Sitting of 11 July 1961

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL
  Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
  EYEMOUTH HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
  BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION (No. 2) ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to the British Transport Commission, presented by Mr. John Maclay; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 150.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Industrial Development North Lanarkshire
    Miss Herbisonasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what instructions he has given to his Regional Controller in Scotland about drawing the attention of industrialists to the advantages of being sited near the steel strip mill at Gartcosh; and what steps he is taking to attract industrialists to that area;
    (2) what consultations his Regional Controller in Scotland has had with Lanarkshire County Council on the advantages of Harthill for ancillary industries connected with the British Motor Corporation development at Bathgate; and what steps he is taking to attract industrialists to that area.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The Board of Trade is continuing its efforts to attract new industry to the North Lanarkshire area, and wherever appropriate the Board's Office for Scotland reminds industrialists of the advantages of being sited near the steel strip mill and the British Motor Corporation's works. It keeps in close touch with the Lanarkshire County Council, but has not had separate consultations about Harthill.
    Miss Herbison: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that only this week three firms in North Lanarkshire have announced closures? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that in this area of Harthill the very last pit closes on Friday of this week, which is the holiday period? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that there will have to be much greater initiative and drive by himself and by his representatives in Scotland if we are to have any chance at all of remedying the great deficiences in employment in that area?
    Mr. Maudling: I have heard of these pending closures, and I must say that I aim disturbed to hear about them. But the hon. Lady should recognise that unemployment in the North Lanarkshire group during the past year has fallen from 4·6 to 3·4 per cent., which is quite definite progress.
    Miss Herbison: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, even though that may be some progress, the figure is still a very high one, and that all the signs are that instead of improvements in this area the position is likely to become very much worse?
    Mr. Maudling: We must certainly try to make more progress. I was only saying that we had made some in the past year.

    Copyright Act, 1911 (Section 15)
    Mr. Fisherasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will introduce legislation to amend the Copyright Act, 1911, under which publishers have to supply free of charge copies of every book they publish to the British Museum and to certain university libraries.
    Mr. Maudling: I am not proposing to introduce legislation to repeal Section 15 of the Copyright Act, 1911.
    Mr. Fisher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that about 130,000 books a year are provided free of charge to these libraries but that the cost to the authors and publishers is about £100,000 per annum? Does he really think that this penal levy is fair to book producers? Why should they provide the subsidy, and why cannot universities themselves pay for the books which they require?
    Mr. Maudling: I think that my hon. Friend is possibly over-estimating the burden on the publishers. In 1952 the Copyright Committee said:
    "In view of the long-standing nature of the privilege and obligation, and what we feel to be the comparatively small burden it creates for the publishing trade as a whole in relation to their turnover"
    it did not recommend the discontinuance of the custom. I think that, on the whole, I would agree with that.

    Plastics
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking or proposes to take to increase the export of all forms of manufactured plastics; if he will refer to the Monopolies Commission the manufacture of fibre-glass and synthetic resins; and what information he has as to why imported resins are cheaper than resins made in England.
    Mr. Maudling: All the normal facilities provided by the Government to help exporters are available for manufactured plastics. I have no evidence to suggest that the supply of the materials mentioned ought to be referred to the Monopolies Commission, or that prices for the domestic product are in general higher than imports, but I will certainly consider any information the hon. Member cares to send me.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that there are great potentialities in this trade and that Britain, technically, is leading the world in it? Is he aware that a number of manufacturers have complained to me that they could considerably increase their exports if the cost of the materials about which they complain, like synthetic resin and fibre glass, were cheaper? They say that they can import synthetic resin from Germany cheaper than they can buy
    180
    it in this country. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter?
    Mr. Maudling: If the people can import them more cheaply, then there is not a burden, obviously, in the cost of the raw materials. But I should be very happy to consider any case which the hon. Member gives me. In the meantime, I point out that exports of plastic materials in the last three years have risen by 50 per cent. The industry is doing very well.

    Pottery Industry
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade what recent action has been taken to assist the pottery industry; if he is satisfied with the amount of exports; and what further steps he proposes to take to increase exports of all forms of ceramics.
    Mr. Maudling: The output of the pottery industry in 1960 and so far in 1961 has been increasing, and it continues to have an excellent export record. The Board of Trade export services are freely available to the industry and I am always ready to do what I can to help.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Is the Minister aware that I was very impressed, as were others, with the way in which he handled affairs last Friday morning? When will he apply the same kind of dynamic to industries of this kind which are eager to increase their exports if they are given more encouragement? Is he aware that they are embarking on a large promotion of home sales? While we shall support that, would it not be better if they were encouraged to bring about a considerable increase in their exports?
    Mr. Maudling: The pottery industry is an outstanding example of an industry producing a high-quality British product with a fine export record. Anything that I can do to help its exports I will gladly do.
    Mrs. Slater: Is the Minister aware that during the last month, for the first time since the industry started up after the war, there has been a drop in exports, so that his help and that of his Department would be very much appreciated? Would he look into the matter?
    Mr. Maudling: My figures show that in the first quarter of this year sales were 4 per cent. up on the figure for the first

    181
    quarter of 1960. I think that the curve is still upwards, and anything that I can do to make it go still more upwards will gladly do.

    Dumping and Subsidised Imports
    Sir A. Hurdasked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent it is his policy, in reaching a decision to take action under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957, to await formal applications for an antidumping duty by representatives of established industry in the United Kingdom threatened with material injury; and if this consideration was responsible for the delay in dealing with dumped supplies of barley from Russia and France.
    Mr. Maudling: Before taking action under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957 the Board of Trade must be satisfied that dumped or subsidised imports are causing or threatening material injury to an industry. Evidence of material injury can normally come only from the industry, to whom I must look for some initiative in providing it.
    Sir A. Hurd: My right hon. Friend says that evidence must normally come from the industry. Presumably this does not mean exclusively from the industry. While I appreciate very much what he has done to stop the dumping of Russian and French barley, may I ask whether it was necessary to wait for as long as from last October to take action? Cannot we speed up and streamline all this anti-dumping procedure?
    Mr. Maudling: I am always ready to consider suggestions for speeding up our procedure, but I think that we must stick to the statutory provisions, which are that there must be evidence of material injury to industry. I think that we can rightly assume that if an industry is suffering injury it will be able to give us evidence of it.
    Mr. Bullardasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the undue lowering of farm commodity prices as a result of dumping from overseas which results in a higher level of Government expenditure on the farm price guarantees, he will introduce legislation to amend the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957, so
    182
    as to remove the burden of the proof of dumping from the home producers of food, since the evidence of dumping is in each case already available in his Department.
    Mr. Maudling: No, Sir. Before action can be taken under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957, the Board of Trade must establish not only that dumping or subsidisation is taking place but that this is causing or threatening material injury to a domestic industry and that action would be in the national interest. It would not be in accordance with our international obligations to disregard the criterion of actual or threatened material injury to an industry, and it is reasonable that the industry which believes itself subject to such injury, actual or threatened, should be required to take the initiative in applying for action to be taken and establishing a prima facie case. When a prima facie case of dumping or subsidy and injury has been established, the Board is always ready to make the further detailed inquiries that are needed before a case for taking action under the legislation can be made out. But it would be impracticable for the Board of Trade to provide itself as a matter of routine in all possible cases with information that would indicate the existence of dumping or subsidisation.
    Mr. Bullard: Would my right hon. Friend agree that it is very difficult indeed for producers to establish their case, particularly in regard to trade with Iron Curtain countries, where State trading is involved in the case of the other party to the transaction? In any case, in regard to review commodities, is it not the Treasury and the taxpayer who suffer from the dumping, and ought not the Government therefore to be very much on the look-out for cases where dumping may be occurring, without going through this rather long and involved procedure of getting information from producers, which they, in their turn, find it very difficult to get without access to my right hon. Friend's Department itself?
    Mr. Maudling: On the first point, I agree that it is difficult to get information, particularly in the case of Iron Curtain countries. We are very glad to do what we can as quickly as we can in every case. On the second point, I

    183
    must make it clear that the Act empowers me to take action only where there is evidence of injury to an industry. The Act was very deliberately drawn at the time and approved by the House, and this is in accordance with our international obligations. I have no power to take action unless there is some evidence of injury to an industry.
    Mr. Turton: Is it not clear from the Answers of my right hon. Friend that the time has come to amend the Act of 1957 because it is not effectively stopping dumping?
    Mr. Maudling: I doubt that. It is a wider question. At the moment, I can only operate the powers available to me. I believe that the House was right to limit them in the way they were limited in the Act of 1957. We must look at the matter not merely in the interests of our own producers, which are of immense importance, but in the light of our general interest as international traders.

    Dollar Imports
    Sir C. Osborneasked the President of the Board of Trade since the trade gap for May was £82 million, compared with £24 million in April, and is the largest since October, 1960, and since exports to the United States of America for 1960 were £322 million, a fall of 10 per cent. on 1959 while imports were £567 million, an increase of 53 per cent. on 1959, what new steps he is taking to restrict imports from the United States of America, particularly of tobacco, so as to help the balance of trade; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maudling: I do not think that we should attempt to draw conclusions from one month's figures or to consider the balance of our trade in terms of exports to and imports from any particular country. We must seek the remedy for our present problems in the expansion of exports rather than the restrictions of imports.
    Sir C. Osborne: In view of the fact that we are buying so much more from America than America is buying from us, why should we not use our huge purchases of American tobacco as a bargaining power to compel the Americans to reduce their tariffs against our exports? Would not that be a better
    184
    policy than allowing President Kennedy to bulldoze us into the European Common Market?
    Mr. Maudling: At the moment we are negotiating in the G.A.T.T. for tariff reductions with the United States and with the European Community, but one must look at the long-term picture, and over the past decade our exports to America have more than doubled, whereas their sales here have increased by about only 50 per cent.
    Sir C. Osborne: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, seek to raise it on the Adjournment.

    Hong Kong Textile Industry (Agreement)
    Mrs. Castleasked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made by the cotton industry regarding the renewal of the agreement between the Hong Kong textile industry and the Cotton Board, due to expire in January, 1962; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maudling: The Government have proposed that the present undertaking by the Hong Kong industry should be extended with certain modifications until 31st December, 1962. These proposals have been conveyed by the Hong Kong Government to the Hong Kong Trade Associations concerned and their replies are awaited.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the Minister aware that the uncertainty about the extension of this agreement is jeopardising the success of the Cotton Reorganisation Scheme? What steps does he intend to take to ensure that the agreement is extended for a sufficiently long period to enable the international talks about to take place on the integration of these cheap exports into world trade to reach a conclusion which will not severely jeopardise the cotton industry in the countries concerned?
    Mr. Maudling: We recently made clear our view about the importance of continuing suitable arrangements during the re-equipment phase in Lancashire. The difficulty is that we are torn between two duties—on the one hand the interests of the Lancashire textile industry and on the other hand the interests of the Hong Kong people, for

    185
    whom we are responsible. We are trying to find the proper way between those conflicting views.
    Mr. Thorpe: Will the Minister bear in mind that even that arch-protectionist Lord Beaverbrook believes in Empire free trade? Will he bear in mind that if the excuse for the Government dithering over the Common Market is our ties with the Commonwealth, it makes hypocrisy of that claim if we try to restrict trade with the Commonwealth? Will he bear that in mind?
    Mr. Maudling: As far as I understand that very involved supplementary question, I think that I disagree with it.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Will the Minister bear in mind that these voluntary agreements arose in the first place out of universal consent that some kind of restriction of this kind was necessary and that it was preferable to do it by voluntary means, if possible, rather than by compulsion? But as the indications are at present that the voluntary arrangements are not likely to be extended for any substantial period, have the Government any measure in mind for dealing with the situation which will arise if they are not extended?
    Mr. Maudling: This is a hypothetical question. I repeat that the Government attach the greatest importance to the continuance of this voluntary agreement.

    Poland
    Commander Courtneyasked the President of the Board of Trade how many Polish Government-controlled organisations operate in the United Kingdom concerned with the provision of banking, shipping and insurance services; what corresponding British offices are at present operating in Poland; and what contribution this imbalance makes towards the deterioration in the value of United Kingdom invisible exports to which he had drawn attention.
    Mr. Maudling: There is no branch of any Polish bank in the United Kingdom. There is one Polish office in the United Kingdom which deals with shipping and insurance, and two British offices dealing with these services in Poland. There is no relationship between the number of organisations and the balance of pay-
    186
    ments on invisible account between the two countries.
    Commander Courtney: Are the organisations in Poland manned by British nationals?
    Mr. Maudling: I cannot answer that without notice. I would add that on balance we have a substantial invisible surplus with Poland.

    Angola
    Mr. Brockwayasked the President of the Board of Trade how much British capital is invested in Angola; and through which companies the investments are operated.
    Mr. Maudling: No estimate of the value of British capital invested in Angola is available.
    Mr. Brockway: Will the Minister confirm that there is very considerable British capital investment in Angola, that in particular that capital controls the railway system and has a very large share in the diamond industry, and that in both those the system of forced labour is employed? In those circumstances, will he use every power he has to demand that where British capital is invested these conditions of slavery shall not exist? Secondly, will he use his influence among those who control British capital there, including our old friend Captain Waterhouse, in order to influence the Government of Portugal to end the policies which they are pursuing?
    Mr. Maudling: I was asked for some factual information which I regret is not available. The wider questions which the hon. Member asks would better appear on the Order Paper.

    Common Market
    Mr. Jayasked the President of the Board of Trade which of the principal raw materials used by British industry, and now imported duty free, would bear an import duty under the common external tariff of the European Common Market; and what is the rate of duty in each case.
    Mr. Maudling: Unwrought aluminium, woodpulp and newsprint, on which the common tariff is 10 per cent., 6 per cent.

    187
    and 7 per cent., respectively, are the principal raw materials which are dutiable under the common tariff and which enter the United Kingdom free of duty from all sources.
    Mr. Jay: Can the President of the Board of Trade say whether there are other raw materials on which import tariffs would have to be placed if we were to accept the common external tariff as it now stands?
    Mr. Maudling: There are also raw materials which come in duty-free from the Commonwealth and which are dutiable from other sources, such as lead, zinc, tungsten and molybdenum.
    Mr. Jay: Is it not well that the country, and also the Liberal Party, should understand that adherence to the Rome Treaty as it now stands would mean placing an import tax on all these important raw materials? Cannot the President of the Board of Trade give an assurance to the House that the Government will not accept import duties on these raw materials since this would clearly raise costs throughout British industry?
    Mr. Maudling: I should be unwise to go further than to say that these are extremely important issues in deciding one of the great questions facing this country in the near future.

    Films
    Mr. Swinglerasked the President of the Board of Trade how many films have been imported from the countries of the Common Market into Great Britain in each of the last five years; how many British films have been exported to these countries; and how these figures compare with film imports and exports between Great Britain and the countries of the Commonwealth.
    Mr. Maudling: The numbers of long films originating in Common Market countries and registered at the Board of Trade in each of the five years ending 31st March, 1961, were 72, 66, 56, 69 and 83 respectively. Similar figures for films made in Commonwealth countries are 9, 6, 4, 9 and 2. Parallel information about the number of British films imported by the various Common Market and Commonwealth countries is not available.
    Mr. Swingler: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman yet give any indication of the policy of the Common Market organisation in regard to film imports and exports, especially with regard to quotas and subsidies? Cannot he say what effects this policy is likely to have on the British film industry?
    Mr. Maudling: It is difficult enough to answer Questions on the policy of my Department; it would be even more difficult to answer for the policy of the Common Market, but if I can obtain any inforamtion I shall be glad to let the hon. Member have it.

    E.F.T.A. (Ministerial Council Meeting)
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on the recent Conference of Ministers of the European Free Trade Association.
    Mr. Maudling: The Ministerial Council of E.F.T.A. held the fourth of its regular meetings on 27th and 28th June at Lancaster House. In the course of this meeting Ministers examined the prospect of making progress towards their goal of a single European market embracing all the members of E.F.T.A. They concluded that it was premature to judge whether any negotiation for membership of or association with the European Economic Community was possible or likely to be successful and decided to re-examine this question at their next meeting. They also agreed that if negotiation should then appear possible the members of E.F.T.A. should co-ordinate their actions and remain united throughout the negotiations. Ministers agreed that there would be advantage in a further acceleration of the timetable for dismantling tariffs within E.F.T.A. They also welcomed the recent entry into force of the Association Agreement with Finland.
    I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the full text of the Council's communiqué.
    Mr. Henderson: Can the Minister say whether the reference in the communiqué to the seven E.F.T.A. Governments remaining united in any subsequent negotiations with the Six means that they will seek to negotiate as a group? If so, would that mean that if

    189
    the Foreign Secretary takes part in the proposed talks with the Six on 1st August he will represent the other E.F.T..4. Governments? Further, is the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the economic integration of the whole of Europe to be held also to imply, so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, an integrated Europe plus an offer to integrate the British Commonwealth of Nations with that integrated Europe?
    Mr. Maudling: The form that any negotiations with the Six take must be left until they start. It is impossible to anticipate the form they may take. Our purpose is to try to make it clear to the world that we are partners and friends, and will work as friend's. As for the association of the Commonwealth, that matter was not discussed at E.F.T.A., and therefore I am afraid it does not arise on this Question.
    Sir C. Osborne: Were the British Government able to give the E.F.T.A. conference members any assurance that General de Gaulle, either verbally or in writing, had promised to consider the request we were making to alter his point of view so that we could enter the Common Market—or has there been no adjustment of the French point of view on our entry to the Common Market?
    Mr. Maudling: We gave the E.F.T.A. countries an account of the various discussions in which we have been engaged in recent months, but no specific question of that type was discussed.
    Mr. Healey: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement, which will settle some of the concern raised by the statements of other British Ministers on the subject, but can he confirm reports appearing in the Press that if bilateral negotiations took place between the E.F.T.A. countries and the Common Market no such negotiations would be finally concluded until all the members of E.F.T.A. had concluded their negotiations for membership of or association with the Common Market? If so, does the Minister agree that Her Majesty's Government should give the British Commonwealth countries at least equal influence in their decisions on this issue?
    Mr. Maudling: We have kept the E.F.T.A. countries fully informed about
    190
    any bilateral discussions, and they have done the same for us. We worded our communiqué carefully. We have agreed that we must remain united throughout the negotiations. In a sense, the position of the Commonwealth is different, in that we are talking in terms of a single European market, which clearly would not be a market of which Commonwealth countries could be members, however they might be associated with it.
    Mr. Healey: Can the Minister answer the first part of my supplementary question and state whether it is true, as reported in many newspapers—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. In order to save time I did not stop the hon. Member before, but the Minister cannot be asked to confirm or deny reports which have appeared in the Press.
    Mr. Henderson: Will the Minister clarify his statement about remaining united? Are we to understand that in any subsequent negotiations E.F.T.A. will negotiate as a group, or that each of the Seven will have its own bilateral negotiations, provided there is reasonable co-ordination?
    Mr. Maudling: I do not want to anticipate the form of the negotiations. We all realise that the E.F.T.A. countries have rather differing problems, and we all want to see our partners satisfied. Therefore, we will remain united throughout the negotiations. Whether they will be bilateral or as a group it is too early to say at the moment.
    Mr. Jay: If we are having this general conference of E.F.T.A., would not a similar general conference of the Commonwealth countries be better, rather than a series of separate negotiations which now looks like straining loyalty in the Commonwealth?
    Mr. Maudling: I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's premise. In any case, the meeting of E.F.T.A. was a regular Council meeting.
    Following is the communiqué:
    MINISTERIAL MEETING OF THE E.F.T.A. COUNCIL, LONDON, 27TH-28TH JUNE, 1961
    The Council of the European Free Trade Association met at Ministerial level in London from 27th to 28th June, 1961, under the chairmanship of the President of the Board, the right hon. Reginald Maudling.
    The aim of the European Free Trade Association has been from the outset, not only to create a free market between its Members, but ultimately also to achieve the economic integration of Europe as a whole, in the form of a single European market comprising 300 million consumers, following Liberal policies towards the outside world. This purpose is stated in the Stockholm Convention and has been re-affirmed at every Ministerial Meeting since July, 1959. Ministers agreed that a generally increased awareness of the dangers of the present split in Europe has led to signs of willingness to make a new effort to bring to an end the division which, during recent years, has become an obstacle to European economic co-operation. An ending of this division would enable the European countries to give their full attention to the serious problems of economic relations between Europe and the rest of the world, and in particular the relationship between Western Europe as an industrialised region, and the developing countries of other Continents. A new effort to bring to an end this European division will necessitate a readiness to make some modification of policy on all sides, but it must respect the basic political positions not only of the several States of Europe, but also of the European Economic Community. Experience gained in recent years has provided a basis for a re-examination of the problems of European integration. This re-examination has shown that while some E.F.T.A. countries could not accept obligations of a political nature, all Members of E.F.T.A. are willing to undertake, in order to achieve an integrated European market, obligations which go beyond those which they have accepted among themselves in the Stockholm Convention.
    Ministers agreed that the aim of any solution must be to promote unity and solidarity in Europe; to strengthen the European economy and to build an integrated market upon solid and permanent foundations. To this end, Ministers agreed that there must be effective institutions to supervise the implemention of undertakings necessary to achieve a solution acceptable to all parties.
    Ministers considered whether their common objective—a single European market embracing all the members of E.F.T.A.—could be achieved by way of negotiation for membership of, or association with the European Economic Community. They concluded that it was premature to judge whether this was possible or was likely to be successful; they decided to re-examine the question at their next meeting.
    Ministers agreed that if such a course should then appear possible, the members of E.F.T.A. should co-ordinate their actions and remain united throughout the negotiations. Ministers resolved that the European Free Trade Association, the obligations created by the Convention between the members, and the momentum towards integration within the Association, would be maintained at least until satisfactory arrangements have been worked out in negotiations to meet the various legitimate interests of all members of E.F.T.A., and thus enable them all to participate from the same date in an integrated European market. They agreed that a partial solution which created new economic division within Western Europe could
    192
    not in any circumstances be regarded as satisfactory.
    Ministers recalled their discussion at the Geneva Meeting of the Council from 14th to 16th February, 1961, and their decision to advance the date for the next 10 per cent. reduction of import duties from 1st January, 1962 to 1st July, 1961. They agreed that there would be advantage in a further acceleration of the timetable for the dismantling of tariff protection within E.F.T.A., and decided to consider the matter further at their next meeting.
    During the course of their meeting the E.F.T.A. Ministers received the Finnish Ambassador in London, His Excellency Leo Tuominen, representing the Finnish Government. The Chairman of the E.F.T.A. Council expressed the pleasure of all the E.F.T.A. Ministers at the recent entry into force of the Association Agreement with Finland, and the prospect of fruitful economic co-operation which it held out.
    The Finnish Ambassador declared in reply that his Government felt great satisfaction at the link now created between Finland and the E.F.T.A. countries by the new Agreement which was of the utmost importance for his country.

    Northern Region (Migration of Population)
    Mr. Boydenasked the President of the Board of Trade what additional measures his Department has taken, since receipt of the inter-regional migration statistics for the period ended May, 1960, when the loss of insured workers from the Northern Region totalled 15,000 and the increase of insured workers in London and the South-Eastern, Eastern and Southern Regions totalled 53,000, to check this migration.
    Mr. Maudling: The duty laid on the Board of Trade under the Local Employment Act is to seek to promote employment in regions where high and persistent unemployment exists or is threatened, rather than to check migration as such. But as I told the hon. Member on 4th July, I hope that the new employment in prospect in the Northern Region will have the effect of checking migration.
    Mr. Boyden: On 4th July the Minister deliberately avoided answering the Question. He did not understand the supplementary question and did not seem to understand the Question on the Order Paper. Has his Department made no study of the extra cost to other Government Departments caused by 100,000

    193
    people pouring into London and Greater London every year? Has no account been taken of the cost to education and transport, as compared with the very much lower cost of stimulating industry more effectively in the North-East?
    Mr. Maudling: The hon. Member's supplementary question begs a number of important questions. I do not think that it would be wise to use the powers of the Local Employment Act, even if it were proper to do so, to try to freeze the present pattern and distribution of population.

    Barley
    Mr. Peytonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the quantity and value of barley imported into this country during each of the last four months.
    Mr. Maudling: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate these in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Peyton: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the very long delay in taking action to check this tremendous cascade of barley has primarily destroyed the last dwindling remains of confidence in this system? Can he say—because this must be made clear—why an application is necessary? Moreover, who is entitled to make application? Neither point is touched upon in the Act.
    Mr. Maudling: As I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd) earlier, the Act makes it clear that we can impose anti-dumping duties only where there is evidence of material injury, actual or threatened, to an industry. The industry has the responsibility of giving us the information upon which we can make that decision.
    Following is the information:

    UNITED KINGDOM IMPORTS OF BARLEY

    Tons

    £

    February, 1961

    …

    91,993

    1,795,460

    March, 1961

    …

    129,576

    2,354,299

    April, 1961

    …

    125,433

    2,329,859

    May, 1961

    …

    104,143

    1,915,097

    North-East
    Mr. Greyasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give a breakdown of the occupational groups represented by the 21,000 jobs which are in prospect for the North-East; and if he will give an estimate of the date by which each such industry will be brought to this area.
    Mr. Maudling: I regret that this information is not available. The figure of 21,000 jobs is the sum of the estimates of future labour requirements over the next four years which the firms concerned have made; they have not broken it down into occupational groups. I can, however, tell the hon. Member that about 14,000 of these jobs are for males.
    Mr. Grey: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that we are not complainng that he has not done anything but that what he has done is not filling the bill? May I ask him what steps he is taking to stop this drift of industry from the North to the South, because we are of opinion that industrial development certificates are far too easy to obtain for developments in the South? Secondly, may I ask him whether he followed my advice of last week to seek an interview with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to ensure that if the payroll tax is to be imposed the North-East, owing to its peculiar circumstances, will be exempt from it?
    Mr. Maudling: I am constantly in touch with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not accept that we are soft in our operation of the I.D.C. policy. In fact, I think we are pretty stringent. We can only do the best we can to get such industry as it is feasible to move into development districts. In reply to the hon. Member's criticism that we are not doing enough, I am prepared to accept that criticism and will go on trying to do more.

    Switch Selling (Sewing Machines)
    Mr. MacArthurasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered the investigation made by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire into the switch selling methods employed by two sewing machine companies, details of which have been sent

    195
    to him; if he is aware that advertisements for one of these companies are still being published; and if he will make a statement on his conclusions in the matter.
    Mr. Maudling: I am investigating the information supplied by my hon. Friend and will write to him.

    Butter
    Mr. P. Browneasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he now proposes to take to stop the import of butter to this country at prices below the cost of production in the countries of origin.
    Mr. Maudling: Butter prices in the United Kingdom this year have caused concern to our traditional suppliers, and we have co-operated with them in international discussions designed to bring about some stability. We shall continue to keep in close touch with them.
    Mr. Browne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the difference between the home price and the export price per cwt. of Danish and New Zealand butter is a difference of approximately 100s. and 150s., respectively? Is not this clearly a case of dumping, and would he not agree that if he were to stop the dumping of dairy produce generally into this country we should not have to have the quota system for our own dairy farmers?
    Mr. Maudling: We are trying through the means available to us to improve the position in the butter market, but I must point out that where an application for the anti-dumping duty is made on behalf of another country—not a British producer—I could not, in any case, act without the consent of G.A.T.T. So far, I have not had any application to impose anti-dumping duties.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this is not a question of dumping from New Zealand? The people there are our relations, and we want to trade with them as sensibly as we can. Will he deal with the question of these other countries which are dumping, and so strengthen the ties with New Zealand?
    Mr. Maudling: My hon. Friend is aware that I attach great importance to our trade ties with New Zealand or any
    196
    other part of the Commonwealth, but we must realise that under our international obligations and under our own legislation we cannot act in response to an anti-dumping application without the consent of G.A.T.T. I think that the procedure which we adopt is in the best interests both of New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

    Trade Marks
    Mr. Wadeasked the President of the Board of Trade in view of the dangers due to a close similarity in appearance and to a similarity in the trade mark registered in respect of a nonalcoholic drink and one registered in respect of a cleansing preparation which is harmful to health if consumed, what regulations he proposes to make to safeguard the public, and children in particular, from serious, and possibly fatal, illness resulting from consumption of the contents of a bottle intended for cleansing.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieuasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a lemonade is now being marketed under a name almost identical to that of a detergent; and what regulations he proposes to make to prevent confusion which might result in the poisoning of children.
    Mr. Maudling: These are registered trade-marks in respect of goods of different descriptions. I am advised that, in these circumstances, the Registrar cannot remove either trade mark from the Register except by order of the court or at the request of their owners.
    Mr. Wade: As the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to look at the correspondence which I sent to him, may I ask him if he would agree that a detergent known as Sundrops could very easily be mistaken by a child for a soft drink known as Sundrop, especially when both are sold in the same type of bottle? Is he satisfied that Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, 1938, or any other existing legislation, provides adequate safeguards for the general public against a danger of this kind, and will he therefore treat this as a matter of some urgency?
    Mr. Maudling: I am not entirely happy about this situation, and I will certainly look at it again. I examined

    197
    both bottles this morning, and in the shape of the bottle, the label, the colour of the contents and the bouquet and aroma, I found that there was a distinctive difference. Nevertheless, I agree that there is something worth looking into.
    Mr. Mallalieu: Would the right hon. Gentleman treat this matter a little bit more seriously? Is he not aware from his own experience of the infinite capacity of children to get hold of things that are not intended for them? Is there not a serious danger here of confusion, and will he check the regulations to see if he can stop this kind of thing now?
    Mr. Maudling: I have taken it seriously. I am aware from personal experience of the danger of children getting hold of things which are left in places where they should not be allowed to get at them. Having examined these two bottles, I think there is a difference which should be apparent even to the youngest child. However, I have said that I am not happy about the situation, and I will look at it further.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I, too, have had correspondence on this matter, and that there is considerable disquiet about it in the West Riding? Surely, something should be done. Children do not look at the colour. They take a bottle and if they think it is a drink it is immaterial what colour it is. Is there not some reason why the Board of Trade should act quickly in this matter? May I ask him further why it is that when a second trade mark of this kind is registered, his Department does not look at it more closely in order to make sure that there is no ambiguity about what is being sold?
    Mr. Maudling: In regard to the second question, the Act prohibits the registration of identical or resembling trade marks in respect of goods of the same description. There is no power in the Act to deal with similar trade marks for goods of a quite different description. I have said I am not altogether happy about it, and I will look at it further, but if a child is incapable of distinguishing between brown and translucent liquids, probably it is not able to read the label on the bottle.

    Penryn
    Mr. Haymanasked the President of the Board of Trade what reply he has sent to the borough council of Penryn, Cornwall, to its letter about industrial development there.
    Mr. Maudling: I have told the council that it is not the policy of the Board to refuse assistance to firms wishing to set up in Penryn but that on the contrary we should like to see more industry established there. I have also explained why I cannot disclose in individual cases the specific reasons which lead the B.O.T.A.C. to reject applications for assistance under the Local Employment Act.
    Mr. Hayman: Is the Minister aware that the general feeling in Penryn is that the dice is loaded against small firms applying for B.O.T.A.C. aid? Is he satisfied with his Advisory Committee's interpretation of the Local Employment Act, because it has absolute discretion?
    Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir. I and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary have looked more than once at the administration by the Committee of its instructions and I believe that it is carrying them out faithfully and well.

    Steel Company of Wales (Coal)
    Mr. K. Lewisasked the President of the Board of Trade what would be the cost in a 12-month period of the amount of coal asked for by the Steel Company of Wales from the United States of America.
    Mr. Maudling: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State stated in reply to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) on 30th May, it is not the practice to disclose particulars of applications for import licences by individual firms.
    Mr. Lewis: Nevertheless, does not my right hon. Friend agree that this must be a costly business if we embark on it? Has he noticed the speeches made by the president of the Miners' Union and the chairman of the National Coal Board indicating that there is a loss of several millions a year owing to "wild cat" strikes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and does not he further agree that if

    199
    we could stop unofficial strikes, we should not require—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This Question has nothing whatever to do with unofficial or other strikes.

    North-East Coast and Tyneside
    Dame Irene Wardasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the uncertainty for the future of the fishing industry at the port of North Shields, what consideration he is giving to scheduling the north bank of the Tyne under the Local Employment Act.
    Mr. Maudling: I do not consider that a high rate of unemployment exists or is expected on the North Bank of the Tyne. I have therefore no power to list it as a development district.
    Dame Irene Ward: In view of the fact that he has rightly emphasised the need for new industries to come to the North-East Coast and Tyneside, may I ask my right hon. Friend why he does not try to protect the fishing industry from being slaughtered by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Will my right hon. Friend use his energy and charm to try to teach the fishing facts of life to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who has acted very badly indeed in relation to the fishing industry on Tyneside?
    Mr. Maudling: I must resist the implications of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, however attractively they may be presented. The fact is that unemployment in the North-East and on Tyneside is only 2·2 per cent. There are a thousand jobs in prospect, so I think that the prospects at the moment for that area are good. I shall continue to watch it carefully, particularly because of the position of the shipbuilding industry.
    Dame Irene Wardasked the President of the Board of Trade what are the industries which will provide the new jobs forecast for the Northern Region.
    Mr. Maudling: The industries are very varied. The engineering and electrical goods industries, the chemical industry and the clothing industry, in that order, account for the greater part of the new jobs forecast for the region.
    Dame Irene Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend why he is not interested in an old established industry, the fishing industry on Tynside? May I ask why he continues to refer to 21,000 jobs? Is he aware that no one has the slightest idea when these 21,000 jobs will materialise, and can he give a little more information, particularly about the fishing industry, which he entirely ignored when answering my Question No. 29.
    Mr. Maudling: Of the more than 60,000 insured employees in the district only 630 are in the group comprising agriculture, forestry and fishing. There are more than a 1,000 jobs in prospect, so I hope that the position is not as bad as my hon. Friend thinks.

    East Germany
    Mr. A. Lewisasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that British trade with the German Democratic Republic in the first three months of 1961 totalled £5,335,306, that the figures for the first three months of 1959 and 1960 were respectively £1,920,518 and £4,000,455 and that British exports to East Germany at £2,350,554 are nearly three times as much as in 1959; and, in view of the fact that British exports and re-exports together at £3,447,107 are three times as large as the £1,888,199 exports from the German Democratic Republic into Great Britain, what action he is taking to increase British purchases in the German Democratic Republic.
    Mr. Maudling: I am aware of the figures referred to in the first part of the Question. I am also aware that the figures for the first five months of 1961 show a substantial increase in United Kingdom imports from East Germany. United Kingdom trade with East Germany in 1961 is the subject of an agreement between the Federation of British Industries and the East German Chamber of Foreign Trade. This provides scope for an increase in imports into this country. It is for the East German authorities to secure the business required to enable advantage to be taken of this.
    Mr. Lewis: Do not the figures show that the East Germans are anxious to carry on trade with this country and that we are exporting quite an amount to

    201
    East Germany? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unless there is some assistance given to the East Germans to earn foreign currency, particularly sterling, it will be difficult for them to buy our exports?
    Mr. Maudling: There is plenty of room both within the quotas available and the open general licence items for more East German sales in this country if they can do the job of selling. I do not think that it is up to me to sell their goods for them.
    Mr. Jeger: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the figures quoted include the substantial amounts being paid in commission to political contact men and would it facilitate a greater amount of trade were it known on both sides that these political contact men are not necessary?
    Mr. Maudling: I should need notice of that question.

    Weights and Measures (Legislation)
    Mr. Oramasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take to deal with the problem of containers which deceive the public as to the quantity of their contents.
    Mr. Holmanasked the President of the Board of Trade what provisions will be made in the forthcoming weights and measures legislation to permit commodities to be sold by weight, including an allowance for the weight of the wrapper; and if he will list the commodities.
    Mrs. Slaterasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether the Weights and Measures (No. 2) Bill will require that the net weight of pre-packed fruit and vegetables should be given as the weight obtaining at the time of packing or at the time of retail sale;
    (2) whether the Weights and Measures (No. 2) Bill will require that the net weight of meat be given both before and after boning in cases where boning takes place before delivery.
    Mr. Maudling: I should be grateful if hon. Members would await the Bill which I hope to be able to introduce within a week or so.
    Mr. Oram: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall saying in relation to Question No. 8 that he is willing to consider any suggestion for speeding up our procedure? Since the Hodgson Committee reported on weights and measures recommendations more than ten years ago, would he be willing to consider suggestions for speeding up procedure in this matter? Does not he consider it deplorable that, after being badgered year after year on this matter, even when Parliament did get a Bill during this Session it was so badly bungled that now we are faced with another year of delay?
    Mr. Maudling: I am happy at any time to consider useful suggestions to speed up procedure, but I cannot accept the description of the Bill given by the hon. Member.
    Mrs. Slater: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a great deal of truth in the substance of my hon. Friend's Question and that the consumers cannot go on indefinitely waiting for protection in the form of weights and measures legislation as outlined in the Question? What hope have we that during the next twelve months we shall not have the same answer as we have been given during this twelve months—that we must wait and see what the Government are prepared to do?
    Mr. Maudling: The discussion in another place has shown how extremely complicated is this subject. The views of a number of interested parties were not put forward until a late stage. I hope that, as the result of the publication of the new Bill and the discussions we have had, the advice we have received will enable us to have a better Bill.
    Mr. Holman: Why cannot the Government expedite the Bill by sitting for a longer period and returning earlier from the Summer Recess to get on with the work?
    Mr. Maudling: So far as that question has not been answered, it is one which should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
    Mr. Jay: Can the President say whether the No. 2 Bill will start its course in this House or in the House of Lords? If it starts in the House of Lords, can he give an assurance that the

    203
    Leader of the House will not drop it and introduce Bill No. 3?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a question which the Minister cannot answer.

    Tobacco Industry (Report)
    Mr. Jayasked the President of the Board of Trade what progress he has made in consultations about the Report of the Monopolies Commission on the tobacco industry.
    Mr. Holtasked the President of the Board of Trade what length of time he estimates will be required for consideration of the Report of the Monopolies Commission on the cigarette and tobacco industry before he can inform the House of the action he proposes to take on its recommendation.
    Mr. Maudling: The trade interests concerned have been invited to submit their views as soon as they have had time to consider the report. I cannot estimate how long discussions with the interests concerned will take.
    Mr. Jay: As this is an important issue on which I should have thought continued uncertainty undesirable, can the President say whether he can give a decision at least before the end of the month?
    Mr. Maudling: I agree that it is an important issue, and that is why I do not want to announce the time of making a decision. I want to get the thing right rather than to give a decision too early.
    Mr. Holt: Would the President agree that these case studies, though extremely useful, take a long time, and that there is a growing feeling that there is need for general legislation dealing with monopolies? Would he say what other cases are before the Commission and whether he can give a promise to the House that when there have been further studies—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Questions are about tobacco and not about other cases. As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I cannot remember whether it was in order or not.

    Central West Fife
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the President of the Board of Trade how many United States firms have estab-
    204
    lished branches in Fife in each of the last five years; how much labour they currently employ; and whether they have any plans for expansion in the county.
    Mr. Maudling: One United States subsidiary began operations in Fife in 1958, another in 1960, and a third is about to begin. In total they will soon be employing about 300. I cannot say what plans these firms have for expansion in the county.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the President of the Board of Trade say whether he has had any formal complaints from those firms about lack of co-operation between his Department and themselves? Can he further say whether some of them who originally planned to expand in Fife are now turning their eyes to the Common Market? Has he any evidence of that?
    Mr. MaudlingI do not think I could say that without notice. I have no recollection of any formal complaint about lack of co-operation. It may be that those firms, like others, do not always get everything they want from the Board of Trade. That is in the nature of things.
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the President of the Board of Trade how many firm applications have been made for financial assistance under the terms of the Local Employment Act from firms seeking to establish themselves in Central West Fife; how many have been granted; and how many are pending.
    Mr. Maudling: Applications for financial assistance have been received from four firms. One of these has been rejected and three are under consideration.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the average time lag between the formal presentation of the application and the final decision being reached? Is he aware that there is certainly one firm about which I have written to him recently that is very anxious to get a speedy decision because it wants to get started in production in the early part of next year?
    Mr. Maudling: I could not give the figure without notice, but I shall certainly follow up the case about which the hon. Member has written to me.

  TREATY OF ROME
  Sir D. Walker-Smithasked the Prime Minister (1) what is the result of his inquiries as to the possibility of getting information from the signatories of the Treaty of Rome relating to the implementation thereof, with a view to publishing a Command Paper;
  (2) whether he has been able to find a convenient method of assessing the constitutional modifications required by the adherence of the United Kingdom to the Treaty of Rome with a view to the inclusion of such an assessment in a Command Paper.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Copies of the official English translation of the full Treaty of Rome, including the annexes, are in the Vote Office.
  As to the implementation of the Treaty, I am arranging, with the agreement of the Commission of the European Economic Community, to make available in the Vote Office as soon as possible copies of the Progress Reports issued by the Commission since the Treaty was signed. I understand that the latest Report takes the position up to 30th April this year.
  I have also considered whether it would be possible to publish documents giving the arguments for and against adhesion by the United Kingdom to the Treaty as it stands. As I have frequently made clear in the House, Her Majesty's Government have no intention of signing the Treaty of Rome without making satisfactory arrangements for the Commonwealth countries, our European Free Trade Association partners and British agriculture. We shall not, therefore, be in the position of joining the Treaty of Rome without any derogation, protocol or amendment, and indeed the Treaty itself in Article 237 expressly provides for necessary changes in the Treaty to be made by agreement in the case of adhesion by states other than the original signatories. So there would be no value in attempting to strike the balance of advantage on the basis only of the existing documents.
  Finally, there is the question of publishing some official Paper setting out what would be the interests of the Commonwealth and the European Free Trade Association and of our own agriculture
  206
  which would need to be met by amendment or protocol or derogation to the Treaty before there could be any question of our adherence to it. This seems to me, on careful reflection, to be a matter of argument which would be quite unsuitable—at this stage at least—for publication in a Government document.
  Mr. A. Lewis: On a point of order. You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that a few weeks ago you advised Ministers that it was your wish that when there were long Answers to Questions, whether sponsored or otherwise, it would be as well if they were answered in a statement at the end of Questions. I ask, therefore, whether it is still your wish or desire that that procedure should be operated.
  Mr. Speaker: It is, but I should rather deal with the matter after Questions so that we shall not take up the time of the House.
  The Prime MinisterMoreover, should it seem right in due course for Her Majesty's Government to take the decision to negotiate with the Governments of the Six, it does not seem to me that prior publication of our full negotiating position would necessarily be helpful.
  Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that I am very grateful to him for the trouble to which he has gone in answering these Questions so fully, and, in particular, for the information contained in the answer to Question No. 41? In regard to Question No. 42, does my right hon. Friend appreciate that his answer has gone a good deal wider than the Question actually put to him, which was merely for a factual assessment—not of the arguments for and against—of the constitutional modifications required in the context of the Treaty of Rome and of the information he has now promised in answer to Question No. 41? As this goes to the issue of political sovereignty which is at the heart of the matter, could my right hon. Friend say whether it is possible to provide such a factual assesment?
  The Prime Minister: It is, of course, clear from the Treaty now available that some merging of sovereignty in the commercial, economic and social fields covered by the Treaty is inherent in the idea of the European Economic

  207
  Community. The Treaty makes that clear. It also makes it clear that defence, foreign policy and public order would in any case be excluded, but until we have concluded any negotiation, should it be started, we cannot summarise the position further than that.
  Mr. Gaitskell: While appreciating that the Prime Minister has gone some way to meet the general demand for more information on this matter, may I ask whether he has decided how the House of Commons is to be informed of the results of the negotiations and talks now taking place between Ministers of Her Majesty's Government and Commonwealth countries?
  The Prime Minister: Perhaps I might be allowed to consider that when they return.
  Mr. Jay: Whilst the Prime Minister's reply today was mildly reassuring to some of us, is there not growing evidence of increasing resentment in more than one part of the Commonwealth at Her Majesty's Government's present conduct of some of these negotiations? Would it not be very much better to call a general Commonwealth conference before we go very much further?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir, that is not the general experience of my colleagues conducting these negotiations. On the contrary, there is a general agreement that a Prime Ministers' conference at the present stage would be a quite unsuitable piece of machinery for dealing with this matter.
  Mr. Holt: Will the Prime Minister make clear to the House that there is a difference in the original words of the French and Italian texts which are translated into English as "amendment" in Articles 236 and 237? Article 236, which deals with new members joining, allows for "adaptations", which can be done in protocols and does not allow for any substantial amendment to the main Treaty—Articles 1 to 240.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, but it has always been our position on the points on which I think the House is so well informed that I need not repeat them—the Commonwealth interest and agricultural interest and so forth and the
  208
  interests of our partners in E.F.T.A.—that any association, if it is to be embarked upon and to be successful, must have a reasonable amount of give and take on all sides.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Reverting to my previous question, will the Prime Minister consider, in view of the very great importance of these talks now taking place, publishing the outcome of the talks and the differences of points of view there may be in a White Paper so that the House may be fully informed as soon as practicable after the Ministers return? Is it proposed by Her Majesty's Government to accept the invitation of the Foreign Ministers of the Common Market countries to meet them on, I think, 1st August to discuss these matters?
  The Prime Minister: I think there are many communiqués which have been agreed. I have just heard of one agreed this morning by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in Canberra and his colleagues there. I will see whether they can be put together and published. In regard to the second question asked by the right hon. Gentleman, I have read something in the Press. What I think is proposed is that there should be a meeting of the W.E.U. countries and at that meeting in a general way this matter and other matters would be on the agenda.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Communiqués are frequently drafted to disclose as little as possible and a collection of communiqués might not throw very much light on what has actually taken place. More seriously, will the Prime Minister consider, in view of the enormous importance of this matter, giving a better and fuller account to the House of Commons of these talks?
  The Prime Minister: Of course, I shall consider that with my colleagues when they return, but the right hon. Gentleman will realise that there might be some feeling against a purely ex parte statement as any statement would have to be agreed as giving the picture of the discussions with all the countries visited. I do not think an ex parte statement would be quite fair however objective one tried to be. One must get it agreed with the others.

  ECCLESIASTICAL APPOINTMENTS
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Prime Minister what representations he has recently received on the relationship between the State and the Established Church, with special reference to church appointments; and if he will set up a committee of inquiry to examine the existing system and report on the merits and demerits of continuing the establishment of the Church of England.
  Mr. Fletcherasked the Prime Minister what representations he has received during the last twelve months with regard to the existing system whereby appointments by the Crown to bishoprics and deaneries in the Church of England are made on the recommendation of the Prime Minister; and whether any change is contemplated in the present arrangements.
  The Prime Minister: I have received no official representations on the relationship between the State and the Established Church, or upon the existing system of ecclesiastical appointments. So far as I am concerned, I see no need far a committee of inquiry.
  Mr. Swingler: Has the Prime Minister not noted, apart from the views expressed in the Press, the recent proceedings of representatives of the Church expressing the desire for a commission of inquiry on the question of appointments and the system of appointments? Is it not clear that there is dissatisfaction on this matter? If there is to be an inquiry, should it not be instituted by the Government in conjunction with Church leaders and not conducted by the Church Assembly?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think it is my duty to carry out the constitutional function of advising the Crown to the best of my ability. I know that the Archbishop of Canterbury has offered to appoint a commission, if there is any general desire for it, at the next session of the Church Assembly. I do not think it would be useful for the State independently to duplicate that inquiry or for any action to be taken before the views of the leaders of the Church are known.
  Mr. Fletcher: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that a commission appointed by the Church Assembly to
  210
  examine the whole question of relations between Church and State reported as recently as 1952 that the present system is working very well and that there should be no attempt to diminish the personal responsibility of the Prime Minister for the advice given to the Crown with regard to Ecclesiastical appointments?
  The Prime Minister: These are very large issues to deal with in question and answer. I have referred to what the Archbishop of Canterbury said. We all have our own feelings as churchmen. I have my duty at the moment as Prime Minister. If it is thought desirable that this commission should be set up again in the light of new conditions, I should welcome it, but I do not think it would be right for me at present to interfere by the setting up, as was suggested, of a State commission.

