Sitting of 19 December 1963

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

    Sunderland Technical College
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the Minister of Education if he will detail the costs of the various extensions and additions to the Sunderland Technical College in each of the last 10 years; and how much of these costs has been provided from the Exchequer.
    The Minister of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): The total value of major building work at the college during this period was £1,127,327. The total value of other projects closely associated with the college during the same period was £557,660. I am sending the hon. Member a detailed breakdown of the projects and their cost.
    Roughly 70 per cent. of the loan repayments and interest up to 1958–59 were made from the Exchequer. Since 1959–60 Exchequer assistance has been through the general grant, and it is not possible to specify the proportion which it represents of the cost of a particular project.
    Mr. Williams: I thank my right hon. Friend for the detail which he is to send me. Against this background, the college being a leader of educational advance in the North-East, can he say why it has not been possible yet to recognise it as a college of advanced technology?
    Sir E. Boyle: I explained the difficulty when I was in the North-East a fortnight ago. In the light of the Robbins Report, it would not be possible at this time to designate another C.A.T. because this would be, in effect, to designate a new
    1410
    university, and the Government must be influenced by the advice of the University Grants Committee. But I was careful to pay tribute to the large quantity of degree level work done at this very important regional college.
    Mr. Willey: Does the Minister realise that, while we appreciate his present position, the reply which he gave on his visit to the North-East was very disappointing? If special consideration is to be given to the North-East, as has been promised by the Government, the provision of a college of advanced technology is an urgent priority. We want priority for technological and technical education.
    Sir E. Boyle: I realise that my Answer was bound to be disappointing. That was why I was careful on television to lay emphasis on degree work done at this college. I have always emphasised that, just as there is an overlap between the colleges of advanced technology and the universities, so there is an overlap between the colleges of advanced technology and the regional colleges.

    Students. Wales (University and Training College Places)
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Education how many students in Wales were unable in 1963 to gain admission to university college or to training college, respectively, although they had obtained the necessary qualification to be admitted.
    Sir E. Boyle: Two hundred and fifty-nine applicants from Wales with the minimum academic qualifications did not get admission to training colleges this year. Twenty of these were classified by the Clearing House as acceptable, the remainder as borderline. So far as applications to universities are concerned, information is not at present available.
    Mr. Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if he had the information from the universities, it would be still more disturbing? Is it not ironic that, while there is a shortage of 10,000 teachers in recruitment each year, as he well knows, there are people clamouring to be trained as teachers and he has failed to make provision for them? Will the position be better next year?
    Sir E. Boyle: Over England and Wales as a whole last year, 814 acceptable candidates failed to gain admission. This year the total is down to 290. Therefore, the supply of training college places has been more than keeping in line with the number of really good applicants.

    School Building Programme
    Mr. Loveysasked the Minister of Education whether local authorities have to guarantee to him that they are ready and able to proceed with projects which have been allocated to them under the major school building programme.
    Sir E. Boyle: I ask for no formal guarantee of an authority's ability to start its projects. But when settling the programme, one of the factors which I take into account is the likelihood of its being able to start the projects concerned in the appropriate year.
    Mr. Loveys: Would my right hon. Friend agree that, if local authorities are unable to fulfil their projects, rather than allow capital allowances for school building to go by default because of difficulties concerning the availability of land or for any other reason, it would be better to reallocate the funds to authorities which already have the land and which are seriously in need of new school building and raring to go?
    Sir E. Boyle: I assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of capital allowances going by default. In the last year for which we have figures, actual starts slightly exceeded authorised starts. There is no question of capital which is available not being used for a project.

    Further Education
    Mr. Iremongerasked the Minister of Education if, in the light of the report of the Robbins Committee, he will introduce legislation to remove further education from the sphere of local authorities' responsibility.
    Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir. I do not think this would be desirable, nor indeed was it recommended by the Robbins Committee.

    Primary School Education
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieuasked the Minister of Education when he expects
    1412
    to receive the report of the Plowden Committee on primary school education.
    Sir E. Boyle: The Central Advisory Council for Education had its first meeting under the chairmanship of Lady Plowden on 7th October. I understand that it is at present aiming to complete its report by the summer of 1966.
    Mr. Mallalieu: Will the Minister assure the House that he will not wait until then to start tackling the very urgent problems of primary education?
    Sir E. Boyle: In school building—and the hon. Member has a Question down about this—I have already announced my intention from 1965–66 onwards to devote some millions of pounds every year to primary school replacement projects. There will be no question here of a standstill in educational improvement. This is, however, the first major thorough inquiry into primary education for 30 years and I do not blame the Plowden Committee for wanting to do a thorough job of it.
    Mrs. White: Can the Minister give us some enlightenment on this? As the Plowden Committee is concerned with the age of school entry and the date of transfer from primary to secondary schools, what advice is the Minister giving to local authorities about the shape of their building programme if they have to wait until 1966 for the report?
    Sir E. Boyle: In many cases of primary school replacement, it is hard to see why this need in any way wait for the Plowden recommendations. If, however, the hon. Lady is thinking particularly about the age of transfer—from the age of 9 to 13, and so on—this is a matter which I shall consider most carefully when deciding which projects can be included in future programmes.

    Primary School Places
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieuasked the Minister of Education how many new primary school places he expects to be provided between 1964 and 1968; and what increase in the primary school population is forecast for 1968 compared with 1964.
    Sir E. Boyle: The estimated increase in the numbers of pupils in primary

    1413
    schools between January, 1964, and January, 1968, is about 450,000. Within the same period about 275,000 new primary places will be provided by projects in building programmes already announced. The programmes for 1965–68, whose details I shall announce next year, will provide substantially more primary places than the extra 175,000 needed to keep pace with the rising population, since as the hon. Member knows, it is my intention in future programmes to approve a number of projects for the replacement and improvement of old primary schools. Also many secondary reorganisation projects will give primary schools more room by enabling the senior children to be removed.
    Mr. Mallalieu: Is the Minister aware that that Answer will relieve some of the anxiety that is being felt and that I am grateful for it? Will he assure the House that he realises that primary education is probably the most important part of all education, and will he see that primary education is not overlaid by Robbins and Newsom?
    Sir E. Boyle: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I have on many occasions tried to make plain my view that primary education is the foundation of the system. That is why we give priority to the supply of teachers, for example, for the schools. This is obviously of the greatest importance. Having more than one year's programme at once will be helpful to authorities which will have a rising level of primary school children during the next two or three years.
    Dr. King: Is the Minister certain that his teacher training programme will provide by 1968 enough teachers to ensure that the size of primary school classes gets down to the statutory maximum?
    Sir E. Boyle: I should be very unwise to make rash forecasts about that size, since, as the hon. Member knows, the biggest problem is early retirement from schools. I have never made any secret of the fact that infant departments of primary schools will be heavily pressed during the next few years.
    Sir C. Osborne: Will my right hon. Friend undertake that the rural areas which have great need of new primary schools will be well looked after?
    1414
    Secondly, has he enough power to see that local authorities get on with the schemes once they have been agreed to?
    Sir E. Boyle: I shall certainly see to it that all local authorities as far as possible get a fair share of the available total. My hon. Friend may be thinking specifically of a minor works programme, in which priorities are the responsibility of the local authority.

    Friarswood School, Newcastle-under-Lyme
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Education if he will include the replacement of Friarswood School, Newcastle-under-Lyme, in the school building programme forthwith.
    Sir E. Boyle: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 24th October.
    Mr. Swingler: Is not this a crass example? Does not the Minister's Department admit that this school, which is more than 130 years old, is totally obsolete? Is it not a shocking scandal that teachers and children should be compelled to go on trying to make use of such hopeless buildings and equipment? Cannot the Minister do something urgently, because here is a case where primary education cannot advance in such conditions?
    Sir E. Boyle: On 11th July, I undertook to the hon. Member to look sympathetically at any project to replace this school which the authority might submit with a high priority for the 1965–66 programme. If I remember rightly, this was the runner-up last year in Staffordshire for a replacement project. It is up to the authority to give it a high priority in submitting its list for future years.

    National Recreation Centre, Cardiff
    Mr. Boxasked the Minister of Education what plans he has to establish a national recreation centre in Cardiff on the lines mentioned in the Wolfenden Committee Report on Sport, 1960.
    Sir E. Boyle: No proposal for such a centre has been made to my Department.
    Mr. Box: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the only existing national recreation centre in Wales is in Snowdonia, 200 miles from Cardiff, and that there is appropriate accommodation in Cardiff at Maindy Barracks, to which the War Office is hanging on like grim death? There are adequate playing fields and the barracks are occupied for only a small part of each year. If the matter is submitted to my right hon. Friend's Department, will he consider setting up a national recreation centre at Maindy Barracks?
    Sir E. Boyle: In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I was not aware of all those facts. In answer to the second part, I would be prepared to consider for inclusion in the youth service building programme any proposal by the local education authority to provide additional sports facilities for young people in Cardiff.
    Mr. G. Thomas: Will the Minister say who would bear the expense? The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box) is absolutely right that the facilities are there if the Minister would pay for them.
    Sir E. Boyle: If a project is put up to me for the youth service building programme, the cost will be met in the normal manner.

    Teachers
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Education if he will make a statement on the working of the quota system for teachers; and to what extent authorities are employing unqualified teachers.
    Sir E. Boyle: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) of 13th December. With regard to the last part of the Question, in October, 1963, there were nearly 5,000 unqualified full-time temporary and occasional teachers in service, representing 1·7 per cent of all full-time teachers.
    Mr. Allaun: Does the Minister think it fair to children that they should be taught by boys and girls who themselves have just left school and have no qualifications? Is he aware that in some of the industrial working-class areas the
    1416
    authorities are actually having to increase substantially the number of completely unqualified and untrained teachers?
    Sir E. Boyle: As the hon. Member knows, we are expanding the training colleges more rapidly than any other part of our higher education system. There are some areas where the authorities need helps to assist in the schools and where this arrangement works extremely well. I would not like to take too dogmatic a stand on this point.
    Mr. Willey: When can we expect a further report from the National Advisory Council on the supply and training of teachers?
    Sir E. Boyle: I should not, at this stage, like to say when the next report can be expected. As the hon. Member knows, the Advisory Council is fully at work.
    Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that while the quota system has some defects, which he himself is endeavouring to remedy, as long as teachers are in short supply the quota system secures for places like Birmingham their fair ration of teachers, and will he resist any attempts to scrap the system?
    Sir E. Boyle: As a Birmingham Member, as well as Minister, I am obliged to the hon. Member for what he has said. Since the quota was introduced, the difference in staffing standards between the best and the worst placed areas has been nearly halved. The quotas for January, 1965, which I shall announce tomorrow in a circular, should enable all local authorities to make a small improvement in staffing standards. The circular will show that I have decided to extend to two years the period of exemption from the quota of married women returning to teaching after a break. That is a reasonable concession.

    Nursery Schools
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Education how many new nursery schools have been established so far this year; and how many are planned for 1964 and 1965.
    Sir E. Boyle: The answer to the first part of the Question is one new school

    1417
    and three replacements. I have had no proposals so far for new schools in 1964 and 1965.
    Mr. Boyden: Is that surprising in view of the long stop which there has been on nursery schools? In view, however, of the evidence which has now been brought forward in the Kelsall Report, will the Minister look again at this matter and see whether he cannot encourage the setting up of more nursery classes or schools in places where there is a likelihood of more married women teachers entering service in the schools?
    Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Member is quite right in the latter part of what he has said. The one exception which I can make is where a local authority can enable married women to return to teaching by providing nursery classes. I spoke on this matter recently in the light of the Kelsall Report and I am considering what more can be done to encourage authorities to set up nursery classes in these circumstances.

    Day Training Colleges
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Education how many day training colleges were established in 1963; and how many are planned for 1964 and 1965.
    Sir E. Boyle: Four more day training colleges were established in 1963 and another is to open early in 1964, making 13 in all. I do not rule out the possibility of some addition to this number. But current expansion plans involve a very substantial increase in the numbers of day students in the training colleges generally.
    Mr. Boyden: Ought not the Minister to look at this again? Is there not a case for having some more day training colleges, if only on a temporary basis, in order to achieve much further recruitment among older students?
    Sir E. Boyle: I will certainly consider it again and also any other points which the hon. Gentleman would care to put to me. It ought, however, to be remembered that there are more than 10,000 day students in the colleges today compared with 7,000 a year ago, so that the number has gone up substantially. I recognise that we should not close our minds to this.

    Solicitors' Articled Clerks (Courses)
    Mr. Abseasked the Minister of Education whether he is aware of the hardship caused to solicitors' articled clerks wishing to attend courses at the College of Law by the refusal of many local authorities to pay full grants for tuition fees, examinations fees or maintenance; and if he will take action to remedy this situation.
    Sir E. Boyle: I have no evidence that local education authorities generally are not in thin matter acting on the advice given in paragraph 64 of my Ministry's Circular 9/62, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Abse: If evidence is submitted to the Minister that there are wide variations of practice between one local authority and another, would he be prepared to consider the matter and, if necessary, cajole and encourage laggard local authorities to do something about it?
    Sir E. Boyle: I cannot promise an alteration of the legislation—Section 2 of the 1962 Act—but I should be prepared to look into any individual cases which the hon. Gentleman might like to bring to my notice.

    Students (Dependants' Allowances)
    Mr. Abseasked the Minister of Education whether he is aware of the hardship caused to the dependent children of university students by the existing university award regulations; and whether he will amend the regulations to give local authorities discretionary powers to make awards for the support of children whose parents are students.
    Sir E. Boyle: These cases are few and usually arise when the student, despite the clear and long standing rule that dependants' allowances will not be payable in such circumstances, marries after his course begins. The awards regulations are at present under review by my Department and the local authority associations.
    Mr. Abse: Is the Minister aware that, irrespective of the regulations, children are sometimes born, and that, since children are born, they can suffer very severely if awards are not made? Since

    1419
    even the Minister of Education cannot prevent children being born, perhaps he would at least indicate that some changes can be made in the regulations in order to give discretion to local authorities in these matters?
    Sir E. Boyle: I think I had better not comment on part of what the hon. Gentleman has asked me. The point is that any change would involve a general change in the rules regarding independent status. I do not necessarily rule this out, but I cannot at this moment anticipate the results of the review which is going on at the present time.
    Mrs. White: When are we to have the results of the review? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this is something for which the Opposition have pressed consistently both during the latest legislation and since? Will he not now agree that the time has come to look again at the alteration in social habits which makes a change in the regulations necessary?
    Sir E. Boyle: I cannot say today when the review is likely to be completed, but I will bear in mind the feeling on this matter which has been expressed.
    Mrs. Hartasked the Minister of Education what reply he has made to the request from the National Council for the Unmarried Mother and her Child that he should consider giving local authorities discretionary powers to make dependants' allowances to students receiving university and other awards.
    Sir E. Boyle: I have sent the hon. Lady a copy of my reply to this organisation.
    Mrs. Hart: May I say how grateful I was to have it? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Council has sent another letter raising a particular point on the need for help for unmarried women students who have babies? I know that this subject bristles with difficulties, but has the right hon. Gentleman seen some of the reports over the last year of the studies into this problem? Will he make certain in the reconsideration of this whole grant question that full attention is given to this point so that a new policy may be determined?
    Sir E. Boyle: Certainly I am very ready to consider this and I will write
    1420
    both to the Council and to the hon. Lady again when I have had time to consider these new points.

    Gypsies (Dorset, Essex and Kent)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Education, in view of the importance of education for the children of gypsies and other travellers residing in caravans, and the statutory obligation that all children of the required ages shall attend school, what special action has been taken by each of the local education authorities in the counties of Dorset, Essex and Kent to ensure that the children of school age attend school at least during the winter months and early spring when farm work is not available and the caravans are static if sites are available.
    Sir E. Boyle: In each case the authority is successfully operating its normal arrangements for securing school attendance. These include visits by school welfare officers and the making of school attendance orders, and court proceedings where necessary.
    Mr. Dodds: Does not the Minister appreciate that he has a statutory obligation to ensure that children go to school? Will he inquire into the situation, bearing in mind that many of the traditional camps are closed down and that the families are being chased around on the main roads? How can the children go to school in these circumstances? How can we ever hope to solve this human problem unless the children go to school, and what children need schooling more than these do?
    Sir E. Boyle: The legal duty to send the children to school rests on the gypsy parents, and the authorities do everything they reasonably can to ensure that gypsy children go to school. The hon. Member tables a great many Questions on this subject. I can assure him that I correspond and inquire into it every time he raises the matter. But there are real difficulties in the case of caravan sites.
    Mr. Dodds: If I give the right hon. Gentleman information about specific places where the children are not going to school despite what is done by the local education authorities, will he add his weight to that of the Minister of

    1421
    Housing and Local Government in an effort to get something done, because this is a disgrace to the country?
    Sir E. Boyle: If the hon. Gentleman would care to refer a specific case to me, I should be glad to know about it, and I am sure that the local education authorities would be, too.
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Education how many children of school age residing in caravans in the counties of Dorset, Essex and Kent, respectively, were not attending school at the latest convenient date; and how many, in each of the counties, are not attending school because of the failure to secure camping places within the law.
    Sir E. Boyle: I understand from the local education authorities that there are 14 children in Dorset and two in Kent at present out of school. In neither county is this due to a failure to secure a camping place. The Dorset authority is trying to persuade parents to send their children to the appropriate schools in Poole. Kent is dealing with its two children who are probably new arrivals. No cases are known to the Essex authority.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that situation is not correct? Is he not aware that last week there were on the A.2 seven caravans with 11 children of school age, and that these gypsies had been pushed on by the police; and if they had not moved they would have been fined £1 a day while they were there? How can children go to school in these circumstances? When are we going to do something about it? When is the right hon. Gentleman going to do something about it?
    Sir E. Boyle: I do not want to be discourteous, but if the hon. Gentleman worked for a local education authority he would find that it is a great deal more difficult than he sometimes makes out. I gather that the parents of the 14 children in Poole want them all to attend the same school. Unfortunately, we do not have all-age schools in Poole, and so it is not easy. We all do our best about this, I can promise the hon. Member.

    Apprenticeship Courses
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Education how many full-time first year apprenticeship courses and recognised pre-apprenticeship courses are now being conducted in local colleges; what were the comparable figures a year ago; and what steps he is taking to expand these provisions.
    Sir E. Boyle: Figures for the current session are not available. I am now considering, taking the Industrial Training Bill into account, in what form information can best be collected in future, and whether it should be asked for as part of the Ministry's regular annual statistics. On the last part of the Question I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave him on 4th July.
    Mr. Prentice: On 4th July the Minister was saying that it was up to the local education authorities. Now he is talking about getting statistics. Is it not time that he took more positive steps to expand the number of courses of this sort? Does he not feel that, with the Industrial Training Bill, there is a need for a much larger number of these courses than there is at present?
    Sir E. Boyle: I referred specifically to this matter when winding up the Second Reading debate. Within the limit of the building programme, I would certainly be ready to entertain applications for special buildings for first year integrated courses where there is evidence of a long-term demand.

    Technical Colleges (Degree Courses)
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Education what short-term steps he is taking, pending the implementation of the proposals in the Robbins Report, to assist those who fail to secure admission to universities to obtain places in technical colleges offering degree courses.
    Sir E. Boyle: Schools and local education authorities are always ready to help boys and girls to find places in suitable technical college courses, and it was with a view to assisting them that earlier this year I issued the Ministry booklet Further Education for School Leavers. My Department is discussing with the Universities Central Council on Admissions ways in which the Council may be able to help in this matter.
    Mr. Prentice: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect these discussions to produce any results by next summer? Does he recall that I drew his attention to difficulties in certain areas last year? Does he think that these can be overcome by next year? It is an urgent problem for these young people.
    Sir E. Boyle: My answer is, "I very much hope, yes". As soon as the colleges of advanced technology achieve university status they will automatically be eligible to participate fully in the U.C.C.A. arrangements.

    Teaching Machines
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Education what progress is being made in the use of teaching machines; how many schools and colleges have installed them; and what encouragement he is giving to local authorities to acquire and use them.
    Sir E. Boyle: In October 1962 I carried out a survey of developments in programmed learning and teaching machines. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of my circular letter summarising the results and giving my own views. A further survey is now in progress, and results so far point out a substantial increase in activity.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: While thanking my right hon. Friend for sending me a copy of the circular, may I ask whether he agrees that these teaching machines can be a great addition to the powers of teachers and really should be greeted with enthusiasm? Would he also consider whether they should not be placed in teacher training colleges?
    Sir E. Boyle: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that last year's survey showed that 14 local education authorities, five area training organisations and three colleges of advanced technology were carrying out or proposing to carry out experiments. I have accepted for support from my research funds two further research projects, at Sheffield and Birmingham. Progress here is going as fast as one could reasonably expect.

    School Transport, Cardiff
    Mr. Boxasked the Minister of Education what reply he has given to
    1424
    Cardiff Trades Council's letter of 5th December dealing with the provision of school transport in the City of Cardiff.
    Sir E. Boyle: A reply was sent to Cardiff Trades Council on 17th December, 1963, informing it of the measures taken by Cardiff Education Committee and a joint sub-committee of the Tran-port and Education Committees of Cardiff City Council. These include the staggering of attendance hours at certain secondary schools for an experimental period and the provision of special buses and extra buses on service routes additional to those already provided to serve the requirements of school children.
    Mr. Box: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this has become a very serious problem not only in the City of Cardiff but, I imagine, in other big towns throughout the United Kingdom? Will the Ministry of Education liaise more closely with the local authority to find a satisfactory solution? Despite the meetings and despite the answer which he has given, the fact remains that many parents are deeply concerned because their children have to hang about, particularly in the winter months, for long hours waiting for buses? This is a national problem which needs a national solution.
    Sir E. Boyle: I have consulted my Welsh Office about this. There is a particular local problem here. The rebuilding of some local secondary schools has meant that they have had to be sited on the outskirts of the city. I am in close touch with the matter, I assure my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since I and the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box) tabled Questions on this subject I have been informed that there are to be eight extra services in the morning and 11 at night, and that we shall watch this carefully to see if this great problem will be overcome? Without doubt, it has caused a great deal of anxiety.
    Sir E. Boyle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being more up-to-date than I am. There was a deputation only the day before yesterday and I have not yet learnt the full results.
    Mr. G. Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has not

    1425
    followed his usual courtesy? Is he aware that I sent him a letter about this matter? I sent it in English and in plenty of time.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Perhaps it was in the mail bag.
    Mr. G. Thomas: One hopes that the reply will be better than the transport service. When am I likely to get an answer to forward to Cardiff Trades Council? We all realise that the staggering of school hours will be a major contribution towards the solution of this problem.
    Sir E. Boyle: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and I will see that he gets a letter to read in Christmas week on this subject.

    School Leaving Age
    Mr. Lubbockasked the Minister of Education whether he will make a further statement on the raising of the school leaving age from 15 to 16 and also on the other recommendations of the Newsom Committee.
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Minister of Education if he will now announce the Government's intentions concerning the recommendation of the Crowther and Newsom Reports that the age of school leaving be raised to 16 years.
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Education whether he will make a statement on the raising of the school leaving age.
    Sir E. Boyle: I intend to make a statement on the raising of the school leaving age during the current Session. With regard to the second part of his Question, I would refer the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) on 5th December.
    Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the longer he delays making an announcement the more difficult it will be? Provision has to be made for the additional teachers who will be required and for the variations in capital expenditure programmes of local education authorities. Is he further aware that, if he does not accept the recommendation of the Newsom Committee, it will be very much more difficult to im-
    1426
    plement later on, because the minimum number of children entering secondary schools will be in 1965?
    Sir E. Boyle: Of course, I recognise the great importance of this matter. I have quite deliberately not prejudged this in the school building programmes I have announced for the future. We are proceeding as fast as we can in order to make up the teacher supply.
    Mrs. White: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain his reasons for not being able to make a statement now? This Session may, conceivably, end in March. What new facts are likely to be drawn to his attention between now and then?
    Sir E. Boyle: As the hon. Lady knows, evidence relevant to this matter has come in quite recently. For example, no one can deny that the Kelsall Report is really relevant. I repeat that I shall make a statement in the current Session.
    Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is now four years since the Crowther Committee said that a statement on this should be made? Is he aware that, for the past three or four years, I have been saying that a statement will be made on the eve of the General Election? Does this mean that the General Election has been postponed from March? Does not he realise that in any case the statement will still prove useless electorally?
    Sir E. Boyle: I had a feeling that we would get on to the subject of the General Election with the hon. Gentleman. It is true that in 1960, when we debated Crowther, my predecessor accepted this recommendation in principle. There is no dispute that this is a good thing to do. But I must take account of the needs of, and my responsibility for, the education service as a whole. Here, one must bear in mind the teacher supply aspect. I repeat that I will fulfil my pledge, many times given, to announce the Government's policy during the present Session.
    Mr. Lubbock: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my supplementary question? Does not he realise that, if this decision is delayed beyond 1965, the problem of teacher supply and of capital expenditure in schools will be very much more acute?
    Sir E. Boyle: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "beyond 1965".
    Mr. Lubbock: Entry.
    Sir E. Boyle: No one has suggested that this could take place in 1965. I assure the House that I accept the urgency of the matter and will make a statement as soon as I can.

    Newsom Committee (Recommendations)
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Education when he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on the proposals contained in the Newsom Report; and what estimate has been made of the total cost of the full implementation of the recommendations made.
    Sir E. Boyle: In reply to the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) on 5th December. In reply to the second part, it is not practicable to give any such estimate.
    Mr. Hamilton: How, then, can the Chancellor give, in the White Paper, a specific figure of a £310 million overall increased expenditure on education over the next five years? Has the right hon. Gentleman not been able to separate the amount of expenditure needed to implement the new proposals of Robbins? Can he confirm or deny the figures, given by Mr. Newsom himself and reported in the Economist of 7th December, that the capital cost of implementing the Newsom Report would be £120 million with a recurrent cost of £60 million?
    Sir E. Boyle: The figures in the White Paper relate to the position up to and including 1967–68 before it is proposed that the school leaving age should be raised. Those figures do assume not only much higher school building programmes but a rising improvement element in secondary schools in terms of the movement in the direction of 16 as the leaving age.
    I think that the estimate that Mr. Newsom has given for capital cost is approximately correct, but I would rather not commit myself about the figure for
    1428
    recurrent cost because this must depend so much on our success in recruiting teachers.
    Mrs. Slater: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is feeling among teachers and others interested in education that there is a tendency to lose Newsom in the desire to achieve Robbins? If we are to achieve Robbins in the future we must implement Newsom in order to provide the people who can take advantage of Robbins. Does not the Minister think that at least a more definite statement should be made and some estimate given of how much the Chancellor is prepared to put into this programme, and that the right hon. Gentleman should not go on deferring this, possibly until after the General Election?
    Sir E. Boyle: If the hon. Lady will look at the White Paper on Government expenditure she will see that there is specific reference to the Newsom Report. As I have said several times, we are planning to spend £250 million more on secondary schools over the next five years at a time when the secondary school population is remaining stable. That means more in real terms per head of secondary school children.

    Schools (Political Pamphlets)
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Education if he is aware that Conservative Party pamphlets have been used for teaching at primary and secondary schools in many parts of the country; and what steps he has taken to stop this practice.
    Sir E. Boyle: I have received no complaint that political pamphlets have been used for teaching purposes.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is it not the case that the National Union of Teachers has made an official protest to the Conservative Party, following complaints from head teachers in various parts of the country that Conservative pamphlets have been sent to them at their school addresses, and that only today we have had a report from Canterbury that a grammar school is being used by the Tory Party for its own political purposes?
    Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that this follows the use of school children in the Prime Minister's own by-election in Kinross, also for political

    1429
    purposes? Whilst we know that the morale of the Tory Party is desperately low, surely it is not as low as all that.
    Sir E. Boyle: I may be very simple but it seems to me that the question of teachers receiving party literature is rather different from a Question on political pamphlets being used for teaching purposes.
    I wish to apologise at this point to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). I have been somewhat discourteous to him in not replying sooner on this point but the letter has gone off to him today.
    Mr. F. Harris: Since there is to be a General Election next year, is there not a good case for sending these pamphlets to all right hon. and hon. Members opposite?
    Mr. Willey: In view of what happened at the Simon Langton Grammar School yesterday—perhaps the incident explains the absence today of the Parliamentary Secretary, since I understand that he was involved—will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement about the undesirability of political intrusion into schools? Will he give proper advice to ensure that what happened yesterday does not happen again?
    Sir E. Boyle: I am not sure that this arises from the Question on the Order Paper. What the hon. Gentleman calls "political intrusion" for the making of films seems to me to be a matter for the local authorities and for the schools themselves, using commonsense. I understand that the London County Council has no objection to political films being made both outside and inside schools provided that the children are not themselves asked to speak in them.
    Sir G. Nicholson: Is it not possible to take this whole question a little too seriously? I have had complaints of Labour Party pamphlets being distributed in schools but, as far as I am concerned, the more there are the better, since they defeat their own object.
    Sir E. Boyle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is a mistake for too many people to be "holier than thou" on this subject.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking, in view
    1430
    of the official protest from the N.U.T., that the Conservative Central Office will stop sending these pamphlets to the teachers at school? Will he ensure that, if the Conservative Party must send them, it sends them to home addresses?
    Sir E. Boyle: I agree that it is best if they are sent to private addresses and not to the schools. But, in fairness, I would add that I had a complaint earlier this year of pamphlets being sent by the Labour Party to head boys and head girls. In my letters to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) I have tried to set out a method on which we could all agree.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I think that we had better get on with educational topics.

    Youth Services, Lindsey County Council
    Sir J. Maitlandasked the Minister of Education if he will state the number and amount of grants made to Lindsey County Council for youth services building in 1961, 1962, and 1963; and what grants are proposed for the immediate future.
    Sir E. Boyle: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report.
    Sir J. Maitland: Is it not a fact that these figures will show that the local authority concerned is getting less than its proper share? Will my right hon. Friend comment on that?
    Sir E. Boyle: With respect, I do not think that that is true. The total allocation for Lincolnshire (Lindsey) over the period 1960–65 is about the average of the whole country on the basis of the youth population. I do not think that it is getting less than its fair share.
    Sir C. Osborne: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who represent Lindsey are interested not in the figure for 1965–66, but the figure for this year, and that we think that we are being treated meanly?
    Sir E. Boyle: The figures show that four projects costing £23,000 are in this year's programme and that for next year

    1431
    one project costing £19,000 has already been included, and I am considering a second.
    The information is as follows:
    County Council projects are not specifically grant-aided. Youth service projects in the area of the Lincolnshire (Lindsey) local education authority have been included in building programmes as follows:

    1961–62–3

    costing

    £25,000.

    1962–63–7

    costing

    £56,000.

    1963–64–4

    costing

    £23,000.

    One project costing £19,000 has already been included in the 1964–65 programme, and I am considering an appeal to add a second project.

    Public Libraries
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Minister of Education when he proposes to introduce legislation on public libraries.
    Sir E. Boyle: I have nothing to add to the Answer which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 12th December.
    Mrs. White: Will not the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, without the legislation mentioned, he has no powers to ensure that the provision of public libraries is adequate for meeting the very much increased demand of students in further and higher education in the next few years? If he cannot find time in this place, could he not take the advice of his right hon. Friend about starting it in another place?
    Sir E. Boyle: I am very keen that this legislation should be introduced as soon as possible and I will certainly consider all ways and means.

    Handicapped children
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Minister of Education if he will now introduce legislation so that parents of handicapped children will have the right to apply for a maintenance grant when the child reaches the age of 15 years.
    Sir E. Boyle: I do not expect to be able to introduce legislation on this subject during the present Parliamentary Session.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the parents of these children suffer a great deal of hardship and that a boy of 15 may
    1432
    cost as much to keep as most adults? Is it not essential that these boys and girls should be as well clothed as possible while attending school so that the discrimination against them is as little as possible?
    Sir E. Boyle: I appreciate that. On the other hand, children in special schools benefit from preferential treatment in other ways, and if they attend boarding school no financial contribution from the parents is expected. However, I have not closed my mind on this matter.

    Educational Cruises
    Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Education whether in view of the success of educational cruises on chartered liners like the "Dunera", he will seek powers to make grants towards such cruises earmarked for children who otherwise are too poor to take advantage of the cruises.
    Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir. Local education authorities already have the power to assist pupils in the circumstances mentioned.
    Dr. King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these cruises, which are of inestimable educational value, are financed entirely by the children themselves and that the 1944Act lays down that nothing which is of educational value shall be kept from a child merely because of the poverty of its parents and that some local authorities are subsidising poor children? Could he not think seriously about himself making the kind of provision suggested?
    Sir E. Boyle: I think that there would be difficulties about this. I am impressed with what many local education authorities do. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to refer the practice of any particular authority to me, I shall be happy to consider it.

    World Citizenship
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Minister of Education if he will allocate to members of Her Majesty's Inspectorate responsibilities for encouraging studies in world citizenship in the school curriculum.
    Sit E. Boyle: It is already one of the responsibilities of H.M. Inspectors to give advice on this topic.

  SOUTH PACIFIC (FRENCH NUCLEAR TESTS)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Prime Minister if he has now been informed whether, and when, the proposed French nuclear tests in the South Pacific are to take place; and what representations on the health hazards to the population of British territories arising from such tests have now been made by Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): I have had no communication on these points from the French Government, but from published information it seems that any tests in the South Pacific will not take place before some time in 1965. As for the second part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 3rd December.
  Mr. Driberg: While we are certainly relieved by the Prime Minister's announcement about the probable timing, can I ask him whether he will none the less make representations, since, obviously, it would be no good leaving these until the last moment before the tests? It is better to make representations well in advance.
  The Prime Minister: The French Government is perfectly well aware of our wish that it should sign the nuclear Test Ban Treaty and of the anxiety which we share with New Zealand and Australia. But whether we should make representations now about possible tests which may take place in two years' time is a much more doubtful proposition.

  MINISTERS
  Mr. Loughlinasked the Prime Minister if he will make it a condition of accepting Ministerial office in future that the office holder undertakes on relinquishment of office not to engage in any firm or section of industry or commerce which is in receipt of Government subsidies, grants or loans.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Loughlin: Is the Prime Minister aware that I imply no personal criticism of any Minister by this Question? However, is it not rather scandalous that Ministers of the Crown can pursue policies from which firms and industries can gain financial benefit when the same Ministers may later be employed by the firms which received the benefits of their policies? Would it not be wise to ensure that public office should not be abused in this way?
  The Prime Minister: I think that this must be left to the discretion and common sense of Ministers. I should not like to deprive industries of the benefit of the advice of people who had been Ministers—not necessarily the industries with which they had been closely associated.
  Mr. Ridley: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this is a ridiculous suggestion and that, if it had been adopted, Lord Robens would have been unable to undertake the chairmanship of the National Coal Board?
  Mr. Lawson: Is the Prime Minister suggesting that his Ministers are more honourable than Labour councillors who happen to be local authority tenants? Will he not apply to his Ministers who happen to be benefiting from the public purse the same rule as is applied to Labour councillors who are local authority tenants?
  The Prime Minister: The Question deals with what a Minister may do on the relinquishment of his office. I was saying that I did not think that there should be any rule about this and what I was saying would apply to Ministers of a Labour Government as much as to our own.
  Mr. H. Wilson: While it is clear that much of this problem needs to be settled on the basis of the good sense and discretion of the individuals concerned, will not the Prime Minister at least make it clear that the most rigid rules are still enforced in respect of Ministers while in office having no connection of any kind with business undertakings? Secondly, while the Question refers to subsidies, grants or loans, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great concern expressed in the House not long ago about Ministers who, on

  1435
  ceasing to be Ministers, go into firms which are in receipt of very big Government contracts, especially defence contracts? Would not the Prime Minister agree that there is a case for very careful behaviour, where Government defence contracts are concerned, by Ministers immediately on resigning?
  The Prime Minister: There is certainly need for great care and that is what I meant when I spoke of exercising discretion and common sense. For Ministers in office there are the most rigid rules that they must not be connected with industry.

  SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  Mr. Stonehouseasked the Prime Minister what consultations he is now proposing to have with Commonwealth Prime Ministers about the future of Southern Rhodesia.
  The Prime Minister: Commonwealth consultations are confidential. I cannot at present go beyond my right hon. Friend's statement in the House on 15th November.
  Mr. Stonehouse: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Sir Roy Welensky has just made another blistering attack on Conservative Party hypocrisy in regard to the Federation, and that this comment on Tory duplicity is entirely justified? Will the Prime Minister avoid further mistakes in Rhodesia by taking into consultation the Commonwealth countries so that the Constitution can be broadened and the country can move towards democratic rule which will represent the aspirations of the majority of the population?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's Question is about Southern Rhodesia, and possible consultations on the future of that country. I understand that Sir Roy Welensky was making a speech about the Federation, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman, as well as everybody else in the House, wants to see a solution of the Southern Rhodesia problem which is acceptable to the Commonwealth, to the United Nations, and to both sides of the House.
  Sir J. Eden: Will the Prime Minister consider very carefully before inviting other Commonwealth countries to share
  1436
  in a decison which is wholly the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government?
  The Prime Minister: It was never suggested that other Commonwealth countries should share in that decision, and my right hon. Friend was suggesting that they might be able to help towards a solution.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that the settlement in Rhodesia is a matter of the highest possible importance to the whole Commonwealth, and may it not well be the case that a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers might assist in securing a satisfactory solution, which is what the Prime Minister wants?
  The Prime Minister: I think that I answered a supplementary question to the same effect the other day by saying that I did not think it was justifiable to call a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference for this particular purpose.

  SOUTH AFRICA (SUPPLY OF ARMS)
  Mr. Gordon Walkerasked the Prime Minister (1) what steps he has taken to co-ordinate the work of the Departments concerned in carrying out Her Majesty's Government's policy in regard to the export of arms to South Africa;
  (2) in view of the Security Council resolution of 4th December on the supply of arms to South Africa, what changes have now been made in the policy of Her Majesty's Government on this matter.
  Mr. Mayhewasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied that adequate co-ordinating arrangements have been made between the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade regarding the sale of spare parts for tanks and armoured cars to the Union of South Africa; and if he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: All applications to export arms and spare parts for arms to other countries are carefully scrutinised by the interested Departments. This is so in the case of South Africa and I am confident that the machinery is adequate. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary explained to the House on 25th

  1437
  November, it is our policy not to export arms to South Africa which would enable the policy of apartheid to be enforced.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there is increasing scepticism—and not only in political circles—aboutthe feasibility of this distinction between arms for internal use and those for external use? Can the Prime Minister tell us whether spare parts for Saracen tanks and Wasp helicopters are still being exported to South Africa, both of which could be used, if necessary, for the suppression of internal protests and disorder?
  The Prime Minister: We supply spare parts for the Saracens under existing contracts, but we intend to make no new contracts. The helicopters in question are naval Westland Wasp helicopters. They are used for anti-submarine purposes, and are not equipped with machine guns or missile launchers.
  I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we must keep this policy constantly under review, but one must remember that, under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, a nation has the right to arm itself for self-defence, and the Simonstown Agreement is very valuable to the United Kingdom as well.
  Sir J. Duncan: Would the Prime Minister agree that the safety and freedom of the sea round South Africa is a British interest? Will he do nothing to discourage South Africa from keeping the Simonstown Agreement?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; I have been aware of that ever since the crisis in Suez.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Does the Prime Minister recall that when we made a strong declaration on this question last March we were subjected to continuous attacks from Ministers? On the question of an arms embargo on South Africa, is the Prime Minister aware that we support the partial conversion of the Government, under United Nations and American pressure, on this matter; but is he aware that we are still very worried that the Government, who up to a few months ago said that no embargo could be carried out, are not fully honouring the spirit of what is intended by the United Nations Resolution?
  The Prime Minister: I think that an arms embargo would be wrong, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree, because this would involve the Simonstown Agreement to which I think I remember him saying he attached considerable importance. Within our licensing system we are able to control the export of arms, and they will not be exported if, in our judgment, they can be used to suppress the African population.
  Mr. Wilson: Since we are doubtful about the approach of the Government to the carrying out of this in view of their rather belated conversion, will the Prime Minister say why, on the debate on the Whitsun Adjournment, a Minister was put up to attack the Opposition's view on this and to oppose the idea of any restrictions whatsoever on shipments of arms to South Africa? Will the Prime Minister say why, when he was Foreign Secretary and we put Questions to the Foreign Office, we could get no assurance at all about the control either of tear gas or tear gas equipment? Are teargas and tear gas equipment controlled now?
  The Prime Minister: I should like to see that Question on the Order Paper. I have always been against an arms embargo. I am not against using our licensing system to control arms so that they will not be used against the African population.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS PROCEEDINGS (TELEVISION)
  Mr. Donnellyasked the Prime Minister whether he will now publish the technical report on the implications of the televising of the proceedings of the House of Commons that was prepared at the request of his predecessor.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Donnelly: May I ask the Prime Minister, first, whether he is aware that it states in the report, and subsequent technical advances have confirmed further, that no new form of lighting would be required if there were any televising of proceedings in the House of Commons?
  Secondly, may I ask the Prime Minister again the question which he did not

  1439
  answer last week? How long does he think this Chamber can go on ignoring the new mass medium of communication? How long does he think it will take to obtain the necessary information?
  The Prime Minister: I am largely in the hands of the House in this matter. It is clear that the House is not unanimous on it. I think that it would do nothing but mislead everybody to undertake technical experiments before the House has made up its mind on this matter.

  JORDAN AND SYRIA (BOYCOTT OF BRITISH COMPANIES)
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to co-ordinate the activities of the various Government Departments affected by the official blacklisting of 49 British companies by the Governments of Jordan and Syria.
  The Prime Minister: Constant contact on the boycott, as it affects this country, is maintained between the Departments concerned.
  Mr. Henderson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether there is any precedent for Governments which have friendly relations with Britain black-listing British firms for carrying on their legitimate trading interests with a third country such as Israel? Is not the action of these Governments quite inconsistent with the principles of the United Nations Charter?
  The Prime Minister: I think that it is inconsistent and deplorable, and that has been made clear; but the right hon. Gentleman was asking about the coordination of action by Government Departments, and I am satisfied that we can give the firms all the help that they need.
  Mr. W. Yates: Would not the Prime Minister agree that this question concerning the companies also involves Israel's interest to extract the waters of the Jordan shortly, and that this is part of the propaganda before it?
  The Prime Minister: That is another question.
  Mr. Snow: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has considered the desirability of consultation with other nations who may be equally affected, for instance, the United States of America, since there appears to be some evidence that there is an incipient move towards a boycott of companies in that country as well?
  The Prime Minister: I shall consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on this matter of consultation with other countries. So far, this boycott has been directed against us.
  Mr. S. Silverman: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he recalls that the Minister of State, when dealing with this matter the other day, without condoning it, nevertheless thought it right to remind the House that this problem arose out of the Arab States' contention that there is in existence a state of war with Israel? Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that this nonsense of an unreal state of war being used as a foundation for all kinds of mischief all over the world is one which the Government might take some step to endeavour to bring to an end?
  The Prime Minister: I have deplored many times in this House, and in other places, mixing up politics and economic relations.

  CROWTHER REPORT AND BUCHANAN REPORT
  Mr. W. T. Rodgersasked the Prime Minister what steps he intends to take to co-ordinate the policy of Her Majesty's Government arising from the recommendations of the Crowther Steering Group to the Buchanan Committee, in view of the Departmental responsibilities of the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development.
  The Prime Minister: The Ministers concerned and the officials of their Departments are in close consultation on all matters raised by both the Crowther and Buchanan Reports.
  Mr. Rodgers: Is the Prime Minister aware of the very widespread view that

  1441
  the proposal for regional agencies, which was a central feature of the Crowther Report and which had the support of the Minister of Transport, has, in Sir Geoffrey's own words, been turned down flat by the Government at the instance of the Minister of Housing and Local Government? In view of the very great blaze of publicity with which the Crowther and Buchanan Reports were launched, will he take steps to ensure that they are not now allowed to gather dust due to Departmental rivalry?
  The Prime Minister: I will certainly see that nothing gathers dust in Whitehall.

