Sitting of 19 November 1959

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

    Building Projects, Slough
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Minister of Education on what grounds projects for the erection of science buildings at the Slough Grammar School and for the extension of Baylis Court County Secondary School, Slough, have been excluded from the building programmes for 1960–61 and 1961–62.
    The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles): I agree that the science buildings at Slough Grammar School are one of the improvements which should be made as soon as possible, and I regret that other essential projects have had to be placed above them in the first two years of the five-year programme. The local education authority did not ask for extensions to the Baylis Court School to be carried out in 1960–62.
    Mr. Brockway: In view of the expansion of Slough industries and the necessity for scientific contribution towards their development, will the Minister give very early priority to the proposal that there should be an extension of the science buildings at the grammar school?
    Sir D. Eccles: I agree that they are needed, and I have told the authority that I will look sympathetically at the project in the 1962–63 programme.
    Mr. Greenwood: Can the Minister say by what amount he cut the estimate submitted by the Buckinghamshire County Council?
    Sir D. Eccles: The authority submitted thirty-eight projects with a total value of £2·85 million. Twenty-one of those, with a total value of about £1,750,000, have been included.

    Slough Technical School
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Minister of Education what contribution his Department is making to the cost of enlarging and equipping dining room and kitchen of the Slough technical school.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): The authority had underestimated the number of children taking dinners. The whole cost of the extension will be met by my Department.
    Mr. Brockway: But is not it the case that in its original plan for this building the authority included an extended dining room and kitchen, and that it was the economy policy of the Government which caused its reduction? Is not the fact that an extension is now being made an example of the stupidity of the economy policy of the Government?
    Mr. Thompson: The hon. Member has not got his facts right. When the school was built the size of the dining room accommodation was not reduced by my Department.

    New School, North Sommercotes
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Education when he expects the new school at North Sommercotes, Lincolnshire, to be completed and opened; and why this project has been delayed.
    Sir D. Eccles: I know that this school is badly needed. It has been included in the building programme for 1961–62 and should be ready by 1963. It had to give way to other urgent projects in the Authority's programme for the coming year.
    Mr. Osborne: Is the Minister aware that many people living in country districts feel that their children are not getting as fair a share of good educational chances as are children living in towns? Will he try to ensure that there is a fairer balance for people living in rural areas?
    Sir D. Eccles: Yes. It is certainly my intention to provide a fair balance. I will consider the area with which my hon. Friend is concerned.

    Secondary Education
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Education if he will set up a committee to examine the merits and demerits of the 11-plus examination and to report on ways and means of providing equality of opportunity in secondary education for all children.
    Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir. The best means of providing equality of opportunity is to make all secondary schools good in their various ways. This is the objective of the Government's White Paper on Secondary Education.
    Mr. Swingler: That Answer is all very fine, except that the Minister of Education is cutting down the building programme for secondary schools. Does not he consider that dissatisfaction with and criticism of the 11-plus selective examination is now well-nigh universal and that more and more education authorities, irrespective of the nature of their political control, are endeavouring to find ways and means of avoiding it? In the circumstances, would not it be a good idea for the Minister to set up a committee to give some guidance on the best way in which it might be done?
    Sir D. Eccles: In the first place, it is not trué that the secondary school programme is being cut down; it is bigger now than ever before. Secondly, many interesting experiments are being made by different local authorities. These we are watching. We are comparing all the results as they come in, and making them available to other local authorities. I think that this is the best way to proceed.
    Mr. Greenwood: We welcome these attempts to get rid of the 11-plus examination, but does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that what is most objectionable is the fact of segregation at the age of 11 rather than the method by which it is carried out? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is the Government's policy to get rid of segregation at the age of 11?
    Sir D. Eccles: I could not possibly give a sweeping assurance of that kind.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Education to what extent the number and proportion of children who have passed their fifteenth birthdays and are staying
    1316
    on at school have exceeded the expectations and estimates of the education authorities this year; and what special steps he is taking to provide additional places in the secondary schools.
    Sir D. Eccles: The number of pupils aged 15 in maintained schools in January, 1959, corresponded closely with the estimate made the year before. Sufficient places have been provided and the building programme for secondary schools is now larger than at any previous time.
    Mr. Swingler: Has the Minister examined the figures for the last few years, which show—and it is a well-known fact—that up to now an increased number have been staying on beyond the fifteenth birthday? While it is natural that secondary school programmes should be difficult, because there are far more children at secondary schools, is he sure that provision is being made for an additional proportion of children to stay on beyond the age of 15?
    Sir D. Eccles: We were out in the estimate by only 4,000, which is extraordinarily small, considering the difficulty of making an estimate. All my predecessors, including myself, have always been ready to approve proposals to provide for the increased numbers of pupils over the age of 15, and we shall continue doing so.
    Mrs. White: Can the Minister tell the House whether he has made inquiries to discover how many children would stay on after the age of 15 if an adequate maintenance allowance were made available to them?
    Sir D. Eccles: That is a very difficult inquiry to make, because it is impossible to find out what percentage of parents would so decide, but there is no doubt that allowances are one of the important factors.

    Schools, Kent
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Education if he is aware of the concern arising from the decision of his Department to reduce extensively the proposals of the Kent County Council for building urgently needed primary schools in 1960–61 and 1961–62; in view of this, why such action was taken; and when he anticipates action will be permissible

    1317
    to catch up on the programme in keeping with modern needs and in accordance with policy outlined in the Government's White Paper on education.
    Mr. Dodds: On a point of order. May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that line 3 of my Question should read "primary and secondary schools"?
    Sir D. Eccles: I regret that the Answer, of course, is based upon the Question as printed.
    The most urgent task is to provide secondary schools. Nevertheless, 13 primary school projects asked for by the Kent Local Education Authority can start in 1960–62 in addition to 20 secondary school projects. I know there has been some disappointment about proposals which must wait, but it was not intended nor in terms of building capacity would it have been possible to start the whole of the five-year programme in the first two years.
    Mr. Dodds: While I can appreciate that the Minister is pleased that the word "secondary" is not in my Question, may I ask if he is aware of the terrific disappointment which has been caused in Kent in that he has eliminated in a ruthless fashion many urgently needed schools, and, in particular, stage one of the Picardy Secondary School for Girls at Erith? In view of what he has done in Kent, does he not think it is making a mockery of the Government's White Paper? Is he aware that, before long, representations will be made from both sides of the House about the disgraceful way in which he has wielded the axe with regard to Kent?
    Sir D. Eccles: I certainly cannot accept any of those statements. When my predecessor quite rightly decided upon a five-year programme, of course it was an invitation to all the local authorities to ask in the first place for a start on all the schools in that programme. We knew that would happen, but we thought that the advantages of being able to plan over five years would outweigh the complaints that I think we are bound to receive.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the Minister aware that this proposal would replace the worst secondary school in the county, and that he has eliminated it?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the hon. Gentleman to ask his next Question.
    Mr. Dodds: All right, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory Answer, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment as soon as possible. Question No. 9.
    Mr. Sydney Irvingasked the Minister of Education the sums submitted to him by the Kent Education Committee for the building of primary and secondary schools, respectively, in the next two years; and the amounts he has approved.
    Sir D. Eccles: The local education authority submitted proposals costing £811,000 for primary schools and £2,529,000 for secondary schools. I have approved projects amounting to £522,000 and £1,555,000 respectively. These will enable the authority to provide the additional places needed and to make a substantial start on the improvement of secondary schools.
    Mr. Irving: Do not these figures make nonsense of the statement last week by the Parliamentary Secretary that the White Paper proposals were fundamentally sound? Here is a county which states its minimum requirements—it is a county not given to rashness, but its requirements have been cut by almost half—and a county which does not believe that the White Paper proposals will allow it to achieve its minimum requirements. Therefore, will the Minister review his proposals, and allow a number of schemes to go ahead which would be more in keeping with the minimum?
    Sir D. Eccles: No I will not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—because there is all the difference in the world between programmes which the local authorities put forward and would like to carry out, and those which they are capable of doing over a five-year period. Naturally, if a local authority wants to start building schools and puts proposals forward to me and I have to turn them down because I know the programme is beyond their resources—
    Mr. Manuel: Why turn them down?
    Sir D. Eccles: —I have to postpone them—the responsibility is then on the

    1319
    Minister. If I were a member of a local authority I would do much the same thing.
    Mr. Greenwood: Is not what is happening in Kent typical of what is happening in the country as a whole? Is not it a fact that of schemes submitted by local authorities totalling £117 million, only £55 million have been allowed by the Government?
    Sir D. Eccles: The point is that we can do only this £400 million worth of work in the five years, according to the building capacity which we foresee. It is sensible to plan that out over the period. But that does not mean that local authorities do not try to get in a maximum number of their plans during the earlier years of the programme. We have to tell them that some of their plans must be postponed.

    Teachers
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Education if he is aware of the concern in Kent at the limitations in the facilities for training teachers, in view of the teacher shortage; and what is going to be done to meet this situation.
    Sir D. Eccles: A new training college is being built at Canterbury as part of the expansion programme. I recognise the anxiety about the future supply of teachers and, as I told the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) on 1st November, I am at present reviewing the various means by which the number of teachers might be further increased

    School, Kent (Text Books)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Education, in view of the statement made at the Kent County Council Education Committee at Maidstone on Monday 26th October that, at a school in Kent, only one text book is available for every three pupils, if he will make inquiries with a view to the situation being remedied as soon as possible.
    Sir D. Eccles: I am informed that the statement quoted is not accurate. The headmaster said, I understand, that he had not enough suitable books to set homework for all pupils capable of doing it.
    Mr. Dodds: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that I am aware of
    1320
    the facts, and that the purpose of putting this Question on the Order Paper was to get the matter put right? It is being put right, but, nevertheless, I thank him for his interest.

    Youth Clubs (Grants)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Minister of Education how far it is proposed to increase the grants for the establishment of youth clubs.
    Sir D. Eccles: Proposals to increase the resources available to the Youth Service will be made when the recommendations of the Albemarle Committee have been studied. I hope to receive the Committee's Report in a day or two.
    Mr. Brockway: While welcoming that statement, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware of the very serious problem in new towns and large housing estates, where there are no youth clubs, and where the youngsters tend to spend their non-school hours on the streets? Would he consider, particularly, the possibility of using school accommodation in the evenings for the establishment of youth clubs, and give assistance for that purpose?
    Sir D. Eccles: We will certainly consider all ways and means but, of course, if secondary schools have the accommodation, it is used by school clubs themselves. It is not always a very simple problem.
    Mr. Greenwood: The Minister has said that he expects to receive the Report in a day or two. Can he say when it will be published and made available to the House?
    Sir D. Eccles: In January, I hope.

    Building Projects, Feltham
    Mr. Hunterasked the Minister of Education, in view of the concern of the Urban District Council of Feltham, and of parents in this area, at the deletion from the education building programme of the Sparrow Farm primary school and the extensions to the Longford county secondary school, if he will reconsider these two items, with a view to the re-instatement of both projects in the 1960–62 school-building programme.
    Sir D. Eccles: Both these projects are desirable, but they have had to give way to others urgently needed in Middlesex and elsewhere.
    Mr. Hunter: Is the Minister aware that there is a deep feeling of disappointment in my constituency on this matter? Both these building projects are urgently needed. Will he reconsider the matter, with a view to reinstating them in the 1961–62 school-building programme?
    Sir D. Eccles: I do not think that there is much chance of doing it in the immediate future, but we will do it as soon as we can.
    Mr. Hunter: In view of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will endeavour to raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at an early opportunity.

    Newcastle-under-Lyme
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Education if he will now approve an enlargement of the school-building programme for Newcastle-under-Lyme for 1960–61 and 1961–62, so as to include more of the projects put forward by the local education committee and take special account of the 5 per cent. fall in the last five years in the proportion of Newcastle-under-Lyme children for whom grammar places have been available.
    Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir. I have already approved the only one of the projects put forward for Newcastle-under-Lyme which would increase grammar school accommodation.
    Mr. Swingler: While thanking the Minister for including that one, may I ask if he is aware that the Newcastle-under-Lyme Education Committee has put forward only the most urgent projects required year by year for the next three or four years? I think I am right in saying that less than half of them have been approved by his Ministry, which has cut the proposals by 50 per cent. As that programme is clearly inadequate, will not it lead to a further aggravation of the overcrowding in secondary schools?
    Sir D. Eccles: I think there are some other grammar schools which are going up at Biddulph, Cheadle and Kidsgrove
    1322
    that will assist to remedy the difficulties in the hon. Gentleman's district.
    Mr. Swingler: What about the secondary modern schools?

    Teacher Training (Dependants' Allowances)
    Mr. Mulleyasked the Minister of Education if, in view of the need to enrol as many students as possible in the teacher training colleges for 1960, he will authorise the payment of dependants' allowances to these students, where appropriate, for two- and three-year courses.
    Sir D. Eccles: I am looking into this.
    Mr. Mulley: Will the Minister endeavour to make a decision on this matter fairly quickly, as he will appreciate that in the next month the students will be applying for places for the coming year, and many students will be debarred from taking teacher training college places unless they can have some allowance for their dependants?
    Sir D. Eccles: I am aware of the urgency.

    Anderson Committee
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
    Wing Commander BULLUS: To ask the Minister of Education, if he has yet received the report of the Anderson Committee; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mulley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I submitted a Question to the Table in terms almost identical to those of Question No. 17. It was disallowed on the ground that it had been previously answered in this Session. I am wondering why that Question was disallowed while this one has been allowed.
    Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer the hon. Member straight away. I shall have to look into the matter and then I will do so. Wing Commander Bullus.
    Hon. Members: He is not present.

    School Building (Minor Works Allocation)
    Lord Balnielasked the Minister of Education what percentage increase during the current year there has been

    1323
    in the minor works allocation for school-building in England and Wales when compared with last year; and the comparable figure for Hertfordshire.
    Sir D. Eccles: An exact comparison is not possible, since the allocations covered different kinds of projects and periods of different lengths. But my noble Friend might like to know that the increase was of the order of 60 per cent. over the country as a whole, and about 30 per cent. in Hertfordshire.
    Lord Balniel: How can my right hon. Friend justify the great discrepancy between an increase of 60 per cent. for the country as a whole and only 30 per cent. for Hertfordshire? Is he aware that many educational projects in Hertfordshire are being held up, and will he look at this application again?
    Sir D. Eccles: I will look at it but, if my memory serves me right, the Hertfordshire authority got on faster and better than some—
    Lord Balniel: But it should not be penalised.
    Sir D. Eccles: —and perhaps it has done more work in the past.

    Congregational Church Hall, Rochford
    Mr. Braineasked the Minister of Education whether, in view of the fact that no planning permission has been given for the use of the Congregational Church Hall at Rochford for teaching pupils of the Rochford Secondary School, and that this accommodation is considered unsuitable for this purpose by teachers, parents, the rural district council and the divisional education committee, he will discuss with the Essex Education Authority the immediate cessation of its use and, pending the building of a proper school, the provision of adequate alternative accommodation, possibly in the form of demountable classrooms.
    Mr. K. Thompson: The Essex local education authority already has in hand the provision of new accommodation which will enable it to give up this hall by next April.
    Mr. Braine: I wonder whether the Minister is correctly informed about this, because the view of the divisional executive
    1324
    concerned is that, until the new school is built, the present provision is quite inadequate. May I ask whether an inspector of his Department has been to see this most unsatisfactory accommodation?
    Mr. Thompson: Yes, these conditions are well known to the Ministry and we agree that the hall now in use is not satisfactory. I am advised that the education authority has these plans in hand to enable it to give up the use of the hall altogether largely in the terms which I described to my hon. Friend a few days ago.
    Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that this hall has no wall windows, that the lavatory conditions are deplorable and that the local planning committee has refused its consent for the building to be used for education at all? Is he aware that both teachers and parents are demanding that this be treated as a matter of supreme urgency?
    Mr. Thompson: We are aware of those conditions and we are trying to get the children out of the hall as quickly as possible.

  SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

    Shipbuilding
    Mr. Albuasked the Minister of Education, as representing the Minister for Science, what steps are being taken by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to encourage research into shipbuilding methods.
    Sir D. Eccles: The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is now discussing with the British Shipbuilding Research Association, to which it gives a grant-in-aid, ways in which research could be extended to construction methods and shipyard practice with the object of improving productivity.
    Mr. Albu: Does that Answer mean that the right hon. Gentleman's noble Friend is aware that there is very little research into shipbuilding methods in this country, as well as far too little employment of scientifically qualified staff, so that it is extremely difficult to introduce radical new methods into shipbuilding, as well as machines such as

    1325
    the new computor-controlled plate-cutting machine, which has been developed in my constituency?
    Sir D. Eccles: My noble Friend is taking an urgent and personal interest in this matter.

    Atomic Energy Authority (Research and Development)
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Minister of Education, as representing the Minister for Science, to what extent there is co-operation between the United Kingdom and Canada in matters affecting research and development in the field of atomic energy; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir D. Eccles: There has always been very close co-operation with Canada on atomic research and development. Meetings and exchanges of staff and information between our people and the Canadians, take place constantly.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that an Agreement has recently been signed between Canada and Euratom from which we seem to be excluded? Will it not be serious if we keep out of Europe, in order to retain the Commonwealth contact, and Canada and other Commonwealth countries unite with Europe and leave us out in the cold?
    Sir D. Eccles: We already have our Agreement with Euratom. I am not aware that the Canadians have one on any different footing, but I will make inquiries.

    Machine-Tool Industry
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Minister of Education, as representing the Minister for Science, what further Government aid he proposes to give the machine-tool industry in order to encourage an extension of research and development as proposed in the recent survey by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.
    Sir D. Eccles: Discussions are now taking place on the recommendations of the D.S.I.R. Report to which the hon. Member refers. The Department is always ready to consider proposals for the support of research and development which are likely to lead to results of value to the nation as a whole.
    Mr. Edelman: In that case, will the right hon. Gentleman say why there is so much secrecy about the conclusions in the Report as distinct from the evidence? Is it because the Report shows that under the present Tory administration there has been a serious decline in output, orders and relative quality of design? In those circumstances, will not he initiate a public inquiry into a grave matter of public importance?
    Sir D. Eccles: My noble Friend is looking into this matter. I can tell the hon. Gentleman only that from my experience, such as it was, at the Board of Trade I consider that the machine-tool industry has a good record in the export trade.
    Mr. Albu: Is the Minister aware that, from the point of view of percentages of world exports, the German figure for exports of machine tools is two-and-a-half times more than ours, the American figure is double, the Swiss rather more, and that Japan and Russia are now catching up?
    Sir D. Eccles: It depends on what basis one starts. Some of these countries produced practically nothing directly after the war.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Market Harborough (Flooding)
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with the Welland River Board on the need to control that river and, in particular, to prevent a recurrence of the flooding of the centre of Market Harborough; and if he will make a statement.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): My Ministry is in close touch with the Welland River Board, which has, I understand, just completed a survey of the area concerned at Market Harborough and is now working on schemes for the alleviation of flooding.
    Mr. Farr: Is the Minister aware that the centre of Market Harborough has been flooded on no fewer than twenty-nine occasions since 1927, that the last

    1327
    two inundations were the worst, and that urgent action is considered necessary to protect householders, hoteliers and shop keepers against this almost annual flooding?
    Mr. Godber: I am aware of the special difficulties in this case, but of course the responsibility is that of the river board. We are willing to help in any way we can, but the initiation of any scheme must rest with the board.

    Small Farmer Scheme
    Mr. P. Browneasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he has given to lowering the acreage limit under the Small Farmer Scheme; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Thorpeasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for changing the basis of qualification for assistance under the Small Farmer Scheme in order to achieve a more equitable test.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): I have already undertaken to review the present limits of eligibility for the Small Farmer Scheme in the light of the first year or two of operation. I intend to do this but we must gain more experience of the Scheme, which began only at the end of March.
    Mr. Browne: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. May I ask him to say a word of praise for the N.A.A.S., which has done so much to implement this Scheme? When he is considering the Scheme will he bear in mind that it is a scheme for small farmers and as such it would be better to bring down the lower acreage limit and the man-day limit as a start?
    Mr. Hare: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generous tribute to my advisory staff. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that they have done a good job with this rather complicated Scheme. I do not intend to be drawn on the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, because these are things about which I wish to learn from experience rather than to have any preconceived idea.
    Mr. Thorpe: May I associate myself with the words of the hon. Member for
    1328
    Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) in praise of the Advisory Service? I hope that will not embarrass hon. Members opposite. I acknowledge the help that this Scheme has been for the small farmer. May I ask that, when he is making this revaluation, the right hon. Gentleman will consider the number of small farmers whose hard work is excluded from the operation of this Scheme, and also the possibility of substituting the true rental value of the farm as being a more equitable basis of calculation for assistance under the Scheme?
    Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman was not a member of the House when we discussed in great detail various methods and techniques which were put forward by hon. Members from both sides. I came to the conclusion that we had got the right answer. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion would have much advantage over the present system and I am certain that there would be more complications regarding the administration of the Scheme.

    Importation of Animals (Regulations)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the cost of preparing and presenting to Parliament the Order, dated 2nd November, 1959, authorising the landing at Bromborough of one wart-hog; and whether, in the interests of economy, he will consider simplifying the regulations with regard to the importation of animals into this country.
    Mr. Godber: The total cost of preparing, duplicating and publishing the Order and presenting it to Parliament is estimated at £14, and of this the cost of presentation to Parliament is about £1. For disease reasons the importation of animals must be controlled. The present procedure seems to work well at no great cost to public funds and I do not think there is much to be said for amending legislation.
    Mr. Janner: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that he ought not to clutter up Order Papers with Orders of this description for one single animal? Might not he have included at least one or two others of the same genus phacochœrus at the time he was making this Order?
    Mr. Godber: I am sorry the hon. Member thinks we were cluttering up the Order Paper. I think it was a valuable thing to bring before Parliament the notable introduction of this animal. After all, there are only a few and we had only seven of these Orders last year. Parliament does not mind being enlightened on these things.
    Mr. Mitchison: Why was this animal detained in the nurseries?
    Mr. Godber: It was detained for a period of quarantine and, so far as I am aware, the animal itself did not object at all to that procedure.
    Sir. G. Nicholson: Why was this wart-hog imported? Is my hon. Friend aware of the urgent need to develop the wart-hog industry of this country? Is he aware that wart-hogs should be treated with great sympathy because they are highly sensitive about being wart-hogs?
    Mr. Godber: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's concern in this matter. I shall certainly take the greatest interest in the future career of this particular wart-hog and, if necessary, will keep him informed.

    Farm Buildings
    Mr. Denzil Freethasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will introduce amending legislation to enable buildings which, if they were erected by individual farmers, would qualify for a grant under the Agriculture Act, 1957, to be eligible if erected by farmers' co-operatives or farmers' machinery syndicates.
    Mr. John Hare: My hon. Friend's idea has its attractions, but I am afraid I cannot at present hold out prospects of introducing new legislation.
    Mr. Freeth: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that he has found it possible to include co-operatives among the bodies which may get grants of public money for buildings and so on under the Horticulture Bill, the Second Reading of which is to be moved today? If it is possible for horticulturists, why should not it be possible for other kinds of agriculturists also?
    Mr. Hare: As I told my hon. Friend, this idea has its attractions; but, according to the legislation passed by this
    1330
    House in the Agriculture Act, 1957, I am not entitled to help in the way he suggests. On the other hand, it would not be impossible to have legislation at a future date, but I cannot give any guarantee about it.
    Mr. Willey: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to look at this matter sympathetically in view of the number of co-operatives and because, as he said, we want to learn from experience? We all agree about that. Will he consider publishing a White Paper on the Farm Improvement Scheme and the Small Farmer Scheme so that we may see how they are working and possibly suggest improvements?
    Mr. Hare: I shall certainly consider what the hon. Member has said.

    Slaughterhouses
    Mr. Darlingasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many slaughterhouses have been opened or reopened under the terms and Regulations of the Slaughterhouses Act, 1958; and how many of these are classed as small, medium and large, respectively.
    Mr. Godber: It is too soon to have any statistics on the effect of this legislation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, under Regulations recently laid, my right hon. Friend will obtain statistics about slaughterhouses, but these will not be available for at least twelve months.
    Mr. Darling: Are we to understand from that that the Minister has not the faintest idea what applications are being made, what local authorities are doing, or how many slaughterhouses are being built all over the country?
    Mr. Godber: No, I do not think the hon. Member should understand that. My right hon. Friend knows a great deal about what is happening. We want to get all the statistics collated as a whole, but I am satisfied with the progress that is being made. I have had the pleasure of opening a few of these slaughterhouses which were built as a result of the Act of 1958, and I know they are a great improvement on the old ones.

    Bacon Pigs
    Mr. Braineasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in view of the present difficulties in the

    1331
    bacon-pig industry, he will take steps, well in advance of the next Annual Price Review, to separate the guarantees for pork and bacon pigs sold for deadweight.
    Mr. Gardnerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in view of the threat of extinction to the British bacon industry, he will take immediate steps to separate the guarantees given to bacon producers from those given to other pig producers.
    Mr. John Hare: I have received representations from all sides of the pig industry, both for and against the introduction of separate price guarantees for bacon pigs. I am giving full consideration to all these very varied opinions.
    Mr. Braine: Could my right hon. Friend go further? Is he aware that the British curing industry is fast losing ground in its small share of the British bacon market? Is he aware that British bacon-pig producers are fearful that they will be ruined unless some statement of policy is made and some decision taken well in advance of the February Price Review?
    Mr. Hare: We have to be very careful what we say. I do not think the facts quite bear out the implication of what my hon. Friend has said. The House should be aware of these two facts. The bacon factories in Great Britain slaughtered as many pigs in the first ten months of 1959 as in the first ten months of 1958. We also have to bear in mind that the average return for graded pigs at bacon factories over the new farming period, April to October, was 45s. 10d. per score, compared with the price for other pigs of 45s. 8d. In other words, bacon producers were slightly better off than producers of pork-pigs and pigs for manufacturing purposes.
    Mr. Willey: The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that this does not allay the real anxiety. Can he undertake to make a very early statement in the House on the steps he proposes to take?
    Mr. Hare: No, Sir. I purposely answered my hon. Friend to show that we have to get these things into perspective. I realise that the specialist bacon producer is not having an easy time at the moment, but the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has been connected with agriculture for long
    1332
    enough to know that the right decision requires very careful thought, and I think that hasty action would be most unwise.

    Arsenical Weed Killers
    Mr. Edenasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many arsenical weed-killers are at present banned under his regulations.
    Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend has no statutory powers to ban the agricultural use of such substances, but he is carefully considering the position of arsenite sprays under the voluntary notification scheme operated in conjunction with the agricultural chemical industry for securing the safe use of toxic chemicals.
    Mr. Eden: Has my hon. Friend noted the experience of the widespread use of these sprays in the United States? Will he consider making some kind of regulation as to the use of these sprays, because they seem to be very dangerous indeed—for example, if they are sprayed from low-flying aircraft?
    Mr. Godber: Yes, I would not minimise the dangers at all. My right hon. Friend said in reply to a Question last week that he hoped to make a statement soon on this matter. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would leave the matter there for the moment.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Does the inquiry which is taking place include the possible pollution of reservoirs as a result of the use use of these sprays?
    Mr. Godber: Yes, that has been taken account of.

  AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

    Chemicals
    Mr. Edenasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as representing the Minister for Science, what research is currently being undertaken to study the cumulative effects on human, animal and plant life of the unrestricted use of chemicals in agriculture.
    Mr. Godber: Three units of the Medical Research Council are engaged on research into the effects on human health, both acute and cumulative, of

    1333
    chemicals used in agriculture. Some of their findings have been published.
    The effect on animals and plants is the subject of research at Agricultural Research Council stations, and research into the effect on wild life has been planned by the Nature Conservancy. These studies are closely inter-connected. Research is also carried out by the manufacturers.
    Mr. Eden: Will my hon. Friend ask his noble Friend to support some of the private or hitherto privately-conducted researches into this question? One experiment I am thinking of in particular is the Haughley Research Project, which has been going on for ten years and is full of information, but is in danger of being lost sight of owing to lack of funds.
    Mr. Godber: I shall call that to the attention of my noble Friend and I am sure he will give it consideration.
    Sir G. Nicholson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great concern among bee keepers in this country about destruction of bees and does he realise that this does damage not only to bee keepers but to the fertilisation of plants? If he likes, I will bring a deputation of angry bees to see him about it.
    Mr. Godber: I shall be very happy to see my hon. Friend, but as to his constituents I shall have to consider that. I would remind him that we are hoping to discuss this matter tomorrow and we shall welcome his contribution to the debate.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    National Theatre Company
    Dr. Strossasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on Government policy with regard to the creation and financing of a National Theatre Company which shall work mainly in the provinces, Scotland and Wales; and when he proposes to establish it.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): My right hon. Friend has recently invited the Arts Council to review the priority which should be given to the National Theatre in current circumstances and to advise
    1334
    him on the form which such an enterprise might most appropriately take. I cannot, of course, anticipate its recommendations.
    Dr. Stross: Is that really a satisfactory reply? Is it not fairly apparent that, without asking advice from anyone at all at this stage, the Treasury has made up its mind as to the desirability of the steps suggested in this Question? Have we not had some hint from the Treasury that it is so satisfied? When are we to have a National Theatre Company? Cannot we have it soon?
    Sir E. Boyle: I think my right hon. Friend is right in feeling that the best means of dealing with this matter, in which I know of the hon. Member's concern, is for the Arts Council to consider the whole question of priorities within a limited total expenditure. I am sure that is the right way to approach the matter.
    Mr. Jeger: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind, and impress on his right hon. Friend, that, unless something is done about the formation of a National Theatre Company to work in the provinces, very shortly there will be no theatres left in the provinces for a theatre company to act in?
    Sir E. Boyle: That question raises rather wider issues, but I am sure my right bon. Friend and the Arts Council will take note of the views expressed this afternoon.

    Sports Council
    Dr. Strossasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer his proposals for the formation and financing of an official Sports Council.
    Sir E. Boyle: This suggestion will be considered by my colleagues concerned and myself as part of the Government's review of recreational facilities both for young people and others.
    Dr. Stross: When will that review take place? How soon may we expect some information? Will the Minister bear in mind that there is an organisation called the Bow Group, as well as the Parliamentary Labour Party, both of which have pressed very strongly for this? As there seems to be a consensus of view in the population as to the desirability of this, may we be given a decision soon?
    Sir E. Boyle: It is surely something in which we can all take pleasure that all parties at the last election paid considerable attention to what is being done for young people. We have to consider the Report of the Albemarle Committee on the Youth Service, which I hope we shall have in the latter part of the Christmas Recess. We have to look at the question as a whole, not only at one single part of it.

    Commonwealth Assistance (Loans)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent Commonwealth assistance loans are related to the purchase by the receiving countries of goods and services from this and other Commonwealth countries.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): Colonies receiving loans from the United Kingdom Exchequer may use them to make purchases without restriction as to source of supply. Loans to other Commonwealth countries made under the Export Guarantee Acts are related to payments by those countries to United Kingdom firms.

    International Monetary Fund (Discrimination)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration was given by Her Majesty's Government and consultation held with other member Governments of the International Monetary Fund regarding the price of gold and the international exchange value of the United States dollar before the United Kingdom executive director of the fund concurred in its proposal for the removal of discriminatory trade restrictions imposed for balance of payment reasons.
    Mr. Barber: The decision by the International Monetary Fund on discrimination related to existing international commitments and did not inaugurate a new policy to which conditions might be attached.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Was not it unfortunate that this proposal of this international organisation should have been presented to the world in The Times and elsewhere as a joint proposal with the
    1336
    United States State Department? Is not it desirable that countries should be able to use the present position to get themselves out of debt to the United States before being asked to submit to increased competition from that country?
    Mr. Barber: As far as I know, all members of the International Monetary Fund subscribed to this decision. Indeed, even before this decision was made, all members of the Fund and of the G.A.T.T. were under an international obligation to put their payments and trade on a non-discriminatory basis as soon as they could. The decision taken by the Board of the International Monetary Fund was simply that this time had come.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Is it the policy of the Government to be non-discriminatory only in relation to G.A.T.T. members, excluding, of course, Japan, or is it their general policy to be non-discriminatory? Will the hon. Gentleman say why, when the restrictions on dollar imports were removed, the Government tightened the restrictions on imports from China?
    Mr. Barber: That is another question. I was asked a specific Question in relation to considerations concerning the decision of the International Monetary Fund. I should be happy to answer the right hon. Gentleman if he put a Question on the Paper.

    Premium Bonds (Prizes)
    Mr. Channonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that holders of Premium Bonds today have far less chance of winning a prize than at the inception of the scheme; and whether he will increase the total sum payable as prize money.
    Mr. Barber: There has been no change in the rate of interest or the prize structure and, apart from the exceptional first draw when all the eligible bonds contributed six months interest to the prize fund, there has only been a slight lengthening of the odds as the proportion of bonds entering for the first time, and so contributing six months interest, has decreased.
    The Answer to the second part of the Question is that the prize fund is already increasing with the increase of bonds in each draw and my right hon. Friend

    1337
    does not consider it desirable to make any change at present in the rate of interest.
    Mr. Channon: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he agrees that as time goes on the odds against winning a prize will get steadily longer? Is not this becoming a serious and growing disincentive to people to hold Premium Bonds?
    Mr. Barber: I think it is true to say that there is a tendency as time goes on for the odds to lengthen, but there is no question of this happening to any great extent. Perhaps I can best explain this by saying that if one excludes the first draw, which I think everybody agrees was exceptional, in the first six months of normal draws the average odds against a bond winning in a draw was just under 9,600 to 1, whereas in the last six months they have been 10,900 to 1. The lengthening of the odds is thus less than 15 per cent. Even if, which everybody knows is most unlikely, people were not to subscribe for bonds, the worst which could possibly happen would be a lengthening of the odds from 10,900 to 1, as at present, to 12,700 to 1. The suggestion which my hon. Friend has made is not borne out by the facts. I do not want to delay the House any more, but it is important that hon. Members should realise that these bonds are being successful. They are being sold in large numbers, the prize money last time was larger than on any of the previous occasions and the number of bonds now held by the public is greater than at any previous time.

    Purchase Tax
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, under his regulations, Purchase Tax on dustbins bought by local authorities in quantities of 250 or more is greater per bin than when bought in quantities of a dozen.
    Mr. Barber: This anomaly arose temporarily owing to changes in pricing arrangements in the trade which required a new method of tax assessment. Measures have now been taken to adjust the matter.
    Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that that Answer will be received with considerable satisfaction?
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will end the Purchase Tax on dustbins.
    Mr. Barber: My right hon. Friend must not be expected to anticipate his Budget Statement.
    Mr. Allaun: Since the poorest family in the land needs a dustbin, is not this the most obvious of necessities? Does not this cost local authorities and thus their ratepayers roughly £250,000 a year?
    Mr. Barber: I agree that this is a necessity, but so are other items which come within the same group. I do not think that hon. Members in general would think it right in principle, and it would not be possible, to relieve articles of tax simply on the ground that the cost of them falls to a greater or lesser extent on the local authority.
    Mr. H. Wilson: For his better information on this Question, will the hon. Member study the debate on the Autumn Budget of 1955? Will he bear in mind that this tax was introduced by the present Home Secretary in a post-election Budget? Is it still the Government's policy that an essential ingredient in the fight against inflation is to tax essentials so that the consumer will have less money to spend on other things?
    Mr. Barber: As I said earlier, I cannot anticipate what my right hon. Friend will say in his Budget Statement. I have no doubt that he will bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Jannerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide figures setting out the receipts from Purchase Tax on perfumery, cosmetics and toilet preparations at the higher rates of 90 per cent., 60 per cent. and 50 per cent. for each quarter from that ended 30th June, 1957, to the present date; and, having regard to those figures, what he estimates would be the reduction in the annual yield of Purchase Tax on such goods if it were reduced from 50 per cent. to 25 per cent.
    Mr. Barber: As the Answer to the first part of the Question contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Answer to the second part of the Question is about £7 million a year.
    Following are the figures:

    APPROXIMATE RECEIPTS OF PURCHASE TAX FROM PERFUMERY, COSMETICS AND TOILET PREPARATIONS TAXED AT THE HIGHER RATE UNDER GROUP 32 OF THE TAX SCHEDULE

    —

    Receipts in Quarter ended 30th June

    Receipts of tax charged

    Receipts in Quarter ended 30th September

    Receipts of tax charged

    Receipts in Quarter ended 31st December

    Receipts of tax charged

    Receipts in Quarter ended 31st March

    Receipts of tax charged

    Total

    £,000

    Per cent.

    £,000

    Per cent.

    £,000

    Per cent.

    £,000

    Per cent.

    £,000

    1957–58

    4,146

    90

    4,853

    90

    5,068

    90

    6,602

    90

    20,669

    1958–59

    4,268

    90

    3,993

    90

    4,478

    60

    5,577

    60

    18,316

    to 15.4.58;

    60

    thereafter

    1959–60

    3,118

    60

    3,792

    60

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    to 7.4.59;

    50

    thereafter

    NOTE:—Purchase Tax is payable quarterly in arrear so that receipts in a given quarter reflect the chargeable transactions which took place in the previous quarter at the then prevailing rates of tax.

    Trustee Investment
    Mr. John Hallasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for removing undated stocks with fixed interests from the trustee investment list.
    Mr. Barber: None, Sir.
    Mr. Hall: Will not my hon. Friend agree that the 3½ per cent. War Loan, which has been the subject of recent statements, is a perfect example of the loss which trustee investors can suffer as a result of the limitation placed on their powers of selection of investments? Should not there be a change which does not impose such a loss on trustees?
    Mr. Barber: As I think my hon. Friend knows, the whole question of trustee investment is now under consideration by the Government.
    Mr. Ridsdale: When is it proposed to introduce further legislation to extend the powers of trustee investment?
    Mr. Barber: I am afraid that I cannot say.
    Mr. Reynolds: Will the Economic Secretary agree that any loss which has been suffered by trustees in this investment is entirely due to the Government's financial policy which has caused a catastrophic drop in the price?
    Hon. Members: Daltons.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Will not the hon. Gentleman answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds)? Will he answer the shouts of "Daltons" from those behind him by pointing out that the fall in the value of the so-called Daltons has been far greater under this Government that it was under the Labour Government?
    Mr. Barber: I did not mean any discourtesy to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds). The answer, is No, Sir; I most certainly do not accept what he said. So far as Daltons are concerned, I should have thought that those spoke for themselves.

    Hire Purchase
    Mr. C. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest known figure for the national hire-purchase debt; how far it has increased since the credit restrictions imposed by his predecessor were removed; to what extent this increase is a sign of renewed inflation; how far a moderate restriction of hire-purchase facilities would help to reduce prices; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Barber: The latest figure for total hire-purchase debt is £784 million at the end of September. It has increased by £303 million since September, 1958, when the first stage of de-restriction was announced. The movement of

    1341
    these figures cannot in itself be taken as an index of inflation, and there is no reason to believe that the restriction of hire-purchase facilities at this time would have any appreciable effect in reducing prices. We shall, however, continue to keep hire-purchase expenditure under review along with other elements in the national expenditure.
    Mr. Osborne: As the Thorneycroft restrictive measures have been abandoned and the hire-purchase debt has increased, as my hon. Friend says, by £300 million, how much further does the Treasury think it can rise without endangering the stability of prices? Will my hon. Friend assure the House, and me especially, that the Government will put price stability as the primary objective of their economic policy?
    Mr. Barber: With regard to the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, it is well known that this is one of the objectives which is uppermost in my right hon. Friend's mind. In answer to the first part, it is expected that the increase in the hire-purchase debt in 1960 will be very substantially less than the increase in the current year. This will be a factor in damping down the rise in demand from now on.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: Will not my hon. Friend agree, first, that, provided that there are sufficient savings coming forth from the community, an increase in the hire-purchase debt need not be inflationary; and, secondly, that per head of population the hire-purchase debt in this country is still substantially below that in the United States?
    Mr. Osborne: May I ask my hon. Friend—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know if the Economic Secretary wants to answer the supplementary asked by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth). The hon. Gentleman had better have a chance to do so.
    Mr. Barber: I certainly agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, and I think that he is correct in what he said about the relationship between the United States and ourselves.
    Mr. Lipton: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is better from every point of view that more and more people should get more and more into debt?
    Mr. Barber: No, but I certainly do not think that hire purchase is in itself a bad thing.
    Mr. Osborne: I beg my hon. Friend not to set our policy by the example of the Americans, who are running into inflation as fast as they can. Will he see that the promise given by the Chancellor that we will put the stability of prices above all else is honoured.
    Mr. Barber: I will certainly convey to my right hon. Friend what my hon. Friend has said.

    Shale Oil (Tax)
    Mr. J. Hillasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of revenue to the Treasury derived from tax on shale oil in the Lothians in 1958–59; and the estimated tax revenue for 1959–60.
    Mr. Barber: The revenue in 1958–59 was about £650,000. The revenue in 1959–60 is expected to be of the same order.
    Mr. Hill: In view of the rising unemployment in this area and the decline in the shale-oil industry, will the Minister give some direction to allow for redevelopment and create more employment in this part of Scotland, which has been very badly hit?
    Mr. Barber: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot say anything about the future, as the whole question of the level of hydrocarbon oil duties is a matter for the Budget.
    Mr. Lawson: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that, since it is now the expressed Government policy to help parts of the country such as this, by a little remission of taxation some tangible proof of the Government's intention could well be given in this case?
    Mr. Barber: It is fair that the House should know that the Excise duty applicable to this oil is 1s. 3d. a gallon less than the main Customs hydrocarbon oil duly. The duty structure already affords the industry a very high degree of protection and assistance.
    Mr. H. Wilson: It is not much good talking about waiting for the Budget, since in the debate on the 1958 Finance Bill the Chancellor gave a very clear pledge that something was to be done

    1343
    to help the industry in the following Finance Bill, but nothing was done. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the industry is really declining—and in an area of heavy unemployment—and will he emphasise these facts to his right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Barber: I will certainly do that. I realise the difficulties that this area is having.

    Under-developed Countries (Private Investment)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the gross national product is represented by private investment in the underdeveloped countries.
    Mr. Barber: Information on United Kingdom private investment overseas is incomplete, but the amount of such investment in the under-developed countries in recent years is roughly estimated at about one half of 1 per cent. of our gross national product.
    I regret that my right hon. Friend's answer of 10th November to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question about assistance to the under-developed countries was not quite accurate and I should like to take this opportunity to correct it. In 1958–59 total United Kingdom Government economic assistance to the under-developed countries amounted to one half of 1 per cent. of our gross national product, so that Government assistance and private investment together came to roughly 1 per cent. of our gross national product.
    Mr. Grimond: Is the Economic Secretary aware that I am greatly obliged to him and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for that correction? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that this means that public investment is not 1 per cent. of our gross national product and that a great deal of what we subscribe to under-developed countries comes back from certain Colonies and Territories for which we are responsible?
    Mr. Barber: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct. The Government assistance amounts to one half of 1 per cent., but the total, which includes private investment, amounts to 1 per cent.
    Mr. Arbnthnot: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that one of the difficulties about private industry investing in under-developed countries is the extremely high rates of taxation in the under-developed countries?
    Mr. Barber: Yes, certainly.

  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
  Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Prime Minister if he is yet able to state when and where it is proposed to hold the next conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is not yet able to announce the exact date of the meeting. There appears to be general agreement that it should be in London.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister's decision to visit Africa is very welcome? Does not he agree that the more that our Commonwealth colleagues can be associated with, and appear to be associated with, British diplomacy at this important time, the better for the Commonwealth and for the world?
  Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend is seized of my hon. Friend's latter suggestion. I will convey my hon. Friend's approbation in the first part of his supplementary question to my right hon. Friend.

  GERMANY (FORMER NAZIS)
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister whether he will represent to Dr. Adenauer that the elevation to the judiciary in the German Federal Republic of 1,000 ex-Nazis, who, as judges in Hitler's special and military courts, were responsible for crimes against humanity, conflicts with the de-Nazification provisions of the Potsdam Treaty; and if he will request him to investigate the matter with a view to taking appropriate action.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.

  1345
  No, Sir. The responsibility for de-Nazification and the judicial appointments in the Federal Republic is a matter for the German authorities, and we are confident that they will ensure that all allegations made in good faith will be adequately investigated.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Would the right hon. Gentleman ask for some statement from the German Government as to what is being done in this respect? Would he also draw attention to the increasing danger from ex-Nazi generals and S.S. colonels in the Bundeswehr and the police force in Western Germany?
  Mr. Butler: I will only remind the House that the responsibility has lain with the German Government in these matters since 1949. The Bonn Convention, which entered into force in May, 1955, stated that the Federal Republic had full authority over its internal affairs. I agree that Her Majesty's Government have an interest in the matter, but at the moment I have nothing to add. We are noting the hon. Member's request.

  GERMANY (RE-UNIFICATION)
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister whether, during the official visit of Dr. Adenauer to London, he will ascertain the views of the West German Government on Her Majesty's Government's policy, as laid down in the House on 19th February last, of uniting Germany within a framework agreed and guaranteed by the four Powers, including free elections at some stage but not necessarily at the outset, and of consulting Germans from both parts of Germany on methods of uniting the country.
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the policy of insistence on free elections throughout Germany and maintenance of the status quo of Berlin has been vitiated by the lapse of time, developments in both sections of Germany, and the need for Four-Power agreement and whether, in his forthcoming discussions with Dr. Adenauer, he will seek to evolve more elastic and realistic procedures for re-uniting Germany.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
  1346
  The conversations between my right hon. Friend and the German Chancellor were confidential. I therefore cannot say what subjects were or were not discussed. But I cannot accept all the implications of the hon. Gentleman's Questions.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government stand by the policy laid down on 19th February by the Minister of State and summarised in Question No. 49?
  Mr. Butler: The Government's views generally on unification were submitted in the peace plan presented at the Geneva Conference in May, printed as Command Paper 797.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Does the Prime Minister intend to make a statement on his talks with Dr. Adenauer?
  Mr. Butler: I cannot give a definite reply at the moment. I was hoping to get in touch with my right hon. Friend, but he has been seeing Dr. Adenauer off. All I can do is to convey to my right hon. Friend the right hon. Gentleman's question.

  SUMMIT CONFERENCE
  Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Prime Minister if, in view of all the bilateral talks now arranged before a Summit Conference, he will invite Mr. Chou En-lai, the Prime Minister of the Chinese People's Republic, to Great Britain for exploratory talks on Far-Eastern problems.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
  No, Sir. My right hon. Friend does not think that such a proposal is timely.
  Mr. Davies: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that this might be an opportunity for Britain to take some initiative in view of our de facto recognition of China? This might be an opportunity to discuss the problems of the Indian frontier and Indo-China and be a help towards settlement in the Far East and a contribution to world peace and understanding. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the initiative is worth taking?
  Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend deliberately used the word "timely".

  1347
  The impression is that matters should be taken step by step, and the first step should be a meeting between the three Western Powers and the Soviet Union, As regards the problems on the border of China and India, the talks proposed by Mr. Chou En-lai and Mr. Nehru are a matter essentially for the Chinese and Indian Governments. As regards Laos, the general view is that our contact with the Soviet Union is at present preferable to any widening of the discussion.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Would not the simplest way of dealing with these problems be for China to take her proper seat in the United Nations?
  Mr. Butler: That raises an issue which has been frequently discussed, to which I at present have nothing to add.

  MOTION (MEMBER'S NAME)
  Mr. F. Noel-Baker: On a point of order. Would I be in order, Mr. Speaker, in drawing your attention to page 516 of the Order Paper that reached hon. Members this morning? I there find my name in the rather unexpected company of certain hon. Members, headed by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor), who are urging the reintroduction of flogging. The Motion in the name of these hon. Members does not really coincide with my opinions. My intention was that my name should be added to the Amendment to the Motion, which contradicts it.
  Mr. Speaker: I may say that the unexpected situation of the hon. Member's name had been observed. I regret that it is due to a mistake, which will at once be corrected.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will announce the business for next week?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 23RD NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Consideration of the Coal Industry Nationalisation (Borrowing Powers) Order.
TUESDAY, 24TH NOVEMBER—Committee and remaining stages of Mr. Speaker Morrison's Retirement Bill.
Second Reading of the Judicial Pensions Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
WEDNESDAY, 25TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Commonwealth Scholarships Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Committee and remaining stages of the Atomic Energy Authority Bill; and of the Post Office and Telegraph [Money] Bill.
THURSDAY, 26TH NOVEMBER—Debate on the Radcliffe Report on the Working of the Monetary System.
FRIDAY, 27TH NOVEMBER—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask what form Thursday's debate will take? Will it be in the form of a Government Motion to welcome the Report?
Mr. Butler: It will take place on a Government Motion to take note of the Report.
Mr. Gaitskell: Could the Leader of the House make arrangements for a debate to take place before Christmas on the traffic problem in large cities? Is it also the intention, as is reported in the newspapers, of the Minister of Transport to make a statement on this problem?
Mr. Butler: I cannot give a definite answer to the latter part of the question—whether my right hon. Friend will make a statement—without consultation with him.
I will take note of the right hon. Gentleman's request for a debate.
Mr. H. Hynd: Can the Leader of the House say anything about the Motion on the Order Paper, signed by myself and by hon. Members on both sides of the House, relating to the desirability of a Minister being responsible for answering Questions about provincial police forces, or will that subject be dealt with by the inquiry that the right hon. Gentleman announced last night?
[That this House, feeling that it may become desirable from time to time for questions to be raised about the actions of police outside the Metropolitan area, asks the Government to examine this matter, with a view to some Minister being authorised to answer such questions.]
Mr. Butler: When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) mentioned the matter last night, I referred to it in my reply as being one of the many issues that might be looked at. I think that it would be preferable that it should be looked at properly before we give an intermediate answer.
Mr. Hamilton: Is it not a reflection on the Government's priorities that two days should have been given to a debate on the Betting and Gaming Bill, and only one day to the Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill, which affects the lives of hundreds of thousands of people? If the right hon. Gentleman will not give further consideration to the possibility of having a two-day debate on the Coal Industry Bill, would he undertake to give us an extra hour on Monday?
Mr. Butler: We would have to ascertain what the general request was for extra time. I do not think that the two subjects can be exactly compared, because no one underestimates the vital importance of the coal industry to the country. In fact, we hope that the "Revised Plan for Coal," which was published on 15th October, will be discussed on Monday. Therefore, I think that it would be better if I paid attention to the hon. Gentleman's request, and found out whether there was general support for it.
Mr. Hector Hughes: On grounds of urgency and humanitarianism, may I ask the Leader of the House to find time for my non-partisan Motion on the conduct of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board in endangering the lives of feeble-minded children in a school near Aberdeen?
[That this House takes note of the proposal of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board to place an electric pylon in, and a high voltage electric line across, the grounds of the Camphill-Rudolf Steiner schools for children in need of
1350
special care at Bieldside, Aberdeen; further notes that these schools are in open country where an alternative site could easily be found; recognises that this proposal exposes the children there and the schools to unnecessary danger; considers that this pylon will tend to defeat and impair the very purposes for which these schools exist; and therefore calls upon the Secretary of State for Scotland to take action forthwith to prevent the placing or continuance of any such pylon in the grounds of that school.]
This is a matter of urgency, and I ask that time may be found for it. The Motion has been widely signed.
Mr. Butler: I am aware, as is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, of the anxiety in reference to this school and what is proposed, but I understand that the matter is at present before the court. Therefore, I could not give a final answer now, but in due course my right hon. Friend would hope to be in a position to say something.
Mr. C. Pannell: Is the right hon. Gentleman yet in a position to name the day when we shall discuss either accommodation or procedure? Is he seized of the necessity of the House putting these matters in order at an early date?
Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I am so seized of it that I was proposing to see the hon. Member very shortly on the question of accommodation. And I have in mind the question of procedure, which, I hope, we may be able to discuss through the usual channels at an early date.
Mr. Lipton: Is the Leader of the House able to tell us now, or will he be able to tell us in the near future, when it is proposed to begin the Committee stage of the Betting and Gaming Bill, and whether he has found out from the Home Secretary if the Home Secretary will serve on the Committee so that he himself can fight for the betting "butleries" that he has sought to establish?
Mr. Butler: An exact date has not been decided, as far as I am aware, but it will be before Christmas; that is to say, we hope to make a start on the Bill in December.