KUWAIT
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. G. BROWN: To ask the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement about the military operation in Kuwait; and, in view of the difficult conditions under which the British forces are serving, what arrangements are being made for the welfare of the forces and their early replacement.
The Minister of Defence (Mr. Harold Watkinson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Question No. 96.
Yes, Sir. As the House already knows, at the Ruler's request we were successful in deploying a reinforced brigade group in Kuwait in six days. This was a very creditable achievement by all concerned. In mounting such an operation at very short notice, troops were bound to meet some initial hardship, but they have taken it in their stride.
Heat is, of course, the main problem. Even so, the number of cases of heat exhaustion has been on an average only 12 a day needing hospital treatment. I am glad to be able to tell the House that the medical facilities available are very comprehensive. Where those in Kuwait are not adequate, provision exists for evacuation, either to Bahrein or

211
Aden, or to H.M.S. "Bulwark". There has been only one fatal casualty; this was accidental.
A great deal is being done by the Services themselves, by the Ruler of Kuwait and by the Kuwait Oil Company, to provide creature comforts. Beer and soft drinks with ice are being made available in large quantities, and a free issue of 50 cigarettes a week has already been approved for the first fortnight of the operation. Arrangements are being made for the forces to have film shows, and newspapers and books are being flown out. There is a plentiful supply of fresh water and salt tablets.
I have asked my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War to take a small party to Kuwait to see whether anything further should be done.
As to the future, two companies of the Coldstream Guards and a Hunter squadron have already been withdrawn. We shall withdraw further forces as soon as the situation allows and rotate those that remain as frequently as possible.
What I have said represents only a bare outline of both the operation itself and of the measures being taken to improve the lot of the troops. With permission, I will circulate further details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Mr. Brown: May I thank the Minister of Defence for making that statement and say, on behalf of all my right hon. and hon. Friends, that, whatever our views about the operation itself, we all understand the problem with which our troops out there have to contend? We admire the way in which they are doing it and applaud very much their courage in very tough and difficult circumtances.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman some questions. He referred to frequent rotation. How long does that mean that a soldier will have to serve in what must be for us incredibly difficult conditions out there in the sand, away from Kuwait City and Ahmadi? How long will he be there before he is able to get back for a little relaxation? How long will anybody have to serve in Kuwait before he is relieved by someone from Kenya, from here, or from somewhere else? Has the right hon. Gentleman considered how we can reduce the size of the force we have there, which, on the whole, looks rather over-gunned for the operation?
Mr. Watkinson: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I said about rotation. Rotation within the theatre is now going on. For example, the right hon. Gentleman will see from the much fuller notes which I am circulating that a rest camp by the sea for 500 troops opens today. He will see a long list of things which are being done. For example, some men are being flown back to "Bulwark" for a night's sleep and a clean up. He will see quite a long list of things done within the theatre. I cannot make any detailed statement on the rotation of troops from elsewhere to the theatre. I agree that it is necessary and my original statement was intended to show that we clearly recognise the need for this.
As to the number of forces there, as I have said we have already withdrawn two companies and a Hunter squadron. We shall be only too happy to withdraw more forces or all the forces as soon as the Ruler considers that his position is secure.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: While entirely endorsing the congratulations my right hon. Friend expressed for the way in which the operation had been carried out, may I ask him whether he is aware of the very serious concern which is felt by a great number of us about the appalling slenderness of our reserves and the tenuousness of the lines of communications to our troops in Kuwait? Would he, therefore, give an assurance that he will resist with all the power he possibly can any attempt by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the expenditure on defence?
Mr. Watkinson: That is quite another matter.
Mr. Wigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind in the arrangements he has made that the worst is yet to come and that the temperatures in this area will rise between now and the second week in August?
Before the operation was undertaken did the War Office consult Professor Woodruff, the Army's Consultant on Tropical Medicine? Did it consult Dr. Cuthbertson, the Army's Consultant on Physiology and Nutrition, because is it not generally considered that heat hyperexia should not occur if the precautions and diet are competently handled? Did the Government take any

213
steps to consult Professor Maegraith, who has done research on the spot into extreme heat conditions in the Kuwait area?
Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say whether the War Office has yet authorised Brigadier Horsford to spend £250 a day on soft drinks, because he complained last week that he was unable to get authorisation for this?
Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman about the problems of heat. A very large proportion of the statement I am circulating, which is far too long to read to the House, is devoted to a detailed description of the medical facilities. They are very large. They allow quick evacuation to air-conditioned hospitals. There are specialist services dealing with the problems of heat exhaustion. The situation is reasonably adequately covered. If it is not, the Under-Secretary of State for War will no doubt report on this as soon as he returns, but I think that it is covered.
Perhaps I can best answer the other question the hon. Gentleman asked by saying that I think that all the reasonable needs of the troops are now being met. On the whole, this operation was carried out with expedition and efficiency. Most of the problems, although they are severe—I accept that—were thought about in advance.
Mr. F. Harris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the operation has proved without question the vital need of our bases in East Africa?
Mr. Watkinson: I think that the operation shows that we have to have mobile, well-trained forces quickly available to bring to any trouble spot. At least this operation has demonstrated that we have those.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: How much a week is this adventure costing us?
Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will table a Question.
Mr. Wigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider asking the Leader of the House to arrange an early day for a debate, because whilst we want to do nothing whatever to embarrass those on the spot there are some questions about this operation which need to be asked and answered?
Mr. Farey-Jones: As this Question deals with the welfare of our troops, may I ask my right hon. Friend to give every possible facility to the Malcolm Clubs organisation which exists at Bahrein, for which we have already augmented our staff? The staff are prepared to work in Kuwait in the cause of our troops.
Mr. Watkinson: My hon. Friend will find that the long statement being circulated contains a list of the facilities which will be available and I understand that probably the Malcolm Clubs will be among them.
Mr. G. Brown: May I ask two other questions which seem to arise out of this? First, is it not clear that, although we have managed the operation, it has used up all our transport aircraft facilities? Is the right hon. Gentleman giving thought to the issue which would arise if we had to mount another operation at the same time? Should we have the transport aircraft to do it with? Secondly, arising out of what was said yesterday about coming out of Kuwait, is he giving thought to how we get the force out when the time comes to do it?
Mr. Watkinson: In answer to the second part of the question, the Commander-in-Chief is already preparing a properly phased withdrawal plan. In answer to the first part of the question, I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Transport Command of the Royal Air Force was not excessively overloaded, as can be seen from the fact that we were very quickly able to divert it to move the 19th Brigade to Kenya.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply to my question, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.
Following are the details:
Following General Qasim's announcement on 28th June, 1961, of his intention to annex Kuwait, the Ruler asked Her Majesty's Consul-General in Kuwait on the morning of Friday, 30th June, for military assistance. It was decided, in the light of indications that Iraqi forces in the Basra area were being reinforced with tanks that it was vital to get some forces in their quickly. The first landings were, therefore, made on the morning of Saturday, 1st July, and the forces which moved into Kuwait that day consisted of 42 Royal Marine Commando from H.M.S. "Bulwark", a

215
squadron of Centurion tanks of the 3rd Carabiniers embarked in H.M.S. "Striker" and L.S.T. "Empire Gull", and by No. 8 Squadron R.A.F. Hunter fighter-bombers. These were supported by No. 208 Squadron R.A.F. Hunters and Nos. 13 and 37 Squadrons operating from bases in the Persian Gulf, and by the frigates H.M.S. "Loch Alvie" and H.M.S. "Meon". Landing ships and landing craft of the Royal Navy and civlian-manned landing ships were engaged on bringing in vehicles and stores.
By the evening of 2nd July, the ground forces in Kuwait had been built up by the flying in of two companies of the Coldstream Guards, 45 Royal Marine Commando, and by the arrival of additional tanks, together with armoured cars of the 11th Hussars, whilst additional Hunter and Canberra aircraft were available for immediate operations. The Headquarters of 24 Infantry Brigade had also arrived under the Brigade Commander, Brigadier D. G. T. Horsford.
The following two days saw the arrival by air of the 2nd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment, and advance elements of 24 Brigade, including units of the Royal Artillery and the Royal Engineers. The build-up of our force was substantially complete by Thursday, 6th July, by which time the 1st Battalion, The King's Regiment and the 1st Battalion, the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers had arrived. Meanwhile, the naval strength had been increased by the arrival in the Persian Gulf of the frigates H.M.S. "Loch Fyne", and H.M.S. "Loch Ruthven" the aircraft carrier H.M.S. "Victorious", from the Far East station, with a destroyer and frigate escort, was available in support if required.
The crews of the transport aircraft and of the Canadair transports of the Royal Rhodesian Air Force which were placed freely at our diposal at the outset of the operation, as well as of a number of charter aircraft, put up a splendid performance in the face of considerable difficulties, including adverse weather in Kuwait itself. The air crews were well supported in all this by their ground crews.
It says much for the skill and efficiency with which this operation was carried out by all concerned that, in the space of only six days and with only a minimum of warning, this considerable force, complete with all the necessary supporting arms, equipment and stores, was assembled, deployed and ready in all respects for action. Great credit for this is due to the Commander-in-Chief. Middle East, Air Marshal Sir Charles Elworthy, who was in command of the operation, and to his subordinate commanders and staffs. The commanders and staffs at Headquarters, Near East Command in Cyprus, at the Far East Headquarters in Singapore, and in East Africa also faithfully played their part, as did the Ministry of Defence and the Service Ministries here in Whitehall, and the many people elsewhere in this country who were involved. It should also be mentioned that the communications staffs have dealt magnificently with the immense load of urgent signal traffic, in spite of great difficulties arising from adverse radio propagation conditions.
No description of the operation would be complete without a tribute to the individual
216
sailors, soldiers and airmen on the spot, who responded so promptly to the demands made upon them. They took all difficulties in their stride.
The main hardship has been the heat. The number of cases of heat exhaustion however has been surprisingly small, and there have been on average only 12 cases a day evacuated to hospitals, well under 1 per cent. of the total force. All major units have medical services attached to them. In addition, a field ambulance, a medical unit in which there are 7 doctors, is responsible for controlling collection and evacuation of sick soldiers. Heat casualties are evacuated by road or helicopter to the civil hospitals in Kuwait, and from there serious cases may be taken by air to the R.A.F. hospitals in Bahrein and Aden. There is, in addition, in Kuwait a heat casualty treatment centre which is a medical unit specifically trained and experienced in the treatment of heat casualties, and which is air-conditioned. The civil hospitals in Kuwait have a fully trained and experienced staff available for advice on the prevention and treatment of heat effects. It also is air-conditioned, and fully equipped for this purpose. H.M.S. "Bulwark" too is air-conditioned, and certain cases are being evacuated to her. Service specialists are available in Aden and Bahrein, who are expert in these hyperpyrexial diseases and senior consultants in hygiene and medicine are available at all times, both in the Near East and United Kingdom, to fly out to the Persian Gulf if necessary.
Diet is an important factor in the prevention of heat exhaustion. Information in London is that no difficulty is being experienced in providing a palatable and adequate ration. A sufficient supply of water and of salt is vital. Salt tablets are being issued and an adequate supply of good drinking water to meet heavy requirements is available. Cold drinks and ice are included in the ration, and there is a supplemenary issue of ice in addition. Fresh bread has been issued daily since D + 1 and fresh fruit since D + 2. A plentiful supply of soft drinks is available. The main limiting factor has been the lack of refrigeration. This is now being overcome. Apart from what is being done by the Services themselves, the Ruler of Kuwait has generously given a free issue of 3 bottles of soft drink a day with ice. Local Kuwaiti firms, including the Kuwait Oil Company, have also been very liberal in giving assistance.
All troops now serving in Kuwait have been thoroughly briefed on the elementary techniques to be adopted in avoiding the effects of heat. Many of the troops were of course already acclimatised to heat. The medical officers of units from the United Kingdom were fully briefed on this problem before leaving.
On the welfare side, a great deal has been done. A N.A.A.F.I. party left the United Kingdom by air on 6th July and it is hoped that they will be operating to some extent this week. In the meantime, N.A.A.F.I. stores in bulk arrived in Kuwait last week to supplement those taken in by units. These stores included adequate supplies of beer and cigarettes. A free ration of 50 cigarettes a week for each man has been approved for the

217
first fortnight of the operation, and beer is on sale under unit canteen facilities. Arrangements have been made to fly out newspapers and books, and a special grant of money has been made available for the purchase of extra sports equipment locally. The Kuwait Oil Company operate 8 cinemas to which they are prepared to admit troops under local arrangements. The R.A.F. Cinema Corporation has also flown out extra cinema projectors. Forward troops may despatch mail free of postage up to 16th July and from then onwards any troops in Kuwait will be able to despatch mail at United Kingdom rates. In addition, the Council of Voluntary Welfare Workers have offered a mobile canteen, staffed by the Salvation Army, as soon as it can be moved there, and the Malcolm Clubs are prepared to set up facilities when suitable conditions and facilities can be provided. A seaside tented rest-camp is being built which is being occupied today by 500 men of all Services. An air-conditioned camp for a further 500 men has been offered by the Kuwait Oil Company and has been accepted for use as a rest-camp in 10 days' time. The Oil Company is providing further hospitality at Ahmadi for 370 all-ranks daily in air-conditioned private houses and clubs including the use of swimming clubs. 200 men daily are sent to H.M.S. "Bulwark" for a clean-up and rest. Laundry contracts have been arranged for the whole force.
A senior Inter-Service team from H.Q. Middle East (Aden) went to Kuwait last week to make an on-the-spot study about conditions and welfare. The small party under the Under- Secretary of State for War is due in Kuwait on 12th July, and will consider what further can be done. Meanwhile, the Commander-in- Chief has been authorised to provide all the amenities and creature comforts that he can.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a short business statement.
On Wednesday, 12th July, we pro- pose, after the business already
218
announced has been disposed of, to complete the remaining stages of the Trustee Investments Bill [Lords].
Afterwards, the House will be invited to consider the Motion relating to the House of Commons Members' Fund standing in the names of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and other trustees.
Mr. M. Foot: Since the Leader of the House is answering questions on matters of business—
Mr. Speaker: No, I do not think that that is so. The hon. Gentleman's question would be out of order unless it was on the substance of the business statement.
Mr. Foot: Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly proper to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, for the business he is announcing, he can substitute some other form of business? If we are permitted to do that on Thursday, why are we not able to do so today? All I wanted to ask was whether the right hon. Gentleman would reply to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), which the Minister of Defence—
Mr. Speaker: No, that must be out of order, I think, but no doubt some opportunity will arise on Thursday.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [20TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1961–62
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a further sum, not exceeding £25, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1962, for the following Services connected with the National Health Service in England and Wales, namely:—

  Civil Estimates and Supplementary Estimate, 1961–62

  £

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

  10

  Class V, Vote 4, Ministry of Health

  10

  Class V, Vote 4, Ministry of Health (Supplementary Estimate)

  5

  Total

  £25

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, ENGLAND AND WALES
3.42 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Robinson: Apart from the series of debates we had arising from the decision of the Minister of Health last February to increase health charges and contributions, this is the first opportunity for very nearly a year that the House has had to debate the National Health Service. Last July, we had what was nominally half a Supply day; it actually turned out to be less than 2½ hours. Brief as that period was, however, it was sufficient to produce a quite remarkable result.
So cogent was the Opposition's case on that occasion, so persuasive were our speeches, that within an hour or so of the Division, the then Minister of Health, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), had announced his resignation from the Government. In case this recollection raises the hopes of my hon. Friends too high, I feel bound to tell them that there can
220
be no certainty that the present Minister will be guided by that precedent.
During the last twelve months a number of important policy decisions have been made, and a number of important reports have been published, all of which deserve the attention of the House, and it is for that reason that we asked for a whole Supply day on this occasion. There are so very many topics to discuss that my greatest problem has been that of selection.
First, I should like to put on record that what we said when the right hon. Gentleman introduced his increased charges and contributions has been amply borne out by events. Indeed, the protest that we made has been reinforced by the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to hand out to Surtax payers the money raised by the right hon. Gentleman by means of increased charges on the sick, and poll tax contributions. We now have figures for the three months since the prescription charges were increased on 1st March, and experience so far suggests that we were right when we said that some patients, at any rate, would suffer as a result of this step by not getting the medicines they needed.
In replies that the Minister has given to Questions, we have found that between February—that is, the last month of the old charges—and March, the first month of the double prescription charge, there was a fall of 2·7 million in the number of prescriptions dispensed. That is a fall of 21 per cent. between February and March. That, by itself, is perhaps not a significant figure, but it should be looked at in comparison with the fact that between February and March of the previous year there was a 3½ per cent. rise in prescriptions.
Very much more significant than those figures are the figures now available for March, April and May. In that period there has been a drop of 6·6 million prescriptions dispensed, compared with the similar period of last year, and that represents a fall of very nearly 12 per cent. We on this side believe that there is already ample evidence to justify a reconsideration of this double prescription charge.
Not all the evidence is of a statistical nature. Only about a week ago I was

221
told by a doctor who is in general practice in a typical London area that, in his view, hardship is undoubtedly being caused by these charges, particularly amongst the lower wage earners with families. He gave one or two examples of the sort of thing that is happening.
If a patient gets a multiple prescription—one with several items on it—he is apt to say to the chemist "I'll just have the bottle," and perhaps forgo an antibotic that may be of real therapeutic value and need to him. Other patients ask the doctor to give them prescriptions with just one item on them; if the doctor wants to prescribe two or three items, they ask for two or three separate prescriptions so that their liability at the chemist's will be limited to 2s. each time. Worse still, perhaps, are those cases where the patients just do not get their prescriptions dispensed at all. Very naturally, feeling rather shamefaced, they do not mention that fact to the doctor who, again very naturally, thinks that the prescribed treatment has not been effective.
I agree that there are rather more people applying to the National Assistance Board for refunds on hardship grounds, but, even so, the total amount paid out by the Board for these refunds is still very small. It is equally a fact that the number of people whose applications are rejected is also increasing, so it can be said that the arrangements for meeting hardship have, at any rate, not been any more successful than we forecast from these benches.
The Minister of Health must surely have become aware, since our earlier debates, of how very objectionable almost everyone and, in particular, the doctors and pharmacists find his doubling of the prescription charge; and that more than 40 executive councils have protested to him about it. What worries us is that the right hon. Gentleman seems to see some positive virtue in these charges. We think that at any time the Treasury wants to cut public expenditure—and by all accounts that time may be very close at hand—or at any time the Chancellor wishes, once again, to ease the lot of the better-off section of the community, the Minister may again be tempted to impose further increases, and to try to justify them exactly as he did last time.
222
It is for this reason that we would like some assurances from the Minister about the future. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to introduce no new charges and to make no further increases in the existing charges while he holds his present office? Furthermore, will he agree to reduce at least the 2s. charge if the fall in prescriptions that the figures already reveal continues over, say, the next three to six months? My hon. Friends and I feel entitled, on the right hon. Gentleman's past record, to ask for these assurances. On his reply will largely depend our decision whether or not to vote against this token Estimate tonight.
I now turn to some matters which are less controversial, at any rate in the party political sense. In the debate a year ago I spoke about something which is often called, conveniently, if perhaps somewhat inelegantly, the humanisation of our hospitals. This is a subject in which I know the Minister has shown a commendable interest. The right hon. Gentleman described it in a recent debate as the
"… attitude of the hospital service to the individual man and woman in its care as a human being and not merely as a case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1961; Vol. 634, c. 428.]
It is regrettable that this attitude is not always satisfactory. At least two recent Reports issued by the right hon. Gentleman's Department bear out this contention. The first of these Reports—and both of them came from the Central Health Services Council, which is doing admirable work in assessing the operations of the National Health Service—was called The Pattern of the In-Patient's Day".
It is a wholly admirable Report and it contains some sharp criticisms of the outmoded, one might almost say inhuman though unintentionally inhuman, practices which still prevail in some sections of the nursing profession; practices which seem to lead to the subjection of the patient to the hospital routine, rather than to what we would all hope to see, the moulding of the hospital routine to fit the needs and comfort of the patient.
I will merely mention, in this connection, such things as the time-honoured practice of waking patients at 6 a.m. or

223
even earlier—considerably earlier in some maternity departments—the ritual that accompanies medical rounds in the morning and the total cessation of work while this is going on. These are one or two of the practices which this Report suggests are not necessary and could be brought to an end. This criticism is all the more welcome in that it comes from a committee which was composed entirely of nurses and which had the advantage of being chaired by one of the most dynamic and progressive members of the nursing profession.
The Minister commended this Report in a recent speech which he made to the Association of Hospital Matrons. I hope that this will be carefully pondered by all who are associated with hospital care, and even by those who are not necessarily associated with it, and that it will help to revolutionise the nursing routines and the in-patient's day in our less progressive hospitals.
The second of these Reports is entitled "Human Relations in Obstetrics". This is a similarly valuable contribution and it admits that in maternity departments it is not unknown for worried or frightened mothers to be met by an attitude of what the Report calls domination or even bullying on the part of those who are supposed to be caring for them. It is suggested that some midwives, perhaps through psychological difficulties of their own or through overwork, are developing a brusque and insensitive manner and the Report recommends that the most sympathetic attention should be given to the emotional needs of the expectant mother and, I am happy to add, to the expectant father.
The Report mentions, and many tributes have been justly paid to, the inaugural lecture by Professor Norman Morris, Professor of Obstetrics at Charing Cross Hospital, entitled "Human Relations in Obstetric Practice". I would like to pay my tribute to the pioneer work of Professor Nixon, of University College Hospital, with whom Professor Morris worked until he moved to Charing Cross, and who has done more than anyone in this country to bring humanity, intelligence and understanding to the practice of obstetrics in Britain. His ideas are gradually permeating to maternity departments, but there is still a long way
224
to go and this Report will do much to stimulate progress.
I hope that the Minister and the Central Health Services Council will turn their attention to the out-patients who attend our hospitals, in some of which patients are treated with an appalling lack of consideration and are sometimes subjected even to indignity. Of course, most out-patient departments operate what they choose to call an "appointments system". Many of these systems work well and efficiently, but some are systems only in name. They are systems designed for one purpose only: to ensure that whatever happens—whatever accident occurs—the consultant in charge of the clinic shall never be kept waiting for one moment.
The corollary of this is that patients must often be kept waiting for a long time and the sort of thing that happens is this. A clinic is perhaps due to start at 2.30 p.m. so that five or six patients are summoned to attend at 2.15 p.m., just in case they should happen to arrive late. In fact, of course, hospitals should realise that patients nearly always arrive early for their appointments. Thus probably most of them would not arrive at 2.15 p.m. but at 2 p.m. I regret to say that, too often, the consultants are late. To take a very mild example, let us suggest that the consultant arrives at 2.45 p.m. This means that the first patient to be seen from the first batch will have waited three-quarters of an hour. It also means that the last patient will have waited about one-and-a-half hours and this will go on throughout the afternoon.
This type of appointments system—if one can dignify it with that name—is based on two assumptions: first, that the time of the doctor is priceless; and secondly, that the time of the patient is valueless. I submit that neither of these assumptions is necessarily true in all circumstances. Two incidents came to my notice in recent weeks. The first, of which I have close personal knowledge, was that a routine appointment was made for a post-surgical check-up and the appointment was made six weeks earlier. By the time the patient and her child got in—to see not the consultant, but the registrar, I believe, because one never knows who is the doctor one is seeing—an hour and forty minutes had elapsed. The patient said, very mildly, "Is this

225
normal?" and received an extremely brusque reply, the doctor saying, "We are very busy today" and that there was nothing abnormal about it.
In the second case, a friend of mine was waiting in an out-patients' department where nearly all the patients were mothers and children, some of them with babes in arms. Not only did they have these long waits, but they all had to sit on long hard benches, and every time another patient was taken in to see the doctor everyone had to move one place along the benches, collecting all the children, the babies and all their traps in doing so. Nobody, apparently, has thought of giving out tickets, perhaps, with numbers on, and calling "No. 6 next".
This practice of treating patients rather like sheep is a bad hang-over from the old days of the Poor Law type of hospital. It is all easily avoidable and should be avoided. I hope that the Minister will encourage, or even instruct, the Central Health Services Council to carry out a full-scale inquiry into the functioning and organisation of outpatient clinics.
I turn now to the Report of the Platt Working Party on the Medical Staffing Structure in the Health Service. This is an important document, even if one does not accept all its conclusions. One of the most significant findings in the Report—it is in paragraph 41—is that the number of consultants in the Health Service is inadequate. Hon. Members need have only some knowledge of the length of waiting lists in our hospitals to agree with that finding. The Report speaks of excessive delegation of work by consultants to senior registrars and even to more junior grades of doctor. It suggests that in some cases the work of these junior doctors is done without supervision by the consultant.
This only confirms what many of us have for a long time suspected. It would be illuminating and, perhaps, even rather disturbing to know what proportion of, for instance, major surgery within the Health Service is carried out by doctors below consultant rank.
It is not only the shortage of consultants which lead to excessive delegation. There is, one regrets to say, a minority of consultants—I believe and hope that it is a very small minority—
226
who are simply not doing the work for which they are paid on a sessional basis. They are apt to leave all out-patient work, for example, to their registrars, out-patient work for which they are allocated their own sessions. This is not exactly dealt with in the Working Party's Report, but it is something to which the Minister should turn his attention because the practice of this small minority is not only doing damage to the Health Service and to some extent mulcting the taxpayer, but it is also doing great disservice to the majority of consultants who do a good, conscientious day's work.
The Working Party gives several contributory reasons for the shortage of consultants. Some of the reasons are within the Minister's direct responsibility and some are not. In paragraph 42 the Working Party mentions that there has been a resistance to the creation of new consultant posts
"sometimes by hospital boards and sometimes by consultants".
I have never heard of a regional hospital board resisting extra consultant posts, but I have heard—in one way I am glad to see this confirmed by the Report—that there has been resistance on the part of the consultants' advisory committees.
The Report having revealed that there has been such resistance, it seems somewhat contradictory that it should go on to say that the consultant establishments of the future should be decided by a similar, if not, identical kind of professional advisory committee to the one which advises the Minister now. I hope that, when we have the regional review of consultant posts which the Report recommends—I hope that the Minister does not waste much time about this but encourages regional boards to send it to him in six months or, at the outside, twelve months—the decision about future consultant establishments will be taken with complete objectivity and without any suspicion of a professional closed shop being allowed to enter into the consideration.
Perhaps the most controversial recommendation in the Report is for the establishment of a new grade of hospital doctor, the medical assistant. This has met with a good deal of criticism from the medical profession in its journals. I find it difficult to see how a grade which will embrace not only the failed registrar,

227
but also the newly qualified doctor getting hospital experience before going into general practice and also the general practitioner himself doing hospital sessions, could ever be regarded as an alternative ladder to consultant status.
Whatever the merits or demerits of such a proposed new structure for the future, what it is not and emphatically cannot be is a solution to the problem of the existing time-expired senior registrar. These men, of whom there are, I think, rather more than 100, long ago completed their training as senior registrars, and at no time during that long period of training was it ever suggested to them that they were not entitled to expect a consultant appointment at the end of it or that they would not make the grade. Many of them are doing consultant work in fact if not in name, and they have been doing so for years. Many of them have higher post-graduate qualifications.
For a year or more before the Working Party was set up, we pressed the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor about these unfortunate men. We pointed out that, although limited in size, it was a problem which caused desperate anxiety to the individuals it affected. The Working Party was to be the answer. Three more years have gone by and no satisfactory solution is even now in sight. Will the Minister please settle the problem here and now without waiting for his ultimate policy decisions on all the rest of the recommendations in the Report? Will he put these unfortunate men out of their misery and give them, if not full consultant status, at any rate para-consultant status without waiting for the implementation of all the rest of the Report?
The Report suggests also that the general practitioner should be more closely associated with the hospital service. We all agree that that is desirable, but I wonder haw realistic it is. How many general practitioners, even those in partnership or in group practice, have the time to devote two or three sessions a week or even two or three hours a day, as the Report suggests, to hospital work? The lists of so many general practitioners are already so large that they find it difficult to give full attention to the patients who came to their surgeries, let alone to allocate many additional
228
hours to the hospitals in their neighbourhood.
The reduction of general practitioners' lists ought to be one of the Minister's priorities. On these benches, we were very disappointed that, when the Royal Commission's award to the doctors was implemented, there were not, at the same time, parallel improvements in the method of distribution of the general pool, improvements in the interests of the patient. Some of us wondered whether there could not have been some weighting of the second thousand patients on the list in order to remove the great incentive to build up maximum lists at all costs, which cannot be in the interests of the patient.
I appreciate that this might well call for more general practitioners. I think that we do need more general practitioners and more doctors generally. There is already an overall shortage in both the hospital service and general practice, and I believe that the shortage is growing. In many hospitals it is almost impossible to fill junior medical posts except with doctors from overseas. I do not for a moment suggest that there is anything professionally inferior in these doctors, but they are all needed in their own countries and many of them will, in fact, return to their own countries to practice.
Only a week or two ago I was at a fairly large general hospital in the North of England. I think that every post below senior registrar was occupied by a doctor from overseas. This is not a healthy situation, and it brings us back to the notorious Willink Report. The Committee will remember that the Willink Committee recommended in, I think, 1956, that the intake of medical students should be reduced by 10 per cent. and that that would be adequate to meet the needs of the Health Service in future. I believe that this was a most unfortunate decision.
I do not know whether the Committee drew the wrong conclusion from the statistical data given to it or whether it was given the wrong statistical data, but I doubt whether anyone today would assert that that conclusion was anything but disastrous. The sad thing is that the effects of that fall in the intake have not yet been felt because of the six-year time lag which it takes to train a doctor. We are at least glad to know

229
that the situation is being reconsidered. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us when he is likely to let us know the results of that reconsideration.
In March this year the Minister made an important statement about the future of our mental hospitals. We on these benches supported the general tenor of his speech, but it gave rise to very grave anxieties, particularly among mental nurses. If believe that their fears for the future and for the security of their jobs are exaggerated, but, nevertheless, they are very real. It is essential for the morale of the mental health services that these fears be dispelled, and only the right hon. Gentleman can do that.
What I understood the Minister to say was that recent statistical research about the mental hospital population has shown that, after a steady rise in the number of in-patients for very many years, in about 1955 this flattened out and began to decline and that that decline has continued ever since fairly steadily. This has been happening despite the fact that the number of patients admitted and re-admitted for treatment: every year has been increasing. I believe that this apparent anomaly is almost certainly due to the fact that people who make up the chronic population of our mental hospitals, many of whom went into hospital before there was any of the modern methods of treatment, are getting steadily older. As they get older they are dying in larger numbers and are not being replaced by anything like the same number of chronic patients because of the effectiveness of the treatment of new admissions.
The Minister therefore assumed that if that trend continued it meant that the number of beds needed for the mentally ill would steadily decline, and that calculation led him to the conclusion that we should need about half the number fifteen years from now. The favourable trend may not continue. It may even be reversed. No one can know. If it is reversed, no doubt there must be a reappraisal, but if it continues we can envisage emptying at some time during the next ten or fifteen years of at any rate some of the older, out-of-date mental hospitals and, of course, their eventual demolition, because, as the Minister said, few of them are really suitable for any other purpose.
230
I am sure that there was no implied criticism in this assumption, as there is not in anything that I say, of the excellent work being done in those hospitals today, only a criticism of the unsuitability of the buildings and, in many cases, of their location. If I understood the Minister's speech correctly, the calculations which he made do not in any way depend on the development of the local health authority community services which, if they take place, will do something to reduce the load on the mental hospitals. Nor do they depend on the development of psychiatric units in general hospitals. As I understand, these two things would, if anything, increase the trend of falling population in the existing mental hospitals.
I wish to say one or two things in parenthesis about these two new developments. I do not think that anything has happened since the Mental Health Bill was pissed to falsify the contention of us on this side that only a specific earmarked grant to local health authorities would ensure a rapid expansion of the community mental health services on the lines envisaged by the Royal Commission. The failure of the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East to secure this, and his reliance on the block grant to do the job, undoubtedly means that very little will be done for a long time over the country as a whole to take the load off the mental hospitals and hospitals for the sub-normal and to care in the community for patients who do not really need full in-patient hospital facilities.
Equally with the difficulties over trained staff. At last we are to get a National Council of Social Work Training, but this time it is the Minister's refusal to allow central grants to students which will hamper the recruitment of the social worker students so desperately needed by the Service. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has not finally closed his mind on that point.
On the question of psychiatric units in general hospitals, I believe that this is the most promsing line for the future. In a sense, I am sorry that the Minister appears to be putting all his eggs in this one basket. I should like to see the development of one or two small modern purpose-built psychiatric hospitals run side by side with psychiatric units in

231
general hospitals so that a fair comparison can be made about the efficacy of the two forms of care and treatment. But if we are to concentrate on psychiatric units in general hospitals, it is essential that they should be properly planned and designed and purpose-built. It will not be enough to adapt one or two wards which happen to be empty. After all, the needs of patients who are mentally ill are very different from the needs of patients who are physically ill, most of whom spend all day in bed.
There are many ancillary services, such as recreational and occupational facilities, which the mental patient needs, and the unit must be large enough to permit these facilities to be provided. In my submission, it must also be large enough to provide a comprehensive psychiatric service for the area which the hospital serves. I do not think that these units should be less than sixty beds and perhaps should not be more than 120 beds, but what will be no good at all will be small, acute units of 20 or 30 beds which merely cream off the interesting and promising cases, leaving the rest of the difficult cases to be admitted to one of the existing older mental hospitals.
So long as the two types of care run side by side, as they will for a number of years, I suggest that there must be a close association between the staff of the existing mental hospital for the area and the staff of the general hospital unit, and that there must be a frequent interchange of staff between them. It is important that all the staff should have the experience of treating all types of mental disorder and not merely be limited to chronic cases, on the one hand, or acute cases, on the other. Finally, the staffing levels must be very high, far higher than they are in our existing mental hospitals. I suggest that this would be the answer to the anxiety of mental nurses, so cogently expressed, that as long as the staffing levels are high enough the fact that the units are smaller should not affect their career prospects.
I ask the Minister whether any progress has been made about getting rid of the ridiculous system whereby the grade of salary of nurses or administrators is tied to the number of beds in the hospital in which they are employed.
232
Lastly, I consider it essential that the teaching hospitals should be encouraged also to develop psychiatric units. I hope that the Minister will refuse to approve the development plans of any teaching hospital that do not include an adequate psychiatric unit in them, because without this there will be little or no chance that the medical student will get anything more than the very rudimentary knowledge of psychiatry that he gets in our medical schools today.
Before I leave the mental health services, I want briefly to call attention to one or two extremely serious gaps from which we suffer. The first is facilities for treating psychopaths, a duty which was firmly placed upon the hospitals by the Mental Health Act. We are already hearing too many cases of psychopaths who are having to go to prison because no proper facilities are available for treating them in hospital. Often, they are cases in which the court would like to make a hospital order. It is important that regional boards should be encouraged to develop units for treating psychopaths—of an experimental nature, possibly, but without delay
Secondly, we lack very much indeed in-patient units for psychotic children and, perhaps even more, for psychotic adolescents. These are two difficult categories to deal with, but the absence of these facilities causes untold misery to far too many families.
We do little or nothing about the treatment of alcoholism. This is something which properly forms, or should form, a part of our psychiatric services. A great deal is done about the treatment of alcoholism in several countries on the Continent of Europe in which, perhaps, the problem is not as serious as it is here. I hope that the Minister will give encouragement to the development of alcoholic units.
I want now to say a brief word about the salary negotiating machinery within the National Health Service. We have had about a dozen years' experience of the Health Service Whitley Councils. When they were set up, we all expected that there would be teething troubles, and we have certainly had them. The Civil Service Whitley Councils had their teething troubles when they were set up after the First World War, but they have now settled down and they work well. This

233
has not happened in the National Health Service and the Minister is now faced with a widespread loss of confidence in the entire Whitley system.
At the moment, it is the physiotherapists and the occupational therapists who are demanding an independent committee of inquiry. Hon. Members who have consulted their mail in recent days and weeks will know that the physiotherapists are utterly fed up with the treatment they have had from their Whitley Council. The Confederation of Health Employees is demanding a Royal Commission on nursing. The medical laboratory technicians are complaining about the interminable delay in considering one of their salary claims.
All along the line, the groups within the Health Service are tending to look outside the Whitley system if they want the whole basis of their salary structure to be reviewed. Not so long ago, it was the administrative and clerical staffs who were complaining. They achieved their independent inquiry through Sir Noel Hall. As a result of it, their position was substantially improved, although it has been allowed to fall back again since then.
I repeat that the confidence in this system of negotiating machinery is at a very low ebb. It is not that the complaint is against the individual members of the committees. We all recognise that they work hard and long to achieve agreements. The complaints are against the system, which, the staffs allege, does not permit of genuine negotiation. There is what one might call sham negotiation between the staff side and the management side, and then along comes the Minister's representatives on the Whitley Council, under guidance, no doubt, from the Treasury, who make the decisions and seldom give their reasons for it. One of the results of this is that many Health Service salary scales are distinctly on the low side.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), who hopes to speak towards the end of the debate, will deal with this matter in rather more detail. I content myself by saying that this loss of confidence is having a bad effect on the morale of the service and on recruiting. It has created a situation which the Minister must face and with which he must get to grips.
234
Now, a brief word on the question of drugs. We are glad that the Minister has at last adopted some of the advice that we and the Public Accounts Committee tendered to him about drug purchases. On his decision to purchase centrally patented drugs from unlicensed sources under Section 46 of the Patents Act, the Minister has so far told us very little. I hope that he will be able to say a little more about it today. Tenders should now be in for all three groups of drugs which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. We would like to know what the response has been, whether any contracts have been let, whether any further tenders are to be invited and what saving he hopes to make in the drug bill as a result.
Then there were the recommendations of the Cohen Committee on prescribing, about which the right hon. Gentleman was so coy when he made his statement to the House. We would like to know how the doctors have responded to this, if there is any evidence so far. Certainly, more and more evidence is coming to us about the high prices of proprietary drugs and the excessive profits of certain drug manufacturers. We called some months ago for an independent inquiry into drug manufacturing costs. I would like to know whether the Minister has considered this suggestion.
I do not want to take up too much of the time of the Committee; I have already spoken too long. I propose to leave such important matters as the need for an occupational health service, about which the British Medical Association has just published an interesting report, the need to look at the whole of our geriatric services afresh and the general care of old people in hospitals. Perhaps one or other of my hon. Friends may deal with these aspects during the debate.
I want, finally, to say a word about the ten-year capital programme. Naturally, we all welcome the emergence at last of some forward planning from the right hon. Gentleman's Department. Boards have been delighted at being encouraged to plan development programmes for ten years ahead, although some of them would have liked a little more time to prepare them. Now that the Minister has these plans before him,

235
it will take him time to digest them; he has said that it will be months before he can make a statement. He would not even state the aggregate capital implication of all these programmes. I do not know whether that means that he has not yet done his addition, or that he has done it and it has left him stunned, but we all realise that the total must be very large. These, however, are developments which hospital authorities regard as necessary to produce an efficient up-to-date service in ten or fifteen years' time.
We have a long way to go before that can be achieved. The Minister has raised high hopes, but this whole operation will be worth while only if he is determined to resist all attempts to cut down these programmes to fit the current levels of spending. If he now starts whittling down what boards have been encouraged to expect, he will create new and, perhaps, even greater frustration than before.
The Minister must know how desperately we need modern hospitals that are worthy of our National Health Service. Let him remember at all times that he is the custodian of what is still, despite the worst that three Conservative Governments could do, and despite the criticisms that I have made today, the finest Health Service in the world.
4.30 p.m.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Enoch Powell): Like the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), I find myself with an embarrassment of material in this welcome whole day debate upon the National Health Service. Although I shall, in the course of my speech, touch upon most of the matters with which the hon. Gentleman dealt, there will be some that I shall leave to be covered in the winding-up speech of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, notably, the issue of the negotiating machinery about which there will, no doubt, be further contributions in the course of the debate.
Much of our material in our discussions on the National Health Service is concerned with physical provision and administrative arrangements, but I should like to begin by speaking about an aspect which is neither physical nor administrative, namely, that of human
236
relations within the hospital service, for it is very easy, especially for a vast organisation like the National Health Service, staffed and exercised by powerful professions, to forget at times that all of this exists for the sake of the patient. This, indeed, is a direction in which great improvements can be made quite simply and quite quickly by taking thought and by instilling a right feeling and a right attitude.
I am not denying that there is some connection, of course, between the human approach to the patient in hospital and the physical conditions under which the staff are working, but, preponderantly, this is a matter of attitude, of human being and human being. I have taken occasion in recent weeks, as the hon. Member has done this afternoon, to point to deficiencies in this respect which still have to be made good. I would hope that it was understood that there was inherent in this no criticism or denigration of a particular branch of the staff; no picking on this or that profession involved, but simply a recognition that here there is a challenge to all those who are concerned with the working of the National Health Service.
I welcome enormously the two reports to which the hon. Member referred at length on the in-patient day, and on human relations in obstetrics. He referred to them so fully that I need do so only cursorily, but I would emphasise as he did, their origin, that these were reports coming from Committees consisting of outstanding members of the professions concerned and responsible. They were not outside criticisms; this was opinion of the most valid and well-founded character, and I am determined that these reports shall not lie idly upon the table, but shall be followed up by all concerned.
This can be done in part, I know, by calling for returns from hospital boards and hospital authorities, but there is a limit to the utility of calling for returns about how much has been done about this and that, and in the last resort this is a matter of individuals taking note of individuals reacting to the climate of opinion which it is sought to create. That is why I have been particularly grateful in this for the co-operation of the matrons, nurses and midwives and for the wholehearted way in which these professions, their organisations and the

237
journals which serve these professions have taken up these reports, and how an attitude of mind has been spread where people throughout the service are asking themselves: "Does this criticism apply to us? Can that be said of this hospital? If so, let us put it right as soon as; possible."
I believe that we cannot be satisfied even with these two important reports, wide though the field is that they cover. There are at least three further respects in which I believe attention to the humanising of the service is urgently necessary. These do not include the matter of the out-patient departments, which the hon. Member mentioned, and I should like to consider, in the light of the advice which has been given in the past, whether the time is ripe for another look at this aspect, too, of the relations between the hospital service and the patient.
The three matters that I have in mind are, in the first place, noise. Noise is one of the most disturbing factors in the relation between man and man and certainly in the relation between the hospital service and the patient in hospital. There is, of course, always reference to this in any report on the subject and a special study of it has been made for the Central Health Services Council which I hope to publish and commend next month, together with the recent studies made by the King Edward VII Hospital Fund. Noise is something which I believe everyone in and concerned with hospitals would do well to watch and regard as an index of the attention paid to the welfare of the patient.
The second matter is visiting hours. There has been a tremendous improvement so far as children are concerned following upon the Platt Committee's Report and there are now few hospitals left in which, in spirit at any rate, the recommendations of the Platt Committee's Report on visiting hours for children are not being complied with. The Report on in-patients touched on this question of visiting hours and made a useful suggestion of an alternative half-hour period in the latter part of the day. I believe myself that we have to consider whether we ought not to go much further, whether to accept the half-hour visiting period, even if it is daily, and there are
238
a good many hospitals in which it is still not daily.
The half-hour visiting period is, if anything, a relic from a former age, from the age of the infirmary, from the age of the horse and buggy. It does not belong to a period in which people may have to travel considerable distances to visit their relatives in hospital, when the hospital services by their very nature are increasingly centralised and serving larger areas and when the whole social habits and behaviour of people have become increasingly unfavourable to the cramming of visits into 30 minutes of the day. I believe that this 30-minute period imposes on hospitals and hospital staff far more of a burden than it removes, and that it would be found that a mare liberal policy in visiting hours would, in fact, bring relief to the staffs rather than the reverse. I know that much experiment is going on in this direction, but I think that this is something to which a further impulse should now be given.
The third matter I had in mind, which is by far the most important of them all, is what I believe, in publicists' jargon, called "communications"—the way in which the patient, the patient's relatives and the people who will be concerned with the patient when he comes out of hospital are given information about what is going on. There seems to me to be often a real failure of communications in this sense in our hospital service, through no on the part of anyone, but simply from the existence of a blind spot in this respect. The patient, the patient's relatives and all those concerned with him expect and have a right to be treated as intelligent persons.
I know that this impinges on one of the most delicate and important professional aspects of the doctor's duty and it is not in my mind to offer advice on that or to offer criticism, but I do say that there should be a much more general 'understanding of how important it is that the patient, his relatives and those concerned with him should never be left in ignorance about what is going on, what is intended to be done with him, why he is Where he is, and all the obvious questions which any sentient human being will want to know about himself and those for whom he cares.
I notice over and over again in the complaints which come to me, not least

239
from hon. Members of this Committee, how it is the fact of a failure of communications, sometimes the failure to speak two sentences at the right moment to a patient, which has been the cause of deep-seated antagonism arising between the individual or his family and the service. I think that the time has come when we ought to give deliberate study to this problem of communications between the hospital service and the patient's relatives and all concerned with him.
Mr. Llywelyn Williams: The Minister has spoken some profound truths and made some constructive suggestions. Could he help the Committee by suggesting what exactly are his powers in these matters, other than the power of appeal? Can he in any way interfere with a local hospital in the way in which it is carrying out some of his excellent suggestions?
Mr. Powell: I do not really think that powers come into this matter, because I do not believe that in any of these matters the hospital authorities or any of those working in hospitals have any desire but to give the best service to the patients. It is, therefore, not a matter of enforcing behaviour upon reluctant authorities and people, but of ensuring that the attention of those concerned is consistently drawn to good standards of practice and to the advice which is made available, distilled from experience, and diffused through the Service.
Mr. Norman Dodds: Who is to do that?
Mr. Powell: We have before us, for example, the way this has been done in the case of the two Reports which the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North mentioned. I do not think that there can be any doubt that the publication of those Reports, the publicity which they have obtained, the discussions which they have undergone both in the professions and in the hospital service, have in themselves already begun to produce results.
I cannot really believe that this is the kind of matter in which we ought to seek to proceed by direction. I believe that people will respond here to leadership, and the leadership, not least, of
240
the professions, taking advantage of experience as it is made available. But it is a field, as I say, in which, I believe, we have really only started on some of the more urgent aspects, and where not only those aspects must be kept in view but new ones must be urgently studied and similarly dealt with.
I turn from this theme to another which the hon. Member mentioned and one which has bulked large in public discussion—not only party political discussion—in recent months, and that is the drug bill, the cost of drugs and dressings as an item of the total cost of the Health Service. The Committee may care to have a review of the measures which have bean taken in this field in recent months.
There are two preliminary remarks which I would make. The first is on the relationship of the prescription charge to this matter of the drug bill. I do not regard, and I have never recommended the prescription charge as a means of appreciably reducing the gross cost of the drug bill in the National Health Service, and, as I have told the House on an earlier occasion, the Estimates for this year, which are before the Committee, were not framed on the assumption that when we had full working experience of the prescription charge there would be any important fall in the volume of prescribing. I recommended it to the House and the House has accepted it as an additional source of finance which can be used to good effect elsewhere in the Health Service.
If any hon. Member would ask where it has been used I would remind him that the gross cost of the Health Service rose by 11 per cent. this year as compared with last, and this year it is taking a higher proportion of the national income than it has ever before been recorded to take. It is that sort of development which has been safeguarded by the prescription charge, but, as I say, I do not regard it as relevant to any important extent to the problem of the control and magnitude of the drug bill in the sense of the gross cost of drugs and dressings in the Service.
The second preliminary observation I would make is that to be concerned about the gross cost and about the control—if one can use that word—of the cost of

241
drugs in the Service implies no underestimation of the importance of modern drugs in modern medicine or of the immense blessings which some of the most expensive modern drugs have brought, the dramatic effects and changes in the prospect of various sicknesses which they have wrought. It implies no disregard of that fact at all.
What it implies is simply this, that when an element of the Service is costing in England and Wales alone practically £100 million a year it is the duty of those responsible to this Committee for the expenditure to be as certain as they can that any waste involved in that figure is minimised and that the patient is getting maximum benefit from the very appreciable sum which is involved.
It is from that point of view that a number of measures have been taken, which I should now like to summarise, to the end of controlling the drug bill. There are really two aspects of this subject. There is the price of the article, and there is the decision to buy an article by prescribing it.
Looking first at prices the Committee will recall that the Voluntary Price Regulation Scheme was renewed in an improved form at the beginning of this year and in its improved form it made possible much closer discussion and negotiation between my Department and the industry over a wider field than had been possible previously. Reductions in price which have been made following the introduction of the scheme have been worth £1¾ million in a full year's usage. That is, I think, a useful beginning, but I regard it only as a beginning, and I regard this as a constant activity which has got to be the continuing preoccupation of my Department.
The hon. Member has referred to the decision announced to the House in the middle of May to use the provisions of the Patents Act for the purchase of certain widely used drugs by the hospital service to which the Patents Act is applicable. The thought behind this decision was that where there is a prima facie possibility of obtaining a drug for the National Health Service at substantially lower cost than had been paid for it, by use of the powers which Parliament has placed in the hands of the Government, it would be wrong not to explore any way in which that result can be obtained in practice.
242
Tenders have, as the Committee knows, been called for for three groups of drugs, and the response has been such that new contracts covering all those drugs will be in force by 1st September. I cannot at this stage indicate to the Committee what the scale of saving will be since final prices are not fixed, and, of course, there will also have to be negotiations, in which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation acts on my behalf, over the relevant royalty payments. It will be necessary to be guided by experience in these initial stages as to the further development of this policy.
On the side of prescribing I would agree with the hon. Member in the outstanding importance of the recommendation of the Cohen Committee on prescribing in the Report which was published in March of this year and distributed to doctors in April, and perhaps I could trouble the Committee by reminding it of what the terms of that recommendation were. The Committee recommended that while
"there should be no absolute restriction on the prescribing of any drug which in the general practitioner's view is necessary for the treatment of his patient … the general practitioner need not normally go outside the drugs and preparations described in the"—
three official books—
"together with drugs in categories N and P. Before he decides to prescribe any other preparation he should satisfy himself that the one chosen is better for his particular patient and that it is the only reasonable choice to make, as he may be called upon to justify his action if the cost of his prescribing is being formally investigated."
In those last words of that quotation from the Cohen Report we are reminded of the ultimate sanction against excessive prescribing which is agreed between the profession and my Department, but of course it is not by use of the ultimate sanction that this important recommendation of the Cohen Committee will produce its effect. It is by a growing acceptance by the profession itself of the wisdom and rightness of that recommendation as a guide to good prescribing. I believe that this can be assisted by contact between my regional medical officers and general practitioners throughout the country. That is why I have attached importance to the strengthening of the team of regional medical officers and to making more time available for them to meet and discuss prescribing problems with the doctors in an entirely informal atmosphere.