REMUNERATION OF MINISTERS AND MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (REVIEW COMMITTEE)
Mr. H. Wilson(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement arising out of the discussions which have been held on the remuneration of Ministers and Members of Parliament.
The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): Yes, Sir. The remuneration of Members of the House of Commons and salaries of junior Ministers were raised in 1957, and, at the same time, an expenses allowance was introduced for Members of the House of Lords. The basic salary of a senior Minister has remained unchanged since 1831.
After consultation with the leaders of the main political parties in both Houses, we have decided that the time has now come for a fundamental review of the remuneration of Ministers of the Crown and of Members of the House of Commons and also for the reconsideration of the allowance for Members of the House of Lords.
Her Majesty's Government have, therefore, appointed Sir Geoffrey Lawrence, Mr. H. S. Kirkaldy and Professor W. J. M. Mackenzie to be a Committee with the following terms of reference:
"To review, and to recommend what changes are desirable in, the remuneration of Mr. Speaker, Ministers of the Crown and Members of the House of Commons and also the allowance for Members of the House of Lords, having regard to their responsibilities, to the place of Parliament in the national life and to the changes which have taken place, since
1442
the existing emoluments were fixed, in general standards of remuneration, and to the increases in expenses borne by Members of both Houses in the discharge of their duties."
The Committee will, of course, take evidence from whatever sources it wishes, but in order to assist it in carrying out its task, Her Majesty's Government, in consultation with the other parties, have appointed an Advisory Panel with which the Committee will be able to consult and from which they will be able to obtain advice on parliamentary matters.
The following have agreed to serve on the Advisory Panel: Lord Tweedsmuir, Chairman, Lord Champion, the hon. Member for Bebington (Sir H. Oakshott), the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley), the hon. and learned Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver), the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), and the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade).
The Government consider that the Committee should be asked to report as soon as possible after the General Election and that whatever action seems appropriate in the light of its report should then be taken without delay.
Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although we would have preferred immediate action, we very much welcome the approach that he has shown to these discussions during the past two or three weeks? Is he further aware that it is the desire of all of us that this matter should be taken out of party politics; that, speaking for my own party, I would express the very strong view that this should be regarded as a matter for the House as a whole, and that, between now and the General Election, and during the election campaign, this should not be regarded as another party matter, or related to other questions?
Finally, am I right—I think I am—in taking the last sentence of the right hon. Gentleman's statement as meaning that if, at the end of the General Election, we find a Government under his leadership—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] All right. There is a little more of the sentence to follow. Am I right in thinking that if this were to occur he would feel that something does need to be done, and that the Government would take action quickly in the

1443
life of the new Parliament just as, on behalf of my party, I give a similar pledge that if the result of the election were to be a Labour Government we would equally regard it as essential that something should be done quickly? [An. Hon. Member: "What about the Liberals?"] Is the Prime Minister further aware that I had proposed to leave a supplementary question to the Leader of the Liberal Party?
The Prime Minister: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the help that he has given me in this matter during the last few weeks. I think that we both feel it desirable that these matters should be taken out of party politics, and should play no part in the election campaign. I am sure that that is the feeling on both sides of the House.
The answer to the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, with the possible substitution of "when" for "if", is "Yes, Sir".
Mr. Grimond: Is the Prime Minister aware that I, also, welcome this statement? May I assure him that if called upon to form a Government after the election I shall be only too happy to follow his excellent example? May I also thank him for coming to a speedy decision in this matter? It seems to me that there is something to be said for having a few lapsed Peers in the House of Commons, so that they can bring a new look to these difficult problems. I hope that this is the beginning of the end of the very unhappy and nagging negotiations, very unsatisfactory to everybody, which have always had to precede any change in our salaries.
Mr. Renton: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Is he aware, however, that there is a feeling on both sides of the House—and that there has been such a feeling for a long time—that the differential as between Ministers and junior Ministers has not been quite right, to the disadvantage of junior Ministers? Will he give us an assurance that the Committee to be set up will not be bound by the present differential?
The Prime Minister: I think that all this will go into the melting pot. I hope that something more satisfactory for junior Ministers will come out.
Mr. Mason: I thank the Prime Minister for the pleasing statement that he has made, and especially upon the break-through that we have achieved in allowing, for the first time, a few independent assessors to make recommendations. Are the terms of reference of the Committee such as to allow the assessors to make recommendations to this House offering ways and means whereby this difficult problem could be solved for all time, so that we did not have to go through this periodical rigmarole again?
The Prime Minister: There is no reason why the Committee should not make a recommendation if it sees fit, but this matter must be kept under the authority of the Government of the day.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: How does it come about, Mr. Speaker, that this Question arises as a Private Notice Question? Under the rules of order such Questions are normally asked in respect of a matter which has suddenly arisen and which has to be determined either today or tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member need not be anxious. The custom is to allow a Private Notice Question to be asked by the Leader of the Opposition, because, by custom, he does not put Questions on the Order Paper.
Mr. Shinwell: In view of the fact that we should have had an increase a long time ago, will the Prime Minister so frame the terms of reference of the Committee as to ensure that whatever decision is reached by the Committee it will be made retrospective?
The Prime Minister: I know of the right hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter, but I am not sure that I am in the same category as he is.
Mr. More: Will my right hon. Friend consider enlarging the terms of reference in one important respect? The terms of reference refer to the general standards of remuneration. Could not they refer to a specific increase in the standards of remuneration of the permanent officials of the Ministries to which Ministers are attached?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I must have the indulgence of the House in putting a stop

1445
to further discussion of this matter. It so happens that we have a terrific lot to do before we come to our formal work today.

ADEN (DETAINED PERSONS)
Mr. Bottomley(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will name the three men now charged in connection with the bomb outrage in Aden, and what steps he is taking to obtain the release of other detainees against whom no charges are being made.
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): No charges have yet been preferred. The answer to the second part of the question is "None, Sir".
Mr. Bottomley: Since the leaders of nine trade unions, the leaders of the T.U.C. in Aden and the leaders of the People's Socialist Party are all detained, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this leaves a political vacuum and encourages terrorism? Will he not consider releasing these leaders and give consideration to the sending out of a judicial committee to investigate the matter; or is he content to leave the position as it was stated by the Minister of State in another place, that this is a matter for the security forces?
Mr. Sandys: This action was taken by the Federal Government under a declaration of a state of emergency. The Federal Government are responsible for internal security. The British High Commissioner has power to override any decision of the Federal Government, but he did not consider that he was justified in intervening in this matter, and I fully support him in the view which he took.
As regards any reference to any judicial authority, provision is made in the state of emergency decree that detainees may have their cases reviewed if they so desire by a special tribunal.
Mr. Kershaw: In coming to a decision on this very difficult matter will my right hon. Friend remember that in Aden there are many thousands of Service men's wives and children who,
1446
if a difficult situation should arise, might be in great danger?
Mr. Sandys: Of course, I am well aware of that.
Mr. Oram: Is there not sufficient in the record of the Federal Government about civil liberties to make people who are interested in this problem very apprehensive of the treatment that the prisoners may now be receiving? Will the right hon. Gentleman do everything in his power to see that proper treatment is being given to them?
Mr. Sandys: I have no reason to suppose that proper treatment is not being given to them.
Mr. Grimond: Can the Secretary of State assure us that the detainees are aware of their right to appeal? Can he say whether it is true that their relatives are not being allowed to visit them, and, if so, is this restriction necessary?
Mr. Sandys: I am not responsible directly for the arrangements for the detention of these people, but a British medical officer visited the place of detention and I have with me a full report. He visited the place on three different days and held a clinic. [Interruption.] I mention this because I have seen reports in the newspapers of torture and accusations of that kind. I would like to take this opportunity to make the position clear to the House. I have the report from the British medical officer with me. He examined all the detainees and, apart from minor ailments of a normal character, found no signs of ill-treatment of any kind whatever.
I am not in a position to make a statement about visits by persons from outside to the detainees. But I can say that if they wish to have legal advice from outside they are perfectly at liberty to see solicitors in their place of detention.
Mr. W. Yates: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how long this emergency is to last? Are these 400 people to stay permanently in prison without trial? How many of them have been released in the last fortnight?
Mr. Sandys: It has been going on for only a few days. How long it will go on, I cannot say.
Mr. Grimond: May I again ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will make inquiries to discover whether or not it is true that relatives are not being allowed to see the detainees? Will he inform the House of the reason for this, if it turns out to be true?
Mr. Sandys: I will inquire.
Mr. Brockway: How does the right hon. Gentleman explain that if no charges have been made in this case of bomb outrage, trade union and political leaders and 51 persons have been placed in detention, and a Cabinet Minister has resigned? How is it that this grave crisis in Aden has arisen from an outrage about which even no charges have yet been made?
Mr. Sandys: It seems to be clear that the hand grenade was thrown from a window in an office in the airport building. Three people are known to have been in that office and are being detained as suspects separately from the others. I have no doubt that some charges will be made; inquiries are at present being made.
I would like to impress upon hon. Members the fact that this is not just a matter of one grenade being thrown at the airport. A regular, concerted effort has been made recently to try to provoke trouble and bloodshed in Aden. I would like to tell hon. Members what has been going on. It is mainly being directed from Sana, over the Yemeni Radio. On 25th November, before this incident, Sana Radio urged workers in Aden to carry and use arms. The broadcast said that the aim should be to exterminate their enemies as quickly as possible. "The rights of the workers", it said, "should be taken by force". It called upon the workers in Aden
"…to go ahead, strike, destroy, carry arms and obtain their rights by force".
On 10th December, the day of the bomb incident, this is what Sana Radio said:
"This is not the last bomb. Our brothers in the South are prepared to throw other bombs, and will do so in Britain itself if possible."
On 13th December Sana Radio issued a statement by the Aden T.U.C. and the P.S.P. Party—the party to which reference has been made. It called on all Arabs to support the struggle of the T.U.C. and the P.S.P. and demanded
1448
"death for colonialist traitors and stooges".
Mr. W. Yates: Really!
Mr. Sandys: I have been quoting. It is all very well to say "Really", but this is a serious situation.
Mr. W. Yates: What about the United Nations resolution?
Mr. Sandys: That is all very well but I know perfectly well that the hon. Member would like to see the British driven out of Aden. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] He would be happy to see Aden swallowed up by the Yemen and ruled from Cairo.
Mr. W. Yates: On a point of order. The Minister has just made an accusation that I would be prepared to support another country known as the Yemen to the detriment of British interests. Is a Minister allowed to say that without any foundation whatever?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it is strictly out of order, but I deplore the use of strong language of that kind in any part of the House.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. W. Yates: The Minister should withdraw that remark.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: Does not the information which the Minister has just read to the House add a great deal of force to the request made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) that a judicial commission should be set up, under a judge from the United Kingdom, to investigate exactly what the position is in the Southern Arabian Federation? Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that if hon. Members from either side of the House are able to visit Aden during the coming Recess they will have access to the detainees?
Mr. Sandys: On the question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] With regard to my remarks—[Hon. Members: "Apologise."] I should be very happy for any objective person to study my hon. Friend's earlier remarks and speeches on this subject. I think that it would fully bear out my impression

1449
of his attitude to this matter. [Hon. Members: "Withdraw."] As for a judicial tribunal—
Mr. W. Yates: On a point of order. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister did not hear what you said to the House about remarks of an offensive nature which he made to me. I now ask him in courtesy, and in courtesy to the House, to withdraw them.
Mr. Sandys: I did not understand that you, Mr. Speaker, asked me to withdraw. You said that you deplored strong language.
Mr. Speaker: I told the House just what the situation is. I deplore the use of strong language of that kind on the part of anybody, because it does not assist our progress. I did not ask the Minister to withdraw, because in the context I did not think that the remark was out of order. I did not understand that when the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) rose to a point of order he was going to ask a question of the Minister, which is a different matter. Can we now get back to the more regular situation, which is the Minister's answer to a question?
Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. It is perfectly true that you, Mr. Speaker, did not ask the Minister to withdraw. You deplored what was said. Is it in order for a Minister, using the privileged position he has at the Dispatch Box, to persist and proceed after you have deplored what he has said? Surely no other hon. Member in this House would do that. We expect the same courtesy to be given to the Chair by Ministers as we expect to give to you.
Mr. Speaker: I am glad about that, that I am to have the same respect as my fellow Members here, but the fact is this was not, in my view, out of order. It is not out of order, despite the fact that I deplore it, for the Minister to continue in order. Now can we have an answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson)? We have a lot to do.
Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—asked me two questions. One was in regard to a judicial tribunal. As I have explained, the detainees can have their cases referred to a tribunal. It would
1450
not, of course, be proper for a British tribunal to look into the conduct of affairs by the Federal Government. But I have no reason to suppose—I am not trying to shelter behind the constitutional position of the Federal Government—that in the very inflammatory state of affairs in Aden, which, as I have indicated, is largely provoked from outside, the precautionary measures taken by the Federal Government were excessive.
I should be very happy to consider the suggestion which the hon. Member has made about visits by hon. Members, but it would be a matter for the Federal Government to decide about visits to their prisoners.
Several Eton. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We really must get on.
Mr. Bellenger: On a point of order. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you considered your Ruling in the context of what the Minister said about the efforts being made by people outside this territory to drive the British out by force? In that context is it not possible that the Minister's words against his hon. Friend could be construed in that way? If that is so, is that not against our rules of order?
Mr. Speaker: I did not construe them in that fashion. Of course, I shall be able to lock at what the words were when I read Hansard, but, to indicate to the House the principle upon which I was going, I thought that what was being said was that the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) represents a point of view which, in these circumstances, would have the result which the Minister was indicating. [Hon. Members: "No."] We can all look at the words which were used about that. It will then be apparent whether the view I took was right or wrong. What I think we should do now is to proceed, because there is so much to do.
Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. Would you be good enough to reconsider what you have just said in the light of your decision last week, when you ruled that if you read some remarks in Hansard it would be too late to do anything about it? If the words I heard

1451
just now mean anything, as I think they do, the Minister was charging the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) with treason.
Mr. Speaker: I have indicated my view. The House can deal with me if it is wrong.
Mr. W. Yates: On a point of order. I should never think that the Minister would accuse me of treason. He was asking me about my point of view. But I give notice to you, Mr. Speaker, that at a suitable time I shall seek to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9. I am quite satisfied with what the Minister said.
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I will give him an opportunity when we get there.

STEEL PLANT, PORT TALBOT (DISPUTE)
Mr. Hooson(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour if he will intervene and offer his good services to try to resolve the industrial dispute at the Steel Company of Wales plant at Port Talbot.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. J. B. Godber): I am, naturally, concerned that this situation should have developed. The agreed negotiating arrangements provide that, in the event of disagreement, questions may be referred to arbitration with the consent of both sides. My officers are exploring this possibility.
Mr. Hooson: In view of the fact that closure of this great plant is now imminent and that if there is closure it will inevitably mean closure of complete plants in other parts of the country and that, therefore, the livelihood of tens of thousands of families is threatened, would the Minister not agree that he should intervene at this stage rather than allow the situation to deteriorate, as it seems to be doing at present?
Mr. Godber: I have said that I am concerned about the situation. I do not think that it would help if I were to comment at length on it in the House at the present time.
Mr. J. Morris: Although it is sometimes forgotten that when hon. Members intervene in matters affecting another hon. Member's constituency it is both traditional and good manners that every practical step is taken to inform the hon. Member concerned, may I take this opportunity of thanking the Minister for his reply in the somewhat early stages and saying that the Minister's good offices have been appreciated in the past? Will he please give an assurance that he will keep the matter—as undoubtedly he will—under close supervision and that if it became necessary or useful to see me during the Recess he would do so?
Mr. Godber: I am grateful to the hon. Member. As he knows, I am concerned and we have spoken about this matter. I shall gladly keep in touch with him about it.
Mr. J. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman knows that many of us could be affected if these works closed and that we are concerned. Is he aware that the Mayor of Port Talbot has offered his good offices in an effort to bring the parties together? Can he say whether his officers in Cardiff will be available if the mayor's initiative looks like meeting with some success?
Mr. Godber: I am grateful to the right hon. Member.
Mr. Hooson: Is the Minister aware that this is more than a constituency matter, that it is a national matter? Is he also aware that I did inform the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. J. Morris), before the meeting of the House this afternoon, that I intended to raise the matter?
Mr. Godber: I have no further comment to make.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. H. Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for the first week after the Adjournment?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the Christmas Recess will be as follows:
TUESDAY, 14TH JANUARY—Motion to approve the British Broadcasting Corporation Licence and Agreement.

1453
WEDNESDAY, 15TH JANUARY—Supply [5th Allotted Day]: Report stage of the winter Supplementary Estimates, which subject to the wishes of the House, it is hoped to obtain formally, to allow debate on an Opposition Motion on Commonwealth Trade.
THURSDAY, 16TH JANUARY—Second Reading of the Export Guarantees Bill, and of the Shipbuilding Credit Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolutions.
FRIDAY, 17TH JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 20TH JANUARY—The proposed business will be: Second Reading of the New Towns Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.
Remaining stages of the Defence (Transfer of Functions) Bill.
Mr. H. Wilson: Will the Minister say whether during that week we can expect a statement on, or a debate on, the Monopolies Commission's Report on the electrical equipment for mechanically propelled land vehicles, about which there has been great concern? Is he aware that this reference went to the Monopolies Commission more than six-and-a-half years ago, in April, 1957; that the Report was received in February of this year and that the Board of Trade has sat on it for 10 months?
Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman now tell us whether, in his responsibility to this House, he will see that a more urgent approach is made and that we have a chance to deal with this matter during the week when Parliament reassembles after the Christmas Recess?
Mr. Lloyd: I cannot possibly promise that we can deal with the matter during the week when we come back from the Recess. I have announced the business for that week. So far as it affects me, I will carefully consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Wilson: Since "carefully consider", in this case, has taken a period, first, of six-and-a-half years and then 10 months, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that this is a point of urgency, and give an undertaking that there will be a statement on the attitude of the Government to this long-delayed Report? Secondly, will
1454
he arrange for a statement to be made to this House explaining why the Board of Trade has sat on the Report for so long?
Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I am not in a position to give an undertaking
Sir C. Osborne: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to try to find time at an early date to discuss a problem dear to his own heart, that is, the prodigious expenditure proposed in the latest White Paper on Public Expenditure, coupled with the enormous increase in wages, and the effect that these are likely to have on production and the great social injustice to holders of War Loan and Government securities?
Mr. Lloyd: I am certain that within the normal processes there will be opportunities for these matters to be ventilated.
Mr. C. Pannell: Is the leader of the House aware that this week the Ministry of Public Building and Works has put out a White Paper showing the complete reorganisation of that Ministry, and the tremendous advance in its size, which is so much that almost one in eight of the working population is affected? Is he seized of the necessity for a debate on that subject and, if so, can he give a day of Government time to it, bearing in mind that also under that Ministry comes the controversial questions of the rebuilding of the Foreign Office, the Government building extension in Whitehall and the Parliamentary buildings that we want to get on with as soon as possible?
Is not it right that the House should be given an early opportunity to debate this matter? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also consider the urgency of the need to set up an Accommodation Committee, comprising Members of all parties in the House, to get an opinion on these new buildings on behalf of the House of Commons?
Mr. Lloyd: I intend, very soon after we return from the Christmas Recess, to move in the matter of setting up a Committee to advise on accommodation. The matter referred to in the first part of the hon. Gentlemen's question may be discussed through the usual channels.
Mr. F. Harris: Does the Government intend to issue a statement in the near future about what financial assistance they may consider giving to help Kenya, which has now become an independent country?
Mr. Lloyd: That does not arise on my statement about the business. But I will convey what has been said by my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend who is responsible.
Mr. A. Lewis: Has the Minister seen Motion No. 31 on the Order Paper, about decontrol and creeping decontrol under the Rent Act? If he cannot arrange for a debate during the first week when Parliament returns from the Christmas Recess, can he make a statement along the lines of the Motion and invite the Leader of the Opposition to join him in that statement? Cannot we be given some idea of the view of the Government on that question?
[That this House notes with alarm the serious difficulties being created for tenants by the operation of the Rent Act, 1957, with particular reference to evictions resulting from decontrol and creeping decontrol, and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to make a declaration now that they will not, either during the lifetime of this Parliament, or in the unlikely event of them being returned to power at the next General Election, take any action towards further decontrol and urges the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, as the potential Prime Minister, after the next General Election, to declare that any government which he intends to form will not introduce any measure for further decontrol.]
Mr. Lloyd: I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to tempt me into making a statement of policy when dealing with business matters.
Mr. Wigg: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that on 9th December I placed a Question on the Order Paper asking the Minister of Aviation to explain how it came about that on 12th March, 1962, he made a statement in this House which was at variance with a statement he made to President Kennedy, and which has now been publicised on a world-wide basis? Is he aware that I wrote to the Minister and gave him these particulars so that he
1456
would know exactly what was in my mind? Is he aware that he did not answer the letter and that on Wednesday—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot relate this to the question relating to the next available week's business, and I do not think that we can discuss it on that question.
Mr. Wigg: With respect, Mr. Speaker, in order to explain, I have to give these facts to the House. After all, I have given them privately to the Leader of the House. The point is this. The Minister has transferred the Question. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take steps to ensure that, before the House rises, the Minister of Aviation makes a personal statement because, clearly, the conflict of these statements affects his personal honour? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not do that, will he move to set up a Select Committee to inquire how these statements came to be made?
Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice of this, but it was not very long notice. So far as I am aware, it was a Question asked of the Minister of Aviation and it was transferred to the Secretary of State for Air because it was considered that the Minister of Aviation's alleged statement was a matter affecting the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Air. I understand that the normal procedure in these cases, if the statement of a Minister is questioned—a statement made on a matter not within the confines of his Department—is to put down a Question to the Prime Minister.
Mr. H Wilson: Since this involves a statement by a Minister—he went out of his way to make it; it was in reply to me on 12th March, 1962—and since there is clear evidence to suggest that he misled the House on this occasion—very clear evidence, if the Norstad Report is to be believed—will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure, at any rate since the "buck" has been passed by the transference of the Question, that in the week when Parliament returns from the Christmas Recess an opportunity will be taken by the Minister of Aviation to clear his position in a statement to this House? We cannot leave in this way a situation

1457
—it is bad enough leaving it over the Recess-—where there is strong prima fade evidence of the House having been misled. This must be cleared up at the earliest possible opportunity.
Mr. Lloyd: Of course, an allegation against the honour of a Minister is a grave matter, both for the Minister and for those who make it. I will certainly consider how best to deal with the situation.
Dr. Stross: In view of the fact that the Leader of the House has said that conversations will be held through the usual channels with reference to the possibility of a debate on the Ministry of Public Building and Works and the redevelopment of the area in Whitehall, including the Foreign Office, will he please bear in mind that if agreement is come to for a debate for only half-a-day it will be useless and the House will be embarrassed, because many back bench Members who wish to contribute will be unable to do so?
Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of the considerable interest in this matter among hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Mr. Pavitt: Would the Leader of the House try to find time to debate a Motion in my name concerning another way in which there is dissatisfaction about how Ministers are answering Questions? Is he aware that an Oral Answer which I received from the Minister of Health to a Question on 9th December was substantially the same as that which I read in the Press on 29th November? In view of the difficulty, which I appreciate, of finding time for a debate during the first week when Parliament returns from the Christmas Recess, which will be a busy week, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider whether this matter could be referred to the Select Committee on Procedure?
[That this House is of the opinion that Answers to Oral Questions asked by Members should not be given to the Press for publication before the Member receives such Answers; and urges that a Select Committee should be set up to look into the matter.]
Mr. Lloyd: My recollection is that the hon. Member has a Question down
1458
to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on this matter. We had better await the answer to that.

NATIONAL MEMORIAL TO PRESIDENT KENNEDY (COMMITTEE)
The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now make a statement.
On 5th December I made a preliminary statement about a National Memorial to President Kennedy.
I have since had further discussions with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party, and with their agreement I have invited Lord Franks to be the chairman of a small committee to consider the suggestions that have been and may be made and to recommend what form a Memorial might take.
It seems to me right that we should reach agreement on the form of a Memorial before an appeal for funds is launched.
I intend to have further consultations with the right hon. Gentlemen opposite about the membership of the committee and will arrange for an announcement to be made as soon as possible.
Lord Franks is at present abroad on a private visit, but will embark upon this task immediately on his return to this country in the new year.
Any communication in connection with a Memorial should be addressed to the Secretary, The President Kennedy Memorial Committee, Cabinet Office, Great George Street, S.W.1.

MR. HERMAN WOOLF (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): I will, with your permission, Sir, and that of the House, make a statement about the case of Mr. Herman Woolf.
On the instructions of the Commissioner of Police a thorough investigation was carried out by Detective-Superintendent Axon, whose report I

1459
have studied with great care, together with some further information which I requested.
There have been two grounds of concern about this case.
The first was that, although Mrs. Woolf had reported to the police that her husband was missing, she received no information about him until after his death. This occurred through a failure of co-ordination within the Metropolitan Police organisation for which the Commissioner has already expressed his deep regret. The procedure for dealing with inquiries about missing persons has been reviewed, to safeguard against any similar failure in future.
The second ground of concern was whether Mr. Woolf, after being knocked down by a car, might have received any further injuries during the time when he was at West End Central Police Station. For my part, I would have welcomed the holding of a fresh inquest at which any such allegations could have been tested; and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General gave his authority for an application for a fresh inquest to be made to the High Court.
On 13th November the court, to which all the information in the hands of the police was made available, refused the application. In delivering judgment, the Lord Chief Justice said that the evidence before the court fell far short of enabling the court to say that there was any real risk that justice was not done at the inquest.
From my own study of Detective-Superintendent Axon's report and of the statements which he took from every available witness, I am in much doubt whether further inquiry will throw any fresh light on what happened. But in the circumstances of this case, with its tragic end, I am anxious that no possible point of doubt should remain unresolved, if further inquiry can resolve it.
I have, therefore, decided to set up an inquiry into the actions of the Metropolitan Police in relation to the case of Mr. Herman Woolf, from the time of the road accident in which he was involved on 10th November, 1962, until
1460
the time of his death in the Atkinson Morley Hospital on 23rd November 1962.
Mr. Norman Skelhorn, Q.C., the Recorder of Portsmouth, has agreed to hold the inquiry and the Secretary will be Mr. W. Middle mass. Any communication about it should be addressed to him at the Home Office. I shall publish Mr. Skelhorn's report.
Miss Bacon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his decision to hold an inquiry will be generally welcomed in view of the very grave public anxiety which there has been about this case? Is he further aware that this anxiety was not allayed by the decision of the court not to hold another inquest and that, in fact, the anxiety was heightened by subsequent events at the West End Central Police Station? Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not Mr. Skelhorn will have all the power that he needs with respect to witnesses and the giving of evidence?
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the welcome she has given to my decision, which I think is the right one. I think that she will be aware that until the Police Bill, which is now being considered in Standing Committee, becomes law there is no statutory power to compel the attendance of witnesses at an inquiry of this sort. I think that that is a shortcoming and that is why I introduced the proposal in the Bill, but I feel quite sure that all those who can throw light on the matter will be willing to do so.
So far as the police are concerned, I can give an undertaking that they will appear and give evidence.
Mr. Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Mrs. Woolf will be able to be represented by counsel, if she so desires, at the inquiry and that her representative will be able to cross-examine any witnesses who give evidence?
Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the question of legal representation will be one for Mr. Skelhorn, but I have no doubt at all that he will agree to Mrs. Woolf being represented. I think that she should be.
Mr. Swingler: May I thank the Home Secretary for responding to the request

1461
for an independent inquiry in the Woolf case? May I also ask him whether he will direct the attention of Mr. Skelhorn to the question of how it was that an injured man was held in custody and by hospital authorities for a period of nearly a fortnight without any action being taken to contact relatives or the next of kin?
Quite apart from the administrative failure, for which an apology has been issued, in the Missing Persons Bureau, will the right hon. Gentleman pay attention to the fact that no action was taken to contact the next of kin and see that the terms of reference of the inquiry are wide enough not only to investigate the police action, but also the action of the hospital authorities—the people at St. George's and at the Atkinson Morley?
Mr. Brooke: It is for Mr. Skelhorn, who is conducting the public inquiry, to say what is relevant or not. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing in the terms of reference to exclude medical evidence of relevance to the inquiry. I hope that the House will agree that I should not respond to the hon. Gentleman's request and give directions to Mr. Skelhorn. It is far better, when I have taken this decision, that Mr. Skelhorn should exercise his own discretion.

MIDDLE EAST
Mr. W. Yates: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
"the immediate threat to international peace and security in the Middle East and to British interests, people and property in Aden and Jordan".
My first duty, Mr. Speaker, is to satisfy you and the House that the matter is, first, definite. I would have thought that the remarks made by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies this afternoon would have convinced the whole House that as far as Aden is concerned the matter is certainly definite, and that, as far as the report of the proceedings in the General Assembly of the United Nations is concerned, it is quite clear that that authority thought the situation was one which would threaten international peace
1462
and security. Therefore, there is a definite threat to peace and security in that area, and it is for that reason that the authorities in Aden have moved and have enforced emergency regulations.
As regards Jordan, I must, again, satisfy the House that the matter is definite. This can be done by referring to column 924 of Hansard of 19th June, 1961, where the then Joint Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs realized that the extraction of Jordan water by the Israeli Government without international agreement had inherent dangers. He said:
"Yes, I realise that there are dangers inherent in this question…",—[Official Report, 19th June, 1961; Vol. 642, c. 924.]
It would not be quite definite unless there had been a categoric statement of a threat from an Israeli Minister or a member of the Israeli Government, and, just in case there is any doubt that the threat is nut definite and real, it can be found in the statement issued in Tel Aviv:
"The Israeli Minister of Labour said last night that Israel would go ahead with her plans to pump water from the Jordan even in the face of Arab bullets."
That would appear to me to show that there is a danger of conflict and hostilities in the Holy Land at the present time. The threat is definite, and it involves Her Majesty's Government because of our signature to the Tripartite Declaration of 1950, which insists on the armistice being observed.
Secondly: is the problem urgent? It is obviously urgent. The House will rise tomorrow for the Christmas Recess, and if Israel carries out her threat there will be hostilities in the Holy Land shortly after Christmas—during the first week in January. I realise that by Standing Order No. 117 the House can be recalled, but I have never known the House to be recalled in such circumstances.
Thirdly: are these matters of public importance? Taking into account the fact that Ministers, and Commanders-in-Chief of the Arab armies are now meeting in Cairo, and are endeavouring to decide what action they will take towards Israel's threat of unilateral breach of the armistice agreement—[Interruption.] Hon. Members are wrong; there is only an armistice,

1463
guranteed by the United Nations, and by Great Britain, the United States and France.
In view of all these matters, Mr. Speaker, I ask you and the House—and I apologise to the Opposition, whose day I know this is—to consider that this is a definite matter of urgent public importance for us to deal with now. I do not like to think of going home for the Christmas Recess when there is this risk of conflict.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the immediate threat to international peace and security in the Middle East and to British interests, people and property in Aden and Jordan.
I could not, on existing Rulings, leave that matter to the House. It is really couched in such general terms that it covers a whole range of countries and matters, and that would exclude it from the Standing Order.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [4TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1963–64
  Resolved,
  That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £40,084,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1964, for the services included in the following Supplementary Estimates, viz.:

  Civil Estimates, Supplementary Estimates, 1963–64

  £

  Class II, Vote 6, Colonial Office

  1,323,000

  Class II, Vote 7, Colonial Grants and Loans

  954,000

  Class II, Vote 10, Central African Office

  2,785,000

  Class III, Vote 4, Scottish Home and Health Department (Civil Defence Services)

  212,000

  Class III, Vote 12, County Courts

  117,000

  Class III, Vote 13, Legal Aid Fund

  780,000

  Class IV, Vote 5, Export Credits (Special Guarantees, etc.)

  1,000

  Class IV, Vote 11, Roads, etc., England and Wales

  9,000,000

  Class V, Vote 8, Food (Strategic Reserves)

  270,000

  Class VI, Vote 5, General Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales

  23,750,000

  Class IX, Vote 3, Public Buildings Overseas

  700,000

  Class XI, Vote 5, Supplements to Pensions, etc. (Overseas Services)

  192,000

  Total

  £40,084,000

  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow;
  Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  4.25 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I beg to move,
  That this House regrets the failure of Her Majesty's Government to adopt, in relation to the National Health Service, policies which would secure improved standards of service to the patient and permit the abolition of health service charges.
  It is, in a sense, unfortunate, though inevitable, that our censure, for that is what this Motion is, should fall on the Minister after his being barely two months in office, because we are complaining, not of the failure of a few months or even of a year or two, but of a continuing failure over 12 years, and of an attitude of mind that has persisted throughout the whole period of Conservative Government. Indeed, I think that the right hon. Gentleman, during his short tenure of office, has shown himself unusually receptive to ideas that have come from this side, and if he only had time, which he obviously has not, and if he continued to adopt Labour policies, he might even end up with a better record than any of his predecessors.
  I shall not dwell at length on the latter part of the Motion, because I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee)—who I am sure the whole House is glad to see sitting in her unaccustomed place—will wish to say rather more about it.
  The National Health Service was conceived as essentially a free service to the patient at the time of need. That is how it began. That is the kind of service that we on this side believe in, and that is the kind of service we intend to restore when we take over the government of the country. I only ask the right hon. Gentleman: will he tell us why, amid the shower of pre-election blessings that we have witnessed during the last few weeks, the sick have been omitted? Is it because the Government do not think that the sick, too, have a case, particularly at this time of year, or is it, perhaps, because of this basic difference between the two sides of the House on the question of National Health Service charges—a difference in political philosophy—which is one of the reasons why we shall divide the House?
  1466
  Nearly everyone associated with the National Health Service must know that all is far from well with it. Not only has the service to the patient failed to improve as it should have done, but, in certain respects, standards are deteriorating. Many of those who are working in the Service are getting steadily more disheartened, and we believe that, for this situation, much responsibility rests with the Government and successive Ministers of Health—right hon. Gentlemen who, in the past, have never seemed to see a critical situation approaching, and who have acted, when they have acted at all, only when the crisis was upon them, and usually toe late to make action really effective.
  I have a fairly good idea of what the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary will do, because Ministerial replies in Health Service debates have become almost common form. The Ministers will drench us in figures. They will produce a large number of statistics demonstrating that we now have more doctors, more nurses, more physiotherapists, and more dentists than we had 12 years ago.
  It will be, as it always is, a calculated effort to lull the House into a sense of complacency and into a belief that there is nothing serious to worry about. I have no doubt that these statistics will be reasonably accurate, if, perhaps, somewhat selective, but they are really no answer to our charge. There is, of course, more of this and more that after 12 years I would remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House of the situation that existed when the Health Service came into being.
  What did the Service inherit when the Bevan Act became operative in July, 1948? First, it inherited a network of largely out-of-date hospitals. I believe that their average age was between 60 and 70 years. They were hospitals upon which only the absolute minimum of maintenance had been carried out over the previous ten years. It inherited an acute shortage of almost every kind of staff needed to start a Health Service and a medical profession divided and bewildered and whose perhaps natural anxieties in the face of change had been systematically exploited by sections of the Conservative Party and a handful

  1467
  of medical politicians in an effort to strangle the Health Service at birth.
  Indeed, that the Service was successfully launched at all was in my view, and that of most of my hon. Friends, due to the determination, the patience and the negotiating skill of one man, Aneurin Bevan. Would it not indeed be remarkable if we had not got more doctors, more nurses and more staff of every kind than we had in 1948? The first three years from 1948 were in the nature of a rescue operation carried out at a time when the national economy was still suffering from the ravages of the Second World War, at a time when we were still undergoing shortages of every kind. They were the years of make-do and mend, but despite the fact that very limited sums of capital were available to the Service it was a surprisingly successful operation.
  When Labour left office in 1951 the Health Service was poised for a great push forward towards the full realisation of the ideals upon which it was founded. But the Government changed and that thrust never came. Never since that time has the Health Service enjoyed under Conservative Governments anything like the special priorities which were accorded to it by the Labour Government that set it up.
  I expect that the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister, who, I understand, is winding up the debate, will try to deny this and will point to the Hospital Plan, the 10-year building programme of which the Minister's predecessor was so proud and with which I think he hoped to wipe out all past sins of omission. We had our reservations about that plan which we expressed in debate on it in the House, but we welcomed it in principle. Indeed, we welcomed a number of reforms which the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), tried to bring in when we thought it was right. On those occasions, we supported him sometimes when political expediency might have dictated otherwise, but on the Hospital Plan we said, and I believe that it is no less true today, that the right hon. Gentleman always claimed too much for it. Somehow, he tried to oversell it.
  1468
  I want to try and put the Hospital Plan and the capital development of the Health Service into some kind of perspective today. At first glance, the size of the programme is formidable—close to £700 million over 15 years. It is perfectly true that compared with the pitiful hospital building record of the previous 10 years the programmes for the next 10 years are substantial, but let us look closer at this matter. Ten years ago capital expenditures on the Health Service and on the roads were roughly the same—about £20 million a year. Next year the capital expenditure on the Health Service will have gone up four-and-a-half times over the 1955 figure and will be about £91 million, but the capital expenditure on the roads will have gone up more than nine times over 1955, to £186 million, and it will be seen from the Government White Paper on Public Expenditure in 1963–64 and 1967–68, which was published yesterday, that the same kind of relativity will be maintained over the next four years, to 1967–68.
  The Post Office, next year, will get twice as much capital provided for it as will the Health Service. Education will get two-and-a-half times as much, and the electricity boards seven times as much. These figures, therefore, hardly suggest that the Health Service is receiving an over-generous share of the capital expansion that is taking place.
  We were told by the Prime Minister on the opening day of this Session, at the beginning of the debate on the address, that
  "…a new hospital is now being started every 19 days."—[Official Report, 12th November, 1963; Vol. 684, c. 41.]
  That statement, which is untrue, is now blazoned on Conservative posters all over the country. I am quite sure that the Prime Minister would not wish deliberately to mislead the House. I can only assume that either his arithmetic is a little rusty or that he failed fully to understand the brief with which he was provided.
  I have obtained from the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland the actual figures, and I am only helping the Prime Minister by including Scotland. The figures are that precisely 10 new hospitals have been or will be started during 1963. That is not one in every 19 days, but one in every 36½ days. I

  1469
  hope that the Prime Minister will apologise at some convenient moment for this inadvertent slip and, equally, that the Conservative Central Office will hastily cover up the posters which have been displayed and quietly pulp the rest of the stock.
  But patients and the public in general are rather more interested in hospitals that are finished rather than hospitals that are starting. They want hospitals they can make use of, and I should like to look at the whole record of the Conservative Government in this respect.
  If, in the 12 years 1951–63, they had been successful in starting one new hospital every 19 days we should be today better off by about 170 new hospitals. In fact, during those 12 years precisely four new hospitals and one dental hospital, without any beds, of course, have been completed in England and Wales. That is not even one in every 19 months. Scotland has done relatively better with four new hospitals, but they seem to be very small, because the total number of beds they represent is 475. I thought it worth putting the Prime Minister's statement in perspective and getting the facts on the record.
  I should like to turn now from capital to revenue expenditure. I think that some hon. Members, and certainly some people outside the House, have the impression that the National Health Service is an enormously expensive service. In fact, it costs just about 4 per cent. of our national income, and, again looking at the White Paper on Public Expenditure, it seems likely to remain at about that figure of 4 per cent. One would expect a Service which is comprehensive in a sense which is not true of the health service of any other Western country to cost a good deal more than others, but we have some I.L.O. figures—I think that they are the most recent available—which show that New Zealand, Norway, Canada, the United States and France all spend a substantially higher proportion of their national income—about 4½ per cent—than we do.
  The figures show, also, that Belgium spends slightly more than we do, and of the Western countries cited only Holland and Denmark spend less in terms of national income. One cannot see in those figures any justification for the financial straitjacket which was imposed
  1470
  on the Service about two years ago by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.
  We told the right hon. Gentleman at the time, protesting about it, that the 2 per cent limit which he tried to impose on hospital development could result only in either reduced service to the patient or postponement of essential maintenance—or possibly both. Hon. Members will know that, at that time, many hospitals had to cease the recruiting of nurses, and some had to close down wards for lack of staff. But the right hon. Gentleman seemed not to be impressed by the warning which we gave.
  Now, however, the chickens are coming home to roost. Official Ministry figures show that there was a fall last year in hospital maintenance of about 11 per cent. over the previous year, and figures which I have been able to obtain suggest that the fall in the current year will be nearer 15 per cent. over last year. What does this mean in actual terms? It means that there is no painting of the walls of hospital wards, the postponing of roof repairs, no replacement of defective window frames or worn-out flooring, and no replacement of worn equipment. For a hospital these are dangerous omissions or postponements.
  At last, this desperate situation has been acknowledged by the Minister He is now making a special allocation of money for 1964–65 designed to cover these arrears of maintenance. Of course, the trouble is that it is a totally inadequate sum even to catch up with one year's arrears, let alone to cope with the accumulated arrears of two or more yean;. This is something which has been happening all over the country, and the Minister or his predecessor cannot say that he was not warned in terms by this side of the House.
  I turn now to three Reports which have all been published in recent months, since our last debate on the Health Since. All are critical in tone, and all, I think, support, either directly or indirectly, the case which we are making against the Government and which is embodied in the Motion. The first is the AnnisGillie Report on the Field of Work of the Family Doctor, the Minister's own Report though,

  1471
  unhappily, not published as a Parliamentary Paper. The second is the Report of the Survey on Perinatal Mortality. The third is the Report on Food in Hospitals by the Nuffield Provincial Hospital Trust.
  Each of these Reports bears out our assertion that standards of service to the patient are unsatisfactory and in some respects declining. Each Report deserves a debate to itself because of its importance. In the time which I have, I must be content to deal only with the main features of each, and I hope that some of my hon. Friends will be able to expand on the points which arise.
  First, the Gillie Report on the general practitioner service. This is a remark able document. It discloses with unusual frankness for a Government report a picture of frustration, disillusion and depression among family doctors, feelings which are undoubtedly having the most serious effects on the Service and on patients. If the state of general practice is unhealthy, as all the indications show it to be at present, there will be repercussions on every branch of the Health Service because the general practitioner is the vital link between those branches.
  The Gillie Report unfolds a sorry tale, and the tale is very much confirmed by another document which I and, I think, some other hon. Members received this morning from the Medical Practitioners' Union entitled "Blueprint for the Future". The fact is that, after 15 years of the National Health Service, the general practitioner finds that his traditional rôle is radically changing and his new rôle is somewhat uncomfortable and ill-defined. He finds that his relationship with the hospital service is generally rather unsatisfactory. He finds that he can offer the better facilities which he would like to offer to his patients only at a direct cost to his own pocket because of the ridiculous system we have of reimbursing practice expenses on a capitation basis.
  In this connection, I am glad that the new Minister has, at last, come round to tackling the problem, after all the locust years during which his predecessor, to use his own words, found the
  1472
  problem a little baffling. It is early days yet, but I should like the Minister to tell us what progress has been made in the discusisons he has been having with the General Medical Services Committee of the B.M.A.
  The Gillie Report shares our view, which we have urged from this side of the House for many years, that the most satisfactory form of general practice for both doctor and patient is group practice. The present Government or, perhaps, more likely, the next Government will have to do a great deal more than has been done in the past to encourage and facilitate the setting up of group practices in urban areas.
  Above all, the Gillie Report echoes another charge which we have frequently made, that general practitioners are overworked, that they are too few in number and that their lists are too large. One inevitable result of this situation is that they cannot give the service which they want to give to their patients, and the other result is that recruitment in general practice is at a dangerously low level. It is alarming to compare the number of applications for practice vacancies now with what was happening ten or even five years ago. The Government's record on the whole subject of medical staffing throughout the Health Service during their term of office has been appalling. Far from trying to stimulate the training of more doctors, for a time they did the precise opposite and actually limited the entry of students into the medical schools. I think that the Minister will now admit that that was a very foolish action indeed from which we are now suffering.
  Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The hon. Gentleman is being a little less than fair in making that charge against the Government. After all, that policy was merely carrying out the recommendations of a Royal Commission, was it not?
  Mr. Robinson: No, it was not carrying out the recommendations of a Royal Commission. It was carrying out the recommendations of a Departmental Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Willink, but Sir Henry Willink and Lord Cohen of Birkenhead have claimed that the Committee gave the wrong answer because it was given

