the prescriber.
As regards point (b) of the Question, Her Majesty's Government assume that the reason for removing or obscuring the name of a proprietary preparation is that the pharmacist has not been instructed by the prescriber to disclose the nature of the preparation. I might add that very often some of these preparations come out of much larger containers, and a few tablets or a small amount of liquid medicine is put into the private bottles of the chemist, and the label added.
4
It is understood that where a number of items are prescribed for the treatment of a patient the doctor would normally indicate on the prescription the amount and frequency of the dosage of each item. In accordance with the practice I have already explained, the pharmacists would reproduce these instructions on the label. The patient should consult the pharmacist if he has difficulty in distinguishing between the various items or in interpreting the written directions; and should consult his doctor if he cannot recall any verbal instructions.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his answer, may I ask whether he will ask his right honourable and learned friend the Minister of Health to give this matter further consideration? Would he accept from me that this is not just a personal idiosyncrasy expressed in the question, because judging from the number of people, including Members of your Lordships' House, who have commented on the difficulty they themselves have encountered in this matter, it seems to be a very widespread problem. Would he ask the Minister to consider that in modern dispensing there are quite a number of pills, for example, which, to the lay person, are quite undistinguishable one from another but which are intended for very different purposes, and if it so happens that a patient suffers from two different complaints requiring these two different pills it is very easy for a mistake to be made. I do not want to go into detail but I am simply asking at this stage that the Minister should be asked to look at this question again to see whether a practice could not be laid down which would be safer for the lay patient.
THE EARL OF MORLEY: My Lords, on this question of removing proprietary labels or of simply putting "To be taken as directed", may I say that it is a very dangerous practice indeed. I have several bottles marked "To be taken as directed" but I have not the faintest idea what they are, and doctors have had to look at them very carefully before they could tell me what they are. It is very very much more simple if the proprietary label is left on and there is put at the back how often it is to be taken. I have twice found myself taking the wrong bottle.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am sorry for my noble friend behind me; and I hope he does not make that mistake again. I understand it is not a question of defacing the bottle. If, for instance, one bought aspirin it would have the maker's name on it. It is a question of these pills and liquid medicines being made in bulk and dispensed in the chemist's own bottles. Of course my right honourable friend the Minister and his Department, and all doctors, always strongly advise people to destroy any medicines left over when they have finished a course of treatment for a specific illness of which they have been cured; and they advise that for the very reason that people may sometimes think, "I have a headache and had these pills three months ago; I will take one of those". But the headache may have quite a different cause and require a different medicine. That is why everybody is advised to destroy left-over medicines.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I suggest that the reply we have just heard does not touch the point I was making. I was not dealing with medicines left over at the end, but with medicines absolutely similar in appearance being used at the same time for a course of treatment. When the prescription is handed in at the chemists, the patient gets two little white boxes which are marked "The tablets, to be taken as directed". I am not concerned about "taken as directed", for it is a matter for the doctor; but if two similar medicines are being used simultaneously, to put on each "The tablets" is not satisfactory. I am asking that that point should be looked into.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Certainly I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend to what the noble Lord has said.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord also to invite his right honourable friend to consider this from the point of view that if the patient does not know what the medicine is that he is getting, and in an emergency has to go to some doctor other than the one who has prescribed the medicine, he may be given something which is entirely incompatible with the medicine he has been taking.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, that is slightly wide of the present Question, but again I will draw the matter to the attention of my right honourable friend. However, I understand that often in the opinion of the doctor who has treated the patient it is not wise for the patient to know the exact ingredients of a particular pill or medicine he is given.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, would the noble Earl be prepared to reconsider his statement about throwing away surplus medicine? Many medicines are suitable for recurrent bouts of the same illness. Would it not be wise to label them so that in the interests of economy they should not be thrown away but kept for later use?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Obviously, in some cases there are pills which would be kept, but it is wise on the whole, as I think most noble Lords would agree, that a strange medicine chest full of all sorts of odds and ends dating back to your great grandmother, is generally better destroyed than kept.

THE "ZENITH" LOW-POWER REACTOR
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, with reference to the low-power reactor to be operated jointly with the European Nuclear Energy Agency at Winfrith Heath, (1) which are the participating countries; (2) what is the United Kingdom participation in staff and otherwise; and (3) on what principle capital investment will be allocated as between the participants.]
THE MINISTER OF POWER (LORD MILLS): My Lords, the noble Viscount's question refers to the low-power reactor "Zenith". This installation, which is one of the Atomic Energy Authority's installations at Winfrith Heath, will be used mainly to further the work of the European Nuclear Energy Agency project for research on a high temperature gas-cooled reactor. The project will pay rent to the Atomic Energy Authority for its use. The text of the Agreement concerning this project was placed in

7
the Library on 23rd March, and I would refer the noble Viscount to the Agreement for the answer to the first part of his question. It is hoped that about half the professional staff will be provided from signatory countries other than the United Kingdom. The allocation of capital investment was determined after considerable negotiation between the parties.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Assuming that the original cost of this reactor fell upon United Kingdom funds, in any subsequent financial year will the United Kingdom reap the full benefit of that fact? Secondly, can the noble Lord give the House an assurance that the control of this reactor will vest in the United Kingdom Executive and not pass to any of these other countries?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, the answer to the first question is that the total cost of the project is estimated to be £13·6 million. Of this sum £10 million will be contributed by the participants. The United Kingdom will, in addition, make up the balance of £3·6 million and will retain ownership of the reactor and other equipment in this country when the project is wound up. The work will be carried out by the Atomic Energy Authority, but of course, as the noble Viscount will see from the Agreement, all participating countries have their say on various matters in connection with the project.

ARTS COUNCIL AND THE CARL ROSA TRUST
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the meeting between the Arts Council and the Carl Rosa Trust, to which the noble Earl, Lard Dundee, referred on November 27, 1958, has yet taken place and whether a satisfactory arrangement has now been reached to enable the Carl Rosa to present opera in the provinces in accordance with its established tradition.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, since the publication of the Thirteenth Annual Report of the Arts Council last October, there has been correspondence between the Arts Council and the Carl Rosa Trust on the possibility of a further meeting. On June 2 the Arts Council agreed to meet the Trust and listen to anything they liked to say about the future activities of Carl Rosa. The Trust have not yet said whether they will accept this invitation.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, does it not seem an extraordinary thing that the noble Earl, who is always so obliging to the House and whom we trust so much, should have been so much misled, obviously, last November to say that a meeting was going to be arranged, when nothing happened until the offer was made on June 2 and this very important service which has been given for over sixty years for providing opera in the Provinces has been broken into in consequence? May I ask him whether, as we are not allowed apparently to take any revisionary action in regard to the Arts Council in Parliament, he, on behalf of the Treasury, can make some progress to see that justice is done to the Carl Rosa?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, perhaps I had better read out the passage I referred to from the Report of the Arts Council, published last October, which said:
"The Arts Council proposes to continue discussions with the present members of the Carl Rosa and to consider further its attitude towards a body which has for so long been acutely divided in matters of policy and method."
I quoted that in reply to a question from a noble Lord as to what was going to happen. I said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 212 (No. 15), col. 968]:
"I do not know what is going to happen now, but in their Report the Arts Council say"—
and then I quoted this passage. As I have indicated in my reply, since then there has only been correspondence about a possible meeting. I do not want to express any opinion as to whether a different approach ought to have been made by either of the parties to this dispute, because, as I think I made plain

9
to your Lordships last year, the grant in aid is voted to the Arts Council with complete discretion as to how it shall be spent for the benefit of art, and we do not give the Arts Council any instructions either as to how they shall allocate this grant among the applicants for financial aid or as to what discussions, if any, they shall hold with any of these applicants.
LORD AMWELL: But the noble Earl, when the matter was raised in this House, I think, in March or April, did express an opinion that there had been an unfortunate quarrel—he used the term "unfortunate". Could we know what that quarrel was about?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think we are only too well aware what the quarrel was about from your Lordships' debate last November, and what I would try to impress upon your Lordships is that the Government are determined not to take any part in this quarrel.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for his reply, and I will make further inquiries and come back to it. But may I ask whether the Government will not consider the advisability of changing this practice with the Arts Council as they are now handling such large sums of money? Surely, in the long run, the voting of public money should be under some public control.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, that is of course a matter for Parliament to decide. What I think I explained to your Lordships last year was that in Great Britain we have not got any Government Department or any trained staff capable of carrying out the functions of a Ministry of Fine Arts, such as they have in some Continental countries. Our present alternatives really are either not to give any money to the arts at all, or to give it to some body such as the Arts Council with discretion to spend it in the best way. I think that if Parliament or the Treasury were to try to allocate this grant in aid money to the different applicants there would probably be continual uproar.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: With the permission of your Lordships, I would put only this
10
point. Remembering some of the charming musical performances that I have heard in Westminster Hall from the staff of the Treasury, I should have thought that they could have found somebody who could judge musical products.
VISCOUNT MACKINTOSH OF HALIFAX: My Lords, as a new member of the Arts Council, which has a meeting next week, I will see that the noble Viscount's views are put before the Committee.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, in view of the number of speakers, on the two debates this afternoon, it will probably be necessary to sit through dinner. I would ask those of your Lordships who wish to dine here, and have not notified the restaurant of your intention, if you would be good enough to do so.

THE FUEL AND POWER INDUSTRIES
3.11 p.m.
VISCOUNT HALL VISCOUNT HALL rose to call attention to the present situation in the fuel and power industries; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I feel sure that my colleagues and I have no need to apologise to your Lordships for again asking you to give time for a review of the coal industry, which is facing a contraction far greater than that which was anticipated when the problem was last debated in your Lordships' House. I frequently go down to the mining villages in South Wales, where I spent the greater part of my life, and have talks with the men employed in the pits. I find now that there is greater anxiety than I have ever known before as to what their position and their future in the coalfield will be if the coal industry goes on receding as it is at the present time.
They read so much about nuclear power and oil being used in the place of coal, and of very much more being

11
used in the future. I advised them not to have any anxiety in the valley in which I lived, because the Aberdare Valley collieries are amongst the most profitable in the country, and last year made a profit of over £2 million, or 11s. 7d. a ton. Even that does not reassure the men there, for they are anxious for their comrades in other areas who are not so fortunate. They are hoping that, as a result of this debate, we shall hear of the new plan giving the future prospects of the coal industry with an estimate of the coal required, and whether there are likely to be any further inroads into coal production by the use of other fuels for providing power energy during the period 1960 to 1965.
The position in the coal fields is grim. Since June of last year until the present time, there has been a reduction of some 30,000 men employed in the coal industry. To-day, fewer persons are employed, I think, than at any time during the last sixty years. From what the men read in the Press, it appears to them that many pits are likely to be closed during the next year or two. The newspapers come out with headings about the closing down of 100 more pits. If that is to be so, it will mean the throwing out of employment of some 35,000 to 40,000 miners; and that 50 to 60 of these mining communities will lose their principal source of employment. Another statement which appeared in the Press stated that a secret list of the next group of coal mines to be shut was under lock and key at the London headquarters of the National Coal Board, and was not to be disclosed until after the miners' conference. I wish the miners, and particularly the miners' leaders, could be kept in touch with what is going to happen. If pits are to be closed down, arrangements should be made, not only by the officials, the Coal Board—or, indeed, by the Ministry of Fuel and Power—to give the men some intimation of what is happening in the industry. The effect of all this anxiety is that the younger men are not inclined to be recruited into the industry, which will mean a very sad loss in the course of a year or two.
I am sure your Lordships all know the amount of coal stocks we had in this country at the end of last year. The latest figures of stocks at the present
12
time amount to something like 43 million tons, 28 million tons of which are undistributed. The value of the coal stocked and undistributed on January 3 of this year was no less than £85½ million, and if stocking continues at the present rate until the end of the year, it means there will be much more than £100 million worth of coal stocked in this country. During the first 23 weeks of this year, coal consumption, including exports, was 8½ million tons less than in the same period last year. With that number of miners being drawn out of the industry, the excess of production over consumption was 3½ million tons; and that amount has to be added to the already alarming stocks. It is also estimated that by the end of the year another 3½ million tons will be added to the existing stocks.
Whilst most sectors of industry use coal, the consumption of fuel oil continues to rise. Last year the increase was 50 per cent. For the first four months of this year the increase was 37 per cent. compared with the same period in 1958. To abandon coal production, or to stock more because of the narrow cost margin between coal and other fuels, is to many people in this country the height of folly, and if it is continued at the present time I am sure that it will do great harm to the nation's economy. In another place on June 15, the Paymaster General, replying to a question on the comparative costs of producing electrical power from the use of coal, oil or nuclear energy, replied that, in so far as reliable comparison is possible, the cost of oil generation would be roughly the same as that of generation by coal, and there is reason to hope that the cost of nuclear generation will fall below that of conventional stations within the next decade. I shall have something more to say about that a little later.
My Lords, why import oil for generating electricity to the amount of 6 million tons of coal equivalent in one year? The fuel oil consumption in Britain since 1956 has increased by 6½ million tons, a coal equivalent of something like 8½ million tons of coal. The output of United Kingdom refineries has risen by only 1¼ million tons: the remainder has been brought in from foreign refineries. Continental refineries have surpluses of fuel oil because of the increased production of gasolene and light oils, with the