1351
I should find it extremely difficult to serve on the Committee myself, but I have the great good fortune of having my right hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Vosper) serving as Joint Under-Secretary of State. He himself has been a senior Minister, and his services will be very valuable in dealing with the Bill.
Mr. Zilliacus: In view of the important international meetings and other developments that have either taken place or are impending, will there be any chance of a debate on foreign affairs before the Christmas Recess?
Mr. Butler: There is no such plan at the moment. We shall simply have to wait and see how we get on.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings of the Committee on Horticulture [Money] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HORTICULTURE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.37 p.m.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I know that I shall be speaking for both sides of the House when I say how sorry we are that Mr. Tom Williams is no longer with us to take a leading part in our horticultural and agricultural debates. He enjoyed the warm friendship of both sides of the House, and we shall certainly miss him. At the same time, as I am on the subject, I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) who, I understand will take Mr. Williams's place, and is following me in this debate.
  The Bill implements the Government's intention and pledge to introduce early legislation on horticultural marketing; and it will be seen that we have lost no time. Hon. and right hon. Members who take a lively interest in horticulture will remember the Report of the Runciman Committee. After a very full and careful study of the industry, the Committee reached several important conclusions. The three which were probably the most important, if I may list them, were as follow.
  First, the Committee considered that, while the present system of marketing and distribution works with reasonable efficiency, there is need and opportunity for improvement. Secondly, the Committee thought that, if growers are to increase their share of what the consumer is prepared to pay, they must grow what the public wants and present it so that it moves easily and cheaply through the processes of marketing and distribution. Thirdly, the Committee said that these processes cannot be as efficient as they should be because the facilities at most of the wholesale markets are inadequate for modern requirements.
  The Runciman Committee's conclusions received wide acceptance. My predecessor welcomed them on behalf of the Government. Again, I think that

  1353
  I can speak for both sides of the House when I say that we owe a very deep debt of gratitude to Lord Runciman and his colleagues. Since that Report, after a great deal of work done in closest consultation with all sections of the industry, we have worked out the detailed proposals which are now before the House.
  Our proposals are for what I have described as a three-pronged attack. First, we shall help producers to be more efficient and competitive in marketing their produce. Secondly, we shall set up machinery through which all sections of the industry—growers and their workers, importers, wholesalers and retailers—will be able to work together to improve the processes of marketing and distribution. Thirdly, we shall provide for the streamlining and modernising of the national central market at Covent Garden. That, as the House knows, will be the subject of a separate Bill.
  It was with some interest that I noticed, just before the General Election, that the party opposite announced its intention to introduce, if it was returned to power, Measures which were, shall I say, somewhat similar to what we are discussing today. I do not know whether this move by the Labour Party could be described as a praiseworthy effort to follow a good lead, or whether, perhaps, there could be another interpretation, that it was a dastardly attempt to "pinch somebody's trousers" when he was not looking. However, whatever interpretation one puts on it, I think that that move does suggest that differences of opinion between the two sides of the House this afternoon should not be too great.
  We are legislating for an important industry. It is not always appreciated just how important the industry is. The wholesale value of fruit, flowers and vegetables, home-grown and imported, consumed in this country is about £270 million a year. This, of course, takes no account of potatoes, for which one can add another £100 million. About 250,000 people are engaged, as principals in production or distribution, and, in addition, many thousands are employed as workers. There is scarcely a person in this country who does not every day of his or her life consume some of the products of the industry. "Meat and two veg." is, I think, the historic national standby.
  1354
  Of course, times change, and I think that one of our biggest and most respected growers has a good point when he uses as his slogan, "Meat and three veg., please". In view of the comments of the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) the other day, perhaps I might add, "What about a salad and an apple for dessert, as well?"
  Mr. Cyril Osborne: What about some fish-cake?
  Mr. Hare: That is a different point.
  The figures I have just quoted show that efficiency in horticultural marketing is clearly a matter of great importance to us all. We are looking for greater efficiency all along the line, and we must start with the grower. The Government accept their special obligations to British producers, and we have always recognised that our own growers should have a reasonable measure of stability. We have adopted the tariff as the main instrument, and we shall continue this policy. We help our producers in other ways, also. Research and advice are particularly important. I have been glad to see how the National Agricultural Advisory Service and the growers have been working together in steadily growing confidence.
  There has been increasing efficiency in production, and this is very good; but progress in skill in growing must be matched, in my opinion, by greater skill in marketing. Otherwise, quite obviously, the grower will not receive the full return from his enterprise and the consumer, also, will suffer because he or she will lose some of the expected benefit.
  Well-grown produce must be well presented for marketing, and for this proper facilities are needed. It is not always easy for growers to find the capital required. So the Government have decided that special assistance is necessary, and we now intend to inject money into horticulture for that purpose. That is the object of the improvement grants for which the approval of Parliament is sought in Part I of the Bill.
  Better marketing by producers must be matched by improved distribution and better presentation in the shops. In all this, of course, the wholesaler and the retailer have a very big part to play. They and the producers have a common interest

  1355
  in seeing that produce reaches the consumer in the best possible condition, without delay or damage or unnecessary cost. The greengrocer and the fruiterer are the "shop-window" of the whole industry, and it is no good if vegetables or fruit or flowers which leave the growers in good condition appear in the shops tired, bedraggled and unattractive. That simply will not encourage the housewife to buy. There is wide scope here for collaboration between all sections of the industry. The knowledge and experience of each can, I think, be used to the advantage of all. The purpose of Part II of the Bill is to set up an organisation where all the sections of the industry can work together on common problems.
  The proposals I have just mentioned are two prongs of the three-pronged attack that we are providing for in the Bill. As for the third prong, I will not say much. It is, unfortunately, true that nearly all our wholesale markets are obsolete or obsolescent. Many of them, at any rate, could be described as places which were built in the horse-and-buggy days. They served their purpose well, perhaps, half a century ago, in days when, I suppose, the tomato was a rarity and the tangerine was a special treat for the Christmas stocking. Now, times have changed, and I think that we are all apt to take for granted what I may describe as the daily miracle by which these markets provide us with many good things which, not so very long ago, were regarded as luxuries only for the very rich.
  It is much to the credit of our traders and their workers that our antiquated markets work at all. They do work, but only at the expense of delay, loss of condition and higher costs. I know that many of our market authorities are anxious to improve their markets and are making plans to do so. Coventry, of course, has an entirely new post-war market, and Sheffield is well ahead with its own admirable plan.
  Others towns and cities are at work and I am sure that progress will be made. But Covent Garden presents, I suppose, the most intractable problem of all. I can describe it only as an antiquated hotch-potch. It must be changed and streamlined. As I have said, it is our intention to introduce legislation shortly to bring about vital changes at Covent
  1356
  Garden. I know that this does not arise from the Bill, but I mention it merely to complete the picture of our comprehensive plan to improve horticultural marketing at each of the main stages which I have described.
  I should now like to deal with the main points which arise from Part I. Here, we seek powers for an improvement scheme which is tailor-made to fit the special requirements of horticulture. I said earlier that it is in the sphere of marketing that there is the greatest scope for the British grower to improve his position. Better presentation of produce for market is not the only change which is required. Timing of marketing is also of extreme importance. Our producers need the facilities and the "know-how" to spread the period during which crops come to maturity and to exercise control on the time when they are put on the market.
  In Clause 1, we seek powers to make grants to growers of one-third of the cost of facilities needed for better marketing. Hon. Members will have seen from the recent White Paper that it is our intention that these grants should be available towards the cost of erecting or improving packing sheds, loading bays and buildings used for washing and grading produce. These grants will also be available for long-term improvements of the kind for which farmers can now already get assistance under the Farm Improvement Scheme, including general purpose buildings, roads and electricity. Besides the buildings themselves, we propose to help towards the cost of plant and equipment to go inside the buildings, such as benches and racks, washing and grading machines, and conveyors. Storage facilities will also be eligible. I think that all these improvements can be expected to lead to greater marketing efficiency.
  Although our proposals are not designed directly to assist production, there are two matters with regard to production which I should like particularly to mention. In the glasshouse section of the industry, I do not think that it is generally realised that heating accounts on average for about a quarter of the total cost of production. There are many cases—we know them only too well—where heating costs could be substantially reduced if out-of-date boilers and

  1357
  pipe layouts were either replaced or improved. We therefore propose to assist growers who already have heated glasshouses to modernise their heating systems. That is the first point.
  The second point is that on smaller holdings—those between four and seven acres—some glass which is ancillary to the main system of production can be of the greatest help to the grower. It enables him to spread the marketing of his crops over a longer period. It reduces his dependence on bought-in planting material, and it enables him to get on with some very useful jobs in the bad weather when he cannot work outside. We have, therefore, decided to extend the grants to cover the provision of this ancillary glass. The various items which will qualify for grant will be listed in a scheme in accordance with the provisions of this part of the Bill. This will be put before the House in due course.
  In a scheme of this kind it is always difficult to decide who should and should not be eligible, and where to draw the line. We have given a great deal of thought to this matter. Our conclusion is that the line should be drawn to include individual growers with not less than four acres of open land. We reckon that a holding of this size should be capable of providing a reasonable living. Our views are similar to, although, I think, a little more generous than, the views put forward last year by a study group of the National Farmers' Union. Clearly, when land is cultivated under glass a smaller area will produce the same return, and we are taking account of that in the scheme.
  I think that we have drawn the line at about the right place. But we have not forgotten the smaller growers. Everything that I personally have seen and heard about horticulture, not only in this country but when I have been abroad, has convinced me of the advantages of co-operative marketing. By this means, growers on the smallest scale can enjoy the benefits of large-scale organisation and up-to-date marketing equipment. We have, therefore, decided that growers' marketing co-operatives, or, as they are described in the Bill, "horticultural producers' marketing businesses", should be eligible for grants under the scheme.
  We also propose further assistance to promote co-operative marketing under
  1358
  Clause 4, and hon. Members will have seen that up to £100,000 is to be available for this object. Grants to central co-operative organisations will be made for such things as recruitment and training of managers and the provision of consultancy services. In these special provisions for co-operatives, we are breaking entirely new ground to meet the special needs of horticulture.
  Before I leave Part I of the Bill, I should like to give the House an idea-it is very difficult to give figures which are 100 per cent. accurate—of the number of growers likely to be affected. As we know, there are about 70,000 holdings which grow horticultural crops. Some of them are primarily farms, where horticultural crops take some place in the rotation of the farm. Others fall below the limits of eligibility of the scheme. But, allowing for these, I reckon that between 25,000 and 35,000 businesses are likely to be eligible. It is unlikely that all of them will wish to take advantage of the scheme individually, but many more—and I want to emphasise this—will benefit through the co-operative arrangements which I have described.
  Part II of the Bill provides for the setting up of a Horticultural Marketing Council. Here again, the Runciman Committee strongly recommended that a council on which all sections of the industry, producers and distributors alike, were represented, should be set up to bring about improvements in the methods and techniques of marketing and distribution. During the past twelve months I think that the Horticultural Marketing Advisory Council has shown how much can be achieved by a body set up on this basis, and I should like to say how grateful we are to Mr. Stanley Swash, the chairman of this Council, and his fellow members.
  Clause 9 deals with the appointment of the horticultural marketing council by the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself. Its composition provides for equal representation of the three main sections of the industry, for representation of workers in the industry and for a small independent element. This does not mean that we are wedded for all time to existing patterns of trading. As time goes on, there may be changes. It must be wise, therefore, to keep the composition of the Council flexible. As

  1359
  the House will have seen, Clause 9 provides for this.
  The functions which the Council can undertake are set out in Clause 10 of the Bill and there is little need to enlarge on them. This is the sort of thing that might well be done. We are all agreed that we grow the finest apples in the world. I do not think anybody would deny that of those, probably the most superlative is the Cox's Orange Pippin. These facts, however, are not recognised by many of those who live in these islands. I always ask myself why it is that the families sitting round the television set in the evening generally pass round something in a tin, and why it is that the children's treat is so often the lolly and not the apple or fruit. I merely mention apples, but the same principle applies to a wide range of other fruits and vegetables, and flowers, too.
  The Council will have a real job before it to see that the family appreciates the worth of these products, and to get them to the family in first-class quality and condition. The activities which the Council will be able to undertake can be of real commercial value to those in the industry. It must, therefore, be right that these activities should ultimately be paid for by the industry itself. Furthermore, when one pays for something oneself, one generally gets far better value for money. Both the Runciman Committee and the Horticultural Marketing Advisory Council shared this opinion. For an interim period of two years, however, we propose that the Council should be financed from public funds up to a maximum of £250,000. This, too, is in accordance with the recommendation of the two Committees.
  The organisations representing producers, wholesalers and retailers have assured me that they intend to make the Council a success and they are determined to help in working out a practical method of financing it. This is of the highest importance, because there can be no question of financial help from the Government being continued after the initial two years. With the assurances that I have had from all sections of the industry, I think I can be confident that during this time the Council will prove its worth and make generally acceptable arrangements for raising its own revenue.
  1360
  As we obviously cannot yet foresee what form the financial arrangements worked out by the Council will take, the financial provisions in Clause 11 of the Bill have had to be widely drawn and have had to involve delegated powers. The Council will have wide scope for working out arrangements which are practicable and which commend themselves to the industry. But whatever these arrangements may be they will not have effect until submitted to the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself and then, if approved by us, submitted to Parliament.
  Before I finish on Part II, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the provisions of Clause 15. The Council itself will deal with all horticultural products coming on to the market including, of course, both imported and home-grown produce. It is widely felt that there is need for special measures to promote sales of home-grown produce. Clause 15 empowers the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself, after Parliament has approved, to set up a special organisation for this purpose. The organisation would be a producers' organisation. Neither it nor the Council would cut across marketing board arrangements. It would be financed only by producers. We should set it up only if producers wanted it. Here is a unique opportunity for our growers to do something which many of them have long had in mind. It is up to them. The instrument is there if they wish to use it.
  Many Agriculture Bills have reached the Statute Book, but up till now there has not been any major legislation concerned solely with horticulture. Many horticulturists, I think, have felt that their industry is the Cinderella of the countryside. But in the provisions of the Bill we have broken new ground. We are entering virgin territory. The horticulture industry, compared with most other industries nowadays, is primarily one of small-scale enterprises. Its products can be second to none, but it faces highly organised competition.
  The Government intend to help the industry towards greater efficiency in marketing by providing money and machinery. It is for the industry to see that they are used for the full advantage. I am confident that the industry will meet this challenge.
  4.6 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Willey: In thanking the Minister for his kind remarks, we from the Opposition benches join him in saying how much we will miss Mr. Tom Williams, whose valuable advice has guided us for so many years.
  The right hon. Gentleman's speech was remarkable in that from beginning to end there was practically no reference to the consumer. This is regrettable in discussing a Bill which is to provide £7½ million of the taxpayers' money. I should have thought that, whenever we are discussing horticultural marketing, we should emphasise that there are two equally important objectives. The first is to provide as stable prices as possible to producers, who follow an unavoidably hazardous occupation. The second is to provide, if possible, for a reduction of prices to the housewife and, also, which is equally important, to provide that she gets better value for money. These factors, after all, are important if we want to increase consumption. They are also important for the very good reason that there are high costs in horticultural marketing because of the wastage of food which occurs. I am sure that everyone in the House will join with me in saying that this is something that we should take every possible step to avoid.
  If we turn to the Bill we are, as the right hon. Gentleman said, in real difficulty, because we have the cart before the horse. The right hon. Gentleman and the White Paper have indicated that we are to have another Bill later this Session, but I remind the House of what the Runciman Committee reported. It said that
  "the physical processes of marketing and distribution cannot be as efficient as they should be because the facilities at most of the wholesale markets are inadequate for modern requirements."
  If we look behind the cart, we find not even a horse, but something which is rather less than a Shetland pony. Everybody who has looked at horticultural marketing would agree that the Runciman Committee produced a complacent Report which was a masterly brief for inaction and that the proposals made by that Committee were accepted generally as being minimum proposals.
  1362
  The essential proposals that the Runciman Committee made however, were that steps had to be taken to improve the wholesale markets. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman today to endeavour to butter parsnips with fine words, but it will not do, because we know—it is in the White Paper—that the Government have rejected even the minimum proposals of the Runciman Committee. In doing this, the Government should pay heed to the warning of the Runciman Committee. I will quote again from the Runciman Committee. It said:
  "Other possible improvements in distribution will be restricted and, indeed, things may get worse."
  That is to say, things may get worse unless its recommendations about improving the physical processes of marketing are adopted.
  This is a very discouraging background to our present discussion. Nearly every authority, including the Runciman Committee, has said that the essential primary problem of horticultural marketing is a physical one—that there are not sufficient physical facilities available for the produce to be properly marketed. The Government's failure to face these difficulties and to accept even the minimum proposals of the Runciman Committee means that the proposals which we are discussing today will be all the more ineffective.
  Nevertheless, we on this side of the House welcome the proposals, as indeed we welcome the Minister's statement about improvement grants in January. But I have to tinge my welcome with some regret that nothing has been done until now. This is not my fault. I have raised the matter before in the House. Everyone realises that the steps that are being proposed are no more than first-aid, and if one must have first-aid the more speedily it is applied the more effective it will be. The Minister should not blame us. We said at the time of the 1957 Act that more aid should have been given under that Act to improve horticulture.
  The Minister mentioned glasshouses. We put forward an Amendment in Standing Committee, but the Government refused to do anything and that is why, in welcoming these proposals, it is not unfair to say that we very much

  1363
  regret the Government's procrastination, particularly as some of the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman is making today are especially welcome, such as the provisions for storage facilities and preparations for market.
  I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on going beyond the Runciman Committee's recommendation in coming to th aid of the co-operatives. I am glad that he is taking the novel step of making a grant to promotional activities. Obviously, he has read "Prosper the Plough" with profit in the past few months. He has not gone far enough, but we welcome the steps so far as they go.
  I do not intend to discuss the details of the grants set out in the White Paper on horticulture. We shall have an opportunity of doing that in Committee. I am aware of the proposal which the N.F.U. has made, but I do not wish to discuss it today. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is right in not trying to write his provisions, by way of Schedule, into the Bill, but very properly giving us notice of his intentions in the Appendix to the White Paper.
  However, I should like to make a few general comments about the proposals. Earlier today, we have had tributes paid to the National Agricultural Advisory Service. I again pay tribute to the work that it is doing, but this is another burden that has been placed upon its shoulders. It was the burden of the Small Farmer Scheme not long ago, and now it is the burden of administering these grants. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies to the debate, will be able to tell us by how many the staff of the service has been increased. This is the Cinderella of the services in the Department and with all this important additional work laid upon the shoulders of the staff we must have greater regard for their importance.
  In considering generally these improvement grants, we must consider the way in which the proposals were made. I always hesitate to call in aid the Economist. It is rather like invoking the praise of one's maiden aunt but I think that it was right in saying that there is an element of danegeld about these improvement grants. We all know that the announcement about these grants was
  1364
  made at the time when the Government rejected the tariff applications made by the producers. The Minister has not mentioned tariffs, but I think that he ought to have done.
  Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening. I said that tariff was the main instrument of our policy.
  Mr. Willey: I am obliged for that intervention, but I should prefer that the right hon. Gentleman explained the Government's position on tariffs.
  I am anxious to help the right hon. Gentleman about them. I do not think that there is any party controversial issue about tariffs. The right hon. Gentleman has shown that he has been reading our policy statement. We have said that
  "Tariffs and seasonal import quotas should remain a means of assisting our horticulture"
  and when we discussed horticulture, in May, I stated that
  "… we recognise the general case for a protective shield …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1959; Vol. 604, c. 1658.]
  At the same time, we recognise that tariffs in themselves are not a solution to the problem of horticultural marketing. I think that we all agree on that, but, nevertheless, the Government are in real trouble over this. The right hon. Gentleman is not unaware that he has been accused by the N.F.U. of selling the producers down the river. The Government have only themselves to blame and that is why I comment on the right hon. Gentleman's failure to deal with the problem today.
  We know that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer took the easy course in 1956 of encouraging producers to great expectations about tariffs. We also know the Tory policy before the party opposite took office. Election promises made by Conservatives before taking office certainly created the impression that there would be regulation of imports and safeguarding and protection by way of tariffs. That goes far beyond talking about them as a protective shield. I have sympathy with the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). I want the Government to make explicit their attitude towards tariffs. Obviously, it affects the whole question that we are discussing

  1365
  now. Again, they must cease to be equivocal about our associations with European trade. We shall not be satisfied with fait accompli after fait accompli.
  We have had difficulties over pigs. We fear that there will be difficulties over frozen fish from Norway. We are entitled to know the Government's attitude. We can suspect the attitude of the President of the Board of Trade, but I want to know the Government's attitude towards such proposals as minimum import prices and the rest. We are entitled to answers to these questions before we consider the proposals in the Bill, because we have to consider whether these proposals are adequate to meet the difficulties which may face this industry.
  Against this background and the Government's failure to answer these questions, whatever we are considering today, however welcome it may be, is nothing more than a hasty improvisation. It is not surprising that the National Farmers' Union should be saying now that if the proposals in the Bill are to be regarded as a substitute for higher tariffs this is barking up the wrong tree. We ought to be told by the Government what their general attitude is and what their attitude is towards the development of European trade. Even if we do not delve too deeply into these urgent current problems these measures, as I have said, remain as essentially first-aid, and they are all the more required because of the Government's procrastination.
  Mention has been made of the Runciman Committee to which, of course, we pay tribute. Its Report was not a particularly good one, but it provided some information, though I wish there had been more. One of the criticisms of the Report is that it does not show that there was any real examination of the position of the growers, but, even allowing for that, any reading of the Report leads to the inescapable conclusion that one of the things that we must do is to strengthen the position of the growers within the system of horticultural marketing. For this reason, in particular, I congratulate the Government again, in case the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I am being unduly harsh, in going so far towards us in supporting co-operatives, because this strengthens the position of the grower.
  I support improvement grants, also, in so far as they bring the grower further
  1366
  into the process of wholesaling, enabling him better to plan his production and prepare his produce. They are also important for another reason, which should be emphasised. They better equip the producer to deal with the changing pattern of horticultural marketing. There has been a substantial development in recent years of sales through supermarkets and multiples and an encouragement of prepacking. I share the regret of Lord Stonham, who spoke of this in another place, that the right hon. Gentleman has not helped prepacking sufficiently. It is an excellent thing that since 1954 prepacks have increased from 100,000 to 240 million. This shows the changing pattern of trade. It is discouraging that at present the development is to be curtailed, because it is essential to recognise this changing pattern, and it is also important to allow the producer better to equip himself to satisfy the new needs.
  Having said all those encouraging things, I repeat that the Bill is no more than a hasty improvisation. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us, as it is taxpayers' money, why the figure is £7½ million and not £5½ million or £8½ million. Has the Ministry a gaming device that determines the figure? I ask this question seriously, because we know that in the case of the small farmers there was a third-floor-back committee. I would like to know by what device the Government arrived at this figure, because they arrived at it with great alacrity at the same time as they turned down the tariff applications.
  I also want to know why there is no provision for loans. Again, I fall back on the Economist: I think that it is right in suggesting that this aid may be spread too thinly. I took a note of the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman. If the Minister would only resort to loans, also, he would make the money go further. More important still, the essential problem here is that of interest rates. We are not concerned with grants. They are only a formula to provide that those who undertake the capital work shall pay less in interest rates. I would prefer the Government to come forward and say, "We have thought out the crux of this problem—interest rates" and to make proposals.

  1367
  I say this because I have a suspicion about the way in which the farm improvement grants have worked. That is why, earlier today, I asked whether we could have a White Paper. For instance, I want to know what effect the 7 per cent. Bank Rate had on the use being made of public money under the farm improvement grants at that time. My guess is that it reduced the aid to the smaller farmers, who were precluded from using the scheme because of the increased rate.
  So this is not only improvisation, but quite expensive improvisation. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support me in urging upon the Government the necessity for facing the two cardinal problems before British agriculture—credit and co-operation. I congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on reading "Prosper the Plough" and our other policy statements. I wish that he would read them more effectively and would recognise that we cannot continue, year after year, to provide first-aid, instead of getting at the root of the problem. We are entitled to expect from the Government constructive proposals about both credit and co-operation.
  On Part II of the Bill, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on accepting the recommendations of the Runciman Committee about the Horticultural Marketing Council, and I welcome the provision made by the Bill for membership. The Minister has provided a better structure for the Council than that proposed by the Committee and I welcome the provision for workers' representatives upon it. I notice, however, that whereas the Runciman Report suggested that the co-operative societies should have direct representation, provision is not made for this in the Bill. Why is that?
  I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about the necessity to provide public finance for the first two years of the Council's work, but I accept it as a sorry reflection on the trade and the industry. Before we dispose of the Bill we should hear something more definite about the levy. It is essential to inform the industry and the trade that there will be provision for a levy, and we should not part with the Bill before that has been settled, since this will greatly
  1368
  affect the effectiveness of the Council's work. That effectiveness will also be conditioned by the powers we provide for the Council.
  I am trying to be non-controversial and I do not want to provoke any controversy about the claims of the Commission as against a Council. This is largely a question of powers. I am, however, disturbed about the proviso to the Bill, although in a way we welcome it, because I realise that the Government have paid attention to our previous debates. The proviso states that the Council shall not carry on any trade or business
  "except by way of experiment or demonstration."
  That is too limited, although I welcome it as far as it goes. I realise that the argument which may be deployed from the other side of the House is that the free market mechanism can be relied upon to provide for the development of packing and collecting stations and centres, but it is precisely because we cannot rely upon this that we are now discussing the Bill. This is an urgent matter because of some of the other factors I have mentioned.
  I have been somewhat critical of the Bill in welcoming it, because we are anxious to ensure that the British horticultural industry is as well equipped as possible to face outside competition. For this reason I ask the Government to look again at the powers they are giving to the Council, to see whether it is not possible to give it powers to provide, build, and, if necessary, run on a nonprofit basis, collection and packing stations and area marketing centres for small growers. I do so because I believe that such facilities are required urgently, and that the industry and the consumer are equally prejudiced by their absence. This is another aspect of the need for better physical facilities for the marketing of horticultural produce. I do not think that we can rely upon the trade and the industry to provide such facilities. We ought to ensure that the Council is in such a position to provide them where necessary.
  I hope that the Government will re-consider this matter, and also the further question of a common container pool of standardised containers. It will not do to "pass the buck" to the Council. This

  1369
  is a Governmental responsibility, as the Runciman Committee pointed out. It is a long time since that Committee reported, and we want from the Government a statement about the action they are prepared to take to provide statutory standards for containers. We cannot delay matters by asking the Council merely to look at the question and then refer the matter to the Government. These matters are urgent and important, and I hope that they will receive serious consideration.
  I welcome the provision about market intelligence. One of the things that has most struck me about horticultural marketing is the abysmal absence of market intelligence. This is very much to the prejudice not only of the consumer but, in the long term, of the producer. We must try to end the business of chasing the markets. I agree with everything that the Minister said about consumption. I looked up the figures myself. It is most surprising to find that we are eating less fruit than before the war, and about the same quantity of vegetables as before the war, but far less than we were in 1951, and, also, that we compare unfavourably with almost every Western European country in the consumption of fruit and vegetables.
  Mr. Harold Davies: It might have something to do with English cooking.
  Mr. Willey: I will leave it to my hon. Friend to deploy his case against the housewife. I am rather attracted by English cooking. I believe that, cardinally, it is a question of the standard of living. Certainly, we must have our "three veg".
  I also welcome the provision which the Government are making for the producers to organise themselves to promote the sales of home-grown produce. I do so particularly because I think that we all recognise that in horticulture there is not much further scope for marketing boards, and that such an organisation as the Minister envisages might be very useful to the industry generally in promoting better sales of our own fruit and vegetables.
  One or two of the recommendations of the Runciman Committee appear to have been ignored by the right hon. Gentleman. He is apparently doing
  1370
  nothing about the practices of certain salesmen. The Runciman Report said:
  "… we find that suspicions of dishonesty by salesmen, whether justified or not, are sufficiently widespread to warrant certain amendments to the Act."
  Several rather sordid and squalid references are made in the Report to the practices of some salesmen, including tax evasion. I want to make it clear that by doing nothing the right hon. Gentleman is being very unfair to the general body of salesmen, because the people who are guilty form only a very small minority of the salesmen who are dealing with horticultural produce. In such circumstances it is only fair to legislate against the bad salesmen.
  In August, 1957, the right hon. Gentleman said that he hoped that an institute of salesmen would be created. What has been done about this? We were promised changes in the Horticultural Produce (Sales on Commission) Act, 1926, but what has been done about it? The Runciman Committee suggested—and this is a remarkable proposal to come from it—that there should be an inspectorate. These steps ought to be taken, because the consumer and the producer should be able to feel that the Government are resolute in seeing that these abuses are avoided. If the Government do that they will have the good will of the whole trade.
  We give the Bill a restrained welcome. We cannot avoid feeling some disappointment, because we do not feel that the Measure entirely deals with the inefficiencies and inadequacies of horticultural marketing. Nor—and this is equally important—does it sufficiently anticipate some of the difficulties which the horticultural industry may have to face in the next year or two. Further, it does not equip the horticultural producer to take best advantage of the new forms of marketing which are arising.
  In spite of this restraint, however, we agree that the Bill should help to bring a greater measure of security to the producer by affording him an opportunity to take some of the steps which he should take, and we hope that it will also help the consumer by way of providing more attractively presented, and fresher, fruit and vegetables, at cheaper cost. If we can do this we will be most effectively serving the purpose of

  1371
  increasing the consumption of vegetables and fruit, which both the industry and consumers, want to see. We will try to improve the Bill in Committee and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary Secretary will exercise their co-operation there. But even if we improve the Bill in the ways I have indicated we must still realise that the fundamental problems facing the industry have not been tackled, and that they are not likely to be tackled in the Bill that we shall consider later in the Session.
  I implore the Government to keep those fundamental problems in mind and, at the earliest opportunity, to bring forward proposals which will provide a more radical solution to the difficulties of an industry which cannot escape the very real hazards which it faces from day to day.
  4.37 p.m.
  Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: This is my maiden speech, and I beg the indulgence of the House.
  I am rather surprised to find myself speaking for the first time in my life on the subject of horticulture. That, however, is only one among all the surprises that I have had, because as soon as I came here I was asked whether my name was hyphenated. I understand the problems of the consumer only because I am a shopkeeper and an ex-supermarket operator. I still operate three self-service stores, and I have worked in an American supermarket. In the supermarket my partner was a farmer, and I admit that we had a gay time. Once we had 20,000 vegetable marrows on our hands which we had to get rid of, so I appreciate the problems that arise between the grower and "Mrs. Customer". I avoid calling her the consumer; I think that it is much more personal to call her "Mrs. Customer".
  We are at the beginning of a retailing revolution. Ultimately all food will be sold under one roof. We do not want "Mrs. Customer" to go from the grocer to the baker and then on to the greengrocer and the fishmonger. I am sure that she wants to buy all her food under one roof. For that reason I have considered the Bill very carefully, and I want to give the House some interesting figures illustrating the size of the
  1372
  movement towards self-service. This has accelerated enormously during the last five years. Now, each month 100 self-service stores are being opened in the country, besides 10 supermarkets. This is only the beginning. The process has been accelerating for five years, and within the next ten years the whole face of retailing will be changed.
  I believe that during the next ten years about 50,000 ordinary grocers will close down. These will include not merely independents, but co-operatives and multiple outlets. I am convinced that the greengrocer as we know him today will virtually vanish, and that the great proportion of the produce that we are talking about will be sold from supermarkets. I worked in a supermarket in Dayton, Ohio, where I saw an example of the way in which the traditional retail shops are vanishing. Eight years before I went there there had been 100 butchers in the town. Last year, only two were left. Virtually all the meat was being sold in supermarkets, and presumably many of the butchers had become supermarket operators.
  Prepacking is inherent in this form of retail. It gives "Mrs. Customer" increased quality, better grading and a branded name, which carries a form of guarantee in the housewife's mind. She looks for the branded label. I know something about grading from the customer's side. A lady, when buying a pound of tomatoes, will say, "Do not give me all the big ones. I have visitors coming to tea, and I want to put two on each plate." She knows exactly what she wants and grading and prepacking will give her this.
  I am convinced that it is wise not to give grants for prepacking. No one knows at what level it will be carried out. No one can say for certain whether it will be carried out at the producer's end or the wholesaler's end. I worked for several days in a supermarket in America, preparing goods in store to present to customers in a prepacked condition. I imagine that quite a lot of prepacking in this country at present is done at store level.
  I disagree with the figures given by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and I apologise for disagreeing in my maiden speech. I can bring my constituency

  1373
  into this matter. I welcome the Bill because my constituency produces a great deal of raw material for the new packaging materials. In 1955, 100,000 prepacks were used in this country. In 1959—my figures are fresh from the Pre-packaging Development Association this morning—we are using this year between 310 million and 350 million. This is a fantastic increase of which notice must be taken.
  I also want pre-cooling encouraged. We have to take the field heat out of vegetables so that when they are sent away from the producers they are in a better condition and the customer gets them in a better condition. I also want to see wholesalers go round in insulated or refrigerator vans to ensure better quality goods for "Mrs. Customer".
  I hope to be able to serve on the Committee of the Bill and that the Self-service Development Association and Pre-packaging Development Association will be able to have a hand in this matter. I have always believed that production is not the difficulty; it is the selling that matters. Once a thing has been produced it has to be sold. It is necessary for horticulturists to take advantage of the Bill and to use the advertising facilities in it.
  My small boy, who started school two years ago, rapidly taught me a lesson about this. He had been at school for about a week when one day he came home and said that he had learned two facts that day. One was that he knew where Australia was, and the other, that it grew apples. An Australian had walked round his school and given each boy an apple and a pear. It taught me that Australians were interested in advertising their apples and pears, and I wish that the English growers were as interested as the Australians.
  I end by saying that I look forward to this Marketing Council, and that I can visualise on the hoardings in the future the slogan, "Eata pinta peasa day".
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. A. E. Oram: I count it a considerable privilege to be able to follow the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot) and to congratulate him on a very lively maiden speech which we have all enjoyed listening to, particularly as he brought to bear
  1374
  on the subject matter of the Bill some very obvious personal experience. That is always a good thing to do not only in a maiden speech, but in other speeches in later days. I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members on both sides of the House when I say that we look forward to hearing the hon. Member not only in the Committee on which he hopes to serve, but in this House on many occasions.
  Fruit and vegetables are often quoted by people who are anxious to point out the wastefulness of distribution. In another very lively maiden speech to which we listened recently, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie), he gave the House a number of examples of the gap which exists between the price which the grower receives and the price which the housewife pays in the shops. The growers see that gap and feel that they are getting a raw deal. Equally, the housewife sees the gap from her point of view and feels that she is getting a raw deal in this business of horticulture.
  Very often in these arguments it is the man or men in between who are the scapegoats and who have to face the accusation that that is where the waste occurs. I suggest, as I think the Runciman Report brought out very clearly, that even in the marketing and distribution stages things are not nearly so simple as they sometimes appear either to the growers or to the consumers. If anyone is inclined to take too simple a view of the horticultural industry I suggest that the re-reading of the first part of the Runciman Committee's Report would be a useful corrective to that attitude of mind.
  The White Paper issued in connection with the Bill points out that one of the main conclusions of the Runciman Committee was that
  "the costs of distribution, having regard to the services performed, are not excessive."
  Having said that, I think that everyone would agree—the members of the Runciman Committee as well as hon. Members on both sides of the House—that improvements ought to be possible, ought to be sought and certainly are very desirable in all the stages of producing horticultural produce and getting it on to the table in the homes.

  1375
  I believe, for two particular reasons, that the consumption of horticultural produce will become more and more important in the immediate future. One reason has already been admirably illustrated by the hon. Member for Cleveland. He pointed out, as I would point out with a different experience, the revolution that is occurring in post-war years in retail distribution—the very important development of the self-service store and the supermarket.
  The housewife is becoming more accustomed to going into a self-service store or supermarket and taking down from a rack a neat package of apples or tomatoes, or any other fruit or vegetable, all nicely cleaned and displayed, instead of having to buy it loose and put it in her basket as she used to do. I think that she is very often prepared to spend a little more to have the convenience and cleanliness of that new method of retail distribution.
  The moral which should be drawn from this is that if there are notable changes at the retail end of this business then there must be corresponding changes in the earlier marketing and wholesale stages and that is why I, for this and many other reasons, welcome the Bill and the help being given to the horticulturists in the earlier stages.
  Another reason why I think horticultural produce will be of increasing importance is the expectation that we are told to indulge in of a higher standard of living for the people of this country. I shall not enter into the whys and wherefores of that expectation and whether it is due to the technical revolution through which we are passing or to Government policy, or, as I believe, to the technical revolution despite Government policy, but whatever the reason, we are entitled to expect that living standards will go on improving.
  I have recently been looking at one of the tables which the National Food Survey issues from time to time giving great detail of the amount of various food commodities which different classes of people in this country consume. This shows that in respect of fresh fruit and green vegetables the gap between the amount which a rich person and a poor person eats is very much greater than the
  1376
  gap which exists for other commodities. I conclude that, as and when consumer standards rise, it will be in fresh fruit and vegetables that the increases in demand are most likely to occur.
  That is why I regard this as a particularly important step and why I give a particular welcome to the Bill. It does three things, two of which I will mention only briefly, as the Minister touched on them. The Horticultural Marketing Council is very necessary as giving a nerve centre, a focal point, to an industry which has suffered too much from being too fragmented with too many small people struggling to make their living, when what they need is co-operative effort, national planning, national direction and help for their industry.
  Secondly, the Bill provides for grants for encouraging the acquisition of the physical assets which are obviously necessary if efficiency is to be brought about in the industry. The third thing which it does, and which very much appeals to me as an active co-operator, is to encourage the better organisation of the human equipment of the industry. In other words, it encourages the cooperative organisation of the many smallholders in the industry.
  I warmly endorse what the Minister said about the co-operative method being the way whereby the small man can best help himself and his neighbour and can best benefit from the grants being made available under the Bill. In discussing the general question of horticultural marketing, contrasts are so often drawn between what goes on in this country and what goes on, particularly, in Denmark and Holland. If we analyse the differences we always come to the same answer—that the small farmers in those two countries have shown a greater willingness to co-operate with each other in their marketing than has been true hitherto of this country.
  The lead which the Government are giving to encourage them to get together in co-operative associations is particularly welcome. I particularly welcome Clause 1 (2) and Clause 4, to which the Minister referred, as the means by which this encouragement will be given. It is our duty in Parliament to make sure that whenever grants of public money are made they are most effectively used, and in my judgment the best way to use

  1377
  these grants will be by these co-operative associations.
  May I make one or two comments on Clause 8, which contains the definition of a co-operative association? As would naturally be expected, the main definition is that of organisations registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, but there is a second definition which will make it possible for other organisations, possibly registered under the Companies Act or possibly not corporate bodies at all, to enjoy these grants as a co-operative body, provided that they satisfy the Minister of their cooperative nature. I fully understand the need for including that second definition and I do not wish that it should be excluded, but I hope that the first will be the major element in the definition of a co-operative association and that the second will be very much the exception rather than the rule.
  When I say that I understand why the second definition was necessary, I have in mind a visit which I and a number of my hon. Friends—two of them are sitting on the Front Bench today—paid to a number of agricultural cooperative societies in the south and south-west of England a year or so ago. In Hampshire, we were shown an artificial insemination centre which was obviously being run on very good cooperative lines, but which it had been found necessary to register under the Companies Act. I suspect that the reason was that the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts put too stringent a limit upon the capital holding of an individual member of a co-operative society.
  It may be that that is what has been in the Minister's mind in giving us the second definition of co-operation. It is the case that from the point of view of organising an agricultural co-operative, the £500 limit, which exists at the moment under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, may well prove to be a handicap, and I urge the Minister to look into the matter. I know that it is not his direct responsibility, but I suggest to him that those who are directly concerned with the encouragement of agricultural co-operative societies are anxious that the limit should be raised from £500 to £1,000, and he might interest the appropriate Ministers in the
  1378
  matter to see whether amending legislation is possible.
  I see some danger in allowing bodies other than those registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts to enjoy these grants. As I read the Bill, it could be that an organisation would satisfy the Minister about its cooperative character in the early stages, enjoy the grant and later might lose its co-operative character. I hope that, later, the Minister will give us an assurance that it will be possible to have continuing vigilance to see that all organisations which enjoy grants because they are co-operative in character continue to retain that co-operative character.
  May I make two points about the composition of the Horticultural Marketing Council? Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), I accept the proposed constitution as generally satisfactory, but my satisfaction will be complete only if, when the members are appointed, we find that weight is given to the more detailed suggestions of the Runciman Committee in this respect. In particular, in connection with members representing retail and wholesale organisations, I call the Minister's attention to the recommendation of the Runciman Report, in paragraph 442, where it says that
  "organisations representing the wholesale and retail co-operative societies"
  should be included
  "among those representative, respectively, of wholesalers and retailers."
  I very much hope that the Minister will carry out that recommendation.
  Finally, I turn to the independent members of the proposed Council. The Runciman Report recommended that the independent members should represent consumers and the public interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North pointed out that in his speech this afternoon the Minister made scarcely any reference to the consumer interest. I hope that when he implements the Bill he will have very much thought for the consumer interest in general, and, in particular, in the appointment of these independent members.
  I doubt whether the definition of an independent member in Clause 9 will prove to be adequate. A most suitable

  1379
  member of such a Horticultural Marketing Council would be a housewife, as she handles the produce at the final stage. It may well be that there would be, shall we say, a suitable member of a women's organisation who, nevertheless, would not qualify under the requirement of
  "financial, commercial, technical, scientific or administrative experience"
  unless we put a very broad connotation on the word "administrative". I hope, therefore, that when we have more detailed talks about this the interest of the ultimate consumer will be fully recognised.
  I realise that it would be better to develop these points more fully in Committee, but I thought it would be useful to point them out on Second Reading. In general, I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North in welcoming the provisions of the Bill. The Bill is capable of improvement and I know that my hon. Friend will be diligent in seeking ways and means of improving it. I welcome the Bill because, as the Minister said this afternoon, it is breaking new ground. In encouraging co-operative organisations the Minister is breaking new ground and I compliment him for having the courage and initiative to do so.
  If, as I expect, the experiment proves successful, I hope that the Minister will get further courage from the success of his initiative and will be encouraged to go into other spheres of agriculture and realise that co-operative marketing and co-operative forms of organisation are equally to be desired in spheres well beyond those that we are discussing this afternoon.
  5.2 p.m.
  Mr. Denys Bullard: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot), I cannot claim the indulgence of the House on making a maiden speech, having now returned to the House after a period on "holiday". I am very pleased to be able to make a contribution this afternoon, because the constituency I now represent has considerable horticultural interests.
  My right hon. Friend said that we were breaking new ground this afternoon—"virgin ground" was his expression—in embarking on a horticultural debate,
  1380
  which is a very good precedent. I shall try to use the procedure adopted by maiden speakers, and that is to deal with the Bill as it affects those people in my constituency who are engaged in horticulture. Perhaps I ought to declare an interest in this, because for many years I have been engaged in the business.
  I am thinking particularly of the large number of growers of soft fruits in the Marshland area of the King's Lynn division, and also the growers in the constituency of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), whose constituent I happen to be.
  If there is a separate small farmer problem, which I have never been absolutely sure of—
  Mr. Harold Davies: Yes there is.
  Mr. Bullard: —it is exemplified by the horticultural grower in my constituency. If we attend to the difficulties of the small horticultural grower we are, to a large extent, tackling the problems of the small farmer.
  Many farm workers are also horticultural growers. I do not know whether this is widely realised, but a large number of farm workers have perhaps an acre or two of land under the county council small holdings or they may have hired a large allotment from a parish council or local charity trustees, or own their own, and in their spare time supplement their earnings in a very useful way, not always, I admit, at the convenience of their employers. This is a recognised system in the Marshland area and elsewhere, and I consider it a very desirable one.
  I am not thinking merely of the soft fruit growers. I am thinking of the glasshouse producers, of whom we have a number, and of other horticulturists in this very varied industry, the top fruit growers and the growers of commodities like vining peas which do not come on to the market but which are an essential part of the whole horticultural industry. I am also thinking of the men employed by all the various classes of growers.
  The financial condition of the industry is not as good as one would like it to be. Despite the general rise in the standard of living which one would expect to lead to an increased consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables, which we all want to

  1381
  see, many of these producers find themselves in difficult circumstances, partly because of the very considerable increase in costs which they have to face.
  I think the position is typified in the case of the tomato growing industry. The National Farmers' Union has just issued the results of its Horticultural Accounting Scheme for the year 1957–58. Specialised glasshouse vegetable producers suffered a 10 per cent. reduction of their income in that year, the fifth reduction of income in six years. According to the Ministry's July reports, the area of tomatoes under glass went down by 10 per cent. between 1954 and 1957, and the decline has continued since then. The causes for this are partly the increase in cost and partly the considerably increased competition from abroad.
  To be fair, I do not want to quote only one example. It is true that in the same Horticultural Accounting Scheme report published by the National Farmers' Union the earnings from soft fruit holdings went up by 25 per cent. in 1957, though they had gone down by 30 per cent. the year before. During the two seasons 1958 and 1959, I think any soft fruit grower, particularly in the strawberry group, would say that the financial returns from the industry had not been good. Those branches of the horticultural industry within my constituency have not had a good time.
  May I examine the ways in which I think they may be affected under the Bill? Firstly, the grant under Part I of the Bill will certainly be a valuable contribution to the industry. The experience of the farm improvement scheme shows that producers are ready to take advantage of the benefits of this kind of grant, and they should be available to the horticultural industry. I hope that the Ministry will not be unduly pernickety in its requirements but will allow the work to go on without making detailed inquiries about the internal fittings, and so on, of the buildings. I know that the wide provisions for roads and plant will help modernisation. I am particularly pleased to see that the Bill makes provision for a grant for the improvement of heating systems in glasshouses. I know of examples where spectacular improvements have been
  1382
  brought about by the modernisation of the heating equipment in glasshouses.
  I want to emphasise again, as has already been done by hon. Members before me, the importance of being sure that the horticultural officers of the National Agricultural Advisory Service, who are much thinner on the ground than those on the agricultural side, will be able to fulfil their duties under the scheme as well as their ordinary duties of giving advice, which are so essential and so valued by the producers in all sections of the horticultural industry.
  I now come to the second part of the Bill, to the Horticultural Marketing Council. There, I am afraid, I cannot be as wholehearted in my support as I am with regard to Part I of the Bill. I support the setting up of the Council for one reason only. The House may well think it an inadequate reason, but I am sure that it is one shared by other people who have tried to study the subject, and that is that they cannot suggest anything better.
  As the White Paper says, there is certainly a need for
  "some body to undertake a programme of activities on behalf of the whole horticultural industry."
  But those activities are very diverse and varied, and I am not absolutely sure that this body is rightly constituted to carry out the necessary work. I do not know whether it is the peasant blood that runs in me, but I cannot help contrasting these high-powered organisations, with their wonderful terms of reference and with no end of present participles in their terms of reference—advising, promoting, assisting, undertaking, developing, formulating, obtaining and disseminating, and so on—with the people who are actually in the field, with their posteriors turned up in the sun, actually doing the work connected with the strawberry crop or whatever it may be.
  When I see a body armed with these powers and with no real representation of the growers on it—I know that there are going to be grower members—it seems to me that the principle of no taxation without representation comes into the matter. Eventually, there will be a levy which is going to be spent by a high-powered body which has no responsibility to the person who, in the long run, will have to find the money,

  1383
  the grower. I am rather sorry that my right hon. Friend has not been able to adopt the other suggestion for which clearly the Runciman Report provided, that this body might have to be financed out of national funds for a much longer period than two years, and perhaps altogether.
  I can foresee that when in future years there are bad returns for fruit and horticultural produce, as there well may be, we as Members of Parliament will have some very awkward questions to answer from our growers who, on the whole, may perhaps get a very low return for their fruit and vegetables and, on top, have a levy to pay as well. I can assure the House that that is not going to be at all popular, and I hope that my right hon. Friend may be able to look at this part of the financing of the Horticultural Marketing Council again.
  In the terms of the Horticultural Marketing Council, I welcome the special provision for advertising homegrown fruits. I know that this will involve a separate levy, but the whole idea of getting adequate advertisement for home-grown fruits is very important indeed. I have had some spectacular instances put before me where greatly increased clearances of home-grown fruit and vegetables have been made by advertising campaigns, and not so much national as local campaigns. I hope it is going to be possible for this side of the Council's activities to be very strongly followed up.
  The final question which I wish to put to the House is this. With all the improvements of techniques and marketing which may come about, and I hope will, as a result of this Bill, are they going to be any good unless the industry is adequately protected from foreign competition? I know that this is the old, old question, but I think it is as real at present as it ever has been.
  I believe that adequate tariff protection for horticulture is essential, and, I would have said, a prerequisite of this Bill. I was in the House when tariffs were raised in 1953. That was a very welcome and important step indeed. I cannot say that I remember any very vocal support from the benches opposite on that occasion. All the same, I think
  1384
  this has been the most noteworthy step taken in horticultural production since I have been interested in horticultural and agricultural politics. I know that the case for increased tariffs was rejected last year, but I hope that when the matter comes up again more favourable consideration will be given to it.
  There are other aspects of this matter besides those merely of tariffs. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) raised the point of the trade agreements which affect this industry in many vital respects. I am not thinking so much of the Outer Seven, but of agreements which have been made now for several years back. I am thinking particularly—because my constituents do not let me do otherwise; they do not let me forget it—of the ageement made with Bulgaria under which a great amount of very low-price strawberry pulp came into the country this year, thus making it virtually impossible for the home grower to compete.
  In the case of strawberries, it is not only a matter of providing for the fresh-fruit market; the growers are providing for the canning and freezing industries and also for the jam-making industry. The importation of this strawberry pulp this year, on top of a fair home crop, certainly made selling conditions very difficult indeed. I think that £150,000 worth of fruit pulp, strawberry and other fruit, can come in under the trade agreement with Bulgaria. I understand that this pulp is quoted in free barrels in London at £70 a ton.
  We know nothing of trade conditions inside Bulgaria—at least I do not. I imagine that it is an Iron Curtain country, that the pulp is State purchased and sold and that the State may probably, for all I know, lose considerably on it. We have the anti-dumping provisions of recent legislation which, of course, are very valuable, but how do we know whether this pulp is being produced under proper conditions or whether it is being heavily subsidised by some form of Government support?
  Mr. Frederick Peart: The hon. Gentleman chided my hon. Friends earlier, but, in view of what he says, why does he not pursue this matter with his own Minister and the President of the Board of Trade? After all, what

  1385
  he is saying is an indictment of Government policy, an indictment which, I am certain, will be continued by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke).
  Mr. Bullard: I have tried and shall continue to pursue the matter with my right hon. Friends in the Government. I give them full credit for the tariff measures taken in 1953, and I am now trying to point out that there are considerable loopholes which need to be stopped up. I hope very much that that will be done before another year comes round. I understand that the details of this agreement are made annually. I hope that we shall see a stoppage of this particular importation, because I know that it has very disastrous effects on the growers within my constituency.
  I have only instanced one product about which I happen to have a particular grievance. Many aspects of the Bill are extremely commendable and I have no hesitation in saying that I think they will redound to the good of the horticultural industry, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will back up the Bill with adequate protection against unfair foreign competition.
  Reasonable competition—for instance, in the case of Dutch pulp, labour conditions are comparable—is not what is feared. What is feared is competition of an unfair kind, and I do not think that the present legislation is adequate to deal with it.
  5.20 p.m.
  Mr. George Darling: I do not know whether I am in order in congratulating the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) upon his second maiden speech, but I am sure that I shall be expressing the opinion of every hon. Member when I say how pleasant it is to listen to that voice of experience saying so forthrightly what springs from his experience in his own part of the world. It may be that, as he says, his peasant blood makes him talk in such a forthright way and makes him critical of the Bill, but I would point out that we need a Bill of this kind because the peasants of our country, if I might so describe our horticultural producers, are not doing the job of work that peasants in other countries do for themselves by developing their own co-operative
  1386
  organisations in a big way. Anyhow, we have to accept the circumstances which exist in this country, and, therefore, such a Bill as this becomes necessary.
  I cannot follow the hon. Member and talk about my constituency in the context of the Bill, except as eaters of the produce, because in the centre of Sheffield we have very few horticultural producers. However, we have Batchelors' food canning factory, which has some slight association with the Bill, and we also have Bassetts' liquorice allsorts factory. I was very disturbed when the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that when people gather round television sets they should eat apples instead of things like Bassetts' liquorice allsorts. I can assure him that trying to peel an apple in the semi-dark is not such a pleasant experience as just dipping one's fingers into a bag of Bassetts' liquorice allsorts. Anyhow, I have declared my constituency interest, and I will take the matter no further.
  At the beginning of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman chided us with stealing his trousers. However, I would point out that the main provisions of the Bill are certainly not new to hon. Members on this side of the House, and, indeed, I was myself writing pamphlets suggesting this form of agricultural marketing and organisation 25 years ago, and I am glad to know that the Government are belatedly catching up with us.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why his own Government did not catch up with those pamphlets?
  Mr. Darling: The Labour Government were in office for six years. The 1947 Act was a step in the right direction, and it would undoubtedly have been followed up, when we came to horticultural marketing, by a Measure of this kind. We certainly would not have waited another eight years before we had a Bill of this kind.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said, we generally welcome the Bill, though there are parts of it which will be the subject of severe criticism during the Committee stage. The Bill is on the right lines,

  1387
  and, as several hon. Members have said, we particularly welcome the emphasis on the development of voluntary agricultural co-operatives and co-operative marketing.
  We are also glad to see—at least, I am—a new approach to the need for some measure of public control over our marketing organisation. I was very surprised indeed when I read the White Paper to find some very welcome words in paragraph 23. Admittedly, the reference is to Covent Garden market, but the right hon. Gentleman himself said that the criticisms which can be levelled at Covent Garden market can also be levelled at many of the provincial markets and other London markets. Paragraph 23 says that the improvements to Covent Garden:
  "… cannot be done unless market premises are brought under unified ownership and marketing activities under unified control."
  This is a tremendous step in the right—should I say "Left"?—direction, and is very much to be welcomed.
  As I have said, the criticisms of Covent Garden, as the Runciman Report rightly pointed out, apply to other markets, and many of the big provincial markets, in particular, are just as much in need of modernisation as Covent Garden. I am sure that I should be out of order if I went on to talk in great detail about the proposed legislation for Covent Garden, but I should like to make the point that unless the Minister can give us an assurance that the Covent Garden Bill can be widened to deal with the improvements and measures needed to secure better marketing arrangements in other markets than Covent Garden, we shall have to press for such measures to be incorporated in this Bill. Many of us who come from big provincial cities and see the chaotic wholesale food and vegetable markets which exist there cannot be satisfied that the Bill will achieve all that we want it to achieve until those deplorable markets are put into better shape.
  The hon. Member for King's Lynn spoke about his fruit producers. I remember speaking at a meeting in Wisbech with the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). We were there to discuss European free trade. One of the questions which floored me came from a fruit
  1388
  producer from the area. He pointed out that he worked late hours in order to get his strawberries and raspberries on a night train so that they would arrive fresh in Sheffield. British Railways had given him a good service, and the produce arrived in Sheffield at 6 a.m. However, the market facilities were not available at that early hour, and the produce was kicked around and not properly dealt with, and there was no proper storage in Sheffield market. Therefore, all the activities on the part of the producers to get proper grading, proper packing and proper facilities for dealing with the produce up to the point of transport were vitiated because of the inadequate marketing arrangements at the point of reception. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North that unless the Government deal properly with our wholesale markets much of the good which could come out of the Bill will be wasted at the marketing end.
  The proposal in the Bill to set up a new administration for markets is greatly to be welcomed. I should like the Horticultural Marketing Council to be given authority to suggest new layouts for markets which do not come up to standard, new methods of operation, and so on. Also, I should like the Minister to have some powers to ensure that recommendations which might, in those circumstances, be made by the Council would be carried out.
  The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that Sheffield is to get a new wholesale fruit and vegetable market. It has taken us a long time to get past the planning stage. The building is nowhere near completion. How long it will take before it is finished I do not know. I doubt whether authorities in other parts of the country, which are not even as far ahead as we are in Sheffield in providing a new wholesale market, really know the kind of market which is needed adequately to handle fruit and vegetables in a big way. It is no use leaving this job to ordinary municipal architects. They need to be advised properly by people engaged in the trade.
  I am not altogether sure that that kind of advice is being given to architects, builders and so on, and particularly on the question of the siting of markets. The local authority that is going ahead and

  1389
  building a modern market may very well choose a site that fits into all its nice municipal planning, but may be completely hopeless from the point of view of transport and traffic congestion. It might be repeating in a new market all the defects which we have in Covent Garden, but on a smaller scale.
  I hope, too, that when we are considering in Committee the question of the powers of the Horticultural Marketing Council we can give it some authority to offer advice about the siting, layout, equipment and administration of the wholesale fruit and vegetable markets, where there are obviously sub-standard markets that have to be dealt with. I think that either in this Bill or in some other way the Minister must take to himself powers to ensure that recommendations of this kind are carried out, because unless we make sure that the marketing end is satisfactory the good work that may be done by producers will probably be wasted.
  To reinforce my argument, I think it is worth while quoting the views that were expressed by the Runciman Committee. I believe that that Committee, so far as I can make out, did not make a very detailed examination of markets outside London, but, even so, in paragraph 508 of its Report it says:
  "The physical processes of marketing and distribution cannot be as efficient as they should be because the facilities at most of the wholesale markets are inadequate for modern requirements."
  I stress "most of the wholesale markets".
  "The cost of improving them, particularly where this cannot be done on the existing sites, will be great, but until they are improved other possible improvements in distribution will be restricted and, indeed, things may get worse."
  The Committee goes on to support the trenchant criticisms of our present system of marketing and the facilities that exist for marketing.
  It is not only that markets are inadequate from the point of view of the volume of stuff they try to deal with in these days, as compared with the volume they handled when the markets were built, and the inadequacy of the arrangements in many of them, but because of being old-fashioned and out of date they are often vermin-ridden, and I am sure that the health of the community
  1390
  is in danger from the stuff going through some of our worst provincial markets. We cannot neglect this end of the industry with which we are dealing in this Bill. The provisions with regard to markets in the Bill are not adequate, and we must strengthen them if the Bill is to achieve its purpose.
  When we come to the other duties and responsibilities proposed for the Horticultural Marketing Council, I am rather puzzled as to how some of the duties that are to be placed upon the Council are to be carried out. For instance, it is suggested that the Council itself should not engage in trade. That may be a point we can go into in Committee, and I do not want to labour it now. I think that, not only for experimental purposes, it might be necessary and desirable and in the interests of both producers and consumers for the Council itself to engage in trade, but I will not pursue that point now.
  Under Clause 10 (d), the Council is to formulate standards for produce or containers and encourage the adoption of standards Does that mean that the Council itself, in consultation with the producers and the other people engaged in the trade, will lay down standards such as we used to have for quite a number of horticultural products under the National Marks Scheme? Will the Council itself decide on the marks? Will it say, for instance, that tomatoes have to be marked in certain grades, after consultation with the Tomato Marketing Board? If the Horticultural Council is to do this kind of work, what need have we for the Tomato Marketing Board?
  Again, would the Council have authority to lay down grades and markings of other kinds of produce for which grades and marks are suitable? These marks cannot be put on all produce, of course. If the Council works in this way, merely by recommendation, all the Council would be able to do would be to agree, first of all, what the markings should be, hoping that some producers, at any rate, will sell their products in containers with these quality gradings and marks, but leaving it to the producers to please themselves whether they sell their produce in that way or not. I do not think that if this is what the Government have in mind it is a very satisfactory way of doing things.

