Sitting of 6 December 1962

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

    Training Colleges (Science Lecturers)
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Education how many mixed training colleges, women's training colleges and men's training colleges are still without full-time lecturers in chemistry or physics.
    The Minister of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): Full-time lecturers in chemistry or physics are concentrated in 44 general colleges where considerable numbers of science teachers are being trained for secondary schools: of the remaining 79 colleges, 26 are mixed, 50 are for women and 3 for men. Some have lecturers taking chemistry or physics with another subject and almost all offer main courses in biology, rural science or general science and are staffed accordingly.
    Mr. Boyden: The Minister is getting vaguer than his predecessor, but do not these figures worry him? How does he expect proper teaching of science in secondary modern schools, for example, if there are not far more specialist teachers in chemistry or physics in the training colleges?
    Sir E. Boyle: Of course, many of these colleges, particularly the women's colleges, are making their main contribution on the primary side, and it is natural that their courses should be less specialised. Our policy has been to try to concentrate the valuable teaching equipment and specialist training staff on specialist training for secondary schools. I entirely agree with the hon.
    1470
    Gentleman about the importance of science teachers being trained for science work in general secondary schools.
    Mr. Willey: In view of that agreement, can the Minister say how many are being adequately trained in the training colleges for science teaching in the secondary schools?
    Sir E. Boyle: I can say that, to reduce the shortage of science teachers, we are hoping for an enlarged graduate supply, especially as much of the university expansion has been on the science side. From the training colleges, the recent numbers entering high-level specialist courses in science certainly will help—and the number is about 385 entrants this year as against 350 last year—and so will the 500 or so students who enter for ordinary courses in chemistry and physics each year.

    Colleges of Advanced Technology (Unfilled Posts)
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Education how many posts in colleges of advanced technology remain unfilled; in what subjects the vacancies occur; and what new steps have been taken to fill these posts.
    Sir E. Boyle: There are now 1,856 teachers in post and 188 vacancies as compared with 1,671 in post and 215 vacancies last February. Of the unfilled posts 94 are in engineering, 48 in mathematics and science and 46 in other subjects. The colleges are continuing to use all possible methods of recruiting new staff, including the appointment of part-time lecturers from industry.
    Mr. Boyden: What recent steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken both to encourage industry to release technologists and scientists part-time, and also to persuade them to second on short full-time loan this category of teacher?
    Sir E. Boyle: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me notice of that question, and I will communicate with him. I would say that over half the vacancies I have mentioned are in the higher grades of principal lecturer and above. I think that this deficiency to some extent reflects the high standards which the C.A.T.s must set in making appointments and the overall demand for people of this calibre.

    University Graduates (Overseas Appointments)
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Education what estimate he has made of the number of graduates of British universities who, after receiving grants from public funds for their education, take posts in other countries immediately or soon after they leave university; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir E. Boyle: I have no such estimate. I understand that the University Grants Committee, in consultation with the University Appointments Boards, is collecting information about the occupations which graduates take up, including information about those who go abroad. This survey, which will be published in the spring, will not, however, show how many of the graduates had received grants from public funds.
    Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since I tabled this Question, I have received a great deal of correspondence from all over the country containing an enormous number of suggestions that people receiving this help from public funds should enter into some form of undertaking that they will work in this country for a prescribed number of years? While not necessarily agreeing about this, I should like to know what my right hon. Friend thinks about it.
    Sir E. Boyle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he put his supplementary question. I do not entirely agree, for two reasons. First, it may well be that, in the interests of this country in the longer run, people should do some job abroad and return to take up appointments in this country, but, more important, 90 per cent. of all undergraduates are assisted to some extent out of public funds, and while this may leave them with some sense of obligation, I do not think we should regard this as imposing an obligation on them. We have our system of public education because our community wants it that way. I should not feel happy about any suggestion that this imposes an obligation.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend resist the well-intended suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) and agree that the fact of undergraduates going abroad after com-
    1472
    pleting their training, whether to America or to the Commonwealth, brings us nothing but dividends in the long run?
    Sir E. Boyle: In fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), I would point out that he was merely passing on suggestions which had been made rather than giving his own views. There is, however, a great deal in what my hon. Friend has suggested.

    Sixth-Form Pupils
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Education to what extent in the last two years more pupils have been staying on at school to do sixth-form work with the intention of undertaking university courses.
    Sir E. Boyle: In the educational year 1961–62, 92,000 secondary school pupils entered the first year of a sixth form course, 66,000 entered the second year and 15,000 the third year. I am unable to say how many intended to enter a university.
    Mr. Swingler: Is not the Minister aware that the figures for this year already show that an increasing number intended to enter university but that many were desperately disappointed to find that the chances of entering a university were getting more difficult? Without making too much of the general point, would not the Minister, in view of the widespread dismay amongst teachers, parents and children about the frustration of not being able to got a place at university in spite of getting two or three passes at A-level, press his colleagues in the Government to have an immediate review of the chances for university education?
    Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Member is going rather wider than his Question and he has a later one down to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. All I will say in answer to the hon. Member now is that it is a mistake simply to relate demand from the sixth form of schools to university education. One must think of higher education as a whole. It is important to remember the part that the colleges of advanced technology, the regional and area colleges and the training colleges also have to play in providing full-time higher education.
    Mr. RankinWill the Minister remember that in Scotland we are short not only at university level, but at the higher technological level, and that he has supported this?
    Sir E. Boyle: As the hon. Member knows, the Scottish aspect of the matter is not within my direct responsibility.

    Minor Works, Kent
    Mr. J. Wellsasked the Minister of Education how much of the £6 million increase in expenditure on minor works has been allocated to Kent for the current year; and what percentage this represents of the Kent County Council's request.
    Sir E. Boyle: The Answer to the first part of the Question is £90,000; and to the second part, about 41 per cent.
    Mr. Wells: is my right hon. Friend aware of the very great problems in Kent, where we have many old church schools which are being converted, and that the fact that the council itself may be allowed to do minor works of under £2,000 really amounts to nothing? Cannot my right hon. Friend give the county council a far more generous allocation on its request?
    Sir E. Boyle: My hon. Friend has raised the matter before and I accept that Kent is one of those counties with a good many old voluntary controlled schools. I can, however, give my hon. Friend this piece of comfort. Kent submitted its list in two parts, the first consisting of projects of high priority, and the allocations which I have made should enable the Kent authority to carry out seven of the eight projects on its priority list.
    Mr. Willey: In view of the misleading impression that 'the Parliamentary Secretary created in reply to a supplementary question of mine, probably inadvertently, will the Minister confirm that in 1960–61 the value of minor works started was £21 million and that the still has a long way to go before he restores the minor works programme to this level? Does the Minister realise that, in view of the need to accelerate this programme and in view of the good work that can be done particularly in rural and some old urban schools, his first priority should be to ensure that the
    1474
    minor works programme is restored as soon as possible to the 1960–61 level?
    Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Member is not quite right about this. My figure for 1960–61 is £18 million and one has to remember that the minor works programme excludes projects costing less than £2,000. The hon. Member is not, therefore, comparing like with like.
    Mr. Willey: Will the Minister look at the reply given by his predecessor, then Sir David Eccles, on 10th May and provide a reconciliation between that figure and the one that he has now given us?
    Sir E. Boyle: I have, of course, seen all previous replies on the matter. I was simply trying to answer the question put by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Sydney Irving: The Minister will forgive me if I find it difficult to follow his figures. Is he aware that the cuts produced by Circular 13/61 in Kent cut the already inadequate minor works programme by three-quarters to £400,000 and that the present allocation does little or nothing either to restore those cuts or to increase them? In view of the increase in population in Kent as a result of electrification, overspill, drift, and so on, will the Minister reconsider the allocation?
    Sir E. Boyle: The fact that Kent should be able to carry out seven of the eight projects to which it gave higher priority will at least mean that there can be quite considerable progress in that authority.
    Mr. J. Wellsasked the Minister of Education what expenditure on minor capital works the Kent County Council proposed in 1960–61 and in 1963–64; and what sum he has accepted for each year, respectively.
    Sir E. Boyle: The authority proposed £875,900 for 1960–61 and £879,350 for 1963–64. Its allocations for the two years were £455,000 and £260,000, respectively. The allocation for 1963–64 does not have to cover projects costing less than £2,000 whereas that for the earlier year did.
    Mr. Wells: This vast cut in the allocation to Kent is absolutely disgraceful. Will my right hon. Friend look at the matter again?
    Sir E. Boyle: We have already dealt with Kent in the previous Question. These matters are not easily discussed at Question Time, because one has to be so careful to compare like with like. The allocation to local authorities for 1963–64 is considerably smaller than for 1960–61, partly, for example, because we now make a bigger allocation to English aided and special agreement schools. That follows directly from the Act which was passed with the approval of the whole House in 1959.
    Mr. Wells: This bears no relation whatever to the minor works, mentioned in an earlier supplementary question, to the church schools which are now taken over. In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Sir E. Boyle: I shall welcome a debate on this matter on the Adjournment. That will enable me to deploy my figures at greater length than is possible at Question Time. I hope that before we come to the debate on the Adjournment—[Interruption.]—I am entitled to answer this—
    Mr. Willey: On a point of order. Is it in order for the Minister to pursue his reply when his hon. Friend has given notice that he will raise the matter on the Adjournment?
    Mr. Speaker: Precisely nothing is in order. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) departed from the established practice in the proper form of words and made a speech in giving notice. The Minister was wholly out of order in replying after that stage.

    Sixth-Form Pupils, South Wales
    Mr. Morrisasked the Minister of Education the number of sixth-formers in South Wales who, having failed to obtain a place at a university this session, have returned to school.
    Sir E. Boyle: I regret that the information is not available.
    Mr. Morris: In view of the frustration of a large number of children in South Wales, will the Minister take steps to discover what is the situation? Does he realise that the acid test of university
    1476
    expansion is whether, as the years go by, boys and girls with the same qualifications have a better, or at least an equal, chance of entry to university on application than their predecessors have done? Can he give an assurance to the Welsh school leavers in 1965 and 1970 that if they have the identical qualifications of their predecessors in 1951 or 1955, they will be able to enter university?
    Sir E. Boyle: That information could be obtained only by an approach to the headmasters of secondary schools with sixth forms and would impose a disproportionate amount of work. One must not look simply at the universities. The number of full-time and sandwich first-year students taking advanced courses at the Welsh College of Advanced Technology was only 195 in 1959–60, but 268 in 1961–62.
    Mr. Morris: Do I take it that the Minister cannot give any assurance to the school leavers in 1965 and 1970 that if they have the same academic qualifications as their predecessors had in 1951 or 1955, they will be able to enter university?
    Sir E. Boyle: As the hon. Member knows, in the 1960s we shall have not only the expansion of university places of 35 per cent. in five years, which is the Government's target, but also a considerable expansion of the colleges of advanced technology. We are also getting ahead with teacher training expansion and expansion of the technical colleges, too. It is a mistake to think of the problem solely in relation to the universities.
    Dr. King: Since it is clear that a number of boys and girls in the sixth forms who are entitled to go to university will not get places this year and that the position will be cumulatively worse next year, will the Minister treat as a matter of urgency the provision of an alternative for the sixth formers who are qualified to enter university but will not get there?
    Sir E. Boyle: I fully appreciate the anxiety which is felt on this matter in all parts of the House. This is to some extent a problem which results from the success in expanding the sixth forms. My concern is that when Questions are asked in

    1477
    the House, the whole field of full-time higher education should be looked at and not only the universities.

    Secondary Schools Examinations Council (Report)
    Mrs. Slaterasked the Minister of Education (1) what will be the relationship between the proposed Certificate of Secondary Education and the General Certificate of Education O Level examinations;
    (2) whether in accepting the proposals of the Secondary Schools Examinations Council on a new school leaving certificate other than the General Certificate of Education, he accepts the assumption that up to 20 per cent. of the 16-years-old age group may be expected to attempt General Certificate of Education 0 Level in four or more subjects and that the new examination might be taken on four or more subjects by candidates in the next 20 per cent. below these.
    Sir E. Boyle: I am still considering the proposals of the Secondary School Examinations Council in its Fifth Report but, as I understand the recommendation which the hon. Member has in mind, the Council intended to give no more than general guidance as to the standard of the examinations.
    Mrs. Slater: When the Minister is considering these recommendations, will he take two points into consideration? The suggestion that, if a person takes subjects in G.C.E.—or, to put it the other way round, in the Certificate of Secondary Education—he cannot also take the same subjects in the other examination will be a too rigid rule. Will he also consider the other recommendation that there should be 20 per cent. of the school population considered good enough for G.C.E. and 20 per cent. of it considered good enough for the Certificate of Secondary Education? Will not this put our children in great difficulty, because they cannot move up or down if these percentages are strictly adhered to?
    Sir E. Boyle: Of course I will bear all those points in mind. I can tell the hon. Lady that I know that the Certificate of Secondary Education Standing Committee of the Council, with the help of my Department's Curriculum Study Group,
    1478
    is giving a great deal of thought to the relationship which should exist between the two examinations. May I say here and now that I entirely share the view of the Council that if the examination is offered it should stand on its own feet and not just be a pale watered-down imitation of the G.C.E.
    Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most educationists will be relieved that he has an open mind on this matter? Does he realise that if these examinations in practice were to become mutually exclusive it would have a disastrous effect on secondary education?
    Sir E. Boyle: I shall bear all these points in mind. I deliberately have not made any public speech on this subject, because I think that much thought is needed before any firm declaration of Ministry policy is made.
    Mr. D. Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we have too many certificates of educational qualifications, those who are unable to obtain any at all will eventually feel themselves social outcasts?
    Sir E. Boyle: This is a point that concerned very many people when the Report was originally received. On the other hand, I think that there are many factors to take into account, and the really important point is to ensure that the new examination stands on its own two feet as something of value and does not simply attempt to be a pale imitation of something else.

    Grammar School Places, Malvern and West Worcestershire
    Sir P. Agnewasked the Minister of Education what consideration he has given to the future availability of places in grammar schools for boys and girls, respectively, in Malvern and West Worcestershire; what proposals he has received from the Worcestershire Education Authority for the building of a new grammar school in that area or the enlargement and modernisation of the school at Hanley Castle; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir E. Boyle: I understand that the Worcestershire local education authority is reviewing the whole question of grammar school places for Malvern and

    1479
    the surrounding districts but that it will need firmer indications of future population than are yet available before it can reach conclusions. In these circumstances the authority has not submitted to me any grammar school proposals for the 1964–65 school building programme.
    Sir P. Agnew: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it may be some time before the future population trends in that part are known, owing to the delay in deciding on the future local government organisation, the building of new towns, and overspills, and the like? Is he aware that, if the decision upon whether there are to be enough grammar school places in the area for the children that are there now is to wait upon all that, there will be very grave frustration and many children who would be deserving of places will not be able to obtain them? Will my right hon. Friend therefore urge the Worcester education authority to come to a decision and ask for his approval on it?
    Sir E. Boyle: I am sure that the authority will take notice of what my hon. Friend has said. I will certainly keep in touch with the authority about this, though it is for the authority in the first instance to make proposals. It is fair to say that the general secondary school at Malvern covers a very wide field of abilities. I have visited it. It is an excellent school. My hon. Friend is quite right in saying that one must bear in mind those children who can gain from the atmosphere of a grammar school. I will certainly think over what is said and consider whether there is any action I can properly take.

    Primary Schools (First Appointments)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Education what was the number of first appointments made in primary schools this year; and how this compares with the corresponding figure for the previous year.
    Sir E. Boyle: One thousand, three hundred and eighty-seven, compared with 6,464 in 1961. The decrease of 5,077 was a consequence of the reduction of the output of the training colleges, resulting from the introduction of the three-year course in 1960.
    Mr. Willey: I appreciate the reason for this disastrous fall, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is particularly unfortunate that this should have coincided with the first year of the second bulge entering primary schools? In view of this, will he make an immediate statement on his programme with regard to the training colleges, because the applications now for places in the training colleges are being considered? Unless he makes a statement immediately, it will not have any practical effect. We need a drastic increase in the number of those admitted to the training colleges.
    Sir E. Boyle: I have said in the House before that I personally think that the training colleges have had an outstanding achievement in admitting nearly 17,000 for this year, the year in which for the first time we have had three separate years of entry into the colleges. The figures of admissions next year will be bigger again than the admissions this year as our programme of expansion continues. With regard to those who have not got places, the fact that there are less than 1,000 people with first-class qualifications who have not got in is very much better than many of us would have dared to hope for some months ago.
    Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are dealing with the current year? Unless he makes a statement now, many applicants who would otherwise qualify for training college education will not get it. There is a burden upon him to make a statement now about the increase in the number of places at training colleges, otherwise the opportunity will be lost. We know, as he knows, that the bulge will continue for at least the next three or four years.
    Sir E. Boyle: I can certainly make the statement, as I have made it in the House before in answer to Questions, that we shall push ahead with the expansion programme which has already been planned as fast as we can.

    Autism
    Mr. Compton Carrasked the Minister of Education what steps he is taking to enable education authorities to

    1481
    ascertain the size of the problem of autism in children in their respective areas.
    Sir E. Boyle: Psychiatrists working in child guidance clinics are trained to recognise autism and other forms of psychosis, as are school medical officers qualified to examine children who appear to suffer from a disability of mind. The first need of the psychotic child is medical attention. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. It is not yet possible to assess the extent of the demand for educational facilities.
    Mr. Compton Carr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that education authorities which are already willing to assist in this matter maintain that it is a very difficult task for them to undertake on their own? Is he willing, when they express the need for assistance in ascertaining the size of this problem, to give them some assistance by the Ministry?
    Sir E. Boyle: Local education authorities which provide educational facilities for these children clearly need to work in very close association with hospital authorities. Teachers provided by L.E.A.s are employed at the majority of existing hospital units for the care and treatment of psychotic children. However, I will bear in mind the point my hon. Friend has made, but this is essentially a matter for co-operation between the education services and the Health Service.

    Immigrant Children (Teaching Methods)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Education what research he is conducting into the teaching methods most suitable for immigrant children.
    Sir E. Boyle: I am not conducting any specific research, but a group of Her Majesty's inspectors are giving regular attention to the best methods of teaching English to immigrant children.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is it possible that the deliberations of Her Majesty's inspectors will be made available before the beginning of the next academic year, because this is a problem of the very greatest urgency?
    Sir E. Boyle: I should not like to give a date, but if the hon. Gentleman would
    1482
    like to write to me or raise a debate on a suitable occasion I should be glad to give him such information as I can on this question. In some areas children who need English lessons are collected in a central class. In others they are being taught individually. Some authorities are employing what one might call peripatetic and other special teachers for this kind of work. I shall be glad to give the hon. Gentleman any information I can.

    Teaching of Russian (Annan Report)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Education what action he is taking to establish pilot schemes in the teaching of Russian in primary schools since the publication of the Annan Report.
    Sir E. Boyle: I am considering the possibility of organising, jointly with the Nuffield Foundation, a pilot scheme for foreign language teaching in primary schools. This experiment is unlikely to include Russian, but one of its objects will be to establish whether more pupils would be likely to learn a second foreign language, including Russians, in the secondary schools, if an earlier start were made with a first foreign language.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is the Minister aware that a pupil's imitative linguistic ability may be at its height between the ages of 8 and 12 and there is every reason for teaching the Cyrillic alphabet during the primary school period?
    Sir E. Boyle: This is an interesting point which I should be pleased to study further. On the whole, the general feeling I have encountered is that primary schools can best help by preparing the way for the introduction of Russian at a later stage. I know that there are others who feel like the hon. Member and I have a completely open mind on this question.
    Mrs. Slater: Can the Minister tell us why he puts another language, which I think would be French, in preference to Russian, since Russian may be very much more useful at the end of the child's life than French may be?
    Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Lady is on a perfectly fair point. Mainly for scientists and for others a knowledge of Russian and the work being done in Russian is

    1483
    going to be of crucial importance. I am told that where French is taught by certain means to very young children they can act in a French play within quite a few months, even if they have no academic knowledge of French grammar. I am not sure whether the same could happen with Russian. I think that there are real doubts about this. In other words, we know more where French is concerned than we know where Russian is concerned. I repeat that I have a completely open mind on this subject.
    Mr. Dalyell: How does the Minister explain the fact that Greek has been taught to little boys with considerable success for many decades?
    Sir E. Boyle: I am bound to say that people may hold different opinions as to the amount of success with which both Latin and Greek have been taught to certain boys at school. The Report of the Annan Committee suggests that our main efforts for the present should go to teaching Russian in secondary schools catering for abler children, but I must emphasise that this is a subject which needs to be studied and considered further.

    Caravans, A.2 Road (Children)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Education what steps have been taken to see that the children of school age from the caravans on both sides of the A.2 trunk road near the Laughing Water Restaurant, about two miles outside Rochester, attend school; and what have been their results.
    Sir E. Boyle: Representatives of the local education authority visited this site yesterday and found one child aged 8 not attending school. School places are available for children living here but enforcement is difficult because they move so frequently.
    Mr. Dodds: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that when a representative went there yesterday most of these families had already moved on? Is he not aware that this winter hundreds of these families will be moved from place to place day by day and will consequently be unable to send their children to school because there is no place within the law? Is he not
    1484
    aware that all the children of the 50 families of gypsies on my camp at Cobham are going to school? These families are begging to go there, but there is not any place for them. The limit is reached. What is he going to do about it?
    Sir E. Boyle: Before the hon. Gentleman gets too indignant with me, I think that he should consider the point of view of school attendance officers. Any school attendance order must name the particular school to be attended. If a child is constantly on the move, for whatever reason, it is difficult to name a suitable school. That is the difficulty I am under.
    Mr. Dodds: Does not the right hon. Gentleman, who had a smile on his face, realise that what they want is a place to stay? Then the children will go to school. What will he do to get them a place to stay? He should speak to his right hon. Friends next to him with a view to getting these places. Then these children will go to school.
    Sir E. Boyle: I think that there is a Question down to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government on this matter today. However strongly we feel on these matters, we must have some regard to how the administrative machinery works. I am bound to say that I think that the problems of school attendance officers faced with this question must be recognised to be very real.

    Primary and Secondary Schools (Temporary Teachers)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Education the number of temporary non-qualified teachers in maintained primary and secondary schools; and what was the corresponding figure for 1960.
    Sir E. Boyle: Returns from local education authorities show that there were 3,615 temporary teachers in maintained primary and secondary schools on 1st October, 1962. The corresponding figure for 1st October, 1960, was 3,098.
    Mr. Willey: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that these are disturbing figures. We recognise the difficulty of providing sufficient teachers,

    1485
    but none the less it is disturbing that these are pupils awaiting entry into college who are accepting the full responsibility of teachers. Will he consider this as a matter of policy and see what teaching and other responsibility these pupils are being required to undertake?
    Sir E. Boyle: Yes. As the hon. Gentleman knows, an increase in temporary teachers was to be expected in 1962 as one of the ways in which the authorities could offset in part the loss of output from the training colleges this year. I am aware of the undertaking that was made, and indeed embodied in Circular 6/59, to review the conditions for the employment of temporary teachers not later than 1963. I intend to carry out such a review.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Gypsies
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what progress has been made by the Kent County Council since 1st August, 1962, in securing the proposed 10 sites for gypsies and other travellers; what are the prospects of securing other sites during the next six months; and how many are expected to be ready for occupation by next autumn.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I understand that the Kent County Council has suggested 10 sites and that the district councils concerned have been examining these and possible alternatives. The county council hopes that at least five sites will be available by next summer. Progress in implementing the scheme may, however, be affected if there are local objections to the sites proposed.
    Mr. Dodds: Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that there have been no sites promised yet? Is not this a disgrace, after all the other promises that have been made over past months? Will he beware of the fine words of the Kent County Council which tries to buy time? Is he aware that that council has been offered a site but it has found an objec-
    1486
    tion to it which, if it is sustained, means that there will never be any sites obtained because there are no perfect sites?
    Mr. Corfield: I am not aware of the details of the site to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If he will send them to me, I will look into the matter. I would remind him that I held a meeting of representatives of the county councils concerned in the Home Counties on the 13th of last month and discussed and reviewed the progress made. I am satisfied that the county councils appreciate the urgency of the problem and that they are using their best endeavours to see that sites are provided. The Kent County Council was specifically informed on 28th November by my right hon. Friend of his concern and asked when the necessary sites would be available.
    Mr. Dodds: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has done. Is he aware that the site I am referring to is in the area of the Mailing Rural District Council, which is anxious to make its contribution in solving this human problem?
    Mr. Corfield: I will look into that.

    Clear Air Act
    Mr. Darlingasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will amend the provisions of the Clean Air Act to allow local authorities to supply efficient coke-burning stoves, without any increase in cost and charges, to householders in smoke-controlled areas, so that they can satisfactorily burn the grades of coke which the gas boards supply to merchants as smokeless domestic fuel.
    Mr. Corfield: Where supplies of smokeless fuels suitable for open fires are inadequate, my right hon. Friend is prepared to consider using the existing grant provisions of the Act to encourage the use of stoves. He does not consider it necessary to amend the Act for that purpose.
    Mr. Darling: May I take it from that reply that the financial provisions will allow coke-burning stoves to be put into these houses and the other grates to be

    1487
    taken out without any increased cost either to the local authority or to the domestic consumer?
    Mr. Corfield: As I understand the position, the proportion of the expense borne by the Exchequer and the local authority remains exactly the same whatever the type of stove. The criterion here is whether or not there are adequate supplies of appropriate solid fuels for burning on open fires.

  HOUSING

    Rent Act
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware that mobility of labour is being obstructed by the Rent Act; and if he will amend the Section of the Act which decontrols a house on a change of tenancy.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): No, Sir. A return to control would only make it more difficult for anyone to find a house to rent.
    Mr. Allaun: Does not the Minister realise that a man living in a rented house today is as tied to it as though it were a tied cottage and that the Rent Act has destroyed the possibility of choice of house? Does he understand the predicament of an unemployed worker who cannot get a job except by moving with his family to another town, which means leaving a controlled house for a decontrolled house at a rent three or more times as much?
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not for a moment deny that we want a great deal more accommodation to let, but the hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that houses are empty for people to move to only if, when the previous tenants move out or die, the landlord does not immediately sell them. Under the rent restriction Acts, landlords almost invariably sold houses which were vacated. Now, about four out of five houses which are vacated are kept in the market for rent, though, I agree, at higher prices. Therefore, since the Rent Act, there has been relatively more accommodation to rent.
    Mr. Allaun: Yes, but on the Minister's own reasoning, a man might have been able to buy a house on mortgage, on the "never-never", with a reasonable mortgage repayment, but now such payments are twice or three times as high as they were, with the result that he is blocked from doing anything in that way.
    Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman always seems to forget that the paying capacity has gone up with the general level of prices in most cases.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Does the Minister realise that the paying capacity has not gone up comparatively with the rise of rents since the Rent Act and that the survey of his own Ministry showed that out of a block of houses decontrolled under the Rent Act fewer had become available for rent and more were remaining empty?
    Sir K. Joseph: No, the hon. Gentleman is not quoting accurately. I have Professor Donnison's report on this in which he says that, compared with before the Rent Act, four out of five houses now are still available to be rented when they are vacated.

    Housing, Slum Clearance and Public Works
    Mr. Jagerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether, in view of the worsening unemployment situation, he will advise local authorities to expedite their housing, slum clearance and public works programmes; and whether he will give grants and loans for this purpose.
    Sir K. Joseph: The 1962 White Paper on Public Investment already provides for additional investment for these purposes, and I am willing to let local authorities with urgent needs build as many houses as they can. There will be no difficulties about loan sanction and the normal housing subsidies will be payable.
    Mr. Jeger: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that and for some of the admirable statements he has made in his speeches in the House, but may I ask whether he realises that many local authorities are many years behind in their slum clearance programmes? Will he take really active steps to make them

    1489
    appreciate the situation and alleviate unemployment in their own areas while, at the same time, carrying out the programmes which he himself has been urging upon them?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. MacColl: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the real reason why local authorities in this position are not building more? It cannot be shortage of labour if there is a lot of unemployment. Is it the high rents which they have to charge? Is it shortage of building materials, or what?
    Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful for the way the hon. Gentleman puts his supplementary question. It is wrong to assume that unemployment in pockets necessarily includes unemployment among the skilled craftsmen on which building depends. In each area the scope for building depends always on the same things: management, labour, land, and rent-paying capacity. The emphasis in each area varies. I understand that in the hon. Gentleman's area there is some difficulty about land.
    Mr. Shinwell: Has the Minister considered in this context approaching contractors responsible for building these dwellings and also the trade unions, particularly in the building trade, in order to make arrangements, through their cooperation, to organise a skilled and unskilled labour force in order to expedite the building of houses?
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not wish in any way to mock what the right hon. Gentleman says, but that is entirely the function of management, both public and private: to organise the skilled and unskilled labour resources available. There must be a drive from the local authority concerned in public enterprise housing, and in many cases local authorities have scope, I believe, for further drive.
    Dr. Bray: Having regard to what the Minister said about the shortage of labour in the building trades, is he aware that, following an increased allocation which he made on Tees-side, there were no less than 18 tenders for the work? Is there not still a considerable excess of building capacity in the North-East which is not being used and which shows no signs of being used under his present policy?
    Sir K. Joseph: It is encouraging that there is such a capacity for work, because otherwise prices would tend to go very much higher, but I must warn the House that there is still in the country as a whole a shortage of the skilled building craftsmen on which the building programme still largely depends until we have the addition of industrialised building systems to help.
    Mr. Jeger: Is the Minister aware that the Goole authority recently admitted that it was eight years behind in its slum clearance programme, while, at the same time, its 50 per cent. increase in unemployment is partly due to a shortage of building contracts? Will he intervene in this particular instance?
    Sir K. Joseph: We have agreed to Goole building 71 houses this year, but the council has not even got a tender in for that number yet.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    British Oxygen Company (Price and Contract Policy)
    Mr. Jayasked the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he had with the Monopolies Commission before deciding to release the British Oxygen Company from obligations as to its price and contract policy imposed as a result of recommendations by the Commission.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): None, Sir. The Commission's recommendations were based on inquiries made more than six years ago. I am not authorised under the 1948 Act to ask the Commission for advice now about changes which have taken place since the completion of its Report unless I make a new reference under that Act.
    Mr. Jay: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that, since he asked the British Oxygen Company for these assurances, its share of the market has fallen only from 98 per cent. to 95 per cent.? If the right hon. Gentleman really thinks that that is a good reason for releasing the company from its obligations, is not he making a mockery of his attitude to monopolies in this country?
    Mr. Erroll: Not at all. The changes which I announced by means of an Answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) show that no less than 80 per cent. of British Oxygen's customers are still protected by the undertakings previously given.
    Mr. Webster: At a time when, by the Transport Act, the House has given the right to make free charging arrangements and privacy of charging to nationalised industries, is it not appropriate that the same facility should be given to private enterprise?
    Mr. Erroll: Even more than that, I say to my hon. Friend that what I have been able to announce demonstrates the efficacy of the Monopolies Commission's work in this respect because, after the introduction of the undertakings which were adhered to by the British Oxygen Company, effective competition has emerged, and we can now see the effective degree of competitive enterprise in a field which was formerly monopolistic.
    Mr. Jay: Does the right hon. Gentleman really say that a company which controls 95 per cent. of the market ought to be free to charge what prices it likes?
    Mr. Erroll: The right hon. Gentleman, whose intelligence I appreciate, fails altogether to realise that the release from the undertakings applies only to the large consumers taking over 12,000 cubic feet per annum. Eighty per cent. of British Oxygen's customers are still protected by the undertakings to which the company still adheres. Competition now is effective in regard to the large customers, and that is where relaxation is most appropriate.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Mr. Pentlandasked the Prime Minister how many communications he has received calling his attention to the political and constitutional issues involved for the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth in the event of Her Majesty's Government's application for full membership of the Common Market being accepted by the countries of the European Economic Community; and what replies he has sent.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I have received numerous letters on the wide-ranging matters referred to by the hon. Member. My replies have dealt with the particular points raised by my correspondents.
  Mr. Pentland: Will the Prime Minister agree that the political and constitutional issues involved in our joining the Common Market are giving rise to considerable concern and speculation in the country? In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman himself has already indicated in his pamphlet on the Common Market that a loss of sovereignty by Britain would be consistent with our joining, will he now explain to the House to what extent he expects the loss of sovereignty to go, how much there will be and how far-reaching? Is it his intention to raise these issues with President de Gaulle in the forthcoming talks he is to have with him?
  The Prime Minister: We have discussed this matter in debate and otherwise. It is very difficult to answer on these matters in question and answer. Of course, any economic treaty, or any other treaty, involves pro tanto some transfer of sovereignty under its terms.
  Mr. Pentland: But are not the people of this country still in doubt about exactly what the Prime Minister means when he says that this will mean for Britain a loss of sovereignty and, indeed, will mean constitutional changes in British law and the machinery of Government? The British people have still no idea at all of what the extent will be.
  The Prime Minister: There have been very wide-ranging debates on this issue in which we have all tried to take part. I should have thought that the best course was to let the Brussels negotiations continue on the economic aspect, it then being for Parliament to see where we stand.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Does the Prime Minister realise that this cannot be regarded as just another treaty which involves a certain amount of limitation on what we do, because it involves setting up institutions where we should be subject to majority decisions, so far as we can make out, and it involves by-passing Parliament? Is it not time that we had a clearer statement from the Government about it?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think that by far the most practical thing is to continue the negotiations. If they are brought to a successful conclusion, then will be the time for Parliament to have a debate on whether or not it is prepared to accept the consequences.
  Mr. Grimond: Is not the Prime Minister aware that we have suffered already a great deal from the Government's failure to make known to the country their view on the economic implications of the Common Market? Will he now consider making rather more clear the Government's view of the political implications because, unless some political changes are brought about in Europe, even those of us who support Britain's entry may feel that it may not bring about a very satisfactory situation?
  The Prime Minister: All these matters have been subject, I think, to more public discussion in the Press, on the platform and elsewhere than almost any other subject, and rightly so. However, it is very difficult in question and answer to deal with these matters.
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister whether he will instruct the Minister of Agriculture and the Lord Privy Seal to prepare a new statement of Great Britain's objections to the agricultural policy of the Six, so as to require not only a transition period in the interests of British farmers, but also a revision of the European Economic Community agricultural policy, in the light of the adverse criticism of it by the Agricultural Committee of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and by the United States Government.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture and the Lord Privy Seal are already taking full account in the negotiations of the need to secure satisfactory agricultural arrangements not only in the transitional period but also in the longer term.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Will the Prime Minister kindly make clear whether this means that now that the Agricultural Committee of the G.A.T.T. and the United States Secretary of State for Agriculture have protested against the present policy of the Six, the Government will join in this protest and demand a change in the policy of the Six themselves as contrasted
  1494
  with merely arguing about a transition period?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think on the whole that the method of trying to conduct these negotiations by continual public statements about them is likely to be successful. We have all these matters in mind in the negotiations which are being conducted.
  Mr. Gower: With reference to this and an earlier Question, is it not strange that those who have preached for so long the brotherhood of man are so frightened of any commitment beyond the Straits of Dover?

  UNEMPLOYMENT
  Mr. Prenticeasked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a special committee of Ministers to deal with the problem of rising unemployment.
  The Prime Minister: This matter always requires regular and frequent consultation between the Ministers concerned. The arrangements which are in force naturally provide for this.
  Mr. Prentice: Will the Prime Minister comment on the reports in yesterday's newspapers that the Cabinet has now decided that no special extra measures are needed to deal with the current level of unemployment? Does not he think that this is a terribly complacent view of the present unemployment figures which are the highest for 22 years? How high have they to go before the right hon. Gentleman does anything?
  The Prime Minister: I do not know about reports of Cabinet discussions. I have not read the one to which the hon. Gentleman refers. A very large number of measures have been taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and they are continually under review. Also, considerable changes in regard to what one might call the re-expansion of the economy have taken place in the past few months.
  Mr. Gaitskell: In that case, may we expect a further statement from the Government before Christmas in order to do something to alleviate the very considerable anxiety existing in all quarters of the House and the country on this matter?
  The Prime Minister: As I understand the position, we are hoping, both of us, to arrange for a debate on, I think, the 17th of this month. That would seem to be a more suitable moment for a discussion of this matter than by question and answer.
  Mr. R. W. Elliott: Will my right hon. Friend agree that a solution to unemployment in such areas as the north-east of England depends on investment? Is he aware that the recent announcement on public investment in that area was very well received, and that any further announcement of public investment would also be very well received? Is he aware that there has been in that area a great deal of private investment in recent years and that much Male is hoped for? Is he aware that constant suggestions about "two nations" and the gloom engendered by such phrases as "twilight areas" do not encourage investment?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I feel that this matter has to be dealt with, as I said the other day, from various aspects—the general state of the economy and particular privileges for particular areas. I agree that in the realm of both private and public investment we must seek a solution.

  CABINET DISCUSSIONS AND DOCUMENTS
  Mr. Shinwellasked the Prime Minister whether his consent was given to Lord Avon to enable him to include in It's memoirs reference to Cabinet discussions and documents; and whether similar facilities will be made available to other authors with qualifications as historians, so that the public can be informed on events of historical importance.
  The Prime Minister: With my agreement Lord Avon was given permission to include in his personal memoirs certain references to Cabinet discussions and documents.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of the statements referring to Cabinet documents and discussions are far from complete, and the result is that it leaves the full truth about these matters undisclosed? Would it not be wiser, instead of allowing
  1496
  special privileges to certain ex-Cabinet Ministers and not to all of them, to allow official historians to disclose all, apart from matters relating to security?
  The Prime Minister: Much has already been written in other memoirs and other biographies about the events of these pre-war years. I did not consider that Lord Avon could fairly be denied reasonable freedom to present his own account of events in which he played so large a part.
  Dame Irene Ward: In view of the fact that life has speeded up, would it not be a good idea for historians' access to papers to be allowed to be speeded up also?
  The Prime Minister: This is a matter which has been under consideration by different Governments. There has been a certain relaxation in the war period and even the pre-war period, of which we all know. On the whole, I think the present rule a wise one. I ask hon. Members to consider carefully what would be the result of the opposite rule. The Ministers would begin to write minutes, not so much to deal with the occasions and problems they had to deal with, but with a view to the record.
  Mr. Shinwell: If the right hon. Gentleman accepts responsibility for permitting Lord Avon to disclose certain matters relating to Cabinet documents and discussions, what justification is there in his mind, or in logic, for giving approval to one ex-Cabinet Minister and denying it to others?
  The Prime Minister: I do not know of any case that has been refused, but if the right hon. Member will let me know of one I will try to deal with it.
  Mr. Bellenger: Is the Prime Minister of the opinion that, even if the facilities are accorded to ex-Cabinet Ministers or to historians with qualifications, the public can be adequately informed of events of historical importance?
  The Prime Minister: Both in the first war and in the second there has been a certain relaxation which we accept. It was done in the years immediately after the war and certain points of view in biographies and autobiographies have

  1497
  been written about those years, but I think that in general the rule now in force is a wise one.

  MR. KHRUSHCHEV (LETTER)
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he has now received a reply from Mr. Khrushchev to his letter of 28th October.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Henderson: Is the Prime Minister going to publish the reply? If so, will he tell us now whether Mr. Khrushchev endorsed his own suggestion that following the settlement of the Cuban problem the way is now open to a general arrangement on armaments, and especially an earlier nuclear test ban treaty?
  The Prime Minister: As this message was not transmitted over the radio but given to me by private letter, I did not think it right for me to publish it. It was a long letter and I was glad to get it, but I do not intend to go into detail over this matter.

  UNITED STATES BASE SCULTHORPE (INCIDENT)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Prime Minister what information he has received, in accordance with the Anglo-American agreement governing the control of nuclear weapons kept at United States Air Force bases in the United Kindom, about the incident at a base in Norfolk in 1958, when a mentally deranged master sergeant threatened to explode at atom bomb; if he is satisfied that United States personnel who hold positions of responsibility regarding control of nuclear or atomic weapons at United States bases in the United Kingdom are medically examined as suitable in all respects for such responsibility; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. M. Footasked the Prime Minister whether, following the incident when an American airman ran amok at the United States Air Force base at Sculthorpe, Norfolk, in 1958, he had consultations with the United States President about the taking of fresh precautions at such bases.
  The Prime Minister: The facts were given to the House at the time by the then Secretary of State for Air. The American Serviceman referred to, locked himself in a shed for eight hours. The anxiety was not that he might explode at atomic bomb—there were none there—but that he might do something foolish with a pistol. I did not think it necessary to consult the President of the United States about this. [Laughter.]
  Mr. Driberg: Although this seems to hon. Members opposite to be extremely frivolous and unimportant, is the Prime Minister aware that widespread destruction could have been caused, since it has now been admitted that, whether it was an atomic bomb or not, it was an atomic or nuclear device that this master sergeant threatened to destroy? That has now been admitted by the United States authorities, as reported. Can the Prime Minister say whether there was any consultation at the time with Her Majesty's Government before false information was given to the Press?
  The Prime Minister: This incident was four years ago. This sergeant, unfortunately suffering from some mental delusions, shut himself up in a shed and threatened to kill himself with a ·45 revolver. It is quite true that there was some explosive in the building and it is just conceivable that he might have caused it to explode had he carried out his threat, but his threat was to kill himself, not to shoot the explosive. There was no fissionable material in the building and no possibility of a nuclear explosion of any kind.
  Mr. M. Foot: Is the Prime Minister aware that the information he has just given the House and the information that was given to the House four years ago by the Minister involved is contradicted in almost every particular by statements which have appeared on the authority of the United States authorities in the last few days? Therefore, will he give an undertaking, before he lands himself into further absurdities over this matter, to reconsider the whole question and to give a truthful statement to the House of Commons?
  The Prime Minister: I have already given a statement which has been prepared for me, which I am satisfied is

  1499
  correct and a true and full account of what was said four years ago and what was said by the American authorities recently.