13
result, so I am informed, that fuel oil is being brought into this country at prices per ton far below the price per ton of the crude oil from which it is produced and which stand in no relation to any reasonable calculation of costs of production. If that is so, and it is the basis of the Government's freedom of choice policy, if the cost of imported fuels of any kind were reduced by, say, 5 or 10 per cent. below that of coal, the policy of the Government would cause almost every coalmine in this country to close. That, of course, is ridiculous.
It must be known that the imports of all kinds, of oil during the first five months of the year are running at a cost of about £500 million, of which fuel oils are running at about £70 million. Exports of all kinds of oil are running at about one-fifth of the value of the imports. In 1954, five years ago, the value of oil imported was £311 million. Then we exported coal to achieve a balance of payments, so far as we could, worth £60 million. For the first five months of this year the value of our coal exports was £9 million, and on that basis the total would not be £20 million by the end of the year. In this very large purchase of oil I should think the Government, and indeed both Houses, should have some thought of the balance of payments.
Ten years ago the gas industry was nationalised, and it is maintaining a tradition that has existed for 150 years of providing gas to its customers at low prices. A few months ago I read an interesting article written by Sir Harold Smith, the Chairman of the Gas Council, in which he said that ten years ago there were 1,000 gas undertakings, large and small. Up to date more than one-half have been closed, but gas supplied has; increased by about 20 per cent. with many fewer men employed. He said that in the years to come it is expected that conventional plants for making gas from good-quality coal will gradually diminish in number and that a much wider use will be made of small low-quality coals which are in good supply and which can be gasified at high pressure. He referred to a new plant which is being erected in Scotland and which is expected to be in full operation in 1962. It will use 350,000 tons of small coal a year, a saving of 50,000 tons a year on the use of an orthodox
14
carbonising plant. The new plant will produce 30 million cubic feet of gas per day, using a very low-quality coal. A similar plant is expected to be built in the next few years by the Midland Gas Board for production of gas at high pressure from the same low-quality coal.
Apart from the use of this coal, further research is being made into coke oven gas and methane, or firedamp, from the collieries. It is interesting to note that the first coke oven gas to be supplied to gas undertakings was by the Powell Duffryn Company in South Wales in 1907. It was an experimental trial for six months, but it did not cease until the coke ovens were closed 50 years later. It now comes from a number of collieries with coke ovens, and the large steel works in Wales have extended their ovens to meet the increasing demand for metallurgical coke. Mr. Mervyn Jones, the Chairman of the Wales Gas Board, said recently that long-term agreements have been negotiated by the Gas Board with both the Coal Board and the steel companies, so that now over 80 per cent. of the gas sold by the Gas Board comes from coke ovens. Valuable too, only on a smaller scale, is the use of methane from the coal mines, which now provides about 3 per cent. of the gas sold.
My Lords, with this abundance of coal, with fuel oil from the refineries in this country, with coke oven gas, and now with methane, there is no scarcity of fuel to provide all the gas required in this country. The gas industry was, and still is, the second largest coal consumer in the country. In 1956 the amount of coal it consumed was 27,800,000 tons. Last year the figure was reduced to 24 million tons. This year it is expected to use about 22 million tons—a reduction of about 5 million tons since 1956. With the decline of coal consumption there has been a substantial increase in the use of fuel oil; 700,000 tons were used last year, with a substantial increase expected this year. Not being altogether satisfied with the fuels already used the Gas Council is now trying out natural gas imported from America. One shipment has already arrived, and I understand that others are to follow; and, there is, so we are told, the possibility that other ships will be built for the same purpose.
The gas industry, like the electricity industry, is progressive and well managed, and in a good financial position, mainly as the result of using coal. Why, then, are these industries encouraged to get fuel from almost all parts of the world to compete with an abundance of suitable fuel on their doorsteps? I trust that the attitude of the Minister and of Her Majesty's Government is not as expressed in another place by the Paymaster-General when dealing with a question on the gas industry. The Paymaster-General said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 608 (No. 140), col 861]:
"…the gas industry is having a very stiff fight with competition from other fuel industries. We all hope it will be successful. That is why, among other things, we encourage many of its experiments."
I hardly see the purpose of experiments of this kind, and I should like to ask the Minister whether he can give us an estimate of the cost of these experiments. And, seeing that the experiment is being carried out, can he give us some idea of the value of it to the gas industry?
I suppose the other two industries which are in competition with the gas industry are the coal and electricity industries. I wish the relationship between these nationalised industries could be much better than it is at the present time. I should like to quote a statement which was made as the result of a conference held on June 23 between the Gas Council, the gas managers and other leaders of the industry. One newspaper heading said:
"No comfort for the coal industry…Gas industry prefers commercial approach."
The paper went on to say:
"The Coal Board can now dismiss any lingering hopes it may still have that its traditional partner in fuel and power—the nationalised coal industry—intends to come gallantly to its help to solve its problems of overproduction and mounting stocks.
There was universal agreement at a meeting in London yesterday that the gas industry's first duty is to itself. Sir Harold Smith, chairman of the Gas Council, representatives of all the area Gas Boards, and officials of all the unions in the industry shared one opinion: that gas is an industry in its own right, and no longer just an adjunct to coal."
Then I see a reply which was given on June 15 in another place, again by the Paymaster-General, when he was asked about what was likely to be the increase
16
in the production of gas between 1960 and 1965. His reply was [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 607 (No. 125), col. 25]:
"The total gas supplies are expected to increase by nearly 5 per cent. during that period. As it is expected that coal consumption by the industry will fall slightly during the period, the whole of this increase will be derived from oil and other sources."
The Minister of Fuel and Power is the co-ordinator of the three nationalised industries. As such, he has a great responsibility, for the thought in the country is that there is need for a long-term policy for the production and use of fuels. The fuel industries, including atomic energy, must be viewed as a whole, and plans must be made on that basis. We must consider how far Britain should depend upon imported fuels to meet our requirements, giving full consideration to our strategic position and to our balance of payments. I believe that that is most important, and I should like to think that it is uppermost not only in the mind of the Minister but in the mind of the Government as a whole.
As to the electricity generating stations, about nine of them will be burning oil instead of coal—I think that is about the figure. I think there were another four which were being considered. Those nine generating stations are using the equivalent of 6 million tons of coal a year. If that goes on for five years, no less than the equivalent of 30 million tons of coal will be taken up by oil for the generating of electricity. As already mentioned, it has not been argued that the use of oil for this purpose is cheaper or more economical than coal, and it must be remembered that, unlike the situation before 1957 when the tax was taken off fuel oil. fuel oil is to-day greatly privileged. But notwithstanding the fact that there is no tax on fuel oil, coal can compete with oil at the price at which it is brought into this country at the present time. In view of the greatly changed situation in the coal industry, the general opinion is that we are fully justified in pressing for the reconversion to coal of the oil-using generating stations.
We all appreciate what was done by the Minister of Fuel and Power when he induced the oil companies to reduce to the present figure the amount of oil used,

17
but I still feel that the case is stronger now than it was then. If the Minister will use his persuasive powers, even if it costs a little money in compensation, that will still be infinitely cheaper than piling up stocks of coal within a few miles of an electricity generating station which is using oil. I hope that the Minister will consider that.
When we last debated fuel policy in your Lordships' House, I expressed an opinion that the present programme of nuclear power generation of electricity should be spread over a longer period. I am still of that opinion; for nuclear power should be treated as a new recruit to the fuel industry when compared with coal, electricity and oil. As such, it is important that it should not attempt to do, or claim to do, too much in its infant stage. It can be a support and a stimulus to other fuels, but no one can claim that it can provide a complete solution to other fuel problems within the next 15 or 20 years.
A few weeks ago Mr. Robert McKinney, who was Chairman of the Congressional Panel on Nuclear Energy in the United States of America, and their representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, was speaking in another place to the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee on the subject of the Euratom (Western Europe) Atomic Energy Programme, which, like: ourselves, had at the time of the Suez crisis planned a large atomic programme for the generating of electricity which has now been considerably reduced. Mr. McKinney congratulated the public utilities of the Euratom countries for the hard-headed way that they faced up to the fact of the high cost of nuclear power by reducing their programme considerably; and, he said, unlike their British counterparts, they had refused to be stampeded into ordering large nuclear power stations.
He said that about the high costs of nuclear power the United States of America had no doubt at all, for in 1959 they had found that the real costs of building nuclear plants were much higher than estimated, for their nuclear power stations had cost more than double what had been estimated, and were still not finished. He suggested that the nuclear power planned for Euratom in 1956, to be completed in the next ten years, was completely unrealis-
18
tic, and it is now likely to be replaced by an experimental programme of a few power stations. The article ended by saying that there is a great need, especially in Britain, for more informed criticism of investment programmes that commit countries to massive costs of capital expenditure or prophesy the requirements or costs a decade or more ahead.
In dealing with this matter, the Minister of Fuel and Power will know of the statement made by Sir John Cockcroft at Darwin on April 25, to the effect that 25 per cent. of United Kingdom electricity requirements would be met by atomic energy in 1966; 50 per cent. of them would be met by 1975, and 100 per cent. by the end of the century. I am sure that the Minister will agree with the reply given by his Parliamentary Secretary, when questioned about this in another place, which was that the Government had no responsibility for the statement Sir John made. Unlike some statements on this subject of nuclear energy, anything he says is worthy of considerable respect. I wonder whether the Minister will agree with another statement that was made by Sir John quite recently when he opened the nuclear centre in Teheran. I am going to quote from a report, which states:
"At the 1958 Geneva Conference on the peaceful use of atomic energy it has been stated, Sir John said, that the date at which nuclear power would become fully competitive with power from oil or coal was likely to range from 1962 to 1972, according to the country concerned. Since then the fuel situation of the world had temporarily changed due to the industrial recession, and coal and oil were temporarily in surplus and could be obtained at lower prices. As a result, the break-even dates for nuclear power are likely to have receded a little.
"For countries which had ample supplies of lost-cost fuels, such as oil, nuclear power was, however, unlikely to be attractive for at least 20 years."
My Lords, if the Minister is going to follow out his idea of the free-for-all programme, then I take it that that means the cheapest fuels for the production of electrical power and for industry. But if nuclear power is not going to become competitive, or the generating of nuclear power is not going to become competitive, within the next twenty years, what is the use of going on building twelve power stations to be completed in about the middle of the present decade, with the electricity costing, as I saw reported in

19
the Press a short time ago, between, say, some 10 or 20 per cent. more than the electricity which is generated from thermal power?
It is known that, if coal prices remain steady, a modern thermal station built on or near the coalfields can now provide electricity for less than 0·6 pence a unit, which has been assisted by the spectacular fall in the cost of construction of new thermal power stations from an average of £70 to £75 a kilowatt about five years ago to a level for stations planned now much nearer £40 per kilowatt—much less than a half of the cost of nuclear construction. The cost of the earlier nuclear power stations was £180 per kilowatt. With the very heavy capital costs, and the cost of uranium, which I understand is still, and will be as long as the contracts last, around £10,000 to £11,000 a ton, it is estimated that nuclear power stations coming into production during the next decade are going to produce electricity from atomic energy costing from 10 to 20 per cent. more than that from the most modern type of thermal stations.
My Lords, there are only two reasons for building nuclear generating plants which a large number of persons think commendable but which alone do not justify the size and the rush to get through the present programme. One was the need to gain technological experience and to make progress in the nuclear field; the other was national prestige. We have that national prestige. We are proud of what has been done. But we must not overdo that, and I trust that the Minister and Her Majesty's Government will take head of what has been asked—that is, the extension of the programme to beyond the present date of completion.
To assist the coal industry there is an urgent need for the intensification of scientific research into the utilisation of coal and its development for new uses, such as smokeless fuels; and also into the use of coal as a raw material for the extraction of valuable chemical byproducts, and particularly oil. I was pleased to read a week or two ago of the opening of the Warren Spring Laboratory by the noble Viscount the Lord President of the Council. This Laboratory among its other activities, will have two projects of the former fuel
20
research station, one of which is research on the Fischer-Tropsch process for making oil from coal. This is no new process; nor is producing oil from coal new, as some forty years ago, by the low temperature carbonising process, millions of gallons of oil were produced in this country.
I should say that the best place to see the Fischer-Tropsch system at real work is in South Africa, where a few years ago I saw the largest and best oil-from-coal plant in the world. It came into full operation in 1956. It cost a lot of money—£48 million; not as much as a nuclear power station here. In 1958 this plant produced from coal 55 million gallons of petrol and 6½million gallons of diesel oil. It also produces liquid petroleum and twelve other valuable chemical liquids. After making losses for the past three years, it is estimated that a profit of some £500,000 will be made from these works. The chairman of Sasol, as the plant is called, has said that with another five such plants South Africa has sufficient natural resources to produce from coal all the fuels she needs. I should say, to be quite fair, that the price of coal in South Africa is cheaper than the price in this country.
Much is said about coal being out-priced. I know the price of coal is high; so is the price of everything else. But the blame for the high cost of coal cannot be charged to the coal miner. At the present time we have the highest output of coal per man-shift in Western Europe, and the cost per ton saleable of our coal at pithead is lower than that of Western European countries. It is not the actual cost of bringing the coal to the pithead which makes it so dear; the margin between the pithead and the retail price is far too high. Last year the cost per ton of coal saleable output was 83s. 11d. per ton, of which wages and related expenses were 49s. 8d. per ton; materials, repairs, and power were 19s. 9d.; depreciation and other expenses, 14s. 6d. To the domestic consumer, the average cost per ton for transport charges from the colliery to the merchant is 26s. 4d. The average allowance for the retail merchant's costs from his depôt into the home is 30s. 6d., making a total of 56s. 10d. In and around London and the South, the cost, unfortunately, is over 100 per cent. above that of the price of saleable pithead coal. The merchant is now free