  1391
  I should have thought that it would have been far better to give authority to the Council, in consultation with the producers and so on, to lay down quality grades and marks, and to make sure that all producers graded and sold their produce in this way, in order to try to keep off the market the sub-standard stuff which so frequently lets down all the efforts of the best producers to keep a decent quality of graded stuff on the market. How this is to be done under the terms of the Bill, I do not know, but I think the time must come when some kind of authority will have to be given to somebody to keep sub-standard stuff off the market in order to encourage the best producers to keep up their high quality—not at high cost, but high quality, so that the customers can get better quality produce at the same kind of price which they are paying today.
  It may be that what the Government have in mind is to be found in the proposal suggesting that producers' organisations can be set up even within the terms of this Bill, but I would point out that paragraph 128 of the Runciman Report suggests that these producers' organisations should not be producer marketing boards. I would be very glad, if it is possible for him to do so, if the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us what kind of bodies the Government have in mind within the terms of the Bill to improve the grading, packing and selling of produce and the containers.
  I do not want to say much more, because most of the points which I should like to raise are Committee points. It looks as if we can promise the Parliamentary Secretary, not quite the kind of Marathon we had on the Slaughterhouses Bill, but at least that we will keep him interested and engaged and, I hope, entertained for some considerable time. At least, we will be able to come forward with a great number of helpful Amendments, as we did on the Slaughterhouses Bill, which was a very much better Bill when we finished with it, and I think we can deal with this one in the same way.
  There are one or two points which I should like to mention. My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram), when talking about two types of Government organisations that are going to rank for grants under the improvement
  1392
  scheme, mentioned the need for raising the individual capital amount which is now restricted to £500 under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts. I hope that will be reconsidered, as my hon. Friend has suggested.
  Unless one can be sure that the cooperative organisations, which are to get grants because they are co-operative organisations, are registered in some way, the legal liabilities which may result will become a problem. I should like to see all co-operative associations registered under the Industrial Provident Societies Acts to give them legal protection, apart from all the other virtues of co-operative association. But, as the Bill now reads, in Clause 8 (4, b) it states, "whether incorporated or not" they will rank for a grant.
  Such a body qualifying for a grant may be a very loose association. It may appear to fulfil all the conditions laid down in the Bill, but the members would have no legal protection and the association would have no legal validity as an association. This is a point which we can discuss in Committee, and I shall not press it now. But if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can tell us whether this point was considered when the Bill was drafted, that would help us regarding the framing of Amendments.
  While we are not opposed to tariffs—my hon. Friend said there must be a protective shield of some kind for this very difficult industry, difficult particularly because of our climatic conditions and so on—under the terms of the Bill, I see no proper organisation or authority for dealing with difficulties which will arise, whatever arrangements we have with European markets—with the Outer Seven or the Inner Six or any kind of free trade area. We are bound to have some kind of reciprocal arrangements, but what form they will take we are not sure. I understand that the Chancellor will be signing a document in Stockholm next Friday. We do not know in what form that will be and how agriculture will be dealt with. But obviously, if we are to have this elaborate marketing organisation for horticultural produce, and if it is to be at the mercy of arrangements made outside regarding imports and so on, many of the activities of the Horticultural Marketing Council and of this whole machinery will be upset.

  1393
  I do not know how we shall get the Horticultural Marketing Council, as representing the industry, into active consultation on these matters, to make adjustments from time to time to suit the conditions of the industry in this country. But I should like to see this Council brought in, if only to advise those responsible for the tariff and quota arrangements, or other arrangements, which may be made in connection with the European free trade proposals. That is an important point which we may discuss in Committee.
  Generally speaking, we welcome this Bill, It has appeared 25 or 30 years since some of us began preaching that this was the way to deal with agricultural and horticultural marketing arrangements. I am sorry that the Government have had to wait so long to get on the right path, but now that they are on it, we will help them along.
  5.44 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Nugent: Like my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard), it is some years since I took part in debates on these interesting topics of farming and horticulture. I am very happy to find myself back again in these pastures, especially when I can congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing forward such a valuable and constructive Measure. As my right hon. Friend may have heard as he entered the Chamber, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) finished his speech by expressing anxiety about the preservation of the tariff structure. That was the first point which occurred to me when I saw this Bill.
  I remember that when we were conceiving the 1957 Agriculture Act we were thinking about something similar for horticulture. The legislation for agriculture makes the basic provision for price stability which a Measure of this kind must have in our system of guaranteed prices. But, by its very nature, this Bill says nothing on the subject, because the Minister's policy relies on the system of tariffs to give that essential foundation of economic stability for the industry in its price structure.
  I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend say, in somewhat muted tones, that the policy of Her Majesty's Government
  1394
  still stood in that respect. But it is clear that hon. Members on both sides of the House share the feeling that, in the face of our European policy—with which I warmly agree—it is necessary to be sure that the tariff policy will stand despite the pressures put upon it. I do not in the least blame my right hon. Friend for the fact that this Bill looks like an apple pie without any apples in it. It is all crust. I do not blame him for that, provided he will guarantee that the substance will always be there, in the shape of a tariff policy, to support the crust.
  Certain anxieties have arisen in the past year regarding the working of this policy. I hope that both my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will assure us that we shall not meet them in the future. My hon. Friend spoke of the "Cinderella" industry. As it is near Christmas time, I hope he meant a Christmas "Cinderella". I hope he will assure us that his warm affection for her will result in the provision of a live and effective tariff policy.
  I well remember one of the distinguished predecessors of my right hon. Friend, the late Lord Hudson, saying that there is always some place in the world from which at some time in the year can be sent some sort of food more cheaply than we can produce it at home. That is profoundly true, and it is a great benefit to our people. It is, therefore, no reflection on the efficiency of our growers that they need some kind of protection to enable them to maintain production effectively.
  Part I of the Bill deals with a system of grants to help producers and production. This is admirable and will, I am certain, help producers all over the country. I wish particularly to say a word about the creation of groups of producers with a joint marketing organisation. There is tremendous promise for them in the future. A good deal has been said by hon. Members opposite about the value of co-operative societies for this purpose. It is true that they have a value, although I shall have something to say about that later on.
  The perennial weakness of the market gardener is that he is at the mercy of the market. He has to market his produce, vegetables, fruit or flowers, when

  1395
  it is ready, irrespective of whether the market requires it. This produce is pro vided in varying quantities and qualities and, as a result, the producer often suffers from low prices. As was pointed out by the Runciman Committee, the market charges him a far higher commission for handling his goods than is charged to the importer. The hon. Member for Hillsborough asked what measures the Council could take in order to stimulate the establishment of grades. The best answer in the world is the penalty of the market. Unless the home growers are able to establish reliable grades that the consumers want, they will not get a living. The squeeze is becoming tighter and tighter. I will explain now why I believe—
  Mr. Darling: I skipped over this rather quickly, but the point I was making was this: although the grades may be laid down, who is to see that people do not sell produce wrongly by putting substandard produce into the grade 1 basket?
  Mr. Nugent: The buyers will see to that all right. At present, it is a buyers' market. It is this aspect of the Measure, giving grants to encourage the establishment of co-operative marketing organisations, which will help the producers to get into a position in which they can have some say in the market. As hon. Members will know, over recent years there has been a certain amount of development in this direction, particularly among the apple growers. One thinks of many well-known names.
  A few of the most progressive growers have combined and formed a limited liability company to grade, pack and sort their produce. That has enabled them to go into the market as big sellers able to offer large, regular quantities of high quality goods and to guarantee that they will do so. The result has been that they have been able to go to the big wholesalers, particularly chain stores, and make long-term contracts to sell their produce direct from producer to retailer, naturally with great advantage both to the producer and the consumer. At the same time, they have been able to establish their brand names for which the housewife is progressively learning to ask because she knows that a particular brand means really good quality.
  1396
  This, I believe, is a real gleam of light to encourage the horticulturist towards a better future in marketing his produce. This Measure gives a grant to encourage exactly that development. I most warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on it. At the same time, it will put the producer here in a position to compete with the well-graded regular supplies of the importer and in every way that will be beneficial to our growers here.
  Particularly on this point, I wish to follow the admirable maiden speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot). I am absolutely with him in saying that there is no doubt at all that development in the retailing trade will be a rapid development of the self-service store, the supermarket and many of the chain stores. All these retailers will be asking for the same thing, for regular supplies of high quality first-grade fruit and vegetables. It is just these marketing organisations which will be able to supply those goods. I suppose we get the same picture here as through the rest of the economy, that the prizes go to the big battalions.
  By this development we can secure the best of all worlds. The grower remains an independent individual grower with his own holding and running it himself. He combines with his friends in marketing his produce to meet the needs of the consumer and to meet the market. That seems to get the best of all worlds and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the very far-sighted Measure he has introduced. In case he has any anxiety, the central market will, of course, have an enormous function to perform, as for many years there will be lots of second-rate stuff to dispose of, unexpected gluts and surpluses. The central market will have an essential function.
  This formation of private limited companies applies principally to the big growers who understand the whole picture of commerce, but undoubtedly the smaller growers will naturally tend to join up in co-operative associations, as indeed some do now. It is the cooperatives to which they will be looking in the general marketing organisation, and wisely and rightly my right hon. Friend has provided a grant for them as well. My anxiety on this point—an anxiety which we all know—is that due to the structure of the law of the Industrial

  1397
  and Provident Societies Acts, the individual co-operatives can levy no penalty on a member when, he having agreed to sell to the co-operative, finds he can get a better temporary market somewhere else, withdraws supplies and deprives the co-operative of the supply on which it was counting. All of us who know this trade are familiar with this problem, which traditionally has completely scuppered the operations of the co-operatives in this market because they have never been sure of their supplies. If we contrast that with the Land Settlement Association, which is a completely watertight organisation, we can see how enormously successful it has been because it can rely with absolute certainty on getting supplies.
  I ask my hon. Friends in Committee, if that is appropriate, to consider whether it is possible to amend the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts so as to make it possible for societies to have a form of contract with their members who wish to supply them—it is optional whether they do or not—which would bind them to supply for twelve months, or whatever the period might be. Otherwise, the smaller grower will not get the advantage out of this wise and useful development. I hope we shall be able to look at that more closely in future.
  It may take some time to get this development in the case of vegetables as well as of fruit. I hope my right hon. Friend will be generous in his outlook in regard to time. He has limited this to five years, with a possible extension to six years. Perhaps if it is very successful it can go on for another period. I realise that this particular development is going on over a decade or more, and it is so valuable that we should make quite sure that it goes on into the future.
  I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on providing in Clause 15 what will really amount to the prospect of the National Farmers' Union promoting what one might call a producer marketing board for publicity, advertising and research purposes. Efforts to do this have been made for years. I can remember trying to find a way of doing it, but I was defeated by the structure of the Marketing Acts because, under those Acts, it was necessary to have a
  1398
  form of trading in these activities. My right hon. Friend has cured that now, and I congratulate him. I am certain that as our growers put on to the market high grade, high quality fruit and vegetables, advertising on a national scale will pay tremendous dividends by stimulating demand among consumers for high-grade home-produced products.
  Part II of the Bill, in setting up the Horticultural Marketing Council, follows broadly the Runciman recommendations. Unlike the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), I congratulate Lord Runciman. He produced a valuable Report and was not complacent at all. I think we shall find that this legislation is largely based on that Report. I am certain it is right to have all sections of the industry on the Council, despite the obvious difficulties. I am certain it will collect this information and clear the haze which hangs over all the markets, not only in London but in the provinces.
  I take issue with my right hon. Friend, however, on the financial arrangements. I think he is right to provide the finance for the first two years, but I echo the anxiety expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn that this possibility of raising a levy by equitable means may prove to be very difficult indeed. My right hon. Friend has proposed that finance shall be provided for the first two years. I do not think that two years will be sufficiently long for the results of the Council to become apparent. Three or four years would probably be the minimum time needed. I remind my right hon. Friend of something which he may have forgotten. Paragraph 19 of the White Paper says that the form of the Bill is as recommended by the Runciman Committee, but that is not strictly accurate. Paragraph 439 of the Runciman Report says:
  "If it should be found at the end of this initial period"—
  that is, while the Government are financing the Council—
  "either that a levy scheme would be unduly difficult to administer or that the costs of collecting a levy would be out of proportion to the sum required, we would recommend that Exchequer grant should become the permanent means of financing the Council."
  Reading through more than two pages of closely reasoned argument in the

  1399
  Runciman Report on the difficulty of raising this levy and financing the Council, it is quite evident that it will be extremely difficult to find a way of raising the levy so that everybody pays—including growers, wholesalers, importers, retailers and so on.
  I agree with the principle that the trade as a whole should pay, but that will obviously be a difficult thing to arrange. As now drafted, the Bill means that if agreement has not been reached within two years, the Council will disappear. I am sure that my right hon. Friend does not wish to see that. In Committee, I shall certainly ask him to consider an Amendment extending the initial period of two years, on the one hand, and, on the other, to be prepared at the end of that period, without prejudice, to review how the Council should be financed in future. Otherwise, he will be in danger of losing his Council altogether.
  With those very small qualifications, I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on the Bill. As he rightly claims, it is the first major horticultural Measure, certainly which I can remember. It has aspects which can be of tremendous value towards enabling this hard-pressed band of growers to meet the needs of the market and for the first time to have a chance of being, occasionally at any rate, in a seller's market instead of always in a buyer's market. The Bill can do much good to the horticultural industry, and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.
  6.3 p.m.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I rise to welcome the Bill on behalf of my hon. Friends, although I shall not be able to congratulate the Minister with the effusion shown by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent). Nor am I likely to worship at the altar of the tariff with quite the religious fervour of some hon. Members. We support the Bill because we feel that it gives horticulture the recognition which was given to agriculture in 1947 in a Measure which was supported by all parties. A policy designed to bring about general improvements in production methods and marketing techniques is the best possible way of putting horticulture into
  1400
  the sort of competitive state which we want to have.
  I appreciate that on Second Reading one should not go into detail, but I want to deal with Part II at some length. I was professionally concerned, in a very different capacity, with the Potato Marketing Board and Egg Marketing Board inquiries. I must confess that it is a relief to see that the Minister has departed from many of the principles of compulsion enshrined in the agricultural marketing Acts. It may well be that with this Bill the Minister will not have to face a public inquiry and that opposition which is to be found among many farmers to many of the punitive provisions to be found in other types of marketing schemes.
  The power of proscription resulting in the creation of offences which, in turn, are punishable by the marketing board without any trial in court, the power to restrict acreage of any crop and fine producers if they grow more than they are permitted, are not to be found on this occasion and it has been a great relief to see the right hon. Gentleman turning more to the voluntary principle and emphasising co-operation.
  The Second Schedule provides power to impose a levy. On whom is the levy likely to be made? That is something which we are entitled to know, because it may be that on the interpretation of the Bill failure to pay such a levy would be an offence under Clause 12, which, admittedly, permits a trial in a court of law and a right of appeal. Failure to pay the levy may be an offence inasmuch as its payment is a requirement under a scheme introduced by Statutory Instrument. If there is to be the power to inflict a levy on producers, producers should have the right to have a greater say in the matter and should be better represented on the Council than is at present envisaged.
  Clause 9 says that
  "… the Ministers shall consult with any bodies appearing to them to represent to any substantial extent the interests in respect of which the member is to be appointed."
  That is somewhat reminiscent of a colonial constitution which aims at having the minimum of African representation. There are very careful provisions in the Egg Marketing Scheme for regional representation by election, for

  1401
  the election of special members, the election of members with special interests. Under this scheme there will be no such arrangements.
  It may well be that there will be producers who will be out of sympathy with the policy of the Council and who will want to put up or oppose certain measures. Some will remember the famous "fiddle on the riddle" in agriculture before the war. There may well be processes such as that and there may be opposition from a substantial number of consumers. The Minister is taking a tremendous power of appointment in that provision. He will chiefly consult leaders of the National Farmers' Union and interests around London. I suggest that this is an undemocratic way to make appointments.
  The hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) said that there was no provision for the representation of consumers. The 1949 legislation laid it down specifically that consumers' interests should be represented. Consumers may have a valuable contribution to make in this matter. They are as aware as anybody of any restrictive practices which may exist and of various standards obtaining. They would play a valuable part on the Council. What is perhaps a far more powerful argument is that the right hon. Gentleman said that the Council would make representations about imports and tariffs, and I should have thought that the consumer had every right to be represented in such a case.
  Mr. Hare: I said nothing of the sort. The hon. Gentleman must have misheard.
  Mr. Thorpe: I speak subject to correction. My impression was that the right hon. Gentleman referred to marketing conditions in this country and went on to say that the Council would cover the question of the imports of produce.
  Mr. Hare: The hon. Member is under a totally wrong impression. I did not say anything of the sort.
  Mr. Thorpe: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and I withdraw what I said. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to assure us that the Council will have nothing to do with import policy. I am sure that the right
  1402
  hon. Gentleman will deal with that later, because if tariffs are to be discussed the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) will have much to say.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that it is difficult to decide where the limit shall lie and that at present the suggestion is that holdings of less than four acres will not qualify for assistance. The White Paper says, also, that a holding which is unable to provide full-time employment is possibly unlikely to be able to qualify.
  There are many part-time horticulturists. Many of them are agricultural workers who are trying to build up a smallholding and then themselves become horticulturists on their own, perhaps employing no labour or possibly one person at a later date. I appreciate that the Bill is not intended to help the small city farmer who goes to the country for the week-end. To him, farming is simply a sideline and not his professional livelihood. There are many people who live in areas of contracting industries—non-agricultural industries. Many farmers look upon this as a part-time form of income. If we are to exclude them altogether, we may well be depriving agricultural employees of the opportunity of becoming small farmers in the future.
  Subject to those three points, we on these benches welcome the Bill. We think that the right hon. Gentleman is right in thinking that it is more realistic to give assistance of this sort than to continue to increase tariffs, as was suggested to him earlier this year.
  6.12 p.m.
  Major H. Legge-Bourke: There has been such a measure of accord running through the debate that I am a little hesitant to rise, because from now on discord will come into the picture.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), who opened the debate for the Opposition, will at least not suggest that I have not had the consumer's interest in mind. If he will look at the debate on 1st May, which I had the opportunity of introducing, he will see that one of the things I said at the beginning of the debate was:
  "I think that it is very important that right from the outset of the debate we should emphasise that the Government, hon. Members

  1403
  and growers, perhaps particular growers, have always to remember that their future depends upon satisfying the consumer's needs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1959; Vol. 604, c. 1611.].
  Towards the end of my speech I said that I thought that, if we let the horticultural grower go out of business, the only result would be to damage the consumers, who would not be able to enjoy the very high-class fresh fruit and vegetables which the British grower had hitherto been able to provide for them. It is with that in mind that I wish to address the House today.
  Horticulture is swimming in its own tears a good deal at the moment and there is a very real risk that unless it is given a lifebelt it will sink. Before the Minister's Department ever became a separate Department to deal with agriculture there was a debate in the House in 1881 in which it was disclosed that one of the Agricultural Holdings Bills was being put in charge of the First Lord of the Admiralty. The variety of Departments which then dealt with agriculture was truly alarming.
  The spare lifebelts which the present First Lord of the Admiralty has available—they must be multitudinous, judging by the few ships that he has to look after—are not the sort which will help the horticultural grower. Neither would we wish to see the same result as happened apparently in 1881, when an application was made to the President of the Council, who was then responsible for cattle disease statistics, for an order relating to cattle plague. It was replied to by the sending of a parcel containing thanksgiving forms for a bounteous harvest, prepared by the Archbishop of Canterbury. I do not think that at present growers would be very happy if they felt that the Lord Privy Seal, who, I understand, is now responsible for the activities of the Agricultural Research Council, was to spend too much time at Lambeth Palace. Already, far too much of the parable of the barren fig tree argument has been used about British horticulture.
  I think that it is very important that we should have clear in our minds straightaway that the White Paper is a bad White Paper and that the Bill is a bad Bill. I will try to show the House why I think so. I think that they are
  1404
  bad in principle and in detail. I believe that the Minister would be making a very grave mistake if he supposed that, because the National Farmers' Union has officially welcomed the Bill, growers naturally and necessarily think the same. I am certain that growers in the Isle of Ely do not. The wider afield one travels from Agriculture House the less support there will be for the Bill, and I will try to explain why I believe that.
  The N.F.U., as a negotiating body, is in some difficulty over this. Because of the great reluctance to implement probably the best tariff application case that has ever been put before the Government, it feels that if it becomes too disagreeable it will not get anything for the growers. For that reason, we shall realise with increasing force that the welcome which the National Farmers' Union gave to the Bill will be questioned more and more in the constituencies at the county branch level of the N.F.U.
  I sympathise very much with those who have to negotiate in the National Farmers' Union, because if they fall foul on a minority issue, which this is, with the permanent officials in the Department it will not make it any easier for them to get all they want on the majority issues which are put up.
  When a national negotiating body such as the National Farmers' Union finds itself in such a position, if some of us in the House do not utter what half, if not more than half, of them feel in their hearts we should be failing in our duty. That is why I am undertaking this unpleasant task this afternoon.
  The Bill appears to be founded upon an appreciation of the situation which is discussed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the White Paper. This appreciation is a fallacy. Because it is fallacious, the Bill is almost certain to be futile in its effect. If hon. Members study the last two sentences of paragraph 2 of the White Paper I hope that they will see what I mean:
  "Inefficient methods mean lower returns for producers, and higher prices and an inferior article for consumers."
  I do not suppose any of us would dispute that. It continues:
  "On the other hand, if methods of marketing can be improved, producers' returns will be increased and consumers will get better value for their money."

  1405
  There is absolutely no certainty that that follows automatically. It is equally possible, if not more likely, that precisely the opposite will happen. If the present system of marketing in horticulture is improved, then, so far from producers' returns being increased they will be reduced. The reason is that, already, at certain seasons, even the best produce coming on to the market cannot be sold. Even the best production at home cannot find a market here.
  If we are to use the Bill to improve the methods of those whose methods are not as good as they should be, the inevitable effect will be that there will be more top-grade fruit on the market which cannot be sold, and the further effect will be to reduce the return to the producer—not to increase it. Therefore, I say that there is a fallacy in the White Paper. Once that is accepted I can understand why the Bill is brought for ward. Nevertheless, I still maintain that it is a fallacy, and because it is a fallacy the Bill must be unsound.
  Part III of the White Paper and Part II of the Bill are founded upon the findings, of which we have been told so often today, of the Runciman Committee. The Runciman Report had a very severe limitation indeed, not least because it did not deal at all fully with importation policy. In fact, that was almost ruled out. There are only about 1½ pages on that subject. However, reading the Report, it is abundantly clear that the Committee, throughout its proceedings, was biased in favour of what I am sure would please the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe)—free trade. The whole approach to the problem has been liberal, spelt with a large "L" as well as with a small "l".
  I have always regarded that Report with the gravest suspicion for that very reason. I cannot but deplore the Government's acceptance of the principal conclusions of the Report, and I deplore still more their subsequent elevation to the realms of Holy Writ. Throughout the debate we have had the Report brandished as though it were gospel that could not be challenged. I challenge it, and I shall go on challenging it.
  The only credit that I can give it is that it is a brilliant survey of what is going on—or of what was then going on—in the industry, but my belief is that
  1406
  most of the recommendations are insane, if we, as a Conservative Party, really mean what we say; that we wish to do our best by the British grower.
  Until I heard the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), I had come to the conclusion that Part II of the White Paper and Part I of the Bill was the brainchild not of the Minister of Agriculture at all, but of the present Minister of Education, when he was President of the Board of Trade. It is very easy to see why he, when President of the Board of Trade, should seek means other than tariffs to help British horticulture.
  My right hon. Friend has never disguised—I give him his due, he has been absolutely frank about it, and has never attempted to be other than frank—his adoration of the idea of free trade. Indeed, during the General Election, I seem to remember reading in the newspapers that he had said that if he could be sure of getting a seat in the Government he would, nevertheless, be a member of the Liberal Party even today.
  My right hon. Friend is the architect of a structure of our economy that is as detrimental to our future prosperity as it is unsound in its economics—
  Mr. Hare: Before my hon. and gallant Friend continues his present line, I can assure him that, in spite of his rather unpleasant remarks about my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, I am the author. My hon. and gallant Friend should castigate me, not my right hon. Friend.
  Major Legge-Bourke: Very well. If I may say so, that makes it all the worse. I had thought that the Minister of Agriculture really wanted to do the best by the British grower and was prepared to make a stand about this free trade nonsense. If he now says that he puts forward this scheme entirely on his own bat, I can only say that his loyalty is to be admired but his judgment is to be deplored.
  I do not think that this new structure that has come upon our economy can be laid at the door of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. This, I think, must quite definitely be laid at the door of the President of the Board of Trade, among others—or of the ex-President of the Board of Trade, among others; now

  1407
  Minister of Education. I can only describe the structure as industrial national assistance, and just like personal National Assistance it is repulsive to those who see in it the stigma of having to beg charity. Today, we are witnessing it in the cotton industry, and in the shipbuilding industry, and soon, I suppose, we will see it in the aircraft industry. Already we see it in agriculture, and now in horticulture—State capital from the taxpayers' pockets being pumped into those industries.
  I do not deny for a moment that certain industries, horticulture included, require capital investment, not only for expansion but perhaps more often—and this is particularly true of horticulture—for modernisation of plant. My objection to this is directed to the cause of the need becoming so acute, and to the method that we are now applying to meet that need.
  What are the causes of this need having arisen so acutely? I believe that, above all, it is due to the submission of the Labour Government of 1945–50 to the temptation of American free trade addicts, under whose pressure the Labour Government made the United Kingdom join the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. By joining that pernicious body we surrendered at one step the most precious right of all sovereign States, which is the right to choose the terms on which to do business. No industry has suffered more as a result of that decision than has British horticulture.
  Before I pass to my next point I want to make one thing quite clear. I am a strong opponent, and I hope that I always shall be, of any attempt at a wage freeze. I entirely support those who say that as the profits of an industry increase, so those working in it—at all levels—should receive a proper share in the improvement. But I must insist that those two processes happen in that order; in other words, the increased profits must first be earned if our economy is to be kept sound.
  The second cause of this need having become so acute is that after the war the Labour Party was guilty on another serious charge. In those years, it created the impression in the minds of all too many people that we could buy our prosperity on "tick". As a result, the country
  1408
  was encouraged to live at a standard far beyond its real means, which can only be truly based on its real earnings in the world.
  The result was that industry after industry found itself compelled to pay wages far in excess of what it should have been paying if each of those industries was to remain world competitive. Of no industry is that truer than of the glasshouse horticultural industry, and, in particular, that section, which is quite considerable, lying on the fringe of manufacturing industrial areas.
  It was those reasons, in other words, the surrender of our trade sovereignty to the powers of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade—which I regard as quite disastrous—and the false economics of the Labour Government, which caused me to appeal to Her Majesty's Government, as I did, on 1st May this year, to make an agonising reappraisal of their trade policy.
  If I may remind my right hon. Friend, I said this:
  "Above all, I would ask Her Majesty's Government to concentrate upon what really matters most, and to stop fiddling about with grant aids which, even if they were to work, would only have the effect of reducing waste and so increasing the unsaleable amount in what is already a heavily invaded market."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1959; Vol. 604, c. 1623.]
  If the Government had had this agonising reappraisal—I admit that it would be agonising—we should not, I think, have had either the White Paper or the Bill before us today.
  All I can do on this occasion is to re-emphasise what I said on 1st May—I do not withdraw one word of it—and to impress upon the Government that, since then, the position of many growers has further deteriorated and will not be improved, in my view, until our trade policy has been reframed.
  I shall not give a great many figures and facts on this occasion. I gave a good many on 1st May. I should, however, like to give the House some more up-to-date information about the tomato industry. Glasshouse tomato acreage has fallen by a further 74 acres this year. That means a decline altogether, since 1954, when the last tariff increases were granted, of 443 acres of glass. The number of registered units with the

  1409
  Tomato and Cucumber Marketing Board has declined steadily since 1953, and the decline has continued in this last year.
  Meanwhile, the Dutch acreage has risen by 2,000 acres. If one values an acre of English glass at £15,000, which is a very low figure—it might easily cost £18,000 to put up an acre of glass today—there is capital to the tune of £6½ million wrapped up in that reduction of acreage.
  Production of British tomatoes last last year was down by 40,000 tons compared with 1954. In Holland, production is up by 62,000 tons. Exports from Holland to the United Kingdom have risen by 45 per cent. Total exports from Holland to all countries, including the United Kingdom, have risen by 55 per cent. In other words, the United Kingdom has had to take nine-elevenths of the increase in Dutch exports of tomatoes.
  The net return to United Kingdom growers—my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard), my constitutent, dealt with this—on a sample of about 93 holdings, has fallen by 18 per cent. since 1954 and, taking it since 1951, treating the 1951 level as 100, the index of net income shows a fall of 29 per cent.
  It is cold comfort to growers to be offered a one-third grant towards a scheme in which they will have to borrow the other two-thirds if they can find someone to lend it to them. No commercial credit-worthiness today is more unsound than that of all too many horticultural growers. I doubt whether even the new National Farmers' Union credit organisation will be able to disregard for very long those principles of banking which have dictated to the private bankers of the growers concerned the restriction of credit they have been able to offer them.
  Indeed, I cannot help feeling that the majority of those who are able to provide the two-thirds of the cost of improvement under the scheme will not have any need of the one-third grant, and that those who really do need the one-third grant will not be able to borrow the other two-thirds and will not have the capital available to do it themselves.
  Even if we accept the scheme, even if we say that the scheme is right in itself,
  1410
  can it be operated by the National Agricultural Advisory Service? According to my information, which is fairly recent, the operation of the Small Farmer Scheme has already very severely overstrained the National Agricultural Advisory Service. I have some information about what is happening in the eastern region. The eastern region, I would remind the House, is probably not taking as much advantage of the Small Farmer Scheme as some other regions.
  It is believed that, in the eastern region 50 per cent. still of those eligible have not yet applied under the scheme. I understand that the Government are now asking the Advisory Service whether it would like to increase the size of farms which qualify for grant application under the scheme or whether the size should be smaller. I think that the Service would probably come down in favour of the higher acreage being used.
  The point is that the result of the operation of the Small Farmer Scheme, with, apparently, 50 per cent. in the eastern region who could have applied not having yet applied, has been for the Advisory Service to have had to cut down by 40 per cent. the amount of experimentation it is doing for the benefit of agriculture. If we start ruling out experimentation from agriculture, we all know what will happen. We know very well what happens to industries which neglect their research and development, and the same thing will happen in agriculture.
  In the eastern region, there will be only 14 Advisory Service officers to administer the scheme. Two of them are in the Isle of Ely. If the scheme is all it is made out to be, there will be an unholy rush. According to the Bill, applications are not to be made before 1st April. We are now on the horns of a nice little dilemma: ought we to ask the Government to accelerate the procedure and bring the date forward so that applications can start coming in earlier to give the Advisory Service officers more time, or should we wait to train more Advisory Service officers to administer the scheme and, perhaps, postpone the date? I do not know. The situation is highly disturbing, and when one thinks that the eastern region, as I say, will probably not be as intensely affected by this as

  1411
  some other counties, for instance, Kent, perhaps, one realises that it is a very serious problem which confronts us.
  I come now to the proposed Horticultural Marketing Council. Seven out of 28 members are to represent producers. While on this subject, I should like, if I may, to commend the very brilliant maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot). The Minister says that he wants to leave the door open for making adjustments in the composition of the Horticultural Marketing Council to enable it to keep pace with modern developments. Once we have this organisation set up on the basis of 7,7,7,3 and 4, I doubt very much whether we shall be able to make any change very easily.
  Certainly, if one has to consult the Council before one can do anything—apparently, that will be so under the Bill—I doubt very much whether one will be able to get agreement from the "old gang". We may, perhaps, take a little lesson from Parliamentary history on that; it may be a matter of forming a separate house to get proper representation.
  I suspect that Clause 9 (5) has been put in to lull the tempers of those who, perhaps, felt that they ought not to come in on this scheme unless there was greater producer representation. I cannot foresee the representation of producers being increased under Clause 9 (5) of the Bill. I hope that it was not put in just for that purpose.
  When I read the Bill and the White Paper, I very seriously considered putting down an Amendment with the object of trying to ensure that the Bill would be read a Second time upon this day six months. I have not done so, for one reason only. I realise that the troubles confronting this industry, as others, are not really the fault of Her Majesty's Government, but, if they are the fault of any political party, should be laid more at the door of hon. Members opposite. That does not mean, as I think I have made clear by now, that I entirely absolve the present Government. Indeed, I do not. The most that I can say in their favour is that what they did in 1954 over tariffs has been of more benefit than many growers are apt to remember, and that the Customs Duties (Dumping
  1412
  and Subsidies) Act, 1954, has also played its part as a deterrent, although I think a much too mild deterrent. I suggest that we should strengthen it to provide shock machinery to deal with shock markets which come about whether there are tariffs or not.
  Even now I do not believe that any one of us has faced up to the consequences of the policy upon which we are now embarking which I have described as industrial and agricultural national assistance. It seems to me that commercial insolvency will soon become at a premium in our economy the way we are going. What matters in all industries, in the end is the end-price and the relation that price bears to its cost and the protection received by the industry from imports from countries producing similar commodities at lower costs.
  On economic grounds, I believe that the Bill cannot be justified. On social grounds, it seems to me that it is ineffective. On moral grounds, I believe that it is definitely deplorable. The real test of the Government's good intentions towards the industry will be the reception they give to the tariff applications pending for tomatoes and lettuces. They will be coming in at any moment and I hope that the Government are ready for them. But if they treat them like they treated the last, hell will be let loose.
  The Government's good faith towards the industry will also be tested by the way in which they cope with the highly questionable quota policy on apples and pears and imported strawberry pulp, which my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn dealt with at some length. The latest enormity committed, presumably under the Board of Trade's auspices, is that the Restrictive Practices Committee has now suggested that the agreement between the strawberry growers in the Wisbech area and the merchants is something which ought to be examined. That may cost £30,000 to fight.
  It seems to me that this is nothing like good enough. If the Government fail to pass these tests they may well find themselves very hard put to it to muster the full pack of hon. Members who, I assure the Minister, would much prefer to go on hunting the fox of free trade rather than to have to become a pack of harriers.
  6.42 p.m.
  Mr. John Morris: I rise to intervene as a farmer's son, and, though the connection between agriculture and horticulture is not always as close as it might be, I have not spent the bulk of my life on a Welsh farm and remained entirely ignorant of some of the problems of the horticultural industry. Whenever any wind blows—I refer both to the trade variety and the meteorological variety—disaster can arise to any one of the 70,000 horticultural holdings in our country.
  As the White Paper points out, the horticultural industry is both an important and a complex one. It does not benefit from guaranteed prices. It derives small benefit, if any, from production grants and it relies on tariffs for a share of the market and a fair price for its products in face of foreign competition. The Minister said that we have adopted a tariff as the main instrument. I wonder whether that is the view held by growers on the present-day state of tariffs? The Scottish Farmer of 14th November states:
  "Horticulturists claim that relatively it offers less protection than the pre-war tariff."
  As an indication of the effect of tariffs today, we have only to consider, as has been done this evening, the situation as a result of the import of tomatoes from Holland. On top of the problem of seasonal gluts, which are the cruel result of a wonderful year, and other problems, we have the problem of marketing. I can only agree with the White Paper that
  "the methods employed in marketing horticultural produce are of even greater importance, both to producer and consumer, than is the case with some other agricultural products."
  If we were to solve the problem of marketing we would benefit not only the grower, but also the man about whom we have heard little this evening, namely, the consumer.
  I welcome the Bill as a step in the right direction, but I submit that it is at best only a tinkering little Bill. The Minister referred to the horse and buggy age. I suggest, with respect, that this is a horse and buggy Bill. It may be that it will put a little oil on the buggy here and there in an effort to make it go faster, but I do not think that it goes to the root of the trouble to deal with the intrinsic and inherent problems of the industry.
  1414
  The figure of £7½ million has been mentioned as that which the industry will receive in aid over five years. I wonder how that figure was arrived at? Did the Minister say to his officials, "Think of a number"? How was the figure of £100,000, which is the amount to be granted to co-operatives, arrived at? We would be most interested to know.
  The White Paper states:
  "The Government also consider that there is scope for improvements in the production and marketing of produce by producers themselves."
  By enabling grants to be paid, will the Bill solve the problem of marketing? Will we get our £7½ million worth after five years? Will our money be well spent? At the end of five years, will we be any better off?
  The Runciman Report stated that the loss to the industry through waste during distribution is as high as £15 million annually, yet under the Bill the industry is to benefit by only £8 million over five years. Will the Bill do anything to solve the problem of the £15 million annual wastage in the industry through distribution?
  Those are some of the questions which we on this side are entitled to ask in an endeavour to get the views of the Minister. The Runciman Committee said:
  "We have reached the conclusion that the system, though by no means perfect, is better than any other which could take its place at present."
  The Committee took the line of least resistance in its conclusions.
  I am not satisfied that the money which is to be given in grants under the Bill will go to the right people. As Lord Boothby said when he was in this House, two-thirds of subsidies go to people who least need them. To compare the grants and subsidies under the Farm Improvement Scheme, I feel that many of them went to people who did not need them, and the people who really needed them, the small men, got no benefit from them because they could not find, as has been said, and cannot find today, two-thirds of the money which they have to spend for capital improvements. The horticultural industry, which is a gambling industry, will find even greater difficulty in getting the two-thirds than the agricultural industry.

  1415
  I endorse the recommendation of the N.F.U. that a grant of 50 per cent. should be made available to small growers who have no glass and who wish to erect a small unit of glass to make their holdings more economic. Farmers in Wales and the West Country, in particular, would benefit from this proposal. Under the Bill they will get very little. I hope most sincerely that the Minister will consider seriously the point made by the National Farmers' Union in respect of small farmers. The present qualification under the Bill is four acres of open land or its equivalent in horticulture or one-fifth acre under fixed or mobile glasshouses, or growing rhubarb or mushrooms, or one acre under cloches. These are very high qualifications. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) mentioned the cost of an acre of glass. As I say, these are very high qualifications.
  I hope that the Minister will re-examine the position of the small man, especially with a mixed holding, whose unit is or would become economic if he had other enterprises and whose horticulture enterprises form less than the minimum requirements of the Bill. I ask the Minister to do two things. First, he should consider the holding as a whole in deciding whether a grant under the Bill is payable. Even when the horticultural part of the enterprise is less than the required qualification, if it is found that the holding as a whole would benefit, grant should be payable.
  I ask the Minister to re-examine the National Farmers' Union proposals for small growers without glass and to increase the grant in these cases. In this way, he will do a great service to the man with the small mixed farm, whose great problem is that of shortage of land. He cannot expand in any other way than by concentrating his activities on his existing land. If such a man were to take up horticulture as part of his activities, it might go a good way towards making his holding more economic and viable. I have compared the schedule of improvements procedure adopted in the White Paper and the method followed in the farm improvement scheme and I should like to know why a different procedure is being followed in this Bill.
  I am disappointed that prepacking machinery is to be excluded from grant.
  1416
  Prepacking can be a means of great improvement in the presentation and marketing of horticultural produce. It may well be the key to the future of this great industry. I am glad that the Pre-packaging Development Association has recently been recognised as a research unit by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and I hope that it will get support and a grant for its activities from that organisation.
  I had, however, hoped that the Bill would deal with this vital part of the horticulture industry, on which its future may well depend. While there may be difficulty in giving grant for the repair and renovation of buildings, I cannot understand why the appendix to the White Paper proposes the payment of grant for the improvement of heating systems in glasshouses but does not include grant for the installation of such systems. This is another example that the man who already has gets something else, whereas he who has nothing gets no aid whatever.
  The £100,000 to co-operatives has been welcomed by the Agricultural Central Co-operative Association and by the Welsh Agricultural Organisational Society. The Minister said in his Press statement that this money would help the small man. If, however, the White Paper is examined, it will be seen from the Appendix that there are different categories of grant for the ordinary individual and for co-operatives. The Minister said in his Press statement that provision was being made to help them by making co-operatives eligible for grant in the same way as small farmers.
  The White Paper bears that out in page 6, when it states:
  "Individual production businesses that cannot by themselves satisfy the minimum requirements set out in paragraph 10 above may benefit under this part of the scheme if they belong to co-operative marketing associations."
  If the proposals contained in Part II of the Appendix to the White Paper are examined and compared with the proposals in Part I, it will be apparent that while grant will be available to cooperatives for storage, preparation and the other purposes included in Part III, for other matters connected with the growing of horticultural produce the co-operative is to be excluded from grant. Why is there a differentiation of

  1417
  the grant available to co-operatives under the schedule in the Appendix to the White Paper by excluding something which is to be granted to the individual grower under Part I?
  I am glad that co-operative associations have been included in the Bill. The approach of the Government is very different from their attitude to the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) in Committee on the Agriculture Bill on 2nd May, 1957, when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that
  "… a co-operative, by its nature, must be something of a floating enterprise …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 2nd May, 1957; c. 202.]
  Every difficulty was put in the way of giving assistance to co-operatives in that Bill, whereas now, I am glad to know, the Minister has come to the conclusion that co-operatives are no longer floating enterprises in horticulture. I would like to know from the Minister why there is to be any difference between an agricultural co-operative and a horticultural co-operative.
  The Government have a difficult task to try to legislate for this extremely vulnerable industry. During the weekend, I read an excellent paper written by Mr. Wragg, of the Department of Economics of Bristol University, entitled "The Uncertainty and Risk in the Vegetable Sector of the Horticulture Industry". The conclusions contained in that paper were that the highest output per acre for a particular crop in seven years out of ten is seen to be often more than double the lowest output. This can lead to abnormally low and exceptionally high profits and losses and, of necessity, to difficult administration and difficulties in the industry as a whole. That is the kind of industry for which the Government have to legislate.
  I welcome the Bill, but I ask these questions. First, how much tariff support is the industry to have? Secondly, can we, by the Bill, solve the question of marketing in the industry? The tariff support issue is completely shelved. It must, however, be faced and solved before the industry can be on a firm basis. At the end of five years from now, will the Bill have solved the problem of marketing, or will the Government of the day, of whatever political complexion, come back to ask for
  1418
  another Bill merely to extend the life of this Measure?
  I hope that by that time the problems will have been solved, but I can only say now that the Bill does not go to the heart of the problem or solve the root problems of the industry.
  6.58 p.m.
  Sir Henry Studholme: I am sorry that I was unavoidably prevented from being present when my right hon. Friend the Minister opened the debate. I did not hear, therefore, what he had to say. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), whose courage and sincerity we all greatly admire, has, to put it mildly, been rather uncomplimentary about the Bill. He may be right in his historical analysis of the reason for the troubles and difficulties of the horticulture industry. We must, however, face conditions as they are.
  I welcome the Bill because I think it will be of considerable help to a large number of horticulturists. It would be of no use at all, however, but for tariffs, and I am glad to know that the Government are committed to a policy of tariffs as the basic means of protecting our horticulture. But for tariffs, the future of the horticultural industry in this country would be quite impossible.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) is not in the Chamber at the moment. I am puzzled about the attitude of the Liberal Party to tariffs, and I am sorry that the hon. Member did not refer to the point except in passing. It is perhaps fortunate, because he was not in the House when in the last Parliament the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) advocated a sweeping change in all tariffs and an immediate 50 per cent. reduction, in which he was supported by his Leader. That, of course, would have meant including tariffs on horticulture and agriculture, and complete ruin immediately for our horticultural industry. As I say, I am sorry that the hon. Member is not here. I had hoped to be able to mention this in his presence.
  In this proposed scheme, as in every scheme involving grants of public money, a dividing line must be drawn somewhere and the people on the wrong side of that line must inevitably be disappointed. In Devon and Cornwall there are large

  1419
  numbers of small horticulturists, who farm less than four acres, who will be outside the scope of the benefit of the Bill. There are many such in the Tamar valley in my constituency. I am glad that it has been made clear to these people that, although their acreage is too small to enable them to obtain direct benefit from the Bill, they should benefit indirectly if the co-operative marketing association to which they belong can qualify for being granted assistance under the Bill towards improving its efficiency.
  There are one or two points in relation to growers who farm under four acres which I hope the Minister will consider. Paragraph 10 (c) of the White Paper says that
  "¼ acre of land used for cropping with glass lights (including cloches) …"
  has been regarded as equivalent to one acre of open land. Production under glass, surely, could be reckoned to be more than four times that on open land. I appeal to the Minister to make a more generous concession to help these small men, say, by making the figure one-eighth of an acre. I appreciate, of course, that there is a Committee point. I welcome the Bill, though it must not be regarded in any way as a substitute for adequate tariffs, but only as a welcome addition.
  7.3 p.m.
  Sir Peter Agnew: I welcome the Bill, but I welcome it within its limits. It is limited in the scope of its intentions and it is extremely limited in the scope of the resources which are to be used to carry out those intentions. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), who is not now in his place, made the debate very wide in that he called into question the whole propriety of the State furnishing capital for any industries that needed it. I will not presume to continue that discussion, but in horticulture, as indeed in agriculture generally, I do not see how the leeway of the lean years could have been made up unless the Government had intervened to take some steps to provide capital for these two industries.
  My only complaint against the whole of this Measure is that it was not brought forward sooner. I would say to my hon.
  1420
  Friend the Joint Parliametnary Secretary, in the absence of my right hon. Friend, that the right time to have brought the Bill forward and to have put it into law was when the Small Farmer Scheme was introduced. The two schemes could then have been Parts 1 and 2 of the same Bill.
  Let us, however, now welcome the Bill but also ask my right hon. Friend to take all possible steps, even now, to accelerate the advertised date of 1st April, 1960, for the receipt of applications for grants. Reference has been made in debate to the difficulties of organisation and to the limits under which the National Agricultural Advisory Service has to operate. I do not know whether it is too late to add to the number of officers employed in that service in order that we may have a real drive when the Bill is passed into law.
  As to the detail of the Bill, I believe that it was the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) who said that the small man who will have a glasshouse provided for him as to one-third of the cost will in many cases feel very severely indeed the burden of the two-thirds capital which he has to find himself. Could not consideration be given in Committee to changing that grant in those cases to one of 50 per cent.? If that were done, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary recognises that the limit of his liabilities would not be high, because these new glasshouses are restricted to those growers who have seven acres or under within the scheme. The provision would not be universal in its application.
  There is no knowing who may or may not be on a Standing Committee when it comes to consider Bills sent to it by the House. Therefore, I make no apology for referring very shortly to the fact that it appears from the Bill as if an important but small section of the horticultural industry is left out of the provision for grants. I refer to that section which grows herbs, particularly sage and parsley and other herbs which are not customarily placed on the market in the raw form but which have to be subjected to a special process of preservation which involves heat. It appears from one part of the Bill that that kind of industry, including as it does groups consisting of one hundred

  1421
  or more growers in one part of my constituency alone who process these herbs in a co-operative organisation or society, will not be eligible to receive grants under the Bill. I hope that that point will be looked into in Committee.
  I am sorry that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely is not in his place, because I wanted to say in his presence that he seemed to pose a situation which really does not exist, as if the policy under the Bill of capital grants to assist horticulture was a kind of alternative to having a tariff policy, instead of being, as I believe it to be, nothing more and nothing less than a complement to a proper horticultural policy. It is true to say that it will be no use taking all these provisions and spending £7 million to £8 million of the taxpayers' money and trying to re-equip the horticultural industry capitally if, at the same time, the Government do not take all proper steps to keep going a real live tariff policy attuned to the needs of market conditions in other countries around us.
  I will now refer briefly to the effects the Bill will have on the section of the horticultural industry in the Vale of Evesham, which is in my constituency. I have spoken already of the need for haste in bringing the Bill into action. The reason why I have done so is that there is a section of growers in the South Worcestershire division who are at present in a dire plight. They are all small growers with an average size holding of between five and 20 acres. These growers have been accustomed to rely for the revenue side of their horticultural businesses upon sprouts as well as other crops. This season, the trading position has been catastrophic. Admittedly this was due to the drought caused by the vagaries of the weather, but, added to that, there was the unusual incidence of aphis fly.
  I have been furnished with one or two figures which will illustrate the extent of the disaster for these people, as I believe it to be. The figures have been furnished by a co-operative marketing organisation with which many of them deal. I am informed that whereas in October, 1958, last year's season, 42,000 20 lb. nets of sprouts had been marketed, the organisation this year had received only 14,000. In addition, there
  1422
  has undoubtedly been strong consumer resistance to buying sprouts this season because in many cases housewives have feared the effects of the spraying against aphis, and, consequently, the price for the greatly reduced crop has been even lower this season that it was last.
  At my request, samples have been taken within the last ten days of fifteen average holdings in the area near Evesham. Whereas last season, in the six months ended 31st March, 1959, the combined gross revenue from those holdings was £6,600, the growers have estimated that in the season ending in March next year their revenue, before any expenses are met, will be only £1,060. That will be an average of only £70 per holding, and it will mean that many of those growers will have to live on as little revenue as £50, whereas formerly they receive hundreds of pounds. They are at their wits' ends to know what to do.
  The Bill cannot help them, but those who can survive will no doubt be able to qualify, if they can find their two-thirds capital, for some of the grants under the Bill. These people are self-employed and have no unemployment benefit. Now some of them have no crops in the ground because the ground could not be worked, so there will be no crops to mature in the early spring. Yet they must continue to buy their stamps as self-employed people.
  In 1947, powers were taken to give help on a national scale to a much larger part of the agricultural industry, namely, the sheep section, in which there were wholesale and immense losses. I do not ask my hon. Friend, or the Minister, to give me any solution to the problem I have posed in my few words tonight, but I ask whether he will receive a deputation, which I would like to bring to him if it can be arranged, in order to explain in greater detail the plight of the growers in a limited part of the Vale of Evesham.
  I have said that I welcome the Bill. I welcome especially that part of it which is designed to improve the marketing organisation. I cannot raise any enthusiasm for the proposed Horticultural Marketing Council because I believe it will tend to have all the disadvantage of a semi-bureaucratic body imposed from the top and carrying out no real executive or responsible duties.
  Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman has said that he welcomes the Bill, but he has proceeded to argue against one of its fundamentals. I cannot see the logic of the argument. If he criticises the proposed Council in the way he has done, he must criticise the Bill fundamentally.
  Sir P. Agnew: I cannot accept that the proposed Council is a fundamental part of the Bill. The Bill could be passed into law and the grants made to all those who will qualify without setting up a Horticultural Marketing Council.
  Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman cannot say that the Council is only an incidental part of the Bill. It is a major part of the Bill in the sense that it is there to initiate improved marketing. I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would have appreciated that this was the case and therefore would not make that criticism.
  Sir P. Agnew: I will not pursue that point because, clearly, the hon. Gentleman is putting a greater weight on a certain part of the Bill than I am disposed to do. We shall have to agree to differ on that point. What I regard as valuable is the channeling of assistance to groups of growers who band together for the purpose of improving their market presentation and getting on to the market a better graded article than many of them are able as individuals to do at present. If this part of the Bill is successful, I believe we shall see in time a great deal of difference in the price to the producer and the price that the housewife has to pay when she buys the fruit or vegetables in the shops.
  By strengthening in this way the cooperative organisation which my right hon. Friend is encouraging under the Bill, I believe we shall find that healthy organisms in the bottom tier of the industry will grow in strength, and that in the future the intermediate, unnecessary tiers, as they will become, will tend to wither away or find their place in the organisation of supermarkets, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot) in his maiden speech this evening, which we so enjoyed.
  My last point is that the Bill, although it will not solve all the problems of the horticultural industry, is an essential preliminary to get the industry in capital
  1424
  form and on its feet again, and for that purpose I welcome it.
  7.20 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Marshall: I could not help feeling a certain amount of sympathy for my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew) when he raised on behalf of his constituents the subject of brussels sprouts. When he represented a Cornish constituency he had great difficulties in regard to broccoli, and now he has gone from broccoli to brussels sprouts.
  All who have spoken have welcomed the Bill, with the exception of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). I cannot share the views that he expressed, and I do not think he really expects me to do so. It seemed to me that what was worrying him more than anything else was that he could not bring himself to believe that the Government's intention is the intention which the Government have declared, that they are maintaining the tariff weapon as the main protection for horticulture.
  I noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South, mentioned that he would have liked the Bill brought in at the same time as the Measure dealing with small farmers. Perhaps we would all share that desire. On the other hand, one has to be practical about it, and it seems to me that one of the great difficulties with regard to the Measure dealing with small farmers is how many persons we could get from the National Agricultural Advisory Service to make it practicable. Consequently, if we had introduced the two Measures at the same time we should have made the difficulties even greater.
  I hope that in listening to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will have taken note of how to strengthen this admirable and very good advisory service. I am certain that very few ideas are either novel or new, but I trust that his great Department is in close contact with I.C.I., Fisons and others who have experimental departments and might be able to form another training base from which we could quickly get more people to enter the National Agricultural Advisory Service.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme) mentioned