243
It is worth emphasising that the Cohen Committee recommendation eliminates no effective drug from the armament of the general practitioner. What it recommends, nevertheless, could result in true economy in prescribing. The Ministry places one of the official handbooks gratis at the disposal of all doctors in the Service, and it also provides them with a flow of material designed to assist in their prescribing. I believe, in particular, that the new bi-monthly publication the Prescribers' Journal will find a place among the means on which the general practitioners rely for assistance in their prescribing work.
Finally, I should like to refer to a group of measures which are concerned with the cost of drugs in hospitals. The hospital sector of the drug bill represents only about one-eighth of the total. Nevertheless, its importance is quite out of proportion to that ratio, for it is in hospitals that a good deal of the pattern of prescribing is fixed both by the influence of hospital practice on the future general practitioner and by the fact that prescribing for a patient is often shared by the hospital and the general practitioner.
The analysis of cost in the hospital service, which has been greatly elaborated and improved in recent years, has now made it possible to compare with some accuracy the cost of drugs in similar hospitals and groups of hospitals within regions and throughout the country. Regional hospital boards have been active in drawing the attention of hospitals to apparently unexplained excesses. In a number of cases this has resulted in real improvements in the control and economy of hospital prescribing. I believe that the use of these cost statistics and. indeed, of other cost statistics should be pushed much further and harder.
I have said that this is a field in which the co-operation of the medical profession is absolutely vital, for the clinical judgment of the medical profession must remain sovereign. I should like to generalise that by saying that since the era which was marked by the publication and acceptance of the Pilkington Report—and I cannot myself as Minister of Health speak of any earlier period—the relations between the Government and the professions have been extremely cordial and co-operative. I should like
244
personally to express my gratitude for the co-operation which I and my Department have received both from officers and officials of the British Medical Association and the British Dental Association.
While on the subject of the Pilkington Report, I might refer to a couple of points which the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North made. I think that his memory played him false when he suggested that the Pilkington settlement, as applied by the working party, had not contributed to improving the distribution of general practitioners. On the contrary, there were a number of important improvements in the financial inducements to the better distribution of general practitioners. In particular, the initial practice allowances were very substantially increased and extended from three to four years. The inducement payments paid in difficult areas were increased and the loadings to which the hon. Member referred were substantially improved.
On the second point which the hon. Member made in relation to general practice, it is true that the calculations of the Willink Committee have been proved by experience to require reexamination. As I told the Committee earlier, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are re-examining urgently the statistical bases on which these conclusions were worked out. However, little practical result flowed from those recommendations because the intake of medical students this year is higher than it was during.the last year before the Willink Committee reported.
The Government and the medical profession are now engaged together on a study of the Platt Report to which the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North very rightly devoted a considerable part of his speech. Good progress has been made in the study of that Report by the Government and the profession, but I am sorry that the stage has not been reached when a general statement upon it can yet be made. I need hardly say that the Government attach great importance to as early a decision on these matters as is consistent with their being properly considered by the profession.
I hope, however, that it will not be thought inconsistent with what I have just said if I follow the hon. Member

245
to some extent in referring to the recommendations of the Platt Report, to place emphasis on one special aspect. I do not think that anyone who has given attention to the problem of the future of the general practitioner doubts that a closer link between the hospitals and the general practitioner is integral to its solution. The proposal which the Platt Committee makes for fuller hospital experience before entering into general practice would undoubtedly be one means of promoting lasting and close connection between hospital and doctor.
Another recommendation of the Platt Report is relevant—that the,hospital of the,future should be able to "absorb part-time services from suitably qualified general,practitioners in specified kinds of work" to a far greater extent than happens at present. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North expressed some scepticism about the practicability of this, but it is a fact that, for example, in the Birmingham region no fewer than one general practitioner out of every four has a part-time appointment in a hospital.
Here surely is one of the guide-lines for the future. To quote the Report again, there should be
"… more openings … for suitably qualified general practitioners … to continue to work in hospital for part of their time in a responsible capacity."
This reference to the intimate, and I hope in future the more intimate, link between the general medical service and the hospital service is only a reminder that one cannot plan for any single part of the whole Health Service in isolation.
This brings me to the long-term hospital planning operation on which the Committee would perhaps welcome a brief progress report.
Mr. K. Robinson: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the Platt Report, can he not give one word of hope to the time-expired senior registrar?
Mr. Powell: I am not at all sure how far it is practicable to separate that question from the recommendations of the Report, and for that reason I should be reluctant to give the hon. Member an answer off the cuff. I have noted, however, what he has said.
246
As the hon. Member said, the boards have now completed their marathon of turning in by 31st May, as they were asked, their pictures of the hospital service in their regions as it should be in 1975. I thank the boards and all who were concerned for the immense amount of work and effort which went into that part of the operation. One realises, of course, that it was possible only because so much study, research and planning had been going on in previous years; but I am sure that boards welcomed the challenge to bring all this to a head and make a definite and concrete statement which would sum up their planning and their practical aspirations for the next fifteen years.
Those individual reports from 15 regional hospital boards and 36 boards of governors will now have to be welded together into something which will deserve the name of a national plan for the hospital service. That cannot be done by simply binding them up together; for if this be a national plan, it must imply the application of national standards and a consistent policy. Indeed, it is through the standards of provision, which we write into the hospital Plan, that the aims of the hospital service over the next ten or fifteen years can be expressed in a form in which they can eventually come to reality.
Mr. Ll. Williams: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, Members of Parliament have shown a real concern about this final decision. As he knows, there is a very great element of secrecy about the master plan. Will it be possible for Members of Parliament to be consulted or informed about his ultimate proposals in this matter?
Mr. Powell: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Ll. Williams) for his intervention. Perhaps I might break off at this point to say that when the hospital service, if I might put it in that way—for I regard the hospital committees, boards and myself not as separate entities but as parts of one service—has worked out its view of the next ten or fifteen years, then that must, in whatever form may be best suited, be put before the public, not as a diktat, not as something which settles and fixes all the details, but as a framework within which individual decisions can be taken, not as hitherto, ad hoc

247
and in isolation but against the background of the plan as a whale. In other words, the hospital plan will not prejudice any individual decision which has not yet been taken.
I would hope that both in its generality, in the principles embodied in it and in its local details the plan would be the object of lively discussion both on a national and on a local scale. Indeed, I would hope that it would continue to be so as the years go by and as the plan itself is revised. But what it will provide is a background of general intention, a shape which makes sense, against which the details as well as the policy of the whole can be discussed.
Something else which has got to be built on to the raw material provided by the regional hospital boards is the part to be played by the other parts of the National Health Service. This is perhaps one of the most important aspects of the planning operation as a whole. We have got to see, so far as we can, where the general medical services will fit into this, and we must see how the complementary organisation of the local health and welfare authorities corresponds with the provision which it is proposed that the hospital service should make.
As regards the general medical services, the Standing Medical Advisory Committee has, at my request, agreed to study, through a sub-committee, the scope of the services which general practioners should be providing in the future. I hope that that study will provide a starting point for clearer thinking about the rôle of the general medical services within the framework of the National Health Service as a whole over the next ten or fifteen years.
As regards the local authorities, it seems to me quite essential that one should try to spell out—the hon. Member touched on this in relation to mental health—the implications for provision outside the hospital which are implicit in the provision which is being made in the hospital service. I have already brought the local authority associations into consultation on this, and I shall hope to have their assistance in working out what I might call the local authority component of the plan for the hospital service, for here the functions of the
248
hospital service and the local authorities are, in the truest sense, complementary. I would hope, too, that the clearer delineation of the field for services outside the hospitals would also be a help and an inspiration to the many voluntary bodies which are doing much but could do a great deal more in this field.
As the hon. Member mentioned specially the policy in regard to mental health and mental provision, perhaps I might take mental health as an example of the way in which national standards and co-operation between the hospitals and the rest of the National Health Service ought to be worked into the plan. He referred to the forecast of a decline of 50 per cent. over the next fifteen years in the requirements of beds for mental illness. I emphasise "for mental illness", for, unfortunately, there is no reason to anticipate any similar decline in the places which are required in hospital for mental sub-normality. Rather, at present, we shall be planning on the basis of a certain increase.
This forecast is based purely upon the continuation of trends which are in existence at the present time. It takes no credit for any further advances in treatment or medical knowledge or any break-through in medical research. I think it would be fair, therefore—as I think the hon. Gentleman does—to regard it rather as a cautious than as a bold estimate.
Nevertheless, there is real flexibility here. The boards in their plans, I am glad to say, have thought it right to adopt broadly this policy of a 50 per cent. rundown of beds for mental illness over the next ten to fifteen years. But since much of the new provision is being made in units in general hospitals of the kind about which the hon. Member was talking, we have the situation thoroughly within our control during this period, since if more rapid progress is made, as we hope, then we shall be able to close more of the old hospitals faster, whereas if, unhappily, and, I believe, quite improbably, there should be some reversal of the trend, it will still be possible to maintain beds which would otherwise be closed. So, although what I would claim is a very modest and cautious forecast of the future will be embodied in the hospital plan, there will be sufficient safeguard and flexibility for account to be

249
taken of favourable or adverse developments.
The future pattern of provision for the mentally ill and the mentally sub-normal must depend to a very large extent upon the provision which is made outside the hospitals by the local health authorities. Here the local authorities are, in fact, showing great keenness. The number of places, for example, in training centres for the mentally sub-normal is rising at a rapid rate. So we shall be able in this sector of the hospital service to see both the working out in the plan of a national policy for the development of the hospital service and also the co-ordination of that development with the provision made outside the hospitals by the local authorities.
If I might add one word about staffs, I am entirely at one with the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North in saying that there is no reason in all this why the staffs of mental hospitals should regard theirs as a dying part of the profession. Very much the contrary. It is a part of the profession to which life, hope and vigour are now coming, for the first time, where opportunities of movement, of variety and of taking part in stirring developments are opening up all the time. And with the more intensive staffing ratio which the new mental hospitals will demand, I should not have thought that, even numerically judged over the whole period, one could regard this as a diminishing element in the National Health Service.
I hope that this planning operation, on which the whole of the National Health Service and not only the hospital service is thus engaged, will, of itself, contribute to greater co-operation and coordination between the various parts, and that it will be an encouragement to all who work in all parts of the National Health Service to know that we are taking a long view, and that we shall set before us the objectives towards which we are striving. But I believe that there is another even more important aspect. I believe that this can be the means of securing the understanding, and thus the interest and support, of the general public for what is being done.
It is on this support of the public—I would go further and say, the affection of the public—that the success of the National Health Service must depend.
5.12 p.m.
Mr. James Boyden: Many Members on both sides of the Committee will be grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's description of his efforts, both current and future, to humanise the hospital service. As someone who represents a constituency which is already suffering from great transport difficulties, I can say that my constituents will welcome very much his interest in visiting hours and appointments, and in making it easier for patients to be visited and, indeed, to get to hospital. Many of us will also be grateful for further information about the hospital capital programme.
It is a pity, though, that this plan was not announced ten years earlier. That may not be the fault of the right hon. Gentleman personally, but it is certainly the fault of the Government of which he is a member. The backlog of hospital improvements, particularly in the north of England, is very considerable. I suppose that my constituency has more of the Poor Law hospitals and the emergency service hospital buildings than most, and we are, therefore, most interested in the speed and momentum which the right hon. Gentleman's plans are to have.
We have a sinister feeling, however, that he is not master of his own fate but that decisions are being taken in another Department in relation not to the medical needs of the country but to the lack of momentum in the economy as a whole. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, when he announces his major programme, will give a clear indication of how the programme is related to the medical needs of the nation. As I read the plan which has been submitted to the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board—
Mr. W. A. Wilkins: On a point of order, Sir Samuel. May I ask whether the only way in which to take part in this debate is to give one's name in at the Table?
The Temporary Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): That is not a point of order. It is a question of who catches the Chairman's eye.
Mr. Wilkins: I appreciate that.
Mr. Boyden: As I was saying, it is the momentum of the hospital building

251
scheme which will be of most importance to areas like the north of England. In studying the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board's programme, it seems to me that a great many of these unfortunate buildings are not likely to come into the scheme for regrading and demolition until towards the end of the period. I hope for an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the momentum of hospital building will become greater and greater.
Members opposite are always praising I.C.I. and its efforts in building up its industry, but this is based very much on a continuous momentum through the investment of capital, so that recruitment of staff and planning can go steadily ahead. This, through its own momentum, generates economies. I look forward to a considerable rise in development through the hospital service.
Recently I asked the Minister of Works about the percentage of building resources devoted to the hospital service. I was told that only 1 per cent. of our current building resources are going into hospital work. I am sure that the future plan will naturally increase that percentage, and I should like to know what it is likely to be.
I also want to know what steps the Government propose to take to see that adequate building resources are devoted to hospitals in those areas which are particularly deficient. I know that my own board is very concerned about whether it will be able to get enough resources from the building industry to fulfil its plans. This has been particularly marked recently in changes in the architectural and civil engineering staffs. The Government must take some responsibility for this because, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) said, there have been considerable delays in pay awards to architects and engineers.
In the case of the Newcastle Board, I suggest that some of the illness among the architectural staff has been due to pressure caused by shortage of staff, which, in turn, was caused by dilatory methods in connection with pay and awards. This, as my hon. Friend said, runs right through the hospital service. The laboratory technicians have been lobbying many of us over
252
their circumstances. I hope, particularly in relation to the building and planning side of hospital development, that the Minister will be able to give an assurance that we shall not, in this development, have the merry-go-round of one branch of the building industry getting architects and engineers from another branch, like the local government service, so that other worthy public building is not dealt with.
Time and time again, Ministers responsible for social services have refused to say much about the recruitment of new staff. This has been so in relation to doctors, and we have had some discussion about that. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he is considering revising Willink, and I hope that he will do this urgently, with particular reference to areas in the North, where there is considerable need for more medical students and more medical training.
Here, I put in a special plea for the Durham end of the University of Durham. As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, shortly—perhaps eighteen months or two years—it is likely that new universities, one in Durham and one in Newcastle, will be formed. A long time ago the Durham division of Durham University carefully considered the facilities it might offer for a medical school. I ask the right hon. Gentleman carefully to consider the facilities which exist there—the splendid university site itself and the pleasant opportunities for housing medical students—and also the good effect that it would have on the north of England—particularly the area which my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) and I represent—together with its effect in improving the quality of the intellectual life of the university as well as improving medical facilities generally. If the university should make proposals of this sort I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will support them.
That there is a considerable need for much greater hospital and medical facilities there can be no doubt. I want to refer to some of the hospital conditions in my constituency. In Bishop Auckland General Hospital—the major hospital of the area—no joint medical planning committee has yet been appointed to consider future plans. The hospital's ad hoc committee has been under way for only

253
a short time, so that none of the medical planning has been carried out that has gone on in other parts of the region. The hospital is made up half of E.M.S. hutted buildings and half of workhouse buildings. Under those conditions the staff manage remarkably well. As the Minister said in relation to other sections of the medical services, great devotion is shown by the staff, who work in incredibly difficult conditions. When they are allowed to, they turn some of these horrible buildings into most attractive buildings for patients. I urge the Minister to give early attention to the problems of areas like mine.
I now want to refer to the general picture to be painted of the small hospitals under the control of the general hospital. These hospitals are dotted about the area, and have been described as
"small hospitals which do not provide a very high standard of accommodation and are not easy to run efficiently."
The maternity hospital
"offers poor accommodation in a converted house and should he abandoned as soon as the department at the main hospital can be enlarged."
Two hospitals in the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Ainsley)
"are both converted houses and their standard of accommodation is not of the best."
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Mem-Member for Durham, West could give similar details about hospitals in his constituency which my wife knows well.
The real gem is the "geriatric hospital" at Barnard Castle. It is called Cambridge House. I do not know whether the Minister had the opportunity of visiting it when he came to the North, but it is a disgrace. It
"offers such a poor standard of accommodation, with a complete lack of any ancillary services, that it should be shut as soon as other accommodation can be provided."
I am sure that all the inhabitants of Barnard Castle would echo those wards. Barnard Castle contains a convalescent home which is about to be taken into the National Health Service. I believe that the legal formalities are almost complete. A fairly large sum of money goes with this hospital. There are plans by the regional hospital board ultimately to transfer the geriatric unit from Cambridge Noise to the Richardson Home,
254
and there is planning intention to make it a small general hospital.
I hope that this will be fairly well advanced in the schemes that the Minister finally approves. South-west and northwest Durham, with difficult communications and heavy industry, need rather more consideration than some of the more prosperous parts of the country which have developed their hospitals by means of voluntary contributions more easily than has been possible in Durham. I urge upon the Minister earnestly that the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board and my own area in particular, should receive careful consideration.
Finally, I want to refer to the difficulties that have resulted from the Willink Report. The right hon. Gentleman tended to brush this aside and to say that its effect has not been important, but it has had a bad effect on the University Grants Committee. That Committee has been very timid about making recommendations for new medical schools in new universities. That is one reason why I pressed the claim of Durham, which, to some extent, will rank as a new university under the new arrangements. In some of the special fields, such as psychiatry and psychological medicine, there is such a time lag and such a backlog to be made up in order to produce an adequate service that it is imperative far the Minister to consider that aspect of the Problem very generously.
On many occasions I have asked him questions about the number of Commonwealth and colonial doctors in the National Health Service. He has told me that he does not have the figures. I have not asked him this question because I wish those doctors to return to their own countries. I have asked it because we need to make a proper assessment of the number of doctors we require, and the number required by the Commonwealth and the under-developed countries. We take far too limited a view of our obligations to the Commonwealth. Not only should a very careful study be made of the expansion we need in our own medical services, in regard to the provision of doctors, but a much more generous attitude and a determination to help wherever we can should be adopted in regard to the countries of our own Commonwealth and Colonies.
5.25 p.m.
Mr. Ian Fraser: The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) laid particular stress on hospital building. I was glad to hear that because, if I understand my right hon. Friend's mind aright, in the developments of the National Health Service he has laid particular stress—both in the ten-year capital programme and in other ways—on the development of the hospital services in the next ten or fifteen years. I am sure that that is the department on which we ought to keep our eyes firmly fixed if, during the course of the next ten years, we have to choose between desirable priorities. Above all else, it is important to try to find a /pattern of the Health Service which will suit our life in this decade.
If we look outside the improvement of the hospital services, one of the services which needs more attention than most is that which deals with incipient and mild mental disorder in the population. From such observations as I have been able to make while working in my constituency—and I am sure that other hon. Members have had the same experience—it is clear that there is a particular need to concentrate upon the problem of dealing in time with this incipient and mild form of mental disorder.
I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend lay stress on the desirability of close cooperation between the Health Service and local authorities in matters of that kind. The desirability for co-operation goes still further than that; it must extend from the local authority health and welfare services through the whole range of local authority social services.
I wonder whether it has been the experience of other hon. Members, as it has been mine, that in many instances it is the housing problem which lies at the back of these cases of incipient and mild mental disorder. If it is possible, through co-operation over the whole range of local authority services, to isolate and deal with problems of that kind, the medical problems can be more easily cleared up.
Dr. Barnett Stross: I agree absolutely with what the hon. Member has said, but does not he also agree that it follows that it is the general mental practitioner—the
256
family doctor—who must be able first to recognise the symptoms, and that he must, therefore, have specific training, and also have time both for diagnosis and, at least, to advise where treatment can be taken?
Mr. Fraser: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I think that that is very important, but I would add to it further by saying that it is not only a case of the family doctor. I think that people like ourselves come into the matter, too. The wider this is disseminated, the more easily we shall be able to deal with it. What I am quite certain is a very serious and growing problem is this wide dispersal throughout the population of forms of very mild and perhaps incipient mental disorders. This problem is far greater than one would like to think.
The main thing that I want to put before the Committee for a few minutes is something different from that and something in which I have a close personal concern. I hope that the Committee will forgive me for dealing for a few minutes with the question of artificial limbs, their provision and, in particular, their design. I have a compunction about wearying the Committee, as I must for a few moments, with the details of my own artificial anatomy, but I want to take as an example the actual limb that I happen to be wearing—it is a Government artificial leg for above-knee amputation—as the text for what I want to say.
The artificial leg which I am wearing is a 1946 model and it has been maintained in all the years since in perfect order by the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry and its predecessor, when another Ministry was responsible. There is no doubt at all that this limb and others like it are very good limbs indeed. I say this with absolutely no question of any vainglory, and were I tempted to be vainglorious the example of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power would shut my mouth immediately, because he really knows about these sorts of things.
Since 1946, when this limb was issued to me, it has climbed mountains in Baluchistan, it has been exposed in the Sind Desert and other places to heat of the order that is turned on in Kuwait at the moment, it has mounted guard on

257
ceremonial parades, it has ridden horses and been thrown from them and it has motored thousands of miles during which time it has had to perform the same functions as does a human leg in operating a clutch.
As far as these limbs go, I think that for the first and only time in my life I regret the absence, as hon. Members opposite so often do, of the Secretary of State for Scotland, for what I am going to say is unfair to Scotland. The only thing, I believe, that one cannot do with one of these limbs—I am sorry about it, because I used to be particularly keen on it before I lost a leg—is Highland country dancing. Although I can still screech, I cannot, I regret to say, cavort with this leg.
The point I wish to make is that despite the extraordinary strength both in design and construction of these limbs—and that is amply proved—there is no doubt that we are falling behind in this matter. It so happens that in addition to a 1946 artificial leg I happen to have a 1946 car, which is still running. Cars have improved enormously since 1946. I cannot believe that no improvement can be made in the design of artificial limbs. I do not think that very much general improvement has been made in that direction.
I had the good fortune, through the very kind co-operation of the Ministry of Health, to see in my constituency last autumn an exhibition of modern artificial limbs. They seemed to be remarkably similar to the limb which I was wearing. There has been a great deal of talk in recent days of the desirability in our national life to set ourselves aims of one sort or another. I would venture to commend to my right hon. Friend a minor though, I think, a worthy target which, perhaps, the Health Service might care to set itself. That target would be to lead the world, to the extent that we do not do so already, in the design and provision of artificial limbs. Such a target seems to me to have all the characteristics of a good challenge. It is a humanitarian one. Though it is rather challenging and difficult, I think that it is probably well within our scope.
The two main problems which have to be solved in that sort of enterprise are, first, the problem of the method of seating and of ventilation of these
258
limbs, be they legs or arms, and, secondly, the problem of their action, the way in which they are to work, with particular reference to the possible application to them of power in some form or another. It need not, of course, be direct power or of a gyroscopic type, but power of one form or another.
Let me deal with one argument which might arise, because I think that my right hon. Friend might well say to me, "But surely in this sort of development, which will be expensive, is there not a place for private enterprise to come in and start it off? Are we morally required to do more than provide a thoroughly sound piece of equipment?" I think that the answer to that must surely be that our obligations to our ex-Service disabled population probably preclude that view being taken and that we ought, in fact, to regard the development even of a much more complex and expensive type of artificial limb than we now have as a genuine obligation on the part of the Government.
There has been much talk in this debate about the next ten or fifteen years. I hope that during the next ten or fifteen years I may, perhaps, have the pleasure of taking off from the Terrace on one engine, on my left leg. I am looking forward to that very much.
Because the disabled population is not all that large or all that important it can never take a very prominent place in the counsels of the Health Service as a whole, but I hope that it will have its appropriate place, and that we may consider the advantages, both human and moral—and very real advantages I think they are—in making a special concentration in the Health Service on a matter in which we already have so good a reputation but one in which, I fear, we are tending to fall somewhat behind.
5.40 p.m.
Mr. William Whitlock: It has been said already in the debate that we are covering a very wide field today. I want, first, to speak about dental health. If I may, I will follow the example of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. I. Fraser) by drawing on a personal experience. During last week I suffered considerably from the pain which one normally associates with dental decay. I visited a dentist at the weekend. He told me

259
that he could find no signs of decay in my teeth, but, after considerable tapping and probing, he considered that one of my teeth was causing trouble and that the only way to deal with it was to pull it out.
I suggested that there was a need for a more precise diagnosis. After all, if he pulled out this tooth, I would, in effect, be losing two teeth since its opposite number, would have nothing to bite on. Further, as he was not sure that this was the offending tooth, it might be necessary to pull out another one, and I would then have lost the effective use of four teeth. His reply was, "There are always dentures". I took the risk and had the tooth extracted. Within an hour and a half the pain returned and endured until yesterday, and prevented me from taking part in the debate on science.
We are on the verge of space travel to other planets, yet we have not yet learned how to determine the cause of so many of a comparatively minor ills to which flesh is heir. Dental health is of enormous importance to us all. We all have to eat, and our general fitness, and perhaps even how long we live, can be determined by the efficient manner in which our teeth do their job and help our long-suffering stomachs.
The British Dental Association has recently decided to set up a Dental Health Bureau, to counter what its president described as
"the Government's failure in duty."
He went on to say that the McNair Committee's recommendation that the Government should foster dental health education, though accepted by the Government, had been allowed to become
"another example of a pious hope warmly applauded by politicians, proudly exhibited as showing progressive thought, and quietly suffocated by inaction and lack of imagination."
So often reports and recommendations receive that kind of treatment in this place.
He then said:
"That any Government should sponsor a health service and not take over and support financially health education is an abnegation of public duty which is disgraceful."
So far, this debate has been nonpartisan. I therefore hesitate to say as
260
strongly as I might otherwise do how I feel about some of the aspects of health in which the Government's performance leaves much to be desired. Incalculable harm is being done to our physical and industrial well-being by the Government's approach to the Health Service. Production lost by strike action is spotlighted almost daily, but we read practically nothing about the infinitely greater loss of production which stems from the incidence of chest complaints, rheumatism, and similar ailments, and the fact that the Health Service is starved of the necessary funds for research into preventive medicine.
There is one field of research which, has been promised by the Government, and in which I have a constituency interest. In a short debate on 3rd February of this year the House debated the difficulties of diagnosing pneumoconiosis, and the fact that pulmonary disability as shown in asthma, bronchial spasms, and emphysema appears to be more prevalent amongst those who have to endure occupational hazards, such as miners and pottery workers, than among those in other occupations. It was stressed that there was great difficulty in diagnosing pneumoconiosis, or in finding a clear-cut industrial causation for other respiratory conditions which are common to other sections of the public. We were promised that research would be carried out. Has that research been commenced, and, if it has, how far has it proceeded?
There is widespread discontent in my constituency about the method of diagnosing pneumoconiosis in particular. No one who has any knowledge of the distress which is caused by this disease can possibly be satisfied until that research produces a much more satisfactory and definite method of diagnosis. Research will undoubtedly show that the incidence of bronchitis and emphysema is more prevalent amongst miners than among the rest of the population, and that there is an industrial causation.
That brings me to the need for an industrial health service, a need which the British Medical Association is urging at the moment. Last summer, I spent a short period in Eastern Germany. I saw many things which disturbed me, but I saw many things which greatly impressed me. Amongst the latter was

261
the system of polyclinics. I visited a polyclinic in a dockyard employing about 6,000 people and found it to be in effect a small hospital excellently equipped and staffed by specialists, doctors, and nurses, available to treat not only the 6,000 workers employed there, but their families. I should like to see such polyclinics set up in this country as part of an industrial health service. It would be of enormous value in reducing the loss of production caused by illness.
Another gap in our Health Service is the lack of a chiropody service for old people. Anyone who has any contact with old people must realise what a boon such a service would be to them. To be confined to one's home by any kind of foot ailment is hardship enough, particularly among people who live on their own, but to be made immobile by a foot ailment which can easily be cured or eased by some simple treatment is intensely frustrating and annoying. Many of them hobble around in agony which is easily preventable and we ought to do all we can to introduce such a chiropody service, and I hope that the Government will consider it.
Mrs. Harriet Slater: Is it not essential that the Ministry should do something, along with the Ministry of Education, about facilities for training chiropodists, because local authorities which have these services have great difficulty in getting chiropodists to fill the posts?
Mr. Whitlock: I agree, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will take note of what my hon. Friend has said.
Enoch Powell, the poet, has penned the line:
"I hate the old, I hate the sick."
I know that many old-age pensioners believe that the Government hate them. They believe that the introduction of the 2s. prescription charge—
Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I imagined that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) intended to quote the context, the poem, in which my right hon. Friend penned that line. I am astounded that he should imagine that in this Committee he can get away with a quotation of that kind,
262
implying that those are the sentiments of my right hon. Friend. I call upon him to withdraw.
Mr. Whitlock: I said that those lines were penned by Enoch Powell, the poet, and they most certainly were.
The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. If the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) is referring to an hon. Member, he should not do so by name; but perhaps he is not.
Mr. Whitlock: I am sorry, Sir William, that such exception should have been taken to this quotation. I did not mean to imply that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health hated the sick and hated the old. No doubt the full quotation would clear him of that accusation in every way. But those lines have been quoted on a number of occasions.
I want to make it clear that old-age pensioners who have approached me feel that the Government do hate them, having introduced this 2s. prescription charge, which they have to pay out of their all too inadequate pension. I do not suggest for a moment that the Minister of Health or any hon. Member opposite is callously indifferent to the old people or to others who are suffering in any way, but all too often hon. Members opposite show a lack of understanding about conditions at the lower end of the income scale. They show a complete understanding of the miserable plight of the man on £10,000 a year, to whom they propose to give £10 a week in tax remission, but they do not appear to understand that many old people are going without medical benefit because they cannot afford the items on their prescriptions.
At the last election, hon. Members opposite promised our old people a share of the nation's prosperity. Instead they are reducing the health standards of the old people and the sick in order that those earning more that £2,000 a year may be even better off. That action seems to be indicative of the Government's whole approach to the social services. It is an approach which becomes more and more evident to the electorate every day and at the next election they will pay the price for it.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Balniel: There were certain sections of the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) which I regarded as rather unhappy, and I will not be tempted into referring to them. On the other hand, I would like later to take up his remarks about the chiropody service for old people, a part of his speech with which I found myself in considerable agreement.
Mr. Richard Marsh: In common with many of his hon. Friends, the noble Lord seems to have taken exception to the quotation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) of a poem written by the Minister of Health. That is the first I have heard of any objection being taken to this quotation. Perhaps the noble Lord can enlighten us about the context in which this line was written and why the matter has not been raised before.
Mr. Dodds: Before the noble Lord replies—
Lord Balniel: May I be permitted to reply to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh)? My frank opinion of that section of the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North is that it was a cheap gibe about my right hon. Friend in clear contrast with the sentiments of my right hon. Friend and his work in improving the standard of life and the happiness of those who are sick. It is for the reason that I thought that it fell below the standard of debate that I was reluctant to refer to it in any more detail.
The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) made a constructive speech and rightly referred to the shortage of those who are classified as auxiliary workers in the medical service. He referred also to the difficulties of recruiting those people because of the unsatisfactory state of Whitley machinery negotiations. Although he commented on that matter, my right hon. Friend did not reply to the case made by the hon. Member.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North that there is a considerable shortage of auxiliary workers in the hospital service. Hon. Members may have seen the figures which were published as a result of the questionnaire circulated by the Associa-
264
tion of Hospital Management Committees. The replies to that questionnaire indicated that there was a shortage of radiographers of about 15 per cent., of physiotherapists of about 20 per cent., of occupational therapists of 23 per cent., of speech therapists of 17 per cent. and of therapeutic dieticians of 43 per cent.
Any of my hon. Friends who are assiduous collectors of Press cuttings can produce a whole galaxy of cuttings on this shortage of auxiliary workers. The other day I was told of the closing down of the physiotherapy clinic in Grosvenor Road, Watford, as a result of the shortage of physiotherapy workers.
However, the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North failed to paint the whole picture in that he did not indicate, no doubt unwittingly, that there has been a tremendous expansion of the services rendered by these auxiliary assistants. There has been a substantial increase in recruiting to these services. The figures were given by Lord Newton in another place in a debate on the hospital services, indicating that during the past ten years the number of dietitians has increased by 23 per cent., the number of radiographers by 55 per cent., remedial gymnasts by 53 per cent., occupational therapists by 93 per cent, and physiotherapists by 23 per cent. That is partly the answer to the case made by the hon. Member. While there is a shortage, it is a shortage caused by the tremendous expansion of these services, and recruiting is not as unhappy as he indicated.
I accept that there has been an erosion of good will towards the Whitley machinery. We hear that the nurses want a Royal Commission on their salary scales. We know that the Society of Occupational Therapists, the Society of Physiotherapists and the Association of Hospital Management Committees all want an independent inquiry into their salary negotiations system. Personally, I have no particular objection to an independent inquiry, but I think that one of the interesting things is that although this matter has been debated very fully in another place, and although the hon. Gentleman referred to it in his speech, no suggestion which I have heard so far has put forward a more satisfactory machinery than the Whitley machinery which was introduced by hon. and right

265
hon. Gentlemen opposite after the war. There may be a more satisfactory system, but, so far, those who have criticised the present one have not put forward any constructive suggestions.
I should have thought that the problem here was of a much wider context. The problem is surely that we are short, in the Health Service, in the public services and indeed in private industry, of persons with university degrees, of persons with professional qualifications and of persons with technical qualifications. I should have thought that the hospital service was getting a fair and reasonable share of the very limited pool of such persons which is available. We should direct our minds, though perhaps not in this debate, to the widening of the pool of such people from which the hospital service could draw a larger share, and that I think completes the picture on the point made in the opening speech today.
I should have liked also to have referred in this debate to the hospital building programme, but, like other hon. Members, I find myself in some difficulty, partly because the development plans of the regional boards have been called in to the Minister and we have not yet had an opportunity of studying them in detail, and partly because the mere collection of development plans from different parts of the country is nothing approaching a national plan of hospital building. That has still to be formed, sculpted and moulded out of the various development plans for the various regional boards.
When referring to hospital building, I should like to say that as a result of the tremendous increase in capital investment in hospital building, and as a result of my right hon. Friend's decision to call the hospital management committees and regional boards to lift their eyes a little beyond the annual plodding allocations which they have, and to call upon them to play their part in visualising and planning the hospitals structure we shall have in the 1970s, my right hon. Friend has introduced into the hospital service a sense of exhilaration and hope which has been notably absent for many years. Indeed, I should like to congratulate him on the effort he is making in humanising the service.
It is important, if we are to gain the good will of the public, that hospitals
266
throughout the country should do away with those irritants such as fantastically early wakening hours in the morning. We should do away with the irritant of short visiting hours, to which my right hon. Friend referred, which are such a source of annoyance in rural areas, where people have to travel up to an hour and a half or two hours to arrive at the hospital and are then able to visit a relative for only half an hour.
It is a source of annoyance that the recommendations of the Platt Committee on the Welfare of Children in Hospital, namely, that there should be totally unrestricted visiting hours, subject only to the discretion of the sisters in charge of wards for children, have not yet been fully implemented, and it is a source of annoyance to the public that the failure to introduce the appointments system, particularly in ante-natal clinics, has resulted in long waiting hours for many patients.
It is not only the good will of the patients and the public which is at stake here. My right hon. Friend referred to noise and to the effects of bad nursing, noisy nursing, and also of badly designed equipment in hospitals, which result in noise which is harmful to the health of the patients. He also referred to human relationships in obstetrics, and this is a matter of considerable importance to parents. It is quite wrong, however busy nurses might be, that mothers in labour should be left for hours on end utterly alone with no one to talk to. I feel also that the interests of other patients concerned should be borne very firmly in mind. My right hon. Friend has said that it is the patients for whom the services are being provided and not the administration, and it seems to me right, even if it is a cause of annoyance in hospitals, that if a father wishes to be present at the birth of his child he should at least have the right to be.
I do not want to make any hostile, sweeping criticisms of the hospital service, because anyone who has had any work to do with the hospital service knows of the touching devotion shown by matrons, doctors and nurses towards their patients, but I feel that just as in the physical buildings we have been left with a legacy of outmoded barrack-like hospitals, some of this rigid administrative pattern is also a legacy of the past. It is a legacy from the time when

267
patients were grateful merely for the right of being allowed in hospital and being given treatment.
Today, the attitude of mind has changed. People have a higher standard of living and they are used to better services, and, incidentally, as a result of "Emergency Ward 10", they expect an exceedingly high standard of service when they go into hospital, and also have a greater understanding of general medical practice. I believe that patients actively resent being told blindly to follow the advice given by doctors and nurses. They want to know, especially mothers in labour and the parents of children, the reasons for the instructions which they are receiving, and it is simply not good enough for doctors and nurses to turn to them when they ask questions and say, "Oh, do not worry; you are in very good hands indeed."
I would merely add to what my right hon. Friend said on this subject that the pamphlet "s Human Relations in Obstetrics" is a wholly admirable and compassionate document. I should like to see it made obligatory reading for every doctor, matron and nurse coming in contact with maternity wards, but I should also like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he will consider, as there are so many aspects of humanising the service, whether a simple document covering children's wards, visiting hours, maternity wards and the appointments system could not be sent out to all the lay members of hospital management committees. To expect them to read "Human Relations in Obstetrics" as well as the Platt Committee's Report or the Report on in-patients is expecting too much of people who are serving the hospital service in a voluntary capacity.
I should like to turn to another aspect of the service. It is difficult for us to talk about the hospital building programme, but we can talk about the importance of ensuring that those who are in the hospitals are only those in real need of hospital treatment.
We talk about the importance of ensuring that services outside the hospital are of an extremely high standard. It seems to me that there are three facets of the problem. One was mentioned by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, namely, the need to provide a good occupational health system
268
for those in employment. That has been the subject of a recent report to the B.M.A. and I do not wish to elaborate upon it. There is also the need to ensure that old people, many of whom are in hospital quite unnecessarily, are provided with an efficient domiciliary service to keep them in the community and out of hospital. There is the third facet, that those mentally ill should be looked after in the community by the local authority rather than be unnecessarily in the wards of mental hospitals. I wish to comment on the last two facets.
Nowhere is the shift from hospital care to care within the community likely to be more marked than in the case of mental health. But if we are to break down the attitude of segregation which for so long has blighted all progress in this sphere, I think that the public will need some reassurance on the question of security. Although there is a lot of free public discussion about mental health, although this may give the impression that the attitude of the public has changed, I have a feeling that just below the surface all the old fears and prejudices lie waiting, and that if there is any clumsy move or unfortunateccident—such as the very tragic case which occurred recently these fears and prejudices could easily come to the surface.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will look upon the question of reassuring the public about security as a matter of substantial importance, not only because intrinsically it is important, even with the advent of tranquillisers, but because the success or failure of our mental health programme depends on our gaining the good will of the public. Will my right hon. Friend make clear—I think that there is doubt about it—whether all patients with aggressive personalities will be sent to Broadmoor, to Rampton or to Moss Side? Or is it the intention, as a result of new developments, to continue with high security wards in various mental hospitals? I think it part of our task in reconciling public opinion on this matter to make clear that it is not, as many people believe, our intention to scatter mentally ill people out into the community before adequate provision has been made to receive them. Of course, such a course would be medically disastrous. It would

269
be financially disastrous. We should have to strengthen the police services—
Mr. Dodds: The hon. Member has mentioned an important point, the fear of the public. Has he, as a responsible person, any evidence whatsoever that since the introduction of the Mental Health Act there has been an indiscriminate scattering of violent patients about the country? Has he reason to believe that any lack of security has resulted from the introduction of that Act?
Lord Balniel: I think that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) must have utterly misheard what I was saying. I was saying that there is a danger, because the old fears and prejudices still exist—of course they do—that if the impression is created that we are scattering the mentally sick into the community before adequate provision has been made for them, these prejudices may come to the surface and hamper the mental health programme which we are trying to implement.
Mr. Dodds: I should like to reassure the hon. Member. I heard every word which he said as well the second time as the first. I should like to ask him, because of his reference to this fear, whether he has any evidence that as a result of the working of the new Mental Health Act there is any lack of security which might worry the public. If he has, he should mention it.
Lord Balniel: Most certainly I have no such evidence. Of course, misjudgments are made about the security risks which could be taken. That is inevitable, and they will be made in.the future. Inevitably that will occur at some stage, but I have no evidence that they have occurred to date. I am merely saying that I think it an important part of the responsibility of my right hon. Friend for the implementation of the mental health programme to see that the public receive very full reassurance at this stage.
In indicating in his circular that there is in the next fifteen years to be a reduction in the number of beds devoted to mental patients by 50 per cent., my right hon. Friend has given great hope to those who work in mental hospitals. I realise that to some extent his remarks have been misinterpreted, but I think that the necessity to diminish the number of beds
270
in hospitals provided for patients suffering from mental illness may be gauged from the figures which I obtained when I visited an important hospital recently.
In this hospital there is scandalous overcrowding and scandalous under-staffing. The establishment of this hospital, one of the greatest mental hospitals in the country, was 190 for male staff. The actual number engaged is 102. This hospital cannot advertise for more staff because accommodation is not available. In the female wing the establishment for nurses is 251. The actual number engaged is 120, of which only 26 are trained. These nurses have the care of 639 female patients and one can realise the hope which the proposals of my right hon. Friend have given to those interested in this matter.
The figures given by my right hon. Friend indicate that local authorities are making substantial progress in the building of training centres and of new hostels. This is essential. We must tackle this problem with dynamism if we are to achieve success. But I have the impression that while the general figures are pretty good, progress is patchy. There is confusion about who has the responsibility, whether it is the hospital or the local authority, for the building of these hospitals. I have an uncomfortable feeling that the general statistics which my right hon. Friend has given may hide the fact that in some areas little progress is being made.
The other matter about which I believe that more progress should be made is in the care of old people. I recognise that much still remains to be done in the hospitals. Any hon. Member who has read the report of Dr. Sheldon, the medical adviser on the care of old people in the Birmingham Region, must realise what a tremendous amount needs to be done. He speaks of the large number of geriatric units in his area which are totally unsuited for modern usage and unfit for repair. They are suited only for the bulldozer. In view of the scale of geriatric rebuilding, I wish to know whether it is the intention of my right hon. Friend to introduce standardised designs for new geriatric units. Standardised designs made the tackling of the building programme possible, and I am sure that standardised designs for geriatric building are also necessary.

271
I wish to refer to what was said by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North about chiropody services. It is trite to say that if we are to keep old people healthy we must keep their minds occupied and keep them on their feet. As long ago as 1956 the Guillebaud Committee recommended that as soon as more resources were available there should be a further development of the local authority chiropody services. It was not until April, 1959, that the Government circular was issued calling on local authorities to extend the service. They were advised to co-operate with local voluntary organisations and to submit proposals. It would be interesting to know what progress has been made regarding chiropody services.
More important, I think, is for us to know on what principles we are working in relation to the chiropody service. If one is in need of serious treatment one can obtain such treatement free of charge in hospitals. If one is in need only of preventive treatment, under some local authorities one has to pay for chiropody treatment in accordance with one's needs. If one is living in the area of other local authorities one obtains such treatment free of charge. In Scotland local authorities do not have power to charge for this treatment.
Here we have a situation in which in some areas preventive services are free while in others it is forbidden for local authorities to charge and in others they can charge according to means. This seems quite illogical. If preventive treatment is as important as treatment in hospitals—as I am quite certain it is—I should have thought it only logical and reasonable that this chiropody service should be made available free of charge to those who need it. I do not believe that the cost would be very considerable. Largely, the service would be used by old persons. One in every four or five old people are in any case on National Assistance, so it would be paid for them by the National Assistance Board.
If we look at the matter in a wider context, it seems a false economy to deter persons from having preventive treatment so that ultimately they have to go to hospital to get treatment free of charge, whereas in the meantime they are deprived of serving the community through
272
a failure to obtain preventive chiropody treatment. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take note of the remarks of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North and see if an improvement can be made in this matter.
6.22 p.m.
Mr. Laurence Pavitt: This is the third time that I have had the honour of following the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) in a health debate. I hope that the occasion may arise when he will follow me. I welcomed, in particular, the last comments he made. I can assure him that from this side of the Committee we shall continue to press the Minister to give free chiropody services for old people. I am sure that, in his turn, the noble Lord will bring all the pressure he can on the Minister to that end.
I also welcomed his comments on the auxiliary services, which were highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson). The noble Lord perhaps did not sufficiently emphasise that these are so much an integral part of the other services and that if there is a shortage of physiotherapists and radiographers and other auxiliaries that affects all the other kinds of service being given in those hospitals.
There was a pleasant aspect about the opening speech by the Minister today. We have become so used to hearing him in the rôle of Mr. Hyde that when he came forward as Dr. Jekyll with a far more comprehensive approach, there were a number of things which we welcomed. We welcomed particularly his views on humanising the service. I feel that in the first three months of this year he was solely animated by the question of £ s. d., but perhaps now some balance is being restored. We get an opportunity of debating health only once a year. We all sympathised with the Minister when he said that he had too much material. We are all precisely in that situation, trying to get a lot into a very short time.
The prelude to this debate took place before Easter and mainly concerned ways and means of economising. We on this side of the Committee spent a great deal of time bringing the utmost condemnation of the Government's policy.