21
to charge his own price to the householder; and it is suggested that there are far too many small, overlapping merchants, and that there is a lack of modern methods in their distribution. The demand for house coal in London and the South of England has fallen sharply in recent years, largely because of that very high price.
My Lords, in conclusion, may I say that there are very many important reasons why the Government should have a coal and fuel policy. First, coal is our only indigenous fuel. We have plenty of it. No one can deny our means of access to it—which cannot be said about uranium and oil, and particularly oil from the Middle East, from whence we get nearly 80 per cent. of the oil which we use in this country. It must have its proper place in the nation's economy, to which it can make a greater contribution than it is making at the present time. The Government should state what that place is, and should assist in building up around it. The Government have not failed to do something like that for other industries. They help the agricultural industry. They tell it what is required, and pay very substantially to enable it to maintain its place in the national economy—and rightly so. They assist the cotton industry—and rightly so. The coal industry is quite as important and deserving of Government consideration. It is not asking for subsidies: it wants only a better understanding of the coal problem and of the value of coal before the importing from foreign countries of fuels which cannot provide the nation's requirements at costs as low as, or lower than, our own indigenous fuel.
I think the Minister and the Government should follow the advice given recently by the newly designated chairman of I.C.I., Mr. Chambers, who suggests that the effort to mitigate Britain's natural commercial handicap in world trade should be pursued along three lines, one of which was that we should try much more vigorously to foster home markets for coal. I trust that that is going to be the object of the Minister of Power. I beg to move for Papers.
4.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I should like to start by congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord
22
Hall, upon bringing this important matter before your Lordships' House again, and I am sure that all noble Lords will join with me. I should also like to congratulate him on the moderate and sincere manner in which he has presented his case. I do not want to say anything controversial and I certainly do not want to be provocative, but there are two things which he said which I should like to take up and amplify, although there was a great deal in his speech with which I agreed.
The first point which I should like to elaborate is about Mr. McKinney, who, I understand, has now resigned from his post in Geneva. He is not unknown to me. Whenever the Americans enter the atomic field we must remember that they have still failed to produce a commercial plant which they can offer to anybody and they are very sore about it, and Mr. McKinney's views are to a certain extent coloured by that position. The only nation that can supply that plant is Great Britain and that is against America's commercial interests, as they see it.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Viscount will remember that America has received a contract to build an atomic energy plant in Italy. They say that they are not going to build in their own country because it is too expensive, but they are open to take contracts from other countries and, fortunately or unfortunately, they obtained this contract.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I understood that the contract in Italy was obtained by ourselves, but I may be incorrect in that. The second point I should like to elaborate is about the Sasol plant. I do not want to detract from that plant, but the approximate cost of coal there is in the order of 5s. a ton, which makes it very difficult for us to compete over here.
I would apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mills, for giving him no advance notice that I would be asking certain questions. I had not anticipated being able to be here this afternoon to participate in the debate, and I hope he will forgive me. There is one point which I should like to have elucidated. It appears to me that for the last year or so—I am not trying to be controversial here—the coal mining industry

23
has been largely clear of the curse of unofficial strikes. That is a very good thing and of benefit to everybody. But is it a sign of better understanding between all sides of the industry and management, as I sincerely hope it is, or is it because it appears to the miners that their position is not so secure as they thought? I think that this question should be elaborated.
The increased efficiency, which is a continuing trend in the industry, is something that we can all commend, and I think everybody should be congratulated heartily on it. But I would say, "Bury the word 'nationalisation'—that has nothing to do with it". If I say something that may be controversial, it is not on that score. The increase in coal stocks is worrying. The problem is one of small coal and not of large coal, because I believe that the large coal that is being produced is being taken up—I shall be corrected if I am wrong. Therefore, we come to the question of how to utilise small coal. It is my opinion that Her Majesty's Government have taken energetic measures in this direction, but I think it is too early to expect concrete results from these measures. For example, a large coal-burning power station will consume in the order of three to four million tons of coal in a year, but it takes about three years to build such a station. Therefore I cannot see that we can hope for large results too quickly.
I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, that the uncertainty of the position is undesirable, and if it were possible I should like a clear statement of what we may expect. We should know the worst and, in particular, we should be told about the closure of pits. If pits have to be closed, then the people who are affected should be taken into the confidence of the authorities. The fact that they do not know well beforehand is very unsatisfactory. I know that there may be various reasons for this; nevertheless, I urge that the clearest knowledge of what is occurring should be given beforehand, so far as it is possible to do so.
What is coal worth? In my opinion, coal is worth exactly what the customer is prepared to pay for it—not a penny more, no matter what the economists or
24
anybody else may say. Therefore, we have to consider the nuisance value or, if you like to call it, the ease value of oil. The two conflict. I think that coal ought to be considered much more in that bearing than purely and simply on the economics of coal production. In agriculture, we are commonly enough told that we have to brighten ourselves up a bit and become more efficient because our produce is only worth what we are going to get for it. Up to a point, the same applies to coal.
One thing we must bear in mind is continuity of supply. We must all remember that as recently as four years ago the cry was, "The last lump of coal at any price!" Then, we were short of power and of everything else. We have moved away from that, be we still live in an era of power bargaining, and that is a fact which we must realise. When we consider the position of having three strings to our bow—nuclear power, coal and oil—we can hardly blame the Government for their wisdom, in the context of what has gone before. The bulk outlets for coal are the power stations and, to a lesser extent, the gas industry. The power stations use the worst coal under the best possible conditions. Their technology is simply magnificent. But there again, one is apt to talk about the cost of coal generators and other types. That is influenced by the geography of the coal supply and the coal power station. There are certain power stations where the extra cost of getting the coal there would make oil an attractive alternative.
In the gas industry we hear a certain amount about complete gasification in which everything is turned into gas and there is no coke resulting as a by-product. This kind of production conflicts with the interest of people producing smokeless fuel, because coke is the basic ingredient of that. Nevertheless, there is one plant under construction. That is in the Fife coalfield and it is completely integrated with opencast coal on a long term basis I understand, of something of the order of twenty-five years—at any rate a very considerable length of time.
The other plant is in the planning stage only and is situated somewhere near Birmingham. That, I am told, will operate on deep-mined coal. The success or otherwise of running these two plants

25
for a reasonable length of time will decide whether the Gas Board will go ahead and build many other plants to utilise this coal, or whether they will not. That clearly illustrates my point. One plant will be in production in 1962. Then one must allow two or three years to see whether the thing is successful, because you have to allow for teething troubles. The Birmingham plant is still subject to planning permission and all the other paraphernalia, and I cannot see any early possibility of these projects altering the dumped stocks position one jot or tittle. We cannot look to the absorbing of small coal on that score for the next six or seven years, which will be a rather sticky period. If I am right, I think we ought to be told that everything is in hand and have as up-to-date a progress report as possible on how we are going along and what the real position will be. It is this insecurity which we find so tiresome.
The importing by the Gas Board of methane and also the direct production of gas from oil are projects which, I am told, are purely experimental. Their effect on the quantity of coal used at the moment is entirely insignificant, and is unlikely to be significant for a long time, if ever. I would not say that the coal industry which, as our basic industry, is entitled to every consideration, has the right to say "Coal at any price and no progress". We must allow the experimental work to go ahead. We could not possibly stop it in any case. But we should agree that it is right that it should be carried on.
Then there is the other thing coming along which will counteract the loss of coke, or should do if complete gasification is successful. These are the low-temperature carbonisation plants which the National Coal Board have under construction. There, again, smokeless fuel could be produced from another source and not at the expense of anybody. These two things are complementary and that is something we ought to congratulate ourselves upon.
Another smaller market—the domestic fuel market—represents something of the order of 20 per cent. I gather that the position there is that they would prefer to see stocks going but they are not unduly alarmed. On the other hand, let there be one cold snap and the probability is that as much as a million
26
tons would go in one week. Here is something else which we might consider. In Germany the Rhur Coal Company, or whatever it is in German, go round to industrialists and install efficiency devices and instrumentation on approval and free of charge for six months, or some other lengthy period, with no obligation to the industrialists to buy. There has been only one case where an industrialist has taken out the equipment and gone back to his old usage. It would be a very good thing if we could get something like that going in this country.
We have an excellent institution called N.I.F.E. They will give very good advice on fuel efficiency but not on the efficient burning of coal and the desirability of burning coal. We have no one who goes out and says "Coal is best; buy coal." No one "plugs" coal. Private industry have their oil travellers. Oil is coming into this country, not even refined, and travellers are going round and giving a discount of 6d. a gallon. They are also, I was going to say bribing, but at any rate encouraging people by installing tanks and such equipment on loan or easy terms. None of these advantages is available to coal. I think that that is unfair competition which ought to be looked into.
Another place where I think a little action might be taken is in the smoke control areas where oil-fired equipment, under certain conditions, is exempt from the requirements of the Act. Bituminous coal, burnt smokelessly, is not generally exempted and I think it should be. If you get the same result under the same safeguards there should be no discrimination between coal and oil. I think that coal burnt in these conditions should be exempt in exactly the same way as oil is. I do not know whether it can be done, but I think it is well worth drawing attention to.
A lot of figures have been produced about atomic power. Everybody rides his own hobby horse. Luckily we have a Minister who has to consider all these hobby horses and draw a direct balance. On that score, I would underline that the Minister of Power is responsible not to one industry, however great and fundamental that industry may be: he must consider the country as a whole and not one section. It could be that neglect of one section would jeopardise the whole

27
country; but that is why we have a Minister of Power.
I should like to end by making another apology to the Minister. I am afraid I must leave before he replies, because I have a train to catch; in fact, I did not think I was going to be here. No discourtesy is meant, of course, and if the noble Lord wishes to challenge me on anything that I have said, I hope he will do it now. I wish the coal industry the greatest prosperity commensurate with great efficiency. I do not think there need be any worry about the future of coal for many years. It is a fundamental and a great industry, and the people in it are great men.
4.21 p.m.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, there are eight other noble Lords to follow me in this debate and thirteen speakers who wish to take part in the next debate. In view of the fact that there are twenty-one speakers to follow me, I feel that I must make my remarks as brief as possible. I find debates on fuel and power most interesting: there are so many phases of the subject and so many questions to be referred to. I have jotted down the number of matters referred to already by the only two speakers who have so far spoken, and they include: nuclear power stations, fuel oil, planning, closing of pits, coal stocks, gas, electricity, balance of payments, atomic energy, generating plants, scientific research, cost of delivery of coal, unofficial strikes, large coal and small coal, the price of coal, opencast coal and the country as a whole. I am not sure that it makes for an effective debate to have too many aspects dealt with. The Minister will find it difficult to give an adequate reply to all the points raised, and he would prolong the proceedings unduly were he to do so; and a sketchy, scanty reply is just as unsatisfactory, if not more so. However, I promise that I am not going to raise any additional points, although I may underline some of those already raised.
To me, the main reason for this debate to-day is the fact that the coal stocks are increasing; and that is the disturbing factor with coal to-day. If our coal were coming to the pit top and being sold, as it was in the days gone by, I do not
28
think we should be having this debate to-day. But when we find stocks on the surface increasing substantially almost weekly, that causes those of us who know the industry some concern and uneasiness. I want to refer to those stocks in the words of the Chairman of the National Coal Board, Sir James Bowman. He dealt with the matter in a speech he made less than a week ago, speaking at the Annual Conference of the National Union of Mineworkers. He then said—and let it not be forgotten that he speaks with tremendous authority, not only as Chairman of the National Coal Board but as one nursed in the industry and one who knows it from every aspect:
"I want to refer especially to the problem of stocking—putting coal on the ground in massive quantities—a measure psychologically bad, and costly indeed. Yet we must know that, in the absence of a solution involving political decision, there has been no readily acceptable alternative in the circumstances to the stocking of surplus production. So far this has been a very important help indeed to us in our efforts to weather the storm. The other alternatives open to us would have included a steep cut in production involving the closure of many collieries."
All I can say is that stocking cannot go on for long at the rate it is going on; it is bound to stop. If production continues as it is, and consumption stays as low as it is—or goes even lower—then, obviously, at the moment there is no alternative to stocking; but it cannot go on for long.
What I am concerned about—and I feel that the Minister must be fully aware of it—is the need to deal with this matter immediately. I notice another sentence from Sir James Bowman's speech which underlines that very fact. He said:
"…the problems of stocking such vast quantities of coal as are already on the ground are formidable indeed, and …the opportunities for adding to them—for using them as a cushion, as we have not hesitated to do—become less and less with each passing week."
I was a little disturbed at what was said by the Paymaster General when dealing with this question in the other place in May. If I may say so, I regard the Paymaster General as one of the most up and coming men in the Government; I think he will be "going places"; whenever he speaks on anything he speaks well and with great authority. But he did make this reference in his