  PRESIDENT KENNEDY AND PRESIDENT DE GAULLE (PRIME MINISTER'S MEETINGS)
  Mr. M. Footasked the Prime Minister whether, at his forthcoming meeting with President Kennedy, he will seek a renewal of the President's pledges concerning consultation with the British Government about the use of nuclear weapons.
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Prime Minister (1) whether, during his forthcoming meeting with President Kennedy, he will propose a joint Anglo-American initiative in the United Nations to ensure that preparations for aggression or external subversion are excluded from all territories bordering the Caribbean area under a system of United Nations verification;
  (2) if he is aware that the French proposals for co-operation with Germany in the development of an independent nuclear deterrent are in breach of the undertaking given by those countries to the United Kingdom in the revised Brussels Treaty; and if he will draw the attention of President de Gaulle to this in their forthcoming discussions.
  The Prime Minister: With permission, I will answer this Question and Questions Nos. Q11 and Q13 together.
  I would refer hon. Members to the replies which I gave on 29th November to Questions about my forthcoming discussions with President de Gaulle and President Kennedy.
  Mr. Foot: Does the Prime Minister recall that a few days after the Cuba crisis he assured the House that he had an understanding with the United States President that he would be consulted at any time if there was any question of nuclear weapons being used? Can he say whether he was consulted during the crisis of Cuba week? Has the Prime Minister taken into account the statements made in the last few days, on the authority of such an eminent American journalist as Mr. Walter Lippman.
  1500
  suggesting that the President of the United States deliberately decided not to consult the British Government, not for the reasons given to the House by the Prime Minister, but for quite other reasons altogether?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I am glad of the opportunity of stating once again that the President of the United States has with me, and would have, I trust, with any of my successors, the same understanding as his predecessor President Eisenhower had with me. I should like to say categorically that he fulfilled that obligation with the closest co-operation at every point.
  Mr. Warbey: May I submit a point of order before putting a supplementary question to the Prime Minister? I understood him to say that he was dealing with Questions Nos. 9, 11 and 13. My Questions No. 11 and No. 13 deal with entirely different subjects. Question No. 11 is concerned with the Prime Minister's discussions with President Kennedy and Question No. 13 deals with his discussions with President de Gaulle. I am therefore not prepared to accept a single Answer to both those Questions.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order, I am afraid. I understand the point the hon. Member is making, but it is not a point of order because I have no power to direct the Answer of the Minister in any particular way nor the way in which he should make it. In regard to the words "with permission" by which these groupings are prefaced, my predecessors have ruled that they are a mere courtesy expression, which does not indicate that we have power to refuse.
  Mr. Warbey: Further to that point of order. I have already given notice to the Table that I should defer Question No. 13 to next week if it is not reached today. Therefore, I prefer that the Answer to Question No. 13 should be deferred until next week. Is the Prime Minister prepared to accept that?
  Mr. Speaker: I have great sympathy with the hon. Member, but I am afraid that under our practice and previous Rulings of my predecessors it cannot be done if the Question is grouped with other Questions for answer.
  Mr. Warbey: In that case, may I appeal to the Prime Minister to answer only Question No. 11 and not Question No. 13?
  The Prime Minister: I am quite prepared to do whatever the hon. Member wishes. I thought it would be convenient to group these Questions together, but if he prefers to put the Question down for next Tuesday, I shall be pleased to answer it then.
  Mr. Warbey: I thank the Prime Minister for that because it saves me putting two supplementary questions to him now. I therefore now ask the Prime Minister, in reference to the suggestion about the Caribbean area, whether he will take account that while the United States is quite rightly asking for verification of the fact that there are no offensive weapons left in Cuba, the Cuban Government are equally entitled to be assured that there shall be verification that no offensive preparations for invasion are being made in Florida, Guatemala, Honduras or Puerto Rico? Would it not be reasonable to propose that an agreement on the pacification of this area with United Nations inspection and safeguards Should be put on a reciprocal basis?
  The Prime Minister: As I understand the diplomatic negotiations are still continuing with a view to bringing the Cuban affair to an end between the Governments concerned, I think it would be unwise for me to comment at this moment.
  Mr. Driberg: If the Prime Minister should meet the President before Question No. 15 is reached—I have already had to defer that Question three times—would he be good enough to raise with the President the particular point contained in that Question, which I believe to be a new one in our exchanges in this House?
  Mr. Speaker: It would be rather difficult to bring that within the rules of order.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will announce the business of the House for next week?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 10TH DECEMBER and TUESDAY, 11TH DECEMBER—Second Reading of the London Government Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.
At the end of the proceedings on the Bill on Monday, consideration of the Motion on the International Coffee Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order, and on Tuesday, the Motions on the Police Pensions Regulations, and Summer Time.
WEDNESDAY, 12TH DECEMBER—Consideration of private Members' Motions until seven o'clock.
Second Reading of the County Courts (Jurisdiction) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Foreign Compensation Bill, of the Towyn Trewan Common Bill, and of the Electricity (Borrowing Powers) (Scotland) Bill, which, if not obtained, will be put down for
THURSDAY, 13TH DECEMBER, when the business will be the Second Reading of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.
And, at seven o'clock, a debate on the Common Market, on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration of the Motion on the British Transport Reorganisation (Compensation to Employees) Regulations.
FRIDAY, 14TH DECEMBER—Consideration of private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 17TH DECEMBER—The proposed business will be: Supply [3rd Allotted Day]: Motion to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair, when a debate will arise on an Opposition Amendment relating to Unemployment.
Consideration of the Motion on the Anti-Dumping Duty (No. 2) Order.
The House will wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, it is intended to propose that we should rise for the Christmas Adjournment on Friday, 21st December, until Tuesday, 22nd January.
Mr. A. Lewis: In view of the fact that the London Government Bill vitally affects the constituencies of every hon. member in Middlesex, Surrey, London and parts of Essex, may I ask the Minister whether he thinks that a two-day debate is adequate? There are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who wish to take part in that debate. If we have four Front Bench speakers, two from each side on each day, there will be insufficient time for all those other hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give another day to the subject, shortening our Christmas holiday, if need be, by one day?
Mr. Macleod: It is a most important Bill, perhaps the most important and probably the most controversial of the domestic Bills of this Session. It is exactly for that reason that we have put down two days. I should not have thought it right to extend that period.
Mr. M. Stewart: In view of what the Leader of the House has just said about the nature of the Bill, does he not agree that the Government should give favourable consideration to the proposal that the Committee stage be taken on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. I have considered that matter very carefully indeed, as well as the various other proposals which have been made. I have a suggestion which I think may help. After considering the representations which have been made, and realising that Clause 1 and the First Schedule are perhaps the matters of greatest interest to hon. Members whose constituencies are affected, the Government propose to put down a Motion today that Clause I and the First Schedule be taken on the floor of the House.
Dame Irene Ward: In view of the fact that we were unable to discuss Service pensions yesterday, will my right hon. Friend be able to give us time to do so before the House rises for the Christmas Adjournment?
Mr. Macleod: Yes. I hope to be able to do that during the last three days of business, which I have not yet announced.
Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that one of the consequences of the break-down in the Government's manpower policy for the Ser-
1504
vices is that there are 120 applications in one constituency from men who propose to stand as candidates. He will have noticed that inspired stories have appeared in the Press to the effect that the Government intend to introduce legislation on the subject. Will he tell us when, or whether, it is intended to take it before Christmas?
Mr. Macleod: I can tell the House that the Minister of Defence proposes to make a statement to the House on this important matter before we rise for Christmas.
Mr. Robert Cooke: Will the Leader of the House tell us when we may expect the White Paper on Broadcasting and Television?
Mr. Macleod: Before we rise for the Recess. I think that in the first day or so of the week after next.
Mr. Driberg: Further to the question about the London Government Bill, in view of what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman himself and some of my hon. Friends, would he at least consider suspending the rule for one hour on the first of the two days, if there are a very large number of hon. Members on both sides trying to speak in the debate?
Mr. Macleod: I am always prepared to consider that if there is a demand for it. I have expressed an opinion previously that a suspension of one hour is, in many cases, the least satisfactory form of debate. But I am prepared to consider that if there is a widespread demand.
Mr. Stewart: While I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Committee stage of the Bill, will he consider, for the rest of the Bill, tabling a Motion which would have the effect of enlarging the Committee from the ordinary figure of a maximum of 50 to, say, 70 or 80?
Mr. Macleod: I am not sure that that would be very suitable. If we were to do it on the basis of including every hon. Member in the whole area whose constituency is affected and, at the same time, preserve the ordinary balance of the parties in the House, the total of the Committee would be about 175. Clearly, that is impracticable. It is precisely for this reason that I put forward

1505
the suggestion which, as far as it goes, I gather would be welcomed by the hon. Member, although he would like it to go a great deal further—that we should take Clause 1 and the First Schedule on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Lagden: Will the Leader of the House kindly tell us when we may look forward to discussing the Royal Commission on the Police, having regard to the fact that for such a very long time so many responsible people have sheltered behind the fact that the Royal Commission was sitting? Now that we have at last had the benefit of their advice, would it not be as well to let the House of Commons dicsuss it?
Mr. Macleod: As my hon. Friend has seen, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced action in this matter. It is proceeding. I know that he is anxious to debate this matter. We will consider the position in the new year.
Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Leader of the House seriously consider the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) about the size of the Committee? Is he aware that as far as we are concerned we think that the whole of the London Government Bill should be taken on the Floor of the House? While we appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman intends to do in moving a Motion to secure that Clause 1 and the First Schedule are taken on the Floor of the House, we are also concerned about the rest of the Bill. It would at least go some way to meet us if he enlarged the Committee, as has been proposed.
Mr. Macleod: I will consider that, as long as it is understood to be entirely without commitment.
Mr. Fernyhough: May I refer to the business for Monday week? The Leader of the House knows that this is a problem which is agitating the country more than any other single problem at the moment. Many hon. Members will want to take part in the debate. Could he give more time than a single day for discussing what is the biggest social problem now confronting the nation?
Mr. Macleod: That is an Opposition day, and the Opposition Amendment Which we shall discuss has not yet been
1506
tabled. I think that we had better see what it is and then decide.
Mr. Iremonger: Will my right hon. Friend look at the HANSARD report of the Committee stage debate on the Local Government Act in 1957–58 and consider whether, in view of what happened on that occasion, it might not be desirable, in the interests of Government supporters and those who are interested in the later stages of the Bill, that la timetable fairly allocating time for various Clauses were decided upon early in the proceedings?
Mr. Lubbock: Has the Leader of the House had consultations with the Minister of Aviation on the subject of the supersonic airliner, as that Minister promised on 29th November?
Mr. Macleod: I cannot give any undertaking about finding time before Christmas for such a debate, but I think that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) has put down this subject for the Adjournment.
Mr. Prentice: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider arranging a debate before the Recess, or fairly soon afterwards, on the White Paper, published yesterday, on industrial training? Is he aware that many hon. Members on this side of the House are glad to see that a few of our ideas [have belatedly been accepted, that we have much more advice to give, and that we should like a debate on this subject fairly soon?
Mr. Macleod: It could not be before Christmas. It is an important White Paper, which the House will wish to study.
Mr. Bellenger: Does the Leader of the House consider that from 7.0 p.m. on Thursday until the end of the proceedings is sufficient to enable those large number of backbenchers who want to take part in the debate on the Common Market to do so?
Mr. Macleod: We have had some discussion on these matters. This is, in fact, almost the only day on which the Lord Privy Seal will be in this country at all during the period which we are covering. Perhaps I should tell the House what is proposed. If the House is agreeable, at 7.0 p.m., the Lord Privy Seal would make a short statement on

1507
the progress of the negotiations up to that point and would then listen to the debate, including, I hope, a number of very short speeches, and would make a reply to the debate before 10.0 p.m.
Mr. Warbey: Will the right hon. Gentleman think again about the Common Market debate? Now that the negotiations have reached a point at which all the cards are on the table, and when we have to make up our minds whether to go on with the wedding or break off the engagement, is it not rather ridiculous that the House of Commons should be confined to a three-hour debate?
Mr. Macleod: With respect, I do not think so. We had a number of debates on the subject, and, quite clearly, we shall have more. The object of this debate was that the Lord Privy Seal would be able to make a statement and then, as the Motion was on the Adjournment of the House, speeches could go on until 10 p.m. My right hon. Friend would reply at the end of the debate.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman find an early day for the House to deal with my Motion asking that references to the Select Committee on Procedure should include an item altering the rules of the House which at present enable private Members to defeat a Private Member's Bill simply by saying "I object", without even having read the Bill? Will he find an opportunity for an early discussion on that? It is important, in view of the large number of Private Members' Bills which are pending.
[That this House takes note of the power which at present enables one hon. Member to frustrate or postpone or defeat another Private Member's Bill by simply indicating on Second Reading his objection without giving reasons and without having read the Bill, and would welcome the reference of this matter to a Select Committee on Procedure for their consideration.]
Mr. Macleod: The Select Committee on Procedure is at present considering the very important matter of the sub judice rule. When it has considered its examination of that, it will consider a programme of future work, and among
1508
the applications for a place in that will be the hon. and learned Member's suggestion.
Mr. Zilliacus: Will not the Leader of the House think again about the time allotted for the Common Market debate? Will he not contemplate suspending the rule for one hour, so that we could at least talk until 11 p.m.?
Mr. Macleod: I will consider that if representations are made, but this is clearly one in a series of debates which we have had and will have on this subject.
Mr. Rankin: In view of the question of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), may I ask him to subscribe his name to my request for time on the Christmas Adjournment to discuss the supersonic airliner?
Mr. Speaker: Order. That request is out of order.
Mr. Macleod: It may be out of order, but—
Mr. Speaker: The whole thing is hopelessly out of order. We shall have difficulty with business questions unless hon. Members treat the subject properly.
Mr. Rankin: I said that, Mr. Speaker, merely because sometimes a number of hon. Members have made application for the Adjournment on these occasions.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not regard anything that the hon. Member for Glasgow. Govan (Mr. Rankin) has been doing in the last few moments as in order at all. Mrs. Castle.
Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Ms. Speaker, you called me and I merely made a supplementary remark—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have the interests of other right hon. and hon. Members to consider. I called the hon. Member for Govan in the hope that he intended to ask a question of the Leader of the House. He did not do so, and what followed on his part was wholly out of order.
Mrs. Castle: May I add my plea to that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) that the Leader of the House

1509
should give us until eleven o'clock on the Common Market debate? Although it is true that we have had a number of debates on this subject, some of us have tried in vain to speak in even one of those debates, and will probably face the same frustration again next week unless the right hon. Gentleman agrees to extend the time.
Mr. Macleod: I have said that I would consider the representations made.
Mr. Reynolds: In considering the provision of time for the London Government Bill, will the Leader of the House bear in mind that the Bills setting up the London County Council and the Metropolitan boroughs were, in their time, both discussed in Committee on the Floor of the House, and that this Bill is equally important? Will he also look at my proposal to give the same sort of facilities in this kind of matter to hon. Members representing 8½ million people in the Greater London area as are granted year in and year out to hon. Members representing a much smaller number of people in Scotland and Wales?
Mr. Macleod: I will consider that but, of course, as the hon. Gentleman knows, seventy or eighty years ago, the time to which he refers, a great deal more time was available, because our proceedings were much more leisurely than they are now.
Mr. A. Lewis: While appreciating what the right hon. Gentleman says about the London Government Bill, may I ask him to explain the necessity to close the debate early on the Monday, the first day of the debate? Those
1510
hon. Members not interested, because their constituencies are not affected, need not come from the North on that day, but there are those who are interested, and I am told that my hon, Friends will be quite prepared to keep the debate going all night, and would have no difficulty at all in doing so. There must be some hon. Members opposite who would be willing and give their views on the first night. There cannot be a vote on the Monday night, so why finish the debate early? Acceptance of my proposal would give to every hon. Member who wanted it the chance to take part in the debate.
Mr. Macleod: I think that I have covered that point. I have undertaken to take into account the points made by the hon. Member and by the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. F. M. Bennett: Can my right hon. Friend say whether we shall soon have an opportunity to hear a statement from the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations about the Sino-Indian situation which, if followed by a debate, would at least give opportunity to those hon. Members opposite below the Gangway the opportunity to vent their attacks on Communist aggression, for which they have been waiting so patiently?

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

  COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS (REPORTS)
  3.53 p.m.
  Mr. John Arbuthnot: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House takes note of the First, Second and Third Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts in the last Session of Parliament, and of the Special Report from the Committee of Public Accounts."
  Until three years ago, the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee used to toil and produce their Reports. That was the end of the matter, unless a diligent newspaper brought out the more lively extracts from what we had to say. The House then decided that these Reports should be debated, and an opportunity given to those who were members of the Committees to throw further light on what we had been doing, and why, and to those who were not members of the Committees to have their say, and to put their questions on our work.
  On the two previous occasions when the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee have been discussed, the necessary Amendment has been proposed by the Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). This year, however, at his instigation, it was decided to put someone else in to hat. In part, this is because the right hon. Gentleman has been in Israel. He was hoping to be able to be back in time to listen to this debate, and because he is not we must commiserate with him, for at this very moment he is probably flying round and round over London. I should like to say, on behalf of the members of the Committee on both sides of the House, how much we appreciate the
  1512
  leadership that the right hon. Gentleman has given us. It has been strictly non-party, as is in the best traditions of the Committee.
  It is worth emphasising that the control of expenditure falls into two parts. First, we have the control over commitments. That is not the concern of the Public Accounts Committee, but the Committee is concerned with the second form of control, making sure that the nation is getting value for money, and with seeing that payments are correctly made and waste eliminated. The Committee has been concerning itself with this for over a hundred years.
  A further reason why I, a Government supporter, am moving this Amendment rather than the Committee's Chairman, a member of the Opposition, is to emphasise the fact that the functions and duties of the Committee are common ground between the parties. We are nonparty, and objective in our approach to the problems we have to consider. It follows from our Constitution that the Committee's Reports are bound to be critical. We are a fault-finding body. The Committee has neither the time nor the duty to tell any success stories, and that should be remembered if we are to keep a proper sense of proportion in considering the Reports. It should also be remembered that the Public Accounts Committee's scrutiny is comprehensive. We review the whole of Government expenditure—about £7,000 million of voted moneys, plus the Post Office, the National Insurance funds and other non-voted accounts.
  It is important to bear in mind that all these accounts have been examined, and certified as correct. In other words, this money has been verified as having been spent in accordance with Parliament's wishes, and it is only in respect of a very small fraction of the total that the Committee finds evidence of weakness of system or lack of control. Our experience is that, taken as a whole, the system is sound and unrivalled in its integrity. The Committee's subject matter consists of past events. Its facts are the ways in which money has been spent and the mistakes that have been made. That limits, but does not lessen, the value of its work.

  1513
  The accounting processes work in two ways. In the first place, there is the negative effect. Departments are more likely to be soundly organised for spending their money correctly and economically if the permanent head of the Department has to stand up once a year to face criticism of his Department's lapses. But there is also the positive side to our work. Public spending is a continuous process. While, for example, the criticisms in the Reports now under consideration refer to transactions in a particular year, by far the greater part of those transactions relate to expenditure on services continuing from year to year. If defects in last year's system are identified and corrected, Parliament and the nation may expect to reap an economy dividend this year, and in future years.
  The Public Accounts Committee, unlike other bodies, has three peculiar advantages. In the first place, we have the evidence of accounting officers, who are the permanent heads of their Departments and personally responsible for the correctness of their accounts.
  Then we enjoy the services of the Comptroller and Auditor General, and I should like to say how much all the members of the Committee—and I know, all Members of the House—value these services, and regard them as being of inestimable value. Not only does the Comptroller concentrate our attention on those aspects that he thinks will best repay our further scrutiny, but he is also prepared to have his investigators probe into any part of Government spending about which individual members of the Committee may feel in doubt.
  Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Can my hon. Friend tell us what is the standing of the Comptroller and Auditor General? To whom he is answerable and by whom he is appointed?
  Mr. Arbuthnot: That does not quite merge into the flow of my speech, but the Comptroller and Auditor General is appointed by and answerable to Parliament—as the hon. Gentleman will learn if he does his homework.
  What occurs to me is that the Comptroller's services are so prized, and with every justification, that it is suggested in some quarters that an officer with similar powers should be placed at the
  1514
  disposal of back-bench Members who feel that they have received a brush off "from the Establishment on constituency cases. It is not for me to express a view on the merits of such a proposal, but it does at least reflect the high esteem in which the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff are held.
  The third advantage that pertains to the Public Accounts Committee is its special relationship with the Treasury, both as a witness in P.A.C. hearings and as a co-ordinator of action by the Executive on P.A.C. recommendations. It is right that it should be a Treasury Minister who replies to this debate, and I am particularly glad that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is to reply this evening to the various questions that may arise. In my view, Parliament would be making a great mistake if it were ever to weaken that special relationship with the Treasury that has been built up over the years.
  In this connection, I see that in its last annual report the Post Office rather gloried in the fact that this is the first year that it has been free from certain Treasury controls. I trust that that does not forecast a suggestion that the Post Office should escape the Treasury wing in its replies to P.A.C. criticisms. The Treasury is responsible for answering Committee criticism in connection with many non-voted accounts—a year ago, we examined the Independent Television Authority—and for Parliament to put any Department outside the scope of the Treasury Minute would seriously weaken the system of control that has been proved to work so well in practice, and I trust that any such move on the part of the Post Office would be resisted strongly by members of the Committee, and by Parliament itself.
  The Public Accounts Committee eschews policies; we concentrate on administration. Our efficiency relies on the preservation of the well-tried system of working with the Executive at official level. The views of the Executive on the Committee's criticisms are transmitted each year to the P.A.C. by a Treasury Minute, and we have this year's Treasury Minute now before us in the Special Report of the Committee in this Session. I must remark, in passing, that I have

  1515
  never seen a Treasury Minute which has been so full of agreement with the various comments which the Public Accounts Committee had to make.
  In due course, the P.A.C. will consider this document, together with evidence upon it, as it thinks fit, from the Treasury and from other Departments. The value and importance of receiving this statement of the views of the Executive in a document presented by the central, and in so many respects the controlling, Department in our financial system cannot be too strongly emphasised.
  I now turn to some of the detailed matters in the Report of the P.A.C. for the Session 1961–62. The theme running through the Report is the need for full information if Departments are to control the heavy expenditure which is not subject to the overall test of competitive tender. I will take one or two examples which bring this out.
  The first is to be found in paragraphs 47 to 53 of our Report, in which we discuss research and development. We thought that there had been considerable improvements in the methods of controlling the heavy expenditure over the several years during which successive Committees have examined the cases coming before them. We still felt that there was room for the introduction of a greater measure of competition in the matter of design and a greater degree of precision in both the dates and the costs of development contracts placed under agreed technical programmes. The admitted defects in cost control of Biue Streak, for example, mentioned in paragraphs 58 to 61, further illustrate the need for the use of improved methods.
  Another example comes from the control of sub-contract prices. Our examination left us in no doubt about whether the checks were adequate, and, in particular, whether the Ministry of Aviation had enough precise information from the scale of its investigations. This wide field of sub-contracts, with its possibility of excessive prices, obviously shows the need for a systematic survey, and we look for an improvement another year in the Ministry of Aviation's control in that respect.
  In paragraphs 70 to 83, concerned with certain agricultural subsidies, the
  1516
  Committee found evidence that lack of information in the Ministry of Agriculture, the result of inadequate records and insufficient checking, had given rise to overpayments. In the case of the lime subsidy, this lack of information resulted in failure over a long period to detect a fraud. Other illustrations of the need for more and better information are to be found in the overhead costs of the Air Ministry's work services and the cost estimating by ordnance factories.
  All these cases must present difficulties—we must always realise that—and the cost of getting information or making checks must be weighed against the risk of loss and wasteful expenditure if the steps are not taken. But the Public Account Committee's inquiries show that there is room for much more vigilance.
  In paragraphs 9 to 11 we deal with the latest position with regard to the firm of Bailey (Malta) Limited, the firm which bombards Members of Parliament with glossy brochures giving selective quotations which it thinks will show the firm in a favourable light. Strong criticism of this firm's activities was made in the debate on the Committee's Report last year. The House will recollect that the firm had misappropriated public funds and had used them for purposes which would not have been approved by the Colonial Office, had the Colonial Office known about them. Last year we reported that as a result of the investigations by Sir Richard Yeabsley, such action as could be taken was taken to correct the position. Three Government-nominated directors, including Sir Richard Yeabsley himself, were appointed to the board.
  Last April, these three Government-sponsored directors resigned, and it is not a very great step to assume that they were not satisfied with the way in which the company's affairs were being conducted. A new Government director, with wider powers than those of the three independent directors whom he replaced, was appointed, and the Secretary of State arranged for a full inquiry into the affairs of the company by an independent investigator. Unfortunately, the report of that independent investigator is not yet available to hon.

  1517
  Members, although I understand that it has reached the Government. The new Government director who has these much wider powers is Mr. Rendell, the Chief Executive Officer of the Colonial Development Corporation. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House know him well and will have every confidence in his ability, in his integrity and judgment.
  The thing that appears to me to be extraordinary in the whole of this proceeding is that Mr. Rendell should continue to be saddled with the other directors of Bailey (Malta) Ltd., whose actions in the first place—which included salting, away in Bermuda in a pension fund money borrowed from the Colonial Office—were criticised last year. Since then they appear to have acted in such an unsatisfactory way that the three Government-nominated independent directors felt that they could no longer continue to serve.
  In my view—and I make it clear that I am speaking without committing anybody except myself—the right solution would be for C.D.C. to be given the entire responsibility for the enterprise in Malta and to let Mr. Rendell run it with his own staff, which he is perfectly capable of doing, since no one can have much confidence so long as the remaining Bailey directors continue to occupy the positions they hold.
  Each year recently the Committee has had cause to comment adversely on the relations between the Ministry of Health and the pharmaceutical industry. I know that the pharmaceutical industry feels that it is singled out to be the whipping boy not only of the P.A.C., but of Parliament. I am closely interested myself in these problems and in trying to improve the relationship between the industry and the Ministry, since I have one of the large pharmaceutical firms in my constituency and I regard myself, and I hope that I am regarded, as a friend of the industry.
  The trouble arises when one has conditions which, because of patents, do not amount to free competition and at the same time the State is the largest customer. In these circumstances, the Ministry has a special duty to ensure that prices charged are "no more than fair and reasonable". Naturally, the Ministry has been cross-examined on
  1518
  the subject by the Committee. The Ministry, because of lack of competition existing, had to fall back on cost investigations. It found some of the firms "a bit sticky" in producing the figures required by the Ministry to fulfil its duty of ensuring that prices were reasonable.
  One of the firms, Cyanamid—and there is no reason to think that it is any way exceptional in this respect—on its own showing, made a profit on capital employed which ranged between 77 per cent. and 37·3 per cent. The latter figure, which I think is more accurate, included adjustments to take account of certain claims by the firm which seem reasonable. Whichever figure one takes, the profit figure was, naturally, regarded by the Ministry as indicating that there was room for the possibility of lower prices in prices charged to the Health Service.
  The Ministry's first line of defence against too high prices is competition, but in many oases that is non-existent, being thwarted by patents. The Ministry's second line of defence is cost investigation, and that has met with "a sticky response" from the firms. The Ministry's third line of defence—and this is the one which it was driven to invoke—is Section 46 of the Patents Act, 1949, under which it invited tenders by firms who had not produced or developed the drugs.
  Personally, I regret that the Ministry should have had to employ Section 46 of the Patents Act and break patents, but no Ministry would take an action like that unless driven to it. I suggest that the firms who developed the drugs could have avoided this action if they had been more forthcoming and mare co-operative in the provision of information, and I hope that they will follow that line in future.
  I do not believe that the Ministry is blameless in all this. In evidence before the Committee the accounting officer told us that he was dissatisfied with the firms who had developed and manufactured the drugs, since these firms were making too large a profit on capital employed. That is a perfectly tenable proposition. The Ministry therefore brought in outside manufacturers who had not borne the heat and burden of the day, but who had merely copied drugs which other people had developed. However, when I asked

  1519
  the accounting officer what was the percentage profit on capital employed by these firms, he replied that he did not know and did not need to find out.
  I should have thought that what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander and that if the yardstick of percentage profit on capital employed was applied to the man who had developed a drug and as such had earned some merit, the same should be applied to the firm who had merely pinched someone else's patent under the cloak of the dubious respectability of Section 46 of the Patents Act. So long as the Ministry acts like that, although, admittedly, it had provocation, it is bound to incur distrust by the industry.
  Then we come to the question of expenditure on sales promotion, £6½ million out of sales amounting to £67 million, or approximately 10 per cent. Sales promotion expenses in a free market must be left to individual firms, whose sales will suffer if they spend too little and whose profits will suffer if they spend too much on sales promotion. But when dealing with a single buyer, the British taxpayer, different considerations must apply. Sales promotion costs in this case should be limited to what will keep doctors informed. Any further expenses on promotion of one equally efficacious drug against another is a pure waste of the taxpayers' money to the aggrandisement of one firm against its rivals, and should be discouraged.
  At the same time, I do not want to see the Ministry become too unpopular with the industry, particularly because of the danger to our export trade. If we get into the position where foreign-owned firms set up their subsidiaries anywhere rather than in England because they feel that they will be pilloried by the Ministry of Health if they come here, that will do our export trade immense damage in the long run, and that export trade is of great value. The 1961 figure, the latest we have, was £48 million. It is a steadily rising figure and I do not want our export trade to be damaged through a lack of understanding between the Ministry and the industry. It is important to do our utmost to improve relations between them.
  Paragraphs 62 to 69 of the Report deal with an absurd situation which arose
  1520
  over the development and design of a wireless set. The Ministry of Aviation went out to so-called competitive tender and invited eight firms to submit tenders, suggesting that it would be helpful if the eight firms were to submit technical appreciations at the same time. Six of the firms submitted these technical appreciations. The Ministry, on receipt of the tenders, placed the contract with the firm which had quoted the highest price for development, and the second highest overall price for development and production. In other words, the whole process of tendering was rendered a farce.
  One firm, which had been invited to tender, was ruled out on the ground of a poor performance on an earlier contract, and others on the grounds that the Ministry thought that they would be unlikely to be able to meet delivery dates. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the Ministry itself failed to do its homework, and instead of producing its own technical appreciation of what it required, relied on the technical appreciations which it suggested tendering firms might care to produce. Furthermore, one would have thought that the unsuccessful firms must have a very real grievance in having been encouraged to go to the trouble and considerable expense of producing technical appreciations and of tendering when they had been virtually ruled out of the race before they started.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: May I take this opportunity of congratulating the right hon. Member for Huyton, to whom I referred earlier in my speech, on having landed safely? We were wondering whether he was going round London in an aeroplane in the fog, having difficulty in getting down. We are very glad to see him with us.
  Mr. H. Wilson: I apologise to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) for having missed the first five minutes of his speech. I have listened to and admired everything that he has said since.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: To return to the Ministry and its contract for this wireless set, I hope that it will never again

  1521
  stage a charade of this kind which can only bring its tendering procedure into disrepute. This incident serves again to emphasise the need for giving tenderers clear, precise, and well-considered requirements if the best value is to be obtained from competition. It may be that this essential need has been forgotten in the years when non-competitive contracts have been predominant, and the welcome return to competition must not be hampered by slackness in specification, as seems to have occurred in this case.
  The last item I wish to mention in moving that note be taken of our Report concerns the Birmingham-Preston motorway, M.6, with which we deal in paragraphs 87 to 93. What happened here emphasises the importance of controlling design if value is to be obtained from the large expenditure on the roads programtm of about £100 million a year. In this instance a review of contract documents and specifications showed that large savings could be secured by detailed changes in design which did not alter the overall design of the roads. The Committee found that there had been no detailed study of savings to be obtained on an average motorway from variations in permitted gradients. We deal with this in paragraph 93, and I am glad to see from the Treasury Minute that the Ministry is now to mend its ways and do this.
  My introduction of the Committee's Report has of necessity been selective in the items that I have mentioned. Other hon. Members will no doubt wish to bring out points of substance which lack of time has made it necessary for me to leave out. This Report has been a unanimous one of your Committee, and I ask that note be taken of it by the House.
  4.25 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I am sure that the whole House is appreciative of the admirable way in which the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) introduced this Motion this afternoon, and for the extremely fair speech he made.
  We were very interested in the hon. Gentleman's description of the purpose and the functioning of the Public Accounts Committee. During the course of his remarks he explained that it was no purpose of the Committee to record the success stories of the Government.
  1522
  This leads me to reflect that if that had been its purpose, we should, perhaps, have have a rather thinner Report than this weighty document before us today.
  Clearly, the House is at liberty to discuss any one or all of the dozens of items of expenditure which are dealt with in this Report. Many of them are important, but none, I think, more important than the question of drug prices and price control, to which the hon. Gentleman devoted part of his speech. It is to this issue that I wish to address my remarks, and I hope that the House will think it desirable to devote part of the time allotted to this debate to a discussion of the pharmaceutical issues.
  I think that the House and the taxpayer should be grateful to the Committee, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), for what I can only call its relentless pursuit over a long period of savings in the procurement of drugs for the National Health Service. I hope that the Minister of Health, and, indeed, the Treasury, feel the same gratitude, because the Committee has without doubt strengthened to a considerable extent the hand of the Ministry in negotiating price reductions.
  I want to make one thing clear at the outset. I have said this many times before, but I had better get it on the record once again. I am sure that everyone, and particularly those in any way associated with the National Health Service, must be profoundly grateful to the drug industry for the life-saving products which pharmaceutical research has given us, especially in recent years. The discoveries which they make are a great contribution to the health of peoples all over the world, but these sentiments, however sincerely held, cannot, and, I believe, should not, inhibit us in any way from criticising, where criticism in our view is justified, the methods used in the commercial exploitation of those discoveries.
  Equally, I think that we are entitled, indeed I think it is our duty, to demand the most stringent testing and independent appraisal before new drugs are released on to the market and administered to human beings. But this is a matter which does not directly arise out of these Reports, and I hope that perhaps we can discuss it more fully on another occasion.

  1523
  Most of these Reports deal with drugs covering the operation of the voluntary price regulation scheme which was first introduced in, I believe, 1957, and substantially revised about two years ago. This is the scheme which fixed the price of drugs by an agreement which we use for the general pharmaceutical services of the National Health Service, and I should remind the House that this price fixing becomes operative only after the expiry of a three-year period during which the producers of new drugs are entitled to charge whatever sums they think fit. This is designed to recoup them for the research expenditure which has gone into the production of these and perhaps other less successful drugs, and, indeed, into a number of drugs which are failures.
  It is clear that from the beginning of its investigations the Committee had a feeling that the Minister of Health had been somewhat weak-kneed in conducting these price negotiations, that he had perhaps too often been out-manoeuvred by manufacturers who are described in this Report by the accounting officer of the Ministry as tough negotiators. But in the last year or two, under the stimulus of the Public Accounts Committee, and, indeed, of certain observations made from this side of the House, a number of improvements and savings have been made in drug procurement.
  First, a more stringent voluntary price regulation scheme was negotiated with the industry when the original scheme came up for renewal. Price reductions, one or two of them a quite substantial, followed the revision of that scheme. But, in my view, the scheme still contains many inherent weaknesses. For example, as the hon. Member for Dover explained, there are alternative bases for fixing prices. There is the basis of profitability of a drug, the basis of profitability of a manufacturer's whole United Kingdom business or whole National Health Service business and the basis that is hinged to the price which the manufacturer obtains in export markets. As between these three methods of calculation the manufacturer is free to choose the one which suits him best, and, by definition, that is the one which suits the taxpayer worst.
  Furthermore, these negotiations inevitably must depend on information
  1524
  which only the manufacturer can supply to the Minister—information about profit margins, about manufacturing and ingredient costs, and about research and general overheads. Many manufacturers have shown extreme reluctance in providing this information. The hon. Member for Dover said that they had been a bit sticky, which, I suggest, is one of the understatements of the Session. Pharmaceutical manufacturers can be compelled to provide this information. The Minister has power to enforce the provision of it, but I understand that it is never used. I have read the Minutes of Evidence and the accounting officer's suggestion that this is a power kept in reserve. I think that he said in one answer that it was "brandished". The Public Accounts Committee thinks—and I agree—that the Ministry has been very slow to use this compulsory power, or even to threaten to use it.
  I call attention to the case of the four Swiss firms—Ciba, Geigy, Sandoz and Roche—referred to in the Report. Negotiations have been going on with them fax two and a half years in trying to fix the prices of certain drugs. The fact that they have not yet reached finality is unquestionably due to the reluctance and, indeed, the refusal over a long period of these companies to provide the essential information which the Ministry needs in order to fix prices on the chosen basis of calculation.
  There is the case of the four British subsidiaries of United States drug manufacturers. Here the negotiations dragged on for eighteen months in respect of drugs to the value of over £10 million per annum which were sold to the National Health Service alone.
  The unfortunate thing is that there is every incentive to delay on the part of the manufacturer. This is another weakness of the regulation scheme, because there is no provision for retrospection. In question No. 802 on page 64 of the Minutes of Evidence, the Chairman asked the accounting officer:
  "Does this not give an incentive to them"—
  that is, the manufacturers—
  "to drag out the negotiations?"
  The answer was:
  "I suppose the honest answer to that is, on information yes. It also naturally gives an incentive to us

  1525
  in the opposite direction and since, as regards the provision of information, it is we and not they who hold the whip hand"—
  presumably that is a reference to the compulsory powers—
  "then I should hope it would be our incentive which would prove to be more forceful in the event than theirs."
  In the event, there is no doubt that it is the manufacturers' incentive to delay which has proved more forceful. As for the Ministry's whip hand, I can only suggest that it seems to be tied behind its back.
  I should like the Financial Secretary to tell us, when he replies, why settlements cannot be back-dated. Much of the evidence before the Committee suggested that this would give rise to all sorts of administrative difficulties. I cannot believe that they are insuperable difficulties. Surely if one negotiates at a price, and wishes to back-date it to the beginning of the negotiations, it is not beyond the wit of man to issue credit notes to wholesalers and from wholesalers to retailers for the difference between the negotiated price and the original price. I cannot think that that would lead to any considerable difficulty.
  Perhaps a compromise may be arrived at by which, once negotiations to fix the price of a drug start, a time limit is set on the negotiations—say, three months—and that if the negotiations are concluded within that period the price becomes operative from the time that they are concluded, but that if they drag on beyond the three months it is back-dated to the beginning of the negotiations. In this way, there would be an incentive to press ahead with the negotiations, and it would be in the interests of the manufacturers to co-operate to that end.
  I come to the nature of the information which has to be supplied by the manufacturers to the Ministry and the different interpretations that can be, and are, placed on various pieces of information. There is a good example of that in this Report, that of Merck, Sharp and Dohme, the manufacturers of ohlorothiazide. If hon. Members refer to question No. 826 and the following questions on page 66 of the Minutes of Evidence, they will see that the United Kingdom profits of this firm, as worked out by the Ministry of Health, were 184 per cent. on the capital employed.
  1526
  Bat the industry's accountants, Messrs. Cooper Bros., produced a totally different basis for calculating profits on capital. I understand that they took in a part of the American capital which was supposed to be relevant to the British subsidiary. By doing that, they brought the rate of profit on capital employed down from 184 to 30 per cent.
  To prove which of these is a fair assessment we need a lot more information. For example, we need to know whether the British subsidiary bought its basic ingredients from the parent company in America and, if so, the price? If it bought them at cost price, then that is reasonable, but if it bought them at an inflated price, incorporating a considerable measure of profit for the United States parent company, or, indeed, if it paid royalities on the drug to the parent company, those payments could well be taken as servicing the amount of the United States capital that had been applied to the British subsidiary. In that case, the figure of 184 per cent. would be correct. Does the Ministry ask for this information? If so, does it get it?
  The answer that we always get when we criticise high drug prices is that these are due to research. We are told that vast sums are spent on research and that these must be recouped, and that the only way that they can be recouped is by ensuring that there is a healthy margin of profit on the minority of successful drugs thrown up by the research departments. There is a good deal in this argument, but the fact is that most basic pharmaceutical research is done by a very small number of companies in Britain. I think that an article in the Sunday Times last Sunday suggested that the number was only half a dozen. I should have put the figure slightly higher than that.
  Many pharmaceutical companies do little or none of this basic research. Their effort is directed much more to finding a slight variant of an existing successful drug which can give them a patent monopoly and allow them to get a share of the market. Some do no research at all. The same criteria cannot or should not with justice be applied to the different types of manufacturer when it comes to research.
  Then we come to another matter dealt with by the hon. Member for Dover, the

  1527
  very vexed question of promotion costs. Here again, for years, the Ministry has been trying to discover the percentage of manufacturing costs which were represented by such things as advertising, free samples and the cost of representatives calling on doctors. At long last, the Ministry has managed to obtain some figures and they are published in the Report. They are the figures for the industry as a whole. The total amounts to about £6½ million which, as the hon. Member said, represents 10 per cent. of the net sales. That in itself—I agree with him—His a very high figure indeed when we are dealing with drugs where there is virtually only one purchaser, the Minister, either directly or indirectly.
  This is a figure not far short of the total figure claimed for research expenditure by the industry in this country. Of the £6½ million, nearly £3 million went on representatives who call on doctors, and £3½ million on advertising and on free samples. But, of course, all figures for the whole industry are quite useless for the purpose of price negotiation, particularly when we are negotiating for individual drugs.
  These figures are supplied by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. They can only have been obtained by getting the figures from individual companies represented by the Association and adding them together. Why could not the Association have sent to the Ministry the figures for the individual companies? We all know that one or two firms, particularly firms which originated in the United States, spent far more than the average on promotion costs. Why cannot the Ministry get a break-down and take these promotional costs into account in negotiating prices for the National Health Service?
  I do not know why the Ministry takes such a prim view about promotional expenditure, why it is so reluctant to say what it considers to be a reasonable percentage of expenditure on promotion, and what represents, in its view, excessive expenditure. We all appreciate that the Minister cannot dictate what a pharmaceutical company spends on promoting its products, but, at least, he can insist that excessive advertisement costs are not paid for by the National Health Service.
  1528
  That is the only point that I am making, and I think the main point that the Public Accounts Committee was making.
  I strongly support the recommendation on page xxxiv of the Report that
  "…the Ministry should not confine their activities to seeking a reduction of profit but should also be critical of costs, particularly those of sales promotion activities, which should be accepted only if they are of proved value to the Health Service."
  I agree with the hon. Member that we are here dealing with an almost unique situation that the products which the Minister directly or indirectly buys are almost the whole home production. There are in addition, in some cases, exports.
  There is little evidence still, I think, that the Minister recognises or, indeed, if he recognises, exploits the full strength of his bargaining position in these negotiations. They are, of course, patented drugs, and, in general, patent confers monopoly. But the 1949 Patents Act, in protecting the patent holder, also went some way in protecting the public interest against exploitation by monopoly.
  There are two Sections in that Act, Sections 41 and 46, which do this, and I have always understood that they were Sections for which the late Sir Stafford Cripps was largely responsible. Section 46 has already been referred to. This is the Section which entitles a Government Department to make use of any patented invention for the services of the Crown subject to a royalty either to be agreed by the patent holders, or in default of agreement to be fixed by the High Court. I do not share with the hon. Member for Dover his sorrow that recourse had to be made to Section 46. This seems to me a perfectly proper use of a safeguard for the taxpayer which was deliberately inserted in this Act of Parliament. We know that for some time before the Minister acted, certain hospital authorities had been buying from continental sources a few drugs, mainly antibiotics, at less than half the figure that they cost in the United Kingdom.
  It is over a year ago that the Minister decided to purchase five of these drugs centrally, by annual contract and competitive tender, for use in hospitals. I emphasise this because the use of these drugs in hospitals is only about 15 per cent. of the total use throughout the

  1529
  National Health Service. So this represents only a marginal saving. The five contracts were duly let and the Report reveals that the cost of these drugs was about 60 per cent. below the price being charged by the United Kingdom manufacturers, the monopoly and the patent holders, all of whom in this case, I think, were British subsidiaries of American firms.
  The interesting thing is that this price, which is 40 per cent. only of the United Kingdom price, included an import duty which certainly was not less than 10 per cent. and which, in some cases, might have been higher. This means that these drugs are being produced at something like one-third of the cost at which they are being sold by the licensees in the United Kingdom.
  These contracts were for one year only. The have just expired. I should like to ask one or two questions about what is happening in the future. Were the contracts satisfactorily carried out? Was the quality of the drugs supplied and their distribution satisfactory? Have any new contracts been let for the corning year and, if so, was this regarded by the Ministry as a successful experiment? Has it invited tenders for any further drugs which are widely used in the National Health Service, and where it feels that the price that it has to pay is excessive? If it has not, I should like to know why not.
  Before leaving Section 46, I should like to ask one further question. I understand that one United States firm, Messrs. Pfizer, began proceedings against the Minister for his action under Section 46. I do not know whether that case is proceeding or whether it has been dropped.
  I spoke of two Sections. The other Section of the Patents Act, Section 41, seems to me to be in serious danger of becoming a dead letter very much on account of the Machiavellian, or, perhaps, I ought to say Fabian tactics of some of the larger drug houses. Perhaps I should remind the House what this Section does. It contains the provision for the granting of compulsory licences. It is potentially a very great safeguard for the public interest against monopoly. If a firm applies to a patent holder for a licence to manufacture and that licence is either refused or offered on wholly
  1530
  unreasonable terms, under Section 41 that firm can apply to the Patents Court for a compulsory licence. The Act states that a licence shall be granted if the court is satisfied that the firm applying is perfectly capable of producing the products.
  The purpose is that if the product—and this is limited to food and drugs—can be manufactured and sold at less than the monopoly price after the payment of a reasonable royalty, the public should have the benefit of the lower price. I believe that only one such licence has ever been granted since this Act came into operation thirteen years ago. I am told that even in that case the product in question was never manufactured by the firm that was granted the compulsory licence—an odd fact, to say the least.
  There are same applications in the pipeline at the moment and this is a longer and more sluggish pipeline than the one we hear so much about from Scottish Ministers from time to time. Here again, the value of delay to the monopolists is enormous. They can easily spin out the negotiations for a voluntary licence for a year or more before the negotiations actually break down, which is necessary for the applicant to apply under Section 41. At the end of the day they can demand a wholly unreasonable royalty and then, when an application for a compulsory licence is made, they can ask for and invariably obtain postponment after postponement, dragging on the negotiations for months and in some instances for years before the case even comes for a hearing before the Patents Court.
  Most drugs have only a limited profitable life before they are superseded by something better, and if this process is dragged on long enough it is no longer worth while the applicant carrying on with his application. Firms which apply for compulsory licences under Section 41 deserve more help and encouragement than they get at the moment from Government Departments, and particularly from the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Health. After all, the taxpayer can only gain from the granting of compulsory licences. Reductions amounting to about £3 million a year have been obtained in the last couple of years since the Voluntary Price Regulation Scheme was revised.