  1425
  the Tamar Valley. Somehow it always startles me to realise that there is another side of the Tamar Valley in Devon. Where I live we are rather inclined to look upon the Tamar Valley from the Cornish side. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a very great difficulty here. The horticulturists in the Tamar Valley are small and extremely numerous. Consequently, in a number of cases—although I do not think this should be exaggerated—they will not come within the four-acre limit. On the other hand—this is why I said that the point should not be exaggerated—a great number of them will benefit from the Bill. I was sorry that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely said he was sure that nobody who was a horticulturist wanted the Bill. That is not so. I have here a letter—it is not the only one that I have received—written to me about the Bill. It says:
  "With reference to the Government White Paper on Horticulture, I would like to say what a good Bill I think it is, and it will do a lot of good to the Tamar Valley."
  There are a number of people who feel that way.
  What was actually worrying this constituent of mine has now, I think, been settled, but I should like the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to refer to the matter again. In the Tamar Valley there are a number of cases where the land used for horticulture is extremely valuable but where there may be attached to it a small piece of land which is not fit for horticultural production. However, the two pieces of land adjoin and the tenant takes them both over—he may run a bullock or two on the land which is not fit for horticulture—because there is a clause in the agreement to the effect that the land cannot be broken up. It may be that his chartered accountant can prove that his earning capacity relates 100 per cent. to the horticultural land, but if one adds on the other piece of land which has nothing to do with horticulture the area may amount to eleven acres, and, therefore, the man may not come within the scheme. I have now had a letter from the Minister and I understand that he has decided that only that part of the land which is used as a horticultural holding will be taken into consideration in connection with the scheme and that the other portion of the land will not put the man outside the scheme.
  1426
  I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South about the Horticultural Marketing Council, for I feel that it is very much part of the Bill. One of the things to which the Council must apply its mind is publicity, which is very necessary. There are so many small units in the horticultural world that the full impact of publicity is very hard to obtain. Many years ago—perhaps thirty or forty years ago—it was very much more the custom than it is now to give a small bunch of flowers, and the actual purchasing of flowers was very much greater than it has been since the war. I believe that publicity could do a great deal for the flower trade.
  I believe that the Bill will help the horticultural industry considerably. It will help it to be more efficient. This is the first Measure that we have seen specifically for the horticultural industry. Many right hon. and hon. Members have complained a great deal in the last fourteen years about how horticulture has been more or less left out of the picture in comparison with agriculture.
  It is necessary to say that this Measure will only help the horticultural industry provided that the industry is protected by tariffs. Consequently, it is the tariff weapon which makes it possible in this country to have a healthy horticulture. Nothing would be more pathetic than to pass a Measure to inject money into the horticultural industry if that measure of protection were not to be given. The Government have assured us that this is a pledge from them. I am convinced that that pledge will be honoured. I sincerely trust that when the next two applications are put in, the honouring of them will have a visible side, the raising of tariffs for the full protection of those products within the horticultural industry.
  7.31 p.m.
  Mr. John Brewis: I welcome this Bill to assist the horticultural industry, at the same time agreeing very much with what my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Marshall) said as to the importance of tariff protection.
  We have heard from the Minister this afternoon that the industry is worth £170 million a year. Therefore, it is very difficult to exaggerate its importance. In

  1427
  addition, it has the greatest output per acre. Under glass, it is possible to produce £10,000 turnover from one acre.
  Tonight, I should like to speak mainly about the tomato industry. During the last ten years there has been a tremendous contraction in the industry. The number of glasshouses has dropped by 28 per cent. and the number of registered producers is down by 1,000. Taking Scotland alone, in the last few years the earnings of the Scottish tomato industry have fallen by £300,000. I have no doubt that by the end of 1959 we shall find these earnings down even further.
  In dealing with agriculture, it is fashionable to say that we have to compete against the climate. That is particularly true in Scotland about the tomato growers in the Clyde Valley, because their main crop comes into production approximately three weeks later than the crop in England and meets the full force of competition of outdoor tomatoes from Spain, particularly the Alicante district, and also from the Canary Islands. At the same time, the success of the importers is not entirely due to climate. The Dutch, for example, have increased in the last two years their share of our market from 10,500 tons to 17,750 tons. In a way, all imported tomatoes are unfair competition, because the importers send the best quality tomatoes to this country and sell the second quality at home. They also protect their home market by making quite sure that other countries do not do the same thing to them. What we need in this industry is better tariff protection, but we must also increase the efficiency of the home growers. After all, the Dutch have no particular climatic advantage over the growers in this country.
  Turning first to tariffs, I very much regret that the tariff was not increased upon the last application. At the same time, I think that tariffs in a time of scarcity are apt to operate against the consumer and force up the price that the housewife has to pay. I should prefer to see agreements like those between Italy and Germany of a minimum import price. When that price is reached supplies are cut off from abroad after giving a few days' notice to clear all supplies in the pipeline. Something rather similar has happened in the past in controlling supplies of Danish and Scandinavian bacon to this country.
  1428
  I welcome this system of grants as being helpful to increasing the efficiency of the home growers. I should, however, point out that many of the smaller growers will have to find two-thirds of the money necessary for improvements. They have not much incentive to do this. There have been bad seasons and many of them will have to borrow. I ask the Minister to consider increasing the level of the grant to the smaller growers to 50 per cent., which would have a psychological effect and introduce the idea of partnership, such as that of a landlord and tenant relationship. It would be a great help in getting these schemes going.
  Many of the growers in Scotland would prefer to see some subsidy of an income nature on what they use, for example, petrol and coke. Superficially, this is quite attractive. It is, however, more efficient in the glasshouse industry to use oil heating or even soil warming by electricity, as I think anyone who has had to go out late on a cold, wet evening to stoke up a coke boiler has found out for himself.
  I should like to ask one question of the Minister concerning heating. A constituent of mine who is putting electricity into his house on his holding finds that he has to guarantee a minimum consumption of £40 a year. He cannot consume this amount for domestic purposes only and so he is putting heating into a greenhouse. That is a most desirable purpose, but it would appear that Part I (v) of the Appendix does not allow grants for installing heating systems in greenhouses which previously had no heating. Would it be possible for such a scheme to come under Part III (x), which provides for the laying on of electric power for business purposes?
  Another omission from the Schedule which I regret is communications. Today the telephone is almost as important to a grower as his spade. He has to ring up his supplier, salesmen, and get market intelligence. Cannot telephones, which can be very expensive to install, also be included in the Schedule?
  There appears to be no minimum grant below which an improvement is not eligible. Clause 1 allows for grants for alteration or reconditioning of permanent buildings. How low can one get these grants? Do they cover jobbing

  1429
  work around the holding? If so, I cannot see how we can get the scheme going sufficiently with the staff available to produce the grants by the next growing season. We are rather fortunate in Scotland in that we have the advisory staff of the agricultural colleges and the inspectors in the Department of Agriculture. Even so, there will clearly be a heavy call on these men, whose work I have found to be very good indeed in my constituency.
  I am sure that co-operative marketing is the answer to the problem of increasing efficiency in the industry. Better grading of tomatoes and other crops will also help. It is very difficult to grade tomatoes unless there is a good quantity from which to draw. If only about 50 lb. a day are being sold, it is hardly worth bothering to grade them. I should like to see these co-operatives having a central grading organisation, rather like the egg packing stations, because I have found from experience that, although market gardeners may have very "green fingers" for making things grow, they are complete "butter fingers" when it comes to packing or grading.
  I should like the co-operative societies to deal directly with retail traders and chain stores, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot) in a very notable maiden speech. Co-operatives could also undertake the gas storage of apples, quick freezing and canning. I am sure that it is in those channels that the future of the industry lies. The urban housewife does not want to go home lugging a great bag of cabbages and potatoes. She would rather have prepacked apples, potatoes and canned tomatoes.
  I cannot give the Horticultural Marketing Council a very warm welcome. Horticulture includes so many products that it will be very difficult to undertake publicity on a national scale. Publicity is much better handled by representatives of the growers of one particular vegetable or fruit, or even mushrooms. The Mushroom Growers' Association has been extremely successful with its publicity. It is well liked by the growers—and that is the case with the flower growers and their association.
  On the other hand, the Council can be of great help to the industry in
  1430
  organising better marketing, the elimination of waste and the standardisation of containers. I hope that the Council will prove very successful. It has two years of grace, during which the Government will pay for it, to show how successful it can be. I hope that it will get on with the job and that in two years it will be accepted by the growers as a necessary part of the industry.
  7.43 p.m.
  Mr. F. H. Hayman: I must, first, apologise to you, Sir, and the House for not having been in the Chamber during the previous part of the debate. I regret that it was not possible for me to be here.
  I want to comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) on the Horticultural Marketing Council. He said, first, that he was against it, but, later, he seemed to approve of it. I should have thought that it was an excellent proposal, because in my part of the country, West Cornwall, so many of our horticulturists produce so many different products that it seems best to have a Council to deal with marketing, which is one of the main problems of the industry. Being Celtic, it is not easy to get people in West Cornwall to co-operate, because they are such individualists. That is especially true of this industry.
  I am glad to be able to say that I have had no representations whatever about the Bill from any organisation or individual in my constituency, so that I assume that it meets the needs of the people who are prepared to give it a trial. That is probable, as all political parties at the General Election promised to look after horticulture and agriculture fairly well.
  I am a trifle worried about the impact of the Outer Seven economic agreement on the industry. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Marshall) made great play with tariffs, but it would be very difficult for the Government to raise tariffs after that agreement. I am not an economics expert, but that is how it seems to me. I am not sure that tariffs are the only way in which the industry can be protected. I believe that there is still a quota on the import of motor cars. If not, it has only recently been removed. If that can be applied to a prosperous industry like the motor car

  1431
  industry, I do not see why, in an industry which has to face such vicissitudes as horticulture, that system could not be used in the last resort to give some protection of that kind.
  We shall have to pursue the question of marketing very closely. I have no doubt that the Minister does that and the Council will have to do it. Today, people do not want just a bunch of flowers. They want a bunch of good flowers and they are prepared to pay for it. If they are prepared to pay, they will expect good quality. The experience of horticulturists in my constituency is that they can always get markets for goods which are properly graded and of good quality. I wish the Bill well and hope that it will bring that prosperity and security to the industry which the Minister has suggested will result from its operation.
  7.48 p.m.
  Mr. Walter H. Loveys: Unlike the hon. Member for Falmouth and Cambourne (Mr. Hayman), I do not have to apologise for not having been here earlier. I have heard every speech except one, when I had to go away for a few minutes to consume a little horticultural produce.
  Having listened to every speech, I am surprised at the amount of agreement about the Bill. The few hon. Members opposite who have spoken have appeared to fall in line with their leader, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), in somewhat reluctantly supporting the Bill. Only on this side has there been real opposition, in an excellent speech by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), who made a very wide review of the industry.
  I shall follow the line of my hon. Friend, the Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme) and my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew) by accepting the facts as they are at the moment and not using this opportunity to review the whole industry. I shall stick rigidly to the Bill and speak in favour of it.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend for having produced the Bill. If the £7½ million goes through the right channels with the minimum amount of waste it could prove of great
  1432
  benefit to what has already been called the Cinderella of the agricultural industry. It will be a worthy successor to the Small Farmer Scheme, which has had so much success already.
  That is all the praise that I intend to give the Bill, but I would like to spend a few minutes discussing the points about which I am worried. Part I deals with improvements aimed at efficient production and Part II deals with marketing. The main problem of the industry lies in marketing its products. It is no good growing the finest fruit and vegetables if we have to throw a lot of the produce away, or plough it back into the ground. Hundreds of tons of tomatoes have been thrown away this season. That is a very serious situation. Tomato growing is the largest section of horticulture under glass in this country. Indeed, over half the total amount of glass is used for raising tomatoes.
  I would like to mention a few points on which I would like clarification from my right hon. Friend. My first point is about eligibility. I know that it is very difficult, and perhaps impossible, to draw a flexible line, but many growers with under four acres will be disappointed if they are excluded from the Bill. They will be seriously affected. I know that the idea of the Bill is to give help to holdings that are capable of being run by at least one full-time worker, but I know of several smallholdings where, in the last two years, the tenants have decided to plough up perhaps an acre or two acres to grow potatoes. Under the Bill, which lays down that at least half the holding must have been used entirely for horticulture for a period of two years immediately preceding the application, these people will not be eligible for a grant. It would seem, therefore, that if a man happens to have ploughed up a couple of acres for potatoes either last year or the year before he will be outside the scheme. I hope that it will be possible for the Ministry's officials to allow some flexibility in these cases.
  My second point on Part I is that I regret that there is no limit on the amount that an individual grower can obtain. The scheme might be inclined to benefit a large grower, with perhaps rather grandiose schemes which would not be profitable without the grant. I

  1433
  feel that the large grower who can probably obtain capital easier will be inclined to benefit more than the smaller man, who will have great difficulty in finding the two-thirds necessary to do the job. Surely it is intended to help the smaller farmers and horticulturists, in the same way as the Small Farmer Scheme was intended to help and, indeed, is helping the small farmers.
  My third and last point on Part I concerns the last paragraph. I may have got it wrong and, if so, I hope that my hon. Friend will put me right if I have. Clause 8 (5) says that
  "In this Part of this Act 'preparation for market' does not include canning, bottling, pulping or cooking, or preserving by sterilising, by freezing, by dehydrating, by heat or by chemical process."
  Perhaps this is a point that ought to be raised in Committee. If so, I will understand if my hon. Friend does not want to reply to it tonight.
  However, I think that every possible encouragement must be given to growers to use deep-freeze equipment. It may be that the provision of deep-freeze equipment would take too large a slice of the £7½ million, but, at the same time, the problem of marketing valuable produce creates a difficulty because of the glut of fruit and vegetables at certain times of the year. Every assistance ought to be given to producers to invest in plant for preserving their crops so that they may arrive in the market in good condition.
  I understand that commercial refrigerators are very useful for certain types of fruit. If we can allow grants for heating to encourage plants to grow, it seems wrong to disallow grants for freezing the end-product to prevent it being thrown away. Perhaps that, too, is a point that ought to be raised in Committee, to decide whether freezing will be allowed solely for storage, or whether it will also be allowed for general preservation.
  Mr. Darling: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that this kind of storage and refrigeration would be more economical if it were done on a big scale? Would it not be better if there were a central organisation in every
  1434
  growing area, rather than giving the grant to the individual producer?
  Mr. Loveys: I agree to a large extent with the hon. Gentleman. It is a matter where a co-operative society, such as the Land Settlement Association, would benefit more than the individual grower, but that is a point with which I shall deal in a minute.
  My other point on this part of the Bill is the financing of the Horticultural Marketing Council. In the White Paper the Government claim to have accepted the Runciman Report's recommendation that the Council should be financed by money raised from the industry. The Government have not quite done that. They have decided to pay for the Council for the first two years. I was glad to hear from my right hon. Friend that the Government are going to insist that the industry should finance the Marketing Council entirely after the first two years.
  Perhaps one of the most important functions of the Council will be that of publicity. Housewives must be made aware of the advantage of buying home-produced fruit and vegetables. There is something very much lacking in this respect at the moment. On the other side of agriculture, the Milk Marketing Board has done a good job in advertising milk. On the beef side, perhaps I should declare an interest, because I breed Aberdeen Angus cattle and I am glad to say that, at last, the Aberdeen Angus Cattle Society has undertaken the task of explaining to housewives that Aberdeen Angus beef is the best that one can buy. It is a shame to have to listen to a housewife who goes into a grocer's shop and says, "Please may I have 2 lb. of the best eating apples", without having any idea of the type of apple that she is buying.
  There is also the problem of fair marketing. I have seen tomatoes which, after being carefully graded at the Land Settlement estate at Sidlesham, in my constituency, are sent to the shops. I have then gone into the shops to look at first-grade tomatoes and have been appalled to see that these tomatoes have been mixed up in the shop although the top price is being asked for them. This is done after all the trouble that has been taken to grade them. There ought to be some control over this in the shops.

  1435
  I am not saying that that is a general practice—of course it is not—but there seems to be nothing to stop it.
  My final point on the Marketing Council is the point that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) raised a moment ago. It is very difficult to encourage co-operation between growers. In my constituency we have a land settlement association. It is run very efficiently, and most efficient individual tenants do quite well. They have their central marketing schemes. We also have a large number of county council smallholdings. I happen to be on the county council smallholdings committee. The curious thing is that although the smallholding tenants are not doing as well as the land settlement tenants, it is almost impossible to get a smallholding whereas it is quite easy to get a holding on a land settlement. It is a difficult problem. The growers just do not wish to co-operate and perhaps the Marketing Council might be able to do something about it.
  I must finally say one word about tariffs. Time and again the Government have said that tariffs will continue to be the main support of the horticultural industry. While that is a welcome statement, we must be absolutely honest about this, because the only reason that the Government have given for refusing increases in tariffs is that a strong enough case has not been submitted by the growers. Surely the truth is that we are afraid of reprisals from the growers who export to us. Most growers feel that where costs have risen through no fault of their own, and, if at the same time, the markets are flooded with imported produce, they consider that that alone makes a strong enough case for increasing tariffs. I consider that to be a reasonable view. If it is not, then tariffs cannot in any way be regarded as a protection. Many growers have invested large amounts of capital in the industry on the strength of the protection which they consider that tariffs should provide.
  I have referred to matters which worry me, but, as I said at the beginning of my speech, I welcome the Bill. I am certain that it will provide great support for all sections of an industry which we are rightly committed to support, and one which is very much in need of our support at the present time.
  8.1 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Cole: When introducing the Bill my right hon. Friend the Minister described horticulture as the Cinderella of the farming industry. That expression has been used by other speakers in this debate. I am sure that my right hon. Friend does not consider that the Bill represents either a ball gown or a fairy coach for Cinderella. It may make it possible for Cinderella to go to the palace ball, and that is how it will be regarded by horticulturists in this country.
  I wish to join issue with the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), who described the Measure as an improvisation. It is not that. I prefer to call it the first step and an carly redemption of the promise which we made at the General Election. Indeed, the figure of £7½ million has been canvassed for some months past. Horticulture has been the Cinderella of the farming industry. It does not figure in the Annual Price Review, and in many ways it is a precarious business. All hon. Members who have been in this House for a few years will be aware of occasions when, in a matter of hours, the import of some produce has been stopped temporarily to allow growers of the same produce in this country to get a fair crack of the whip. I hope that the Bill will prove the start of a change in the precarious atmosphere.
  As we learn from the White Paper, and as was mentioned by my right hon. Friend, there are about 70,000 people in the country with horticultural holdings. That is a large portion of the population to have to work under such precarious conditions as exist at present. In my own constituency, Bedfordshire, South, there are horticultural businesses of various kinds covering almost every product referred to in the Bill. The reason why we should pay far more attention to horticulture is referred to in paragraph 20 of the White Paper where it states that
  "the Government recognise that producers in this country have a special interest in promoting sales of the vegetables, fruit and flowers that they grow."
  I consider that that statement is too limited. Not only the producers but the Government and the consuming public have an interest.

  1437
  We are in a peculiar position in that we are an industrial country, and our standard of life results from the prosperity of our industry and exports. We cannot expect the non-industrial occupations, such as agriculture and horticulture, to flourish entirely on their own. If our prosperity and standard of life is reflected in our export industry, then, as a quid pro quo, we should be prepared to support those other industries which are vitally necessary and upon which we depend for food. Incidentally, those industries help our export industry by reducing the importation of food to the extent that we grow our foodstuffs at home.
  Our horticulture must compete with other countries where horticulture is the main and basic industry, and by imposing limitations on imports by means of tariffs, we try to allow our own industry to compete with those countries which specialise in horticultural products. I do not think that that is the best situation. We should commit ourselves and face the fact that we must give special attention and help to agriculture and horticulture both now and in the future.
  The position may be summed up by saying that this improvement scheme, this method of providing grants, is in no sense a substitution for a proper tariff policy. It is no answer to protect only the industrial side of our national life. It is necessary to preserve a balance between industry and agriculture. We maintain our standard of life because of our industrial prosperity, but, at the same time, we seek to grow 40 to 50 per cent. of our food, and if we wish to do both those things we must give proper support to those who grow our food.
  I do not think that sufficient emphasis has been placed on the fact that in the negotiation of foreign agreements, which are tied up with our industrial exports, we must have regard to the horticultural side of our national life. It is right that we should try to protect our exports to foreign countries, but that must not be achieved to the detriment of our own food-growing industries.
  The hon. Member for Sunderland, North referred to small interest loans, and I would not object to the provision of such loans. I should be happy to see
  1438
  such an arrangement being complementary to the scheme of grants which it is proposed to provide under the terms of this Bill. Representations made to me about the proposed grants indicate that the idea of a Government grant of one-third of improvement costs has not been too happily received. What happens if a horticulturist cannot afford to find the other two-thirds? If the cost of an improvement scheme is, shall we say, £300, it means that the grower must find £200 before he can receive a grant of £100.
  Put another way, if the Government expect to disperse £7½ million by way of grants over the next few years, it means that the growers must find £15 million, which is a very large amount of money. I do not know what will be the final solution. It will depend upon the prosperity of horticulture being maintained by means of tariffs and in other ways.
  I hope that the Government will bear in mind that a person must be able to afford two-thirds of the cost of an improvement scheme before qualifying for a grant of one-third. It is probable that there may be a precedent in other agricultural legislation for the figure of one-third which is referred to here. It is not the same figure as is used for grants in other legislation, for housing and the like, and I am wondering whether the amount of one-third will achieve the result which we desire. I trust that it will, but I have no illusions about what growers will have to find in this connection.
  The question of grading is not, I think, a Committee point. Paragraphs 18 and 22 of the White Paper—the latter in regard to Covent Garden—refer to grading of horticultural products. Whether this is done under the proposed Marketing Council or the existing marketing boards it is not enough to lay down a system of grading unless someone finds the money for carrying out that grading and for its supervision. One of the difficulties of at least one of the existing marketing boards is the fact that it has not the wherewithal for supervision of the grading system to see that it is carried out satisfactorily and adequately.
  Grading is at the foundation of the whole Covent Garden scheme, the bulk to be kept elsewhere, while the buyers buy from samples in the market. Money

  1439
  granted through the Horticultural Marketing Council or any other authority will have to be spent on supervision of the grading. I hope that some attention will be given to that, because it is not enough to lay down principles, however excellent they may be, unless the wherewithal is provided to put them into force.
  I hope that the Minister will not entirely close his mind to the question of finance for the Marketing Council at the end of two years. If it works well—and I hope so—as an organisation, the maximum for the first two years is to be £125,000 a year. There are 70,000 growers and the Minister told us that 25,000 to 30,000 businesses will benefit under the Bill. If the Marketing Council is doing a good job and, at the beginning of the third year, it appears that it might not be able to carry on that job until the levy is put on a proper basis, it would be very bad if all the good work which had been put in by the Council fell to the ground simply because the Government withdrew their annual subvention. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will reserve the right to come to the House with a request that the grant should be carried on for a certain period in the future.
  Mr. Willey: Surely this is a very flippant view to take of public funds. This proposal was made by the Runciman Committee, which reported two years ago. The Government are to finance the Council for two years. Surely to say that at the end of that time the industry will not be in a position to finance this Council, which has been set up for its own good, is to take a wrong view of private enterprise. Surely private enterprise cannot be wet-nursed in this way.
  Mr. Cole: I assure the hon. Member that the last thing I want to do is to take a flippant view of public money. If this Council can do only three-quarters of what he and his hon. Friends and we on this side hope it will do, I think that it would not be a flippant view to say that it should be helped to carry on.
  In this world there are things which are far more important than money, and this process should be allowed to go on for the benefit of consumers as well as growers after the two years have expired. I assure the hon. Member that I am
  1440
  trying to take a long view of the general set-up and future of this industry. In view of the support which he has given to various kinds of grant for production, it ill becomes him to suggest that advocating a proper grant is taking a flippant view of the use of public money.
  I have tried to emphasise that since we in this country are so geared for industrial exports we must have more than ordinary regard for those parts of industry which are not geared for export, but which are vitally important not only to our economy, but for our very living, in particular agriculture and horticulture.
  Mr. Darling: And coal.
  Mr. Cole: I hope that in a year or two we shall see the next step taken for the assistance of this industry. After all, Cinderella had her coach and her ball gown and later she married the prince. That is a conclusion of which most of us know. I hope that this scheme will not mean that Cinderella is left with the tickets, but no further kind of assistance for her enjoyment afterwards. Reference has been made to two ugly sisters, but I do not know where they come in.
  This is a first step, not an improvisation, and I hope that as time goes on, and need is shown, the Minister will not hesitate to come to the House for more assistance for the industry as a whole. For too long, not only under this Government but under all Governments since and before the war, have the people at large and we in this House accepted the position in the horticultural industry. For too long have horticulturists had to carry on under difficulties. Many of them have given up, as is evidenced by the amount of horticultural glass which has vanished since the war. It is high time that this first step was taken and I hope that we shall take it unanimously tonight along the path towards a prosperous horticultural industry.
  8.17 p.m.
  Mr. A. V. Hilton: I represent a constituency which, like that of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), contains many small farmers and horticulturists. I wish to take a slightly different view from that taken by the hon. and gallant Member, because I am sure that many engaged in horticulture in my area do not share his views on the proposals in this Bill.

  1441
  I think it is generally agreed on both sides of the House that this is a long overdue Measure to give assistance to this industry which has been so sadly neglected for so many years. That £7 million or £8 million is to be injected into it is very good news for most people connected with horticulture. I am not altogether certain, however, that the proposals set about assisting horticulture to the best advantage of the industry, although I agree that it is essential that new buildings for storage and packing should be provided and that in many cases existing buildings need improvement, and help for that will be very welcome. It is an important industry, as the Minister reminded us when he opened the debate. It has a turnover of £170 million, plus £100 million for potatoes, per annum.
  I wonder whether these proposals will help the industry in the best way. I am apprehensive about it. Before I came to the House I was a member of the county agricultural executive committee for a number of years, and I remember how the Farm Improvements Scheme worked. It is not surprising, as the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely reminded us, that a high percentage of farmers who were expected to apply for assistance under that scheme in fact have not done so, for the simple reason that many of them are financially not in a position to do so.
  My experience of the Farm Improvements Scheme is that people who needed assistance most were unable to take advantage of the scheme because they could not raise their part of the money needed for them to enjoy the benefit of the scheme. I wonder how many people engaged in horticulture will be similarly barred from taking advantage of grants under the horticulture improvements scheme. Many horticulturists are in a very small way of business. They are poor men. There are many small farmers in the same position.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) is not here, because I was surprised that he said that he knew of no small farmers with problems. In my neighbouring constituency I know many small farmers who have real problems. I am anxious that the people who need assistance most in horticulture should benefit under the
  1442
  scheme, but I am apprehensive, because I fear that many of the most deserving cases will be unable to participate, because, as with their farmer brothers, they will be unable to raise the necessary money to pay the two-thirds of the cost which they will be expected to pay.
  Major Legge-Bourke: The hon. Member has misrepresented my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard). What he said was that many small farmers are also to some extent horticulturists, and he felt that this scheme had some application to them.
  Mr. Hilton: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Member for King's Lynn. My note of what he said is that he had found no small farmer problems in his constituency. Possibly I made a mistake.
  The problem of the small man in hortiture is very real. The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) referred to the many farm workers with part-time holdings. In the area which I represent, and in other areas of Norfolk and the Isle of Ely, many farm workers and others have part-time holdings, some of them of two or three acres and many of them under four acres. They are capable of producing two or three times as much as holdings double their size, but they are to be denied any benefit from the scheme unless they participate in the co-operative association. Knowing many of these small men, I believe that they are not all likely to want to participate in such an association.
  Many of the small horticulturists own land which is very highly productive. They produce prolific crops which, if they could be sold at a reasonable return for the producer, would present no problem. Too frequently, I fear, they do not receive reasonable prices. Sometimes there is no sale at all. The hon. Member for King's Lynn reminded us of some of the strawberry growers in the King's Lynn area who this year were unable to sell their strawberries, although they were of first-class quality. We know that this applies to other produce. Earlier this week I was talking to a horticulturist who grows tomatoes in a small way and who told me how frustrating it was at the height of the tomato season this year when a glut of Dutch tomatoes were imported which prevented him from selling his tomatoes.

  1443
  If the proposals in the Bill result only in increasing production from British horticulture, they will not solve but will aggravate the existing situation. If they mean only that we are to produce more and better produce from our holdings, with no sale for the produce, it will make the situation much worse. It will be no good at all to the industry. I believe that the urgent need is for a radical overhaul of the existing chaotic marketing arrangements which allow a situation in which a producer receives only 1d. for a first-class lettuce or cauliflower, which he cannot grow at that price, when the same lettuce or cauliflower is readily sold to the housewife for 1s. and sometimes more.
  I know that this is a difficult problem, but as a first step to achieving an orderly marketing system we should insist on a reasonable control of imports of horticultural produce into this country, especially when there is a glut of home produce which our own horticulturists find it difficult to sell. I realise that we cannot stop these imports altogether, nor do I wish to do so, but they should at least be restricted at times when we have plenty of home-grown produce on the market. By taking this step we should go a long way to ensure the producer a fair return for his goods.
  Much has been said in support of the Bill, and I am not altogether critical of it. However, I wish to point out to the Minister at least one omission. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the many workers engaged in horticulture and paid tribute to them. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely started talking about the workers and then said that he did not believe in a wage freeze. I wondered whether the hon. and gallant Member would say that he believed in freezing farm workers' wages, but he did not.
  It is the farm workers, those engaged in horticulture, who have been mainly omitted from the Bill. I refer to them because of this passage in the Gracious Speech:
  "The well-being of all those whose living depends on the land will remain one of the first cares of My Government."
  I was delighted to read that passage, because it formed part of my election address. I said that, if the Labour Party were returned to power, we should see to it that all those earning their living
  1444
  from the land would have a better deal. I am disappointed because no benefit to the workers in horticulture is likely to accrue from the Bill.
  The farm worker is second to none in this country as a worker. Farming is the oldest industry of all, going back to the Garden of Eden. Farm workers are still almost on the bottom rung of the wage earners' ladder, with a minimum wage of £7 16s. for a 47-hour week. The last time farm workers were involved in a strike was thirty-six years ago in 1923. They struck then only to try to save for themselves a wage of 25s. a week. This splendid body of workers, whom I am proud to represent in many affairs, has a truly magnificent record.
  When framing the Bill to help all those engaged in horticulture, did the Minister think of the majority of those engaged in the industry, namely, the workers? If so, will he explain to the House how the Bill will benefit any of them? We are told that between £7 and £8 million is coming into the industry. The workers, who form such a large percentage of those engaged in horticulture, are entitled not only to consideration but to tangible reward from this amount.
  It is proposed that there should be three workers on the Horticultural Marketing Council. Representing many of these workers, I should have welcomed a larger representation on the Council from the workers' side. I can assure the House that we shall be pleased to participate in the Council and will do our best to make it work successfully. If the workers are prepared to do this, it cannot be unreasonable to expect that they should share in some of the benefits from the Bill.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. J. M. L. Prior: The hon. Member for Norfolk South-West (Mr. Hilton) has mentioned two points on which I should like to comment. First, he doubted whether any great benefit for the horticultural worker would result from the Bill, but I believe that the injection of capital into the horticultural industry in this way will result in greater prosperity for it, and I am certain that the horticultural worker will enjoy a fair share of that prosperity. The horticultural worker has probably been in a worse position than the agricultural worker—
  Mr. Hilton: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain how it is thought that the horticultural worker will benefit.
  Mr. Prior: He will enjoy greater prosperity, because if the industry itself is prosperous it is in a much better position to pay its workers more. I do not want to pursue the question of agricultural workers' pay, because the hon. Gentleman will know that I have already expressed my views on that and have met with a certain amount of opposition as a result.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to tomatoes. There, again, I hope that we shall be able to do something for the growers. During my own General Election campaign I said that if we did not try to do something for the tomato growers they should throw their tomatoes at the next election, and I have no doubt that, if something is not done, tomatoes will be thrown.
  As I say, the Bill will inject into the industry some much-needed capital. I share the feelings of hon. Members who have said that they are doubtful whether it will help the smaller grower as he will not be able to find the necessary two-thirds. Once the co-operative horticultural marketing authorities which the Bill introduces are established, could it not be carried a step or two further? For instance, once they have got going, could we not so extend them as to allow them to provide fixed equipment for such things—as my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Loveys) suggested—as quick-freezing. Quick-freezing would help to keep gluts off the market, and that is very important.
  Speaking as a farmer, I find that in certain circumstances the actual crop husbandry of the horticulturist has lagged behind that of the most efficient farmers, perhaps because they have not sufficiently good equipment. If we could extend the work of the co-operative marketing authorities to let such men have tractors, rowcrop tractors and, perhaps, irrigation equipment—all under the control of the authorities—it would enable the smaller type of grower, in particular, to enjoy some of the advantages that he could not get by his own efforts.
  Speaking entirely from practical experience, I wonder whether my right hon.
  1446
  Friend could, on the setting up of the Horticultural Marketing Council, instruct his N.A.A.S. officers to give good advice on planning. I believe that the average small horticulturist and the average farmer are always a little wary of these schemes. They do not know what they are letting themselves in for. If my right hon. Friend's officers would explain the intention, and the help that the Government propose to give, the smaller men will accept the scheme in the right spirit and get on with the job. But it is necessary that the horticultural cooperative scheme should be given an enthusiastic start by the Minister's officers. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take note of that suggestion.
  I well remember when we were setting up co-operative crop-drying schemes a few years ago. Unfortunately, those schemes have "gone bust", and I hope that these others will not follow suit. I am sure that had the co-operative crop-drying schemes been better explained at the time, they would have been much more satisfactory. We always seemed to assemble in draughty rooms, with the N.F.U. representative present. I am sure that the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West will remember it quite well. Those schemes got off to a bad start, and we should make an improvement in the introduction of the proposed schemes.
  If the tariff had really been effective in doing its job for the horticultural industry, this Measure would not now be necessary. We must bear that in mind in our whole attitude towards the Bill. If the Government do not see that the tariff is effective, this £7½ million, again, will be money thrown down the drain. The Bill, by itself, will not be sufficient to make the difference between profit and loss for the horticulturist. I agree that it will help him, but it will not make the difference between profit and loss.
  My worry—I see it very clearly in my own constituency—is that we have had trouble with bacon and fish and it may be horticulture's turn next. It is not sufficient just to leave the tariffs where they are. There will be very genuine need in the future, as there has been in the past, for increased tariffs. Frankly, I cannot see them coming. I agree with other hon. Members who have said that

  1447
  if, for the good of the country, we have to accept a reduction in tariffs—I believe that we probably have to accept a reduction in bacon, in fish and in horticulture—then the country and the Government have a firm and plain duty to support those affected. I feel this extremely strongly.
  The Bill represents the first step towards that support, but, by itself, it cannot be the answer. Obviously, within a year, we shall be faced with greatly increased imports of vegetables. I know for a fact that the Dutch are expecting to send twice as much into Yarmouth next year as they did last year. This is going on the whole time. I know of one big chain store which did not buy a single English tomato this year; it bought them all from Holland. That decision may have something to do with our marketing, but it shows the way the wind is blowing.
  If we can have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that he will not be content just to let the tariffs stay where they are, but will, if need be, support increases in tariffs, then everyone in horticulture will be very much more confident about the future than they are today. The Bill, we know, will help the horticulturist but, by itself, I fear that it will not prove to be the whole answer.
  8.43 p.m.
  Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) on his second speech in the House when he has so eloquently appealed for assistance to the horticultural industry.
  In my constituency, Twickenham, odd though it may seem, there are a few horticulturists at Hampton-on-Thames. Fruit and vegetables have been grown in that area for about a century, and the fathers and grandfathers of many of those now in business began there long years ago.
  In trying to persuade the electors of Twickenham to vote Conservative at the last General Election, which, in the end, proved not as difficult a task as I thought it might be, I painted to the inhabitants of Hampton a glowing picture of the great benefits which would be brought to them by the Minister of Agriculture under a Conservative Administration through the introduction of a horticulture
  1448
  Bill, through grants and through the marketing reforms we intended to introduce.
  Surprising as it may seem, when I said that I was greeted with howls of derision from my horticulturists there. They said that grants, and so on, might be all right, but that the only thing which would satisfy them would be an increase in tariffs. I was told that tomatoes and lettuces had been flooding in during the summer and that foreign competition was likely to drive some people out of business in the next year or two.
  I know that tariffs are not very popular in the present world. We are moving into a free trade world where we should do without them altogether. But from the inquiries that I have made I cannot see how we can help people growing smallish quantities of tomatoes and lettuces without making some increase in tariffs in the near future. I believe that an application is at present going forward from the N.F.U. to the Minister. I hope that he will support it and that he will give the union the increase for which it asks, because I would not like to go through another summer during which tomatoes and lettuces flow in from the Continent with the possibility, indeed the probability, of putting some of the horticulturists in my constituency out of business.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Peart: First, I should like to thank the Minister for what he said about Tom Williams. I can use his name now. I feel rather nostalgic tonight because it was my job to sit behind him during many debates, not only on horticulture but on agriculture generally. I think that this is the first debate in which I have spoken or attended when he has not been present. I miss him very much, and I am grateful for the remarks of the Minister and of the leading spokesman of my party on agricultural matters, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey).
  I wish to refer to issues that have been raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). I stress at the beginning that I regard this Measure as an important one. We cannot dismiss this major industry. If I may quote

  1449
  figures which were given by the Minister in an election pamphlet, we have 750,000 acres of horticultural land in the United Kingdom. Of that figure, 450,000 acres are concerned with vegetable production, 250,000 with orchard production, 50,000 with small fruit production and 4,800 with production under glass. In 1951–52, the gross output of the production of the industry amounted to £94 million. Last year, 1958–59, that figure had risen to £127 million, representing approximately 10 per cent. of the total output of our farm products.
  This is a major industry which affects not merely the constituencies of the hon. Member for Twickenham, the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely and other hon. Members, but the nation, the consumer, and therefore we have a right to consider it. I regard the debate, strange to say, as very important, not because I am making a maiden speech from the Opposition Front Bench, on agriculture, but because it affects the nation and it is right that we should consider the issues raised by the Bill and also some of the main trade issues put to the Government by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely.
  In my own area, we have not the problems that have been pinpointed by many hon. Members from constituencies in the South. The problems of producers in my constituency are different. I think that the problems in the County of Cumberland mainly are those of marketing and transport. We have three land settlement estates which cater for a large number of individual producers and they have organised virtually a co-operative enterprise. The others market their produce direct to consumers and retailers.
  When we discuss horticulture, inevitably we must realise that it is, as has been stressed by many hon. Members today, a very highly speculative business which affects the grower, wholesaler and retailer. It is an industry which is affected more than any other by the weather.
  I read a speech of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent) when he was a Minister on this subject. He makes very valuable contributions to our debates on agriculture. In that speech, which he made some time ago, he
  1450
  stressed this point, and I stress it tonight. The weather decides the time of arrival of a crop on the market, the time it can be sold and how other crops might compete. More than that, the weather affects public taste. Obviously, the long summer that we have just experienced and the desire for salads and the like causes an alteration of emphasis on horticultural products. Furthermore, the product is highly perishable. Therefore, inevitably, when looking at this great industry, with its variety, its various functions and its variable structure, producing a perishable product, we must consider how best we can provide a measure of stability.
  Whether we argue about emphasis on trade policy, tariffs, quotas, producer boards or marketing councils, the broad aim of everyone here tonight is how best we can give the industry a measure of stability, not only because of the importance of the industry, both to the producer and to those engaged in the wholesale and retail trades, but because it is a great national asset. It affects the consumer and it plays an important rôle in our balance of payments problem. The industry must be considered against that background.
  The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely today made a terrific attack on the Minister and the Government. I promote him. He would be an excellent P.P.S. to the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke).
  Major Legge-Bourke: He is a Whig, I am a Tory.
  Mr. Peart: In the recent debate on the Local Employment Bill the noble Lord was described by the Minister as a Whig in his criticism of State aid. If the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely reads his own speech today, he will find that he argued precisely the same principle. It may be that he was carried away with his passion and criticism of the Minister, the Government, the Minister of Education, Uncle Tom Cobley and all. It may be that because of his passion he has forgotten that he said that he did not wish to have National Assistance for industry and he rather decried it. That was the theme of the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South in the debate on the

  1451
  Local Employment Bill. I respect him for it and I respect the hon. and gallant Member for his view that we should be alarmed that the Government are seeking to provide State help, State control and even a measure of co-operation in a Bill which is designed to help individual producers.
  Major Legge-Bourke: I hate to interrupt the hon. Member during his maiden speech at the Dispatch Box, on which I congratulate him, but there is an important distinction between what my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) said the other day and what I said today. My noble Friend was condemning a social measure to deal with local unemployment problems. I was dealing with the national problem of whether it is ever right to bolster up industries which are insolvent.
  Mr. Peart: The noble Lord carried his argument much further than that, and rightly so from his point of view. It was the classical argument of Hobbes' Leviathan and encroachment by the State. It is the argument which I have heard often from hon. Members opposite. I am certain that at the recent election, many of the younger Conservative Members who have come to the House for the first time argued against the menace of the State. We have never heard this doctrinaire argument advanced today.
  I understand the sincerity of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely and of the noble Lord, and I respect them for it. I was rather amused when, today, they attack the Government for policies which, in some ways, are measures of public ownership introduced discreetly by the Government into national policy.
  I pass to the other argument, because I know that the hon. and gallant Member was one of the first, not merely today, to introduce a note of controversy on horticulture. It was at the end of 1945 when he pressed my Minister about what was the then Labour Government's policy towards horticulture. Later, he and other hon. Members argued that when our policy was introduced and then implemented in the main Agriculture Act of
  1452
  1947, the First Schedule left out horticultural products. Indeed, I think that the Minister and others will recollect that during the whole of the Committee debate on the 1947 Bill some of the most vigorous exponents of horticulture and of the need for planning in it were hon. Members like the right hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), who was Colonial Secretary in the last Administration.
  I give the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely credit for having raised this matter over and over again and for pressing in relation to our general trade policy. What is the Government's approach? I believe the hon. and gallant Member to be right, that there are in the present Administration and in the Cabinet hon. Members who desire the liberal approach. Their speeches are on record. I know this from my own knowledge of the people concerned at the Council of Europe, which I admit is not a body for enforcing decisions in Europe. I know from my limited experience there, four or five years ago, that there are many who are prominent members of the Conservative Administration now who are in favour of the liberalisation of trade.
  I was rather interested to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), who tried to pave the way for this, even though he wanted an increase in tariffs. His words were that it may well be that in the interest of our country we should have to provide assistance for people who suffer. I think that was a fair point and that he was thinking of the horticulturists who may well suffer in East Anglia because of the flood of imports which have been bitterly criticised by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely and, indeed, were criticised by noble Lords in another place the other day.
  It was rather interesting that the hon. Member probably revealed the subconscious mind of the Government in relation to tariffs. Despite the Bill and the administrative arrangements which we are making to set up a Horticultural Marketing Council, and the fact that we are to have an extension of the farm improvement grants under previous legislation and are now to have horticultural production grants, it may well be that these could be ruined by wrong trade policies.

  1453
  I hope that the Minister will be strong enough to resist these men in the Cabinet who I know will follow that policy. Strange to say, even though I disagree with his other approach, I wish the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely good luck in his prodding of the Government on the need to protect the home producer. My party at the last election said that it believed the home producer should be considered first. That was in the party statement. Therefore, although he has gone "right" in many ways, it may certainly be held that the hon. and gallant Member agrees with our views, and I thank him for that.
  When we consider the industry we must inevitably think of import policy. There can be no effective import policy without a marketing scheme. That is where I disagree with the emphasis placed on import policy by certain hon. Members opposite. I wish to have a good import policy, a good trade policy and, above all, an effective marketing scheme. That is why we on this side of the House welcome the Bill.
  We must still approach this delicate industry, which can change through variations of weather, through variations of trade policy, from the point of view of marketing. However, there are inevitably two schools of thought on the problem. There are those who believe that the consumer should be first, that the consumer should think in terms of obtaining the cheapest product even if that product comes from abroad. There are those who, on the other hand, place the main emphasis on the grower, who believe that the grower should be given the first consideration and that imports should be subordinated to his interests. In between there are various shades of opinion. I believe that the producer and the consumer can only benefit by a proper market policy. In the end, this will benefit both producer and consumer, who are not really opposed to each other. That is why we welcome this marketing Bill.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North and many other of my hon. Friends who have spoken tonight, that although the Runciman Report contains certain recommendations, it was complacent. It was complacent for the reasons given by my hon. Friend, who quoted the paragraphs
  1454
  on marketing, paragraph 506 and paragraph 508. I think the Minister agrees, because he said that the third prong of Government policy was to end the old existing markets, which are obsolete and which cater for a horse and buggy age.
  Mr. John Hare: I said they were started in the horse and buggy age.
  Mr. Peart: They were started then and, in the main, still follow the pattern of that leisurely age, and the congestion we see every day at Covent Garden, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) is an example. We have always pressed for this change. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North time and time again over the last five or six years has pressed for better markets and has argued that there must be a better distribution of markets outside London. This is very important.
  Tonight I went into the Tea Room and read the evening papers. There were great headlines about our transport problem in London. London is becoming congested. That affects the marketing of horticultural produce. There is much to be done in this respect. Although there are 23 main horticultural markets in the United Kingdom, six in London itself, there is too great a concentration of markets. I am glad that it is now recognised by hon. Gentlemen opposite that probably the only people who in the end will be able to provide the markets will be the local authorities, and we shall probably have to drastically improve markets here and there in order to facilitate distribution.
  I will now deal quickly with the question of co-operatives. I endorse all that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) and other speakers. It is a welcome change to know this evening that hon. Gentlemen opposite agree with us on the point. I am thinking particularly of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), who enthusiastically agreed with the development of co-operatives for the industry. I endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Guildford, that already companies formed by progressive growers have achieved success by cutting out the middle man and dealing direct with the retailer. There are many

  1455
  examples of success stories. The opposition welcome this approach and are very glad that a feature of this legislation is the mention for the first time in statutory legislation of co-operatives.
  I want to inquire about the composition of the Horticultural Marketing Council. This is very important, because structure and functions affect each other. The Runciman Committee recommended that we should have a kind of electoral college consisting of some thirty or forty persons. I am glad that the Minister has rejected that idea, because the body would be too large. We are now to have twenty-eight members, and I feel that that is enough.
  I would say to those concerned in agriculture—producers, retailers and wholesalers—that I hope the Council will not be merely a debating ground for sectional interests. This will not be easy Those who are appointed to it will tend to espouse the cause of their own organisation to carry on to the Council their own prejudices; but I sincerely hope that the body will look at the problem of the industry as a whole for the good of the nation, which will mean that now and then its members will inevitably have to subordinate sectional interests. I am glad that the Minister did not accede to the recommendation of the Runciman Committee about size, and I think the proposed number is about right, but in Committee we shall naturally ask many questions about detailed representation.
  I wish also to refer to the whole question of Parliamentary accountability. When the Council comes into being and an hon. Member raises a question about horticulture, I hope there will be no tendency on the part of the Minister to say, "This is a matter for the new Council." That has happened in other Departments, but I hope that the Minister will deal by question and answer with horticultural policy details. Also, it is laid down in the Bill that we can discuss the industry on the Estimates each year. It is important that we should be able still to ask detailed questions. The whole issue of Parliamentary control and accountability is at the present moment being raised in relation to the nationalised industries and the Local Employment Bill, and the subject has previously been debated. In the important sphere of horticulture it is right
  1456
  and proper that we should be able to ask detailed questions about administration, and I hope we may be given an assurance about that.
  There is also, in relation to the functions of the Council, the matter of research. I have retained my interest in scientific research and agricultural education over the last three or four years, although I have not been so particularly concerned about some of the problems of agriculture generally. I am interested in research in this matter. Will there be direct consultation with the Agricultural Research Council and the D.S.I.R.? This is referred to in the Runciman Committee Report. Will direct consultation be the responsibility of the Council? This is important, because we do not want too much duplication in horticultural research.
  One of the problems of our main scientific programme is that there is still too much duplication, and, frankly, the country cannot afford it. I want priorities to be decided in horticultural research. I would hope that the Council would consult with the Agricultural Research Council and the D.S.I.R. I know that this has happened in the past. I once had the privilege of seeing the fruit research station at East Mailing, and there are other horticultural research institutions which have a national reputation. This new Council which will be responsible for research must co-operate with the other larger bodies to avoid duplication of effort and, above all, to see that the interests of horticulture are not neglected.
  I come to another matter. Will the Council be responsible for general advisory policy? Will it also be responsible for specialists? Will there be a link-up with the National Agricultural Advisory Service or will that Service still be the main body? I know that this is important in horticulture. I would remind the Minister that the Wilson Committee of 1956, in paragraph 190 dealing with horticulture specialists, recommended that the regional horticultural staffs should be reduced. I think that was a mistake. There was, however, a proviso in the Report that there should be a corresponding accession to the strength of the counties. I hope that I may have an answer this evening that in no way will the work of the Advisory

  1457
  Service and the work of these people who are responsible for the training and teaching of our specialists be impaired.
  I know that this is an important issue. It is a matter which we shall debate one day in the House when we discuss the De La Warr Report on Further Education for Agriculture. Many hon. Members know that already in our schools horticulture is a very important subject. If we look at the last report on education for 1958, we find that many students who sat for the General Certificate of Education in the summer of 1958 took special courses and obtained certificates in horticulture. I know that this work is done in our schools, that much of it is also done in colleges of further education, and that it is now mainly the responsibility of the Minister of Education, but will there be a direct link on this matter with the new Council? Training is important and it is something which we should not neglect. On the question of grants, I have sympathy with the point of view which was raised by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton). We wish to see the small producer benefit. There is, however, a danger in any grant formula that the people who will benefit are the larger producers. That is true in horticulture. It is certainly the view of the N.F.U.—not that we must necessarily accept its advice—but there is no doubt that ths body, which represents many of the producers, takes this view. We have seriously to consider whether there should not be a differential. I am not myself certain about it, but I think that we should consider it. When we come to discuss the Bill in more detail in Committee, it will be a matter which we can examine more closely.
  I know the difficulties of the Ministry. We are going to give lots of money, based on the farm improvements scheme principle, and give grants to those who wish to have them, but for the small producer, even if the grant is available, there are difficulties. He has not the credit facilities. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North, stressed not only the importance of marketing but also in the matter of financial assistance the need for a proper credit policy. This point has been raised
  1458
  by the Economist, which on 14th November asked whether this was a form of danegeld and whether the grant would be too thinly spread. The Economist went on to say:
  "The wisest course would have been to gear the new subsidy closely to co-operative efforts for improved grading and standardisation of produce."
  It went on to make another general argument.
  There is another point of view one can consider in relation to financial aid. Should it be geared to a specific purpose whereby producers who combine in more co-operatives would have increased assistance? I do not necessarily accept the views of the Economist. All I am saying is that the matter must be considered carefully and that perhaps we can have that re-examination.
  We welcome the Bill. We have made no specific party point this evening and, unlike some hon. Members opposite, we have not been doctrinaire. We have examined the Bill objectively and impartially. My party, for which I have the honour to speak this evening, has a good record in agricultural marketing over a long period of years. No one will deny that. Even with the minority Labour Government we had people like Lord Addison.
  We also have a good record of legislation on this subject. I do not want to go into details, but our policy was continued by hon. Gentlemen opposite who have followed what we set out to achieve in the post-war world. During our five-year term of office it is true we did not introduce any major Measure dealing with horticulture, but we feel that our approach in opposition has been the right one. Today, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North spoke very ably about better marketing and the importance of its structure in the provinces. Our approach has been constructive.
  Many of my hon. Friends have put forward specific constructive suggestions. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not be doctrinaire in his reply. I will forgive him if he indulges in a little party propaganda now and then, but he ought to answer the main barrage of criticism which has come from his hon. Friends. That is where we are now seeing the split in the party opposite, the

  1459
  split between those who believe in the interests of agriculture and those who wish to follow a trade policy in the interests of industry, a policy which in the end could harm basic agriculture.
  I believe that that policy is still being argued out at high Cabinet level—the Minister knows it—in view of the trade negotiations which are now going on. Is it to be the pattern of pigs and fish? Are we to see in horticulture the pattern which has been pursued already, a pattern which has resulted in our producers being harmed by cheaper food imports at their expense? My party resists that approach, and we are pleased to make our case again this evening. I hope that the Minister will concentrate on his hon. Friends who have criticised the main Government policy on this issue. We accept the Bill. We will seek to improve it in Committee, and we give it our welcome.
  9.20 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): We have had a very full, and, on the whole, a very helpful debate. It has ranged over quite a number of items not contained in the Bill, as well as those that are in it, and I think that that is readily understandable because of the wide range of problems affecting the horticultural industry at this time. I will deal with as many points as I can, but I want, first, to refer to the most interesting maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot).
  I am sure that we all listened with the keenest interest to what my hon. Friend had to say, particularly because of the realism that he brought to bear and his obvious knowledge of his subject. He spoke somewhat movingly of his experience in Dayton, Ohio, where he learnt quite a lot about supermarkets. I am very glad that he returned from Dayton in time to deal with the Opposition, who, I am sure, wish that he had never come back in October of this year. We, for our part, are very glad to welcome him to our debates.
  Mr. Peart: I hope that the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot) will forgive me. It was no discourtesy on my part, but I was so concerned with making my own speech on agriculture
  1460
  that I forgot to compliment him on his speech. I would like to add to what has been said, because I believe that the hon. Member was born in the same town as I was, in County Durham.
  Mr. Willey: You will be able to pair.
  Mr. Peart: Oh, no. The hon. Member made an excellent speech to which we all listened with great attention, and I would like to add my congratulations to those that have already been offered to him.
  Mr. Godber: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that tribute to my hon. Friend. I shall study most carefully the valuable points that my hon. Friend put forward and I am sure that we shall look forward to his future contributions to our debates.
  I was particularly impressed with his statement that selling was more important than producing. I feel sure that from the point of view from which he put it forward there was a great deal in what he said.
  I congratulate, also, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart). I am sure that all hon. Members who take part in our agricultural debates were very glad to see him at the Opposition Dispatch Box. For a long time we have known of his great interest in this subject, and his speech tonight was one that we all enjoyed. If he is able to continue making bricks without straw in the way that he was doing towards the end of his speech, when he was explaining to us so beautifully and lucidly why his party did nothing at all for horticulture in the years after the war, I think that he has a long way to go. I congratulate him warmly.
  What the hon. Gentleman was too bashful to mention was that his party produced the Lucas Report, which infuriated horticulturists more than anything else. I think that was his party's contribution to horticulture in the postwar period. Apart from that, I congratulate him and perhaps I may now deal with some of the points that he raised.
  The hon. Member asked me specifically about the Horticultural Marketing Council. I was glad to have his comment that he felt that the number we were proposing to have on the Council was more realistic than that proposed