29
speech [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 605 (No. 106), col. 59]:
"The fact is that we must not be misled by the temporary large stocks that we have."
I like the word "temporary"; that is a sign of confidence and optimism. He went on:
"They are a great problem both physically and financially, but a sharp upturn in industrial activity in this country and throughout Western Europe could soon make stocks diminish; and any panic measures which led to any excessive closing of pits or to the cutting down of the capacity of the industry below what we might need in the future would be very unwise."
I am not the man to suggest cutting down production by the closing of collieries immediately, but I think it is worth while considering when we should decide that we cannot stock any more.
My noble friend Lord Hall, in a very fair and helpful speech, referred to the fact that to-day the coal industry employs fewer men than it did sixty years ago—and he is usually accurate in his statements. If the employing capacity of this industry is going down for various reasons, let me say, quite frankly, that I should not regret it at all, provided that adequate provision was made for those who can no longer work in the industry. I should not mind if the day dawned when every ounce of coal in this country was brought up from the pits by machinery, without the men going down. But it presents a terrific social problem, and that is what worries me. I hope that some genius will enable the fuel needs of this country to be satisfied without anyone risking his life or limb in the coal mines; but adequate provision must be made for those who are to-day getting the coal and for those who would otherwise be getting it later.
Last week we had a debate on uncertainty as a factor in industry. I believe that doubt, fear and uncertainty are big factors in industry—bigger, indeed, than is sometimes appreciated. It was said last week, quite correctly, that we must try to remove uncertainty from the minds of the people of the country in order to get the best out of industry. If uncertainty needs removing from any industry, it needs removing from the coal industry.
Seven years ago, almost to the day, I asked in this House—and I have asked on other occasions since then—that there should be a co-ordinated policy. I know
30
that the Minister himself is a co-ordinator. It is his job to see that coal, gas, electricity and all the fuel-producing industries are doing their job. He is expected to do that. But I would beg of him to decide what quantity of coal will be required for the next five years. The Minister ought to welcome some help in the form of a council of some kind which could co-ordinate the fuel industries in the country and get the best out of them. It was suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, that we ought to have a sort of "catch-as-catch-can." If oil can get in and push coal out, all right. That is no good for the nation. I am sure we do not need an unregulated production of the fuel production in this country, which is what the suggestion of the noble Viscount would mean: that the collieries and the Coal Board should produce coal as cheaply as possible in order to oust oil. No; to me, that is not the way to handle the fuel requirements of this country. It is far better to handle it in a sensible way.
Surely somebody can decide how much coal we are likely to require in the next five years. I am sure that we can decide approximately how much coal will be required this century. If that were done, as in my opinion it should be, then the mining communities throughout Britain would be aware of what was required of them—and it is vitally important that they should be if this fear is to be removed. These people had some gruelling experiences less than 30 years ago, and they visualise the possibility of the same type of experience returning. I cannot believe that it is beyond the ingenuity of this Government, even though it is a Tory Government, to find some way of providing for the fuel needs of the country which would enable those engaged in the industry to know exactly the requirements. If 100 pits have to be closed—as I am told they will: I do not know—then they will have to close. What do the unions say? They do not resist, provided that adequate provision is made for those displaced. That is not asking too much.
I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will look again at this question of setting up a co-ordinated authority which will indicate to those responsible on both sides of the fuel industry what is

31
going to happen in the years to come. It would help immensely. We have been asked: Why do you yourself not produce a policy? I see that the Labour Party has produced one. I do not suppose the Minister has seen it yet—he has? Then we shall be able to go along side by side.
THE MINISTER OF POWER (LORD MILLS): I have not only seen it, but I might have written it.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Let us take the short term first. I hope that the publication of the Labour Party policy will be an inducement for the Government to do likewise and to make public their policy. I cannot believe that the Government are a "no policy" body of people. I cannot believe that of the Minister himself. Throughout his industrial life he has been very much a policy man, and I am sure he is now. But I wish he would disclose his policy. When I have disclosed this Labour Party policy, I am hoping to find somewhere the Conservative Party policy on fuel and power.
Let us take first the short-term position, because that is very important as things are to-day. This is what the Labour Party say:
"Among the problems which must be examined is the programme of conversions of power stations to oil. It is probable that the costs of re-conversion to coal would be less than those involved in maintaining large numbers of miners on unemployment and redundancy pay and the creation of derelict communities. Additionally, there should be a further review of opencast coal operations. It should be possible thus to give the coal industry sufficient breathing space to plan for its long-term target.
"Finally it is essential that provisions should be made at once to bring new industries into areas affected by closures, and for plans to be made for areas likely to be affected in the future by any contraction of the industry.… The problems of such communities are too serious to be left to chance…"
There is the Labour Party policy for the immediate future. Let me read further from the policy statement:
"This situation, which has arisen within the last two years, stems first from the failure of the Tory Government to maintain full employment and economic expansion and, secondly, from their failure to have a coherent plan for the production and consumption of the nation's overall fuel requirements.
"We recall that at the end of the war Britain faced a desperate coal shortage. The reorganisation of the coal industry following
32
nationalisation and the response of the miners to the nation's appeal, enabled Britain to recover from the effects of war and to raise industrial production to record heights.
"The fuel shortage has now come to an abrupt end. However, the mining community can rest assured that the Labour Movement will not leave them to bear alone the weight of the burden which should be shared by the whole nation.…. The first essential is that there should be a rapid expansion of industrial production, especially in the heavy industries. Labour's plans for expansion and higher living standards will achieve this and a consequent increase in the demand for coal. Secondly, we need a long-term policy for the producution and use of fuel. The fuel industries—coal, gas, electricity and atomic energy—must be viewed as a whole and plans made on this basis. We must also consider how far Britain should depend on imported oil to meet our fuel requirements. Full consideration must be given to the strategic and balance of payments issues involved."
I have nothing more to say with regard to the Labour Party plan. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will be more forthcoming about how they intend to handle this very difficult but very human problem.
A suggestion was made to me by an old retired industrial leader, and I was asked to mention it in this House. He put it this way: "Do you think that anti-nationalisers can run a nationalised industry well? Do you not think that the trouble comes from there: that those handling this industry in the Government are mainly against nationalisation?" Then he went on to put this point to me, and I want to put it to the Minister. He said: "Do you not think that a Minister who is opposed to nationalisation of some industries may not be too keen on making the nationalisation of this industry too great a success in case it breaks down the case against some other industries which they are contemplating nationalising?"
LORD MILLS: I suggest that the noble Lord might add that to his list of points. It is a new one.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: The noble Lord considers that a new point? That is a point of view. He and I may not like hearing points of view, but if they do exist it is not a bad thing to know about them. After all, there are those who are suspicious and uneasy; who think that this is a Government which is against nationalisation and, therefore, cannot be expected to work very hard to make nationalisation

33
a success. That point was put to me, and I gave the undertaking that I would put it in your Lordships' House. As the Minister knows, I have a rather important engagement to attend, but I hope he will be able to find time to make some reply to that point. I sincerely hope that this debate, like other debates, will help us to deal with these difficulties in the mining industry, in the coal industry in particular, and I would add, in all the fuel industries. It is necessary that we should as a country be able to handle these matters to the best advantage. Our future depends on the good handling of our fuel-producing industries.
4.40 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I should like to join with those who have already thanked the noble Viscount for bringing this matter to your Lordships' House, for, as the noble Lord who has just spoken has made abunadntly clear, it is a matter which affects every single person in this country. The first striking feature was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven; that is, the extraordinary swing which has taken place. It is hardly possible to realise how short a time age it was that there were imports of coal, shortages of supply and even incentives to the training of men for the pits. Now the catchword is that "coal has priced itself out of the market." Let us call it a catchword, accept it or reject it as we like. What are we going to do about it? That is the important problem as it appears to me to-day.
Stocks have been mentioned. That is the immediate problem. After all, the price of coal is not only a question of first cost. One has to remember that coal is costly in comparison with oil or electricity in its operation, and of course, in its use—certainly in domestic use in the open fireplace—it can be thermally very inefficient. There are various palliatives and very few real remedies which are to hand for the position as it is to-day. One of the remedies which I believe is right to hand is to increase the use of electricity now. As the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, said, the question of increasing plant and equipment to supply electricity as a whole is a long-term job. It is a gradual process. He mentioned a period of six or seven years before increased plant
34
can become available. And of course it is vastly costly to install, although, as the noble Viscount who moved the Motion pointed out, costs per kilowatt are steadily declining.
But how can we increase the usage of existing generating equipment? I believe that can be done in a short space of time by the tackling of rate adjustments for off-peak tariffs. I mean that there should be a definite encouragement by sharply reduced rates for users to use it at night time and over the week-ends Surely every extra unit of electricity that can be sold "off-peak" means so much more fuel used at the powerhouse. And the fuel used is small coal, fuel which otherwise is difficult to use and, further, is the type of coal which is most heavily featured in the stock list. I suggest that serious and early consideration should be given to the drastic reduction of charges for electricity at off-peak hours. The very size of those stocks now postulates the need for early action in this matter.
The complexities are great, and I do not refer to technical complexities; I mean complexities in the inter-relation between the various authorities concerned. It is in this connection that I particularly appeal to the noble Lord the Minister of Power, because, as other speakers have pointed out, he is the co-ordinator and it is within his power, if it is within the power of anybody, to bring together all the authorities concerned in this urgent and important matter. Surely it is cheaper to the nation as a whole to shade the profits of electricity rather than to pay unemployment benefit to men who are out of work, quite apart from the human and social aspect. And what about the interest charges on the £100 million now tied up in stock on the ground? That is a costly price to pay for the present situation. It must be appreciated that the measure of reduction of the electricity rates which I have in mind is a massive one. The off-peak rate to-day is, say, 87d. per unit. In order to build up the load I visualise, and build it up quickly, it means a reduction down to the running rate which is somewhere about ½d. per unit. This is a shocking suggestion, I know, from the angle of the Electricity Board, but it seems to me worth considering that a substantial reduction is necessary to bring about what

35
is so urgently required, a growth in the use of electricity from existing power plant in order to attack the present stock position in the coal industry.
It can be truly said that the price of electricity has increased over the last two years at a much smaller rate than overall commodity prices, but this is only as it should be. With increased off-take and vastly improved efficiency in generating machinery, this is only what should be expected. And when we have this efficient machinery, what is wrong with our load factor to-day is that it is too low. I think it is in the neighbourhood of 52 per cent., against something like 60 to 61 per cent. in the United States. In other words, compared with the United States our plant is not being used for as long hours as it could be. A massive reduction in the off-peak tariff such as I suggest would, I believe, bring a substantial increase in the load factor of the generating plant throughout the country. There are too many replacement jobs going on in terms of space heating, industrial space heating, commercial space heating; replacement jobs, many of which I know of personally, which are going to oil because the current rates for off-peak electricity are not low enough. There are potentialities for pumping loads and there are even process loads which could be created if only a low enough rate was available at week-ends and overnight, not to mention the usage of off-peak energy for the charging of batteries for battery locomotives and battery delivery vehicles in urban areas.
Incidentally—and here is a point which I think I am probably right in saying is a concern of the Treasury—could the noble Lord the Minister go into the question of purchase tax on thermal storage heating equipment? At the moment the domestic consumer is denied the possibility of storing heat in one of these excellent machines because of the purchase tax angle. To do something of this sort and to set free thermal storage equipment would enable some domestic space heating to go on to off-peak hours. I have heard it said, "What is the use of cutting rates for electricity if you are then going to have a swing back and in years to come you find you have got a big off-peak load which you do not want?" I believe the answer to that question—and
36
I hope the Minister will be able to answer it—is that the time will come when atomic stations will be carrying so much of our load that it will be necessary, in order to get the highest possible efficiency out of those generating plants, by virtue of their special nature, to have a rate then which will consume large quantities of energy during off-peak hours, so as to keep this complex apparatus going for twenty-four hours in the day.
But what do we see? In fact, we have a case—I speak as a Scotsman—of electricity rates going up. Here, I am not talking of off-peak tariffs. The overall rate in the North of Scotland area has just been increased. I heard only yesterday that a new factory being erected in Inverness, having wired its new building throughout for space heating by electricity, has, because of this increase in rates, switched over to oil, leaving the wires in place. I mention that matter because it seems to me to be an absolute pointer to this close inter-relation between the cost of electricity to the public and the consumption of coal by the electricity industry. I believe that this increase in the North of Scotland hydroelectric area is quite unjustified—I speak of the overall picture. One appreciates that in their area costs have gone up and that interest rates are higher; but taking the overall picture of the electricity industry in the country, rate increases are to be deprecated at a time like this.
I have only two other small points to make in contributing to this debate. One is to hold out a little warning about the Outer Seven trade agreement which is now under discussion, and to beg the Minister of Power to keep his eye on this problem in the light of the threat to the paper industry in Scotland. They are a large consumer of coal—consuming something in the order of 800,000 tons a year. That is a large figure in tons of coal consumed by the paper industry, which is showing some anxiety in connection with this trade agreement.
One last point—it has already been made, not only by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, but by my noble friend Lord Stonehaven. It is: are we satisfied that the distributors of household coal are really pushing sales? My own experience is that too many of them are still