  1531
  When we were discussing the question of the double prescription charge I told the Minister of Health that if he was looking for savings he would do far better to look at drug prices more thoroughly. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has taken that advice and has followed the lead of the Public Accounts Committee, but we on this side of the House believe that a good deal more can be done. After all, the supply of drugs to the Health Service is a very big business indeed. Many millions of pounds are involved. These price negotiations are tough, and I wish that I could think that the Ministry brought the same toughness and resources to bear on the negotiations as the industry does.
  The House will know that the whole question of drug testing, clinical trials, and the search for new drugs is very much under scrutiny at the moment. We already have a spokesman for the pharmaceutical industry saying that if more elaborate and thorough testing has to take place it means an increase in drug prices. Before we, the taxpayers, assent to this proposition we must be absolutely sure that the existing profit margins cannot absorb this extra cost. In many cases I have no doubt that they could absorb them.
  Many pharmaceutical manufacturers, I readily admit, and I think most of the indigenous British firms, are, in general, content with a fairly reasonable margin of profit. A few—and one must mention in this connection the subsidiaries of United States and Swiss firms—are clearly out to exploit their monopoly position. It is the duty of the Minister, of the Treasury, and of the House to see that the National Health Service is not a mulch cow for any commercial interest.
  I repeat that we should all be grateful for what the Public Accounts Committee has done to this end, on our behalf and on behalf of taxpayers.
  4.55 p.m.
  Mr. Compton Carr: I welcome the opportunity of following in the debate the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), because I should like to pay attention briefly to questions raised before the Public Accounts Committee on advertising by the pharmaceutical industry. I am
  1532
  not really the man to speak about advertising, because I am probably the most sales-resistant man in the House. No man comes to the door and sells to me—not even the man selling onions—and telephone calls offering me a free dancing lesson leave me absolutely cold.
  I appreciate, as I used to believe everyone in the country appreciated, that advertising is a necessary part of free enterprise. In view of the atmosphere in which discussions of this matter take place and the fact that one is very often left, as I think with great respect the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North left us, with the impression that the pharmaceutical industry is, to use an American expression, "gouging" and is trying to take every possible cent out of the Health Service, it is only fair to mention, as I have not heard mention, the survey which the A.P.B.I. completed recently. It was to determine the cumulative values of price reductions and increases for branded drugs over the period 1957–61. This showed that there was a net saving in that period of over £9 million to the Health Service. The sales value of the reductions was well over £9 million, and the sales value of increases was about £110,000.
  I realise that a large amount of this was due to reductions required by the Voluntary Price Regulation Scheme, but it was not as much as hon. Members sometimes believe and certainly not as much as the public are sometimes led to believe. Less than half of the reduction was due to the scheme. It is fair to the industry to mention figures of that nature, and it is fair to say, as everyone involved in the industry will know, that that saving was achieved despite increases in costs and wages.
  We have been assured by hon. Members on both sides of the House, in several debates on the pharmaceutical industry, that it is estimated that the manufacturers have made and are making a tremendous contribution to the advance of therapeutics in this country through their research and development. But there is always an "if" and a "but" after this. I hope that I shall not be accused of making the suggestion, but it strikes me that if one follows the argument of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North this industry might expect eventually to have no kind of protection.

  1533
  The logical conclusion is to say that patent protection is monopoly, and monopoly enables the seller in a limited market—and that the Government—to take some profit, whether that be large or small. This is very often a matter of pure surmise and opinion and, therefore, the argument might be followed logically to exclude this kind of industry from the protection of the Patents Act.
  This is the direction in which some hon. Members oposite point. They point towards their desire to see the pharmaceutical industry, with its huge capacity for research and development, as part of the Health Service. It has been said before and I do not think that we have heard the last of it. Surely that is the logical outcome of a complete blanket argument on these grounds.
  I do not say for a moment, and I do not think that anybody who knows the pharmaceutical industry as well as I do would say, that there are not many black sheep in the fold, Obviously, there are, as there are in every profession, including the one to which I have the honour to belong. We seek to sort out the black sheep from the white, and to give the white sheep a fair measure of profit in their dealings with the industry.
  I now return to the question of expenditure on advertising and sales promotion. This is lumped together in the figure given by the hon. Member. The £6½ million includes the expenditure incurred in visits by representatives to doctors, as well as the cost of sending samples, together with what is true sales promotion, namely, the advertising matter that comes through the letter box and appears in the journals.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: Surely they will not do it for any other reason.
  Mr. Carr: There is a great difference between sales promotion of the second type and that of the representative. In the case of other industries the costs involved by representatives are often left out of the advertising figures. That is why the hon. Member's figure is misleading.
  It was admitted before the Public Accounts Committee that representatives who called on doctors brought a great deal of knowledge with them. Although, at one time, it was suggested that many
  1534
  representatives did not have much knowledge, it was finally agreed that most were well qualified, and that these people brought knowledge to bear upon doctors' problems and maintained a steady service of opinion to the doctors which those doctors might miss if literature were merely delivered through their letter boxes or appeared in the Press.
  Mr. K. Robinson: Why is it found necessary to use both methods?
  Mr. Carr: The question is whether one agrees that competition is a good thing. It has been marginally suggested that there is no competition here, and that what we have is a lot of producers of different items—items so different that in reality these producers are advertising their wares against no competition. That suggestion is unfair.
  Dr. Barnett Stross: Casting my mind back and remembering the benefits that I received from representatives who came to my surgery, I wonder whether the hon. Member is not loading the dice in their favour. The representative may be a different type of person now, but in my time he came to sell and to describe the virtues of the products that his firm was making. He came for no other purpose. I do not believe that he is coming for any other purpose now. That fact ought to be accepted. It is reasonable; after all, the doctor can always refuse to see him if he does not want to. I admit that some of these representatives are well qualified to speak to their own brief, but they are expensive people to have, and their number—2,400 for the country as a whole—is rather excessive.
  Mr. Carr: The hon. Member and I seem to be slightly at cross-purposes. Obviously, these representatives come to sell, but if we are to work up a system of connections between the pharmaceutical companies and the doctors whom they serve, these representatives form a valuable link. Although it cannot be said that a kind of early warning system is provided solely by these representatives, their is no doubt that if any drug were causing alarm to the ordinary general practitioner the representative on the doorstep would be one of the first people to hear about it. That is a fair indication that they have more worth than is suggested by their being called

  1535
  merely pill peddlars. They cannot be written off as useless and it cannot be suggested that the cost involved is excessive.
  People do not advertise for fun. Anybody who works in industry knows that advertising expenditure may go too far in any one company or industry, but it always boomerangs back against the company or industry which is trying to push it too high.
  Mr. K. Robinson: How can the hon. Member say that this is not excessive? Let us suppose that half this expenditure were incurred by one firm. Would not he consider that excessive? The hon. Member says that they do not advertise for fun. Perhaps that is so, but if they feel that they can get all their advertising costs paid back by the National Health Service there is not much inducement to cut down on promotional expenses.
  Mr. Carr: That is true. On the other hand, if a company spends a large amount, thereby boosting its sales, the increase in sales of itself tends to reduce the price of its goods. The mere fact that a company is spending a lot of money does not mean that it is spending a large percentage per pill on promotional literature. This is an argument which can go on for ever. If a person does not believe in advertising in its own right, as a service, he never will believe it in connection with the pharmaceutical industry or any other industry.
  The firm which does not advertise tends to sell less than the firm which does, and the firm which sells less has a higher unit price, simply because it has a smaller production. That is one of the facts of industrial life. It is not possible to take one item and say that it is not merely excessive, but that it ought not to exist at all. Anybody who is guilty of merely boosting a price to sell his own goods must expect to be dealt with appropriately, especially when he is dealing with the State.
  This is the essence of the A.B.P.I.'s agreement to the various measures which the Ministry has taken in recent years. The only point is that the A.B.P.I. feels that it is unfair to use this general argument against advertising—
  1536
  this allegation that it is wasteful to advertise beyond a certain level—simply to attack the pharmaceutical industry. In considering the question of goods put out to tender one does not ask where the financial and promotional level is.
  Mr. K. Robinson: This is the second time that this point has been raised. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) also raised it. The difference is that if goods are being bought by competitive tender there is not the same necessity to look into finance and castings as there is if they are being supplied by a monopoly.
  Mr. Carr: I am grateful to the hon. Member for coming back to that point. There is no absolute monopoly in the pharmaceutical industry. No single individual and no single part of the industry has an absolute monopoly of any one drug. There are always variants of a drug. The hon. Member may call it molecular roulette, or what he likes, but other companies manufacture the drug. I may be wrong—I know that the hon. Member knows a great deal about the industry, and my interest is only of a few years' standing—but I do not think that there is a single case in which it can be said that one company produces a drug which no other company produces. If that could be said, then obviously there would be a monopoly.
  Dr. Stross: I thank the hon. Member for giving way, but this is a non-party matter. Has not he realised that the weakness of his argument lies in the fact that different firms produce completely identical drugs which they supply with different trade names? That being the case, a firm's advertisements are directed to the sales of its own drug—which is the same as the drugs of some of its competitors—and its efforts are directed towards getting doctors to prescribe its own drug. If that is the case—and in my opinion it is—is not that wasteful? Should we pay for this?
  Mr. Carr: With great respect, that is just what I maintain. It is not wasteful. This is the thing which cuts away the argument about monopoly. If Bloggs, Spinks and Snooks are all producing the same thing, they create a ring and make the same prices. That is "gouging", to use a vulgar term. If they all produce

  1537
  an almost identical product and they say that doctors should use it because it is better—and if, indeed, it is as good as the others and doctors would not say "I would not have that stuff in the place"—if they are all equal in value, surely, that is the whole essence of free enterprise. It does not of itself add to the expense; in fact, it reduces expense because of the element of competition.
  I know that one uses that phrase and that some hon. Members do not like it, but surely most hon. Members are aware that it has already been dealt with by the Harvard Business Review in what was a very interesting look at the Russian pharmaceutical industry. One of the things which, I am sure, hon. Members wilt have noticed arose was that one suddenly found representatives of the Soviet Minister of Health complaining that the retail prices were four, five or even six times the wholesale prices for pharmaceutical goods, and it was said that this was something which would have to be stopped.
  But much the more interesting thing was that it became quite obvious when one looked at the Soviet system that the branded name, or whatever one likes to call it, is something which has come into being. If a factory turns out something of a lower standard than is required, one could lay the blame where it was due, and this is exactly what has happened with some of the branded names over here. I am quite sure that the hon. Member himself, in the days when he was sitting behind a desk, would not have prescribed something which would not do what he wanted it to do or which it claimed to do.
  I have taken up a great deal of time, unwittingly, but, as the hon. Member said, this is a non-party matter. There is one other thing which has been said, and I am sure that it was referred to in the Report, and that is the comparison with advertising. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) mentioned the comparison between the total cost of advertising and sales promotion and the industry's ex penditure on research. I think that this is a little unfair, because there are quite a few large companies in this country whose research and development is done overseas, and, therefore, one cannot take that argument a very long way.
  1538
  On the question of prices and the high cost of advertising, it does not seem possible that one can continue to maintain that position in the face of our experience over the years in free enterprise. There is one other thing which I think it is fair to bring into this discussion, and it is that a statement has been made which may give rise to the impression that the A.B.P.I. did not care about the conduct of members. One could draw that inference, especially on the basis of advertising. No one has mentioned the A.B.P.I.'s efforts in sales promotion.
  It may not be generally known that the A.B.P.I. itself has established a code of conduct for its members which covers a tremendous range. It contains a penalty clause in which it is clearly stated that non-adherence to the code could lead to expulsion from the Association. Therefore, it is only fair that this should be known. The new issue of the code is only the second edition, and it will be available soon. It is very comprehensive indeed, and I think that it is only fair to the industry that it should be mentioned.
  I am most grateful to the Committee for allowing me so much time to speak, even if some of my speech was in the nature of cross-talk, and for the treatment which I have been accorded in speaking on a subject upon which I have not spoken in this House before.
  5.17 p.m.
  Dr. Barnett Stross: I, too, would like, in the first place, to say how much I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) and also the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson). I have not read all the evidence that was given before the Committee, but I have spent some hours on it, and I was astonished to find how much knowledge seemed to be available by members of the Committee when they were cross-examining expert witnesses. I think that we are all greatly indebted to them, and I am very happy to be able to say this. It represented a remarkable amount of work which obviously meant very considerable application on the part of hon. Members in order to be able to arm themselves with sufficient knowledge to conduct themselves as they evidently did.
  I should say that I have an interest to declare. I have for years been a director

  1539
  of a manufacturing firm of fine drugs, and this rightly inhibits me to some extent. Therefore, I want to speak particularly about chemists' remuneration, because that will take up the point which I rose to discuss with the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Compton Carr). Chemists' remuneration is dealt with by the Public Accounts Committee, and its Report discusses the negotiations with the Ministry and the Minister's proposal for a reduction of the remuneration of chemists.
  Hon. Members will perhaps remember that the chemists wanted an increase, but that, in the end, the Minister decided that they should not have an increase but that there should be a reduction in the fees made available to them. Whether that be right or wrong, I do not know, because I do not know all the facts. There is a dispute, and the Minister, in any event, has said that the smaller chemists, those with the lowest total incomes, should not have any reduction. I think that that has been accepted.
  The point I want to raise is this. The chemists have said, and I know this is true, that they have a great deal of dead stock, and that they lose money because they bought expensive things, not to keep in stock, but because prescriptions are brought into them by private citizens on the E.C.10 form handed to them by their doctors, who prescribe under a particular name a branded drug. If the chemists have not got that drug, they say, "I am sorry, but I have not got it", and, if it is in the evening, they say that if the person would call again by 12 noon on the following day, they would have time to get it in.
  Let us consider the possibility that this is a life-saving drug. Let us suppose that it is a soluble form of penicillin to give to a child. I find it wrong that if a chemist has five out of the six completely identical preparations in his shop and it is the sixth, an identical one to all the other five, which is prescribed, he is not allowed to substitute one identical drug for another. Obviously, therefore, the chemist gets a good deal of wastage and bad stock. This causes him to lose money.
  If the chemist were allowed to do what I am suggesting—substitute a completely identical preparation which he
  1540
  has in stock for the one which is ordered—two things would happen. The lesser in importance is that he would not lose so much money and, therefore, any reduction that the Minister proposes to make would not hurt him so much. What is to me much more important is that people who are seriously ill, particularly children, would not have to wait overnight until next day until a life-saving drug was made available.
  When dealing with hospitals, one finds that the hospital pharmacist does exactly what I am pleading should be possible for the chemist to do in his shop. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury may not know this, but if the Minister were sitting with him he would agree that this is so. When a consultant prescribes, the hospital pharmacist can perform that act of substitution—and why not?
  Take an extreme and absurd case, which, perhaps, touches upon advertising. Vaseline is a proprietary word, a branded name, and petrolatum is the normal substance. If a general practitioner prescribes Vaseline for his patients, he soon gets sat upon because it costs much more, because it has a branded name and is advertised, than petrolatum, which is exactly the same thing. He is expected to prescribe petrolatum. If he wrote on his prescription the word "Vaseline", the chemist in the shop would have to supply a tin with the name Vaseline on it. To me, this sounds quite silly.
  Take another instance. We hear a great deal about phenobarbitone. A lot of it is used, perhaps too much and by too many people. I sometimes wonder how many people have accidents in the morning when driving because they have taken phenobarbitone the night before. It takes many hours—longer than twelve—before all trace of a drug of this kind is eliminated from the human body. However, phenobarbitone is the normal name for a particular drug. Another name is Luminal, which is a proprietary name and which, when I was in practice, cost about six times as much; but it is exactly the same. When I was a young medical man—that is going back some years—in my ignorance I used to prescribe Luminal. I was visited by the district medical officer in charge of prescribing; he taught me the facts of life and I have never prescribed it since. I

  1541
  realise that it was absurd to give a prescription for something that unnecessarily costs so much. The reason why it cost so much was that it was advertised expensively.
  When I say that it is not fair that a chemist should be loaded with a lot of things all of which are advertised and all of which are identical in their groups, I consider this to be an unnecessary expense upon the country. It is wrong for our citizens, too, that they should have to face this sort of thing. It is bad that doctors should have to be seen by skilled representatives each of them singing the merits of different preparations when amongst those things so many are identical. This is not good enough and I regard it as a mistake.
  I hope that the Financial Secretary will say to the Minister, "Why do you not tackle the British Medical Association and demand from them the same thing that happens in the hospitals, namely, that if substances are absolutely identical there can be a substitution in the shop by the chemist when a prescription is brought in? "This would save money and prevent waste and I cannot see any valid argument against it.
  I should like to say a general word about research. Research in the drug industry is a fairly recent phenomenon. It has grown in volume thanks to the work that discovered penicillin. It is since the first antibiotic was discovered, showing itself to be such a great lifesaving drug, that we have had a great deal of research and a lot of money has been spent. Most of it has been spent in America.
  It is worth noting—and we must admit it—that it is in America that so many of these remarkable drugs have been discovered and that far more of them have come from the West than from behind the Iron Curtain, where there has been less pressure. It may be that the profit motive combined with the private large sums of money which could be poured into research has brought this about. Because this is the case, and because it is a good thing, there can be a bad aftermath from it. It is possible to suspect and to see a hysterical sort of search for variations of drugs or variations of a proven valuable drug or completely new drugs, because there are great prizes for a real winner.
  1542
  I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North that we must not be afraid to demand the most careful testing of drugs. However careful we may be, we shall never be able to guarantee to human beings that some kind of tragedy at some time or other may not occur again and again. At least, we should try to do rather more than we have done in the past.
  I have said that the Americans have been successful. They have had great rewards. They have made great profits and I do not envy them. When, however, a particular drug has been patented and has had a remarkable volume of sales all over the world for many years, perhaps for ten, eleven or twelve years, and still has a few years to run and has made, like chloramphenicol has done, £20, £30, £40, or even £50 million profit net, surely the time comes when it should be sold much more cheaply.
  The Minister has been right to take the advice that we urged upon him a couple of years ago in the case of selected drugs—only five—to use Section 46. He should look at Section 41. At the same time, those of us who are interested in the industry know that there must be sufficient money to continue to do research. There are still great benefits to be obtained for mankind if research is steadily and quietly conducted and encouraged. We need the results of research to be tested by independent organisations, such as, for example, the Medical Research Council or bodies of that kind, wherever possible. We need the most careful testing.
  If we were to attack the industry too much and paralyse or impoverish it, something would be lost, but that danger is remote. It is the last thing that anybody in the House of Commons wants to do. The reason why the Public Accounts Committee scrutinised the industry is because we want a reasonable return for the taxpayer's money. Nobody wants to hurt or destroy an industry or prevent it from carrying on with research as successfully as possible. We are all grateful to the industry for what it has done. We do not, however, want to feel that we are being exploited—and there has been exploitation and we know it. That is all I intended to say. I am

  1543
  grateful that I had the opportunity of listening to the hon. Member for Barons Court, who preceded me.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: I want first to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) on the manner in which he opened the debate. It is always a personal pleasure for me to be able to congratulate my constituency Member. His comprehensive survey of the Reports highlighted the main facts. He was followed by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson). Since then the debate has been rather limited to pharmaceutical matters. I shall not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), who is such an expert on these matters.
  I am a comparatively new boy on the Committee of Public Accounts. I haw, had only one year's service. It would therefore be improper for me to say much in response to the kind remarks which have been made about the Committee. I see the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Sir G. Benson), the father of the Committee, in his place. If he is fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chair, he will be better equipped to deal with this matter than I am.
  Having served for one year on the Committee of Public Accounts, for one year on the Estimates Committee, and for 25 years in a managerial capacity in a public company, I want to give the House my impressions. Until I became a member of the Committee of Public Accounts, I did not fully appreciate the dual rôle which the Permanent Secretary of a Department has as Permanent Secretary and as accounting officer, on the first account being responsible to his Minister and on the second account being responsible to the Committee of Public Accounts. I did not appreciate why, whilst not relieving his Minister of the ultimate responsibility for his Department, he was responsible to the Committee of Public Accounts. I think that the nation should appreciate this and be grateful that we have such capable and experienced people in these positions.
  1544
  The doctrine of Ministerial responsibility for all that goes on in a Department, for every decision taken, does much to make for extreme caution in those who have the day-to-day operational responsibilities. Much of their energy and time must of necessity be devoted to avoiding mistakes. One of our outstanding features, which is not often understood by other nations, is the extreme loyalty of civil servants to their Minister, regardless of party. I suggest that, because of their loyalty, they are over-anxious not to take some calculated risk which a director of a company might take, for fear of creating a situation which could be embarrassing for their Minister.
  Because of the ultimate Ministerial responsibility, the occasions on which senior civil servants appear before Members of this House without being accompanied by their own Ministers are rare. Although there are many justifications for the work of the Committee of Public Accounts, the fact that it is only before this Committee and the Estimates Committee that senior civil servants regularly appear and give back benchers the opportunity of seeing their work is an important factor in the day-to-day operation of our democratic system.
  A further justification for the existence of the Committee of Public Accounts is that it assists accounting officers to maintain their high standard of morality in matters of public finance. Although I have no experience in this connection, I should not be surprised if the fact that an accounting officer is ultimately responsible to the Committee for his Department's expenditure enables him to prevent his Minister—I remind the House that this is an all-party debate—being too easily persuaded by his friends on the back benches to act as "Lady Bountiful" in the distribution of the nation's funds.
  In this House we often refer to the "cold clammy hand of the Treasury" because it fails to meet what we think are the just demands of our constituents. However, we are only too anxious to attack the overall expenditure. If I were to develop this matter any further, I am sure that I should be out of order.
  I believe that the responsibility of accounting officers in general gives them

  1545
  an authority to match their responsibility. It can be generally accepted in industrial practice that a good man in business ensures that responsibility and authority go hand in hand. The evidence we have collected during the course of the year in general indicates that this position exists.
  It came to our notice that an unsatisfactory state of affairs exists, in that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has the responsibility of issuing Exchequer grants to local authorities for all their services, over some of which services this Ministry has no control—for example, education. I draw attention to page 79 of the Special Report. The accounting officer to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, when asked whether she was not able to give the Committee some reason why there should be under-spending in the education services, replied as follows:
  "I think I ought to say at the outset that it is really for Education to answer that. We are in an odd and perhaps unique position now, in that while my Ministry must account for the grant, because we make the order, in fact it is only the different Departments, who negotiate with the local authorities and deal with the Treasury about it, who are responsible for the estimates of their own services. In the whole of the general grant there is only one service which is ours, and that is Town and Country Planning. So it would not be right for me to endeavour to answer for the Ministry of Education's estimating."
  Same of the reasons for this are outlined in Appendix 2, on page 444. A number of aspects of this have now been put right.
  Basically, we are debating the best methods by which to control authorised expenditure. The fundamental difference between the ultimate control exercised by an industrial company as against a Government Department is the comparative ease with which an industrial group is able to produce a balance sheet, bankruptcy being the ultimate result of inefficient management, whereas one is conscious of the difficulty of obtaining any reliable yardstick of efficiency in the case of a Government Department.
  I should like to see—I know that this view is shared by other members of the Committee of Public Accounts—a concentrated effort to evolve a system of yardsticks of efficiency inside Government Departments. This could be achieved by the greater use of mechanisa-
  1546
  tion and the mare extensive use of computers in Government Departments. The fact that the Committee of Public Accounts in general deals only with the accounts of those Departments with which the Auditor General's Department is not entirely satisfied tends to give an exaggerated impression of the inefficiency of the various Government Departments.
  In endeavouring to eliminate loopholes there is a danger of introducing a too-colossal checking machine. I have not infrequently wondered whether the cost of such checking is not out of proportion to the resultant saving. A difficulty in this connection is that neither the accounting officer nor indeed the Committee of Public Accounts is in a position to take a calculated risk, a risk which an employer even in a public company can reasonably take.
  In my studies in this connection I have come across a publication produced by a very well known and efficient company in this country—Marks and Spencer. I have no direct connection with Marks and Spencer, except that I understood from my wife this morning that she has a few shares in the company. This is an extremely interesting document, entitled "Publicity relating to the simplification of paper work". The Organisation and Methods Division of the Treasury has made some reference to this publication in one of its bulletins. I want to tell the House what that body has said about the whole documentation, which is simply a process by which the chairman of Marks and Spencer went round and asked, "Is this checking really necessary? Have we created a machine over the years which does not effectively work?".
  These are the words of the Organisation and Methods Division of the Treasury:
  "These are examples of a most refreshing approach to the problems of excessive paperwork. For the Civil Service, the question is perhaps whether our obligation to adhere to the accumulated edicts of the Public Accounts Committee or the Treasury Officer of Accounts, arising from the very tight control involved in their concept of public accountability, rules out the chance of a similar drive for simplicity and economy. Take, for example, the question of goods received notes. There must be hundreds of millions of goods received notes in the various Civil Service Departments. Does the existence of an established code of procedure mean that there is but slight prospect of getting rid of a goodly number of

  1547
  them? Do we have to conclude that the civil servant must have a piece of paper acknowledging the receipt of goods while others can be trusted to do without it?
  The results of the Marks and Spencer operation provide a great encouragement to the O. & M. officer, wherever he is. There is always a dividend to be obtained from the challenging approach (for example, on methods work) and, even if our Civil Service attitudes (and, let it be said, improved arrangements already achieved) may make an attack less immediately profitable than in the Marks and Spencer organisation, the attack should nevertheless be joined. We may yet for instance see the day when some bold spirit will cost the effect of some of the Civil Service traditional accounting practices and thus help to precipitate important changes."
  The chairman of an important company is in a position to take that bold and imaginative approach. My fear is that the complexity of the Government machine makes an approach of this sort almost impossible to justify. It is only on the Floor of the House that such a bold and imaginative approach can take place.
  On many occasions hon. Members on both sides of the House have been highly critical of mistakes which have been made. Opposition and Government back benchers have made hay when the searchlight of criticism has shone on mistakes. I often wonder whether the machinery set up does not cost, in some instances at any rate, more than the mistakes we set out to eliminate.
  There are very few occasions when the Committee of Public Accounts, or indeed the House, congratulates an accounting officer on his incentive in taking what in commerce would be a quite justifiable risk. The attitude of civil servants must therefore be, "We must play safe".
  A whole series of Public Accounts Committees has been critical of waste. Is it not possible that we are always on these occasions shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted and sealing the stable door with the seal of the Committee of Public Accounts, a seal which I think has great value? I do not in any way underestimate that seal, but what I do suggest to the House is that it might be advisable sometimes to pat accounting officers on the back rather than grab them by the shoulder as a policeman might. I think that this can be achieved only if we have a better
  1548
  costing system within the various Departments.
  I hold the view—I think that some of my colleagues on the Committee share it—that there are very many more instances where we could have comparative costs between Departments. There are occasions where we could have comparative costs between Departments and industry. Where that would not be possible, we might make comparisons with other countries. In my study of the subject, I have looked for yardsticks, for an efficient costing system.
  In all Departments I came up against the difficulty of assessing the cost of Parliamentary Questions. I wonder whether all hon. Members realise the cost of having quick Answers to Questions. I believe that we should save quite a bit of public expense if we were allowed to have two types of Question, one for immediate answer, the other—perhaps relating to more mundane matters—for answer within a fortnight. I suggest that an investigation of this possibility might show us a way of making a considerable saving.
  What I plead for this evening is that we should, so far as we can, adopt a changed attitude, the sort of attitude outlined in the Organisation and Methods document to which I have referred. I wish that we could encourage those civil servants who are prepared to take the initiative and, as a House, welcome what they do in that direction.
  5.46 p.m.
  Mr. Laurence Pavitt: The House will have appreciated the comments of the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) who has given us an impression of his first year of very hard service. It is always interesting to both sides of the House when someone who has tackled a new job in the service of the House comes later to tell us what he feels about it. The hon. Gentleman's comments, which ranged widely over the Reports, were most valuable, and we all appreciate the service which he has given during his year of office. Having browsed through sufficient of the 485 pages of the Reports, I know that the hon. Gentleman spent a considerable time during the past year in asking most pertinent questions.

  1549
  I differ from the hon. Gentleman on certain matters. I accept that, if we had greater mechanisation, if we used more computers, and so forth, this should lead to an overall saving in Government Departments, but I do not consider that it would reduce the work of the Public Accounts Committee because, inevitably, at the end of the day, we should still need the watch dogs, the human beings who would check what the machines had done.
  Mr. Costain: If I gave the impression that it would reduce the work of the Public Accounts Committee, I did not mean to do so. My suggestion was for cutting down costs in Government Departments.
  Mr. Pavitt: I fully understand that. It was precisely on that point that I was saying that, even if we were able to cut down the cost of work in Government Departments by greater mechanisation, we should still need an overall check at the end.
  I do not share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for Organisation and Methods. Those of us who serve on hospital management committees sometimes feel that the gentlemen of O. & M. spend a good deal of time, money and energy in suggesting methods of organisation which a little common sense on the part of our administrators has usually provided long before the O. & M. report is received.
  The hon. Gentleman's comment that we are inclined to lock the stable door after the horse has bolted is not relevant to the Third Report of the Public Accounts Committee which reveals that, as a result of previous Reports, there was a saving of £500,000 on drugs, and the whole process was initiated by the Public Accounts Committee's previous efforts in this respect.
  I wish to address myself primarily to the section of the Report which deals with drugs. I am glad that the previous pressure of the Committee and the way the Minister has responded to the suggested use of Section 46 has meant a saving on drugs, but I should be interested to know whether the Minister put up a fight about the ruling which was made that this could apply only to drugs in the hospital service. I understand that the patent law provides that
  1550
  supplies for the service of the Crown are the things which can be dealt with under that Section.
  The total drug bill has to be met ultimately by the taxpayer, whether the drugs are administered to the patient by hospitals or by the family doctor. If it is possible to save £500,000 on the limited amount dispensed through hospitals, is not the time ripe for the Public Accounts Committee and the Minister of Health to look at the matter again and consider whether it is possible to operate the bulk buying system, with subsequent negotiation about royalties, in respect of the great mass of drugs which are dispensed by the family doctor?
  My hon. Friend the Member far St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) did a service to the House in drawing attention to the other section of the Act, Section 41. There has been a good deal of talk about whether action will be possible in that connection, and I suggest that this is a subject for the Public Accounts Committee to take up in its future discussions arising out of the investigation which it makes from time to time into the cost of drugs.
  The hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Compton Carr) put a case for advertising. The approach of the Public Accounts Committee has been right in concentrating a good deal of attention on the cost of drugs in the National Health Service. The supply of drugs under the Health Service is different on two counts from any other kind of commercial activity. Sales promotion goes on to persuade doctors to prescribe things for which they do not have to pay. The money is found by the taxpayer. This is a unique sort of sales promotion. I imagine that any salesman would be delighted to be able to sell his goods in that way, persuading people to take articles for which they do not have to pay. On that ground, it is right for the Public Accounts Committee to direct attention to the cost of promotion as part of the total bill.
  Secondly, drugs supplied in this way are not ordinary marketable commodities. They are meant for the alleviation of sickness. Moral considerations enter into the matter. If a man is suffering pain, one should not try to make undue

  1551
  profits out of him. I am sure that that line of thought ran through a good deal of the questioning recorded in the Minutes we have before us.
  Can one justify 2,426 representatives calling on doctors? I know that general practitioners sometimes very much welcome the gentlemen who call. The purpose of their calls is supposed to be the giving of information. But, with 22,000 general practitioners on the medical lists, this means that there is more than one representative for every 100 general practitioners. Ls not this a substantial element in the total drug bill which the taxpayer has to meet?
  The plea that the representatives give information is quite correct. They do, each selling his own product. But is it not the responsibility of the Minister of Health to provide information? He accents it to an extent. He now publishes every two months the Pre-scriber's Journal which has taken the place of the previous Prescriber's Notes. But the Minister's publication does not really compete with the promotion carried on by the drug houses. They are able to use all the arts of persuasion, whereas one can only describe the Prescriber's Journal as extremely dull. It looks dull and its contents are very limited in approach.
  It would pay the Minister of Health, from the point of view of saving money on drugs, to produce a journal for prescribers which doctors would be anxious to have, which would present information in a form easily and quickly digested and give the kind of information which they really wanted. In this way, the Minister might well save an enormous amount of the cost of sales representation which goes on.
  When I attended an international conference of doctors last month, I got into conversation with three general practitioners, one with a large list in Leeds, one from Bristol and one from the wilds of Sheerness. We discussed the problem of sales promotion. They all agreed that, when it came to making out the E.C.10, what influenced the practitioner most was not the glossy literature coming through the letter-box in large quantities every day, not the calendars, the diaries or the give-away desk gimmicks but the representative with whom he had
  1552
  developed some kind of friendly relationship and whom he felt that he could trust. This may be heartening to people who like to feel that the human contact is more important than the printed word, but it does mean that not by the merits or scientific content of the commodities offered but by the personality of a very good salesman a doctor can be induced to prescribe quantities of drugs which may lead to excessive expenditure by the Ministry of Health.
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North reminded us that testing was an important matter, but he said that it was not really within the ambit of this debate. I think that he was referring primarily to clinical testing. I suggest that the Report of the Public Accounts Committee shows good reason why the Minister should pay more attention to quality testing. We are buying large quantities of drugs, and the amount of quality testing done is, I regret to say, totally inadequate.
  Recently, a very interesting report was published by an officer of the Birmingham local authority. As the House knows, there are two ways of finding out whether what is described on the label is up to standard. One method comes within the ambit of the Food and Drugs Acts which are the concern of the local authority. The other form of testing is done under the Ministry's own testing scheme. Noteworthy variations in the contents of capsules tested in Birmingham were revealed. In some cases, there was excess up to 24 per cent.; in others, there were deficiencies of as much as 45 per cent.
  If a patient is prescribed a medicine which is paid for at a standard price, it is reasonable to expect that a standard commodity will be given to him. If we are paying £69 million a year, it is only right that we should regard as significant the quality of what we are buying. Out of 125 tested samples of penicillin solution supplied by the proprietary companies, 38 proved to be deficient. This is what the Ministry is paying for, but the quality may or may not be up to standard. In barbiturate tablets the discrepancy between one firm and another supplying the National Health Service was extremely remarkable. Four firms were tested and in 83 samples not a single error could be found. Those were what the hon. Member for Barons Court would call the white

  1553
  sheep. There was 100 per cent. satisfaction that they were delivering the commodities ordered. With two other firms, however, out of 67 samples, no fewer than 42 had to be rejected for not having the quantity of drug supposed to be in them. A question which should be considered is whether the Service is paying for the right quantity.
  A further wide range of drugs was tested in Birmingham and out of 131 from one manufacturer there was not a single fault, but out of 208 from another manufacturer there were 70 faults. It seems that the case is made for the Ministry at least to tighten up its testing scheme. The testing scheme provides only that it must identify what is in the capsule, not whether the quantity is the precise amount which should be there.
  Two main streams of argument have gone through the debate arising out of the Committee's questions on drugs to excuse high profits. The first has been that of research and the second the need to export. Of £48 million exports of drugs the proprietary houses exported only £14 million, less than a third of the total. In the case of the National Health Service, the Minister is constantly being urged to reduce the number of proprietary drugs prescribed and by using the National Formulary reduce the costs. It would seem that the proportion of N.H.S. profits going to the proprietary medicine firms is greater than their share of drug exports warrants.

  ROYAL ASSENT
  6.0 p.m.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:
  The House went:—and, having returned:
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

  1. Tanganyika Republic Act, 1962.

  2. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow Order Confirmation Act, 1962.