273
We felt that it was very bad and was harming the Health Service. We felt that it ought to be opposed to the utmost extent. There will be no let-up on that front, for not only have the actual measures taken by the Government been harmful, but, until now, the Minister's attention has been diverted from the constructive kind of things he should be doing to pursuing economies. The purpose of this debate, with the lead given by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North from the Opposition Front Bench, was to see in what kind of directions we can make suggestions which will give some positive leadership in the Health Service.
The Minister will need to fight very hard for the retention of his hospital building programme, of which so much has been said in this debate and previously. The Guardian said yesterday:
"Mr. Powell's economies in the Health Service have been well received by some supporters of the Government, and more retreats from the social service standard would be welcomed."
We have to be aware that in the present economic state of the country the Minister of Health will be under fire from many quarters, not only to find further economy but, in his hospital building programme, to discover that the time is not yet opportune to proceed. Will he assure the Committee that he has now made the maximum economies and reached the limit and that there will be no further inroads on the present programme?
One of the worries about the hospital building programme, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden), is that plans may be held up for physical reasons. There is the need to find architects and other matters which go to the preparing of a huge building programme. Previous building programmes have shown that there has been delay between the first idea of building a hospital and the actual time when the hospital was started. So far as I can see, although we have an ambitious long-range programme, we shall not see anything practical in the form of bricks and mortar until at least 1966. I hope that the Minister will give attention to any possible delays in his Department. Is he quite sure that the machinery he has for approving plans of regional hospital
274
boards, hospital management committees and teaching hospitals is adequate to ensure the flow of building which he envisages?
Recently, I read a report of a planning committee of a hospital which showed that on one major scheme there had to be seven separate approvals given by the Minister. If that is to go on with every major scheme it is obvious that, apart from technical problems involved, there will be considerable delay in getting necessary permissions and authority to proceed. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North and others on this side of the Committee have spoken of the desire for the planning of this building to be carefully thought out especially in relation to the services to be provided in the sector of mental ill-health and mental illness. It is important if we are to build on the right kind of ideas—which I believe the Minister now has—to be careful that building should be done in the right places. There has been a change in the pattern of hospitalisation and in the pattern of medicine.
The Minister's plan to eliminate the huge quantity of beds for mental illness in the next fifteen years is, I believe, based on the right kind of motives. I welcome very much his approach by which to get away from the idea of the Rampton and Colney Hatch type of institution and to bring people with mental disorders more and more into the mainstream of ordinary hospital service. I want this to be successful. There are enormous dangers if it is done in the wrong way. For sixty years in psychiatric medicine we have had the benefit of Freud, Adler and Jung, yet still there are 44 per cent. readmissions of mental health cases.
I can accept the fact that the present trend is in the right direction. I am concerned, however, that we should not have in the ordinary hospital open wards, a kind of shop window for those who are neurotic, psychosomatic or well-behaved borderline cases, and separate long-stay institutions for acute cases which will still remain part and parcel of the old institutional system, and have the same effect on public opinion as the closed hospitals of the past. If we are to integrate mental health services with hospitals, it may mean building not inside, but alongside. In that respect, we need a good

275
deal of very proper research with specially organised pilot schemes. We might well have a special committee composed of men of vision and practical experience of modern forms of mental treatment who would be able to advise the Minister on long-term planning.
One of my main concerns in the hospital field is the emergencies which are taking place at present in obstetrics. In spite of the Cranbrook Report, the number of maternity beds is woefully inadequate in many parts. The number of monthly admissions on an emergency basis in Central Middlesex has doubled since last year. It was 15 in January of last year and 29 in January of this year. The situation is becoming extremely acute. When young mothers try to register for hospitalisation for their first babies, as Cranbrook recommends, they are told that there just is not a bed available. They are told that when their labour pains start they should telephone their general practitioner and that it may be all right; the hospital will do its best for them at the time.
What a situation for a young mother to be in—she has to embark on bringing a child into the world without any knowledge of just how and when it is to take place. Yesterday, I received a letter from a general practitioner in my area. The letter says:
"As you know, … overcrowding and the rising birth rate are giving us many more patients who have to have their children in hospital on social and other grounds. There are far too few beds, and many mothers-to-be have to make emergency bed service arrangements. This means that they do not know which hospital will take them until they enter labour, the general practitioner has to phone around to try for a bed, time passes and not only does the mother have the psychological upset, but her child's life is jeopardised by the delay. In the hospitals deliveries take place in labour rooms, in rooms pressed freshly into this service, and also in the corridors on many occasions. The conditions can only get worse".
Does the Minister know how many mothers are giving birth to children in hospital corridors? How many of his hon. Friends' wives are faced with that kind of situation? Is it right that this situation should exist in 1961 when we claim to have a comprehensive Health Service? This is an appalling anxiety for a young woman expecting her first child. This is one of the matters to which the Minister should be giving urgent attention. He talked about humanising the
276
hospital service, and he was quite right to point out the importance of human relations in obstetrics. He should give priority attention to this problem. I hope that he will devote as much energy to solving this problem as he devoted to saving 1s. 1d. on each bottle of orange juice for the same mother.
Just as important as hospital buildings and the provision of an adequate number of beds is the question of the people serving inside the hospitals. It is disastrous that the House of Commons will not have the opportunity of a full day's debate on the Platt Report. What happens about the Platt Report and about the medical staff will to a great extent shape the hospital service in the next ten years. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North made out a cogent case for making haste and not delaying the review of consultant posts.
The recommendations of the Platt Committee should be complied with. The Minister is still waiting for the profession. He could well assemble the necessary facts from regional hospital boards and this would enable him to make quick decisions on this subject rather than awaiting the outcome of what appears to be quite a long-drawn-out debate between the Ministry and the profession.
I want to draw attention to a problem which has not been grasped either in the Platt Report, or in the discussion which has gone on around it. That is the system of the allocation of beds to consultants. A consultant gets a number of beds and the size of that number is regarded as a status symbol. This system is antiquated and has very little place in modern medicine. It acts as a barrier to healthy team work between consultants. The whole trend of modern medicine is to get away from the individuality of the "star" who does marvellous operations single-handed. There is team work between teams of doctors. The question of the allocation of beds should receive the Minister's urgent attention. There should be a now system of organisation in this respect.
The question of the organisation of consultants' and specialists' salaries has been mentioned in relation to Whitley Councils. Like my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North, I doubt very much whether the establishing of the new grade of medical assistant will help

277
solve some of the major problems of frustration which are occurring amongst the medical staff in hospitals. This new grade could still be a backwater. It could be the S.H.M.O.s under another name. It could mean that the vexed problem of the time-expired registrars will be shelved by calling them all medical assistants.
It is a scandal that we have well over 140 time-expired registrars and nobody seems to worry very much about it. Some of them have higher qualifications. Some of them have for some years been doing consultant work with very little supervision, yet they still remain the forgotten men of medicine. In answer to a Question of mine the other day the Minister showed that the cost of upgrading them to consultants would be relatively small. I can see no reason whatever why the Minister cannot take a step in this direction without awaiting his long negotiation on the Platt Report.
We should very carefully examine the case being made out this afternoon by my hon. Friends for the adaptation of the Whitley Council machinery to the real needs of the Health Service. I only want to deal with the Whitley B Committee and its total failure to deal with medical staff in hospitals. It is appalling that Mr. Holmes Sellors, a member of the Platt Committee and chairman of the Joint Consultants Committee, should have said, of Committee B:
"… it was a perfectly appalling body to sit in. Each side spoke; each side knew what it would accept. To try, in such circumstances, to get agreement just did not add up. It simply meant that each side stated its case, a move was made, and then each side went away to consider the next move. All that led to the most regrettable length of time needed for the solution of any major problem."
That was said by Mr. Holmes Sellors and reported in the British Medical Journal on 17th December. When the chairman of the Joint Consultants Committee makes such a statement, it is time for the Minister to see whether we should not have some other form of arrangement in order to reach a solution on conditions of service and pay.
The failure of the Whitley Council was one of the reasons which led to so much unhappiness which, as the Minister rightly said, has been a thing of the past since the Pilkington Report. However, the very fact that that kind of thing can go on is
278
indicative of the need for a fresh approach to the problem. The Government should not just rest on the laurels of Pilkington and say, "We are out of the wood now. We will wait for something else to blow up". The Government should consider whether fresh machinery more geared to Health Service needs is desirable.
Any discussion of hospital service personnel must include mention of the terrific shortage of nurses. Last year's Ministry of Labour Gazette showed the following vacancies: trained nurses, 6,750; student nurses, 7,468; midwives, 929; pupil midwives, 558; assistant nurses, 2,609; pupil assistant nurses, 1,744: total, 20,058 vacancies in nursing staffs of hospitals. Recently, at Leicester, wards had to be closed merely because of lack of staff. It is not just a question of pay and conditions.
There is something wrong with morale. There is something lacking in leadership. Those in the nursing profession are very loyal people who give devoted time and energy to the service but, for some reason, we cannot inspire them and make them feel content. The result is a high turnover of those not finishing their training. There is need for radical action here.
The general practitioner side of the service gets scant attention in this House, and I hope that the Minister's fresh approach today, when he showed himself more aware of the service as a whole and less lopsided on the hospital side, means that more attention will be given to the general practitioner sector.
By many of the nation's leaders, the family doctor service is called the key to the whole Health Service; the basis on which we build. These are the men who have to deal, day in and day out, with every family in the land. Yet, surprisingly enough, the Ministry gives them no leadership at all. That is not to be wondered at, because although there is at the Ministry headquarters a staff of 2,320, the department looking after general practice numbers only 14. What a miserable proportion.
At its head the Ministry has five under-secretaries and with 24 assistant secretaries. The general medical services are allotted half an under-secretary and half an assistant secretary to look after them—they do not even have the full-time services of one person in the

279
major grades. Of the Ministry's 38 principals, the general practitioners are fortunate in having the services of one principal and the part-services of another. Is this the driving force that is to revolutionise general practice? Is that the leadership that is to be given to the 23,000 doctors who look after a population of 52 million? If the Minister is serious about having an integrated and balanced service, he should make direct and radical changes here.
I hope that the Minister appreciates, as do most hon. Members, that the general practitioners have been prepared not to take £1 million of the pay due to them in order to get the ways and means of improving general practice. That is all to their credit, but what is the Minister doing? Does he intend to offer incentives for an appointments system? Does he not think that for people to have to wait for hours in doctors' waiting-rooms is out of date, when it is possible to have an appointments system?
Will the right hon. Gentleman help doctors to redesign their waiting-rooms and surgeries? Can we have a design unit for doctors as we have for hospitals to provide patients with a more efficient service? What is wanted is a permanent standing committee. The family doctors know what they want to improve, but there is nobody with responsibility to ensure action. There is no leadership, but only a polite game of ping pong between the Ministry and the B.M.A. until the ball falls on one side or the other, when vague action, usually too little and too late, results.
The greatest need is for training in psychiatry far general practitioners, as has been mentioned on both sides of the Committee. Very many patients entering a general practitioner's surgery could be considerably helped if there was some development on these lines. It is not generally known, but there is no recognised training in the whole country for short-term psychotherapy and social psychiatry, which includes social and community treatment.
I hope that I have been constructive—I have tried to be—and I suggest that the Minister has a ready-made instrument with which to deal with this problem. During the last ten years, 70 day
280
hospitals have been started, and they have been doing marvellous experimental work. Here we have ready-made the centres where this kind of training for general practitioners could be given.
Concern has been expressed among general practitioners about the high-pressure salesmanship used to persuade them to prescribe proprietaries. Their waste-paper baskets are the daily witness to the "glossies" that come in, and their desks a tribute to the give-away gimmicks like desk diaries, by means of which the drug houses seek to persuade them to prescribe proprietary articles.
We think of the flow of such literature and gimmicks, and then we look at the Prescriber's Notes. In competition with the high-pressure salesmenship of the drug houses, all the television advertising and the rest, all the general practitioner is given is this drab little booklet once every two months. Is the Minister satisfied that by this means he is able to get over to the general practitioner the kind of approach he wants? Would it not pay him to spend £50,000 on a good editor and good public relations to ensure that the general practitioner is helped to dispense economically?
We do not know what effect this barrage of advertising has on the general practitioner, or whether it affects him. Why not sponsor research in order to find out? The payment of a few research assistants at a university would yield a lot of information. It need only be a short-term project, but it would result in knowledge rather than propaganda. More positive steps to ensure that doctors use the British National Formulary, and not proprietaries, would do more than pious exhortations in the way of helping doctors, patients and taxpayers.
The last sector I wish to deal with is the health of workers in commerce and industry. The B.M.A. has recently published a pamphlet on the occupational health service, and this follows on twenty years of activity. The first report of the Committee on Industrial Health was published in 1941. We had the Gowers Report in 1949, and the Dale Report in 1951. In 1959, we had the I.L.O. recommendation to all its member nations. What has happened? The Government have taken a decision. They took that decision in March, 1961, and

281
published it in Cmnd. 1318. The decision was to do nothing. The Government in publishing their decision to reject the I.L.O. recommendation have also decided that there shall be no occupational health service.
The Health Service should be a quadrangle but, so far, only three sides have been filled. The fourth side is an occupational health service. We need special facilities for training doctors in industrial hygiene and occupational pathology and, most important of all in these days of stress, some training in the problems of assessing working capacity in relation to the job. I do not know what the result of such a medical assessment would be on hon. Members—I suspect that many of us would apply for the Chiltern Hundreds—but with all the modern nervous strain in industry and commerce medical care is needed to make sure that the man at work does not have a nervous breakdown because he is in the wrong job at the wrong time in the wrong place. Such a service would save the nation millions of pounds of hospital expenditure.
I pay tribute to the excellent work done by the Ministry of Labour, especially through its factory inspectorate which has done so much in the prevention of accidents, but the time has come for the Government to accept a central occupational health services council to combine the efforts of the two Ministries. A Department of Technical Co-operation has recently been established to take over from the Colonial Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office certain functions that tend to fall between the two Departments. Occupational health tends to fall between the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health, so let the Government take the initiative to establish a fresh council that can make sure that nothing slips through the gap between them. We should never forget that 262 million days are lost through sickness, as against 3·7 million through strikes. This is a field in which the Minister could take some action without incurring great expenditure and the increased productivity would help the nation's economy.
Previously during the year I have spent a good deal of time attacking the right hon. Gentleman, but today I am not attacking him. Today I charge the
282
Government with complete incompetence and utter lack of vision in looking after the health of the nation. Instead of bringing to these problems the professional standards of the good doctor, the Government behave like a cheapjack. Instead of making the Minister responsible for the health of the nation a senior member of the Cabinet, it uses him as an office boy of the Treasury.
I stress the importance of changing the emphasis from curative to preventive medicine, but the Government appear incapable of placing the health of the family, the worker, the young and the old above the squalid values of a profiteering society. My diagnosis is that the Government are worn out and senile and the best treatment that I can recommend is that they should go into permanent retirement a long way from Westminster.
6.52 p.m.
Mr. Robert Cooke: I will not follow the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) in reading out a long screed of praise or abuse about my right hon. Friend.
I felt, when my right hon. Friend spoke today, that it was clear from his speech that he takes nothing for granted in this new job of his and that a most human man exists behind that somewhat severe exterior. Since taking office my right hon. Friend has obviously made a thorough investigation of all sides of the National Health Service, and I am glad that he has come to the conclusion that the patient must be the focal point around which all else should revolve. It follows from that that the family doctor is also of prime importance.
The National Health Service has improved the overall picture with regard to general practitioners. We have more of them and they are more evenly distributed. Undoubtedly, the prestige of the G.P. suffered when the scheme came in. His surgery tended to be just a clearing house on the way to hospital. More patients continued to come to see him as a result of the facilities offered by the Service and, gradually, he tended to become what some people have described as nothing more than a rubber stamper of prescription forms. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There was that tendency, but if that existed then it is

283
less so today, because better cooperation now exists between the G.P.s and the hospital services with which they are trying to work and I welcome any move towards getting G.P.s closer associated with hospitals.
But there are areas, especially country areas, where the central facilities in the big towns are a long way off and here is where some of our cottage hospitals—and I know that some of them are to be closed eventually—will have to continue to back up the work of the G.P.s in the surrounding areas. There are also today many of the smaller hospitals which have absolutely first-rate honorary staffs attached to them—surgeons and consulting physicians—who give their services without payment from the National Health Service. I realise that that is objected to by many people who want an all-embracing scheme. But I urge hon. Members to remember that these people do this work in an honorary capacity and that we would lose much if we dispensed with their services.
I also believe that the doctor should be rather like the clergyman, a person of influence and importance in his locality, and not just a mere technician. I hope that even in these changing times the doctor's education and training will fit him to take that place in the community. I think that the Minister could use his influence in this sphere. I know that it must be technical and very complicated and more complicated than in my grandfather's day when he trained to be a doctor, and I also appreciate that we have not got time for the Latin and Greek that had to be learned before one started in those days. But much remains to be done in order to make the young doctor fit for his position in the community.
Many hon. Members have said that the public attitude to medicine is changing. It was not the National Health Service which started that, for it has been going on throughout the century. Certainly the Service speeded it up and the means of mass communication, of course, have gradually hurried the process along. The secrets of the operating theatre and of the consulting room are now available for all to see through the medium of television, to hear on the radio and to read about in magazines and newspapers.
284
Whether we like it or not, that has happened, but I am wondering how much my right hon. Friend and his Department have been able to co-operate with the producers, particularly of television, but also of the other media, in the production of their programmes.
Although many of them are good, some of them are very bad indeed, and I consider that they would not be so bad if the producers were in closer touch with people who could give them the expert information that they require. Medicine is no longer the mystic science it used to be. Hon. Members have said that it is right and proper that the patient should know what is going on and what is happening to him. Once again, whether we like it or not, that has happened and I hope that the Minister will bear it in mind in the reforms which he is undoubtedly going to bring about in the Service.
Mental health has also been raised today and we have seen a gradual improvement in the public attitude towards it and in the treatment given to patients. But unless we get the old institutions pulled down and get rid of them altogether, I have a feeling that we shall go on filling them with cases of one sort and another. When the facilities are there, there is bound to be a tendency to say that if there is something wrong with this or that person, he or she should be put in an institution. The old idea that if someone is funny in the head one should lock him up still persists, and as long as we have these old buildings standing I am afraid that we shall find them filled.
It is obvious that there is still not enough understanding about mental illness on the part of members of the public. For example, in Bristol the other day we had a first-rate exhibition put on by the director of our best mental institution in the city—at the Royal West of England Academy—and the exhibition concerned many aspects of the subject, including the treatment of mental patients today as compared with earlier times. The exhibition received some publicity and a good number of people went to see it, but I was distressed to find no official present from the regional hospital board headquarters, which is situated just up the road from where the exhibition was being held. I do not know whether an official did go

285
to see it or even if the regional board knew about it. However, I sent a message to the meeting of the board and urged the officials to see it. It was an exhibition which did not receive the proper attention from those connected with the service. The Minister sent his good wishes to the organisers of the exhtibition and that action on the part of my right hon. Friend was much appreciated, but obviously his officials were not fully aware of what was going on, and they should have been.
Much more still remains to be done to get the mentally ill people back into the community. I have visited certain institutions, day hospitals and clubs for the mentally affected, and many of these people, with a little help and encouragement and treatment, can live in their own homes and can go along for an hour or two a day and meet other people who have similar problems to face and, thus, can benefit by that and eventually become perfectly normal members of the community. There are always difficulties when one tries to set up a new club or a clinic or something on those lines. People nearby often object and we must exert all our influence to persuade people to accept these new ideas.
I turn now to a group of people who ought not to be in hospital at all. My noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) spoke of them in the course of his speech. Many old folk are in hospital because they have nowhere else to go. We know that. What is the solution to their problem? Should we build new homes or institutions of one kind or another for them? That can help but, of course, nothing is so good as bringing them back into their own home circle or some home circle or other, even if we cannot stop them going into hospital in the first place. Certainly, we should do all we can to prevent their having to stay in hospital. By skilled geriatric treatment in the first instance, many elderly people could be brought back into the community again.
There are, for instance, many pieces of apparatus—some of them are rather expensive—which could help old people to live normal lives if only they had access to them. One knows of old people whose only infirmity is that they cannot get in and out of a bathtub. There are many inventions which could help them, but I have found that not
286
enough is known about such things. I only discovered them myself because, when walking down Wigmore Street, I saw them in a shop window. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear that matter in mind.
Mrs. Slater: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the Minister should give financial help to old people to buy such apparatus, or is he hoping that they will be able to buy it for themselves out of their present old-age pension?
Mr. Cooke: I think I made it perfectly clear that I wanted my right hon. Friend to bear that in mind when trying to distribute the available money over all the matters which hon. Members have raised. I said that such apparatus was often expensive. We are talking about the National Health Service, and I think it is obvious that those guiding the Service should try to deal with these problems.
I read in the most recent Report of the Ministry of Health that some local authorities have thought up the revolutionary idea that, within their home help organisation, they could arrange for one home help to look after a group of old people. This seemed a revolutionary idea to the person who wrote the Report. At any rate, it had not been tried very often before. Surely, that is the way to go about tackling this problem.
In my constituency, I have, I am sure, more almshouses than are to be found in the constituency of any other hon. Member. While I do not suggest that all old people should be put into almshouses, I believe that the functions of a matron in charge of an almshouse who looks after the needs of several old people could very often be carried out by a home help in people's own homes in a small area. If a person were looking after a small group of elderly people, she or he—I assume that it would usually be she—would get to know them extremely well and would be able to care for them in much the same way as old folk are cared for in almshouses.
Many old people find themselves, so to speak, at the mercy of the State, having to be dealt with by some form of Government action, because their own families, their own relations and their own friends have failed them. I believe

287
that there is a growing tendency for people to think that, because we have the Welfare State, we can shirk our responsibilities to our own families, to our parents, to our grandparents and to old people generally. If, in this bingo-playing age, half the people who waste their time on that ridiculous sport gave a few hours of thought and care to some of the older members of their families, many of our problems would be solved. Lest any hon. Member should think that I am singling out a particular sport, there are quite a lot—
Mr. Denis Howell: On behalf of all sportsmen, I very much object to the hon. Member including bingo in that category.
Mr. Cooke: I withdraw anything to which the hon. Member takes exception because I know that he represents a particularly sporting community, and I should not include any of his friends in that category.
Even if the family has failed, and even if the State cannot do all that is necessary to help old people, there are several voluntary services willing and able to help, but often people do not know about them. Again, I am sure that my right hon. Friend, with the human approach he is adopting in going about all these things, will do what he can to bring to the attention of all who may need them the services which are available, whether they are connected directly with the National Health Service or are part of the work of some voluntary organisation.
At the beginning of this year, I spent sixty days in the United States of America. I found that there were three great issues in the minds of most Americans. One was the prospect of "socialised medicine"—that was the name they used to describe it—which worried them very much. The second was what we would do in regard to the Common Market. The third, I think, was nuclear weapons.
Mr. Wilkins: And the next was how to pay their medical bills.
Mr. Cooke: We could do much to help our great friends and allies in bringing about some form of national health service as, undoubtedly, they are deter-
288
mined to do. My right hon. Friend has much to do in this country, but I am sure that he will offer what help he can to our friends across the Atlantic who are desperately anxious about all these things and who desperately need our help.
Mr. Wilkins: I was in America about three years ago and I had the issue of socialised medicine raised with me. Medical men in America said to me, "It is a damned good scheme, but we hope that it never comes here". Why?
Mr. Cooke: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) in quite the language he used.
Mr. Wilkins: That was what was said to me.
Mr. Cooke: It was not the language which my friends in America used about our National Health Service. Many of them thought that it had good qualities, but they were worried lest they should have something exactly like it over there. What they were really afraid of was the sort of National Health Service which we had at the beginning, ten years ago.
Mr. W. Griffiths: What is wrong with that?
Mr. Cooke: We have improved it a great deal since. I think that my right hon. Friend could do a good deal to help our American friends by explaining to them the sort of difficulties we have discovered and some of the problems which we still have. We could well work together on that.
I receive letters on a great number of subjects, but the only complaint about the National Health Service I received during the whole of last year came from a man who said that he had sent a copy of his complaint to Her Majesty the Queen, the Lord Mayor of Bristol, the chief constable, the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Prime Minister. I assure the Committee that his complaint was completely frivolous.
The hon. Member for St. Pancras North (Mr. K. Robinson) said that we had the best health service in the world. I do not quarrel with that, but I think that hon. Members will realise from what they have heard already this afternoon that, even if we have the best

289
health service in the world, my right hon. Friend and his hon. Friends on this side of the Committee are determined to have a yet better one.
7.8 p.m.
Mr. W. A. Wilkins: I was very interested to hear the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) relate his experiences in the United States. I am prompted to tell the Committee that, during the course of a few weeks in the United States myself, I had the opportunity of talking about what he quite correctly said that Americans call our socialised health services.
I was amazed at the amount of interest shown in our National Health Service, and I was left in no doubt, either by private individuals or by the profession itself, that people regarded our scheme as an excellent one. But, of course, medical men in America are desperately afraid that such a scheme may come there as a result of what Americans discover when they visit this country, as they are doing now in their thousands, with the consequence that one of the most lucrative porfessions, if not the most lucrative profession, in the whole of the United States may lose its present position of advantage.
It is a fact that the mortician's, or undertaker's, profession and the medical profession are the two wealthiest professions in America. Doctors in America are not likely readily to forgo their present position if they can possibly prevent a national health service being instituted there.
I also met a number of people connected in one form or another with American Government departments. They were the equivalent of civil servants in this country. Even they expressed the gravest apprehension to me that, although they took out insurance policies for which they paid huge sums—I think that Blue Cross is one—they were still fearful of having to go into hospital for an operation because of the sum of money which they would have to pay in addition to that for which they were covered by their insurance policy in the event of their choosing the surgeon who should carry out the operation. In other words, there was a general surgeon who carried out operations on people
290
insured under a Blue Cross policy, but if a person wished to have someone else for whom he had a particular fancy he had to pay an additional fee. I do not think that that is the kind of medical service which the people of this country wish to have.
I sat through almost all of the earlier speeches in this debate—at least six, I believe—before I was forced to go and get a cup of tea.
Mr. Dodds: I have not had a cup of tea yet.
Mr. Wilkins: Judging from the tenor of today's speeches, I thought that I was attending a tea party of the Primrose League. I was amazed at the tolerance, to use a very mild word, of all that has happened in this country in the last twelve months. I am sorry to say that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), who reminded us that it is twelve months since we last had the opportunity to debate the National Health Service as a whole, did not take advantage of the opportunity today to launch what I think would have been a completely justified attack on the disastrous effects of the policies of the Minister of Health.
In making that criticism, I am not forgetting that the right hon. Gentleman has made some good proposals, but, after our experience in Committee on the Bill imposing the increased dental charges, and after our dicussions on the Regulations imposing the increased prescription charges, I can never forget the typical Tory reactionary attack on the fundamental basis of the Service. I can understand attacks being made on what I would call the sidelines, the incidentals, but when the Government start attacking the source from which people hope to be made well by their doctors—that is, the medicine which is prescribed for them after diagnosis—then they attack the fundamental basis of the Service. I cannot and shall not forget the attack which the Minister and his supporters have made on the Service, and I intend to remind them of it wherever they may be.
I am not trying to be churlish. I would much rather feel that I was in a position to congratulate the Minister on what he has done for the Service over which he presides, but I could not do that. On the contrary, I believe that he has brought

291
irretrievable disaster to the National Health Service since he has been Minister. There has been a sequence of attacks on the Service designed ultimately completely to undermine it. It is true that there has been many wonderful improvements, particularly in the hospital services. One can go into quite a few hospitals in Britain of the type to which the hon. Member for Bristol, West referred.
I wish to tell the Committee about what has happened in the oldest building being used for medical purposes in Bristol. I refer to the building at Stapleton which was built to accommodate French prisoners of war. It was a Poor Law institution. Then it was used for mentally defective people, whose illness was of a not too serious character. It has been converted, more or less, into a general hospital to accommodate chronic cases and elderly people. Anyone who goes to that building is able to see what can be accomplished by a committee or board determined to make a success of the job which it has been given. It is a worth institution. It is true that the architecture is not all that could be desired, but I do not think that many people would be unduly disturbed if they found themselves in this building being cared for by a very able and willing staff of nurses and doctors.
As I say, there have been great improvements in a number of our hospitals, but I do not think that much of the credit for them necessarily falls to the Minister of Health. I think that they are largely due to the ingenuity and enthusiasm, not only of the members of the hospital committees, but especially of the staff, particularly the maintenance staff.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he is in a position to promise us that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not attack his proposals for new or improved hospital accommodation in the near future. We have so often heard expounded in this Chamber wonderful plans for new roads and new schools and for great advances in the social services. I could not help but think when I heard the Minister announce his ten-year plan that, as usual, his proposals were for the very dim and distant future. I hope that that is not the case.
292
When the Minister considered the formulation of a plan for the development of the hospital services, I do not believe that he intended anything other than to bring it into being. However, I doubt very much whether he will be permitted to carry out many of the proposals which he has briefly outlined to the House of Commons. It seems obvious to me that there will be cuts in many of our social services. Since the Chancellor of the Exchequer exhorted, encouraged or instructed the Minister of Health to make cuts in the welfare foods and services and to increase the prescription charges, and so on, one can have but very little faith that, if he is driven to drastic action, he will not ask the Minister of Health to come to his assistance, and, if not to cut out things in the right hon. Gentleman's programme, to slow them down.
The part of the Minister's speech which appealed to some of my hon. Friends and to me was his reference to the human considerations that we have to bring to bear when considering the services which we provide for the people. I took particular note of his reference to the trouble of noise in our hospitals. What I did not understand was whether he was referring to internal noise in the hospitals, such as the noise of trolleys being wheeled about, or to the noise from which patients suffer due to the location of the hospital.
I suppose that in almost all our great cities, certainly in the older cities, the larger general hospitals were as a rule located in the centre, at the heart of the cities. One can understand that, of course. The hon. Member for Bristol, West will know that we have a clear example of that in Bristol, in the Royal Infirmary and Bristol General Hospital, part of the Royal Hospital group, built many years ago, especially the older part of Bristol Royal Infirmary which is almost in the heart of the city. Now today, with the areas around built up and a massive flow of traffic, there is created all manner of noises, of course. Cars have to change gear going up a bit of a slope just outside the institution, and one can well understand how this must cause considerable disturbance and to some extent annoyance to the patients. The remedy for a situation like that is, undoubtedly, to build new hospitals and to locate them in some part of

293
the city where they will be more or less noise free or trouble free.
I should like to make a suggestion to the Minister about this on behalf of Bristol. This is something which has been talked about in our city for a good many years, and it is really two suggestions in one. There was a time when we were talking about a transfer of Bristol Royal Infirmary or adding to it and having it as a teaching hospital on an admirable site known as Ashton Court where there is any amount of ground that could be used. It is almost completely secluded, a wonderful place to build a hospital, if anyone has the will to do it.
I make a plea for my own constituency on a matter about which I have already had communication with the Minister. As far back as 1936 we had planned a hospital on the south side of the city. This would be right on the outskirts and literally noise free. The site accepted for development was an old airport site with plenty of land around, ideal for the building of a general hospital. I say that as an addition to what I have already said in representations I have made to the Minister about it. I hope very sincerely that in due course the Minister may find it possible to say "Yes" to the requests of my constituents who number a good many thousands.
I hope that the Minister will listen to this because it is a very important point. On the housing estates in my constituency—there are three or four of them now, I believe, so the position is pretty well impregnable from our point of view—
Mr. Iremonger: Famous last words.
Mr. Wilkins: But not because I am defeated.
In those housing estates there are more residents than there are in the town of Taunton. I am not talking about electors, but there are more people resident in those estates than there are in the population of Taunton. I did know how many general practitioners there were practising in Taunton. I believe there are forty-one. For many years on the housing estates I am referring to we had difficulty in getting even one general practitioner to go to live there. We had to provide a service of student
294
doctors from Bristol General Hospital whereby they could be called upon from the hospital to go to the estates to attend people in desperate need—people perhaps taken suddenly ill.
I must make one or two other points, but only one or two. One was raised by the Minister when he referred to the drug bill. I think he said that in England and Wales alone the cost was £100,000 a year and that some steps must be taken—
Mr. Powell: £100 million.
Mr. Wilkins: Yes, of course. I had a note of £100 million, but I did not notice the last three noughts.
The right hon. Gentleman said that some steps must be taken to recover some of the waste which arises. I think that is what the Minister said.
Mr. Powell: I said that in dealing with so large a sum as that it was the duty of anyone asking this Committee to provide it to ensure that waste in that total was kept to the minimum and the best value obtained for the sum.
Mr. Wilkins: I thank the Minister for elucidating that. I appreciate the point. My general comment on that, the comment I intended to make about it, is that I believe that if the Government had spent one half of their time planning the productive effort of this country, to increase the production of this country rather than see it decline, as we know it has declined by 1 per cent. per head, if they had increased the productive capacity of this country comparable at all with that of the 12 per cent. of the European Common Market countries with whom we are now flirting, we should have had no need whatever to introduce those cuts, no need whatsoever to impose the increase in prescription and dental charges. There would have been no need for that if we had increased the national income.
But this doctrinaire Government, who never seem to see an inch beyond their nose, do not think in terms of this sort. All they think about is ruthless cutting back. We know what happened in 1929. They did precisely the same thing. They have never changed. I do not believe they ever will. It is not in their

295
political nature to change their ideals and policies in this connection.
The Minister of Health is probably one of the keenest brains in the Government, especially when it comes to finance. Look how he used to treat us when he was at the Exchequer. We always used to know that if anything ruthless was to be done about anything they would put up the right hon. Gentleman, then the Financial Secretary, to do it. He has got this keen brain, and I wonder that he himself does not try to compel the Government to think in terms of improving the economic position, improving the productive capacity of this country, so that we could meet the growing charges.
These charges will always go on growing. We must not shut our eyes to the fact. These charges will mount year by year. We shall have to go on increasing charges for prescriptions, dentures, spectacles, and so on, unless we take other steps to reinforce the economy of the country.
Mr. John Hall: Do I understand from what the hon. Gentleman is saying that if the figure of £100 million, which is now the amount of the drug bill, were to fall as a percentage of the whole and of the national income, we need no longer then be concerned with waste which might be in the net figure, wastage with which my right hon. Friend is very rightly concerned?
Mr. Wilkins: No. I was not suggesting anything of the sort. That was not in my mind at all. I was thinking only of the fact that to meet or partially to meet the drug bill the Minister of Health has increased the prescription charges to 2s. per item. What I said was that if we had increased the productivity capacity of this country at the same speed as we were doing up to 1951 there would have been no need to increase the charges. The Conservative Government allege that the Labour Party is a doctrinaire party, but the Conservative Party is far more doctrinaire than the Labour Party has been over the years.
I think that that is all I shall say, all that I ought to say. There are some things I wanted to say about prescription charges, but I will skip them so that
296
other hon. Members may have a chance to speak. There were some quite important points I believe I could have made on the prescription charges, but I finish with these words to let someone else have a chance to take part in the debate.
7.30 p.m.
Dr. Donald Johnson: Although this is not exactly the first day in Parliament that we have debated the National Health Service since my right hon. Friend the Minister took up his present office, I hoped that I would have been able to say that it was the first day that we had been able to discuss it without party polemics, but I am afraid that I cannot do so after listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Bristol. South (Mr. Wilkins).
It is, however, the first formal debate that we have had and I think that it would be out of place not to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the grasp and vision he has shown in the past year of the problems of the National Health Service. We welcome, in particular, the direct action he is taking concerning the hospitals and the way in which he is cutting through the jungle of reports of working party committees, Royal Commissions and so forth, which have tended to encumber the scene up to date and which have become somewhat discredited over the past ten years by their lack of constructive suggestion.
As there are many hon. Members who want to speak in this debate and who have only a short time to do so, I shall try to concentrate my remarks on one point and to follow the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) in what he said about general practice. I hope that my right hon. Friend when he has finished his immediate plans for the hospitals will direct his live mind towards the problems of general practice.
We have heard in previous debates—my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) referred to it a couple of years ago—of the alleged drop in status of the general practitioner. There is a large element of truth in that and it is no consolation to know that this is not exclusive to this country and is happening in the whole of the democratic world.

297
In looking at the position of the general practitioner, the first thing that we tend to hear of, and have heard of in recent years, is the legend of the overworked doctor, to which the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) referred in his opening speech. That is something that we have to dispel, to take with a grain of salt, because it is actually belied by the statements of doctors themselves. I recommend my right hon. Friend and also the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North, to read in the issue of 5th July, 1958, of the supplement of the British Medical Journal, an "American Report on the National Health Service", by Professor Gemmill of the University of Pennsylvania. It is typical of the beaver-like reports which we get from Americans when they investigate things.
Professor Gemmill spent a year in this country calling on doctors and asking them and their patients various questions. He took as a sample 372 doctors in 139 practices whose lists had a general average of 2,283 patients, 53 per cent. having fewer than the average and 47 per cent. more, so that it was a very general sample of doctors. He put the following question to them all: "With your present list of patients do you find it easy or difficult, or almost impossible, to give them what you regard as adequate medical care?"
As he said in his article, the answers surprised him, as possibly they will surprise the Committee, for 54·8 per cent. of those doctors said that they found it reasonably easy to manage, 37·8 per cent. said that they found it difficult, and only 3·4 per cent.—a very small percentage indeed—said that they found it almost impossible to do an adequate job.
Going further, Professor Gemmill found that in a considerable number of cases that the answers did not even correspond to the size of the practices. He said that 13 per cent. of the doctors who answered "difficult" had fewer than the average, and in two cases fewer than 1,000 patients, while 18½ per cent. of those who had more than the average replied that it was "reasonably easy". This question of the overwork among doctors is not quite the problem that it is represented to be. In particular, it depends on the idiosyncracy of the doctor how he works his practice, and so on. There are almost as many dif-
298
ferent ways of organising a practice, as there are doctors in practice today.
Whereas we can perhaps dismiss for the sake of the argument the idea that doctors as a whole are an overworked profession, what is a fact today is that their work is, under present conditions, dull, dreary and to a large extent disheartening. It consists not in coping with the difficult and interesting problems of medicine which they have seen in hospitals and have been trained to deal with, but largely in dealing with certificates, repeat prescriptions, specialists' letters and pharmaceutical circulars. I think that I can say with truth that during the time I was in general practice, immediately before I came to this House, a great deal more paper passed through my hands daily than has passed through my hands while I have been a Member of Parliament, and that is really saying something.
It is also beyond doubt that the work of the general practitioner is over-weighted in dealing with minor maladies at the expense of what the doctor feels is his real work, which is tending to drift into the hands of the hospitals. He inevitably has the feeling that his status and his work as a whole are being reduced almost to that of a medical orderly, while circumstances do not allow him under present conditions, particularly in general practices in the towns, to do the work for which he was trained.
The Platt Committee's Report has already been mentioned during the course of the debate and has something to say about this. We have the following position owing to the outstanding lack of integration of the Service which I personally have mentioned previously in these debates. On the one hand, we have the general practitioner very conscious of his deprived position in the respect that I have mentioned, and, on the other, we have the hospitals, short of assistant staff, having to employ staff from overseas and so on. Up to date, except in one or two places—I think that it has been done to a small extent in Birmingham and probably in some of the country districts where integration is much closer—we have had these two problems side by side without any serious attempt to marry them. This is a condemnation of the three divisions of the Service which I and many other hon.

299
Members have talked about in the House. I hope that my right hon. Friend will direct his attention as a matter of urgency towards this particular recommendation of the Pratt Report.
When my right hon. Friend does that, I hope that he will not entirely visualise the position as concentrating the doctors' help as clinical assistants, and so on, as is recommended, in large centralised hospitals. I hope that he will not entirely eliminate the cottage hospitals, which have done such splendid work, even though they may in some respects have to change their function. There is no question that the integration of these small hospitals with the general practitioner, which does not occur in the towns, is responsible for the fact, which we have to face—and I say this as a townsman—that the standard of general practice and doctoring as a whole is considerably better in the country than in the towns.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will still regard the cottage hospitals and the smaller hospitals as places and centres where general practitioners can find a great deal of interesting work without having to travel many miles into the towns. Nowadays, with the use of motor vehicles, distances are not great, but it still eats up a doctor's time if he has to travel twenty or thirty miles to do part of his day's work. Even when it comes to surgery, a well-trained general practitioner can take out an appendix every bit as well as a newly qualified house officer in hospital, who is frequently the man who has to do this type of operation.
Mr. Arthur Holt: The hon. Member extols the work of the cottage hospitals. Has he ever had experience of one as a patient?
Dr. Johnson: No, I cannot say that I have, although I have had some acquaintance with them. I am not defending cottage hospitals as places for major surgery. I merely make the plea that they should not be eliminated and that they should be able to carry on in, perhaps, a modified form.
Mr. Holt: Unless I misunderstood the hon. Member, he has been suggesting that the cottage hospitals are better than the hospitals in the towns.
Dr. Johnson: No. I said that the standard of general practice was, on the whole, better in the country than in the town. I am sorry if I gave the wrong impression. Nobody can seriously pretend that cottage hospitals are places for major and complicated surgery. One does not want to see them eliminated entirely, however.
Rather than that, one would like to see health centres—about which we do not talk very much in the House of Commons nowadays; we have rather lost sight of them—extended to the towns, where general practitioners could do more advanced work than they can at present, although not as multiple surgeries. The whole idea of health centres has tended to degenerate. To use health centres as multiple surgeries, with four of five doctors and the patients collected in a joint waiting room is not the proper idea.
In my view, they should be places where general practitioners can do minor surgery and pathological examination and have X-ray and other facilities available which enable them to do a proper standard of work which in so many places today they are quite unable to do, even with the best will in the world. It is towards these ideas that I wish to direct my right hon. Friend's attention.
A great many of our debates this year on the National Health Service have centred around the financial aspect in a rather unconstructive fashion. It is far more to the point if we can look at the points where the financial equilibrium of the service is threatened and if we can see whether in the development of the Service we cannot pay attention to these points.
There are two conspicuous ways in which the financial equilibrium of the Service is threatened. One is the load of elderly people that the Service has to carry. That is not to suggest that we should avoid dealing with the problem, but we have to deal with it by establishing an efficient geriatric service. One has only to go to places, of which Oxford and Winchester are examples, which deal with these problems at an early stage and efficiently to see not only how much better the work is dealt with but how much more economically it is handled.
In talking about the Service, it is the greatest error to think that the spending

301
of money automatically brings efficiency, whereas very often the reverse is the case. This is particularly true in the medical service when dealing with elderly people. If it is possible to get the elderly people at an early stage, to keep them mobile and to nurse them at home, one not only treats them more efficiently but saves a great deal of money.
The second threatening factor is the load of minor illness which the Service has to carry, and which, of course, has to be handled, too. One of the fundamental objects of the Service is that people should be able to come to the doctor at an early stage with minor symptoms to get their illnesses properly diagnosed, in case it is the one case in 500 of cancer or serious heart disease, for example.
There has to be a stage in doing that where the minor illness must be separated from the major illness. One of the faults of the Service—it is a fundamental fault as well as a fault of expenditure—is that this stage of separation between minor and major illness has gone beyond the general practitioner. There are a large number of factors in this. The general practitioner may have the urge from the patient to go to hospital or to see a specialist. He lacks the financial incentive to see his patient too often. A cumulative number of reasons of this kind has tended to pass this stage of segregation from the general practitioner, where it should be and where it always has been traditionally until recent years, on to the hospital. That again is not only inefficient but it is infinitely more expensive.
According to recent figures, the average cost of a single out-patient attendance at hospital is about 17s. 6d., but a general practitioner attends a patient for a whole year for practically that sum. That is the difference in cost between dealing with the minor illness at the general practitioner stage and dealing with it at the hospital stage.
The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North talked about crowded and inefficient out-patient departments, and he was quite right to do so. The reason is the number of people who are being sent to the hospital out-patient departments. The hon. Member talked about the shortage of consultants, and he was quite right. The reason for the shortage is the
302
number of people who are sent to consultants.
One of the cures, as the hon. Member said, is to provide more consultants. The other is to make certain that facilities are provided to enable these people to be dealt with at an early stage. We must give general practitioners facilities in the manner which I have urged. We must also give back to the general practitioner his self-confidence, the incentive and the general verve which he has lost since the beginning of the Health Service and also as a result of factors which have nothing to do with the development of that Service.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at these things and also at the method of remuneration of general practitioners. We missed a big chance when the Pilkington Committee was appointed in not giving it the opportunity to pay greater attention to and consider a wider basis for the method of remuneration for general practitioners as well as the actual amount. As is perhaps well known by now, I am a deadly enemy of the capitation fee. I think it is quite the worst possible way of paying doctors. There is an interesting suggestion in the correspondence columns of the British Medical Journal that doctors might be offered an item for service for special work on top of the capitation fee. Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend has only a million £s to play with, at the moment, but I hope that he will direct his attention to these matters.
I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend talk about the problem of communication between patient and doctor. I congratulate him on the initiative that he has shown in this respect. I talk as a member of the medical profession when I say that there is no question that the profession in this country is too aloof in its attitude towards the patient. One does not always find this elsewhere and it is extraordinary how one finds different manners in the most unexpected places.
We think of the Germans as an authoritarian people, yet during the war, when I was stationed at a hospital in this country where we were dealing with repatriated prisoners, we found that they all said that before German doctors operated or did anything to a patient

303
they always explained everything carefully. It is apparently the custom of German doctors to do that and to draw diagrams and ask the patient's permission to cut this or that bit away.
It is quite different in this country, where one hears stories, not entirely apocryphal, of ladies going into a hospital and losing vital organs before they realise exactly what is happening to them. This aloofness or lack of communication is not the custom of the medical profession as a whole, but it appears to be something of a peculiarity of the profession in this country, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend had something to say on the subject.
I was also glad to hear what he and other hon. Members had to say about mental illness and to think that the mental health revolution about which we have been talking for some years in the House of Commons is at last coming to fruition in the provinces and in places where it really matters that local authorities should be putting it into effect. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give these enthusiastic people, as most of them are, some guidance and show them a model plan of what they are expected to do. A number of them are quite vague on the subject.
In some cases one finds hospitals putting these ideas into effect, in other places local authorities, whilst in other cases little is happening. It would be a good thing if my right hon. Friend could promulgate a model plan showing people what is expected of each body concerned and what can be done by integrated action. Here again we are up against the question of the division of services and it will require intensive leadership from my right hon. Friend before this problem of division is overcome.
I wish again to express the appreciation not only of all hon. Members—because we have had it expressed from hon. Members opposite as well as on this side of the Committee—but of the people of the country as a whole of what my right hon. Friend has done since his inception to his present office.
7.56 p.m.
Mr. Norman Dodds: As I listened to the Minister's speech I could not help thinking what a remarkable man and personality he is.
304
Over the months he has appeared to me to be a sort of Jekyll and Hyde. I cannot help thinking what a different man he has shown himself to be today from the man who dealt with National Health prescription charges. There was not an atom of humanity in his eyes or in his speech when he dealt with that subject which means so much to the people of this country, but today he presented an entirely different picture. He stood at the Dispatch Box, with his eyes blazing and his arms apart, talking about humanising the hospital service. I liked him better that way and I hope to see him again many times as Minister of Health in that pose.
I think, however, that that beautiful picture was somewhat spoilt when my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. LI. Williams) intervened in the right hon. Gentleman's speech and asked him what powers he had in connection with this wonderful business of communication, of father and mother and relatives being told what was happening to the patient, of in-patients and out-patients being treated as people, and of remembering that the hospitals are there for the patients.
My hon. Friend asked the right hon. Gentleman what powers he had to ensure that these things were introduced into many hospitals which are still a long way short of the picture which he painted. The right hon. Gentleman replied, as we expected, that there were no powers of compulsion. He said that we had no need of them; that we had had committees sitting and publicity had been given to their reports and that, sooner or later, all this would percolate to the backwoods. What hard luck it would be for the Bell or Brown family to hear about Aunt Clara living in a progressive part of the country when their hospital services are in the backwoods.
It is up to the Minister of Health to pool all these ideas and to see that as far as possible they are introduced even in the backwoods. My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) spoke about the need for some action and a dynamic personality. Is this the response to that appeal? My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) gave us a good picture of the people who attend some hospitals as out-patients. The doctor's time is

305
valuable, but not that of the patient. He spoke of hospitals introducing an appointments system, but for the benefit of the doctor, not that of the patient.
My hon. Friend spoke of people sitting waiting on hard benches. The benches in this Chamber are hard enough but patients, who are sick people, have to sit on wooden benches. These people are not in full health, as I am. Can we not provide something better for them than wooden benches? My hon. Friend mentioned an instance where each patient has to move up one place as the other is called in by the doctor. He appealed for the introduction of a system of numbers that could be called out so that patients do not wear their trousers out through moving up on wooden benches.
I can tell the Minister that if he is to be humanitarian, he must do a lot more than he did this afternoon. I, for one, shall be watching what happens. There are no party politics in the matter of sick people. The Minister would find in me a supporter if he were trying to carry out the things that he said this afternoon. But we are "fed up" with fine speeches. What we want is some action.
The question of communications has arisen. The noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) said that it would be a marvellous thing for the father to know what was happening about the mother, and he went so far as to say that he would even have the father present at the birth of his child.
Lord Balniel: I said that the father should have the right if he so wished, but I did not necessarily advocate it.
Mr. Dodds: If the father had the right, that would be good enough; he would be at the birth if he insisted. But he would not be there now because he is not allowed; he can be told to keep out. However, judging by the trembling which I have seen on the part of fathers-to-be, I hardly think that they would be much assistance if present at a birth. I would hesitate about giving a father the right to be present at the birth of his child. Probably the noble Lord knows more about this than I do. I have only two children. Probably the noble Lord speaks from greater experience.
Lord Balniel: I have four children.
Mr. Dodds: There have been references to matters of security and to people being in danger from persons who have suffered from mental illness. The Minister has been asked about Rampton. Will the violent people be sent there, or are they to be in secure places in local hospitals?
There is another aspect of this to be considered. We have to bear in mind the parents of the patient. I know of an old lady who travelled every month for eighteen years from Bristol to Rampton—fourteen hours there and back—just to see her son. This raises the matter of the length of visits. That old lady, travelling for fourteen hours from Bristol to Rampton and back, could see her son for one and a half hours probably once a month. That is where we need some humanity.
The Minister told us that a high-powered committee had said that Rampton, with its 1,200 patients, should be broken up into smaller units so that patients might be within reasonable distance from their homes and their relatives would have an opportunity to see them. The present position is ghastly for 1961. There is a greater need in this respect than there is for a father to be present at the occasional birth of a child. I should like to hear more about what is to happen to Rampton. Not every patient there is violent. I believe that half the patients there are not. The reason why many are there is that they kept running away from their local mental hospital and made themselves a nuisance. Rampton and Moss Side are the only institutions which have the requisite security to prevent such patients from being a nuisance.
We must have regard to the position of parents, most of whom are middle-aged or elderly, who have to travel long distances, year in and year out, to see their sons or daughters who are undergoing, in effect, not a five-year, ten-year or fifteen-year, but an endless sentence. We have to bear in mind the situation of poor parents, including those who have retired and have little money to spare. It sounds good when one talks about getting National Assistance, but one ought to try to get it and find out how difficult it is. We need some more humanity in this respect, and it can easily be provided.