37
infected with the "Take it or leave it" attitude which was engendered in the years when you were lucky if you got any coal at all, and also if it would burn. I wonder how many noble Lords have had Coal Board salesmen such as the oil companies are sending round to suggest that there is an outlet for coal, and asking, "Are you satisfied with what you have got?" Far is that from the truth! I was talking to a friend yesterday, who told me that last year he had stocked up with coal at summer rates. He had decided not to do it this year because the coal he got during the summer of 1958 was of such poor quality. That is bad salesmanship, bad business and bad for coal distribution. I urge that the Coal Board impress upon their distributors the importance of modern selling methods—by the use of slogans or what you will. I believe that a good deal more coal could be sold in the summer months if there were more energy and drive behind the selling organisation.
My Lords, the problem of our coal stocks and the future of the mining industry is, as we all appreciate, a most important one. In the long run the future is hard to discern; but in the short run I feel that energetic treatment, a bold approach and a tackling of this interdepartmental difficulty which is inevitable, and really energetic ingenuity in every way, could have a marked effect upon the position as I see it to-day.
4.55 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I shall be very brief in the few observations which I wish to address to your Lordships because I know that there are still a number of speakers and also another debate to follow. I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, for initiating this debate to-day, because it is of vital importance to this House and to the country, and for giving us an opportunity of expressing our views on this urgent matter. As we all know, the demand for coal in the last two years has gone down by 20 million tons, and it is estimated that in this half year it will go down by another 10 million tons. These figures were given only the other day by Sir James Bowman, the Chairman of the National Coal Board, to the Federation of Miniers' Unions at their annual conference; and it has been mentioned to-day that there is unfortunately a large amount of distributed
38
and undistributed stocks. I understand that on July 4 there were 28 million tons of undistributed stocks and 15 million tons of distributed stocks in merchants' hands, making a total of 44 million tons. That compares with the figure at the end of last year of 37.2 million tons. So it has gone up by 6 or 7 million tons.
I want to devote the few moments for which I shall detain your Lordships to asking whether further urgent consideration can be given to the possible distillisation of coal into fuel oil. I do not believe that we can hold up progress. A large number of people, not only in the domestic field but also in the commercial field—in the big steel works and so on—changed over to oil fuel at our instigation when we were short of coal. If we could conduct more research to see whether we could cut the cost of distillisation of coal into oil and chemicals, I think it would help a great deal to reduce some of the surpluses. I have been supplied with some figures by the Ministry and they are most helpful.
Last year there were produced 3 million tons of crude tar and 125 million gallons of benzole. Those are average figures. In their way, they are good figures, but I hope that it may be possible to increase them. I was pleased to see that the Minister has appointed Mr. A. H. Wilson, the Director of Research at Courtaulds, to be Chairman of the Special Committee upon which many eminent scientists are serving, to look at these matters. My noble friend Lord Stonehaven has been telling the House about two experimental stations for the complete gasification of coal. I hope that they will be a success because I think that the trend in the next ten years or so, with the shortage of labour in the domestic field, will be that many more people will burn gas, oil and electricity, rather than use the open fire which is not too efficient.
I should like to endorse what my noble friend Lord Ferrier has just said—namely, that the price of domestic coal should be seriously considered with a view to seeing whether it can be brought down. I believe that the domestic consumer would buy more coal if only the price were a little lower. He is a most important consumer in the table at page 40 of the Economic Survey of last year.

39
Whilst the domestic consumers consumed in the neighbourhood of 53 million tons, the electricity power stations consumed 46 million tons; so that the domestic consumer is a most important element in this matter. But the coal has been too expensive.
Then we must pay increasing attention—as I believe we now do—to smokeless fuel to try to get the cost down. My experience as a county councilor in West Suffolk is that nearly all our modern schools, old people's homes and fire stations and so on—the new ones—are now using oil fuel because our experts say it is cheaper. Even compared to a comparable modern coal plant, automatically fed and burning small coal—we had some of these plants installed after the war—they still say that oil fuel is cheaper and easier to regulate with the efficient automatic regulators. We have to consider the economics of the thing and the ratepayers' pockets. If something more could be done in the way of trying to convert (the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, mentioned this point) some of these coal stocks, which I understand in some cases are of very good coal, into oil and tar which can be used, then I think some of our problems, at least, would be solved. But it is a great problem.
I am a great believer in freedom of choice for the consumer. Before the war I was a director for ten or fifteen years of an electric power company, and I am sure that we kept the gas industry on their toes by being a great competitor. And it was in the interests of the gas industry that we were a great competitor. The two industries were competing and great technical advances were made in both industries. Therefore, as I say, I am a great believer that nationalised industries, and industries generally, should have freedom of choice of the fuel they use, as other consumers should. I believe that the coal industry is more efficient than it has been in the past, and if it could get over some of its remaining difficulties we should see a brighter position than exists to-day. But it is shown clearly on the graph which was published in the Financial Times last Friday, which some of your Lordships may have seen, that there has been a great increase in oil consumption in the last two years, an
40
increase of nearly 100 per cent. The increase in coal consumption has been going up a little in the last six months, but nothing comparable to that of oil. I welcome this debate, and if anything can be done, particularly by recommendations to Parliament from this committee of eminent scientists, to utilise these coal stocks it would be helpful. The country must have stocks, but at the moment they are too high.
5.3 p.m.
LORD BROCKET: My Lords, the debates in your Lordships' House are always interesting because they produce expert speakers in all ways. Even yesterday on the Street Offences Bill we had an interesting debate, and to-day we have experts speaking on coal and power. The Minister of Power is almost, I think, in the most important position of any Minister, because he has to decide between different interests. This debate has been mostly on coal, but he has control also over the other interests, such as electricity interests; and, of course, oil comes into the question very greatly. On the question of economics, speaking as an anti-nationaliser—a subject about which the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, was talking—I think it is very nice to be able to say that we will go in for the fuel which produces power or heat in the cheapest possible manner. There is one business with which I am connected where we converted our heating from coal to oil at a saving of £10,000 a year. That is unfortunate from the point of view of the production of coal, naturally; but as one represents one's shareholders it is rather difficult, when faced with these alternatives, not to do what is best for one's business.
I feel that the Minister of Power will eventually become a sort of arbitrator and will have to regard these nationalised industries—I am not going to say it is because they are nationalised or in spite of their being nationalised—as very unsuccessful. We have the railways losing an immense sum every year. We have the mines also in a very unfortunate position, and I think it is owing to their misfortune rather than necessarily to their running. The railways themselves are becoming partly obsolete, and coal is becoming partly obsolete because of the new inventions. I think it will be the duty of the Minister of Power and Her

41
Majesty's Government to decide how far the Minister will have to be weighted one way or the other. I am personally in favour of employing coal miners and not having them unemployed, from the social and other points of view, and it may well be that electricity power stations will have to continue to be run on coal and the atomic programme slowed up a little to that end.
I am myself interested in the production of smokeless fuel, and we are in the unfortunate position of not being able to get enough to sell. We have no stocks. We are expanding our plant considerably and we hope it will be in operation by next winter. Therefore I know a little about the subject. But smokeless fuel (and I am not saying this at all by way of advertisement) has one advantage in that its smoke is less full of waste products when it comes out of the chimney than is oil smoke. There are certain people who have gone over to using oil for central and industrial heating, and the greasy, black stuff which comes out of their chimneys and settles on one's car and on other places is far worse than the smoke from smokeless fuel. I think that that point should be taken into account. I drive a car a good deal and I am continually getting these horrible diesel fumes down my throat from buses and lorries, and I believe that that is very bad for one's health. We have been told that smoking is bad and is a cause of cancer, but it is quite possible, and I think probable, that consuming considerable quantities of diesel oil fumes may also be bad for one's health.
I am not going to say anything further apart from commenting on one point which my noble friend Lord Ferrier mentioned, and that is on the question of rates for off-peak loads for electricity. In Ireland we have the Shannon scheme and it is a very efficient producer of electricity. I heat my house, as many people in Ireland do, by space heating at night because there is a very favourable rate from 8 o'clock in the evening until 8 o'clock in the morning; and instead of having to go in for central heating by oil or coke or anthracite we go in for space heating because the rates are so favourable. I should like to back up the plea for very much reduced off-peak rates, and I think that more
42
electricity might be sold and more coal produced in that way.
Apart from the fact that I may speak on the subject of pigs later this evening, that is all I have to say. But I believe that the Minister and Her Majesty's Government have to decide how far such industries as the coal industry and the railways should be regarded as public services. Even though it may cost a certain amount, it may well be worth while to regard these very important industries, which employ hundreds of thousands of people, as public services. But that is a decision which only Her Majesty's Government can take.
5.9 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like to add my expression of appreciation to the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, for initiating this debate. The last debate on this subject was held approximately six months ago. As my noble friend Lord Wolverton said, the debate to-day gives your Lordships with an interest in this matter an opportunity of expressing your views; and if I may respectfully say so, it also gives the Minister an opportunity to give the House a sort of progress report.
To-day I wish to confine my remarks to one aspect of this country's fuel situation, that is, the increased or increasing undistributed coal stocks, for I believe, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mills, of January 21 last—and I quote his actual words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 213 (No. 28) col. 690]:
"Coal is our only major indigenous fuel and therefore there is a proper anxiety to see it used to the fullest possible extent".
As the Government's general fuel policy is to maintain competition between the fuel industries in this country, certainly further uses must be found for coal. On January 21 last the Minister mentioned that the Scientific Advisory Council was looking into the question of expanding the use of coal; and, as has been mentioned already by the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, on April 16 last it was announced in another place that there had been set up with this object in mind a committee under the chairmanship of Mr. A. H. Wilson. I should like to take this opportunity of asking the noble Lord the Minister whether he can give the House any indication, even a vague indication, as to when it is expected that

43
this committee will be able to report—because I believe it is a duty of the committee to report to Parliament on this, as I think, most important aspect of the development of the use of coal.
I am certain that all your Lordships will agree with me that, of our three main primary fuels—coal, oil, and atomic energy—coal is by far the most important. Britain as an industrial power has been built on indigenous coal: indeed, the steel industry has been built up on some of the world's finest coking coals. Surely, my Lords, now is the time for the National Coal Board effectively to combat the increasing competition from oil, and to decrease these coal stocks which have already been mentioned by several noble Lords. Here I should like to take the opportunity to ask the Minister whether he can give to the House any figures as to the magnitude of oil competition: because, on January 21 last, the noble Lord the Minister did say [OFFICIAL REPORT. Vol. 213 (No. 28), col. 692]:
"Oil now supplies 15 per cent. of our total fuel consumption, as compared with 7 per cent. before the war."
I am advised, my Lords, that in 1954, with a total inland fuel consumption of 254 million tons of coal equivalent, already 15 per cent. was contributed by oil and 85 per cent. by coal.
According to Dr. G. H. Daniel a few years ago (I believe that he was a member of the then Ministry of Fuel and Power) the requirements of this country between 1954 and 1960 would increase by 30 million tons. Surely, my Lords, as we approach 1960, the percentage of oil competition must exceed 15 per cent., in view of the decreasing consumption of coal in this country. I believe that in 1956 the inland consumption was approximately 219 million tons, and in 1958 it was approximately 203 million tons. As for our undistributed coal stocks, about five and a half years ago they were 1,154,000 tons. I was under the impression that to-day they stand at 26,800,000 tons, but several noble Lords have mentioned that they are 28 million tons, which makes the picture even worse. But I think it is interesting to note that within that later figure of 28 million tons there are 4 million tons of carbonisation coal.
44
Surely there is a case for disposing of these vast stocks at cut prices. Several noble Lords have already mentioned the question of whether or not it would be practicable to reduce the price of coal in order to decrease the quantity of our stocks. Without wishing to weary your Lordships with a number of quotations, I should like to read just one or two. One is from the Daily Telegraph of May 28, 1959. It is a leader article, under the heading "Prospects for Coal". In it, the paper says:
"Now the challenge is to reduce the industry's great surplus of certain types of coal."
Later, it goes on to say:
"But what the ordinary public cannot understand is why so little has been done to dispose of the vast stocks of small coal at cut prices."
Then, further down, the article says:
"…there is a great new market for smokeless fuels".
On this question of smokeless fuels, my Lords, I should also like, very briefly, to refer to a letter written by a correspondent to the Daily Telegraph. The writer says:
"Local coal merchants are at their wits" end to meet the present demand for the manufactured fuels".
Then he goes on to say that deliveries made are in approximately six weeks, and he ends up by saying:
"The inference to be drawn is that the bottleneck lies in the manufacturing…"
He goes on further, but I will not weary your Lordships with the whole of the letter. I think, therefore, that there is a case for manufacturing greater quantities of smokeless fuels. While on this question of price, I should like to refer your Lordships to a part of paragraph 181 of the Robson Committee Report (Cmnd. 446). This Report says:
"They"—
the National Coal Board—
"also emphasised that while the general level of the Board's prices is determined by the aggregate costs of production and imports, the prime criterion of the price of an individual coal is its average value in use as interpreted by them and not its cost of production".
So, my Lords, there may possibly be a case for decreasing the cost of the coal in these coal stocks.
I should like next to touch on the question of smokeless fuels. It has already been mentioned by several noble