  1461
  by the Runciman Committee. I was very glad to hear that, but the hon. Member asked also whether hon. Members would be able to ask Questions in the House about the activities of the Council. That is a matter for Mr. Speaker, not myself, and I cannot give a ruling on that.
  The hon. Member also asked me how far the Council would be responsible for research, and things like the National Agricultural Advisory Service. If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman has expanded a little bit too much on the duties of the Council. The Council will not go into those functions. It will be concerned solely with the problem of marketing and will not impinge in any way on the activities of the N.A.A.S. It will be able to make representations to the Agricultural Research Council and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.
  Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of paragraph 417 of the Runciman Report, which deals with this precise point that I raised.
  Mr. Godber: On this point I was going more on the Bill rather than on the Runciman Committee's Report.
  Mr. Peart: I accept that, but it was always thought that any Council, such as is envisaged by the Bill, would deal with the matters mentioned by the Runciman Report. I am not saying that the Council should follow the Report.
  Mr. Godber: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his explanation. I am trying to indicate the intention of the Government in the Bill, which is not to go so far as was suggested in the Runciman Report.
  Tonight, I am full of congratulations. I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) on his election to the "Shadow Cabinet"—a shadow among shadows, if I may put it in that way. We wish the hon. Member well in his onerous duties. We regard with sympathy the fact that he has to make do without having at his back a large contingent of hon. Members with a clear knowledge of agriculture. But we know that he will battle on manfully, as he has always done in the past, so we wish him well.
  1462
  I was a little amused when the hon. Member for Sunderland, North told us that he was somewhat critical about the Bill in welcoming it. It seemed to me rather an odd way to welcome the Bill, but I gather that he welcomes it in principle, and we are grateful for that. In the main, all hon. Members who spoke welcomed the Bill, with one exception, to whom I will refer later. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North was good enough to welcome the Bill, even though his was a grudging welcome, and we appreciate it.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me particularly about the ability of the National Agricultural Advisory Service to cope with the additional duties which we are putting upon it. We have given thought to this matter. We realise that there will be a considerable amount of extra work for the advisory staff who will be involved, and that, inevitably, this will mean that there will be some reduction in the time which they can devote to other advisory activities. But the new grants may make it possible for some growers to act on the advice they are already receiving which they could not do previously because they could not afford to follow that advice, and, as a result, the opportunities provided by the new scheme for people in the industry, and for the advisory staff, will be enhanced rather than reduced.
  May I remind the House that the advisory officers who will be working under the new scheme will be horticultural officers who have not been involved in the administration of the Small Farmer Scheme, the Farm Improvement Scheme, or anything of that sort, so that we feel they will be able to cope with the problems which will arise. Obviously, we shall have to see how we go, but we feel confident that they should be able to manage. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North asked about numbers. The total number of officers in the N.A.A.S. at present is about 1,500, of whom about 150 are in the horticulture section and will be dealing with this scheme.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) gave figures regarding the N.A.A.S. and questioned whether we should be able to deal with this matter. I think that some of the figures which he gave were not

  1463
  relevant to the argument. The figures he gave in relation to the Small Farmer Scheme had no bearing at all. I assure him that in the eastern region, as elsewhere, our advisory officers are doing a first-class job and keeping up-to-date with the work, and I think that the way the scheme has gone forward is remarkable. If anyone quotes that scheme as a precedent he should quote it in aid of this scheme and as one more reason why we should be confident that the horticultural officers can do as well. I am sorry that my hon. and gallant Friend found it necessary to express doubt.
  Major Legge-Bourke: I hope my hon. Friend did not take, and that the House did not take, my remarks to mean that I wished in any way to cast a reflection on the efficiency, the ability, or sound purposes of the National Agricultural Advisory Service. All I was saying was that it was overstrained by the burden put upon it by the Government.
  Mr. Godber: I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will take note of what I have said, which shows that his remarks in relation to the Small Farmer Scheme did not reinforce the argument that he apparently says he was seeking to advance; but we shall leave it at that.
  Running throughout the whole debate, started, I think, by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, we have had comment on the question of tariffs. That, I think, is natural. Although it does not arise in the Bill, it is perfectly fair to bring it forward because this is something very much in the minds of all who are concerned with horticulture today. On this subject, I must repeat that this scheme does not replace the Government's policy of using the tariff as the main instrument for supporting horticulture. My right hon. Friend said that this afternoon and I repeat it now. This is a supplementary means of support.
  It is not out of place, in this context, for me to remind the House of the picture in relation to tariffs, because I think that it sometimes gets a little out of perspective. It is not out of place for me to remind the House that in 1953 and 1954 the Government increased the tariff over the whole range of horticulture. Tariff increases were made which roughly doubled tariff levels compared with pre-war. In addition, the tariff on
  1464
  cut flowers was again increased by about 50 per cent. early this year. The most common form of horticultural tariff is a specific tariff, during the home marketing season.
  The advantage of this specific tariff is that if market prices fall the rate of incidence of the tariff increases. I consider that this provides a very real measure of protection, and gives it in such a way as to take account of the interests of the consumer. I really cannot help feeling that hon. Members too easily forget the very great measure of protection which is provided by our existing level of tariff. During the last few years, for example, the tariff on tomatoes has averaged over 30 per cent. during the critical month of July, when a considerable proportion of the home crop is harvested, and it has been substantially higher in the month of August.
  To take tomatoes as an example, in August this year imports almost completely dried up; the tariff prevented them coming in. I know that prices were low, but the fact remains that the tariff is effective in these conditions. I want to make it quite clear that the scheme before the House is designed to answer problems which could not be dealt with by any tariff at any level. As has been made clear in the debate, there is room for improvement in the time of marketing and in the grading and packing of products. Unless that improvement is brought about, the home grower will not be able to benefit to the extent which he should from the skill of his growing.
  I ask hon. Members to take account of the present position of tariffs. Although I know that there was disappointment when certain tariff applications were rejected at the beginning of this year, a very large number of tariffs were raised to their present levels in 1953 and 1954, to which modifications have since been made.
  To return to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, he asked at one stage why we chose £7½ million as the amount for this grant. I am sure he will realise that we are entering some uncharted country here. We had to make an estimate, the best estimate we could, of what would be required to deal with these matters over the next five years. If it turns out in the event that

  1465
  our estimate has been incorrect, it will be possible to come back to the House. We felt this was a fair figure and one which was not unrealistic. It amounts to an average of £1½ million a year and compares with £5 million in the farm improvement scheme and is fairly well in balance. We shall have to see how we get along with that.
  The hon. Member also made some play with his booklet, "Prosper the Plough" He congratulated my right hon. Friend on having troubled to read it. He should congratulate more people on having troubled to do so. Not only did the Minister read it, but it seems clear, from the result of the General Election in rural constituencies, that every farmer read it, too, and knew what to think of it. I assure the hon. Member that any time the Labour Party wish to bring out pamphlets of that sort we will gladly help to distribute them.
  Mr. Hilton: That certainly does not apply in South-West and North Norfolk.
  Mr. Godber: I hope that the hon. Member will take encouragement from the figures in South-West Norfolk, but I will not go further than that. I should not have thought that they were a great encouragement to him. Perhaps I should leave this slightly controversial point, although, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North was proud of his booklet, I thought it only right to refer to it.
  I am sure that everyone welcomed back my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard). We were glad to hear him speak again. He made a very helpful and constructive speech, and, clearly, he has not lost the picturesque phrases which we have heard from him in the past. He asked me about the import of strawberry pulp from Bulgaria, in particular, and, while it has no great connection with the Bill, I am glad to give him an answer. I know that the imports of Bulgarian pulp increased this year, but the total imports of strawberry pulp were lower this year compared with the two previous years. The total imports were about 6,500 tons, compared with 6,500 to 7,000 tons in each of the two previous years. The imports of Bulgarian pulp rose from 600 tons to 2,500 tons, while there was a drop in the exports of other countries
  1466
  to us. It therefore appears that Bulgarian pulp was imported at the expense of other countries rather than at the expense of our own growers.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) asked me about the Horticultural Marketing Council and whether the Council would have powers to give advice in relation to provincial markets. Clause 10 gives the Council power to advise on the lay-out of markets and their facilities and to encourage improvement, and we envisage market authorities applying to the Horticultural Marketing Council for advice when they are thinking of rebuilding or developing their markets. The Association of Market Authorities has said that it would welcome a central clearing house for information on these matters, and I think that the Council can provide a valuable service in that way. While I understand the point which the hon. Member made about Sheffield market, which I know personally, we were glad to hear that Sheffield is thinking of going ahead, as my right hon. Friend indicated earlier, in the rebuilding of its market.
  The hon. Member asked me whether the Council would have authority under Clause 10 to advise on standards. The Council will have no compulsory powers. It is an advisory body and there is no intention that it should have any compulsory powers. The hon. Member raised this point in relation to standards of grading, for example, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent) was right when he said that, to him, the real power is the compulsion of the market. My hon. Friend was quite right to say that if we have these higher standards and some growers packing to them, others will be forced by circumstances to do the same. That is the most compelling argument.
  We are very glad to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford back to our agricultural debates. It seems rather the wrong way round, however; the last time he took part in these debates he was in my position and I was on the back bench. It is just a change of circumstances. I am sure that we appreciate his very constructive speech.
  At one stage my hon. Friend asked me about the financing of the Horticultural Marketing Council. The limit of Government finance is clearly laid down in

  1467
  the Bill. My hon. friend indicated that he felt that we should be prepared to make it go on for a longer period. In paragraph 19 of the White Paper, we made it clear that it was the Government's view that the Horticultural Marketing Council should be financed by the industry itself after the first two years.
  My hon. Friend quoted paragraph 439 of the Runciman Report. He should also consider paragraph 428 and 429. Paragraph 428 says:
  "We consider that, if practicable, the Council should be financed by the industry itself. People value more highly a service for which they work and pay than one which is provided for them. If members of the industry were themselves to find the money it is likely that they would be more concerned to see that it was well spent than if it were to be provided from public funds, and for that reason would take a more active interest in the activities of the Council."
  Having given very careful thought to this, we feel that providing this initial finance for the first two years is as far as we should go.
  My hon. Friend raised an interesting point about compelling growers in cooperatives to send their products in. He made the comparison with the Land Settlement Association. I am somewhat loath to think in terms of compelling them, but we have noted the interesting point and will examine it to see whether there is anything practical in it.
  I was glad that my hon. Friend welcomed Clauses 15 and 16, which, as he knows better than any of us, help to meet a very great need. The other hon. Members who welcomed them on behalf of the N.F.U. were absolutely right. We are glad to have had this opportunity of including the provision in the Bill. I hope that full use will be made of it.
  The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) raised one or two points which were perhaps more suitable to the Committee stage, and I will leave them until then. However, he made one rather different point with which I will deal. He claimed that part-time horticulturists should be helped. The same arguments applied when we were considering the Small Farmer Scheme. It would be wrong for us to fritter away public money—I use those words advisedly—on part-time units, it must be for units which are or
  1468
  can be made viable. We must stand by that principle here, just as we did in relation to the Small Farmer Scheme.
  I felt that the speech made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely was a little out of tune with the rest of the debate, if he will forgive me for saying so. Perhaps he takes that as a compliment. He was the only hon. Member who said that he did not want the Bill and did not like the White Paper either. As one who has been closely associated wtih the horticultural industry, I say to him quite genuinely that I do not think it helps the horticultural industry to overstate one's case. I felt that my hon. and gallant Friend did just that on this occasion, as indeed he did on the last occasion when we debated horticulture.
  My hon. and gallant Friend said again today that at certain seasons even the best produce cannot be sold and that the Bill would exacerbate the position; it would encourage more higher quality produce. If it encourages more higher quality produce it will lessen the amount of lower quality produce. There will be a higher proportion of higher quality produce. Anyone who understands this matter knows that what depresses the market is the high quantity of low quality produce. That is the trouble.
  This Bill, I am quite sure, will go a long way towards reducing the quantity of low-quality produce, and will, at the same time, provide facilities for the temporary storage of other produce which will keep it off the market and so lengthen the marketing season. Therefore, even accepting my hon. and gallant Friend's argument, which I felt difficult to do at times, this Bill can do valuable things and does provide valuable help.
  Again, my hon. and gallant Friend used the word "charity" in relation to Part I of the Bill. That, I must reject absolutely. This is exactly on all fours with the Small Farmer Scheme and the Farm Improvement Scheme, and I do not regard these as charity at all. These are things that the Government are entitled to provide, and the industry to accept as something useful in promoting the efficiency of the industry, and we should not in any way refer to it as charity.

  1469
  My hon. and gallant Friend dealt particularly with tomatoes. I would not deny for one moment that in the last two seasons the growers have had a difficult time, but, of course, conditions have been unusual. In particular, the very fine weather this season—the dry summer—meant that we had a very large quantity of Channel Island tomatoes arriving in late July and early August, which certainly upset the market far more than did any imports from other sources. It was not the Dutch tomatoes that broke the market then. In the previous summer, we had the problem of very poor weather and poor quality fruit produced at home.
  I do not pretend that the tomato industry is having an easy time, but I do not think it helps to over-state the case. The Bill provides possibilities for tomato growers to cut some of their costs and to achieve that higher, more uniform standard of produce that will be so helpful in marketing. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) has already mentioned that one large group of chain stores now buys all its tomatoes from Holland, because it cannot get enough home-grown of uniform pack. That is true, and if the Bill helps to get back the order of that large firm it must benefit the tomato market.
  Other hon. Members have put forward a number of points, and I am sure that they will forgive me if I do not go into each in detail. I would, however, like to touch on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew). He asked me a very interesting question about herbs grown in his constituency for processing. I must admit at once that I have not a clue as to what the answer is, but I should like to look at this between now and the Committee stage. It was a very tricky question to ask me.
  My hon. Friend also asked about something else with which I have great sympathy. I know that his growers of Brussels sprouts have had a very difficult time, but I find it difficult to see what can be done to help them. After all, growers have to accept the risks of the weather—that has always been inherent in agriculture and horticulture—and I am afraid that I can hold out no great hopes to him. Of course, if he wished to bring a deputation of his growers to see
  1470
  me, I would be only too glad to discuss the subject and see just what the problem is. However, I must warn my hon. Friend and the House that I know of no way in which my right hon. Friend or I could do anything in particular to help.
  This is one of the risks that horticulturists have, and I think that those representing consumers in the House should recognise, when we hear talk of high prices that sometimes, when there are high prices the growers are still getting a very poor return indeed. It is as well that that should be remembered.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) asked about the minimum for any application under the scheme. The minimum is £100 for any scheme, or for any group of schemes put forward at the same time by a grower. If they reach £100, the minimum grant would be £33 6s. 8d., I suppose—to be precise—which. I think, answers his question.
  I have sought to deal with as many points as possible. Many other points of detail have been raised which, I am sure, we shall all be glad to return to when we reach the Committee stage. We shall value the advice of hon. Members on them.
  I cannot close without saying that I think that the debate has been a notable one for the horticultural industry, in that this is, as I think my right hon. Friend said earlier, the first occasion-certainly it is since I have been in the House of Commons—that we have spent a whole day discussing the problems of horticulture. This is definitely the first occasion for very many years on which we have had a Bill designed solely for horticulture. This is an indication of the importance that the Government attach to horticulture. Undoubtedly, the provisions of the Bill provide important opportunities in marketing and cooperation which I am confident our growers will not be slow to grasp.
  The Horticultural Marketing Council, I believe, will have real opportunities to develop close liaison between the three sections of the industry and to provide the most up to date information about marketing trends and prospects. These are the opportunities which the Bill offers. Some hon. Members today have spoken about very much wider issues. I quite understand that, but, within the

  1471
  terms on which the Bill is brought forward, I believe that it can provide a very real help and step forward for our horticulture industry, and it is in that spirit and with that thought that I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

  HORTICULTURE [MONEY]
  [Queen's Recommendation signified.]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).
  [Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for assisting the production and marketing of horticultural produce, it is expedient to authorise—
  A. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of grants in respect of expenditure incurred—

  (a) in providing buildings, plant, equipment and other facilities for the purposes of a business of growing produce in the United Kingdom;

  (b) in providing such facilities for the purposes of a business comprising the storage, preparation for market or marketing of produce grown in the United Kingdom where the business is carried on by a cooperative association and the produce is grown by its members or the business is carried on by the Land Settlement Association and the produce is grown by the occupiers of land under the Association's management;

  (c) in furthering the setting up and carrying on of businesses falling within the foregoing sub-paragraph;

  up to a limit of eight million two hundred and fifty thousand pounds in all and of contributions not exceeding two hundred and fifty thousand pounds to a Council established by the Act, and of the administrative expenses of any Minister under the Act.
  B. The payment into the Exchequer of the receipts of any Minister under the said Act of the present Session.—[Mr. Godber.]
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

  BETTING AND GAMING [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law with respect to betting and gaming, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment.
  Resolution agreed to.

  PUBLIC PETITIONS
  Select Committee appointed to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as are deposited in the Private Bill Office, such Committee to classify and prepare abstracts of the same in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and to report the same from time to time to the House; Reports of the Committee to set forth, in respect of each Petition, the number of signatures which are accompanied by addresses, and which are written on sheets, headed in every case by the prayer of the Petition, or on the back of such sheets provided that on every sheet after the first the prayer may be reproduced in print or by other mechanical process; such Committee to have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions, as shall appear to require it:
  Mr. John Barter, Lieutenant-Colonel Bromley-Davenport, Mr. Deer, Sir William Duthie, Mr. David Griffiths, Mr. Hector Hughes, Mr. J. C. Jennings, Dr. King, Mr. Lagden, Colonel Lancaster, Major Legge-Bourke, Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, Mr. John Morrison, Mr. Pargiter, and Mr. Watkins:
  Power to send for persons, papers, and records:
  Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Legh.]

  FRENCH ATOMIC TESTS, SAHARA
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]
  9.55 p.m.
  Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: On 10th November, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and I put Questions to the Prime Minister about the projected nuclear test by the French Government in the Sahara. The exchange of opinion between Members on both sides, including members of both Front Benches, occupies three columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT for that day. On the following day, and a week later, on 18th November, Questions were put to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. In view of the interest shown in those exchanges, I make no apology for raising this matter on the Adjournment tonight, particularly as I said at the end of Questions on 10th November that I would seek to do so.
  During the exchanges, three distinct issues were raised. The first was the effect of the projected French test on the hopes that tests would be suspended throughout the world. Some of us from the very beginning urged that France should have been drawn into the Geneva talks. She indicated that she proposed to proceed with tests, and it seemed to us desirable, particularly from the point of view of the prestige of France, that from the very beginning she should participate in these discussions; because unless there is agreement with France, there can be no suspension of tests in the world.
  On 10th November, General de Gaulle indicated that France would be prepared to accept the decision of the Geneva Conference for the suspension of tests only if Britain, the Soviet Union and the United States of America agreed to the destruction of all their nuclear stocks. It would be most admirable if they would do so, but I am afraid that it is very unlikely that that desirable end will be brought about. It is, therefore, likely, whatever decisions may be reached at Geneva, that France will go on with her tests. If she goes on with her tests,
  1474
  undoubtedly other countries will seek to produce nuclear weapons as well. We are already aware that there are 12 countries which, within a decade, could produce atomic and hydrogen bombs. It is impossible to believe, whatever decisions are reached at Geneva, that the Governments of the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and the United States of America would suspend their tests if other countries maintain them.
  During the exchange of opinion on the three days that Questions were put, it was strongly urged from this side of the House that the Government of the United Kingdom should make representations to France to agree not to proceed with this projected test. We had an acknowledgment from the Government that no pressure had been exerted upon France to that end. All that the Government were prepared to say was that they hoped—and they expressed it in the terms of their resolution at the United Nations—that France would be prepared to accept a decision reached at Geneva.
  The second issue involved in the Sahara test concerns the danger to health among the surrounding peoples. Upon that matter, the Prime Minister, in reply to me, said:
  "The Federal Prime Minister, Alhaji Abubakar, and three of his colleagues came to England in September to explain to me Nigerian anxieties about the proposed tests."
  It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]
  Mr. Brockway:
  "I hope that the information I was able to give them, together with what they heard and saw on a visit to Harwell and the arrangements we are making to help monitor radioactivity in Nigeria, will have helped to allay some of these anxieties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1959; Vol. 613, c. 201.]
  Some of their anxieties were allayed by their visit and by their conversations here. Nevertheless, scientists differ about the effects of these tests.
  There is some suggestion this week that the test will not be a subterranean test. I should like to hear from the representative of the Government whether he has any information upon

  1475
  that matter. Even if it is a subterranean test, there are scientists who hold that the thin dust of the Sahara sand could well be carried by the prevailing winds to the countries of West Africa. In addition, underground tests in the Sahara may well affect the water which flows below the desert and which reaches the surface sometimes many hundreds of miles away. Therefore, we would be a little uncertain if we accepted the view of some scientists and rejected the view of other scientists on this matter. It would be a courageous scientist who said that there was absolutely no danger in these tests.
  The third issue which arises is the attitude of the African peoples and the African Governments. They take the view that they are not responsible for the thrusting upon the world of this instrument of human annihilation. They take the view that they are not responsible for the division of the world into the two great Power blocs which are now arming against each other, including nuclear weapons. They say that, as they have no responsibility for this disastrous development of science in the world, their continent at least should be kept free from the results of this destructive competition. It is a little ironical that Europe, which boasts of its civilisation, should be taking to the African Continent this contribution of nuclear destruction in this day and age.
  There is no doubt about the attitude of the African peoples. The nine independent Governments of Africa—all the Governments except the Union of South Africa—have condemned this proposal to have a nuclear test upon African soil. In addition, there has been a conference, which met first at Accra and afterwards at Tunis, representing the major national democratic movements throughout that continent. That conference, representing the peoples' movements in North, Central, West, East and South Africa, unanimously protested against these nuclear tests invading their continent.
  A few days ago I was at Accra, in Ghana, where I met two young Englishmen, a young Frenchwoman, a young American, Ghanaians and others who are proposing to go to the Sahara Desert and, by their presence, protest against
  1476
  this bomb. In this country they are isolated people and most of the public would regard them as fanatics. When they reach Africa they are heroes, they are of the people, they are no longer isolated individuals. My experience indicated how strong is the feeling in West Africa.
  It is stated that the African Governments belonging to the French community do not accept the view of other African peoples and Governments. The dicision was taken at a conference of the French community at Madagascar. My information from those who were present is that the decision was a very incidental part of the discussions. We have seen, since that decision in Madagascar, how the Mali Federation, one of the most prominent members of the French community, representing the French Sudan as well as Mali itself, has expressed opposition to this nuclear test and how, in all these French communities, the peoples are showing their opposition to the attitude expressed by their leaders on that occasion.
  In addition, we have to face the fact that the Arab people in Morocco, Tunis, Libya and Egypt, the Arab peoples of Algeria, so far as they can express themselves, and of the Sahara and the Sudan have all displayed their intense opposition to this proposal that nuclear weapons should be tested upon their land.
  My appeal to the House and to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is to understand the significance of this issue. In this century the relationship between the peoples of Africa and the peoples of Europe will be one of the decisive issues in whether we pass forward to a co-operative and a harmonious world. It is irony that this country, Europe and France, should have any responsibility today for a contribution to Africa which is not education, which is not civilisation, which is not culture, which is not to develop African lives to higher standards of achievement, but a contribution of death and destruction.
  I hope that, as a result of this appeal, the Government will be prepared to exercise all their influence upon the Government of France to withdraw this proposal that this test should be made upon African soil.
  10.9 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Smithers: The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), in his opening remarks, pointed out that there were 12 countries which might be in a position to manufacture nuclear weapons for themselves and, if necessary, to explode them. I think that that is to put an alarmist countenance upon the whole scene. It may be that, theoretically, there are 12 countries which could do just that, but I do not believe for one moment that there are 12 countries which would be willing to devote a vast amount of their resources to that unproductive purpose.
  I do not admit that any hon. Member of this House goes beyond me in my desire to see a cessation of tests, to see nuclear disarmament and, indeed, general disarmament. The fact is, however, that we are here dealing with two bodies of opinion which we cannot control, which we can only influence. One of those is African opinion and the other is French opinion.
  I cannot believe that speeches such as that made by the hon. Gentleman in this House tonight are of a character likely to encourage the French to accept our point of view. All experience is that in circumstances of this kind attacks on the policy of another State on what it regards as its own internal affairs, however much the affairs may impinge on those of others, have precisely the opposite effect of what the hon. Gentleman would desire. Therefore, I think his speech tonight in that respect is probably damaging to the cause he seeks to support.
  As regards African opinion, I was pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman begin his speech by saying that he thought many of the fears of Nigerians in this matter were groundless.
  Mr. Brockway: I did not say they were groundless; I said that they had been allayed somewhat, but I went on to say that scientists differ on this matter.
  Mr. Smithers: That is precisely the point I was coming to. I also have read the pronouncements of the scientists on the subject, and he would be a rash man, and, I would say, an irresponsible man, who led Nigerians to believe that there was any substantial danger to them from this source. Therefore, I say that in
  1478
  respect of that other body of opinion which we are in a position to influence, the speech of the hon. Gentleman will also have had a damaging rather than a reassuring effect.
  I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that these matters are best left to the wisdom and judgment of those who have training in diplomacy, who are much better able to handle these matters by confidential and private discussion, rather than by public debate of this kind, and I must say that I deplore his speech in the House tonight.
  10.12 p.m.
  Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway). I am rather disturbed at the comments of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Winchester (Mr. Smithers), because he seems to be complacent about the possibility of other countries following the change that is occurring on France coming into the list of Powers testing nuclear weapons. I am also disturbed that he should think our relationship with France may be disturbed when we express an honest and clear and neutral opinion on something which has such a profound effect upon everybody in this country, in France, and, indeed, throughout the rest of the world.
  I have listened with great care to the Minister on the Front Bench opposite answering probing questions on this subject during the last two or three weeks, and I am extremely disturbed that there has not been some initiative from this country to show that we are at least prepared to act as a good neighbour of France on this matter In trying to allay the fear of ordinary people here and throughout the world, one of the main excuses that has been given is the rather old one. In fact, it is nearly as old as the joke in Punch about the curate's egg being good in parts, namely, that the bomb is only a little one, rather like the housemaid's mistake. The constant reiteration that it is quite safe does not relieve the great uncertainty about scientific opinion on these matters throughout the world.
  In recent years I have sat on a number of committees concerned with radiation hazards and it has amazed me that after half a century of the use of X-rays we

  1479
  find, in 1959, a fresh body of knowledge coming to light; so much so that fresh methods of using radiation in hospitals and in factories are being put forward.
  In today's issue of The Guardian there is a statement about fall-out particles having a new genetic effect upon cells. It seems to me, therefore, that at this time anything which will stop further tests is all to the good. It is a thing to which the Government Front Bench are committed, and it is not being hindered by the constant pressure being put on the Government, particularly by hon. Members on this side of the House.
  I am very concerned that the echo of the explosion in the Sahara will be heard in such places as China. China is one of the great emerging countries. She has 600 million people. If she is bombed with an atomic bomb she can afford to lose 500 million people—and she has not yet nearly started industrially. I can assure hon. Members that China has the financial resources to do this and can follow the lead given by European countries.
  I appeal for a return to the moral values for which France is famous. She is famous for what she has given to civilisation in things other than power prestige. We would do a great service by asking her that now she has achieved possession of the weapon she should say, "In the name of humanity we will hold back and refuse to exert this power in the hope that we shall help the great Powers who are trying to reach agreement at Geneva on disarmament and ridding the world of these abominable weapons."
  10.17 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Robert Allan): The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) spoke with emotion about the feelings of the people of West Africa. I assure him and the House that we have taken the anxieties expressed, particularly by the West African Territories for which we are responsible, very seriously indeed.
  When the Nigerian delegation, led by its Prime Minister, came to this country, it met and had discussions with the Secretary of State for the Colonies and our Prime Minister. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was so impressed by the anxiety expressed by the
  1480
  members of the delegation that he arranged for them to have frank and full discussions with Sir William Penney and other leading experts on the question of the fall-out from explosions.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State said to the United Nations last week:
  "I should like to make it very clear that we in Britain fully recognise the sincerity and corncern of the peoples and Governments in Africa."
  Ministers, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, and officials have taken steps to ensure that the French were aware of the feelings of the West African Territories for which we are responsible. They were given a full account of the discussions which took place during the visit of the Nigerian Prime Minister here. They were also given the reports of the debates in the Nigerian Parliament on this subject.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned three issues. I think they can be combined under two headings: first, the question of testing atomic weapons at all, and, secondly, the question of testing them in Africa. As my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out in Questions yesterday the Moroccan objection was not to tests but to tests in Africa, and since much of the discussion is based on the Moroccan initiative in the United Nations, it is that aspect of it which I should like to discuss first tonight.
  It is very important to remember that the French test is to be of an atomic and not a hydrogen weapon. The hon. Gentleman kept on talking about a nuclear explosion. It is not a thermonuclear explosion at all. Although the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) indicated that the size did not matter, it does matter terribly from the point of view of fall-out. It is quite wrong to think of the possible effects of this test as in any way being related to the thermo-nuclear explosions, or, at any rate, the particular one which took place in the Pacific.
  The French delegate to the United Nations has said that the yield of the French test will be less than one-thousandth part of the total yield already produced by the nuclear tests made by other countries. I know that what I am about to say covers old ground, but it

  1481
  is terribly important to remind the House and those who are interested of the different types of radiation to which man is subjected.
  The hon. Gentleman said, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Smithers), that scientists differ. They do to a certain extent, but they do not differ on the figures I am about to give, or at least there is very general agreement. Man is subjected first of all to cosmic rays, which vary with the position the individual is in on this earth. These rays give an annual dose of about 28 units at sea level and rise to 42 units at a height of 5,000 ft. Man is also subjected to radiation from the earth and from his body. This, too, varies greatly—as much as ten times from place to place. Its average intensity—and I am talking in terms of averages so that I cannot be considered extravagant—is about 70 units a year.
  Then there is the man-made radiation—X-ray and so on. In the United States, the average dose from this has been estimated to be more than 100 units a year. The dose which I get from the watch which I am now wearing is about one unit per year. Over and above these natural and man-made radiations, there is the additional radiation resulting from nuclear explosions. It has been calculated that those carried out between 1945 and the beginning of 1958 will result in an addition of about two units to the genetically significant dose on the average over thirty years. I repeat these figures: 100 units from natural radiation; anything up to 100 units from man-made radiation; plus two units from nuclear tests.
  Against this total the French test is likely to add one two-thousandth part of one unit to the general level of radiation. This, I am told, is about the same as the increase in cosmic radiation to which the hon. Gentleman himself would be subjected were he to move one step up and be on the bench behind him. On the same lines, I am told that the increase in radiation resulting from all the tests up to the beginning of 1958 is not more than the hon. Gentleman would get by leaving Slough and spending six days in a granite district. I think that Slough is probably limestone or clay; granite has that very much greater radiation.
  I give the House this rather graphic comparison, not with any intention of
  1482
  treating this matter with levity, but to seek to put it in a different perspective. It cannot be reasonably maintained that this test will create a general health hazard.
  Mr. Brockway: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is not only a matter of the danger to health. The opposition of the African people is to the fact that this test should be imposed upon their continent. That is the basis of their objections.
  Mr. Allan: It may be, but it was not the basis of the Moroccan resolution in the United Nations from which all this discussion has stemmed, because the Moroccan delegate himself said at the United Nations that he objected not to tests but to tests in Africa.
  I must admit that I have dealt only with the general health aspect, but for the African Territories the local effect is of prime importance. The main thing here is the remoteness of the French test site. It is more than 900 miles from the nearest dependent British territory. As M. Jules Moch pointed out, within 120 kilometres of the Russian and American test areas there are towns like Rabtsovsk and Las Vegas, with populations of 100,000. At a comparable distance from the French site, there is only one small oasis. Within 1,000 kilometres of the American and Russian sites, there are populations of 10 million in such centres as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Tomsk and Stalinsk. Within the radius of the French site, there is only one centre of population, and that has 19,000 inhabitants.
  Moreover, at the proposed site the prevalent winds throughout the year, except for a short period in summer, blow eastward over a region virtually uninhabited for hundreds of miles. It has been calculated that even if the wind were blowing towards Nigeria, and I have said that it will not be, the maximum additional dose of radioactivity that an individual would receive in the year after the explosion would be two units. As I have said, a wrist watch gives one unit.
  It was these facts and figures about the nature and the site of the proposed French test which, coupled with our own experience in these matters, enabled my right hon. Friend to make his statement

  1483
  in New York about the infinitesimal risk to health which the French test would involve. I have gone into this at some length, because it is of great importance that these facts and figures are given as much publicity as possible. They should go far to reassure those living in North and West Africa.
  I want briefly to turn to the other main question mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. The other day, in New York, my right hon. Friend outlined the efforts which we have made to secure a satisfactory agreement at Geneva for the ending of nuclear tests, under international control. He stressed the importance which we attach to that agreement, not only for itself, but even more as the first step down the road towards real disarmament under effective control. He reiterated our hope—and we still believe that it is the right policy—that when such an agreement is reached other countries, including France, will accede to it.
  That is why the resolution which we and the Italians tabled in the Political Committee not only requested France
  1484
  to take full account of the debate but expressed the hope that the French Government would associate themselves with the arrangement which might be worked out at Geneva. That is why our resolution is not only realistic but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary pointed out yesterday, constructive as well.
  I do not want to deny the sincerity or minimise the strength of the feelings which the proposed French test has aroused in certain parts of Africa. But what I most earnestly want to do is to dispel false fears and allay needless anxieties. If what I have said will help to achieve that, then this Adjournment debate, although perhaps not as satisfactory as the hon. Member would have had it, will at least have been worth while.
  The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

EDUCATION
  Public Libraries
  Public Libraries
  Burnham Committee
  Burnham Committee
  Anderson Committee (Report)
  Anderson Committee (Report)
  Community Centres
  Community Centres
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Bacon Pigs
  Bacon Pigs
  Tomatoes, Apples and Pears
  Tomatoes, Apples and Pears
  Agricultural Workers (Earnings)
  Agricultural Workers (Earnings)
  Norwegian Frozen Fish
  Norwegian Frozen Fish
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Estate Duty
  Estate Duty
  Bank Notes (New Series)
  Bank Notes (New Series)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Cotton Board
  Cotton Board
  Dorset
  Dorset
  Income Tax and Surtax
  Income Tax and Surtax
  Cod Liver Oil and Fish Oils
  Cod Liver Oil and Fish Oils
  Electric Cable Industry
  Electric Cable Industry
  Machine Tool Industry
  Machine Tool Industry
  Milk Bottles (Size)
  Milk Bottles (Size)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Approved Schools
  Approved Schools
  APPROVED SCHOOL POPULATION 31ST OCTOBER,1959
  APPROVED SCHOOL POPULATION 31ST OCTOBER,1959
  Summer Time
  Summer Time
  Probation Officers, London
  Probation Officers, London
  Stateless Scholar (Admission)
  Stateless Scholar (Admission)
  Remembrance Sunday (Programmes)
  Remembrance Sunday (Programmes)
  Racecourse Betting
  Racecourse Betting
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Mr. H. R. Sandford (Pension)
  Mr. H. R. Sandford (Pension)
  Commonwealth Education Conference
  Commonwealth Education Conference
  Commonwealth Weeks Exhibition
  Commonwealth Weeks Exhibition
HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES
  Immigrants (South Africa)
  Immigrants (South Africa)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  School, Louth (Mental Health Centre)
  School, Louth (Mental Health Centre)
  Food Hygiene (Poultry)
  Food Hygiene (Poultry)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Reception, Newcastle Area
  Reception, Newcastle Area
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Reading
  Reading
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Aircraft Accident, Anzio (Report)
  Aircraft Accident, Anzio (Report)
  JUDGES (APPOINTMENTS)
  JUDGES (APPOINTMENTS)
BAHAMAS
  Haiti Refugees
  Haiti Refugees
HOUSING
  Derequisitioning
  Derequisitioning
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Ty'n-y-Coed Hotel, Capel Curig
  Ty'n-y-Coed Hotel, Capel Curig
  CROWN ESTATE COMMISSIONERS (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  CROWN ESTATE COMMISSIONERS (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
SHIPPING
  Hull Docks
  Hull Docks
BRITISH ARMY
  Cairnryan Port
  Cairnryan Port

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

TOXIC SPRAYS
2.5 p.m.
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 whether they are aware that, following on the use of certain all-obliterating toxic crop sprays, there have been found dead hares, voles, blackbirds, thrushes, starlings, pheasants, dunnock, partridges, bees, spiders, ladybirds and beetles; and whether they will consider the advisability of prohibiting the use of any sprays with such indiscriminate death-dealing capabilities.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware that certain chemical sprays are poisonous to many forms of wild life. Risks to wild life are, however, considered by the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances used in Agriculture and Food Storage before any new chemical is cleared under the Notification Scheme agreed with the agricultural chemical industry. Precautions for minimising risks to wild life are drawn up, published, and included in manufacturers' literature.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his Answer, may I, on behalf of varied and important interests, express the greatest disappointment with the inadequacy of the Government's proposals to deal with the problem of the shocking consequences to wild life and to soil fertility
750
of the use of indiscriminate toxic sprays? May I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that in Norfolk this year, due to crop spraying, six cases were confirmed by the laboratories at Rothamsted where the majority of the foraging bees from something over 100 colonies were destroyed with a consequential loss in honey crop to the value of £400 or £500, compared with the yield from normal colonies in the same district which were not affected; and what action the Government propose to take to deal with a question of that nature?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware, as I read in a newspaper (I think it was the Field) that a woman has died from eating blackberries which were supposed to have been poisoned by the use of these sprays?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, with regard to bees, it is unfortunately, true that, particularly this summer, large quantities of bees were probably killed because crops were sprayed when weeds were in flower. It is the advice to my right honourable friend and his Committee, to which I referred, that sprays that will be harmful to bees should not be used, if possible, when crops are in flower: but the circumstances were exceptional this year, and we are discussing this difficult problem with those concerned.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, is it considered that the manufacturers' literature ever has emphasised or ever will emphasise sufficiently the dangers of the sprays?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, the manufacturers' literature certainly has emphasised, and certainly will emphasise, the dangers of these sprays.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, while appreciating the fact that the well-known firm of Messrs. Fison's have withdrawn all stocks and stopped distribution of their arsenical weed killers, is it not a fact that a far more serious and dangerous compound is the organo-phosphorous insecticide, which is toxic to mammals and birds, not only when eaten but also when absorbed through the skin and the eyes? Can Her Majesty's Government state what action, if any, has been taken to prohibit forthwith the supply and distribution of this lethal product?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am not qualified technically to state the various degrees of toxicity (if that is the right word) of these various chemicals used, but I can say that my right honourable friend is giving this whole matter his most urgent consideration. In relation to arsenical sprays, he has had recommendations from this Committee to which I have referred, and I hope he may very shortly be in a position to make a statement, which I cannot anticipate now. With regard to the general question of spray drift, for instance, to show that my right honourable friend views this matter most seriously he has charged me with a special Committee to go into this whole problem of spray drift, to see whether the dangers and risks can be minimised. But we must keep a sense of proportion here, my Lords. There are, of course, risks with all things, but we must not lose sight of the fact that the advantages of using chemicals in agriculture are also very great.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, is it not well known that most of these sprays are indiscriminate killers of living things, and that they not only destroy insects which are prejudicial to crops but also destroy insects which are beneficial? They destroy the predators upon the noxious insects. Is it not also the fact that the sprays fall into the soil, where they are accumulated, and that they are taken up into the system of the plant and are possible contaminants of food?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: No, my Lords; most of these sprays are not indiscriminate killers.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, with the permission of the House, may I put a question to the noble and learned Viscount sitting on the Woolsack?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: No? All right. Then may I ask the Government whether these beekeepers in Norfolk who have suffered a loss of £400 or £500 on their honey crops this year have any redress in law, to enable them to bring action for damages to recover this loss?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I should have preferred notice of this question, but, speaking generally, if anyone suffers damage and can prove
752
negligence on the part of those who caused the damage, there is always redress under the law.

THE WESTERN AVENUE
2.13 p.m.
EARL HOWE: 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 it can now be stated when the plan for the widening of the Denham end of the Western Avenue will be commenced and completed, observing that this stretch of the Avenue has provided many serious accidents under present conditions.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, work on this scheme, which is part of the improvement of A.40 outwards from London, is expected to start early in 1960. Tenders for the construction of the viaduct are about to be invited by the Middlesex County Council as agent authority for the Ministry. I hope that the scheme, which will provide a second carriageway along this length of Western Avenue, will be completed by the early summer of 1961.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much.

PUBLICITY FOR LOAN REPAYMENT
2.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: 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 why British Information Services have not sufficiently publicised throughout America the fact that Britain repayed a 250,000,000 dollar loan plus interest to the Export-Import Bank in Washington five-and-a-half years before it was due.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, I do not agree that the British Information Services insufficiently publicised the repayment of this

753
loan in the United States. Instructions that maximum publicity should be given to this occasion have been fully and successfully carried out. Press releases
and background notes about repayment were sent by British Information Services to 400 newspapers and 150 columnists all over the United States. Very satisfactory coverage was obtained. All the four major New York daily newspapers and the influential Washington Post carried favourable editorial comment. The Wall Street Journal and New York Journal of Commerce carried full reports. The Associated Press news agency gave excellent coverage in its continent-wide service. Outside New York, a number of important newspapers carried friendly editorial comment or full reports, or both, as did many of the weekly magazines. British Information Services made a special effort to distribute material about the repayment among business men and economic and financial specialists in New York and elsewhere.
British Information Services also secured good coverage on radio and television. A specially prepared television news film was sent to 251 United States television stations on October 30. To date, British Information Services have learnt that 71 telecasts were made in prime news time. Since then our representatives have taken every opportunity to give still further publicity to the repayment. The foregoing is only a summary. If the noble Lord requires any further details, I shall be happy to give them to him.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. Friends of mine in America tell me that though it received certain limited coverage in New York, in the provincial papers there appears to have been no references to it at all. If you ask the man in the street, he has not heard of it. I understand that we spend about £500,000 on these Services in America. I think we ought to have bought some half-page advertisements in provincial papers, for instance, and bought time on television, because this was a golden opportunity to bring home to America what this country has done. I feel that we ought to have done more to broadcast it throughout the country.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, one may always say that if only we had a
754
little more, it would have been that much better but I think that the information I have given shows clearly that the British Information Services did a splendid job in this connection. As regards the question of whether we should have bought advertisements, personally I feel that for the British Government to buy advertisement for what they have done not only is not dignified but is not the best way of achieving the results desired.

SERVICE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLY (No. 2) ORDER, 1959
2.19 p.m.
EARL BATHURST EARL BATHURST rose to move, That the Draft Service Departments Supply (No. 2) Order, 1959, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I rise to a point of Order? Before the noble Earl makes his speech, would it not be convenient to your Lordships if we could have a general debate on this Order and on the Prayer together, so as to save time.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, the noble Viscount has taken the words out of my mouth. I was going to suggest to your Lordships that as there was a Prayer, in the name of the noble Lord. Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, against the No. 1 Order it might be for the convenience of your Lordships to debate the two Orders together. For the benefit of noble Lords who may not have been in their seats on Tuesday, I think I should make it plain that it is No. 1 Order, which is subject to the Negative Resolution procedure and on which a Prayer has been put forward by the noble Lord. This Order gives back to the War Office and to the Air Ministry certain powers of supply that were taken away from them by various Acts in the course of the war and just afterwards. The Order is not strictly before your Lordships at present, but is open to debate.
The second Order which I am asking your Lordships to consider is to retain certain powers of supply to the Ministry of Aviation, which used to be the Ministry of Supply, so that that Ministry can carry on supplying certain articles, which

755
are in fact atomic weapons, guided missiles, electronic goods and so forth, to whichever Ministry or Department may need them. I beg to move that the Order be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Service Departments Supply (No. 2) Order, 1959, be approved.—(Earl Bathurst.)
2.22 p.m.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTONhad given notice of his intention to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Service Departments Supply (No. 1) Order, 1959 (S.I. 1959, No. 1827) dated 30th October, 1959, and laid before the House on 3rd November, 1959, be annulled. The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I say, first of all, that we are indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, and to the Government for so promptly responding to our request for the opportunity of a discussion on this most important matter. There is, of course, no Party interest here; it is only from a desire to make sure that the best is being done in an important field that we raise this matter at all. As I understand it—this is a little complicated, and I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I am wrong—the purpose of these two Orders is to set up the Ministry of Aviation and to disband the Ministry of Supply, and to distribute the functions around several Ministries—seven, I think, in all. The question with which we really have to concern ourselves is whether this change is one for the better, having regard to our experience and all the circumstances as we know them and the future demands that are likely to be made. I think it is impossible for any layman to come to a conclusion upon this without a good deal more information than at any rate we in this House have been given; and having read the Hansards of the other place, I am almost inclined to think in that House, too.
The Ministry of Supply was set up, as we all know, just before the war, because it was felt that the arrangements for the procurement of weapons, the organisation of industry and the organisation of science, scattered as they were among the various Departments, was not perhaps the best to get the most out of our somewhat limited resources. So the Ministry of Supply was set up and
756
became largely a centralised procurement Department, procuring the weapons and other munitions of war for the Fighting Services, with the exception of the ships of war required by the Admiralty, where there was so long an experience and a tradition that no new Department could ever hope to take its place. This was a rather special case, physically divided from the other things, and due to the spirit of co-operation which existed in the Navy in this matter it worked very well. I was in the Ministry of Supply as Parliamentary Secretary for some years during the war, and as Minister afterwards, and one could not possibly exaggerate the cooperative effort of the Navy with the new Ministry, nor, indeed, the remarkable services of the officials and scientists concerned with the Ministry of Supply in what I think is one of the great monuments of the conduct of the war.
Now the Ministry of Supply is to be disbanded. Whenever a great and successful institution is going to be broken up one cannot help having some feelings of regret. But is the new form going to be a better one? It is difficult to see exactly what is going to happen. Put quite simply, the Ministry of Supply was the procurement agency for all it took to fight the war. As I say, it is now going to be broken up and, as I understand it, the Navy will now, in practice, take back the weapons procurement which, in practice if not in formal documents, they passed over to the Ministry of Supply.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, may I make the matter clear before we go further, because otherwise other noble Lords may be led astray? Anything that has to do with aviation, be it weapons, electronics or anything of that sort, remains in the Ministry of Aviation, in exactly the same way as it did under the old Ministry of Supply. I ask noble Lords to remember that. It is really concentration of aeroplane developments, weapons and so forth under the Ministry of Aviation.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I am sorry; I must have used the wrong word; I meant to say "Admiralty".
EARL BATHURST: That goes for the Admiralty as well, in so far as it is anything to do with aviation.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I accept that and I understand it. I was thinking of the other things which, even in this age, still exist. So the Admiralty goes on with its ships and takes back the weapons, other than aviation weapons. The War Office goes back to the old position, pre-Ministry of Supply, and becomes the procurement agency for all that the Army uses, other than aviation. But where is the Air Ministry? I do not know what happens there. Is there still an Air Ministry as well as a Ministry of Aviation?
EARL BATHURST: Yes.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Then what do the Air Ministry do? One of the real problems of the Ministry of Supply, as the noble Earl will realise, was the difficult relationship with civil aviation, such as there was left in the war, and, much more important, such as there would be after the war. It takes seven to ten years to get a new aeroplane, and this must always be in everybody's mind. I do not know what happens about this. The new Minister of Aviation has a very peculiar brief. He has aviation, the weapons that are and may be associated with aviation, and all the rocketry, I gather—but whether that is so I do not know, and whether ground-fired or air-fired: we ought to be told about this. And who looks after the future of civil aircraft? That is not at all clear from what has been said. One of the great things about the Ministry of Aircraft Production was that only with immense difficulty and by tremendous co-operation were they able to fuse together the future requirements for fighting aircraft and for civil aviation.
I do not think I should be far wrong if I said that on the day when the war ended we found ourselves in a very difficult position, because, as a result of the simple physical fact that it was possible to fly a bomber across the Atlantic but not a fighter, we had in the later stages of the war concentrated on engines and the Americans upon air frames. The result was that when the demand changed from fighting planes to civil planes we were in a difficult position. A decision was taken, to which I formally
758
gave assent but which was a decision of people who knew much more than I did, that we should concentrate on the next beat in engines: we went out of the field for a year or two, to come back triumphantly with the jet aircraft.
In my view, it was possible to take that sort of decision, which is one of the great milestones in aviation development, only because the same authority, the same scientific knowledge, was procuring both fighting and civil aeroplanes. If you tear that asunder again, and divorce the requirements of the civil aircraft from the requirements of Service aircraft, you will gravely dissipate that very rare asset, scientific brains—and in my view we cannot afford to do that. In the main, that is what is running through all my criticism of this proposal: that it dissipates into small functional pockets the very meagre source, brilliant though it is, of first-class scientific brains, upon which we in this country depend more than anybody else.
So much for the Air Ministry, What about the Army? The Army, Navy and Aviation requirements still make great demands on our industrial metallurgical resources. One of the strengths of the Ministry of Supply's service to the nation was that it was the responsible link between the metallurgical industries, the Service Departments and the civil user of those industries. It is the harmonising of the demands of fighting and civil requirements in the future developments of metallurgical science that will very largely determine our future position in war and in peace. If you break this thing down into a number of functional, sectional interests, I do not believe—or, at least, I have not been convinced—that you will get the same powerful urge to future developments that have helped us to lead the world in those metallurgical developments which made the jet aircraft possible.
What is going to happen to the basic atomic energy research? Missiles will be the function of the Minister of Aviation, and I should like to be told whether that is true of all missiles, whether dispatched from the ground, the air, the sea or from under the sea. It is not at all clear from what has been said already, and I hope somebody has thought about this question. But what about the developments of the generation of atomic energy which hitherto has been the sole

759
responsibility of the Ministry of Supply, working with the public authority created for the executive duties? I do not know. Is the Minister for Science going to be responsible? I saw him in his place just now, and I hoped that he was going to be with us during this debate. It would be tremendously useful to know how the Minister for Science sees this development, because it seems to me to cut off from him a large amount of scientific brain power which is badly needed if we are to retain our lead in the civil uses of atomic energy.
I think it is also very important (I do not want to detain your Lordships unduly on this matter) that we should consider the industrial position here. The division of the country's industries, in so far as they have a kind of parent in a Government Department, between the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Supply, has been going on now for nearly 20 years. People in industry, large and small, all over the country—and let us not forget that in future developments the small ones can be much more important than the big ones—have to know and understand how to work with the Government through the Ministry of Supply or the Board of Trade. All that is going to be thrown overboard; and industrial firms, according to the nature of their product, and not according to the scientific skills involved, are to be parcelled out among several Ministries. Somebody told me—I do not know how correct it is—that some firms who have hitherto dealt exclusively with the Ministry of Supply in their relations with the Government, will in future be responsible to no fewer than seven different Ministries. If that is true, or anything like it is true, it is a very bad thing, and will lead to a breakdown of that splendid voluntary partnership between Government and private industry, which I think is one of the great marks of British civilisation. It depends upon friendship, understanding and mutual co-operation, and it cannot happen overnight. It has taken 20 years to build it up, and now it is being broken down.
It seems to me that more good reasons should be given for this change than have been given so far. It may be that there is a case for it. It may be that developments have made it necessary,
760
and that it can be shown that it is desirable and better than the old. But I hope it has nothing to do with the country's administrators and the personal aspirations of particular politicians, because if that is so it is not good enough. This matter ought to be decided upon its integral merits, and if it is decided on any other grounds then I think we need to know a lot more about it, and we ought to resist it until we are convinced. I apologise for detaining your Lordships so long, but this is a fundamental matter.
2.37 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to the Government, and particularly to the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, for so promptly putting down the Order again for discussion to-day, and for giving us an opportunity of advancing any further points that may occur to us on this particular Order. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, for making an honest woman of the Service Departments Supply Order (No. 2), by putting down a Prayer to the No. 1 Order. I think that even he to-day went a little bit far in discussing these two Orders, by going into the whole background of the Government's proposals. But it is difficult to keep strictly within the two Orders which are on the Paper, because they are only part, and not the whole, of the proposals of the Government in this field.
As I understand the object of the No. 2 Order, it is to enable the Minister of Aviation, as the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, said on Tuesday, to embrace everything with regard to aeroplanes and aviation, and also to go into the development, production and supply of guided missiles, radar, electronics and atomic weapons. In another place, in discussing this Order, the Minister said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 613 (No. 16), col. 658]:
"This arrangement gives to the Ministry of Aviation the latitude necessary to enable it to supply the Army and the Royal Air Force with weapons and equipment, such as guided missiles, radar and other electronic apparatus."
That, I think, is an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston. As I understand it, the Minister of Aviation now has, in spite of his title, a vast range of responsibility over things which have

761
nothing whatever to do with aviation. In fact, they are largely intended, or to some extent intended, to bring down any aircraft which may be in their vicinity.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt for one moment? That does not quite answer my question. I was asking what are his functions about generation of atomic energy. I understand about the missiles.
LORD OGMORE: That is a matter which has not yet been divulged to us, and no doubt the Minister will reply to that when the time comes. I am sure that we shall all be very interested to hear the answer to that point. It is not actually within the scope of the Orders we have been discussing.
The point I am going to make is one which the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, did not make. His point about the Ministry of Supply is one upon which he can talk with great authority, having been a Minister of Supply. The point I want to make is nothing to do with that; it is a question of the Ministry of Aviation itself. As I reminded your Lordships on Tuesday last, in spite of warning, the Government in 1951, to my mind, made a very great mistake in lumping together aviation, road transport, rail transport, shipping and so on, and making some unfortunate Minister responsible for the whole lot. That was a mistake. We said so at the time and it has been proved to be so. Now they are hiving off a good deal of that responsibility and putting under the wing of one Minister, the Minister of Aviation, all the tasks relating properly to aviation but also giving him this rather vague and very onerous task of being concerned with rockets and electronic apparatus, and the supply of these things to the Navy, the Army and the Air Force. That is a very onerous task and one which has nothing whatever to do with the Ministry of Aviation.
My worry about it is this: is this a proper task to give the Minister of Aviation? Will a mistake again be made? Are the Government imposing upon him a responsibility which he will find it very hard to discharge? Because, quite frankly, as the Minister himself very fairly has pointed out in another place, he is going to find it difficult to
762
carry out the responsibilities of the Ministry of Aviation, leave alone rocketry, electronics and other matters of that kind. In another place on November 9 the Minister said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 613 (No. 13), col. 25]:
"I am looking at the whole question of research and development, but that is a different matter from the expansion of aircraft production. As the hon. Member indicated in his supplementary question, the fact is that there are too many firms chasing too few orders at the moment."
And then later on he said:
"There is no doubt that the majority of the manufacturers recognise that some extensive reorganisation of the industry is essential and urgent, and I shall do everything I can to help them and encourage them to carry out that reorganisation."
I refrain from advancing at any length the point that for several years we on this side have been pointing out to the Government that this was an essential and urgent task—namely, reorganisation of the aircraft industry. I am glad to see that the Minister has at last agreed that this is not only essential but urgent, and something which, I am quite sure from my knowledge of the aircraft manufacturers, will alone take his full time to deal with. In a speech a week or so ago to the British Independent Air Transport Association in London, the present Minister said (I am quoting The Times Report):
"He was convinced that in the future pattern of British aviation the independents"—
that is the independent air transport companies—
"would have an important place, but he doubted whether it was a good thing for there to be so many separate air transport companies."
That is another bombshell that the Minister has thrown into the aircraft world. Now he is saying—which I do not think even we have ever said on this side of the House; I think it is the first time it has even been said—that there are too many air transport companies and it is about time that they got together and started to concentrate their activities and fuse their various operative companies. That is a bombshell; it is a "rocket" for the industry, and that is another matter in regard to which I know, as I have had some experience of dealing with air transport companies, he is going to find great difficulties. He has given himself a considerable task in dealing