307
The other day I asked the Minister how many patients up to the latest convenient date had been reclassified under the Sixth Schedule of the new Act as informal patients and haw many of them had subsequently been discharged. The Minister replied that comprehensive statistics would be available only from the end of the six months' transitional period, but he said that a small sample relating to sub-normal patients suggested that rather more than half the patients detained on 1st November last were reclassified as informal. Yet there are tens of thousands of them. The Minister also said that about one in twenty of them had left hospital by the end of April.
I was delighted to hear from the Minister that it was expected that in the near future there would be 50 per cent. fewer beds for the mentally sick. I make no apology for devoting some time to this, because it is a fact that nearly half the hospital beds in Britain for all illnesses are occupied by people who are mentally sick or mentally sub-normal. Consequently, it is one of the most important aspects of the Health Service.
What the Minister told us was wonderful news, but I was staggered to hear him say—I cannot understand it even now, and I should like some further explanation—that the need in respect of the mentally defective and mentally sub-normal is likely to increase. Why? The Minister said that he may need even more beds. I should like to have this cleared up.
Mr. Powell: I said that the future requirement of places in hospital for the sub-normal cannot at present be expected to decrease in the way that the beds for the mentally ill can for the simple reason that the population of the subnormal is continuing to increase as a result of the increase in the expectation of life, and until there is some dramatic medical change, we must make that calculation.
Mr. Dodds: I can understand that, but what about the other more than compensating calculation in respect of the mental defectives or the sub-normal? Before the passing of the new Act, many mentally sick patients were informal patients and could leave at will, but all mental defectives were certified and compulsorily detained. In the mental
308
defective hospitals there have been, and are today, many who have no need to be there. They are not there because they are medical cases. According to evidence placed before the Royal Commission, there are many there because of social rather than medical needs. They could be released if there were homes for them to go to.
There is a mental defective hospital near my home, and there are patients there who for many years have been going out daily and working in the district. Nobody would know that they were different from anybody else in the district. Some of them are earning good wages. But because nobody will give them a home they have to go back at night into the mental hospital. There could be a great clearing out of such people. A large percentage of patients in mental defective hospitals are getting no treatment at all and have not had any for years. They are there simply because they have no place to go to and nobody will have them.
The public would rather have someone from a prison than someone who has been in a mental hospital. Their attitude is that a person who has been in a mental defective hospital may look all right, but one never knows whether, when the moon is full, he may pick up a knife and stick it in one's back. When I had two mental defectives with me for Christmas, two years ago, some neighbours were worried; they were worried that they would get killed—never mind me. That seems to be the general feeling.
The noble Lord raised a very important point. He spoke about the local authorities playing a very big part, and said that their job was to provide hostels and half-way houses for these people rather than that they should have to live in hospitals. They need a bed to go to at night, and probably a warden and his wife to keep an eye on them, deal with their problems and communicate with the hospital if they see some signs that these people need looking after.
The Minister may say that there has been some development. In my inquiries I have talked to many county councillors. I am appalled at the number of county councillors who feel so lightly about the problem. As my hon. Friend

309
said, the money is not there. The block grant system will never get down to that. Many local authorities would like to do this job. I have heard about some money which will be given to them, but let us think of what the Minister could save in other ways and about the human happiness which he could create by doing this. Unless there is dynamic action in providing half-way houses and hostels the whole thing will fail. I feel that that is why he believes that he will need more beds in the hospitals for these people.
I was delighted, two weeks ago, when the right hon. Gentleman was asked a Question about a patient having been let out of hospital. He had my support, and that of many hon. Members, when he said that, in the humanising experience of getting these people back into the community, there would be need to take reasonable risks. He will have to be a brave man, but if he carries this through he will give one of the greatest services a man can give. But in conjunction with this scheme we must have homes for these people.
Reference has been made to educating the public. Most of the newspapers will have to put up a better show than they have been doing, because they can "put the wind up" the public. I will read a few lines from a recent copy of the News of the World, which goes into millions of homes. Speaking of a patient, the Report said:
"He was automatically given his liberty by the new Act after a lifetime in mental hospitals."
It is getting abroad that the new Act will open the floodgates to these people who are turned out into the community. If that idea takes hold, then the people will call those who fought for reforms irresponsible. The Act gives all the necessary protection. No patient over the age of 25 can go out automatically under the Act. There are safeguards, if he is a danger to himself and to others, which allow the doctors to keep him inside. When an incident does occur, someone will have to tell the public of the great successes which have accompanied this scheme.
I conclude on this matter because, too often, hon. Members are not close enough to know of the successes, but they can read in the newspapers about the failures. Some time ago, I asked
310
that, as an experiment, two young men who had been sixteen years in Rampton should be told that their endless sentence could come to an end if they would cooperate with the staff for six months. They would not co-operate—but who would? There seemed no end to their sentence. I was asked to go along and tell them that if they would co-operate for six months there would be a recommendation for transfer to an ordinary hospital near my home so that I could see them. From that time onwards there was a remarkable transformation.
So well did they behave that they were allowed to go out of Rampton four and a half months later. These were the two who spent Christmas at my home. One boy was a good case. He spent his 36th birthday at my home, but there were only six candles on his cake—for the six years he had spent in freedom. He had spent thirty years in institutions. We got him a job in the local "co-op" two weeks later and he became a marvellous craftsman. He not only repaired ladies' shoes, but made miniature sets of shoes as well. In a short while, he was back at home in the bed which his mother, a widow, had kept for him for sixteen years. What joy and happiness there is in that family now. He is now earning between £17 and £20 a week at a plastic factory in Birmingham.
The other boy was not such a good case. He was an only child. From middle age until they were so elderly that they were unable to do so any longer, his mother and father travelled to Rampton to see him. I had my doubts about him, but he wanted a chance for their sake. But when he came out of Rampton and went to another place he kept climbing over the wall and getting drunk. It was to him such a wonderful change from being in Rampton. But, of course, he had to go back there. A year or two ago he would have had to stay there, but there has been a great change, and I pay great tribute to the doctors who have led this change. They are leading the public in this liberalisation, although they get "kicked in the pants". They are brave men who are trying to carry out this plan.
When this young man went back to Rampton for the second time I thought, "That is too bad." However, I asked if he could be given a second chance,

311
and he was. Again, when he was transferred to Darenth Park Hospital, he went over the wall and got drunk, and fell asleep in a bus and was found incapable. I thought that that really was the end, but the medical superintendent decided to give him another chance. He talked to the boy's mother and she said that the boy would be happy if he could only come home. She said that his father and she would look after him.
Dr. Tucker, of Darenth Park, took the risk and found a winner. The chap is happy and he has a job. He earns £10 4s. a week at his work in Battersea. He gets up at 5.30 a.m. and makes a cup of tea for his mother before he goes to work. He often walks to work. He goes home in the evenings, and puts on his bedroom slippers and after dinner plays cards with his parents and then plays his accordion before going to bed. He is a model example and the happiness of his parents is quite remarkable.
Let us set all this happiness against the mistakes which happen on the other side. Let us count up the balance sheet, and I have no doubt that we will find that great work has been done, and that the right hon. Gentleman, whatever his faults, can go down into history as a great humanitarian. I wish him well.
8.16 p.m.
Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds), because I think that the whole Committee admires his doggedness and enthusiasm. He may sometimes be wrong, but he is often stimulating and he has put his finger on an extremely important point, on which I shall comment later. I found that part of his speech much more stimulating and worth following than his conscientious flogging of the dead horse of the prescription charges.
I do not intend to pursue this, but all too often I notice that hon. Members opposite—many of them making thoughtful and interesting speeches—suddenly think, "We must get in something about prescription charges", and go through their notes to read out statements which they hope will appear in their local papers to show that they are really ardent opponents of the Government. But, with respect to them, this does not cut any ice. All that water has gone
312
over the dam. It is much more important to follow the example set in the latter part of the speech of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) and to concentrate on the National Health Service today.
Perhaps this is not a bad day for the Committee to be considering the Service. It is no small tribute to the Service that the most highly paid and highly regarded artists of the Socialist fatherland should come here and spend most of their time at the dentist's getting new teeth. We can take some gratification from the fact that Russian dancers think that our National Health Service is so splendid that they have the repairs of a lifetime done to their teeth.
Mr. Denis Howell: Will the hon. Member take the comparison a little further? It is true that visitors from the Soviet Union flock to the dentist's to have free treatment, but so do visitors from the United States.
Mr. Iremonger: The treatment is much better than in Russia and cheaper than in the United States.
I want to direct the attention of the Committee to one part of the National Health Service, mental health. There are in my constituency two of the very best mental hospitals, Claybury and Goodmayes. I was a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Mental Health Act which has revolutionised our approach to mental health. We have an enormous responsibility for how it works out, especially those of us who were members of that Standing Committee. I want to raise four points.
First, about staffing. Leaving aside the whole question of problems in connection with the shortages of psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses and psychiatric social workers and psychotherapists, from time to time I am approached by deputations from my local branch of the Confederation of Health Service Employees, asking for my support in obtaining more pay for psychiatric nurses.
I always tell them that it is a matter for negotiation through the Whitley Council. Then they always tell me that the Whitley Council which considers their claims is constituted in favour of other branches of the nursing profession and that psychiatric nurses are

313
left at a disadvantage. I then always tell them that the constitution of the various committees of the Whitley Council are such that it is possible to change their constitution, and there the discussion usually peters out.
I still feel at the end of the day that is a little unsatisfactory and I think that those hon. Members have been right who have suggested that among Health Service employees generally there is a fundamental lack of confidence in the Whitley machinery. That is regrettable and I am not sure whether it is avoidable. Has the Minister received responsible representations expressing dissatisfaction about the Whitley machinery, especially as it affects mental hospitals, or is it merely that any section of any profession always feels that any negotiating body is loaded in favour of some other section of that profession? Is there real justification for the C.O.H.S.E. grievance, or is it merely that it represents so many non-nursing staff that it adopts a rather belligerent attitude which those nursing members or members who do not belong to C.O.H.S.E. do not wholly support? I do not know and it would be interesting to have the Minister's views.
Perhaps the best test is the relative shortage of psychiatric nurses as compared with the shortage of nurses in other branches of the profession. It would be enlightening to have some indication of how serious the position is. I think that it was the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) who said that morale among mental nurses was very low. I think that he is right and wrong.
From my friends in the psychiatric nursing profession I do not get the impression that morale is low in the sense that they have a low feeling about the importance of their calling, or its worth-whileness, but I do get the impression that morale is low in that they feel that they are not properly rewarded and that the structure of the Service is somehow out of gear. That is extremely unfortunate and perhaps my right hon. Friend will be able to bring to bear some of his talent for communication, as he called it, in this sphere.
Secondly, can my right hon. Friend give us a rather more precise assessment of the progress being made by
314
local authorities in planning to discharge their new functions under the Mental Health Act? Broadly speaking, the main theme of the Act was to get mental patients out of hospital and into the community, in suitable circumstances and subject to arrangements being made for their care.
The local authorities were the instruments chosen to make those arrangements, and the main point on which the Standing Committee which considered the Bill was divided was on whether it could properly be left to local authorities to make those arrangements, upon which the working of the Act depended, or whether it should be mandatory upon them to do so.
In the end, a compromise was reached. My right hon. Friend's predecessor preferred not to make it mandatory in the Act, but he issued an administrative directive requiring action by local authorities, and he called for reports from local authorities to inform him exactly what each proposed to do and how and when.
We are now at the stage when we should be taking stock of the progress and asking exactly how we are getting on. From the information given from the Dispatch Box, I found it difficult to get a sharp picture of what the progress was. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the reports that he is getting from local authorities? What pace of progress is envisaged by the best authorities, and what by the least responsive and least satisfactory? How much pioneering is going on? To what extent do smaller authorities expect to share these services among themselves? It may be that some authorities will find that some of what is required is beyond their resources, and that in any case they would not be able to supply the clients, as it were. Is it not possible that smaller county boroughs will find it convenient to pool their resources? Is that being done?
Can my right hon. Friend tell us when and where we shall see the actual functioning of a sort of prototype hostel and training centre and how soon it will be possible to say that this is the sort of operation which we can regard as obviously successful, so that it could then be adopted elsewhere? What are the limiting factors? Is shortage of staff one of them? Are authorities finding

315
difficulty about getting loan sanctions? Are they expecting financial difficulties arising out of the method of financing local government, the block grant about which hon. Members opposite do not agree? Personally, I am inclined to doubt that now.
Mr. Denis Howell: Oh.
Mr. Iremonger: It is all very well to say "Oh", but I said that it was my personal opinion. I give this to hon. Members opposite—I am not sure that in the long run, with the expansion of the social services which is to come, the rating system will be able to stand the burden. I am all for the burden being met locally, but I am not sure that we can meet it locally while we have a rating system. But that is a fundamental difference of approach and I do not think that the method of local government finance is what is holding us up yet. Can my right hon. Friend hazard a date on which he will be able to say that the Mental Health Act, 1959, is now being worked in England and Wales broadly speaking as we envisaged it when it was conceived? To a very large extent that will depend on the performances of the local authorities.
The third point I wish to make—I am sorry to be burdening my right hon. Friend with this but he is quick of hearing and at writing—concerns the major revolutionary innovation in the Mental Health Act, the introduction into the field of mental health of the patient suffering from psychopathic disorder who is now liable to compulsory detention provided that his condition requires it and he is susceptible to medical treatment—which begs the whole question. We recognised that these patients would be hard to accommodate within the tolerance of the National Health Service. We recognised that no hospital would want them and that they would be universal pariahs.
The Committee will have noted the setting up by my right hon. Friend of the working party on special hospitals—Broadmoor, Rampton, Moss Side and so on—and no doubt hon. Members have studied its recommendations. I am sure the Committee would like to hear something from my right hon. Friend about whether he accepts the approach and recommendations of the working
316
party and what sort of progress he envisages in the setting up regionally of diagnostic and treatment centres. If this is not an unfair question to raise—perhaps it is too much to ask my right hon. Friend to answer it—I wonder what is the extent of the liaison between my right hon. Friend's Department and the National Health Service as a whole, on the one hand, and the Home Secretary and the Home Office, on the other, in connection with the proposed psychiatric prison at Grendon Underwood.
The working party on special hospitals suggests that there is a mere academic distinction between a psychopath whose behaviour has brought him before the court and one whose behaviour, though precisely of the same nature, has not. It suggests for both that the degree of security should be the same and for both the treatment will be equally questionable and difficult and equally likely to be the same. Therefore one might ask why should one secure diagnostic treatment centre be called a psychiatric prison and another one a diagnostic treatment centre, when the only difference between the patients, clients or inmates is that one lot of them have broken the "eleventh Commandment" as well as all the others. In the conception of the psychiatric prison the classification of the psychopath as being detainable outside prison was not envisaged at all. Perhaps this ought to be thought about again. Perhaps it might be well to put the thought into the minds of the Government.
I wonder how far the courts are being served by the facilities which already exist. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North, raised this point and I shall not elaborate it further. But one cannot help feeling that it must be very difficult for a court, which feels, or is advised, that an offender is suffering from a psychopathic disorder, to make the right order for him, if it feels that it cannot get him medically treated. The result is very much worse for the public because if an offender suffering from a psychopathic disorder is sent to prison, he comes out soon. If he is sent to a psychiatric hospital for treatment, he may never come out. He can be kept even over the age of 25 if his condition does not warrant him coming out. So from the point of view of security, it is an important point.

317
My final point, which is perhaps the most important of all, relates to security. Reference was first made to this by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) and it was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Dodds). It is my submission that the whole purpose of the Mental Health Act is in jeopardy at the present time through a possible lack of public confidence. I should like to read to the Committee a letter which reached me a few days ago. My correspondent writes:
"I hope I may say how glad I was to see that you had asked a question in the House some ten days ago about the number of discharged or imperfectly diagnosed psychiatric patients who have committed murders in recent months. It is so exactly what I have prophesied would happen that it is quite uncanny! These disasters were inevitable once this extraordinary revulsion against institutional care irrespective of the mental state or needs of the patient began to sweep the country.
What I am writing to you to point out is that the Press and the societies concerned with mental health are quite definitely concealing the true facts. A lady very prominent and influential in this campaign said to me quite seriously that the truth should not be made known as it would be deplorable to do anything to discourage medical superintendents from discharging patients! People like many I could name literally do not care how many wretched victims are murdered or how many families are broken up so long as their fanatical craze for emptying the mental hospitals is gratified."
This correspondent mentions at least four cases of discharged mental patients who have committed violent crimes of a most objectionable nature, of which hon. Members in this Committee are well aware. The letter expresses the misgivings of thousands of humble, obscure and inarticulate constituents of mine but the point is that the writer is not by any means an uninformed or obscure person. In fact the writer is not a constituent of mine. The writer, whose name I shall not mention although I have permission to mention it, is a medical doctor, renowned and highly respected, and a past President of the Medico-Legal Society.
It is a great pity that the whole purpose of the Act should be put in jeopardy because of ill-considered medical decisions in the reclassification of patients. I stand by the Act and accept responsibility for it. I am proud of it. I do not want to see it discredited. I want our doctors in the mental health field to follow their current, wise, humane and
318
constructive policy, and to continue to restore life and hope and purpose to their patients, but I implore my right hon. Friend to impress on these people that we conceived this Act with a twin duty in mind—a duty to the patient and also a duty to protect the public, especially little children and women to whom we owe the maximum possible protection.
The medical profession must be sensitive to this or the public will say, "If this is the price of our compassion and co-operation, we would rather not give it, and we curse and renounce those who forced this Act upon us". I for my part would regard that as a tragedy. I hope, therefore, that those concerned with mental health will be warned, whilst being mindful of their patients, not to forget the rest of the community.
8.37 p.m.
Dr. Barnett Stross: This has been a most interesting debate. I am very sorry that men of influence and power in the United States were not able to be here to listen to it for, as many hon. Members have mentioned, there is a growing interest in the United States in the need for a health service of some type which will give comfort and succour to those who need it most in that great continent. Had they been here to listen to us, knowing what they have felt about our Health Service in the past, they would have been as amazed as I have been to note the chancre that has occurred in this honourable House as the years have gone by since this piece of Socialist legislation was brought forward.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) is not now in his seat. I understand why he has left the Chamber. He has sat here, as I have done, virtually all day long, perhaps a little longer because I went out to eat. He has now gone out to do so and he has every right to do so. He and I have spoken on these matters in debates in recent years. Before he came to this House I remember once debating against him in Rugby. I noticed with very great pleasure today how much he has changed tin his views, for we heard from him of the need to establish health centres in every city in the country.
The hon. Member defined what he felt a health centre should be like, and it

319
was exactly as we intended it to be when the original Bill was introduced in the House. The hon. Gentleman pleaded for health centres. He told us that in this way men would have greater interest in their patients; they would not wish to transfer them unnecessarily from their care, their own education would be improved and they would do better work than they do now working in isolation. We agree with all of this.
Another fascinating thing, which was so agreeable to my hon. Friends and I, was to hear the present Minister speak in terms of comprehensive and long-term planning for the whole Service. To have a Tory Minister preach planning to us and to have hon. Members opposite as the long years have passed speak with the same mind and voice as we did in 1946 and previously is pleasurable to us. If the House of Commons is thus joined together who am I not to say, "So be it"? I wish everybody in the world would listen to us and realise that this piece of Socialist planning has not failed but has won adherents, some of whom I admit are still rather lukewarm, on all parts of the benches opposite, including the Minister. By speaking like this I am paying the right hon. Gentleman the highest possible tribute. When men become converted to a good Socialist principle and accept it, I do not care what they call themselves so long as the principle is carried out.
I want to speak briefly about the things which will help the Minister and the Service from the long-term point of view. The Minister told us that he expects with some confidence that in about fifteen years' time he will need only about half the number of beds in mental hospitals that he has available today. I am speaking now of the general service and not of that part dealing with the sub-normal mental conditions. I hope that the Minister is right. I am fairly sure that he is right. I ask him to direct his attention to the possibility that the life sciences, the biological sciences, may well get a break-through in the next ten, fifteen or twenty years, comparable to the break-through achieved by the physicists in recent years. If that should happen, we can look forward equally to the emptying of beds in general hospitals.
320
I am sure that we must. We are only beginning to understand what fundamental science, well worked out and well applied, can do for humanity. If the life sciences are well supported and if there is such a break-through, we should be able, as a very great scientist said to me in the House of Commons last Friday, to influence life in the cell itself and in the germ plasm itself and thus remedy genetic faults. The scientist spoke to me as the originator—the discoverer—of insulin, together with Banting. He spoke to me of the possibility within fifty years of interfering in the cell itself so that genetic faults can be remedied and we shall not have to have mere substitutional therapy like the taking of insulin, but shall be able to cure the child before it is born.
This is going off into the stratosphere, but who, twenty or thirty years ago, would have dared to think that we should be closing down our sanatoria at the rate we have been doing in the last few years? They are being closed down because of the work scientists have been able to do in providing antibiotics and chemical drugs which allow us to do, for instance, all that has been done on behalf of the tubercular.
Therefore, we should look upon the future of the Service not only as a curative service but in real terms of prevention. If we look upon it in that light, we must give every assistance to the man who today is in the front line of defence but who ought to be in the front line of attack, namely, the family doctor, the general practitioner. As I have already said, he will not do this working alone in isolation in his own surgery, with no one to consult and no one to talk to, and with every temptation to get rid of difficult cases by shifting them on to the hospital.
The right hon. Gentleman should also bear in mind that anything he can do to foster fundamental medical research, applied research and clinical trials through the very great instrument that he has at his disposal, the Medical Research Council, is bound to be of the very greatest value to the Service and, ultimately, prove most economical.
The Medical Research Council has proved conclusively that its views and opinions, as a result of the care it gives to research and clinical trials when it

321
tests and evaluates the new drugs that are pouring out and which are at the service of everyone, are such that the whole world will pay it respect and tribute. It is as reliable as any section of research workers in the world—indeed, I would say that, by and large, it is the most reliable. The Minister will therefore be doing only his duty if he listens most carefully to the Council and gives it—as I am sure he would say that he does—the very fullest support. I should like to have talked further on this point, but it might be going rather wide of the debate.
Having listened to the fascinating speech of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) on the problem of humanising the Service, and having heard the Minister himself wholeheartedly endorse what my hon. Friend said, perhaps as a former practitioner I may be allowed to say how important that is. From the time that they are students, and ever afterwards, there is a tendency on the part of medical men when walking the wards and working in hospitals to take for granted the environment in which they were trained and not to regard it with the eyes and attitude of the patient.
The attitude of the medical student, of the physician and the surgeon is quite different from that of the Service's consumer—the patient. I think that the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Sir M. Stoddart-Scott) would agree that it is tremendously useful for a doctor to be a patient in a hospital. He can take advantage of being in an open ward and really learn what it means from both sides. It is an interesting experience, and one that I have had twice.
There is so much that can be done, but which never will be done unless an attack is made on the problem fairly quickly. All the things of which the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North spoke are simply matters of good sense and a little forethought. It is a question of bringing in the experts. The expert on noise will see that doors do not crash when they close—such an easy matter. If lifts make a horrible noise they should be pulled out and modern ones put in. Trolleys should not go bang, bang, bang along the floors. They should have pneumatic tyres and be fitted with ball-bearings so that they cannot be heard. Hospital
322
porters ought to be taught not to shout at the top of their voices first thing in the morning, or late at night.
These are all simple, small matters that can be so easily rectified. One notices them when lying in hospital, especially in an open ward where there are thirty beds. The open ward is an anachronism, if ever there was one. It is a shocking thing, because to go to hospital is a crisis not only for the patient, if he is very sick, but very often for the family, too.
It is not a very good thing to have to lie in a bed of pain and have to be drugged at night because one would not sleep because of the noise if one were not drugged. It is intolerable that we should still put up with conditions such as that today. To be awakened in the morning with a bed pan is an abomination of desolation. People, especially men, are so shy that they can make themselves ill because they cannot properly function under those conditions.
We know that plans are available and that in the new hospitals this sort of thing will be remedied. There has been very little priority given to hospital building since the war. Now, we are told, building will take place, and I am sure that whatever plans are available the things about which I have been complaining will not occur ultimately in the future.
The Parliamentary Secretary and her right hon. Friend the Minister should bear in mind that they have, as it were, assistance at their disposal for saving mankind much pain and suffering if they will themselves take an interest and assist in what I will call the adjuvants and accessories of medicine. If we had a nutritional policy of an optimum nature, and knew what that really was in this country, it is possible that many forms of preventable diseases from which we now suffer would soon disappear. I have in mind diseases like gall bladder infection, stones in the gall bladder, possibly arterial degenerations. I do not say any of this with certainty, but it is possible that these will disappear from our community.
I notice that in the Chester Beatty Research Institute's annual report for 1960, mention is made of carcinogenesis or cancer tendency, with a sentence or two describing how their work on nutrition is a promising line and leads them to believe

323
that they might be on to something more than promising and that in the coming year emphasis will be placed on the nutritional aspects of preventing carcinogenesis.
We are living in an exciting age. It is a time when almost anything is possible if mankind does not destroy itself. Given fifty years of peace and enough money—and peace itself would contribute a vast amount of money to all the powers of the world—and the vast number of scientists now engaged solely in defence, we could say with confidence that the quality of our Health Service today, of which we boast and say is as good as any in the world, would appear as only the beginning of what we could achieve in the future, when it could become a creative service, preventing disease and teaching man how to live in the way that he should live.
8.54 p.m.
Mr. Percy Browne: I have always welcomed the opportunity of listening to and following speeches made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross). It makes a mockery of a debate to say at the beginning of one's speech "I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow him" but, owing to the time factor, and seeing that I must sit down at nine o'clock, I must say, for the first time, exactly that.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), who will wind up the debate, will say something about the Whitley Council. That is the subject to which I shall address my remarks. Whatever the Government does, and whatever this House may recommend or do, the Health Service stands or falls by the skill of the consultants, surgeons and general practitioners who are the hub of the wheel of the Service, and by the skill and devotion of the people in the ancillary services.
If we want people of the right quality to come forward in the numbers we need, then, I suggest, those who do come forward should have better pay and conditions. We want people able to take responsibility. We want people with ability. Sufficient encouragement should be given to these skilled people to stay in their posts. Setting aside consultants for the moment, the men and women
324
who are doctors and nurses are paid a rate for the job, yet there does not seem to be any system whereby anyone is paid a better rate for doing the job better. This problem is not confined to the National Health Service, of course. It is to be found in any non-competitive profession.
I will illustrate the point by saying that a midwifery sister can, after seven years, earn a maximum salary of £872. That is the limit. If she wants to go on, she probably has to become a matron and her skill may well be lost to the profession. That is not to say that some people must not go on, but, equally, it does not follow necessarily that a back bencher makes a good Minister.
Again, to illustrate the point, in my part of the country the North Devon Hospital Management Committee conducted an inquiry to find out how many of its registered midwives were practising. It found that, of the 40, 16 were practising and four, for various domestic reasons, were not. The remaining 20 had moved into the higher realms of nursing and were, therefore, lost to a particularly scarce profession.
Consultants have a merit award. They recognise the problem. General practitioners have tried to find some way of rewarding skill. As far as I can gather, no attempt at all has been made in the ancillary services, with the result that a sister in charge of 12 patients in a convalescent ward draws exactly the same money as a sister in charge of an acute surgical ward with, let us say, 30 beds.
There should be a differential. There should be some sort of "responsibility allowance." It is surely not beyond the ingenuity of either the Whitley Council or the Minister to create a guild of master craftsmen. Perhaps that is not the right expression to use, but it serves to illustrate the point I make. In some way, there should be an opportunity for a skilled person to earn an extra reward instead of seeing his or her limit reached at the end of so many years.
I should have liked to mention the anomalies to be found in the present rates of salary in the nursing services. I have nothing against a health visitor, but, if one sets her salary, which is, I think, £872 at the maximum, against some of the salaries paid to hospital sisters or to midwives, who are district

325
nurses-cum-health visitors, it seems very strange that the health visitor should be paid so much.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his attack on the drug firms, a thing about which I have been particularly keen, and upon the wind of continental competition he has allowed to blow through the industry. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will take note of what he has done.
My right hon. Friend has his priorities right. He is now trying to cut out waste and concentrate our resources on bricks and mortar and equipment. I suggest that there are two further essentials. The first I have mentioned, better pay and conditions and what I have called a guild of master craftsmen or some system for special remuneration for skill and/or responsibility. The second is an inquiry into the method of financing the Health Service in the future both in fairness to the contributor and so that the Service shall continually be improved for the benefit of all who use it.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. Richard Marsh: The speech of the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) was typical of a number of speeches that we have heard in this debate from hon. Members opposite. There was little in what he said with which many of us on this side would find ourselves in any great degree of disagreement. There have been times today when listening to the speeches of hon. Members opposite was rather like being at a Labour Party conference during a discussion on the National Health Service: hon. Members opposite believe in the same things as those in which we believe. The hon. Member for Torrington says that there is something of a crisis in the National Health Service concerning staff and staff salaries. We have heard hon. Members opposite speak of the need for the introduction of an occupational health service. We are not at issue on this. We agree with hon. Members opposite all the way.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) drew attention to the need for the establishment of health centres if the Health Service is ever to be a comprehensive service. There must be something wrong somewhere, because we have hon. Members opposite fighting for
326
and believing passionately in these things, but no one trying to help them to achieve them. I cannot help wondering whether it is cynical or whether something has gone wrong somewhere that hon. Members opposite make speeches in support of the things in which we believe after elections but never make similar speeches before elections. If during the last General Election campaign members of the Conservative Party had demanded more health centres, if hon. Members opposite had made speeches in their constituencies calling on the Government to introduce without delay an occupational health service, the result of the General Election might have given them even a bigger majority. There would have been only one flaw—they would then have had to do something about it.
It is asking too much that the Opposition should be fighting year in and year out for certain policies within the Health Service and occasionally pressing issues to debate and Division but never getting hon. Members opposite to support us—or very seldom. We know that they are with us in spirit and that it is only the fact that their feet are not going in the right direction which prevents them from supporting us.
We heard from the Minister some of the points in favour of paying more attention to human relationships in the Health Service. This is a very important issue. It is unfortunate, however, that some of the major points seem to be missed. We all agree with the Minister that there is a need to cut down unnecessary noise in hospitals. We agree that one of the big problems with the sick is that they cannot rest because of the perpetual noise. While it is true that much of this can be avoided merely by persuading nurses on night duty to wear flat-heeled shoes and by having wirelesses at a lower level or special types of wireless receiver, a great deal more would be avoided if employing authorities and hospital management committees had sufficient funds to carry out the structural alterations to enable noise to be abated.
We have heard about delays in outpatient departments. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) painted a terrifying picture of people sitting on hard, wooden benches.

327
This is not only a problem of discomfort to the sick and to patients. It is a cost to this country of millions of pounds each year on people who could be at work but who spend their time sitting in hospital out-patient departments waiting for treatment which could be provided much quicker if it were properly organised. It is not fair to blame the organising staffs or the administrations. We cannot have an effective out-patient appointments system unless there is a staff to operate it. One of the big problems is a short-age of medical records officers. It is difficult to obtain and to train people for this job.
It is no good the Minister coming to the Box and saying, "I want all these things. We all believe in less noise and better appointments systems in outpatient departments, but if anybody wants any money to enable us to achieve those difficult things, we will deal with them at some other stage."
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford voiced what was in the minds of many hon. Members on this side of the Committee. He said that he could not understand this changed Minister of Health who addressed us this afternoon. This was a different man from the one who had introduced the charges on the Health Service. Here was a man who was saying things that were deeply human, with which we all agreed. Many people have been intrigued by this Jekyll and Hyde personality which the Minister exhibits from time to time.
The answer is simple. The right hon. Gentleman has a human approach to the problems of individuals. He has some progressive ideas and is sympathetic—provided that none of these things costs the Exchequer anything. We cannot have an effective Health Service, however, unless we are prepared to give it priority in terms of its calls upon the nation's wealth.
The Minister does not act as a Minister of Health. I do not think he realises that his prime purpose is the growth and extension of the Health Service. It is no secret that the right hon. Gentleman was introduced to his office as a Treasury Minister to curb the expenditure upon the Health Service. When he speaks as a Minister as distinct
328
from a man, he speaks as a Treasury Minister whose prime concern is to cut the costs in this essential service.
I should like now to refer to the occupational health services, which several hon. Members have mentioned, and the admirable report recently published by the British Medical Association. The Health Service has to be comprehensive. It was a great disappointment during the latter part of the war years that ill health should not at any time receive the very best treatment that science could provide for it, that no person should be unnecessarily sick and that no person should suffer any lack of treatment that could be provided. For that reason, we wanted not simply a hospital service and not merely a series of services hung together; we wanted a complete, all-embracing, comprehensive service covering every person, wherever he was and whatever he was doing. We can never provide that, and we can never say that we have achieved the objective, until the National Health Service contains an effective industrial health service and until there is provision for the worker at his work.
The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke), speaking from the Government benches, spoke in favour of an occupational health service, but when one of my hon. Friends pressed him about the matter he added one or two qualifications. The hon. Member considered the idea a good one and he was asking the Minister to consider it. I have no doubt that the Minister will consider a lot of things. One of the troubles very often is that he says "No" when he has considered them. We on this side make no qualification at all: an industrial occupational health service is essential.
Less than one in three of the people are covered by any legislation in terms of health and welfare at their place of employment. A service such as this should be concerned primarily with a field of medicine which has been very much neglected—preventive medicine. We spend a little too much time talking about curing complaints from which large sections of the population should never suffer because, frequently, they can be prevented. Therefore, I should like to see an industrial occupational health service which concerned itself with preventive medicine.

329
In purely economic terms, the time lost through industrial accidents is infinitely greater than the time lost through strikes. The cost to the economy of this sort of problem is fantastic. In addition, there is need for a link between the workplace and the hospital. A man who is absent from work because of serious illness or accident should have contact between the hospital and his workplace, so that he may be reintegrated into his former employment. Hon. Members opposite who support what we support in this field miss one point. There is only one thing that prevents them having an occupational health service and that is their Government and their own Front Bench. No one on this side of the Committee will oppose them or place any obstacle in their way.
I want primarily to deal with a rather particular field that we have not often discussed in the past and which it would probably be bad if we discussed too frequently. None the less, I think that we have reached a stage in the National Health Service when we must pause to consider the position of staff employment within the Service and the general standard of the staffing of the Service. The hon. Member for Torrington and other hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have been made very much aware that, whether they agree or disagree with the criticisms, there is a lot of criticism being made by the staff within the Service and a lot of problems which arise from shortage of staff and the inability to get the right type of employee.
The Minister in the course of his duties has been called many things. I cannot list them because you, Mr. MacPherson, would not allow me to, but he appears in many different guises. We have seen him as the ice-cold intellectual, a sort of poor man's Roy Harrod, as the ruthless administrator, more recently known as "two-bob Powell", the terror of the sick. But it is often forgotten that one of his most important functions is that he is in fact one of the biggest employers of labour in this country.
Over 500,000 people are engaged within the National Health Service. In the salary levels there is an enormous range from £350 a year to £4,000 or £5,000 a year. There is almost every conceivable occupation. Too often people think of the Service as being concerned only with doctors and nurses.
330
These are important people, they are good people, but the Service is dependent upon hundreds of different occupations, every one of which is essential to the running of the Service. There are butchers, laundry staff, shoemakers, scientists and labourers. There is virtually no limit to the type of people employed.
There are hundreds of different occupations, different social levels and different salary levels, and the only thing in common is that all are working in their different ways to the best of their ability to alleviate suffering. That is an aim which it would be difficult to improve upon. Their contribution to the nation is enormous. Quite apart from the social considerations, which never carry quite the same amount of weight on the other side of the Committee as they do on this side, the Service makes a major contribution to the nation's economic wellbeing and, if it were properly staffed and able to do as much as it should, it would make a much greater contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) and other hon. Members have mentioned the emphasis that has been placed on strikes. We should never forget that more time is lost from rheumatic complaints or every time there is an epidemic of Asian flu than is ever lost by strikes. Attacks on the Service do as much damage to the economy of this country as irresponsible strike action. The party opposite is so selective in its condemnation of the people who are affecting the national economy. We hear them talk about the irresponsible strikes of labour but we seldom hear many of them who have the courage to attack both sides. These attacks on the Health Service are certainly no less irresponsible in their effect on the national economy.
The Service contributes an enormous amount to the prestige of the nation. We have all heard of recent events—we have got Major Gagarin with us nowadays—which may be matters for pride, but there was never an advance in rocketry, and there never will be, which engendered or will engender in the nation the pride which the establishment of the National Health Service in this country engendered in our people—[An HON. MEMBER: "And the world."]—and it was the finest National Health

331
Service in the world. I say "it was", in the past tense.
For all those reasons, the staff are entitled to good salaries and it is essential that they should have good salaries, because the organisation cannot be efficient unless it is able to attract sufficient people of the right calibre. On this side of the Committee our case is that the policies of the Government in so far as they relate to staffing are fast turning the National Health Service into an industrial slum.
This organisation which has this enormous moral appeal to people has no economic appeal to them at all today. There are widespread discontent and serious shortages in many sections of employment in the Service. Hon. Gentlemen opposite from time to time talk about the control of immigration. If immigration were controlled the National Health Service might not continue, because it is a Service which cannot attract English people to work in it in sufficient numbers. I have shown before recruiting leaflets from my own union—in Polish, in Germany, in Spanish, in Hungarian, in Italian, because the people cannot speak English. I only hope that the Minister never finds himself on an operating table in an operating theatre where the people cannot speak English. He might find it inconvenient as well as undesirable. All this obviously is bound to have and has had a serious effect upon the service which can be provided to the patient.
There has been a fantastic rate of turnover in the Service. In one large teaching hospital alone in the London area there was an establishment for 88 domestics. Last year it took on 91, a turnover of 106 per cent. In the laundry there was an establishment of 25; it took on 39 staff, a turnover of 156 per cent. in one year. I do not know what hon. Members opposite who have responsibilities in industry would feel if this were the turnover in their own industries. I do not know whether they would consider this something to be looked at with complacency. For waitresses and domestics in the kitchen there was an establishment of 20; it employed 64; 320 per cent. turnover in one year, in an essential London teaching hospital. For porters—a humble grade, but an essential one in the National
332
Health Service—there was an establishment of 23; it employed 79; a total turnover of 344 per cent. in one year.
Do we really have to make a particularly detailed case to argue that there is need for some inquiry into what is wrong in this Service? I suggest that turnovers of this kind are excessive and that they are indicative of something which is seriously wrong.
There is also the complete breakdown of confidence in the whole of the Whitley machine. There are disgracefully low rates of pay and there is a considerable amount of incompetence on the part of the Minister's administration in dealing with staff questions. Dissatisfaction with the Whitley Councils exists among all sections of staff in the National Health Service, among all Staff Side organisations, and among employing organisations, the hospital management committees. There has always been a suspicion that the real decisions in negotiations were taken by the Treasury and loft by the people with whom the staff were talking, and in 1957 they had proof. The staff reached agreement with the Management Side on a salary increase, a freely entered into agreement, and then the Minister of Health said, "Sorry, you are not going to get it." We have heard a lot in this Chamber and we have heard a lot elsewhere about the sanctity of agreements and the need for respecting them, and there is a lot of truth in that. If that agreement had not been thrown overboard in that way the dissatisfaction which exists today might perhaps have not been so strong, but from that day forward confidence in this machinery as a negotiating body vanished.
Another factor which made it worse was the repeal of the Industrial Disputes Order in 1958. There is no built-in arbitration machinery in the National Health Service, and with the repeal of the Industrial Disputes Order the staff can go to arbitration only by the agreement of the management side. That agreement is often withheld by the Minister. The staff cannot go to arbitration now, because the Minister would not let them go to arbitration on many issues. There was a case not long ago in the national blood transfusion service, a key service where the staff tried everything in their power to settle a dispute peacefully. They wanted to go

333
to arbitration. They were refused arbitration by the Minister of Health and it was only because of the hard work of union officials and the loyalty of the staff concerned that there was not a strike in a key section of the Health Service. But what right has an employer to expect men to refrain from using the ultimate weapon if he denies them reference to arbitration?
An employee can go to a local committee and, if that fails to agree, to a national committee. But if the national committee fails to agree, the matter cannot now go to arbitration. That employee goes back to work having been to committees each of which tells him that he has a good case but the committee cannot agree on the outcome. During the rest of his working life there is no machinery whereby that position can be resolved, because he cannot go to an outside body. There is need for a built-in arbitration procedure in the Service, and there is no argument about the need for an inquiry.
We hear nowadays about the enormous purchasing power of the people of this country. We hear about yachts galore and wealth unlimited and astronomical salaries. In the Ministry's Department, after a recent increase, the basic rate of pay for an employee is £9 4s. 8d. a week gross. This is not some wicked private employer. These are the nation's employees, employed by the Minister of Health and taking home less than £8 10s. a week. It will be said that these are the lowest grades, but a head porter responsible for seventy men earns £12 18s. a week gross. A head male cook responsible for 3,000 main meals a day earns £13 10s. a week gross. What about technical staff? There is a shortage of darkroom technicians, the men who are responsible for developing X-ray plates and seeing that there are no flaws in them.
Lord Balniel: They are very few short.
Mr. Marsh: We are now entering a stage where there are degrees of shortages. Surely this is rather dialectical.
Lord Balniel: The hon. Member has selected a field where there is a very slight shortage. In answer to a questionnaire, the hospital management committees said that there was a shortage of only 4 per cent. of dark-room technicians.
Mr. Marsh: I should have thought that a shortage of 4 per cent. in a key sector of a national service was worth looking into at least.
Let us see why there is a shortage. I am sure that the noble Lord would agree that these people are doing a responsible and important job.
Lord Balniel Lord Balniel indicated assent.
Mr. Marsh: At 25 years of age they are paid £445 a year for doing this work; that is, less than £8 a week take-home pay. Their absolute maximum at 29 is £535 a year.
Mr. H. Hynd: Less than a traffic warden's pay.
Mr. Marsh: Occupational therapists and physiotherapists after three years' training may remain in the same basic grade for twenty years and at the end of that time their maximum is £650 a year. These staff shortages are producing Gilbertian situations. The taxpayer spends hundreds of thousands of pounds on advertising. The Minister does not even know how much it costs to advertise for staff in the Service. I have been trying to far two days to find out from the Ministry how much is spent on advertising. Most hospitals have a regular advertisement in the local paper and in periodicals. They do not expect to get many applications, but it shows that they are doing their best, which is more than the Minister can say. The Minister does not know how much of the taxpayers' money is spent on this advertising. Yet one hospital in London last year spent more than £4,000 in advertising for staff which it could not get because it did not have the £4,000 to spend on staff salaries.
We now have a new feature—specialised employment agencies to provide staff which the Service cannot provide. There are two firms in London which exist to provide a 24-hour radiography service because of the shortage of radiographers in the Service The Service cannot provide radiographers, and so private firms have to do so. Those firms are very lucky. The Service trains the radiographers and then they go to private firms because the Minister will not pay them a decent rate of ray. The result is that the hospitals have to pay twice as much money to get the

335
job done by private enterprise. The maximum basic grade for a radiographer is £630 a year. It is a career grade for many people.
Last year one hospital in London spent just over £2,000 in having X-ray work done by a private firm. If it had not been done by private enterprise, State enterprise could not have done it. This is an appalling situation. There are now medical secretarial agencies which supply staff at rates more than 50 per cent. above those applicable in the Health Service. Is it any wonder that we have an economic crisis if this is the way the Government run nationalised industries? We hear a lot of criticism of the nationalised industries. A quick glance at the National Health Service shows that what is wrong is not the nationalised industries but those who are running them. One hospital spent £5,000 last year in securing hospital secretaries from a specialised agency. Would it not have been better if it had been able to spend that money in ensuring that its staff had a reasonable rate of pay so that their services could be retained?
I mentioned earlier—it is an important point—the question of the incompetence in this field in the Minister's Department and the difficulty of getting into operation agreements which have been reached. The staff have a great feeling about this. I will give some typical examples. A.C. circular No. 93, a clerical circular, was agreed by both sides on 10th May this year, but it was 20th July, before it could be published and after that before it found its way into the pay packets. P.T.A. circular No. 88 was agreed on 2nd May, but it was 29th June before it could be published. M.C. Circular for nurses, No. 94, was agreed on 10th January this year, but it was 3rd March before the Minister could issue it. After staff have been waiting twelve months for a salary increase and agreement has been reached, one cannot tell them that they have to wait another two or three months while one prints the circulars and puts the increase into operation.
This is the position that we have arrived at today. We can make many suggestions about what could be done with the Whitley Councils and how they should be changed. I think that it would
336
be much better from all points of view if the negotiations were direct between the Treasury officials and the staff side officials Witch management side representatives in an advisory capacity. But that is purely a personal point of view It is essential that there should be built-in arbitration machinery in the National Health Service.
All of this is just indicative of a deep-seated difference of attitude between us. Some hon. Members opposite have tried to have a non-partisan approach because we are talking about the National Health Service. That really will not wash. We want to see improvements in the Service, but we are obstructed at every corner by the Government. The whole question is full of political controversy because it involves the basic difference of approach between the two political parties in the country. Hon. Members opposite will never understand why I and my hon. Friends feel so strongly about the National Health Service.
I agree with the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) on this issue. The National Health Service represents the fundamental division between the two sides of the Committee. We do not believe that this world or this country should be a jungle, with the strongest grabbing what they can and those who cannot grab doing without. [Interruption.] If the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Sir M. Stoddart-Scott) has eaten his dinner too quickly, he should avoid making revolting noises as a result of it.
We do not believe that the sole aim of parties in this country is the acquisition of particular things for a particular political group. What we want is a National Health Service of which everyone can be proud. We have seen the steady whittling away of the National Health Service in a nation which boasts of its affluence. This attitude betrays the inherent callousness of the approach of Members opposite. We believe that the civilisation of a nation is not measured by the number of television aerials, nor by the size or opulence of its bingo haunts, but by the extent to which it is prepared to defend the education of its children, the living standards of its old people, and the health of the nation as a whole.

337
In our opinion, the Government, by their approach to the National Health Service—indeed, to social activity as a whole and to social intervention by the Government—abrogate their responsibilities, and pursue a policy which is not only inefficient but which we regard as basically anti-social. For that reason, we will go through the Lobby against the Government tonight.
9.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): This has been an extraordinarily thoughtful debate and although, not having attended a Labour Party Conference, I was unable to agree with the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) when he said that the debate was like a Labour Party conference, I disagreed with him when he went on lo say that there must be something wrong. I feel that there is nothing wrong when both sides of the Committee can make thoughtful contribitions to the National Health Service which they desire, and stress their own particular views on the developments that are taking place.
A number of hon. Members have referred to the Whitley Council machinery and the hon. Gentleman himself devoted a large part of his speech to it. The Whitley machinery under the National Health Service—which, of course, was started in 1948—followed discussions with all the interested associations, staff organisations, professional organisations, and employers—and it was established by agreement. The constitutions were drawn up embodying these agreements. This means, of course, that the machinery was acceptable to the interests concerned.
The Whitley machinery is part of the pattern obtaining through the public services generally, and, except for the presence of Ministry representatives on the management side, the Whitley machinery in the National Health Service follows the normal pattern. I believe that it has worked satisfactorily and proof of that statement is surely that, despite considerable competition, we have over the years been able to obtain increased staffs in almost every branch of the service.
The main function of the Whitley Council is to determine the pay and conditions of service of staff of the National
338
Health Service bodies in Great Britain—that is, the hospitals and the executive councils. The set-up is the General Council and nine functional councils.
The General Council determines the conditions of service and matters other than pay which are of general application for all National Health Service staff, for example, the appeals machinery and travelling and subsistence expenses. The nine functional councils determine the rates of pay of grades with which they are concerned and any conditions of service peculiar to those grades.
The management sides of the councils represent the hospital authorities, that is, the regional hospital boards, the boards of governors, the hospital management committees and the boards of management, and also include the local authority associations, that is, the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, and the corresponding Scottish bodies, and the Health Departments, and, where they have an interest, the executive councils. The staff side membership includes both trade unions and professional associations.
Quite early on, the hon. Member for Greenwich made the point that the agreements of the Whitley Council should automatically become operative. He was critical of the requirement that the Minister's approval was needed. Automatic approval is prevented by the National Health Service (Remuneration and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1951, which require two steps to be taken. Agreement on the Whitley Council is only the first step, and is followed by Ministerial consideration of that agreement with a view to approval or otherwise. It is an express statutory duty laid on the Health Ministers by the 1951 Regulations.
Mr. Marsh: We accept that there is a statutory requirement. It is that which the right hon. and learned Member for. Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) exercised. The point we are making is that the Minister's representations should be made during the negotiations. We should not have a situation in which both sides reach agreement and subsequently someone steps in to say that the agreement is invalid. He should negotiate first and agreement should be based on his representations.
Miss Pitt: The short reply to the hon. Member is that the Regulations were made by his own party when it was in power. They ensure, as the Guillebaud Committee recognised to be essential, that only those Whitley agreements which are acceptable to the Government are allowed to become effective. The provision is beneficial to the staff side, because it ensures that all employers pay the agreed rates. I assure the House that the Minister would normally withhold approval only in exceptional circumstances.
The hon. Member referred to the fact that there is no arbitration machinery. In the absence of any special internal arrangements, and there is none in the National Health Service, this is the normal position. As in other matters, recourse may be had to the Industrial Court, with the agreement of both sides to the dispute. Contrary to what the hon. Member thought and stated, it is the practice that the management side does not refuse consent to arbitration on general issues, unless public policy is involved, and the awards of the court are given effect in Whitley agreements.
He spoke about delay in settlement of claims. The length of time which elapses between lodgment of a claim and its settlement depends on a number of factors, including the nature of the claim, its magnitude and its possible repercussions. In all centralised pay negotiation, both in industry and the public service, the national employers, or representatives of the employing bodies, require time to consider all the implications of a claim and to undertake such consultation as may be necessary.
I assure the Committee that there is no unnecessary delay in the Health Service, but the process of printing the agreement—the hon. Member anticipated me—and issuing it to the employing bodies, and the Minister's covering approval, mean some deferment of the date when the agreement can be implemented, but, and this is the important point, it makes no difference to the date of the operation of the award.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) also referred to Whitley agreements and spoke of lack of flexibility under the Whitley system. In any national service there must be central determination of the salaries and
340
gradings of the staff employed, since it is important that those who enter the service should be assured of a particular salary for doing a particular job, wherever in the service they may be employed.
As the Guillebaud Committee put it:
"The loss of the local autonomy formerly employed by hospital authorities in this field is an inescapable result of the introduction of a National Health Service."
It is not the case that the Whitley agreements are always rigidly enforceable. By their terms provision has been made in a number of agreements for a certain amount of flexibility in their application where this is considered to be desirable and practicable, for instance in the matter of commencing salary. This means that in certain grades power is available to start people at a minimum above their scale according to their experience. There is also provision for the Health Minister to agree to variation in grades of Whitley rates and conditions where it is considered justified.
Finally, on this point, the hon. Gentleman contended that Whitley pay and conditions were not enough to attract recruits to the Service. I think this ignores, or at least minimises, the difficulties with which any public service is faced in competing with industry at the present time, particularly for young people. There are so many opportunities and so many jobs that the National Health Service, like all other employers, must compete for the available labour.
Since 1948 the Health Service has been staffing an expanding service at a time when other services and industry have also been expanding and when there has been a national shortage of professional and technical staff. The Health Service cannot hope to do more than attract a fair share of the available pool of recruits, and, in fact, there has been a steady increase in staff numbers over the years. I should like to give some examples. Since 1949 hospital engineers have increased by 19 per cent., medical laboratory technicians by 71 per cent., radiographers by 58 per cent. and physiotherapists by 23 per cent. I think this confirms my point about the expanding service.
While not all hospitals can recruit as many nurses as they would like—this

341
was referred to in several speeches—recruitment is satisfactory over the country as a whole. The number of whole-time nurses and midwives has increased by 29 per cent. and the number of part-timers has doubled since 1949. The total number of nursing and midwifery staff on 31st March, 1961, was the highest ever recorded.
I have brought with me a list of the latest awards under the various Whitley Councils. I shall not take up the time of the Committee in giving them in detail, but they represent increases dating from the end of December, from April, 1961, and so on, in the various grades. I should like to say also that these pay increases are the latest since the National Health Service started and to some tsaffs there have been eight or nine increases over the last six years—in particular cases even more.
The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) criticised the Medical Whitley Council B dealing with hospital doctors. The Royal Commission thought this body adequate for considering minor matters—major matters will be left to the new review body—but that did not work as efficiently as it might, and it was recommended that the two sides should jointly consider what might be done to improve this procedure. This joint consideration was undertaken after the agreed acceptance of the Royal Commission's Report and a revised procedure agreed to facilitate the Committee's work. So far it seems to have worked well, but it will be kept under review in the light of experience.
The hon. Member for Greenwich raised a question of blood transfusion centre bottle washers. I am advised that the management side refused arbitration because the staff side claim related to bottle washers at one centre only and the case really affected bottle washers at all centres. When the staff side amended its claim to cover bottle washers at all centres agreement to arbitration was given and there has been a recent award—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Marsh: Who washes the bottles now?
Miss Pitt: The hon. Gentleman also referred to the terms of recruitment for technicians and radiographers. Although
342
he was critical that the pay was insufficient to recruit them, I should like to point out that the scales of pay were awarded by the Industrial Court.
The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) suggested that as physiotherapists had asked for an inquiry, and nurses have been asking through their union for a Royal Commission on nursing pay and conditions, we ought to consider these matters. But I think that general recourse to special arrangements of this or any other kind throw doubts on the value of the negotiating machinery, not only in the National Health Service but throughout the whole of the public service, and even more generally. There can be no reasonable dispute that the existing machinery is fully adequate for the purpose it is intended to fulfil. The results which have been achieved, the increases in pay parallel with the increase in staff, I think provide clear proof on this point.
Mr. Marsh: Could the hon. Lady tell us, if we have a negotiating machine which the staff side thinks is unsatisfactory and needs revising and the management side thinks is unsatisfactory and needs revising, how it can continue to be satisfactory?
Miss Pitt: I have heard of no representations from the management side. I have quoted the two representations I know of from the staff side, but that in general does not disprove the point I have made about the increases in pay and increased staff which we have been able to recruit.
I want to mention as many points as I can. If I do not succeed I hope that hon. Members will forgive me, particularly for leaving out constituency points, because I want to keep to policy issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. I. Fraser) asked about artificial limbs. Although he paid tribute to the one which has served him so well, he questioned whether we were falling out of date in this work. The design of artificial limbs throughout the world is constantly changing and the design of artificial limbs under the National Health Service is no exception. It is necessary to embody new ideas which are continually coming forward and to make the best possible use of new materials.