45
Lords, but I think the development of smokeless fuels is a highly important question. A British Electrical Development Association publication states:
"With the introduction of the Clean Air Act of 1956, public interest has already been roused in the creation of Smoke Control Areas. Every Local Authority faced with the task of setting up these areas will be concerned in the first place with the availability of smokeless fuels…"
The publication goes on:
"Clean Air must obviously depend upon everyone in a Smoke Control Area using one or other of the smokless fuels which are to be made available. Local Authorities will have to satisfy themselves that sufficient supplies of these fuels will be available…"
So, my Lords, this question of the sufficient availability of these smokeless fuels is an important one.
In that respect, I welcome the statement that was made in another place by a Government spokesman, that last year the National Coal Board spent between £300,000 and £400,000 on the development of briquetting techniques and on the by-products of coal. I also welcome his statement that the Board's output of "Warmco" is to be stepped up this winter to a yearly output of 500,000 tons, and that they are working on two further smokeless fuels for the domestic market, though I understand that these will be available only some time in 1960 or 1961. Of course, there are other smokeless fuels made, such as Phurnacite, the total quantity of which I believe is in the region of £1 million.
Under the heading of carbonisation of coal then; is an interesting passage in the publication Fuel Research, 1957, and I should like to quote a few words from it. It says:
"All the cokes were excellent smokeless domestic fuels and all were much more reactive than high-temperature coke made from a normal gas coal. The cokes produced in the narrow retorts at the lower temperatures ignited more easily and give a good fire more quickly than those produced in the intermittent chambers,…"
I should like to mention what can be obtained in a narrow retort from washed small coal. These figures refer to a blended coal such as would be obtained from the Douglas Colliery. From 1½ tons of coal there were obtained 15 cwt. of smokeless fuel, 30 gallons of crude oil, 3,000 cubic feet of gas, 15 lb. of sulphate of ammonia, 3 gallons of
46
crude lighting spirit, and 1½ cwt. of producer fuel as a coke residue. All these by-products are from a small retort with a through-put of 1½ tons an hour, and the figures are approximate for one hour's output.
Finally, I should like to stress that these are interesting by-products, and I sincerely hope that the Government will see fit to give every assistance to private enterprise considering setting up such schemes. I particularly have in mind D.A.T.A.C. assistance and that orders for pilot plants are worth considering either by the Ministry of Power or by the National Coal Board. From the point of view of the consumer I should like to add my plea to that already made by other noble Lords to the Minister to see whether he could not recommend to the National Coal Board that they should reduce the price of undistributed stocks of coal to the private industrial consumer.
5.25 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, we have heard a great deal this afternoon about coal versus oil, and what has profoundly shocked me in reading the daily papers during the last two or three months is how the miners' leaders have castigated the Government for their fuel policy. To read some of the things that the National Union of Mineworkers have said one would imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, was a Satanic influence determined to destroy the miners at the instigation of the wicked Tories and the oil Barons. Let us look at the facts for a moment. In 1946, so far as I remember, it was the Labour Government which first of all, and quite rightly, encouraged Indus-strial plants to convert to oil, and something over 1,000 of them converted. In 1951, the Trades Union Congress and the Federation of British Industries approached the Government because they were extremely worried over the shortage of coal, and through their instigation the Government set up the Ridley Committee. So far as I can see, the Government have carried out the recommendations of that Committee. We come to 1955, when there was an acute shortage of coal, so acute that the Government had to enter into contracts with the oil companies to bridge the gap. If they had not done that, many of our domestic users would have been short of electricity and

47
many of our factories short of power. What a howl there would have been from certain quarters if the public and the factories had had to go short of fuel!
I understood the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, to say that the coal industry had not been subsidised, but surely only a short time ago the coal industry had £1,000 million which I presume is added to our National Debt of £27,000 million. I cannot understand why the noble Viscount says that the coal industry has not been subsidised.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, will the noble Viscount excuse me? I did not say that the industry had not been subsidised; but if I had said it, it would have been true. The Government have done to the coal mining industry what they have done to the other industries which have been nationalised: they have loaned them money to bring about improvements which had to be brought about to make the industry efficient.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I understand that. It is true that they have loaned them money but I think there is little likelihood of this money ever coming back, so from the point of view of the country's economy it amounts to a loss of £1,000 million. We are told that the coal shortage is due to the shortage of recruits to the mines and the fact that the easy seams have been worked out by the wicked capitalists, but I think that if £1,000 million is spent on new machinery the public have a right to expect that those difficulties ought to be overcome. But is not the true reason—though I quite understand that it is unfortunate to say it—the deplorable record in the nationalised coal industry of absenteeism and strikes? Is not that the chief reason why in 1955 and 1956 we had this acute shortage of coal?
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, that really is absolutely untrue. Does the noble Viscount know that the Miners' Federation has not made a single strike official since nationalisation? I think it will be found that there have been fewer strikes since nationalisation than there were before—very much fewer.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I agree that you have not
48
had any official strikes, but you have had quite a few unofficial strikes and absenteeism. I think that if the miners' leaders had only advised miners to produce more coal when the country required it, they would not now find that we have turned to oil. But the Government had no option but to turn to oil. I think it is rather a case of "never missing the water until the well runs dry." It is rather late now to complain. I do not blame individual miners at all, but I think their leaders ought to have foreseen this situation. The public have, quite rightly, always had great sympathy for the miners. Before the war I went down mines three times myself. It is certainly a job I should not like to do. I went down merely out of curiosity. It is an extremely dirty and dangerous job, but I think the miners have rather forfeited some of the great sympathy the public held for them, and I beg them not to forfeit it any further.
It appears that the Government—and the oil companies, I understand, have been very decent about it—are going to change back, as far as possible, to coal. Are the miners leaders, when the country is again more dependent on coal, going to have their tantrums and going to be difficult, as I think they have been? Because if so, we cannot have the Government one moment changing to oil and then going back to coal and the miners having a tantrum and the Government going back to oil again. It rather makes the miners the darlings of industry. I think we have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that mining is a declining industry; and provided it does not entail any hardship to the miners, I do not think we ought to regret that, because underground labour is highly unpleasant and if it can be dispensed with it need not be regretted. Personally, I think that if the Coal Board had been run by private industry there would have been greater advance made in research into all the by-products of coal. I have always understood that coal is really too valuable to burn; and I hope that a large part of this capital that has been put into the mines is being used on research for these by-products. I know that this is being done, but I only hope it is being done really forcibly.
It is a great tragedy that owing to the decline in coal our seaborne coastal collier traffic has virtually disappeared,

49
and so, too, owing to the decline in exports, has our ocean coal traffic. But I wonder if these huge stocks of undistributed coal—amounting, I understand, to 43 million tons in all—could not be sold abroad at knock-down prices so that we could cut our losses? Surely, if it is kept for any length of rime it will only crumble into dross; and it would help our depressed tramp shipping industry. It seems crazy that in Ireland, for instance, they find it cheaper to buy Polish coal than to buy British coal. It is an absolute tragedy. Surely with these huge stocks we could sell cheaper than Poland and cut our losses.
I should like to ask the Minister one question about hydro-electric power. In isolated areas, hill country such as in Wales and the West of Scotland, the Hydro-Electricity Board cannot expect these schemes to pay for themselves. But it has been brought to my notice several times that because of the capital charges for connecting mains supply to houses in these remote areas a great many poor people—poor farmers, many of them—cannot afford to have electricity laid on. I should have thought that if the: Central Electricity Authority could only reduce these initial charges and spread them over a period of years with the charges for consumption, they would then get thousands of extra consumers in these isolated areas.
To conclude, I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, for putting down this Motion. I hope I have not shocked him too much. I can assure him that I have the highest regard for miners—I have seen how they work underground and I think they are splendid men—although I have not always had such a regard for some of their union leaders; but perhaps I am wrong about that. I should also like to congratulate the Minister of Power for adhering to a policy which remembers that one of the foundations of a progressive economy is ample, abundant and cheap power.
5.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, and to the House for not having been here at the beginning of the debate and I regret that I did not have the opportunity of hearing all that he and other noble Lords have had to say. For
50
that reason, I will confine myself to a few points only. The words in the Motion, "situation in the fuel and power industries", as I understand it, mean at this moment the problem in the coal industry. This is not a new problem to those who lived in the colliery areas and have known the history of coal. After the First World War it was not many years before the export trade declined—at that time we lost our trade to Poland—and that and other features led to a general depression in the industry which lasted for many years. We have now reached an almost similar position, in that we have lost our export trade, this time, oddly enough, so far as one can see, more to America than to anywhere else. There are, however, other and even more difficult problems—namely, as has been said, the competition with oil and the third form of power which is now becoming available.
Here we come to the whole question as to what the fuel and power policy ought to be. That is a question which has been asked many times. Some years ago I had the honour to be chairman of a departmental committee which considered that very matter. We were considering it at a time of great shortage of coal and, indeed, a shortage also, although only temporary, of oil, at least available in this country. We formulated what we thought should be our guide in the suggestions we were to make and it was something like this—I have not had the opportunity recently of looking up the actual words: that the principle should be that every consumer of fuel and power, either as an individual or as an industrial consumer, ought to be able to have the fuel that suited him best, provided he would pay an economic price for it. That I think was the right policy at a time of shortage; and I think it is the right policy, also, at a time of surplus fuel, in that the corollary of that policy is to say that the consumer must have the fuel which is most efficient for his purpose.
I well understand the attitude of those in the mining industry who see their future threatened and ask that the Government should prohibit or reduce the use of oil by various sectors in industry and for other measures of that sort, and I have every sympathy with them. But I think we must look further than that. We must look back, perhaps, and think

51
of the history of the growth of industry in this country. After all, it is quite likely that the old people who were making iron in Suffolk with charcoal were terribly upset that people should start making iron on the coalfields in the North and other parts of England; and we have read of the objection by the workers in the weaving industry to the introduction of machinery, and so on. The development in a new form either of power or of methods of production must inevitably react on industries which are already established and whose places they take. Those who work in the modern industries, such as the motor car manufacturers, the manufacturers of wireless and domestic appliances, should not, I think, feel that in working in an industry which is modern and up to date they are doing wrong in displacing others who were manufacturing in a simpler and more primitive way.
I believe there is a principle there, and if industry is allowed and, indeed, encouraged to develop on the line that is most efficient, in every case the result will be a net gain of resources to the whole community. It is only by the savings made by profits in industry and by individuals that a surplus is accumulated and can be used for the many purposes for which the country requires it to-day. I think, therefore, one must support the principle that the proper thing to do is to use the fuel, or whatever it may be, in such a way as to produce the most efficient result. The other theory which has often been stated is that it may well be wise to conserve coal in this country for the future and make it last as long as possible and use what fuel we can. That is a theory to which I have never subscribed, but it has been put forward at various times.
In thinking of the problem in the coal industry, one must have a good deal of sympathy for the Coal Board, who have been faced in a short time with a rapid change in the situation with which they have had to deal. They have been straining every nerve to increase output and have invested large sums of capital in improvements which are just beginning to come to a useful stage in their construction, and they suddenly find that they cannot sell the coal which they get out. I do not think one can fairly
52
criticise the Coal Board for not having foreseen this situation, because I do not think anybody else foresaw it. It is true, as has been said, that Governments in the last twelve years or more have been encouraging the use of oil at different times as a substitute for coal, which has resulted in many cases in the users finding oil to be more efficient for their purpose. It is true, also, that there has been a Government fuel efficiency service which has supplied technical advice and help; and there were, I think, some tax concessions to firms installing plants to increase fuel efficiency. That, to some extent, has been successful. I think it is probably right to make the most use you can of the resources you have got, but that may have contributed, to some extent, to the problem with which the Coal Board have to deal.
There is also the problem with which they are being faced as a result of the Clean Air Act. That is an Act the principle of which I think all of us would support, but the result of it is that it has driven people away from the use of solid fuel because of the fact that, relatively speaking, little smokeless fuel is available. If all the consumers of solid fuel are to burn it smokelessly, then some increase, and I believe a large one, is inevitable.
As to the disposition of the large stocks of coal at present held, I believe that that and the price at which it is sold is a matter for the Coal Board to work out. They are responsible for the commercial policy of the Board, and they no doubt will deal with that in their own way. I hope, however, that they will give increased attention to experiments into some of the newer processes of converting coal into various chemical products, such as oil and others, and further development of low-temperature carbonisation which will result in more smokeless fuel for which it seems to be agreed there will be an increase in demand. Also one hopes that there will be experiments into the getting of small coal. Those are things at which one would have liked to see them working more energetically over the last few years, because those trends are inherent, whether coal is in surplus or in shortage. I hope also that the Government will make some decision about the progress of opencast coal. We

53
have heard statements of a rather indefinite nature, but I do not think we have had one from the Minister or a member of the Government. It would seem wise policy at this time to stop that method of getting coal, and to keep what there is there as a reserve in a time of difficulty and shortage.
All this adds up to an inevitable contraction in the coal industry itself. I think the course of events will force that; indeed, the fact that the Coal Board are increasing their mechanisation, and have been doing so, has already led to a higher output per man. All these factors point to a smaller number of men employed in the coal industry. That is a matter which we all regret, and I submit that we cannot leave it at that: we cannot have large numbers of men unemployed, and with no future. But we have the opportunity here, which has not always been present before, of planning some alternative work for them to do.
There was no calculated foresight as to the demand for coal and the rate at which it would be consumed in the difficult time after the first war. We are now in a stage at which the size and scale of the Coal Board enable them to stock large quantities for a period, and to give time for a reorganisation which will result in a lower output and in fewer men being employed. There is, therefore, an excellent opportunity to make plans in that period of change to see that the men who are no longer required in the coal industry can be given other work to do.
A lot has been done in bringing factories of various kinds to the areas where collieries, steel works and shipyards fail, through no fault of their own. to give as much employment as they used to give before the war. That policy, carried out under the Distribution of Industry Act, has been successful on a small scale, but a scale which I think could have been kept up with equal success with good effect. The need during the last few years has not been there, so that that policy has, in fact, hardly been used. Here we have the opportunity for the Coal Board to plan very quickly what their rearrangements of production must be, and for those plans to be co-ordinated, so that factories may be built and all the steps taken, with which we are familiar, to see that there is employment there for
54
the men who are put out of work. I hope very much that the Government are thinking along those lines, and will be very careful to see that such a scheme is carefully thought out.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, wishes to postpone his Motion on Danish pig-meat until Thursday, July 23, when it will be taken after the Unstarred Question in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Killearn.