  1473
  the wrong statistical information by the Government. The hon. Gentleman can sort out the blame as best suits him. I like to place it on the shoulders of the Government.
  In this connection, I was very interested to read an article in last Sunday's Sunday Times in which we were told that the new Minister was face to face with a crisis of medical staffing. The right hon. Gentleman is quoted as saying:
  "This is one of the most urgent decisions which has to be taken. We have got to make jolly sure that we have sufficient doctors to staff the new hospitals".
  I think that we can endorse that. But it is no new crisis. For years, it has been obvious that we needed more doctors, and, for the last three years, at least, we have pressed time and again for action to deal with a situation which was already serious and was fast deteriorating.
  The Sunday Times report goes on to say about the Minister:
  "He is also ready to admit the profession relies far too heavily on young trainee doctors from overseas, mainly India and Pakistan, to man junior hospital posts. They fill 40 per cent, of such posts on the average and in provincial non-teaching hospitals the average is 52 per cent."
  I understand that in the Sheffield region it is about 60 per cent. Here again his predecessor was warned, and I do not recall that we ever got any admission from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that he found the situation at all worrying. Indeed, there has been an atmosphere of frightening complacency about this question of medical staffing from the very beginning.
  I should like to ask why was nothing done long before this, and why have no new medical schools been planned yet. This is another issue that we have tried to raise, only to see it bounce from the Ministry of Health to the Treasury, to the University Grants Committee and even to the Robbins Committee. It is very difficult to see where responsibility can possibly be placed for the opening of a new medical school. There is a very real urgency about this because it will be more than ten years from the taking of a decision to expand medical education and establish new medical schools before the benefits accrue to the
  1474
  National Health Service in the shape of additional newly-trained doctors.
  There is no shortage of candidates, as hon. Members who read the correspondence columns in The Times today will see. There is a letter which states that two London medical schools have between 2,000 and 2,500 applications each for place; when there are, in fact, approximately 100 places available in each of the two hospitals. In other words, for each vacancy in the medical school there are roughly 20 applicants.
  Sir John Vaughan-Morgan: The hon. Gentleman is usually very fair. I think he will recognise that in some cases in the teaching hospitals people apply more than once.
  Mr. Robinson: I think that is perfectly true, but all the indications are that there would be no difficulty in finding suitable candidates for something like double the present number of medical schools. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be in a position to make some announcement during the debate about the setting up of new medical schools.
  I see in the Robbins Report, in a footnote, that the U.G.C. estimated that there would be a 25 per cent, increase in the number of medical students by 1980. We may well need more than that and need them sooner. I should like to know where these students are going to train.
  I turn to the second Report—the Perinatal Mortality Survey. I hope that other hon. Members will deal with this very important Report more thoroughly than I can. Very briefly, it shows that, although maternal mortality in child birth has fallen very satisfactorily in recent years, infant perinatal mortality has declined far less speedily. In actual percentages, it has come down from 3–8 in 1948 to about 3–1 last year. Statistics of this kind are apt to be very impersonal, but this means that there are three dead babies for every 100 women in childbirth. Put in another way, it means that some 25,000 babies per year are either born dead or die within a week of birth.
  According to the survey, a considerable proportion, perhaps 100 a week or more, of these infant deaths could be prevented. They could be prevented by

  1475
  better ante-natal care, by having more confinements in hospital, and, what is equally important, a better selection of high risk cases to go into hospital maternity beds. They could be prevented by closer consultant supervision, which means more consultant obstetricians, and, above all, they could be prevented if we had more midwives. If we are to avert these avoidable tragedies, we must have more hospital maternity beds.
  The right hon. Gentleman knows that his predecessor's hospital plan slipped up rather badly in its calculations for maternity beds. A hasty reassessment was made at the end of the first year, and my own guess is that even the revised figures will prove seriously inadequate. We must do something to induce more nurses to take up midwifery. I do not know whether it is still true—I believe that it probably is, and it certainly was a year or two ago—that a State registered nurse taking her midwifery course after registration,—it is, of course, optional—had to revert to a student's rate of pay while she was on the course. If this is still true, as I believe it to be, it is difficult to devise any more powerful disincentive to nurses taking up midwifery, I hope that something can be done about it, and indeed about the remuneration of midwives. It seems that in this society which has emerged after twelve years of Conservative Government the least rewards go to the most socially valuable members of the community.
  The last report that I want to refer to is the Nuffield Report on Food in Hospitals. I should like first to examine the credentials of this Report. It was a survey which was carried out by Professor Platt, who occupies the Chair of Human Nutrition at the London School of Hygiene, assisted by two lecturers in his Department. The method he used was to take a random sample of all types of hospitals in different areas of England and Wales. The total number of hospitals coming under survey was 152. Each hospital had one ward selected, also at random, and the catering arrangements were surveyed. In that ward a single patient's diet was studied for 24 hours and the survey team visited each hospital without prior notice. The findings of the Committee were endorsed
  1476
  by an advisory committee, comprising professors of biochemistry, epidemiology and medicine and a consultant who specialises in gastroenterology. It was presided over by a chairman of great experience in hospital work. I think no one can doubt the authenticity of this Report. What did they find?
  First, they discovered that the best food and the best catering were to be found in the smaller hospitals, particularly those with 60 beds or less, and that, in general, the larger the hospital the lower the quality of food, the lower the efficiency of the catering administration and the higher the percentage of waste. Their criticisms fall under three broad headings. The first refers to a low standard of hygiene especially in the ward kitchens. This is quite unpardonable. It makes nonsense of the hospitals' efforts to control cross infection. After all, there is little point in maintaining a high standard of cleanliness in a ward if we get in an adjoining ward kitchen the kind of unhygienic conditions described in this Report.
  The second criticism relates to the food itself. The members of this group found that there was an unsuitable choice of food of doubtful nutritional value. They found that there was poor preparation of it and poor cooking and that in most cases vegetables were overcooked to the point at which Vitamin C was lost to the extent of 75 or even 100 per cent.
  Lastly, they criticised something which will be familiar to any hon. Member who is or has been an hospital in-patient—the unattractive presentation of the food to the patient.
  These things, it was thought, were due to failures to make proper use of the dietitian in the hospital and to study a patient's normal food requirements and to cater for those and not some imaginary requirements that someone had thought up in an office. They attributed them to old-fashioned kitchens with out-of-date equipment and old, badly planned hospital buildings. Also, although this was not so much stressed in the Report, I think that they are largely due to the salaries and wages which the hospital authorities are allowed to pay to the catering officers and the cooks that they employ. On

  1477
  these wages it is impossible for the hospitals to compete with the catering trade or large scale industry.
  The third broad category of criticism refers to waste. The Report found that only 55 to 60 per cent, of the food prepared for patients in the larger hospitals was eaten and that the bulk of the rest went into the pig swill. I should like to quote a remark which came to me in a letter from a correspondent about his experience in a London teaching hospital. He said:
  "I suggested to Matron that she could save £1 a day"
  —in one ward alone—
  "by issuing out the food on an 'as required' basis. It was not well received. She said, 'We make money by selling the swill' ".
  He said that he
  "could not contend further with that sort of economics."
  At Question Time the other day the Minister seemed to think that the Press rather exaggerated the extent of waste and the money it represented. I will make my own estimate, and I think that it is a fairly conservative one. On the evidence of this Report, I think that the overall waste is probably about 33⅓ per cent. I agree that some waste is inevitable, but I would estimate that, of that 33⅓ per cent., about 20 per cent, is unnecessary. The total amount spent on food in hospitals is roughly£50 million a year. Twenty per cent. of this represents a potential saving of £10 million.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Anthony Barber): As the hon. Member has been very fair, and as I shall not be speaking until later, I should like to say that I agree entirely with him that if we could avoid most of the waste which is avoidable we would save a considerable amount of money. I will not trouble to quote what I said in an Answer the other day, but the point which I was seeking to make was that there are some very old hospitals with appalling kitchens—I have been round some of them myself—which, nevertheless, produce pretty good food. In fairness to that type of hospital, I did not want to fall into the error of lumping it with the others where there is not the slightest doubt that there is room for considerable improvement and very great savings.
  Mr. Robinson: I am glad to hear the Minister say that, but I think that he will agree that the case is very fairly presented in this Report. It is acknowledged in the Report that some good catering is done even under very difficult circumstances. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reflect on what he could do with £10 million to modernise these kitchens and even to increase the catering wages. In the past his Department has not paid enough attention to food, and I do not think it has been seized of the importance of this matter.
  I wish to quote the experience of a hospital at Kingston-upon-Thames, where, in 1951, the management committee began to discuss the idea of an experimental kitchen and dining suite. Eight years later, in 1959, the Ministry of Health experimental team visited the hospital and put forward a precise proposal for siting within the hospital grounds a truly experimental unit where every modern technique of catering could be tried. The hospital management committee jumped at this proposal and accented it on the spot. That was in 1959.
  In 1961, the Minister's predecessor made a public announcement to the effect that this experimental kitchen would be set up. Today, four years after the decision was taken to set it Up, the hospital management committee has not even seen the plans. However quickly people move now, this kitchen cannot be in operation for a further two years at best, which means that it will be about twelve years from the time that it was first mooted by the hospital management committee.
  I have spent some time on this Report and I make no apology for that, because meals and visitors are about the only things which patients in hospital can look forward to in the course of the daily hospital routine.
  I should like, in conclusion, to sum up our attitude. We believe that the National Health Service is still a great social service, although it has been damaged and diminished by Government policy over the last 10 years. We think that it is a service which has yet to realise its full potential for good. It is a service which is directed and staffed, in the main, by devoted men and women whose only wish is to see patients better

  1479
  served and better cared for, but their efforts have been met with frustration and disappointment over the years. The Minister, who is, I suppose, in a sense one of the largest, if not the largest, employers of skilled and unskilled labour in the land, should be a better employer than he is.
  Despite the pre-election spurt about which we have heard recently, we do not believe that the Tory Government will ever nourish this Service as it needs to be nourished, because, basically, it runs counter to their political philosophy. It is no coincidence that two past Ministers of Health, who happened to leave the Front Bench for the back benches together a week or two ago, wrote a pamphlet some years ago from which I should like to quote the following brief passage:
  "…the general presumption must be that they"—
  that is, the social services—
  "will be rendered only on evidence of need, i.e. of financial inability to provide each particular service out of one's own or one's family's resources. The question which, therefore, poses itself, is not 'Should a means test be applied to social services?' but 'Should any social service be provided without a test of need?'."
  To those who believe that, the National Health Service will always bean extravagant waste of Government resources. They will, as successive Conservative Governments have done, quietly stimulate and encourage private medical practice to the detriment of the public Health Service because they believe in the two-class system of medical care.
  We do not believe in that, and nor, I believe, do the vast majority of medical practitioners. This is why the National Health Service cannot be entrusted any longer to right hon. Members opposite, and this is why we shall go into the Lobby against them tonight.
  5.9 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernard Braine): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes both the considerable expansion of the National Health Service which has taken place in recent years and the further improve-
  1480
  ments which will be brought about by the policies of Her Majesty's Government".
  My right hon. Friend and I welcome this debate. It is right that attention should be focussed in this way upon our arrangements for promoting the nation's health. It is helpful to discuss freely and frankly the problems and difficulties which confront us in this field and to argue about the priorities which we should apply. We on our side are just as anxious as the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) to improve standards of service to the patient. Indeed, we can justly claim, as I hope to show, that not only have we been able to secure considerable improvements to the service in recent years, but we have for some time been engaged in a massive, comprehensive programme of development and expansion of which any country could be proud. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that the Motion makes no acknowledgment of the great improvement that recent years have seen in the nation's health, and it is unfair as well as wrong in its implication that the Government are failing to get their priorities right to the detriment of the patient.
  It might be helpful, therefore, if I begin by putting this matter in perspective. The truth is that whatever the imperfections of our arrangements, the British people are fitter and longer-living than ever before. [Interruption.] Many of the diseases which used to carry off young children and men and women in their prime have been checked or mastered, and I claim that our medical services are the envy of the world. [Interruption.]
  Before hon. Members starting interrupting on the subject, let us consider some of the facts. In the decade between 1951 and 1961, the average expectation of life at infancy rose from 66 to 69 years for a man and from 71 to 74 for a woman. Infant mortality has steadily declined, and in this we overtook the United States in the1950s. Similarly, there has been a striking fall in maternal mortality. I would be the first to say that none of us can be satisfied with the present figures. It is the fact that the number of mothers who die through child-bearing is little more than one-third of what it was only ten years ago.
  Mr. Richard Marsh: In fairness, since the hon. Gentleman has raised this argument, could not one make the same comparison and show the same improvements in comparison in almost every African State? Is it not a fact that Britain pays a smaller proportion of its national income on health than most other European countries?
  Mr. Braine: I listened with close attention and, I hope, courtesy to what the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North said from the Opposition. There were many moments when I could have risen to check some of his statements. I did not do so because I was anxious to hear what he said, whereas the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) is not anxious to hear the case which I am deploying. [Interruption.]
  I want, first, to get the facts on the record. During the same ten years—and I do not know why hon. Members opposite should seek to denigrate—[Hon. Members: "Nobody is denigrating."]—these figures, because improvements in health, measured in terms of human happiness, are very substantial things—our children grew taller, sturdier and heavier. By 1961, the average boy of 14 was nearly 1 in. taller and 5 lb. heavier in weight and the average girl was ½ in. taller and 3 lb. heavier. Both of them were far less prone to illness than were their counterparts only ten years previously.
  Diphtheria and tuberculosis, once killers, have been brought under control. Deaths from diphtheria are now rare. Between 1951 and 1961, deaths from respiratory tuberculosis dropped by over 75 per cent. Deaths from polio have fallen from a yearly average of 481 in 1946–51 to 126 in 1956–61 and to a total this year of only 45. While only ten years ago absence from work due to tuberculosis caused a loss of 23 million days, this has been reduced to 9½ million days by 1961. These are all marked improvements. They are a reflection in part of a continuously rising standard of living. Better housing, better nutrition, better clothing and speedier educational advance have all combined to improve the nation's health and well-being. There have been striking advances in the diagnosis and treatment of disease, in the use of new and powerful drugs and in
  1482
  the application of new surgical techniques.
  The most exciting advances of all have been in the treatment of the mentally ill and the chronic sick. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that progress has come as much from attention to social factors and a growing awareness of needs as from the use of new drugs.
  I would not wish to suggest—and this is the answer to the hon. Member for Greenwich—that all these improvements are due solely to the National Health Service, and I would be perfectly ready to concede that other countries have registered marked improvements in their health standards over a comparable period. It is, however, the case, and I hope that hon. Members will agree with me, that the National Health Service has been the instrument whereby the benefits of modern medical science have been brought to bear more quickly, more effectively and more fairly to the whole nation and not just to one section of it.
  It is not surprising that Professor Almont Lindsay, an American social historian who made an eight-year study of the Service, has described it as one of the notable achievements of the twentieth century,
  "magnificent in scope and almost breathtaking in its implications".
  [Interruption.]
  Mr. John Hynd: Who opposed the National Health Service?
  Mr. Braine: Hon Members opposite must make up their minds what they are cheering. I reject, therefore, the suggestion of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North that standards have not improved. Anyone who has had anything to do with our hospitals over the last ten years could not subscribe to that view.
  There have been substantial improvements in the scale of the services provided. In the last decade, the number of family doctors has increased and they have become more evenly distributed. Similarly, for every four hospital doctors, there are now five and there are 25,000 more full-time nursing staff and 32,000 more part-timers as well as 3,000 more full-time midwives and 1,100 more part-time midwives.

  1483
  Having said that, I recognise that although a great deal has been achieved, much remains to be done. The reason for this, as the House will recognise, is that there is no finality, and there never can be, in the war against ill-health. Both medical men and lay administrators must constantly seek to devise ways of waging that war more effectively by doing things better and more humanely and doing new things that previously lay beyond their powers.
  Moreover, it should be recognised that we have to plan in the knowledge that the population pattern is changing. The nation is growing at both ends. More babies are being born and the elderly are living longer. In the last five years, more than ½ million more babies were born in Britain than might have been expected from the birthrate in the early 1950s, and it is by no means certain that this trend has reached its peak. In addition, over the next twenty years the number of those aged 65 and over will be at least 30 per cent, greater than it is today, while the number of those aged 75 and over will be 40 per cent. greater. This, of course, is obliging us to make greater quantitative provision in our health and welfare services for both young and old, and our other social services, too. It is spurring us on to raise standards as well. Indeed, as national prosperity increases, it is inevitable that the exceptional provision of today will become the commonplace of tomorrow. Since one or two things have been said, quite unjustifiably, about the philosophy of my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends on this side of the House, let me say that in our view that is as it should be.
  It is surely one of the marks of a civilised community that human beings matter, that the strong should be glad to help the weak, that we should strive to do all we can to reduce suffering and mitigate physical handicap and so to improve the quality of life and thereby enlarge the sum of human happiness. That is why it is so essential to get the priorities right now.
  As to whether we have been devoting adequate resources to health and welfare, I can only say that the proportion of the gross national product devoted to the National Health Service has risen
  1484
  from 3·8 per cent.—where it was when the hon. Gentleman's party left office in 1951—to 4·1 per cent. of a very much larger national income last year.
  Mr. K. Robinson: Would the hon. Gentleman also tell the House that after the Conservative Government came into power the percentage dropped to reach an all-time low of 3½ per cent. in 1955?
  Mr. Braine: That was a higher proportion and a higher figure in absolute terms than was the case when the Labour Party left office. In money terms we are spending more than twice as much today as when the hon. Gentleman and his party last had responsibility for the Service.
  As the House knows, we have embarked upon two massive long-term programmes—one for the development of the hospitals and the other for health and welfare services in the community.
  I am sure that it was right in the earlier part of the last decade to concentrate, as we did, on improving and staffing the existing hospitals. But by 1955 we felt able to embark upon the first post-war hospital building programme. In 1962 we launched the ten year plan which envisages the spending of some £670 million over the next ten years. This includes the building of no less than 151 completely new hospitals, the rebuilding of 138 others and the carrying out of nearly 400 major schemes of improvement.
  Already this great programme is well under way. So far, including those built before the plan was launched, eight completely new hospitals have been put into commission. A further 76 entirely new or substantially remodelled hospitals are now under construction. The pace is accelerating.
  Each year the plan is reviewed; where necessary new instalments are added. The first review took place last April and another £100 million worth of work was added. As the plan takes shape, its momentum grows. Many of our older hospitals are in the wrong places to serve existing populations. Some are ill-designed for the practice of modern medicine. Others are too small to carry all the specialist staff and services now required. Indeed, in recent years there has been not only a trend towards greater

  1485
  interdependence of the various branches of medicine but, happily, there are now many more specific remedies for a whole range of illnesses for which previously little could be done. Quick and accurate diagnosis is essential if these new treatments are to be used to the best advantage.
  That is why it becomes increasingly important to bring together in a single hospital the full range of facilities for diagnosis and specialist treatment. That is why we are aiming to provide large new general hospitals so sited that every part of the country will be served on a basis of 600 to 800 beds per 100,000 to 150,000 population.
  Admittedly, we should be on guard against making too many assumptions about the way in which the hospital service will develop, for if we look back over the last decade we can see that the pattern of hospital care has been changing quietly but continuously. Some of our hospitals, for example, have changed in use. Many more patients are being examined and investigated as out-patients rather than as in-patients. The average length of stay in hospital is decreasing due to changes in medical techniques such as the use of new drugs and the practice of getting patients on their feet earlier and also to increased facilities such as new X-ray departments and operating theatres. In the psychiatric and geriatric fields we have seen the establishment of day hospitals which are proving to be a most valuable development.
  However the service may develop in the years ahead we are faced, as the hon. Gentleman rightly reminded us, with certain immediate problems. In regard to these it might be helpful if I made known the Government's views and intentions.
  First, there is the general concern about the running costs of an expanding hospital service and the need to ensure adequate maintenance of existing buildings.
  Second, there is the special problem of maternity accommodation which has arisen, at least in part, from the somewhat unexpected but continuing rise in the birth rate.
  Third—the hon. Gentleman did not mention this, but it is of major impor-
  1486
  tance—there is the pressing need to reduce over-long waiting lists.
  As regards running costs, I want to make it plain that the Government are determined to see that the hospital service develops at the maximum rate consistent with the availability of resources.
  For some time we have been increasing our allocation of funds to the hospital authorities at the rate of about 2 per cent. per annum in real terms, and over the years this adds up to a substantial total increase. This is exclusive, of course, of the funds to meet increases in wages and salaries and certain other costs. Even that is not the full measure of the additional help available since, as might be expected, the hospital service itself is steadily improving the efficiency with which it uses its resources, and we should take this opportunity to give credit to it for its achievements.
  We are anxious to encourage this progress. I am glad to tell the House, therefore, that my right hon. Friends propose to assist the service still further next year by supplementing the additional funds which would ordinarily be available to the extent of a further £4½ million.
  We are, of course, well aware that a great deal needs to be done to improve the state of maintenance of many of our existing buildings. Accommodation is still in use which should be upgraded to a standard which patients today are entitled to expect. Some equipment, both medical and non-medical, needs to be replaced. We hope to get very shortly the hospital boards' proposals for the use of the additional funds in tackling these important tasks.
  I do not suggest for one moment that the money we shall be providing next year will be sufficient to meet all the needs that might be presented to us, but I expect it to make an appreciable impact and my right hon. Friend will certainly keep in mind what remains to be done when. considering his plans for the future. At this point I would like to make it plain that additional money will be allotted to hospital authorities to meet the cost of extra staff that may be required to permit shortening of hours of work.

  1487
  I now turn to the special problem facing the maternity services. Our policy on this can be stated quite simply. It is that sufficient maternity beds should be available to enable every mother whose age or health involves a risk to her or her child at birth, to have the baby delivered in hospital.
  In drawing up the Hospital Plan we accepted the recommendations of the Cranbrook Committee on Maternity Services which, the House may recollect, calls for the provision of a sufficient number of beds to permit a national average of 70 per cent. of confinements to take place in hospital with a stay of 10 days after a normal confinement. In doing so, we were aware, of course, of two imponderables, which might tend to cancel one another out—the trends towards a greater rate of hospital confinements and to a reduced length of stay in selected cases.
  Nevertheless, as I have already said, flexibility is of the essence of the Hospital Plan and when we came to make the first annual revision last April, we were able to increase the additional 6,500 maternity beds by a further 1,200. With each bed able to deal with 30 or more births a year, these are substantial additions to the programme. We also have in reserve several thousand beds in hospitals due to be replaced and which, if the need should arise, could be kept in use.
  Besides the actual addition to the number of beds to be provided, boards have been asked to bring forward the starting dates of building schemes, to consider the temporary use of other beds in hospitals for maternity purposes (for example, for ante-natal patients), and to consider the provision of additional labour accommodation where this is a limiting factor in the maximum use of beds.
  My right hon. Friend is also about to send to hospital authorities, local health authorities and local medical committees a note which emphasises the need for local co-operation to ensure the best use of available resources and the planning of the arrangements to be made where, in particular areas, the services are working under strain.
  I feel, therefore, that the House will see that we have already taken urgent
  1488
  steps to help resolve this problem, and I can give an assurance that my right hon. Friend is determined to watch the situation closely and consider what more should be done.
  Mr. Maurice Edelman: The hon. Gentleman has just said that it is intended to make beds available for every maternity case for which they are suitable. But did not the Minister say to a maternal and child welfare conference this year that it was the Government's intention to provide beds for 70 per cent. of the potential mothers by 1972? Does that not contradict what the hon. Gentleman has just said?
  Mr. Braine: I think not. This is a very important subject and my right hon. Friend will be going further into it. He will be able to explain what was said on that occasion. I do not wish to sound complacent in the least. Like so many other problems in our Health Service, this situation must be watched closely. The arrangements we are making will bring a great easement.
  Mrs. Judith Hart: Clarification on this matter is very necessary. Did not we understand from the perinatal survey that a little under 50 per cent, of mothers had their babies in hospital? Did not the survey recommend that, in order to avoid avoidable perinatal deaths, the proportion should go up to 70 to 80 per cent.? Does not this mean that half as many beds again should be provided? Is that what the hon. Gentleman is undertaking to do?
  Mr. Braine: I think that the figure is higher than 50 per cent. I am anxious that the House should be satisfied that the arrangements we are making are adequate. My right hon. Friend when he comes to wind up the debate will deal with that point.
  Now I come to the question of waiting lists. These are regularly, and rightly, the source of criticism in the House and in the country. They must be reduced. There are bound to be waiting lists for less urgent cases, since truly urgent cases must be admitted without delay and hospital authorities must be able to determine the proper order of need when allocating their beds.
  It is only right that I should say here that my right hon. Friend the Member

  1489
  for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) made a determined effort to get waiting lists reduced. The House may be interested to know what action has been taken. Last year we advised hospital authorities on the best ways of using, reviewing and preparing waiting lists. Last March we issued further advice on reducing surgical and general waiting lists and called for a concentrated attack. We suggested a variety of methods, all of which had been endorsed by the Joint Consultants Committee.
  These included more use of theatres at present partly idle by means of co operation between hospitals; transfer of patients, with their consent, to surgeons with shorter waiting lists; keeping patients in hospital for shorter periods; dealing with more as out patients and properly organising the call system so that substitutes are found for patients who, for one reason or another, cannot enter hospital when a bed has been found for them.
  Mr. H. Hynd: Is the Minister doing something to deal with the well-known habit of people jumping the queue by offering a 5 guineas fee?
  Mr. Braine: That sounds to me a highly improper practice. All I can say is that we are not neglecting any opportunity to bring home to hospital authorities our view of how waiting lists can be reduced. In fact, we urged hospitals to make reductions in waiting lists a major objective in the current year.
  Mr. James Dempsey: Are the Government taking effective action to deal with the problem caused by paying patients? In Lanarkshire, where there is a nine months' wait for certain operations, one can be dealt with within weeks if one is willing to pay. Is the Minister dealing with that situation?
  Mr. Braine: If the hon. Gentleman has evidence of something taking place which he regards as improper, I hope that he will send the details to me or to my Scottish colleague. As I say, we urged hospitals to make the reduction of waiting lists a major objective during the current year. How far these efforts have been successful we shall not know until the returns showing the figures
  1490
  of waiting lists at the end of this month are available and have been analysed. But I can assure the House that on every possible opportunity, particularly through professional channels, hospitals are being stimulated to reduce their waiting lists.
  I am sensitive to the feeling of the House on this subject. In all these matters, both now and in the future, we must never for one moment allow ourselves to forget that we are providing a service for people, for sick and worried people at that. I think that it is true to say that in recent years we have seen a growing and welcome recognition that the hospital service must cater not only for the purely medical needs of the patient but for his welfare generally, for clearly this has an important bearing on his recovery.
  Increasing attention, therefore, has been paid to all aspects of human relations in hospitals. Three examples spring to mind. First, the introduction of more liberal visiting arrangements, secondly, the provision of accommodation where mothers can be admitted with their sick children, and, thirdly, efforts to raise standards of hospital catering.
  The hon Member for St. Pancras, North was quite right to focus attention upon tie Nuffield Report on hospital catering, This is a most useful document. It sets out the difficulties fairly, it covers nothing up, it offers valuable advice as to how improvements can be effected, and it should provide, as my right hon. Friend said earlier this month,
  "…a further stimulus to hospital authorities to secure universally high standards".
  In fairness, however, it should be said that the Report was based on a survey carried out; between 1960 and 1962. Considerable improvements have been made since then and are continuing to be made. Indeed, the vital importance of improving hospital catering was yet another matter to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West gave his vigorous personal attention, in his address to the annual meeting of the Hospital Caterers' Association last April, he said that hospital food is an integral part of the patient's treatment. As he put it:
  "There is no more telling way of indicating to a person one's respect…for his personality

  1491
  than the manner in which one invites him to eat, and there are few matters in which people can be so sensitive or susceptible. The hospital service owes to its patients the same consideration that a host owes to his guest. 'Respect me, respect my food' is the silent injunction of the patient to the service."
  I think that the House would agree with that.
  Part of the difficulty has been the poor layout of kitchen accommodation in so many of our older hospitals. We fully recognise this. But at the time my right hon. Friend was speaking, no fewer than 12 schemes for the provision of new catering facilities in hospitals, amounting to over £800,000 and ranging in cost between £30,000 and £200,000 were in progress and many smaller adaptations and improvements were in hand.
  As to what is being done to raise the standard of hospital meals—the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North seemed to suggest that nothing was being done—the House might like to know that my Department attaches the highest importance to proper qualifications and training of hospital catering staff, and in this we have been greatly helped by the training courses provided by the King Edward VII's Hospital Fund for London. We provide hospital authorities with expert advice on all aspects of catering, and in January, last year, we published a handbook, which some hon. Members will have seen, providing up-to-date information and guidance on hospital diets, preparation and cooking of meals, costing, staffing, food hygiene and, above all, service to patients. I am sure that the hon. Member has seen it and equally sure that he approves its content.
  In the hospital building programme we are paying particular attention to the design and layout of kitchens and dining rooms. Our own Ministry design team is working at present at the hospital in Kingston-upon-Thames, to which the hon. Member referred, planning a model kitchen, dining room and store. This is a scheme which will reflect all that is best in modern thinking and practice on the subject and which will provide a practical example for hospital authorities of the standard at which they should aim.
  I should like now to turn to the equally important subject of the health and welfare services outside the hospitals,
  1492
  important because these are aimed at the prevention of illness or, if prevention is impossible, at care in the home and within the community. In planning an improved hospital service, we took into account the need for care being provided for all who did not require the specialised treatment which a hospital could give. We were concerned not merely to modernise the whole pattern and content of the hospital service, but to integrate it more closely with the general services which provide care and treatment outside the hospitals.
  Here the importance of the family doctor is self-evident. For the greater part of the population, the family doctor is the Health Service, providing, as he does, the patient's first line of defence against ill-health. My right hon. Friend will be saying something about general practice and the Gillie Report, but at this stage I want to say that it is of the utmost importance that hospitals should provide the family doctor with access for his patients to diagnostic facilities, especially in pathology and radiology. Our aim must be to ensure that, as need dictates, the doctor can call to his aid the supporting services—the home nurses, home helps, meals-on-wheels, health visitors—which it is the function of the local authorities and the voluntary organisations to provide.
  It is true that the Plan for Health and Welfare, which we published last April, is uniquely comprehensive, embodying as it does for the first time the proposals of all the local health and welfare authorities in England and Wales and setting out the aims and standards which should govern their development. But I doubt whether it is sufficiently realised to what extent the local authority services for the elderly, for mothers and young children, for the physically handicapped and the mentally disordered, have developed in recent years. Revenue expenditure on these services in England and Wales alone increased from £48 million in 1951–52 to £103 million last year, an increase of nearly 115 per cent. The rate of capital expenditure has been rising even faster. In the last four or five years, it has almost doubled. It will be about £19 million this year and next year is expected to rise to £23 million.

  1493
  This is the other side of the Health Service to which the hon. Gentleman did not refer, but this massive investment and expansion is part of the same picture, because the objective of a good health service should be to keep the sick person out of hospital or, if he has come out of hospital, to ensure that supporting services are so adequate that he does not go back into hospital.
  The first revision of the local authorities' long-term plans, covering the decade 1964–75 will soon be coming forward. That revision is now in progress and I hope that it will not be long before detailed proposals are in our hands.
  In the plan as it now stands, an increase of 45 per cent. in the numbers of trained staff is envisaged. We hope to increase the number of health visitors, social workers and home nurses by about 2,000 in each category, training staff for sub-normals by about 3,000, staff for residential establishments by about 10,000, and home-helps by more than 11,000. [Hon. Members: "When?"] This is over a ten-year period. [Interruption.] Hon. Members should wait. There is nothing terribly dramatic in these figures. It is true that they are large increases, but they should be capable of attainment because not only are the absolute numbers themselves not great, but the increases are in line with experience. There has been an increase of about 20 per cent. in the last five years. Training facilities are being rapidly developed. I am not surprised that the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North made no mention of these matters, but this is where progress is taking place at an extremely rapid rate.
  The Council for the Training of Health Visitors—[Interruption.] These are matters of the greatest importance to those people who need the supporting services outside the hospitals, and I hope that hon. Members will allow me to go on without interruption. The Council for the Training of Health Visitors and the Council for Training in Social Work, which were set up just over a year ago, are making good progress. A training council for the staff of training centres for the mentally sub-normal is in process of being constituted and will shortly begin work. The staffing
  1494
  of residential establishments is being studied by it committee, set up by the National Council of Social Service, under the chairmanship of Professor Lady Williams.
  The plans of the local authorities provide for capital expenditure over the ten years of some 4,000 new buildings, some of which, of course, will be replacements for existing buildings, costing altogether £220 million. In addition, new needs are likely to emerge, especially as local authorities press on with the closing of ex-Public Assistance institutions and provide more suitable and home-like accommodation for the elderly.
  Up to 1958–59, the figure for loan sanctions was averaging about £4 million a year. In the last three years, it has risen to an average of £15 million a year. As in the case of hospital building, the programme is already well under way. Last year, some 76 new old people's homes and similar residential accommodation, 64 clinics, 67 training centres and 21 hostels for the mentally disordered were opened. This year the same momentum has been maintained.
  In the last year, I myself have opened a number of these new buildings, and I want to tell the House what an inspiration it has been to see the encouragement that new purpose-built accommodation has given to devoted staffs and the pleasure and delight of old folk, whom one meets in the new homes, in the degree of comfort and privacy which they find there. On average, over the next ten years we shall be opening two to three new old people's homes, the same number of clinics, and one new training centre every week, and one new hostel for the mentally sub-normal and one new ambulance station nearly every week.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: I am sure that we would all like to congratulate the progressive local authorities on improving facilities in the way the hon. Gentleman has described. Can he tell the House how the Government are to ensure that the improvements in Part III accommodation, home helps and home visitors and so on, are uniform all over the country? Is it not true that in some areas much better improvements than in others are being made?
  Mr. Braine: Of course, local authorities are carrying out these works—with Government help and approval. A substantial part of the money comes from the Government. [Interruption.] I sometimes wonder whether hon. Members are really interested in the subject. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) asked a question, to which I am endeavouring to reply. It is true that when we came to look at the plans submitted by 146 local health and welfare authorities there was disparity. The whole object of publishing their plans in juxtaposition was to bring home to them the fact that disparity in their provision existed. The first revision is now coming forward. We have no reason to believe that local authorities will be backward in revising their plans on a realistic basis to provide for their people in the years ahead a standard of service of which they can be proud. In the last year I have been engaged in many talks with local authorities on this subject, and I found them extremely alive to the need to raise their standards.
  Finally, I come to the key question raised by the hon. Gentleman, the future supply of doctors. Concern about this was voiced in last week's debate in another place on the Robbins Report, and again today by hon. Gentlemen. In 1957 the Willink Report recommended that the annual intake of British medical students to British medical schools should be 1,760. It was soon recognised that this figure was too low and should be increased, and in the last few years the number has risen substantially. In 1960 it was 1,788. In 1961–62 it was 1,896. In 1962–63 it was 2,047, and the improvement is continuing. Last October the entry was 2,153. Thus we can see, on this basis at any rate, a steadily increasing supply of doctors.
  We have been reviewing what more needs to be done and in this we have taken account of many factors. These have included the recommendations in the Gillie Report on the future of general practice, and on the larger part which family doctors should play in the hospital service. They have included the reports of hospital medical staffing which hospital boards have made in the light of the Platt Report, and these Reports are being studied with representatives of the profession.
  1496
  In the light of our review, the University Grants Committee has been asked to advise my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science, as the Minister responsible for university grants, what provision should be made. The Committee has recommended that at least one new medical school should be planned, and that at the same time the possibilities of further expansion of existing medical schools should be examined. My righthon. and learned Friend has authorised me to say that he has accepted that advice, and that the University Grants Committee is considering the question of location.
  As the House will appreciate, I have not sought to deal with every point raised by the hon. Gentleman. He said that he would leave the subject of charges, which looms so large in the Motion, to his hon. Friends, and I hope that the House will forgive me if I follow the hon. Gentleman and leave that subject to be dealt with by my right hon. Friend.
  What I have endeavoured to do is to set out for hon. Members what has been achieved, and what we are planning to do. I do not claim that our arrangements for health are ideal, and that our plans are incapable of improvement. This, above all others, is a field in which we can never be satisfied, and where medical men themselves are certain that the morrow will bring fresh challenge. Many years ago a wise man said:
  "The ideal is never here, it is always over there; it is not an inn at which one can put up but a journey one must undertake."
  But I do claim that the record is one of solid achievement and real expansion, and that further improvement and expansion is possible precisely because the Government have got their priorities right, and that is why I feel justified in asking the House to accept our Amendment.
  5.55 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Morris: In the unhappy circumstances in which the vacancy in the Openshaw constituency arose, I wonder whether I might start today by paying a tribute to the late Member for the constituency, Bill Williams, who was respected and beloved on both sides of the House. I think that to him we can

  1497
  truly apply the words spoken by Pericles, 2,000 years ago, in his funeral oration for the Greeks who were killed in the Peloponnesian war. He said:
  "For the whole earth is the sepulchre of famous men; and their story is not graven only of stone above their native earth—but lives on far away, without visible symbol, woven into the stuff of other men's lives."
  It is fitting, and in keeping with the deep and abiding interest which the late Bill Williams had for those whom he represented, that today, in this my maiden speech, I should seek to direct the attention of the House to at least some of the health problems which affect the lives of the people of Openshaw constituency and the City of Manchester, of which they form such an important part.
  I should, perhaps, explain that the Openshaw constituency includes the delightful semi-rural Urban Dirstrict Council of Failsworth and goes on to cover the three wards Newton Heath, Bradford, and Openshaw which together form possibly one of the most heavily industrialised areas of Manchester. I think that one can accept what one distinguished correspondent of The Times said about the people of Openshaw during the recent by-election. He described them as "worthy and level-headed." I do not know whether that was before he knew the result or after, but I would endorse it, in any event. They are a particularly industrious people.
  The vogue in recent times has been for hon. Members to seek to determine which section of the community produces the nation's wealth. I would seek to advance the claims of the workers of Openshaw and the north of England. But as residents of a constituency and of a city where industry and atmospheric pollution abound, they seem obliged to suffer some health hazards to which I should like to draw attention.
  At this festive season of the year, with the advent of Christmas and its religious and joyous significance, it is, perhaps, appropriate that I should focus attention on infant mortality and address myself to explaining the shocking, indeed squalid, housing conditions in which so many people in my constituency are obliged to live. Of 19,000 houses owned by landlords, the local authority has determined that 7,400 have deteriorated to the state where the only
  1498
  solution is their complete demolition. That is the state of housing conditions in an area where infant mortality is a serious problem.
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) referred to the question of infant mortality and the recent perinatal report. The right hon. Gentleman took pleasure in the fact that there had been a reduction in infant mortality in recent years, but I would refer him to an article in the British Medical Journal of Saturday, 7th December, because the pleasure which the right hon. Gentleman expressed—and which to some extent I share—is not entirely reflected in the contribution to this eminent medical journal.
  The article is headed "Too Many Infant Deaths". In the context in which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, it appears almost as an addendum. It says:
  "For some years satisfaction at the falling perinatal mortality rate has tended to obscure the fact that in Britain the rate is reported to be higher than in many countries with comparable living standards. In one list of 18 countries only five had worst rates than England and Wales and only Italy, Portugal and Japan showed rates worse than Scotland's."
  That is a situation which causes anxiety to many of my hon. Friends.
  But the situation is slightly more ominous than that, because whereas these comments were written against the background of an infant mortality rate for England and Wales of 20–7 per 1,000 births, the infant mortality rate in Manchester in 1962 was30–43 per 1,000 births. It was 0·59 higher than in 1961. I am mindful of the detailed study and the attention that is being given to this problem by the city's medical officer of health and the medical authorities generally, but I must draw the attention of the House to the seriousness of this problem.
  The Chief Medical Officer of Health for Manchester carried out a detailed study from which it has emerged that there seems to be no one single discernible cause for this unfortunate position. My hope is that the right hon. Gentleman will give consideration to the need for improve educational facilities for the expectant mother, because it seems that here is a reluctance among

  1499
  expectant mothers to start prenatal care early enough.
  I now turn to the problem of cancer in Manchester. The statistics for 1962 show that 2·42 per 1,000 of the population died of cancer in one form or another, compared with a rate of 1·68 per 1,000 for the whole country. Naturally, as a Mancunian, I therefore ask, "Why?" When we hear of so much public money being spent in many directions we question why the existing situation obtains at the Christie Cancer Hospital in Manchester. Many hon. Members will be aware of the high reputation that that hospital enjoys. It was no less than staggering for me to learn that of the funds available for research into cancer at this hospital, only 10 per cent. came from Government sources. The rest came entirely from private sources.
  I want, next, to refer to a health hazard from which I and all other city dwellers suffer. It is a peculiar complaint—almost a city sound. It is discernible when one listens to people talk who are obliged to live in cities. I do not want hon. Members to confuse this city sound with any other sound, such as the "Liverpool sound"—that delightful cacophony of noise made by our current entertainment idols. The sound to which I am referring is easily discernible, in the rather heavy nasal catarrhal intonations of the human voice, which seems to emanate from everybody living in a city.
  I hope that this problem of sinus, catarrh and nasal trouble will be tackled. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether further research should be carried out into the problem.
  I want to quote from a speech made in this House by the late Member for Ebbw Vale, Aneurin Bevan, on 9th February, 1948. "Nye"Beyan—one of the most illustrious Ministers of Health that his country has ever had—in welcoming the coming into force of the National Health Service, referred to it as something
  "which offers comprehensive medical care and treatment and lays for the first time a sound foundation for the health of the people…"—[Official Report, 9th February, 1948; Vol. 447, c. 35.]
  1500
  People viewed the introduction of the National Health Service in different ways. I viewed it as a declaration of war on disease and the conditions which give rise to disease—a war where the only sacrifice asked of us was the acknowledgment that we are our brothers' keepers, and that we should have a willingness to accept the financial obligations involved.
  The foundations having been laid in 1948, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to have done with parsimony and financial stringency and the like, so that the great British medical profession to which we all owe so much can establish in these islands a health service which is not only the envy of the world, but which will develop and expand to meet the changing health needs of our people.
  6.9 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Kershaw: The hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. C. Morris) has paid a moving tribute to the late "Post Office" Williams, as we used to call him, and I know that that tribute will be accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House and by everyone in his constituency.
  I can assure the hon. Member that even people who do not live in Manchester get very nasty colds. Whatever The Times may have said about his constituents being level-headed and worthy, the House will judge from the hon. Member's speech that he is level headed, and I have no doubt that he will also prove himself very worthy of his constituents. I look forward, with pleasure, as I am sure do other hon. Members, to hearing from him again on numerous occasions in the future.
  I also wish to raise a matter which concerns my constituency rather more, perhaps, than the general ambit of the Health Service, although I make no excuse for so doing because I believe that this matter also has a bearing on the whole of the Service. This is not the first time that I have raised it. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will remember with a certain amount of pain that the last occasion on which we discussed the matter was at five o'clock on the morning of 26th June last. In case my hon. Friend has forgotten, I will remind him that the

  1501
  matter concerns the possible closure of three hospitals in and around my constituency at Tetbury, Berkeley and Stroud, and what will be the position if they are closed.
  I am sorry to say that since the debate in June the position has not improved. In fact, it has worsened. Since then we have had news that the casualty department at the Stroud Hospital, with 52 beds, is likely to be closed. I wish to make clear that neither I, nor anybody else, so far as I know, who is concerned in this matter opposes the whole pattern of hospital services set out in the Command Paper published in January, 1962. I agree, as who would not, that a large hospital of 800 beds is able to provide better equipment and in many ways better services than a smaller hospital. But I say that these great hospitals are not an adequate substitute in rural areas in general, and in the Stroud district particularly, for our present medical facilities.
  I will summarise my arguments, because I know many hon. Members wish to speak and the time for our debate has been curtailed. I believe that these great hospitals lie too far away from some areas—particularly the Stroud area—to be able adequately to cope with accidents for both medical reasons and industrial reasons, because of the time taken to get to diem. Secondly, large hospitals which are far away make visiting much more difficult and expensive. Thirdly, there is the problem of nursing. The small hospitals may be staffed adequately in almost every case at the present time by part-time nurses. But these ladies will not be available in a bigger hospital because they are not able to travel to the hospital in the time available to them.
  Although it is not the case everywhere, there are some very large hospitals where the standard of nursing provided is not the same as that which smaller hospitals provide. That is inevitable. It does not mean to say that nurses are less skilful, but that the organisation is more difficult to run. Recently, a constituent of mine in the Southmead Hospital after a motoring accident was three times threatened with a syringe containing the wrong sort of "wallop" and wielded by a young doctor or nurse. On one occasion, had
  1502
  she not been alert and refused the injection, the consequences might have caused serious trouble. This can happen more easily in a large hospital than a small hospital.
  Mr. Braine: It ought not to happen in any hospital.
  Mr. Kershaw: Yes, it ought not to happen in any hospital, but it can happen more easily in a large hospital than in a smaller one.
  Mr. W. A. Wilkins: Does the hon. Member recognise that in a hospital such as the one he mentioned, which I know extremely well, there is the problem of a lack of staff and the nurses are under extreme pressure all the time? There is, therefore, a great deal of excuse, and until we provide staff in numbers which are more adequate for such a hospital, there will be a liability for mistakes to be made?
  Mr. Kershaw: I take the hon. Gentleman's point and I agree with him. I say, without there being any fault on the part of anyone, that the difficulties are greater n a bigger hospital.
  Possibly the most important point relates to the general practitioner service at large hospitals. In a town the doctors can and, so far as I know, do attend the big hospitals. But in the country they cannot follow their family patients all the way to a hospital which may be 30 miles away. The doctors have not the time to do this. Their patients are taken away and dealt with without the doctor being au fait with the situation, which depresses their morale and the standard of doctoring. I believe that my hon. Friend would not disagree when I say that one of the main problems facing him today relates to the general practitioners. I believe that the local hospital is one place where the standard of medical knowledge and the enthusiasm of local practitioners may be improved and maintained.
  While I accept the pattern of the hospital scheme, I believe that in some areas it has to be modified. Local hospitals in rural areas should be kept open. In turn, I recognise that if I demand they should be kept open I must accept that extra expense will be incurred because large hospitals also must be built.