  SUPPLY

    COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS (REPORTS)
    Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.
    6.12 p.m.
    Mr. Pavitt: I am grateful for the respite, because it has enabled my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) to inform me that, while my knowledge of the drug industry is not too bad, my arithmetic is shaky, because 2,400 representatives and 22,000 general practitioners means one in 10, not one in 100. That makes the case even more startling than the one I deployed.
    On the question of promotion it is true, as an hon. Member opposite said, that there is a code. I have it here. It is a code on sales promotion of medical specialities in the United Kingdom. It is commendable that the industry has produced a code of this kind. It is interesting to see that last year there were 959 decisions on advertising copy and 232 on labels, etc., making a total of 1,191 cases adjudicated under the code, but there is no teeth in it. There is no question of sanctions or any suggestion of action arising. It is put forward loosely and no one knows whether in fact the code is effective.
    On the voluntary price scheme, reorganised in January, 1961, I hope we shall hear in the winding-up speech whether it provides a criterion of prices which prevail abroad, whether it is the highest or the average price among a number of countries. I ask that because I am well aware that in certain circumstances where there are import licences in foreign countries the number of drugs going in may be extremely small and they may be in scarce supply. For this reason, there may be inflated prices, and a manufacturer may wish to use that as a means of making his voluntary price too high for the drug for the first three years after its inception.
    The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) said that one of the ways of getting prices down was competition. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North underlined that by Section 41 being used the Minister could

    1555
    consider if it is possible to have patented drugs manufactured under compulsory licences. If this were done, the Government could themselves go into competition with the drug houses. In view of the fact that we are such large consumers of the commodity, it might bring "a healthy breath of competition"—in the words of the hon. Member for Dover—if there were a drug house publicly owned and controlled and able to break some of the patents which at the moment make drugs so expensive, competing with private industry.
    I should like to endorse every word which was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central about the problems of chemists having to stock about 3,000 items of different kinds. This makes it almost imperative to substitute from time to time. It seems to me reasonable, in view of the cost which the public has to pay, that there should be some narrowing of this range. There are far too many variants which are only slight variations on basic commodities in which therapeutically no great difference emerges.
    I turn to two other points in the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee. I was concerned about the loss of £117,000 as a result of the way in which the Regulations on pay beds had been operated in teaching hospitals. The Regulations were issued in 1957, but it was not until the 1961 Report that we find that they have been inadequately understood and that, as a result, £117,000 has been lost to the taxpayer. It seems that there are two different rules, one of them for the teaching hospitals. I bow to no one in my respect for their work, and I say that particularly at this moment when my wife is recovering in one of them from a major operation, but it is time that we decided not to let the teaching hospitals have quite so much freedom with cash and thought a little more about the regional hospitals, which do such a vast amount of work and which should be raised to parity. I am not seeking to bring down the teaching hospitals but to raise the regional hospitals to provide the same type of service. In any case, there is no reason for losing £117,000 because of an inadequate understanding of Regulations put out five years ago.
    1556
    A comment has been made from a number of quarters on the stickiness of the drug manufacturers in negotiating. I hope that as a result of the Public Accounts Committee's Reports and this debate, the Minister of Health will start getting sticky and tough on these matters. Those hon. Members who lived through the heavy debates in 1961 know how tough the Minister of Health can be. We should like to see him using some of the same toughness in saving the taxpayer's money on the lines which the Public Accounts Committee has so thoroughly discussed and urged.
    6.18 p.m.
    Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: I had not wanted to follow hon. Members who have spoken about the section of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee—of which I am a member—which deals with drugs, and I wondered how I could make some reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) without an incursion into that subject. When he told us that his wife was in hospital, recovering from a major operation, I thought that at least I should sincerely—and, I am sure, on behalf of all hon. Members—wish her a speedy recovery.
    I want to welcome the fact that the Government have followed at least two of the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee in their current legislation. In our 1960–61 Report we investigated the effect of unduly low rents for local authority houses in Scotland upon the aggregate Exchequer Equalisation Grant. I remember standing here about a year ago and making a reference to that section of the Report. We recommended that housing deficits which were due to the charge of unduly low rents should be excluded from the calculations of Exchequer grants. I am sure that we were all glad to notice that the Government had decided to implement the sense of this recommendation in the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, which is at present before the House, their solution being to base the grant not upon actual rent but upon the gross annual value of local authority houses as assessed for rating purposes, less a percentage deduction.

    1557
    The other respect in which the Government are at present implementing one of the Committee's recommendations—this time one of our current recommendations—is in relation to the abuse of the lime subsidy. The agricultural lime scheme provides that 65 per cent. of the cost of acquiring, carrying and spreading lime on farmland in order to improve the fertility of the soil should be reclaimed from the Government. There have been a number of cases of fraud arising from this scheme, very often involving collaboration between farmers and merchants. These include inflated weights and the delivery of substances which were not lime—in some cases gravel, in another case coal. In one case in Yorkshire, which was before the courts when the Public Accounts Committee discussed the matter, it was even alleged that whisky, cigars and gin had been supplied by merchants instead of lime.
    In paragraph 74 the Committee expressed the strong hope that
    "a vigorous and comprehensive procedure for verification of claims will be introduced at an early stage."
    The Government acted very quickly upon that. Section 5 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which is before the House, gives power for the registration of merchants and the inspection of books. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture said on Second Reading,
    "This arises directly out of an examination carried out by the Public Accounts Committee some while ago…"—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1962; Vol. 667, c. 1239.]
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot), to whom so many hon. Members have rightly paid tribute for the quality and comprehensiveness of the speech with which he opened the debate, called attention to the wide scope of the work of the Public Accounts Committee. I have picked out for remark a few matters of comparatively minor importance, not so far referred to in debate, as an indication that the Committee are not concerned merely with the major matters. We do not have regard only, for example, to the fact that the estimated cost of the Blue Streak missile increased from £12·5 million to an eventual £60 million or even, as might be inferred from the number of hon. Members who have referred to it this afternoon, to the drug section of the
    1558
    Report. The Committee is always conscious of the fact, as we say in Scotland, that
    "Ilka mickle mak's a muckle"
    which I may interpret for the benefit of the uninitiated, "Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves."
    There was the story of the losses on an experimental farm. In 1947 or 1948—I forget which—the Ministry of Agriculture thought that it would be a good idea to conduct a large-scale experiment in mechanised farming in Anglesey and, having no funds themselves for this purpose, the Ministry succeeded in 'selling the idea to the Development Commission which, in turn, persuaded the Commission to authorise a grant of £113,700 from the Development Fund for the purchase at a premium of £11,000 of a 99-year lease of an estate of 1,200 acres at a rental of 20s. per acre per annum.
    A company was formed to equip and farm the land, and it commenced its farming operations in May, 1951. Nine years later the losses had amounted to £54,000, excluding any provision for interest on capital, and the amount outstanding, including the initial capital cost and subsequent advances, was in excess of £200,000. It is true that a profit was made in 1961, before charging interest on the capital debt of £200,000, but after ten years the experiment has been recognised officially, after investigation by independent experts, to be a failure, the independent experts having drawn attention to the extravagant use of labour, excessive administrative expenses and over-capitalisation.
    But haw to bring this unhappy experiment to an end? That is the question. It would be possible to sell back the equipment and the stock, but there would still remain the question of the disposal of the lease, for which so large a premium was paid. To further certain experiments which it was intended to carry out, buildings had been erected on the land of a character and to a scope which would have been far greater than would be required for normal farming operations, and the Committee were advised that there was very little hope of avoiding a substantial loss on the transaction. It seemed to the Committee that it might be better for the company to continue to farm the land on orthodox,

    1559
    as opposed to experimental, lines, with a view to reducing the losses, but the Ministry and the Development Commission have both decided that the time has came to cut the loss and to sell.
    I mention this because to my mind the significance lies in the fact that the Ministry of Agriculture, who wanted to push the idea of an experimental farming project, were not only able to convince the Development Commission that the idea was good but were called upon by the Treasury to advise the commissioners whether it would be wise to sanction the advance. The Treasury witness told us in answer to Question No. 4720,
    "This is a rather antiquated piece of machinery."
    This case has revealed the need for the Government to look carefully at both the statutory relationships between the Development Commission and the Treasury and the procedure by which the Ministry of Agriculture can virtually instigate a project of this kind, and then wash its hands of its administration.
    From the Ministry of Agriculture I want to turn briefly to the allocation of catering contracts at certain Army establishments. In 1958 or 1959, the War Office decided to initiate an experiment in letting contracts for messing under an arrangement by which the caterers would take over the cookhouses, the ration stores, messes, and so on, and would themselves provide the food and the staff. For its part, the War Office would provide the fuel, the light and the accommodation.
    The War Office invited competitive tenders on a daily per capita basis and, as a result, it let a tender at the Command Ordnance Depot at Didcot to a civilian caterer, and a similar contract at the Command Ordnance Depot, Donnington, to the N.A.A.F.I., on the basis of a provisional price to be adjusted in the light of the actual cost. As a result of the experiment, the Army Council decided that contract catering should be adopted as the normal practice in certain suitable static establishments in the United Kingdom, and two further contracts were placed by competitive tender with commercial firms, and two without competition with the N.A.A.F.I. In the event, the N.A.A.F.I. prices, in
    1560
    which no allowance was made for commercial profits, were appreciably higher than those of the commercial firms.
    The practice of allocating half the contracts by tender to commercial firms, and half without tender to the N.A.A.F.I. was followed until 1960, when it became clear that the N.A.A.F.I. was consistently more expensive than the commercial firms. The War Office appears to be anxious—understandably so, I think—that the N.A.A.F.I. should retain a share of the contract catering trade in order to gain experience of it, and it wants to see more contracts allotted to the N.A.A.F.I. in order to give continued experience in this type of business.
    In questions to a witness from the War Office, I ventured to suggest a way in which this might be done without loss to Army funds. As I hope that this matter may be pursued, perhaps I may be forgiven if I repeat the questions I asked—they are not very long—and the answers I received. I asked, in Questions Nos. 3475 and 3476:
    "Where you have contracts on an ascertained cost basis, as you have with N.A.A.F.I., what incentive is there to economy?—Only the incentive of good management and this is one of the problems in this field. That is the only incentive. There is no external incentive in that their costs are being met. Of course, in this case the fact that their costs have worked out so high has forced us to adopt a different policy from the one we had originally conceived. It has lost them business.
    3476. No one has ever tried to work out a scheme under which, for example, if you can save 3d. a day on the contract price for messing, 1d. of that 3d. would go back to Army funds, 1d. to the troops in the way of better meals and 1d. to the contractor?—No, I cannot say that we have tried to devise a scheme like that."
    I still hope that an attempt on those lines may be made.
    Before leaving the Army and N.A.A.F.I., I want to mention our investigations into the question of the Winter-berg leave centre in Germany, managed by N.A.A.F.I., which has been running at a loss, which, in 1960–61, amounted to £65,000—representing a subvention of about 28s. per visitor per day.
    When, in 1955, the Treasury had approved the arrangements for overseas leave centres, it had stipulated that if any particular centre seemed to be uneconomic, consideration should be given to returning it to Army control, and to

    1561
    closing it down. This had not happened in this case, and the Committee found that only 6·6 per cent. of Service and civilian families in Germany were using the Winterberg centre, of which by far the greatest users were officers and their families, who outnumbered the other ranks and their families visiting that centre by nearly two to one.
    In the light of these and other figures which it elicited, the Public Accounts Committee recommended that the War Office's intention to continue the centre in operation till April, 1964 should be reconsidered, and I have been glad to see from the Treasury Minute that, on our recommendation and that of the Treasury, supporting it, the War Office has decided to close this leave centre as soon as possible.
    I pass over the astonishing story of the plaster that would not stick on the ceiling of a barrack block in, I think, Wiltshire, resulting in an additional payment of £122,500 by the War Office, since I want, in conclusion, to refer to the fees of consulting architects, engineers and quantity surveyors employed by regional boards on hospital contracts. In some cases, regional boards—which, in connection with the erection of new hospitals are able to place very substantial contracts, indeed—have negotiated a reduction in fees with the professional advisers, but both the Ministry of Health and the Department of Health for Scotland regard it as preferable—and in this I think that they are right—that negotiations should be conducted at the national level with the professional associations concerned rather than that local arrangements should be made.
    The intention was, and the Committee recognised this, to try to find scales that would, on the one hand, make due allowance for repetitive work, and, on the other, provide for a tapering-off of fees on very large schemes—which is already provided for, I am told, in the case of quantity surveyors. This suggestion was welcomed by the Committee, and the Treasury Minute informs us that negotiations on fees are continuing. Though the Public Accounts Committee did not take cognisance of this fact, similar negotiations are going on with the officials of the Ministry of Public Building and Works and the Service Departments at
    1562
    what might be called chief quantity surveyor level.
    No one wants to see the professional men, whose services are in great demand in private practice, as they are in the public service, browbeaten into accepting a scale of fees which is not remunerative and at which the best men will not be attracted to the professions concerned. There is a real need for agreement by all branches of government who are concerned in letting large building contracts, about the scale of fees they are justified in paying to outside practitioners, and I trust that agreement on all these matters, in which the ball is at present in the Government's court, may not long be delayed.
    6.40 p.m.
    Mr. James Boyden: If the plaster contractors did not succeed in getting the plaster to stick to the roof of the barracks, I am sure that the Public Accounts Committee has succeeded in getting its criticisms to stick on the administration of all public Departments, and as a student for 30 years—at a very respectful distance—of the Committee, I should like to pay tribute to its efficiency and zeal. I regard its contribution to public administration as of the highest order, and I compliment my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot), and of course my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Sir G. Benson) who I think was probably on the Committee when I first began to study its Report, on the work they have done.
    I want to follow the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) in reference to professional fees. I think that the Committee has uncovered a good deal of remissness in the Ministry of Health and, for that matter, in other Government Departments. I should have thought that it was as much in the interests of the architects, quantity surveyors, and civil engineers, to have reasonable fees for their work as it was in the public interest that these should not be excessive, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman when he hopes that all public departments will look into this and speedily get agreement with professional bodies.
    I think that the Ministry of Health is particularly to blame. I think the very fact that architects and engineers could,

    1563
    as it were, have held the Department up to ransom should have put the Department on its guard and made it start negotiations a considerable time ago. To a considerable extent the pay pause of the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) has been responsible for a lot of inefficiency in the professional services of the hospital boards, not because of any lack of zeal or intelligence on the part of the board's officials, but because the boards have not been able to secure enough staff in their own offices and have had to put out to private architects and private civil engineers probably more than they would have wished to do.
    I remember from my hospital board experience the days when salary negotiations in the public sector dragged on month after month and when the hospital boards wore losing architects and civil engineers and having great difficulty in filling vacancies. This reveals a considerable lack of planning and interest in the long-term building programmes of the hospitals. One can also point to the Government's lack of appreciation of the need for more professional people being trained in the universities and in colleges of advanced technology, and I think that the Ministry of Health particularly must carry a heavy responsibility for bad administration of those architects it had, that is, bad co-ordination between private architects and architects and engineers in the Department, and for an insufficient appreciation of the problem of long-term hospital planning.
    A recent publication by The Builder draws attention to the lack of sufficient architects with knowledge and experience of hospital design. My hospital board in Newcastle has done a certain amount in this respect. It has run courses and held exhibitions in hospital design, but I am sure that throughout the country as a whole there is no question but that there is a shortage of architects and engineers familiar with the complicated needs of hospitals, and not enough is being done to see that those needs are being met.
    I leave that and turn to an item which seems to merit considerable attention, namely, the purchase of the general anæsthetic fluothane about which the Committee made some very strong recommendations on page xxx. The Report reveals that one regional hospital
    1564
    board which was taking a considerable quantity of this anæsthetic tried to get a reduction in price from the monopoly manufacturers, I.C.I., and failed. But apparently the Ministry of Health knew nothing about the attempt to get a reduction in price, nor did it come to the notice of officials aft the Ministry until June, 1961.
    This anæsthetic has been used in the hospital service in increasing quantities since 1957. In 1958 £146,000 worth was bought. In 1959 the figure rose to £335,000. In 1960 it reached over half a million pounds. In 1961 it approached three quarters of a million pounds, and it appears that the total expenditure this year will be more than that. It seems extraordinary that, although this item was being extensively used in the hospital service, no attempt had been made to negotiate a reasonable contract price with a monopoly, and well over £1,000,000 worth had been bought before the Ministry of Health took action.
    When the Ministry began negotiations for a central contract incorporating a costing clause, it ran into difficulties with I.C.I. which refused, and as far as I know still refuses, to disclose its books and to agree to negotiate on the same basis as that adopted by other drug firms. Although the Ministry of Health, thanks to the prodding of the Public Accounts Committee, has secured a fairly substantial reduction in the cost, this reduction can be only a guess, because when the Chairman of the Committee questioned an official of the Ministry about this, the reply he received was:
    "One has to take a view on this, Sir. We have not, of course, done so thorough an investigation of the I.C.I. costs as we have of some of the other cases. We have, on the other hand, secured a substantial reduction in price, and, as I say, we have also secured the promise of a further one to come. We consider that is about the best we can do for the moment."
    It seems to me that if I.C.I. in 1959, or indeed in 1958, could sell 33,000 litre bottles at £10 a bottle, it could, in 1961, by the sale of 70,000 bottles, have given the Health Service a greater reduction than it did and is doing.
    This matter is still under discussion. We heard from my hon. Friend the

    1565
    Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) that there is no question of retrospection. I.C.I. is therefore almost certainly going to make a larger profit than the public interest demands, and I hope that when the Financial Secretary winds up the debate he will answer these points.
    Have compulsory powers been taken to investigate the books of I.C.I. in relation to fluothane, and has this investigation revealed what sort of profits I.C.I. has been making in the past? Alternatively, is I.C.I. now agreeable to the costings clause being inserted in its contract for the supply of this anaesthetic? What other similar commodities are there in the hospital service? It seems to me that when the Public Accounts Committee probed this matter other items supplied on a fairly substantial basis might not have been investigated.
    Finally, is it possible to introduce an element of competition, presumably not in England, but by importing quantities of this commodity from abroad? I understand that Halothane is manufactured in Frankfurt. It may be that Fluothane is a subsidiary of Halothane. [Interruption.] I understand that they are one and the same thing. Whatever the situation is, cannot a foreign tender be invited in order to bring about competition in tendering?
    This situation is unsatisfactory, and it comes ill from a firm like I.C.I., which always sets out to be a leader in good public relations and has good factory conditions, that it should be so tough over a matter concerning the public interest. I beg the Treasury to look into this very carefully and to see if it can bring about a situation which will satisfy the Public Accounts Committee and the public.
    6.42 p.m.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I join those who have thanked the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) for the admirable way in which he opened the debate and the very fair, courageous and appropriate speech which he made for this special kind of debate. This is an unusual occasion because the two parties are not ranged against one another. The debate was opened by one back bencher and will in effect be closed by another. The purpose of it is to sup-
    1566
    port the great work which the Public Accounts Committee does.
    Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden), I have not been a long student of the Public Accounts Committee, to my regret, and I must admit, with some shame, that until this debate I had never really read its Report and had not appreciated how much we owe to the 15 hon. Members who, on our behalf, work so devotedly and selflessly on it, almost always reaching unanimous decisions. On this occasion, the Committee had no less than 29 meetings and asked 4,818 questions. It probed things large and small, as the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) said.
    I have been much impressed by the clear evidence that the Committee's work has a great effect on the action, efficiency and economy of Departments of State. In this day and age, it is impossible for Parliament as a whole to carry out properly its traditional, age-old and honourable work of watching the public purse. It has to be done on our behalf by the hon. Members who form this Committee, and I am sure that all of us, regardless of party, are extremely grateful to them for what they have done.
    We have discussed various matters, some of them small, as is proper. Some of the things which attracted my attention when reading the Reports for the first time and many of the questions asked are very illuminating because they are not referred back to in the Reports. They are referred to only if they disclose something to which attention should be drawn. Things like the plaster which did not stick, and the bankrupt butcher, I found fascinating as a real example of the way in which we keep an eye on how Ministers spend our money.
    When it came to the big things, most hon. Members today spoke about drug prices. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) made a quiet but trenchantly argued speech which was, I thought, devastating in its logic. It was backed up and broadened by speeches from other of my hon. Friends, including the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) and Bishop Auckland.

    1567
    I want to turn to what I regard as an equally important issue, which has been hardly mentioned at all, except by the hon. Member for Dover, and I agreed with everything that he said about it. I refer to certain aspects of the activities of the Ministry of Aviation. It is clear, and fair to say, that the Ministry of Aviation comes out worst of all the Departments of State which came under the scrutiny of this year's Public Accounts Committee. It has shown itself to be defective in the control of expenditure over a fairly wide and worrying range of things. A number of defects were shown.
    It is clear—and I am sorry that the Treasury Minute did not fully support this, although it went a long way towards doing so—that it is important to have better checks on sub-contractors. We cannot rely solely on the main contractor because, as the Committee says, his interests are not sufficiently engaged to secure what the Ministry hoped would result from its method. The Treasury Minute supports the Public Accounts Committee in this, and I am pleased about that.
    It is desirable to put some time factor into these contracts and to attach a penalty to them. This is extremely important, and I am sorry that the Treasury Minute does not altogether go along with the Committee on it. I trust that next year and, if necessary, the year after the Committee will concentrate on this, because it is important.
    Blue Steel is largely past history. I understand that it is in delivery to the Royal Air Force. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary can tell us what the development cost was by the time it came into operation. I know that we are not allowed to know the production cost after it has become an operative weapon, but did the development cost go above the £60 million to which it had risen after the first estimate of only £12½ million?
    My main interest is in the wireless set about which the hon. Member for Dover spoke. This Report is the most blistering indictment of a Department that I have ever read in an official and serious Report—I do not mean in the Daily Mirror, something like that. The facts of this matter are extraordinary. Eight firms
    1568
    were asked to put in tenders. The contract was awarded, as the Report says in paragraph 63, to the firm which quoted the highest price for development and the second highest overall price.
    This was firm A, which is generally understood to be Plessey; it is now, I think, an open secret. Later, and after the other firms' tenders had been rejected, the price was reduced by 20 per cent., after the others were out of the field. Even then the Plessey price was considerably higher than that contained in several of the other tenders. Plessey also gave a later delivery date than any of its competitors.
    I have formed the overwhelming impression, from reading the Report very carefully, that the Ministry was determined to award this contract to Plessey. I do not say that this is true, but the impressions which fair-minded men get are very important, almost as important as the intent. The impression was that there was a determination from very early on, if not from the beginning, to award this contract to Plessey.
    The evidence for that is that the Ministry went on previous experience which was not, so to speak, borne on the face of the tenders—previous experience of the firms which they asked to tender and which was, in the end, largely used to rule out five of the six firms which were asked to tender. It therefore went on considerations extraneous to the contracts and also on the technical appreciations of each firm although it did not make it mandatory on the firms to include a technical appreciation when they tendered.
    Finally, the main factor in the decision was the Ministry's own decision about how long it would take each firm to make the weapon. It did not make it mandatory on them to produce proper evidence of that. This was so extraordinary that the hon. Member for Dover, in Question No. 2962, felt himself compelled to go as far as to ask:
    "In view of the nation-famous and, indeed, world-famous names of the firms concerned"—
    that is, the firms which lost the contract—
    "are you completely satisfied in your own mind that no question of dishonesty has taken place in the awarding of this contract?"
    In fact, no allegation of dishonesty is made, or was intended to be made, by

    1569
    the hon. Gentleman, but the fact that he was so amazed by what had happened that he had even to consider this possible explanation shows how extraordinary was this procedure. I would say that, looking at the facts, one has a choice either of saying that there was dishonesty at work, or that there was very grave incompetence. The Public Accounts Committee comes down, of course, in favour of the second explanation, that there was very grave incompetence. It uses extremely strong language. In paragraph 67, the Report flatly says that the Minister used "faulty procedure". This is very strong language to use. In paragraph 69, it states:
    "…in this case competitive tendering proved to be a farce."
    These are words not lightly used in public documents.
    The Report raises directly one question which has much concerned me and other hon. Members lately. It throws some light upon and raises certain aspects of the question of how far civil Servants, if not Ministers, in Departments like the Ministry of Aviation ought to go into private industry before the lapse of a certain period after they leave their official employment.
    The reason I say this is that the Ministry of Aviation, in evidence and in the answers which it gave to certain questions, and the Treasury Minute, assumed—and I think, so does the Public Accounts Committee—that a wide element of discretion must be allowed in the Ministries concerned—in this case the Ministry of Civil Aviation—in awarding contracts. For example, especially with complicated developments like wireless sets and new weapons, one cannot reduce the thing solely to price, and, therefore, there must be a wide element of discretion in the awarding of the final very profitable contract. If this is so, and I think that it is inescapably so, it is absolutely essential that complete impartiality shall be seen to have been observed all through this by those who make public decisions on our behalf and are answerable to us.
    This appearance of impartiality, as well as the reality of impartiality, must not be retrospectively impugned by the action of those who, on our behalf and under our control, take these decisions.
    1570
    If people who have to take, or share in taking, these decisions, which bring great rewards to some companies and deprive others of those rewards, are seen publicly to be taking immediately after they leave their public office positions of trust, importance and responsibility in one or other of these companies, this must throw some doubt on the appearance of the impartiality of those people. That is the first reason. The Reports show that that is now an inescapable conclusion, because the factor of discretion is built into our present method of placing orders for developing weapons and unknown things of which there has been no previous experience.
    Even more important, as the Report of the Public Accounts Committee makes absolutely clear, is that Departments of State, like the one that we are discussing, must acquire an intimate knowledge of many firms and their inside working. This is the only way in which one can make the whole contract system work. For instance, Question No. 2758, put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huron (Mr. H. Wilson), asked about the facilities that could be demanded of firms to make sure that their costing was right and all that sort of thing.
    The answer which, I think, is proper and night, but which leads to grave conclusions, was that these facilities
    "…include the access to the works of those who enter into contracts, the opportunity to inspect the books of the firms with which we have entered into contracts, our own accountants, technical costs officers and the like, following up these opportunities. In the case of the larger contracts we are establishing our own technical staff in the works to keep oversight over the project."
    That seems to be necessary. I do not see how one can check costs and all the rest of it without doing that, but if one does that it means that officials get a knowledge of firms and their inner working Which would be of the greatest possible benefit to their competitors. Then, if, having got the knowledge of a number of these firms, they serve in one of them immediately after leaving office, this carries with it an improper knowledge of the competitors of that firm which they have acquired only because they were public servants. This seems to me an extremely important factor in terms of fair competition between firm

    1571
    and firm. Leaving alone the public aspect of this matter, this seems to me to be wrong. This goes over and above any advantage which a firm might get because someone it employed knew what the future plans of the Department over a year or two would be.
    Looking at all these things, I think that one of the conclusions we have to draw from the Report is this. Just because relations between Government and industry are now growing more and more intimate—they must grow more and more intimate, as we have seen, one cannot get the cost accounting and all the rest unless there is interpenetration between representatives of the Government, the Civil Service and business—it is more important than it has ever been before to draw the line clearly where we stop the people who have acquired this sort of knowledge as agents on behalf of the State exercising what are naturally the rights of other people, namely, to go wherever they like in private employment.
    This raises very grave matters and I think that this Report furnishes evidence enough by itself, without further considerations, of the need for a very thorough inquiry—maybe by a Joint Select Committee, I do not know—into the whole difficult problem of what kind of civil employment it is proper for Ministers, for high civil servants and for Service officers acting in Departments of State like civil servants, to take up and after what interval. I do not think that we can leave this where it now is.
    One thing that struck me in reading this very valuable Report is that the Public Accounts Committee naturally addresses itself to accounting officers. As the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) pointed out, accounting officers are curious creatures. They have two hats. Under one they are responsible to the Public Accounts Committee, and under the other are responsible to Ministers and, therefore, directly to us. This is a very important thing. We must never forget, as one tends to in reading this Report, because it is all in terms of Civil Service officials answering questions, that behind all this lies ministerial responsibility.
    When the Public Accounts Committee passes very strong remarks on a Department and we endorse it, in effect, by
    1572
    taking note of this Report, we—and we must never forget this—are passing judgment on what may be a set of Ministers over a period who are responsible for all the things that happen in their Departments, and particularly the big things—faulty procedures and systems that reduce the purpose of the system to a farce. Ministers themselves are responsible for things of that kind.
    I should like to finish as I began, by saying that these are extremely valuable Reports. I know that I speak for hon. Members on both sides of the House when I say how grateful we are to the Committee and to its Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), for the extraordinarily good work that they do year by year, and the extraordinarily good work they have done in this particular year in the Reports which are now before us.
    7.10 p.m.
    Sir George Benson: Two questions have been asked in the debate to which I think I can give the answer. The first is the question of the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General. His is a Crown appointment. It is an appointment by Royal Warrant and he is dismissable only by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. The idea of this limitation on his dismissal is to make sure that he is entirely independent of everybody but Parliament.
    I have been a member of the Public Accounts Committee for over thirty years and I have seen some remarkable changes. When I first became a member our Parliamentary expenditure was about £800 million a year and it was repetitive. Year after year the same amounts were spent on the same things by the same Departments. Our whole activity as a Public Accounts Committee was to improve little technical points of accountancy and procedure.
    In 1930–31, my first year on the Committee, the Report ran to 21 sections and it was critical of four Departments. Last year our expenditure had jumped from £800 million to over £6,000 million, with large swings in expenditure, and instead of 24 sections of criticism we had 182. We were far more critical in our attitude to the Departments last year than we were when I first became

    1573
    a member. We were concerned not so much with technical points as with the much more important matter of how efficient was the administration of the Departments.
    I am glad to say that for many years the Public Accounts Committee has issued unanimous Reports. That means that the Opposition offered valid and serious criticism and the Government members of the Committee were not prepared to condone mistakes by their own Government. I admit that on occasions unanimity has been rather difficult to obtain. I remember one occasion when I was Chairman when I sat up until after midnight wrestling with two members of the Conservative Party who wanted to slam their own Government more severely that I thought necessary. The two hon. Members are sitting opposite now.
    I think that that is a good example of the really objective approach which the Public Accounts Committee has developed over many years. This unanimity—and we are a unanimous Committee—has been helped very largely by the stability of the membership of the Committee. The average service of the six senior members is fourteen years each, which is very good. During those fourteen years we have learned to work together as a team.
    Last year, during our debate, the then hon. Member for Dorset, South remarked that Civil Estimates were a good deal higher than they were some years ago. That is perfectly true, but that is not something that can be put at the door of the Public Accounts Committee. The people who decide the height of the Civil Estimates are the Members of the House of Commons as a whole and not the Public Accounts Committee. It was a misconceived criticism.
    Moreover, it is not the function of the Public Accounts Committee to curtail expenditure. Let that be fully understood. The curtailment and limitation of expenditure rests with the House of Commons. What we on the Committee are concerned with is to see that it is spent in accordance with the instructions of the House of Commons. Our activities are always a post-mortem on the expenditure of the previous year. We have two duties to fulfil. The first is to see brat expenditure is strictly in
    1574
    accordance with the intention of Parliament. The second is to inquire whether it has been efficient and economical.
    Last year an hon. Member whom I will not name said that our Report was "a sorry record of human error, failure and mismanagement over a large field". Of course it was. That is what we are there for. We have a Comptroller and Auditor General who has a staff of 500 accountants working steadily throughout the year inside the Departments, reading their correspondence, poking their noses into every conceivable file, solely for the purpose of finding out, first, whether the expenditure has been as agreed by Parliament, and, secondly, whether it has been managed efficiently.
    When we look at the Report which they succeed in producing and realise what a small fraction of the £6,000 million comes under their criticism, I think that it will be agreed that we have a very fine account of the efficiency of our Departments. Where a Department is not criticised, that does not mean that it has been neglected. It means that there is nothing to criticise, and the great majority of our Departments are not criticised. Looking back over the many years I have been a member of the Committee, I still find my admiration for the integrity, the efficiency and the ability of our civil servants growing year by year.
    7.19 p.m.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): As my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) reminded the House in his opening speech, this is now the third annual occasion on which we have discussed the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee, under the arrangements made by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State for giving the House more opportunities for debating the control of public expenditure.
    First, I should like to congratulate the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) on becoming once again Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I understood that he had another engagement this evening to which he had to go, but in view of the way the debate has gone I am delighted to see that, after all, he has been able to be with us.
    Mr. H. Wilson: The engagement was cancelled because of the weather.
    Mr. Barber: No doubt to some extent because of the weather we shall all be going home a little earlier this evening.
    There are not many occasions on which an Amendment can be moved with equal appropriateness either by an hon. Member from the Opposition or by one of my hon. Friends. I was glad that on this occasion it fell to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) to carry out this duty. It is a just recognition of his own conscientious contribution to the work of the Committee. In due course I shall be referring to some of the matters that he raised, but first I want to say that I agree with a great deal of what he has said, especially about the relationship between the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury.
    In carrying out its task the Committee has always adopted a dispassionate and bi-partisan approach, and it is this aspect, perhaps more than anything else, which gives the Committee and its Reports authority and weight. I am glad that, notwithstanding some fairly pungent comments—some of which I shall shortly refer, to—the debate has been thoughtful and constructive. There was one exception, to which I shall also refer.
    The way in which these debates are conducted is important for two reasons. First, a party political approach is quite incompatible with the way in which the Public Accounts Committee carries out its work. It concentrates on the Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General. By lengthy and painstaking examination, some of which has been referred to this afternoon—the examination of accounting, officers and departments, not forgetting the Treasury—the Committee seeks the truth as it sees it.
    The second reason is that one of the main objectives of the Committee nowadays is to pursue value for money—and that is not a party matter. No doubt there may be differences of opinion between the two sides of the House as to the optimum pattern of public spending, but we are all agreed that what we want to do is to get value for money. Nowadays it is trite to talk about the enormous range and cost of public activities, but what is perhaps not so keenly appreciated
    1576
    is that the running of a large Government Department poses many of the problems, often in acute form, which beset other large organisations, whether private enterprise or public enterprise. The acid test of the private sector—the ability to make a profit and to stay in business—is absent, and it is right that we should therefore take special care and take every precaution to ensure that we get value for money in the public sector.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Something which the hon. Gentleman said might be capable of misunderstanding. I am sure that he did not mean to say it. He said that the Committee mainly addresses itself to the Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I hope that he will not leave out of account the many occasions in which the initiative is taken by the Committee itself, and when the Comptroller and Auditor General, usually at the request of the Committee, does some further investigation. This afternoon the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) made it quite clear that apart from those occasions where the Comptroller and Auditor General's Reports form the basis of investigations, many quite important investigations are carried out on the initiative of the Committee, and not least in connection with accounts in respect of which there has been no Vote of the House. I am sure that the hon. Member does not want the point to be misunderstood.
    Mr. Barber: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I certainly did not mean to imply that. I recognise that in many cases the initiative comes from the Committee itself.
    I was saying that because of the absence of the profit motive in the public sector we have to take special care to replace it by other tests of performance. We have to try to ensure that the dispatch of public business, day by day, is as streamlined and efficient as that of a successful commercial enterprise. This must be achieved with full Parliamentary accountability.
    I am talking about management. Management is not a very precise concept, but its meaning is well understood. Apart from decisions of policy, it covers pretty well everything in the running of a Government Department, and there are financial implications, direct or indirect,

    1577
    in most decisions of management. We all want to secure the greatest efficiency in the running of the Government's business. Indeed, the recent reorganisation in the Treasury was directed to this end.
    The Public Accounts Committee, together with the Estimates Committee, is the Parliamentary instrument for the same purpose. There can be no doubt that the Plowden Group was right in taking the view that external criticism of the kind that we have been discussing today is an essential spur to improvement. In this connection, I was interested to see the recent Report of the Canadian Royal Commission on Government Organisation. The Commissioners carried out a most detailed and exhaustive investigation into the organisation and methods of Canadian Government Departments, and made many recommendations about management which are very closely in line with our own thinking.
    They, too, want to see more delegation of responsibility. As the House knows, this is precisely our own view. Incidentally, they were struck, too, with the great variety of public service occupation. After giving a number of striking illustrations of the extent of public services in Canada they said:
    "An element of mystery is created by the list of such intriguing occupations as insect sampling and rearing aides, negative operators, receivers of wrecks, scope watchers, and strippers and layouters."
    We have our list of intriguing occupations. For instance, there is the Experimental Baker at the War Office, the Assistant for Drums at the Queen Victoria School, an animal technician, a deer stalker, and a bees officer (seasonal). I am not sure what our friends abroad would make of these occupations, although I heard the other day that my right hon. Friend who leads the United Kingdom delegation in the Brussels negotiations is known affectionately by the other representatives of the Six as "Le Lord du Sceau Privé".
    The formal terms of reference of the Public Accounts Committee—
    "to examine such of the accounts laid before the House as it sees fit, and to report on them to the House"
    may seem rather narrow and technical. But it is clear from the Reports that they enable the Committee to delve deeply into all aspects of Departmental financial management and control. They may ex-
    1578
    amine certain projects involving the spending of many millions of pounds, or look at Departmental practices in a quite general way, as, for example, when they consider the calculation and charging of overhead costs, or the presentation, in the form of commercial accounts, of a Department's trading policies and results.
    But accounts are not ends in themselves. They seem to me to serve three distinct purposes. First, they provide information to Parliament and the public. Secondly, they help to ensure financial propriety. Thirdly, they are important aids to management. The Public Accounts Committee takes an interest in all three of these aspects; indeed, the Report now before the House, which we have been considering, contains examples of all three. There are, first, the recommendations, many of which have been accepted—one hon. Member said that he thought that of these Reports more of the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee had been accepted than ever before—about the presentation of the financial results of the Atomic Energy Authority's various activities. As the Reports and the comments in the Treasury Minute show, the form of the accounts is intimately bound up with the nature of the different functions and the way in which different kinds of expenditure are recovered.
    Secondly, there are matters of "propriety". What is usually in question here is whether Departments have spent their grants in accordance with Parliamentary authority, in specific legislation or in the Estimates. Here again, the Committee has brought to light one or two cases in which, through inadvertence rather than disregard of the constitutional proprieties, mistakes have undoubtedly been made. The recovery arrangements for the loans to claimants to Egyptian compensation money, and the Herring Board grants, are two examples.
    It is fair to say that these questions of propriety formerly occupied most of the Committee's time and attention, but it is now primarily on financial management that the Committee concentrates, and I am sure that this is right. However, it has one effect which strikes me as being a little unfortunate. Some of the investigations of the Committee are based on the Reports of the Comptroller

    1579
    and Auditor-General, and also on the various appropriation and other accounts. These Reports, notwithstanding the delightfully dispassionate and lucid terms in which they are written, naturally carry certain critical implications, which are clear enough to the discerning reader and may attract some publicity. The Committee examines, and later on publishes its own Report, which, as I think we can see from reading it, is likely to contain criticisms which are rather more explicit.
    It is not until the third stage, in which the Treasury Minute is issued, that there is any opportunity of reply by Departments and the Treasury, so that the Executive suffers, as it were, two well-intentioned assaults before it has a chance to reply. I do not think that there is any easy way out of this; nor do I want to make too much of it, but I hope that hon. Members will at least reserve judgment until they have had the opportunity to read both sides.
    It is not possible for me to answer all the points which have been raised in this debate. One has only to look at the vast range of subjects covered by the Third Report of the Committee to realise that this is not so. I should like to express my appreciation to my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) for drawing the attention of the House to certain matters of comparatively minor importance—I stress "comparatively"—which have not received quite the same blare of publicity as some others.
    The work of the Public Accounts Committee is not confined to big issues, and considerable savings have resulted from the advice of the Committee on these other smaller matters. I was very interested in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), and I agree with most of what he said. I was particularly pleased to hear his compliment to the Permanent Secretaries who appeared before the Public Accounts Committee.
    It is, of course, the Committee's job to be critical, where it considers it to be justified, and this is all to the good, and I am sure that it is understood and accepted with good grace. I very much agree that the opportunity which the Committee's examinations provide for
    1580
    direct contacts with Permanent Secretaries and other senior officials is much to be welcomed. It is one of the few ways in which Members of the House of Commons can acquire a detailed insight into the problems of Departmental administration and management.
    If I may now turn to a matter which was mentioned both by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, it is that concerning research and development contracts. This is a very important subject, and, delving back into previous Reports of the Public Accounts Committee, we can see that it is one which is very familiar to the Committee and the House. It is inevitable, and indeed right, that it should have attracted attention and some criticism. These contracts have all the necessary ingredients to catch the eye of the Comptroller and Auditor General and to be dissected by the Public Accounts Committee.
    In the first place, of course, most of these contracts are "cost-plus", because over much of the field this is inescapable from the very nature of development. Secondly, there are sometimes very large increases over the original tentative estimates, and, thirdly, very large sums are often involved in the development of military equipment which itself is frequently the subject of criticism.
    Perhaps I should say at the outset that my right hon. Friend, and needless to say the Treasury, are determined to do everything possible to ensure that the estimating and control of these contracts is made as taut and efficient as possible in the face of what I am sure any clear-minded Member of the House would recognise as very great difficulties. I should like briefly to remind the House of the main problems and how we try to deal with them.
    Two years ago, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said this:
    "What the Ministry of Aviation is now trying to do is to make sure about each step before going on to the next step. This starts with a precise definition of objectives, and the process goes on through feasibility studies and a fuller scale design study, from which emerges a detailed costing programme for the whole development."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1960; Vol. 632, c. 957.]