763
with that particular aspect of his Ministry's work.
But the situation is not confined to the independent air transport companies. B.O.A.C., through difficulties, some of which I am sure were without its scope and some of which I consider were within its powers to have rectified or avoided, has, as we know, lost a considerable amount of money. The late Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation asked B.O.A.C. to consider whether they would not look into the whole question of their associated companies overseas so as to establish whether there is the possibility of more economic working. That is going to be an immense task and it is not a task which B.O.A.C. can carry out itself. It is a task in which, inevitably, owing to the diplomatic questions involved, the Minister will have to play a great part.
I am glad to see the encouragement which is given to Commonwealth development in recent B.O.A.C. proposals. At the present time B.O.A.C. have arrangements or are making arrangements, or developing arrangements, with a large number of Commonwealth countries. They have arrangements, or are making arrangements, with Canada, Australia, South Africa, Air India, Ghana and Central Africa. Those are matters which cannot be dealt with by the B.O.A.C. and the others alone; they are all matters which, as I know perfectly well, must, owing to the fact that other Governments are involved, be dealt with by the Ministry of Aviation. To-day I received from the Printed Paper Office a White Paper which was issued detailing the European arrangements that are now being made by the Ministry on behalf of the charter companies, enabling the charter companies to fly over most of the countries of Western Europe. Only to-day I was reading that before I came to the House. So that it seems to me that the Minister is going to have a very large number of urgent problems upon his desk dealing with aviation.
The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, I think very rightly, referred to the question of small matters of research and development—not only the large matters which will be dealt with by the Ministry but quite small ones. This is a very important point. When we think of research and development,
764
we are apt to think in terms of hundreds of millions of pounds. On more than one occasion I have given your Lordships the experience of Group Captain Whittle. I might mention it again, if your Lordships will excuse me, because I think it is very apposite to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston. The first jet patent was registered by Group Captain Whittle when he was a young officer in the Air Force; from that all jet and prop-jet patents in the world and all engines derive—every one in the world derives from that first patent of Air Commodore Whittle. When that was about to expire, Whittle, being a young officer, had not got the £5 necessary to renew the patent. He applied to the Air Ministry for the £5 and they refused to give him it. In fact, the patent expired, so that any country in the world could take up the patent and develop it, as many did, of course. To-day nobody, I think, would for one moment quibble about putting up £5 of the taxpayers' money for a thing like that. It must have seemed at the time a very small matter, one hardly worth troubling about, this new and revolutionary development which a young Air Force officer had produced, but we can see the effect of it.
My Lords, that is the main point I have in mind. That is why I have ventured to address your Lordships this afternoon. Those of us who are interested in aviation require an answer. I am sure that other Ministers, such as the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, who, like myself, have been in this position, have always felt that there is a tendency on the part of Governments to regard the Ministry of Aviation and anything to do with civil aviation as a Cinderella—at least I have felt so. I think we have to regard this Ministry as something of immense importance, which not only controls most important aspects of our national life to-day but which, in the main, by its actions now, may, to a large extent, effect great consequences in the future. Thus I should like to be assured that this particular point has had full consideration by Her Majesty's Government.
2.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, we must all be greatly obliged to the Government for having postponed for a

765
day or two the consideration of these important Orders. I think we owe, too, a real debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, for having introduced the subject in a speech which I found admirable in tone and temper, and indeed in all respects. I did not agree with everything he said, but I most entirely agree with him—I was glad he set this tone to the debate—that this is not a matter of Party politics at all; that here we are dealing with vital matters which concern defence, the proper organisation of Government, scientific development, the future of aviation, the Armed Services—what a field it covers Here we are solely concerned to see what is the best thing to do, and to try to persuade the Government to do it. Certainly, the noble Lord need make no apology for having ranged widely, because, as I understand these rather complex Orders, this is our one opportunity to debate all that is involved in them, which is the completely new set-up for the whole of the Service Ministries and this new Ministry of Aviation. Therefore, I shall make no apology—I never speak long, or for longer than I need in this House—for dealing in a little detail with these vital matters, because what we do to-day is to give our approval imprimatur to the whole of the new set-up and the new system.
Frankly, I find these Orders and the new dispensation which they initiate rather like the curate's egg—I like about three-quarters of it; the other quarter I find in less good odour. I like the reestablishment of a separate Ministry of Civil Aviation—in that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. I do not say that any more than he did, out of a sort of affectionate relationship, but I am quite sure that the Minister of Transport, active young gentleman as he is, has really quite enough to do looking after the roads of England, the railways of England—if indeed he has any say in what does or does not happen there—all the transport which takes place everywhere except in the air, including shipping, with the difficult problems of flags of discrimination, whether they are to build the new Cunarders and on what terms, and so on. All that is enough for the most energetic Minister, and although the problems of civil aviation are in fact transport problems—I think
766
that now the aviation companies have learned that their job is transport they are a great deal more businesslike in that way than they were—yet their problems are quite different problems from those with which the Minister of Transport has to deal. Therefore, I welcome that.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, I am glad that the Ministry of Supply has gone. I do not say that because, unlike a good many other people, I have never been Minister of Supply, though I was a Service Minister—the noble Lord was a very good Minister of Supply. If I may say so to him, I do not think the war and war-time experience is really a parallel for peace time. In war, the Government takes over the whole of industry, everything from Vickers to the smallest blacksmith's shop, and directs the whole activity of British industry into whatever are the necessary channels of defence, and what is necessary in other fields. Therefore, in war you must have one supreme Minister of Supply who will take control of the whole thing. But peace is quite different. The House knows very well—in fact. I am afraid I have bored your Lordships with this theme for the past two years—that I have always been in favour of the abolition of the Ministry of Supply. It is not that I have no respect or affection for the Minister. He was a most competent Minister, and I only regret that he has felt that he wanted to go back into civil life. He would have adorned any Government, even this galaxy of talents.
I based my desire to get rid of the Ministry of Supply on my own experience in the Air Ministry when, before the war, we were building up an Air Force. We then had the simple principle, which after all is common to all business, that the user, the customer, places the order for what he wants. That is not a bad system to go on as a start. The hour of the meeting of the House this afternoon has been changed, and I am sure that there are many who would have been here but who now cannot be. But I am quite sure that I speak with the approval of all those with whom I worked who are now Members of this House—Lord Portal, Lord Tedder, Lord Dowding and my old friend and colleague Lord Winterton—when I say that it was essential to any

767
successes we achieved that the Ministry which had the responsibility for making the Air Force had the responsibility for placing the orders.
It was not simply a case of having your department of research and development and production which was in touch every day with all the aircraft manufacturers, and those concerned with the manufacture of engines. It went further than that The Operational Staff, who are always a little inclined to want the impossible, were brought every day, and day by day, into intimate contact with the producers, so that what was desired could be set up and set against what was immediately practicable. I say, without the faintest hesitation, that if we had not had that sole responsibility vested in that one Ministry we could never have ordered the Spitfires and the Hurricanes off the drawing boards; we should never have had the development of radar. We should never have found the long-distance telephone system which radar made possible and necessary in the fighters. We should never have developed the power-operated turret and the cannon gun. We should never have developed, and made the necessary amalgamations to develop, the variable-pitch propeller; and certainly we should never have got the shadow factories which played such a tremendous part in the output which we achieved.
I have no hesitation in saying that that was so and I am quite certain we could never have done all that if we had had to go through another Ministry. It was quite enough of a hurdle to have the Treasury on one's flank, and I am bound to say that one sometimes, very improperly, ignored them; but when the young man who is now the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, on the Cross Benches, was bedded-out in the Air Ministry as a young Treasury partner we did not have much more difficulty with the Treasury.
The Ministry of Supply has gone, but with what consequences? It seems to me with some rather odd consequences, wholly inconsistent and, if I may very respectfully say it to Her Majesty's Government, slightly muddled. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Mills, will not object to that. I should never have ventured to accuse him of muddle-headedness. The Admiralty are to place
768
their own orders. They have always been very tenacious. They have always sat tight. The result was that they never gave up, even in war time, the placing of the ships. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, sat there like a limpet and kept the placing of the ships. Now they have got back all the rest of it.
I suppose there will be a new Master-General of Ordnance. The War Office have got back their tanks. They will order those and their guns, and everything except some of the missiles—I am not very clear about that. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, was quite right to probe that question, and I hope that we shall have an answer to it. The development of guided missiles is with the Minister of Aviation, but who is responsible for the equipment that shoots them off from the ground, or from an aircraft in air-to-air operations? I do not know. Is it the War Office?
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Yes.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, the position gets "curiouser and curiouser." The War Office provide the gun that shoots the missile, and presumably provide the mechanism which sets it off. I am not very clever about rockets but I gather that when sending off a guided (or misguided) missile there are two parts involved: that at the bottom, which starts it all off, and the rest of the apparatus, which is attached to its tail and which keeps it (or does not keep it) in orbit in the air. Who is going to do this? Apparently the War Office are to make the tube, and to make and be responsible for the part at the bottom that sets it all off. I will not pursue that matter but it is rather interesting.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, while the noble Earl is putting these interesting questions will he inquire who is responsible for the base if it is afloat or submerged?
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. I do not want to take this matter across the Floor of the House, for the noble Earl will make his elaborate reply, but I had thought that the base, the part on the ground, was the business of the War Office. What about the base when

769
at sea? One of the great defences of the future is to be guided missiles fired from ships. In fact, I gather that the capital ship of the future will be a kind of floating base from which guided missiles will project themselves. Who is to be responsible for that? Is it to be the Navy who will order the ships for that equipment or is it the Minister of Civil Aviation who is responsible? It is really important to know.
I ant greatly worried about what is to happen with the aeroplane. I am not going to anticipate the Defence debate which we shall have early in the New Year when we have the Defence White Paper, but some of us have been anxious as to whether guided missiles really will come along and be completely reliable in time to take the place of the long-range bomber—which, with all the new developments that have now been achieved, can take the hydrogen bomb or the atom bomb and discharge it from a great distance and with great accuracy. Many of us in this House have been anxious as to whether the necessary number of aircraft will be provided before the time when we can be quite certain that the guided missile is going to do its job. I should be much happier if the ordering of those aeroplanes were to be with the Air Ministry. But how is the business going to work? There was a good deal of difficulty in the past. There were the Air Ministry, the Combined Chiefs of Staff and the Ministry of Defence, as well as the Minister of Supply. Some of the older Members of the House who were in the First World War will remember the mystery of the Levant base, where there were three equal authorities, none subordinate to the others—three incomprehensibles, none of them in the least co-ordinated. We remember that situation from that war, and I must say that I thought the last system was rather like the Levant base, with its three unco-ordinated incomprehensibles.
What are we to have now? Who is to decide what aircraft are to be ordered, what type they are to be, and how many? Is it to be the Air Minister? We know, of course, that he is not to place the order, for that is to be placed by the Minister of Aviation. The Air Minister, I suppose, puts up his ideas. Then there is the Minister of Defence who, pre-
770
sumably, subject to the Cabinet, decides how much of the money available shall go on aircraft, how much on ships, how much on the Army and how much into research. In the past there was the Ministry of Supply, which I wanted to see go, because I thought that in peacetime it was a fifth wheel to the coach. But at any rate, in the past the Minister of Supply, I believe, did what he was told to do by the Minister of Defence and the Air Minister—although it took an awfully long time to produce an aeroplane.
What is to happen now? We have established a high-powered Minister, who certainly has some ideas of his own, as Minister of Aviation, and he is to be responsible for development. Who is to be responsible for guided missiles as the alternative to the aeroplane? Who is to decide whether the choice is to be guided missiles or aeroplanes? Is it going to be Mr. Sandys? Is it going to be the Minister of Defence? The last person, apparently, it is going to be is the poor Air Minister, who, after all, is responsible for air matters. My Lords, we ought to be told about this. We ought to be clear on where the responsibility lies. We have not had any speeches from the Air Marshals. They, unlike the Generals, are not given to making speeches. Perhaps it is just as well. I do not know that they would add to our comprehension of this difficult problem. But, at any rate, we look to Ministers to give us a consistent and a comprehensive account. Quite frankly, my Lords, I do not see the present Minister of Aviation, for whom I have a profound respect, acting as a purely passive conduit pipe to pass along the orders sent to him, either of the Secretary of State for Air or the Minister of Defence. I think all this needs a great deal more elucidation, and I particularly want to know where the power and responsibility reside; and this debate is, as I see it, the only opportunity which we have for ascertaining that. These are matters which are of supreme importance from a defence point of view; and, fortunately, certainly in this House, we can discuss them without any Party consideration, but simply with the idea of getting the best results.
3.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I say at the outset that I am grateful to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for having made the postponement on Tuesday when we raised the matter, and for giving us the opportunity for this debate to-day. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it was fundamental that on a matter of such importance it was not the best way to do things to allow the Order to be passed without any opposition or criticism at all and then to have to come to an early arrangement for the real examination by your Lordships of all those questions which have already been so clearly brought out by previous speakers in this debate. The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, with his vast experience, has dotted the i's and crossed the t's, and has backed them with real examples of experience over the whole ground raised by my noble friend Lord Wilmot of Selmeston. It is fundamental, therefore, that Parliament in general, both Houses of Parliament, should pay very great attention to this matter. It relates to all the various Services which were referred to by the noble Earl who has just spoken; and of course, in the long run, it relates quite clearly to the ultimate standard of prosperity in the country as a whole; and we cannot separate these things one from the other.
What I would first complain about is this—and again this is not a Party question; it is a House of Lords question. We are rather inclined to be misled, it seems to me, under the present practice by which the Special Orders Committee of the House examine Special Orders, and report on the urgency or importance of the host of White Papers called Statutory Orders that come before us. I asked at the Table about this matter, and traced the matter back, and I see that in a Paper which was ordered to be printed as recently as November 11, just a week ago, the Special Orders Committee referred to the Draft Service Departments Supply (No. 2) Order, 1959, and reported
"That in their opinion the provisions of the Order do not raise important questions of policy or principle."
The Special Orders Committee do not seem to me quite to be doing their job in giving emphasis to the White Papers that need examination by your Lord-
772
ships, if we get such an opinion expressed upon Orders of this fundamental importance which so distinctly cover policy. Whilst I do not want to utter any general criticism of particular members of a Committee of this kind which your Lordships have appointed, I think it is as well for the House to examine the basis upon which these Reports upon Orders are made giving an idea whether the Orders do or do not include important questions of policy.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, may I interrupt for just one moment? As a member of that Committee I should like to point out that the noble Viscount's Party is very well represented on it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I have already said that this is not a Party question; this is a House of Lords question. I was very careful to stress that point, and the particular Order that we are discussing to-day just points the matter very closely.
I do not propose to speak at any length on the Motion itself, because we have an important debate on hospitals coming along this afternoon, and I do not want that to be unduly curtailed. But I say that one of the most important points sounds an ordinary one. It is that, even when we have read the whole Report of the debate in another place on November 12, we still know so little about what are to be the real ramifications of this new arrangement that it requires more elucidation. That point was made by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton.
Although I am not going to speak for long I am going to say that when, at the end, my noble friend Lord Wilmot of Selmeston replies and, I am sure, withdraws the Motion on the Paper with regard to the No. 1 Order, we shall give notice to the House to-day, in advance, that we shall ask for a day to discuss the whole of this question of organisation in the Departments covering the Defence Services in general and all the other things which are now placed in Departments which will be dealing with Service matters. Then perhaps we may come to understand each other much better about it, before we come to specific Estimates of a different character early next year when we shall be having a White Paper on Defence. At

773
some time or other we shall probably be having a Report from the Minister for Science concerning his Department, and we shall be having debates upon civil aviation and other cognate matters. So we give notice now that we shall want to obtain through the usual channels an early day for a full debate on those general issues.
It is interesting to look at the Report of the debate in another place and to see that the Minister, Mr. Duncan Sandys, said that he agreed that the arrangement which was being set out in these Orders was not a clear-cut logical arrangement. I thoroughly agree with that sentiment. But he also went on to say this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 613 (No. 16), col. 673]:
"But I say quite frankly that the reorganisation of military procurement is not the main reason for this change in the distribution of Ministerial responsibilities."
Well, it may not be the main reason, but it is certainly going to have a great deal of effect upon military procuration. We have a Defence Budget of nearly £1,600 million a year, and when a rearrangement, a reorganisation, of this sort comes, and the Minister in another place says in the same speech that he anticipates no saving to that budget by reason of the reorganisation which is to take place, then I think it is essential that we should get many more explanations about what is to be the working of the new system.
The other matter to which I want to refer—I think that all the other points have been touched on by my noble friend Lord Wilmot of Selmeston—is one that worries me a good deal, as an ex-Minister of Defence, and that is exactly what is going to be the arrangement of the scientific side of the business as between defence matters and civil matters? I should have liked to hear at some time about that. I can see that it is not possible to-day, but I hope that it will be possible when we get our full debate later, when perhaps the Minister for Science will take part. I hope that he will be able to give us a clear explanation of how the scientific arrangement under this set-up is going to work.
The new Minister of Aviation said in another place last week that the Minister of Defence has no department of science. And that is perfectly true. But may I say—on the very day, sadly
774
enough, when we have had the Memorial Service to the late Sir Henry Tizard, who was Chairman of the Defence Research Committee at the time I was Minister of Defence—that the function of the Minister of Defence it; by no means without importance in relation to the scientific work to be done and to be co-ordinated with all the Service Departments: and, in many respects, what comes under consideration for defence purposes is also to be found in some of the civil research departments. It was by bringing together into one organisation of that kind the best scientific brains we could get that we began to foresee some of the dangers we should be up against; what protection ought to be provided; what steps could be taken to produce remedies that would be successful, or how production could be expedited. I must say that there was no Committee that I was ever connected with which was more valuable than the Defence Research Committee.
When I think of what the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said about the different missiles, and so on, may I say that when it comes to scientific research we are by no means confined to the horrible things that we already know of in the defence sphere; there are things which have been discussed with many other nations, and other weapons, which have not been discussed with the general public, that come into view directly one gets on to these scientific questions. Looking at the general field of research which the new Minister for Science will have to look at, and at the widely different civil questions as well, I feel, especially having regard to the reference which my noble friend Lord Wilmot of Selmeston made to the comparative paucity of the most brilliant brains at the top of the scientific professions, that it is fundamental that we should get the best and most concentrated arrangement possible.
I do not propose to say more at the present. I expect that I shall have a great deal more to say when we come to the wider debate, which we hope we shall get later on, and perhaps when we come to the White Paper on Defence. In the meantime, I am grateful to the noble Earl the Leader of the House who has made it possible for us to have these comments before these Orders are passed at the present time. I would only request

775
that, so far as possible, we should not be faced with two Orders, one subject to the Negative Resolution procedure and the other requiring an Affirmative Resolution, which will become operative on November 23—just next Monday. Such a short time does not allow sufficient Parliamentary examination to enable the House to understand clearly what is going to happen on the closing down of a well-tried, well-proved, great Government Department such as we have had in the Ministry of Supply. I shall listen with very great care to what the noble Earl has to say in reply for the Government. We shall not pursue the Prayer on No. 1 Order to a Division, but we shall ask for a further day and for a much longer debate than we are having to-day in order to deal with the whole question.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, before the noble Earl rises to reply, with the permission of the House may I ask a question so that he may include the answer in that reply? In doing so, I should declare an interest in this matter. May I ask him whether it is not a fact that the old Ministry of Supply was principally concerned with the supply of military equipment, although its powers were later stretched to deal with the supply of aircraft to the nationalised airlines, in which the M.T.C.A. also had a say; but that the Government now recognise that, with the increasing complexity and development of modern aircraft and missiles, it is necessary to bring closer together the responsibilities for the development and production of both military and civil aircraft; and that, for that reason, they have set up the Ministry of Aviation, which will have full responsibilities over the whole field of development and production of both military and civil aircraft, and over the whole field of missile development? If the noble Earl could make clear in his reply the answer to that question, I think it would be helpful to us all.
3.26 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I doubt whether there is any Second Chamber in any democracy in the world where such a debate as that in your Lordships' House to-day could have taken place. Possibly I recognised the feeling of your Lordships on Tuesday;
776
and I think that the interest in this debate comes somewhat from the feeling that your Lordships may believe that you have been "hotted" by another place. I hope that in the course of the next few minutes I can make it clear that this is not so—neither by another place nor by Her Majesty's Government.
The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, has just put a question to me. If only the noble Viscount had spoken, or had had the chance to speak, at the very beginning of this debate, I think your Lordships' fears regarding certain of the areas over which the discussion has ranged would have been largely dispersed. The answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, is, Yes. That is exactly the reason for these two Orders—in order to get every sphere of aeroplanes, aircraft production, guided weapons, electronics, and so forth, under one roof, to be looked after by the experts concerned with these fields. Added to that, my Lords, is the wealth of experience and knowledge coming from the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation. There is a separate Department, again, some of whose members are coming over to the Ministry of Aviation; and I trust that that will relieve a little (I will deal with it more fully later) the anxiety of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, because it is not an extra pressure which is being put upon the Minister of Aviation. He is receiving extra assistance from the experts that were with the Minister of Transport, so relieving that Minister of the need to deal with aviation when he has roads and railways, and now shipping, for which to provide.
Now I think that it will be best if I go straight to answer the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston. Several other noble Lords have brought out many of his points, and I hope that they will consider that I am answering them at the same time. The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, regretted that the concentration of supply is being broken up. My Lords, it is not strictly true that we are breaking up an old Ministry. We are really re-allocating the duties of that Ministry, re-naming it, and re-allocating, too, the men and the women who worked on those particular duties. As the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, well knows, much of the developing is done by teams highly-specialised in particular subjects.

777
Those teams will go to whichever Department it may be: it may be the War Office or it may be other Departments to which they should logically be posted.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, might I ask a question there? It has been rumoured—and if the rumour is not true it ought to be killed—that the opportunity has been provided for a choice by the staffs concerned as to whether they go to the War Office, the new Ministry of Aviation, the Air Ministry, or the Admiralty. Is that so, or are you going to make sure that the right people go to the right places?
EARL BATHURST: The noble Viscount opposite has mentioned a choice. What I think he really means is that there are several borderline cases between the various Departments in the old Ministry of Supply and, in particular, he is probably thinking of the Inspectorate. That is staying with the Ministry of Aviation at present, because naturally it must be
administered by somebody, and that seems the most appropriate Ministry for the time being. It may seem in the future appropriate that certain Depart-merits of the War Office should take over their own particular inspectorate. Otherwise, all the specialised teams concerned will be going to their relative Departments, be it in the War Office or be it in the Air Ministry. I hope I have made myself clear to the noble Viscount.
There must have been one matter which occupied the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, when he was Minister of Supply, and that was the question of metallurgical research. Most of the metallurgical questions involved in supersonic flight and the production of rockets will be brought under the new Minister, and we hope that the increased concentration of experts will produce greater efficiency.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, I am afraid that I did not make my point clear. I understood that the Minister of Aviation asked to be responsible for those metals which are used exclusively in aviation. But the important thing is that metallurgical development cannot be predetermined as to its ultimate user.
EARL BATHURST: I am certain that my right honourable friend, like the
778
Minister of Supply, will have experts and technicians to keep him informed on such topics. I am sure that this concentration of all aeronautical research, production and supply will prove more efficient.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and my noble friend Lord Swinton asked about rocketry. The Ministry of Aviation is taking over all that deals with guided missiles—that is to say, missiles which have some form of guiding system, whether radar, astral or any other. Unguided missiles are usually smaller, and in the ma in are for ground use by the War Office and form a much smaller branch. But undoubtedly the technicians involved will be closely in touch with each other. The noble Earl asked particularly about the launching part of these weapons. In many cases, the launching parts are incorporated in the weapon itself, which must be considered as a weapon system; and where the launching devices are part of the weapon, they will surely stay with the Ministry of Aviation. But where, for instance, it is suggested that a submarine might be the launching platform, I have no doubt that my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has ways and means of providing such a submarine. There is a "tie-up" for all such eventualities.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, surely it is not just a question of providing an experimental submarine. It is a question of general nautical knowledge and preoperational scientific research about what happens when a weapon is launched from under water. There are all kinds of things to be considered, and surely our naval scientists ought to take part in the pre-consideration of this subject and not merely be asked to provide a platform.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, may I intervene to say that there will be very close collaboration between everybody concerned in such a project, as there is now.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I think we can make it quite clear to the noble Viscount that just as the Admiralty would have gone to the Ministry of Supply, or vice versa, now they will go to the Ministry of Aviation. Again I

779
would make clear to the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, that the Ministry of Aviation will not have to bother about boots and mugs, enamel, and the hundreds and one things that he used to have to bother about. I understand that the Minister had a non-industrial Civil Service staff of something like 30,000 and an industrial staff, including highly expert workmen, of something like 50,000 to control. My right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation will have only staff dealing with aviation, guided missiles, electronics and atomic weapons.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, can the noble Earl give an indication of the number that the Minister will now control?
EARL BATHURST: I am afraid that I cannot give any indication of what the size of the Ministry of Aviation will be. It has not yet been finally decided which departments will have to be transferred, but if the noble Lord would allow me, I will let him know.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, so it may be the same as the Ministry of Supply, or more, or less?
EARL BATHURST: I think that the noble Lord is confusing an economy campaign with an efficiency campaign. The work that has to be done is just the same. The mere fact of changing the name or taking bodies from here to there will not reduce the numbers, but as establishments get organised it may be possible to make minor economies here and there. But until the work can be reduced—and, for the reasons which the noble Earl has so clearly explained, it looks as though the work is going to be greatly increased—who can tell what may happen in future?
I should like to refer to the question of my noble friend Lord Swinton. He says that he likes two-thirds of the curate's egg, but I always understood that the curate liked only half his egg. It is well known that it was the noble Earl who, together with his colleagues, was responsible for the production of the Hurricane and Spitfire. Earlier he was one of the main protagonists of the monoplane as more efficient than the biplane. Schoolboys of to-day hardly know the expression, but it was to such issues, in which the noble Earl played a leading
780
part, that our present aviation industry owes its place in the weld. Those developments were complicated enough, but to-day they are ten thousand times more complicated—and more expensive. And that is the nub of the whole question with which these two Orders deal. It is hoped that by having all our experts under one Minister and under one roof—or nearly so—we shall achieve greater efficiency.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, was concerned about the air transport industry. That also comes within the interest of the Ministry of Aviation. My right honourable friend hopes that all the fears which the noble Lord expressed will be resolved in the future working of this arrangement, particularly as he will not be involved with problems of road and rail. My Lords, I think that I have answered nearly all the points raised today. As the noble Viscount opposite has suggested, I hope that it will be possible to have a debate on the vast technical range of this question in the near future, and I have no doubt that through the usual channels it will be possible to arrange such a debate.
3.40 p.m.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, I should like to ask the permission of your Lordships' House to withdraw the Prayer from the Order Paper, because the Government have kindly arranged that we shall have another debate on this important question. I am indebted to your Lordships for the time that has been devoted to the matter today, though I am bound to say that the debate has been worth while, in that it has uncovered the gravity and importance of the situation. I am sure we are all indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, whose courtesy and clear explanations of difficult points we welcome and expect, and, of course, always get.
I would ask permission to say one or two further words following what has been
said by other noble Lords. The first is to say to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that his description of the events concerning the Whittle engine are, to say the least of it, a gross oversimplification.
LORD OGMORE: I can only tell the noble Lord that they are taken from Group Captain Whittle's autobiography; if I am wrong, it is because he is wrong.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I do not know about that. I had something to do with the final settlement of the matter, and
it was not quite like that; nor were the parts played by the various characters
exactly as described. However, that will do for that.
Another point was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote. He saw the
advantage, as we all recognise, of the user of the aircraft having direct contact with the builder and designer of the aircraft. But that has always been
a difficulty which any procurement agency in between has had to meet: the relative advantages of centralisation and this direct contact between the different users. But we get no further down that road by this Order, it seems to me, since this new Ministry of Aviation will not be the actual user, but only the procurer; and the user will still be found under the wing of the Admiralty, the War Office or the Air Ministry. It is the pilots working for these Ministers who will, in fact, be flying the machines, So we do not get any nearer to that objective by what is now proposed. What I want to ask the Minister is whether he can tell us, if not now on the next occasion, what will be the position of the new Minister of Aviation with regard to the Defence Committee, or whatever the appropriate body is now called, within the Government organisation in the Cabinet. I think that is an important matter in view of the rôle he will play in regard to guided missiles and other atomic weapons.
The other matter on which I think we need much fuller information, and some assurances, is the effect of this new departure upon the new responsibilities of the Lord Privy Seal, who, as I understand it, in addition to the onerous duties imposed by the formal title of his Ministry, is also solely responsible for scientific matters. If the important
782
scientific staffs of the Ministry of Supply are going to be available to him, what is going to happen about the whole scientific set-up? It is obviously much different from what it was in the days when the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, had under his ægis a most important scientific Ministry. The relations between that staff and the other parts of the Government are obviously very much in the melting pot. It would be most interesting to have the observations of the Minister for Science on the arrangements now being made, and on how the best use will be made of this valuable body of knowledge which we have so to husband and use to the best advantage.
On the metallurgical side, I think it is important to realise that it is impossible at any one date to determine what are the metals concerned with aviation and what are the metals that are not concerned with aviation. The metals with which the scientists and the Ministry are mostly concerned are metals still in the mind of man. It is in the future of all possible uses that the most economy is to be made. Always our choice in this kind of matter is to choose from so many possibilities those that are likely to be most fruitful. Finally, there is the vital question of, to use, for brevity's sake, the hideous American expression, "instrumentation". It is upon this that I, and no doubt many other noble Lords, would value the observations of the Minister for Science. The competition in the field of instrumentation between all those who use instruments of all kinds—some of them run to enormous dimensions and make tremendous claims upon the scientific resources at our command—is vital to the whole question of the use of science. I do hope that we shall get some thought and study of these problems before we come to our next debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE HOSPITAL SERVICE
3.47 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM rose to draw attention to the problems of the Hospital Service; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is somewhat difficult, in making what is virtually my third maiden essay in this Chamber, to ask your Lordships to turn your minds from a consideration of the always absorbing and controversial subject of weapons of offence to a subject on which I think we shall all be agreed in principle, however much we may disagree as to the details—namely, the healing of the sick. I think it is unquestionable that in the field of public welfare the Hospital Service stands highest in public esteem. The reason for this was, in my view, well expressed the other day when the London Star, referring to the death of a little Siamese twin, Jeremy, said:
"The story of his sixteen months of life is packed with the greatest skill, service and love of which humans are capable."
However, this applies not only to miracle children, but to every patient in every hospital. Hospital staffs—doctors, nurses and technicians—are a special kind of people whose devotion and constant striving towards perfection in their work is a never-ending source of wonder and admiration to those of us who are privileged to have contact with them. The decision that Parliament took eleven years ago, that all in need of hospital care should be provided, without charge, with the best available medical and nursing care, seemed to provide a new incentive to hospital workers, and has thus, as it were, augmented the flood of skilled devotion. I think it is for this reason, despite grave handicaps, that there has been a tremendous improvement in the quality of the service provided in the ordinary Regional Board hospitals. I think, too, that what has virtually become the three-tier structure of the Regional Boards, hospital groups and the house committees, has been fully justified. Indeed, the system has led to a perhaps unexpected but certainly beneficial result.
Honest fears were expressed in 1948 that much voluntary work of great value would be lost. But the reverse has happened. The original spirit has not
784
merely been preserved by the thousands of voluntary committee workers, but become diffused throughout the Service. It flourishes equally in the former local authority hospitals, where formerly it was almost unknown. In addition to the official committees there are, of course, Leagues of Friends abounding everywhere, even in the mental hospitals where ten years ago there were none at all. We can all take immense satisfaction from this and, whilst rejecting any Party approach to the subject, make due acknowledgment to my right honourable friend Mr. Aneurin Bevan who, among all the hectic pressures of 1947 and 1948, and despite all the doubters, went steadfastly ahead and built so wisely and so well.
I feel it necessary to say these things first, because I must now express some strong criticisms about the present and some grave doubts about the future of the Service. It would, I feel, be improper for me to comment on the position of the consultants, except to acknowledge with gratitude the devoted voluntary service that they so freely give in addition to the work for which they are paid. I merely express the hope that the Royal Commission which is investigating the salary question will report soon, and that its recommendations will be implemented with all speed.
Nor do I intend to discuss the teaching hospitals, although I understand other noble Lords who will speak later in the debate will be saying something on that question. I confine my remarks to the main body of the Service, the ordinary regional hospitals which care for the overwhelming majority of sick people. It is on the quality of their medical and nursing care that the Hospital Service as a whole stands or falls. It is my considered opinion that the admittedly great achievements of these hospitals have been won by the people who work in them, in the face of relentless and blind opposition by Her Majesty's Treasury and the bureaucracy of the Ministry of Health. It is a disgraceful story of exploitation and parsimony, because despite a huge increase in the numbers of patients and the constantly increasing demands of modern medicine—both of them involving an enormous amount of extra work—we are in real terms spending less on health to-day than we did before the war, and our capital outlay

785
on hospitals, allowing for the difference in the prices, is only half the pre-war level when we had to have flag days to keep our hospitals going.
How is it possible to spend less and to do so much more work? I think the answer is in a rather remarkable letter by Dr. McCallum, published in The Times on September 2. He says:
"The answer is shameful. It has been done by cheating. It has been done by relying on the traditions, the goodwill and devotion and indeed, the 'sweated labour', of those who work in the National Health Service. This country is therefore still enjoying a first-class service on second-class payment. The goodwill that enables it to do so is fast running out."
Doctor McCallum might have added that we are being asked to practise 20th century medicine in 18th and 19th century conditions. Because it is in capital
and maintenance that we find the worst situation of all. Your Lordships will be aware that the British Medical Association have given it as their considered opinion that we require to spend on capital account an average of some £75 million a year. The expenditure this year on capital account is £22 million, less than one-third of the requirement. Next year it will be £25½ million, and in 1961–62, provided the present plans are not varied, it will be £31 million. I do not know the extent, if any, to which that figure will be augmented as a result of the special major schemes which the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Health announced in another place this week, but we already know that out of that £31 million in two years' time £15 million is to go to centrally-financed major projects, and another £3 million to the replacement of obsolete equipment, such as boilers and things like that. That leaves only just over £11 million as the capital allocation for all the hospital boards in England and Wales. That £11 million also has to cover the cost of centrally-supplied equipment.
When you consider the tremendous pre-war backlog of work in our hospitals, half of them over seventy years old, one in every five over a hundred years old; when you consider the war damage, almost completely unrecompensed, and the virtual suspension of development in hospitals over the last twenty years, and when you consider the fact that this £11 million two years hence is to be divided among 2,500 hospitals with 400,000
786
staffed beds and nearly 3 million inpatients a year, you begin to realise its grotesque inadequacy.
What does it mean to each individual hospital?—and we all know of one or more. The region of which I have knowledge includes a considerable part of Metropolitan London and stretches upwards of fifty miles into the Home Counties. It comprises twenty-seven groups, and about 100 hospitals, with some 33,000 beds serving 6 to 8 million people. It is an average and representative region. Its capital allocation this year and next year is £660,000 for the whole region. In 1961–62 that £660,00G will be increased to £770,000, an increase of £110,000. That means an average increase of £1,000 per hospital. You have only to think of any single hospital in your knowledge—think of its needs, and think how far £1,000 is going to satisfy those needs—to realise the complete inadequacy of such a paltry increase. On such finances we cannot hope to maintain our hospitals, let alone see to the improvements which are so desperately needed. It is intolerable that we pay more in profits to the manufacturers and wholesalers of National Health Service drugs than we spend on capital account in our National Health Service hospitals.
Then consider the allowance for maintenance. The last available figure for maintenance shows that only 3·5 per cent. of the total sum spent on the Hospital Service was spent on maintenance—just 8d. in the £. It is a cruel figure and a stupid figure, when you think of the waste of so neglecting these buildings, whose replacement would require ten times their original cost. I think it is the case that if all our hospitals now had to be replaced, at current cost it would mean the staggering figure of £3,500 million. That is not my estimate and I do not know whether it is an accurate one or not; it is an estimate of experts. So I say how stupid it is to neglect maintenance. What does that mean to the condition of actual hospitals? For the five hospitals in my group in smoky, grimy central London, it means just one word—filth.
I do not believe that it is possible to have a good Hospital Service merely by pouring out money. Nor do I ignore the competing claims of other services or the country's financial position. But I do say that in hospitals some things

787
must be afforded, and they must come first. Other things can come when we can afford them. In other words, we must have what is so sadly lacking now, a plan and a system of priorities, and I want to suggest what I think some of those priorities should be.
The first is that our hospitals must be clean. We cannot go on as if Lister and Florence Nightingale had never existed. To give an actual example, some of my wards have not been painted for 20 years, and until fairly recently some wards still in use by patients had not been painted for 30 years. We cannot wash the walls down when they need it. We have had to stop despairing or enthusiastic members of the staff from wiping or washing as far as they can reach, because the black tide mark is so depressing and makes the dirt so much more apparent. And wiping down with long-handled mops is no substitute for washing, quite apart from the fact that we have not yet produced a mop which can be guaranteed not to spread infection. That is a matter on which in my group we are doing considerable work now, and when we are quite certain we hope to publish our results. But people who think they can smear over a hospital wall the same kind of mop that they use to smear over their car radiators had better start thinking again. We have had some magnificent cultures out of mops we have tried and some germs have been transferred from an unclean wall to one that was medically clean. The truth is—and if any noble Lord doubts it I should be pleased if he would some along and see for himself—that the conditions are such that if they existed in factories the inspector would serve notice under the Act, and non-compliance would mean prosecution. And this in a hospital where cleanliness should reign supreme
Two months ago I drew up a plan to paint wards and exteriors once every seven years—that is somewhat less frequently than some of us think it necessary to paint our houses—and to wash down the walls of the wards every six months. For the five hospitals and eight clinics the cost worked out at £38,000 a year. We have been able to spare from our allocation an average of only £10,000 a year, a quarter of what is needed—enough to paint four times in a century and wash down four times
788
in a decade. That is the money that we have been able to spare for that purpose over the last five years. The same situation exists in hospitals all over the country. The Regional Boards have not the funds to enable them to achieve in hospitals those minimum standards of cleanliness which can be enforced in factories.
This situation, my Lords, is not funny, and it becomes even less funny when the "gentlemen in Whitehall" send us circulars demanding action regarding the dangers of cross-infection, particularly staphylococcal infection. They demand the setting up of cross-infection subcommittees, and so, wearily, our consultants in their spare time, meet, consider and make the obvious recommendations. The committees consider and approve the recommendations, and the Regional Boards collate them and pass them on. That is endless labour by busy people, mostly unpaid. It would be a labour of love if it got us anywhere. But for eleven grim frustrating years it has been going on without result, except that more and more people are becoming seriously ill—and some dying—as a result of becoming infected in hospital. In one hospital in my region in the first nine months of this year there were 250 cases of staphylococcal infection; that is to say, one out of every 28 patients admitted to that hospital got a fresh infection or fresh disease after he went into the hospital. So I say that the first priority is to give us the money to get our hospitals clean, and the first economy is to stop Whitehall sending us a shower of printed instructions, at least until the Government are prepared to provide the money for their implementation.
Sterilisation is one such recent instruction of the highest importance which comes, of course, under the heading of cleanliness. We are asked to say what we need in modern sterilisation equipment to bring our service up to twentieth century clinical standards. At present in some wards and departments, we are still sterilising in fish kettles. That is a utensil you could cook potatoes in but in which I believe medical men would say you could not really sterilise if you boiled ten hours. We have made estimates of what it would cost to sterilise by dry heat, with vacuum drying, autoclaves, and so on, and the necessary clothing, rubber gloves and masks, for the staff. In our

789
one group that would cost £50,000. That means £1 million in the region, and possibly £15 to £20 million in the country as a whole—just for the sterilisation alone. I regard that as a high priority. People are entitled to know when they go to hospital that the maximum precautions are taken to ensure their safety from infection, and you cannot be sure without the proper equipment.
Nor can you arouse and maintain in the staff a sufficient awareness of the importance of this subject. The first principle laid down by Florence Nightingale in her Notes on Hospitals, published in 1859, exactly one hundred years ago, was this:
"It may seem a strange principle to enunciate as the very first requirement in a hospital that it should do the sick no harm."
One hundred years later we are doing the sick great harm through cross-infection, simply because the Government have not yet provided the means of preventing it. What is more, they show no intention of doing so, because Regional Hospital Boards have been asked to start on this sterilisation programme but have been told not to expect any additional money for the purpose. That means they will have to scrape off a few thousand pounds a year from something else, and it will take perhaps 20 years before our hospitals are clean. I say that that is a national scandal.
I do not doubt that the new major projects that have been announced are all very urgent and necessary, but it is difficult to believe that they are more urgent than the achievement of safety and cleanliness in all hospitals. We have in all our hospitals first-class doctors, first-class nurses and first-class administrators; but we have third-class hospitals. In my group, in three out of four hospitals this year every nurse qualified; every nurse passed her examination. In one hospital last week, when I presented the certificates, there were girls from Finland, Germany, Iran, Ireland, Liberia, Nigeria and all parts of the West Indies. My Lords, you ought to see the conditions under which they are living, and read the minute from the nurses asking humbly if they could not have a fire in the rooms they pay £3 a week to live in, because at present they have to dry underclothes on hot water bottles. That is the kind of conditions we have in our hospitals now.
The next item on my urgency list is a demand for a review of the effect of war damage on our Hospital Service. If they had been houses or factories, or if they had not been taken into the National Health Service, compensation would have been paid for hospitals totally destroyed, and partially damaged ones would have been rebuilt at public cost. But since 1948 the Treasury have not provided a penny on war damage account for hospitals. So that anything that has to be done must come out of the Regional Board's allocation, just like any ordinary capital payment. This makes the real value of present capital allocations hopelessly uneven as between different regions. In one region, for example, the war damage loss, at wartime values, was £6 million. Its replacement at present prices would be far more than double that, and more than 22 times that region's entire capital allocation—20 years of that region's capital allocation just for war damage alone Inevitably, that affects the quality of the service that can be provided. In my own hospitals at this very moment we have ruined buildings, potentially dangerous, which we cannot yet afford to pull down. We have emergency doors leading to non-existent fire escape bridges, which we cannot yet afford to brick up, 11 years after the Service started and some 14 years after the end of the war.
There are many more pitiful things of that kind, all because the Treasury seized the opportunity in 1948 to cheat the hospitals out of something that belonged to them. I ask the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Health—perhaps the noble Lord will convey this to him—in particular to have one more real battle on this issue. I do not think that the public are sufficiently aware of this point.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The point of war damage?
LORD STONHAM: Yes. But whether the Minister fights or not, and win or lose, I submit that he must make a special allocation of funds to remove the worst of the remaining war scars which are such a depressing, and sometimes dangerous, handicap to our hospitals; and capital monies for the restitution of

791
war damage must not be regarded as part of the region's normal capital allocation.
I should now like to say a word on a subject upon which I am sure there is general agreement—the inadequacy of hospital provision for old people and the chronic sick. Here, I believe that the trouble is that the Minister seriously underestimates both the present and future need. The Minister of Health estimates that over the country as a whole we need provide for geriatric and chronic cases only 1·2 beds per 1,000 of the population. That is manifestly absurd. We already have one bed per 1,000 of the population as a whole, and that is quite inadequate because we have as many people outside the hospitals waiting to come in as we have already in hospital beds at any given moment. So that is not enough. And since old people are in far greater need of hospital care than people of average age, we must have a far higher figure than that 1·2 per 1,000. In my experience the bed requirement for such cases is 2·5 per 1,000—at least double the Minister's estimate.
In our plans we must also take into account the fact that people are living longer. In 1956 we had 6½ million people of pensionable age—some 14 per cent. of the population. The Registrar General estimates that 15 years hence we shall have 8½ million people of pensionable age—that is, 18 per cent.—and there will be a preponderance of elderly women. In urging a considerable increase in the number of hospital beds for elderly people, I ask that special care should be taken over their geographical distribution. Proportionately higher numbers are needed in areas where, for social reasons, it is less likely that people can be cared for at home, and particularly in over-crowded urban areas from which many of the younger people have moved to new towns.
I hope also that the maximum possible facilities will be provided for remedial work This will be a sound economy, because it is both frustrating and depressing, as well as unnecessarily expensive, to have a hospital filled with chronic cases, many of whom, if we had room to manœuvre, could be back on their feet at home or in a hostel. I have a hospital of that kind, formerly of
792
600 beds but reduced by war damage to 300. In the grounds there is a complete hospital unit formerly of 100 beds. It is a sound building, with a good layout, a lift, ward kitchens, toilets and a bathroom. It needs some internal repairs and modernisation, and of course decoration and equipment; that is all. It has stood empty for twelve years. We want to install there pathology, physiotherapy and X-ray departments, and to put in 70 beds for remedial cases.
The cost of doing that would be about one-tenth the cost of a new hospital, and the need is not disputed. The scheme was approved and given what is called a job number 11 years ago. But nothing has been done. Consider what this delay has meant to the old people in the area, to say nothing of the frustrated feelings of the medical and nursing staff. I was told that even if a start was made at once it would be another three years before the unit would be in operation. The actual work could be done in six months—there is no dispute about that—but we must allow, I was told, two to two and a half years for all the sub-departments who would have to have a finger in it. That is a job that any one of us could get done ourselves in a matter of a few months. So that is another priority. We must find ways to reduce these fantastic delays in the carrying out of approved plans. You have a hospital with a lift shaft but no lift. You wait five years for the promised lift. You are then given the exciting news that authority has been given to proceed—to proceed as far as the preparation of sketch plans. You may have to wait another five years for the lift. We get that sort of thing over and over again.
While we are about it, let us put an end to the minor, pettifogging, bureaucratic restrictions which are an insult to the responsible people on our hospital committees. Even little things we are obliged, for example, to report to the Board—items of maintenance costing £1,000 or so—before monies already allocated to us can be spent for the specific purpose. That limit was fixed 11 years ago when prices were much lower, and the Ministry refuses to increase it. Of course, it is easy to dodge it by breaking up a job into its constituent parts and charging them separately. But what responsible committee

793
wants to do that sort of thing? Everybody knows that this is a perfectly silly regulation. You cannot even pay an experienced porter a little extra for cleaning and preserving expensive equipment. You must wait until you can get the money to employ an extra person on the staff. You cannot, without risking trouble with the auditors, pay for a taxi to bring a radiographer in for an evening emergency; or, if his salary exceeds £1,000 a year, you cannot provide a telephone in order to keep a technician "on call" out of hours. These restrictions do not save money; they actually give rise to demands for extra staff.
The manner in which, in real terms, the cost of the Hospital Service has been kept down, despite the enormous increase in the work, is evidence of the responsibility and efficiency of the committees. With their knowledge of local conditions they can surely be trusted to deal with these matters to the public advantage. My Lords, we are not even allowed to insure the lives of the people who collect wages from the bank, unless in defiance of the Minister, we do it out of our meagre free monies. Let us end some of these things which really are an insult to the intelligence and give rise to so much delay.
Finally, my Lords (I hope that the noble Lord will be able to deal with this matter), I would appeal to the Government to give a fair deal to the ancillary non-medical staff: the pharmacists, radiographers, physiotherapists and the technicians; to the almoners and hospital secretaries. We cannot continue to trade so shamefully as we are now doing on their devotion. The present shortage is serious enough, but the small number of students in training is even worse. How can it be otherwise, when the salary scales are so low and the prospects are so poor? A radiographer must train for two years—three years if he wishes to qualify in radiotherapy. After all that, when he is 21 he gets £9 10s. a week. A great many unskilled teenage labourers are getting considerably more than that. Yet the radiographer is a man in whose hands we place our lives. The commencing salary of a top-grade superintendent radiographer at one of the largest hospitals is £14 10s. a week, which is a few shillings more than the average earnings of industrial workers—this in a service of
794
prime diagnostic importance which has assumed a new significance of recent years. Small wonder that the numbers coming forward for training are not keeping pace with the demands
Physiotherapists, who are important in the work of rehabilitation, have salaries which are even worse, whilst the position in respect of pharmacists is a tragicomedy. Your Lordships may have seen a report in the Press this week. I have here a cutting from the News Chronicle about a case where, unfortunately, a doctor had prescribed three grains of benzedrine when he meant three milligrammes. The woman died, and there was an inquest. At the inquest the coroner after questioning the pharmacist who made up the prescription said:
"I do not want to tread on the corns of any other court which may deal with the matter, but the chemist is in the background and acts as a protector-in-chief for the doctor who is careless."
I do not wish to comment on whether or not pharmacists are "protectors-in-chief", but what do we pay these "protectors-in-chief"? The commencing salary of a qualified hospital pharmacist is less than £12 per week. That compares with £20 to £25 per week which the same man can get with retail firms or in manufacturing. So we are hopelessly under-staffed, with only some 1,300 pharmacists to man our hospitals. During sickness and holiday periods we must employ locums, but by Whitehall decree we are not allowed to pay them more than £16 16s. a week. The Pharmaceutical Journal, however, refused to accept advertisements at that figure, so we were permitted to advertise at £18 18s. a week. But we still did not get the locums: it did not make any difference. What happened was that hospital prescriptions had to go out to local chemists, and it cost the Treasury very much more. It is in this way that the little Canutes of Whitehall defy the tides of fact and finance.
Surely we are not going to permit a continuance of this humiliating and expensive farce. I ask the Minister to initiate at once, in consultation with the professional bodies concerned, a review of the salaries and conditions of employment of non-medical staffs, and at the same time—and this is vitally important—to improve the negotiating

795
machinery. Because only if career prospects are satisfactory and training facilities extended shall we get the staff we so badly need. I have mentioned only the matters which, from experience, I regard as of the greatest urgency. Your Lordships may have other views, but I trust we shall all agree that our resources should be spent first to satisfy the greatest need, not to win prestige; that the priorities must be settled; that a plan must be devised and implemented, and that the present financial provision is far below the need, and far less than the country can afford, while the one thing the country cannot afford is preventable ill-health.
I believe your Lordships will all agree that those who run our hospitals are frustrated by the delays arising from too much central control, too much paper work and too many meetings. It is my belief that this will not end until our hospitals are administered by a National Hospitals Board which should be given an adequate block grant and allowed to get on with the job. Until we can secure agreement on such a fundamental change we must strive together to persuade the Government to make the improvements which are so badly needed. There can be few of us who at some time have not worked in a hospital, and we all know that no service can be more worth while. I hope that those of your Lordships who at present hold power and influence will use it to ensure the provision of a new chapter in the story of human health and happiness. I beg to move for Papers.
4.25 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for bringing before us in so clear and cogent a way some of what he would press as the most important needs of our Hospital Service, expanding as it is, but not expanding fast enough. Some of those needs, and others which will be referred to by others of your Lordships, are familiar to us all. As one who has served on a Regional Hospital Board and a hospital management committee, I cannot recall a single meeting where the questions, "How much?" and "How soon?" were not a matter of acute discussion among us.
796
If I do not refer to most of these points which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has put before us, and if I refer to an aspect of the need of the Service which is to some of your Lordships perhaps less familiar, by some even overlooked, it is because I feel more qualified to stress that; and others will have more competence in other aspects. We all have in mind and feeling the wellbeing of the patients who are coming into our hospitals in increasing numbers. They come for their treatment, not as bodies or as cases but as persons; and their experience there will depend very much not only on the kind of treatment that is there allotted to them but how they are treated.
In my opinion, there is a vast improvement in the attitude of ordinary people to hospitals as such. I well remember before the war, in a poor, industrial part of a northern city, how there was still an intense dread of going into hospital. To many it was still the last resort, the lion's den, where nearly all the footsteps seemed to lead one way and so few the other. Of course it was wrong that they should think so, even then, but it was still a common attitude. Since then there has been a manifest change. There is an optimism about a hospital ward and a confidence about recovery which makes hospitalisation—that horrible word—no longer quite the ordeal that it was.
There are, of course, many advances brought about by medical skill and public service which have contributed to this end, for which, whatever else be said, we are all heartily thankful; and we are considering how these things can be extended further and more quickly. I believe that there is a danger, when we deal with priorities in buildings and facilities, that we may come to think of patients as rather less than real individuals. Even now, going into hospital is, to many, an intimidating experience. They are going away from their home, away from their family and familiar things. They are putting themselves in the hands of others over whom they have no control; and behind that there is the unknown that has to be faced; and the unknown is always apt to be magnified.
For this reason, because it is a crucial experience in the patients' lives, the personal element is very important, and the atmosphere of the hospital, and the

797
conditions of it, and, indeed, the relationship of others to them, the feeling that they count—all this matters for their cure. Now there are many factors involved in this; and I say this without deprecating the work of the ancillary staffs to which the noble Lord has referred. I want to stress again the work of the nursing staff. All of your Lordships, I believe, will have known patients who have left hospital not only healed in body but much chastened and refreshed by the patience and devotion of those who have attended them. It has been a discipline for good, and sometimes it is more than this. One young man known to me is at present training for Ordination into the Ministry of the Church after a process whose beginning he traces back to a remark made to him by a Christian nurse when he was a patient; and none of us would dispute the incalculable influence which nurses can exercise.
The quality, therefore, and the supply of nurses is bound up with the development of the whole Service. There are still, I believe, grievous shortages in some hospitals, much overworked staffs resulting from it and sometimes the closing of wards; and any further extension of our Service is bound to bring us to terms with this particular fact: how to ensure that hospitals not only will be built but will be manned. In part, this is not a matter of money. Medical work in all forms is obviously a vocation. Its demands, both physical and personal, upon the staff must be higher than in many better paid but less necessary jobs, and can be sustained only by a high sense of duty and humanity. I should hope that we could be assured that all possible steps are taken to make known the need for new volunteers in this field sufficient to what our anticipated need will be. I should hope, also, that the churches and schools of our country and all those who are in a position to influence the young will do what they can for this need by trying to inculcate a sense of vocation for this particular work in an increasing number of potential young servants of their community. It is interesting, my Lords, to note that Hospital Sunday, which was in the past devoted largely as a day on which funds might be appealed for and collected for hospital work, and was dropped when the Service first came in, has now been
798
renewed by many authorities on an entirely different basis, to sound this note of service and dedication which is involved.
Of course, the importance of the work in popular estimation, as well as in effect, will depend also upon how they are equipped and how they are housed and looked after. I ask whether we are satisfied that in extension plans a proper priority is given to the nurses' hostels and quarters and other conditions. Is it an improvement or it just a temporary expedient that they should in some cases have to live out? And if it is not good policy, can we persuade many that nursing is of such importance, if we do not place a very high priority in our spending upon those buildings and services which will make their work most congenial to discharge? I should hope that in every way possible we can demonstrate that it is the people who operate the hospitals, rather than the buildings themselves, which come first; that buildings must serve them.
This human factor comes up in another way which I feel is of particular concern. The implication of our Hospital Service is that anyone in this country, whoever he is and whatever his condition, is of sufficient worth as an individual to claim all the resources of medical skill in so far as they can be made available to him. It goes even further than this. The worst patients of our mental hospitals those who are most handicapped through no fault of their own in their response to normal life, are still claimed and treated as worthy of full medical attention, not from any utilitarian reasons, for they cannot indeed serve their communities, but because of some intrinsic value which we attach to them as human beings. That is the assumption.
If patients, then, are not bodies but real persons, then their treatment must deal not with the body only but with those intangibles which make up the individuals. All your Lordships would agree that any healing skill and treatment must be reinforced by the right attitude of mind in the patient; an element of faith and hope is a vital ingredient in recovery. For this reason, as for others, we must not underestimate the work of religion as an integral part of the Hospital Service. To some, no