  1503
  Turning more particularly to the local problem, we knew in June last year that Stroud Hospital might be closed in due course if something better could be provided to replace it, and one could not complain if something better had been provided. But since that time we have been much disheartened to hear that the regional hospital board proposes to close the casualty department, with all that that means regarding the depression of the standard of the hospital, the danger that accidents may not be dealt with and the annoyance caused by the distance which visitors to the hospital may have to travel.
  A local committee has been formed to deal with this problem, headed by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oak-ridge, who lives in that area. They sought and obtained an interview with the regional hospital board at Bristol, and were received most courteously. But I cannot do other than admit that, locally, there is a feeling that the strong enthusiasm for a local hospital is being entirely disregarded by the regional hospital board.
  The alternative set before us is that every facility will be available in Gloucester and Bristol. But, there are reasons, which it is perhaps a little invidious to state—though I feel it my duty to mention the fact—why, we are not entirely satisfied that the services available there at present are adequate to meet our needs. This is exactly the problem which faces other rural communities. Last week, a little boy aged 5, was knocked down in the street in Stroud at a quarter-to-four in the afternoon. He was taken to Gloucester and it was not until half-past one the next morning that his broken leg was set. There was no one to do anything for him. He was not given any drugs, although he was in great pain, because adequate medical staff facilities were not available. We cannot blame people if they ask why they should give up a hospital, which they trust and like for another hospital about which they have certain misgivings. It would seem sometimes that the regional hospital board, acting of course, under the guidance of the Government scheme, has a rather empire-building frame of mind.
  There is another institution, the physiotherapy centre in Dursley, where, I would
  1504
  have my hon. Friend know, I go for treatment for my lumbago. There facilities are available to industrialists and certain ailments may be treated which would mean many hours off work if the workers had to go elsewhere for treatment. We hear that this is to be closed down unless more help can be given from the regional board. I do not think that that is a reasonable course of conduct. Local people may be wrong, but they have not so much confidence in the way in which the regional board is running things at present.
  I plead with the Minister to take a long, hard look at the way things are going and decide whether 50,000 people, who live in the Stroud area—which is so typical of areas with hospitals in many of the rural districts of this country—are right or whether a few members of a regional hospital board, who disagree with them, are right. I know of no one locally who agrees with the hospital board. After all, this is a democratic service in which the voices of those who use the Service should be listened to. I ask my right hon. Friend to look at that matter most closely in future.
  6.20 p.m.
  Mr. H. Hynd: I promise that I shall not detain the House for more than five minutes. I want to follow a remark made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) about nurses who have to transfer to other hospitals for training, because in my constituency there is a case to which I want to call public attention.
  The Minister will be glad to hear that, strangely enough, I am not criticising him. It is a case of a staff nurse at Victoria Hospital, Accrington, who wanted to extend her training in midwifery. For that purpose she terminated her employment at that hospital to go to Preston and gave notice that she would do so. Unfortunately, before she could do so she was taken ill and put off duty by the hospital doctor, as she was suffering from German measles. Because she was a patient in hospital she missed the course at Preston, but arranged with her own hospital to carry on there. When she recovered, after about a month, she carried on with her duties, but, believe it or not, the local hospital committee deducted her salary

  1505
  from the date when her original notice expired to the date when she actually resumed.
  The hospital management committee wrote to the Ministry for a ruling and the Minister replied, quite properly, that, technically, she had given notice, but he suggested that the committee ought to make a concession and that he would be glad to give further advice. That was a straight tip to the committee to be reasonable, but the committee turned it down. Incidentally, the regional hospital board made a recommendation to the same effect, but that was turned down. Since then, I understand the Minister has written to the committee suggesting that it should make an ex gratia payment. The committee met yesterday and, by a vote of 6 to 5 turned down the Minister's recommendation. This is absolutely disgraceful.
  At a time when we are trying to attract nurses and to get staff to give the best possible service as mentioned by the Motion this is just the sort of case which can have the worst possible effect on the morale of staff. I raise this case deliberately in this public way—and I am sure the Minister will be glad that I do so—to make the local hospital management committee thoroughly ashamed of its decision. I hope that the Minister will find some way of allowing this nurse to get her pay for the short period when she was ill.
  As I am well within my five minutes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, perhaps I may be allowed one minute more in which to emphasise a point I made in an interruption. That is about patients being told that they may have an operation, but that they will have to wait for some months, or that if they attend hospital as a private patient they can have the operation next week. I assure the Minister that this is generally the case. I have had many complaints about it. When I raised this matter before the Minister asked me to bring forward a definite case and said that he would look into it. It is not easy to find a definite case.
  I have tried, with the co-operation of a constituent who needs to have an operation, to provide a definite case. This constituent went to his doctor and was told the usual thing. He asked the doctor for a receipt for the money and
  1506
  the doctor asked why he wanted a receipt. He replied that he wanted it for Income Tax purposes, but he did not get a receipt. Doctors are "too fly" for that; they do not give receipts. It is not easy to give details of definite cases, but every hon. Member will support me in saying that many people are told this formula. It is something which must be stopped.
  6.25 p.m.
  Sit Hugh Linstead: I followed with much interest the opening speech by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson). I understood why, for the purpose of this debate and as part of the duty of the Opposition, he found it necessary to underline the defects of the National Health Service, but I feel that from time to time it would not do any harm if this House were to look at the Service from the point of view of what it has accomplished and what it has to offer today, as well as looking at its defects.
  I, and I suppose other hon. Members, have had on occasion to speak in North America about the Service. There, I never have any difficulty in defending the National Health Service of this country, particularly in comparison with what is nationally available in Canada and the United States of America. It is probably true that in other countries those who can afford to pay for medical attention get better medical attention. Possibly they get quicker medical attention than is available in this country. But, if we are to make a proper comparison with what the National Health Service here offers we have to look at what it offers to the community as a whole.
  If we look over the whole of our Health Service we see that something is offered here which is superior for the whole range of the population to anything which can be offered in any other country. I am sure that when the hon. Member was putting forward his criticisms of the Service he was not seeking in any way to depreciate the great advantages that it has to offer in comparison with conditions which obtained before it existed.
  I want to discuss for a moment the proposal in the Motion for the abolition of charges under the National Health Service. As one who was in this House

  1507
  at the time when the Service was first introduced and remembers the Willink White Paper as well as the energy and enthusiasm of Mr. Aneurin Bevan, I was always sympathic to the original conception of a Service without charges.
  We have to face the fact that today the charges bring in something like £64 million a year. The problem a Minister of Health has to face in relation to those charges is whether, if he has that sum of money available to spend on the Service, that is the precise point at which he should expend the £64 million. When one listens, as one is bound to in a debate like this, to weaknesses in the Service being developed, to the need, for example, for more attention to be paid to mothers and children at the time of childbirth, one asks whether, if £64 million is available, the best place to apply that money would be in removing the charges. Personally I doubt it, sympathetic though I would be to that being achieved.
  We are bound to be realistic and to say let those who can afford to pay the charges pay them and let those who cannot afford to pay them be relieved of them.
  Mr. Denis Howell: How can one do that?
  Sir H. Linstead: I was about to develop that point, because I have a criticism to make of the present method.
  We are all aware of the National Assistance Board provisions whereby someone who cannot afford to pay out of his own pocket can obtain the money from the Board. In theory, that is a satisfactory method, but, in practice, it is not. I have no doubt that between the level at which the Assistance Board's help is applied and the level at which someone who is sick can readily afford the charges there exists a band of people in the community who are seriously affected by charges which they cannot afford. I am not saying that this is general. It would be a mistake for people who can afford the charges to be relieved of them, but the present method does not give the relief that should be given.
  I meet many pharmacists who tell me of the problems with which they are
  1508
  faced individually when talking to patients who collect their medicines or leave their prescriptions. The patients say, "I cannot get the money from the Assistance Board. I am doubtful whether I can afford, say, 6s. for three items. Will you tell me which one of the three I should take and which two I can afford not to take?" That is an intolerable position in which to place a pharmacist or anyone else.
  In chemists' shops, particularly in industrial areas, many stories of people being unable to take every item on prescriptions can be told. My right hon. Friend is fresh to his office and all of us welcome him there. I want him to believe that there is a case for further easing the Assistance Board's rules. We have not yet coped with this question of hardship.
  This is an occasion when I could briefly mention one or two features of the pharmaceutical service more closely, for I have been the secretary of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain for many years, and, although I have nothing to do with the administration of the National Health Service or negotiations for remuneration, I am closely in touch with what the pharmaceutical service is doing. The one thing that is noticeable about the manufacturers, the hospital pharmacists and the pharmacists in general practice is that all three are at cross-purposes with the Minister. That is an unhappy state of affairs. Basically, it is a question of finance, but one does not like to see a whole professional group of people at cross-purposes with the one person with whom they should be working in the closest collaboration. I hope that we will not have an indefinite continuation of what is, in effect, a cold war that is doing no one any good, least of all the Service and its patients.
  We have had many discussions about the difficulties of the manufacturers with the Minister and I will not develop this facet of the argument. Something should be done to break the cold war in that sector. We have the most clumsy method of discussing the prices which the Minister pays to the manufacturers for the drugs they supply to the Service. The negotiations take place between the Ministry and the manufacturers, while the Treasury remains

  1509
  in the background. The Treasury takes its own part at second-hand in these discussions. The Public Accounts Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor-General also come into the picture, but again at second-hand, and at no point does the Public Accounts Committee, which is the most stalwart of the critics of the manufacturers, ever have the opportunity of meeting the manufacturers face to face and discussing directly with them the problems that worry the Committee.
  I would have thought that it should have been possible to devise some method—if necessary, by an alteration of the standing Orders of the House—whereby the Public Accounts Committee could directly call as witnesses the people whose conduct it is criticising so that it did not fall on the accounting officer of the Ministry of Health to defend or, if necessary, attack that group of people criticised by the Public Accounts Committee.
  The hospital pharmacists are at present about 25 per cent, below establishment. The answer which my right hon. Friend's predecessor gave was that the establishments represented an artificial figure. If so, it is high time that the establishments were redrawn and made realistic. The hospital service is being kept going only by the loyalty and public spirit of a comparatively small number of senior pharmacists. When they retire there will be a substantial gap in the hospital pharmaceutical service. It is said that recruitment is going well, but if that is so I doubt whether recruitment will be permanent, since a great deal of it is the recruitment of women who are likely to marry and leave the Service, at least for a time.
  The present feeling of hospital pharmacists is that they are a neglected section of the hospital service. Anything that my right hon. Friend can do to assure hospital pharmacists are not being left out in the cold, but that their position in the Service is recognised—and that usually means recognised by remuneration at the right level—will be very helpful to the service and him.
  Some years ago it was proposed that assistants to pharmacists should be used in the hospital service. The Ministry has issued circulars on this
  1510
  subject, but has never pushed this staffing conception home. A study within the Ministry of the possibility of the pharmacist being aided by skilled technicians might well help towards solving the staffing problem. This matter should not be neglected, for we are now in danger of a breakdown in the pharmaceutical service in some hospitals.
  The other day I came across a large teaching hospital which because of a shortage of staff, was buying its sterile injectable solutions. Anything more un-remunerative than carrying around large quantities of sterile water it would be difficult to imagine. The cost of having those sterile solutions made at a distance and sent by a firm to a hospital is so substantial that the cost of paying for a pharmacist scarcely enters into the picture in these circumstances.
  The grievances of the pharmacist in general practice probably date back to the time when a swingeing cut in his remuneration was imposed by the Minister and when, at the same time, a claim for increased remuneration was rejected. I will not argue the merits today, but the speed with which that was done and the effect it had on the standard of living of pharmacists was substantial and it is that which has soured the relations of that group of people in the pharmaceutical service.
  I suggest that the Minister has some responsibility for the general practice of pharmacy. His Department is inclined to take the chemist's shop as it finds it, but my right hon. Friend's responsibility is deeper and wider than that. He should not be content with using the chemist's shop merely as a convenient way of getting his medicines distributed. Because of historical necessity, the chemist's shop in this country has had to base a great deal of its economy on the sale of things that are not pharmaceutical, and the pharmacists themselves dislike it intensely.
  Unfortunately, that helps the Ministry—the Ministry sees its overheads spread over a larger range of things sold—but, basically, I do not believe that it is right that pharmacists should be required to subsidise the National Health Service by sales of completely non-pharmaceutical products, it divides the interests of the proprietor, it divides the interests of the

  1511
  staff, it spoils the atmosphere of the business by turning it into a purely commercial atmosphere, and it encourages the public to regard drugs as ordinary articles of commerce instead of, as we are learning more and more nowadays, as things to be taken with great care and attention. I am sure that the result of my right hon. Friend's just accepting the chemist's shop as he finds it is that he is inhibiting the development of professional pharmacy as we would all like to see it, and as it is, for example, in Scandinavia.
  I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to say that he is interested in the future development of pharmaceutical practice in this country. I should like to see him, in any action he takes, particularly in regard to remuneration or the question of contracts with executive councils, encouraging the development of professional pharmacy, and discouraging the reliance the pharmacist now has to place on his other commercial activities. I believe that, somewhere in the Ministry, inquiries are now going on into the possibility of comprehensive legislation on medicine. If, when those inquiries are completed—during the next Parliament, perhaps—a new piece of pharmaceutical legislation is brought forward, I urge that it be not only legislation dealing with poisons, but legislation dealing with medicines, and to help pharmacy develop professionally in pharmacies, just as it has in the hospital and manufacturing branches.
  It is a weakness in the National Health Service that the three sections of the pharmaceutical service—the manufacturer, the hospital and the pharmacist in general practice—are all at cross-purposes with my right hon. Friend. I hope that he will consider that position seriously, and will feel that he has some obligation to try to improve his public relations with pharmacy. In that way. he will render a great service to his own National Health Service.
  6.43 p.m.
  Mr. Laurence Pavitt: The hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) always interests the House when he talks of the drug industry and its relations with the National Health Service. Although he has made a number of constructive proposals, I submit that—although in the most cour-
  1512
  teous way, as is customary with him—he has supported our Motion in saying that the Minister has failed to adopt policies in connection with the provision of drugs that would benefit the Service. I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman that the National Health Service is second to none, but we on this side do not regard that as a ground for complacency. Although we are proud of what has been done, we believe that Ministerial failure has prevented the greater achievement we think is possible.
  The hon. Member referred to the £64 million raised in increased charges. When that charge was made in February, 1961, the whole basis was that it would satisfy the grand new ten-year hospital plan. In 1961–62 we spent £30·8 million, and in 1962–63, £35·5 million, but if my calculations and those of the hon. Gentleman are correct, the Exchequer took in nearly £200 million in the last three years. The main purpose of the prescription charges was to raise £12½ million in a full year towards that £64 million. We think that there has been a great gap between all the promises and professions of this and the previous Minister and what is being done in practice. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Government were now, at this late stage, very much in favour of the idea that the strong should help the weak, but nowhere is that idea so much stood upon its head as in these prescription charges. The average person sees his general practitioner 5·5 times a year. If the person is over 65 or under 5 years of age, he sees his general practitioner ten or eleven times a year. That means that a person over the age of 65 pays twice as much in prescription charges as the person in middle age, and so does the man with a large family.
  The more sick the person, the more he pays. If it is only a matter of a bottle of cough medicine once a year, he pays 2s. 0d., but if the trouble is a colostomy or he is a diabetic the cost is probably 10s. or 12s. each fortnight. The Parliamentary Secretary may talk of the strong helping the weak, but this is not working out in practice, because the weaker the person the more he pays to help the strong.
  The extra charge for welfare foods raised only the paltry sum of £1¾ million. After that decision was taken,

  1513
  a number of my hon. friends tried to find out how it worked. In questions about their own constituencies which ranged throughout the country, they found that there was a 60 per cent. drop in the take-up of cod liver oil, Vitamin A and orange juice for babies. There was an immediate drop; but I wanted to know what had happened in the years since then. I found that, in my locality, 10,790 bottles of cod liver oil were being taken up before the charges were imposed, but that the figure had dropped during the following six months to 3,779 bottles. We have risen slightly since then, and in the last half year the figure has risen to 4,582 bottles. That is still less than half the amount taken up before the charges were raised. The same applies to the other items.
  This has happened at a time when more babies are being born—the Parliamentary Secretary has referred to this fact which has recently been called a "birth quake". The index has risen from 100 in 1957 to 138 in 1962 in the area covering my constituency. That being so, we cannot see how the Government's policy has succeeded in helping the weak at the expense of the strong, for while more babies are being born, only half the 1961 take up of welfare foods takes place. In industrial areas, areas of difficulty, areas of acute housing shortage, problem families and social difficulties make these welfare foods essential, to ensure some balance of diet.
  I want to follow the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) on the effect of the 2 per cent, straitjacket put on the hospital service. We have had this large scheme for spending between £700 million and £800 million by 1975, but Ministry circulars have informed the hospitals that their revenue estimates must not exceed 2 per cent. those of the previous year.
  In the first circular in 1960 it was made clear that the 2 per cent. applied in real terms to 1961–62 allocations, which included the cost of increments to staff on salary scales, though it is true that since then there has been some let-up in that respect. This was repeated in the second circular and again in the one issued on 14th September, 1962. Although the pay pause
  1514
  seems to have been relaxed for almost everyone, it has not been relaxed for the hospital services, with the result that the approach to hospital management is basically wrong because financial considerations come first and needs are made to fit in with those considerations. Is this done for administrative convenience because it is a handy form of commitment merely to give a figure of 2 per cent. whereas in fact in one area it shot Id be much more whilst in another area, the hospitals might be able to manage with less? Maintenance work has been deferred and deferred again, and there is now an accumulation which must be met if we are to succeed in returning to proper standards.
  Two-thirds of most hospital budgets deal with staff pay, which means that when budgets are confined within this rigid 2 per cent. straitjacket there is no room for manoeuvre, except of maintenance which thereby suffers. In spite of easement on pay increases which enables the hospitals to have a little more freedom, the Minister has failed to provide any alleviation in two categories. No addition was made in respect of extra leave given to the nursing staff, with the result that hospital committees have had to cut into their funds to meet this cost. No allowance has been given for extra staff needed as a result of the reduction in hours worked by those already employed by hospitals.
  There has been no mention of what is to happen about price increases if the 2 per cent. rate is to continue and we are still to have this Treasury approach to the Service. The Minister should instigate research into the cost index of hospitals and should check prices to find out whether a 2 per cent allowance can be fitted into sound business management. Heavy increases are being made in local authority rates. There are increases in the Metropolitan area water rates and large increases in the cost o: electricity. If these costs rise by more than 2 per cent. a hospital management committee will find itself having to try to cope with an impossible situation with deferred maintenance having to be put off again and again until events ally it is too expensive to be undertaken, or too late.
  I presume the £4½ million mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary will deal

  1515
  with such matters as provision of furniture, fittings, surgical instruments and appliances and current building maintenance, but in terms of backlog and assessed need is this considered adequate, or is it to be said that a sum of £4½ million is available and the hospitals must try to fit their programmes into it? By seeking to put all the emphasis on the capital programme for new hospital building we believe that the Minister is leaving behind a legacy of maintenance work on existing buildings which will have to be cleared up by the next Labour Minister of Health. This is a failure to do what is considered to be normal in any well-managed household or business concern.
  I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to some of the problems which his policies have failed to tackle or even touch. The first is that of the 18 people who, during the time covered by this debate, will die from lung cancer. A total of 26,383 died last year, and 72 die every day from this disease. At a time of year when the Minister of Transport cannot get to the television screen too quickly to tell us about the 7,000 killed on the roads, which we all deplore, why cannot the Minister of Health be equally active about the three times bigger problem of the people who are dying of lung cancer? In Willesden 30 people died in 1950, according to the medical officer of health. In 1962 the number was 78. In our local hospital in 1958 there were 141 lung cancer patients. In 1962 the number was 169 and of all the cancers now treated in hospital in my constituency a quarter are lung cancer cases.
  The annual report of the medical officer of health for Middlesex shows that cancer and coronary disease were last year again the two largest causes of death in Middlesex, accounting for 40 per cent. of those who died. What steps is the Minister taking to meet this great problem? The right hon. Gentleman cannot even stand up to the Advertising Council which refuses to put up his posters designed to discourage young people from smoking.
  I received a letter only this week from a consultant physician of my local hospital in which he asked me if anything can be done to draw the attention
  1516
  of the House and the country to this great problem. He gives the example of Mr. X who died last week and says:
  "He smoked thirty cigarettes a day until shortly before he died. He had started smoking at the age of 14 and it is my belief that cigarette smoking was the cause of his death. He leaves a young wife and six children between the ages of 18 months and 9 years."
  I do not know how we can get these human facts home. We talk a lot of nonsense about having the strong will to put a cigarette down, or there is the kind of Boy Scout approach that it is manly not to smoke; we take an attitude and then defend it, instead of the Ministry dealing logically, scientifically and effectively with this problem.
  The Parliamentary Secretary raised the question of waiting lists at hospitals and the efforts made to deal with them. As he said, emergency cases are admitted quickly, but I should like to know from the Minister how soon he expects to receive the report, which has been mentioned several times in the House, on steps taken to reduce waiting lists and what effect the returns which he expects on 31st December will have on his action.
  I should also like to know what policy the Government are pursuing on the question of part-time and full-time consultants, which is fundamental to the problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd). Is the Minister's policy that there should be whole-time consultants, or are we to continue with the nine-elevenths arrangement? In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is examining the Platt Report, I should like to know what he proposes to do about the bottleneck in the supply of consultants which is the main cause of delay in admission, and the fact that it pays a consultant not to have another in his specialty because he would share fees for the available private patients with him. It is no use giving us phrases about looking after the weak or earnestly considering the problem. The right hon. Gentleman should now be presenting a solid policy to the country.
  There are many other subjects which I should have liked to mention had there been time. There is the question of the health authority services and the place of welfare, and there is no time now to go into the Gillie Report. The

  1517
  Minister talks about the general practitioners being the keystone of the Service, but he has left this Service as the last to consider and even this last report is not issued as a Government report. Do the Government intend to consider the implications of a number of the Gillie recommendations, and will the House have an opportunity of debating the whole subject of general practice? In view of the seething unrest in the medical profession, will this matter be one of those things which somehow or other never sees the light of day?
  Tributes have been paid, as in the fine maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. C. Morris), to the way in which the foundation of the Health Service was laid against a background of terrific opposition, and was laid so soundly that in spite of the attempts to nibble it away, and in spite of the philosophy put forward in a famous pamphlet in 1951 by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), the present editor of the Spectator, we have achieved, as the hon. Member for Putney has said, a marvellous Service. But that foundation should be the starting point which now gives us the opportunity to go further, not only in the three sectors, but to establish an occupational health service and to start a drive with new initiative to cure some of the modern killing diseases. So much could be done, for instance, about bronchitis, which causes 31 million lost working days each year. We are fed up with the promises of the Minister. Instead of promises for the future, let us have some policies today which will lead to positive results.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I hope that the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) will not mind if I do not follow him closely in his discussion of lung cancer and other matters. In the short time which I intend to take, I shall discuss the work of the general practitioner, but what I have in mind arises not so much out of what the hon. Gentleman said but out of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud
  1518
  (Mr. Kershaw) in drawing attention to the future of the small hospital within his constituency and the cottage hospital generally.
  It may surprise my hon. Friend and other Members from rural constituencies that I, who represent a constituency within which many of the big teaching hospitals are situated, should express concern about the future of the smaller hospital. I do so because I take the view that the small hospital has a future inasmuch as it provides, or could be made to provide through the growing development of our health and welfare programme, a suitable place for the general practitioner to work, and, more than that, it can within the terms of the Hospital Plan and the Health and Welfare Plan for the next 10 or 15 years, have a tremendous part to play if its buildings are used for the provision of special services.
  Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and others like him who are worried about the possible closure of smaller hospitals do not fully realise that there may be a valid case for using these hospitals for a different purpose. In Other words, although a small hospital may not be closed, it may quite properly continue to exist though not in its present form. In this connection, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give hon. Members on both sides the sort of assurances which I think we want about the future of this type of hospital.
  In paragraph 25 of the Blue Book, A Hospital Plan for England and Wales, after reference to the need for new district hospitals comprising 600 to 800 beds to be provided, it is said:
  "But many small hospitals will still be needed. Some will be retained as maternity units…Others will provide long-stay geriatric units Others again, where a local population is remote or inaccessible, or where isolated towns receive an exceptional seasonal influx of visitors, will continue to admit medical emergencies which do not require specialist facilities."
  One can see a use for such hospitals in those ways. The paragraph points out, also, that some of the small hospitals will be needed where patients can go as out-patients, the idea being that out-patient services will be provided there.
  What is suggested in that paragraph of the Hospital Plan does not indicate

  1519
  to me that the small hospital will necessarily continue in its present form, but it does indicate that, if the plan is to be properly developed as envisaged, those who fear that such hospitals will be closed and left empty or put to another use could have their fears put at rest if the Minister would emphasise the intention as outlined in that paragraph.
  I believe that an assurance from my right hon. Friend is necessary. Like other hon. Members, I do not have much time to look at television—
  Mr. Denis Howell: Because the hon. Member is on it.
  Mr. Johnson Smith: No, not because I am appearing on television, because I have no time for that, either. However, the other evening I did take a little time to look at Panorama. That evening, Panorama showed one of its special reports—a good sort of newspaper trick—about what is wrong with our hospital service. It took the example of a particular cottage hospital, quoting the views of various people who are very anxious about the possibility of its closure. An eminent member of the medical profession, whose name escapes me for the moment but who represented the views of general practitioners, said that he would be very disappointed if the hospital were closed, that its closure would be a crime for the neighbourhood, and so forth.
  Towards the end of the rather frightening story which was unfolded, we began to learn that the possibility of the hospital actually being closed was not likely to be discussed for about 10 years or so, and, moreover, it did appear in due course, though rather fleetingly, that these discussions would be without prejudice, and, in all probability, the hospital might be kept open.
  Nevertheless, that television broadcast was not an isolated example of the fears which people have. One has seen similar views expressed in the Press and elsewhere, and I believe that there is here a cause for considerable concern, not only in such places as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud but in many other parts of the country.
  1520
  I suggest, therefore, that it would be a most timely use of the opportunity of this debate if my right hon. Friend were to reassure people throughout the country that there need be no fear of wholesale closure of small hospitals and that they will continue within the pattern of the Hospital Plan to provide very useful medical services for their neighbourhoods. Not only that, the smaller hospitals can provide for the general practitioner the opportunities which many people feel are all too frequently denied to them.
  As I understand it, what is envisaged—here, I think, some people may, perhaps, be disappointed—is that such hospitals will not necessarily close but people may have to become accustomed to the idea that they will change in terms of their actual use. This is why I drew attention to paragraph 25 of the Hospital Plan which envisages that small hospitals could be turned into maternity units, long-stay geriatric units, and so on.
  Looking at the possibilities in the light of the welfare plan generally, not just the 10-year Hospital Plan, it seems to me that the function of the small hospital can be of very great importance in the development of the community services which are so vital within the scope of the National Health Service as a whole. Therefore, if it is decided to change the use of a particular small hospital, the decision, instead of being viewed in isolation, could be seen to be a progressive move for the benefit of general community care in the neighbourhood.
  That is all I have to say on that wider point. I turn now to two matters which arise more particularly in London. The first concerns the general practitioner. We have had the Gillie Report and other reports, articles have been written in the Press, and much has been said generally about the rôle of the general practitioner not only in relation to the opportunities he has or should have for access to hospital, but also in relation to the better facilities which all hon. Members are convinced that he needs if he is to carry out his duties more effectively and efficiently. One hears a good deal said about better conditions for group practice and better ancillary services.

  1521
  The sooner some of the ideas mooted in the Gillie Report and elsewhere are implemented, the happier I shall be, but one must admit that it may be some years before they are implemented on as wide a scale as one would wish. A question arises, therefore, with reference to the general practitioner in London. The London general practitioner receives the same emoluments as his colleague anywhere else. Whenever it has been suggested that there ought to be some sort of London weighting allowance to take account of the increased cost of rent and other matters connected with his circumstances in London—one knows how important these things are—the reply has always been, "No, that would not be fair to general practitioners elsewhere. The rural doctor may not have such a large list of patients as the London doctor, and he does not have quite the same opportunities as his big city colleague for taking on other jobs in hospitals, such as consultant posts."
  I suggest that this does not really hold good to quite the extent suggested. The complaint now among general practitioners in London is that they have extreme difficulty in getting the same access to hospitals as used to be open to them some years ago. There are not the requisite number of consultancies available and it is not as easy as it was in the past for them to augment their income to take account of the increased cost of practising in London. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend to comment on the suggestion that in the interim period, before we are able to implement the suggestions of the Gillie Report and others, further consideration should be given to the possibility of introducing the principle of London weighting for general practitioners in London.
  My second more local point, although it may have a wider interest, arises from another report which has not so far been quoted in the debate and which is one of the least known of the various reports concerning the medical services of this country. I refer to the recently published Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Recruitment, Training and Promotion of Administrative and Clerical Staff in the Hospital Service—or, more succinctly, the Lycett Green Report.
  Many of us are concerned with the general overall efficiency of hospital
  1522
  management, and there have been a number of criticisms about its shortcomings. This Report makes a series of suggestions designed to improve the training and general standard of efficiency of the administrative side, the non-medical side, of the Health Service. So far as I know, it is held to be a good Report. I have not seen any criticism of its recommendations.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House will know that one of the factors having a bearing on the standard of recruitment is the remuneration that a person can expect if he wishes to embark on a career of administration in the National Health Service.
  The Lycett Green Committee was not allowed to discuss this particular subject, because it was not within its terms of reference. I should, therefore, like to make a point concerning this aspect. Anyone who knows anything about hospital management must be convinced that one of the most onerous and responsible posts is that of group secretary of a hospital management committee. I remind hon. Members of the relevant grade definition in this Report:
  "A Group Secretary: the principal administrative officer, responsible for the administration of the group of hospitals and for the work of the Committee. This officer may be medical or lay, but, if medical, should not be engaged in clinical work."
  The group secretary's salary ranges from just over £1,000 to a maximum scale of just over £3,000. The minimum scale is £1,125 to £1,382 per annum. How can it be possible to get anyone of sufficient calibre and with sufficient qualifications to undertake a tithe of the responsibilities as set out in the Report if such salaries are to be paid? I again refer to London because it is the area that I know best, and the financial aspects of living in London are well known. It seems to me that, if we are to have this Report implemented and improve the efficiency of the overall administration in the Health Service and of the hospitals particularly, it is essential to increase the salary scale of people who carry out such onerous duties, because only in that way shall we be able to get people of sufficient calibre to come into the Service.
  Let me come to another point which affects this particular aspect at the other end of the scale. I come to the

  1523
  question of the remuneration of a secretary who comes within the ordinary clerical grade officers engaged in clerical and related duties which may include the handling of particular matters of minor importance not clearly within the scope of defined instructions, and so on.
  Such a person, at the age of 16, if he wishes to come into the service, would enjoy the princely salary of £278 rising to £445 at the age of 21. Many of the post-graduate teaching hospitals are trying to compete in this very important field for people in the clerical grades and I submit that this put an almost impossible burden upon them. It is extremely difficult to get people to engage in this sort of work when the salary cannot increase beyond £445 at 21, although there is a maximum scale which allows such people to enjoy a salary up to £696. I could go through the various grades, but I have chosen one at the top and one at the bottom which cry out for swift re-examination.
  I should like to wish my right hon. Friend well in his new post. I think that he has made a good start by his reaction to the pleas of the general practitioner and I feel that he is in a fortunate position because he follows in the footsteps of a man whom the British Medical Journal recognises as being one of the finest Ministers of Health that this country has ever had. I have a great appreciation for the tremendously valuable work carried out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). After all he is the man who put his hand to this Hospital Plan, and to the Welfare Plan, both of which have his personal imprint. That is why I pay tribute to him.
  7.18 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Grey: I hope that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Johnson Smith) will forgive me if I do not take up his remarks, because, in the interests of brevity, I want to confine myself to one specific issue—the shortage of doctors.
  It was put to me some time ago that during the recent Indo-China dispute it was said that if Nehru had called in all his doctors from this country our hospital services would not have been
  1524
  able to carry on. That is the plight that this country is in. The blame for this position entirely rests with the Government. The Willink Report has been mentioned and my criticism of the Government is that while it was fair that they should have the Report they were far too long in discovering that a 10 per cent. cut in the number of medical students was a bad assessment. When we take into account the 10 per cent. cut in the number of medical students recommended by the Willink Committee we have to measure this alongside the fact that today we are so short of doctors that we have to rely upon 3,760 doctors from abroad to fill the vacancies.
  In addition to this, we have the Robbins Report, which estimates that by 1981 we shall require a further 3,000 medical students. Further, when the House realises that it takes about six years to train a doctor, it will understand the country's plight. This is a situation which demands immediate remedial action. Even if we start now to train doctors it will be six years before the first one qualifies. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) said that it would not be possible to get the first doctor inside 10 years. If we do nothing about this now, we can imagine what this country will be like by 1980.
  I have mentioned the Robbins Report and said that by 1981 we shall require an additional 3,000 medical students. It is said that six or seven new medical schools will be required to cater for this number of students. This information comes to me from a reliable source, although several figures have been mentioned. We hear from the Parliamentary Secretary that all that is proposed is one new medical school. It is shocking that we should be recommended to accept this. I am sure that the hon. Member has not read the Robbins Report.
  Mr. Braine: I am sure that the hon. Member would not wish to misquote me. I said that the University Grants Committee had been asked to advise my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President of the Council, as the Minister responsible for university grants, what provision should be made, and it recommended that at least—and I emphasise "at least"—one new medical school

  1525
  should be planned and that, at the same time, the possibility of further expansion of existing medical schools should be examined. My right hon. and learned Friend has accepted that advice.
  Mr. Grey: That sounds a bit better, but the point is that we are to get only one new medical school. He could have put it to the University Grants Committee that one was not sufficient. I hope that he will consider this point.
  I am sure that the House will forgive me if I put the case for Durham, which I often do when I speak in the House. We must get the position in focus. Regions suffer in differing degrees, and it is because of that that I want to put the case for Durham. Durham University has lost its medical faculty, not because it has lowered its standard, but simply because the universities of Newcastle and Durham have been separated and the faculty has gone to Newcastle. I could stir up many emotions about this, but all I will say is that it is to be regretted that the Durham medical degree, which had become internationally famous, ceased to be awarded after1st August this year. I will cot enlarge on the sentimental side of this argument, because the factual side is even stronger.
  Not one, but at least half a dozen medical faculties are wanted. They should be properly spread throughout the country, and for this reason I want to put in a claim for Durham. One of my hon. Friends said that in Birmingham about 60 per cent. of the students are from overseas. The North-East is so badly off that 51 per cent. of the junior hospital staff are doctors from overseas. It is not without significance that the British Medical Association has stated that there are strong tendencies for young doctors to settle in areas near to the medical schools in which they were trained.
  No matter how good Newcastle is now—and it is good—or will be in future, it is absolutely impossible for it to produce all the doctors required in the North-East. The B.M.A. has also noted that there is great difficulty in filling positions in the industrial North. It recommended—and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will note this—that new medical schools should be silted in the industrial North. That is not a
  1526
  plea from me, but a statement of fact by the B.M.A.
  It is estimated that, by 1981, the population in the Northern region will have gone up from 2,875,000 to 3,300,000. I quote this because of a statement which appeared about a month ago in one of the medical publications—I believe it was the Lancet—which estimated that what was needed for setting up anew medical school was an administrative and geographical area of 1½ million people. On this basis, Durham qualifies for a new medical school, and I can find to better argument in favour of this proposition than the fact that there will be that increase in population by 1981. This is further proof of the fact that, with the best will in the world, Newcastle University cannot possibly provide all the doctors which the North-East needs.
  This argument for a new medical school for Durham is no emotional spasm, because it goes back as far as 1935, when a Royal Commission considered this future development of Durham University There was a committee in 1952 which considered the matter. The members of that committee included the Earl of Scarbrough and Sir Edward Collingwood. If the people who sat on the Royal Commission in 1935, or who served on the committee in 1952. had been able to look into a crystal ball and see the position as it is today, they could not have been more dogmatic in favour of Durham having a new medical school.
  I know that the hospitals come into this matter. We have been promised a 1,000-bed hospital. The sooner we get it the better, because we need it. However, surrounding the university are some hospitals which could work in a kind of network system. These hospitals could be adapted for such a purpose. I would much prefer the Government to announce that they are going ahead with the 1,000-bed hospital. But if we cannot have that, let us at least have the other thing which we need—the medical school; and. as I have said, we could use existing hospitals until the new one is built.
  Durham University itself is backing this proposal with the support of Durham County Council, Durham City Council, Durham Rural District Council, the local

  1527
  branch of the B.M.A. and many other organisations of people not only in Durham but throughout the country. Durham is a grand old cathedral city and the university is ideal for undergraduate medical education. It is in a picturesque setting. Behind it lie hundreds of years of fine scholarship. What more could one wish for a medical school? Durham would also be very suitable from the point of view of residence for students, because all the local authorities will back efforts to see that there is sufficient residential accommodation. I hope that the Minister will favourably consider this request, because if he does he will earn our gratitude.
  7.32 p.m.
  Mr. Daniel Awdry: I hope that the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) will forgive me if I do not follow his arguments about Durham. My knowledge of it is limited. I come from the South and that is a nice place, too.
  I have been present throughout the debate and am the third hon. Member to say something about cottage hospitals. I do not apologise for referring to them again, for this shows the depth of feeling that exists on this topic. I realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) has already made some of the points to which I want to refer, but I am glad to reinforce some of his arguments.
  I understand that the main concept of the Hospital Plan is to concentrate all facilities into these large, district general hospitals. This is bound to mean the elimination of a great many smaller hospitals and such a large-scale operation is bound to lead to a certain amount of amalgamation.
  But a large proportion of the threatened hospitals are staffed by general practitioners and are an integral part of general practice. They are not out of date or old-fashioned, and I wish to put in as strong a plea as I can for their salvation. I am thinking most particularly of the Bath clinical area, where I live, but the principle applies to many other rural areas as well.
  The Bath clinical area is one of the best in the country, because the large number of these hospitals in the area has raised the standard of work done
  1528
  by general practitioners and consultants. To close these excellent hospitals would be a retrograde step. There are four arguments, in my view unanswerable, in support of my case. Some were touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud.
  First, the smaller hospitals were started by public-spirited men and over the years have been sustained and maintained by the generosity of local people. Local feeling runs very strongly about them and if these hospitals are to be closed there will be a storm of protest.
  Secondly, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that there was a tendency to increase visiting facilities in hospitals. That is obviously good for patients. But what is the use of such facilities, if a hospital is to be moved 20 or 30 miles away from the place where many patients live? I suppose that it could be argued that relatives and friends could travel to see them, but that would involve expense just at the very time when the family finances are at the lowest ebb. I believe that hardship will be caused if people have to travel these distances.
  Thirdly, these hospitals give an excellent opportunity for discussion between general practitioners and consultants. New methods of treatment are discussed, anaesthetics are administered and there is opportunity for the general practitioner to keep up to date with operating theatre techniques. I am sure that all medical authorities will agree that we should encourage greater liaison between general practitioners and specialists. It will be extremely frustrating for the keen family doctor if, in future, all hospital patients are to be taken 20 or 30 miles away, where he will lose touch with them.
  Finally, only a very small number of patients are sent on to the general hospitals. The larger proportion merely need good nursing under their own doctor who, of course, knows far more about the background of the patient and his or her family than anyone else. He can thus give a very much better service than the specialist who has no personal knowledge of the family. The Annis Gillie Report says, in paragraph 172:
  "These particular hospitals play a great part in maintaining the high standard of general practice in the rural areas, and even if substitute facilities are provided for the

  1529
  general practitioners in the district hospitals distance may well preclude the rural general practitioner from using them."
  The Report follows this with the recommendation, on page 48, that
  "Many hospitals in rural areas staffed by general practitioners and visiting consultants should be retained."
  It would be a very great tragedy if these hospitals were extinguished.
  Mr. Dempsey: What type of medical cases are treated in these cottage hospitals?
  Mr. Awdry: A great variety. As stated in the recommendation, they are staffed for the day-to-day work by general practitioners and visited by consultants. Ordinary medical cases are dealt with by the ordinary family doctor and these include the simple types of operation. Specialist cases, of course, must go further away.
  We all tend to pay lip-service to general practice and, as the Gillie Report points out, 90 per cent. of all medical cases are treated by general practitioners. The fact is that the general practitioner deals with what is usual in medicine while the consultant deals with the unusual.
  Not long ago a survey was carried out by the College of General Practitioners. A large number of doctors were closely questioned about their attitudes to their profession. They answered a detailed questionnaire and about 80 of the replies were carefully analysed. The doctors questioned were mainly in their mid-30s or early 40s, were nearly all family men with children and all had been in practice for 15 to 20 years.
  Just over 25 per cent. were quite happy with their conditions of work. At the other end of the scale, nearly 25 per cent. said that they did not at present enjoy their work. If we look into the matter more closely we find that their dissatisfaction falls under three main headings.
  First, I sincerely believe that there is a need for a greater feeling of team spirit throughout the National Health Service. Some of these dispirited G.P.S feel that perhaps they do not matter because so much emphasis is given to consultants. I hope that my right hon. Friend will stress that it is the Government's policy that the family doctor service should be maintained as the back-
  1530
  bone of the whole of the medical health service.
  Secondly, I ask my right hon. Friend to see that greater access is granted to ordinary general practitioners to normal X-ray equipment and pathological services in hospitals. This comes out in the Annis Gillie Report, in paragraph 156, and the principle is accepted by the Minister. But it is not implemented in full. Not all general practitioners have access to X-ray departments, and in that way the local doctor loses contact with his patient and a great deal of time is wasted.
  Finally, there is the question of remuneration. I do not want to become involved in detail, but if the family doctor is to do his job properly we must remove from him worries about whether his family can enjoy a reasonable standard of life and whether he can have reasonable premises and equipment to carry oat his job.
  This was brought very forcibly home to me last week, when I was discussing a case with a local general practitioner. He had been called out in the middle of the night to sew an ear on a man after it had been bitten off by a horse. It was a nasty, difficult job, and it took an hour and a half in the middle of the night, and it had to be done well. He calculated that his remuneration for the operation, after deducting his expenses, was 2s. 10d.
  To maintain a competent body of family doctors, we must consider increasing their general level of remuneration, and do it soon.
  7.41 p.m.
  Mr. Maurice Edelman: The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) began his speech with a plea for more beds, and to that extent I have to support him.
  I turn more specifically to the question of the maternity services, in connection with which two extremely valuable reports have recently been published. One is the General Perinatal Survey and the other in the Report of the Maternity Services Emergency Committee of the National Birthday Trust Fund, both of which deal with the appalling fact that today three children are born dead or die every single hour. This should engage the attention of the House very closely.