    1581
    That summarises in simple terms an extremely complicated process, in which, admittedly, there is ample scope for matters to get out of hand unless the arrangements for control within Departments and their arrangements with contractors are absolutely watertight.
    The general approach to control, providing for the reassessment of a project at defined stages, was confirmed by the Zuckerman Committee on the Management and Control of Research and Development, which reported to the Minister for Science in July of last year. It recommended that all defence projects involving the development of weapon systems should normally be processed through the stages of operational requirements, feasibility study, a project or design study, and, finally, development itself. A further recommendation by that Committee, that project studies should be carried out for all major projects before a development contract is placed, is a cardinal principle of the Department's system of control.
    The Public Accounts Committee concentrated last Session on two aspects of this complex of problems—design or project studies and the product of such studies, that is, technical programmes. As regards the former, it stressed the importance of obtaining adequate competition when these studies are placed. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dover that wherever it is possible competition is one of the most valuable means of obtaining alternative designs and of weighing their relative technical merits against their prices.
    As I am sure my hon. Friend would be the first to agree, in this highly specialised field competition is not always practicable. For example, if an existing equipment is to be further developed, it is generally best to go to the firm which carried out the earlier work. Or there may be only one firm with the necessary expertise or potential, or, if there is more than one, some may be devoting their best efforts to other work. Similarly, as regards technical programmes, to which the Committee devoted some attention, because of the very nature of development work. There is a limit to the extent to which firms can be contractually bound to keep to the stipulated programme dates. I recognise the desirability of doing this,
    1582
    and it seems to me to be obvious common-sense if it can be done.
    In many cases, the contractors will seldom be free agents, because of the need for the Ministry—in this case, the Ministry of Aviation—to keep a close check and watch on their work, and because some setbacks and delays are often inevitable in development work and may arise for reasons quite outside the control of the contractor. Nevertheless, if his performance is unsatisfactory, and if it can be shown that this is within his own control, the Ministry's practice is to negotiate a reduced profit. A further factor is that a number of different firms may be concerned with the development of different parts of a major weapon system, and each is to some extent dependent on the others for the fulfilment of their own forecasts.
    I was asked specifically to turn to another subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, who referred to the affairs of Messrs. Bailey (Malta) Limited. I am afraid that in this I can only remind the House that the report of the independent investigator has been received by my right hon. Friend, who is now considering it, and I understand that he will make a statement to the House as soon as possible. I have no doubt that before then he will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.
    The subject with which, I suppose, throughout this debate the House has been concerned more than any other is that of drugs. It was referred to at length by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Compton Carr) and by several others who have spoken. This, again, is not a subject which is new, either to the Public Accounts Committee or to the House of Commons. In the Committee's last three Reports and in both the previous debates, a good deal of attention and not a little criticism has been given to the arrangements for keeping the drug bill down and also to keeping the price of individual drugs within reasonable limits.
    All this time—and, indeed, before—the Ministry of Health has been negotiating with the drug firms on the basis of the voluntary price regulation scheme. I have

    1583
    no doubt that the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North is absolutely right on one point. Many of the Committee's criticisms and the observations of hon. Members during our debates in this House have affected the course of the negotiations and, from the point of view of the Exchequer, have done so advantageously. I agree with the hon. Member on that.
    Mr. H. Wilson: It is undoubtedly true that the Committee has played a big part in pressing the Ministry to take a different and less tolerant line on this expenditure. If the Minister is now lending his authority to what is a private view on my part—I do not know whether it is the view of the whole Committee—will he say what he thinks has been the total loss to the Exchequer by the fact that the Ministry did not act on its own initiative in cutting out avoidable expenditure but had to wait to be pushed year after year by the Committee and debates in this House before doing it? How many millions does the hon. Gentleman think have been lost in that way?
    Mr. Barber: The right hon. Gentleman appears to misunderstand the point. I am suggesting that because, as we all know, in certain cases excessive prices have been charged, it must be a good thing for public opinion to be brought to bear on the whole subject and that this has been done most effectively by the Public Accounts Committee and by our debates in this House. I was merely agreeing with his hon. Friend in what, I thought, was in many ways a helpful and constructive speech.
    The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) had an altercation with my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court on the extent to which there is competition in the industry. I hesitate to get involved, but I understand that the manufacture and supply of drugs takes place in what the economists used to call conditions of monopolistic competition. I make no claim to be a professional economist, but I take that to mean that elements of both competition and monopoly are present. The whole House would, I am sure, agree that undoubtedly there is strong competition between firms, both British and foreign, who devote intensive efforts to research with the object of promoting better and more effective
    1584
    preparations and thereby, they hope also, more profitable preparations. At the same time, however, each proprietary preparation which may be prescribed has its special characteristics and is not, or is not always, freely interchangeable with other preparations. Many new products are patented.
    The National Health Service is the main home buyer, either through the chemist or through the hospital. We depend for these supplies, as we must, on private industry, which cannot survive without adequate profits over the business as a whole. The duty of the Government is to ensure that this situation is not exploited to the taxpayers' disadvantage.
    One method of approach would have been to seek detailed information on costs and profits to justify the price of every drug prescribed in any quantity under the National Health Service and to relate this information to predetermined criteria for judging what is reasonable cost and what is reasonable profit. That would have been an enormous task, even if appropriate criteria were ready to hand, which they were not. The approach has, therefore, been different.
    The voluntary price regulation scheme, which was discussed at length by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North, has been agreed with the industry. Under it, prices to chemists are in general accepted without investigation of costs and profits if they meet certain readily identifiable objective criteria, one of which, to which the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North referred, is that those prices are no higher than export prices. The hon. Member pointed out that the scheme was first introduced in 1957 and was re-negotiated only a couple of years ago, when, in the light of the experience in the initial three-year period, the criteria were considerably tightened up and a new proviso was inserted enabling the Government to challenge the prices of patented preparations with a big National Health Service usage even when they met the export criteria.
    The scheme has produced many price reductions. In 1961, reductions were estimated to result in savings of about £1 million a year and further savings in 1962 are estimated to save another £1 million. Incidentally, one of the reductions taking effect this year is of

    1585
    £130,000 a year for a drug manufactured by one of the Swiss companies, to which reference is made in the Committee's Report.
    The Government do not, however, claim that as a result of the voluntary price regulation scheme, all drug prices are fair and reasonable. During the currency of the initial scheme, the Government themselves drew attention to published figures of profit on capital employed, which seemed extremely high by any standards. These figures were relevant to the revision of the scheme which was undertaken in 1960.
    It is also relevant that, when they are themselves the purchasers, the Government have been able to secure patented drugs for hospitals alt markedly lower prices from suppliers other than the patentees. Since most of these drugs come within the proviso to the new scheme, enabling the Government to challenge prices for frequently-used patented products, they are a factor in the negotiations under the scheme.
    In that connection, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover suggested that the Ministry should also investigate the prices of and the profits on the drugs supplied under the provisions of the Patents Act. I am not sure whether that would be appropriate. When the Government invite tenders for the supply of any products, it depends upon competition among suppliers to keep the price at a reasonable level. I am doubtful whether we could combine this normal approach with the special investigations into the costs and profits which are sometimes necessary when open tendering is impracticable.
    I can, however, assure the Committee on that point. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North quoted certain instances when, in his view, there had been undue delay in negotiations. I agree that on the face of it, some of them appear to have been lengthy. I assure him, however, having been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health concerning the matter, that despite the difficulties, my right hon. Friend will do everything he possibly can to ensure that there is no undue delay in negotiations.
    Mr. H. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman must know, because the Committee reported on this aspect, that in some cases
    1586
    one of the main factors in the delay, about which the Committee reported strongly last year, was the refusal of the firms concerned to give information when it was requested. This is intolerable. Having had experience of price control, we got the figure by compulsory powers, if necessary, and would not agree to a price being fixed until we had the figures.
    Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Minister has all the powers which are necessary to enable him to get the figures? There was argument about this last year and the hon. Gentleman's predecessor had to qualify the answer which he gave in the debate. Secondly, does the Minister intend to use these powers? Will he undertake that there will be no delay due to the Minister's refusal to get the figures which he needs far the purpose of negotiation?
    Mr. Barber: I am not an expert on this matter, but I understand that the compulsory powers are certainly in existence and are available for use to get the principal information which is necessary to be able to form a judgment in these matters. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the powers will certainly be used if need be. The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the basis of the voluntary price regulation scheme, and indeed of the Government's relations with the industry generally, is one of voluntary negotiation. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to recognise this. If we can obtain the information without using the powers, it is preferable, that we should do so. I can certainly give him the assurance that, if necessary, the powers will be used.
    Mr. Wilson: The point was that last year I received exactly the same answer from the then Financial Secretary, who told us that he was satisfied that the Government had the powers. A few days later we had to arrange a special Question and Written Answer so that he could apologise for the information he gave to the House and point out that the Government had not the powers. That is why I asked the hon. Gentleman whether the Government now have the powers.
    Mr. Barber: I have simply said—I can only repeat what I said a few moments ago to the right hon. Gentleman—that, as I understand the position, we have

    1587
    compulsory powers to obtain the sort of information which is necessary to judge fairly in these matters. I was giving the right hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asked that, if need be, we would use them. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover who, after all, has been universally applauded for his opening speech, was on a very good point when he stressed the desirability of good relations between the Ministry of Health and the industry. All that I am saying is that, while we will not hesitate to use these powers if necessary, it is obviously better that we should not do so if possible.
    I turn to the question of advertising costs, which was raised by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North and referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Barons Court and Dover and others. I want to leave the House in no doubt on one point. The Government are concerned about the extent of the resources which some firms, but by no means all, have hitherto seen fit to lay out in this way. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court that advertising plays a perfectly legitimate and important part in the economy. I am sure that he will agree that this is a field in which high-pressure sales promotion is out of place and distasteful.
    It might be suggested that one way of dealing with the problem would be for the Government to lay down just how much individual firms might spend on advertising. This approach is superficially attractive, but I do not think that it would be the right one and I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North also say that no Minister could dictate what a firm spends on promotional expenditure. After all, it is one thing to form an impression that advertising is excessive, but it is another to establish the criteria which could be used in the hard detail of negotiating to tell whether any particular expenditure was acceptable. We must always remember, again, that the scheme which the Government are operating is a voluntary one. To tell firms how much money they might spend on advertising would be incompatible with their right to run their business in the way in which they think fit.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I went on to say that I thought that this did not mean that the National Health Service need pay for excessive advertising.
    Mr. Barber: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I was just going on to say that what the Ministry of Health can do, and indeed does, is to bear the degree of sales promotion expenditure fully in mind when reaching settlements in negotiations on prices. This is an important factor which the Ministry quite rightly should take into account. Negotiation, after all, must be a matter of give and take, and negotiators must have discretion in deciding what terms to settle for. Where the Ministry considers that sales promotion costs are exceptionally high, it will be all the more determined to secure a reduction in price. This seems to me to be the common-sense approach.
    Apart from the principles which guide the Ministry in negotiations, a further curb on excessive advertising is through the provision of information to doctors on the comparative costs and merits of different drugs. The Ministry issues the Prescriber's Journal to all general practitioners. I am told that it is clear from doctors' letters that many have found it of great use.
    In conclusion on this point, I assure the House that we are at one with the Committee in its concern to ensure that expenditure on sales promotion is restrained. Here again, I feel that the observations of the Committee and what has been said today will strengthen our hand.
    I want to say one word for the benefit of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, in view of his great practical experience. He devoted most of his speech to the question whether there should be a change in the present system so as to permit chemists to provide drugs alternative to those prescribed where there is no essential difference between the two. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would expect a mere Financial Secretary to give him an answer today on this point, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will take note of what he said.
    The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North asked me a number of specific questions about Section 46 of the Patents

    1589
    Act, 1949. It is not within my personal knowledge, but I have done what I can to obtain the information for him. This is the answer to his first question about the contracts for the supply of five drugs to hospitals. He asked me whether those contracts were satisfactorily performed. The answer is, "Yes".
    The second question which he asked concerned the quality of the drugs. Here again, I am told that the quality has been satisfactory in all respects. Thirdly, I should inform him that new contracts have been awarded for the same five drugs, in each case following competitive tenders. The hon. Gentleman also asked a question about the action by a United States company against the Minister of Health arising under Section 46 of the Patents Act, 1949. I understand that this action is expected to be heard this month.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for obtaining those answers for me. There is one further question: if this operation has been regarded as successful, is it intended to expand it during the coming year and, if not, why not?
    Mr. Barber: I should not like to say a great deal about the future. What I can say is that the reason why no further cases of drugs have been dealt with in this way in the past is simply that my right hon. Friend has not considered that circumstances have arisen which would justify it. Obviously, he has these powers. Here again, they are powers which are no doubt effective in terrorem as well as being effective in actual use.
    I turn to a matter touched upon by the right hon. Member for Smethwick namely the design and development contract for a new wireless set, which the Committee examined in great detail and on which it made some rather forthright criticisms. These criticisms were echoed by the right hon. Gentleman. Although the performance of this particular wireless set, which was urgently required for the infantry, was technically in advance of any earlier major Army radio equipment, its development did not or should not have presented such fearful problems as was the case, for example, with guided missiles. Moreover, the prospects of sub-
    1590
    stantial export orders for this wireless set seemed to be good so that the manufacturers would have an incentive to compete for the development contract.
    In all these circumstances, the Ministry of Aviation considered that this was a good occasion on which to carry further its policy of seeking fixed-price or other incentive contracts for development work wherever it was possible to do so. This is just what the Committee of Public Accounts has been urging. It was therefore decided as a deliberate experiment to invite competitive tenders with the object of placing the contract at a fixed price. I should mention that this is the first occasion in recent years on which it has been decided to go out to competitive tender for an important development project in the field of communications. It was realised that difficulties might well arise, but it was thought that the potential advantages, including the gaining of valuable experience, justified this course.
    This approach was entirely satisfactory to the Treasury, as I have no doubt that the intention behind it would have been to the Committee of Public Accounts. However, I will not conceal from the House that when later on we discovered that things had not turned out quite as planned we ourselves in the Treasury expressed some concern. Later the Committee of Public Accounts took up the matter and made its views known.
    Then followed an extremely careful re-assessment by the Ministry of the whole case—the tendering process and the subsequent action which followed it. This is very much a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation. The Committee's comments go to the heart of the responsibilities of his Department for the fair, efficient and economical conduct of development contracts of this kind. I would not want to trespass on his territory, even if I were sufficiently familiar with the details of this sort of operation.
    I say immediately that I fully accept that we in the Treasury have a responsibility to satisfy ourselves that the Departmental systems of control of these sort of contracts are sound. This is just one example of the Treasury's general functions in the field of management.
    As to this particular case, everyone knows that the Government have to develop and produce a great variety of

    1591
    new equipment and do so in conditions of rapid technological advance and often working against time. This must involve careful and continuing assessment and reassessment of both the technical and the financial effects, and neither can be safely neglected. As the Treasury Minute says, we agree that invitations to tender should not be issued to firms whose tenders are likely to be rejected on extraneous grounds. This was one of the criticisms made by the right hon. Gentleman. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dover that instructions to tenderers should be complete and precise and that the evaluation of their tenders should be on common criteria. This may all sound pretty obvious. In fact, it was not the intention to depart from these rules in this case. As regards the subsequent rejection of certain tenders, I understand that the necessity for this became clear only on examination of the tenders.
    As regards the question of technical appreciations to which the right hon. Member for Smethwick referred, again we accept that if these are required it is better that their submission should be made mandatory rather than optional, as was the case here.
    Perhaps I can just add this on this point. Competitive tendering does not normally lead to the award of the contract to one of the highest bidders. For obvious reasons, the contracts divisions of Departments responsible for heavy expenditure of this kind do not lightly accept such an outcome. I assure the House, and in particular the right hon. Member for Smethwick, that the lessons in this case have been learned and that the comments of the Committee of Public Accounts have had their effect.
    When I first heard that the right hon. Member for Smethwick was to take part in this debate I am bound to say that it had not occurred to me that one of his objectives would be to use this occasion to continue the Opposition's campaign against retired Ministers and retired civil servants taking up jobs in industry and commerce. After all, no mention of this matter appears in any of the Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts which we are considering.
    Mr. H. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong, because this question was taken up by the Committee. Naturally we hoped that there would be no serious point on it, but this was one of the points on which we took evidence. The evidence is included in the Report.
    Mr. Barber: When talking about the Reports of these Committees most people understand that one is talking about the Reports without the evidence. At any rate, let me put it in this way. In what is termed the Report which I have here—the Third Report from the Committee of Public Accounts—the Committee did not see fit to make mention of this topic. That being so, I can only say that it seemed to me a little odd that the right hon. Gentleman did not do what I should have thought was normal, that is to say, give me notice that he proposed to devote quite a large part of his speech to dealing with this particular matter. Since he has raised it at some length, I must deal with it.
    As regards ex-Ministers, it has already been established that there is not one tittle of evidence to support the suggestion that there was anything wrong. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already shown up the campaign for what it is, a wholly unwarranted personal attack. Now, having failed in their attack upon Ministers, the Opposition turn their attention to civil servants.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I am perfectly certain that there will be another occasion on which we can thoroughly thrash this matter out. It will not just be settled now between us. I was only giving a sort of first shot in the battle.
    Mr. Barber: It was rather a long shot, and it was, of course, a shot which no other Member of the House of Commons considering this matter today chose to make or even refer to at all. It was only the right hon. Gentleman who did so.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Of course, it was.
    Mr. Barber: Since the right hon. Gentleman made his point at some length, I think that I am entitled to reply.
    Having failed so far as Ministers are concerned, the right hon. Gentleman now turns his attention to civil servants. Although he did not see fit to give me notice that he intended to do so, I think it right, since I have some responsibility,

    1593
    as Financial Secretary to the Treasury, for the Civil Service, to give him a reply.
    What is the position? Specific and detailed rules are laid down about the types of case where consent is required before a civil servant can take a job in business. Listening to the right hon. Gentleman, one would think that all this was something new, something which had occurred only under the Conservative Government. It is, perhaps, significant that his hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), in asking for a whole series of figures in a mass of Questions for Written Answer, dealt only with the period since the Conservative Government came into office. One would think that there was some quite different rule applicable during the period of the Labour Government.
    In fact, the rules which are now being applied are identical to those which were being applied under the Labour Government. I put the question to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick: did he object to the rules when he was a prominent member of the Labour Government? Or was the standard which is now thought by him to be so inappropriate quite satisfactory in Lord Attlee's day? The truth, of course, is that, the campaign against Ministers having failed to stick, the Opposition, for want of something better, are switching the attack to the Civil Service. I have no doubt that it will redound to the discredit of the right hon. Member for Smethwick.
    I return now to the real purpose of the debate, which was to consider these three Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts. The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) has on previous occasions described what he called the in terrorem function of the Committee. In refuting the idea that the Committee is concerned only with the past, with bolted horses—a point made also by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover—the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that most of the Committee's recommendations are good for the future as well as for the past, even though they arise on particular cases. With respect, I think that there is a great deal in this.
    The examination carried out by the Public Accounts Committee and its
    1594
    criticisms are a constructive part of the machinery for securing efficiency in the public service. As the Treasury Minute shows, we do not agree with everything that the Committee says, but I can assure the House that the Departments and we in the Treasury take very much to heart what it says.
    Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question, put and negatived.
    Proposed words there added.
    Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House takes note of the First, Second and Third Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts in the last Session of Parliament, and of the Special Report from the Committee of Public Accounts.
    Committee Tomorrow.

  SCOTLAND (NURSES' RULES)
  8.10 p.m.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Nurses (Scotland) (Amendment) Rules 1962 Approved Instrument 1962 (S.I., 1962, No. 2195), dated 28th September, 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th October in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled.
  It seemed to me and to some of my hon. Friends that it was important to discuss these Rules. The only way in which we can discuss them is by a Prayer to have them annulled, but I assure the Under-Secretary of State at once that we have no intention of voting against them. I think that the majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have studied the Rules support them. I understand that they have come before us after considerable discussion and a great deal of thought on the part of the General Nursing Council for Scotland.
  Nursing requires from the young men and women who undertake it a suitable temperament and it also requires very great understanding. Without those two qualities, no amount of academic qualifications will ever make a young woman or young man a good nurse. I support the Rules because I feel that the important job of nursing must attract young men and women who have at least minimum

  1595
  academic qualifications. All the Rules call for are two passes at the O-level, one of which must be in English. It cannot be said that they set too high a standard of educational attainment for the young people who will become our nurses.
  It is important to remember that one result of the Rules will be to enhance and improve the status of the nursing profession. Anything we can do to this end is well worth doing. I am very glad to note that the Rules apply not only to general nurses in Scotland, but to mental nurses, too. This is a great improvement on the Rules for England and Wales presented about two years ago. During the discussion on a Prayer to annul the English Rules, great objection was taken from this side of the House that there should be any difference in attitude towards nurses entering for general training as compared with nurses entering for training as mental nurses.
  I welcome this provision in the Rules also because I know that people who understand these matters have long felt that mental nurses have been regarded as a sort of inferior species not on the same level as general nurses. The fact that the Scottish Rules apply to both will do something to bring both types of nurse into equal regard in the eyes of the public. It is important that this should be so. In all we are trying to do through the Mental Health Act and our new approach to mental health, we need to draw from our young men and women some of the very best to nurse our mentally sick.
  The English Rules were passed over two years ago, but two years were allowed to elapse after they were passed before they came into operation. They came into operation only in July of this year. The Scottish Rules which we are now considering are to come into force on 1st January next, which means that they will come into operation in less than one month after we have discussed them in the House. Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that we are being too hurried in this matter? The O-level examination is very new in Scotland. I have in mind the 15-year-olds who left school in the summer of this year. Quite a number of them may have in-
  1596
  tended later to become nurses, but they can have had no idea that two O-level passes would be required of them as a qualification by the time that they finally decided to do so. Had they known, they might have stayed at school to try to obtain the necessary passes.
  When such an important subject as this comes up in a Statutory Instrument, against which we can only move a Prayer, there is no means open to us whereby, even in a small way, we can make amendments. Would it be possible to postpone the date of operation of the Rules for at least six months? This would mean that young people who had it in mind to leave at the next school-leaving date could stay on until the summer holiday in order to take the two O-level examinations. It is no longer possible to help those who left last summer, but we could in that way help those who were considering leaving at the next school leaving date.
  I understand that many young people who enter pre-nursing schools do so at 15 years of age. The usual age for a young boy or girl to enter our secondary schools in Scotland is 12. This means that, if they enter pre-nursing school at 15, they have not had a chance to take the O-level examination. Is it proposed that in the pre-nursing school they will be able to take the O-level examination in English and one other subject? It is important to have an answer about that before we accept these Rules.
  What is to happen in the future to the older man or woman who wants to take up nursing as a profession? I am thinking particularly of a young man who lives very near me. The Under-Secretary of State will know about the great number of pit closures in Lanarkshire. This young man was a miner. He is now working in a big mental hospital near his home. I have made inquiries and I am told by those in charge that he is doing a very good job and that they expect him to become a fully qualified registered nurse. Is there to be an opportunity for a young person like that who, after having taken up other work for a time, decides to become a nurse? Very often, these people prove to be among the best nurses we have in our hospitals.

  1597
  In asking these questions, I direct the Minister's attention to the new paragraph (6, c) which is added by Rule 3:
  "for an interim period, until a date to be determined by the Council with the consent of the Secretary of State, an educational examination set by the Council."
  Why "interim"? If it were not an interim period and if the Council in future were able to set its own examination, that older man, or the woman who left school at 15 and did not take even the O-level examination, would still be able to take the examination set by the Council. How are these people to enter the profession? Is it to be impossible in future for the type of young man I have described, or the office worker who may have a great desire to do so, to enter the profession? For such people there should always be an opportunity of entering.
  Another point is connected with our system of secondary education in Scotland, particularly in some parts of the country. The Under-Secretary must be as aware as I am that there are secondary schools in Scotland where no child has the opportunity of even being presented for the O-level examination, far less of passing it. Does this mean that at 12 years of age a young boy or girl will never in future be able to enter the nursing profession?
  About the older men and women of whom I have spoken and those in junior secondary schools who are not presented for the O-level examination, the Under-Secretary may tell me that they can be enrolled as assistant nurses or nursing auxiliaries. That may not be sufficient for people who become intensely interested in this kind of work. Because they want to enter the profession, many may enrol in the first instance as assistant nurses or auxiliaries and then feel that they would like to be fully trained and to become State-registered nurses. What chance will they have?
  How long will the Under-Secretary tolerate a division such as we have in some areas of Scotland by which even in nursing some very good young people are prevented from becoming fully trained in the profession? Was the Secretary of State in consultation with the regional hospital boards before the Rules were presented? I imagine that the Department has had such consultations. Did the regional hospital boards think that
  1598
  we shall be able to recruit in sufficient numbers men and women to fill all the nursing posts which must be filled? Does the Under-Secretary believe that if these Rules are passed tonight, as undoubtedly they will be, we shall have a smaller number of fully-trained registered nurses and a greater number of assistant nurses and nursing auxiliaries?
  It is right that the House should know what kind of nursing profession we are to have in future. In asking these questions, I have had a deep concern that any young man or woman who wants to enter the profession ought to have the chance at least of getting the academic qualifications to make it possible for him or her to become fully qualified and have the status which men and women in this very noble profession ought to have. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to answer these questions.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. William Hannan: I, also, want to express the anxiety felt on this side of the House about the well-being and future of the nursing profession. I do not for a moment dissent from the terms of the Rules nor that the minimum requirements for entry should be two O-level passes in the Scottish Certificate of Education. The Explanatory Note to the Rules indicates what those standards are for those wishing to enter the nursing profession.
  Although this matter is concerned with the nursing service, fundamentally it is an educational question. The choice of the standard asked for is about right. That is my view for what it is worth. We do not question the right of the Nursing Council to lay down these standards, but some doubts have been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) about the Rules which will operate under the 1951 Act.
  Entry into the profession takes place at about the age of 17½ to 18. In the past many of these girls have left junior secondary school at 15 and in the interval have followed some other job until achieving the age of entry to the profession. Girls of this category will not now be granted entry. Although we accept that the Council has the right to lay down standards for the profession, as have many other professions, most

  1599
  of us regret that many of these girls who are suitable in other respects will not now have the opportunity of entering.
  Under the new dispensation of education in Scotland they must have a minimum of two Ordinary level passes, which means four years at a senior secondary school and the attainment of the age of 16. While those of us interested in higher standards of education will welcome the fact that our children should attend schools until the age of 16, we recognise the handicap that this would entail, particularly for the nursing profession. The Government have been proclaiming the need for more nurses. Can the Under-Secretary of State say how many nurses are required in Scotland?
  I know that it would be out of order for me to develop the point to any great extent, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to a Press report which appeared on Sunday saying that the hospitals in England and Wales have been told to stop recruiting nurses. Has anything of this character been issued in Scotland? According to this newspaper,
  "One of the country's biggest hospital boards has told 170 hospitals in South-East England to stop recruiting nurses for the time being—because of a 'cut expenditure' warning from the Minister."
  This sort of thing does more damage to the recruitment of nurses than any other single action which the Government could take. We want some satisfaction on this point.
  To return to the point which I was making, this change in educational standards may deprive the profession of many admirable recruits. Cannot the Department do something to counteract this possibility? For example, in view of the introduction of the new Scottish Certificate of Education—I should like the Under-Secretary of State to nod in the appropriate direction if I am right—it will be possible from this year for young people in junior secondary schools, leaving at the age of 15, nevertheless to continue with further education studies either in the evening or through the day and to obtain the two O-level passes.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White)The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White) indicated assent.
  Mr. Hannan: The hon. Member indicates that I am right in my contention.
  Would it not be an advantage for the Department to give greater publicity to this fact? Perhaps it is not well enough known among young people who leave at the age of 15 that they can continue their education and, by further education studies at evening classes, obtain O-level passes which previously have been open only to those who go on to the age of 16. I attach great importance to this facility in the general sense, since we have such a high rate of young people without jobs precisely at these ages, and it is particularly important in respect of nursing recruitment at this time when there is a crucial need of them.
  Few junior secondary schoolgirls in Glasgow will have the opportunity or the ability to pass O-level subjects, because the Corporation, the local education authority, through its promotion scheme from primary to secondary schools, is already passing a relatively higher proportion of its pupils to senior secondary schools than do most other local authorities. It ranges around 40 per cent. Therefore, most of the young girls and young men who want to enter this profession will have that opportunity already in Glasgow, but this is not so in all parts of the country, and there are bound to be many young people in the higher reaches of the junior secondary school who, with just a little more encouragement and a little more information, might be induced to attempt the two O-level passes which are required.
  I have a few questions to which I hope the Under-Secretary of State will furnish answers so that we may have a better picture of the whole situation. Can he tell us how many recruits are needed at the moment? What is required in the recruitment of nurses to bring us up to establishment? A rather more detailed question on which perhaps he may be able to get advice—how many entered in the last two years and, of these, how many had the qualifications now asked for? That information might help us to appreciate the proportion which will be denied the opportunity of entering.
  I think that most of us recognise that the introduction even of these minimum

  1601
  standards will have the desirable effect of reducing—a well-known term to the Under-Secretary of State—the wastage rate of those who fail in their nursing studies in the first year. Despite the existence of these minimum standards, however, will the teaching hospitals retain their own already recognised standards of entry? I understand that some of the teaching hospitals, in Glasgow at least, demand fairly high standards, higher than these minimum standards. If these new standards are to be the basis of entry, is it the intention that such girls will be acceptable and accepted in the teaching hospitals? By complying with these minimum requirements and the other standards which my hon. Friend mentioned—standards of suitability and temperament—wail a girl be eligible for entry to the teaching hospitals?
  May I stress a point made by my hon. Friend: in view of the shortage of nurses, are we quite sure that it is sufficient to look at one end of the age range? The earliest age of entry is 17½ to 18, but what is the oldest? The Under-Secretary of State, no doubt, like myself, has been reading the very important articles by Professor Carstairs recently on the new status of women aged 40 and over. Women who have married young—and the tendency is for this to continue—find that by the time they are 40, their families have crown up and are themselves marrying at the ages of 18 to 20.
  Bill Carron, of the A.E.U., and members of other organisations have recently been discussing the effects of automation and the great changes which will be brought into all our lives with such things as the all-night opening of restaurants and so on. The essential point which he made concerned the great change in the living conditions of people and in their working conditions. There will be all-night shifts and three shifts. In particular, women aged over 40 will have time on their hands and will be looking around for new interests when they are still relatively young.
  This is a most important point. Not even Professor Carstairs forestalled the very able public health officer in Glasgow, Dr. Nora Wattie, who made the point that women of 40, having themselves reared families, have a deep sense of sympathy and understanding—the
  1602
  qualities mentioned by my hon. Friend—and that they represented a big field for recruitment for some services.
  The difficulty is educational and this is no doubt the importance of the paragraph on page 7, but I wonder whether the Department will look at this point again and bear in mind that there are many women who take an interest in public life and in other fields than that in which they have been engaged for the previous twenty to twenty-five years of their lives, and who might be induced even to return to places of training. I recall reading of a gentleman of 75 who went back to night school to learn a language—a very good thing, too. This is very much to be encouraged.
  There will be these changes. Let the Department look ahead and try to plan for them. In the meantime, I shall be grateful for the information for which I have asked.
  8.40 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): I should like to thank both the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) for giving us this opportunity for a short discussion of these Rules; for the constructive and helpful line they have taken, and for their declaration of specific intention towards the Rules as a whole. I hope that my remarks will not only allay all their own misgivings, but will also enable a more effective understanding of the Rules to be spread outside the House.
  The hon. Lady rightly drew attention to the fact that these Rules have emerged from the work of the General Nursing Council which, as the House knows, has the statutory responsibility for considering all the questions about the entry of men and women to the nursing profession, and the training they have to undergo. The Nurses (Scotland) Act, 1951, provides that all changes in the rules made by the Council have to be approved by my right hon. Friend. Therefore, the Council's proposed minimum requirements have to be approved by the Secretary of State in this Statutory Instrument. I assure the hon. Lady that the local authority associations are in agreement with the proposed arrangements—
  Miss Herbison: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman so soon, but I referred to the regional hospital boards.
  Mr. Brooman-White: I am sorry; I am still wearing my old hat.
  The hon. Lady asked about the speed with which the Rules are being introduced; and whether there might not more usefully have been a period of delay. It has been known for a considerable time that this subject was under discussion, and most people interested were well aware of what was taking shape. Over and above that, this leads to the broader question, the interim period. There is not a sort of chopper coming down on this at all.
  As is made clear in the Rules, during the interim period—and this should be widely known—there are many ways in which people who have not the qualifications now or, through different circumstances in the future, may not find it easy to obtain them by staying on at school, can acquire the requisite O-level passes. Anyone who has left school can sit for the Scottish Certificate at a further education centre. Anyone who has left school and wishes to get a certificate of education can be sponsored by the education authority, and sit for it after private study, without attending classes.
  Further, during the interim period the General Nursing Council will set this special examination, and we understand that the Council proposes to set one based on one of the tests of the National Institute of Industrial Psychology—which, I believe, is an intelligence test at the requisite level. It is very helpful that the hon. Members should have brought that out, because there is no age ban. The hon. Member for Maryhill referred to a gentleman aged 75. That may be a little aged for nursing, but there are certainly people of quite advanced age who, if they wish to achieve the requisite qualifications, will have these various methods open to them to do so.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether there was any ceiling or restriction on the recruitment of our nurses in Scotland. I assure the hon. Gentleman that regional hospital boards recruit as they wish within their financial limitations.
  Mr. Harry Gourlay: I think that the hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head with regard to recruitment. He says that these regional hospital boards are allowed to recruit within their financial limitations, but surely it is the Secretary of State for Scotland who sets the financial limitations.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) said that instructions had been sent to hospital boards in England and Wales in connection with this matter, and from a reply which I received from the Secretary of State for Scotland I am not sure whether similar instructions have gone to Scottish boards. I hope that the Minister will reconsider this position, because these Rules appear to be implementing a decision of the Secretary of State for Scotland in two ways; first, by financial limitations, and, secondly, by raising the standard of entry to the profession.
  Mr. Brooman-White: I think that the financial limitations cover a wide front, and one which I do not believe we would be in order in discussing on these Rules, but, clearly, the needs vary from area to area, and I think that the best way for me to deal with this is to come to the second theme of the speeches of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North, and the hon. Member for Maryhill.
  Mr. Hannan: Will the hon. Gentleman please answer the direct question which I asked him? I quoted a newspaper report which said that because the Minister of Health had ordered a cut in expenditure, one hospital board had issued instructions to over 100 hospitals in a certain area to stop recruiting nurses. Have any such instructions been issued in respect of Soctland?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. We cannot pursue this question of financial limitations very far on this Statutory Instrument. I have allowed a passing reference to it, and I will allow a passing reply, but no more than that.
  Mr. Brooman-White: The passing reply to that question is very short. The answer is, "No".
  Misgivings have been expressed about the effect on standards and on total

  1605
  recruitment, and whether this will result in an undesirable limitation on intake. The hon. Member for Maryhill used the word "wastage". The primary object of these Rules is to prevent wastage, and the primary object of the interim period is to provide every facility for people who have the necessary qualifications to come in. We want to get over the present difficulty of people undertaking a course and failing to complete it, which means wasted time for all concerned.
  Miss Herbison: it seems that the hon. Gentleman is under the impression that there is wastage only because young men and women without the requisite academic qualifications, or without the intelligence to carry on, are entering the profession, but he must be aware, as I am, that wastage can be due to many things other than lack of intelligence or lack of academic qualifications.
  Mr. Brooman-White: We are all well aware of that. I was simply referring to the type of wastage dealt with under these Rules. The hon. Lady referred to the standard of devotion and personal qualities demanded of those entering the nursing profession. After some experience many people find that they have not the same inclination to pursue this exacting profession with its enormous responsibilities and the need to take decisions affecting matters of life and death which they initially thought they had. There is also the problem of early marriage, which is perhaps socially desirable, especially if the girl marries the right man, but is unfortunate from the point of view of maintaining staff in our schools and hospitals.
  On the question of the requirements of our hospitals as a whole and any possible misgiving that there may be about a limitation of the necessary recruits coming forward, I do not think that we need envisage this having a deterrent effect. The hon. Lady suggested improving the status to encourage people to come forward. We should encourage people who do not have the requisite educational ability to make the grade and become fully registered nurses to consider branching off into one of the other facets of the profession and becoming enrolled nurses or auxiliaries, which would be extremely helpful.
  We are proposing to send out a circular to hospital boards of manage-
  1606
  ment stressing the importance not only of the efficient use of nurses, but of ensuring that the highly skilled, fully registered nurse is employed, so far as it is humanly possible, exclusively on highly skilled work in which her capabilities are needed to the full. It is interesting that recent research by the Nuffield Regional Hospital Trust revealed that about two-thirds of nursing is ordinary bedside routine work.
  We feel that the idea that the fully registered nurse is the only sort of nurse on whom attention should be centred has attained too great an importance in the public mind and perhaps in the minds of professional people. Obviously, she is a key person and can do any job, however difficult and responsible. But if we are to use our personnel properly we must get rid of the idea that enrolled nurses and auxiliaries should be used as the last resort. There is a real place for these people in our hospital system, and it is wrong that the registered nurse should continue to carry out all or any substantial part of work which can be done by other grades. We are most keen that people in other grades should be encouraged. It is a waste of skill if highly trained people spend time on work which can be done by people with less experience and training.
  Miss Herbison: What the hon. Gentleman has said was just what I thought he would say. What worries me is what will be the proportion of fully trained nurses to the nursing auxiliaries or assistant nurses. Some hospitals will attract much more readily people with academic qualifications to become fully trained nurses than others.
  Does the Under-Secretary of State envisage some of our hospitals in Scotland having a very small number of fully trained people and a very large proportion, perhaps too large a proportion, of auxiliary nurses? I agree that auxiliaries and others have a part to play and that we want fully trained nurses to do the job for which they are trained, but what steps does the hon. Gentleman propose taking to ensure that some hospitals are not left too much in the hands of the auxiliary nurse?
  Mr. Brooman-White: That is largely a matter for the hospital boards. What we are thinking of sending out to them as a general recommendation—this has

  1607
  not been finalised yet—is that in staffing arrangements they should try to apply the principle that a balanced staff should contain, in addition to registered and student nurses, both enrolled nurses and nursing auxiliaries. Normally, any staffing pattern which dispenses with or virtually omits any grade should be a matter for critical scrutiny rather than satisfaction.
  That is the note that we want to strike. This is a matter which should be decided on its merits in the various hospitals and as their requirements demand. I hope that the general spirit of this approach will commend itself to the hon. Lady and to the House.
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I offer no apology for going back to the subject of the junior secondary pupils and their relationship to nursing, which is important. I accept the Minister's remarks that there are further education services and that perhaps they can get the necessary qualifications by means of private study. The fact remains that there are junior secondary schools from which many of the best nurses, not only girls but also boys, have come. I think of mental hospitals such as Dingleton, near Melrose, where I know that most of the staff, who do a grand job, are from junior secondary schools.
  In the light of this and of the inadequacy of his assurance, I wonder whether the Minister would further consider making certain that in every junior secondary school in Scotland, before each leaving date, a talk is given on the possibilities of nursing to the pupils. It would be quite easy to arrange for a team of either nurses or education experts or of people concerned with jobs or careers to go to those schools and explain to the pupils before they actually leave how they can go into nursing for a career by private study or by going through further education courses.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not pursue that too far. It is not discussable very far under these Rules.
  Mr. Dalyell: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I think that there is no more that can be usefully said.
  Miss Herbison: In the light of the discussion, although I have reservations, and we shall have to watch the position, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  ROADS (BRISTOL- BIRMINGHAM MOTORWAY)
  8.57 p.m.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pym.]
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the question of the continuation of the M.5 motorway from Birmingham to Bristol, southwards, through Tewkesbury where it now ends. I do this for two reasons, both equally important. First, I think that this motorway is vital to the traffic communications of the area and that my constituents will find it an immense benefit by relieving the crowded roads in the district; and, secondly, because of the effect which it has already had on Tewkesbury by the fact that this motorway ends just north of the town, disgorging all its traffic into its very narrow and ancient streets
  The county council did not object to the Provisional Order for the new motorway because it felt that it would be unwise to comment on the situation until after the present section of the M.5 is finished, and it had actually seen what happened in Tewkesbury I think that it is my first duty to prove beyond any doubt that conditions in Tewkesbury have in fact deteriorated seriously. To that end, two surveys have been carried out. The first was carried out by the Traffic Engineering Unit of Birmingham University, which I am sure my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport would approve of as being a worthy source. It estimated that the traffic going through Tewkesbury had increased by about 30 per cent. since the motorway was opened.
  In addition, the application of a Civic Trust scheme to that beautiful town is being considered and a traffic survey was carried out a year ago in that connection. Recently an identical survey was carried out, exactly one year later, because of anxiety about the motorway and the traffic problem. It was found that heavy

  1609
  vehicles had increased in number by 60 per cent. These figures are only a rough guide and there may not be complete agreement about them, but I submit that they are evidence that there has been a great increase in the traffic going to Tewkesbury.
  It is particularly serious during Bank holidays, the holiday season in the summer and on Saturdays when queues have stretched back to the end of the motorway, three or four miles north, and it has taken an hour to get through the town. It is, therefore, certainly true that although conditions were bad before they are now considerably worse and are having a serious effect already upon the life of the town.
  It is rather surprising that the Chamber of Commerce in Tewkesbury, which, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, is mainly a shopping centre and a town which people visit and stay at overnight and a market town for the surrounding district, should so wholeheartedly be hoping for the construction of a motorway to by-pass the town. The members of the Chamber of Commerce realise that a town clogged with heavy traffic and one where people cannot leave their vehicles for a moment is bad for their own trade. They would prefer to have the town by-passed and that people who wish to come in for shopping or for holidays should be able to stay in peace without being interfered with by this heavy traffic. This is proof enough that the town itself is very keen on this project. Trade is definitely falling off and the townspeople are very worried.
  We should also take into account the structures of the ancient buildings in Tewkesbury. It is a town of some fame and of great beauty. Although the Abbey itself is far enough from the road to be safe, the vibrations caused by heavy vehicles in the main street cannot but cause deterioration to the ancient brick walls of the houses. This is an added reason why we should press forward with the by-pass.
  In addition, since I suggested that this matter should be raised on the Adjournment, a proposal has been made for a 10,000 increase in the population of Tewkesbury as overspill from Birmingham. This is obviously another reason why tire main through traffic should be
  1610
  taken out of the town so that it can have a life of its own without interference from traffic.
  The motorway has been planned since before the war. The county council has been very active in suggesting routes and in helping the Ministry in every possible way to provide all the facilities needed. The main indictment I would wish to make against my hon. Friend's Department is that it has allowed one section to be planned, the contract to be let and the work to be finished without having a nearly adeqate follow-on for the remainder of the motorway to the south. Even if the motorway were completed in the shortest imaginable time from now, there would be a four-year gap between the northern section from Birmingham to Tewkesbury and the southern section from Tewkesbury to Bristol, and that probably would be pushing on extremely fast. It seems very strange that the Minister should have allowed this section to have been built to disgorge traffic on to Tewkesbury without having sufficiently advanced plans to carry it further to the south.
  Planning, to my knowledge, has been going on for two years, because I have had correspondence with people who wished to find out whether the motorway would go through their land. I think that it has been going on even for at least three years, during which time this route has been under active discussion. But it is disappointing to hear that draft proposals were only fixed by the consultants six months ago. This is far too long a period to have been allowed to pass. There should have been a much smoother programming for this motorway and it should have been foreseen that stopping the motorway just north of the narrow streets of Tewkesbury would cause this serious problem of traffic attracted on to the motorway being spilled into Tewkesbury, there being no sensible way round the town which heavy vehicles and motor cars could use.
  There is no point in criticising what has happened in the past. I want to concentrate on what should be done in the future. It has been suggested that it might be possible to re-route traffic to by-pass Tewkesbury. I have heard it said that some traffic can be sent down the Ross Spur and round Gloucester that