799
doubt, religion is a counsel of despair. For them it is the cry of the mariners in The Tempest:
"All lost to prayers, to prayers"
But I hope that most of us would not regard it in such an unconstructive way as that. Sickness is a disturbing, but sometimes very salutary, experience. Men awaken to a need for some strength and assurance which only faith in God can supply. And if there is someone to hand to help them towards this faith, then the doctors' work is made lighter.
I, myself, have seen instances where this has worked out in a quite triumphant—even in medical language, a miraculous—way. And we should wish that it might more often be possible. Sometimes this ministry of encouragement and belief will make all the difference between recovery and disaster. More than this, I would say that the time of sickness with the loneliness and the hopelessness that it begets, provokes questions about the issue of life, about its meaning and its hope, which in normal times men are very apt to gloss over. It is the patient's mind as well as his body that is then at stake. And if there is again someone here who can speak authoritatively to him in his awakened need, whether the patient's tenure of life is to be long or short, he will be helped thereby on to some new plane.
The Hospital Service has fully recognised in its intention the place of this religious element. It has made provision for chaplains to hospitals; and I should like to bear testimony to the way in which hospital authorities have cooperated with Church bodies in promoting conferences and training courses for clergy so that they may increase their own effectiveness as hospital chaplains. The Church of England has a Hospital Chaplaincy Council, representative of both the ecclesiastical and the medical sides, who are there to ensure a full liaison between the work of the chaplain and the hospital. But it still remains true that, for all the goodwill which the chaplain receives, his work is often handicapped by considerations of hospital finance and planning. The Ministry have made clear, in one of those regulations to which the noble Lord referred, that the provisions of a hospital chapel or room
800
is essential. Obviously, without it specific religious services cannot be provided for staff or patients with that regularity or reverence which they merit. And yet there are places—and I could cite them—where, under the pressure of space, buildings which had previously been erected as chapels, and even used as chapels, have been turned over to other hospital uses and have not been restored, or with very great difficulty have been restored, to their own proper original function.
In many hospitals, of course, makeshift arrangements are necessary; and while lip-service is paid to this place of religion in the work of healing, when it comes to the extension of hospitals or the building of new ones the impression grows that only when or if all other needs are met will the chapel come into its own; and that may be the Greek Kalends. The chaplain's work, of course, is not specifically confined to, or mostly residing in, a chapel, but there is often no room or office allotted and set apart for him in order that he may meet people and help them personally. I have known instances (not in small hospitals, either) where in a moment of crucial illness or of death, when it is anxiety and sorrow which have to be met by the Word and counsel, it has been left for the chaplain to try to bring comfort to the relations in the corner of a crowded waiting room or the thoroughfare of an entrance hall. Of course, that is not the whole story, and none would deny the immense pressure on space which management committees have to face. But a workman must be provided with the tools for his job, and our Hospital Council has pleaded that, in serious hospital planning and costing, the aim of this part of its service should have its proper place.
The work of the chaplain is a difficult work: sometimes it seems difficult to fit into the texture and programme of the hospital. It can best be discharged where there is a full-time chaplain, for then he can give himself, without any outside interruption, to the many opportunities of service which the hospital offers, both to the patients and among the medical and nursing staffs: and all these, your Lordships would agree, should surely come within his care and attention, since the hospital is a community in itself. It is not so easy when he is a part-time chaplain with parochial

801
and other duties outside, and this must often be the case. In one of its memoranda the Ministry has laid down that the figure of 750 patients should be maintained as justifying the appointment of a full-time hospital chaplain, unless there are exceptional circumstances which would justify a lower figure. Where possible, we would urge that it should be established as a principle that a full-time chaplain is desirable for the efficient work that he is called to do. It would be a small cost compared with some of the immense items which must come before the Ministry.
There are just two small points which I would add to that. In appointing a full-time chaplain, or when deciding whether he should be appointed, we would plead that there might be a more liberal interpretation of the circumstances that warrant these appointments. A teaching hospital for instance, where there are many students as well as staff and patients, provides an occasion where surely the work of a chaplain might have some exceptional importance, even if the number of patients falls below the standard figure. Some authorities say that they prefer a part-time man because he would have the stimulus and change of other work outside to enliven his hospital ministrations. There is something in that point, particularly in mental hospital work; but the logic of it, if they pursue it as we hope they would, is that there should be in such cases more than one part-time chaplain, such as could be warranted by the figures. Otherwise, at some rather miserable financial saving to the hospital they are asking him to do an impossible task which, in the nature of things, he will reduce to a minimum.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, would the right reverend Prelate, before he sits down, allow me to ask him one question? Has the matter of war-damaged or ruined hospital chapels been investigated? I ask that because one of the buildings I cannot afford to pull down is a war-damaged chapel—though, of course, we have a makeshift chapel inside. But it may be that it can be dealt with separately, and I am wondering whether that point has been considered at all.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: I could not give the noble Lord a direct answer to that question. It might depend
802
upon whether this was a consecrated chapel coming under the Private Buildings Act, or whether it was a dedicated chapel: but I will gladly refer that to my Council to see whether there is any answer. They would be only too glad of the loophole of war damage if it would ease their problem.
My Lords, we do not want the Hospital Service, with its great tradition, which is historically linking up the motives of charity and religious concern with scientific medical treatment, to become in any way de-personalised. I believe that the spiritual and the bodily elements of healing are closely interlocked, since patients are always persons; and this must be reflected even in the actual planning and spending of our Hospital Service. In the nature of things it is the invisible, intangible factors in life that are most easily overlooked, since their results are not easily calculated and their absence not immediately noticed: but I am convinced that the personal and spiritual element in healing is fundamental, if we are to send our patients home not only improved in physical health but strengthened and renewed in their whole being; and I should hope that in our hospital policies this factor would be given its proper place.
4.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: My Lords, until I began to brood on to-day I had always thought my first solo performance in an aeroplane the most alarming possible experience. But I was quite wrong. Then there was, it is true, a slight chance of breaking my neck, but only a negligible risk of involving anyone else in the affair. Unfortunately, that is not the case today; so I can only hope for your Lordships' traditional kindness to people in my position.
I think it is generally conceded that one of the most important consequences of the National Health Service Act has been the progressive development of the non-teaching Regional Board Hospitals. These are mainly provincial. This is not in any way to suggest that before the appointed day these hospitals were not giving devoted and skilled attention and service to their local communities—they certainly were. But medical talents were unevenly deployed. Since the appointed day there has been a steady diffusion of

803
all types of specialist skill, particularly, but by no means exclusively, at consultant level. In consequence, these hospitals have been able worthily to uphold their previous high reputation against a background of ever-advancing medical knowledge and ever-increasing complexity of investigation and treatment.
Now, my Lords, this development must seem wholly excellent: and so it is, but it has brought with it considerable problems. I have the honour to be a consultant on the staff of one of these provincial hospitals, and it is about some of the difficulties which particularly affect provincial and Regional Board hospitals, rather than the teaching hospitals, that I should like to speak briefly this afternoon. As the skills available at the provincial hospitals have increased, so has the family doctors' confidence in them. The result has inevitably been that an ever greater proportion of patients are investigated and treated at their local hospitals and a smaller proportion are referred to the large teaching centres. At the same time, as we move steadily out of the era of medical empiricism and advance into the age of scientific investigation, family doctors, especially the younger ones, trained at first hand in the most modern methods of investigation, have come to rely more and more on the diagnostic facilities of their local hospitals. And while all this has been going on there have often been large increases in the size of the populations served. For example, in my own hospital group area there has been a 20 per cent. increase in the last eleven years—that is, since the appointed day; and the average increase continues at about 6,000 a year, and is expected to do so at least until 1973. It, is this ever-increasing demand on the provincial hospitals which is responsible for many of the problems of that part of the Hospital Service. It is an increase in demand which I feel confident has not been felt to the same degree by the teaching hospitals.
First, there is overcrowding: in the out-patient clinics, in the special departments, such as radiology and pathology, and in the wards. Appointment times for out-patients modify, but do not eliminate, chaos. Crowding in the wards is often serious. When the demands for urgent admission outstrip the number of
804
empty beds, the situation can be restored only by one of several means. Admission can be refused—a most distasteful and dangerous method. Patients barely convalescent can be summarily discharged, perhaps in the middle of the night. Needless to say, that does not recommend itself. Or extra beds can be put up—and this is the device commonly adopted. It leads inevitably to overcrowding. And overcrowding reduces privacy, accentuates nursing difficulties and, most important of all nowadays, greatly facilitates cross-infection with the modern hospital plague—the ubiquitous and often antibiotic-resistant staphylococcus.
To try to compensate for the bed shortage, the rapidity of patient-bed turnover has been speeded up until no more is possible in that respect without the risk of a breakdown in the service through staff fatigue and inadequate investigation and treatment. The tempo is already so great that it jeopardises nursing recruitment and is responsible for serious waste by resignation. A comparison of the average number of nurses to 100 patients in acute wards in four categories of hospital is illuminating. In London undergraduate teaching hospitals there are 99; in London postgraduate teaching hospitals, 89; in provincial teaching hospitals, 81, and in the rest, 60. Then there is a serious shortage of physiotherapists. This is particularly unfortunate, because it gravely retards the rehabilitation of just that category of patients who, if inadequately treated, tend to occupy hospital beds immoderately long and at great expense. It also includes the huge number of unfortunate patients of all ages with the various rheumatic diseases.
Shortages of technicians in the radiology departments cause frustrating and often dangerous delays in completing essential examinations. This is particularly the case in those hospitals which operate the invaluable "open department" system, to which family doctors have direct access. In my own hospital, the waiting list for a barium meal examination in the open department is one month, though rather shorter for patients referred from the hospital out-patients' department. It is true, of course, that if a growth is suspected, for example, the patient is given the highest priority and is done

805
almost immediately; unfortunately, growths are often unsuspected. There are grave shortages of technicians in radiotherapy departments. The department in my hospital was obliged to close its doors for five weeks in the summer of 1958 because two radiographers had left and could not be replaced. Patients in need of treatment—and treatment in these cases cannot wait—had to be transferred to other hospitals, remote from their homes, at great personal inconvenience and at considerable cost to the community. The same pattern of shortage is apparent whichever provincial hospital department is examined.
My Lords, not only the welfare of patients but our reputation in world medicine increasingly depends on the way our provincial hospitals can acquit themselves. The bulk of all the clinical material is investigated and treated in the provinces. From there should come a steady and increasing stream of valuable original work. But this work is not well fostered by present conditions of lack of accommodation, crowding, rushing about and constant preoccupation with staff shortages of all kinds. These hospitals deserve much greater support, and I am sure that the interest of the country also requires it. The only possible way out of these difficulties is the immediate launching of the most massive programme of new hospital construction. In that respect, the Minister's statement on Monday in another place was very disappointing to me.
Even the most massive programme of construction and reconstruction, however, will not suffice by itself. It must be combined with an imaginative review, not only of conditions of service in all nursing and ancillary departments but also of rewards for that service. It is no good building hospitals and then finding that there are insufficient nurses, or X-ray departments without radiographers, or physiotherapy departments without therapists. The Hospital Service must be able to compete with industry or it will starve. It is not good enough to hope to rely indefinitely on selfless devotion. It is just that which is keeping so many departments in our provincial hospitals going to-day. This re-thinking and increased support must not be at the expense of the teaching hospitals, which so amply justify our pride in them, and which must never be stinted. It
806
must come as recognition that, while the teaching hospitals must have no less, the provincial and other Regional Board hospitals require much more if we hope to develop in this country a balanced and creditable Hospital Service.
4.58 p.m.
LORD COHEN OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, my first duty, and it is as pleasant as it is acceptable, is to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, who has so delighted us and informed us in his maiden speech. One of the noblest of ancient philosophers held that when we pass on, we look down from the Elysian Fields on those on this earth whom we love, and rejoice in their success. If Aristotle be right, then to-day one of the greatest ornaments of this House, one of the greatest servants of this nation, is looking down on us and sees that the torch which he lit is being so brightly carried by his son. I know that your Lordships would wish me to express our warmest congratulations to the noble Viscount on his memorable maiden speech. We look forward with the most pleasurable anticipation to his further illumination of the debates in your Lordships' House.
No one can have listened to the debate this afternoon without sensing an earnest desire on the part of all noble Lords who have spoken to criticise constructively the Hospital Service. Yet it is inevitable, in a debate of this kind, that the shortcomings should be accentuated. I merely say this in passing: that it is important to avoid a distorted and unproportioned view of our Hospital Service. I share most of the misgivings and the criticisms which have been expressed, yet it is well to recognize—and I stress this from no narrow, parochial patriotism—that despite the fact that some countries have newer hospitals, we still have the best hospital and consultant and specialist service in the world; and I think we should be proud of it. There has been an immense improvement in the hospitals since 1948; the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, has referred to the improvement in the regional hospitals, many of them local authority, old municipal hospitals. Upgrading, renovation, addition and occasional rebuilding have all made an indelible mark for the better on these old hospitals. We now, at any rate, have a distribution of hospitals which is not dependent upon charitable

807
effort, and a distribution of consultants and specialists which is not dependent upon the ability to pay, but is patterned by the needs of the community for which they are providing.
I should like to endorse what has been said by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester. I recall being invited some years ago to contribute to the Sunday Times a section on medicine on the advances which have occurred in the 170 years since the Sunday Times was first published. I laid stress on the fact—and I believe this to be true—that we should be remembered not so much for the brilliant discoveries of antisepsis and penicillin, and all those magnificent instruments which help us to analyse the physico-chemical mechanism of man, but rather for the fact that we in this country still regarded our patients as ill people and not as cases. It was, indeed, as your Lordships will remember, Plato who decried the fact that there were physicians for the soul and physicians for the body. We in this country have tried to avoid that dichotomy. I have said what I have said about our Service in no spirit of complacency, but simply because we need to look at this problem in perspective.
There are a large number of problems which I should like to raise, but I propose to confine myself to three only. They are primarily medical and not administrative or financial; and they are concerned with improving the service to the patient. The first is that the concept of regionalisation of hospitals
which was put forward in 1948 has not been realised. The points of the regionalisation of hospital services were, first, that we should be able to provide for any patient any day the service which the patient needed. Secondly—and this perhaps is the one to which I would draw greatest attention—it was supposed that the influence of the teaching hospitals, at which it might be expected would be found the more recent developments and the higher standards of practice, would permeate throughout the whole of the hospital region. To that end, we at that time delineated 14 regional hospitals (there has since been added a fifteenth, which I hope concedes that these hospital boundaries are not inviolable), and we put at their centre—not the geographical
808
but the functional centre—a teaching hospital.
What has happened? What has happened, in fact, is that in many, if not most, regions there is no contact whatsoever between the regional hospitals and the teaching hospitals. The old antagonisms which existed in the old days between
the teaching and voluntary hospitals and the municipal hospitals have been perpetuated, although the regionalisation of hospitals sought to erase the barriers between them. It seems to me that that is an ill thing both for the regional hospitals and for the teaching hospitals. There is still in many areas a feeling of regional inferiority, and that allows the regional hospitals to remain divorced from the teaching hospitals, because, quite rightly, they do not want to be looked upon "with a patronising air." This is of great importance because—and let us be frank about this—the standards of service in regional hospitals, as a whole, are not those of the teaching hospitals, though there are many quite outstanding exceptions.
But if we take Morris's paper (this was a paper published a year or two ago, and Morris works with the Social Medicine Research Unit of the Medical Research Council), he showed that in 1953 there was twice the chance of dying from an operation for acute appendicitis with peritonitis in a regional hospital as in a teaching hospital, even after correction of age and other standardisation; and twice the chance of dying from an operation for enlargement of the prostate; and if you were unfortunate enough to be a diabetic—and, after all, there are a quarter of a million in this country—and you developed diabetic coma, your chances of survival in a teaching hospital were even more than twice as great as in a regional hospital. I am not suggesting for a moment that there is any difference in the skill of those physicians and surgeons and the nursing staff attached to regional hospitals. I am myself fairly certain that it lies in other factors. It lies in the factors which have been mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley; differences in staffing, differences in facilities, differences in accommodation and the like; and it is clearly important that we should carry out appropriate clinical and epidemiological studies in

809
this field to elucidate the present situation.
I do not propose to offer a detailed solution of this problem of the failure of the concept of regionalisation which was so prominent a part of our hospital programme when the Service began, but I would suggest that our regions are, on the whole, far too big and sprawling. After all, one cannot expect the University of Manchester to influence Barrow—and that is indeed what is
expected. We know from studies which have been made at Barrow (the Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust has carried out studies there) that there is virtually no association between Barrow, which works in isolation, and the Manchester teaching hospitals. I am suggesting that there is a need for rather smaller regions, possibly with sub-regions, in which there will be a central hospital, which itself is under the influence of the teaching hospitals, and also that there shall be a regular interchange of staffs between teaching and regional hospitals.
If I may—and here I must declare an interest, as a member of the Liverpool Regional Hospital Board and the Board of Governors of the United Liverpool Teaching Hospitals—I would ask your Lordships to look at Liverpool as the appropriate prototype for those investigations. Here you have not a region which spreads a hundred miles north. Here you have a region in which the teaching hospital is no more than 17 miles from any other hospital in the region, and members of the teaching hospital are on the staffs of almost all the regional hospitals. So there is that appropriate interchange. Now we have only 2 million population, unlike the region of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, which is vast. But I doubt, from what he said, if it is as efficient as the Liverpool region. I will not press that.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that interesting point which he has been developing. I think he has been speaking chiefly of the system which exists in England and Wales. Is he advocating that that system should be changed to the system that has been operated in Scotland since 1948?
LORD COHEN OF BIRKENHEAD: I hoped the noble Lord would not raise the question of Scotland at this point,
810
because I am well aware that Scotland is regionalised under the different concept of a single Regional Board governing both teaching and regional hospitals. But, of course, it is necessary to recall that in Scotland there were hardly any regional hospitals, and there would have been no particular hospital community for a separate Regional Board to preside over. In any event, I do not want, as it were, to draw an Aberdeen herring over this particular path. I should prefer at the moment to keep to the subject which I have myself experience of-regionalisation in this country.
The second point to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention is the association of general practitioners with hospitals. There was, in the pre-National Health Service days, much closer association, and no one concedes more readily than myself that some general practitioners in some of the local hospitals undertook work for which they were not fully competent. I think it is right that there should be in charge of all departments in these hospitals men who have been specially trained for the particular problems which are likely to arise. But I think this has perpetuated the isolation of the general practitioner from the hospital which is wholly unhealthy for both—the general practitioner and the hospital. We refer not infrequently, in varying similes, to the general practitioners as the backbone of the Service or the linchpin of the Service and so forth. If he is the backbone, you cannot have merely a vertebral column walking about in isolation. You must have the body, and the body includes a hospital and, as I shall mention in a moment, the local authority services.
I would suggest that it is not enough simply to give general practitioners access to the X-ray departments and to the clinical pathological services, but that in some way they must be integrated within the Hospital Service. Many suggestions have been made. My own Committee on General Practice in 1952—of which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, was a member—advocated many ways, which I need not here reiterate, such as working as clinical assistants in hospitals and taking part in the hospital service, where there is a demand for so many additional consultants and specialists. In many cases this virtually means simply

811
a pair of skilled hands. I cannot believe that the general practitioners cannot provide some of those pairs of hands. It might, of course, be said that general practitioners are not necessarily available at the appropriate time. But with increasing group practice there is no reason at all why they should not be available. It is interesting that at the Birmingham General Hospital recently they advertised for a general practitioner assistant in one of their departments, and they had fifty-eight applications for the post. Although it would take me far too long to expand this view, I believe that there is a need for a reconsideration of the place of the general practitioner in the hospital, because in hospital and in consultations lies the best post-graduate education which a general practitioner can have.
The third point I want to mention is: are we using our hospitals to the best advantage? I would agree wholly with what has been said, that we must try to jockey the Government into spending as much money as possible on hospitals. I am not unaware that there are other claims, such as housing, education and the like, and, indeed, that there are difficulties in labour and material and in finding the appropriate sites. But we must try to get for the Hospital Service as much money as we possibly can. As has been pointed out time and time again this afternoon, we have worked in outmoded premises sometimes unfitted for the particular work which we have to do. But it would be misleading if it went out from this House that we had simply to clean the wards of our hospitals to get rid of staphy-lococcal infection in hospitals. It is an immense problem to which I agree cleaning hospitals would make a certain contribution. But there are a large number of factors responsible for infection with which a committee of infection can deal to-day and can still limit the rate and incidence of staphy-lococcal infection.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, may I say that I quite support what he said, but one of my own cross-infections committees made fourteen recommendations, all wholly good and comprehensive, but there were only five of them that could
812
not be done without the expenditure of money.
LORD COHEN OF BIRKENHEAD: I agree that they were wholly good, because they were taken from a Report of a Committee over which I had the honour to preside on Staphylococcal Infections in Hospitals. So we shall not differ on that. But there are also certain essential comforts which have already been mentioned and which are lacking for patients and for staff. On the other hand, I think we ought also to stress what the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester mentioned, that, after all, it is men and not machines and premises which necessarily make for good medicine and make patients well. I have recently spent a little time in some chromium-plated institutions across the Atlantic, but I should still prefer to be treated by the human beings in our own hospitals.
I was going to stress this point. If we are pressing the Government that they should spend more money on hospitals, we must assure the Government that we are using the beds to the best advantage, and that these beds are needed. We really need to look at this question of numbers again. When the National Health Service came into being it was suggested by the Ministry of Health that for acute general hospitals five beds per thousand of the population was the number needed. But recent investigations—case load studies, as they are called—have shown that in many areas where they have been undertaken that number is too high. In Northampton and Norwich the number is nearer two, and in an industrial area recently investigated by Dr. Logan and Dr. Forsyth under the Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust's ægis it was shown that 2·5, at the outside, was the number required. This is a disquieting state.
LORD TAYLOR: Is the noble Lord referring to acute beds?
LORD COHEN OF BIRKENHEAD: Yes, simply the acute general beds; I have excluded the chronic, the geriatric, the mental and so forth. In those hospitals it was found at the particular time of investigation that one-third of the men and one-half of the women were not in hospital at that time for medical reasons but largely for family, social and

813
economic reasons, and therefore the responsibility for them should lie upon other authorities. It is the local authorities who ought to make available housing, who ought to make available home helps, domestic nurses and the like, to make good the deficiency of hospital beds that may be there.
I think it is also true that we cannot decide from the number of beds present before the Act the number of beds which is now appropriate. If you had analysed the beds in this country before 1948 you would have found that there were some areas that had ten beds per thousand of population and other areas that had four. That was not due to medical needs. But there is an interesting inference to be drawn. All those beds are full, wherever they are, and the fact really is that there is a Parkinson's law in relation to hospital beds; if you provide them they will be filled, and they will be filled for much longer periods than they should be filled. I think that we have to look at this question with much greater care than we have done in the past.
Here I should like to pay a tribute to the Ministry of Health. They have recently introduced their Organisation and Methods Research Department, and already they have produced two documents of immense value, one referring to out-patients and the other to medical records, and I hope that with methods of work-study and operational research we shall hear from them what is the answer to this question of bed needs. But let me emphasise finally that you cannot consider the problem of hospital organisation in this country in isolation; you must consider it in relation to general practitioner services, in relation to local authority services—indeed, in relation to the whole social welfare structure of the country.
I have, as have other speakers in this debate, been mainly critical, but that was the purpose of the debate. I should like to end on a note of gratitude and optimism. No one who views objectively the National Health Service can dissent from the recent pronouncement from an unlikely source, the President of the British Medical Association, who on August 8, 1959, stated:
"It is doubtful (in spite of its shortcomings) whether any political measure has ever brought
814
so much relief and hope to those who needed it as the Act which came into operation in July, 1948."
5.25 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, may I first of all join with the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, in congratulations to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, on his maiden speech. It is a great tradition of this House that one can always find noble Lords to speak with great authority on any subject. We can certainly say that the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, has joined with his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, in not only speaking with authority but also speaking in language which we laymen can understand.
I wish to speak for a few moments to you to-night on one special hospital. That hospital is the Fountain Hospital in Tooting for mentally deficient and mentally handicapped children. I was asked a short time ago to see this hospital and I went down and spent a day there. I fully realise that there is a scheme in hand for this hospital, but to-night I just want to bring before my right honourable friend the Minister the urgency of this scheme and try to get a little more information about it.
With your Lordships' permission, I should like to give you a short history of this hospital. It was built in 1893 in eight weeks as an emergency hospital for infectious diseases, with 384 beds. It remains to-day structurally almost as set up, but now houses 600 mentally deficient children and mentally handicapped children. The waiting list in August when I saw it was in the region of 140. I was informed the day before yesterday that the waiting list to-day is 170. May I deal first with the structural side of the hospital. It is, in the main, corrugated iron huts. The wards are of the barrack-room type and the floors are wooden floorboards, which cannot possibly be described as hygienic for this type of children. There are no indoor recreation rooms; hence, during inclement weather the beds are moved up to the end of the ward so that the children who can get out of bed can have space to play there. Owing to the numbers of patients the wards are terribly overcrowded, and in many cases it is hard to move about between the beds. In many cases, and may be the majority, the children have no idea of anything

815
which is going on. Maybe that word "Bedlam", used in the old days, might have suited this hospital. Here may I pay a very humble tribute to the staff, from the superintendent right down to the nurses and those who scrub out the wards.
The nursing comes under two categories. The first is for those children who will never understand or know what is going on around them, and that is chiefly a job of keeping them clean and as comfortable as possible—and a very arduous task it is. The second type is for those who can be assisted and who must be forced to do things for themselves, for their own good. In both cases that needs patience and understanding, and in most cases one will realise that the normal thanks one would get from an ordinary patient cannot be forthcoming in these cases.
May I turn now to the waiting list, which numbers 170 to-day. These children are in many cases in the home, and application would not be made to go into hospital unless it was highly desirable from the point of view either of the children or of the parents. I need hardly stress the strain on those families, and for that reason alone the urgency of the matter is paramount. The Superintendent tells me that he has tried to move children to other hospitals in other Regional Board areas, but there again it seems impossible to find vacancies; and the fact of that waiting list going up in the last few months shows this to be so.
I come now to the scheme as I understand it. Since 1920, very often a new hospital has been put into a scheme, but there has never been enough money to erect it. A new scheme was made about three years ago and plans were drawn up, but unfortunately this again was turned down. I think the scheme now is that 300 of these children will eventually—may I mark that word "eventually"—be transferred to Queen Mary's Hospital, Carshalton. The Fountain will be cut down, as I understand it, to 100 beds. Now one can see that with the waiting list as it is, 770 beds are needed now. So 370 children are not catered for, and it is hard to tell what would happen to the remainder that are in that hospital to-day or on the waiting list.
816
I should like to ask the noble Lord who is going to answer if he can tell us whether that scheme, as I have outlined it to your Lordships, is correct. If so, can he or the Minister give any indication as to when it can be put into operation, and tell us whether there is any idea in the Minister's mind as to what happens to the children who are not catered for? As I have said, it is a matter of grave urgency, and I know that my right honourable friend the Minister realises this. Money must be forthcoming. We have all called for money. But let us remember again that these children are human beings like ourselves; and we are thinking not only of them but also of the nurses, the doctors, the superintendents and the parents. I hope that I shall be able to get some answer tonight.
5.32 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, in all that is related to mental deficiency and mental handicap I am always well content to follow the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. I hope that his earnest plea will receive a good response from the Minister. I should like to join in the tributes that have already been paid to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, so deservedly and so delightfully, by the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, who, I gather, has unfortunately been called away. We on this side certainly hope to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, very often, to some extent for his father's sake (he will not mind my saying that), but also very much for his own.
The noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, is, of course, always very interesting on these subjects of which he is such a master. This time he asks us to consider what Plato and Aristotle would have thought about this matter. I was glad to find that the alleged gulf between humanists and scientists seems to be disappearing. Of course, we have often seen pictures of Plato pointing to Heaven and Aristotle pointing to earth. I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, supposes that if they came back to-day they would point to Liverpool, and particularly to the institution over which he has himself been presiding. Unfortunately, he is not here to reply.
This is a debate which is memorable for many reasons. Everyone, I think, including the right reverend Prelate, is

817
an expert in this field. I have some claims to speak, being Chairman of the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children, expressing therefore the feelings of perhaps 15,000 parents of afflicted children; and I am most proud, of course, to think that the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, is our treasurer. But I am not personally an expert like those who have spoken—we have listened to most expert speeches.
The debate is memorable in another way in that I think two of the main speeches from this side are to be made by those who are sitting on the Front Bench for the first time, and the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, will be speaking as a Minister for the first time from the other Front Bench. So I think it may fairly he said that the three chief speeches on this matter will be made by maiden speakers on the Front Benches. As an old hand who was forced to speak from the Front Bench (without any particular reluctance, but still forced) on the first day I was in the House, I would say that they will find it far easier to speak from there than anywhere else, although they may find themselves tempted to make too many speeches from there; and I would say that one finds it hard to speak half as well from anywhere else. However, I am sure that they will overcome that difficulty, and we wish the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, well
I would say how deeply I was impressed, as was everybody here—I have had the opportunity of finding out from outside this House, as well as inside—by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I have already found several doctors outside the House, and no doubt there are others inside, who have said about Lord Stonham's speech that it showed he knows what he is talking about. When you get doctors saying that of a layman talking on medicine you can see what an exceptional effort his has been, and it will certainly give the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, a great deal to reply to. I am sorry that a moment ago I was commenting on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, in his absence, but it was nothing at all offensive—it was almost obsequious. I do not think my remarks are likely to give any offence, and no doubt when he reads them to-morrow the noble Lord will suffer no distress of any kind—at least, nothing that a
818
psychiatrist like Lord Taylor could not cure very quickly.
My Lords, I believe that this is a very serious occasion, and I feel a considerable responsibility, speaking as I do for the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children. But I think Lord Stonham would agree—as probably would Lord Cohen of Birkenhead and others—that we should have a special day devoted to those who are mentally afflicted, perhaps a particular day for the mentally handicapped. After all, something over 40 per cent. of those in our hospitals are in mental hospitals, and they have their own very wide and difficult problems. Whereas Lord Stonham, rightly, as I think, described our hospital position to-day as grossly inadequate—excluding, of course, the high standard which is maintained by those who minister to the needs of the afflicted—I think the inadequacy is most blatant in the mental deficiency hospitals.
In dealing with mental deficiency we enter a sphere where, in theory, ultimate ideals and more urgent steps could be discussed separately. But it is a little hard to keep them apart. I think we all accept the aspiration expressed by the Royal Commission and implied in the new Act that, so far as possible, the mentally handicapped should be transferred away from hospitals into hostels. In that way, a great number would eventually—and the sooner the better—leave hospital, so that only those in need of continuous medical care would remain. But that is all obviously some way ahead. But from this side of the House—and not from this side alone—we all call once again for a determined effort to accelerate this process which, of course, means that in the last resort, if they prove tardy, the Minister must compel local authorities to provide hostels as envisaged in the Mental Health Act.
I would call the attention of the House, if I may, to one particular project with which my own Society is concerned—it is the joint effort of the Buckinghamshire County Council and our own National Society to erect a mental hostel of this type by the end of 1960. I cannot help wondering whether the noble Lord who is to reply would agree to speak to his right honourable friend and ask whether the example of this project

819
could be drawn to the attention of all local authorities, because I feel that it would have a most salutary effect upon them. To-day we are discussing hospitals, not hostels, but obviously it is a little difficult, in dealing with the mentally handicapped, to keep the two concepts apart. For the next few years a high proportion of mentally handicapped will obviously remain in hospital, however actively the Minister and local authorities move; and in what I have to say this afternoon—and my remarks will not be very prolonged—I should like to concentrate mainly on the physical conditions in mental deficiency hospitals and on the need for improving them.
I believe that we all agree—talking now of hospitals and passing away from hostels—that for these life-long patients we must try to get hospitals approximating to a home. We should like to bring to an end these huge institutions-with up to 2,000 patients, and to have smaller units where patients could live in residential groups. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, will support and endorse that aim, and I believe that my noble friend Lord Taylor and others will agree that the staffing of such smaller units would be much less difficult and the work of the staff less arduous. And on all those grounds we support the new pattern for hospitals. Perhaps we could come—and certainly if we have a special day for the mentally handicapped we must come—to the very large question of how far those of the mentally handicapped who remain in hospital should be in separate hospitals, and how far they should be mixed up, so to speak, with general patients. I am the last person to have the credentials for dogmatising on that matter, but it is a subject which we need to discuss carefully. I believe that we should all be ready to say that there ought to be much more mixing up than there is at present, though whether a residue of the extremely difficult cases should always be treated on their own is something on which I would rather hear medical opinion than hold forth myself.
May I come to the immediate proposals of the Minister? I was interested to find that some of those who have spoken to-day, with very expert knowledge, found them inadequate. I do not want to be ungenerous to a Minister
820
who has certainly shown his earnestness in this field, but at the moment, speaking for myself and, I suppose I should say, for my Society, we have not been able to form an opinion on how far we can congratulate the Minister on his building programme in relation to the mentally handicapped. Everybody is glad that something considerable is to be done, but we must reserve judgment as to how far the years eaten by the locusts are to be atoned for.
May I put one point, however, in connection with the proposals to the noble Lord the Minister who is to reply? Do we assume that the building programme of Her Majesty's Government will reach a figure of £50 million a year about five years from now? I am not asking for an immediate reply. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us when he winds up. I believe that in their Election programme the Conservative Party mentioned the figure of £50 million a year. Do we assume that this programme will be organised so as to keep that promise? Whether that is so or not, can the Minister tell us what proportion of this sum—and what is the total sum in money—is to be allocated to mental deficiency hospitals, or otherwise allocated so as to facilitate the treatment of the mentally handicapped? I have given the noble Lord some small notice of this point, though I do not know whether it was sufficient. But perhaps he will tell us when he speaks at the end.
When I criticize—as I must, like other speakers—the terrible shortcomings of the hospital arrangements from the point of view of the mentally handicapped, I am very anxious to do justice to what I would call the generosity of feeling of the parents of these children. I do not want to create the impression that parents of mentally handicapped children are bitter, or are people who are niggardly of gratitude for what is done; for that would be to give a very false impression. I know they would want me to say very clearly that they appreciate the very fine things which are done for their helpless children in these hospitals, and I would rather make that clear and sit down at once than give the opposite impression. They are fast losing their fear and distaste for these mental deficiency hospitals, and they recognise that in those hospitals the patients are treated with

821
kindness and love, and that they are safe and secure.
These are things which I know would be endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and should be clearly said by anyone speaking for the National Society. Nevertheless, parents of mentally handicapped children are beginning to feel that, perhaps out of genuine gratitude for what is being done by those who look after their children, they have been almost too indulgent towards these conditions and have not, perhaps, spoken out loudly enough of the conditions with which they are familiar. Therefore I shall not, I hope, seem to be detracting from the appreciation of the actual treatment if I join in the general comments that have been made about conditions in hospitals—and, indeed, add to them quite severely.
May I take a few figures? If they are not correct perhaps the noble Lord will tell me, because I believe he knows where they come from. I put them up to him only so that he can tell us whether they are about right and, if so, whether in his view there is some reasonable explanation which sensible people ought to accept. Or, if he cannot give that kind of answer, perhaps he will tell us how he proposes to rectify these anomalies. According to my figures the allotments made to mental deficiency hospitals throughout the country amount to £6 2s. 1d. per patient per week. This figure compares with £9 6s. 1d. for long-stay hospitals and £21 15s. 6d. for acute hospitals.
In saying that, I do not want to give the impression which might occur to some noble Lords who do not know this side of things that mentally handicapped people in these hospitals are not receiving any medical treatment. Quite a number of them suffer a variety of physical ailments, and some from multiple ailments; and therefore one must realise that there is some quite high element of sickness—or what the layman would call sickness—contained among these people. But, according to my information, the figures—they may be slightly out of date, and if so perhaps the noble Lord will give later ones—-are just over £6 a week per patient in mental deficiency hospitals, and over £9 for patients in long-stay hospitals. It is perhaps just worth noticing that the
822
average cost at an ordinary local authority home per person is £7 4s. 1d. per week; and at homes administered by the London County Council the figure is £8 4s. 6d. a week. So, on any ordinary standard of comparison, the figure of just over £6 per week for the mentally handicapped hospitals seems very low.
I have also been given some figures from a selective hospital, which I hope is a fair case—perhaps it is better that I should not give its name publicly, though I can give it to the noble Lord or anyone who is interested. I have nothing to say against this hospital, which I trust is typical. It houses about 1,600 patients, and the medical salaries work out at 3s. 6d. per patient per week, as compared with 4s. 1d. for long-stay hospitals and £2 10s. 4d. for acute hospitals. Taking this large and, I hope, typical hospital, this means that in a hospital of 1,600 patients the medical staff amounts to 5 or 6 to 1 compared with those on administrative duties; so that, in practice, it means that one medical officer has perhaps 400 patients. I will not go on to describe further details for I do not want to detain the House, but I give those figures as a rough illustration of what is going on. In regard to the nursing services the salaries, according to my information, average £1 16s. 2d. per patient per week, as compared with £2 4s. 10d. for long-stay hospitals and £10 4s. for acute hospitals, where, I agree, the problems are very different. We had some reference to the number of patients per nurse, and I am informed that typical figures for us would be a ward of 60 patients, with one male nurse or sister in charge and one nurse or student nurse to help. I could dwell at length (and will on another occasion) on the implications of that.
I must say one word about food. According to my information, the cost of food in our mental deficiency hospitals is considerably lower than the cost of food in hospitals generally. I do not know whether the noble Lord will be able to give complete figures. I have no complete figures on this matter, but I gather that the figure in our hospitals is 19s. 11d. per patient per week, and the comparable figure I have been given for other hospitals is £1 7s. If that is wrong perhaps the noble Lord will give

823
me the figures which draw the comparison between the cost of food in mental deficiency hospitals and the cost elsewhere. I should be surprised if the food in our hospitals, according to the figures, is as good as is provided elsewhere.
Finally, a word on clothing. I have not any comparisons on this aspect but the clothing is generally agreed to be very depressing. The allotment is extraordinarily stingy. There is a clothes allowance of 3s. 1d. per week; that is, £8 a year. I am not, as noble Lords may have noticed, a dressy man, but I should hesitate to try to dress on a figure resembling that; and I am bound to ask the noble Lord whether he seriously believes that 3s. 3d. per patient per year for underwear, which is the figure I have, is anything but a disgrace to a country which we are told has "never had it so good".
My Lords, I throw out those figures. I know they may not be the latest figures, and the noble Lord may have more recent ones. But if we are to talk about Cinderellas—we must sometimes try to find another lady for these comparisons, because we all overwork Cinderella rather hard—and if the Hospital Service is the Cinderella, the mental deficiency hospitals are the Cinderella of Cinderellas. And I should like to place it firmly before the noble Lord that I am solidly behind—as are all noble Lords on this side of the House and most noble Lords in other parts of the House—my noble friend Lord Stonham in calling for a completely new approach to the Hospital Service. Speaking, as I do, for many thousands of people whose children are in the care of the community, in these mental deficiency hospitals, I do not want to leave an impression of ingratitude. Far from it; I think everyone would be deeply moved by the response and kindness shown to these children. But the fact is that I, at any rate, and many other noble Lords in the House also, feel we cannot tolerate much longer the conditions in these mental deficiency hospitals. And I must ask the noble Lord, whose heart and goodness are not in dispute, to say something before the debate closes to give us some encouragement.
5.53 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, speaking as one who has been in your Lordships' House for less than two years, I
824
should like to associate myself with the tributes that have already been paid to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, on his speech, which was outstanding in stimulation. I should also like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for the forthright and zealous way in which he moved this Motion to-day. I am not connected with the medical profession myself; I am an insurance underwriter; but my qualifications for taking part in this debate are that I am on the committee of a quite well-known children's hospital in Chelsea, the Victoria Hospital for Children, of which my father was chairman for several years, and I have toured this hospital on a number of occasions. I have seen the difficulties under which the staff frequently have to work and I can say that the staff, from the matron to the most junior student nurse, carry out their duties with exemplary efficiency.
I think none of us can have failed to be moved by the speech of my noble friend Lord Grenfell, but I cannot say that I was very pleased to read the remarks which the Minister in another place made about the improvements which are to be made at the Fountain Hospital, Tooting. I quote [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 613, col. 91]:
"Some adaptations of wards and other improvements for the accommodation of severely subnormal children are to be carried out at Queen Mary's Hospital for Children, Carshalton, and a new reception unit, out-patient department and research and teaching unit provided at the Fountain Hospital, Tooting."
My Lords, there seems to be no reference whatever there to more beds, which is surely the crying need for that particular place. I have not been to it myself, but I live not many miles from it and I have heard a fair amount about it and the extremely difficult conditions under which the staff work.
The noble Lord who is to wind up this debate did me the courtesy of ringing me up on Sunday night, and I intimated to him then that I should be talking primarily on children's hospitals. I see from the future hospital projects, which were mentioned in another place on Monday, that there seem to be no references to the building of or to constructional improvements to existing children's hospitals. There are a number of cases in which children are housed in adult wards. I am not denying that they get very good attention, but I think it

825
is fair comment to say that children do like to be with other children, and at present the shortage of accommodation, at least in some children's hospitals, gives rise to concern.
Another aspect which has not been mentioned to my knowledge to-day is the provision of maternity hospitals. The birth rate increased by some 0·6 per cent., I believe, between 1957 and 1958. The infant mortality rate has decreased in like proportion, which is an excellent thing. But the provision for maternity hospitals is extremely seriously lacking, and the period covered by waiting lists for mothers to go into maternity hospitals or into nursing homes is, I believe, something to the tune of about seven months. So as soon as a woman has any indication whatever that she is expecting a child she has to book to have any chance—I repeat, any chance—of accommodation in a maternity unit. Speaking for my own area, I may say that Epsom Hospital has a small maternity unit, but it is by no means adequate. The Cranbrook Report mentioned the need for ante-natal care, which is an extremely good thing; but, my Lords, this project is being grossly handicapped by the shortage of beds, and I hope that perhaps the noble Lord who is to wind up may have something to say, either now or later, about this problem.
Another aspect of the Hospital Service is the provision of casualty departments. I happen to know Eastbourne well because it is my wife's home, and last August we toured the Princess Alice Memorial Hospital at Eastbourne. That is a very fine hospital, but the casualty department gives reason for the greatest concern. I would ask your Lordships' indulgence if I quote a few figures. The overall area of the casualty department of the Princess Alice Hospital, Eastbourne, is 376 square feet. During the past three years the yearly average
of casualties which have had to be dealt with at this hospital is 8,438, and I think that about 70 per cent. of these have been in the summer.
Now as your Lordships know, Eastbourne is a seaside town, but its activities as a town extend well beyond the holiday season. It is now scheduled for a certain amount of development; and the hospital facilities in that town leave quite a lot to be desired. I am conscious that there are many towns other than
826
Eastbourne which need these facilities, but these figures are, I think, important. There is also the very disturbing factor that casualties often have to be brought in through the out-patients' department, which means that children often see brought in people who are victims of a road smash. As your Lordships will recall, a few years ago there was a serious rail accident at Eastbourne, when six people were killed and a number injured. The two main hospitals in Eastbourne, St. Mary's and the Princess Alice, dealt extremely well with these cases, but they were labouring under tremendous difficulties. Another problem is that of laboratory space. Turning again to Epsom, I would mention that one of the largest mental hospitals in Epsom has a laboratory in which there is, colloquially speaking, hardly room to swing a cat. This is a hospital of 8,000 beds, and I submit that something is gravely lacking here.
My Lords, the time is getting late, and I do not want to detain your Lordships with a lot of figures, but I should like to say this: the nurses and the doctors in this country are second to none. If there is a major accident, they will work and work and work. There is no question of overtime. In an office, if there is an epidemic of illness work can be shelved. In a hospital, it cannot be shelved. If thirty nurses go sick, patients still have to be looked after; and in our hospitals the staffs buckle to in a remarkably fine manner. In the past few months I have visited several hospitals and have seen for myself just how hard these young nurses work. To give an example of the type of nurse that we are getting now, I quote from the Weekly Scotsman of a few weeks ago, which says:
"The young student nurses of Arbroath Infirmary believe in doing things the tough way. They have been out on lifeboat practice exercises."
We need have no fear as to the calibre of those who run our hospitals to-day, certainly in the medical sense. As for the Regional Hospital Boards, no chairman or secretary of a Regional Hospital Board can necessarily expect to be popular. I know of a mental hospital in Birmingham which I have visited twice. The chairman is not exactly a popular man in the literal sense of the word, but he is an assiduous worker—and so is the

827
hospital secretary. On a very limited budget, and often by using direct labour, wonderful transformations have been carried out at this hospital, which proves what can be done.
In conclusion, my Lords, I would say that the call has been made for more money. Working in the City, I do handle money—indirectly, at any rate: and the question is as to how the money is to be raised. As the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, said, if I quote him aright, "It is often a question as to how the existing money is raised, rather than trying to get fresh supplies," although I would be the last to say that fresh supplies are not needed. I would quote the words of a very great Englishman who was our Prime Minister for a number of years and who said during the dark days of the last war,
"Give us the tools, and we will finish the job."
My Lords, the tools—the matrons, the doctors, the nurses—are there, and they are wonderful people: but it is open to question whether sufficient facilities are being granted to them for carrying out the job to the standards which they themselves represent. I hope, my Lords, that this debate will go a long way towards seeing something done about this very pressing problem.
6.8 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, as a complete outsider I find this debate fascinating and enthralling. It is debates like this which lend authority to the discussions of this House. We have had contributions from men who speak from real knowledge about the matters which are under discussion; we have had the advantage of one of the most interesting and well-informed maiden speeches that we have heard for many months; and we have had a searching and critical analysis by one of the leading medical authorities of the day. I only wish we could have him dealing with National Health for a few years: I think we should then see some things happen.
Now I, who know nothing whatever about these things, ask your Lordships to bear with me for a few minutes while I refer to a matter which does not come into the light of day very much and which has not, I think, been mentioned
828
this afternoon, but which does seem to me to be a matter of really substantial importance. I might perhaps refer to it as a question of amenities in hospital, and yet that is not the right word because what one might call the general amenities of hospitals are on the whole, I think, as far as I can make out, pretty well looked after. What I am concerned with to-day is one single point, and it is the point as to the provision—or, rather, the lack of provision—which is made in our hospitals for patients to be by themselves. My Lords, every civilised man and woman needs from time to time to be lonely and to have seclusion—to be by himself. It should be the right of everybody. It is interesting that one of the greatest modern English philosophers described religion as what we do with our loneliness. The general ward of a great hospital is not a place where one can be lonely. It is not a place where it is possible to obtain seclusion. And I feel that more provision should be made for patients to be able to be by themselves from time to time.
This matter has been brought home to me by the experience of several friends who during the last few years unfortunately have had to spend considerable amounts of time in hospital, and I know that, as a result of their not being able to afford private wards, they have felt this matter keenly. I know them well and they are not misogynists. All rejoice in the society of their fellow human beings. But they are also people who feel the need, which I am sure almost all your Lordships must feel from lime to time, to be by themselves. I discussed this matter with a friend, a man of culture, who has had to spend more than a year in the general wards of hospitals. This man's admiration for the medical attention and nursing he received is boundless, but as time went on he felt more and more that he could not be by himself, and by the time he had left the last hospital—I am glad to say he seems to have been cured—the matter had become a sort of obsession with him. I am sure that there is none of your Lordships who cannot understand and sympathise with the feelings of a man who has had to spend something like eighteen months in the general wards of hospitals.

829
The obvious solution would be to have private wards available, but I appreciate that to provide private wards for all patients would be so expensive that it would be quite impracticable, at any rate within the foreseeable future. Yet I am sure that something more ought to be done than is being done at the present time. No doubt many patients would not like to have private wards, especially the less educated and less sensitive types, who probably prefer to be with their fellow patients in the general ward. Yet, clearly, people who can afford it go to the private wards. It seems to me altogether wrong that in our present democratic age there should still be this distinction, this duality, between people who are well endowed with this world's goods and those who are not and who, as a result, are (I do not like to use the word, but I must) condemned to live in this way for substantial periods of time.
I should like to ask that this matter be dealt with. In a modern egalitarian and democratic community, it is intolerable that this situation should be allowed to go on indefinitely. We do not have to wait until it can be handled 100 per cent. A start can be made now, and it is important that a start should be made at the present time, because new hospitals are being built, and if they are built in such a way that provision for private wards cannot be made, the situation will become static and it will be impossible to handle it effectively. I would express the hope that in drawing up plans and in building new hospitals the situation should be kept so far fluid that private wards can be added in substantial numbers or small wards in proximity to the general ward. I should be grateful if the noble Lord who is to reply would indicate what the proposals of the Government are. I wrote to the Minister who I was informed was going to answer this debate, but I am afraid that the noble Lord who is actually going to reply may not have received the letter in time to get this information, and I shall be grateful for anything he has to say.
I have read that there is to be a provision of about 20 per cent. private wards. That does not seem to me to be adequate. I hope that it is not a rigid figure. It may be that that is as much as we can afford at the moment, but I trust that the possibility of expansion will be borne in mind. Meanwhile, it has occurred to me
830
that it should be possible to have in close proximity to general wards a number of private wards to which a patient who feels the need of being by himself can go to spend a week or even twenty-four hours. That would make a great deal of difference to him. Hospital beds are now easily moveable and it should be administratively possible to make some provision of this kind. Of course, it actually may be that something of this kind is being done, and if it is, I apologise for trying to teach my grandmother to suck eggs. I am very much out of my depth in debates of this kind. I only wanted to make this particular point because it has been brought home to me by the experience of my friends.
There is one other aspect on which I should like to touch before I sit down. It is one of considerable psychological importance. It is the problem of the visits of relations to patients in hospitals. From my own experience, I know that visits of relations are looked forward to with astonishing eagerness. Hardly anything counts so much with many patients in hospitals as the visits of close relations. The short amount of time which is available in general wards is a considerable contrast to the arrangements which are made in the private wards, and the absence of seclusion weighs heavily—and there can be no question of this—on husbands visiting wives or people visiting sweethearts in general wards. I am certain that the provision is not satisfactory. It is possible that in general wards as they now exist it cannot be made much better, but with a larger number of private wards or even small rooms available, to which the walking patients, at any rate, could go and see their close relations, not under the scrutiny of the entire ward, we may be well on the way towards a solution of this problem. Perhaps these matters are a little apart from the general run of this debate, but I am sure that they are matters of considerable importance and I do not apologise for having brought them to your Lordships' attention.
6.20 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, some years ago I was a patient in hospital and I certainly had occasion to endorse the observations of my honourable friend Lord Chorley about the need for privacy and for small wards for some

831
patients. It must also be said in fairness that there are many people who enjoy being together in small groups and not just on their own. They get depressed and miserable by themselves—I rather work the other way. In modern hospital design, the aim is to provide something like four or five groups of four beds and five or six single rooms as a ward unit. That makes a very good working unit, plus some day space, and it meets the point which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has made.
When I was a patient, there was one other matter which I must say made a deep impression on me, and it has been referred to in this debate. I was greatly helped by the hospital chaplain. The value of a hospital chaplain who really does his job and goes and helps people at a time when sickness, as the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester said, makes you think about things that perhaps you have not thought about for a long time, is really very
great indeed. I was immensely aided by the hospital chaplain and he certainly helped to restore me to health again. I hope that all that can be done to assist the hospital chaplaincy service will be done. Incidentally if it is of any assistance to the right reverend Prelate in his arguments, I may say that Holloway Prison has one full-time chaplain for 350 women, which is rather more than one for 750 patients permitted by the National Health Service.
When fresh eyes look at old problems they notice things with which most of us are so familiar that we take them for granted. To-day my noble friend Lord Stonham has brought fresh eyes to bear on the old and forbidding hospitals of our great cities, and he sees dirt, dilapidation and decay. As he said, these are enemies which medicine has been fighting since the time of Florence Nightingale, Spencer Wells and Lord Lister. The fact is that two-thirds of our hospitals are in fact Victorian workhouses or public assistance institutions. Two hundred of our hospitals occupy buildings which were completed before 1820, and as long as these buildings remain in use we are bound to have a tough and costly struggle to keep them even reasonably efficient and reasonably safe. If this debate has done nothing else but open the eyes of the people of
832
this country to the physical conditions under which patients have got to be treated and cared for in these old hospitals, then it will have been worth while, and we are all in the debt of my noble friend Lord Stonham.
But the debate has done a good deal more than this. Your Lordships have surveyed the picture of hospitals as a whole. In England and Wales there are in fact about 2,600 hospitals, and even your Lordships could not do full justice to every aspect of all their problems in the course of a single debate. But you have gone a long way towards this, for the hospitals naturally group them selves into certain types. First, there are the great teaching hospitals in London and the Provinces. My noble friend Lord Cohen of Birkenhead speaks here with the greatest authority. He spoke particularly of Liverpool, but I think he knows all the teaching hospitals well, and he knows a great deal about the non-teaching hospitals through his association with the Liverpool Regional Hospital Board and through being one of the trustees of the Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust. I could not find anything in his speech with which I did not agree. One is only sorry that my noble friends Lord Nathan and Lord Moran were prevented by their Health Service duties from adding to the debate their special knowledge of the London teaching hospitals.
Important though teaching hospitals are in providing the leadership and the standards which they set, the great bulk of hospital medical care in this country is in Regional Board hospitals. Many of these are of the type so vividly described by my noble friend Lord Stonham, but in the smaller Provincial cities another type of hospital is often found, well exemplified by the Royal Berkshire Hospital at Reading. On the staff of that hospital is my noble friend Lord Waverley, who serves there as a physician. I am particularly privileged to add my congratulations to the noble Viscount on his maiden speech, because he and I were students together at St. Thomas's and also for a short while in Frankfurt-am-Main. I must say that I do not think either of us dreamt, when we were perhaps behaving in a rather less decorous way, as medical students sometimes do, that one day we should

833
be speaking in the same debate in your Lordships' House. We hope that we shall hear from the noble Viscount again. He has spoken to us—and again I can endorse from personal experience everything he has said—about the difficulties, problems and tensions under which the staff of Regional Board hospitals have to work.
Of the 470,000 beds in the National Health Service, 200,000 are psychiatric beds, and of these 61,000 are beds for mental defectives. Their problems have been high-lighted in the speeches of my noble friends Lord Grenfell and Lord Pakenham. I must say that I share Lord Pakenham's hope that it will not be long before we have a full debate on this subject, because it cannot be dealt with as the tag-end as a part of the hospital problem. They are a specialised problem, and for this reason: that in the mental defective hospital the hospital and the school meet. They are residential places where people have got to be taught, live and have their being, in a way which now happily is getting rarer in the mental hospitals. It is much more like the situation which arises in, say, the physically defective school. So one hopes that this subject may be properly treated in the not too distant future.
The reply for Her Majesty's Government is to be given this evening by my noble friend Lord St. Oswald—and I hope he will not mind my calling him that. It is something of a special day for both of us, because, in a sense, we are both "cracking our ducks" in speaking from the Front Bench for the first time. If he had been a little older, or I had been a little younger, we should have been at school together at Stowe, where we both served under a remarkable headmaster, the late Mr. J. F. Roxburgh, who was very much given to what are called sesquipedalian sentences, and if either of us ever gets sesquipedalian your Lordships will know why. I hope that my noble friend Lord St. Oswald will feel that both the temper and the tenor of this debate have been directed to an object which we can all embrace and support—namely, the improvement of the Hospital Services in this country. I hope he will speak for the Health Services for many years, but not too many years, and to help him in the years ahead I hope he will accept
834
this little pamphlet. It is called Members One of Another, and it was the Labour Party's policy for the Health Services, published just before the General Election. Lest he should think it is part of a deep-laid Socialist plot, let me read to him what The Times said on October 1 last:
"Nine-tenths of the improvements in the Hospital Service which it suggests will not provoke Conservative dissent"
We will not worry about the one-tenth, provided the Government accept and carry out the rest.
In attempting to draw together the threads of this debate I propose to touch on three subjects only—namely, the overall cost of the Hospital Services, capital and maintenance expenditure, and the administration, and for this reason: that if we get the right answers in these three spheres of activity, all the rest will follow and drop into line. First of all, then, the cost. Our Hospital Service costs about £400 million a year, which is 57 per cent. of the total cost of the National Health Service. For this we get 470,000 beds, and in these beds 4 million patients are treated every year, and at the same time 55 million people attend the hospitals as out-patients. To see these enormous figures in perspective one would just remind your Lordships that in an average year, at the same time as the hospitals are doing all this work, the general practitioners are rendering about 200 million acts of service for their patients, at a cost of only 10 per cent. of the total National Health Service bill, though to this has to be added another 10½ per cent. for the cost of the drugs and appliances that they prescribe.
The question to which I think we must address ourselves is this. Is this total cost of £400 million per annum too much, too little, or about right? The figures are so big that there is a risk that we may not see them in their proper proportion. In a recent editorial on March 24 the Lancet said this:
"There is a risk of the National Health Service being skimped for cash, while the rest of Britain prospers."
The only way we can intelligently assess our Hospital and Health Service spending is to examine the proportion of our national wealth which goes to these Services. Fortunately, there was a recent report from the International Labour Office, published this year, which showed

835
that the cost of medical care in most developed countries is between 3·7 per cent. and 4·5 per cent of the national income. Top of the league was New Zealand, which spends 4·6 per cent. of her national income on her Health Services. Next come the United States and Norway, which spend 4·5 per cent. Then come Canada and France, which spend 4·4 per cent. Then come Belgium and ourselves, spending 4·0 per cent., and after that come a number of other countries. If we were to spend the same share of our national resources as France and Canada, it would mean an extra £67 million a year.
Are we prosperous enough to spend on our Health Services the same as France and Canada? I would suggest that we are, and that if we spent that money we should have enough to do all that we have in mind. It can be fairly said, I think, that at present we are getting our Health Services, and particularly our hospital services, on the cheap. Moreover, we are the only country of the ones mentioned where the proportion of national income devoted to Health Services for the past years has actually fallen. I think the trouble has been—and this is not just something to do with Her Majesty's present Government; it was the trouble and a difficulty with the Labour Government of 1945 to 1950—that they were hypnotised by the gross figures. Consequently, there was a continuous search for economy. I think we ought instead to think of the cost in relation to our national resources, so that the Health Services may share in any general prosperity, and we should make our search one for true efficiency, which will automatically bring with it true economy.
Now a word on capital and maintenance expenditure. For ten years the hospitals have been starved of both. In this period one-third of our schools have been rebuilt, but only one new hospital has been completed. Now, at last, we can look forward to substantial Government spending on the hospitals. The figure suggested by the British Medical Association of £75 million per annum as the proper capital expenditure on hospitals has been mentioned. I think we shall be well content if the figure reaches £50 million in a reasonable time. But whatever the figure, the
836
important thing is that we should get good value for money. In new hospital construction it is certain that there are going to be mistakes, but we must profit from them. The reason why there are bound to be mistakes and difficulties
is this. First of all, the lack of experience of architects. They have not designed any hospitals in this country, or virtually none, for 20 years, and there is all that leeway to be made up. The second difficulty arises because all of us, when we get into committees and start planning new buildings, tend to get rather grandiose and to think about building magnificent marble entrance halls and memorials to ourselves. And doctors are certainly not immune from this. We all want the optimum maximum for our own departments, and no one wants to compromise. At the same time, we have the feeling that if we push hard enough the public purse is bottomless.
Then there is the fact—one hardly likes to mention it; nevertheless it is a factor—that both architects and quantity surveyors, when they design buildings, are paid on a percentage basis on the cost of the building, so that the more expensive the building, the bigger the architect's and quantity surveyor's fees. It is fair enough in one way, because the amount of work they have to do goes up; but at the same time it presents a continuous temptation, perhaps quite unconsciously, tending to inflate the costs of hospital and other public buildings.
Fortunately, the barren years have not been entirely wasted, because there was set up a body called the Advanced Architecture Division at the Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust and the Nuffield Foundation, run by that excellent young architect Mr. Richard Llewellyn Davies. They have done some first-class studies on hospital design, precisely meeting the type of point my noble friend Lord Chorley was talking about; and now, when the time comes to build, a great deal is known. The Nuffield Trust has also financed a good deal of small Health Service building, which again has given us information which we need in order to do the job economically and efficiently. Indeed, it has been possible to cut the cost, for example, of building a health centre, from £200,000 to £30,000, without any loss of efficiency and, indeed, in some ways with a gain.