  1531
  It has been stated that the perinatal mortality rate in England and Wales is relatively substantially higher than in many other countries in Western Europe and certainly the United States. When the survey was made, the figure was established at 32·9 of every 1,000 live births. I believe that since then the figure has declined. The fact remains that it has to be compared with 26 in Sweden, 27·2 in Switzerland, 23·9 in Norway and 29·6 in the United States. Perhaps I may make reference to my constituency. Coventry is a city with a relatively high standard of living. Nevertheless, the perinatal mortality rate is at the high figure of 32·4.
  It is well known to many of us that infants are being born in what can only be described as Dickensian conditions—conditions in which there is no hot water, where asepsis is absent, and where the infant born under domiciliary conditions is born in a manner which makes it inevitable that we have this extremely high rate of mortality around and during the time of birth.
  It is true that the mortality of mothers in childbirth has substantially declined. That is due in great measure to the development of antibiotics and other drugs which counter infections and thereby make childbirth easier. Yet the fact remains that because children are being born in circumstances where midwives and doctors do not have access to equipment and other means by which the life of the child can be saved, we have the appalling situation which exists today.
  The recommendation of the Emergency Committee should be inscribed as the motto for the Ministry for the next ten years. The Committee's central recommendation was that:
  "sufficient beds should be made available in fully-staffed hospitals or wards to enable every mother whose age or health involves a risk to her child at birth to have delivery in a hospital where specialist care and equipment is available in case of need."
  That is not a very academic concept. It is a very relevant consideration, a consideration of equipment. The Survey and the Emergency Committee's Report have established that of the children who are born dead or die shortly after birth 30 per cent, die from asphyxia. My medical colleagues will no doubt confirm the statement in the Report that if adequate
  1532
  equipment and experience in the doctors or midwives were available for resuscitation the number of deaths in those circumstances could be substantially reduced.
  I asked the Minister a question to which he did not give me a satisfactory answer. He suggested that it was the Ministry's intention within the foreseeable future to provide a hospital bed for every mother who sought one. He stated that as a principle. That seemed to me to run counter to what was said on behalf of the Minister at the Maternal and Child Welfare Conference in 1963, that even the existing hospital building programme undertakes to provide hospital delivery for only 70 per cent. of the mothers of the 900,000 children who will be delivered in 1972. In other words, there will be a substantial shortfall in the availability of hospital accommodation for mothers without even taking into account the exceptional increase in the birth rate. The importance of all this to the mother is that only in a hospital can the specialist care be made available which is necessary in order to reduce the high perinatal mortality rate.
  We must all accept that there is a great shortage of obstetric consultants. A point which might have been brought out during the recent Commonwealth immigration debate is that but for the fact that there is a considerable number of Commonwealth consultants engaged in obstetrics today, the lack of consultants would be even greater than it is. But accepting the present situation, since 1955 the number of consultants has risen by only 1·84 per cent. although the number of births has risen by 10·9 per cent. Therefore, there is a very great problem.
  As we all know, the problem has been tackled by emergency measures. If my hon. Friends who represent Bradford had been present, I would have congratulated them on the way in which Bradford has tackled the problem by what is known as the Bradford scheme of short-term release from hospitals so that the mother, having had her child delivered in hospital, can return home for the remainder of her confinement. Here is a specific way in which the Ministry can help. There is a £6 confinement grant. If the mother goes into

  1533
  hospital under the short-term emergency scheme, she forfeits the £6. Many mothers who at home may lack domestic help and the attention which they would get in hospital are reluctant to go to hospital to obtain the advantage of specialised attention and equipment because they fear that they will be deprived of the grant. Therefore, I ask the Minister urgently to consider whether if a short-term release scheme is operated it would be possible for the Ministry to give at least a proportion of the grant to the mother so that when she is at home she can engage proper domestic help.
  I turn from that to the question of midwives. We are all agreed that the midwifery service is outstandingly good and that the midwife is the queen of the confinement period. Because of the circumstances in this country, it is the midwives who do the greater part of the work. The problem remains, however, that in 1962, of 78,000 midwives who were consulted, only 18,000 said that they intended to practise. This reveals a serious situation.
  One of the reasons why the midwives are reluctant to practise is simply because the status of the midwife has not been maintained at a level which is consistent with the important and valuable work which the midwives do. In the past, for example, the midwife had a bicycle. Surely, in the context of contemporary living, the midwife should be provided with a motor car, especially in view of the number of jobs which she has to do. There should be opportunities of promotion and advancement for the midwife. I hope that the Minister will consider the whole question of promotion inside the midwifery service.
  There should be a grade of midwife-matron to which the ordinary midwife can aspire, otherwise it seems to the midwife that, unlike the nurse, her prospects of personal advancement are blocked. The status of the midwife should be raised, and so also should her salary. Only in this way will it be possible to get large numbers of women to return to this honourable profession.
  The position today is that not enough money is being spent on the maternity services. There have been enormous advances in equipment to obtain the advantages of analgesia, there have been
  1534
  great advances in anaesthesia and modern portable equipment has been developed, yet it is true to say that these resources are not available to the midwife in the course of her domiciliary visits.
  The technique of training midwives, although greatly advanced, has been criticised by the Emergency Committee, not in any sense derogatory to the mid wives themselves, but simply because there are modern techniques which could be taught to midwives but which are not being taught. There is the question of episiotomy, something which every midwife is capable of learning, studying and practising. In these specific ways it could, and should, be possible to reduce the perimortality rate of infants.
  It has been asked how the money which is necessary for these purposes is to be made available. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) is not present. I listened to him with great regret when he was defending the making of prescription charges. He said that they were necessary to make money available for other purposes. With his close knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry, the hon. Member might well have applied his attention to reducing the price of drugs. Here, surely, is a direction in which a great deal can be done.
  In 1949, when the late Aneurin Bevan introduced this splendid National Health Service, the cost of prescriptions issued under the National Health Service was £30 million. In 1962 it was £83 million, and this despite the imposition of prescription charges. In other words, the Minister who introduced prescription charges, instead of attacking the drug companies and their methods of high pressure sales, chose to attack the patient, the poorest, those who could least afford the burden.
  If there are any improvements today in the National Health Service, if there is expenditure which is being attributed to worth-while purposes which, I am sure, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has in mind, the fact is that the people who pay for it are not the drug companies, who could pay for it, but the poorest patients, who certainly cannot afford it. Here is something which could be tackled. It is true that some Ministers of Health, of whom we have

  1535
  had several, have made various gestures of shaking their fists under the noses of the drug companies, but all that has been disclosed about the proceedings of the drug companies has come from independent sources.
  For example, that excellent journal Which?, the journal of the Consumers Association, which recently investigated the price of aspirin tablets, showed that prices of identical forms of aspirin ranged from 4d. to Is. 10£d. for twenty-five. In other words, it is certain that for several years—in fact, ever since the dramatic rise in the cost of drugs—the drug companies have been treating the National Health Service as a cow to be milked and exhausted. They have done so with high profits which in America have been challenged.
  It is not without significance that the companies which today dominate the British drug industry are American companies who were tackled by the Kefauver Committee. I wish that the proceedings of that Committee had had wider distribution in this country. The hon. Member for Putney called for a commission of inquiry into various aspects of the Service. I wish he had added that it would be wholesome and advantageous if there were the equivalent of a Kefauver Committee in this country to look specifically into the question of the exaggerated profits of the drug companies.
  These are something about which, I know, the new Minister of Health is concerned, but in an extraordinary way the drug companies seem to have preserved a mystique around their operations which not even Ministries have been able to penetrate. Translated into British terms, what is required is a Royal Commission to call evidence and act in the way in which the Kefauver Committee acted, asking the companies to produce their accounts and calling their scientists, researchers and businessmen for questioning to get at the truth.
  The companies talk always about how much they spend on research and about how they must make these large profits to be able to engage in the necessary scientific research in the interests of the nation. When, however, we look at that research, we find that it is largely made up of promotional research. We have
  1536
  seen some of the advertisements even in reputable papers, which look like new aspects of "pop" culture. Those advertisements are infinitely more commercial than scientific. They have gone in for the kind of promotional development which in America is called molecular manipulation and sometimes, here, the creation of "me too" drugs. All this is merely to try to create attractive packages with which they can incite the general public, and in many cases the National Health Service, to buy their products.
  It has been established that 60 per cent. of National Health prescriptions for branded items are for drugs for which a comparable generic equivalent could be produced at a fraction of the cost. What is the Minister doing about this? I suggest that he should do something about it. I believe that he could cut the cost of the drugs to the National Health Service by 30 per cent. without the nation suffering. If he were to cut the cost of drugs to the National Health Service by this 30 per cent., he could spend the money on improving the maternity services and would earn the gratitude of the nation.
  8.0 p.m.
  Miss Joan Vickers: I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for not having been here throughout the debate, but I had another important meeting and I did not think that I would be able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
  I am glad to have had the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), who takes a great interest in this subject. I agree with most of what he said. I should like every mother to have her first and fourth child born in hospital, for those are the two critical births.
  Perhaps my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will convey to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions what the hon. Member said about the grant of £6, because I believe that that is a Ministry of Pensions matter, although it is important.
  The provision of cars for midwives is a matter for local authorities. Many local authorities do provide cars, but this is a subject on which hon. Members should press their local authorities.

  1537
  I was interested in what the hon. Member said about prescription charges. The Motion speaks of policies which would improve
  "standards of service to the patient and permit the abolition of health service charges".
  I gather that these now amount to about £70 million. If we are to improve the standards, costs are bound to go up as salary and building costs increase. I hope that the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), whom I am very glad to see on the Front Bench, will be able to tell us how the Opposition propose to improve the Service and at the same time to do away with this sum of £70 million. I am particularly interested in that aspect of the subject, because I did not vote for the raising of the prescription charges. I abstained. Nevertheless, I should like to have it proved to me that the charges can be abolished while the Service is improved. Perhaps this can be done, but I have not yet heard any hon. Member prove how.
  The other day, when I was in Brussels on a Parliamentary delegation, I was in the Senate when a debate on health was taking place. Having listened to that debate and having visited and lived in many countries, I am sure that, with some exceptions which hon. Members have pointed out, in this country we have a Health Service of which we can be proud. It is the best all-round service in the world. There are many other services which specialise in one branch or another—New Zealand has always been particularly good about infant mortality and has the lowest rate in the world—but this country has the finest all-round service.
  I was a member of the London County Council for nine years and a member of its Hospitals Committee. I was not on the council in 1930, when the hospitals were taken over by the council, but even in 1937 they were in a fairly parlous state. In 1930 some patients in the chronic wards were sleeping on palliasses, and I expect that the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) will have seen that.
  Mr. K. Robinson indicated assent.
  Miss Vickers: The terrific change from 1930 to 1963 has been astonishing, especially as it has taken place all over the country.
  1538
  I have listened with interest to what has been said, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry), about general practitioners. I agree that the general practitioner is the backbone of our present Service, but how does the fare in this Service? He is at everybody's beck and call. He does not have limited hours of work and he can never be certain when he will be off duty. We will have to consider the general practitioner service and put it on a rather different basis. I suggest that he is given a salary on the lines of that given in the R.A.M.C. and is no longer paid on the per capita basis which is unfair.
  The per capita basis is unfair on the conscientious man and on the doctor in the rural area who cannot get many people on his books. But it has another bad effect. If the doctor wishes to keep up his income, he must accept as patients all those who come to him and it is very difficult for' him to refuse them when they ask for a chit to go into hospital, or a letter for this or that.
  I should like doctors to be given a salary which would be reviewed and on which there would be increments for a number of years, and for the doctor to receive special remuneration if he specialises. For instance, if he specialises in gynaecology, or heart diseases, or ear, nose and throat, or eyes, he should receive a special salary. This would build up the faith of the patients in the doctors themselves. I was very interested in what was said about group practice. I believe that the grouping of doctors is essential, and if we could create surgeries of doctors with special qualifications, individual patients might then not think it necessary to go to hospital. This would considerably reduce the hospital waiting lists. One of the present difficulties is that people really in need of hospital treatment are kept waiting by those who could get the same sort of treatment from their general practitioner, but at the moment the general practitioner is liable to fall foul of his patient if he does not give him a note to go to hospital if the patient demands it.
  The general practitioner is in a lower grade than the consultant in terms of services provided. Invariably he has to do his own secretarial work because

  1539
  he cannot afford to pay a secretary and he has to take his own telephone messages, and in many cases the wives of general practitioners are unpaid secretaries. I was discussing this with some general practitioners the other day and they told me that their general expectation of life was no more than about 55 years. That is something to be drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
  The service of care in the community is building up well. The more we can increase it, the better it will be for relieving the pressure on beds and for the general health of the nation. I was glad to see that the number of home nurses has increased by 20 per cent. since 1951 and that home helps assisted in more than 341,000 cases in 1962. This is a splendid record. The difficulty arises with the mental health services.
  The Mental Health Act, 1959, one of the finest Acts to go on the Statute Book for a long time, has meant that far more help is needed in the community. I was rather disturbed to read that more patients than ever before are being admitted into mental health hospitals. In 1962, 12,907 more mental patients were admitted and the average bed-occupancy in my own area has risen from 95 to 96 per cent.
  Mr. Braine: My hon. Friend is quite correct in what she says about this trend, but it is offset by shortening the stay in hospital.
  Miss Vickers: But bed occupancy is still very high. I am worried about the number of confused old people going into mental hospitals and taking the room of people who are really mentally sick and who, as my hon. Friend has said, go in for a short time.
  We have far too many of the elderly confused in these hospitals. Many schemes have been put forward recently for the care of these people. One was that there should be many smaller homes, with about a dozen people in them. I do not think that that would be economically sound, and I do not see how we could staff such homes. I suggest that there should be more special wards in general hospitals to deal with these people, because this would give nurses the opportunity of doing a different type of nursing throughout their careers.
  1540
  When I was a member of the London County Council, I was told that if one could nurse an old and chronic sick person, one could nurse anybody, because these old people were the most difficult and the most trying to nurse. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the proposal which has been put forward instead of letting these old people go to a mental hospital where the nurses and doctors specialise in mental diseases and not in the treatment of the chronic mentally confused.
  Turning next to care in the community and the idea of more people living out, what is happening about the training of social workers? Unfortunately we never had a discussion on the Young-husband Report, but in that Report it was pointed out that many of our people were aged, and that we were extremely short of the type of worker needed for care in the community. I understand that two-year full-time courses are now being run in Bristol, Coventry, Leeds and Manchester, and that in Birmingham, Liverpool and London similar courses are being started. The National Institute of Social Work Training runs a one-year course, and I had the pleasure of going there and seeing it in action.
  The results of these courses will be of great benefit, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will carry out a survey to discover the number of social workers that we shall need to implement care in the community. At the moment we have no idea of the number required, and I think that far too few areas are thinking about training these people. I have recently taken this matter up with the local authority in Plymouth. The authority is not yet able to implement the scheme, but it hopes to do so in the spring. How many local authorities are thinking about training social workers who are so urgently needed for this work?
  I have spoken about the old, and I now propose to deal with the other extreme, nursery nurses and children. What worries me is that in certain areas children, when they first go to primary schools, are hardly able to talk, and are not always house trained. They have a difficult time starting in school. I was glad to see that the number of nursery nurses is increasing, but I think that it is necessary to have even more nursery

  1541
  schools for these children, particularly the mentally and physically handicapped.
  Far too many parents have the greatest difficulty in dealing with handicapped children. What can a mother do with a five-year old handicapped child, especially if he is autistic? There is often nowhere that she can send him. I know that the provision of more nursery schools will prove expensive, but I think that the results will be worth while in the end, because we now know that many of these mentally handicapped children can be helped to get on in life.
  I am glad to know that my right hon. Friend is to have an annual meeting of the voluntary organisations, including, of course, the Red Cross, and the League of Hospital Friends, to whom we all owe a tremendous debt of gratitude. When we started the hospitals under the State scheme, many of these voluntary organisations had house committees which worked in the hospitals, but I do not think that anybody visualised the tremendous voluntary spirit in this country which created these innumerable voluntary organisations which are doing so much good by helping hospital staff, not only by doing the actual nursing, but by providing entertainment for the staff.
  We also owe a debt of gratitude to the National Old People's Welfare and the Women's Voluntary Service. I hope that my right hon. Friend will encourage all the voluntary organisations to continue with their pioneering work, because they can do one thing which a Government Department finds it difficult to do. They can put into practice some ideas which may be beneficial later on.
  Most of the child welfare clinics were started by voluntary organisations. They were partly taken over by local authorities, but they kept their voluntary status if they contributed one-eighth of the cost before being taken over in the State scheme. I think that voluntary organisations can still be encouraged to play their part in pioneer work which can be extremely beneficial for the future.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend, and wish him luck in his new job. He had a sympathetic outlook when dealing with Income Tax cases. He gave me very favourable answers when I raised cases with him, and anyone who can do that when dealing with Income Tax
  1542
  must have a very agile mind indeed. I hope, therefore, that the Service will benefit as a result of my right hon. Friend's appointment.
  Mr. Barber: If, next year, my hon. Friend would like me to help her once again to fill in her Income Tax return, I shall do so willingly.
  Miss Vickers: It was not my Income Tax return; it was my constituents' returns.
  8.17 p.m.
  Mrs. Judith Hart: My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) raised a point on the perinatal survey on which I want to concentrate my remarks. As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) can probably imagine, I should like to take the time to follow her on what she said about social workers—because she knows that I share her interest in that question—and the possibility of salaried service for general practitioners. I believe that in the Health Service we are bound to move towards a salaried service. Many advantages will accrue from it. Much of what the hon. Lady said has my support, so the Minister can regard it as having been said by me, as it were, in shorthand.
  I turn now to the perinatal survey, because there are one or two points which have not been mentioned. The question to which I direct my attention is the simple one—which babies are dying? Many of my hon. Friends will remember the remarkable work of Professor Titmus and his book, Birth, Poverty, and Wealth, which he published before the war. In that book he showed that the chances of staying alive, the chances of being alive at birth, and the chances of being healthy, varied between one social class and another, and between one income group and another.
  At the end of the war, particularly when the Health Service was introduced, we thought that that book was a thing of the past. We thought that it was something we could leave behind us because the nation would go forward to good health, and to equal chances of survival. But what do we find in this survey? I do not propose to quote the figures, because they have been quoted often enough. If we consider the figures for 1911, 1921, 1931, 1950. and

  1543
  the figures of our own time, what do we find?
  I quote one remark from the survey. Talking of the relationship between one social class and another in our community, it says:
  "The results of this Survey suggest…that the gap may be increasing rather than narrowing between social classes."
  It seems to me that of all the indictments by which one can judge the Government during the last 12 years this is perhaps the most devastating. At the end of this period of 11 or 12 years we can say that the chances of babies surviving are differentiated more by the factor of social class than was the case when they came into power.
  That is a political point, and it is one which my hon. Friends must hold on to and not let go of, because it is the kind of thing that matters when one judges what kind of society we are living in. I cannot think that a good society would permit the number of babies that this society has done to die at, or shortly after, birth.
  Let us look at the way in which this survey establishes the simple fact that the gap is widening instead of narrowing. There is no doubt about the adequacy of the survey, or about the depth with which the statistics were analysed. What was done was to take all the factors which are likely to cause perinatal mortality. There is the factor of whether the mother is having her first, second, third, fourth, or subsequent baby; the factor of her home circumstances; the factor of her previous medical history, and the factor, among many others, of social class—whether she happens to be the wife of an accountant or lawyer, or the wife of a builder's labourer or docker, or farm worker This is the kind of difference that is taken into account.
  Excluding all the other factors—whether it is the first or fourth baby, and the rest—if we take the single factor of social class the survey shows that there is four times as much danger to the baby born in the lowest income groups in our society than in the highest. That is the scale of difference. What emerges from the analysis is the question of what we ought to be doing to decrease rather than widen the gap.
  1544
  What needs to be done in our maternity services so that the child of a farm worker or a builder's labourer has as good a chance of survival as the child of a lawyer or of the doctor himself?
  The two problems that come up are, first, the inadequacy of the number of beds, and, secondly, which people ought to have the use of the available beds? There are tremendous regional variations in this respect. It has already been mentioned that Scotland has a much higher rate of perinatal mortality than does England and Wales. It may be that Scotland has more people who earn less than is the case in England and Wales. Scotland certainly has more people living in bad housing conditions, and therefore a less fair proportion of the number of maternity beds, taking into account the fact that it has to provide beds on a scale suitable for the larger number of mothers who desperately need them.
  But it is not just a question of more beds, and how to select the people who are to have the beds. I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North was still here, because he concentrated on the single factor of home circumstances. The survey shows that to limit perinatal deaths it is necessary to concentrate much more on the single factor of social class and the income group of the mother than upon the home circumstances. In other words, a mother's chances of having her baby stay alive in its first weeks after birth are likely to be affected more by her own background—the question of who her father was, how she was brought up, and at what kind of income level she has lived during her life—than by her home circumstances.
  The high-risk people ought to be considered much more on a social class basis. This means that a whole new way of thinking must be done in our maternity hospitals about the basis upon which cases are selected when there is a shortage of beds. We find that with the high-risk mothers who are having, for example, their fifth or later baby—this is the group which has a very high perinatal mortality rate—only 29 per cent. are booked for hospital delivery. The same thing happens in the case of people known to have a high degree of risk involved in having

  1545
  a baby, and who are not the people who tend to ask to go to hospital, although some may have to be brought in as maternity cases during the course of confinement. We find that 60 per cent. of those having their fifth or later babies were delivered at home.
  One question which will prove to be an issue between my hon. Friends—although perhaps I should speak here only for myself—and the Minister came when the Parliamentary Secretary answered a point made this afternoon about the extent to which the Government need to provide more maternity beds, and the extent to which they are already provided. Here, what again comes out very clearly from the perinatal survey is that if we are concerned to reduce to the lowest possible number the perinatal deaths we must take account, in providing hospital beds, of those hospitals which have consultant hospital services available to them, and not merely general practitioner unit beds.
  This is where the difference will come. I quoted a figure this afternoon, and I have the survey with me, so that I can clarify the point which is at issue between us. The survey says, of the population study, of women having babies, that hospital births were 49·1 per cent., homebirths were 36·1 per cent.; those born in a general practitioner unit were 12·4 per cent., and the rest—born in private nursing homes, or born on the way to hospital, and so on—were 2·4 per cent. The fact that barely half the mothers were confined in hospital is of great importance. The general impression was that the figure was 65 to 70 per cent. We remember the Cranbrook and Montgomery recommendations in relation to Scotland. This false impression of security arises from the reports of the Ministry of Health, which have always included general practitioner beds in the hospital category.
  The perinatal survey says that this is not good enough. It says that consultant hospital facilities are necessary for pre natal care and for delivery, and in most cases continuing supervision is necessary in order to reduce the number of perinatal deaths to the extent to which it is believed they could be reduced, with adequate hospital care.
  1546
  This is why there is such an element of condemnation in what I am saying. In this case things can be done and they are not being done. Beds could be provided which have not been provided, and which clearly will not yet be provided, so that avoidable perinatal deaths and deaths of young babies will continue. The Government are not doing the right things to prevent them. It is as clear as that. The conclusion of the survey is that consultant hospital facilities should be available for at least 70 to 80 per cent. of mothers. Perhaps I might illustrate by reference to what could be done. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) knows of the wonderful record of Aberdeen, where Professor Bury has established that over 90 per cent. of births take place in hospitals where there is a consultant service available and all the excellence of the ante-natal care which is provided in a city where this matter has been taken seriously and where, for many years, the professor has been pushing for the money to do what he thought was necessary.
  On the difference between consultant hospital beds and general practitioner beds let me again quote from the Report:
  "…p;such units"—
  that is, this general practitioner units—
  "must be regarded as having collective domiciliary facilities with improved nursing and domestic services rather than as obstetric hospitals."
  If I may make a constituency point, I have been told that, after a great deal of pressure, a hospital which serves the new town of East Kilbride in my constituency is to have a new general practitioner maternity unit and not the kind of unit with consultant medical services which is what is needed in a new town where large families are being born; where the parents have a background of Glasgow poverty and where there will be a high proportion of mothers in the highest risk groups when having their fourth or subsequent child. I should like a consultant medical hospital unit rather than a general practitioner unit and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will consider the whole of the maternity programme for Scotland, bearing in mind the points which emerge from this survey.

  1547
  There is a further point relating to the question of antenatal care. A surprising number of mothers did not avail themselves of the existing antenatal facilities; or rather, some of them did, but some of them, reading between the lines, seemed to have suffered from the fact that the antenatal care which they received was administered by the midwife and the general practitioner, so that the mothers did not get the proper tests—the haemoglobin and Rhesus factor and blood pressure tests which they should have received—at the proper time. Apparently where it was a case of a combination of general practitioner and midwife only 12 per cent. to13 per cent. of the mothers had the Rhesus factor test, which had a profound implication on the chances of the survival of the baby.
  Here, we must think of the need to integrate antenatal care much more, and make sure that the mother is attended by one person or receives the treatment at one place, and that it is not divided between the hospital, the general practitioner and the midwife. Emphasis should be placed on the need to educate mothers to use the existing antenatal facilities adequately. We have tended to assume that mothers have learned about these things. But it is necessary to go back and concentrate on that matter again.
  Linked with all this is the question of how to start the kind of service which is essential. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North referred to midwives and home helps. Some years ago one of the first posts in sociology which I held involved working for two-and-a-half years for the Ministry of Health, doing social research for a working party looking into the recruitment and training of midwives. I remember the number of investigations which we made. One investigation, I think that it was the first of its kind—it was a very small investigation—established that the chances of examination success, or success in their career for middle-aged women who returned to nursing or midwifery after having their own families was as great, or greater, than among younger women.
  We paved the way to encouraging these people to take up their careers
  1548
  again after refresher or training courses. We shall not solve the problem caused by the shortage of midwives unless we bring back into the service those who are registered but are not practising continually. They may be ready to return to practice if encouraged by the provision of refresher courses and training facilities and adequate salaries. We can solve none of those problems unless we pay reasonable and adequate salaries.
  I emphasise a point which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North. When a student nurse has taken her nursing qualification and wants to go on to become a qualified midwife, she has to go back to student pay. This is ridiculous. Here is a simple decision which the Minister could make and announce to us tonight, which would encourage more people to be trained as midwives. The Minister should look carefully at this. It is tough on hospital midwives to have difficult jobs of actual deliveres and so on in hospital without, as it were, any of the rewards of following up a case and maintaining contact with the mothers when they go out of hospital, particularly when they leave after such a short stay in hospital. Are we sure that it is right to maintain this sharp separation? Would it not be better from the point of view of recruiting more midwives and making the work more satisfactory if we integrated these services.
  If we turn mothers out of hospital after 48 hours because of the shortage of hospital beds and make it necessary for many mothers to have their babies at home when they ought to have them in hospital, we must solve the home help problem. The hon. Lady the Member for Devonport gave the total number of cases in which home helps had been working during the year, but as against every case in which a home help was called in there were a dozen cases where a home help could not be obtained. That was partly because there were not enough women prepared to work the hours required in this service, or at the salary which is offered.
  The National Birthday Trust, in its report, suggest that maternity aids could enlarge the service and help in recruitment to it. Maternity aids could

  1549
  act as a group to supplement the work of midwives to help the mother when she goes home with her baby and perhaps already has three or four children in the family at home.
  Mr. Lubbock: Would the hon. Lady agree that so long as the present set-up lasts there is no incentive for a local authority to do this, because if a mother goes into hospital to have her baby she is outside the local authority's provision of home helps?
  Mrs. Hart: A burden is placed on the local authority to solve the problems which the Government are not prepared to meet.
  As other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, I have made by points as briefly as possible. It is a condemnation of the Government when things can be said which are obliquely said in this perinatal survey. I hope that the nation will realise that if it wants the National Health Service to be a reality and to bring health within the reach of all people, whatever their background, we have to leave behind many of the memories of the last 12 years and start a new era.
  8.38 p.m.
  Mr. Jasper More: The hon. Lady for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) has spoken very eloquently and has covered a large number of facets of the National Health Service. She touched on two matters which are of particular interest to me, the part which local authorities are to play in the National Health Service in the years to come and the disparities between the regions which administer our hospitals.
  I should like to deal with those two topics after I have dealt with what I am afraid the House has heard much about in this debate, the cottage hospitals. I also represent a widespread constituency. All the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) are realities in a widespread constituency such as Ludlow. Involved in this problem is the question of visiting, the question of local generosity, as many of these hospitals were started by charitable private individuals, the focus they provide for discussions between general practitioners
  1550
  and specialists and the facilities they provide for local patients who need only good nursing under the supervision of doctors who know them. These cottage hospitals serve a need for patients which cannot be replaced by a large district hospital 20or 30 miles away. More important is the effect that the abolition of these small hospitals is bound to have on G.P.S, many of whom in my constituency have spoken to me about the concern they feel at the prospect of these hospitals being closed. I am sure that that concern is only too well founded.
  The magnitude of the problem in my constituency can be realised when I say that of our nine cottage hospitals, five will go and one of the remaining four is to be replaced. What has impressed me in the discussions is that this situation causes one to wonder whether the organisation of our hospital service is sound. Is it not time to take a look at the whole organisation of hospital management as we have known it in this country over the years? Hon. Members who have followed recent developments must realise the fundamental improvements there will be in the years to come. These improvements will, naturally, be much greater than those we have seen in years gone by, and if they are to be used to the full there must be effective co-operation between hospital managements and local authorities.
  I serve on a local authority and have served on hospital management committees, so I can claim to have seen the problem from both sides. We cannot always be proud of the things that have happened in the past when considering the co-operation that exists between the two sides. Two examples have come to my knowledge in the last six years. The first is the difficulty of getting building done where it is a combined hospital effort, as must happen in country districts, between hospital management committees and local authorities. I know of a case where construction had to be deferred for two years because the two authorities could not agree.
  The second, and even more important point, is the question of representation on local management committees. In my constituency one of the members of our local management committee was

  1551
  the chairman of the public health committee of the county council. Suddenly, for no reason, he was dismissed from the hospital management committee. That was not a courteous thing on the part of the hospital authorities vis-à-vis. the county council, and it is unfortunate that such things can and do happen.
  I am not a critic of hospital management committees in general, but we are all conscious of the things we see and hear—the long waiting lists, inadequacies of the organisation, unnecessary difficulties and journeys which patients and visitors must endure, and so on. Has the time not come to take a look at the whole question of management committees and regional hospital boards to decide whether improvements need making?
  There is a great contrast between the ways in which these boards and committees are constituted and the ways in which, for example, our local authorities are constituted. The most obvious point to appreciate is that we have no area representatives on the hospital committees and boards. That can be of great importance, as in the present case when the question of whether or not a hospital should be closed arises. Who is to speak? There is no one whose job it is to say, "I represent the district in which this hospital is."
  What happens in my area is that representatives of the regional board make a point of meeting, rather at random, representatives of local authorities if they wish to make a row, or with representatives of the local doctors or local medical committees if they make a row. This discussion takes place, perhaps, once a week with one and perhaps a month later with someone else. I cannot see any co-ordination here. It suddenly occurs to someone to write to the Member of Parliament, who then comes in as well, but the whole thing is haphazard and derives from the fact that there is no specific area representation on hospital regional boards and management committees.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Lanark has referred to disparity between the regions, and I should like my right hon. Friend to consider the elementary question of size. Is there or is there not
  1552
  an optimum size for a hospital regional board? This is very noticeable in my own case. I live within the area of the Birmingham Regional Board, but our population is more than twice as large as that of the Oxford Hospital Regional Board next door. Should we not consider whether there is a right and a wrong size?
  Then there is the important matter of delegation of functions. In very large administrations, such as the hospitals have, a matter of importance must be at what level, and by whom, decisions are to be taken, and at what level there is to be financial authority. We have the situation now that for individual hospitals the decisions are taken, and the financial authority rests, at regional level. Does not my right hon. Friend think that the time has come for more delegation of function, at any rate of hospital management committees, and some delegation of financial authority?
  I subscribe wholeheartedly to what has been said of the wonderful voluntary help the hospitals have, in particular the help they get from those who form themselves into voluntary committees, but I should like my right hon. Friend to take this further, and consider whether there should not be, compulsorily in every hospital a house committee which is, at any rate in part, representative of the local management committee; and whether that house committee should not have some degree of responsibility and financial control.
  A really important question for the future is: ought we not to look at boundaries? If local authorities are to play this important part, as they must, is there not a case for saying that boundaries should be so readjusted that, as far as possible, the local authority area corresponds with the area of the hospital with which it has to work? It may be an extreme case, but in my constituency, although we are within the Birmingham regional area, we are divided between no fewer than three hospital management committees—although we are all in the same county. I think that serious consideration should be given to whether local authority boundaries should not, to some extent, be taken as a model for hospital boundaries.

  1553
  As other hon. Members have done, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment. All of us—certainly, on this side—had the very highest respect for his predecessor. I wish my right hon. Friend well while he occupies this important office, and I am sure that he will find no lack of problems to occupy his attention.
  8.50 p.m.
  Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: This has been a most interesting debate, particularly for me because of the degree to which it has shown that hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that the National Health Service, whatever particular criticisms we may have of it, is one of the finest things that have been introduced into the country for many years. However good the institution, there are bound to be faults in it; there are bound to be human failures.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) for having again stressed the absurdity of closing down small hospitals at this time. Surely the case now is for improving them rather than shutting them down. There might be admirable financial reasons for shutting them down, but where, by their services, they have earned the respect of the neighbourhood in which they are situated, these hospitals should not be closed down wantonly merely on financial grounds.
  During the few minutes at my disposal I want to refer to a matter which has been touched upon by every hon. Member, and that is the position of the general practitioner in this Service and his status relative to that of the consultant. At present, many people say that the general practitioner is the linchpin of the Service, but is that the regard in which he is held by those who are now responsible for the Service? I am not at all sure that it is.
  I believe that the way in which the specialist has been upgraded compared with the general practitioner is the reason for one of the greatest malaises in the Service. There have, of course, been tremendous changes in the character of the specialist, and I do not want it to be thought for a moment that in the criticism I have of certain specialists, though, thank goodness a small minority,
  1554
  I am condemning all specialists. I am not doing anything of the sort. But there have been rather too many instances of consultants under the Health Service treating their patients as soulless clots who are incapable of understanding what the specialist might tell them, if he were so minded to tell them anything at all.
  There has been this tendency to regard them as clots and not to explain their condition and the treatment necessary. In some instances which I could mention there have even been cases of no reports being made to the general practitioner about the condition of the patient. This is an utterly outrageous state of affairs. I will not even say from what part of the country it comes, but I know of one case where the general practitioner was afraid to complain when he had not received a report about his patient from the consultant, because, as he said, "I might need this man's services for my family some time." What a lamentable state of affairs that shows. It is merely because some of these consultants have been so up-graded compared with the general practitioner that they have just not been able to carry their corn.
  Is there any logical reason why a consultant should be paid more than a general practitioner? I do not think that he is a cleverer man. He is a man who has more knowledge of a particular subject and not, in general, more knowledge than the general practitioner. His knowledge is more channelled, and that is all there is to it.
  Mr. More: Is there not something to be said in doctoring for "knowing your patient"?
  Mr. Mallalieu: It is very important to "know your patient", and that is where the general practitioner comes in.
  At the moment, I am pointing out that it is, so far as one can see, accepted almost universally that for some reason or other the consultant, the specialist—call him what one likes—is a man of greater capacity "upstairs" than the general practitioner. This is not necessarily so at all, although the difference in remuneration is colossal.
  Of course, the general practitioner is the kingpin of the Service. It is he

  1555
  who, as the hon. Gentleman says, knows, or should know, the patient, his family background and all the things which concern him and which are of such vital interest to the medical man who is trying to decide what treatment to prescribe. It is the general practitioner who has to fit the report of the consultant into the general picture. There may be several consultants involved and the general practitioner has to fit all their reports into the general picture. In fact, the general practitioner is the commander-in-chief in the operation of making the patient well. It is quite wrong, in these circumstances, that the general practitioner should be regarded, to judge by his earnings compared with those of the consultant, as the scum of the service.
  If he has a full list, the general practitioner may have a gross income of about £2,750, but out of that he has to pay for his professional consulting rooms, for his secretary, for his car, and for his locum when he takes a holiday, if he can afford one. The net result is that his earnings are by no means princely. The specialist, on the other hand—I do not say that he is not worth it—earns far more.
  The point I urge upon the Minister is that there should be a reappraisal of the general practitioner's part in the Service. Is not the general practitioner worth more at present than he is given? Is the Minister satisfied with the intake of general practitioners into the Service? Has not recruitment something to do with the level of remuneration? If the Minister would consider these things, he could do immense good for the future of the Service.
  Whatever the institution, of course, there will inevitably be human failures in it. There were human failures in the Garden of Eden, according to one view of what happened there—although, on another view, perhaps, it was rather a good thing. In the National Health Service in the future, no doubt, there will be human failures as there are now. Nevertheless, it seems to me that one way in which the Minister could make his mark upon the Service and give it a more fruitful future would be to reappraise the position in it of the general practitioner. In my submission, the time has now come to upgrade the general practitioner.
  8.58 p.m.
  Miss Jennie Lee: During the course of this wide-ranging debate, more than enough has been said to justify the Motion of censure which we have put down.
  Straightaway, I pay my compliment to the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. C. Morris) who, in a most sensitive and distinguished maiden speech, emphasised a point which, I believe, all of us on this side of the House would regard as one of the central themes to which attention should be called. He told us, for instance, that, although the average infant mortality rate is two per 100 for the country as a whole, in Openshaw it is three per 100.
  Later in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) returned to the same point, the essence of it being that, after twelve years of Conservative Government, a Government who have had full powers and full opportunity, the maldistribution of wealth in this country is in some respect worse than it was before, and this maldistribution is reflected in the health of the people and their relative chances of health or even of survival in infancy. There have been moments when hon. Members opposite have been speaking that have led me to ask myself who has been governing this country in the last 12 years. I hope that when the Minister replies he will address himself to the record of his party in those 12 years—not tell us about the future, because he will not be there in the future.
  I should like to compliment him personally, but I would be more inclined, at the moment, to sympathise with him, because I think that the Sunday Times, which is not one of our Socialist journals, was quite right when it headlined the fact that he had inherited an awful mess from his predecessor. He has inherited a crisis in a great number of different fields. As I say, I am inclined to ask who has been governing this country.
  Hon. Members opposite have been talking about the plight of the family doctor, the bad food in hospitals, shortcomings of many kinds. Before we go on to deal with specific sins, either of omission or commission, it is well for us to understand, and for the people of this country to understand, how it comes about that hon. Members opposite can

  1557
  stand for such a mass of contradictory evidence and contradictory apologies.
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), in opening the debate from this side of the House quoted from One Nation, produced in 1950, and I think that most of us know it almost by heart. We have also had quotations from the Social Services: Needs and Means, 1952, with which two right hon. Members opposite have been closely associated. It may be said that there has been a change of heart, that the Conservatives are now "with it" and that they have come up to date. In fact, the most recent writings of young Conservatives express the same basic attitude towards social questions in general and the Health Service in particular as was expressed 10, 11 or 12 years ago.
  What is the essence of the Conservative position? The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in his book twelve years ago stated quite boldly that redistribution of income in this country had already gone too far; that the gap between rich and poor had been narrowed too much. Again and again we have heard the plea in those earlier books that a means test should be applied, that no one should receive any benefit from the Health Service unless he was not able from private resources to look after himself. I do not think that hon. Members opposite would contradict that this was the philosophy put forward. What have the young Conservatives got to say?
  A fascinating book was published in 1961 called Principles in Practice, produced by the Conservative Bow Group. Mr. Geoffrey Howe was particularly responsible for it. They certainly have had time to put their principles in practice. Part of the advice given in this book is that the public should insure in private companies and opt out of the Health Service. In order to encourage them to do so, it is proposed in this book that those who opt out of the Health Service should have their tax liability reduced by an amount equivalent to the average cost per head of the service.
  I am not saying that the Minister has reached that point yet and I should be delighted if he would repudiate both the theory and practice of his pre-
  1558
  decessors. We have had about as many different Ministers of Health as Ministers of Defence, but every Minister of Health, however good his personal intentions may have been to begin with, has had to carry out Conservative policy. It is clear, both from theory and practice, that hon. Members opposite do not understand the meaning of a comprehensive Health Service.
  The Government have even failed to give us even an adequate medical service. There is a difference between the two concepts, that is a comprehensive health service and a mere medical service. We are, after twelve years of Conservative rule, asking hon. Members opposite whether they think that they have brought this country to that level of economic well being when we can exempt at least the sick from financial worries when they are sick. We shall have the answer when hon. Members opposite go into the Lobby tonight.
  What is the verdict of those on the benches opposite on Tory rule? Will they say to us that this country had such faith in its people and such vision two or three years after the most destructive war in history that it could say that from our combined resources the strong would look after the weak and that, whatever we had to go without, we would try to provide complete medical care for everyone, beginning with the mother before her child was born? What have hon. Members opposite done to this proud record? They should be providing not just a medical service but health service. Today, we should have been discussing preventive medicine. We should have been discussing health, not disease.
  Even the party opposite should know that some of the main causes of illness today are tension, strain, nervous exhaustion and worry. Can any of us think of anything more liable to maximise strain and nervous exhaustion than for a family, at the very moment that it has to cope with sickness and needs additional income in the home, to be told by the great Conservative Party, "We have had our ups and downs in the last ten or eleven years". It has been rather like the case of the Grand Old Duke of York: we have gone up and then come down again. There have been times when we have been able to come to the rescue of Surtax payers."