343
The Ministry's research department is always striving to improve the design of artificial limbs provided under the National Health Service and several major developments in this matter are in the trial stage. In addition, a number of pilot trials of new fittings and devices are being carried out. All of them are intended to add to the efficiency of the limbs and the comfort of their users.
In the furtherance of their work, Ministry research officers maintain close contact with university departments carrying out investigation in related fields of engineering, bio-mechanics and orthopaedic surgery and with limb-makers who themselves carry out research. Our research workers are in touch with similar or related kinds of research in all parts of the world and there is a constant interchange of ideas, a process to which Great Britain makes a quite significant contribution.
My noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) all asked about security in mental hospitals. A report by a working party on the special hospitals published in April deals generally with security at mental hospitals. It recommended that security arrangements should continue to be provided in National Health Service hospitals for those patients not requiring the maximum security of the special hospitals. My right hon. Friend announced his general acceptance of the recommendations at the time. He proposes very shortly to ask regional hospital boards to provide the necessary accommodation at one or more hospitals in their regions and to inform him where these will be.
While the open door policy adopted by many mental hospitals has therapeutic advantages, it is fully accepted that there will always be patients who must be treated in secure accommodation for the protection of the public. My right hon. Friend is also proposing as a pilot scheme to ask for the setting up of special diagnostic units in one or two regions. This has obvious relevance to the reference made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North to the
344
problem of the psychopath in the mental hospital.
The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford both asked if we could say what was happening about local authority developments for the care of the mentally ill. In 1960 53 training centres for the mentally sub-normal, which is one part of the duties of local authorities, were opened and plans were agreed for a further 37. By the end of December last year, 84 per cent. of the children and 67 per cent. of the adults suitable for training were receiving it. There is the related point of hostels for the mentally disordered of various kinds. The provision under the National Health Service of special hostels is only just starting. I am sorry that I have no figures to give, but a good start is being made in providing hostels, including places for the mentally sub-normal who are attending training centres but live too far away for daily travelling.
In addition, residential homes under the National Assistance Act powers for the aged and infirm contain very many people suffering from mild degrees of mental confusion. Again, at 31st December, 1960 the following classified as "mentally handicapped" were in residential accommodation provided under National Assistance Act powers—1,708 aged males and 4,208 aged females. Of those people who were not aged and not at retirement age there were 1,422 males and 1,484 females, so there are 8,822 people in such accommodation already.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford said that he thought that perhaps the accommodation being provided by local authorities was patchy. I agree with him. Some authorities are doing better than others, but we believe that the ten-year development plan which regional boards have now provided for us showing their hospital developments will tie up and show the patchy areas of local authorities which are not yet planning to fulfil their part of the care.
The hon. Member for Willesden, West asked me particularly about maternity accommodation. I assure him that major schemes have already been announced for new maternity departments at North

345
Middlesex, Watford, Margate, Stoke-on-Trent, Nuneaton, Burnley and Shrewsbury. In many of the schemes now before us as part of the ten-year development plan the maternity unit is the earliest, or one of the earliest, phases recommended to us. I hope that the hon. Gentleman finds that reassuring.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) referred to a gap in not having chiropody services for old people. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford also referred to this. It is not quite true to refer to a gap, because local authorities have been asked to provide a chiropody service and at the end of December 108 schemes had been approved. Local authorities have discretion to recover such charges, if any, as they consider reasonable having regard to needs. In many cases—such as necessitous old people—no charge will be made.
The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North mentioned prescriptions and quoted the figures. I do not want to engage in a controversial argument on this. I only want to tell him that, having given him and his hon. Friends the figures for May in the Adjournment debate on 23rd June, I now have the provisional figures for June, 1961, showing 16 million prescriptions dispensed. This is very much in the same neighbourhood as the month of June on previous occasions.
I want to say something about the hospital capital programme, because the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) said that it was a great pity that the capital programme was not announced ten years ago. Ten years ago, we on this side were just getting down to this job and it is the case—[interruption.]—the figures will prove it—that up to 1954–55 never more than £10 million was available for the hospital building programme.
Since then, the programme has more than trebled. In recent years the amounts expended have been: 1957–58, £17 million; 1958–59, £19½ million; 1959–60, £20½ million. Last year, 1960–61, the capital available was £24½ million, and this year the programme has been further expanded, and it is expected that
346
£31 million will be spent on hospital building.
There are now over 200 major schemes in the course of planning and construction. In addition, 28 major schemes have already been completed, and this number includes 11 new hospitals, partly completed and in use. The present programme includes a further six hospitals under construction, and 26 new hospitals at various stages of planning. One new dental hospital, at Sheffield, was completed in 1953 at a cost of £200,000, and a further six new dental hospitals are in the course of construction or planning. The hospital development programme is under way.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland asked whether we had adequate building resources. Of course, the programme must be phased, and room must be found for it in the Government's general programme, but all these changes, together with others designed to speed up building—the fact that boards have been told that the method of control of the building programme has been altered so that the approval of capital projects will be accompanied by the authorisation of starting dates; the fact that we are revising the whole handbook of hospital building proceedings with the object of speeding up approvals, and the fact that my right hon. Friend is publishing a series of building notes—show, I hope, that we are in earnest with this building programme.
I prepared myself another note of the developments which will be shown in a few days' time when the 1961 figures are available. They show more hospital patients accommodated, a reduction in waiting lists, an increase in the total numbers in out-patient and casualty departments, an increase in consultant staff and in nursing staff, an increase in the number of general practitioners, an increase in local authority expenditure. All this adds up to the fact that we have not only maintained the National Health Service but have improved it. We intend to go on still further to improve it.
Mr. K. Robinson: In view of the total failure of the Minister to give any of the assurances for which we have asked, I beg to move, That Item Class V, Vote 4, Ministry of Health, be reduced by £5.
Question put:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 193, Noes 255.

Division No. 248.]

AYES

[9.58 p.m.

Ainsley, William

Hamilton, William (West Fife)

Parkin, B. T.

Albu, Austen

Hannan, William

Pavitt, Laurence

Awbery, Stan

Hayman, F. H.

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Bacon, Miss Alice

Healey, Denis

Peart, Frederick

Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

Pentland, Norman

Bence, Cyril

Herbison, Miss Margaret

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Benson, Sir George

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

Prentice, R. E.

Blyton, William

Hilton, A. V.

Probert, Arthur

Boardman, H.

Holman, Percy

Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)

Hott, Arthur

Randall, Harry

Houghton, Douglas

Rankin, John

Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Redhead, E. C.

Bowles, Frank

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Boyden, James

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Brockway, A. Fenner

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D

Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

Ross, William

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Royte, Charles (Salford, West)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Janner, Sir Barnett

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

Silverman Syndey (Nelson)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Jeger, George

Skeffington, Arthur

Callaghan, James

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Castle, Mrs. Barbara

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

Chapman, Donald

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Small, William

Chetwynd, George

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Snow, Julian

Cliffe, Michael

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Sorensen, R. W.

Collick, Percy

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Kelley, Richard

Spriggs, Leslie

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Kenyon, Clifford

Steele, Thomas

Cronin, John

Key, Rt. Hon. c. W.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Crosland, Anthony

King, Dr. Horace

Stonehouse, John

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Lawson, George

Stones, William

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E)

Ledger, Ron

Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

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

Davies, Ifor (Cower)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Swain, Thomas

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Swingler, Stephen

Deer, George

Linton, Marcus

Sylvester, George

Delargy, Hugh

Logan, David

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Diamond, John

Loughlin, Charles

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Dodds, Norman

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Donnelly, Desmond

MacColl, James

Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

Driberg, Tom

Mclnnes, James

Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

Dugdale, Rt. Hon, John

McKay, John (Walisend)

Thornton, Ernest

Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

Thorpe, Jeremy

Edelman, Maurice

MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

Tomney, Frank

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Mallallieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

Manuel, A. C.

Wainwright, Edwin

Evans, Albert

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Warbey, William

Finoh, Harold

Marsh, Richard

Weltzman, David

Fitch, Alan

Mason, Roy

White, Mrs. Eirene

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Mayttew, Christopher

Whitlock, William

Forman, J. C.

Mendelson, J. J.

Wlgg, George

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Mitchison, G. R.

Wilkins, W. A.

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Moody, A. S.

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Calpern, Sir Myer

Morris, John

Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)

George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Crmrthn)

Mort, D. L.

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Ginsburg, David

Moyle, Arthur

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Gooch, E. G.

Mulley, Frederick

Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Neal, Harold

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Gourlay, Harry

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Woof, Robert

Gray, Charles

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

Wyatt, Woodrow

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Oliver, G. H.

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

Oram, A. E.

Grimond, J.

Owen, Will

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Padley, W. E.

Mr. Charles A. Howell and

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, w.)

Mr. McCann.

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Batsford, Brian

Black, Sir Cyril

Aitken, W. T.

Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

Bourne-Arton, A.

Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Box, Donald

Allason, James

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

Arbuthnot, John

Berkeley, Humphry

Boyle, Sir Edward

Atkins, Humphrey

Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Braine, Bernard

Balniel, Lord

Biggs-Davison, John

Brewis, John

Barlow, Sir John

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

Barter, John

Bishop, F. P.

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Browne, Percy (Torrington)

Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

Peyton, John

Buck, Antony

Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Bullard, Denys

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Pilkimgton, Sir Richard

Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

Hirst, Geoffrey

Pitman, Sir James

Burden, F. A.

Hobson, John

Pitt, Miss Edith

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Holland, Philip

Pott, Percivall

Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

Hollingworth, John

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Hopkins, Alan

Prior, J. M. L.

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Hornby, R. P.

Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Channon, H. P. G.

Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

Pym, Francis

Chataway, Christopher

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Chichester-Clark, R.

Hughes-Young, Michael

Rawlinson, Peter

Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Hurd, Sir Anthony

Rees, Hugh

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Renton, David

Cleaver, Leonard

Iremonger, T. L.

Ridsdale, Julian

Cole, Norman

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Rippon, Geoffrey

Cooper, A. E.

Jackson, John

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Cordeax, Lt.-Col. J. K.

James, David

Roots, William

Corfield, F. V.

Jennings, J. C.

Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

Costain, A. P.

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Coulson, J. M.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Sharples, Richard

Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Shaw, M.

Craddock, Sir Beresford

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Shepherd, William

Critchley, Julian

Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

Skeet, T. H. H.

Currie, G. B. H.

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick

Dalkeith, Earl of

Kershaw, Anthony

Smithere, Peter

Dance, James

Kirk, Peter

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

d'Avlgdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Lagden, Godfrey

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Deedes, W. F.

Lanoaster, Col. C. G.

Spelr, Rupert

Langford-Holt, J.

Stanley, Hon. Richard

de Ferranti, Basil

Leather, E. H. C.

Stevens, Geoffrey

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

Leavey, J. A.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Doughty, Charles

Leburn, Gilmour

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Drayson, G. B.

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Studholme, Sir Henry

Duncan, Sir James

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

Eden, John

Lilley, F. J. P.

Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Canshalton)

Lindsay, Martin

Talbot, John E.

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Linstead, Sir Hugh

Tapsell, Peter

Errington, Sir Eric

Litchfield, Capt. John

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

Farr, John

Longbottom, Charles

Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

Fell, Anthony

Longden, Gilbert

Teeling, William

Finlay, Graeme

Loveys, Walter H.

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Fisher, Nigel

Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Frater, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

MacArthur, Ian

Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

Gammans, Lady

McLaren, Martin

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Gardner, Edward

Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.)

Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

George, J. C. (Pollok)

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Turner, Colin

Glover, Sir Douglas

Macphergon, Niall (Dumfries)

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

Maddan, Martin

Vane, W. M. F.

Goodhart, Philip

Maitland, Sir John

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Goodhew, Victor

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Vickers, Miss Joan

Gower, Raymond

Marshall, Douglas

Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

Grant, Rt. Hon. William

Marten, Neil

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)

Green, Alan

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Walder, David

Grimston, Sir Robert

Maxwell-Hystop, R. J.

Walker, Peter

Gurden, Harold

Montgomery, Fergus

Wall, Patrick

Hall, John (Wycombe)

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Ward, Dame Irene

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Morgan, William

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Hare, Rt. Hon John

Nabarro, Gerald

Whitelaw, William

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Noble, Michael

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Oakthott, Sir Hendrie

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

Wise, A. R.

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

Hastings, Stephen

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

Woodhouse, C. M.

Hay, John

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Woodnutt, Mark

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Woollam, John

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)

Worsley, Marcus

Hendry, Forbes

Partridge, E.

Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hiley, Joseph

Percival, Ian

Mr. Gibson-Watt and Mr. Peel.

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

ROAD TRAFFIC
Parking Places (Extension outside London No. 3) Order, 1961, dated 20th June, 1961 [copy laid before the House, 22nd June], approved.—[Mr. Hay.]

MILK (CHEESE-MAKING)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]
10.9 p.m.
Mr. Goronwy Roberts: The question which I wish to raise is one of considerable importance to the dairy industry of the country as a whole and of vital interest to hundreds of dairy farmers in my constituency. It is the question of the allocation of milk to various depots and creameries for the manufacture of cheese and, in particular, as I hope to show, the unfair and wasteful manner in which the allocation procedure operates against the small dairy farmers of my constituency and against the creamery they set up thirty years ago which they own and manage with great efficiency, namely, the South Caernarvonshire Creameries Ltd., at Chwilog.
It would be difficult to exaggerate the importance of milk in the farm economy of areas like South Caernarvonshire. It has proved to be the economic salvation of the vast majority of farmers in the area. In view of the criticisms which I shall have to make of the Milk Marketing Board in some respects, I should like to take this opportunity of paying it a warm tribute for the fine contribution which it has made to the revival of agriculture in our part of Wales.
Before the advent of the Board, ours was an area of profound agricultural depression. The Board has been more responsible than any other agency for changing the situation from one of penury to one of reasonable prosperity. It is all the more disappointing and, indeed, sad that recent actions and attitudes of the Board should threaten to undo some of its good work in Caernarvonshire and to dissipate some of the good will which we have all felt and still feel towards it.
As a result of the marketing Acts of the early 1930s, the farmers of South
352
Caernarvonshire, very few of them holding more than 40 acres of land, joined together to establish their own milk depot and creamery. As I have said, it has proved to be a great success, partly because of the spirit of enlightened cooperation among the members of the association and partly because of the excellent secretary and staff whom it was able to assemble in its service. Here, as in other parts of the country, production increased very greatly in response to the new market guarantees, and in the mid-1950s this creamery, like others, was urged by the Board to install equipment for the manufacture of milk products so that the growing surplus of liquid milk could be utilised.
Our creamery agreed to this course, and in 1958 a fine new factory, equipped with eight 1,000-gallon vats with the necessary secondary vats and presses, and so on, was built at a total cost of £50,000, a quite large investment for an association of small farme. When they were ready to go into production they were informed, without warning, that they would not receive the full allocation of milk for manufacturing purposes which was normal in the case of other creameries.
For the past two years they have protested against this discrimination—because that is what it is—but have not been able to elicit from the Board or its agency any cogent reason why this discrimination should be applied. Nor have they succeeded in persuading the Board to change its attitude and to increase the allocation. The position is that since May, 1959, when the creamery finally got going, it has been allowed an average allocation of 7,000 gallons a day for the manufacture of cheese. This is less than half the proportion allowed to other creameries for this type of manufacture.
Let me put it this way. In November, 1960, all cheese manufacturers used on average 54·8 per cent. of the amount of milk they used for this purpose in the preceding May. The figure for South Caernarvonshire was nothing like 54 per cent., but was 25·2 per cent., or less than half. Moreover, the indications are that by next November we shall be using only 15 per cent. of the amount used last May.

353
The reasons given by the Board for this discrimination are, to say the least, curious. First, it was claimed that the machinery at the factory could not cope with any more than 7,000 gallons a day. This is nonsense. There were then six vats, soon to be increased to eight, of a capacity of 1,000 gallons each. They can be used twice or even three times a day. The capacity is, therefore, anything between 16,000 and 24,000 gallons a day. Moreover, the factory and its equipment was, and is, regarded by the Board as a model. One official wrote to the secretary of the factory that
"It impressed me very much indeed."
He wanted to know whether the Board's cheese expert and its architect could come over to see the place. The efficiency and capacity of the creamery has never been in doubt.
Then, it was gravely explained that in March, 1958, just before the creamery began production, a scheme of allocation of milk for cheese production had been set in motion throughout the country under which only those creameries which manufactured cheese in 1957 were allowed a full allocation. This very neatly draw the datum line a few months before the South Caernarvonshire creamery began production. It seemed a valid reason for discriminating against the creamery until one carefully examined it. There are at least two answers to it. First, to be frank, the reason why the creamery did not begin production until after March, 1958, was entirely because of the almost incredible indecision, hesitancy and delay on the part of the Board.
To read the full transactions—they have been recorded very fully indeed—is to be confronted with such a picture of time-consuming vacillation by the Board that one wonders how these small farmers ever got their factory going. One of their letters to the Board went unanswered for six months. I do not see why the interests of small farmers in South Caernarvonshire should be sacrifived to the administrative vagaries of Thames Ditton.
It is a rather cynical business when the very people who were responsible for the delay in production cut down the allocation because of that delay. It is rather more than cynical when another creamery in the North of England, which was not manufacturing cheese in 1957
354
and which came to production at about the same time as South Caernarvonshire, was granted a full allocation. Why this discrimination? Is it a case of one creamery being owned by an association of small farmers and another being owned by big business combines?
Then there is the argument that there is a shortage of milk for this class of manufacture. It is agreed that not too much milk should go into this type of manufacture if the price level is to be maintained. There is the suggestion all the time that there is a shortage of milk for cheese-making. But what do the Board's figures show? In 1959, according to its annual report, 161 million gallons were made available for cheese throughout the country. By 1961, two years later, the figure was 207 million gallons. That is to say, during the past two years when the allocations to South Caernarvonshire has been held down to less than half of what it ought to be, the bulk supply for manufacturers throughout the country has gone up by 25 per cent.
Nor was there a shortage locally. There might be some argument if we asked that milk should be transferred from the Midlands to West Wales; but that is not the position at all. The exact opposite has been the case. The intake of this depôt is about 16,000 gallons a day. About 7,000 gallons only is allowed to be retained there. What happens to the rest? It is actually transported over a distance of 100 miles or more to other depôts and at a high and wholly unnecessary cost for transport. Between 1st July, 1960, and 30th June, 1961, 2,327,826 gallons were moved from South Caernarvonshire creamery to these far away depôts for manufacture and other purposes. The cost of haulage was £19,406.
It was all supposed to go into the butter and liquid markets, but there are proven instances of some of it finding its way into cheese-making. We are, therefore, faced with the fantastic situation of a creamery with idle cheese-making equipment having to send its own milk to other depôts 100 miles away, where the equipment is often overworked, and the public having to finance this pointless transfer to the tune of £20,000 each year. Of course, not a drop of milk ought to leave South

355
Caernarvonshire when it can be processed there on the spot, thus saving heavy transport costs. That is a fair and economic thing to do, and the Board knows it. In 1957, it issued a Memorandum on Marketing Principles, Clause 3 of which states:
"The volume of milk needed to balance the requirements of the liquid market should be drawn from the nearest available depot sources",
to cut out what the Board itself called "irrational and unnecessary" transport costs.
That is very sensible, but why is that admirable dictum ignored in this case? It would save money and create employment in a district that sorely needs more industry. South Caernarvonshire is a development district under the terms of the Local Employment Act, 1960. For many years it has been an area of very high unemployment, running to as much as 10 per cent. or 12 per cent. of the insured population in winter, and it is not easy to attract new industry to such a remote area.
The Parliamentary Secretary's colleagues in the Board of Trade continually press us to exercise local initiative, to set up our own industries, based on our own raw material. We have no coal or iron, but we have a drop of milk. That is our raw material and that is precisely the kind of industry which ought to be encouraged in our part of the world. By dint of wise management, it already employs nearly 150 men. It could employ many more if raw material, milk, were retained in the district and the idle men and idle machinery were fully used to process it. The Board itself, in its last annual report, states that the market for cheese is good, that consumption is rising, that the price level is well maintained, but instead of the creamery taking on more men a lot of men will have to be dismissed at the end of the summer under the present allocation policy.
This is not just a constituency matter. It raises other questions and other issues. One is bound to ask a number of questions of the Minister. For instance, through what agency does the Board make its allocations? Who are the members of the operating agency? How are they chosen? Can we have their names and the business interests they represent? What is the procedure of
356
allocation? Why should it be rigidly applied to the South Caernarvonshire Creamery and waived in the case of another creamery which started some time later in another part of the country?
What are the criteria? Are they subject to revision? Or are they frozen for ever, no matter what developments may take place in milk production in various parts of the country, to the continued detriment of small undertakings and the increasing advantage of large combines? Have any new applications for allocations been granted since March, 1958? If so, to whom? Have there been cases of increased allocations during that period to concerns already participating? Moreover, what has happened to the directive of 1957 from which I quoted and which lays down quite clearly the policy of concentrating manufacture in source depots to avoid unnecessary transport costs?
We have seen about £20,000 spent annually to carry milk from South Caernarvon to Cheshire and Lancashire to be manufactured. In how many other cases in the country does that happen? What is the total cost of such pointless operations in a year and over the years?
This is a matter which should be put right. It must be put right in so far as South Caernarvonshire Creamery are concerned, and I rather think it will be put right, but it must also be put right on the national level. The present method of allocation is inequitable and uneconomic. My hon. Friends the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) and the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and I will return to this question unless we get an assurance from the Minister that the whole procedure of allocation will be looked into and revised where it is necessary to do so.
I do not expect the Parliamentary Secretary to judge this matter tonight. One understands his position in relation to a board of this nature, but I do expect him to do two things, first, to put right the position of South Caernarvonshire Creamery in regard to its allocation for the manufacture of cheese, and, secondly, to make an inquiry into the whole method of allocation, which is clearly in need of revision and which some people are beginning to feel is subject to influence and pressure

357
which the originators of the Milk Marketing Board never envisaged.
I speak as a friend of the Milk Marketing Board and as a strong supporter of it, and I would not like the Board to begin making the mistakes which would forfeit for it the good will and support of the farming community, and, indeed, of the public generally.
10.29 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): The hon. Gentleman the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) was good enough to tell me some of the points he intended to raise this evening and to give me an outline of what he feels had gone wrong. I hope to try to help him at least in part. First, I should like to make clear that what we are discussing tonight is definitely the Milk Marketing Board's allocation of milk to individual manufacturers and nothing to do with any possible method of payment to producers to implement Government guarantees.
The hon. Member is concerned in particular with the allocation of supplies to manufacturers of milk products by the Milk Marketing Board. I am glad that he paid tribute to the Board because I, living in a rather remote district, and the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) living in a somewhat similarly remote district, can both agree with him that the operations of the Milk Marketing Board over the last few years have brought very great benefit to the farmers and particularly to the small farmers in those districts. Here and now I can say that there is no intention on the part of the Milk Marketing Board, as policy, to discriminate against the small man or against the run of small men, as he put it, as opposed to the larger combine.
As to the small points of administration which the hon. Member has mentioned, and not least the question of delays in correspondence, he cannot, of course, expect me to say what happened to every individual communication, but I am sure that the Milk Marketing Board will read the OFFICIAL REPORT and will take note of his comments.
What the hon. Gentleman wants to ensure in the future is that this particular creamery should have sufficient supplies to keep plant and labour force fully employed. I am told that the alloca-
358
tion that this creamery has had has not so far departed from the national average. He asked me towards the end of his speech whether there were any applications from new creameries since March, 1958.
I gather he understands that creamery's recent allocation has been based on what one might call a more arbitrary figure, because it was not manufacturing during what is called, in the jargon, the datum year. I can assure him that there has been only one other such allocation since March, 1958, and that was to a creamery in Appleby. There was certainly no attempt at favour or pressure on my part in that respect.
I should like to make two points to the hon. Member, but before doing so there is the important matter of the background and the constitutional position. During the war, and after the war ended, as we know, the Ministry of Food was closely concerned with the marketing of milk and was responsible for allocations. Then in April, 1954, there was the decision to decontrol milk supplies, and marketing powers were restored to the Milk Marketing Board. The powers of the Board in England and Wales are exercised under an amended Milk Marketing Scheme which came into operation after a public inquiry in 1955, subject to safeguards.
Other interests, of course, include buyers of milk for trading and manufacturing purposes. I want to say something about the Board's powers, but first let us look at the safeguards. First, there is provision in the amended Milk Marketing Scheme itself for consultation with dairymen, and under paragraph 66 of the Scheme there is a joint committee consisting of representatives of the Board on the one hand and of buyers of milk on the other. I cannot give the hon. Member all the names of that committee tonight but they are representatives of all the trade interests concerned.
The Board is required to consult this joint committee on various matters, including the terms on which milk is sold and the method of allocating supplies to different categories of buyers engaged in the distribution or the manufacture of milk products, and the Scheme provides that in the case of disagreement between the two sides of the joint committee the matter should be referred to a consultant, or to an umpire if one prefers that word.

359
The present consultant is Sir Herbert Davis, C.B.E. The Board has normally accepted his decision, although it is not bound to do so under the terms of the Scheme.
The buyers' side of the joint committee is appointed by the Central Milk Distributive Committee, the federated body made up of the various trade associations concerned with milk distribution and manufacture and that includes cheese-makers. Every distributor and manufacturer is entitled to join one or other of these.
They have an additional safeguard for their interests, provided by the Agricultural Marketing Act under which the milk marketing scheme has been set up. Even if the Central Milk Distributive Committee and the Board agree on an issue which adversely affects the interests of a particular distributor or manufacturer, the Act provides a means for him to bring his grievances before the Minister for investigation.
Under Section 19 of the 1958 Act, if my right hon. Friend receives a formal complaint from anyone who considers he has been aggrieved by the operation of the scheme, he may refer the matter to the Committee of Investigation, which is a different committee, set up under the Act for that purpose. If that Committee finds that any provision of the scheme, or any act or omission of the Board, is contrary to the interests of any persons affected by the scheme and is not in the public interest, my right hon. Friend may, if he thinks fit, require the Board to remedy the situation if it is within its power to do so; or, he may make an order amending the scheme. I have summarised the wording of the Act, but that is its general purport.
Now if against this background, we turn to the case referred to by the hon. Member for Caernarvon, I said that I wanted to make only two points in my reply. The first is that it is a well-established, and I think generally accepted, doctrine that the Government should not intervene directly in the administrative arrangements or marketing operations of the Milk Marketing Board. The Board has been set up under Act of Parliament to administer a scheme, which itself has received the approval of Parliament, with wide powers to market milk on behalf of the dairy farmers in
360
England and Wales. The allocation of supplies between liquid milk distributors or milk products manufacturers is clearly an essential part of these marketing operations.
Of course the total volume of milk that the Board has to handle is not a constant during the year. It varies considerably from the peak months in the summer to the troughs in the winter, and whereas the creameries and other manufacturing firms may find that they are under pressure at some times of the year, inevitably their machinery is not fully employed at other times. It would, therefore, be quite wrong for us to try to tell the Board how to run its affairs or to say to it that it should allocate more to one manufacturer or less to another. We should find ourselves in an intolerable position if we were to intervene in this way.
I am sorry therefore that I cannot undertake to explain to the hon. Member on what basis the Board allocates supplies of milk for cheese-making to different creameries, or why his constituents cannot get as large an allocation as they would like. These are questions which he, or they, should address to the Board, if they have not already done so.
However, and here I come to my second point, I have explained the constitutional means that are available to purchasers of milk to seek satisfaction, if they feel themselves aggrieved. I suggest that their proper course, in the first instance, is to take the matter up with the joint committee, through the appropriate trade association. If this fails, it is open to them to lay a formal complaint before the Minister, so that he can consider whether to refer it to the Committee of Investigation under the 1958 Act. Meanwhile I cannot intervene because of the quasi-judicial position that my right hon. Friend the Minister may find himself in, nor would it be right for me to express a view on the merits of the case that the hon. Member has presented.
The Question having been proposed after 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 twenty-one minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRADE AND COMMERCE
  H. Jasper & Co., Ltd., and State Building Society (Reports)
  H. Jasper & Co., Ltd., and State Building Society (Reports)
  Companies Act, 1948 (Section 54)
  Companies Act, 1948 (Section 54)
  Land, Wrexham Industrial Estate
  Land, Wrexham Industrial Estate
  United States and Canada (Minister's Visit)
  United States and Canada (Minister's Visit)
  Exports (Commonwealth and Common Market Countries)
  Exports (Commonwealth and Common Market Countries)
  Weights and Measures (Legislation)
  Weights and Measures (Legislation)
  Barley
  Barley
  Machine Tools (Design, Research and Development)
  Machine Tools (Design, Research and Development)
  Gold and Dollar Reserves
  Gold and Dollar Reserves
  Anti-Dumping Duties (Applications)
  Anti-Dumping Duties (Applications)
  PORTUGAL
  PORTUGAL
SCIENCE
  Industrial Design
  Industrial Design
  Research, Scotland
  Research, Scotland
  Dissolved Deposits
  Dissolved Deposits
  D.S.I.R. Training Awards, Scotland
  D.S.I.R. Training Awards, Scotland
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Stonehenge
  Stonehenge
  Palace of Westminster (Car Parking)
  Palace of Westminster (Car Parking)
  Cement Supplies, Cornwall
  Cement Supplies, Cornwall
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  South Essex Waterworks Company
  South Essex Waterworks Company
  Works, Derby (Emission of Fumes)
  Works, Derby (Emission of Fumes)
  Finance
  Finance
  Railway Property (Derating)
  Railway Property (Derating)
  Industrial Rating
  Industrial Rating
HOUSING
  Sub-Tenants (Rents)
  Sub-Tenants (Rents)
EAST AFRICA
  Discussions
  Discussions
MAURITIUS
  Constitutional Conference
  Constitutional Conference
TANGANYIKA
  Constitution (Talks)
  Constitution (Talks)
SCOTLAND
  Fishing Vessels (Seizure of Gear)
  Fishing Vessels (Seizure of Gear)
  Fishery Limits, Moray Firth
  Fishery Limits, Moray Firth
  Balloch—Tarbet Road
  Balloch—Tarbet Road
  Building Industry, Dundee
  Building Industry, Dundee
  Water Supply, Ayrshire
  Water Supply, Ayrshire
  Horticulture
  Horticulture
INDIA
  Immigration to United Kingdom (Travel Documents)
  Immigration to United Kingdom (Travel Documents)
  KUWAIT
  KUWAIT
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Kuwait
  Kuwait
  Private Property (Power of Entry)
  Private Property (Power of Entry)
EDUCATION
  Teachers
  Teachers
EMPLOYMENT
  Truck Acts (Committee's Report)
  Truck Acts (Committee's Report)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Universities (Grants)
  Universities (Grants)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Local Authorities (Copies of Statutes)
  Local Authorities (Copies of Statutes)
POST OFFICE
  Private Property (Power of Entry)
  Private Property (Power of Entry)

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

RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS
2.35 p.m.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: 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 what is the latest estimate of the number of sufferers from rheumatoid arthritis in Great Britain; and the amount of the Government grant for research into this crippling disease for the current year.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, estimates based on two careful surveys of small populations suggest that about 350,000 persons over the age of fifteen years may be suffering from rheumatoid arthritis or have residual disabilities from an earlier attack. Figures based upon such small samples must be used with caution. It is also estimated that a further one million persons may have less well defined signs and symptoms. The total estimated expenditure by the Medical Research Council in 1961 to 1962 for research into rheumatism and arthritis is expected to be about £84,000.
LORD WILLIAMS of BARNBURGH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Viscount for his reply, I am afraid that I cannot congratulate him upon it. For is the noble Viscount not aware that if only 10 per cent. of the 1½ million suffering slightly or more dangerously from this disease were unemployed due to physical disability, we should be losing more man-hours of work than are lost by all the unofficial or official strikes in this country?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, that may be so and I think that underlines the importance of dealing with the disease. But I do not believe that it invalidates any part of my Answer.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, is the noble Viscount satisfied that the very small contribution for research into this series of dangerous diseases called arthritis is an adequate complementary approach on the part of the Government to get rid, partially or wholly, of this disease?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware, and certainly I think we must emphasise the fact, that in contributing sums to medical research we take the advice of our scientific advisers, the Medical Research Council. I know that they have this matter very closely under consideration. But I do not think that in dealing with scientific projects and research one can necessarily measure it entirely in terms of money. When we are dealing with the advance of knowledge we must, I think, face the fact that projects of research depend upon the existence of men of suitable quality and ideas worth investigating. As to what those men are and what those ideas are, we must take the advice of the profession as to what is worth doing.
Perhaps I ought to add some further information to my original Answer, because although the Answer is a perfectly correct Answer to the Question asked I think there are certain other things which should be said about it. The Medical Research Council examined the position of research into rheumatic disorders earlier this year. They expressed satisfaction with the quality of the work which they are at present supporting, but considered that it was necessary to keep the general state of research in this field under review. There are not enough well-trained scientific workers engaged in research on rheumatism. But a particular difficulty appears to be the relative lack of interest in rheumatology in the United Kingdom which discourages recruits. It appears that the remedy depends very much on a change of mind on the part of the medical profession, which must be encouraged to recognise the importance of the subject.

73
I should also like to add, because otherwise the figures would be misleading, that a good deal of research on the rheumatic diseases is, of course, carried out in university and hospital teaching departments and in the course of treating patients under the National Health Service. I cannot make a reliable estimate of the expenditure involved in this research but I should have to add the cost to the figures of the Medical Research Council's grant. One would also have to take into the account the extent to which voluntary bodies, such as the Empire Rheumatism Council and the Nuffield Foundation, are active in encouraging research in this country. I do not think I have figures for the Nuffield Foundation, but in 1960 the Empire Rheumatism Council spent another £56,800 on research. Those facts, also, ought to be borne in mind.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of the noble Viscount's comment that men and women were not coming forward because they found this field not very interesting, would he not agree that he will not attract the best researchers in this country unless they are paid adequately? He has revealed this afternoon that the Medical Research Council are giving a miserable contribution in respect of this very widespread disease. Perhaps he might make the picture a little better if he could tell the House how much is being contributed by the voluntary research organisations.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think that if the noble Lady looks at the latter part of my Answer she will see the best figures I can give with regard to the last part of her supplementary. Obviously, research workers must be paid properly; but, equally obviously, the Government must take the advice of the Medical Research Council as to what projects are worth pursuing and what people are worth supporting. I think it is wrong, when you are considering research, to look simply in terms of pounds spent. There are many other factors which have to be taken into account. If the noble Lady knows of any suitable researchers or projects which are not being at the moment considered, I will, of course, undertake to see that they are carefully examined by the Medical Research Council, whose constitutional function it is to settle the
74
scale of research and also to settle the particular projects which should receive support.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I thank the noble Viscount for the very great detail into which he has gone? But does he not think that the very facts he has given must indicate the inadequate nature of the steps being taken to treat rheumatoid arthritis, because of the lack of adequate research? And is it not for the Government, as well as for the Medical Research Council, to try to grapple with this problem and, by giving sufficient research grants, to make it an inducement to young students to come in, so getting a wider research than is at present going on? The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, and myself are very interested because we are vice-presidents of the Empire Rheumatism Council. I feel that the noble Viscount has given a lot of information this afternoon, but it seems to impress on to my mind the inadequacy of the present arrangements.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not think that it would be fair to say that the treatment is inadequate; or, at any rate, if there is any inadequacy in the treatment, it would not be fair to assume this from the answers I have given. That would be a question for the Ministry of Health, and I do not think I should accept that. Even if the Answer I have given reveals an inadequate scale of research, I should not myself accept the view that the Government would be right to disregard the advice of the Medical Research Council on this matter. If the noble Viscount will look at the first part of the second answer I gave, in which I told him that the Medical Research Council, while expressing satisfaction at the quality of the work, were keeping the scale of the effort under review, I think he will understand that they are well aware of the nature of the problem and of the extent to which they would welcome an increase of activity on this front.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, would not the noble Viscount agree with me when I say, in view of all our experience, that the medical associations have never taken arthritis seriously; hence the failure over the

75
decades to find any approach to a solution?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord looks at my Answer, I think he will see that this is precisely, in suitably guarded terms, the view which the Medical Research Council have instructed me to put before the House.

LONDON AIRPORT ADVERTISEMENTS
2.45 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: 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 when they decided that the roof of the new left-luggage office at the centre of London Airport was a suitable site to carry advertisements; when and how they informed advertisers that the site was available for this purpose; how many applications they received for its use; how they determined the rent payable by the successful applicant; and what conditions, if any, they imposed.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the advertising at London (Heathrow) Airport is let by my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation as a concession to an advertising contractor who negotiates the letting of sites to advertisers. The use of the roof of the left-luggage office for advertising purposes was approved in principle in October, 1960, and the style of the present advertisement in January, 1961.
The site was let by the advertising concessionaire to the present advertisers who had applied for space on the airport. These advertisers agreed to pay the site rent which had been assessed by the concessionaire. The conditions imposed were that the advertisement should be approved by the architect and that any letting, in the first instance, should be for a relatively short period of one to two years.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for his detailed Answer, which I shall carefully study. May I further ask him these questions? First, am I correct in understanding that
76
the buildings to be used for advertising purposes are decided by someone without taking any architectural advice at all? Secondly, are we to understand that other buildings at the airport may be treated in a similar way? Finally, how does my noble friend explain the apparent fact that other advertisers did not apply for this particular site? Was the reason that they did not know it was available, or were they, unlike Her Majesty's Government, held back by a sense of decency?
LORD DENHAM: In answer to my noble friend's first supplementary question, the answer is, No. The general manager of London Airport decides which sites shall be used for advertising, but when he does so he is in close consultation with the consulting architects. The answer to the second supplementary is that the advertising concessionnaire is required under the terms of his contract to exercise the rights granted to him to the satisfaction of the Minister. Will my noble friend repeat the third supplementary?
LORD CONESFORD: My third supplementary was about the reasons why other applications were not received for this particular site.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, it has never been officially stated that other applications were not received. This matter is left to the advertising concessionnaire to get the best terms—and by "terms" I mean not only financial, but taking everything else into consideration—that he can for the Government. This of course is under the control of the general manager of London Airport.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, whilst it is desirable, I think, to make proper economic use of the airports, is it not a fact that Heathrow is for many people the gateway to the United Kingdom, and in those circumstances ought not æsthetic considerations always to apply?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I certainly agree with that, but I would say that it is the duty of my right honourable friend to try to make the airports pay.
LORD LATHAM: Would the noble Lord agree that one of the principal exports to America is whisky?
LORD CONESFORD: Is there any evidence that a single extra glass of whisky will be drunk as a result of this advertisement?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that, whether as a result of the advertisement or as the result of the speeches of himself and his friends in another place I do not know, about two dozen bottles of this particular whisky are drunk at London Airport each week where none was drunk before.
LORD CONESFORD: Would my noble friend answer the one supplementary with which he has not dealt—namely, whether we may expect other buildings at London Airport to be treated in a similar way?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, each building is considered separately as to whether advertisements should be displayed on it. It is up to the general manager of the Airport, in consultation with the architects, to decide where the advertisements should be. I think we must leave consideration of other buildings until the time arises.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, as it would seem that Her Majesty's Government propose to do nothing to remove this advertisement from the roof in question at London Airport and as the Minister said, in reply to a similar Question in another place yesterday, that this advertisement was not to everybody's taste, would the noble Lord use his influence to see whether, purely from an æsthetic point of view, one of the labels could not be righted and whether the advertisement, which is in French, could not be written in correct French?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I will consider that. I would say that in this particular case the label being upside down is an advertising gimmick.
LORD MERRIVALE: It is in bad taste.
LORD DENHAM: It may be a matter of opinion as to whether or not it is in good taste. An advertisement has to be striking in order to be noticed at all.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is it a dominant sign? Is it by any chance "Black and White" or is it "White
78
Horse"? Would not the Leader of the House consider that it would be a good thing that the noble Lord who is answering should sit in close proximity to those who are considering the Licensing Bill, to see whether he can learn something which will enable him to give answers which will not encourage but discourage the use of such signs or such liquors?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not think that that would come within my noble friend's terms of reference; but I shall certainly see that I take some interest in the Licensing Bill, if that is what the noble Viscount wants me to do.

WELFARE OF KUWAIT FORCES
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given Private Notice, namely, whether they will make a statement as to what steps are being taken to deal with the points raised concerning the welfare and happiness in general of the troops and all the forces in Kuwait?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I will, with the permission of the House, make a statement later this afternoon.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
2.57 p.m.
Read 3a, and passed.