THE FUEL AND POWER INDUSTRIES
5.54 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, in the thoughtful and constructive speech which he made, received the consideration, and to some extent the sympathy, of noble Lords opposite. I think he will agree with me—and probably the Minister will agree also—that the debate has been well worth while. If one takes some of the references to this subject which have appeared in the Press, the spirit and temper of this debate to-day, must be a great surprise to those who write the things that we have seen in the Press recently on this subject. But, of course, there has been one significant statement made in one great journal, The Times Review of Industry, in dealing with the coal industry, which said this:
"To the unbiased reader it becomes obvious that the thought and energy which are being expended on the achievement of efficiency will one day"—
that is a reference to the Coal Board—
"earn the nation's thanks and that criticism of temporary features is often uninformed and childish."
The Coal Board had a task to perform which very few men responsible for an organisation have ever had to undertake in this country. It is forty years ago since the Commission upon which Lord Sankey sat as Chairman, exposed the industry in a way in which very few industrialists ever have been exposed in this country. It was quite clear that the old pick and shovel era had passed and that the time had come for new methods involving great cost.

55
There has been a reference to the cost of the Coal Board. As a matter of fact, the cost of fitting up the mining industry in Great Britain with machines alone—colossal machines in many cases—must have been fabulous. But of course there was much more to it than that. All of us who knew the mines knew that the small company—the family company, very often—and the little bits and pieces here and there had not been able to work a mine as it should have been worked. Sometimes, away in remote parts, when the coal had been taken out the mine was in a very sorry condition. It had a terrible effect upon the lives of the workers in the mines.
I remember that for long years before I read the Ministry of Labour Gazette I used to read the Board of Trade Gazette (of course, there were nearly one million men and boys working then) and I used to notice that when it came to the third quarter, if the number of men and boys killed had not reached 900 I had a bet with myself that it would just as certainly reach its regular average of 1,200 at the end of the year. That was the regular situation, and with that in mind I had some statistics taken out the other day. I cannot give the whole of them, but they are in themselves an indication of what the position was in the old days and give a lesson in a way that not even an old miner like myself could. In 1941, for instance, there were 692,000 men and boys employed in the mines of this country, and the deaths were 925. In 1942 there were 704,000 employed and the deaths were 877. That is roughly the story right down to the period when the pits were taken over.
From 1946 the picture begins to change: 693,000 men employed, 543 killed—a considerable reduction. Indeed, if you take the comparison of 1941 and last year you will find that there were 7,000 more men and boys working in the mines last year than there were in 1941, but instead of 925 men and boys being killed there were 326. They have reduced the death rate, by careful attention to the working of the mine, to one-third of what it was. Some of us know this feeling in great areas where you took a great space out of the pit and you had what was called the waste; sometimes there came a mighty fall; it
56
would reverse the air; you would feel as though you were lifted up and suspended in mid-air, and then the gas followed. I read once, I remember, a report and evidence of no fewer than 100 explosions from 1842 to 1942. They were going about for fifty years looking for the light that started the explosions, when all the scientific opinion was to the effect that the explosions were the result of spontaneous combustion through great falls in the mine.
The Coal Board have done a splendid job. They had to do certain things that every well-conducted factory has to do. Men used to come up out of the pit black. Sometimes they had to go miles in that condition. Nobody could say that they were not entitled to baths, for instance, and canteens. I think the Coal Board has done a splendid job in the establishment of baths and canteens, which has all added, of course, to the cost. So far as the Board is concerned, I agree with the statement in The Times, that the time will come when this country realises the job that has been done to put the whole industry on a proper footing.
Now we are up against this problem of the oil, and I should like to warn the Minister and the Government of being too free with the oil from the Middle East. The Middle East has not exactly been a happy hunting ground for the Government, has it?—particularly the Conservative Government. I should say that the least dependable area in the world on which to rely for your supplies is the Middle East. Maybe the Minister will tell us that we have taken steps to get lots of supplies in this country, but it is not a very reliable thing to fall back upon for a great country holding the place that we hold in the world. It is unthinkable that the coal industry should be undermined in any way. If it is, the result will be as pointed out by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley; you will again have the terrible state of things that we once knew. Lord Ridley did great work along with others; he was generally one of the two or three leaders in the establishment of new industry in the North in those terrible days. If anybody—the Minister included—had ever seen that state of things he would not take a single step to repeat it and would not omit to-take the proper steps that might avoid a repetition.

57
I used to go home and find queues at the front door and queues at the back door, good men, men of great intelligence, proud of their craft, who once thought that in any circumstances they would get work, it did not matter what happened. But there they were at the door, asking for some old clothes or something like that. No one who has had that kind of experience would omit to take the necessary steps to avoid it in the future. I hope that the Minister to-night is going to give us a statement which will hearten us, a statement of policy which expresses what has been expressed by Members in every part of this House, and not least by Members on the opposite side of the House. If he gives us a statement that expresses the policy as set forth by the various speakers in this House tonight, we shall be satisfied.
There are many more things I should have liked to say upon this question, because I have watched the work of the Coal Board, living in the middle of a coalfield, living in a street among the miners. One of the most delightful things I have ever experienced was to see those boys come into the industry and be trained. We used not to be trained. We used to walk into the mine and be there two or three days. I was in for a week and then was told to get a pit pony, and I had ten hours with him. The boys now get their dress and their cap. You can see that the boys are proud of their craft. It would be a most dangerous thing to take any step which would interfere with the evolution of a movement like that. The boys are not being taken in on the scale that they were hitherto. But I am hoping that the Minister will give us to-night a statement expressive of the spirit of your Lordships' House, which will enhearten those people in the coal fields and, I am sure, give some consolation to a great mass of the public of this country who regard seriously the state of things that has been brought about by the coming of oil.
6.11 p.m.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, on January 21 last we had a most interesting and instructive debate on fuel and power, initiated by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall. To-day, he has given us the privilege of taking part in another debate, which again I have found most interesting and which will, I am sure, be most
58
helpful to me. The noble Viscount brings an unrivalled experience in matters affecting the coal industry; but he has also a lively sympathy for those whose lives are in the industry. Moreover, he brings to any discussion, if I may say so, a sense of moderation and balance.
I welcome this debate and the valuable contributions which have been made to it because it gives me an opportunity of setting at rest doubts which have been expressed by several of your Lordships. I keep ever before me that it is my job to see that this nation has cheap and abundant fuel supplies, and I also keep before me that in carrying out that policy there are certain national considerations and social obligations which have to be met. The noble Viscount said that we are faced with a grim situation. There I must join issue with him. We are not faced with a grim situation; we are faced with an anxious situation, and I am sure we all share the anxieties felt in the coal fields for the future of coal. This Government has done a great deal to help coal, and will go on helping coal in every proper way. It has extended financial support in the vast capital expenditures which have rightly been poured into the mines, and it has not hesitated to extend financial help for the financing of stocks which were the alternative to unemployment in the mines.
Here I should like to say that the National Coal Board have dealt with the problems in front of them with every regard to the coal industry and the men who work in it. They had a Plan for Coal in 1950. They revised that plan and brought out Investing in Coal in 1955. But each of those plans envisaged a production of coal by 1965 of 240 million tons. The production in 1956 was 218 million tons, and in 1958 it was 203 million tons. The Coal Board have been working very hard on a plan to give the nation their view of what can be expected in the next six years up to 1965. What is the base of their plan? The base of their plan is the result of discussion between my Ministry and the Coal Board as to what are likely to be the demands for coal over those years. So that any implication that the Government have no views and have no policy is quite unfounded.

59
Let us just consider for a moment the question of pit closures, which has been mentioned to-day. As the noble Viscount knows well, pit closures take place every year. In fact for some years the number has averaged 20 pits a year—closed because of exhaustion. In respect of 1959, the Coal Board announced that in addition to those closures they intended to close 36 greatly uneconomic pits which they were really not justified in trying to carry on; and 29 have been dealt with so far. The net unemployment out of those pits—I regret any unemployment—is 1,300 people. As your Lordships know, the Coal Board pay compensation to allow for a time of rearrangement. That is paid in addition to the unemployment insurance benefit.
I should now like to give your Lordships some figures, because I think it would be useful to reflect that we are getting value for the vast investments that are going on in the mines. What the Coal Board are trying to do is to arrange for a still more efficient industry, streamlined as may be necessary; to arrange for that in an orderly fashion, and to collaborate with the Government in seeing that the minimum dislocation results. The peak employment that I could find in the mines was in 1920, when 1,200,000 men were employed and the production was 229 million tons—not much more than it has been since. In the post-war peak, which was in 1948, there were 720,000 men employed and the production was 198 million tons. To-day there are 668,000 men, and the production is something just over 200 million tons. Recruitment has been going down. Last year it was 39,350. But I want to say, quite specifically, that in my view, and in the view of the National Coal Board, there are no prospects of the great pools of local unemployment such as we knew in the 1930s; and that is why I say the position is not grave, though it is anxious.
The noble Viscount and my noble friend Lord Merrivale referred to the question of stocks. The June figures—the May figures also were quoted in your Lordships' House, but the correct June figures are: distributed stocks, 15·3 million; undistributed, 28·7 million—a total of 44 million. That, as I have said, is financed by the Exchequer and appears to me to be well worth while——
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the whole of the cost is financed by the Exchequer? Is any of the cost borne by the Coal Board?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, it is financed by the Exchequer in this sense; that the Coal Board have to increase their borrowings because of these stocks.
VISCOUNT HALL: And pay interest upon it?
LORD MILLS: I was saying that I believe that the existence of these stocks is preferable to unemployment at a greater rate than it can be taken care of. I announced in January that it had been decided this year to cut down opencast production by 3 million tons; to arrange for these closures to which I have just referred to the extent of another 3 million tons; and to stock 3 million. The production is going better than was anticipated, but I think it is fair to say that consumption is not going so well as was anticipated. For one thing, we have had rather warmer weather than we are used to, and the result is that 8 million tons this year may have to be stocked. The Coal Board are prepared to do this and not to alter their plans in relation to closures.
I said that the Coal Board were engaged on a revised plan, and perhaps we could have had an even more useful debate if we had had that revised plan before us to-day. But it is being prepared with great care, very thoroughly. The plan will in due course, when it is ready, be discussed with the National Union of Mineworkers and with my officers and myself. I expect that that will probably be some time next month, but it would have been helpful if we could have had it to-day to assist in our debate.
Great play has been made—and naturally made—on the progress being made by oil. But that progress is not altogether a bad thing for this country. I was most interested to read the debates which took place in 1946 and 1948, when, as my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard pointed out, people were being urged to change over from coal to oil because of the shortage of coal—and that was by Socialist Ministers. The only trouble is that they had imperfect plans. They could not be sure that the oil was available. The noble Viscount,