  1611
  way, but that is a very long way round, and there were traffic congestions near Gloucester when the experiment was tried last summer. That suggestion does not provide a practical solution, and as Tewkesbury is at the confluence of the rivers Avon and Severn there is no chance of a short by-pass through the town without building a major bridge. We are forced to admit that there is no satisfactory solution, short of the provision of the motorway itself, with the new bridge over the Avon at Bredon.
  The police have put up "No Waiting" signs throughout Tewkesbury, which have had some effect towards the alleviation of congestion, but it is thoroughly inconvenient to the residents of the town and to people who wish to shop and to stay overnight if they cannot leave their cars at the side of the road. From my own experience I can say that it has become extremely difficult to do that in Tewkesbury.
  I am sure that there is no alternative but to press on with the next stage of the motorway at the greatest possible speed. I do not think that it was either necessary or right to attempt to build the whole section as far as Somerset in one bite. I am sure that the work should have been phased, so that each section followed upon the previous one. This serious problem will be solved if the motorway is taken just to the south of the City of Gloucester, about 18 miles from where it now ends.
  If we concentrated on building the 18-mile section to the intersection lying to the South of Gloucester, there would be great advantage to many places other than Tewkesbury. It would take the traffic off the main Tewkesbury-Gloucester Road, which is one of the worst roads I know, as is confirmed by its accident record. Large sums of money have been spent in trying to improve the road, but it would have been far more sensible to use that money for the further construction of the motorway. There is also considerable congestion in the City of Gloucester and the ring road round it, all of which would be cured by the provision of this motorway to the south of Gloucester.
  It is essential to get that section of the motorway scheduled to start at some definite date. In reply to the original
  1612
  Question in the House, which made me raise this matter, my hon. Friend could give no date and no place in the programme even for starting the work. I have been informed by Gloucester County Council that it would be quite feasible to complete the statutory procedures and the necessary land transfers by the middle of 1964–18 months from now. This would mean pressing on quite quickly, but I am told that previous experience proves that this is possible.
  It would probably take between two and two-and-a-half years to build the 18-mile section to which I have referred. That would take us to the end of 1966. I am sure that that is a practical proposition. If the argument is raised that the resources of skilled designers and administrators are not available, I would refer my hon. Friend to the letter from the county council, containing what I believe is no new offer, but one that it has always held to, namely, that it is prepared to do all the detailed designing of the bridges and the detailed setting-out work, and to complete the statutory processes and the land transfers, acting as agents for the Ministry, in the time stated.
  That would have taken the load completely off anybody outside the county, for it would be able to let the contract and supervise the construction of the work. It is also worth saying at this stage, and I hope I am not being unduly selfish on behalf of my constituents, that this would be for the benefit of people living further south of Gloucester and around Bristol, and I hope it will be possible to programme the next section south so that it follows fairly soon after the completion of this one.
  If my hon. Friend will not accept this suggestion and allow the county council to proceed, I think we shall be forced to the conclusion that it is only money which is holding up the construction of this section. I think I have already made the point that money has been spent on existing roads which would have been obviated if it had been possible to construct this section of the motorway at this time. I think that the situation is not a straightforward question of improving communications. It is a situation in which communications have definitely been worsened, more particularly for residents of Tewkesbury, by

  1613
  the construction of only part of this motorway, and this in itself constitutes a special reason and makes it imperative that this part of the motorway should be constructed in order to save the strangulation of the town of Tewkesbury.
  However, in any event, whether my hon. Friend accepts the suggestion and completes the 18-mile length, whether he accepts my time-table or whatever he does or does not do, I hope he will say tonight that this motorway will be given a place in the programme. It is not very encouraging for the victims of this situation not to have any date in mind when it might be started or be planned in detail. It is most important that we should get this section of the motorway put into a programme, so that we may see when it may take place and plan accordingly.
  I am quite certain that the build-up of traffic will continue for four or five years, and that the town of Tewkesbury now has to take a very high proportion of the heavy traffic moving from the Midlands, Birmingham and the Black Country down to ports in the Bristol, Channel, South Wales or on the South Coast, while, at the same time, it has to take practically all the holiday traffic moving, not only from the Midlands, but from the north of England and Scotland, down to Devon and Cornwall. I know from experience that large numbers of people who live in the north of England and in Scotland choose the South Coast of England for their holidays when they have the time to get down there, and this is placing a very heavy burden indeed upon a town which was built over a thousand years ago and which was not built to cope with such a volume of traffic.
  In conclusion, I would say that this is having a very serious effect on the life of Tewkesbury. I reiterate the point that the life of the town and its sources of income are being quite definitely affected, not only by this latest increase of from 30 to 60 per cent., but by the ever-increasing volume of traffic which has gone through Tewkesbury for the last twenty or thirty years. Up to a point, it was satisfactory, but, beyond that point, it has become a definite disadvantage from a business point of view, and, at the same time, from the point of view of the buildings, and that of the
  1614
  residents, who cannot sleep at night for the noise, and for many other reasons indeed.
  I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will be able tonight to give me some really good news about the possibility of putting this section of the road in his programme and I hope that he will accept Gloucestershire County Council's suggestion of building the motorway by the end of 1966. If I get an unsatisfactory answer, I shall have to pursue the matter in every way that is open to me.
  9.15 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) deserves both my thanks and congratulations; my thanks for being kind enough to give me notice in advance of the main points which he wished to raise and my congratulations for having in the course of the clay got himself somehow from Paris, which was fogbound, to London, which also was fogbound, in time to take part in this Adjournment debate. I do not know whether my hon. Friend remembers reading Around the World in Eighty Days. If he does, perhaps he might cut himself out for the part of a latter-day Phineas Fogg.
  The subject of the debate which has been raised by my hon. Friend is the Bristol—Birmingham motorway. Before I turn to the problems of Tewkesbury, perhaps I may say a little about the project as a whole and the progress that we have been making with it. The Bristol—Birmingham motorway, which we call M.5, is planned eventually to run from Birmingham and the Black Country to a place called East Brent, about 20 miles south-west of Bristol. It will have two functions. It is intended, first, to serve as part of a fast motorway route between the Midlands and South Wales and, secondly, to connect the Midlands with the south-west of England by a route which will by-pass a number of towns like Worcester, Tewkesbury, Gloucester and Bristol itself.
  The route of the motorway is planned to be largely parallel with A.38. The northern section, which was opened this summer, runs from the outskirts of Birmingham to Twyning, where it joins

  1615
  the Ross Spur motorway, which runs down into Wales. It provides the first part, therefore, of the improved route to South Wales to which I have already referred.
  The next 70 miles of M.5, when built, will carry the road from Twyning to East Brent. Already, we have had surveys made by our consulting engineers and my right hon. Friend has accepted their recommendations on the line that the road should take. Our consultations with the planning authorities are now going on and we can say, therefore, that we are at the first stage of a very long process of statutory procedures.
  This first stage will be followed by the publication of a draft scheme for the main line of the motorway and, subsequently, by the publication of a draft scheme for the side roads which join or cross the line of the motorway. Both of these schemes will come forward as soon as they are ready.
  I must emphasise one important thing which, perhaps, my hon. Friend has not fully understood. It was never intended that we should build the Bristol—Birmingham motorway as one operation. Our intention—this was one of the five major projects—was to build a motorway from Birmingham to South Wales and then, at a distance of a number of years afterwards, to add the section of which we are speaking tonight from the junction with the Ross Spur down to beyond Bristol.
  My hon. Friend has clearly explained the traffic situation in the town of Tewkesbury and its effects. We entirely understand and sympathise with that situation. The town has developed at the junction of the Severn and Avon Rivers and there are, I believe, a number of other small rivers and streams which radiate from Tewkesbury rather like the spokes of a wheel. As a result it has been developed a road pattern of the same kind. Unfortunately, this has the effect of funnelling almost all the traffic approaching the town into the centre of the town.
  I fully realise that the opening of the motorway from Birmingham to Twyning has not eased this problem. It is the very geographical advantages which created Tewkesbury at this particular
  1616
  spot which give rise to the difficulties now facing us in trying to work out a solution to the traffic problem. The answer is a by-pass. That would do what no other road in the area at present does. It would cross the rivers, the roads and the railways which radiate from the town. When the motorway is built, that will be its precise effect.
  We intend to extend the motorway from Twyning to some point south of Tewkesbury as soon as we possibly can. When this is done, it will entirely relieve the town of the heavy through traffic. However, we must face a number of problems which such a proposal entails.
  First, there are a great many urgent national priorities into which the solution of Tewkesbury's problems must be fitted. I do not think anyone now disputes that the five major projects to which I referred a few moments ago—that is to say, the London-Lancaster motorway, the London-Newcastle improvement, the London-Dover motorway, the London-South Wales motorway, and the Birmingham-South Wales motorway—must each have first call on our national resources, because these are the schemes which traffic as a whole, and industrial traffic in particular, most wants urgently.
  We are spending very large sums indeed on road works, but we just cannot do everything at once. It is one of these major schemes—the Birmingham-South Wales motorway—which has had some effect in aggravating the traffic problems in Tewkesbury and on the A.38. Because that motorway comes to Twyning, a point a little north of Tewkesbury, the traffic tends to accumulate as it leaves the motorway and continues along, A.38 to the south-west.
  The situation in which Tewkesbury now finds itself, for the time being at any rate, is not unique. I am afraid that it is a feature of any new major trunk road scheme that we may do that it is found to create difficulties at any bottlenecks which still exist beyond its termination. It would be quite impossible to delay the vitally important national schemes until such time as we have been able to build by-passes in other places which may be so affected.
  My hon. Friend was a little critical in suggesting that perhaps we should have

  1617
  foreseen the effects on Tewkesbury of stopping the motorway at Twyning. We did in fact foresee them. The fact remains that if motorways are to be built at all they must sometimes stop at a point which will add to the traffic difficulties at the next bottleneck. The first section of M.5 to be built was that between Birmingham and Twyning at the junction with the Ross Spur. This was, and still is, a justifiable stopping place for that road, because it provides the immediately necessary fast route from the Midlands down to South Wales.
  The section immediately to the south of it, by-passing Tewkesbury and going on down to the south-west and Bristol, presents us with some very formidable obstacles. To construct the next stage beyond Twyning we must build the bridge and viaducts over the River Avon and we have to cross the roads, railway and other waterways which I have mentioned around Tewkesbury. It was perfectly reasonable and logical, taking these factors together, to end the first section of the motorway at Twyning and deal separately with the particular problems which arise to the south. It would have been unthinkable to delay the construction of the first section until all the problems further south had been solved. That kind of planning, if we were to indulge in it, would not give us very many motorways because very few can be built all in one piece. We must plan to use our resources in a reasonably steady way. It is not the slightest good holding up the design of a scheme until everything is cut and dried and completely settled and then hoping that the resources to build it will be there.
  My hon. Friend put forward another reason why it could not at this stage be taken any further. It might seem an attractive solution if we could build a short extension of the motorway to a point just south of Tewkesbury. That might well help to relieve the local situation in the town. The trouble is that the local geography, particularly the connecting roads back to A.38, militate against such a solution. My hon. Friend will have realised that such a short extension does not provide a solution to the problem, so he suggests that we should build the next 18 miles of the motorway by-passing both Tewkesbury and Gloucester. As it happens, his ideas
  1618
  are very much in line with our own on this point.
  The best solution, indeed the only sensible one, would be to extend the motorway by 18 or 20 miles. But that means that a by-pass for Tewkesbury would cost us about £12 million to £15 million. We intend eventually to build such a road, but that amount of money and that length of road must be programmed with a very full assessment of the motorway priorities that exist throughout the country. It is not an immediate or an inexpensive palliative which my hon. Friend suggests.
  My hon. Friend went on to suggest that this length of motorway might be constructed by 1966, provided that we were to give it absolute priority over all other work. I think that his estimate is a little optimistic, but I would not quarrel generally with the idea that—again, I emphasise these words—given absolute priority the motorway might be constructed at any rate by 1967. I rather take leave to doubt the highly optimistic assumption of the county council that the statutory processes could be got through and the land acquired in so short a time as eighteen months from now. Be that as it may, I think that I have said enough to show that, however sympathetic we may feel towards the problems of Tewkesbury, those problems must be viewed against the national background as a whole. The road must be programmed in the light of a great many other urgent calls which we have on our resources and which equally deserve our sympathy.
  The time for this precise programming has not yet arrived. I am sorry to say it, but that is the fact. My hon. Friend expressed some disappointment with progress on the surveys to fix the route. I assure him that there has been no avoidable delay. The preparation has been going on as smoothly and as quickly as it is possible to carry it out, and there is no call whatever for acceleration of these processes. Indeed, to do so might disrupt rather than promote smooth progress.
  I promise my hon. Friend that we shall press on with the scheme as fast as proper observance of the statutory safeguards will allow. I have lost count of the number of times I have had to stand at this Box and plead the need

  1619
  for us to go through the statutory processes which Parliament has laid upon the Minister as an answer to the charges, which we hear so often at Question Time, that we are dragging our feet in getting on with road improvement or motorway schemes.
  On the other hand, the House will recall that, not infrequently, have I had to defend my Department against accusations of tyrannical behaviour, of riding roughshod over the small man or over local authorities and trying to bulldoze their rights out of the way in order to settle a scheme quickly. One gets the criticism both ways.
  Mr. Charles A. Howell: The hon. Gentleman cannot win.
  Mr. Hay: As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, we cannot win. Parliament has laid down in our highways legislation the statutory procedures to safeguard the interests of individuals and has prescribed the framework within which we are obliged to work. We cannot hurry these procedures too much, however irritating they may be or, indeed, they are to us in the Ministry who want to get on, or however irritating they may be to those whom a motorway will serve.
  I assure my hon. Friend that we fully understand the situation in his constituency which he has put so forcibly tonight. I realise that the particular circumstances of Tewkesbury are as deserving of sympathy as conditions in other places where much the same situation often arises. I visualise that, in
  1620
  any case, this road will be prepared in sections. It is not, I think, out of the question, when it becomes possible to allocate resources, that it could be programmed in parts. It might be possible to treat each part in accordance with special needs. However, it is still too early for me to say when and how this could be done.
  What I can say is that in our preparatory work we shall isolate the section of road which both my hon. Friend and we in the Ministry regard as the section which we shall have to build to by-pass Tewkesbury. This should make it possible, when the time comes for the road as a whole to be programmed, to consider carefully the claims of Tewkesbury for relief against the demands which, no doubt, will be made for the other sections of the road.
  I hope I have said enough to make clear to my hon. Friend and his constituents that we shall examine this situation with sympathy. However, I should be misleading all those who are now affected by the traffic on the A.38 if I did not make clear that, in present circumstances, we must reserve our decision about the programming of the motorway for some while yet. When we do take those decisions, I promise my hon. Friend, we shall take very fully into account every factor which operates on the situation, and not least the difficult position of Tewkesbury itself to which he has rightly drawn attention tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Ten o'clock.

EDUCATION
  Helicopter Noise, Nine Elms Area
  Helicopter Noise, Nine Elms Area
  Technical Colleges
  Technical Colleges
  Teacher Training, Norfolk and Suffolk
  Teacher Training, Norfolk and Suffolk
  Science Students (Russian Courses)
  Science Students (Russian Courses)
  11-Plus Examination
  11-Plus Examination
  School, Roseworth (Old People's Club)
  School, Roseworth (Old People's Club)
  Retired Civil Servants (Employment)
  Retired Civil Servants (Employment)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Wholesale Vegetable Markets
  Wholesale Vegetable Markets
  Housing Estates (Community Centres)
  Housing Estates (Community Centres)
  Derby Corporation (Compulsory Purchase Order)
  Derby Corporation (Compulsory Purchase Order)
  Rating Revaluation, Bournemouth
  Rating Revaluation, Bournemouth
  Retired Civil Servants (Employment)
  Retired Civil Servants (Employment)
HOUSING
  Estate, Knowsley (Rehousing)
  Estate, Knowsley (Rehousing)
  Decontrolled Properties, London and Middlesex
  Decontrolled Properties, London and Middlesex
  Improvement Grants, London and Middlesex
  Improvement Grants, London and Middlesex
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Midlothian (Wallyford)
  Midlothian (Wallyford)
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
  Blyth (Jobs in Prospect)
  Blyth (Jobs in Prospect)
  Industrial Development
  Industrial Development
  Anglo-Japanese Treaty
  Anglo-Japanese Treaty
  Retired Civil Servants (Employment)
  Retired Civil Servants (Employment)
  Glasgow (New Jobs)
  Glasgow (New Jobs)
  Camping and Caravan Site
  Camping and Caravan Site
NATIONAL FINANCE
  3½ per cent. War Loan
  3½ per cent. War Loan
  Local Authorities (Valuation Lists)
  Local Authorities (Valuation Lists)
  Civil Servants (Shareholdings)
  Civil Servants (Shareholdings)
  Hydrocarbon Oil Duties
  Hydrocarbon Oil Duties
  National Theatre
  National Theatre
  Gross National Product
  Gross National Product
  University Places
  University Places
  University Degrees
  University Degrees
  British Universities Sports Federation
  British Universities Sports Federation
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Wages and Productivity
  Wages and Productivity
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Detention Centres
  Detention Centres
  Parliament Square (Traffic Lights)
  Parliament Square (Traffic Lights)
  Prison Commissioners
  Prison Commissioners
  Royal Commission on the Police (Report)
  Royal Commission on the Police (Report)
  Attendance Centres, Liverpool
  Attendance Centres, Liverpool
  Francis M. McEvoy (Inquiries)
  Francis M. McEvoy (Inquiries)
  Children's Homes, Remand Homes and Approved Schools, London
  Children's Homes, Remand Homes and Approved Schools, London
  Prisons (Education Service)
  Prisons (Education Service)
  Licensing Act, 1953 (Planning Committees)
  Licensing Act, 1953 (Planning Committees)
SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  Constitution
  Constitution
TRANSPORT
  Tamar Bridge (Traffic)
  Tamar Bridge (Traffic)
SCOTLAND
  Local Authority Houses (Rents)
  Local Authority Houses (Rents)
  Births (Hospitals and Nursing Homes)
  Births (Hospitals and Nursing Homes)
  Polaris Base, Holy Loch
  Polaris Base, Holy Loch
ROYAL NAVY
  Polaris Base, Holy Loch
  Polaris Base, Holy Loch
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Air Council
  Air Council
  Retired Officers (Employment)
  Retired Officers (Employment)
  Retired Civil Servants (Employment)
  Retired Civil Servants (Employment)
BRITISH ARMY
  Highland and Lowland Brigades (Discharge by Purchase)
  Highland and Lowland Brigades (Discharge by Purchase)
  Enlistments, Scottish Command
  Enlistments, Scottish Command
POST OFFICE
  Retired Civil Servants (Employment)
  Retired Civil Servants (Employment)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry

PROGRESS REPORTS ON CONVICTED PERSONS
3.5 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: 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 steps have been taken to implement the recommendation in paragraph 305 of the Streatfeild Report on the Business of the Criminal Courts that judges and magistrates should be able to obtain from a central authority information as to the subsequent progress of those upon whom they have passed sentence.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, it is hoped to notify the courts, the police and the probation service in January of all the arrangements to give effect to Part B of the Streatfeild Report, which deals with supplying courts with the information necessary to enable them to select the most appropriate treatment for offenders. The arrangements generally will come into effect after an interval of about three months. This interval need not, however, apply to the supply of follow-up information about the progress of persons who have been sentenced. The arrangements for this will be made by the Home Office and, in the first instance, will necessarily be limited to sentences passed at assizes and quarter sessions.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for his Answer, and I should like to ask him two supplementary questions. The first is: what steps are going to be taken to notify the courts
322
that these facilities for follow-up information are available? The second question is: when will these facilities be extended also to the magistrates' courts?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lady's first supplementary is that it is proposed to notify the Judges, recorders, chairmen of quarter sessions, clerks of assize and clerks of peace by a memorandum. The Answer to the second question I do not know. It is, in the first instance, proposed to confine this procedure to the superior courts, bearing in mind that the lower courts cover a smaller range of sentences and that the sentences there are, on the whole, of shorter duration. But we will, of course, bear in mind the requirements of the lower courts.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, the noble Earl is very well aware that, although in the lower courts the range of sentences is shorter, the number of offenders who are dealt with there is enormously larger. I hope we may take it that his answer does not mean that the Government are proposing to slide out of extending these facilities to the magistrates' courts.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, is this not a good chance for the Government, in effect, to show that they are taking Streatfeild seriously? I hope the noble Earl will feel that he can do a little better.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I wonder Whether I may take the two questions put to me seriatim. I think I can assure the noble Lady that my answer was not intended to close the door to extending this procedure to the lower courts. I think that in answer to the noble Lord's question I would merely point out that, when this step has been taken, virtually all the recommendations of this major and important Report will have been dealt with within two years.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, in view of the fact that the magistrates as a whole will be very much interested in this development, although in the first instance it does not affect them individually, would it not be possible for the Government to circularise the various petty sessional courts, and the clerks to the various petty sessional courts, with a review of this particular scheme?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I shall certainly be glad to have that suggestion considered.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, when the noble Earl says that it is not proposed to close the door, does that mean that he does propose to walk through it?

MILK PRICES
3.9 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: 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 has been the percentage fluctuation in the guaranteed price per gallon to the farmer for milk in the current year and the past year, and the percentage fluctuation in the retail price of milk over the same period.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, following an increase of 2 per cent. at the 1961 Price Review, the guaranteed price to the Milk Marketing Boards was reduced by 1 per cent. at the 1962 Review. The average retail price for liquid milk in 1962–63 will be about 3½ per cent. more than in the previous year. As my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said in another place on March 15 of this year, this rise was due partly to the decision of the Government that the milk consumer should bear the full cost of the guarantee, and partly to an increase in distributive costs and other factors. But for the reduction in the guaranteed price, the retail price would have been higher.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, might I ask him whether the same period has been compared in each case? Am I right in assuming that the first two figures that he gave us related to the past year and the current year, but that the retail price the gave us related to the ensuing year, 1962–63, and would it be possible to put the same period with the same period?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I trust that I understood the noble Lady's
324
supplementary correctly. I think what I said regarding the retail price was that,
"The average retail price … will be about 3½ per cent. more than in the previous year."
Is that not the question she was asking?
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I am sorry, my Lords. Obviously, the mistake was mine. But might I ask the noble Lord whether it does not seem a little strange that these percentage fluctuations never are the same for the consumer and for the farmer? Is it asking too much in this imperfect world that sometimes they might approximate?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the difference in the matter of milk is very hard to work out. The price of milk depends—as perhaps the noble Lady knows—upon the amount of milk which is sold above what is called the standard quantity, because what is sold above the standard quantity does not attract the guaranteed price; it has to be sold at a much lower price. Therefore, what the farmer receives is, in fact, something between the two, which is known as a pool price. So that the price in this case depends a great deal on how much over the standard quantity farmers actually sell, because by that amount they will be bringing down the price of the milk they sell.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, could the noble Lord explain to us how it is that apparently the milk producer has been able to increase his efficiency sufficiently to make do with a reduction in price, while the distributor of milk has so failed to increase his efficiency that he has had to have an increase in price during that period?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, in the particular circumstances concerning milk the Government have thought it desirable to determine distributive margins, which is what the noble Lord has in mind. Before the war, the proportion of the retail price allowed to distributors was 42 per cent.; now it is less than 35 per cent., despite the great increase in the quantity of milk that is pasteurised and bottled as a result of the safe milk policy.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is not the simple fact that

325
this is the first year for many years that the Government have made no contribution whatsoever to the guaranteed price for milk, and that at long last the consumer is paying the whole cost? Would it not be as well if the noble Lord made that clear to the House?
LORD ST. OSWALD: If I were to make that clear to the House, I should also have to remind the House that the welfare milk subsidies continue and that the Government are spending £44 million annually on supplying milk to expectant mothers and to children under the national milk and the milk in schools scheme.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: Does that alter my statement in any way, shape or form?
LORD ST. OSWALD: I was not contradicting the noble Lord's statement; I was merely bringing in a statement of my own which I thought should be brought into the picture.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may we have a set of answers making the position of the producer amply plain? For example, if you take December, 1950, would it not be true to say that the winter price then to the farmer producing TT milk averaged about 4s. per gallon ex-farm, whereas at the moment, in December, 1962, he averages about 36 point something pence for the same article? And would the noble Lord also say what is the average price now over the whole year to the farmer for his milk ex-farm?
LORD ST. OSWALD: I could give the noble Viscount a set of figures, but, over the last year, for five months it was 8d. a pint; for seven months it was 8½d.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That is the consumer's price. I asked about the farmer's price.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I am sorry. If the noble Viscount would ask me for a more specific answer I would come prepared, but I fear that I cannot give that information to him to-day across the Table.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Then may I just inform the Minister—
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): I think, my Lords, that this is not the moment for giving information to the Government but for asking them questions.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Is it not also necessary to let the consumers in the country know what is the true position of the farmer? And although I do not think the consumer distribution is overpaid, the distributors do manage by arrangement to make a net profit of 2d. per gallon.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I dare say, but the consumers can be informed in order or they can be informed out of order, and it is preferable to inform them when one is in order.

PROPOSED NEW CONGO CONSTITUTION
3.17 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can make available to Parliament the text of the new Constitution proposed for the Congo.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, the draft Constitution was published as a United Nations document in New York on November 29, and a copy has been placed in the Library.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. May I ask him two supplementary questions? The first is: what changes of a federal character have been made in the new Constitution compared with the Loi fondamentale of 1960? The second is: to what extent is the Constitution acceptable to President Tshombe and the political leaders of the other Provinces (and I think that would probably include President Kasavubu himself) who are seeking a wide degree of federalism?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, as I understand it the draft Constitution has been worked out with the help of the United Nations' experts with a view

327
to producing a Constitution which is as federal as possible consistent with what is called "giving the Congo a viable administration"—a rather horrible expression, but there it is. That is the purpose. I have always taken the view that this Constitution must be debated and agreed by the Congolese themselves and must not be imposed on them from outside. I do not really think it is a very good thing if outsiders comment on the Constitution in detail and express opinions, and I therefore refrain from doing so.
In answer to the second supplementary my noble friend asked me, I would say that the Constitution, I understand, has to be examined by all the Provincial Legislatures. Copies of the draft were, I think, given to the provincial Presidents at a meeting in Leopoldville in October, but President Tshombe did not attend that meeting. I think he has since had a copy of it and has said that he has some misgivings about it, but has not so far given any details of what his objections are. But I agree that this Constitution, as I think my noble friend knows, is the essence of the matter of a settlement in the Congo, and I therefore hope that Mr. Adoula and the provincial leaders will get on very quickly and try to complete it.

DETENTION OF MR. G. M. WYNNE
3.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I apologise to the House for the absence of my noble friend Lord Henderson, who is laid up, and I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in his name.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a further statement regarding Mr. G. M. Wynne, now in custody in the Soviet Union.]
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am sorry to hear that the noble Lord is laid up. I hope he will be better soon. I have nothing of substance to add to the statement made in another place by my right honourable friend, the Lord Privy Seal, on December 3. Her Majesty's
328
Embassy at Moscow are continuing to press the Soviet Foreign Ministry for information about the case of Mr. Wynne; in particular about the place where he is being held, the likely duration of the preliminary investigation, the precise charges, if any, which have been formulated and the date when any trial would take place. They have also inquired about the possibility of visits to Mr. Wynne by an Embassy representative and by relatives, and have asked that he should be given aid and representation to which in our opinion he is entitled. Her Majesty's Embassy will continue to pursue these inquiries, but so far they have had no answer.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged. Would the Foreign Secretary tell us whether he has any knowledge of any precedent for a case of arrest of this kind in one country resulting in the person so arrested being transferred to another country to be separately and specially examined?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I have protested as strongly as I could to the Hungarian Government who were guilty of this practice. Of course, I am afraid that they were not in this matter in control of their own affairs. I think the Hungarians have an extradition law with the Soviet Union which they claim has been fulfilled, but whatever that law might have been, they had in my opinion no right to transfer Mr. Wynne without allowing him to be visited by our Consul in Hungary and without telling us with what he was charged.
LORD REA: Would the inquiry have within its scope the actual circumstances of his arrest and disappearance?
THE EARL OF HOME: We have been trying to ascertain that from the Hungarian Government, but they have so far refused to tell us.

BURIAL AND CREMATION BILL [H.L.]
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate, simplify and improve the law relating to the provision and maintenance of facilities for and places of burial and cremation by public

329
Authorities; and for other matters connected therewith. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

TANGANYIKA REPUBLIC BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

CHRISTMAS RECESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, subject to the progress of Business, it is proposed that the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment on Thursday, December 20, until Tuesday, January 22.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, when the noble Earl says "subject to Business" does he mean that if the Business is got through expeditiously we may rise on the 19th?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I cannot guarantee that, but if Business should be concluded in time, and if the various Bills which are to receive the Royal Assent before the House rises were completed and ready for the Royal Commission, it might be possible.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: This is a supplementary question. Noble friends of mine ask why Business is transferred from December 19 to 20 on the Paper. May we be told why?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: Perhaps the noble Viscount will tell me what particular Business he had in mind. Was he referring to the Motion on Central Africa in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I have no note with me.
LORD WISE: My Lords, may I interrupt? The British Transport Reorganisation (Compensation to Employees) Regulations, 1962, were on the Paper to be considered on the 19th. Now they are down for the 20th.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: That item is moved forward. That is not unusual. We cannot move Business back without a Resolution of the House, but it is perfectly in order to move it forward. It will be more convenient for the House to take it upon that day.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I think that explains my supplementary question number one and that was: did what the noble Earl said to the House mean that if we were expeditious in our Business we should rise on the 19th? That is what I was asking.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: We shall hope for the best.

PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL
Amendments reported (according to Order).

WATER RESOURCES BILL [H.L.]
3.26 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clause 1, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Meaning of "water resources"]:
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS)THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS) moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "shall be disregarded" and insert "does not constitute a source of supply". The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the names of Lord Jellicoe and myself. The effect of Clause 2 at present is to put those lakes, ponds or reservoirs which do not discharge into any other inland water (which may include pumped storage reservoirs of quite large dimensions, as well as the farmer's small private reservoir or the water undertaking's service

331
reservoir) right outside the scope of the Bill. It is correct that water contained in these should not be within the "water resources" of the river authority area, and that the taking of water from them should not be susceptible to control as an abstraction under the Bill.
But there are other matters in the Bill, notably Clause 73 (Provision for recreational facilities at reservoirs) and Clause 74 (Agreements for facilitating the performance of the functions of river authorities) which ought to be available where this defined type of lake, pond or reservoir is concerned, particularly if it is a reservoir which has been made by the river authority itself for a water conservation purpose. The making of the Amendment will enable this to be so, although it will still secure the exclusion of these particular waters from the scope of the hydrometric schemes, from the control of abstraction, and from related provisions contained in the Bill. This is really quite a simple Amendment and I hope the Committee will give its approval.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 5, leave out ("shall be disregarded") and insert ("does not constitute a source of supply").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Establishment of river authorities
3.—(1) The Ministers shall, as soon as practicable after the passing of this Act, by order establish authorities, to be called "river authorities".
(2) The names of the river authorities established by virtue of this section shall be those specified in the second column of Schedule 1 to this Act; and the area for which any such river authority is so established shall be an area consisting of the river board area, or combination of river board areas, specified in relation to that river authority in the third column of that Schedule.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved, in subsection (1), after "Act", to insert:
"and after consultation with such persons, or bodies representative of persons, as they consider appropriate".
The noble Lord said: During the Second Reading of this Bill, a number of noble Lords argued that those interests which would be effected by the work of river
332
authorities should have an opportunity of expressing their views about the composition of the authorities before Ministers had come to any firm decisions upon this and embodied such decisions in an order made under Clause 3 of this Bill. As I assured noble Lords during our Second Reading debate we have always had it in mind informally to consult with those concerned before the new authorities are set up. Such consultation would cover, in our view, important matters like the size of the authority—whether it should be a small authority, with not less than 21 members, or a large authority, with not more than 31 members—whether, in the case of a particular authority, the "special circumstances" foreseen in subsection (5) of Clause 6 dictated a membership above this higher figure of 31—and matters like the precise weighting of the members with particular qualifications to be appointed by Ministers under subsection (3) of Clause 6—and so on.
We were impressed during Second Reading with the pretty strong and general feeling voiced in the House that this procedure for consultation on the constitution of the authorities should be definitely written into the Bill. That is why I am proposing this Amendment. It will, in fact, require Ministers to consult before making an order, in just the same way as they are already obliged under Clause 10 of the Bill to consult before drafting an order altering the area of a river authority. Perhaps, to avoid any possible misunderstanding, I should make it quite clear at this stage—as my noble friend Lord St. Oswald will no doubt spell out later, in replying to Amendment No. 19 on the Marshalled List—that although we are proposing to write this requirement for consultation over the setting up—the constitution—of the authority formally into the Bill, we remain convinced that it would be a mistake to formalise consultation over the choice of particular members of a particular river authority.
I realise that the Amendment, which I now commend to your Lordships, may not go quite so far as some noble Lords (for example, the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey) might wish. He would like, if I read Amendment No. 6 correctly, not only to lay formally upon us this requirement for consultation, but also to lay

333
upon us a requirement to institute a very elaborate draft order procedure. I would suggest that if Ministers consult, as they will now, formally and statutorily, be obliged to, prior to the drafting of the order constituting the authority, they will be able to take full and proper account of the views of those concerned when they make the order and that the draft order procedure would then be otiose and unnecessarily time-consuming. As I note, however, that the noble Lord is also associated with the immediately following Amendment—which is in almost identical terms to that which I am now moving—I hope that not only he but noble Lords generally will feel that the machinery for consultation we are now proposing, is both reasonable and sound. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 12, after ("Act") insert ("and after consultation with such persons, or bodies representative of persons, as they consider appropriate")—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: While we are very grateful to the noble Earl for having gone so far with regard to consultation, having followed the wisdom of the 1948 Act, for which a noble Lord whose name I would not dare to mention was responsible, I regret that the noble Earl falls short in respect of further consultation where individuals are concerned. Our experience from 1948 has been that although consultation there perhaps caused some delay in the early days, thanks to the consultation those bodies who were greatly afraid that they would be ignored—fisheries, in particular, and there are a large number of them—were not only satisfied that the then Government, but also presumably the Government that succeeded them, were in earnest in seeing that the right type of person was appointed to these river boards. The noble Earl has given us warning that he has gone only halfway. I hope that he will think again, for even if there is some small delay in the early stages, it pays very large dividends over the years. I think that I can say to the noble Earl that, because consultation was real and satisfying, there have been very few appeals during the past fourteen years. Nevertheless, we are grateful to the noble Earl for his first step. We thank him for having gone so far in following the wise decisions taken in 1948.
LORD CORNWALLIS: In thanking the noble Earl for having gone as far as he has done, I should like to tell him that there is considerable feeling about possible reductions in the number of river authorities. Some think that they should be much fewer in number and others think that localities should not be neglected in their small units. I hope that the Government will go thoroughly into the question of local knowledge before any river board is abolished, because that probably is more important than the fact that the number of authorities may be one greater or one fewer.
EARL JELLICOE: I have listened very carefully to what the anonymous noble Lord sitting opposite had to say. We shall have an opportunity later on (I hope perhaps to-day, so that we can earn the extra day before Christmas which the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition held out as a promise to us) of debating the question of consultation regarding the appointment of particular individuals to a particular authority; but, of course, I can assure the noble Lord here and now that in that matter we certainly propose consultation. I think that all that is between us here is whether that consultation should be formal and statutory, but it is certainly intended that there should be full consultation. Perhaps we could leave this point to a little later on. I can also assure my noble friend Lord Cornwallis that in this question of consultation regarding the constitution of river authorities it is proposed to pay due heed to the local interests and local expertise which are available. It is certainly intended that consultation should be both deep and wide, covering the local authorities, the fishery interests, the land drainage interests, the farming community and, naturally, the water undertakings, and also the industrial interests. I cannot think offhand of any interests, who would have a real concern with the constitution of these new authorities, whom we would leave out. So I can assure my noble friend that it is our intention that this consultation should be not only statutory and formal, but also real.
LORD BURDEN: Before the Amendment is put, as the noble Earl mentioned local authorities, I take it that

335
although we agree to this wide consultation to which this Amendment refers this will in no way impair the position that the local authorities' representatives are to have a majority, even if only a bare majority, on the river authority. That position will be maintained?
EARL JELLICOE: I can, of course, give the noble Lord that assurance straight away. It is written into the Bill and is in no wise affected by this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH had given Notice of an Amendment, after subsection (1), to insert—
"( ) Before making an order under the foregoing subsection, the Ministers shall consult with such persons, or bodies representative of persons concerned, as they consider it appropriate to consult."
The noble Lord said: Having approved the previous Amendment, I think there is little or no point in submitting this further Amendment, which in 26 words would do what 15 words were doing in the previous Amendment. However, we shall come back to the point on Clause 6, where again it is a question of consultation, and we shall still regard it as fairly important, not because of theory, but in the light of practice and experience over the last fourteen years. I do not propose to move this Amendment.
3.41 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH moved to leave out subsection (2) and insert—
"(2) The boundaries of the river authorities established by virtue of this section shall correspond with those comprising the present river board areas."
The noble Earl said: It was the intention of my noble friend Lord Woolton to move this Amendment himself. However, his doctor has wisely refused to allow him to leave the sunshine of Sussex for this rather dangerous London smog. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will be indulgent to me in presenting his arguments at very short notice. I need not assure your Lordships that it was not my noble friend's desire, nor is it my intention, to embarrass the Government in any way in putting forward this Amendment. However, we feel strongly in this matter,
336
and I consider that I should at the outset reiterate the remarks made by my noble friend in this House on November 22 about the provision proposed in the Bill for the amalgamation of river boards. May I say that in principle we are both against this amalgamation? We believe it to be misconceived, specifically in respect of the Sussex boards, and uneconomic, and we feel that we must persist in our opposition to it.
The Proudman Committee over a period of six or seven years gave most careful consideration to the subject, and the amalgamation proposed in the Bill has not the authority of that important Committee, who in paragraph 104 of their Report deliberately refused to deal with the designation of river board authorities. Clause 10 of the Bill, as your Lordships know, makes provision for the alteration of areas and the designation of new areas. Such alteration or designation would be made by statutory instruments after the holding of a local inquiry at which objections by interested bodies or persons could be put forward to an inspector whose duty it would be to report on them to the Minister concerned. Your Lordships will agree that that is a reasonable way in which to deal with such proposals. But it will be observed that in Clause 3 of the Bill there is no provision for such a local inquiry in respect of those areas for which the Bill makes provision for amalgamation. It is the view of my noble friend that the Government are taking arbitrary powers in this matter. They are depriving those who could object to their action of any avenues of redress except through Parliamentary action. I beg your Lordships' protection for them.
It may be argued that the present river boards representing such areas have had an opportunity of making their own representations to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. But there is no comparison in effectiveness with a local inquiry, where the whole of the facts can be brought out and a considered judgment made. I submit to your Lordships, therefore, that the various interests concerned in such areas are by these proposals being deprived of the opportunity of presenting their case against amalgamation.
Our friends in West Sussex have urged me to bring to your Lordships' notice their considered opinion that there is no justification for an amalgamation of the East Sussex and West Sussex river board areas. They consider that the administration of these two areas as one unit would lead to considerably higher administrative costs whilst producing less efficient working. Will not this, in fact, entail the coming into operation of another of Professor Parkinson's laws? The work of my friends in Sussex in this matter has already received commendation from the officials of the Government Departments concerned.
The sole reason put forward by the Minister of Housing and Local Government for the amalgamation of these two boards is that they form one hydrological unit and that only by the creation of this unit will there be enough water conservation work to justify the employment of specially qualified staff. It may, indeed, be true that the two areas have similar geographical and meteorological conditions, and that their water conservation problems may also be similar, but the two areas do not fall into one natural unit. Indeed, in the case of Sussex, the composition is the reverse. In the whole area the flow of surface water in all the river basins is from North to South: there is no East to West flow. Underground the water flow is similar. Reference to well levels reveals that there is an underground hump at Brighton dividing the two areas, showing that there is no flow of water between them. Therefore, on technical as well as other grounds, no advantage accrues from considering the two areas as one whole. Rarely can a hump have been considered an economic asset.
On the advice which my noble friend and I have received, we are convinced that the new water conservation work that will arise as a result of the new functions to be conferred upon the river authorities will require the employment of a qualified staff in each area, and the proposed amalgamation would neither reduce the number of staff required nor provide any advantage in the quality of the staff needed. So far as water conservation is concerned, therefore, the important new functions relating to water conservation would not be prejudiced by the remaining separate of these two areas.
338
On the other hand, these new authorities will still be charged with the duty of looking after land drainage, coast defences, fisheries and the prevention of pollution. These functions require local interest and personal contact and they would be materially affected by any falling back in the standards achieved in the two existing areas. These standards have been achieved by working the two areas as separate units, and we believe that only in that way can they be worked efficiently and economically.
The two areas comprise 80 miles of coast land, traversing six individual catchment areas, with the large urban conurbation of Brighton and Hove in approximately the centre. It falls naturally into two units, and the two separate organisations would have to remain as area organisations in the separate areas of East Sussex and West Sussex and would be staffed substantially to the same standard and extent. Many of your Lordships who live in the County of Sussex will readily understand the difficulty of East to West road communications, which are very limited, and travel by road, particularly during holiday months, can be very slow. Even if the new headquarters were to be established centrally between the two areas, the time of officers spent in traversing such an elongated area would be extremely wasteful.
The effect of the proposed amalgamation would be to establish, on top of this present organisation, a higher tier in the shape of a central headquarters staff. The headquarters—this third tier of the administration—would be called the Brighton hump, and characterise, if I may say so, the folly of Parliament in providing unnecessary, costly and complicated official machinery. It is estimated that the additional cost of this would be at least £50,000 a year. It would be a complete waste of money which would fall entirely upon the local ratepayers. If the two areas are left for administration purposes as at present this waste will be avoided. The river systems in both boards' areas, discharging as they do into the Channel, provide each board with a heavy responsibility for the protection of the many outfalls of the main rivers, and for sea defences protecting low-lying land. The work involved is of such character that it is