837
Another encouraging thing that is happening is the appointment of Mr. Tatton-Brown as the Chief Architect to the Ministry of Health. He has had exceptional experience in Hertfordshire, building schools. There are, however, some excellent hospitals now beginning to go up. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to two of these, and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, could not be here this evening, because they are both in his region and are a tribute to the work which the region has done. The first is the
Hatfield. Welwyn hospital, designed by the Regional Board's own architects, Mr Maunder and Mr. Andrews; and this is a very interesting hospital. It is a vertical hospital, and what looks like a fairly expensive type. One wishes some, times that we had a projector here, so that we could show illustrations of our talks, but that might present problems with Hansard. But I have here a picture of this hospital. It has 340 general beds, and the important thing about it is that its cost, including the fees, is just under £6,000 a bed. There have been a number of hospitals projected and under construction which will cost sonic thousands of pounds more than that. It is going to have a psychiatric wing of 100 beds, and the cost there, including fees, is just under £3,000 a bed. I think that is a very good achievement, and it sets a target at which to aim.
One cannot emphasise enough that, given a certain allocation by Her Majesty's Government for hospital spending, if we can do the job efficiently and build as many beds as we can for that money by avoiding extravagant and unnecessary expenditure, we are serving the patients well. The other hospital is a very interesting one which is being built at Wexham Park, near Slough. It is a 300-bed hospital, and has been designed by two young architects, Powell and Moya, in association with Mr. Richard Llewellyn Davies. It is a single-storey building. Up to now single-storey hospital building has been thought of as a very sprawly affair, with vast long corridors and spread-out communications. Here they have done something quite different. They have made it compact, much more like an Oxford or Cambridge College. The result is that communications are
838
exceedingly convenient. It is well ventilated, and the whole building is capable of being added to very simply if excess needs arise. There are great advantages from having single-storey buildings, constructed for Health Service purposes.
I would mention here two or three other things about architectural design, and the importance of flexibility in hospital design. Function is continually changing, because diseases are changing. There is just one personal foible or feeling with which I hope your Lordships will sympathise: that architects tend to use far too much glass in hospital design. There was a Dr. Rollier, who was very famous in Switzerland in the inter-war years, who introduced heliotherapy for tuberculosis, and there was a lot of talk about "Dr. Sun". This, I think, has just reached the architects, and they now tend to build everything out of glass because it is healthy. But glass is not necessarily healthy; it may be very hot in summer and very cold in winter. And while it is nice to look out of the window when you are ill, it is not so nice to be continually exposed to public gaze. Architects forget that patients have to undress and do not want to do it in an aquarium. They put up the glass and then put up Venetian blinds to cut off the glass. Such blinds are terrible dust traps. They are very fashionable with architects at the moment; they have found out how to make them from aluminium. They were given up when they were made of cane in Victorian times.
Planning a hospital is like planning a campaign. The big mistakes are made long before the architect puts pencil to paper. Preliminary planning is all important. As the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, said, you have to begin by setting the population the hospital is to serve; and not merely its size, but its age composition and the incidence of the different types of disease, so that you can really work out what the hospital has got to do. Up to now the architect has been told to go ahead and build a 200-bed general hospital. That is quite unrealistic. The whole thing has to be planned very carefully: careful study of the work to be done, the rooms and room sizes required to do it, and then preparation of a complete and detailed brief for the architect.

839
Above all, one man, and not a committee—or worse, several committees—has got to act as co-ordinator and client to the architect. I think he should be a senior experienced officer, either a doctor or hospital administrator (it does not matter which), and in the case of a Regional Board he should be in a position to devote pretty nearly all his time to doing this job of hospital planning and design. He will save his salary, which one assumes would be £2,000 or £3,000 a year, many hundreds of times over in unnecessary and wasteful hospital construction.
At the present time there are two great defects of hospital building. The first is control of cost, and the second the interminable delays while papers go up and down and back and forth from the Ministry to Regional Hospital Boards, hospital management committee and the medical committee. Control of cost is perfectly simple. Its basis ought to be a block allocation of money to cover the site, the site works, the fees for the architects and quantity surveyors, the fittings and the furniture. I would suggest that the figure we have had for the Hatfield-Welwyn Hospital of £6,000 a bed is perfectly all right. If you tell the architect this, he will say at once that it cannot be done. Then you say, "All right, it cannot be done. Off you go, chum". Then he will start and he will go ahead and do it for that money, and you will get your hospital for that given sum. To get rid of the delays there must be a clear allocation of responsibility and power of action. I think the Ministry must delegate the whole job to the Regional Hospital Boards without the need to refer plans back time and again for each little alteration. Of course, the Ministry experts must co-operate with the Regional Hospital Board by sitting in when the planning process is actually going on, but they must not have to approve and control. They should do it by advice and not by orders. If we do this, and if the Government will trust those it appoints as its agents, we shall achieve efficiency, speed and economy in hospital building.
I should like to say one word on maintenance expenditure—and my noble friend Lord Stonham was absolutely right in what he said. But, despite
840
the difficulties, much has been done. There are vigorous hospital management committees, and vigorous administrators, who have been able to do wonders by pinching and scraping out of current budgets. That is the way it has been done. Nevertheless, it is a constant struggle, and surely we ought to set aside a proper percentage of running costs and earmark it for maintenance, because we have got to put up with the buildings; there is no possible alternative. We have gat to continue using the 1800 ancient hospitals we have, and we must maintain them properly or we shall be in a completely hopeless situation. One would ask that the percentage set aside for maintenance should be comparable with that set aside in industry, and here is a problem I think for the new Advisory Council on the management and efficiency of the National Health Service which the Minister has just set up, under Sir Ewart Smith. I must say that I am very glad about the appointment of this Committee. Sir Ewart Smith is not only a scientist but has been Vice-Chairman of I.C.I., and we hope that he will bring methods of business efficiency into some of these problems and give high priority to this business of hospital maintenance. We would ask: is the Sir Ewart Smith Committee a permanent committee, which will report periodically to the Minister, or will it just make an investigation and issue a single Report? Will it take evidence? Will its members go out into the field, and will its findings be published?
I have spoken of delay in decisions over capital expenditure. It is just the same over day-to-day administration. My noble friend Lord Stonham spoke of the three-tier system: the house committee, the hospital management committee and the Regional Hospital Board. It is, in fact, a five-tier system: the house committee, the hospital management committee, the Regional Hospital Board, the Ministry of Health and the Treasury; and it is the existence of those five levels that produces the trouble. I do not feel like blaming the officials of the Ministry of Health for the slowness and frustration experienced. I think the real cause lies in the design of the Service and in the method of finance and control. Some of these difficulties are precisely similar to those which one sees in all large organisations. This is the sort of

841
problem one sees in I.C.I., Unilever, I.C. and T., and all the rest of it.
The great problem is the degree of autonomy to be given to the peripheral unit. They are all finding that the more autonomy given to the periphery, the better the job is done. In the case of the Hospital Service there is the added awful complication of detailed Parliamentary accountability, which results in grossly excessive recording and reference to higher levels. It is rule by circular and policy-making by making of returns. I think that Sir Ewart Smith will find that administrative costs have increased startlingly over the last ten years to no purpose whatsoever—or very little purpose—except to make it possible for Parliament to ask any sort of question whatever about any patient in any hospital in the country. And that, I suggest, is an absolute farce.
There is the further difficulty in administration, the multiplicity and size of committees. I read only to-day that the Manchester Regional Hospital Board was proud to say that it had no hospital management committee with more than eight sub-committees. I have served on a number of public bodies and investigated others, and I find that efficiency varies inversely with size. The smaller the committee, the better it is. The two best I have personally struck have been the B.B.C., which is a wonderfully efficient organisation, and the New Town Development Corporations; and if I may say so, there are dozens and hundreds of examples in private enterprise. If any ordinary private enterprise concern had a management committee of 28 members and 8 sub-committees, each of 17 members, I should think many times before I invested my money in it, if I had any to invest. But the two examples I have quoted both have governing bodies of eight members, with no sub-committees. All their decisions are definitive. As it is, in the Hospital Service the hospital administrators spend most of their time servicing committees, when they ought to be doing real work; decisions go back and forth from the finance committee to the catering committee, the works committee, the medical committee, the nursing committee; and decisions do not get taken for months and months. My noble friend Lord Stonham and I discussed this question when he started, and I am
842
pleased to say that he has stopped that sort of thing.
The trouble has arisen because there is confusion over representative and executive functions. Regional Boards and hospital management committees were designed to be representative, to meet all the interests: the local authorities, the voluntary hospital people, the trade unions, doctors, women's institutes and all the rest were all to be represented on these bodies. But in fact they are executive bodies. The answer is to reduce the size of hospital management committees and Regional Hospital Boards to a maximum of eight members; to forbid the formation of sub-committees. And I myself would pay members of Regional Boards as we pay members of other public corporations. Much of this, although not that last suggestion, could be done without legislation—indeed, it has been done in the case of the Oxford Regional Hospital Board where Sir George Schuster has carried out this sort of function and has produced an exceptionally efficient piece of machinery.
To perform the representative functions one needs something quite different, and I would think that the answer here is to have large advisory councils, elected by the local authorities and other bodies, alongside the Regional Hospital Boards and hospital management committees. They might meet in plenary session, in public, for a couple of days, once or twice a year, for a grand inquest on the work of the committee or the Board. Given such advisory councils, I would see little justification for day-to-day inquests on individual cases in Parliament.
My noble friend Lord Stonham made a plea for a National Hospital Corporation as an escape from the disadvantages of day-to-day Parliamentary and Treasury control. In fact, the Regional Hospital Boards are bodies corporate. The need is for them to be allowed to behave as bodies corporate. They need not only responsibility but power as well. We have often heard orators speak of the evils of power without responsibility. In these days it is a much greater evil, and a much more common thing, for people to be given responsibility with no power, and it is something we ought to put right if we are to make democracy

843
work. The Boards need to be free from day-to-day, or even year-to-year, of Treasury and Ministry control, save as to their overall budgetry allocations and as to national negotiated agreements.
My Lords, I have spent far too long on this detailed consideration of the administration, because these are the limiting factors. Our hospital services are good—they are better than ever before. But the Service itself is just not quite as good as it should be. The calibre of the staff, medical, nursing, ancillary and administrative, is very high, and wonderful work in the latter group has been done by the King's Fund College for administrators. But their enthusiasm needs to be rekindled. They need quick decisions; they need the freedom to decide, and enough money to do the essential jobs. It has been our purpose in this debate to help Her Majesty's Government by showing what needs to be done, and how it can be done. We do not expect complete or comprehensive answers to all the points we have raised to-night. We believe that the time has come for a new deal for our hospitals, and for the sick and disabled whom they exist to serve. In every positive step towards this end the Government can count on our full support.
6.54 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, my first thought and my first desire on rising to-night is to follow other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, on his most remarkable maiden speech. I do not know whether he was present in this House on January 28 of last year when some of its greatest figures paid tribute upon tribute to his father—a series of tributes which were described by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham as being seldom heard before in this House. I know he had not taken his seat by that time, but if he was within the hearing of the House it may account, I think, for the very high standard that he has set himself in his maiden speech to-day—a high standard which was so notably achieved. Indeed, it is humbling and salutary to realise that my own debut is bound to be a good deal less distinguished than his, and a good deal less distinguished than any of the other three "maiden" speeches which have preceded mine.
844
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is aware of the warmth as well as the respect of my feeling towards him. He has presented his argument to-day—for it was an argument—with a force and a candour that I was expecting. He has been critical, and in his criticism he has used figures which I certainly cannot fault. But he will forgive me, I know, if I draw some different conclusions from those facts and figures and from others which, through sheer shortage of time, he omitted. One would hardly have guessed from the selective spotlight of the noble Lord's review that we are living in an epoch of quite dramatic expansion in the Hospital Services; but there are facts and figures which I hope he will find equally faultless and which stand to demonstrate this expansion in very striking terms.
Until 1955–56 a maximum of £10 million had been spent in any one year in hospital building in England and Wales, but in that year a series of major building schemes was announced covering new hospitals and replacement of plant. These programmes are now being carried out and provided for a good deal more generously than the noble Lord's speech suggested. Last year the figure was £20 million; this year it is £22 million, rising to £25½ million next year, and in 1961 it will be £31 million. These figures were in fact given by the noble Lord, but in rather a disdainful way, and he quoted as the proper figure, I believe, £75 million, which was given by the British Medical Association. If the day ever comes when the noble Lord's Party is in power, I wonder whether he will regard the findings and the advice of the British Medical Association as entirely binding upon the then Minister of Health.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, I would say that if my Party had been in power we should have been looking forward now to an expenditure rising to £100 million a year on hospitals.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, that I think was a question that arose during the Election campaign, and there was a certain amount of disbelief as to the potentialities of the noble Lord's Party to find such a sum. These increases are mainly devoted to programmes announced in 1955 and subsequent years

845
to be centrally financed. This rising expenditure is reflected in an ambitious programme which now includes over 150 major projects in course of construction or planning—the definition of "major" being a minimum outlay of a quarter of a million pounds per project.
Use has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham and others of the apparently
depressing fact that no hospital has been built in the last twenty years, although Lord Taylor admitted to one new hospital. It is a fact that no new general hospital, and in fact only one new hospital of any kind, has been built during that time, but it is, I would suggest, a slightly pedantic insistence on fact if one knows, as I am sure most noble Lords do know, that six new hospitals are already in extensive use, although further building remains to be completed. Nevertheless, they are working to-day as self-contained hospitals, and if, as projects, they had in the first place been less ambitious, they could be referred to now as new completed hospitals. The six are the Balderton Hospital at Newark, about which I shall have a little more to say later; the Good Hope Hospital at Sutton Coldfield; the Greaves Hall Hospital at Southport; Oakwood Park at Conway; the West Wales Hospital at Glangwili in Carmarthen and the Princess Margaret Hospital at Swindon. Three out of these six are mental deficiency hospitals. Work on another nine new hospitals is already in progress; building will start on four more in the next financial year: and yet another eleven are being planned.
I think it would be of interest to noble Lords to know that out of those thirty new hospitals, eight are teaching hospitals and five are mental deficiency hospitals. This does not include major extensions to existing hospitals, which in terms of beds and services are in some cases as large as new hospitals themselves.
I cannot help feeling, for instance, that had the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, intervened in this debate, as was his wish, he would have spoken with, if possible, even more than his normal benevolence, and this would be partly owed to the approval announced three days ago by my right honourable and learned friend in another place, of the Westminster Hospital plan to develop the Page Street
846
site. The cost of this is estimated at £990,000, the first stage costing £523,000. The whole scheme will include a six-storey building, with a number of special departments and services. The site is now owned by the Westminster Hospital and has been made available free by the Governors for development; and once it is under way noble Lords will not have to voyage far to see with their own eyes the flowering of some of the rather dry figures that I have felt obliged to give. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, regretted very much his inability to be here to-day, though hardly as deeply as I regret it myself. No doubt he will be easily persuaded to show Members of the House over the building, which will have owed so much to his own determination.
Before leaving the whole question of finance, with its unavoidable strings of figures, upon which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, also dwelt at some length, I must refer to the level of revenue expenditure itself, which he regards as being on the grudging side. The amount provided for the Hospital Services in England and Wales for the current year is £381 million compared with £363 million for the previous year.
I should emphasise here that these figures refer to England and Wales alone, but there has been no sign during the debate of any noble Lord from Scotland rising to complain of unfairness to his notoriously hardy race. Had he done so, I was prepared for him. Such noble Lords will no doubt have read, I hope with pleasure, the Answer given in another place on Monday announcing further expenditure on hospital building in Scotland. This will be of the order of £3·2 million in 1960 to 1961 and £3·9 million in 1961 to 1962. Although the level of capital expenditure for subsequent years in Scotland cannot yet be fixed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has asked Regional Hospital Boards in Scotland to prepare plans for these major projects: at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, a new out-patient department and casualty accommodation, as a first stage of the reconstruction of the hospital; at the Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, a new out-patient and casualty department, also a first stage in reconstruction; at the Western Infirmary, Glasgow, a new out-patient and casualty department, another first stage; at the Glasgow

847
Royal Infirmary new specialised facilities for treatment and research, new accommodation for some of the professorial departments and a new ophthalmological department; and a new unit at Foresterhill, Aberdeen, beside the existing hospitals there, to provide mainly additional surgical beds and operating theatres. Detailed planning of those projects should be ready in time for building to start by 1962 or 1963. Plans for a new teaching hospital at Dundee are also being prepared, and all these projects are intended to provide a radical improvement and extension of the facilities available in the main Scottish teaching hospitals.
Although the Guillebaud Report was published in January, 1956, I feel it is likely to be quoted for many years to come and I am not shy of quoting it now. In Paragraph 100 of the Report it was considered that
"The total amount of the country's resources to be allocated annually to the National Health Service is and must remain the responsibility of the Government which must relate the needs of the National Health Service to other competing demands."
I am sure the noble Lord did not ignore, and I doubt if he would disagree with, this view. But the Report also pointed out that to make the Service fully "adequate" in the extreme interpretation, a greatly increased share of the nation's human and material resources would have to be diverted to it from other uses, and the noble Lord will not ignore that either, I am sure. It made the further point that even if the Service were to become "adequate" by such a criterion, it was far from certain that it would remain so without continually increasing expenditure. The growth of medical knowledge adds continually to the number and expense of treatments and by prolonging life also increases the incidence of slow-killing diseases and the ailments as yet inseparable from old age.
I have made statistical reference to expenditure and I devoutly hope that I can now leave statistics behind me. The Government consider that the increased expenditure I have already mentioned is all that should be diverted at present from other uses. There remains the factor of improvements and of greater efficiency, and in this context I should like to emphasise the contrast between the old approach and the new.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves figures, may I ask whether he is going to reply at all to the figures I raised and the one or two statistical points I made?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Yes. I was trying to get away from the general figures. A great deal of active thought has been given to the development of out-patient work. The emphasis is now on keeping the patient if possible out of a hospital bed altogether, and, if he has to be in one, on getting him home as soon as that can be safely managed. The outpatient clinics contribute to these aims by undertaking diagnosis and treatment that would, until lately, have entailed admission as an in-patient. This is complemented by follow-up care and supervision, which allows the patient to go home after a fairly short stay in hospital, where hospital treatment has been necessay. Over £7 million has gone into new out-patient and casualty departments and improvements, in more than one hundred hospitals, with this end in view.
There is also a great deal of new thinking in the matter of design. A small design unit, set up in the Ministry five years ago, consisting of architects, engineers and doctors, has already prepared and published one study on the design of operating theatres and a further study is nearing completion on the design of nurses' homes. Work proceeds on a number of other studies, principally out-patient departments and kitchens. In Scotland a similar small design unit consisting of experts has been set up in the Department of Health for Scotland which will undertake studies complementary to those of the other unit and not overlapping.
The Ministry's design unit is now being greatly expanded and with it the production of bulletins will be speeded up, but, in addition to writing bulletins, the unit will design certain hospital departments to be built in various parts of the country. The first of these will be an out-patient department at Walton Hospital in Liverpool. Another department which may also benefit from this work is the hospital kitchen. The aim of such building will be to demonstrate the fruits of this highly professional study and to illustrate to hospital authorities the Ministry's ideas with regard to design. A further aim will be

849
to demonstrate the cost at which various hospital departments can be provided, and, as part of this, detailed costing will take place and the lessons learned will be passed on to the hospital authorities. It is hoped that this will lead to significant economies and also give hospital boards the chance of comparing various plans and finding one suited to their particular needs.
Other noble Lords will know far more than I of the great variety as between hospitals and of the obvious limits to standardisation which could be achieved or would be desirable. The object of this work is to demonstrate how value for money could best be obtained, to the advantage, in good and economical design, not only of the hospital authorities, but of the architect whom they engage.
This is related to the dissatisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, with the present building procedures, and his views on this are bound to command respect. My right honourable and learned friend is at least equally concerned, and I doubt whether there is much separating their views. It is his decision that the Ministry will now take increased initiative by getting a great deal more information to boards about hospital design which they can then use in preparing their plans, instead of waiting for them to submit their own ideas without any prior knowledge of the Ministry's views. Clearly, I should have thought, valuable time can be saved and will be saved in this manner, to the delight of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who has been preaching that very doctrine tonight.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has pronounced himself also in favour of another form of streamlining. He would like to see a central control of the Service, to see it placed under a National Hospital Board or Corporation. This has been discussed before on more than one occasion. The views of the noble Lord expressed to-day will certainly be given careful study; so also will those of his noble friend, Lord Taylor, who joined issue with him. The arguments against the form of streamlining suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, have also been stated before, and I hope that, in his turn, he will give them careful study. One great objection has still to be met, and was not in my own view met in the
850
speech of the noble Lord. That is the stern difficulty of entrusting the spending of hundreds of millions of pounds raised out of taxation to a body outside the control of Parliament. Such a Board could not be classified with the public corporations or the nationalised industries because those industries, even when run at a loss, are revenue earning. In money terms the Hospital Service is revenue-spending, and, as so far visualised, it cannot be self-supporting and must be mainly financed by the taxpayer. Money terms are not the only terms involved, and I will refer to this aspect a little later.
The fact remains that the Guillebaud Committee saw no way round this barrier, and even expressed doubt as to the value of the sort of change the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, urges. In paragraph 144 he will find it stated:
"We do not believe, however, that its advantage would justify the appointment of a new Board or Corporation whose constitution alone would pose a host of difficult problems. Nor do we believe that the appointment of a national Board would improve the integration of the Health Service."
In naming some of the advantages he sees in such a system, could it be achieved, I wonder if Lord Stonham has bent his mind to seeing whether those same advantages could not be obtained within a Government Department. I am certain that any suggestion he cared to make in that direction would receive the closest and most careful attention.
The principal advantage of such a system, if I understood him aright, would be the easier interchange of staff between the different levels of administration But even this, as a purpose, conflicts with what I think is widely regarded as one of the great virtues of the Service, as established by the Labour Government in the 1940's—that is, the local bodies formed of voluntary members devoting a great part of their time and energies to this work. There are to-day 20 Regional Hospital Boards, 36 boards of governors of teaching hospitals, and 471 hospital management committees, or in Scotland boards of management: the chairmen and members of all these Boards and committees giving their services entirely free. No Government has seriously suggested changes that might interfere with or destroy this most precious element in the Service and possibly tip the balance towards over-centralisation and bureaucracy.

851
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has proposed a change, but not so much a change in principle as a change which in his view would make the present system more efficient and durable. I have no doubt whatever that this proposal, in common with all the other invariably constructive suggestions that come from the noble Lord, will be given constructive attention by my right honourable and learned friend and his advisers. But this is not the first time he has put forward his viewpoint on the matter and the reaction of my right honourable and learned friend's advisers appears to be that the noble Lord has formed that viewpoint from his great knowledge and experience of a New Town Corporation, and against that background. It is an idea that was examined by the Guillebaud Committee and was rejected on the grounds that the gain in administrative efficiency appeared dubious and that the loss of representation of the community would be too high a price to pay.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, will the noble Lord arrange for the Ewart Smith Committee, which is not headed by a don but by an industrialist, to have a look at this matter and find out whether perhaps there may not be something to be said for the small committee of management?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I have said already that no doubt the noble Lord's words this evening will be given careful consideration, and I should have thought that that was one of the places where they would be considered. His suggestion of a larger advisory committee meeting once a year would hardly meet the need for representation which so characterises our national life and the institutions growing from it. That is still the feeling of the Government. Whether his eloquent words today will, on examination, alter the position remains to be seen, but without any doubt they will be read and digested.
His insistence, if I understood him aright—I may be mistaken—that the present proportion of the national product should never be allowed to drop below its present figure is somewhat harder to swallow. I agree with him that our prosperity is likely to increase for at least the next four or five years,
852
but to fix a proportion to be claimed as a right by any one Service would, I think, be a perilous procedure. I have already quoted the Guillebaud Report in its reference to "other competing demands"; and the essence of competition is surely that all those engaged should compete, if we are using that word, on equal terms. What the noble Lord seems to suggest is a kind of handicap system by which the Health Service would for ever have a start on the rest.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, no. We do not want any start; we merely want a fair share. If the national income goes down, then the Health Service should bear its burden along with the rest, and handle the cuts as best it can. But if the national wealth goes up, and when we know what the conditions are—my noble friend Lord Stonham has described them—it really is not good enough that we should not get the share of our prosperity to clean up—just wash the walls—of our hospitals.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, no. The point is that if we fix a proportion (I may be wrong in attributing this to the noble Lord), and make it permanent, then we make no allowance for increased demands from other services in a given year. The noble Lord means that everybody else has to be limited.
LORD TAYLOR: No. There will be more for all if the wealth goes up.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I beg your Lordships' pardon. I am not making myself plain to the noble Lord, and I think we had better discuss this matter privately. I am not speaking about the national income going up or down; I am speaking of particular circumstances in a given year which might build up a requirement or increase the requirement of other services, which would have to be cut down to fit this proportion promised to the National Health Service. Perhaps I was taking the noble Lord's words too literally. In that case I apologise.
However, I hope I have indicated already the priority and importance which the Government give to the Service during the present period of expansion; but I should like to point out that from the years 1949 to 1955 the gross cost of the whole of the National Health Service for Great Britain, as a

853
percentage of the gross national product, dropped yearly from 3·84 in 1949–50 to 3·24 in 1954–55. Since then it has risen steadily and is still rising steadily, largely due to the many improvements I have named during the course of my words. For 1958–59 it is estimated at 3·49 per cent.
LORD TAYLOR: May I be given the figures again?
LORD ST. OSWALD: The gross cost of the whole Health Service in Great Britain, as a percentage of the gross national product, dropped yearly from 3·84 in 1949–50 to 3·24 in 1954–55. Since that time it has risen steadily.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether that drop was due to a fall in the cost of the Service or to an increase in the national product?
LORD ST. OSWALD: A fall in the gross national product, did the noble Lord say?
LORD LATHAM: An increase.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I confess that that had not occurred to me. I think an increase in the gross national product.
More than one noble Lord has drawn attention to the pay of professional staffs, with special reference to pharmacists, radiographers, physiotherapists and almoners. These matters, as noble Lords know, are the concern of the Whitley Councils, and occasionally of the Industrial Court. An award of the latter last June improved the salaries of radiographers, and claims on behalf of pharmacists, physiotherapists and almoners are now under negotiation in the
Whitley Councils. The machinery for such negotiation is agreed by the management
and staff. Should there be a failure to reach agreement on the Councils they can be taken to the Industrial Court.
During the last two years the salaries of hospital staff have improved, in some cases substantially, as in the cases of higher salaries for administrative, clerical and nursing staff of hospitals. I would not attempt to deny the charge made by my noble friend Lord Waverley, and supported with figures, that some doctors and nurses are over-worked and
854
are too few for the demanding tasks required. This, of course, overflows the confines of the Hospital Service, but it might be worth mentioning that the number of whole-time and part-time consultants employed in the National Health Service in England and Wales has increased between 1949 and 1958 by 1,800; that is, from 5,189 to 6,988. One hundred and seventy-six new appointments have so far been approved this year. The expansion has not been entirely level. In general medicine it has been on the low side. Training difficulties are partly responsible for this shortage. In radiology, for example, only about half of the required training and experience can be obtained in the course of normal hospital work, and a university course is necessary. This limits training largely to teaching hospitals, and that was my reason for emphasising earlier in my speech the fact that, out of the thirty new hospitals which will be functioning in the next few years, eight will be teaching hospitals.
It is quite true that a number of these thirty hospitals have not advanced very far beyond the proverbial twinkle in my right honourable and learned friend's eye, and further criticisms have been made in the debate on the time taken to get going with such building. I hope I did something earlier in my speech, not to reject these criticisms but to give some reassurance that they are being met. The belief is that by giving more information at the earlier stages of planning, time can be saved in the later stages such as the scrutiny of working drawings. This would mean that the full weight of criticism would be delivered before, and not after, planning had reached an advanced stage—and that, I think, was precisely the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, introduced the subject of war damage, and here I think one should say that the needs and problems of different localities will be, and are, always respected. However, national considerations have also to be borne in mind. There was one aspect of war destruction which the noble Lord omitted in suggesting, as he seemed to, that such destruction should always be replaced to provide at least the same hospital capacity as before the bombing.

855
At first sight this appears to be undoubtedly so; but, in point of fact, as he knows better than I, there are cases where one result of the bombing has been a permanently reduced population due to industries and householders, once evacuated from an area, remaining, so far as one can see, for ever outside that area.
Where the population is reduced, it is reasonable to think that the hospital requirements are also reduced. For instance, the population of the County of London is not far less than one million under what it was in 1938. One must therefore think, before making good the hospitals to what they were before the war merely because they were there, and study the new population figures. Before the noble Lord rises in indignation, let me say that I do not suggest that there is a neat rule-of-thumb ratio to follow in this matter, it is quite possible that the hospital capacity of a district was inadequate before its partial destruction and is now only slightly less inadequate as a result of the movement of inhabitants. I am not saying that the former capacity of war-damaged hospitals should be ignored: I am saying that it should not be the only consideration or the minimum yardstick—and I do not suppose that the noble Lord will disagree with me there.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so, I agree with him that if the population has fallen there is no justification for rebuilding hospitals for which there is no longer any need; but there is a proper need in these circumstances. The case to which I referred has had no capital expended on it at all in the last eleven years except for £14,000, which was for the repair of war damage to the roof of the hospital, which they are not allowed to use—a most extraordinary state of affairs.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Yes. I was very struck by the noble Lord's argument in particular, but I was speaking in general. I had hoped I had made it clear that I was speaking in general and not in particular, and was not contradicting him on his own example.
He also referred specifically to the need, widely recognised, for hospitals to be clean; and he focused upon the danger of cross-infection. Last year my right honourable and learned friend
856
sought the advice of his Standing Medical Advisory Committee on this subject. They appointed a sub-committee under the chairmanship of Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, who is also chairman of the main Committee, to make a complete investigation, and the Report of this sub-committee was published this year. It brought together a great number of detailed suggestions as to precautionary and preventive measures. The Report was commended by the Minister to all hospital
authorities, who are undoubtedly taking full action. It deals in detail with measures to keep hospital premises and equipment free from contamination, and hospital authorities are bound to give high priority to these measures and to these proposals. When these take effect, the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, will have played his part in yet another advance in medical practice.
This connects fairly directly with the accident services, which were also mentioned by my noble friend Lord Auckland. My right honourable friend is well aware of the importance of this problem, which has come into particular prominence in recent years. Very large numbers of accident cases are brought to the casualty departments of hospitals. The number of attendances has risen by 1½ million between 1949 and 1958—that is to say, from 10,108,000 to 11,759,000. Measures have been taken. In 1953, a new grade of senior casualty officer was introduced in larger centres, and there are now seventy-one such posts. In the last ten years the number of consultant orthopædic surgeons has risen from 227 to 365. The number of traumatic and orthopædic surgical beds has increased from 12,000 in 1950 to 18,000, in round figures. In the same period, the number of in-patients treated rose from 133,000 to 244,000, which noble Lords will quickly appreciate is not in the same proportion. However, orthopædic services have been set up in many centres, and are still being set up; and there are special arrangements for the treatment of fractures in a great majority of hospital centres now.
In the matter of major accidents, my right honourable and learned friend issued guidance to hospital boards in 1954 advising on the medical arrangements that should be made. These

857
arrangements, once adopted, stood the test of such major accidents as the Lewisham railway disaster. They became the subject of careful study by the hospital board concerned in that disaster, and all boards have been asked to review their own arrangements in the light of the lessons learned there. All this has not prevented a strongly critical report by the British Orthopædic Association in recent weeks, with which some noble Lords are no doubt familiar. The report is being studied by my right honourable and learned friend, and has been brought to the attention of the Regional Boards. The detailed survey of casualty departments is also being carried out under the auspices of the Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust. My right honourable and learned friend is anything but complacent about the situation, and will seek further advice on these problems from his standing medical advisory committee.
Geriatrics and the chronic sick have also been touched upon in the debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, considers that provision on a ratio of 1·2 beds per 1,000 for this type of patient is not enough. But the chronic sick survey of 1954–55 considered it adequate, and this guidance has been followed until to-day. There are now about 58,000 staffed chronic sick and geriatric beds in England and Wales—that is, for nearly 1·3 per 1,000 of population—which implies that there is no overall shortage on the standards of the survey. There are undoubtedly serious local shortages of beds in areas with an exceptionally high proportion of old people, or where the domiciliary and welfare services are not fully developed. In these areas, local authorities are doing their best to improve their services and to persuade families to accept a responsibility in this matter. Hospitals do this not only through additional beds but by setting up geriatric departments where elderly patients can be assessed and given active treatment and rehabilitation. Nearly 100 such departments have now been set up in England and Wales. It may be, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said, that, as time goes on, a greater proportion of hospital resources will have to be devoted to old people. At the moment, there is no evidence that the demand is growing faster than it is being met. In fact, the
858
total waiting list for admission to chronic sick and geriatric beds dropped last year by more than 10 per cent.
My noble friends Lord Grenfell and Lord Auckland are perturbed about the Fountain Hospital. There is undoubtedly to-day a problem of overcrowding. It will be relieved in the near future, as my noble friend Lord Grenfell has
described, by transferring 120 children to Queen Mary's Hospital at Carshalton. In addition, there is included in the present list of major hospital building announced by my right honourable and learned friend on the 16th of this month a new reception unit at Fountain Hospital of up to 100 beds, an out-patient department and a research and teaching unit. The immediate relief of congestion will enable the Regional Board to carry out further work of improvement, while the unit at Carshalton will be expanded to greater size depending on the need.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, referred in heartening terms to the National Health Service Advisory Council on Management and Efficiency. He referred to it more simply as the Ewart Smith Committee. In answer to the noble Lord's more detailed question on the Ewart Smith Committee, I may say that it is a permanent standing Committee, but that its methods of reporting and acquiring information must be decided by the Committee itself, which has been in practical existence now for only three months and has not yet chosen the methods under which it will work.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, dwelt on the problems of mental health. It may well be imagined how hard it is for anyone to attempt to discuss with them on level terms a subject on which, whatever they may say, they are recognised authorities. I hope that it will not sound unduly evasive if I say that the Mental Health Act received the Royal Assent only at the end of last July, less than four months ago, and all concerned are still engaged in the preparatory work to implement it. My right honourable and learned friend, while promising to avoid delay in completing this work, has also said that there will be no scrimping either of administrative or consultant work which he regards as essential. The only part so far implemented is that which enables patients to be received in mental hospitals without any formality

859
at all; and I think that this in itself can be regarded as a long, useful and practical step forward.
At the end of last year, out of some 480,000 staffed beds in the Hospital Service, 156,329 were allocated to mental illness and 57,670 to mental deficiency. That will give some idea of the scale of the problem. Many of the 360 or so psychiatric hospitals are old buildings which date back to a time when close custody and segregation from the community were looked upon as the proper régime for mental patients. That is no longer so, as I hope to convince your Lordships within a minute or two. Great advances in the treatment of mental disorder have been developed in the present century. The function of mental hospitals is now seen as curative rather than custodial. New methods have meant an alteration of the balance between in-patient treatment and out-patient treatment, the emphasis now being upon the latter. This reflects the new tendency to stimulate the sense of responsibility of the community, and to regard the psychiatric hospitals as only one of the means available for the treatment of the mentally ill. No one, I think, has been more lucid, persuasive, or dedicated in expounding this humane doctrine than the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, himself, but he made it clear today that his anxieties on this score are by no means at rest.
It is, in a small way, a measure of his persuasiveness that I myself went last week to the new hospital at Balderton, near Newark, to be shown round. I have once before mentioned this as a new hospital; so it is, in the sense that it has been opened for only two and a half years. It now has 250 patients, but its eventual capacity will be 560. There is much more that is new in this hospital than the buildings. There is the absolute refusal to regard the patients as incurable—in fact a determination to show that some, at least, are curable. The hospital is proud of its discharge rate. A number of patients are regularly placed in jobs and continue to come to out-patient clinics. Most of the older people are regarded as permanent inmates and given work where possible until they die. But the younger ones, when sufficiently recovered, are encouraged to find work outside. It is an interesting fact that there are some jobs for which they are
860
particularly suited—for instance, jobs involving monotony, which they do not mind.
Those include such jobs as domestic service, and some former patients have become cooks, and even housekeepers, and have given perfect satisfaction to their employers. It is necessary for the employer to understand that there may be moments of unhappiness, impatience and unreasonableness, for which they have to be prepared, but which must be weighed against devoted and uncomplaining service so long as this degree of understanding is present. I was given one example of a young man of 24 who was recently discharged to a job in a sawmill where he is now earning £14 a week.
I could dwell with some enthusiasm on the conditions in which the patients live. I am not contradicting the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, when I say that in this particular hospital the patients live in infinitely greater comfort than I enjoyed at my public school; and that in turn was considerably more comfortable than his—or that is my impression from the visits I have paid to that distinguished place. If challenged on this. I shall invite the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, to support me.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I cannot believe that what the noble Lord said is true; but apart from that I am only too happy to agree with him.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The kitchen block at Balderton is the most modern and impressive that I have ever seen in a hospital or any other public institution, and I cannot believe that the noble Lord himself would be anything but impressed, if he went there, as I hope he will. It cost a quarter of a million pounds by itself. The kitchen is even fitted with smell-extracting equipment. The food seemed to me of excellent quality. I was assured that the patients are very quick to notice any change in quality, and only recently have requested boiled eggs instead of fried eggs. The food is cooked centrally and taken in electrically-heated trolleys to the one-storey blocks, where the trolley is plugged in and kept warm before serving. This, I think, does not indicate a negligent attitude towards the patient.
From the technical point of view I have already passed on the noble Lord

861
the dietary which was given to me. It will probably mean more to him than it does to me. I was told by the doctor in charge that it was good compared with other hospitals, whether mental or general. In answer to another question, I may say that the cost of food, including the wages of catering staff, is £1 14s. 8d. a week per patient. Deducting the wages of staff, it is £1 5s. That is only in one hospital.
But of greater importance to me than any physical comforts is the attitude of the staff and the ingenuity with which patients are employed and saved from idleness. Wherever possible, they are given useful and productive work, sometimes domestic, wherever possible outside rather than indoors. Every effort is made to escape the old attitude that mental cases must be shut in at all costs. Some are employed looking after the poultry and pigs. There is a workshop where, apart from the characteristic rugs, mat-making and rush-weaving, such unexpected activities as the making and painting; of polythene models are provided as occupation. Even the time of those who are incapable of doing directly productive work is employed to good advantage. Those who are engaged in tearing up newspaper all day are providing material for others. Torn into tiny pieces, the paper is soaked for 48 hours and the papier maché is given to high-grade patients to make such objects as bird baths and other garden ornaments.
I have dwelt perhaps for an unreasonable length of time on this one hospital. I hope that it does not appear that I am presenting it as a rebuttal to Lord Pakenham's case. To do that would be to forfeit far more in his opinion than I would ever voluntarily do. It has been made very plain to me that Balderton is an exception, but a significant exception. It has not been established in order to distract attention from earlier and out-of-date hospitals. It exists to point the way which those older hospitals may now follow. One swallow does not make a summer, and one Balderton does not win this particular battle. But I submit to the noble Lord that by its existence it indicates that the whole policy of mental deficiency hospitals is on a new and more promising beam.
In a general way, I feel bound to assert that the other older hospitals have not
862
been so wide of this beam as the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, suggests; and, while corroborating everything that noble Lords have said about the humanity and dedication of the staffs, it is misleading to suggest that their achievements have been won in spite of a stingy and unappreciative Government. In general figures, there are 145 hospitals for the reception of patients under the Mental Deficiency Acts. Many of these have ancillary units, bringing the total of places where mental defectives are cared for to about 190. The number of beds is 51·015 and there is an average over-crowding of about 9·5 per cent.
Building in recent years has been at a somewhat slower pace than for other hospitals, because of some uncertainty about the way in which the Service would develop. The great colonies of the past were seen to belong to the past, but it was not so clear what the future pattern should be. Although the new Mental Health Act points the way, there is still need to wait until the local authorities have worked out their plans for increased community care of this sort of patient, and until the requirements of the Mental Deficiency Services are clearer, before the final specialised shape emerges. Despite this prudent deliberation, great advances have been made not only in new building but in extending and renovating the buildings we have.
Available beds have increased from 44,000 in 1952 to 51,000 last year, and the over-crowding of 9·5 per cent. represents a fall from 12·7 per cent. in 1952. The present building programme, coupled with hostel accommodation to be provided by local authorities, promises greater improvements. In the matter of expenditure since 1948, I may say that, of the £22 million spent on capital work in mental deficiency hospitals, more than £10·5 million has gone to mental deficiency. That is another figure for which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, asked.
LORD PAKENHAM: I asked what was the proportion under the new programme.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Yes. Four major schemes have been partly completed and brought into action. Three other major developments are in progress and eight other projects being planned. On

863
November 16 my right honourable friend announced the latest list of major schemes which he has authorised, and this included six new mental deficiency projects, including one completely new hospital.
The new methods and new approach that I have referred to at Balderton are found in other hospitals as well. The Board of Control Commissioners and Inspectors have lately commented on the improvement of clothing and the efforts to establish a sense of pride in appearance among the patients. In the matter of catering, welcome improvements have been noted in the past six years. There are more catering officers, about 50 per cent. of all mental deficiency units now being covered by a catering officer. The cost of food per patient per week now averages between 18s. and £1. Balderton, as I have mentioned, is better than that. The average cost of maintaining a patient in a mental deficiency hospital has risen in the past three years by 21 per cent., to £6 2s. 1d. weekly, which was the figure mentioned by the noble Lord; and even taking into account the rise in the cost of living it still represents a betterment in real terms. I hope that, with these few words, I have done something to relieve the anxiety of noble Lords who have the situation of the mental deficient so much at heart.
The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, asked whether the £50 million expenditure would be reached within the next five years. There has been no announcement beyond the announcement of £31 million for 1961–62, but it is reasonable to hope that the upward trend can be maintained, and that £50 million per annum will be reached. He then asked what proportion of this capital expenditure will be on mental deficiency hospitals. That, I am afraid, it is not possible to forecast precisely, since the rate of progress of each individual scheme cannot be known at present. But it is probable—and I only say "probable"—that it will be in the region of 10 per cent.
I think I have already answered the question on food. The figure I have for mental deficiency hospitals is 19s. 10d. for long-stay hospitals £1 2s. 1d. (I think that was also the figure given by the noble Lord), and for acute general hospitals £1 8s. The noble Lord's
864
figures are accurate; but the above are national averages of expenditure on food, and I have already given one example where they are exceeded. Expenditure in acute general hospitals is necessarily much higher, because of special diets. The standard in mental deficiency hospitals, which has admittedly been low, is now steadily rising. It is true that the total weekly costs of hospitals are much higher than those of mental deficiency hospitals—and necessarily so, because of the much greater variety and complexity of the services they provide. But during the past three years expenditure at mental deficiency hospitals has risen substantially by 21 per cent. It is not denied that mental deficiency patients may suffer from other things as well as mental deficiency, but in fact the variety of the ailments from which they suffer is generally uncertain, smaller and less diverse than those of patients in general hospitals.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, asked for more privacy for hospital patients—and he has apparently sought more privacy for himself, for which he cannot be blamed. There are various ways of obtaining privacy in a hospital. The noble Lord mentioned the method of private pay-beds, for which patients pay the full cost. Of these there are about 6,000 in England and Wales. Then there are the so-called "amenity" beds for which a low weekly charge is made; and this may suit those who want a bed for 24 hours only, which was the type of patient the noble Lord mentioned.
LORD PAKENHAM: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I think I can perhaps undertake to convey to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, the gist of any further thoughts the noble Lord has.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I should be grateful. There are 5,500 of these "amenity" beds. Thirdly, an effort is being made to divide up the large general ward by permanent screens and by curtains which can be drawn round each bed. This kind of sub-division is taking place on a large scale in hospitals all over the country, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, mentioned, and if it is appreciated it will no doubt be hurried on.
I come last of all to the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester. I speak briefly, and at

865
the end, but I know he will not think this is due to any casualness towards his views, because until lately I was one of the most admiring members of his flock before he moved to Chichester. The point about nurses' hostels is that nurses are not particularly unlike other young women in the country, and "freedom" is very often the cry. The result of this is that certain nurses' hostels which have been built and which do exist are, regrettably, about half empty. I am sure the last thing the right reverend Prelate would wish is to incarcerate these young ladies in hostels simply because they have been built.
He also mentioned the matter of chapels. It is, and always has been, the policy of successive Ministers of Health to do everything possible to promote the spirtual welfare of hospital patients and staff, as is shown by the great increase in hospital chaplaincies since 1948. In the same way it is the policy of the Government to provide hospital chapels within the building programme, subject to the needs of other even more urgent building schemes. Chapels are already included in the early stages of building of many new hospitals.
I referred earlier to the fact that the National Health Service could not be regarded only as a wealth-consuming service; that wealth-producing was not confined to money terms. The Guillebaud Committee made it clear that they appreciated this fact, and so indeed do Her Majesty's Government. In describing the Service and its purpose, the words of the Report read:
"In so far as it improves the health and efficiency of the working population, money spent on the National Health Service may be properly regarded as 'productive', even in the narrowly economic sense of the term."
If I may harness a phrase which has been sometimes used in a more controversial context, a healthy nation
"works more, produces more, buys more, eats more and spends more"
than an unhealthy nation. It also certainly enjoys itself and fulfils itself to a greater degree. My Lords, it is that nation which Her Majesty's Government are leading to-day, with continuing and increasing pride.
7.50 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I have not been a Member of your Lordships' House long enough to be able to refer
866
to 7.50 as "this late hour" without some feelings of embarrassment. But I have been a Member of this House long enough to know that at the end of a debate of this kind it would be unfair, unwise and ungracious for me to make another speech. I assure your Lordships at once that I do not intend to do so. But I hope I may be allowed to refer to some noble Lords who have taken part, and in particular to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for what, by general agreement, has been a memorable maiden speech. I am sure the noble Viscount will now be aware that I was speaking the truth when I said that nothing I could say would prevent him prior to his speech from being nervous, or ceasing to feel nervous as soon as he was on his feet, and that after it was over he would not understand what he was nervous about at all. I am sure that that has been justified.
I thank, too, the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, for what I can describe as an inimitable speech. Perhaps he alone of your Lordships could have made such a speech on this subject which was not merely enjoyable but immensely informative, in a way that even I could understand. I do not think, however, that even the noble Lord quite appreciates how true his statement was that hospitals are men and women and not bricks and mortar. That is paraphrase of what he said. How much better do I know that, with a hospital group which consists of two former workhouses 95 years and 90 years old respectively, a former local authority hospital 72 years old, and two other hospitals, both in their eighties, all partially war damaged, and having to contend with an allocation of capital and other funds which are all on a per bed or per patient basis, so that we get the same kind of allocation as a hospital whose conditions are, by comparison, like Elysium. That was the kind of thing I was trying to say. No one could be more conscious of the tremendous debt which we owe to the doctors and nurses and all other members of the staff working in those hospitals than I am for the tremendous courage and devotion they have shown in building them up to a level where the service they give is incomparably higher than it was formerly, and approaching the level of the best. That was entirely the reason

867
why I was prompted to table the Motion that we have debated to-day.
I most fully support my noble friend Lord Pakenham and my noble friend Lord Grenfell in what they had to say about mental hospitals and mental deficiency hospitals. I was for four years Chairman of a Mental Health Committee of 100 of these hospitals, with 17,000 beds, and I know some of the conditions. I am immensely grateful to my noble friend Lord Taylor for his masterly summing up. It seems extraordinary that my noble friend should have made his first maiden speech in this very Chamber some fourteen years ago, and it has taken him all that time through, shall I say, the misunderstanding or misinformation both of his seniors in the Party and the electorate before he has made his maiden speech at this Bench. I am sure everyone will be agreed that it was a lot too long in the waiting. He even managed to introduce an innovation by handing over a remarkable pamphlet to the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, and I only regret that the noble Lord did not incorporate that in his speech as well. I am sure we should have greatly enjoyed it.
I am exceedingly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, for the tremendous care he has taken in replying in such great detail to all the points that have been put. I myself cannot recall having listened to a closing speech by a Minister when so much valuable information has been given. It has been quite impossible, of course, as he will realise, to absorb all that he has said, but I shall certainly read it again, probably many times, with tremendous interest. One thing perhaps did stick in my mind, which shows the completely different way in which we can look at a particular item of information. The noble Lord regarded the fact that the Government are going to permit the
868
expenditure of £990,000 on a new wing or a new unit for Westminster Hospital as a matter for congratulation. That may well be true, and I would be the last to deny that expenditure. I imagine it will provide about 120 beds. But the immediate thought that comes to my mind—and I hope the noble Lord will forgive this—is that I am a tiny part of a region in which there are not 120 beds and one hospital, but 33,000 beds and 100 hospitals. Their entire capital allocation for a whole year is not even £990,000—it is £660,000. It seems to me, having regard to the conditions which I truly described, that there is something crazy about that kind of economics.
I will not pursue the point, but would only say this now. What we think of each other, and what we say to each other in your Lordships' House, is, of course, of some importance, but its importance lies in the fact that it has an effect on those outside who will read it far more important than its effect upon us. I believe that when they read what we have said here—as read it they will, and study it with the greatest care—two things at least will arise in the minds of everyone in the Hospital Service who has cognisance of this debate. The first is that there are in your Lordships' House Members who have the keenest possible interest in, and some with the greatest knowledge of, the Hospital Service. The second is that there exists in this House as a whole the keenest appreciation of all who work in hospitals, and the strongest desire to be of assistance to them. It is in that belief, and in the hope that this debate has done something to help those whom we desire to serve, that I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at two minutes before eight o'clock.