61
Lord Hall, mentioned the removal of tax on fuel oil as being in 1957. I am sure he was mistaken.
VISCOUNT HALL: It was 1947.
LORD MILLS: It was 1947. And I believe that in 1946 a subsidy was paid to all those who were willing to convert from coal to oil—and I shall be talking later about the move in 1955 in relation to the power stations. But for all these years people were being urged to turn over to oil. Is it any wonder, therefore, that many did, that their experiences were passed round and that we have the picture that we see to-day? Let us look at that picture, because I should like to get things into perspective. In 1948 the production of the United Kingdom refineries was 1·4 million tons. In 1958, ten years liter, it was 12·6 million tons. The imports in 1948 were 5·2 million; in 1958 5 million.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, will the noble Lord excuse me? Is that all fuel oil?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, yes, that is fuel oil. The inland deliveries in 1948 were 2·7 million, and in 1958 10·6 million; exports were only 0·1 million in 1948, and 3·3 million in 1958; and bunkers accounted for 1·5 million in 1948 and 2·9 million in 1958.
Let us look at the total oil position with regard to Europe, because that has been mentioned. In 1958 we imported £40 million worth of oil from Europe, but we exported to Europe £80 million worth of oil in that same year. Let us look at the refineries. To-day we are refining 42 million tons, and after the United States we are the largest refiners of oil in the world. And that is all regardless of the great refineries which are owned by British companies in other parts of the world. I call that a success story and I think we have every reason to be proud of our oil industry.
It has been suggested that there is dumping into this country. I do not think that in general there is any truth in that suggestion. The U.S. Gulf prices determine the price of fuel oil. It has been suggested that there is dumping because the price of fuel oil is less than the price of crude oil, but the price of fuel oil has always been less than the price of crude oil, because of the other
62
valuable products, or more valuable products, which are produced by refining. I can give your Lordships an illustration: the price of wheat is £25 a ton; the price of bran, which comes from it, is £20 a ton. That may not be a very apt illustration, but there it is.
Then I should like to say a few words on the gas industry, because I was a little concerned at the implication that the gas industry and the coal industry are not working together. I do not think that that is a fair allegation. The gas industry was founded on the carbonisation process, and carbonisation gives rise to the production of coke. The gas industry has had to face two problems. First of all, it has been told at various times that there is a limit to the amount of carbonisation of coal that it can get. Then, the gas industry used to sell its coke at a nominal price. Noble Lords can probably remember when one could buy coke at 10s. a ton. Now, because of the price it pays for its raw material, the gas industry has to charge an adequate price for coke. The result is that coke stocks have been growing, too, and are not being sold. Therefore the gas industry, also, has had to turn its mind to other things. I should like to put that into perspective. Of the raw materials used in the gas industry to-day, coal accounts for 88 per cent., coke for 8 per cent., and oil for 4 per cent.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive my interrupting again, may I say that the gas industry is the second largest user of coal. I think that in 1957 it used 27 million tons of coal; by the end of this year it is going down to about 22 million tons of coal; and, so far as I can see from what has been said by the Paymaster General in another place, it is likely to go very much lower than that.
LORD MILLS: The Paymaster General, if I recollect rightly—and it was mentioned in your Lordships' House this afternoon—said that by 1965 there was expected to be a rise of 5 per cent. in gas, and he expected that a rise in other materials would take that up, or words to that effect.
VISCOUNT HALL: But not coal. He said there would not be any increase in coal used.
LORD MILLS: That is right; but gas production has been going down at present. At any rate, the fact remains that coal is 88 per cent. of the raw materials of the gas industry to-day, and gas is having a hard job to sell its product because of the price of its raw materials. In view of that, I think if. is quite right to do certain things, because it is no use burning coal to make coke which you cannot sell. Therefore it has been using a certain amount of oil; as I say, at present it is 4 per cent. of its raw materials. The industry has also dealt with refinery gases and oil gasification residues, and is making intensive experiments, which have been mentioned this afternoon, to gasify poor-quality coal—first at Westfield in Scotland, and, later, deep-mined coal at Coleshill in Warwickshire. If the industry does not expand with the general expansion, it will contract; and, unless it can compete it will buy less coal, and that is a thing we do not want to see happen. That is why the Gas Council are making these experiments and hope, by that way, to reduce their overall costs. But coal will still remain the great raw material in the production of gas.
I should like at this stage to refer to liquid methane and to give the figures of that experiment, for which the noble Viscount asked. There have actually been two shiploads here now. The cost to the Gas Council of that experiment will be £1½ million, because it involved making arrangements for the reception of the material and for a share in a ship to bring it over.
Reference was made to the Clean Air Act and to the question of smokeless fuels. Now I think that that is very important. I am sure we all want to see the Clean Air Act implemented as quickly as possible, because we all sense the value of clean air. But the smokeless fuels, in the main, will be based on coal, or derived from coal. Coke, of course, is a very important one; but there are the fuels like Coalite and Cleanglow, Phurnacite, and now the new fuel of the Coal Board, Warmglow, the production of which, as has already been said, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, will be increased to 500,000 tons this winter. Great attention has been paid to this question of smokeless fuel, and I have every reason to hope that the supply will keep pace with the
64
demand. Because the demand is not only in clean air zones or smokeless zones: people are beginning to see the benefits of burning it themselves, and that must again be one of the new or revised outlets for coal.
I said that I would say a word about oil for electricity generation. In 1955, the electricity authorities were informed that coal was not available in sufficient quantities for their plans, and there was reason for that. In 1956, for example, as I think I have previously quoted, the home demand went up by 3,200,000 tons, and production went down by 300,000 tons. So certain long-term contracts were entered into in order to fuel the power stations which were being built remote from the coalfields. As the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, was good enough to acknowledge, we have been successful in getting certain cancellations which have increased the demand for coal, and I can assure him that we will not relax our efforts to get as much coal into those power stations as we can.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, could the noble Lord give an indication of what is going to happen to the four generating stations which were to be turned over to oil? Are they going to be allowed to remain on coal generation?
LORD MILLS: In reply to that, may I say that we postponed two stations for a year, which saved one million tons of coal, and we cancelled the conversion of two stations, which will have the effect of increasing the demand for coal by 4 million tons; and, as I have indicated, we are still pursuing the matter to see what further we can do. I regret that I cannot give the noble Viscount any further information than that.
I should like to say a word about opencast production. That will be reduced from 14 million tons last year to 11 million tons this year, and next year it is hoped to get it down to 7 million tons and then reduce it still further as contracts run out. I am not approving or confirming any compulsory rights orders which were envisaged under the Opencast Coal Act, 1958. I think we are doing what we reasonably can to deal with that problem.
Then I was urged to consider the question of delaying the nuclear power programme. I am sorry to hear that

65
raised again. I think that on a previous occasion I said that we ought to be proud of our ability to carry out our nuclear power programme. I said then that I did not think that we could chop and change. We still lead the world in nuclear power. We have five groups of firms, who have able scientific and technical staffs and who are improving and improving the methods and the designs of these stations. The programme is to have 15 per cent. of our production capacity nuclear by 1966, and it may be that 25 per cent. of our output may come from that 15 per cent. capacity; but we shall see. But there is a steady flow of nuclear power work being done, which is essential to the existence of our nuclear power industry, and any revising would be prejudicial to the development of that industry, of which we should be proud.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, referred to statements that had been made by Sir John Cockcroft and Mr. McKinney. I do not intend to go into those, except to say that they were talking about nuclear power in the world, and that there are countries which have cheaper sources of fuel and power than we have. I believe that in certain countries it may be a long time off before they can get cheaper power from nuclear energy than they can produce from their indigenous fuel. I think that that is true in America, but it is not true in this country. The surmise of our experts is that within the next decade the nuclear power cost line will cross that of conventional fuel, and this is something for which we can hope and which we can expect.
We must not forget that the price of power station coal has increased more than 70 per cent. in the last decade; and while I hope and trust that efficiency will keep the price of coal down, it is something that has to be taken into account, whereas although the initial cost of nuclear power is high, over the life of a station to-day it is about one-quarter of the cost of conventional fuel and is likely to fall.
A great deal has been said about co-ordination. I thoroughly believe in co-ordination but I am not sure that I use the word in the same sense as noble Lords opposite. If I have understood them correctly, they mean by co-
66
ordination that the amount of coal which would be used is fixed, and after that everything is done to see that the other fuel industries do not impinge on that picture. The Ministry of Fuel and Power Act, 1945, laid down that the Minister had the responsibility
"…of securing the effective and co-ordinated development of coal, petroleum and other minerals and sources of fuel and power in Great Britain,…and of promoting economy and efficiency in the supply, distribution, use and consumption of fuel and power, whether produced in Great Britain or not."
I would explain to noble Lords that my Ministry is organised into divisions—coal, oil, electricity, gas, et cetera—and that there is an official co-ordinating committee to co-ordinate the facts and figures and make recommendations. In turn, I, as Minister, discuss any questions with the Boards, and I can draw on my own co-ordinating committee whenever I think it necessary. The co-ordinating machinery is there. It may be that some noble Lords think that it does not function correctly and does not produce the results they want, but the machinery is there.
Noble Lords had something to say about prices, and took the opportunity of criticising the distribution costs. Well, the problem of selling is, of course, a vastly important one; and coal has now got to the position where no one is begging for it and it has to be sold. Therefore, the methods of selling it, the margins, all count. Your Lordships may remember that the Robson Committee found that there was nothing excessive in merchants' margins. Roughly, so far as house coal in the South of England is concerned—perhaps I can use that to illustrate the position—the pit proceeds are about 50 per cent.; transport, 30 per cent.; and the merchants' margin, out of which he has to distribute, is 20 per cent. So his rate of profit is a very low one on the coal he sells.
But I have been so impressed with the necessity of selling coal that I have on more than one occasion addressed hundreds of merchants and told them that their problem is to sell coal and to give the service which consumers of coal deserve and which in many respects they get from oil distributors. I hope that, as time goes on, and as people get out of their system that there is not a job of selling to do so far as coal is concerned, the old "take it or leave it"

67
attitude will go and that there will be a real service in relation to coal in order to get the utmost out of the industry.
VISCOUNT HALL: The figures I gave in the course of my speech are rather different from the figures given by the Minister. I took mine from the Annual Report of the Coal Board last year, when they said the average cost of conveyance, from pithead to the merchants, and from the merchants to the retailers, was something like 59s. per ton of coal. That was the average.
LORD MILLS: My figures, too, were average, and if the noble Viscount likes to look at Hansard to-morrow he will see that these figures were in respect of house coal in the South. I shall be only too happy to compare figures with the noble Lord to see if we can get a common ground.
I should just like to say a word about what has been done in regard to fuel efficiency, burning coal efficiently. A great deal has been done. I have seen a lot done since I became Minister, but schemes were in existence when I came. There is the British Coal Utilisation Research Association; there is the Coal Utilisation Council, which looks after the domestic side, and there is the National Industrial Fuel Efficiency Service. These are all supported not only by the Coal Board—largely by the Coal Board, but not only—but by the other fuel industries for which I am responsible, including oil. There is an example of co-ordination and co-operation to bring about benefits to the country, and I am sure noble Lords opposite will not quarrel with the idea that we should not waste our coal, even though at the moment it is in surplus.
Then the question of research was mentioned. I attach very great importance to that matter. Coal does contain valuable products and it is too easy just to burn it. It is a difficult job to get these products economically and to use them. But we established a special Project Section, and money is being spent freely on the development of the complete gasification of coal. That work is being done in co-operation with the Gas Council, the British Coal Utilisation Research Association and the Department of Scientific and Industrial
68
Research. The noble Viscount mentioned the question of coal in South Africa. It is true, as one noble Lord said, that the price of coal in South Africa is considerably lower. That does not mean that we are not in touch with what is going on in South Africa and Australia. We have representatives there and are discussing the whole problem with them and seeing what they are doing.
On the question of research and development of hydrogenation and obtaining high-quality gas from small coal, there is research into further derivatives; and, as the noble Lords, Lord Wolverton and Lord Merrivale, have said I have got this Committee, under Mr. A. H. Wilson, composed of first-class scientific technical brains, to examine everything we are doing. I hope in due course to present a report to your Lordships' House about it. I was asked when. The Committee was appointed in April or May, and I said that I expected a report in nine months, so I hope that that answers the question.
The important question of off-peak tariffs was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Ferrier and Lord Brocket. I can say that the Boards are keenly alive to the desirability of low off-peak tariffs, and try to progress to this very desirable end. At the present time, as was mentioned, there is a difference of about 25 per cent. It may be that that is not enough. But there are certain technical problems to be overcome. Industrial users can use this re-equipment and already have a strong incentive to use as much as possible off-peak and so reduce the maximum demand charge. In the commercial field, good progress is being made there in heating. The difficulty in the domestic field is that there are not yet sufficient off-peak appliances available. I have taken note of the matter raised by Lord Ferrier, and the Exchequer are already aware of it.
One question I was asked concerned the increase in fuel oil deliveries. Of course they are distorted by the amount going to power stations, but the figures are that in 1958 they were up 53 per cent. and in the first four months of 1959, 37 per cent.; excluding the power stations, the figures were 27 per cent. and 16 per cent. The statistics in regard to coal are that consumption in 1954 was 213·8 million

69
tons, and in 1958, 202·9 million tons; and of fuel oil, 4·4 million tons and 10·6 million tons.
The noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, mentioned the question of bituminous coal burnt in mechanical stokers. My right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is about to make an Order that will exempt from the Clean Air Act those appliances if they are modern and efficient.
VISCOUNT HALL: They are coal-using, are they?
LORD MILLS: Yes, coal-using. I was also asked a question about strikes. I do not propose to go into any reasons—there are many, of course—but I will give the figures, which are that in the first 27 weeks of 1958 they meant a loss of 872,000 tons of coal, and in the first 27 weeks of 1959 a loss of 572,000 tons. I am happy to see that improvement. I think I have dealt with most of the points that have been raised, but if I find that I have missed any, I will write to the noble Lords concerned.
I should like to say a word about the Labour Party's fuel and power policy, because I want to correct something that I said. I said that I had read it, which was true.
VISCOUNT HALL: I can tell the noble Lord that I have not yet had the pleasure of seeing it.
LORD MILLS: Perhaps my information is a little quicker than that of the noble Viscount. However, I said that I might have written it. What I meant to say was that I might have written the last three paragraphs. The first part of the paper is an attack on the Tory Party, which perhaps one might expect, though it is quite unjustifiable, because the results of the Tory Government's policy are plain for anyone who has eyes to see. If, after the information I have given to your Lordships' House, noble Lords opposite still maintain that the way these matters have been handled is wrong, I would ask them to state specifically what they would do. Would they restrict the consumer's use and choice of fuel and, therefore, curtail maybe their efficiency and productivity? Would they maintain the existing level from uneconomic pits and ignore the price and the competitive power of coal? Would they raise the price of fuel oil by the imposition of tariffs? Would
70
they really mutilate the nuclear energy programme, with all that it means to our national aspirations in that field? Or have they some other policies in mind which are not in this Party leaflet and of which I have not yet heard? I would close on a happy note by again thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, for what has been to me, and I hope to others, a most useful and instructive debate.
LORD LAWSON: Do I take it from the noble Lord that the only message he has to this House after the speeches he has heard is that he is going to repeat the depressed areas once more? That is all I can make out of his message.
LORD MILLS: If the noble Lord had listened to what I had to say he would have heard me say quite specifically that I saw no reason to anticipate that there would be any more depressed areas in the coalfields.
LORD LAWSON: You are doing it, though.
7.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, I am not going to delay the House by attempting to reply to the questions put by the noble Lord; they may provide the basis for a further debate on fuel at some future time. There are many points which I should like to take up with the noble Lord and discuss with him but, as I say, I will not take up time by so doing. I thank the noble Lord for his reply, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I think it has been a well worth-while debate, and that it may do some little good. The country can observe what is taking place in connection with the fuel policy, and I may say that many people are interested in it. I will leave it there and beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

WAGES COUNCILS BILL [H.L.]
7.8 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be read 3a—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.passed, and sent to the Commons,

BUCKS WATER BILL READING AND BERKSHIRE WATER &c. BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with an Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at nine minutes past seven o'clock.