STATIONERS' AND NEWSPAPER MAKERS' COMPANY BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

POTATOES (GUAR ANTEED PRICES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1961
2.58 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL. WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Potatoes (Guaranteed Prices) (Amendment) Order, 1961 (Statutory Instrument 1961 No. 1119) dated June 16, 1961, a copy of which was laid before this House on June 21, be approved. The purpose of the Order is

79
to make a minor adjustment in the guarantee arrangements for potatoes to implement a decision arising from the 1961 Annual Review. The present arrangements provide that in any crop year in which the average price received by producers for potatoes sold for human consumption in the United Kingdom falls below the guaranteed price determined at the Annual Review, any deficiency monies may be paid to the Potato Marketing Board for the benefit of producers in Great Britain and to the Minister of Agriculture for Northern Ireland for the benefit of producers there.
The principal Order—The Potatoes (Guaranteed Prices) Order, 1959, Statutory Instrument No. 983—sets out the method by which Ministers shall estimate the quantity of potatoes to which the guarantee will apply. As this Order now stands, account may be taken of potatoes sold through approved channels by producers registered either with the Potato Marketing Board in Great Britain or with the Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland.
In the course of the 1961 Annual Review, it was represented to the Government by the producers' organisations that these arrangements would result in an under-statement of the total sales for the purpose of the guarantee to the extent that they excluded potatoes sold through the recognised channels by certain producers in Great Britain who need not be registered under the Potato Marketing Scheme. Primarily, these are producers who grow less than one acre of potatoes, and others in certain Scottish islands and the Isles of Scilly. There is no Potato Marketing Scheme in Northern Ireland and accordingly the question of exemption does not arise there.
The Government agreed that it was reasonable that these sales should be taken into account and the Order we are discussing to-day (No. 1119 of 1961) makes the necessary amending provision. Your Lordships will see the three changes set out as (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 of this Order. I think I can explain their effect quite simply. First, amendment (a) simplifies the definition of "producer" in paragraph 2 (1) of the 1959 Order, which as it now stands makes
80
"producer" mean a registered producer only. As amended, the 1959 Order will now read "'producer' means a producer of potatoes".
Secondly, paragraph 4 of the 1959 Order lays on Ministers the duty of making an estimate (for guarantee purposes) of the quantity of potatoes sold in the United Kingdom for human consumption through recognised channels. Amendment (b) in paragraph 2 of this Order (1119) makes it clear that only potatoes sold through recognised channels will be counted in this estimate. The types of sale recognised are set out in paragraph 4 (1) of the 1959 Order; in effect, they are sales through the wholesale trade, or other sales licensed by the Board. Amendment (c) adds another recognised channel—
"by producers to the Board and subsequently sold or to be by the Board for human consumption"—
and slightly rewords paragraph 4 (1) (a) (iii).
The adjustment in the guarantee arrangements is a minor one, the quantity of potatoes involved is marginal and there is no alteration in the basic principles of the guarantee. The Order is intended to come into force as from the beginning of the next crop year, which is 1st August, 1961, and does not therefore affect the arrangements for the 1960 crop. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Potatoes (Guaranteed Prices) (Amendment) Order, 1961, be approved.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
3.0 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, the noble Earl the Minister who has introduced this Order has described the amendments as being minor, but there are one or two points about the Order which I believe should be raised. The original Order has now been in operation for two years, since June, 1959, when we discussed it, to some extent, in your Lordships' House. I feel, therefore, that this particular Order should not be passed without some consideration of what has happened in the meantime. Naturally the Order is based on what was contained in the Price Review which we discussed a few months ago.
The amendments which are described as minor bring in unregistered producers. While the potatoes produced by such

81
producers may be small in quantity, they may affect the tonnage which has to be taken into account in arriving at a deficiency payment, and may affect the deficiency payment itself. The alterations affect paragraphs 2 and 4 of the original Order but there are other paragraphs in that Order to which I think I should call your Lordships' attention and there are a few points of information which arise in that connection. The original paragraphs (in addition to paragraphs 2 and 4) provide for the determination of the guaranteed price, the payment of the deficiency payment to the Potato Marketing Board and the limitation of contributions towards the administrative expenses of the Board to 50 per cent. and to not more than £300,000 per annum at least in the first two years. I should like the noble Earl the Minister to say what is likely to be the position in regard to the contribution of 50 per cent. which the Exchequer is to make to the Potato Marketing Board in the future, and whether, in fact, the amount of £300,000 was paid to the Potato Marketing Board in the last two years.
Further, the original paragraphs provide for an advance to be made to the Board to meet the deficiency payments and administration expenses. Could the noble Earl tell us whether there is any portion of that advance, loan, or whatever it may be, still outstanding, or whether the whole of the advances made by the Exchequer for these particular purposes have been repaid by the Board? Also, I think we should be informed as to the position in regard to any future loans to the Board—whether they are likely to exceed £300,000, on the basis of 50 per cent. of the administration costs, or not.
There is another point which arises: the effect of the 5s. per ton increase in the deficiency payment to potato producers in the coming year. The producers have been lucky. Year by year there has been an increase in the amount of the guaranteed price. Two years ago when the Order was first brought into oneration the guaranteed price was £12 14s. per ton. It has now gone up to £13 5s. per ton—possibly not a very serious increase, but certainly an increase which farmers in that branch of agriculture are naturally pleased to have. In the original Order the amount of tonnage on which payment had to be made
82
was, I believe, about two-thirds of the total tonnage of potatoes produced. The difference was in the tonnage for seed, for feeding purposes, and, I expect, for export. I wonder whether in the future, or in this coming year under the new conditions, the tonnage on which deficiency payment will have to be made will be approximately two-thirds or some other fraction.
In our debate on agriculture a point was raised in regard to Scottish potatoes. I do not know whether I am capable of speaking on Scottish potatoes but I wish to ask this question: is there any increase in the deficiency payment made to farmers by reason of the fact that the price of Scottish potatoes for human consumption appears to be less than the price paid in other parts of the United Kingdom? I know, of course, that Scottish farmers gain on the rebound, because a considerable quantity of Scottish potatoes are sent to other parts of the country for seed purposes at seed prices, so what they lose on the sale of potatoes for human consumption undoubtedly they gain through the sale of potatoes for seed purposes.
There is a further point. In the Price Review there is a reference to the establishment of a Market Support Fund. That was mentioned in our discussion by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, who suggested that the amount which would be paid by the Government would be £2 million per annum and by the Potato Marketing Board £1 million over a period of five years. Now the Price Review says:
"If it is not possible to complete arrangements for the establishment of a Market Support Fund in time for the 1961 crop, arrangements similar to those which applied to the 1959 and 1960 crops will be introduced if necessary."
Well, they have been introduced today, but I should like to know if the Minister can give us any information on whether the amendments which are likely to be suggested by the Potato Marketing Board have been met and whether the scheme has progressed since we dealt with the Price Review. That is all I have to say in regard to this Order. I hope it will now be passed and that the potato producers in this country, possibly as a result of this Order and of better marketing conditions, will have a better future for their crops than, unfortunately they had on the last harvest.
3.8 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, there are two points I would raise with my noble friend. First, is there any prospect of our being able to relate price to quality in potatoes in the future, rather than relating the straight difference in price to different strains or grades?—because consumers are grumbling more and more that potatoes boil black. Rightly or wrongly, they believe that that is due to overindulgence in artificial manures by the farmers who are able thus to secure very high yields. It is a difficult problem and I do not know whether it is possible of solution.
There is something further I should like to know. People in this country are more and more exercised at the thought of British agriculture being, so to speak, held in check at a time when large areas of the world are suffering from famine and the like. Could my noble friend give me any account of what happens to the surplus potatoes when we get a heavy surplus, as is bound to happen with any crop when the climate happens to be favourable; because I believe it would be greatly in keeping with the general sentiment of the British people if they felt that the surpluses which undoubtedly our farmers could grow could be dehydrated and used for famine relief purposes in other parts of the world.
3.10 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for supporting this Order which, as I endeavoured to point out, is a very limited one, although the remarks which have been made have extended widely over the general range of potato schemes. I will do my best to answer the points raised. First of all, there was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, about the administrative costs. The noble Lord will recall that the Government's obligation was to pay up to 50 per cent. of the administrative costs of the Potato Marketing Board, up to a maximum of £600,000 a year; and 50 per cent. of that, of course, would be £300,000 a year. In fact, those costs were incurred in the years 1959 and 1960: and £300,000 was in fact paid to the Potato Marketing Board in those two years, 1959 and 1960.
The noble Lord went on to ask what will be the position in the future. I
84
cannot say. I am not in a position to say what arrangements will be made in the future as a result of negotiations between the Board and the Government. The noble Lord then asked: What happens to the advances that have been made? I should like to make it quite clear that the advances which have been made to the Board are on account of deficiency payments or administrative expenses, and there is no question, of course, of the repayment or reimbursement of those. They were sums due to the Board which have been paid to the Board.
LORD WISE: May I get that clear? They have been absorbed in the total payment to the Board, I take it—in the £300,000?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: The noble Lord will know that there has been no deficiency payment as yet. The administrative costs having been in excess of £600,000, the Government have made the maximum £300,000 payment—it is not an advance—to the Board. The noble Lord will know that there was no deficiency payment last year, but it is anticipated that in this potato year there will be a substantial deficiency payment.
Another point the noble Lord made was about the difference in price of the Scottish potatoes. The deficiency payment will be worked out, under the terms of the Order, on the basis of the ascertained market price throughout the United Kingdom, and if prices are lower or higher in one part of the country or another it is all taken into account. I cannot give the noble Lord any information about what the new arrangements will be for the new scheme, which were discussed in the Price Review. They will probably be the subject of an Order which will be laid before your Lordships later on, and we are not yet ready with that.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, raised two questions, which I am pleased to be able to answer easily. The Potato Marketing Board are indeed concerned with quality, and are taking very active steps to see that the quality of potatoes is kept up; because, of course, that is one of the main weapons that they have to keep up the sales of this article of food. I should not like to express an opinion as to whether potatoes boil black because artificial fertilisers have been used,

85
but these things are being gone into by those who would know.
The noble Lord also raised the very interesting question of what happens to the surplus potatoes in these years of plenty, when the Potato Marketing Board are required, with Government aid, to start a support-buying programme and buy potatoes. A number of these potatoes are sold back again for human consumption. That is one of the purposes of the support-buying programme—that they can be taken off the market when there is a glut and put back on the market again later on when the market can absorb them. But a great quantity of these potatoes are, of course, sold for stock-feed, and not for human consumption. We will certainly give consideration to the thought that perhaps these potatoes could be used for famine relief in foreign countries. But, my Lords, that is a very difficult problem indeed. The potato is not a valuable article in itself; it is very heavy to transport, and whether or not it would ever prove practical to send shipments of surplus potatoes to distant countries overseas I should not like to guess. I should have thought that this might not be the most suitable article of food for such a purpose.
LORD HAWKE: I think the noble Earl has misunderstood me. I said dehydrated potatoes.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I beg my noble friend's pardon. Of course, that raises a different question; but the Potato Marketing Board would presumably sell these potatoes to commercial processors who, if they thought it was proper business, would no doubt dehydrate them and send them to any markets that they might have available. But the question of Government policy on dehydrating surplus potatoes and using them for famine relief is, I think, a wider question (of which I should want notice) than this really very minor amendment Order which we are now discussing.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSING BILL
3.17 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. Your Lordships are familiar with the White Paper entitled, Housing in England and Wales (Cmnd. 1290), which was published in February. That White Paper contains the background to, and the reasons for, the present Bill. Because of your familiarity with the broad picture, and because I want to be as brief as possible, I will not go over the general ground traversed by that White Paper. Suffice it to say that for the early postwar years the pressing need in housing was for more family accommodation. However, since the war ended, nearly 3,400,000 new houses have been built in England and Wales, of which rather more than 2½ million have been built since Sir Winston Churchill's Administration took office in November, 1951. Building continues at the rate of about 270,000 houses a year. In any event, by about 1954 the overall position, which I do not wish to minimise, had eased to the point where we could once more take up again the work of slum clearance which had been cut short by the war.
The survey carried out by local authorities in 1955 suggested that there were about 850,000 houses in England and Wales which were unfit to be lived in. Of these, 270,000 slum properties have now been dealt with; and others are being cleared or closed at the rate of about 60,000 a year. Slum clearance, indeed, remains the first priority. Nevertheless, we are now coming in sight of the time when some authorities at least will be free to turn their attention to other urgent tasks, such as the relief of chronic overcrowding, overspill, the modernisation of old houses, and to meeting what each Census reveals as a growing problem —the housing requirements of older people. As the problems change, so changes are necessarily required in the network of powers and financial provisions with which we seek to solve these matters. In the Government's opinion,

87
the time has now come for a recasting of the subsidy system to make it rather more flexible, and to concentrate financial assistance where it is most needed. That is one main purpose of the Bill. It is to be found in Part I, which also contains important provisions designed to stimulate the building of new houses to let.
My Lords, the first six clauses of Part I of the Bill are solely concerned with housing subsidies. Two main changes are made here. The first is that in future subsidy will be payable on all houses built by a local authority which are approved by the Minister, instead of only on those built for specified purposes, such as slum clearance. That gives local authorities the added flexibility which we consider they should now have. The second change is that, with limited exceptions, with which I shall deal later, the rate of subsidy payable on local authority houses will in future be discriminatory; it will depend on an assessment of the particular authority's need for financial assistance. In this way, the Government aim to give more assistance where assistance is most needed, while maintaining the total call on the taxpayer at about its present level—that is to say, some £61 million a year covering existing subsidies, with about an extra £3 million a year for new subsidies.
The provisions for determining the appropriate rate of subsidy will be found in Clause 4 of the Bill, which is the kernel of this part of it. The method is to compare the local authority's actual expenditure on housing, as debited to the statutory housing revenue account in the last year for which figures are available, with their potential housing income. This potential income is arrived at by taking the actual income credited to the account from all sources other than house rents and the general rate fund, and adding to it a sum equal to twice the gross value of the authority's houses and flats. If the expenditure exceeds the potential income, the authority will qualify for a basic subsidy of £24 per house per year for 60 years. If not, they will receive only £8.
The logic of this formula is that a sum equal to twice the gross value is a contribution which in the Government's view every local authority should be able to find without undue difficulty from
88
its own resources in the shape of rents, with or without assistance from the rates. Some authorities already collect more than this in rents alone. Consequently, local authorities who, if one assumes such an income, would be more than able to meet their liabilities can fairly be said to be in much less need of assistance than the rest. What rents are actually charged will, of course, remain, as now, entirely a matter for the local authority to decide.
This assessment of resources has to be done afresh each year. An authority with a surplus of resources over expenditure which continues to build on a large scale will sooner or later reach the point where expenditure exceeds potential income, and they will then qualify for the £24 a year subsidy in respect of houses which they build after that. If the excess of expenditure over income continues to mount, they may of course in time qualify under the First Schedule of the Bill for a higher rate of subsidy on future building—for a subsidy of £29 per house, of £34 per house, reaching a maximum in special cases of £40 per house. I know that the Bill has been criticised in some quarters for not giving more assistance to some authorities with grave housing problems. Liverpool, I think, is a case in point. But your Lordships will appreciate, from what I have said, that it does provide a means whereby authorities who not merely have a problem but also tackle it vigorously may progress to a higher rate of subsidy as their housing programme grows, and, in consequence, the strain on their finances grows.
I mentioned just now that there were some exceptions to this new general subsidy system, and I should now like for a moment to turn to them. They will be found in Clause 3, which provides a flat rate of subsidy for houses built for certain specific purposes. The most important of these is overspill. Houses provided for this purpose will qualify for a subsidy of £28 per year for 60 years, instead of the present £24. That applies equally to houses built by local authorities under their own town development schemes, and to houses built by development corporations in new towns. At the same time, the annual extra Exchequer contribution payable by the Minister under the Town Development Act is being increased, under

89
Clause 10, from £8 per year, payable over ten years, to £12 per year, payable over fifteen years. My right honourable friend hopes that this increase in financial aid for overspill building, which amounts to an increase to a maximum of from £32 per house to £40 per house per year, will give a fresh impetus to the building of houses for the relief of congestion in our larger towns and cities. Clause 3 also continues the present subsidy of £24 per year for 60 years in respect of houses built by a local authority for workers coming into their area to meet the urgent need of industry.
Perhaps in this connection I might be allowed to mention Clause 33, right at the end of the Bill. When the Town Development Act, 1952, was passed, it was thought improbable that a county borough could qualify as what is called a "receiving authority"; but it would now appear that there are, or may be, some smaller county boroughs which could play a useful part as receiving authorities and thus help to relieve overspill pressures. Subsection (1) of this clause would make this possible.
There is one further point, my Lords, in connection with subsidy which I should draw to your Lordships' attention. The new subsidies, like the present ones, will normally be payable for 60 years. But Clause 2 (4), gives the Minister power, once the Bill has been in force for ten years, to abolish or reduce subsidies payable under it in respect of houses which have already been built, as well as on houses for which tenders have yet to be accepted. This is essentially a precautionary measure, designed to ensure that the Exchequer is not committed, as it is under present legislation, to payment of subsidy for the full 60-year period irrespective of any changes that may occur in the needs of local authorities for financial assistance.
The present arrangements can have pretty odd results. Thus, an authority may be receiving subsidies on houses on which it now makes a clear profit. I can, of course, reaffirm what has already been made quite clear, I think, in another place—namely, that this power will not be used unless there has been a major rise in income levels, and consequently in the capacity of tenants to
90
pay rents. In consequence, I would submit that there is little force in the criticism which has been advanced, that it will make it impossible for local authorities to plan ahead.
On the whole, as your Lordships will now be aware, Part I of the Bill does not break a great deal of new ground; but before leaving it I should like to direct your Lordships' attention to the clauses in it which do in fact break new ground —namely Clauses 7 and 8, which deal with housing associations. The housing association movement started, as many of your Lordships are doubtless aware, about the time Queen Victoria came to the Throne. Its origins were philanthropic, and the ideal of social service has always played a notable part in the movement. Over the years these associations have done very useful work in helping to meet housing needs, especially perhaps of old people, to whose requirements they are able to bring a personal touch.
There are about 900 housing associations in all, I understand, and since 1945, they have provided some 45,000 new houses in Great Britain, a significant but none the less quite small proportion of the total of new houses built in this country since the war. For the most part, they work in close co-operation with the local authorities and on the basis of loans from them; also by making what are termed authorised arrangements with their local authorities, associations are able to obtain through them the Exchequer subsidy which would have been paid to the local authority if they themselves had been providing the houses. A fruitful partnership has thus grown up between the local authorities and the housing associations.
The Bill does not in any way propose to interfere with that. Indeed, the Government look to the local authorities to maintain and to extend the help they are already giving to the associations, who are supplementing their own work. My right honourable friend's wish is that local authorities will continue to finance the schemes of these housing associations and, by making authorised arrangements with them, pass on the subsidy to them wherever the houses being built by them would have attracted subsidy had the authority themselves

91
been building them. The rate of subsidy which housing associations would attract will be the higher one of £24.
In addition, the Government believe that housing associations may have a special and valuable rôle to play in one rather important sector of the housing front. At present, the resources of private industry and private capital are almost entirely devoted to meeting the sustained demand for houses for owner occupation, while local authorities are naturally concentrating on the needs of those who cannot look elsewhere than to the local authority for accommodation. As paragraph 41 of the White Paper puts it:
"More new houses to let are also needed for people who do not wish or cannot afford to buy a house, though they require no help from public funds."
Very little such accommodation is at present being provided. In the Government's view, there is great scope and great opportunity here for housing associations, standing as they do midway between private enterprise and the local authorities. Therefore, the Government propose to make available, under Clause 7 of the Bill, the sum of £25 million, from which the Minister may advance loans direct to non-profit-making housing associations, who undertake building to let at cost rents.
My right honourable friend will need to be satisfied that there is a real need in the area concerned for the type of accommodation proposed, and his approval to the proposals will be required. Under the agreement which the Minister will enter into with the associations, he will be able to advance loans up to 100 per cent, of the cost, though it is hoped that the associations will "chip in" with some money of their own. The rate of interest will be the same as that at which the Public Works Loan Board lend to local authorities.
One particular type of housing association which the Government hope will be encouraged under Clause 7 is the co-operative association, in which would-be occupiers build and collectively manage the houses or flats in which they live. In a number of countries abroad, especially on the Continent, such schemes have proved their worth. They have been a great success, I gather, in
92
the Scandinavian countries, and also have worked pretty well in Switzerland and Western Germany. Up till now there have been only one or two rather embryonic experiments along these lines in this country. We believe that this trend towards mutual responsibility and self help in the housing field is one which the Government should encourage.
Since houses or flats built by housing associations under Clause 7 will be for people who lie rather outside the normal range of local authority housing, being rather better off, it would not be right to subsidise such building, but the Government propose to make one exception to that rule. That will be for schemes for specially designed accommodation for old people, whose needs in the housing field, as the White Paper has made very clear, are becoming increasingly important. In this exceptional case it is of course common sense for the subsidy to be paid direct by the Minister instead of through the local authority. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Gage, who is President of the National Federation of Housing Societies, will be speaking later in the debate. My right honourable friend is anxious that the Federation should play a leading rôle in stimulating and guiding the course of such projects, and he is discussing with the Federation the possibility of substantially increasing the grant paid to it.
We shall have to see, of course, how fruitful the scheme proposed under Clause 7 is in practice. It is difficult in advance to gauge what success it will have, but I would emphasise the Government's intention by this scheme to inject new vitality into the whole potential field of housing associations' work. In addition, we regard the scheme to some extent as a pump-priming operation. We hope that it will demonstrate that there is a real need for new houses of this type and that, once a successful lead has been given, private capital will again be attracted to this field.
I now wish to turn to Part II of the Bill, to which my right honourable friend attaches considerable importance. In Part II, Clauses 12 to 22 contain new powers whose aim is to enable local authorities effectively to deal with what is perhaps the worst housing evil remaining in this country—the problem of the

93
squalid living conditions too often to be found in what are called multiple-tenancy houses. In many ways these are the real slums of mid-twentieth century Great Britain.
Many of your Lordships will be only too familiar with this problem. Of course it has many facets, but a typical one is where, in one of our larger cities, a district has slipped back. Some 70 or 80 years ago it may have been relatively well-to-do and comprised a large number of pretty large and well built houses, each occupied by a prosperous Victorian family. Between the wars the district may have become less fashionable. In that period the houses were still probably perfectly decent, but then, as a result of the bombing or of post-war overcrowding, or as the further results of an influx of immigrants in the last decade or so, a further decline in the houses has taken place.
As a new boy in this field, it would be absurd for me to claim as deep a knowledge of housing conditions in this country as I should like to have or as I hope in time to acquire, but recently I have had the opportunity of seeing on the ground some of the conditions that these clauses of the Bill are designed to wipe out. Let me take, as an example, an area not many minutes away from your Lordships' House. There I have lately seen squalor which I found hard to reconcile with our affluent, modern and civilised society—basement areas used as common refuse dumps, roofs used for garbage disposal, entrance halls bearing the marks, if I may use the term, of a common pissoir, with contraceptives strewn in the rickety Dickensian staircases, often with the plaster peeled off and the bare lattice boards exposed; broken window panes, exposed and dangerous electric fittings, and common lavatories and bathrooms of almost indescribable sordidness. I do not wish unduly to labour all this, nor do I wish to portray such conditions as more widespread than they are. But in too many of our larger cities and in too large areas of these cities, such sordid and barbaric conditions are to be met with much too often. To put it no higher than this, such conditions do not do credit to this country. The Government are determined to stamp them out.
It is to deal with this problem that these clauses are designed. They fall
94
into three main groups. Clauses 12 to 14 contain powers which are entirely new and which provide, where necessary, for the enforcement of reasonable standards of management and maintenance. Clause 12 is of particular importance. This is an instrument of control to be used only where the need for it is clearly demonstrable—that is to say, where conditions are such that there has clearly been a failure to maintain reasonable standards of management. In deciding what are reasonable standards of management the local authorities will have the assistance of regulations which the Minister is empowered to prescribe under Clause 13 of the Bill and which will lay down a code of basic essentials for the management and maintenance of houses in multiple occupation. Clause 12 accordingly provides that the local authority, after due notice, and subject to a right of appeal to the magistrates' court, should be empowered, where appropriate, to make an order imposing this code on an individual house. Naturally, where a house has been particularly neglected and when an order is first made, there may be accumulated neglect of years to be put right. Clause 14 enables the local authority in such circumstances to insist on the making good of this neglect.
For their part, Clauses 15 to 18 seek to re-enact in strengthened form the existing powers of local authorities to see that the proper facilities—for cooking, for sanitation, for fire precautions, and so on—are installed in houses in multiple occupation, and are adequate for the numbers of people living in such houses. Clause 19 is also, I think, particularly important. It enables the local authority to make a direction limiting the number of occupants of such a house; and also, where the present number exceeds what they consider to be reasonable, to bring about a progressive reduction. This provision should be of great practical benefit in allowing the local authority to intervene to ensure the longer-term improvement of conditions without making anyone immediately homeless. But with the help of subsidy under the Bill the local authorities concerned should well be able to rehouse one or more families themselves from such a house and so make it possible for the house to be improved for the benefit of the remaining occupants.

95
These clauses, my Lords, have teeth in them—and pretty sharp ones at that! In the first place, the powers conferred on local authorities are much stronger than hitherto. There is for example, the power to enforce a management order In addition, the penalties are tougher For example, penalties of a fine of up to £100, or three months' imprisonment can be imposed for breaches of the management powers or a direction limiting the number of residents: and where works are required to make a house suitable for multiple occupation the local authority may themselves intervene in case of default, carry out the works and recover the costs. I am glad, my Lords, that these teeth are sharp. We are confronted here with a real social evil, and one which may well exacerbate the latent racial tensions in certain areas of our cities. In any event, since the profits from this form of exploitation are high, anything less than substantial penalties would be unlikely to serve the purpose. Your Lordships will, of course, wish to be assured that these new powers which are designed to bite on the exploiting minority will not impose an unfair burden on the owners of unoffending multiple-occupation properties. I think I can give such assurance without hesitation. A glance at Clause 13 will show that the matters to be dealt with in the regulations to be made under that clause concern no more than the basic essentials which the great majority of landlords already take as a matter of course. Similarly, the works which may be required under Clause 15 are no more than are necessary to render a house suitable for occupation by the families and individuals who are in fact occupying it.
I do not claim that these provisions by themselves can solve the problem posed by these run-down houses in multiple tenancy. This will take time and will demand a sustained effort on the part of everybody, including, of course, and primarily, the local authorities concerned. But I do claim that these clauses will help local authorities in what is a big job. In the first place, they will enable them to do what is above all necessary—namely, to pin responsibility on one person for what are called the "common parts" in such a building. Part of the trouble in the past
96
has been that responsibility for these "common parts"—for the area, the hall, the staircase, and so on—has been ill-determined. Fixing the responsibility squarely on whoever is drawing the profit from the building, as in this case Clause 12 does, should do a lot to help. We also believe that the proposed management orders are likely to have considerable deterrent force, and a few made in a given area may well serve as an example. Moreover, a management order made in time may well save many houses passing the point of no return. There are houses now in deplorable conditions, which could have been, as it were, rescued by local authorities had they had in the past the powers which the Bill now seeks to confer upon them. Again, I should emphasise that there is nothing in these clauses which a reasonable landlord—and the great majority of landlords are reasonable—need fear. But that said, I would not wish to minimise the sharpness of these provisions.
My Lords, I shall deal somewhat cursorily with Part III of the Bill, not because it is unimportant but because I have already been on my feet too long. But I feel that I should draw Clauses 28 to 30 to your attention, since they deal with an important matter—that of improvement grants. We have a very large number of old houses in this country— there are over 3½ million houses which were built before 1881 and over 6 million built before 1915. We cannot, therefore, afford to scrap houses which, though they may lack modern conveniences and amenities, are nevertheless soundly built and capable of improvement. The main purpose of improvement grants is to encourage the face-lifting (I prefer to use, but I cannot find it, a more radical term) of the better type of old property.
Clauses 29 and 30 are rather technical and I will pass over them rapidly. Clause 28, however, is more substantial. Under it, the maximum return normally available to a landlord who improves a house with the aid of grant will be raised from 8 per cent, of his expenditure to 12½ per cent. Let me quote an example to show your Lordships how this would work out. As a landlord I do £200 worth of grant-aided improvement work on a controlled house, and the local authorities contribute 50 per cent, towards its cost. The

97
result of this clause is that I as a landlord shall now be able to charge my tenant £12 10s. more rent a year compared with £8 more as would have been the case previously. I think it is generally agreed that the present limit offers little incentive, since it leaves the landlord out of pocket in the case of property with a remaining life of only some fifteen years, or not much more. We hope that the increased allowance will encourage landlords to modernise their properties, and we feel that the clause adequately safeguards the position of tenants.
Finally, my Lords, you will expect me to say just a few words about Clauses 31 and 32, which deal with the allocation of repairing responsibilities between landlords and tenants when houses are let on short leases. Briefly, these two clauses provide that if a house or flat is let for less than seven years, the landlord will be under an implied obligation to keep the structure in repair and the main service installations in proper working order. Any covenant which purports to oblige the tenant to do any of these things will be invalidated. To the layman the language is rather elusive, and perhaps I should take this opportunity of making it quite clear that it will still be permissible for the landlord to require the tenant to carry out internal decorations. Further, the tenant will still be under a general obligation, to which all tenants are liable at Common Law, to take proper care of the premises; to repair damage for which they, their children or their guests are responsible; and to do those small odd jobs, like mending fuses, at which so many of your Lordships are, I suspect, very adept, but where I always manage to burn my fingers.
Your Lordships will note that contracting out of these provisions will be allowed with the approval of the county courts. This safeguard is necessary because the clauses are, for obvious reasons, drafted mainly with an eye to houses which are let as an investment. Other people do, however, have reasons for wanting to let their own houses for short periods from time to time. Here the situation is generally quite different. The parties to the agreement are usually people of the same outlook and walk of life—for example, Service families—who will have no difficulty in striking a reasonable
98
bargain. It would not be sensible to make this kind of bargain impossible for the future.
What objects have the Government in mind with this clause? They are twofold. The first is to protect short-term tenants against unreasonable demands for repairs. Secondly, the Government do not wish simply to relieve tenants of unreasonable obligations. As part of the general scheme for keeping older houses up to scratch, the Government and the country as a whole have an interest in ensuring that when houses need repairs, repairs get done.
My Lords, I feel I must conclude. Housing still presents this nation with a considerable challenge. Despite very great progress, we are still a long way from achieving what I feel is the aim of all of us. That aim is to make quite certain that every man, woman and child in Great Britain lives in not only a decent, but also a pleasant environment. It will need a lot of time and money, much energy and imagination in administration, and probably a great many more Housing Bills before we achieve that goal. But in moving this Bill, I claim that it takes us at least a measurable step forward. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Jellicoe.)

WELFARE OF KUWAIT FORCES
3.52 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, for the convenience of your Lordships I will, with your permission, repeat a statement which the Minister of Defence has made in another place on Kuwait. It is as follows:
"As the House already knows, at the Ruler's request we were successful in deploying a reinforced brigade group in Kuwait in six days. This was a very creditable achievement by all concerned. In mounting such an operation at very short notice, troops were bound to meet some initial hardship, but they have taken it in their stride. Heat is, of course, the main problem. Even so, the number of cases of heat exhaustion has been on an average only twelve a day needing hospital treatment.

99
"I am glad to be able to tell the House that the medical facilities available are very comprehensive. Where those in Kuwait are not adequate, provision exists for evacuation, either to Bahrein or Aden, or to H.M.S. "Bulwark". There has only been one fatal casualty; this was accidental.
"A great deal is being done by the Services themselves, by the Ruler of Kuwait and by the Kuwait Oil Company, to provide creature comforts. Beer and soft drinks with ice are being made available in large quantities, and a free issue of 50 cigarettes a week has already been approved for the first fortnight of the operation. Arrangements are being made for the Forces to have film shows, and newspapers and books are being flown out. There is a plentiful supply of fresh water and salt tablets. I have asked my honourable friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for War, to take a small party to Kuwait to see whether anything further should be done.
"As to the future, two companies of the Coldstream Guards and a Hunter squadron have already been withdrawn. We shall withdraw further Forces as soon as the situation allows and rotate those that remain as frequently as possible. What I have said represents only a bare outline of both the operation itself and of the measures being taken to improve the lot of the troops. With permission, I will circulate further details in the OFFICIAL REPORT."
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Lord for the statement he has made, and we should like to express our gratitude for the care that has been taken—I think the House will agree that it is every possible care—to see that whatever we can do for the troops under these most trying conditions is being done. I know that we should all like to extend our sympathy. Having had in the last few days some little taste of what heat can do, we can well understand the awful conditions under which they must be living.
In the statement the noble Lord referred to the fact that a small party was going out to see the conditions for themselves. Would they be Members of Parliament? No doubt the noble Lord will explain what this small party will consist
100
of. I should also like to ask him about the attitude of the local population. Are they friendly and helpful, or are they just distant? Finally, could the noble Lord say in outline what sort of further details will be contained in the OFFICIAL REPORT? Is there anything there that one might like to comment on at this stage, because we shall not see it until to-morrow.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I assure him that the Minister of Defence and all three Service Ministers will do what they can to make conditions a little more tolerable in Kuwait. The noble Lord asked three questions: first, what is the composition of the small party which is going there? The Under-Secretary of State for War is leading this party, which will consist of representatives of the War Office, the Air Ministry and of the Admiralty, who will look into the welfare arrangements of their own Services and report back to London to see what can be done to improve them.
LORD SILKIN: Officials?
LORD CARRINGTON: Officials, in the sense that they are actually serving officers. There is an Air Marshal, and a Royal Marines officer is going from the Admiralty. The intention is that they should report back as soon as possible to see what further can be done to help the conditions out there. I am told that the attitude of the local population is very friendly and helpful, and certainly the local oil company and the Sheikh himself have been very helpful and have done their best to make these trying conditions less trying.
In so far as the details which are to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT are concerned, I do not think there is anything to which the noble Lord would take exception, or would want to ask further questions about. It is an amplification of my earlier statement, and goes into much greater detail about the operation, and about the steps taken for the welfare of the troops.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I express the gratification of noble Lords on these Benches at the steps taken by the Government for the comfort of the troops in Kuwait? May

101
I also express the hope that it will be possible at an early date to remove all the troops and other forces from that area?
Following are the details referred to by Lord Carrington:
Following General Qasim's announcement on June 28, 1961, of his intention to annex Kuwait, the Ruler asked Her Majesty's Consul-General in Kuwait on the morning of Friday. June 30, for military assistance. It was decided, in the light of indications that Iraqi forces in the Basra area were being reinforced with tanks that it was vital to get some forces in there quickly. The first landings were therefore made on the morning of Saturday, July 1, and the forces which moved into Kuwait that day consisted of 42 Royal Marine Commando from H.M.S. "Bulwark," a squadron of Centurion tanks of the 3rd Carabiniers embarked in H.M.S. "Striker" and L.S.T. "Empire Gull," and by No. 8 Squadron R.A.F. Hunter Fighter Bombers. These were supported by No. 208 Squadron R.A.F. Hunters and Nos. 13 and 137 Squadrons operating from bases in the Persian Gulf, and by the frigates H.M.S. "Loch Alvie" and H.M.S. Meon." Landing shins and landing craft of the Royal Navy and civilian-manned landing ships were engaged on bringing in vehicles and stores.
By the evening of July 2, the ground forces in Kuwait had been built up by the flying in of two companies of the Coldstream Guards, 45 Royal Marine Commando, and by the arrival of additional tanks, together with armoured cars of the 11th Hussars, whilst additional Hunter and Canberra aircraft were available for immediate operations. The Headquarters of 24 Infantry Brigade had also arrived under the Brigade Commander, Brigadier D. G. T. Horsford.
The following two days saw the arrival by air of the 2nd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment, and advance elements of 24 Brigade, including units of the Royal Artillery and the Royal Engineers. The build-up of our force was substantially complete by Thursday, July 6, by which time the 1st Battalion, The King's Regiment and the 1st Battalion, the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers had arrived. Meanwhile, the naval strength had been increased by the arrival in the Persian Gulf of the frigates H.M.S. "Loch Fyne" and H.M.S. "Loch Ruthven"; the aircraft carrier H.M.S. "Victorious", from the Far East station, with a destroyer and frigate escort, was available in support if required.
The crews of the transport aircraft and of the Canadair transports of the Royal Rhodesian Air Force which were placed freely at our disposal at the outset of the operation, as well as of a number of charter aircraft, put up a splendid performance in the face of considerable difficulties, including adverse weather in Kuwait itself. The air crews were well supported in all this by their ground crews.
It says much for the skill and efficiency with which this operation was carried out by all concerned that, in the space of only six days and with only a minimum of warning, this considerable force, complete with all the necessary
102
supporting arms, equipment and stores, was assembled, deployed and ready in all respects for action. Great credit for this is due to the Commander-in-Chief, Middle East,.Air Marshal Sir Charles Elworthy, who was in command of the operation, and to his subordinate Commanders and staffs. The Commanders and staffs at Headquarters, Near East Command in Cyprus, at the Far East Headquarters in Singapore, and in East Africa also faithfully played their part, as did the Ministry of Defence and the Service Ministries here in Whitehall, and the many people elsewhere in this country who were involved. It should also be mentioned that the communications staffs have dealt magnificently with the immense load of urgent signal traffic, in spite of great difficulties arising from adverse radio propagation conditions.
No description of the operation would be complete without a tribute to the individual sailors, soldiers and airmen on the spot, who responded so promptly to the demands made upon them. They took all difficulties in their stride.
The main hardship has been the heat. The number of cases of heat exhaustion however has been surprisingly small, and there have been on average only 12 cases a day evacuated to hospitals, well under 1 per cent. of the total force. All major units have Medical Services attached to them. In addition, a field ambulance, a medical unit in which there are 7 doctors, is responsible for controlling collection and evacuation of sick soldiers. Heat casualties are evacuated by road or helicopter to the civil hospitals in Kuwait, and from there serious cases may be taken by air to the R.A.F. hospitals in Bahrein and Aden. There is, in addition, in Kuwait a heat casualty treatment centre which is a medical unit specifically trained and experienced in the treatment of heat casualties, and which is air-conditioned. The civil hospitals in Kuwait have a fully trained and experienced staff available for advice on the prevention and treatment of heat effects. It also is air-conditioned, and fully equipped for this purpose. H.M.S. "Bulwark" too is air-conditioned, and certain cases are being evacuated to her. Service specialists are available in Aden and Bahrein, who are expert in these hyperpyrexial diseases and senior consultants in hygiene and medicine are available at all times, both in the Near East and United Kingdom, to fly out to the Persian Gulf it necessary.
Diet is an important factor in the prevention of heat exhaustion. Information in London is that no difficulty is being experienced in providing a palatable and adequate ration. A sufficient supply of water and of salt is vital. Salt tablets are being issued and an adequate supply of good drinking water to meet heavy requirements is available. Cold drinks and ice are included in the ration, and there is a supplementary issue of ice in addition. Fresh breach has been issued daily since D+1 and fresh fruit since D+ 2. A plentiful supply of soft drinks is available. The main limiting factor has been the lack of refrigeration. This is now being overcome. Apart from what is being done by the Services themselves, the Ruler of Kuwait has generously given a free issue of 3 bottles of soft drink a day with

103
ice. Local Kuwaiti firms, including the Kuwait Oil Company, have also been very liberal in giving assistance.
All troops now serving in Kuwait have been thoroughly briefed on the elementary techniques to be adopted in avoiding the effects of heat. Many of the troops were, of course, already acclimatised to heat. The Medical Officers of units from the United Kingdom were fully briefed on this problem before leaving.
On the welfare side, a great deal has been done. A N.A.A.F.I. party left the United Kingdom by air on 6th July and it is hoped that they will be operating to some extent this week. In the meantime, N.A.A.F.I. stores in bulk arrived in Kuwait last week to supplement those taken in by units. These stores included adequate supplies of beer and cigarettes. A free ration of 50 cigarettes a week for each man has been approved for the first fortnight of the operation, and beer is on sale under unit canteen facilities. Arrangements have been made to fly out newspapers and books, and a special grant of money has been made available for the purcahse of extra sports equipment locally. The Kuwait Oil Company operate 8 cinemas to which they are prepared to admit troops under local arrangements. The R.A.F. Cinema Corporation has also flown out extra cinema projectors. Forward troops may despatch mail free of postage up to 16th July and from then onwards any troops in Kuwait will be able to despatch mail at United Kingdom rates. In addition, the Church Voluntary Welfare Workers have offered a mobile canteen staffed by the Salvation Army as soon as it can be moved there, and the Malcolm Clubs are prepared to set up facilities when suitable conditions and facilities can be provided. A seaside tented rest-camp is being built which is being occupied today by 500 men of all Services. An air-conditioned camp for a further 500 men has been offered by the Kuwait Oil Company and has been accepted for use as a rest-camp in 10 days' time. The Oil Company is providing further hospitality at Ahmadi for 370 all-ranks daily in air-conditioned private houses and clubs including the use of swimming clubs. Two hundred men daily are sent to H.M.S. "Bulwark" for a clean-up and rest. Laundry contracts have been arranged for the whole force.
A senior Inter-Service Team from H.Q. Middle East (Aden) went to Kuwait last week to make an on-the-spot study about conditions and welfare. The small party under the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for War is due in Kuwait on 12th July, and will consider what further can be done. In the meanwhile, the Commander-in-Chief has been authorised to provide all the amenities and creature comforts he can.

HOUSING BILL
3.57 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, the House will, I am sure, be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for the lucid, concise and, may I say, most agreeable way in which he has submitted this measure for Second Reading. I should like to commence my speech by quoting the opening passages of the speech of the Minister of Housing and Local Government when introducing the Second Reading of this Bill in another place on March 27 of this year. I am quoting from the OFFICIAL REPORT, column 960. The Minister said:
"I say frankly that it has always been my hope that I would get an opportunity, as Minister of Housing, to initiate and to carry through Parliament a major Housing Bill."
There are some among us, I suppose, who might have thought that the present Minister of Housing has done sufficient damage to housing the people without his seeking to have another Bill of this character—damage which has issued and continued, of course, from his successive Rent Acts, and from the alteration, reduction, and in some cases the abolition, of subsidies.
This is not a major Housing Bill. Except as regards the building of accommodation to let by housing associations, this Bill will not add a single dwelling which would not otherwise have been constructed. This Bill has really for its purpose the manipulation of subsidies in favour of the Exchequer and to the disadvantage of the local housing authority. There is nothing in the Bill, I submit, to encourage an increase in the total of council house building. There is, of course, likely to be a change of emphasis or of priorities in the various elements which constitutes the present shortage of dwellings to let at reasonable rents. Of course, the shortage varies from region to region. Here there is a problem of slum clearance; there it is the problem of old people, and in another district it is general housing. Elsewhere it may be redevelopment and renewal, often on a big scale. And then, of course, there is the problem of overspill which arises from most of these activities. Overspill is not a problem of itself; overspill is a consequence of

105
housing in other directions and for other purposes. All these are facets of one vast and complicated problem which really represents a legacy from the days of spacious ease for the few in earlier Victorian and Edwardian days.
The Bill's main purpose is, as I have said, to effect a reduction in the subsidies to the local authorities; to put local authorities, in short, on a means test as regards housing subsidies and indirectly, therefore, to put the tenants on a means test. It is an indirect way also of almost imposing upon local authorities a policy of differential rents. In that connection I should like to quote from the White Paper, Cmnd. No. 1290, which has already been referred to by the noble Earl. Paragraph 32 says:
"The actual rent income will still depend upon the extent to which it is decided, after allowing for Exchequer subsidies, that the cost of an authority's houses should be met from rents as opposed to rate contributions and that decision will still rest with the authority."
These are the important words:
"But in determining the amount of subsidy which the Exchequer should pay, the Government are entitled to assume that councils will pursue reasonable rent policies, and the changes now to be made in the subsidy arrangements will encourage them to do so."
That is a pretty insidious and, I submit, an unworthy way of seeking to impose upon local authorities a policy as regards rents which otherwise they might not accept.
That is the more so when it is observed from the provisions of the Bill that the Minister is likely to exercise a more stringent use of his power of disapproval of housing projects. Of course, one of the elements which might go to determine, with others, his disapproval of a housing scheme is that differential rents were not to be applied to the houses in question. It is not a very nice method of seeking to get your own way. I am a little surprised that the present Minister of Housing should have resorted to it.
It is the case, as the noble Earl has said, that this Bill restores a subsidy to all types of dwellings, but the Government's intention, as the noble Earl affirmed, is that the total Exchequer subsidy should not be affected and should remain roughly at the £3 million mark
106
annually. That, I think, is borne out by paragraph 37 of the White Paper to which I have referred. Notwithstanding that there might be further increases in the cost of land or that other aspects of expenditure in connection with housing schemes may go up, the Minister proposes to keep the Exchequer grant roughly at a fixed, static sum. It means, of course, that if there is more building in one direction there will be less in another. For instance, we might have an increase of general building at the expense of slum clearance. These devices to fiddle with the subsidy—and there are quite a lot of them—are set out in Part 1.
What, in briefer description, is this basic subsidy, and how is it arrived at? It is in fact arrived at by taking advantage of the fact that certain forward-looking, active and dynamic local authorities built a number of houses before the war and were fortunate enough when building them to be able to raise money at, relatively speaking, low rates of interest. Now, instead of the local authority being permitted to benefit from that prudence, that foresight, that wisdom and that activity, a good deal of which was shown—all those qualities were shown by my noble friend Lord Silkin when he was chairman of the Housing Committee of the London County Council—that advantage is to be filched from the local authorities and taken into account by the Exchequer or handed out to other local authorities which did not exhibit the same kind of prudence, the same kind of forethought, and which took the view that housing was not a proper function of local government.
I submit that it is a most indefensible proposal that the authorities which were active between the wars are to be penalised and those which were inactive are to benefit from their inaction. I believe it to be the case that Liverpool will rank for only the £8 subsidy, whereas Bournemouth, poverty stricken as we know, will get the whole of the £24. My Lords, that really cannot be justified. Because Liverpool was active —and let me be perfectly frank about it, for many years under a Conservative Council they were active—and built a number of houses, and borrowed the money cheaply, now the benefit of that has to pass over to the Exchequer or to

107
other local authorities. That, I submit, is indefensible.
Another point in regard to this basic subsidy is this. Why is it that there are no stages? Why should it be either £24 a year per dwelling or £8? Why the gap of £16 between? Is that, as I suspect it is, in order to keep the Exchequer contribution, the Exchequer subsidy, at roughly £3 million, whatever might be the number of houses or dwellings which may be built by the local authorities and which are eligible for subsidy? As I have said, the real beneficiary of this alteration of subsidy is the Exchequer. I understand, as indeed the noble Earl indicated, that the subsidy was to be determined each year. That seems to me to make it a little difficult for housing authorities to plan their housing projects from a financial point of view. For instance, they will lose the benefit of the low rate of interest and the low cost of housing between the wars, which of course went in reduction of the contribution normally made out of the rates.
Then there is the power given to the Minister to reduce or abolish the subsidies after a lapse, I understand, of a period of ten years. There is no provision for the Minister to increase the subsidy, but if the tenant's circumstances —that is to say the tenant's ability to pay rent—improves then the Minister is entitled after a period of ten years to consider whether, and if so to what extent, he should reduce the subsidy, or indeed abolish it; and that reduction or abolition can be discriminatory as between authorities: it will not necessarily, I understand, apply to all housing authorities. If I am wrong in that perhaps the noble Earl will correct me. But supposing there are increases in the rate of interest, supposing other expenditure rises, why in those circumstances should not the subsidy be increased? If the Minister is taking power to decrease why not also take power to increase? Why have it all one way and nothing to the local authorities the other way? So much for this Part of the Bill, which is called a major Housing Bill. It really is, as I have said, a collection of proposals to ease the amount of the Exchequer grant.
Let me take now one or two other aspects of the housing problem. I was
108
glad to hear the noble Earl, brief though his acquaintance with this problem has been, say that he had already formed the opinion that this Bill will not cure the housing problem; and, indeed, that there is a vast housing problem still facing this country. Of course, his Minister, as he may know (and if not I will tell him), has said—indeed he said it in his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill—that the national shortage of housing had been overcome; and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, always correct of course, said so by way of question and answer in another place a few weeks ago. I am glad to know that the noble Earl does not associate himself with those views, because it is nonsense to talk about the national shortage of houses having been overcome. I shall refer to that problem a little later, but meantime I want to submit to your Lordships that no Bill can be said to be a major Housing Bill unless it deals with the question of land.
My Lords, land is one of the governing factors of house building at the present time—not only the fantastic price of land, but also the shortage of sites. In this Bill there is not a word about land. The present Government carry a heavy burden of responsibility for the present increase in the price of land, because it was thought fit to dismantle by a series of Acts the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. Although they were committed to the proposals contained in the Reports, they threw out of the window, successively, the Uthwatt Report, the Scott Report and the Barlow Report.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. I have so often heard him make this observation, that the Government have increased the price of land by upsetting the development charge. I have never yet understood how the development charge could reduce the price of land to the consumer. I know that it is a different subject, but I only wanted to interpose that remark.
LORD LATHAM: In the first place the easy run for the speculators would not have been there, and in any case the Government would have been able to set betterment against development; and there was no doubt that it was the accepted opinion of the Tory Party, and

109
of the Coalition Government, including the Tory element in it, that the principles of Uthwatt and Scott should be embodied, as indeed they were embodied, in law by my noble friend Lord Silkin. But now, the law having been dismantled, the high cost of land can be said, and I say it, to be directly due to the action of the Government and their recantation of their own policy embodied in the White Paper of 1944, the title of which I think was Land Use. At present, I understand that one very large authority receiving a special subsidy, which is to be continued, of course, in respect of expensive land, finds that the special subsidy represents no more than about 50 per cent. of the excess cost of the land. The remaining 50 per cent. has to be borne by the local authority, and, ultimately, by the tenants or the ratepayers.
Then there is no reference in this Bill to the high interest rates which are having to be paid. I understand that in 1950, when the Public Works Loan Board rate was 3 per cent., the total debt charge on a house costing £3,000 was £108 per year; it is now, with a rate of 6¼ per cent., £193; and it has been as high as £207 a year. Those are increases of, roughly speaking, 100 per cent. and 90 per cent. Moreover, as a result of the high rate of interest, while the average tender price of a three bed-roomed council house was £1,400 in 1951, and at the Public Works Loan Board rate of interest then prevailing the cost to the council was about £4,000, the loan charges repayable over 60 years, the builders' cost is now £1,800 and at to-day's inflated rates of interest the cost to the council is £7,500. Of that increase more than £3,000 is the extra cost spent on increased loan charges and not on producing an improved or larger council house. In point of fact, as the noble Earl may know, the size of the average council house has fallen since 1951 from 920 square feet to 865 square feet. The smaller the house, of course, the greater liability, in certain circumstances, is there of its ultimately becoming a slum.
Now with regard to slum clearance. In the White Paper, in paragraph 9, certain figures are given. But I must point out that those figures are now six years old, and every day that passes new slums are created, especially in dwellings in multiple occupation. It is so not only with the old big houses—they are bad
110
enough—but also with a number of small houses, built for single occupation but, because of economic circumstances, now occupied by more than one family. They, too, are rapidly becoming slums. Therefore it is misleading to take the number of slums which have been cleared and replaced as being a reduction of the number of slums which still exist in this country. In point of fact, it was estimated by the Sunday Times, in an article about two weeks ago, that new slums were being created at the rate of something like 150,000 a year. That is nearly three times as many slums as have been cleared.
Anyone who has become familiar with all the facets of the housing problem knows that slums are being created faster than they are being cleared. Those in multiple occupation, dealt with in Part II, and those which are condemned, local authorities are to have special and new powers to deal with. I am glad to know that the noble Earl made himself aware, at all events, of the bestial conditions which exist in many parts of London and the Provinces. As the noble Earl admitted, the proposals in the Bill, dealing with these dwellings in multiple occupation and condemned houses, will not really solve the problem.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I wonder whether I may interrupt the noble Lord? I was not aware of having admitted that the proposals would not solve the problem. I seem to recollect that I said that the proposals had real teeth in them and that they would be extremely effective.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, we will let the OFFICIAL REPORT determine. I do not want to misrepresent what the noble Earl said. I certainly made a note. If I am wrong, I will certainly withdraw it. But is it not a little optimistic to assume that the owners of most of these large old houses in multiple occupation will in fact comply with the provisions of the Act? And have the local authorities sufficient staff to insist upon their compliance? I doubt it. I think the only way to deal with this problem of multiple occupation and the absence of amenities—as the noble Earl has said, in many cases it is a dreadful and a most unworthy sight—is for the local authority to acquire them; and, as a preliminary step, there should be a register

111
of all the houses which are condemned, or in respect of which the local authority carry out either one or other of the powers provided in this Bill. As the noble Earl said, in many cases the condition of the houses in multiple occupation is worse than the slums.
Then we come to general housing, which is likely to be kept, as it were, under the table, as it has been since the abolition of the subsidy. There is an immense demand for general housing, if only by reason of the fact of the lack of amenities which is so common among well-nigh seven million houses. There are three million families without a separate water closet; there are two million without a separate kitchen sink, and one million without a cooking stove. In this jet and atomic age—it is almost unbelievable, but it is the case—nearly half the families of this country lack the ordinary amenities of decent living. That is a shocking state of affairs. That was the state of affairs in 1954–55. I submit that it is no better now—that, in fact, it is probably worse.
In the face of this, can any honest, decent person aver that there is no national housing shortage? This is a state of affairs of which we ought to be really ashamed. We ought not to seek to mitigate it and to pretend that it does not exist. There is a vast shortage. There is an immense problem facing this country, and it cannot be dealt with by twiddling and footling around with the subsidy or by legislation of this kind. This is not a Bill to produce houses or homes. It is a Bill to "fiddle" the Exchequer subsidy; to give greater power to the Minister as to his approval or disapproval of local authority schemes; to give power to the Minister to break a Government contract as regards subsidy with local authorities, by refusing or abolishing the subsidies provided by this Bill, and not to increase them whatever adverse circumstances might arise and might call for an increase of subsidy. This is a Bill to "footle" about with old houses, overcrowded and over-occupied, many of them already condemned. There are quite minor provisions, especially in Part III, but when they are added up they do not amount to much—they are really derisory as a contribution to the solution of this housing problem.
At the beginning of this speech I referred to the commencing passages of
112
the Minister's Second Reading speech in introducing the Bill. I should like to conclude by quoting the concluding paragraphs of the Minister's speech on March 27 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 637 (No. 82)] at column 979. From this, noble Lords will discern that it appears that the Minister, like the Parliamentary Secretary, has recently discovered the slums. Some of us discovered them many years ago—in London in the 'twenties, and elsewhere much earlier. They are a monument to neglect and guilt. However, let me quote the Minister. This is what he said:
"I shall long remember going into one of these big Victorian houses, up dirty steps through a door with most of the paint off, up a staircase that never was cleaned, to three floors of squalor, except that in one of them the mother was obviously struggling against her surroundings to give her husband and children a decent home. There were no proper kitchens and no lavatory above the ground floor. I then went down to the basement. They tried to discourage me from seeing the basement, because a couple of women who were thought to be prostitutes occupied the basement, and it smelt one degree worse than the rest of the house.
"I do not know exactly on whom rested the responsibility of the state of that house, but I felt, there and then, that unless I did something about it, part responsibility would lie on me. I made up my mind that when the chance came for me to strike at such miserable living conditions in an English city in the twentieth century, I would strike—and strike hard."
Well, it is a credit to him—to his heart at least; but it is the mind, not the heart, which will be needed to clear away the rottenness of the housing conditions of this country. What an indictment of landlordism and successive Tory Governments !—for, apart from about eight years, a Tory Government has been in power since the end of the first war. In these conditions can we expect people to be able to make a home, to rear a family and to become decent, well-disposed citizens and, when required to fight, risk and give their lives to defend this squalor, dirt and filth? This is what the exercise of free enterprise has left us. This is what so-called "enlightened self-interest" (to use the hypocritical slogan and doctrine of the Industrial Revolution) has left us. All of us, as citizens, without distinction of Party, should be ashamed that in these rotten and festering conditions the sons and daughters of the people should sleep, live and have their being.