  1559
  Every time that there has been an economic crisis, it has been seized upon by the Government as an opportunity to put taxes on the sick and to transfer the burden, so far as it lay in their power, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the employer and the employee. This is Conservative philosophy.
  Hon. Members opposite are not fit to be in charge of this Service. They do not understand it. If, once again, they were entrusted with power, they would be no better in the future than they have been in the past. They would simply try to take one step further towards their ugly, vulgar philosophy of asking the rich to look after themselves and leaving the insured worker, whether industrial or professional, to pay for his services as much as possible from his insurance and his taxation. For those not rich enough to sign a cheque for their child's schooling, for illnesses or for hospital services, if they were not covered by insurance, back they would go to the spirit of the old poor law and then to National Assistance, with a rigid means test making them feel that it is a crime to be poor.
  I could spend the limited time at my disposal in taking each of the health charges one by one—spectacles, teeth prescriptions and the rest—but I consider it more important that we should be completely clear about why hon. Members opposite behave as they do. They belong to what I can only describe as a social handicapped group. Therefore, they must not expect me to be indignant with them or shocked by them. I would rather try to understand them.
  Our medical services are not quite adequate to deal with the physically handicapped and with the mentally handicapped, but I hope that one day we will be able to deal even with the socially handicapped. By "socially handicapped" I mean having many of our Conservative leaders conditioned by birth to segregation. It was not for them in their school years to make friends with the little lad who did not have the right kind of accent. They had to be careful about all their social contacts. I do not blame them. Hon. Members opposite belong to a socially handi-
  1560
  capped class who, from their earliest days, have been conditioned to think in terms of the masses and the classes, in terms of "them" and "us", because I do not for one moment believe that they would ever allow their own children or their parents, or anyone who was close to them or one of them, to be treated in the way in which they expose hundreds of thousands of other children and parents to be treated.
  There is something extremely brash and vulgar about the philosophy of "I'm all right, Jack", but there is something utterly contemptible in the philosophy, "My child's all right, Jack". For the love of one child should come the love of all children. Therefore, I am serious in speaking about enabling hon. Members opposite to understand themselves better. I am talking in all seriousness when I say that there are ranges of knowledge and experience which they simply do not share.
  Hon. Members opposite want the type of society in which the rich look after themselves. They have increased the insured workers poll tax. They have increased the tax on the insured worker three or four times since they came to office, so that the maximum amount should be added to the burden of the employer and the employee, which, incidentally, is a burden upon industry and upon the products that we sell. Thus we have the three categories. The rich look after themselves. The insured worker, industrial or professional, pays through insurance. The third category goes for National Assistance, and National Assistance is made as rigid as possible.
  Do not hon. Members opposite realise what a close link there is between welfare and industrial production? Let them imagine a typical working-class family with the man working overtime so that he has a little extra to spend in addition to rent and food and can go out and be a man among men, standing treat to himself and his friend. Visiting his mother and father, he would enjoy saying to the old man, "Here is 10s. Go out and enjoy yourself". But if he finds when he stands treat to his parents that his father has to use the 10s. to pay for a prescription for cough mixture or his mother has to use it to buy tablets for her rheumatic pains.

  1561
  what do hon. Members opposite think the typical industrial worker feels?
  In other words, it is very important to realise that our social services are part of the standard of living of the country. When one transfers charges to the industrial worker through his insurance payments and when his parents have to use their savings to pay for prescriptions, one is depressing his standard of life. If hon. Members opposite want that, the young man's reply will be, "Right. If I am not going to have my standard of life sustained by civilised social services, then I want more money." Hon. Members opposite have not the slightest chance of carrying forward the country's economy on a buoyant basis with peaceful co-operation in industry.
  Among the many letters sent to me is one from a retired couple. The writer says:
  "I have money invested in Defence Bonds and local government stock that give me an income of £52 10s. a year. Because of this I am barred from assistance and have to pay for four different medicines, milk and a diet out of a health benefit of £5 9s. for myself and wife. Perhaps I should not have said 'a diet', because if you subtract £2 6s. 96. rent you can see my situation."
  Because of his life's savings, this retired worker is placed just a little above the bare retirement pension.
  What hon. Members are saying is "Let us all end up on National Aissistance". Why should anyone trouble to set aside Is., £1, or £100? It seems a lot of money to poor folk. It may be that a worker may save between £1,000 and £2,000, but the investment income from it may be such that he will find that he has to pay for the prescriptions which he gets from the doctor.
  The Conservative Party was the party which was supposed to believe in saying, dignity and independence. But this is why I call hon. Members opposite a socially handicapped class. They think it is quite all right for poor people to come appealing for National Assistance. Consequently, whether we are dealing with the general situation of our hospitals or these disgraceful charges for prescriptions and services, hon. Members opposite are not fit to administer the scheme.
  I go further and say that when the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors had to deal with sick people, old people and
  1562
  crippled people they were very brave indeed. They got their own way. But when they were dealing with some of the highway robbers exacting quite indefensible profits in the drug industry they were beaten They met more than their match.
  No Conservative Minister will really deal with the profiteering at the expense of the sick and the National Health Service and the community because it is alien to his philosophy to do so. There is no point in attacking the pharmaceutical industry for these vast profits and still leaving it to do the research. Many of these firms are sulking. They say, "If you are going to encourage the family doctor not to use our products, we shall not do your research for you." Right hon. and hon. Members opposite cannot do it both ways. There is no answer to the problem unless we are prepared to have competitive public ownership in the drug industry.
  The Government must do proper costing and their own research to know what is happening. The other day I looked again at the Cohen Report of 1951. It set out clearly what had already been begun by the Labour Government and what could have been done by the Conservatives. I remember the joy it gave to many of us on this side of the House when we started investigating the profiteering that was going on, not just in medicine but in all kinds of equipment needed for patients and hospitals. I recall the case of the hearing aids brought down in price to one-tenth of what they had cost before.
  It is nonsense to expect right hon. and hon. Members opposite to do anything about profiteering in any sector of the National Health Service, but I can promise them that in the near future, when what have now become the caretaker Government have got the verdict of the country, we shall be concerned not only to spend money on the National Health Service but also to save money in it. The pharmaceutical industry cannot be tackled, its high profits cannot be tackled, unless we are willing to go into this ourselves, change the costs and do a great deal more of our own research than the Government are doing at present.
  I come now to an aspect that right hon. and hon. Members opposite have not touched—preventive medicine. The

  1563
  other day I was talking to the distinguished head of a dental institute. He was listing the diseases that are the result of dental neglect. The Government have managed in twelve years to begin and complete four hospitals. They have managed to begin and complete one dental institute. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will contradict me at once if I should be misleading the House in any way in saying that.
  When the right hon. Gentleman comes to reply, I would like him to tell us what he has done about preventive medicine. But I can tell him now. He has made it more difficult for children to get their orange juice and cod liver oil. He has made it more difficult for expectant mothers to get their vitamin pills. By the charges on prescriptions he has added money worries to the anxieties of every home where there is sickness.
  I can think of nothing that has been done by the Government that can be genuinely called preventive care. I listened carefully when the phrase was used by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, but he had nothing to say. He talked about the importance of the local authorities and, of course, the Government have managed to transfer from hospital care to the local authority care many of the mentally sick. They have managed in that way to make a bad hospital situation seem a little better than would otherwise have been the case.
  But I wish that the Minister would tell me what he thinks he is doing for preventive medicine when he has these charges on the most vital disease-resisting foods and when he takes them from mothers and children, the most vulnerable in the community, and when he is harassing the health as well as the physique of many old people who are just above the National Assistance level. Far from being preventive medicine, this is exactly the opposite, but I do not see any hope of hon. Members opposite doing anything else.
  A short time ago, I asked a child what a gentleman was. He was a very young boy, but, quick as a flash, he said, "Gentle and a man". He did not say someone who was very rich; he did not say someone who had 1,000 acres or 100,000 acres; he did not say someone who talked with a special
  1564
  quaint accent; none of those categories; he said, "Gentle and a man".
  It is only someone who is both gentle and strong who is fit to be Minister of Health in this country. Gentleness alone is not enough, not when dealing with some of the tougher hon. Members opposite; gentleness is not enough when dealing with some of the great vested interests outside the House. It will take someone who is really tough and who really believes in what he is doing.
  But, at the same time, it needs someone who is prepared to regard all the people of this country as his friends, all the children, all the old and all the young. This National Health Service was hard won. We fought hard to have it. Hon. Members opposite fought hard to prevent us from having it. All that has happened in these succeeding twelve years has proved that it cannot be left to their narrow, unloving, insensitive prejudices.
  9.28 p.m.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Anthony Barber): I hope that the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) will not think me offensive when I start by saying that, whatever views hon. Members may have about the policy underlying her speech, the whole House will recognise the honour being done to her by inviting her to wind up the debate for the Opposition. It is with complete sincerity that I say that it is all the more fitting because of the great contribution to the National Health Service which was made by Aneurin Bevan. I shall have something to say about her remarks in a few moments.
  However, first, I should like to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. C. Morris). His speech could truly be said to have been all a maiden speech should be. He spoke modestly and wittily and he was more or less uncontroversial, although I must say that he seemed to get away with one or two rather telling points. He was particularly concerned about infant mortality, to which I shall refer later, saying now only that he was quite right to stress the importance of effective education of expectant mothers. I join in the congratulations given to the hon. Member by the hon. Member for Cannock, and would say that those of us who were fortunate enough to hear

  1565
  the hon. Member look forward to doing so again.
  It is less than two months since the Prime Minister invited me to become Minister of Health, and I hope, therefore, that the House will allow me one or two words by way of introduction, and a reference to two people in particular. In all I am doing, and in all that I seek to do, I am conscious that I have the advantage of being able to build on the sure foundations which were laid by my predecessor the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Whatever right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite may think, those who work in the Health Service, and those who benefit from it, have cause to be grateful to my right hon. Friend.
  Then there is the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson). I think that it would be ungenerous of me not to admit in public what I have said in private, that I am delighted that it is the hon. Gentleman with whom I have to deal. Although he may from time to time make the mistake of equating good medicine with bad Socialism, he has an intimate first-hand knowledge of the Health Service, and I know that he wishes only to improve it.
  Total expenditure on the health and welfare services this year will amount to more than £1,000 million. Part of the service is administered centrally, and part locally, but one thing that is clear is that if the great range of services is to be used to the best advantage those services must be considered as a whole, in fact, as one integrated service, the overriding purpose of which is to make the most effective provision for those in need. Looked at in that sense, there is no other undertaking in the country which is at once so large and so complex, and that was certainly evident from the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More).
  The difficulties with which any Minister of Health is faced are not simply difficulties of magnitude. There is the added complication that medical science is advancing at a pace which makes it impossible to lay down rigid criteria for the years ahead. It is not simply a question of finance. What was appropriate 10 years ago, or even one year ago, may well be out of date today.
  1566
  I mention by way of example only two changes. In 1949, there were 20,000 deaths from tuberculosis, and the 32,000 beds allocated for its treatment were so inadequate that even in those days arrangements had to be made for patients to be treated in Switzerland. By 1962, the number of deaths had dropped to 3,000, and only two-thirds of the 18,000 beds available were filled. In 1950, if capital had been available—and I think that the hon. Lady will agree with this—we might well have embarked on a major programme of building T.B. hospitals, which, 10 years later, would, have turned out to be white elephants. The decline in infectious diseases has had a similar effect. The 20,500 beds allocated in 1950 had fallen to 6,600 in 1962, and only half of those were filled. Unfortunately, the hospitals for Doth T.B. and infectious diseases were specially constructed and so located as to be of limited use elsewhere.
  I mention those examples to show how difficult it is to plan for any number of years ahead, and I think the lesson is that hospital accommodation has to be so designed that it can be modified quickly and cheaply, and that room must be left for expansion of those departments where the change is most likely.
  No arm of the National Health Service can be said to be pre-eminent but before I came to the Ministry of Health I had always taken the view that the Health Service revolved round the general practitioner, the family doctor. What I have seen during the past few weeks has served only to confirm that view.
  Several hon. Members have referred to the position of the family doctors—the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers), the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw), and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South(Mr. G. Johnson Smith) among them. It is true to say that the supreme duty of the National Health Service is to serve the patient and the individual family. But if the public is to be well served it seems to me that it is essential that the profession should be in good heart.

  1567
  Hon. Members will have read the Gillie Report. I agree with the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North that it it a remarkable document. I have rarely considered a report which is at once so concise and so very readable. The Report draws an inspiring picture of what general practice can become, and it is based on what the best doctors are doing today. I can see no reason why this picture should not become the reality throughout general practice, provided that the profession and the Government work in partnership. There are some things which only the Government can do; there are others which only the profession can do. But each can help the other.
  Hon. Members know that the pay system of general practitioners is a fairly complex one, and I shall not go into any detail about it this evening. The purpose of the pool system is to provide doctors with a sum of money out of which they can meet their practice expenses and be left with a fair level of net pay. It is sometimes forgotten that the Government pay into the pool every penny of practice expenses which doctors incur and which is accepted in their Income Tax returns. This is not always understood, but it is the case. For 1961–62, the sum came to about £31½ million.
  The other element in the pool, amounting to about £53¾ million in 1961–62, represents the net pay which the Review Body says that the average doctor should receive for his public work. This is the element which was increased by 14 percent. last April. All this money—the practice expenses and the net pay—is distributed to general practitioners, mainly in the form of capitation fees.
  This distribution system is not dictated by the Government; it is agreed with the profession. As hon. Members will have read in the Press, the profession is soon to present a case for increased net pay. The profession is not ready to send it to me, and when it does, I shall doubtless seek the advice of the Review Body, so I will say no more about it now. But on the distribution of practice expenses, to which the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North again referred today, I believe that we can make some progress. I certainly hope so.
  1568
  The present system has some very odd results. Again, I shall not go into detail, but the fact is that two doctors with widely differing expenses may be reimbursed to precisely the same extent. One gets more than his actual expenses, and the other less. If a doctor increases his practice expenses, the Government find the extra money, but it does not go to that doctor; it is distributed over the whole profession. In a sense, one can say that this is a useful deterrent against individual extravagance. Unfortunately, it also provides a disincentive to the doctor who wants to increase his expenses in order to improve his standards.
  We have, therefore, asked the profession to consider ways of channelling the money more equitably, and I hope that it will agree. We shall also be discussing the question of capital expenditure. But we do the profession an injustice if we think of it as concerned merely with its own status and pay. Some doctors may sometimes give that impression, but, generally speaking, it is unfair. Doctors want to practise good medicine, and my task is to help them to do just that.
  I have no power—I do not want any power—to compel doctors to adopt an appointments system or to make more use of health visitors and to do all the other things that are recommended in the Gillie Report. That is not for me. Doctors value their individual freedom to run their practices as they wish. But although further progress is, to a considerable extent, in the hands of the doctors themselves, I want, on this the first occasion when I have the opportunity of speaking to the House on health matters, to make my attitude clear. It is to do everything that I reasonably can to help, because after all the overriding objective of us all is to secure the highest standard of medical care which general practice can give.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Would the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to consider the question of deductions from the central pool, which is a great irritant? The harder that doctors work in relation to matters outside general practice the less there is from the general pool. The 14 per cent. award has become a 6 per cent. rise to general practitioners.
  Mr. Barber: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Official Report of what I have said about the 14 per cent. I think that he will agree that I have stated it correctly. The other point had not escaped me.
  A good deal has been said in the debate, by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) and other hon. Members, about the shortage of doctors. I agree with the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North that there is a shortage. But to listen to hon. Gentlemen opposite, one would think that nothing was being done about it. Certainly, hon. Members who have referred today to the shortage of doctors seem to have taken no account whatever of the figures given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, when he opened the debate.
  The fact is that despite the advice in the Willink Report that the annual intake in British medical schools from 1961 onwards should be reduced to about 1,760, in fact, in 1961–62 it was increased to 1,896. The next year it was increased again to 2,047. The October entry this year rose still further to 2,153. The number of family doctors in practice has increased by 3,500 during the past 12 years. Then there was the announcement made by my hon. Friend this afternoon concerning at least one new medical school.
  Mr. K. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has made history, that he is in fact the first Conservative Minister of Health to admit that there is a shortage of doctors?
  Mr. Barber: The hon. Gentleman has already referred to the fact that I have admitted this in an interview which I gave only the other week. It seems to me obvious, in present circumstances, that there is this shortage. If there had not been a shortage of doctors in the past, my predecessors would not have arranged for the intake of medical schools to go up at the rate that it has gone up. I certainly should not seek to minimise the shortage of doctors. But it would be a travesty of the facts to pretend that the Government have not made good progress over these years. The real trouble with hon. Gentlemen opposite is that they proceed from fabricated facts to foregone conclusions. Fortunately, the British public is more
  1570
  intelligent than some hon. Members opposite seem to realise.
  A good deal has been said about nurses, and the first point which the House should be in no doubt is that there is no shortage of recruits. I ask hon. Members to remember that the pay of nursing staffs was increased by 7½per cent. last year and again by an average of 6½ per cent. this year, and within the last fortnight it has been agreed that over a period there will be a reduction in hours.
  One fact which has struck me as somewhat strange is that there is no general yardstick for measuring staffing needs. The needs are determined locally and in different ways. What we must do, and, indeed, are doing, is to try to find a better method of assessing individual hospitals nurse staffing needs. I have already said that there is no general shortage of recruits. The truth is that, for one reason or another—the most obvious being marriage—a good many women leave the profession, although we should not forget that the number of qualified nurses still practising today is an all-time record. That certainly does not bear out the assertion of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North that they are disheartened.
  My hon Friend the Member for Stroud, who referred to part-time nurses, may like to know one striking fact. During the past 12 years the number of part-time qualified nurses in the hospital service has almost doubled. I am quite sire from all I have seen so far that much more can be done in some hospitals to make the best use of nursing staff and to relieve them of non-nursing duties.
  I have been getting round the hospitals during the past few weeks and I mention a few possibilities: the rearrangement of duty rosters to enable more part-time staff to be used, the introduction sometimes of five-day wards to enable waiting lists for minor operations to be dealt with more quickly—these can be staffed largely by part-time staff—the greater use of nursing auxiliaries and ward orderlies and the grouping together of patients according to nursing needs. My right hon. Friend's Hospital Plan will help by providing more facilities in out-patients' departments so that patients can undergo investigations and treatment

  1571
  there rather than being admitted to the wards.
  I turn, in the limited time available, to maternity services, to which so many hon. Members have referred, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) and the hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart). The first thing I want to do is to express my gratitude to the National Birthday Trust Fund for having set up a body of such distinguished practitioners to consider the problem of the maternity services. There are two important points about the report on perinatal mortality which should be recognised, although they do not diminish at all either my concern about the shortage of beds and the shortage of midwives, or my recognition of the great importance of the Report.
  The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North said that according to the survey perhaps 100 deaths a week or more could be prevented. The Report itself fairly points out that it is impossible to assess what proportion of deaths recorded could have been prevented. The second point is that all the data in the Report on perinatal mortality relates to a period more than five years ago, early in 1958. This is important because since then a considerable amount of work has been done. I have the figures for perinatal mortality, both for stillbirths and live births, but I shall not weary the House with them because I have a great deal more to say.
  Mrs. Hart rose—
  Mr. Barber: I have not very much time and if the hon. Lady will allow me to continue I shall not give way.
  The House will agree that great credit is due to the devoted men and women in the maternity service who have been responsible for the improvement since 1958.
  Mrs. Hart: May I ask one brief question? Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a reasonable assumption that the perinatal rate achieved in the highest social class could have been achieved in the lower classes if proper maternity provision were made?
  Mr. Barber: I hope that we shall increase the average rate across the
  1572
  whole country. I was about to say that it is obvious that we must try to do much better. To anyone like myself, with two healthy children, even one solitary family tragedy, especially when one has seen it close at hand, is a distressing reminder of the extreme urgency of this problem.
  One of the principal reasons for the present difficulty is that the birthrate has risen more steeply than any of the experts could have foreseen. The remarks of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North were, to say the least, a little ungenerous to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. The action required is twofold, more midwives and more maternity beds. In the need for more midwives we start from the position that in the hospital service the number of full-time midwives has gone up by 19 per cent. since 1958 when the report was made and in the same period the number of part-time mid wives has gone up by 51 per cent. The number of pupil midwives has also increased. But this is still not enough. The answer lies largely in improving the working conditions of midwives and, in some cases, in delegating work to other staff and, in other cases, in the better organisation of midwifery departments. I heard the other day, for example, of one hospital which is encouraging the return of part-time staff by providing a nursery for children of the staff.
  Then there is the domiciliary service. The numbers here have been increasing, but some areas still need more. There is no shortage of qualified midwives. The task is to persuade them to return to practice and many local authorities provide houses and cars. The hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) mentioned that many midwives were still riding bicycles. My own wife thinks that every midwife should be given an E-type Jaguar. Many local authorities have introduced rot as for night duty and many are employing more part-time staff for post-natal care.
  This is the right sort of approach, but the other need to enable us to cope with the unforeseen rise in the birthrate is more maternity beds. I accept without qualification the opening words in the summary of recommendations of

  1573
  the Committee's Report, which are to the effect that the Committee considered that sufficient maternity beds should be available in fully staffed maternity hospitals or wards to enable every mother whose age or health involves a risk to her child to have her baby delivered in hospital.
  The original Hospital Plan, introduced by my right hon. Friend, provided for a net addition over the next 12 years of 6,500 new maternity beds. Since then it has been revised, and, as hon. Members know, provision has been made for a further increase. I am asking regional hospital boards to bring forward as far as possible the starting dates for the construction of new maternity units or extensions to existing units. In those areas where the need is most pressing I want them also to consider bringing to maternity use every bit of other ward accommodation. And the closing of some maternity units due for eventual replacement can be deferred.
  My Chief Medical Officer is arranging to hold a conference of representatives of all the main professional bodies concerned with maternity services. The Chief Nursing Officer is also arranging a meeting of maternity matrons and superintendents of maternity units. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North said he thought that a State-registered nurse, when taking a midwifery course, reverted to the pay of a student nurse. A State-registered nurse who takes a midwifery course, which lasts for about 12 months, gets the rate of pay of a pupil midwife, that is true, but the hon. Member will be pleased to know that three weeks ago arrangements were made which will enable a hospital which has a nurse who is willing to train and subsequently to return to practise as a midwife to make up to her the difference between her pay as a pupil midwife and her pay in her previous nursing post.
  There was much more I wanted to say about all we are doing in industrial building and in other respects. I had also hoped that I would have had time to say something about the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) concerning the pharmaceutical service. I listened not only with interest, but with some
  1574
  concern, to what my hon. Friend had to tell me. I can assure him that I am well aware of the essential part played by the service. My hon. Friend asked about new legislation. The intention certainly is that it should deal with medicines and not just with poisons.
  As to the closing of small hospitals—and this subject has been referred to by many hon. Members—I know that some people are still concerned about this matter and I would, therefore, like to give four assurances. First, the Hospital Plan does not represent final decisions on the future of the individual hospitals named in it. Secondly, no hospital will be closed unless and until there is alternative provision for the services which are needed. Thirdly, as long as I am Minister of Health no hospital will be closed without my personal consideration and approval. Fourthly, even where a small hospital is no longer required for its present use we shall consider the possibility of using it for some different function.
  The Opposition Motion says that the Government are not securing "improved standards of service", and the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock—and, indeed, the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North—referred to the record of Conservative Government; for the last 12 years. The hon. Lady asked me to deal with that record, but perhaps I might put a few questions. Is it not an improvement that during the past 12 years there has been an increase of 34 per cent. in the number of in-patient courses of treatment in our hospitals? Is it not an improvement that some 400 new operating theatres have been provided since 1948—most of them since 1951—and that 157 more are now under construction?
  Is it not an improvement to spend £52 million on hospital building, as we are doing this year, rather than £11 million in 1951—the year in which the Labour Government unnecessarily cut the social services? I am quoting from the present Leader of the Opposition, who said that an "integral part" of the Budget proposals of his right hon. Friend the Socialist Chancellor
  "…involves the first cutting-in to our social services…I cannot believe it to be necessary."—[Official Report, 24th April, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 229.]

  1575
  Yet the Opposition have the nerve to table a Motion regretting this Government's failure to secure improved standards.
  Of course, there remains an immense amount to do in practically every field, but the terms of the Opposition Motion bear no resemblance to the truth. Is it not an improvement that since we came into office, while the total population has increased by less than 7 per cent. the number of nursing and midwifery staff in the hospital service has increased by 30 per cent., and the number of family doctors by 18 per cent.?
  The very last Budget of the Labour Government provided for what the Socialist Chancellor was pleased to call "A slight increase in expenditure on health." That was a mere £7 million above the previous year. Since the present Government has been in office, the current annual expenditure on health and welfare has increased by more than £500 million.
  What is the only positive proposal in the Opposition Motion? It is to abolish the health charges. One would think that the idea of such charges had nothing to do with the Labour Party. Nobody would believe that it was a Labour Government which first imposed charges for false teeth and spectacles. Nobody would believe that, together with some 250 other hon. Members, there went tripping into the Lobby in support of those charges, not only the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North, but the
  right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
  The idea now is to abolish the charges at a cost of £50 million. Let the House realise what that would mean. It would mean that expenditure on the Health Service would have to be cut by that amount, or that there would be the same amount less for some other public service which no member of the Opposition has been frank enough to specify, or that taxation would be increased to the same amount. The reason we are not told which choice a Socialist Government would make is that it would tarnish one of the Labour Party's brightest electoral gimmicks, but I have absolutely no doubt that the people of Britain would infinitely prefer to keep these Health Service charges rather than to slow down the development of the Service, which was admitted by the last Labour Minister of Health.
  We on these benches have good reason to be proud of what has been achieved, and we do not mean to be diverted from our task of further expanding and improving the Health Service either by the magnitude of the plans which my predecessors have set in train or by the nebulous promises of the party opposite which, on past performance, it has no hope of fulfilling.
  Question put. That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question: —
  The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 249.

  Division No. 7.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Albu, Austen

  Darling, George

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Gunter, Ray

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Delargy, Hugh

  Hannan, William

  Barnett, Guy

  Dempsey, James

  Harper, Joseph

  Beaney, Alan

  Dodds, Norman

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F.J.

  Doig, Peter

  Hayman, F. H.

  Bence, Cyril

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(Rwly Regis)

  Benn, Anthony Wedgwood

  Driberg, Tom

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Benson, Sir George

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Hllton, A. V.

  Blackburn, F.

  Edelman, Maurice

  Holman, Percy

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Holt, Arthur

  Bowden, Rt. Hn. H.W. (Leics, S.W.)

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Hooson, H. E.

  Boyden, James

  Evans, Albert

  Houghton, Douglas

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Fernyhough, E.

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Fitch, Alan

  Howie, W. (Luton)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Fletcher, Eric

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Forman, J. C.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Chapman, Donald

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Hunter, A. E.

  Cliffe, Michael

  George, Lady MeganLloyd(Crmrthn)

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Collick, Percy

  Ginsburg, David

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Gooch, E. G.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Cronin, John

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Crosland, Anthony

  Grey, Charles

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Dalyell, Tam

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon, James (Llanelly)

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  O'Malley, B. K.

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Oram, A. E.

  Small, William

  Kelley, Richard

  Owen, Will

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  King, Dr. Horace

  Padley, W. E.

  Snow, Julian

  Lawson, George

  Paget, B. T.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Ledger, Ron

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Steele, Thomas

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Parkin, B. T.

  Stonehouse, John

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Pavitt, Laurence

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

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Peart, Frederick

  Swingler, Stephen

  Lipton, Marcus

  Prentice, R. E.

  Taverne, D.

  Loughlin, Charles

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Probert, Arthur

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Tomney, Frank

  McBride, N.

  Randall, Harry

  Wainwright, Edwin

  MacColl, James

  Rankin, John

  Warbey, William

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Weitzman, David

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Reid, William

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Whitlock, William

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

  Rhodes, H.

  Wigg, George

  Manuel, Archie

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Marsh, Richard

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Willey, Frederick

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Millan, Bruce

  Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Ross, William

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

  Monslow, Walter

  Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Moody, A. S.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

  Short, Edward

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Morris, John

  Silkin, John

  Zilliacus, K.

  Moyle, Arthur

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Mulley, Frederick

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Redhead and Mr. McCann.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Critchley, Julian

  Hollingworth, John

  Aitken, Sir William

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Hopkins, Alan

  Allason, James

  Curran, Charles

  Hornby, R. P.

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Anderson, D. C.

  Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

  Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Doughty, Charles

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony

  du Cann, Edward

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Barter, John

  Duncan, Sir James

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Batsford, Brian

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Elliott, R.W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Bell, Ronald

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Jackson, John

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  James, David

  Bidgood, John C.

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Biffen, John

  Fell, Anthony

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Foster, John

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Bingham, R. M.

  Fraser,Rt.Hn Hugh(Stafford&Stone)

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Bossom, Hon. Clive

  Gammans, Lady

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Gardner, Edward

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Box, Donald

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Kirk, Peter

  Brains, Bernard

  Goodhew, Victor

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Brewis, John

  Gough, Frederick

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Green, Alan

  Leather, Sir Edwin

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Leavey, J. A.

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Grosvenor, Lord Robert

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Bryan, Paul

  Gurden, Harold

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Buck, Antony

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Bullard, Denys

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

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

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Longden Gilbert

  Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Harvey, Sir Arthur vere(Macclesf'd)

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Chataway, Christopher

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Hastings, Stephen

  MacArthur, Ian

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Hay, John

  McLaren, Martin

  Cole, Norman

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs)

  Cooke, Robert

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Cooper, A. E.

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

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Maddan, Martin

  Contain, A. P.

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin

  Maitland, Sir John

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Holland, Philip

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  1578

  1579

  Martowe, Anthony

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Temple, John M.

  Marten, Neil

  Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Mawby, Ray

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Thornycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

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

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Turner, Colin

  Neave, Airey

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

  Roots, William

  van Straubenzee W. R.

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Charles

  Russell, Ronald

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Sharples, Richard

  Walder, David

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Shaw, M.

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Shepherd, William

  Wall, Patrick

  Partridge, E.

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Peel, John

  Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Percival, Ian

  Speir, Rupert

  Whitelaw, William

  Peyton, John

  Stainton, Keith

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Pitman, Sir James

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Wise, A. R.

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Stodart, J. A.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Pott, Percivall

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Pounder, Rafton

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Talbot, John E.

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Woollam, John

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

  Pym, Francis

  Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Teeling, Sir William

  Mr.Chichester-Clark and Mr. Finlay.

  Proposed words there added.
  Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes both the considerable expansion of the National Health Service which has taken place in recent years and the further improvements which will be brought about by the policies of Her Majesty's Government.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

  WAYS AND MEANS
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir Robert Grimston in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964, the sum of £40,084,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Green.]
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

  RATING (INTERIM RELIEF) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to England and Wales for grants to rating authorities, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

  (a) of any expenses of the Minister of Housing and Local Government incurred—

  (i) in making to rating authorities in the case of whom, in the year 1964–65 or any subsequent year, the number of persons over the age of sixty-five estimated to be included in the population of the authority's area exceeds one-tenth of the estimated total of that population a grant in respect of that year at a rate of five pounds per head of the excess;

  (ii) in making to rating authorities who have afforded relief for any year in accordance with the said Act to the residential occupiers of dwellings a grant equal to half the aggregate amount of that relief plus one-sixth of the amount, if any, by which that aggregate amounts exceeds three per cent. of the gross rate income of the authority's area for that year within the meaning of the Rate-product Rules 1959 or the Rate-product (County Boroughs) Rules 1959;

  (b) of any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other Act.

  Resolution agreed to.

  RATING AND VALUATION
  10.14 p.m.
  Mr. James MacColl: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Rating (Charitable Institutions) Order 1963 (S.I., 1963, No. 1361), dated 1st August 1963, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th August, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled.
  One of the main disadvantages of the negative Resolution procedure as applied to Statutory Instruments is that it is not possible to get a clear explanation of what a Statutory Instrument is about before one starts discussing it. I confess that there is a good deal about this Statutory Instrument which I find uncertain and rather obscure and on which I should like to have information. I can only try to give what seems to me to be the broad effect of it.
  In the 1961 Act there is a provision that all charities should have a mandatory rating relief of 50 per cent. In the First Schedule of the Act there is a provision that certain institutions, mainly universities, should be exempt from that exemption. In other words, they have to pay the full amount of rates.
  I understand that this Statutory Instrument does two things. First, it adds certain institutions to the Schedule and makes them liable to pay full rates, whatever they may be. It also takes certain colleges out of the Schedule. Most of the bodies which are to be brought into the Schedule are new universities, all in varying degrees of development, except Keele, which appears under another name, namely, the University College of North Staffordshire, in the third paragraph of the Schedule. Just to make things easy for the layman, it has had its name changed in the Order, but that does not make any difference to the position. The other universities concerned are East Anglia, Essex, Kent at Canterbury, Lancaster, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Sussex, Warwick and York.
  This is an extremely interesting Order because it marks the beginning of what I suppose will be a very considerable rating or derating operation. As more and more universities come into existence as the Robbins Report is
  1582
  carried out, more universities will be coming into rating, and, therefore, we will have more Orders adding them to the Schedule.
  I think that it should be made clear what the discussion is about. It is not about whether places of higher education should pay rates, but about who should pay the rates. In other words, the question is whether these places should be derated so that the burden falls on the local authority—because, broadly, that is the effect of derating—or whether they should be rated and the rates paid, not by the institution, but by somebody else who will find the money for the institution. That is the first point about which I want to ask the Minister.
  During the Second Reading of the Rating and Valuation Bill, the Home Secretary, in talking about the Schedule, said:
  "Let me hasten to make it clear that the universities will in no way suffer thereby. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is ready to give assurance that any additional rates failing on them as a result will be taken into account in determining the amount of recurrent grants to be paid to them from the Exchequer. It is simply a question whether the money will come from the taxpayers or from the other ratepayers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1960; Vol. 631, c. 402.]
  That is fairly clear, and I suppose that it has been carried out. However, it does not deal with one serious aspect of this, namely, upon what basis of assessment universities are rated. It may be that, although on paper the full value is being paid, if the method of assessment produces a low result, the other ratepayers suffer.
  What is happening in the case of new universities? It is one thing to say that if there is a difference in the valuation on the University of Leeds or of Sheffield, the difference that will be paid by the Exchequer is a fairly clear sum. In almost every case mentioned in the Statutory Instrument, however, these universities ire green fields and at some stage came, or will come, into development.
  Could we be told at what stage these Orders will be made? At what stage does a university ripen sufficiently for it to be brought into rating and into the Schedule? Can we be sure from the

  1583
  Minister that the difference between the rateable value of a green field—which has normally, I suppose, in many cases been rated as agricultural and may well be zero—and the full rateable value as it is developed into a flourishing university will be met by the Exchequer? Will it be met immediately, or will there be a time lag before these payments are made? What is the machinery for beginning to pay the rates on the universities?
  That is all I have to ask in the case of the universities which are being brought into rating. The only other thing which I want to ask comes later concerning those which are being taken out of rating. We have been given a cryptic statement, which, again, is one of those triple negatives, because things are put back into the Schedule and then taken out again.
  I understand that the university of London will not now cover Goldsmiths' College. In other words, full mandatory derating will occur in the case of that College.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): The hon. Member is being so correct in his analysis that I should like to put right the one mistake which he is making. It is not full mandatory derating, but 50 per cent. mandatory derating. I should ask him to read that back throughout his speech where he has referred to full derating.
  Mr. MacColl: I meant the full amount as provided for in the principal Act.
  It will be interesting to know why, particularly, Goldsmiths' College has been singled out for this treatment. Is it something that has changed about the constitution of the college since 1961, or is it something that has always existed in the college but has only just been discovered? It should be regarded with a good deal of care, because the effect of taking Goldsmiths' College out of the Schedule and making it subject to derating for the 50 per cent. is bound to have an effect on the rateable value of the area in which the college is situated.
  I must declare an interest. At one remote time in my career, I was a member of the delegacy of Goldsmiths' College and I think I am right in saying that it is in the County of London, although I am not certain which borough it is in.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: Deptford.
  Mr. MacColl: I thought that it was south of the river. What will be the effect on the rateable value in the County of London in general, and of Deptford in particular, of allowing Goldsmiths' College to be derated.
  When the original Bill was being passed, there was a good deal of discussion about the effects of the derating of these colleges. One of the arguments that was used was that there was no need to worry very much about this, because most of the places which had educational institutions got rate deficiency grants. Therefore, if one takes a college and reduces the rates to be paid on it, the only main effect of it is that it is picked up by the rate deficiency grant and there is virtually no trouble as a result.
  I should like to know in the case of each of these institutions—Goldsmiths' College is one, and then there is a series of theological departments or colleges and also the Lister Institute of Preventive Medicine—whether they are in rating areas in which rate deficiency grant is paid or whether they are not.
  There is a good deal of distress among local authorities about the effect and impact on their areas where colleges are subject to a very substantial amount of derating so that the product of a 1d. rate is very substantially reduced and they do not get any rate deficiency grant and so the whole burden must fall on the authority. There is no precept by which they can spread the effect. In the case of Goldsmiths' College there is a precept and an equalisation grant within the county, and, therefore, it may well be that the effects of derating in this case will be spread over a comparatively large area.
  What is the position with the other institutions? Are they in areas where there is no means of spreading the burden and it must fall on one authority, or are they in areas where there is a reasonable chance of spreading it?
  Also, what is the method—this is a technical question—of assessing the rateable value of these colleges? Is the principle followed that which was laid down by the Lands Tribunal, or, more correctly, by the Court of Appeal which to some extent followed the Lands

  1585
  Tribunal in the case of Magdalen College, Oxford, and the other colleges which were subject to appeal on their method of assessment?
  I believe that that is the leading case in this field. Here I walk on very treacherous ground, and I may have got it all wrong. I think that, put simply, the position is that in the case of those colleges it was decided to follow what is called the contractor's method of assessment. There are two steps in that method. First, one determines a capital value for the whole educational plant, if I may use an Americanism—the network of buildings; residences, laboratories and the rest—and then one finds a rate of interest from which one calculates the notional or hypothetical rent. On the rate of interest depends one's ultimate rateable value.
  I could refresh the memory of the House about the Magdalen College case by reading an extract from the judgment of the Master of the Rolls, but perhaps I need not waste time. What was said was that the normal commercial interest rate which is used for calculating the value of a commercial undertaking which is being assessed by the contractor's method is 5 per cent. Because the buildings in Oxford were financed partly by charitable, benevolent and endowment gifts, the rate of interest was halved—to 2½ per cent.
  One of the things which brings startling light to the layman is that in the Shrewsbury School case, decided just previously, the rate of interest was calculated at 3½ per cent. Far be it from any layman to understand why the wise, good and just men who decide these matters assessed the rate of interest for Shrewsbury School as greater than that for Magdalen College. I would not know. But I should like to know whether the rate of interest is 2½ per cent., or whether it will be something greater. If this doctrine is being accepted that the commercial rate of interest is to be reduced by half or by some other reduction factor because the institution concerned is a charity and financed largely by a benevolency, by endowments and so on, then it seems to me that these educational institutions are getting double relief.
  They are getting relief, first, because it is said, "If this were a commercial
  1586
  concern we would capitalise the rate of interest at 5 per cent. Because it is an endowment we are making it 2½" Therefore, the gross value is being cut by half as compared with a full commercial building. One is, therefore, bringing into one's calculations at that early stage a factor of reduction for purposes of a charity and for the purpose of recognising the source of the fund.
  If that applies to Goldsmiths' College, it seems to me that there is a strong case for saying that there should not be a double relief by taking it out of the Schedule and by giving it the 50 per cent. mandatory relief. I am not saying that Goldsmiths' College should pay the full amount of these rates, but I am saying that it is wrong for this burden to kill doubly in this way on the rating authority. The college should not be subject to derating virtually by the fact that its character is taken into account in calculating the assessments and also by being given this mandatory relief of 50 per cent. That is unfair, a kind of double scissors movement.
  If what I say about Goldsmiths' College and the other theological colleges is correct, why does the Minister want to take them out of the Schedule? The fairest thing would be to leave them in the Schedule instead of letting them be a burden on the rating authority.
  I should like to see these matters cleared up because we are at the beginning of what I believe will be a very long series of these Orders, some putting things in and others taking things out. Therefore, my hon. Friends and I thought that it only right that the implications of this Order should be fully appreciated and discussed.
  10.35 p.m.
  Mr. G. W. Reynolds: My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) has drawn attention to the institutions which are being newly added to the Schedule by this Order, and, as my hon. Friend has suggested, there are others which will be coming along no doubt in the future, and they are in the same position, as many at present in the Schedule, namely, to charitable trusts, which, if they were not included in the Schedule, would get mandatory relief. No doubt they will also have the nerve to apply for discretionary

  1587
  relief, although I think that they might get short shrift from local authorities if they did. Still, no doubt, they will try to get it.
  The main reason for their being in the Schedule is that they are financed through public funds. They will in due course provide a large chunk of rateable value in the areas in which they are, and as a large part of their costs are provided for by public funds, and as they are not real charities in the normally accepted sense of the word, they should, therefore, bear their full share of rates. I think that this is right and proper. Having at last got a proper standard valuation for all hereditaments right over the country, we are now in the position, by the 1961 Act and by a Bill which is now before the House, of mucking the whole lot about again. Tonight, we are dealing with those being put in the Schedule here.
  What I should like to know is why these properties are being put into the Schedule and some others which receive grants from public funds are being left out. These colleges are being put into the Schedule, but it is a prerequisite of being accepted by the University Grants Committee that they are scheduled as universities. They manage to obtain from local sources, industrial or commercial or otherwise, a certain amount of endowment to bear part of their costs, but, nevertheless, the major part of their costs is met from public funds. There are other institutions whose entire costs are met from public funds, where there is virtually no private money involved at all, and yet they, because they happen to be registered charities, are entitled to 50 per cent. reduction in their rates.
  I refer particularly to12—I believe that it is still 12—colleges of advanced technology, in their present form created since the 1961 Bill went through the House and became an Act. In 1961, those institutions had recently been recognised, though they were at that time entirely under the control of local education authorities, with boards of governors appointed by the local education authorities and they were registered for rating purposes in exactly the same way as any technical school or any other school which came under the local education authorities. Therefore, they
  1588
  were not put into the Schedule to the Act at that time; it was not necessary at all; but since the Act was passed the status of these colleges has completely changed.
  They are now taken right outside the local government field. They are now governed by charitable trusts. They receive 100 per cent. of their income direct from the Ministry of Education. In due course, if the recommendations of the Robbins Report are accepted, as, we are told, in general they are, by the Government, these colleges will become universities, and then presumably they will come—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I think that he is getting a little far from this Order. He may, if he wants, give a little background explanation, but I cannot relate to the Order what he is now saying. Perhaps he will help me.
  Mr. Reynolds: I will do my utmost, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to keep within your Ruling.
  The point I am trying to make is that these colleges which are being added to the Schedule are partly, not entirely, financed by public funds. I am in favour of adding them to the Schedule. I understand the Minister is looking at certain other establishments, colleges of advanced technology and others, and what I am attacking is his dilatoriness in the matter, because I am disappointed because the Order is not designed to cover all the matters which I think it ought to cover.
  In my view, various educational institutions, particular colleges of advanced technology, ought to be included in it. We have 12 authorities losing at present, because of the present position, several thousands of pounds each by way of rate income. The beneficiary is the Minister of Education. The losers are the local ratepayers. I ask the right hon. Gentleman for an undertaking that the wider aspects of this are being looked into and that the C.A.T.s will be included in the near future.
  10.40 p.m.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): I congratulate