339
imperative, on the ground of both economy and safety, that only an officer with chief officer status and responsibility can decide the extent of the immediate action necessary, particularly in the winter period when an emergency arises. Timely and reliable action in this respect can avoid incurring many thousands of pounds worth of work and, in some instances, avoid loss of life.
I hope I have convinced some of your Lordships that this Bill should be amended so that no express provision is made for any particular amalgamations, thus ensuring that there is no inequitable treatment as between those areas that are being amalgamated expressly by the terms of the Bill and those areas that may be amalgamated after the Bill has received the Royal Assent, leaving all questions of amalgamation to be dealt with under Clause 10 of the Bill. This does not mean that amalgamations may not in certain cases ultimately take place, but it means that the areas would be amalgamated only after a local inquiry has been held. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 14, leave out subsection (2) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Bessborough.)
3.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I rise not to make a speech but on a point of order, to ask for an explanation which I think would greatly facilitate our deliberations. I should like to ask the Minister in charge of the Bill, or the Chairman or the noble Earl who moved this Amendment, what would be the effect of this Amendment if it were either carried or rejected. There is the Schedule to which we shall ultimately come, which sets out all the boards who are to be amalgamated. I say at once that I and, I think, a great many other noble Lords on all sides of the Committee—the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Barnburgh and Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and many of us—take the strongest possible exception to amalgamations which are set out in the Schedule. We should certainly wish to debate that. I will be quite frank with my noble friend. As at present advised, I would certainly ask the Committee to divide on this matter.
340
As I read this Amendment, it strikes out the operative part of this clause. As the clause stands, it says that after the passage of the Act the river boards which are set out in the second column of the Schedule would be turned, some by themselves and some amalgamated with others, into river authorities. If we dislike that, as we do, then I should have imagined that the right time to argue, debate and divide upon it would be when we came to the Schedule. As I read the Amendment which my noble friend has put down, he would strike out the operative words of this clause and we should be left in the air. We should then have a clause which said that in every case river boards will be created only after there has been an inquiry. If we divided on that, and the Government defeated the Amendment or accepted it, we should then be precluded, when we came to the Schedule, from dividing. I say at once that it is for the House and not for the Minister, or even the inquiry, to decide all these vital matters. We shall be precluded from taking a Division on a succession of Amendments on the details of the Schedule. I think the Minister would greatly help the Committee if he could tell us where we are.
LORD SILKIN: I do not know whether the Minister would like to reply to that particular question, but I should have thought that this was a debatable issue with which we could deal in the course of the discussion on this Amendment. My own view, for what it is worth, is that this Amendment as it stands on the Order Paper is far wider than the particular arguments that were put forward by the noble Earl. He was directing himself almost entirely to the particular question of East Sussex and West Sussex, and on that issue I have no particular views at this moment. I should like to deal with that when we come to the Schedule. But on the general question I hope the Government will stand firm.
I want to let the Committee into a little secret. We on this side of the House are not entirely in agreement. Some of us would like to stick to the recommendation of the Proudman Committee and limit the number of river authorities to some fourteen, fifteen or thereabouts, and others would like to let the Bill remain as it stands. But I

341
imagine that none of us would want to go back to the existing state of affairs when there is a very large number of river authorities. Since that is the form of the Amendment, I may say a word on it. Whatever arguments were put forward in favour of it, I thought they were not strictly relevant to the Amendment, because the noble Earl has no right to speak for other boards which are being amalgamated. He is speaking entirely for East Sussex and West Sussex.
On the general question, there is difficulty. One difficulty is that practically every river board which exists to-day has a vested interest in remaining as it is. Everybody likes to paddle his own canoe, and these boards do not like joining with other authorities. We have this problem, and we shall be facing it when we come to consider London government. We are facing it even on the Common Market. Those who are opposed to our entry into the European Community are putting forward exactly that sort of argument, among others. But this is a question which has been carefully considered by a Committee set up by a Minister, the Proudman Committee. They have sat for many years and have worked out a plan after, I imagine, the most scientific hydrological and other investigations. The Committee consisted of men highly qualified to know what they are talking about. They have come to this conclusion. While I should be the last to suggest that a Government must slavishly follow the recommendations of any Committee, however eminent its members and however long they have sat, nevertheless we must pay some respect to the recommendations of the Committee and not lightly disregard them.
The argument which the noble Earl put forward is an argument for every single river board to come forward and say, "Oh, yes, but not in our case." In my view, there are many justifications for reducing the number of river boards. Personally, I should like to reduce it still further, but we have not put down an Amendment to that effect. Perhaps it would have been desirable if we had, but I take it that we are now having a general discussion on the number of river authorities that are to be set up; and perhaps that would be the equivalent of dis
342
cussing a specific Amendment for reducing the number. As a compromise I suppose I should be prepared to accept what is in the Bill, though I should very much have liked to reduce the number. If the Minister indicates that he would welcome an Amendment at a further stage of the Bill reducing the number I can promise him that it will be forthcoming, although I cannot promise that it will be acceptable to all my friend on this side of the Committee.
EARL. JELLICOE: I do not wish to delay the noble Lord, but there is, of course, an Amendment down in the name of my noble friend Lord Jessel which does, in fact, substantially reduce the number.
LORD SILKIN: That is quite right. I had for a moment forgotten that, but I am aware of it, and there is a schedule, too, setting out exactly how he would do it. In that case perhaps I may have a word to say in support when his Amendment is moved. But the general case for reducing the number is that we are looking at this question afresh. We hope that we are not going to be bound by what has existed for some time. If we were bound by that there would be no particular need for a Bill at all except for the creation of a Water Resources Board. But we are looking at the subject afresh and are trying to improve the position; and when the noble Earl puts forward the case that under the Bill there would be no reduction in the number of specialised persons, technologists and so on, required, I would absolutely disagree with him. I think, inevitably, there is bound to be an economy in the number of persons employed, particularly technologists.
But, even more, I should imagine that the real case for this reduction is that the Bill contemplates a considerable transfer of water from one area to another, and possibly there may be a surplus of water in one part of Sussex and a shortage in another. This reduction would facilitate the transfer of water from one area to another and, to that extent, apart from the technological advantage, it has that advantage. It is certainly going to be a very difficult process to get this transfer going as between one river authority and another, and the more we can facilitate

343
that process by having larger authorities the better. So I hope that the Minister will on this Amendment stand firm, but later on, when we come to discuss Lord Jessel's Amendment, I hope he will be susceptible to discussion on that.
LORD CHORLEY: I am not quite sure whether, as this is rather an important technical point, the noble Earl is going to deal with it immediately. If he is, I would reserve my remarks, because I want to speak to the more general matters raised by the noble Earl moving the Amendment.
4.3 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: If the noble Lord will permit me, I will intervene very briefly here to try to deal with the technical point of my noble friend, Lord Swinton, and answer it to the best of my ability. I will then give way again to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley.
As I understand it, the effect of the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Bessborough has moved would be to strike out the reference to Schedule 1 which lists the areas of the new river authorities to be established at the outset, including the amalgamation of the existing river board areas which it is proposed should be made. That, I understand, would be its first effect. It would, however, have another consequence, and that would be that to secure any of the amalgamation of areas at present proposed by the Bill, the Minister would have to proceed by order under Clause 10, as my noble friend made clear. I think that on the specific point which was troubling my noble friend I can give him a perfectly satisfactory assurance, and that is that if for one reason or another your Lordships decide not to approve this Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Bessborough, there will, of course, be plenty of opportunity when we get to Schedule 1, which will then still permit discussion on Brighton's hump and all the other little humps.
LORD CHORLEY: It seems to me that is very important, and in the circumstances I think that the noble Earl would probably wish to withdraw this Amendment, but he has raised matters of some general importance which are deserving of careful consideration. In the Second Reading I pointed
344
out that these proposed amalgamations have been put down without the opportunity being given to the existing river boards and the local authorities which are involved in these matters of really effective consideration of the proposed new areas. It is a matter of general import. The noble Earl who moved the Amendment takes the same kind of view, and what I think he is trying to establish is that these matters should, in fact, be discussed in public. That can be done only at a local inquiry.
It is all very well, as my noble friend Lord Silkin has said, to point out that a very expert Committee has been discussing this matter for years, but it does not necessarily follow that the most efficient area is the right area unless it may be seen by the people who are concerned with these things to be the right area. The trouble is that the Proudman Committee has been discussing these questions behind closed doors and other people who are interested have not been given the opportunity of knowing what the arguments are and taking any steps to deal with them. That seems to me to be the real weakness in the situation which the noble Lord is trying to get at.
I do not know about the two Sussex boards, but I do know something about the Cumberland and Lancashire one. I do not want to go into that problem, because it would be better to deal with it at a later stage, but it seems to me that it is very important indeed that these people who have been doing this job of work should be able to know the arguments and to make them, so to speak, in public. I do not think it is quite good enough to adopt the attitude that because an expert Committee has come to this conclusion we are therefore bound by that decision.
LORD SILKIN: I am sure that my noble friend would like to be fair to the argument I put forward, as he always is, but I did not say that we are bound by it. I said we have to pay great respect to it and not lightly disregard it.
LORD CHORLEY: We have not really had a chance of knowing what their arguments are; that is my point. They are not the only people who are interested in these things, and no doubt the noble Lord is quite right in saying that the existing

345
river boards have, in a sense, acquired a vested interest in these matters. But a number of them have been doing their jobs very well indeed, and they know about the situation in their own particular part of the country in a way which even the Proudman Committee may not have known. After all, it was a body sitting, in effect, centrally and very often considering the evidence at secondhand. I should have thought, regarding some of the difficulties, such as the one referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—that if there is a drought In one part of the country it cannot under present arrangements be met, but could be met by a larger area—that there are other ways of getting over problems of that kind.
In connection with the fire service, of which I have had a great deal of experience, there was a real difficulty, but that difficulty has now been overcome without amalgamating fire services beyond a certain point. The fire service in a great county borough must now go to the assistance of some other county borough in, say, Lancashire (where I know about the situation) in a way which it was not previously under obligation to adopt. I should not have thought that there was any particular difficulty in making provision to enable one water authority to get the assistance of another in a situation of peculiar drought which affected one part of an area which needed water from another. I do not think that considerations of that kind really, so to speak, make it mandatory on us to go through with these large amalgamations without the matter being brought out into the light of day so that it can be effectively argued, not only by the experts but by the people on the spot who are very vitally affected by decisions of this sort.
LORD HAWKE: I should have thought that my noble friend's Amendment is a very good one in that it really puts the onus ultimately on the Minister, after further discussion with all these authorities and a public inquiry, to arrange the final set-up. I have not enormous faith in amalgamation in the administrative set-up as arranged by debate in Parliament. We all of us probably have different views on these different amalgamations, and I should have thought that by proceeding with
346
the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Bessborough we put the matter where it should be, which is in the hands of the Minister after discussion and public inquiry into all these particular matters. My noble friend has instanced the cases of East and West Sussex, and has done it admirably, and that is only one of them. My noble friend Lord Jessel has down a similar Amendment that proposes to amalgamate Hampshire, the Isle of Wight and the Sussexes.
I should have thought there might be a case for Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, and West Sussex, but not East Sussex, because East Sussex and West Sussex are two different places, as he pointed out, and the effect of amalgamating just those two will inevitably be the necessity of setting up an entirely new headquarters away from the headquarters of either County Council. We cannot run East Sussex water from Lewes or West Sussex water from Chichester. Therefore, some entirely new office will have to be set up, leading to a great deal of extra expense. That particular amalgamation seems to me a very glaring case of wrong approach to the matter. There we have a strip of land twenty miles deep and eighty miles long containing five or six rivers proposed to be put under one board. I should have thought the operative dimension was the length of the coast line. Eighty miles of coast line drained by rivers seems to me too large a length to be looked after by one board. If there were an eighty mile depth and twenty mile width on the coast line that would be a very different proposition. I suggest to my noble friend the Minister that he is going to have great trouble over all these Schedules, and it would save him a lot of time and trouble in the end if he accepted my noble friend's Amendment.
VISCOUNT GAGE: On a point of order, I should like to know where we stand. Are we going to continue discussing amalgamation of Fast and West Sussex on this Amendment or, as suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, to discuss each of these individual amalgamations where necessary on the Schedule?
LORD SILKIN: On a further point of order, we have to discuss the Amendment which is before the Committee on the Marshalled list.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: May I point out one thing which might show a different view of this? On page 107, Schedule 3 shows how you can avoid setting up extra staffs by treating each of the existing river boards in their own well-understood local functions which they know so well—the distances the members have to travel being right—as committees of the bigger area. The bigger area is only going to do the redistribution, augmenting and so forth. The area ought to be big because where water has to be transferred you do not know where you will have to go; nor do you know geologically what is under ground. You have to have a big area which might consist of all the aquifers which may be there in addition to the surface water. Schedule 3 seems to me to make it possible to satisfy people like the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, and the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough.
EARL JELLICOE: I wonder whether it might be helpful if I intervened at this stage. I am sure that we all very much regret that my noble friend Lord Woolton is not able to take part in our Committee stage to-day. Nevertheless, I think we must also agree that the waters of Sussex have found a number of doughty champions in his place, not least my noble friend Lord Bessborough. I think—and here I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chorley—that this Amendment raises a matter of general importance, and I myself am very glad that the noble Earl has ventilated this particular question at an early stage in our discussion.
I was not quite certain in listening to my noble friend whether he was really in his heart opposed to most amalgamations as such. I must confess I rather got that impression, and if so, of course, the whole weight of informed opinion in this matter is dead against him. My noble friend Lord Bessborough quoted what the Proudman Committee stated; he quoted, in fact, paragraph 104 of the Committee's Report:
"We do not consider ourselves equipped to designate the areas of river authorities."
But I should like to read what the Proudman Committee said in the immediately succeeding sentences:
"Not every existing river board area need, we think, be administered as a separate conservation area, but for the purpose of river authorities some review of river board areas
348
is likely to be the sensible course. (The legislative framework should, we suggest, allow of this at the outset, bearing in mind geographical as well as topographical considerations, and permit of subsequent modifications.)"
That is precisely what we are providing far in Clause 3 of this Bill.
Again, in our debate on the White Paper last May and during our debate on Second Reading and again to-day, from the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and my noble friend Lord Albemarle we have heard clearly stated the reasons for some amalgamations being necessary. Indeed, some noble Lords in both our previous debates—in fact, I think the majority of noble Lords who spoke—pressed for more amalgamations and smaller and fewer river boards than are now set out in Schedule 1; and of course the Amendment to Schedule 1 which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Jessel crystallises that point of view. I would grant that my noble friend may not be totally opposed to any amalgamations, but the consequence of his Amendment is that in securing any of the amalgamations of areas proposed by the Bill Ministers would have to proceed by order under the Clause 10 procedure. This, I think, is what the noble Lord wants and what other noble Lords may want.
It was argued, for example, by the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, at Second Reading that this was the procedure provided for in the 1948 Act, when the original river boards were established, and that this is a precedent which we should now be wise to follow in setting up the new river authorities. As I tried to explain on Second Reading, the situation dealt with in this Bill is quite different from that dealt with in the 1948 Act. The 1948 Act set up entirely new authorities, river boards, to deal with land drainage, fisheries and control of river pollution. Previously, these functions had been discharged by a number of different bodies covering a variety of areas, and in some parts of the country these functions were not discharged at all. The determination of areas for river boards was therefore a major operation. There was no existing pattern which could be adopted, either as it stood or, possibly, with some slight modifications. For the present Bill, on the other hand, we have a readymade pattern, that of the existing river

349
board areas. This pattern is known to be absolutely suitable, so far as I know, for the transferred functions—the land drainage, pollution and fisheries functions which will be inherited by the new river authorities from the river boards.
What is needed is some adjustment for the new function of conservation, and in the First Schedule the Bill makes a relatively slight adjustment (some noble Lords would no doubt say that it is too slight) of the 26 areas, and all but six correspond exactly to the existing river board areas. In those circumstances, it seemed to us best to set out the proposed areas in the Bill itself so that Parliament could decide. One advantage of this procedure is that it enables Parliament fully to discuss how many areas there should be, and what those areas should be, and to discuss that at the outset.
I think it is quite clear from the Amendment standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and the noble Lord, Lord Henley; from what the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, told us on Second Reading; from what we have heard now, and from what my noble friend Lord Swinton has said, that noble Lords propose to take full advantage of the opportunity of discussing the proposed areas as set out in the First Schedule. I personally cannot see anything arbitrary about that procedure. That, I think, was the adjective employed by my noble friend Lord Bessborough in describing it. Of course we do not propose to act in an arbitrary manner here. The very Amendment which I introduced a short time ago, formally providing for prior consultation about the constitution of the river authorities, surely shows that we wish to take full account of local opinion and have no intention of riding roughshod over local opinion.
I would suggest, too, that another advantage of the simpler procedure which is incorporated in the Bill, as compared with the elaborate procedure into which the noble Lord's Amendment would force us, is that it would enable the new authorities to be set up much more quickly than if we followed that elaborate procedure. I would remind noble Lords that in our debate last February on the Manchester Corporation Bill my noble friend Lord Woolton was among many noble Lords who called for urgent action by the Government to
350
tackle this problem of water on a national scale. To quote his own words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 237; col. 264]:
"It is not a White Paper that we want; it is action."
Now, when we propose action, it would seem to me, at least, that he and his friend's wish to delay action; because if we adopt the procedure which my noble friend Lord Bessborough is suggesting we should, in fact, effectively delay the setting up of these important new river authorities, possibly for quite a considerable time.
I should again like to make it crystal clear that there is nothing particularly novel in the procedure which we are proposing in this Bill. One precedent, for example, is provided by the Land Drainage Act, 1930, which set out in a Schedule the areas for which catchment boards were to be established. I would urge upon my noble friend that he is wrong if he is opposed to amalgamation in principle. I would urge that there are considerable practical advantages in the procedure for amalgamation embodied in the Bill as it now stands. For those reasons I trust that my noble friend will not press his Amendment. In expressing that wish, I can repeat my assurance that there will be plenty of opportunity for discussion in Committee on the proposals for amalgamation as set out in Schedule 1, including the proposal affecting Sussex. Indeed, ever since the banns for these various marriages were published in the White Paper, a great deal of discussion and correspondence has been going on between the river boards and the Departments concerned. I can merely repeat that no one who has asked for a meeting with either of the two Ministries concerned has been refused a meeting. That, of course, is quite right.
The arguments have, I think, been pretty fully ventilated, but when we come to the First Schedule there will be plenty of opportunity for ventilating them again and going over this ground fully. I can therefore assure my noble friend that he will not be selling Sussex or the Sussex river boards, down any river if Clause 3 is allowed to remain as it stands. The men of Sussex, as well as Lord Henley's men of the North, will be able to fight again on this matter on

351
the First Schedule, if we come to it, even if we decide not to adopt this Amendment.
4.27 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: Might I just put this point to the noble Earl? When we have to discuss these matters on the First Schedule we just argue about them. We cannot have the evidence in the way that it can be brought forward at an inquiry. The value of the local inquiry is that the evidence is given and is cross-examined to, and it may or may not stand. That, I think, has a considerable advantage over the argumentation process in which people just advance categorical statements on either side, and, in the end, we have just to vote on them, having heard no cross-examination of the effective kind which I should like to see.
EARL JELLICOE: All I would recall, if I may, to the noble Lord is that last February, when we were discussing the Manchester Corporation Bill, some people thought it was a good thing to allow that Bill to go to a Select Committee so that all this detail and evidence could come out. But that did not deter the House from taking a decision which may well have been right; and I think there will in fact be plenty of opportunity of reaching on the Floor of this House, in discussing the First Schedule, a pretty fair decision an the proposed amalgamations.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I am, of course, in a rather awkward and delicate position in this matter, since my noble friend Lord Woolton is not here. But he has told me that I must use my own judgment in the matter. I know that, like Lord Chorley, he sets great store by a local public inquiry. Whereas I am to some extent considerably reassured by what my noble friend Lord Jellicoe has said, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that there still will not be a sort of open local public inquiry. As I say, I am not opposed to amalgamations in principle—and in the case of Sussex alone I feel that there ought to be a local inquiry. I agree that it is difficult to legislate for one county alone, but I think that, on the whole, my noble friend would say that in view of the Government's assurances, and on condition that he will naturally have a right
352
to raise the matter again on Report, and that it is to be further discussed in regard to the First Schedule, he would be agreeable to my withdrawing this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HENLEY: This Amendment is a paving Amendment. I think the noble Earl has already given me a lead as to how we should tackle this matter. This Amendment is linked with No. 131, which also stands in my name and contains the substance of my Amendment, and also with the consequential Amendments which follow Nos. 133 and 134. In view of what the noble Earl has just said, and in view of the fact that your Lordships will not want to hear redeployed the arguments I have to make when we come to the First Schedule, I take it that the position is now that I should at this stage withdraw this Amendment No. 5, in view of the assurance that has been given that we shall come back to it when we come to the Schedules. In the circumstances, therefore, am I right in withdrawing my Amendment at this stage, after formally moving it?
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 18, after ("areas") insert ("or parts thereof")—(Lord Henley.)
EARL JELLICOE: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. As I have just pointed out, I am sure that it is best to consider the detailed justification for the proposed areas of the new authorities when we reach the First Schedule—and I hope that our journey there will not be too long delayed. I realise that if we were to accept the noble Lord's Amendment to the First Schedule we should need to make corresponding adjustments to Clause 3 of the Bill. But this alone would not be sufficient. For example, I am advised that extensive modification to Part IX of the Bill relating to transfer of staff and associated matters would also be necessary to provide for the instance where we decide to split a river board area in order to give part to one river authority and part to another. I can assure the noble Lord and other noble Lords that if changes are made to the First Schedule which lead to a splitting of existing river boards, then we shall not only be able but very willing to come back and deal at a later stage of the

353
Bill with the necessary consequential Amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DE RAMSEY: Amendment No. 6 which stands in my name was designed virtually to achieve the same thing as the third Amendment on the list. Therefore, the remarks of the noble Lord, Lard of Barnburgh, apply equally to this Amendment. I should like to thank the noble Earl for largely meeting the point, and to say that I shall not move the Amendment.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
General duty of river authorities in relation to water resources
4. Without prejudice to any other functions assigned or transferred to them by or under this Act, it shall be the duty of each river authority, as from the second appointed day, to take all such action as they may from time to time consider necessary or expedient, or as they may be directed to take by virtue of this Act, for the purpose of conserving, re-distributing or otherwise augmenting water resources in their area, of securing the proper use of water resources in their area, or of transferring any such resources to the area of another river authority.
4.33 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, after the first "area" to insert:
"of maintaining or restoring the wholesomeness of water resources in their area".
The noble Viscount said: My noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensbury is unavoidably prevented from being in your Lordships' House this afternoon, and he has asked me to move this Amendment on his behalf. I willingly do so because, when I looked into it, it seemed to me to disclose a very unfortunate state of affairs in this important part of the Bill, which sets out, in Clause 4, the general duty of the river authorities in relation to water resources and then, in Clause 5, transfers to river authorities the functions of river boards.
The Amendment standing in the name of the noble Duke would, as I understand it, reincorporate into this Bill some words which appeared in the legislation affecting the powers and duties of the old river boards, mainly with reference to their powers to prevent pollution. It is clear from the words which the noble Duke put down in this Amendment that
354
he was attempting to emphasise this part of their duties. I have no doubt that my noble friend, Lord Jellicoe, when he replies, will say that it is quite unnecessary to put in these words because this is covered by Clause 5 (1), which says.
"As from the second appointed day all the functions which … were exercisable by river boards by virtue of—
"(a) section 4 of the River Boards Act 1948"—
which referred, among other things, to river pollution—
"… shall be transferred to the river authorities established under this Act."
That is all very well, but in fact, of course, by the Eleventh Schedule to this Bill the River Boards Act is being repealed. Therefore, in the normal course of events, when it comes to anybody looking up the duties and functions of river boards with reference to pollution, unless he looks at some old Statute Book he will not find the River Boards Act at all. I go further than that because, even if he does find the River Boards Act, Section 4 is not going to do him any good, since all it does is to refer to:
"Section sixty-nine of the Public Health Act, 1875, the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, and any enactment relating, to river pollution contained in a local Act or statutory order …"
It does not seem to me that anyone is going to get very far in tracing references to pollution.
Furthermore, Clause 5 of this Bill has caught up with the times, because since the passing of the River Boards Act, 1948, there (has been a perfect plethora of river board legislation, including at least three Acts in ten years. They are intended to be contained, I suppose, in Clause 5 (1) (c), which refers to:
"any statutory provision not contained in that Act …"—
that is the Rivers Boards Act, 1948. That may certainly include the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, but goodness knows what else it includes as well! I do not see how, as this is at present drafted, anybody can discover what are the functions and duties of river boards. A formidable number of other Acts are also being repealed. I am sure that they contain powers for the old river boards to prevent pollution, but, as I say, they are now being repealed as well. Would it not be better to set out in much

355
greater detail in these important clauses of this Bill what the river authorities are intended to do, so that one does not have to go through a first, second, third and fourth, stage of research into Acts referring to other Acts under which orders and regulations have been made? Let us have set out in quite clear, lucid terms just what these authorities are meant to do.
I am sorry to have become so heated on this, but, as your Lordships may have gathered earlier this afternoon, I have been having my own private attempt at a little piece of statutory consolidation, and it has seemed to me that in this sort of exercise it makes much better sense if one uses plain language rather than obscure references. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for attaching this harangue to the noble Duke's Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 7, after ("area") insert the said words.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD HASTINGS: I see that no other noble Lord wishes to cross swords with my noble friend behind me who has so ably moved this Amendment on behalf of the noble Duke. But I can assure my noble friend that the matter is not really so confusing as he has deliberately tried to make it. And he is quite right in assuming that I am going to say that this Amendment is quite unnecessary. Clause 4 makes it the duty of each river authority
"to take all such action as they may from time to time consider necessary or expedient or as they may be directed to take by virtue of this Act"
for the purposes mentioned in the clause. To those purposes the noble Duke wishes to add the words he has put down in his Amendment:
"of maintaining or restoring the wholesomeness of water resources in their area".
This would mean that river authorities would be under a duty to take "action" to maintain or restore the wholesomeness of water in both inland waters and in underground strata. I have said that the Amendment is unnecessary, but I can go further and say that, to the extent that "action" might be construed as meaning the execution of works, it is undesirable.
356
By virtue of Section 1 (1) of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951—and now I regret I am going to have to mention a number of Acts which, perhaps, were not mentioned by my noble friend behind me—it is the function of each river board to enforce that Act (with which must be read the Clean Rivers (Estuaries and Tidal Waters) Act, 1960, and the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1961). The long title of the Act of 1951 declares it to be
"An Act to make new provision for maintaining or restoring the wholesomeness of the rivers and other inland or coastal waters of England and Wales …"
—the exact words used by the noble Duke. The means of achieving these objectives is not works by river boards, which duty the Amendment would put upon the river authorities. The Acts include provisions making it a criminal offence to make discharges of trade or sewage effluents without their consent. The onus of carrying out works to render effluents harmless is placed on the discharger, not on the river board. Therefore, it should not be placed on the river authority, but on those who discharge the effluent. This function of river boards is transferred to river authorities, as my noble friend assumed quite rightly, not by Clause 5 (1) (a), which does not enter into it at all, but by Clause 5 (1) (c), and will be one of their "transferred functions".
As regards water in underground strata. Clauses 68 to 70 make provision for the prevention of pollution of such water, by providing that the discharge of effluents and polluting matter into such strata by means of a borehole or similar work will require the consent of the river authority. As in the case of inland waters, the onus of preventing pollution is placed upon the discharger. Finally, river authorities are empowered by Clause 72 to make by-laws for the protection of any water, whether in reservoirs owned or operated by them, or in underground strata from which they are authorised to abstract water.
Therefore, I put it to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross that really the Bill lays quite specific duties upon the river authorities, by means of their transferred functions and, in addition, by means of Clauses 68 to 70 and Clause 72, that this point is really fully safeguarded.

357
Therefore we do not wish to accept this Amendment and put unnecessary phrases into this clause. If at any stage we find it possible to make some amplification by adding words, perhaps in some Schedule or something of that nature, we could consider it, but we feel that it is unnecessary to specify further in Clause 4, in relation to the duties of the river authorities, because if once we begin doing that we may find it necessary to specify a lot of other material as well.
LORD SILKIN: I should like to be quite clear as to exactly what is the answer to this Amendment. At one stage I thought the answer was that the maintaining or restoring of the wholesomeness of water was the function of some other body; that the wording of this Amendment would involve the river authorities in carrying out actual works which would not be their function but the function of the other bodies to which the noble Lord has referred. On the other hand, the noble Lord is encouraging the noble Viscount to put down Amendments, or to consider forms of words, which would in fact further describe the functions of the river authorities, which seems to me rather inconsistent. If the noble Lord stands on his first argument, that the actual duties that are laid down in the Amendment would not be the function of the river authorities, I quite understand that. What I do not understand is why he is encouraging the noble Viscount to put down further Amendments.
LORD HASTINGS: I am sorry the noble Lord misunderstood what I said. Of course, these are the functions of the river authorities and they have full powers under their transferred functions, because these functions are already being carried out very efficiently by the existing river boards. Therefore, the river authorities will have the same functions. But it is not the function of the river boards, nor will it be the function of the river authorities, actually to execute works to prevent pollution, because it is incumbent upon the people who are offending in this respect, the dischargers, to execute those works. Therefore we cannot accept this Amendment to make it a duty of the river authority to execute works. We say that it is definitely both unnecessary and undesirable to have these words in Clause 4. We do not think it is necessary to
358
amplify the point in any part of the Bill; we should merely regard sympathetically any attempt on the part of my noble friend to do so if he thought it might be appropriate in any part of any Schedule. But we do not think it is necessary, in any case, and we ask the Committee to reject it definitely in Clause 4, because it is not the duty of the river boards to execute works and they have the full, necessary powers as it is.
LORD SILKIN: I had understood the noble Lord quite correctly. That is what I understood him to say: that this would impose upon the river authorities duties which he does not wish to impose on them under this Bill, because they are already being carried out by other authorities. That is the answer to the Amendment. I do not follow, then, what other words he wants or suggests would be possible—that is all.
LORD HASTINGS: I do not want any other words.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hastings, and I see the narrow point upon which he is suggesting that your Lordships should reject this Amendment. From my memory of the Acts to which he referred, it is a good point. I would not therefore press this Amendment.
I am, however, a little surprised at my noble friend for suggesting that it is the duty either of myself or of any other Member of your Lordships' House to make sense out of a Bill which is introduced by the Department for whom he is speaking. It would not have been necessary for the noble Duke to put down, or for myself to move, any reference to wholesomeness of water had it not been for the fact that the transferred functions of the new river authorities under Clause 5 are so unbelievably obscure that it had not come to the attention of any of us that the wholesomeness of the water was, in fact, one of those transferred powers. The plea that I would therefore make—and perhaps I strictly ought to do it on the Motion that Clause 5 stand part, but if your Lordships will forgive me I will finish it now—is that the noble Lord really should look again at the drafting of that particular part of Clause 5 (1), because I do not see why it should be necessary on purpose, apparently, to

359
Legislate for obscurity. Surely, it would be very much better if the powers and functions which these authorities are intended to exercise could be clearly and readily discernible by anybody who turned up this very comprehensive Act, as I have no doubt it will soon become. Would the noble Lord be prepared to look again a little further, so that the matter may be put down correctly by his own Department, rather than incompletely by myself?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: In that case I will still reserve the position and raise this point again on the Question that Clause 5 stand part of the Bill.
LORD HASTINGS: I am sorry that I was not quick enough. I was going to reply to the noble Lord's plea. But I am bound to say that I think he is making rather heavy weather of it, and we quite deny that this Bill is obscure. But in view of his plea we will look at this point again. Of course, it cannot be done now, but there is plenty of time. When we come to Clause 5 on the second round, so to speak, on Report stage, if there anyhing we can do to make things clearer we will do it. But we do not believe that it is obscure. A great deal of consolidation has gone into this Bill, and a great deal has been repeated in the River Boards Act and other Acts. These other Acts have been repealed rather than have a mass of legislation by reference, and that very point was brought up on Second Reading. If the consolidation has not made it clear to my noble friend, I can only regret it.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Constitution of river authorities
6.—
(3) The remainder of the members of a river authority (other than additional members) shall consist of the following, that is to say—

(a) one or more members appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as being qualified in respect of land drainage;

(b) one or more members appointed by that Minister as being qualified in respect of fisheries;

(4) In the last preceding subsection "qualified", in relation to any subject mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) of that subsection, means qualified as having had experience of, and shown capacity in, or otherwise as having special knowledge of, matters relating to that subject.
(5) If in the case of a particular river authority it appears to the Ministers that, by reason of special circumstances, the number of members of the authority, other than additional members, ought to exceed thirty-one, the order establishing the authority may provide that the number of members of the authority (excluding additional members) shall be such number, greater than thirty-one, as may be specified in the order.
4.50 p.m.
LORD WISE LORD WISE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "twenty-one" and to insert "thirty-one". The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 8 but to speak also on Amendment No. 9, which I think can be taken together as they both refer to the wording of subsection (1) of Clause 6. These two Amendments seek to increase the membership of the river authorities by adding ten to the minimum and the maximum numbers.
LORD HASTINGS: Might I just ask the noble Lord if he would include Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 as well? I think they are on exactly the same point.
LORD WISE: Certainly.
LORD HASTINGS: And possibly—I do not know whether he considers them consequential—even Nos. 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16; or would he like to speak to those separately?
LORD WISE: I would rather speak to No. 11 separately. At any rate, we can include Nos. 20 and 21 in what I have to say now. It is apparent from the Amendments which are already in the Marshalled List that various bodies which are interested in this Bill wish to be considered for representation on the river authorities. Although at first sight it may be considered that an increase in the number of the membership may tend to make them unwieldy or unworkable—as a matter of fact, that is the view I previously held myself, but since representation has been made to me I have changed my mind—I think there is a case for additional membership of the various authorities. It is clear, I think, that heavy duties will devolve upon the river authorities and that they must divide

361
their membership into various committees and sub-committees. I think the Minister has recognised that by Schedule 3, paragraph 13, sub-paragraph (2) on page 108, which deals with the question of the appointment of outside members to various committees except the Finance Committee.
It will be noted that in Clause 6 (2), it is provided that a majority of the total membership, excluding additional members as may be appointed under Clause 8, shall
"be appointed by or on behalf of all the constituent councils".
Now it is laid down in the Bill, in Clause 6 (7), that "constituent council" means
"the council of a county or county borough any part of which is comprised in the area of the river authority".
There does not seem to be any reference to the numerical limits of the majority of members who are appointed by the particular river authorities except that they should have a majority. It may be a smaller number over 50 per cent. or it may be larger; and in an authority of 21 or 31, under the Bill as it now stands provision is made for other persons, qualified in accordance with the five categories which appear later in Clause 6 (3), to be appointed.
It will be noted that it is provided in Clause 6 (5) that, by order, the Minister concerned can add to the minimum and maximum numbers respectively in special cases, but it would seem to be desirable that the statutory numbers should be increased by amendment of the Bill. In that case, additions contingent on the special circumstances under which the Minister can apparently add to the numbers could still be made without any detriment at all. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to accept this Amendment and increase the minimum number to 31 and the maximum number to 41. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 27, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("thirty-one").—(Lord Wise.)
LORD CORNWALLIS: I do not wish to follow up the Amendment completely, because there is another side to this question of the appointment to a river authority to which I should like to draw attention. I do not think that industry
362
is quite getting its fair share of what it should have in these various authorities. The clause provides:
"A river authority shall consist of not less than twenty-one members and … not more than thirty-one members",
that there must be a majority of local authorities (and I gather that the Amendment wants to make quite certain that that is so) and that the remaining members are to be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (and I suppose "the Minister" means also the Minister of Housing and Local Government), one of whom is to represent industry.
I believe, though I have no authority to say so, that the Federation of British Industries feel very strongly that this Bill should be amended to ensure beyond doubt that industry is adequately represented on these various river authorities. I wonder whether it is realised that the quantity of water that is taken by industry from private sources, which, of course, will become chargeable under this Bill when it is passed, is equal to the total supply made available for all purposes by statutory water undertakers, and that it amounts to about 2,000 million gallons per day. And that is excluding abstractions by nationalised industries. It is therefore considered by those of us in industry that the basis of membership on the river authorities should be commensurate in some way with the use of the water in a particular area.
Then you notice that everybody else seems to have a foster father of some kind. Agriculture, fisheries and land drainage have a parent, the housing people have a parent, and so on. Industry, apparently, has no parent, but it is to be represented by the Minister in charge of public water supply. It seems to me that the President of the Board of Trade might possibly have been brought in here to look after the interests of industry. Then he could have been consulted, possibly, regarding the appointment of those people—I know it says "one or more"—to represent industry. I do not think it is ever realised nowadays that if industry does not provide the money there will be nothing with which to pay the salaries of the river authorities or anything else, and that applies to Members of Parliament and even to the money that we are paid

363
when we come to attend your Lordships' House. Therefore, I most emphatically ask the noble Lord whether he can in any way make certain that the needs of industry, the interests of industry and the wisdom of industry are thoroughly represented on these river authorities.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: I think that perhaps in a few words I could add my contribution to the discussion on this Amendment without delaying the Committee. If this Bill was designed to reduce the obligations of the river authority, then one could understand that there should be a smaller number of members than we had on our river board; but as the obligations of the river authority are bound to be increased once the conservation board gets into action and starts to direct the river authority what they must do about the conservation of water, and so forth, then it must be perfectly clear to your Lordships that the number of members on any one of the river authorities ought to be at least adequate for the purpose and for the function that authority have to perform.
Your Lordships will understand from one clause here that local authorities must have slightly over 50 per cent. of the total membership, and if the membership of the river authority is to be too small, then obviously it is going to be a full-time job for representatives of local authorities. I do not think that would be reasonable. I do not think it would be good either. Representatives of local authorities, with the rest, over the past fourteen years have done a first-class job of work. There have been few complaints from Northumberland to Cornwall, and I do not think there will be in future, so long as the manpower is there and available to do the task for which they are appointed. I agree with my noble friend Lord Wise that perhaps the figure of 31 would be more nearly right than the figure of 21 embodied in the Bill. I appreciate, of course, that there are to be additional members, but I am not sure that that will fill the breach. Therefore I hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will carefully consider the increased obligations and duties to be imposed on the river authorities before finally closing his ears to this argument.
I feel that instead of a decrease in their duties and obligations they are going to
364
have a very sizeable increase if the Bill is to achieve the purpose which we all have in mind. There needs to be a manpower sufficient not only for a committee for finance and a committee for general purposes but for all the necessary sub-committees, to ensure that the job is done effectively. Because I feel that, I am glad to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: Just now I pointed out that it is a question of into how many areas you divide England. If this Bill eventualy lays down fourteen main sub-divisions of England, the number of sub-committees which these larger areas will then have to appoint will have to be sufficient to do the work—as pointed out by the noble Lord opposite. I have been on a river board for a great number of years and I know we certainly ought to be given a minimum of 31. I do not know whether we need go to 41 but we jolly well need 31 for each committee or sub-committee of the larger area which may eventually be agreed.
5.4 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: This Amendment, put forward in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wise, Lord Williams of Barnburgh and Lord De Ramsey, is working over the arguments which were gone into very thoroughly by the Proud-man Committee itself and were considered equally thoroughly by Her Majesty's Government who gave their answer to the problem in paragraph 16 of the White Paper. Your Lordships will remember that the Proudman Committee was divided on this very point of the size of river authorities. The majority, consisting of the Chairman and nine others, favoured small boards of not more than ten or fifteen members: whereas six members of the sub-committee (of whom my noble friend Lord Malmesbury was one) favoured river authorities with a maximum of 40 members. This is roughly the same size as river boards, which have, on average, just on or under 30 members each, and nine of which have 40 or 41 members.
In the White Paper the Government agreed substantially with the majority view that the theory of small and compact boards was very attractive and might well lead to great efficiency. On the other hand, they came to the conclusion that sufficient representation of

365
local authorities was necessary, the important point being that it will be the local authorities upon whom the river authorities will precept for income to defray their expenses for land drainage, prevention of river pollution and fisheries—that is to say, the transferred functions. If sufficient representation of local authorities was to be achieved a membership of 10 to 15 would not be sufficient if, at the same time, it was to be possible for the river authorities to cover adequately the other interests contributing to their income and affected by their activities. These are interests such as fishing, agriculture, industry, land drainage and water supply.
It must also be remembered that the river authorities will have to carry out new functions, not merely transferred functions. Therefore, there must be, first, sufficient members to do that and, secondly, sufficient representation of all those interested. For these reasons the Government decided on the present suggested number of between 21 and 31 members save where exceptional circumstances demanded a somewhat larger number—and the noble Lord, Lord Wise, recognised the fact that there can be special circumstances in which the Government can appoint more than 31 people. The Government thought that the figures now proposed in the Bill would give the right balance between the divided opinions of the members of the Proudman Committee. I think that it would be greatly against the view of some people—especially, so far as I can remember, the statutory water undertakers and industry, except in so far as their own representation is concerned—that these authorities should have a larger membership. The Bill gives effect to our proposals not only in Clause 6 but also in Clauses 7 and 8 as well. The Amendments now proposed would have the effect of making every river authority larger than the average size of the river boards of to-day.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, said that there were larger responsibilities, and suggested that there should be larger representation. But I put it to the noble Lord that is really a misconception of what we require out of these new river authorities who have their new functions as well as their transferred functions. If we have the present suggested range of between 21 and 31
366
members we should be able to keep the size of most authorities down to somewhere between 25 and 30. As soon as we reach a range of 31 to 41 it will be difficult to keep it below 35, and in some cases it will get as high as 50, when we take into account certain areas with special interests for navigation, drainage charges, National Coal Board and so on. And after there had been added the number of local authority members necessary to maintain their majority, the total could be as much as 50. This would be unsuitable for the discharge of the functions for which the river authorities will be responsible.
The Government feel strongly that the need is for an authority all of whose members are knowledgeable about or experienced in the problems with which they will be dealing. An authority with members interested only in one single aspect of the work is not what is wanted. The smaller the membership, the greater the possibility of creating that sense of general responsibility for all the interrelated functions of the authority which is desired. The authorities are intended to be working bodies, not debating assemblies for a variety of conflicting interests and, therefore, smallness will be a virtue of these river authorities. Many speakers during the Second Reading debate recognised that fact.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, was rather worried about these authorities being overworked, if they did not have enough numbers, and not able to do their job, but, of course, they will need and have a full-time expert staff, technical and administrative, which should be capable of dealing with day-to-day business under the guidance of, and in accordance with the policy of, the authority. Therefore, I do not think that he really need worry on that score.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, was uncertain as to the extent of the majority that council members would have, but I think that the intention is quite clear from Clause 6 (2), where it says that:
"Such number of members of a river authority as is sufficient (but not more than sufficient) to constitute a majority.…".
In other words, it is designed to have a majority of one and of only one. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will realise that Her Majesty's Government have to