113
The right honourable gentleman the Minister said at the end of his peroration that he would strike against these abominations, and would strike hard. In this Bill he has not struck hard except perhaps against the local authorities on subsidy. This, in my submission, is an inadequate Bill. It is insufficient to meet the demanding problem of the housing conditions of our people. It fails miserably to measure up to the ghastly problem of housing which still faces the nation. It is a poor thing. If it satisfies the Minister, then, if I may say so, it is time he was changed. We will not vote against the Bill, we will seek to amend it. We will vote for the Second Reading only faute de mieux.
4.34 p.m.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, this is a very important Bill and I think the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, should be congratulated upon his masterly exposition of his subject. I remember that during our discussion of the Rating and Valuation Bill we were very much struck by the masterly wisdom of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. I believe he is the only person in the country who understands Part II of that Bill, which deals with the valuation of water undertakings. Certainly nobody else understands it.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I must disabuse him straight away. I am with the majority.
LORD MESTON: I am obliged to the noble Earl. He is very modest. Dealing with the general housing situation, I hope a few figures will not be out of place. There are some 14·3 million dwellings in England and Wales and of that number 11 million are privately owned, and of that total of 11 million 4½ million are owner-occupied. The rest are owned by public authorities, housing associations or Government Departments. So far as housing subsidies are concerned, in my view it is generally preferable that the individual, so far as he needs assistance, and not the house, should be the subject of the housing subsidy. I should like to ask the noble Earl to what extent this Bill encourages or even enforces the adoption of differential rent schemes.
At the moment about one in three of the 1,500 housing authorities in this country operate differential rent schemes.
114
If this Bill will compel local authorities to adopt differential rent schemes or rent rebate schemes it will be of great benefit to the individual, as distinct from benefit to the house itself. As for the proposal in the Bill to make advances of up to £25 million to non-profit-making housing associations, this is highly commendable and it conduces directly to the building of houses for letting. There are about 900 housing associations in this country which together own about 200,000 dwellings; but last year in this country only 1,600 houses were built by them, and it may be that proposals in this Bill should greatly encourage them to increase their efforts.
I speak under correction but I understand that for a house costing £3,000 to build the rent will be about £4 per week. This rather encourages me to touch upon the painful subject of the investment of private capital in building houses to let. I understand the Government are in favour of that, but I am afraid that up to date it is only a flow of words. The private developer is in a very sad position. First, there is the high cost of land; and he has no power to purchase compulsorily. I have made this suggestion before and I make it again. I feel that in a proper case the local authorities should be allowed to buy land compulsorily and then sell it to a private individual at that price for the development of houses to let.
Furthermore, there is no tax allowance for capital depreciation and I feel that this matter should be seriously pursued by the Government, especially from the financial and taxation points of view. People get married today and are unable to rent a house so they proceed to purchase a house with a very large mortgage from a building society. I have no objection to that, being connected with a building society myself, but at the same time that places a heavy burden on this young couple for many years to come. The provisions relating to houses in multiple occupation are, I think, very desirable. I would, however, suggest an improvement in the drafting of these provisions so as to concentrate the obligations and penalties on the person responsible for the multiple occupation, namely, the person directly in receipt of rent.
The provisions in the Bill relating to the reconditioning of condemned houses

115
are also admirable. The unfitness test results in many reasonably-fit houses being condemned for clearance as being unfit. So far as this Bill will enable the reconditioning of houses which are not really unfit it is most welcome. As the Bill is drafted at present, however, it is not clear at what moment the local authority are to be allowed to change their mind. The Bill appears to permit a local authority to acquire a dwelling house compulsorily as unfit and to pay compensation at site value and then to exclude the house from the clearance area on the grounds that it is not, after all, unfit. If that is the correct position I feel it ought to be cleared up.
I will now touch upon a rather painful subject: that is, the repairing obligations of parties who have bought leases. I think every reasonable person supports the principle that tenants under a short tenancy should not be responsible for constructional repairs. Some people take the view that there should be no implied covenant on the part of the landlord, which would result only in many landlords asking high rents in order to cover the risk of having litigious tenants. It should be sufficient to give power to a tenant to apply to a court to terminate the tenancy and to be relieved of the obligation to pay rent under the lease if the house became uninhabitable. It would seem wholly inequitable that the short-term tenant should, for example, force a landlord to rebuild after a collapse due to dry-rot, particularly in view of the flood damage earlier this year. Statutory rebatement of rent would be reasonable in such a case, but not a statutory rebuilding covenant. That is merely a point of view which is taken rather strongly by some people, but I feel that there are cases in which a landlord should be relieved by a court from having to rebuild a house in certain circumstances. My Lords, those are only a few, sketchy observations I have to make about the Bill. I have no doubt that the matter will be debated again on Committee stage, and that your Lordships look forward with pleasure to many midnight sittings.
4.42 p.m.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, I should like to join the two noble Lords who have already spoken
116
in congratulating the noble Earl on his speech in introducing this Bill to us this afternoon. One could realise that he knew the subject: it does not matter for how long; he at any rate knew his subject and knew the background to it. It was not simply, as we have sometimes heard, and as we sometimes make speeches ourselves, a series of sentences trying to express thoughts, knowing that we were not quite sure whether the reason for those thoughts had been properly considered.
I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Latham, who is, I know, a great expert on this subject, and I would not for an instant suggest that I could follow him in all the remarks he made. No doubt the noble Earl, in winding up the debate, will be able to answer a good many of his questions, but the noble Lord mentioned in his speech the statement that was frequently made in the other place: that this was no major Bill. I do not mind what you call it. It seems a comprehensive Bill, if one looks at the number of detailed problems with which it deals. It always seems to me that the housing problem is a very complex problem, made up of a great many smaller problems which must be solved in connection one with the other —rather like jigsaw pieces, which fit into the picture of better housing in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Latham, spoke about the national housing problem. I agree that housing is a national problem, but I do not myself believe that it is national from the point of view that it is the same problem throughout the country. I think that more and more we shall be helped in doing our work if we realise that fact. It seems to me that it is getting more and more like the position we had to deal with in regard to unemployment. We had high employment in many areas, but in others we had pockets of very heavy unemployment, and the Government had to bring forward legislation in order to deal with it. If you had gone into any of those places and talked about the high employment, the people there would have told you how very much worse the employment situation was then than perhaps it had ever been before. I believe it is a great thing if we can face the problem (as we are going to do now, in the scheme that is

117
laid out before us) much more as a collection of areas or local problems, and deal with the help we can give to those areas accordingly.
I should also like to congratulate and thank my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government for the White Paper. I think it is one of the best White Papers I have ever read. It is clear, concise and altogether a first-class progress report. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Latham, thinks that there has been no progress since my right honourable friend took office, and that he has done damage; but, going by the facts and the figures in the White Paper, I am very glad that he has been in charge of our housing affairs and that so much has been done in the years that have passed to improve the housing situation. Having said that, I must go on to say that of course we all realise the appalling state of housing in many parts of this country. I should like particularly to speak—and I have looked at this Paper and this Bill particularly from this point of view—on the subject of slums and slum clearance.
My Lords, for many years in another place I know a good deal about this problem, for I was the Parliamentary representative of Dundee for fifteen years and, after that, for a part of Manchester for nine years. In both those places I saw slums; I knew slums. People in those slums were some of my greatest friends, and I knew the conditions under which they were living—and they were simply appalling. Now each Government and each Party has tried to do something about this. It is no use our simply blaming landlords, or the fact that not enough money has been expended. I believe that the problem is much more difficult and much more complex. At this stage, when I am speaking of the slums in Manchester and the work that needs to be done on them, perhaps my noble friends would allow me to pay a tribute to my successor in the Moss Side Division of Manchester, Mr James Watts, who died so suddenly a few days ago. On the Second Reading of the Bill which we are discussing, he urged the need to regard our housing efforts as a crusade. Mr. Watts knew well that I did not agree with all the suggestions he made as to how to deal with the present slums, or how to prevent slums from appearing, but he knew that I
118
appreciated his great sincerity; and when he talked about wanting a crusade, I know that he himself had the spirit of a crusader.
In examining this Bill, as in the case of most Bills of this type, I suppose we all look to see what it seeks to achieve and the means it is going to use to achieve it. It seems to me that the first thing it is going to try to achieve is to channel subsidies where they are most needed, either to the local authority or to the individual. I should not have thought that anybody could object to that principle. I should not have thought that anybody could object to a commonsense, realistic policy like that, though they might say that it was not being done in the right way. But we want to have the money used to help those in need, whether they are local authorities or individuals.
The noble Lord, Lord Latham, spoke about money being filched away because local authorities were now getting the advantages of the houses they had built in pre-war days. We are glad they did build them. We had a good many Housing Bills in pre-war days, whichever Party was in power. We are thankful for the fact that the houses were built; and if they are now sold to build up the revenue of the local authority, I cannot see any dishonesty at all in suggesting, as we are suggesting in this Bill, that they can use that revenue to go on dealing with the housing problem.
On my next point there will probably be disagreement, because it deals with the way it is suggested the needs of the authority should be assessed; how one should discover what subsidy the authority should receive. As I have already said, it seems to me common sense that, in doing that, you should look at what I might call the housing authority's accounts—at the amount of the expenditure and the amount of the revenue. I do not think anybody could really oppose that in principle. But in considering what the revenue is to be—it is here in the White Paper, and again in the Bill—what they are going to do is to consider the potential revenue. In other words, if local authority houses were let at a rent twice the 1956 gross value, it is what that would bring in. It seems to me that it is a fairly sensible way, and I should be very interested to know

119
whether this could ever be published and we could be told what the revenue of various authorities would be if those calculations were made.
The noble Lord, Lord Latham, referred to there being no help in the Bill at all, and he said that the only beneficiary was the Exchequer. I do not know his reason for saying that. He may have had a reason, but he did not explain it. At the same time, he said that the subsidy was going to cost the Exchequer the sum of (I think it is now) £61 million, and there will be this increase of £3 million. The Exchequer does not seem to be gaining very much out of that, but I can only presume that he meant that the Exchequer ought to spend more. I do not believe that merely spending money, and then more money, will solve our housing problem; I believe in some more definite organisation. In passing, I might say that my reading of the Bill and the White Paper is that these subsidy arrangements are more flexible, and that if difficulties arise under certain heads, it is laid down that extra subsidy could be paid. However, I may be wrong in that, and perhaps I have not read it in the same way as did Lord Latham.
If we are going to give this subsidy in this practical way to the local authorities, what about the individual tenants? We all know there has been a great deal of feeling that some people who can afford to pay a full economical rent are at present living in houses where they are not paying an economical rent, and therefore the rest of the taxpayers have to pay for them. We all agree that that should be stopped; but I do not agree, as some people suggest, that these people should be told to leave their houses. I think it would be too harsh a measure to turn them out because they have sufficient to buy a house or to pay a rent of, say, £4 a week (or whatever it may be), and to say they should not live in their present house. The tenant may have had his house for some time. He may have been a good tenant, looked after the house, and perhaps improved it in many ways; he may have made up his garden and is accustomed to living in that community. Therefore, I would not agree that he should have to move.
At the same time, I see absolutely no reason why he should not pay an
120
economical rent and stay in his present house. As I say, I personally would not turn him out; I would rather that more people bought their houses or rented houses of their own, leaving us with other housing accommodation owned by a local authority for other persons. For any local authority in these difficult areas an empty house is far more valuable than the money they would receive from it by way of extra rents.
If these people are to move, or if new people who are able to pay an economic rent are not to go into council houses, then the great problem—and we have known this for ages, but have not yet been able to get round it—is to have more houses for rent. The old days of middle class people owning a couple of houses for rent, I am glad to say, are gone. People have been left them by their grandmothers or aunts, but they cannot keep them up. They do not want them, and very naturally—and I do not quarrel with this in any way; I am sure I would do the same myself—when the houses become vacant they want to sell them.
There are bigger associations which can build houses for renting, and a good many of us feel that they certainly want to be encouraged. The suggestion now put to us in this Bill is that some work can be done by housing associations. I have an immense admiration for the work housing associations have done in the past. We all know cases where they have worked well with local authorities. They have worked together with them in their schemes, and the local authorities have arranged for them to have the same subsidy as the local authorities are getting from the Exchequer. But now we have something new. The housing associations are now to be asked if they will build houses which will be let without subsidy. In other words, a house costing about £3,000 will probably be let at a rent of about £4 a week. Are they going to be able to do it? I do not know.
I said at the beginning that when we look at a Bill like this we look at what the Government are aiming at, and then look to see whether that aim can be achieved. Her Majesty's Government may have great confidence that the building societies are going to be able to tackle this, but I am certain that there

121
has to be an enormous urge from the public as a whole. There has to be a real feeling throughout the country. Here is a great opportunity. Here is a chance, we believe, of giving the right sort of houses to these people and, to a great extent, leaving available the other houses and the houses which may be built so that we may clear people out of the appalling slums in which they live to-day. I hope this Bill will enable us to do that, and I am most glad that the housing associations will have the subsidy of £24 for housing the elderly.
The housing problem is not merely a question of demolition; it is also a question of prevention. Looking back over the years—and I can look back to 1934 or 1936, I think it was, when I was a member of two departmental housing committees, one for England and one for Scotland—we were dealing with this problem at that time. We were then talking of modernising, of maintenance and of conversions. In those days, when we sent in our report and had some housing legislation, I used to be absolutely full of hope and confidence that now we were going to see a great difference. My Lords, I have learned that with our housing legislation things go slowly, and I can assure your Lordships that, even after the passing of this Bill, in no other committee will it ever be a confident morning again. We have to remember that this sort of legislation is bound to move slowly.
We have made mistakes in the past. I believe we were not soon enough in building flats and in building up, but the building techniques in those days were not so advanced. In some cases we were desperately extravagant in the layout and use of the land, and we did not have the present planning. Above all, I think we have not pushed, urged and insisted on modernisation, maintenance and conversion in every way we can. We could have done an immense amount in the past. I am glad that it is going at the rate it is now, and that the improvement grants are being taken up in much greater numbers. I see from the White Paper that the improvement grants in 1958 amounted to £34,000, and that in 1960, after the passing of the 1959 Act, they were up to £131,000. I hope that will continue.
122
The noble Lord, Lord Latham, was perfectly right; slums are being made at the same time as we are trying to demolish slums, and really to attack the slum problem you must attack it from both sides. But there is a third side—the slum dwellers, poor things, in their multi-occupied houses. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, read to us from what the Minister in his speech said about that. The noble Earl, in introducing this Bill, said he has visited these places, and many of us know them. When the noble Lord, Lord Latham, blamed the present Government, or at any rate said a good many things about our present Minister of Housing and Local Government, I should have liked to say to him that no other Minister has tried to tackle this before. This is the first time, and I congratulate the Minister on his courage and enterprise, and I only hope that he has chosen a way which can succeed.
Now, what is suggested? I am going to ask, if I may, some rather detailed questions. I hope your Lordships will not think that these are more suited for Report stage; but if there are any changes to be made, the Government could look into the matter and I may be able to move some Amendments. It seems to me that this question of what should be done is divided into two sections. There is maintenance and management, which is one section; and structural alterations, which seems to me another section. We have heard about the dirt and the appalling conditions, and I will not repeat what has been said. When the Minister told the other place of his visit, he ended up by saying that he did not know who was responsible for this dirt and this misery. I wonder if he has yet found out. I wonder if Her Majesty's Government have yet really found out. We all know who is the person we want to get at. We all know it is the person who makes money and large profits and leaves people in this condition. But are we really getting at him with this?
The noble Earl said that local authorities would have the power to rehouse, so that it was not a case of turning people on to the streets. But suppose, in a filthy house, certain people will not do the cleaning and refuse to take their turn, can the landlord turn them out? Has the local authority anywhere to put them? Suppose a local authority finds how many

123
people are living in a house, and sees that the number of water closets and the kitchen facilities are absolutely nothing like the right number; then suppose the landlord says that he does not want all these families living in the house, and that if he can take away half the number the existing facilities will be adequate —what happens then? There is to be a subsidy for de-crowding, but at that moment it is not the subsidy that we want, but the houses. I can see that we may have to leave some of these appalling conditions. If people go out of these houses, we can prevent more people from coming in; but how can we put the present tenants out until we can provide somewhere for them to go? I feel it is courageous for the Minister to deal with this problem. So many of us have seen what the position is and have not been able to suggest how it should be dealt with. And I am most anxious that it should be dealt with.
Perhaps I have not been able to read the Bill with great intelligence, but as I read Clause 12 I felt that, if I were the owner of one of these houses, living in the house, managing and controlling it, and I looked into the Bill to see what my duties were and what effect the Government's legislation was going to have on me, I should not know. In subsection (2) (a), the Bill says that a local authority shall
"serve on an owner of the house, and on every person who is to their knowledge a lessee of the house, notice of their intention to make the order,"
Then subsection (6), which deals with revoking, says
"A local authority may at any time on the application of a person having an estate or interest in the house …"
and so on. Is that a different person or the same person under a different name? Can we have put in that clause the same name or be told that they are the same? Then, in Clause 13, we find a reference to
"the person managing a house,"
who is defined in subsection (2) (a) as
"the person who is an owner or a lessee of the house and who, directly or through an agent or trustee, receives rents or other payments from persons who are tenants of parts of the house, or who are lodgers,'
Is it a different person who is managing the house or is it the person who is
124
owner or lessee? Then what about subtenants? Suppose a house is let, and that somebody has two rooms and sublets one of them, or perhaps takes another room and sub-lets it, in order to make a large profit out of the subletting. Can we get at that person, the sub-tenant, who may be the culprit?
Again, in Clause 14, we come to what I may call the unknown manager, the case in which the name and address of the manager or the person who is described as "manager of the house" is not known. Subsection (4) says:
"Where a local authority serve a notice on any person under this section they shall inform any other person who is to their knowledge an owner or lessee of the house of the fact that such a notice has been served."
Is the unknown manager an entirely different person from this owner or lessee? Later, in subsection (5) (e), we see the words:
"the holder of an estate or interest in the premises",
and in Clause 15 (1) (a):
"the person having control of the house (as defined by subsection (2) of section thirty-nine of the principal Act),"
I should like to know how that is defined. Again, is this a different person?
One more question. Should we have a definition of "house"? It may be quite unnecessary, but when I read Clause 21 I found that the arrangements about management are to apply to
"a building which is not a house but in which there are two or more separate dwellings …"
I can understand what is meant. It may be a block of flats with shops and garages. But now I realise that a dwelling is not a house, though a house may be a dwelling. I should therefore like to ask whether it is necessary to have any further definition of these different terms.
My Lords, I submit these questions because I want the Bill to work, because I believe it is desperately important that we attack this problem. It is difficult, but it is absolutely urgent that it should be done. Many of us who have been interested in housing for long and who have seen, as the years go by, more and more Housing Bills brought in, sometimes feel sad about it, or even desperate. But over and over again, as we read the progress that has been made, we feel invigorated and encouraged to go on with this work. It is encouraging to

125
know that 60,000 slum houses are being demolished every year, though we know that we are not going to get rid of all our slums quickly or give everybody a good house right away. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has said, we are inspired by the figures in this White Paper that mark the progress that has been made, and we start on our new venture under this Bill, which brings these different problems into one complex, full of hope that in the years to come we shall see further improvement.
5.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I want to confine my remarks entirely to those parts of the Bill dealing with housing associations, with which, as my noble friend Lord Jellicoe said, I am associated, and I am grateful for what my noble friend said. For many years the work of these bodies has been commended by politicians of all Parties as a small but useful adjunct to the work of the other major agencies for building houses. Now the Minister, who himself has had experience of controlling at least one housing association, wants to see their work stepped up considerably. I should rather like to see them eventually occupying a position analogous to that occupied by housing associations in Holland, in Denmark and in the Scandinavian countries.
The question is: what prospects are there of this idea coming off? I would be the first to admit that the contribution of the housing associations, as compared with those of other agencies—the local authorities, on the one hand, and private enterprise, on the other—is of a pretty small order. The total number of houses for which we are at present responsible is 104.000. None the less, housing associations possess certain advantages over other agencies for building houses. In the first place, they enjoy all-Party support. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Latham, could hardly be described as a breezy or cheerful one, but I thought I detected a glimmer of hope that housing associations might build some houses under this Bill, and his colleagues in another place have been a little kinder. I think it is an advantage in itself that we should have this all-Party support, for this is the time when housing is in the forefront of Party politics and divergencies of policy seem to be growing. I have
126
always felt that in an essentially long-term business, such as housing, if you are going to have basic changes in policy every few years the prospect is not an entirely happy one. I was glad to see that when the Labour Party produced that rather revolutionary idea of municipalising all rented property they made a special exception of houses owned by housing associations. There is a bridge, therefore, if only a small one, between the two Parties.
Secondly, there are no class distinctions in housing associations. Some, of course, are grander than others. We have many that cater for the aged poor, where the rent is cheap and is paid out of public assistance; but we also have generals, admirals and maybe Members of your Lordships' House among our clients. I do not know much about the conditions in the North of England, but, speaking as an amateur town planner in the South of England, I notice a considerable gulf between the tenants of council houses and those who live in select residential quarters. In fact, I have learnt that it is a considerable crime to depreciate the value of select residential property by putting less select properties in too close proximity to them. I have no doubt that this is wrong and very unethical, but in the town planning world we have to take things as we find them. On the other hand, I have never heard of a property being depreciated by the proximity of a housing association.
Thirdly, there are no bitter memories of exploitation, profiteering and eviction with housing associations, because that sort of thing would be impossible under the law, and I have never heard any complaint on that score. I must say, as an agricultural landlord, that the idea of making a lot of money out of houses seems in my particular field a somewhat remote one, but certainly this profiteering has gone on, and we have heard eloquent testimony that in certain quarters (which, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, I hope are only limited) these things are still going on as badly as ever.
Ideologically, the housing association movement are on a very good wicket. I wish I could say the same about the administrative position. I suppose one of the difficulties is to find people sufficiently public-spirited to undertake the

127
work of starting and running these associations. It is not really like local authority work, where you have an experienced official who comes along after the passing of a new Act and reminds his committee of what their duties and powers are, and probably suggests that those duties and powers might be implemented. There the committee take the decision and pass back the ball to the official for all the details to be worked out. There are a few big trusts who have paid officials but, generally speaking, things happen quite differently among those who run these associations.
Take, for example, the housing of the aged poor, of which I suppose we have possibly 10.000. What happens is that a few people, perhaps distressed by the condition under which their neighbours are living, get together and try to do something about it. They form the housing association and get it registered; they find the land on which to build the house, or find the house to convert; they arrange with the local authority for any grants or subsidies and for loan sanctions, and they instruct the architect and so on. Then, in the large majority of cases they examine the budget and find that it does not begin to balance by a long way. They then have to go and raise money from charity, possibly up to one-third of the total costs of the home they propose to put up. Often these associations get assistance from the local authority, and particularly from the housing manager; but this is not always the case. I feel that it is rather marvellous that anything happens at all.
It is a heartening experience in these days, when, according to the Press, the universal motto is, "I'm all right Jack", to go round and find a lot of people all over the country, members of the Rotary clubs and so forth, who seem prepared at the end of a long day's work to undertake all this administrative detail. They do this not for reward and with little publicity, but merely for the sake of doing good. And they do good. I am convinced that among the substantial number of poor people whom we look after, despite, all the powers and activities of local authorities, are quite a number who would not be in anything like such a happy position as they are were it not for these efforts.
128
I mention this because, in looking through the proceedings in another place, particularly in Committee, I seem to notice a certain element of—perhaps "suspicion" is too strong a word, but, at any rate, a feeling that the activities of these bodies should be examined very closely: "Are we quite sure that nobody is jumping the housing queue? Are we quite sure that the local authority have complete control? Are we sure there is no element of the tied cottage? What is the reason why in certain areas housing associations have a more favourable subsidy than local authorities?", and so on. I make no protest at these questions being asked—they should be asked—but I could have wished that slightly greater recognition had been paid to the immense difficulties of getting anything done at all.
We are, of course, grateful to the Minister for this £24 subsidy; but, even so, with the continual rise in building costs and the price of land I cannot myself see that we are likely to advance very rapidly. The most one can hope for, I think, is a slow but steady advance in the number of these old people's homes. Without the financial position being better, I cannot see a rapid expansion. I understand that the Minister's real hope (this is what my noble friend Lord Jellicoe emphasised to-day) is that there will be more associations of the co-operative type, building houses without subsidies, but with the facilities of this new £25 million money available to be loaned in appropriate cases. We have a few societies of this sort already in existence, and I feel that there is quite a prospect that their number will grow under this Bill. Of course, for building without subsidy we have to think in terms of rents of £4 to £5 per week, and that means a class of person whose income is in the range of perhaps £20 a week. Nevertheless, I think it will grow, because there is undoubtedly a strong demand for housing accommodation to let, and that is not being satisfied by private enterprise, except for the very expensive type of flat.
The co-operative type of society really envisages groups of people who will put up a certain amount of capital themselves and borrow the remainder to put up flats or houses for their own occupation; and the freehold of the house belongs not to the individuals, but to the

129
society. Here there is a considerable element of self-interest, because share capital entitles one to a lease of a flat or a house. I feel a little more doubtful about another form of society which seems to be contemplated by the Minister under what might be described as the cost-rent scheme, where it is presumed that people will borrow some of this £25 million, perhaps up to 100 per cent. of the cost, for leasing houses to others. The only profit they can make there is the profit authorised by the Treasury, which now stands at about 6 per cent. The point is that people will work for themselves and, because of the great tradition of charity in this country, they will work for the poor and afflicted. But to expect people to work for those earning £20 a week seems to me to be expecting rather an unusual form of altruism. However, time alone will show what will happen there.
I can only say that the people with whom I work are most enthusiastic to try out these experiments. For myself, I feel that a great deal will depend, not only on the enthusiasm of the Federation of Housing Associations and of the Ministry, but on the degree of encouragement we get from the local authorities and from Parliament. I was glad to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, that that was also her view. We hear a great deal to-day about the alleged evils of class distinction. Indeed, so strong is the feeling on this subject that it was held in some quarters to justify the very illiberal idea, to my way of thinking, of abolishing the public schools. However that may be, we seem to be busily engaged in building up another form of class distinction as between council tenants on the one hand and private enterprise owners and tenants on the other. I should have thought that the idea of a third agency which combines, I believe, at least some of the merits of both forms of enterprise was one which deserved the careful consideration and, I hope, encouragement of your Lordships' House.
5.22 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lards, I welcome this Bill. Whatever may be said about it, there has been a great deal of discussion on it. It received its Second Reading in another place on March 27, its Third Reading on June 28, and there were over 20 Sittings in Committee.
130
It seems to me that the most important part of any Housing Bill these days must be slum clearance, and the Bill makes a good deal of reference to this matter. The grants for slum clearance in the Bill are, on the whole, commendable, though I should have thought that a sliding-scale grant for slum clearance would be quite a good idea. In Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham particularly, there are a large number of slums, although I think the Government and the local authorities of those cities are to be congratulated on the considerable progress already made.
In the White Paper, Cmnd. 1290, some interesting figures have been published of slum clearance by local authorities who have a very big task of slum clearance ahead of them. Out of 415,156 houses estimated to be unfit in 1955, from January 1, 1955, to December 31, 1960, 69,884 of these houses had been slum cleared. That is, I submit, a reasonably good effort. The problem is going to be re-siting the houses that have been cleared. I have seen a number of these slums, particularly during the two General Elections after the 1945 Election, when I did a good deal of canvassing in Fulham, where there are a great many buildings which could be described as slums and where people—very charming people they are, too—live in very difficult conditions. That brings me to the new towns. I have always been a supporter of the new towns, having myself lived for a number of years at one time only a few miles from the new town of Stevenage, and having seen it grow to some extent. Many of these people have gone from the dirt and squalor of the slums into these new towns. I should like to urge the Government to make sure that the new towns get the maximum benefits from these subsidies, because I feel that the community spirit which these new towns undoubtedly have will be of great importance in the future.
T would say this about council houses. I favour a differential rent scheme, but, like my noble friend Lady Horsbrugh, should not favour the idea of people being turned out of council houses just because they will not pay the full rent. I think that everything should be done to encourage people to pay the full rent—those who can afford it; and a number can—and I would also urge that some local

131
authorities should remove some of the pettifogging restrictions that are imposed on council house tenants. I know that that may not come within the scope of this Bill. But one reads time and time again that when a council house tenant wants to paint his door a certain colour, or to cultivate his garden in a certain way, the local authority say that he must not do it. Obviously, there must be some bounds and some sense of proportion, but I suggest that this sense of proportion is sometimes taken too far.
I think the success of any Housing Bill, particularly a Bill of this kind, must depend on the contentment of those for whom it seeks to provide. Here again, I think one of the problems of council houses is that many of them have been put up too quickly. In fact, the standard of building of many houses to-day, particularly by the big combines, often leaves a great deal to be desired. It is only common sense that, if a house is not properly constructed, it soon becomes a slum. Unfortunately, in at least one of the new towns I know well houses which I saw when they were first built in the early 1950s, and which I have seen recently, have tended that way. Of course, slums can be created by those who live in the dwellings themselves, and that sometimes happens. But I would say quite sincerely that the majority of dwellers in these new towns, whether they be council house dwellers or private house dwellers, look after their properties extremely well.
I went through some figures recently, and I read the very interesting articles of Mr. Gavin Lyall, of the Sunday Times, which were certainly eye-openers. It really is rather terrifying to read that something like 47 per cent. of the houses in Manchester (the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh will correct me if I am wrong here) are classified as slum dwellings. But here again I think it is a credit to the local city corporation that they are making an effort with slum clearance. There are too many people who regard slums as existing only in such areas as Tyneside, Tees-side, South Wales, Liverpool or Manchester. There are, in fact, slums in almost every town in this country—slums of sorts—and one has only to go on a railway journey from, say, Epsom to London, or from any
132
other suburban town to London, to see along the railway line how many houses backing on to the railways are virtually slum dwellings.
I congratulate the Government on this Bill and on what they are seeking to do, but I would once again urge that we should perhaps "go easy" on the building of our new offices, particularly in the City of London, and concentrate on this slum clearance. It is very important to the health and the welfare of this country. With those reservations I commend this Bill highly.
5.32 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, the speakers who have so far taken part in this debate have all quite obviously been masters of their subject and are well acquainted with the intricacies of housing legislation. I am afraid that I have no such claim to speak. I am doing so only because it seems to me unfortunate that so far no mention has been made of rural housing. I note that it is included in the Bill but it is perhaps significant that the only mention I can find of it, in Clause 5 (3), is a very small part of the Bill as a whole. There it says:
"If the Minister thinks fit so to determine in the case of any dwelling provided by the council of a county district"
and so on, there may be payable an extra subsidy of £9 per annum. I think it is significant that the space taken up on this question in this Bill is so small and that the amount of money provided for rural housing also is so small.
The noble Earl in his opening speech (and a very admirable and comprehensive one it seemed to me to be) described graphically and sympathetically his visit to urban slums. I do not pretend for a moment that I could take him, and I doubt whether any other noble Lord could take him, to rural slums of similar squalor, but there is no doubt about it whatsoever that there are many dwellings in the countryside where the actual accommodation is no better than that which the noble Earl described. In fact, in many cases it is worse in certain respects in that the roof levels are lower, the actual cubic space per inhabitant is less, the distance that has to be travelled for water is far greater and, of course, there is an entire absence of electricity. I freely admit that if I were forced to live in a slum, no matter how bad it

133
was, I would rather live in a rural slum than an urban slum because there are compensations in doing so, but that does not detract from the fact that these rural slums exist. Because they are not packed together in tall buildings in narrow streets as the urban slums are it does not make their existence less real for those who have to live there. The conditions in which so many people have to live in the country are no less real.
The problem of rural housing seems to me to divide itself into two. First, there is the provision of new houses; secondly, there is the rehabilitation of existing houses. There are grants for the latter, I know, but these grants, although useful in some areas, are completely useless in others, and I would say rightly useless in others, because existing rural houses, farm workers' houses, are structurally unsuitable for improvement. It would be a waste of public money to improve them. So I am not pressing the Government to extend the grant to cover that type of cottage, but, rather, am mentioning it to underline the point that improvement grants are very far from being the whole answer. There are certain areas in the country—the one I come from is one of them—where, because of the absence of good durable building material, this sort of problem is very prevalent. There are houses there made of clunch, of chalk, of lath and plaster, and very often thatch, even in these days, which are completely uneconomic to make into good, proper modern dwellings. So the rehabilitation grant may again in those areas he completely useless. For the greatest contribution to the problem of rural slums we must look to the actual provision of new houses.
In all these areas it is fair to say that the local authorities are poor by comparison with those in urban districts and cities, and for this reason the grant, the Exchequer subsidy, that must be given to them, must be a considerably higher one. As I said in the beginning, I am not an expert in these matters and I cannot pretend to have unfathomed the maximum amount which could be paid to a local authority for putting up farm workers' cottages and rural dwellings. It seems, from what I was able to find out, that the maximum subsidy can be £40 a year. Whether the extra £9 in Clause 5 that I have referred to comes
134
on top of that £40 or not, I do not know; but giving the Government the benefit of the doubt, that would bring it 'up to £49 a year, or just under £1 a week.
The present-day cost of building a house in the country, excluding the cost of land, which as we know is mounting almost daily, is in the neighbourhood of £1,500; and that, I think, is a low estimate. It means that the economic rent cannot be less than £3 a week for a new farm worker's dwelling in the countryside. Even being as generous as one can in the interpretation of these figures, and allowing for £1 a week subsidy, this means that the tenant of that property, of that house, will have to pay £2 a week. My Lords, that is entirely out of the range of a farm worker with his wage, including overtime, of not more than £9 or £9 10s. a week.
So I suggest that, unless you are going either to encourage the drift from the land, because farm workers move into these council houses and then find they cannot afford to pay for them on the wages they receive on the farm, and therefore go to work in industries which are nearby and which, quite rightly, are growing up in the countryside; unless you are going to have that happen and look on it with equanimity; or unless you are prepared to say that because a man works on the land he must be prepared to live there, even in a tied cottage, in that old-fashioned worker's cottage, at 6s. or 7s. a week, in what are now rural slums; unless you are prepared to put up with one or other of these alternatives you must do a great deal more than this Bill provides for in order to enable rural local authorities to provide the right form of accommodation for the people who live and work in the countryside.
My Lords, I am not going to develop this theme any further. I think that most of your Lordships who live in the country, or know it, will agree with these general remarks, and I certainly do not want to trespass on the realm of urban housing or construction or rehabilitation. But I would urge the noble Earl to extend his researches into slums from places near the Palace of Westminster to those rather further away; and I should be very happy to show him some not very far from where I live, if he would care to look at them.
5.40 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, I expect that a great many of your Lordships, like myself, have almost lost count of the number of Housing Bills in which we have taken some part in either House of Parliament during the last thirty or forty years. Some of those measures, like the Labour Government's Act of 1930, when Tom Johnston was Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, concentrated principally upon slum clearance or almost exclusively on slum clearance; others, like the succeeding Government's Housing Act of 1935, mainly on the relief of overcrowding. On one or two occasions since the war more particular attention has been paid to the needs of key workers coming into an area, and to the needs of old people, whose numbers in relation to the rest of the population are growing.
Always, both before and after the war, our difficulty has been that there never is enough building labour to bring all the houses in Great Britain up to the standards of comfort and space, sanitation and amenity which modern opinion demands. In 1939 we were a long way from our objective, but we were catching up; we were making progress in slum clearance, in relief of overcrowding and in building for general needs. For the next six years, or in effect rather more than six years, not only was there virtually no new building but practically no ordinary repairs could be carried out, and I have no doubt that the damage done to the overall housing position throughout the country by the inability to carry out normal repairs during the war was much greater than the more concentrated damage that was caused by all the bombing which we had.
The last time I held office in a previous Government during the war I put forward one suggestion which I soon realised was rather a foolish one. My suggestion was that as soon as the war came to an end we should continue wartime economy for a year or two, but instead of concentrating all our economic resources on producing war materials we should concentrate most of our economic resources on building houses and should try to build two million houses in a couple of years. Of course, the reason why this idea was not a good one was that after the war our
136
economic position made it imperative that we should concentrate first on building new factories, producing more industrial goods and exporting more, in order that we might keep alive and earn our living, and it was absolutely necessary that we should give priority to this economic expansion over housing, even though it meant tolerating a very large number of very bad slums for a very long time.
Even now, sixteen years later, it would still be true to say that if we want to maintain a rising standard of living in this country, based, as it must be, on expanding exports, we can devote only a certain proportion of our gross national product to the improvement of housing. As my noble friend, Lady Horsbrugh, said, in the enthusiasm of our youth we often think that things can be done in a hurry, and sometimes they can. There are some local authorities—quite a large number—in this country who have now solved their housing problem, but there are many others where we must act with patience and with perseverance; with patience because it is a physical impossibility to solve the problem in five years or perhaps even ten, and with perseverance because housing conditions in those areas are still very bad and we must not let up on our efforts to improve them.
In the White Paper your Lordships will no doubt have read the Appendix at the end in which there are listed fifty local authorities in England and Wales whose estimates indicate a long slum clearance task. Birmingham estimated in 1955—that was when all the local authorities made their slum clearance estimates, which are still the only basis we have to go on at this moment—that they had 50,250 unfit houses; in the last five years they have replaced just under 7,000; that is not quite one-seventh of the total. Manchester had 68,000 unfit houses; they have cleared 7,700; that is only about one-ninth. Liverpool had 88,000 unfit houses; they have been able to clear in this five years only 5,300; that is only about one in seventeen of the unfit houses. On the other hand, there is Stoke-on-Trent with 12,000 unfit houses, which has cleared 4,300; that is considerably more than one-third: Wolverhampton, with 5,600 unfit houses, has cleared 2,666; they want only another 134 to make it exactly half of their total in five years,

137
which is very good progress indeed. Those are what one might call the authorities where the problem is the most intractable. According to the White Paper, the total number of unfit houses in 1955 was 415,000-odd; the numbers cleared just under 70,000-odd; that is roughly about one in six. And, of course, that is not allowing, as the noble Lord, Lord Latham pointed out, for houses which may have become unfit in the last five years, which we can only guess at.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, those figures are for only 50 authorities. They do not embrace the whole of the country.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No. I thought I made it clear that these are the fifty whose estimates indicate a long slum-clearance task, and I described them as those authorities where the problem is most intractable. They have got a total of 415,000 of which they have cleared just under 70,000 in the last five years. The noble Lord rightly mentions that there are others. The total number of estimated unfit houses was 850,000 in 1955. That leaves 435,000 houses of those which are not included in the table which I have just read out, and in the last five years they cleared a little under 200,000 houses—that is about 4 out of 9. So your Lordships will see that there is a great contrast in the progress that is being made between one area and another. My noble friend, Lord Jellicoe, gave the gross figure, 270,000 cleared out of a total of 850,000.
I do not want in any way to deprecate what the noble Lord, Lord Latham, said about deterioration or about what needs to be done to a great many houses which have not been condemned as unfit. I thought perhaps there might have been some slight confusion between the figures based on the 1951 census, of houses without any fixed bath and without any separate lavatory, which were respectively about 5 million and about 2½ million, and the slum clearance—that is to say, houses classified as unfit, which is quite a different thing—in 1955. It is anybody's guess what changes may have taken place since the 1951 census. I am not going to make any guess. All I can say is that it will be safe to state that the number of houses without a bath will be vastly less than the 5 million which were found in 1951.
138
So far the only fact which has emerged from the 1961 census which was taken only three months ago is that the total number of families covered by the census is 14¾ million and the total number of separate dwellings, 14½ million. Although of course that means that a good many are more than one family to a dwelling, it is a vast improvement over the position in 1951. But the only figures we can go on are the latest ones we have. With respect to the newspapers, I do not think that the growing number of slums is anything like so great as the noble Lord, Lord Latham, feared; as your Lordships will see from paragraphs 10 and 11 of the White Paper, in January 1960 housing authorities were asked to review their programmes and to bring them up to date, and a number have already done so. At the beginning of the next paragraph it states that over the country at large unfit houses should have practically disappeared within the next ten years, and it then goes on to except the areas which are listed in the Appendix at the end of the White Paper.
I am not trying to paint the picture either too bright or too sombre. All I would say is that I wish Glasgow's prospects of solving its housing problem were as good and likely to take as short a time as seems probable from the information we have for England as a whole, even including those areas which are listed in the Appendix. If you take the total number of houses that have been built since the war, 3¼ million, that is not quite a quarter of the total number of houses in the country but it houses one quarter of the families in the country. Having regard to our economic difficulties in the last sixteen years, I think that the complete rehousing of one quarter of the population of this country in that time is by no means a mean achievement.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, if I may say so, in regard to complete rehousing, a number of them are new tenants—new families. They are not rehoused; they are housed.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: That is perfectly true; but, of course, when you house a new family you increase the total number of houses among the older buildings which are available to others.
LORD LATHAM: That is not a new family. If there is a new family there is nothing made available for others.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I understand the point. It is the number of families as well as the number of people who are increasing. In fact, before the war you had a big increase in the number of families while the population was almost declining, because the families were getting smaller. Now we have slightly larger families but the total number of houses required in relation to the total number of people still goes on growing.
As the noble Lord, Lord Latham, I think implied, this Bill does not make any major change in the objectives of our policy, although there are a number of changes in method, the principal ones being the discretion which is given to the Minister as to whether he will grant a subsidy at all and for what purpose he will grant it. The noble Lord mentioned Bournemouth as being a town which might perhaps not need a great deal of help from the Government. Of course, if Bournemouth is rehousing and is building new council houses to rehouse slum families or overcrowded people, it may be just as entitled to a subsidy as anybody else. But if the Minister thinks it is not so entitled, under this Bill, there is no obligation on him to give Bournemouth any subsidy at all; it is left to his discretion; and whether the building is for slum clearance, or for general needs or for overcrowding, it is for him to decide whether it is required or justified.
The next change is the differential subsidies which your Lordship's have gone into fairly fully. Then there is the power after ten years to reduce or to end the subsidies on houses which have already been built. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, mentioned that it can be done for one authority and not another. That is quite correct. But that is not new. Under the 1956 Act the Minister can for future building change the subsidy for one authority and not for another, but of course he cannot do it at all for those which are already built.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, he cannot do it retrospectively, which he will be able to do under this Bill.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: That is the new feature here, that he can do it retrospectively. The next is the additional help given to housing associations. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Gage for his most interesting speech on that subject. Finally, there are the entirely new powers which are provided to deal with the problem of multiple occupiers. There have always been a large number of houses in this country which are occupied by more than one family. The reason why the problem in the last ten years has become so acute as to constitute practically a new problem is because of the practice which has been growing up on the part of many unscrupulous owners of houses of making large sums of money by often exploiting immigrants who are not experienced in these matters and who are easily imposed upon. I think my noble friend impressed your Lordships by his own experiences of what he has seen. But of course this is not exactly the same problem as that of slum clearance and unfit houses; because some of those houses which are made so horrible and filthy through being occupied by too many people with too little regulation could be perfectly fit if they were not so abused.
I believe that your Lordships are fairly well agreed on this part of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, suggested that it would be better if all families living in multiple occupation houses could be registered. I quite see the point of that suggestion, but the reason we are not doing it is that there are a great number of houses which are in multiple occupation which are perfectly all right. Moreover, the staff at the disposal of local authorities for doing work of that kind is very limited. It would take a very long time to make such a register.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, can the noble Earl help me? Even those places will, nevertheless, have to be inspected by a local authority in order to comply with the conditions in the Bill. An inspector will have to ascertain whether or not those houses are in bad condition and particulars could be taken at the same time for registration.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, it will not be necessary for a local authority inspector to visit every house occupied by more than one family.
LORD LATHAM: Then he will have to assume that the house is all right.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we want to enable local authorities to strike now, quickly, at houses which are known to be in the occupation of more than one family and in bad condition through having insufficient provision of lavatories, kitchen appliances and other things that they should have. And I believe that it will do much more good if local authorities, without waiting for registration, can move immediately in regard to any bad cases that are reported to them, and that they will be able to make salutary examples of such cases.
My noble friend Lady Horsbrugh seemed a little puzzled about exactly which person would be liable to be prosecuted under Clause 13. The idea is that the definition of the person managing the house is to be varied by regulation. But responsibility for management will rest on the owner or lessee who draws profits from the house, and on any accredited agent or trustee through whom he receives them; and the local authority will be able to take action against either. A precedent for including the agent as well as his principal may be found in the definition of a person having control of a house in Section 39 (2) of the Housing Act, 1957. The reason is that the agent who has to put in an appearance to collect the rents is sometimes the only person concerned who can be pinned down. We think the definition in the subsection should be wide enough, but the less reputable people engaged in this line of business can be expected to look for any possible loophole, and therefore it is considered prudent to reserve power to amend the definition should that prove necessary. That is done in Clause 13 (3) of Part II of the Bill which provides that:
"the foregoing definition may be varied or replaced by regulations under this section."
I hope that my noble friend will write to me if she wants any more specific information about our objectives in this matter.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, having regard to the tricks these people are up to we cannot make the definition too wide.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I entirely agree, and the language which it is necessary to use in order to make
142
it wide enough in the Bill not unnaturally may lead to some little confusion among those reading the Bill.
The criticisms which can be made against the proposals in regard to subsidies and the discretion granted to the Minister are all fairly obvious ones. They have been fully canvassed already, both here and in another place, and, if I may say so, I thought the noble Lord, Lord Latham, put them very moderately and I am sure that, having stated the objections, he does not desire me to start a long argument about them now. I entirely understand the way he feels about those matters and I think he understands the answers which have been made on behalf of the Government. The noble Lord thought paragraph 32 of the White Paper foreshadowed an insidious and unworthy way of imposing a policy of charging rather higher local authority rents. I think that most of your Lordships will agree that twice the 1939 rent is not an unreasonable amount to charge; and if an authority deliberately charges less then that authority is indirectly subsidising the tenant and to that extent diminishing the resources which might be used for building more houses or demolishing more slums.
Besides the positive criticisms of the Bill which noble Lords opposite have put forward, the noble Lord, Lord Latham, mentioned one fault of omission. He said that there was not a word in this Bill about the price of land or any proposals to deal with that. This question of land values is one which I have always found fascinating. It seems to me that in theory it must be possible somehow to impose a tax on land values or to remove large unearned increments without at the same time increasing the price of land and stopping any building from taking place; and I daresay it might be possible to find some practical way of doing that, too. But, somehow, as with Mr. Lloyd George's land tax proposals of 1910, or those of Mr. Snowden of 1930, or the proposals of the war-time Coalition Government, embodied in the Town and Country Planning Act, passed at the end of the war, it always seems that these measures are framed in such a way that they have

143
the effect of preventing good development, stopping people building and sending prices higher than they otherwise would have been.
Whether it is possible by further perseverance to find some method of dealing with this problem which will not have these disastrous effects, I do not know. I dare say that it may be possible, but I would only beg your Lordships not to try to do it in this Bill. During this Session we have spent a great deal of toil and sweat, though I hope not many tears—
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, the noble Earl does not want an Amendment—is that it?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am not presuming to dictate to the noble Lord, Lord Latham, any Amendments he may or may not move in Committee, but I was appealing to your Lordships not to try to deal in this Bill with the subject of land values. As I was saying, we have suffered some legislative disappointments this Session which nobody knows better than the noble Lord, Lord Latham, for he is one of those who devoted so much of his time—so much toil and sweat though not, I hope, too many tears, and no blood (except for the "Bloody Mary") on more than one Bill which another place, when they have received it, have not proceeded with at all. But do not let us retaliate in kind. Let us return good for evil and deal with this Bill now through all its stages intelligently, efficiently and quickly.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LAND DRAINAGE BILL
6.10 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Land Drainage Bill,
144
has consented to place Her Majesty's interest so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of this Bill.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill I do not think it necessary or desirable to make a long speech. The reason I say that is not in any way to detract from the importance of this Bill, but because it has been subjected to a most rigorous and intensive scrutiny by extremely expert and well-briefed opinion, both in your Lordships' House and elsewhere; and, as a result, the Bill has been improved. All I want to say now is that I am most grateful to noble Lords in all parts of the House for their help, and for their very constructive approach to this Bill. Any differences we may have had have been almost entirely confined—I think I could say entirely confined—to points of detail, and not points of principle; and that is why I do not think any speech going over all the points of the Bill is called for now. My Lords, land drainage is one of the fundamental prerequisites of good farming, and floods are an evil from which everyone seeks protection. I commend this Bill to your Lordships as a measure which takes us another big step forward on both these fronts. I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
LORD WILLIAMS of BARNBURGH: My Lords, I do not intend to detain your Lordships for more than half a minute or so. On Second Reading I welcomed the Bill; I thought it was a good Bill—perhaps far better when it arrived in your Lordships' House than when it went to another place. Your Lordships will all know as well as I do, and perhaps much better, that we have all too few agricultural acres. If, therefore, by means of this Bill, or by any Bill, we can extend the value of the acres we possess, then we should not hesitate to welcome it. There were two points on which I was disappointed with the noble

145
Earl on Committee stage, in Clause 23 and Clause 30, but I am such a forgiving fellow that I am almost prepared to for-give him for his sin of omission in those respects. However, my Lords, I think it is a good Bill. I hope that the river boards will make the fullest possible use of it; and I am sure that in a few years' time we shall be grateful that this Bill was introduced.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL
Report from the Standing Orders Committee, That the Standing Order not complied with in respect of the Amendments made to Clause 16 of the Bill, ought not to be dispensed with, and that the clause as so amended should not be allowed to proceed; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past six o'clock.