367
stand on this point, because they have taken a middle position between two conflicting opinions. I think that there are other noble Lords—I do not know whether they are in the House at the moment—who take a different line from that of the noble Lords who have put down this Amendment.
In regard to the fears of my noble friend Lord Cornwallis, if he will forgive me for saying so, I think that his point about the special interests of industry arises more suitably on the further Amendments of noble Lords opposite asking for an increase from one to two in the number of representatives to be appointed by the Minister, and I would rather go into this matter at greater length on these Amendments. But I would remind my noble friend and other noble Lords that we have passed our own Amendment No. 2, which places a statutory obligation on the Minister to consult, in respect of the numbers on river authorities before it ever comes to the nomination of individuals, so that everybody, industry included, will have an opportunity to give their views—and sufficient weight will be given to them—on the constitution of the authority. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will agree that the Government are right to stick to these numbers, which we feel sure are just about right, from the point of view of both sufficient representation and the efficient carrying out of the work that has to be done.
LORD WISE: I am sorry that the noble Lord cannot accept this Amendment. I was hoping that, having made a good start this afternoon, the Government would follow it up. But I do not want to delay the Committee and, in view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN LORD LINDGREN moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"( ) Such number of members of a river authority as is sufficient to represent adequately the interests of statutory water undertakers shall, subject to the provisions of section (Statutory water undertakers members of river authorities) of this Act, be appointed by the statutory water undertakers whose limits of supply are wholly or partly comprised in the area of the river authority or who have the
368
right to abstract water from a source of supply within the area of the authority."
The noble Lord said: If it is convenient to the noble Lords in charge of the Bill, perhaps we could deal with Amendment No. 25, to Clause 7, which goes with this one. The noble Lords in charge of the Bill have been stonewalling, and so far have not conceded much, but from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, on the last Amendment, in which he pointed out, quite rightly, that local authorities will have added functions and greater responsibilities under the Bill, it would seem that those who will have these added functions and greater responsibilities are entitled to representation on the river authorities. And the purpose of this Amendment is to secure for statutory water undertakers representation on the river authorities.
Clause 6 provides that the majority of the members of an authority are to represent the constituent councils, while the remainder of the members are to be appointed by the Minister. In paragraph 16 of the White Paper which preceded this Bill, it was suggested that, as much of the river authorities' income, particularly for their land drainage functions, will be raised by precept upon local authorities, these authorities have a strong claim to be represented on the river authorities. It is true that, at the time the White Paper was published, it was suggested that the representation should be of district councils, but in the Bill the representation is to be from county councils and county boroughs, and I think that this is an improvement. But the principle of no taxation without representation still holds good.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, mentioned in speaking on the previous Amendment, the precepts levied on local authorities are in regard to existing functions of river authorities. The new function of water conservation is to be financed by charges to be levied on abstracters. No doubt where substantial works of water conservation are necessary, statutory water undertakers will be called upon to finance a substantial proportion of these works. Therefore, in these circumstances, it is right that there should be provision in Clause 6 to enable statutory water undertakers to have direct representation upon the river authorities.
I would agree that it is impossible to lay down hard and fast rules on the representation of these undertakers on all river authorities. In some areas, there will be very little in the way of conservation for the river authority to do and therefore the representation may need to be only quite nominal, but, in certain areas, the interests of the statutory water undertakers will clearly be of paramount importance. Where major conservation works are to be done the statutory water undertakers must, I suggest, be represented on the river authority, because they will be expected to find a substantial proportion of the funds.
In the interests of flexibility, the Amendment proposes that the number of members to be appointed by the statutory water undertakers shall be of such a number as is sufficient to represent adequately the interests of the water undertakers. That number will be determined by the Ministers when they make the Order setting up the river authority. As opposed to the previous Amendments which we have been discussing, this Amendment does not propose to increase the total number of members of a river board. As has been mentioned, Clause 6 provides that the number is not to be fewer than 21, and under the provisions of Clause 6 a river authority with a minimum number of 21 members would draw eleven of those members from the constituent councils. Room for representatives appointed by statutory water undertakers could be found within the ten remaining seats on the river authority.
It is appreciated that Clause 6 already provides for one or more members to be appointed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government as being qualified in respect of water supply. The Amendment does not propose any alteration to this, because no doubt the Minister would consider that, taking into account his overall responsibilities for public water supply, he ought to maintain liaison with the new river authorities by way of right to appoint one or more members. That is, of course, no substitute for direct representation in the area by the statutory water undertakers as the Amendment proposes.
It is not considered that the proposed Amendment would in any way over-represent the public water supply.
370
Indeed, there is a strong argument that Clause 6 does not provide adequate representation for the interests concerned with the new functions of the river authorities. The river boards were set up by the River Boards Act, 1948, when my noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh was the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and they were constituted on the basis of a majority of members appointed by the county councils and the county boroughs and the remainder by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and we have heard from my noble friend how efficiently those river boards have worked up to the present time.
The new river authorities are to be constituted on virtually the same basis, with the addition of one or two members to be appointed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government as qualified in respect of public water supply and industry other than agriculture. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, this afternoon he is disturbed that industrial representation is not greater than it is. Thus, compared with the old river boards, the new river authorities are to be charged with the new functions—and conservation could be a major part of their work—and these new functions are to be covered by the appointment of one or two members by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. For this reason, I suggest it is essential to strengthen the representation in respect of the new functions of the river authorities, and in this respect it seems wise and equitable to provide direct representation by the statutory water undertakers.
It is generally recognised (indeed, the White Paper made the point) that the case of the statutory water undertakers will require special attention by the river authorities; and the White Paper, in paragraph 35, said that the earmarking of resources to meet those needs will be a vital part of the work of the river authorities. In the terms of the White Paper, therefore, it is essential to ensure that there is a fruitful co-operation between these bodies locally.
The proposal of the Amendment is to ensure that there is at least one representative of a statutory water undertaker on each river authority, who will be of

371
considerable assistance not only to the water authorities but also to the river authorities. He will provide the link which will be essential if these bodies are to co-operate well together. Moreover, the work of conservation on the scale now envisaged will in a way be new to the river authorities. Before, river authorities, rather than conserving their water, were concerned, because of the possibility of flooding, with getting it away to the sea. The experience of water authorities in the field of conservation will be, I suggest, invaluable to the river authorities.
Thus, if I may briefly sum up, the Amendment seeks to do two things. First, it seeks to do justice to the statutory water undertakers and to provide for their representation on the river authorities where they will be required to provide money for the work of the river authorities. Secondly, it seeks to provide effective liaison between the river authorities and the statutory water undertakers so that the general scheme of the Bill may have an enhanced prospect of success for the benefit of the public as a whole. The Amendment is a simple and practical improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 36 at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lindgren.)
LORD ILFORD: I hope that the noble Lord who is going to reply will be able to go some way at least in meeting the points that have been put by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, in moving this Amendment. As the noble Lord has said, this Amendment is based, in the first place, upon an attempt to place the statutory water undertakers in a similar position to that of councils of counties and the county boroughs, who will enjoy special representation based upon the fact that they will be responsible for providing the finance for a large part of the work which these new river authorities will have to undertake. As the noble Lord pointed out in moving the Amendment, the same is true of the statutory water undertakers. The powers of the new river authorities to precept on the local authorities are restricted to those sums which will be required for meeting the cost of the transferred func-
372
tions. Their new functions will be financed entirely by contributions made by the abstracters.
Of course, the public statutory undertakers will in many cases, and, I would submit, in most cases, be the principal extractors, and the cost of new works will therefore rest upon them. That being so, there seems to be no reason why they should not be placed in the same position as the local authorities. That is all this Amendment is asking. It may be that there will be cases where the statutory water undertaker is not the principal abstracter on the river. There may be, as has been pointed out this afternoon, an industrial abstracter who may well take more water than the statutory undertaker. The Amendment provides for that. It provides that the statutory undertakers should have a representation which is sufficient to represent their interests, and if their interest is small then the representation itself will be small. On the other hand, if the statutory undertaker is the major abstracter on the river, then his representation ought to be appropriate to the responsibilities he carries and the responsibility he will have towards the new river authorities. That is the basis upon which this Amendment proceeds.
It may well be that the noble Earl, when he comes to reply, will rely on the power of the Minister to appoint members of the Boards who are representatives, or who can be regarded as representatives, of public supply. I should have thought that that was not really a satisfactory way of dealing with this situation. The paramount consideration in this matter is that these new river authorities should enjoy the confidence of the statutory undertakers. I should have thought that it was most essential in the early stage of their life that they have the full confidence and support of the statutory undertakers. If the statutory undertakers are placed in no better position than the other interests in the river, it is at least doubtful whether the river authorities will enjoy their confidence to the same degree as they would if they were given the special representation for which this Amendment asks. I would ask the noble Lord to bear that point in mind in dealing with this proposal.
I hope very much that the noble Lord will be able to go some way, at least, in

373
the direction of meeting the wishes of the statutory undertakers. After all, they have a very special interest—an interest which is not paralleled by anybody else. They have placed upon them the obligation of public water supply, and it is very important that the sources from which they draw the supplies which are passed on to the public are assured to them. I should have thought that, for that reason alone, the position of the statutory undertakers ought to be particularly safeguarded in their relation with the new river authorities.
LORD SILKIN: Could the noble Lord explain how his Amendment affects Clause 6 (3) (d)?—because that refers to:
"one or more members appointed by the Minister as being qualified in respect of public water supply …"
Does that not do exactly what the noble Lord is asking?—I gather that it does not.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: May I intervene for one moment here? I have strong sympathy with this Amendment. I think it is not going too far to say that the Bill, as it stands fails adequately to recognise the special position of the statutory undertakers in so far as that derives from their statutory obligations. I think the noble Lord who moved the Amendment referred to paragraphs 35, 36 and 37 of the White Paper, all of them indicating a recognition at that time by the Government of that special position. We had hoped to secure that that recognition was translated in some way into the Bill, but I do not think that it is adequately translated into the Bill. This Amendment, as I see it, is the first of a series designed in their appropriate places to secure that recognition.
I am not sure that I should find it easy to go to the stake, so to speak, for the principle of giving the statutory undertakers the right to appoint, as the Amendment suggests. I think my fears on that point would be largely alleviated if the consultation to which the noble Earl referred, at the beginning of the debate on Clause 2, were in this particular case to be effective consultation with the statutory undertakers in the area in question as to their adequate representation on the particular river authority.
374
On that basis, I think the substance of this Amendment would be adequately safeguarded.
I do not want in any way to suggest that "appointment" is going too far, but I conceive some difficulties in it. I imagine that other interests would want to be effectively consulted in regard to their (adequate representation. But here, I suggest, there is a special case for ensuring specifically that the statutory water undertakers in the area in question are consulted about the representation which will be adequate for the purpose. May I say, in passing (I hope this is not out of order) that there is a later Amendment, No. 137, which refers to Clause 6. This Amendment provides, I hope, for effective alternative representation in cases where the representation on the river authority of a particular interest is confined to not more than one member.
LORD HASTINGS: At the end of the introduction of this Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, I think he said that he was asking for two things: justice for the statutory water undertakers, and adequate representation. It is the belief of the Government that we are giving justice to the undertakers and providing adequate representation. Certainly it is our wish to do so—let there be no mistake about that. It seems to me that the major difference between those noble Lords who have spoken and the Government is that the noble Lords—as the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, has pointed out—wish to appoint their own representatives. I will come to that a little later. In Clause 6(3)(d) there is representation of one or more members laid down specifically for representatives of public water supply. As a result of our Amendment earlier this afternoon—
LORD LINDGREN: I am sorry to interrupt, but perhaps it will save time if I do so as we go along. Subsection (3)(d) is the one to which my noble friend Lord Silkin referred. It does not provide for representatives. It provides for the appointment by the Minister of a person knowledgeable in public water supply. I know quite a number of such people. Consulting engineers, for instance, are extremely knowledgeable in water supply, but they are in no way direct

375
representatives or a direct contact, apart from giving professional advice to water undertakers.
5.40 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: I understand the noble Lord's point. In point of fact there will be a person or persons appointed for the purposes of public water supply to safeguard those interests. And, of course, as a result of our Government Amendment it is going to be done in respect of the numbers appointed after thorough consultation. I give a complete assurance to my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve that that consultation will be made with statutory water undertakers interested in the area, as it will be made with the representatives of all other interests in any particular river authority area. This statutory obligation for the numbers to be appointed to represent those public water supply interests will exist. So far as the numbers go, I think that answers the purpose of the new clause Amendment No. 25, which is proposed consequential upon this Amendment. It provides simply, I think, that the number should be specified in the order, and it will, in fact, be specified in the order, after consultation.
The other point which strikes me very forcibly was made quite clear by the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, who said straight out that he wanted to place statutory water undertakers in a similar position to the county councils; and I had that impression also from the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren. He made great play with the financial contribution that was likely to be made by statutory water undertakers. It was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, that the transferred functions would be paid for by precept by the local ratepayers but the new functions would be paid for by abstracters. But there is a very big difference between the two, because, of course, the county councils represent all the ratepayers, so that everybody in the river authority area, whether or not he benefits directly from the work of the river authority, will have to pay the rates levied as a result of the precepts. But in respect of the new functions, of course, the abstracters are paying for direct benefits and that is a very substantial difference.
376
I hope that noble Lords will take that point.
To get back to the main argument, however, the members of the river authority other than those elected by local authorities are to be ministerial appointments. The objective is to secure a constitution which fairly reflects the needs and problems of the river authority area and members who have appropriate knowledge and experience. This is essentially a matter to be dealt with by selection of individuals by the Ministers, rather than left to selection by the statutory water undertakings. If it were so left the biggest of the water undertakings would tend to appropriate the nominations. The new clause, possibly in an endeavour to meet this point, provides that the order under Clause 3 establishing the authority is to make provisions "as to the method of appointment". This would, in turn, present difficulties, and whatever method was selected might well leave the water undertakers with a sense of grievance and still provide no guarantee that the best man would be appointed.
The Minister particularly wishes to be able to secure when making the appointment of persons qualified in respect of public water supply that he obtains people with a wide knowledge of the range of water supply problems to be encountered in the area of the river authority. For example, the Minister may wish to appoint an officer from a statutory water company. By virtue of Government Amendment No. 2, as I have said, there will be consultation before the number of public water supply members to be appointed to any river authority is decided by the Minister. But in making the actual appointments the Minister will no doubt wish to take, and will take, local soundings. But the way in which he does so ought to be for him to decide.
My noble friend Lord Jellicoe mentioned earlier this afternoon that we intend to stand on the necessity of the Minister making the appointments without statutory consultation. But there will be informal consultation, and that undertaking will be given again in due course. Therefore, a river authority constituted in the balanced and comprehensive way which Ministers require cannot be secured by any means other than ministerial appointments. The whole trouble about

377
the first Amendment is that it interposes the statutory water undertakers between the county council, representative of the ratepayers, and the Ministers, representative of the taxpayers. Moreover, if the statutory water undertakers are going to require that they should appoint their own nominees, there can be no reason why every other body should not require the same thing: the National Farmers' Union, for example; internal drainage boards; the big industries, or the F.B.I. in the area. They would all require to nominate their own people. I hope that noble Lords will realise that it is very difficult to give them priority over other interests in this respect of appointment.
I do not wish in any way to ignore what has been said, especially in regard to the words of the noble Lord, Lard Sinclair of Cleve, when he referred to the statutory obligations not being sufficiently recognised, and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, referred to the words of the White Paper in which the Government make it quite clear that the earmarking of resources for statutory water undertakers is vital. The river authorities must take cognisance of this fact, and there is no intention to ignore those obligations or to make it more difficult for statutory water undertakings to fulfil them. That, obviously, is not the purpose of the Bill. We want to help as much as possible, but in this particular respect we feel we cannot help the statutory water undertakings in so far as they want to appoint their own people, although we feel that full consideration will be given, and must be given, to the number of members who will be representing public water supply.
For instance, the noble Lord referred to at least one. He made it clear that he meant a representative, not somebody appointed in authority; but, of course, there will always be at least one, because it is a statutory obligation. In certain areas, however, where the undertakings have a predominant position in the community, it may well be that in any ministerial roll of nominees amounting to 15 (which would be the maximum number for any single river authority) they might have three or four. There is no reason to suppose they are always going to be limited to one. Full consideration will be given, after full
378
consultation, and the only thing we draw the line at in this particular clause, and this particular Amendment, is the proposal that the water undertakers should appoint their own nominees. We must insist that the Minister should do it, after full consultation as to the number to be appointed and after informal consultation as to the individual persons.
LORD LINDGREN: In view of what is to fallow very shortly I shall be extremely brief, not because I do not have a reply to the noble Lord but in view of the exigencies of the duties before us in other spheres. But I should like to make it quite clear that my noble friend Lord Ilford and myself never in any way wanted to put statutory water undertakings in a better position than the local authorities. We appreciate—and I think I said so—that they have a majority; but they have it by right because they have provided the finance for the previous functions of the river board. Now the new river authorities are to have added functions, and one added function is that of water conservation, which is vitally important to the water undertaker. Therefore, he should have representation.
I would point out to the noble Lord (and perhaps he will think about it between now, and when we meet again) that there is no other group of people in the same position as the statutory water undertaker—I say that with all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh. A farmer is not forced to farm; an industrialist is not forced to carry on his business. But there is a statutory obligation on a water undertaker to provide the public with the necessary water supply. What is more, he can be taken to law if in fact he does not carry out that obligation. In view of the exigencies of the House's duties, I will withdraw the Amendment, but I would leave the noble Lord under no delusion; in fact I am very disappointed indeed, and I hope he will look at this matter from the point of view of the statutory duties which are placed on the water undertaker.
LORD HASTINGS: I would say one word only. We are thinking about this question of the statutory obligation. It is our aim to help and we will think

379
about it, and we shall be ready to discuss this matter another time.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:
Tanganyika Republic,
Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow Order Confirmation.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clause 15:
Effect of approved school order on fit person order
15. Where a person has been committed by order of a court to the care of a fit person and, while the order is in force, an approved school order is made in respect of him, (the order committing him to the care of that person shall be of no effect while he is under the care of the managers of an approved school; but this section shall not affect the powers of the Secretary of State under subsection (4) of section 84 of the principal Act to discharge him from the care of the person to whose care he has been committed by the first-mentioned order or the power of the court under subsection (6) of that section to vary or revoke that order.
6.15 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, after the second "school" to insert:
"except if deemed necessary in the person's interests and after consultation with the managers of the approved school, during such periods as the person is absent from the approved school."
The noble Lord said: Clause 15 provides that where a child has been committed by the court to the care of a fit person—of course the term "fit person" includes, and very often means, the representative of a local authority—and, while the order is in force, an approved school order is made in respect of the child, the order committing him to the care of that person is to have no effect while he is under the care of the managers of the approved school. I am aware that this provision is in line with the recommendation of the Ingleby Committee. But during periods of absence from the approved school, such as when a child goes on leave, perhaps, with his parents, or when he is in hospital, or for some other approved reason, I feel that it would be of considerable advantage for the local authority to be able, in suitable cases, to continue to give personal support or assistance to the child if the need should arise.
We must remember that under the fit person order the officers of a local authority may already for some time have had close personal contact with the child, and perhaps also with the child's parents anti family. Therefore, it seems self-evident, I think, that this continuing contact with the parents while the child is in an approved school should not necessarily terminate when the order is made. Indeed, it very often could be a most useful supplement of the work and help given by the approved school. Therefore, we consider—and the Amendment tries to persuade the Government—that, subject to consultation with the approved school managers, the fit person order should in the child's own interests continue during such periods as the child is away from the school for a wholly approved reason.
I think the whole point of an approved school order must be rehabilitation. If a fit person order has already been made before the child goes to an approved school, it might be argued that there has been some failure, otherwise an approved school order would not have had to be made. Nevertheless, no one,

381
or no official, can know more about that child than the fit person named in the order before the child goes to an approved school. When for good and sufficient reasons—during holidays, while in hospital care, or at other times—the child leaves the approved school, it would surely be wholly advantageous for the continuing care and contact to go on. That is all that this particular Amendment provides. It appears to me a most reasonable proposal, which I hope will commend itself to the Government.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 17, after ("school") insert the said words.—(Lord Stonham.)
EARL JELLICOE: I do not find it altogether easy to reply to the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved, particularly in view of the sympathetic way in which he has moved it. But, as he has indicated, we are in fact dealing here with another of the Ingleby Committee's children. Clause 15 is directly based, as the noble Lord indicated, on the recommendation which is to be found in paragraph 349 of the Committee's Report. The object of the clause is quite straightforward: to avoid a confusing situation, which the Ingleby Committee pointed out can arise under the law as it stands at present. As the law now stands, a child who is subject to a fit person order, and who has been sent to an approved school after that order was made finds itself the possessor at one and the same time of two substitute parents: the fit person, who, as the noble Lord said, is usually a local authority, though not invariably so, and the school managers.
The noble Lord has explained the purpose of his Amendment not only sympathetically but also very clearly. As I understand it—and he will correct me if I am wrong—his Amendment would revive the fit person order during periods when the child was absent from his or her approved school, if that revival were considered necessary in the child's interests and if the school managers were in agreement. I think that there is a technical difficulty about the noble Lord's Amendment as it is drafted. It deals with a revival of the fit person order if it is "deemed necessary in the person's interests".
LORD STONHAM: Will the noble Earl allow me to intervene? Subject to reading in Hansard what I said, I do not think I used the word "revival". The clause as it stands provides that the fit person order shall have no effect while the child is in approved school. It does not mean that the order is abolished. All I am saying is that when the child is not at an approved school, subject to the approval of the school managers, it should have effect. It is not a question of reviving it, because it has not been abolished.
6.20 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: I see the noble Lord's point, and I was not in any case wishing to press what I thought was a possible technical objection. But, like all technical objections, it could be got round. My point, and I make this point subject to what the noble Lord has just said, is that if it was a question of reviving it—and I quite take the point that it may not be—then it is not clear from his draft on whom the responsibility for deeming it necessary would fall. But I am happy to look again at that point, because this slight technical difficulty is not the real one which I see in the noble Lord's Amendment. May I remind noble Lords that there are a number of circumstances in which a child may be absent from his or her approved school. The child can be absent whilst he or she is in hospital; he can be absent on leave in the charge of any person whom the managers think suitable; he can be absent on release under supervision; and, last but not least, he or she can, of course, be absent if he or she has absconded.
I have listened very carefully to the noble Lord, but I cannot myself see what we should gain if the fit person order applied during any of those periods of absence. I do not see what we should gain, and I do not see how any possible gain would offset the revival of the anomalous situation which the Ingleby Committee in their recommendation were anxious to avoid. I would grant straightaway that the position would be entirely different if the child were automatically or totally divorced—either whilst he or she was at his or her approved school, or legitimately absent from it—from the fit person to whom the child had been

383
entrusted under the original fit person order. But, as I understand it, there is no reason at all—taking the local authority as an example of the fit person—why the local authority should not keep in touch with a child, who has left their care as a fit person, to go on to an approved school.
Indeed, there are many ways, as I see it, in which the former fit person can continue to give that personal support and assistance to the child of which the noble Lord spoke. The managers may very well invite the local authority, for example, to undertake the after-care of the child on his release from school, during the period in which he remains under supervision. Indeed, if we follow the ingleby Committee's recommendation that after-care should be increasingly entrusted not to the approved school welfare officers but to local authority agencies, the frequency of that situation will be likely to increase rather than diminish. If the local authorities have this after-care responsibility entrusted to them they will, in any event, be in touch with the child when he is absent from the school on leave. Again, if the child has no actual or real parents, or if his actual or real parents are deemed unsuitable for him to stay with while he is on leave, it is of course already open to the managers, if they think it is in the child's interests, to allow him to spend his leave in the care of the former fit person. All this can be achieved without amending the clause as the noble Lord has suggested, and I should have thought that in practice that means that the continuing personal support and connection with the former fit person is, in fact, not broken.
All this would not really be important if in following the noble Lord's Amendment we were not, as I think we should be, likely to get into rather a tangle. Could I take an example? Under the noble Lord's Amendment the position would be odd, to say the least, where a child had been released from his approved school to return to his actual parents, under supervision; for under paragraph 12 of the Fourth Schedule to the 1933 Act, the manager's parental powers are then—and I quote the wording of the Act —
"exercisable by the parents or, as the case may be, by the parent with whom he is living;
384
but it shall be the duty of any such parent so to exercise those rights and powers as to assist the managers to exercise control over him."
In that situation, which I do not think is necessarily a far-fetched one, the child would have, as I see it, three semi-parents at one and the same time. There would be the fit person who, under the noble Lord's Amendment, would retain his full parental powers; there would be the child's real parent, who would be exercising the managers' parental powers under the clause which I have quoted; and, finally, there would be the managers of the approved school themselves, who would be retaining some sort of general responsibility. That is the sort of difficulty which, as I see it, the noble Lord's Amendment might land us in.
I should be happier about confronting that difficulty—although I do not myself quite see how one could get round it—if I thought that, by accepting this Amendment, one was in fact going to benefit the child concerned. But since what the noble Lord most feared was a break of contact between the child and the former fit person in whose care he was entrusted, and since I feel that his fears there are somewhat exaggerated, I do not myself see that one would be gaining anything by accepting the noble Lord's Amendment, looking at it from the child's point of view. Furthermore, I feel that one might be losing something, through getting oneself involved in the sort of muddle which I have pointed out. I realise that all this is deep and rather complicated water, and I should be the last to claim any particular expertise in this particular field. But, as I see it at present, I could not in honesty recommend noble Lords to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, sympathetic as I am to the purpose behind it.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for that careful, sympathetic and detailed reply. When he began he said that he was in a position of some difficulty in answering my case, and of course his difficulty became clearer as he proceeded, because it is possible that it arose from the fact that he was wholly in sympathy with my argument but he had no power in his

385
brief to say that he accepted the Amendment. But he has given me an example of the kind of difficulty that would arise if the Amendment were accepted: he has quoted an imaginary case which, of course, would have practical application on quite a number of occasions—I readily admit that—and he has reminded me that, in paragraph 12 of the Fourth Schedule to the principal Act, the child could be released to the care of his parents.
May I just take the noble Earl through his own example? The child is released to the care of his parents. There is at that time in force an approved school order and a fit person order. They are both in force at the time. He said that, therefore, there would be three sets of parents, the approved school managers, the fit person and the real parents. My Amendment does not affect that position at all. That position exists now and will exist if Clause 15 is unamended. The only difference that my Amendment will make is, that the fit person would be informed that little Johnny was at home, and he would continue to give an eye to him because he was so informed, in exactly the same way that he was giving an eye to him before the approved school order was made, before he went to the approved school. In other words, it would merely be continuing the relationship—if you like, the two sets of parents—which existed before he went to the approved school, and when he is at home the third set of parents mentioned by the noble Earl will not be acting. They are the approved school managers who are away from him for the time being. I think that is a completely effective answer to the noble Earl, though all credit is due to him or whoever it was who thought that one up as the unconvincing reply to the case I made.
Let me now quote an example of my own. The noble Earl said that the local authority would in any case be in touch with the child when he was on leave from the approved school. How? Who is going to tell the fit person? Little Johnnie breaks his leg; he goes into a hospital near the approved school; he is in the orthopaedic department, possibly under traction, for three or four months. Who is going to visit him? The "fit person" does not even know he is in hospital unless little
386
Johnnie thinks that he liked Mr. Jones very much and that he will write to him and tell him so. Of course not. When we think of practical examples like that, the kind of things that happen, there is no answer whatever to this Amendment. Anyone who has practical knowledge of these things knows the people, knows the families.
I was born far too many years ago just outside the gates of the City of London, and I have lived there all my life. I know these people; I know the kind of problems they have; I know the welcome, too, that most of them in the end give to the so-called fit persons who care for their children. Hundreds of families and tearful mothers come to me about their boys in approved schools, perhaps 100 miles away, trying to make some kind of contact, to get some kind of intermediary. I am anxious for that contact to continue. Do not think that the approved school managers or the approved school staffs do not want this kind of contact: they do. They know that this continuity is important.
This is not an unimportant matter to the people concerned: it is quite an important matter. It is an endeavour to introduce (or reintroduce, if you like) some kind of humanity into this particular provision. If he cannot accept it now, I would ask the noble Earl to give an assurance that he will go away again and have a look at this to see whether he cannot accept it or, if it is technically at fault, something like it. I do not claim any kind of preference for any particular woods, but to embody this principle which I have moved in my Amendment.
EARL JELLICOE: I am again grateful to the noble Lord for the moderation and the sympathy with which he has put his case, but I am not myself yet by any means convinced by it. He asked me how the local authority concerned would know whether Johnnie was in their area in hospital or elsewhere. Of course, if they were the after-care agent in this case they would be informed.
LORD STONHAM: Will the noble Earl forgive me? Little Johnnie has had his accident falling down the approved school steps or on the football field, and he goes to the local hospital there. There is no question of after-care. He is going back to the approved school when his leg is better. It is not after-care.
EARL JELLICOE: I should have thought that if the liaison between whoever was responsible within the local authority for the after-care, the child care officer concerned, and the approved school was as close as it should be then the child care officer would be informed. The noble Lord also alluded to the difficulty which I had mentioned, but what I do not think he pointed out was that if Clause 15 remained unamended that difficulty would Abe considerably less. Of course, there would not be the three persons concerned exercising some form of parental responsibility: that responsibility would be quite clearly placed upon the managers of the school concerned, subject to the provisions of the principal Act which I mentioned.
That said, I myself am not at all unsympathetic, as I have mentioned before, to the purposes behind this particular Amendment: nor indeed am I unsympathetic to the rather similar purpose which I discern behind the immediately following Amendment. I am certainly not prepared at this stage to accept the Amendment, nor am I able to offer any lively hope that, if one were to reconsider it, one might be able to come forward with something which was close to what the noble Lord has suggested. But I am certainly prepared to look again at the arguments which he has advanced, in Hansard, in the cold light of to-morrow morning.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his words; and after the qualified assurance which he has just given and which I fully understand, I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.36 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER moved to leave out Clause 15. The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this Amendment is closely related to that of the Amendment just withdrawn by my noble friend, but this Amendment goes a little further and I think it is drafted in a form which may meet some of the objections raised by the noble Earl in his reply. In reply to my noble friend, the noble Earl gave an example purporting to show that the proposal of my noble friend might not be very practicable. I should like to begin by giving another example.
Let the noble Earl suppose that he has been sent away to a boarding school; that he has, at the time, either no parents or no effective parents, so that he has been living in the care of a local authority, and that a welfare officer to whom he has become much attached is. so to speak, his parents' substitute. The noble Earl arrives at his boarding school and is very unhappy there. It may be an experience that he has had. He does not like the headmaster; he does not like the other masters; he does not like the régime; and he has absolutely nobody in the world to turn to except the authorities in that particular school. Any other child would write home to his parents; any other child who had a substitute parent would write home to the substitute parent. But under this clause there is nobody who would be obligated (he might be willing, but he would not be obligated) to receive the child's complaints. I think this is a very important situation, and I can assure the noble Earl that it can in fact arise.
Now the noble Earl said that there would be a confusing situation because the approved school and its managers are for the time being in charge of the child, and that it would be very confusing if a fit person were also in charge of the child. But this is no more confusing than the fact that when a child goes to boarding school he still has parents; and the parents and the school, as a rule, work out between them what are their respective spheres. I know that occasionally the parents make nuisances of themselves and are very unpopular with headmasters, but sensible people work this out, and the child at least has somebody other than the school authorities to whom to turn. The noble Earl worked out a hypothetical case in which he suggested that there would be three people involved: there would be the natural parents, whose contact is presumably slight if the child is under a fit person order; there would be the fit person and there would be the school. There might be: but for a child in a strange environment and a strange school, let there be three sooner than no second one to wham he can turn.
I think it is very important to make it clear that in this Amendment we are not asking that the fit person order shall automatically continue. The noble

389
Earl's reply to my noble friend appeared to be entirely based on that assumption. That is not so. There are plenty of ways of getting rid of a fit person order if it is appropriate to do so. All we ask is that it should not automatically cease to have effect while the child is away at an approved school. May I remind the Committee of the ways in which an order can be got rid of? First, when a child is sent to a school the local authority can come to the court and ask far the fit person order to be revoked. In practice they very frequently do and it is for the court to decide whether or not it is in the child's interests to revoke the order. Secondly, the Secretary of State can discharge a fit person order, if he sees fit, under Section 84 of the principal Act. Thirdly, Clause 7 (2) of the present Bill also empowers local authorities to ask for the order to be revoked, and most courts would revoke it in cases in which local authorities find the fit person cannot manage. Finally, the authority managing the child brings the child back to be further dealt with. We are definitely not asking that the fit person order should automatically continue; but we are asking that it should not automatically cease to have effect when the child is sent to an approved school.
If the noble Earl would picture himself as an unhappy child sent to a fit person, or perhaps to a local authority home, and then passed on to another strange environment in an approved school, he would, I think, hesitate very much before saying that automatically the obligation of the substitute parent is to lapse while the Child is in school. The noble Earl said that the welfare officer could keep in contact, providing, of course, that he knew the child needed him. But local authorities have a great many children to whom they are obligated to pay attention. For this reason, they are not very disposed, except in special cases, to keep up these obligations where the order has ceased to have effect, and to take over voluntarily additional duties. All we ask is that the order should not automatically be discharged but that, where a court thinks it appropriate, the local authority or substitute-parent should be obliged to maintain contact with the child. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 15.—(Baroness Wootton of Abinger.)
6.44 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I should like to support the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness from the point of view of principle. My principle is that nothing must be done to weaken the realities of the mother-substitute relationship, between the fit person, if a lady, and the child. If I may be allowed, I will tell the noble Earl a factual and not a hypothetical story. I may wrap it up a little, and I am not criticising the individual officers concerned who are quite sincere people. My purpose is to illustrate the principle rather than to argue that my example comes very close to this clause.
I have for some time been interested in a certain long-term prisoner. His child is in the care of the Children's Department and the mother has disappeared. An officer of the Children's Department, who must be regarded as the mother-substitute, had been in communication with the long-term prisoner for a considerable time and he had received regular, kind reports from this lady about the progress of the child. When he last heard the child was getting on very well. A few months ago this long-term prisoner wrote to me in great distress to say that he had been sent for by the deputy governor of the prison and asked to sign a form which, as he understood it, though he may not have been right, involved the certification of his child as mentally unsound. He was, in fact, being asked to sign a farm consenting to the removal of his child into the care of a mental institute at least for some time. This was the first he had heard of the matter. His child, he understood, was getting on very well, but he was sent for by the deputy governor and asked to sign a form. He was naturally overwhelmed with sorrow and anger.
I followed up the matter, and it is interesting to see how difficult it is to make a reality of this mother-substitute situation. In fact the child was getting into trouble. It was behaving itself badly in certain ways, and the authorities decided that the child should be placed in a certain kind of mental institution for adolescents. Accordingly,

391
the mental welfare officer—an excellent man—was asked to get in touch with the prison and, following that, the deputy governor received a form through the mental health authority which he duly called on the prisoner to sign. Your Lordships may ask: where was the mother-substitute in all this? Some-days later—I think it was after I had intervened, but I do not know—the mother-substitute, who had been in touch with the prisoner for years about the child, wrote to explain the circumstances: that the child was getting involved in trouble. But until that moment the prisoner had no indication of why he was suddenly being asked to agree to what he called the certification of his child.
I am not levelling criticism against people. It is not a question of a scandal; I have seen the individuals, all of whom meant well. But it is extremely hard, in cases of this kind, particularly where the father is in prison and the mother has disappeared, to see that the children's officer is a true mother-substitute. It is impossible to see how the true mother, an aunt, or even near relatives could have allowed the mental health officer to approach the governor and allow the form to be placed in front of the father without any explanation whatever. That was what occurred. It is hard enough to maintain a reality of this relationship, but I feel that this clause as it stands would make it still harder. I therefore support the noble Baroness in her Amendment.
EARL JELLICOE: I do not want to prolong our discussion this evening. In discussing Lord Stonham's Amendment I have, of course, already explained that the Ingleby Committee took the view that on certain occasions it might be confusing and possibly really difficult for a child to have in law two substitute parents at one and the same time, and the Government are inclined to agree with that view. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said that he was speaking from personal experience and knowledge of the sort of cases involved here. I do not doubt that. I know that to be the case, as I know that both the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, speak from deep personal knowledge and experience
392
of cases of the sort involved under the Amendment which we have been discussing. But, at the same, time I would point out that the Ingleby Committee Report was not based on ignorance. It was based on extremely expert advice which was available to that Committee. The Ingleby Committee thought it right to place the responsibility for the child's welfare squarely on the manager of the approved school.
Of course, this is not done just for administrative convenience or inconvenience, as the noble Lady was inclined to suggest at Second Reading. Having two substitute parents at one and the same time can lead to obvious and practical difficulties. For example, there could well be conflict between the fit person and the manager of the approved school as to whether or not a particular child should or should not spend his or her leave with his or her actual parents. That is the sort of complication which could arise from divided responsibility in this field.
I must say straight away that I am not at all unsympathetic to the arguments which the three noble Lords opposite have advanced about the very real hardship to the child which could be involved in breaking her or his relationship with, say. a child care officer, to whom the child had grown used and grown to love. However, I do not think that this is necessarily an inevitable consequence or, indeed, in many cases, a likely consequence of Clause 15, if left unamended, because, as I have already pointed out, there are many ways in which these close and valuable links which may have been forged between a child and his care officer can be maintained. I would grant, however, that with an inadequate local authority or an overworked local authority there may be an advantage in having a statutory obligation laid upon that authority. That is a point which I should certainly wish to consider.
We have felt with the Ingleby Committee that it was right to get these responsibilities as clear-cut as possible. We feel that Clause 15, which follows the Committee's recommendation very closely, does not involve, and need not involve, any hardship to the child which it will affect: indeed, rather the reverse, since I think that there is nothing which

393
can involve such hardship for the child as a fuzzy and unclear-cut situation, and I should have thought that the situation in which a child finds itself with two parents at one and the same time—because the managers of the approved school are the child's parents while the child is there—is a fuzzy situation in itself. Nevertheless, I am not unsympathetic to the arguments to which I have just listened from the Benches opposite, and while I feel that there are strong reasons for following the advice of the Ingleby Committee—and I am far from being persuaded that we should not follow that advice—personally I should very much welcome an opportunity, between now and the Report stage, of looking at these twin Amendments afresh in the light of what has been said this afternoon.
6.52 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER:I am delighted to hear that the noble Earl will look at the matter again and in a sympathetic spirit. I have no doubt whatever about his sympathy. If I have doubt, it is about his appreciation of practical realities. He has spoken so far as though in all cases the fit person was a child care officer, and in the majority of cases he or she is, but not in all. Suppose the fit person is an aunt and that aunt is not persona grata to the headmaster of the approved school, as may well happen. He can tell the aunt that she has no control over the child while he is in his care; and though the child may be very unhappy at school and longs to enlist the sympathy of his aunt, perhaps quite wrongly, the headmaster has the whip-hand in every sense of the word.
The noble Earl has said that in most cases it is likely that the fit person will extend a kindly interest in the child, even though the order has ceased to have effect. I can only say that I think that his experience of the realities of local government must be rather limited. The noble Earl drew many pictures of conflict between headmaster and fit person, but we have seen many cases of division of opinion between headmaster and parent as to the place
394
for a child to spend his holiday or as to the right course he ought to pursue. The substitute parent should not be pushed out of the picture so that the headmaster and the managers of an approved school have the sole say.
I say, with regret, that nothing that the noble Earl has said to-night dispels the impression, which I expressed to your Lordships yesterday or the day before, that the Government have shown an uncanny discrimination in picking those parts of the Ingleby Report which are hostile to the child and ignoring those which are in his favour. This is one of them, another piece of evidence in my thesis. I can only say that I could wish that the noble Earl would find himself in the situation in which he was sent to a strange school, away from all the people that he knew, a school which had power to say to him that the people who were his friends, who looked after him before, his welfare officer or his aunt, have no say now. Now he is their child and he has no legal right or recourse. I regard this as a matter of great importance, but I should like to put these arguments perhaps before a more representative Committee. I do not think that it would be wise to pursue the matter at the moment, the more so as the noble Earl has expressed his willingness to let his sympathy guide his inquiries between now and the next stage. In the circumstances, therefore, I shall be glad to have the leave of the Committee to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL JELLICOE: I think we have agreed that we shall not go any further with the Bill at this stage, and in the light of that, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.
House adjourned at two minutes before seven o'clock.