  1589
  the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) on his largely accurate homework. He has correctly described the contents of the Order and has related it correctly to the 1961 Act. To put it neatly again, charities were, under that Act, entitled to 50 per cent. mandatory relief, plus any additional discretionary relief at the discretion of the local rating authority. Institutions listed in the First Schedule were excluded from that mandatory relief because they were supported by the University Grants Committee—that is, by public funds channelled from the Treasury through the Committee.
  It was then explained by my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary that the Schedule would need alteration from time to time as new institutions supported by the U.G.C. came into existence and he warned that it would need reviewing also in case any of the institutions included at first did not, on closer inspection, qualify in the way I have described.
  The Order adds a number of new university institutions to those that are, by the Schedule, excluded from the 50 per cent. mandatory relief and, at the same time, correots two or three anomalies that had crept in. To get into detail at this stage, let me try to answer the questions of the hon. Member.
  It was necessary after the Act was passed to go into closer examination of the relationship between several colleges and institutions of London University. As a result, Goldsmiths' College, which was, at that time, thought to be just a part of the University, supported by the U.G.C, has been found to receive no direct grant from the U.G.C. and consequently has been removed from the Schedule. It will, therefore, under this Order, remain entitled to 50 per cent. mandatory relief. The college happens to be in Deptford, which receives a rate deficiency grant, so to that extent there will be no extra hardship on the local ratepayers.
  The three theological colleges referred to in paragraph 2,c of the Order were similarly found not to be in direct receipt of U.G.C. money and are, therefore, removed from exclusion and return to eligibility for 50 per cent. mandatory relief. I cannot, I regret, give the hon. Member a full answer about the rate deficiency grant status of those areas in which these colleges are situated. All
  1590
  I can say now is that they do not receive direct U.G.C. support and will get rate relief. They will thus be like a number of other charities whose mandatory rate relief does impose, to some extent, an extra burden on the local ratepayers, though limited to some extent by the rate deficiency grant. This is something that the House expected at the time when mandatory rate relief was put into the Act.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) asked about the colleges of advanced technology. They have not been included because they did not have the same financial relationship to the Exchequer us did the universities when the Order was drafted. Nor do they today. But, as he said, the Government have accepted the Robbins Committee recommendation that these institutions should have university status, and action to give effect to that decision is in hand, together with a full review of the finances of higher education.
  I am in a position to assure the House that as the colleges of advanced technology achieve university status they will be put on the same financial basis as all other university institutions, although, of course, the financial framework itself may be changed as the result of the review now going forward. Orders will be laid before the House as necessary when their position is clear.
  The hon. Member for Widnes raised the interesting question of the timing of rateable obligations falling on a green field as it was developed into a university. This is very much the business of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, advised by the U.G.C., but I understand that, as buildings are put up, so my right hon. Friend ensures that the recurrent grants include the necessary provision in the case of new universities to cover the rating obligation which falls upon them.
  The hon. Member also asked me about the valuation of university buildings. He quite rightly explained to the House that these institutions are dealt with by the contractor's test and that the Lands Tribunal had validated a 2½ per cent. interest rate in the case of Magdalen College. He was also right to say that a recent case had shown that a 3½ per cent. interest rate was used. I can tell the House that

  1591
  in the recent valuation the Inland Revenue used the 3½ per cent. basis for university buildings.
  The only quarrel I had with the hon. Member's presentation of his series of questions was when he spoke of the double relief which universities got by being given a 2½ per cent. interest rate, as he thought they were. The whole object of the contractor's test, the contractor's method, is to arrive at an acceptable basis of valuation. We have to assume that what the Inland Revenue uses and what is validated by the courts is the way of arriving at the correct valuation.
  I do not think that it is open to us to say that because the Inland Revenue uses a lower rate of interest for university buildings than it may for commercial buildings, this is, as it were, therefore a method of relieving universities. It is a method of arriving at what is thought to be the correct valuation of universities. However, as the hon. Member has asked me, I am glad to be able to assure him that in the recent valuation the 3½ per cent. basis was used.
  I think that I have answered all the questions. If more are asked, I shall try my best to answer them, but I hope that hon. Members will be satisfied that this Order is sensible and should not be invalidated.
  Mr. M. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman said that we must regard the valuation on the contractor's basis as the correct way of valuing universities. Even if that is so, does it not create a considerable difficulty for a local authority which has a great deal of this property in its area when it finds that there is this lower method of valuation and that the institutions are entitled to full mandatory relief, if it is also an authority, as is the City of Oxford, which does not qualify for rate deficiency grant? That creates a peculiar situation.
  When one adds all those things together, one must regard that as an anomalous situation. Each effect which has caused that can be justified by itself, but when they are all added up there is an anomaly which hits the local authority very hard. Since the right hon. Gentleman is the Minister whose job it is to look after local authorities, when he is introducing an
  1592
  instrument of this sort is there no way in which he can cure an anomaly of that kind to the benefit of, Oxford in this instance, but also of any other authority which may find itself in that position?
  Sir K. Joseph: I fear not. The situation in Oxford flows from a series of ingredients each of which is individually justified. Although the hon. Member is right in his description of the ingredients, I question whether he is correct in saying that the effect is so serious—I forget his words, but he used some strong adjectives about the effect.
  I think the hon. Gentleman would like to know that the effect is the equivalent of a 2¼d. rate. No one in my position could possibly be indifferent even to a ½d. rate, or a ¼d. rate, because I know what strong feelings can be aroused, but the fact is that at Oxford the combined effect of these ingredients amounts to the equivalent of a 2¼d. rate. That combination, which is considerably less than in many other cities, has been caused by revaluation, whereas in Oxford, as it happens, the effect of revaluation has in itself left the domestic ratepayers unscathed. The rise in the rates of the domestic ratepayers in Oxford has been brought about entirely by the increased rate call from the local authority.
  Mr. MacColl: I understand that the share of rateable expenditure borne by the Oxford colleges has fallen from 6½ per cent. to 2½ per cent. What I wanted to draw to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman was the passage in Lord Ever-shed's judgment where he quoted from the Lands Tribunal. He said:
  "The money for the erection and improvement of university buildings and colleges is generally provided by benefaction, and for these reasons we consider that a commercial rate of interest is not appropriate. We would apply 2½ per cent. as being half of what we were told in evidence was the normal percentage used for commercial properties…"
  Without probing too deeply into what went on in the Tribunal's mind, I should have thought that that was a rough and ready way of saying that these bodies are not commercial, that they are not getting a profit from private sources, that they are living on benefactions, and therefore the method of assessment will be reduced. That is why I said that there was a double measurement of charitable objects, and why it was reduced from 5 per cent. to 2½ per cent. Secondly, it was the reason

  1593
  for giving them 50 per cent. under the Act.
  Will the 3½ per cent. measure be applied retrospectively to the Oxford colleges, or will it be applied only to other institutions which come into the valuation later?
  Sir K. Joseph: I understand that this is retrospective, and that it was used as the valuation basis this time, but if I am wrong I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about it.
  I may have given a wrong impression when answering the hon. Member for Fulham. The 2¼d. in Oxford is the amount attributable only to the 50 per cent. obligatory derating.
  Mr. MacColl: I appreciate the help which the right hon. Gentleman has given the House on this very difficult subject, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn,

  RAILWAY LINES, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE AREA (CLOSURE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]
  10.53 p.m.
  Major Sir Frank Markham: I rise to protest against the proposed closure of four railway lines and several stations in my constituency and in adjacent areas. The lines in question are the Bletchley—Buckingham line; the Wolverton—Newport Pagnall line; the Oxford—Bletchley—Cambridge line; and the Bedford—Northampton line. Over and above those, it is proposed to close the stations of Castlethorpe and Roade.
  In this protest I have the support of nearly every Member for the four counties of Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire, and the support of nearly every local authority through which any of those railway lines pass. Indeed, the transport users' consultative committees must be snowed under with protests from these areas. In addition to those I have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) and also of the N.U.R. group in this House.
  1594
  This represents a formidable body of opinion and it is a great regret to me that the Minister has already refused to meet a deputation from the area, centred on Bletchley, known as the Steering Committee and which consists of representatives of all political parties and of the leading local authorities. The Minister has replied saying that the usual channels must be adhered to, that cases of hardship will be considered by the T.U.C.C. and that anything else he will himself consider at postal distance.
  It is in the vast range of subjects that cannot be considered by the T.U.C.C. that we feel that grave mistakes can occur unless the Ministry is fully informed of what is in the minds not only of those of us who are directly concerned but of many others, including the leaders of the British Railways Board.
  The area about which I am speaking is one of the fastest developing parts of the country. In Buckinghamshire alone there has been a 28 per cent. increase in population during the last 10 years. In Bedfordshire, there has been a 30 per cent. increase in that period. No other part of the country can show a similar rate of expansion. Added to all this is the fact that if one considers the area which is usually known as the Home Counties around London, one finds it estimated that there will be an increase of another 1½ million people within the next five to six years.
  If the railways cannot make good in a developing area like this, it is obvious that they cannot make good anywhere. The electrification of the main line London-Birmingham is going ahead and this, we hope, will do something towards improving the services provided by the railways. This, however, is only part of the story, for the other points concern finance, railwaymen's transport and jobs, stewardship, costs of alternative services, and so on. And none of these can be considered by the T.U.C.Cs.
  The Minister has laid it down in legislation that the T.U.C.C. may consider only oases of travelling hardship. Thus local protesters can be heard only on this one subject of travelling hardship. Any protests on any other subjects made either by individual objectors or local authorities must be made in writing to the Minister of Transport,

  1595
  who is already a prejudiced person, as it were, because he is carrying out the legislation that he has introduced by means of an organisation, and individuals which he has created or appointed, and often clashing with other policies which he has enunciated as the principal roads Minister in this country.
  This shows that in these broad spheres of finance, transport, stewardship, costs of alternative services and many others we can appeal only to the Minister in writing. We are never allowed to see the replies given by the British Railways Board or another Ministry, and from the moment the Minister receives our letters of protest we are entirely excluded from any further investigation. This is wrong, unjust and does not even give the appearance of justice.
  British Railways give us certain figures, but not the lot. We are told some of the costs, but not all of the takings. Not only the N.U.R., but, I believe, other bodies would like to have an opportunity to challenge the figures. These organisations say that the figures do not contain the accretion of the parcels services, advertisements and vendors. They also say that the railways have not included in the costs the future costs of caretaking of disused stations. There is also the cost, possibly, of subsidising the buses.
  Let me refer to the railwaymen again, because theirs is one of the key protests that ought to be considered. Articles 51, 52 and 53 of the Handbook of the Transport Users' Consultative Committees state that if the railwaymen have a protest they can put their protests through the hierarchical channels of the trade unions. Their protests never get up through those channels. They are dead-ended at somewhere like branch level. Railwaymen both at Bletchley and at Wolverton have protested—and I believe them—that their protests got to the local consultative committee, and not a step further.
  Many of these railwaymen are not only indignant, perhaps, at losing their jobs, but are more public spirited and are indignant at a good service being closed down, and indignant because there is no channel through which they can make constructive proposals for improving
  1596
  traffics on the railways. These are grave charges against the present system by which these railway closure inquiries are conducted.
  Let me give another example of what this will mean to the railwaymen at the Wolverton works and at Castlethorpe and on the line between Newport Pagnell and Bletchley, which it is proposed to close down. Travelling daily from Newport Pagnell to Wolverton there are between 275 and 300 railwaymen. If this line is closed nobody cares "a tuppenny hoot" how these men will get to work in future. British Railways have said that it is not any business of theirs to provide transport for them. The transport users' consultative committee may say to the Minister that there may be hardship here, but it is not the committee's business to make constructive proposals to the Minister as to how that hardship can be dealt with.
  If this hardship is to be met at all. they will have to organise about 10 buses, leaving at practically the same time from Newport Pagnell to Wolverton, and vice versa, to take not only the railwaymen themselves, but the school children. The Railways Board says that it is not its business how the children get to school, but that that is the sole responsibility of the local education authority. In short, the railway divests itself of its necessary public service and leaves the wounds to others to heal.
  One of the most shocking things about the present system is that in a case like the Wolverton works it is not incumbent on the railways themselves to provide some alternative transport arrangements for their own workers who have been travelling by train hitherto.
  Another thing that the railwaymen feel very keenly about is that some services are already so badly run that, for example, on the Bletchley-Bedford line, which it is proposed to close, passengers have to stand in two trains, in particular—the 9.5 a.m. from Bletchley to Bedford and the return train at 4.10 p.m. from Bedford to Bletchley. When a train is so crowded that passengers have to stand, there cannot be any good reason for closing the line; there is every reason why that railway service should be improved, and passengers given the comfort they used to get before the railways were nationalised.

  1597
  That is the kind of thing that the railwaymen themselves would have liked to put before the T.U.C.C., but they were short-circuited in the channels of the trade union movement. We have the assurance by the Minister that he will consider anything that comes up before him, how can he make sure railway complaints will come to him? The Minister says, and has said many times, that when he gets these protests in writing he will consult other Ministries. Obviously, one of the first things is the provision of alternative road transport to replace the railways.
  The Minister must, therefore, consult the Minister responsible for road transport, but he is himself the Minister responsible for road transport so that he is appealing from himself to himself. That is why I say that he is prejudiced on the question of further road programmes to replace the damage that will be done generally by removing these railways services.
  The Minister of Transport can also approach the Minister of Housing. In all the cases I have mentioned the Minister of Housing must say, and I think that he will say to the Minister of Transport, "If you ask me about development in this area, all I can say as Minister of Housing is that we should wait for the south-east regional review." The South-East, as we know, is to be developed. London's expansion or relief will become more and more distant from London and new towns, like Bletchley, will be focal centres of new development, and it is here where this cross country line from Oxford to Cambridge centres at the moment. Will the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance to the House that if such an answer is received from the Minister of Housing his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will postpone closures until the south-east regional review has been considered by the House?
  Secondly, I should like to see all closures stopped until a better system of investigation has been worked out. It is evident throughout the country that the present system is received with considerable scepticism. The consultative committees have been looked upon as rubber stamps of British Railways. I know that this is not entirely true but
  1598
  that is the impression. I urge that the Minister should establish a new system of investigation which would give the impression of being much more just than does the present one. I beg of him also to suspend judgment on these four lines and the stations until the review of the South-East is available and we cars see what the future holds for this rapidly developing part of England.
  11.7 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) for the lucid way in which he has made his case tonight. I am glad also to have this opportunity of dealing with such an important subject. My hon. and gallant Friend has certainly been most assiduous in his efforts to make representations about the proposed closures in his constituency. I do not want him to think from anything I say that I am not sympathetic to him in the situation he has described where the population in his constituency is increasing at the same time is there are these proposals to reduce the number of railways. But the picture which he has painted is not, of course, the whole story.
  I should like to set it in its context, but, obviously, I cannot comment at this stage on the merits or demerits of the proposed closures he has mentioned, nor can I enter into discussion on the relevance or otherwise of various facts to which he has referred, such as passengers standing in certain of the trains in his constituency. On the other hand, I have noted what he has said and will report them most carefully to my right hon. Friend. The reason why I cannot comment fully on these matters of detail is that the future of these stations is, as it were, sub judice, and I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that for that reason I cannot be very specific in what I have to say.
  This difficulty, which arises in all closure castes, as I am sure the House will realise, was dealt with by my right hon. Friend in a somewhat similar Adjournment debate in May. To save time and to avoid repetition of what my right hon. Friend said then, it might

  1599
  be helpful if I sent my hon. and gallant Friend, as I shall do, a copy of that debate. There ate, however, certain points which I can answer, but before dealing with them I think that it would be helpful if I were to explain how proposals are made by the Board, how representations are considered, and how decisions are reached, because my hon. and gallant Friend seemed to have doubts about fairness, particularly with regard to how decisions are reached. I hope that I shall be able to convince him that he should not be as doubtful as he now seems to be.
  The first and most important thing to get clear is that the responsibility for deciding whether or not to propose a closure is a matter for the railway management. Often, hon. Members come to me and say, "Why are you proposing to close this line?", when what they mean is, "Why is Dr. Beeching proposing to close the line?". Why Dr. Beeching should be doing it is, of course, a question which the Minister cannot answer. After all, he does not run the railways; that is the Board's duty, and the Board has, to quote the words of the 1962 Act, to do it with "due regard" to efficiency, economy and safety of operation.
  It was in fulfilment of this duty that, last March, in its Report, the Board gave in outline plans for closing about 330 passenger services involving over 2,000 stations. This was a general proposal, but when it comes to any particular line or station the Board must give formal notice, and this allows users seven weeks in which to object, and, if they do object, then the proposal cannot be effected without the Minister's consent. This is an important restriction on the railway management's discretion which was introduced in the 1962 Act, which my hon. and gallant Friend seemed to be complaining about, because it brings in both the T.U.C.C. and the Minister.
  The new procedure thus gives full opportunity to discuss what really matters to passengers, that is: will there be hardship, and are the alternatives satisfactory? This is the only thing that a passenger is really concerned with—how to get from one place to another if the railway line is closed. The financial matters to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred and other wider planning considerations are
  1600
  utterly irrelevant to the passenger. He is concerned only with movement, not with costs, and that is why there is no wide-ranging discussion at the T.U.C.Cs. and why there is no cross-examination of financial figures, since whether the railways lose £5 or £500,000 does not really affect the hardship issue.
  My hon. and gallant Friend may well ask, "If that is so, why should these figures of finance be mentioned at all, when they are clearly irrelevant to hardship?" The answer is that the T.U.C.Cs. asked the Railways Board to provide them because they find it helpful to have some idea of the sum involved as general background, particularly when they are considering possible alternatives.
  Although the provision of these figures is essentially a matter between the Railways Board and the T.U.C.Cs., in view of the public interest which has been shown in them, to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred tonight, my right hon. Friend, on the recommendation of the president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, got Sir William Carrington to carry out an investigation, and his report, which is in the Library, shows that the figures are both appropriate for the consultative committees' purposes and are compiled on bases which are sound in principle.
  What it amounts to is that the consultative committee's job is to report to the Minister on hardship. The committee does not—I cannot stress this too strongly—decide or even recommend whether a closure should take place. It is concerned only with deciding what hardship will be caused by the closure, if it takes place, and with proposals for alleviating that hardship.
  I recognise that my hon. and gallant Friend has in his constituency a particular problem raised by the large number of railway employees who reside there. He has referred to various aspects of the problem. But I think that this is an internal matter for the railways. My right hon. Friend must be at pains not to interfere with the machinery which already exists in the industry for consultation between management and the elected representatives of the staff.
  As my hon. and gallant Friend probably knows, before a closure proposal is published, the Railways Board consults these elected representatives at both

  1601
  regional and local levels, and the object of the consultation is not only to inform the staff representatives of the Board's intentions and their implications for the staff, but also to invite their comments—the very point which my hon. and gallant Friend made.
  This is the established machinery, and it allows full opportunity for the staff to state their views. But if, as my hon. and gallant Friend has suggested, the machinery has got bogged down and if it is not working properly, this is a matter between the unions and Dr. Beeching, and I have no doubt that Dr. Beeching will pay attention to what my hon. and gallant Friend has said. To make absolutely sure that he does, I shall send a copy of this debate in Hansard to the Railways Board. This is essentially a question of management, and, therefore, not for the Minister. I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend, with all his wide experience in these matters, will realise that this is so.
  To return to the procedure, having then received the report from the T.U.C.C. on hardship, the Minister must decide whether to give his consent to the closure or not. It is at this stage that other considerations come in. Dr. Beeching's object is to shape and operate the railways so as to make them pay. The job of the T.U.C.C. is to consider hardship to the passengers and ways of alleviating it. But the Minister's job is to take a much wider view, because it might well be that though a line was losing money and though there was no hardship caused to the passengers if it was closed, it would still be wrong to close the line, or at least to dispose of it, because of possible future industrial development or because of defence considerations or because of the growth of housing and population, such as my hon. and gallant Friend referred to, or, indeed, the pattern of road traffic.
  This brings me on to one of the most important points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend, when he asked about the deputation which his local authorities wish to bring to see my right hon. Friend. This raises a matter of some difficulty which I shall try to explain to him, and I hope he will understand.
  First, the Minister is in something like a quasi-judicial position on these cases. He has to reach his decision in the light
  1602
  of all the facts. For that reason it would be improper for him to discuss cases with any of the parties. He must hold himself aloof from all interested parties, railways and local authorities alike, so that he is quite impartial and is not prejudiced at all. I was rather sorry that my hon. and gallant Friend used that word, because my right hon. Friend goes out of his way to be impartial.
  Sir F. Markham rose—
  Mr. Galbraith: I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will not interrupt me, because I should like to try to finish and I have not very much time.
  Clearly, therefore, my right hon. Friend could not receive deputations for the purpose of examining the issues involved.
  There is the further point that if my right hon. Friend saw one local authority he could hardly refuse to see another, and with over 2,000 stations involved, seeing all the interested local authorities would create a physically impossible task even for anybody as vigorous and hard working as my right hon. Friend.
  Finally—this is most important—from the practical point of view there is everything to be said for local authorities putting their representations in writing. Not only does this help us to be sure that we have all the details but it enables my right hon. Friend to consult his colleagues, where this is necessary, easily and speedily.
  I hope, therefore, that my hon. and gallant Friend will stress to the Bletchley Council that my right hon. Friend is most anxious to receive any representations which it wishes to make and that there will, indeed, be considerable advantage both to him and to it if it puts anything that it has to say about matters other than hardship to him in writing. I can assure my ton. Friend that in this way all the council's points will be most carefully examined.
  The effect of all these arrangements is that when the report of the T.U.C.C. reaches the Minister he has also before him the representations of local authorities and the views of other Government Departments concerned, as well as the original information on which the board has based its proposals. All this evidence is then examined by a working party

  1603
  of Government officials representing the departments whose responsibilities are affected. The working party goes into every aspect in great detail.
  The next stage is examination by myself. Finally, the proposal goes to the Minister, and I can assure the House that he considers every case most carefully. Thus, at each stage assessments are made, not just about hardship to users, but also taking into account the views of the departments concerned and the arguments against closure put forward by local authorities and other bodies. It is, in fact, a very thorough and painstaking process. My hon. and gallant Friend has said that there is no appeal from this examination by the Minister. Yet how could there be any appeal? To whom could an appeal be made? What the Minister does is to assess the relative importance of various factors, and in the final analysis this is a Government decision. It is not possible to transfer the responsibility to anybody else.
  But I would like to make one thing quite clear to my hon. and gallant Friend and to the whole House. That is, that once a proposal is made it is not a foregone conclusion that the railway is going to be closed. The Government are very far from being a rubber stamp, as my hon. and gallant Friend seemed to suggest. Out of the cases which were decided this year, to give only two examples, one in a country district, the Alston line, in Northumberland, and another in a conurbation, the Sander-stead line, in Surrey, have not been closed because the Minister thought it would not be justified, taking all the issues into account. My right hon. Friend has also insisted on the continuance of the rail service over part of the Great Central line.
  In the cases where closure is allowed, the Minister attaches conditions where-ever necessary to ensure that adequate alternative services are available to the travelling public. In all this we must remember the need to balance the
  1604
  various conflicting interests. The railways are losing vast sums of money—£150 million per annum—which is so often forgotten. That is why Dr. Beeching is making his proposals.
  Then the interests of the passengers must not be forgotten, and here the T.U.C.C. reports on hardship and on alternatives. Finally, there is the wider aspect which is something which the Government have to decide for themselves. Nobody can do it for them, and that is why there cannot be an appeal. I think that this procedure is as fair as possible and ensures that justice is done.
  I assure my hon. and gallant Friend again that the points he has raised will be reported to the Minister. I shall do it myself and I shall undertake to discuss any fresh points that he may wish to raise with me, although, of course, I shall not be able to comment upon them.
  My last words are to repeat what my right hon. Friend has said many times, that however strong the financial and other arguments may be my right hon. Friend will see that, where necessary, adequte means of alternative transport are available before a railway passenger closure takes place. That is the important thing from the point of view of my hon. and gallant Friend's constituents, and I can assure him that it is very much in our minds all the time we study these complicated and perplexing problems.
  Sir F. Markham:If I may be allowed one minute more, may I thank my hon. Friend for a very thorough survey of the points that I raised with him and also thank him for the thoroughness of his answer. There is only one thing that he has left out; he has not invited me to meet him again if I still feel dissatisfied.
  Mr. Galbraith: I am delighted to give that assurance to my hon. and gallant Friend.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Eleven o'clock.

EDUCATION
  Colleges of Advanced Technology
  Colleges of Advanced Technology
  Television
  Television
  Classes (Size)
  Classes (Size)
  Teachers (Women Graduates)
  Teachers (Women Graduates)
  Overseas Teaching (Secondment)
  Overseas Teaching (Secondment)
  Teachers (Supply)
  Teachers (Supply)
  Church of England School, Donnington
  Church of England School, Donnington
  London County Council (Minor Works Allocations)
  London County Council (Minor Works Allocations)
  Sherif Youssef Ahmed
  Sherif Youssef Ahmed
  Teacher Training Colleges (Students)
  Teacher Training Colleges (Students)
  School Transport, Cardiff
  School Transport, Cardiff
  Educational Visits and Exchanges
  Educational Visits and Exchanges
  Nursery Schools, Wales
  Nursery Schools, Wales
  Apprenticeship Courses, Wales
  Apprenticeship Courses, Wales
  World Affairs
  World Affairs
  Russian Language
  Russian Language
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Helicopters (Far East)
  Helicopters (Far East)
  Aden Base (Arab Workers)
  Aden Base (Arab Workers)
  Greenham Common Base
  Greenham Common Base
  Recruiting
  Recruiting
  Discharge Without Purchase
  Discharge Without Purchase
  Thor Missiles
  Thor Missiles
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Cruelty to Children
  Cruelty to Children
  Mechanisation
  Mechanisation
  Police Costs
  Police Costs
  Firearms
  Firearms
  Discharged Prisoners (Money)
  Discharged Prisoners (Money)
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Wakefield Prison (Brian Thomas)
  Wakefield Prison (Brian Thomas)
  Accused Persons and Witnesses (Newspaper Contracts)
  Accused Persons and Witnesses (Newspaper Contracts)
  Probation Service (Smethwick and West Bromwich)
  Probation Service (Smethwick and West Bromwich)
  London Taxicabs (Fares Increase)
  London Taxicabs (Fares Increase)
  Criminal Justice Act, 1961
  Criminal Justice Act, 1961
  Fireworks and Bonfires
  Fireworks and Bonfires
SARAWAK AND SABAH
  Military Forces
  Military Forces
COAL
  Smokeless Fuels
  Smokeless Fuels
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
  John Baker and Bessemer Ltd.
  John Baker and Bessemer Ltd.
INDUSTRY, TRADE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  Racial Discrimination
  Racial Discrimination
  Factory, Gateshead (Housing)
  Factory, Gateshead (Housing)
  Exports to Communist Countries
  Exports to Communist Countries
  New Industries, West Stirlingshire
  New Industries, West Stirlingshire
  Ystalyfera and Pontardawe
  Ystalyfera and Pontardawe
  Swansea Valley (Advance Factory)
  Swansea Valley (Advance Factory)
  Factories
  Factories
  World Economic Conference
  World Economic Conference
  Railway Locomotives and Rolling-Stock
  Railway Locomotives and Rolling-Stock
  Companies Registry (Wales)
  Companies Registry (Wales)
  Monopolies Commission (Reports)
  Monopolies Commission (Reports)
  National Research Development Corporation
  National Research Development Corporation
  Location of Industry (Wales)
  Location of Industry (Wales)
HOSPITALS
  Magazine Donation Service
  Magazine Donation Service
  St. Helen Hospital, Barnsley
  St. Helen Hospital, Barnsley
  Psychiatric Unit, Barnsley
  Psychiatric Unit, Barnsley
  Chronic Sick, Barnsley
  Chronic Sick, Barnsley
  Admissions, Barnsley
  Admissions, Barnsley
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Population
  Population
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  New Trawlers (North Shields)
  New Trawlers (North Shields)
  Meat (Colouring Substances)
  Meat (Colouring Substances)
  Forestry
  Forestry
EMPLOYMENT
  Redundant Workers, Ipswich
  Redundant Workers, Ipswich
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Remploy Factory, Barnsley
  Remploy Factory, Barnsley
  Employment
  Employment
  Barry
  Barry
  Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act
  Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Commonwealth Immigrants
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Widows (Pensions)
  Widows (Pensions)
  Defence Expenditure
  Defence Expenditure
GHANA
  Ex-Civil Servants (Pensions)
  Ex-Civil Servants (Pensions)
  MINISTER OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (SPEECH)
  MINISTER OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (SPEECH)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (DELEGATION)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (DELEGATION)
  PLOWDEN COMMITTEE (REPORT)
  PLOWDEN COMMITTEE (REPORT)
  NEW UNIVERSITY, WALES
  NEW UNIVERSITY, WALES
POST OFFICE
  Special Stamps
  Special Stamps
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Officers' Mess Building, Aldershot
  Officers' Mess Building, Aldershot
SCOTLAND
  Office Block, Stirling
  Office Block, Stirling
  Teaching Hospitals (Television)
  Teaching Hospitals (Television)
  Teaching Experiments (Television)
  Teaching Experiments (Television)
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  School Attendance Officers
  School Attendance Officers
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Schedule A
  Schedule A
  CONGO (UNITED NATIONS OPERATIONS)
  CONGO (UNITED NATIONS OPERATIONS)
  IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
  IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD MERTHYR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester

HEAVY LORRIES IN TOWN STREETS
2.5 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they intend to impose restrictions upon the hours during which heavy commercial lorries will be allowed to use the streets of our cities and towns.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, any general restriction upon the movement of heavy commercial lorries would have serious implications for industry. In towns, where speeds for all vehicles are severely restricted, the delays imposed upon private cars by heavy commercial vehicles are not such as to warrant discrimination against the latter, having regard to the wide economic consequences involved.
LORD BOOTHBY: But, my Lords, does not the noble Lord realise that if these very heavy commercial vehicles are allowed to crawl over the streets of our towns and cities at all hours of the day and night traffic within the next two or three years will grind to a halt?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, just as much as I realise, as is envisaged in the Buchanan Report, that if private cars containing one person per car are allowed to fill the streets, then industry too will grind to a halt.
LORD BOOTHBY: Why do you not deal with them both?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, that is in course of action.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, world the noble Lord care to prophesy, because it would be a great to relief to all of us, and tell us what is being done to deal with these problems by way of the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby? He evidently knows. He had better tell us.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think that is the key to a fairly lengthy debate. If the noble Lord cares to put it on the Order paper, I shall be delighted to deal with it.

IMPORTS OF FRENCH BEEF
2.7 p.m.
LORD WISE: 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 endorse the Written Reply by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to a Question asked in another place on Friday last, December 13 [Hansard, col. 131), in which he wrote that the present total prohibition on health grounds of imports of uncooked beef and beef offals from France should now be lifted and arrangements made at once accordingly; if so, whether the resulting effect upon the price and subsidy of our home beef products can be estimated, and whether it is the present policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage and allow imports of uncooked beef and beef offals from a country in which foot and mouth disease was very prevalent recently.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, the lifting of the prohibition, on health grounds, of imports of uncooked beef and beef offals from France followed very thorough investigation of the animal and public health aspects of that country. We were satisfied that the foot and mouth situation had improved to the point that, given the extremely strict safeguards required concerning each consignment to be imported, there would be no justification in maintaining this ban. On the question of the effect on the price and subsidy of our home beef products,

373
the reply by my right honourable friend, to which the noble Lord has referred, went on to say that the amount to be imported during the period to March 31, 1964, will be up to 500 tons. We do not expect the marketing of home-produced or other imported beef to be affected by this relatively small quantity. Average supplies for the first quarter of the year from all sources (home and imported) have, over the past three years, been about 310,000 tons and the impact of 500 tons is therefore unlikely to be significant.
LORD WISE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his lengthy reply, may I say that the present situation, or the possible situation which will arise, in regard to this importation is creating great unrest among the agricultural industry? May I put one or two additional questions to the noble Lord? The first one is this. Can he state when the last importation of uncooked French beef came into this country? how many years ago was it? And can he say whether or not the importation of this uncooked beef will mean a heavy subsidy by the French Government to their producers? Can he also give us any information as to what that is likely to amount to? Further, can he inform us whether the Commonwealth have been consulted in regard to this particular action on the part of Her Majesty's Government? Furthermore, will the noble Lord be able to give us an assurance that after April 1 next there will be no further importation of French beef into this country on a basis which would be detrimental to the interests of British farming?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I will try to remember those questions. The first is very easy because I do not know the answer and I cannot give it without notice. The second question related. I think, to a form of dumping which the noble Lord envisaged. Well, of course, we do not know. We cannot tell at what price French beef will be coming into the country; it is early days to be able to say. But, of course, the noble Lord knows that there are powers under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957, which would enable us to cope with that after April if it happened; but we have no reason to think it will happen. We have not,
374
to the best of my knowledge—and I may be corrected here—informed the Commonwealth countries or the Commonwealth suppliers because, as the noble Lord will realise, this is simply an animal health and food health issue. We have no right to keep out imported food on health grounds unless these grounds can be justified, which they can no longer be.
LORD WISE: My Lords, can the noble Lord give us an assurance that the agreement after April 1 next will not he detrimental to British farming?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the French Government are seized of the importance we attach to our market not being disrupted. We are in continual touch; and if action detrimental to our market should occur, then talks would be resumed at Government level.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask whether there is any existing foot and mouth disease in French cattle to-day?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, virtually none. They have instituted a slaughter policy.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: From what date?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Very recently. The slaughter policy is fairly recent; but the figures of the reduction of foot and mouth outbreaks in France are very impressive. To pick out one figure at random, in October, 1960, there were 508 outbreaks; in 1963, the corresponding figure was two; and the comparative figures are, in fact, similar. They give the same impression. There were some months in which there was no outbreak at all. The success the French have had in bringing foot and mouth to an end has been very impressive indeed. The present situation does not justify us in condemning them under the animal health regulations.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, what steps are the Government taking to make sure, when cattle are slaughtered for this purpose in France, that they do not reach here as uncooked meat? Is not this part of the beginning of a new policy for the Minister of Agriculture? The French Government are members of the

375
Common Market, I take it; they will operate the taxation of food put round all the Six countries. What are the conditions of our exports of meat to France in relation to the free import the Government are giving to their meat here?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, as I have explained to the noble Earl's colleague, until now these imports of French beef have been kept out by animal health and food health regulations. When this ban is no longer justified on a basis of animal health or food health, we certainly cannot misuse these regulations; and I know that the noble Earl would not expect or wish us to. The only new thing is that the French have overcome their animal health problems. As regards the means we have of knowing the conditions in French slaughterhouses, I referred to this in my substantive Answer. The regulations are so elaborate and complete that it would take too long to relate them to the noble Earl now, but I will gladly inform him of them afterwards. They are very complete indeed.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, what about the second part of my question about free import here? What rights have we to put free imports into any of these Six countries of the Common Market? Why cannot we send meat free to France, as we are allowing her to do here?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the question relates specifically to animal health and food health regulations and I am answering that question.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is it not a fact that only a week or so ago complaints were being made from the Benches on my left about our export of lamb to France? Is it not also a fact that we must look at the interests of the consumer as well as of the producer in this matter?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the Government
376
had to some extent satisfied themselves about the state of slaughterhouses in France or, at least, that the regulations were very good indeed. As a result of a visit to France some years ago, when I inspected slaughterhouses, I found that their regulations were wonderful but their observance of them did not stand up to inspection. Have the Government really gone into this aspect of the matter?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord was inspecting slaughterhouses from which meat was to be imported into England. This does make a difference, because in point of fact the standards insisted upon by us are higher than the standards insisted upon by the French authorities for meat supplied within France.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us whether any British veterinary inspectors or public health inspectors will be present to look at these animals, or must we rely entirely on French inspectors for this?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am not absolutely sure about the detail of this. But we do send people over to inspect the abattoirs from which meat imported into this country will come.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, in view of the fact that in our importation of meat from the Argentine we have our own very well-qualified inspectors to make sure that we are kept free of foot and mouth disease from that country, would it not be strongly advisable, in the interests of our animal health in this country, that at any rate in the initial stages we should take the same precautions in France?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I would give the noble Lord the same answer as I gave to his noble Leader. I would gladly go over with him the regulations that we have agreed with the French authorities, under which meat which is to be sent to this country has to meet certain standards, and I think that they will satisfy him. They are really too long to read out to the House at this moment.

USE OF SALOX RED ON MEAT
2.19 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the composition of the preparation known as Salox Red; what proportion of meat sold for human consumption is treated with this or similar products; whether there is any requirement that meat so treated should be labelled to inform the purchaser; and whether it is intended that the treatment of meat in this manner shall be prohibited.]
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, Salox Red is one of several proprietary preparations containing sugar, ascorbic acid and nicotinic acid which have been used by butchers to maintain or restore the fresh appearance of meat products. Inquiries I have made suggest that these preparations are not used extensively. There is no specific requirement for the labelling of meat so treated, but any pre-packed meat must declare its ingredients on the wrapper. The Fool Standards Committee have now advised my right honourable friend that they consider that the treatment of meat with such substances deceives the customer as to its freshness and may in some cases mask deterioration of it. Together with the Food Additives and Contaminants Sub-Committee, they will be giving further consideration to these substances and the implications of their use, including the possible dangers to health, and they recommend that meanwhile the practice should be suspended. My right honourable friend accepts this recommendation and proposes, acting jointly with his right honourable friend the Minister of Health, to make regulations accordingly. The Food and Drugs Act, 1955, requires the interests concerned to be consulted before such regulations are made. This will be done.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for the Answer he has given, which is a good deal more forthcoming than that his colleague gave in another place a
378
few days ago. Would it not be correct to say that these substances are also used as ingredients in a great many other foods, and that that aspect also deserves consideration?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, in answer to one comment of the noble Lord, I think I ought to point out that it was only the day after my right honourable friend answered a similar Question in another place that the Food Standards Committee took it into consideration, and, therefore, I am able to give a more forthcoming reply than he was able to. It is quite true that at least one of these substances occurs in other foodstuffs: in fact, in bread it is obligatory. But everything depends on the quantity. It is suspected that in certain cases these colouring matters may have been used in a harmful quantity and had ill-effects on people.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether these regulations require Parliamentary approval, and, if so, when we can anticipate their being laid?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge, they do not require Parliamentary approval; in fact, I am virtually certain that they do not. On the other hand, the Minister is bound by the Food and Drugs Act to consult the interests concerned before such regulations are brought into force.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, can the noble Lord give any indication when these regulations will be issued?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, not in terms of time. But I can assure the noble Lord that no time whatever will be wasted.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, while I am sure we all congratulate my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch on having extracted this Answer from the Minister, may I ask whether this indicates a change of policy, and whether, at last, the Government will prevent the addition of what are known as additives to our food? Is the noble Lord old enough to recall that before the Clean Milk Act, which has been of such tremendous value to this country, criminal people—farmers and distributors; but only a minority, of course—added brown material to milk, together

379
with water, to make it appear more creamy? It took many years for the Government and the public to rise up and denounce this practice. Although the Minister has made a small concession to-day, still, every noble Lord here in each meal that he has eaten to-day has consumed some colouring material, some material put in for the process of preservation, of an unknown quantity and an unknown quality. Can we therefore ask the Minister whether he will take further action to go forward and prevent this really criminal adulteration of our food?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I feel fairly certain that I have led a rougher life than the noble Baroness and eaten more extraordinary things than she has in her time. I must tell her that this does not represent anything particularly new. We act on the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act. When a case of this kind is brought to the notice of my right honourable friend, he, as I have explained, has to refer it to the Committee; they give an opinion upon it, and then he, as he is also bound to do, approaches the interested parties. He is in this instance, as I have said, determined to act as soon as possible.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the inquiry to which he referred will be confined to Salox Red, or will it cover other possible substances that may be used to disguise the true nature of the products? I have in mind, for example, the production of a palace blue to disguise the condition of the Conservative Party?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, so far as the last substance mentioned by the noble Lord is concerned, there is no need of it at all. As regards the first part of this question, we have other substances in mind, and if there are any on the noble Lord's list that are not on ours, and he will communicate with me, I will do my best to see that they are passed on.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, does not my noble friend think that this state of affairs discloses some lack of precision in the Food and Drugs Act: that substances can be used in food which are found to be deleterious, and then have to be banned?
LORD ST. OSWALD: No, my Lords. It seems to me quite right that when a matter of this kind is brought to my right honourable friend's notice he should be bound, as he is by the legislation, to refer it to the interested parties.
LORD HAWKE: But somebody has to be poisoned first.
House adjourned during pleasure, and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships that my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making two statements at a suitable moment after 3.30, the first one on pay for Members of another place and allowances for Members of this House, and the second on a memorial for the late President Kennedy.

ADEN
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given Private Notice: whether there will be laid before the House this afternoon the same statement as is being made in reply to a Parliamentary Question in another place concerning the present position in Aden?
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I understand that my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire will be making a statement some time after half past three.

COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES: SCOTTISH PEERAGES
2.27 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE) rose to move, That there be referred to the Committee for Privileges the question whether, and if so in what circumstances, proof of matriculation of arms before the Court of Lord Lyon King of Arms, being arms appropriate to a Peerage in the Peerage of Scotland, may properly be accepted as sufficient evidence of entitlement to that Peerage for the purpose of issuing a Writ of Summons to this House in right thereof.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I am sorry to have to trouble your Lordships with this Motion, but a difficulty has arisen on which I. think it advisable—and I hope your Lordships will agree—that the opinion of the Committee for Privileges should be obtained. As your Lordships know, under the Peerage Act all holders of Scottish Peerages have the right to receive a Writ of Summons to this House. One of the very important duties of the Lord Chancellor is to issue on behalf of the Crown Writs of Summons to Peers to attend this House. The Lord Chancellor of the day is under obligation, both to the Sovereign and to this House, to issue a Writ only if he is satisfied that the person claiming it is the holder of the Peerage in question. If I were to issue a Writ to someone who is not a Peer, and that person were to sit in this House by virtue of the Writ, the effect would be to create a new Barony by Writ, and I am sure your Lordships will agree that every Lord Chancellor must take the greatest care not to do that. My predecessors and I have, therefore, always demanded strict proof of entitlement from a claimant to a Peerage who desires the writ to be issued to him on the decease of the previous holder.
He is required to produce the necessary evidence and all the relevant certificates of birth, marriage and death to establish that he is the nearest heir to the Peer who last sat in this House in the right of the Peerage in question. If this proof is adduced every time a new heir succeeds, it is not, in most cases, at all difficult for the claimant to establish his title, since he is unlikely to have to go back for more than one or two generations in order to trace his succession from an ancestor who himself proved his right to receive the Writ. There are cases where the claimant has to prove his descent from a remote ancestor, but they are exceptional. Your Lordships will, however, be aware that, until the passing of the Peerage Act, 1963, no Scots Peer has ever been summoned by Writ to this House in the right of his Scots Peerage. The sixteen Representative Peers of Scotland were elected by the whole of the Scots Peerage and their election was certified to the House by the Lord Clerk Register; no Writs of Summons were issued. Those Scots Peers who are also
382
Peers of the United Kingdom do, of course, receive Writs of Summons, but not in the right of their Scots Peerages, so the Lord Chancellor has never been furnished with proof of entitlement to a Scots Peerage.
As I have said, it is my duty to issue a Writ of Summons to a Peer of Scotland. Not only are the rules which have governed the devolution of Scots Peerages very different (for example, there is no co-heirship between daughters, and a surrender and re-grant with a new destination was permissible) but also Scottish Peerages are of very considerable antiquity. They all date back to before the year 1707, and some are very much older.
My Lords, I am most anxious to avoid putting any Scots claimants to a Writ of Summons to great inconvenience and expense in proving their claim. As there is nothing to constitute what the lawyers call "a good root of title" corresponding to the receipt of a Writ of Summons to this House, it may be necessary to require not only proof of the original grant of the Peerage but also of descent so as to establish that the claimant is, in fact, the holder of the Peerage. I have been anxious to find some other way in which the claimant to a Scottish Peerage can establish his claim in order to avoid the expense and trouble which such a procedure would involve.
I have thought it proper—and I hope your Lordships will agree—to issue Writs of Summons to those who have sat in this House as Representative; for this House by admitting them has recognised them as Peers. I have also thought it right to issue Writs of Summons to those who have established that they are the heirs of former Representative Peers, that is to say, I have treated sitting as a Representative Peer as a proof of that good root of title. In some cases the right to a Peerage has been confirmed by this House after proceedings before the Committee for Privileges: a case in point is that of my noble friend Lord Dundee, and in such cases no difficulty arises.
There remain, however, a number of Scots Peers for whom these forms of proof are not available, including some who already sit in this House by virtue of inferior or less ancient English or

383
United Kingdom titles, and who may desire to be summoned in their superior rank, or in the right of their more ancient Peerages of Scotland. It is my duty to refuse to issue a Writ of Summons if the claimant's right to one is not clearly established. It is then open to the claimant to petition Her Majesty, and, as your Lordships are aware, such claims may be referred to the Committee for Privileges, which is traditionally the authoritative body for the determination of Peerage claims, including claims to Scottish Peerages.
My Lords, if I refused to issue a Writ of Summons to any Scots claimant, the matter might come before the Committee for Privileges. Such a claimant might rely, and rely only, on the fact that he held a certificate of the Court of Lord Lyon King of Arms that the claimant has matriculated his arms as a Peer. In Scotland the right to bear arms is a legal right over which the Lyon Court has jurisdiction, and if the claimant satisfies the Lyon Court that he is the holder of a Peerage, then he is entitled to add to those arms insignia of nobility appropriate to the Peerage. If I understand the position correctly, Lord Lyon issues his certificate only if the claimant can prove strictly his descent from the last person who matriculated the arms in question and the devolution on him of the Peerage.
If the Committee for Privileges held, on a claim based on matriculation, that the fact that the claimant had matriculated the arms of a Scottish Peerage was proof of entitlement to a Peerage, then that would be a precedent to which I should have to have regard. But without a decision by the Committee for Privileges on this issue, I am sure it would not be right for me to issue a Writ of Summons where the claim is based on proof of matriculation of arms. To do so would be a departure from the practice of my predecessors, in that I should be acting on another's authority and without examining the evidence myself. But if matriculation can properly be accepted as a good root of title (and your Lordships will appreciate that I am not seeking to express an opinion on that point), then it will avoid putting the claimant to an ancient Scottish Peerage to the inconvenience and expense—which may be considerable—of establishing to my
384
satisfaction not only the grant of the original Peerage but of the fact that it has devolved on him or her.
My Lords, a very considerable time would elapse before a test case by a claimant basing his claim on matriculation would come before the Committee for Privileges for determination, and it is to avoid that delay, and to avoid the expense to which such a claimant would inevitably be put, and with the object of securing the opinion of the Committee for Privileges on this question that I am moving this Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That there be referred to the Committee for Privileges the question whether, and if so in what circumstances, proof of matriculation of arms before the Court of Lord Lyon King of Arms, being arms appropriate to a Peerage in the Peerage of Scotland, may properly be accepted as sufficient evidence of entitlement to that Peerage for the purpose of issuing a Writ of Summons to this House in right thereof—(The Lord Chancellor.)
2.37 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think the leaders of all the Parties in the House have had an opportunity of consultation with the Lord Chancellor on this matter, and I believe it can be said—the noble Lord, Lord Rea, will speak for himself—that we are in broad agreement with what the noble and learned Lord has said this afternoon. I think the only right thing to do is to have this matter considered by the Committee for Privileges, so that the question of the authority upon which the Lord Chancellor acts can be established without possible criticism afterwards.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition has said, and to thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for his courtesy in consulting both of us in this matter. When this question was first put before us it bristled with difficulties, but I confess that my first reaction was that if a Member of your Lordships' House (to quote fairly recent instances, like the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who established a very old Barony, or our noble friend the Earl of Dundee and other noble Lords) has been put to great

385
trouble and expense, it seemed to me unreasonable that Lords with perfectly good title from the other side of the Border should not take the same steps and the same trouble to establish their position. But as the Lord Chancellor has pointed out, in many cases their titles go back into the very distant past. They have been noble and respected titles for centuries, and it would not only be a great trouble and expense but, I think, ignominious for them to have to prove a very ancient title which was accepted in both countries.
In that case, although I think there is a possibility of accepting Lord Lyon's certificate of matriculation as proof, there is a possibility that that is not perfect entitlement. We have the safety valve, so to speak, of the Lord Chancellor's veto if he is not himself perfectly satisfied that it is a good claim. Therefore, in taking an intermediate course, I think that, as this is a matter which arises once and for all and will never rise again, it will be only just and generous of us to take the easiest line for those Scottish Peers who are so well established in their own country.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I have the greatest respect and the greatest confidence in the Committee for Privileges, and I do not seek to oppose this Motion in any way. But many of my colleagues have been rendered very uneasy by this, and I hope that, as I am not a Member of the Committee for Privileges, your Lordships will bear with me for a few minutes while I explain their feelings on this matter.
If I fall heir to an estate in Scotland which is hereditary, I have to be served heir to my predecessor. I take an action in the Court of Session to prove that I am the rightful heir, and the Court exacts proof just as meticulously and painstakingly as does a court in this country, in the South. If I lay claim to a Scottish Peerage, the only difference is that I go to the Court of the Lord Lyon. I do not go to the Sheriff Court. The Lord Lyon is just as meticulous in the proofs that he demands; and the establishment of that proof is just as difficult. I should like to say that, with the Lord Lyon, this has been so for 600 years and more. For at least that time Scotland has had
386
one great export—probably a greater export than any other: the export of men. The point of the Lyon Office was to label a man who was exported, and people used to go to the Lyon Office and get what was called a birth breve, which established exactly who they were and their position in Scotland; and these birth breves were accepted currently all over the Continent.
Let me give two brief examples. The first is Loudon, who became a Field Marshal in the Austrian Army in the eighteenth century, and had a Hapsburg princess given to him in marriage after she had been refused to an Austrian Count who was considered not good enough; and the second is the King who was the greatest King in Europe at the time, Louis XIV of France, wanted to confer a favour on his great Minister, Colbert, and Colbert asked to be made a Marquis. The King could not do that because Colbert could not establish a pedigree, so they decided to go to Scotland and see if they could find a family which would father Colbert. They did find a family—though it was not, I hasten to say, the family of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. The matter was held up because the Lord Lyon said "No" and stopped it. He said: "I will not sully my fair name by acknowledging a pedigree of this kind" The great King had to be satisfied, and therefore they had recourse to Parliament. Parliament settled it, and order the Lord Lyon to register the pedigree or something of that kind. But that shows the way in which the Lord Lyon has acted for hundreds of years.
If I go to the Lord Lyon and establish my pedigree it is not a very expensive matter. It does not cost a great deal, and if' the Government, or the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, were to wish to be more secure he could instruct the Lord Advocate, who is a member of the Government, to take action, probably, I suppose, in the Court of Session, to reduce that decreet of the Lyon Court. That would not be, as I say, a very expensive procedure and one would get certitude that way.
I do not say for a moment that we should not refer this matter to the Committee for Privileges, but that is the kind of thing we are referring to it. There is, however, another matter which bears

387
upon the subject, and that is this question of the election of the Peers who vote. I am sure the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack will bear me out on this: that from the very beginning Peers' elections in Scotland were attended with a very great deal of difficulty, and I think the reason was that the Lord Lyon and his Court were not brought into the arrangements for Peers' elections. They were put under the Lord Clerk Register, without any reference to the Lord Lyon; and I believe that even the Lord Clerk Register, who is sitting here, will agree that the Lord Lyon is privileged to be present at a Peers' election only by invitation: he has no right to be there. For that reason, in the old days people used to go up with their friends and claim Peerages, and claim to vote.
I remember Lord Rutherford as a case in point, though I do not think that that Peerage exists to-day. If my memory serves me (and it is a long time since I read the authorities), those cases were brought to the Committee for Privileges here and so settled. But I am quite sure that for a long time past actions of that sort have not taken place because I am quite sure that, before I was allowed to vote in a Peers' election, I had either to be acknowledged by the Lord Clerk Register, who knows me, or, alternatively, produce a decreet of the Lord Lyon Court to show that I am a proper person to vote. That has always been the safeguard there.
Therefore, I think there are two difficulties ahead of us. As your Lordships know, it is not possible—and we have been told this on so many occasions by the greatest authorities—for your Lordships, or any power in the State, to annul a Peerage. The great thing to avoid, it seems to me, is that anybody who is properly entitled to a Peerage should fail to get a Writ of Summons; because the one thing that made me, at least, vote for the Peerage Act was that I did not want anybody in future to be held in a prison, as I have been held all my life in prison and I did not want Her Majesty any more to have what I might call Stateless subjects, as is the case if there is a Scottish Peer who has no seat in Parliament; who cannot go to the Commons and can have no place in the
388
Lords, and who is, therefore, like a Stateless person. The great danger which lies ahead of us, I think, is that if anybody who really is a Scottish Peer fails to receive a Summons, we are then reproducing one of the great defects which it was one of the most statesmanlike objects of passing the Peerage Act to abolish.
I have finished what I have to say on this matter. I have been so long, because I know that the Committee for Privileges will give this matter very careful and wise attention, and I felt it right to put before your Lordships the kind of question they will have to consider and the kind of question for which they will have to find an equitable solution.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, I listened with great care to my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack, and I realise that he has decided to refer this important matter to the Committee for Privileges. We may have thought in Scotland that we had a constitutional procedure for making sure of the claimants to Peerages, and there may be some disappointment among Scottish people that some of our names have not been readily acceptable. However, I appreciate that the Lord Chancellor has examined this matter with very great care, and I acknowledge that he is moving this Motion not only for the benefit of the House but also for the benefit of Peers, present and future.
2.49 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I may reply shortly to what has been said on this Motion, I am grateful to the noble Duke for what he has said, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, for the information he has given your Lordships about the Lyon Court. I should like to make it perfectly clear that I have said nothing which could in any way be interpreted as a reflection upon the Lyon Court in the discharge of its jurisdiction. The point is this. The Lyon Court deals with the matriculation of arms, the right to carry arms. We in this country have the College of Arms, and a person who claims to be a Peer can go there and seek to establish his right to carry certain arms, with the insignia of nobility for those arms. No Lord Chancellor has thought it right or proper to accept

389
the ruling of Garter upon the question whether anyone is entitled to sit in your Lordships' House. That is one of the difficulties involved.
I considered, of course, the second question touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, as to whether one could regard proof that someone had voted in an election for a Representative Peer for Scotland as proof of entitlement to a Scottish Peerage. I was at one time somewhat attracted to that idea, but then I found this passage in Appendix H of Volume XI of The Complete Peerage, and it is headed "The Election of Scottish Peers". It says this:
"Since the union of England and Scotland in 1707, Scottish peers, as such, have not sat in the House of Lords, but have elected a fixed number of themselves to represent the Scottish Peerage therein. This has made it possible for any person who may claim an extinct or dormant title to which he or she has no right, or cannot prove a right, to assume such title with impunity. Such soidisant peers can even vote, and have often voted, at the election of Scottish peers. If there is no rival claimant, the vote might not be challenged; if there were two rival claimants, they might, and sometimes did, both vote; which shows the absurdity of putting forward the fact of a soi-disant peer having voted as an argument in favour of the validity of his claim."
That may be right, or it may not I simply do not know. But, having read that, I felt that I could not rely on proof of voting as sufficient evidence of entitlement to a Peerage. I am grateful for the way in which your Lordships have received this Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PLANT VARIETIES AND SEEDS BILL [H.L.]
2.52 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have it in Command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Plant Varieties and Seeds Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's Prerogative and interest as far as it is affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 21 [Restrictions on sales of seeds of unindexed plant varieties]:
LORD ST. OSWALD LORD ST. OSWALD: moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"(2A) Where any person makes, or proposes to make, arrangements under which some other person uses seed under the control of the first-mentioned person for the purpose of increasing the first-mentioned person's stock, or of carrying out tests or trials, and under which the whole of the material produced, directly or indirectly, from the seed, and any unused seed, becomes or remains the property of the first-mentioned person, subsection (1) of this section shall not applyߞ

(a) to a sale, or offer for sale, of the seed by the first-mentioned person to the other person as part of the arrangements, or

(b) to a sale by that other person to the first-mentioned person of seed produced, directly or indirectly, from that seed."

LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the two Amendments standing on the Order Paper in my name are related, and with your permission I propose to deal with them together. They match the Government Amendments to Schedule 2, to which your Lordships agreed at Report stage. Under the Bill as it stands it is an offence under Clause 21 to sell seed of a new variety until it has been indexed, and under Clause 22 it is an offence to sell seed of a new variety until it has been independently tested and a report issued for the benefit of farmers and growers. But while breeders and seedsmen are waiting for their new varieties to be indexed or tried out, they may want to build up stocks of seed prior to commercialisation. If they do not have enough land of their own, this may mean entering into multiplication contracts with growers. As I explained to your Lordships when I introduced similar Amendments to Schedule 2 at Report stage, these contracts may involve a sale from the seedsmen to the contract grower, and vice versa.
Under the Bill as it stands, any such sale would be illegal and this might prevent such contracts being made. This would be illogical and accordingly the purpose of the Amendments, which do not affect the principle of the clauses, is to exempt these contracting operations

391
from control under the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 40, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Performance trials and reports for new varieties within a section of the Index]:
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment movedx2014;
Page 23, line 26, at end insertx2014;
("(6) Subsection (4) of this section shall not apply to any sale or offer for sale of the kind described in subsection (2A) of the last foregoing section, and subsection (5) of this section shall not apply to the use of seed for the purpose of carrying out tests or trials.").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
An Amendment (privilege) made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS AND DEFENCE ORGANISATIONS BILL [H.L.]
Bill read 3a (according to Order); an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

CONTINENTAL SHELF BILL [H.L.]
2.56 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, since the debate on the Adjournment last night I have been looking further into the matter of the Third Reading of this Bill. I fear there has been some misunderstanding. Let me say at once that I feel that I must bear a large measure of the responsibility for this and I should like to take this opportunity of apologising to the House, and in particular to those noble Lords who took part in the Committee stage of the Bill. Perhaps I should confirm what I said last night: that there was information about the Third Reading of this Bill being taken to-day, but it was in fact only on one Paper and that was not generally available to Mem-
392
bers of your Lordships' House. Therefore, it is quite correct to say that the majority of noble Lords who took part in the Committee stage were not in possession of the information that the Third Reading was to be taken to-day.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sure the House is very grateful to the noble Earl. It was unfortunate. I suspect that it was thought that this was a small and very unimportant Bill, whereas the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, I am sure, would agree it is one of the most important measures. I think that in his desire to be helpful he also inadvertently misled us in offering to consider matters; that suggested that there would be considerable time for further amendment, and it is really too late to do very much. The fact that the Government were not prepared to accept our Amendments did not mean that the House might not still wish to put them, if only on Third Reading. I am afraid this Bill will go to another place without our having done our work on it as thoroughly as we should. None the less, we appreciate the amende the noble Earl has made.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have it in Command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Continental Shelf Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's Prerogative and interest, as far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of the Bill, I should like to deal with certain points that were raised in Committee. If I misled noble Lords opposite I am extremely sorry. I shall be careful in future not to be too forthcoming. I think the real error was caused because when I answered the noble Lord, Lord Champion, on a specific point my answer was taken as a general point. I am sorry if I misled any noble Lord.
Since the Committee stage we have been giving further thought to the numerous suggestions made both by noble Lords opposite and by my noble friend Lord Merrivale for improving this Bill. In the limited time available—and I agree it is limited, but this Bill is

393
urgent; it is very important—we have been able to reach a final conclusion on only some of the points. The others give rise to technical problems which still need further and perhaps somewhat prolonged examination, and I think in many cases noble Lords will realise that a prompt answer—by prompt, I mean within a week or two—would not be possible. I assure your Lordships, however, that the points they have raised, and other points I have mentioned, are being taken most seriously.
I hope I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, about civil law. When Orders in Council have been made under Clause 3(2), the civil jurisdiction will be complete for the areas concerned. Before any licences are granted the area will have been covered by an Order in Council—of this I can assure the noble Lord. Therefore I can visualise no circumstances arising in which a licensee's employees would not in practice have the protection of the civil law. As regards the criminal law—this is rather complicated—I am afraid I cannot at this stage add to the rather lengthy prepared statement which I made during the Committee stage. This is a most technical legal matter, and I suggest that we must proceed rather cautiously. We think that the present provisions are adequate, but we are keeping an open mind on the subject.
The position is this: where any provision of an existing Act the breach of which creates an offence can, having regard to its subject matter, apply to an installation on the shelf, then it will be applied automatically and without the necessity for any order extending it; and the penalties specified in the Act as regards the United Kingdom will apply to the offences being committed on the shelf. Under this Bill as it stands, we shall not have power to apply any Statutes, or parts of Statutes, at the Government's discretion, and we think that to ask for such a power, which would have to be virtually unlimited, is really going too far. Any gaps which come to light while the Bill is going through Parliament, and before it is enacted, can however, be filled. I hope I have made that point clear.
The Acts that the noble Lord mentioned, such as the Factories Acts, and so on, where they apply, can be made
394
to apply to an installation on the shelf. They will apply in exactly the same way as they would apply in the United Kingdom. That is not to say, for instance, that the whole of the Factories Acts would necessarily apply to something on the shelf, because they might not be applicable. But this is not something that the Government will do piece by piece; this is something that will happen automatically. I hope that is clear to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Champion, during the Committee stage particularly mentioned the Mines and Quarries Act. I realise how important it is that miners should have adequate protection, but we do not think there is any difficulty in this particular matter. I am advised that the Mines and Quarries Act will apply to a mine even if it extends from the land to a point beyond the territorial waters. In practice, of course, a mine cannot go under the shelf unless it does in fact start from land.
We have looked again at the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, about escapes of oil. I am sorry to have to say that we do not see how this provision can be tightened up without its becoming quite harsh and unreasonable. We have followed the wording of the Act which deals already with oil, and in every case it is a question of fact. The only defence to that is if something has happened—if I may put it in layman's language without being too specifically quoted—which is beyond the power of prevention by the people who are undertaking the works. Even then, even if it is beyond their power to prevent the accident that has happened, it is a defence only if they take immediate steps to rectify the defect. This, again, is a matter of fact and not of law.
I hope that I have dealt with the main questions that were raised in Committee. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, had a little doubt in his mind about the civil law. I am advised by legal advisers that there is not the slightest doubt that the installations will be covered by the United Kingdom civil law. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a—(Lord Derwent.)
3.5 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord has, I am quite sure, done his utmost to be helpful in the extremely limited time that the Government have allowed him, and now that we are on Third Reading it really is not proper to discuss what ought to go into this Bill. It is worth reiterating that potentially it is of the most tremendous importance, representing, as it may do, an extension of areas under our own control for exploitation of tens of thousands of square miles—indeed, we agreed that we could go out into the middle of the Atlantic—at depths where already there is drilling going on. We mentioned earlier "Operation Mohole". This, therefore, is of tremendous importance. It is unfortunate that we are being rushed with this Bill, due either to the Government's Election intentions or because they have a guilty conscience. As we mentioned before, they are the twenty-second country to ratify, and it is of the greatest urgency that this Convention should be ratified and brought into effect.
I am still not happy, and it is a pity we have not had more time to consider some of the legal aspects. Naturally, I accept the noble Lord's assertions about the civil law. I take it, therefore, that the Amendment that I tried to move was really unnecessary and that the Bill covers it, and that if somebody suffers injury, even though no Order in Council has been made—the noble Lord has said they will make an Order in Council to designate an area—once it is made, it will be possible for someone who is injured through negligence to have recourse under the Common Law to an action for damages. I take it that this is quite definite.
On the other questions, of the application of the Factories Acts and the Mines and Quarries Act, I was not quite clear when the noble Lord said that a mine will always start from land. He said that a coal mine will always start from land, even though it may tunnel outside territorial waters. I should have thought that as techniques develop it is conceivable that it might not in every event start from land. Therefore it would be in the same position as an oil well.
396
The position with regard to the Factories Acts is still obscure. It seems to me that it is perfectly possible that there will be installations which will not be a factory within the meaning of the Factories Acts, and I should have thought it desirable—indeed, it could have been done in this Bill—to amend the Factories Acts to make installations of these kinds that will come into existence subject to the Factories Acts or to certain provisions. I take it that this point will again be further considered before it comes before another place. I am sorry that there is nothing written into the Bill—I apologise for saying this on Third Reading, but I think it unavoidable in the circumstances—to require the Government to make such orders or regulations as are necessary to provide for the safety, health and welfare of those who do this work.
I would deal only with one other clause in the Bill, and that concerns oil pollution. I do not entirely agree that it follows that the provisions in the Oil in Navigable Waters Act which are appropriate to ships are appropriate to oil installations. The circumstances under which a blow-out might occur are quite different from the situation in regard to a ship, and the penalties would of course be laughable in relation to the damage. They would also be laughable in relation to the loss the oil company would sustain, which one recognises to he another sanction in these matters.
Apart from that, we certainly welcome the Bill. I am sorry that it is going to another place without your Lordships' House having done the work on it which it should do, and I do not doubt that in another place they will have to take note of this fact. None the less, I am grateful to the noble Lord personally, and I hope that he will not consider that because he has tried to be forthcoming and has got into difficulties it should be a reason for not continuing to assist us in these matters.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am very grateful. I should just like to say one more word about the question of oil. What it comes to is this. We will go on having a look at this oil question, but there must be some defence when there is no fault, and can be no fault, attaching to the oil company owning the installation. There are circumstances

397
which arise when that happens. We think that that defence is sufficiently guarded by the words we have borrowed from the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, but we will have another look at it to see if we need to strengthen it. This is one of the things to be looked at again. I must repeat that we must have some defence when there is no fault attaching to the company concerned.
On Question, Bill read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
3.12 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.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [The London commission areas]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment to take account of the adjustments of London commission areas which may be made by Order in Council under Clause 3. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 15, leave out ("following provisions of this section") and insert ("provisions of section 3 of this Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1)(e), to leave out "northwest London" and insert "Middlesex". The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will remember the discussion we had on Second Reading about the use of the name "Middlesex". Your Lordships will remember that the five London commission areas are designated in the Bill by their geographical description, northeast London area, south-east London area, and so on. I invited your Lord-
398
ships to express some views upon the question of the retention of the name "Middlesex" in relation to north-west London area, which in fact succeeds the area of the County of Middlesex. As your Lordships will remember, I expressed sympathy with the views of those who wanted that name retained, and I think the suggestion that it should be retained met with general approval from both sides of the House. This Amendment implements, I think, the wishes of the House. The effect of the Amendment will be that the name "Middlesex" will attach to the commission of the peace, the court of quarter sessions, the magistrates' courts committee for the northwest area, and also to the custos rotuiorum and the under-sheriff. I ought perhaps to mention that there is a consequential Amendment to Schedule 4, page 38, line 8, where the expression "Middlesex' is to be inserted in place of the expression "north-west London"
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 32, leave out ("north-west London") and insert ("Middlesex").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I support this Amendment; and, indeed, it was supported in principle by my noble friend Lord Silkin and myself, and by other noble Lords in various parts of the House. I think the Amendment is good. There is one related point that I should like to raise. I think it is agreed that the county should be mentioned wherever possible, and I am wondering whether on Report stage there could be a further Amendment so that the quarter sessions for the existing County of London should be named London, instead of inner London—which is a rather dreadful, undignified sort of word, as if it were a parish of London; whereas it really is London, at any rate now. Under the London Government Act we are to have, if the Act comes into operation, an Inner London Education Authority. This is a terribly undignified term. Would the Lord Chancellor not think about it to see whether what he has done in the case of Middlesex could not be done also in the case of London? If there is a geographical county of Middlesex surviving the London Government Act, I presume there would be a geographical county of London. If he will look at this point not unsympathetically, I should be greatly obliged.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The only point on which I part company from the noble Lord is this. The effect of the Amendment I am moving is not to retain a geographical county of Middlesex. The county of Middlesex will disappear as a consequence of (I hardly dare mention it) the London Government Act. Therefore, I could not agree to the use of the word "county". The observations made by the noble Lord about the use of the expression "inner London" certainly receive from me most sympathetic consideration. I find it difficult, and I have spent some time in finding suitable names for the other areas now designated geographically.
The difficulty about using the word "London" in relation to one of the four remaining areas is that it might make it look as if, in a sense, it were the main area for the whole of London—that is to say, for instance, the quarter sessions for the whole of London. And one does not want that. I shall be happy to consider any suggestions the noble Lord cares to make to me. I believe that, in a way, it is much more attractive to refer to these quarter sessions by some geographical name, like Middlesex or London—rather than to refer to them as the north cast or south-east area or something like that. As I say, there is a difficulty in finding suitable names, but I should certainly like to consider it. And if the noble Lord, with his knowledge of London, and perhaps his knowledge of London place names, cares to help me in finding suitable names, I shall welcome his assistance.
LORD OGMORE: As one of those who urged the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to take this course, I should like to thank him for agreeing to the suggestion of those of us who on Second Reading supported the name of Middlesex. I welcome this decision.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I should like to raise one point, and I apologise to the Lord Chancellor for not having done so before. In view of what he said about taking some of these things into consideration, I would put to him a point that has been raised with me. It is that, instead of calling a very important area that belonged to a county which still exists—I refer to Essex—north-east London, it should be called the Metropolitan
400
Essex Board, or Essex Division, or something of the kind. We have been pretty badly treated in other directions with regard to the new status of Essex, and it is a great pity, when we are losing great tracts like Ilford and Walthamstow, that the name of Essex should be entirely left out. As a resident of Essex, I feel that the representations made to me are worth considering.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I shall be glad to consider any representation to this end, because I do not think there is any controversy about the matter. I do not think I should like the words "Metropolitan Essex"—they are very long—and I do not want to see any confusion arising with people going to the wrong place, such as to the Essex Quarter Sessions in London, instead of to the Essex Quarter Sessions at Colchester: I think that is where they sit. But I should like to look at that. I was wondering whether, for instance, it might be acceptable to the people living in the North-East area to call the quarter sessions up there which we hope to have—as, for instance, the Ilford or Walthamstow Quarter Sessions—by some territorial designation, even if it is not associated with the county of which it forms a part. I should like to consider that, and I should be glad to have a talk with the noble Earl about it to see whether we can find some suitable names. I do not like the "North-East Area", the "South-East Area" and the rest of them, but I cannot at the moment think of anything which does not have some objection to it.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I must try to think of some other variation to submit to the Lord Chancellor. I will try.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Proceedings and jurisdiction of quarter sessions]:
3.22 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment ensures that a legally qualified chairman of a London commission area may be directed by the Lord Chancellor to sit alone when dealing

401
with the case of a person committed as an incorrigible rogue from a magistrates' court to a court of quarter sessions for a London commission area. I explained on Second Reading why I was seeking to take power under this clause to authorise a legally qualified chairman to sit alone on cases committed for sentence or order or committed for trial. This unfortunate category—there are not many of them—was unfortunately left out, and this Amendment makes it possible to deal with this case as well. I hope that with that explanation your Lordships will agree to this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 7, leave out ("or with") and insert ("persons committed to the court under section 5 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: I do not oppose this Amendment. I am rather surprised that this and so many other Amendments have to be incorporated in the Bill. There are 32 Government Amendments. I should have thought the Government would have thought of most of these at the time the Bill was drafted. I imagine that there has been in this Bill, as in many others, a sense of urgency, not only to get the Bill before us but to get it on the Statute Book. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can explain why it is that this Bill requires so many Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It just shows how reasonable the Government are. I have heard the noble Lord on many occasions say, if not in this House in the other House, how unreasonable the Government are in not amending their own Bills. This Bill was produced and presented for consideration, and we sought to give regard to all sorts of facts in relation to it, in a pure spirit of sweet reasonableness. I think the noble Lord really should not chide us for seeking to give effect to proposals that have been made for the improvement of this Bill. That, after all, is what Parliament is for. After a Bill has been read a second time, the Committee stage is held with a view to securing improvements in the Bill, although one sometimes must admit that Amendments which would not improve it are tabled and have to be rejected.
LORD SILKIN: I will judge the noble and learned Lord's reasonableness when he comes to deal with the Amendments of the Opposition. I am sure he will be reasonable with his own Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Composition of juvenile courts]:
3.25 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: I am very glad to hear from the Lord Chancellor that he has a completely open mind and is anxious to improve the Bill; though I do not think he really answered the point that was made by my noble friend Lord Silkin. This is an Amendment on which I hope he will be receptive and will be willing to think again. The Amendment proposes to omit subsection (3) of Clause 12 of the Bill, and in order to refresh noble Lords' minds I had better read the subsection so that they will know what it is about.
"(3) The functions of the Secretary of State under the said Part II with respect to the nomination or selection of the chairmen and other members of the juvenile courts shall he transferred to the Lord Chancellor, and accordingly for any reference to the Secretary of State in paragraphs 15, 16 and 18 of the said Schedule 2 there shall be substituted a reference to the Lord Chancellor."
First of all, I think it is the case in the Provinces that the members of the juvenile court elect their own chairman. I believe that was stated in the Second Reading debate by the Lord Chancellor, and by my noble friend Lord Champion. Therefore, the first question that has to be answered is: why should not the juvenile courts in Greater London choose their own chairman instead of his being chosen by the Lord Chancellor? The next point is that I am still not convinced that it is right to transfer the function of appointing the members of the children's court panel and the chairman of the children's court from the Home Office to the Lord Chancellor. I know that we have a Home Secretary who is sometimes weak and sometimes sticky, but why he is running to abandon this function to the Lord Chancellor, I do not know. I know that

403
the Lord Chancellor has a persuasive style—at any rate, he has it very effectively when he likes to exercise it—and I am sure he has exercised it with the Home Secretary, but I think it is a pretty poor Home Secretary who has surrendered on this point, and a very weak one on this occasion, although he is somewhat unwisely obstinate on other occasions. Therefore, I am sorry about that, because I think the Home Office is the better Department for this job.
My reasons are as I stated on Second Reading, that the Home Office is the Department which deals with the Children Act and which has a wide variety of functions in respect of deprived children, children out of control, children without parents, children with parents who do not properly look after the children who therefore get into trouble, and some other functions in respect of children, too. The Home Office deals with the approved schools into which some of the children have to go, and with borstals which deal with young people who are perhaps little more than children. This gives the Home Office a considerable experience of children and of their needs and habits—some of them good, some of them not so good, and some of them bad. So I should have thought that the Home Office was the better Department to make these decisions and appointments.
It may be said that the Home Office is the police department as well, but I think that is irrelevant, because the Home Office does not actually administer police functions, except through the Commissioner in the Metropolitan Police Area. I do not think that has much to do with the point, because if that were so the House ought to deny to the Home Office any functions other than police and prisons, which, I think, for reasons I gave before, would be thoroughly bad and would make that Department a Ministry of the Interior on the Continental model, instead of the Department very much concerned with and conscious of the need for civil liberty which it is to-day.
Surely the Lord Chancellor is not doing badly already. He got something from the Home Office which he would not have got from me. I was sounded, when I was Home Secretary, and I said,
404
"No". That was by my late noble friend Lord Jowitt, who also had persuasive manners, as a Lord Chancellor ought to have. I was asked then to give up the recorders and stipendiary magistrates, but I said I thought it was a good thing that these offices should be in the hands of more than one Department, and I held them. However, my successor, my right honourable friend Mr. Chuter Ede, bowed to the persuasions of Lord Jowitt (which I can quite understand: it was arguable), and so the stipendiaries and recorders went to the Lord Chancellor.
The Lord Chancellor has the whole of the appointments of the justices of the peace, anyway—and this will be part of his case. He appoints the justices of the peace, and I do not want to quarrel about that. But he has not hitherto selected from among those justices of the peace the members who should sit in the children's courts or the juvenile courts, or the chairmen of those courts. I should have thought he has done very well in the judicial line as regards appointments of one sort or another, and I do not see why he should take this function from the Home Office—a function which I really believe to be more appropriate to the Home Office, having regard to its various functions affecting children, than it is to the Lord Chancellor.
After all, these children's courts are very human institutions. They are not easy to run. They deal with some very subtle and difficult problems; and I think it is desirable that the Minister or the Department responsible for selecting the justices, not justices ab initio but justices to serve upon the bench in children's courts, and the chairmen, should be the Minister or Department which deals with children in somewhat analogous matters. Therefore, I hope very much that the Lord Chancellor, having regard to what he has just said in reply to my noble friend Lord Silkin, will show how reasonable the Government are in having an open and a receptive mind, and that he will be good enough to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 37, leave out subsection (3).— (Lord Morrison of Lambeth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord, in moving this Amendment, has also sought to put forward a very persuasive style—if I may say so, somewhat more persuasive than his speech on Second Reading, when he accused me of "empire-building" and things of that sort and was, I thought, rather rough with me. Of course, nothing of the sort was justified. I am sorry, but on this occasion, despite the noble Lord's persuasion, to accept this Amendment would not be an improvement, and I should like to deal fairly fully, if I may, with the arguments put forward by the noble Lord. I agree with a great many of the arguments, but in my view they lead to entirely the opposite conclusion. For instance, I agree with him that it is a very good thing that the Home Office should not just be a police department, and that it should have other functions. But that really is not in issue here. I think it would be a great pity indeed if certain functions in relation to children which are now exercised by the Hone Office were taken away from them. But that, again, is not in issue here.
If I may say so with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I think that, both in his speech to-day and in his speech on Second. Reading, he was rather under a misconception as to what really is the change which is now being proposed by this Bill. The noble Lord, in his Second Reading speech, put forward the line of argument—and I think he really put it forward again to-day—that, because the Home Office has these duties in relation to children (and, of course, duties in relation to the police and prisons), it should therefore have the function in Inner London, and in Inner London only, of selecting which magistrates should sit in the juvenile courts—because it is only in Inner London that the Home Secretary exercises that function to-day. The fallacy of that argument is really this. If it is well-founded—the Home Office, after all, is responsible for approved schools, borstals and prisons—then surely the Home Office should be responsible for the appointment, not only of stipendiary magistrates and recorders, as they were, but of all magistrates and of all judges and chairmen of quarter sessions. I know the noble Lord did not think so when he was Home Secretary; but it was
406
because, in the past, Parliament thought it right that, while the Home Secretary exercised this responsibility in relation to prisons, approved schools, borstals and children, he should not also appoint those who had to discharge the judicial duties of trying cases, that Parliament decided to transfer to the Lord Chancellor of the time (and, as the noble Lord has said, this happened in the days of the Labour Government) the appointment of recorders and of stipendiary magistrates.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: It shows my open-mindedness that I thought the Government, on balance, and only on balance, were wrong to do so. But the noble Lord has now asked: why should the Home Secretary, in the case of Inner London, have a position that he has not got elsewhere? But it is the noble Lord who is proposing that the Home Secretary should have a position in Greater London which he has not got outside—namely, the appointment of chairmen of juvenile courts.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have not that responsibility outside, I quite agree, but I have the responsibility, not only for appointing all magistrates but also for removing unsatisfactory ones from the bench; for prescribing the rules of procedure, both in the juvenile courts and in the adult courts; and also for prescribing what courses of instruction should be undergone, both by magistrates in the adult courts and by those who are going to sit in juvenile courts. That has been, and still is, the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor over the whole field; including Inner London. It really is an anomaly that there should be this overlapping between the two Departments just on the simple question of the appointment from magistrates of those who should sit in juvenile courts in Inner London. The fact that, at the moment, that power remains with the Home Office does, I think, lead some people to gain the impression (indeed, I was not at all sure that the noble Lord, himself, on the occasion of his Second Reading speech, was not rather under the impression) that the Home Office would have something to do with the actions of those juvenile court magistrates.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: No.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am glad to hear the noble Lord say, "No"; but that is one effect that the retention of this power by the Home Office might well have: the idea that these juvenile court magistrates, appointed by the Home Office, have in some way a link with the Home Office. It was that line of reasoning, the desire to break any impression that there was such a link, that led to the transfer of recorderships and stipendiary magistrates.
The present system is, of course, that I appoint the magistrates, and if I do not appoint them the Home Secretary cannot put any magistrates in the juvenile courts. In fact, of course, there is an Advisory Committee on which representatives of the Home Office and of my Office sit, with other people, to make recommendations with regard to magistrates in juvenile courts in the Inner London area. I propose to ask the Committee to continue to function, and I shall welcome their advice. All this Bill does is to avoid unnecessary duplication: it does not change the procedure radically. Members of the Committee may remember that the Select Committee on Estimates in another place for 1962–63 recommended that the Home Office and the Treasury, in consultation with the Lord Chancellor's office, should take immediate steps to reorganise the present division of responsibilities between the three Departments concerned with the administration of the criminal law, with a view to rationalising its administration and rendering more effective the methods of bringing the criminal law up to date. In reply to that, the Home Office said this, among other things:
"It is proposed to take the opportunity of the Administration of Justice Bill to effect some adjustments between the responsibilities of the Secretary of State and of the Lord Chancellor "—
and this is one of the adjustments.
I would say—and I know that the noble Lord takes a great interest in good administration—that it really was bad administration to have this duplication of responsibility in this very small and limited field. I should have thought, on the broad principle, that a clear line should be drawn between the responsibility for the appointment of those who are going to exercise judicial functions, in whatever courts, and responsibility for
408
the treatment of offenders, dealing with children, and so on, which is the responsibility of the Home Office. I do not know that I can add to the argument by prolonging it. This matter has been carefully considered. For the reasons I have given, we think that the change made by the Bill should be made, and that the Amendment which is designed to restore the status quo should be resisted.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I follow the noble and learned Lord's arguments, but I do not agree with them. Clearly, outside what is given the undignified designation of Inner London, at any rate, the chairman of the juvenile court is appointed by the members of the court. Would not the noble and learned Lord give similar power in the so-called Inner London that the courts there should appoint the chairmen? Why should he want to take it out of their hands?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly not at the present time. I say that clearly to the noble Lord. The noble Lord will know that the lay magistrates in the Inner London area have very limited powers—I think I referred to this matter in my speech on the Second Reading. They really deal with very minor offences.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Why?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Because that has been the system; with the stipendiary magistrates dealing in the same area. Your Lordships will remember that under the recommendation of the Aavold Committee, which has been accepted, the lay magistrates will be sharing with the stipendiary magistrates in the Inner London area the responsibility for discharge of nearly all the magisterial functions. That will mean that the lay magistrates in London will acquire the experience and knowledge of their brethren outside Inner London. But one cannot claim—and I am sure they would be the last to claim—that they have as yet the experience of dealing with those cases which their brethren have had. That is the reason why one finds the exception which now exists in Central London. It is only because of that that this power has

409
rested, up till now, on the Home Secretary. That is the answer to the noble Lord's question.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I do not want to continue the argument, since we want to be expeditious; but if the argument of the Lord Chancellor is that, because their powers are less in Inner London than outside, therefore that is the reason why the Lord Chancellor, and not the courts, is to appoint, I should have thought that strengthened the case for allowing the courts to appoint their own chairman.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is not, I think, an issue on this Amendment.
LORD OGMORE: As a magistrate in London, I feel certain that most magistrates—and I am not speaking for them all—would prefer the proposal in this particular clause and would be against the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison. I feel myself that the more
it is apparent to all that there is a distinction between the Judiciary and the police, the better. Of course, the Home Office is very much associated with (and naturally so, because it is responsible for) the Metropolitan Police; and I feel that it is preferable to let the clause stand as it is in the Bill. It would be a retrograde step to carry the Amendment. The one point I would make is that the Lord Chancellor—or his successor, if he is not still in office—should look at the whole question in a year or two's time, because I think that in a short time the chairman of this particular juvenile bench should, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has said, be selected in Inner London by the members of that bench, just as he is elsewhere.
3.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 63.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Lindgren, L.

Shackleton, L.

Attlee, E.

Listowel, E.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Longford, E.

Silkin, L.

Champion, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Summerskill, B.

Crook, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Taylor, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Peddie, L.

Williams, L.

Henderson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Airedale, L.

Falkland, V.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Albemarle, E.

Ferrers, E.

Merrivale, L.

Auckland, L.

Fortescue, E.

Merthyr, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Meston, L.

Balerno, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Milverton, L.

Bethell, L.

Furness, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Boston, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Morrison, L.

Carrington, L.

Gosford, E.

Mountevans, L.

Chesham, L.

Greenway, L.

Moyne, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Grenfell, L.

Newton, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hawke, L.

Ogmore, L.

Conesford, L.

Henley, L.

Rea, L.

Cowley, E.

Horsbrugh, B.

Saltoun, L.

Craigton, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sandys, L.

Cromartie, E.

Ironside, L.

Somers, L.

Daventry, V.

Jessel, L.

Soulbury, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Killearn, L.

Strang, L.

Derwent, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Devonshire, D.

Lothian, M.

Upjohn, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

MacAndrew, L.

Willingdon, M.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 12 agreed to.
House resumed.

M.P.s' REMUNERATION AND PEERS' ALLOWANCES
3.55 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a statement which has just been made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. The statement is as follows:
"The remuneration of Members of the House of Commons and salaries of Junior Ministers were raised in 1957, and at the same time an expenses allowance was introduced for Members of the House of Lords. The basic salary of a senior Minister has remained unchanged since 1831.
"After consultation with the leaders of the main political Parties in both Houses, we have decided that the time has now come for a fundamental review of the remuneration of Ministers of the Crown and of Members of the House of Commons and also for the reconsideration of the allowance for Members of the House of Lords.
"Her Majesty's Government have therefore appointed Sir Geoffrey Lawrence, Mr. H. S. Kirkaldy and Professor W. J. M. Mackenzie to be a Committee with the following terms of reference:—
"To review, and to recommend what changes are desirable in, the remuneration of Mr. Speaker, Ministers of the Crown and Members of the House of Commons and also the allowance for Members of the House of Lords, having regard to their responsibilities, to the place of Parliament in the national life and to the changes which have taken place, since the existing emoluments were fixed, in general standards of remuneration, and to the increases in expenses borne by Members of both Houses in the discharge of their duties.
"The Committee will, of course, take evidence from whatever sources they wish, but in order to assist them in carrying out their task, Her Majesty's Government, in consultation with the other Parties, have appointed an Advisory Panel with which the Committee will be able to consult and from which they will be able to obtain advice on Parliamentary matters.
412
"The following have agreed to serve on the Advisory Panel: Lord Tweedsmuir, Chairman, Lord Champion, the honourable Members, Sir Hendrie Oakshott, Mr. Arthur Tiley, Mr. G. H. Oliver, Mr. Hervey Rhodes and Mr. Donald W. Wade.
"The Government consider that the Committee should be asked to report as soon as possible after the General Election and that whatever action seems appropriate in the light of their Report should then be taken without delay."
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for making that statement. I think, at this stage, it is best not to comment on it.
LORD REA: My Lords, I would also thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his statement. It is interesting that many matters which brook no delay" rest for a long time, and one of these matters seems to have rested since 1831. I must congratulate the Government on bringing so many urgent matters forward at this particular moment, for some unknown reason. There is one other comment which I hope I may be allowed to make. We are a friendly Parliament in both Houses. It is interesting to me that both the larger Parties have one Peer and two Members of another House on the Advisory Panel, whereas the smaller Party at present has only one Member of the other House on the panel.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, no doubt the noble Lord is hoping for better things at the next Election.
LORD REA: My Lords, I hope that we shall implement the Life Peerages Act.

DETAINEES IN ADEN
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary has just answered in another place a Question of which he had Private Notice. The Question put to him was as follows:
"To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will name the three men now charged in connection with the public outrage in Aden, and what steps he has taken to obtain the release of other detainees against whom no charges are being made?"

413
My right honourable friend replied:
"No charges have yet been preferred. The answer to the second part of the question is, No."
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I do not know what is the origin of the information which the questioner in the House of Commons put to me this morning, but he said that he had obtained information that three men were being charged. Has any inquiry been made since Notice was given of the Question? I think that Notice was given fairly early this morning, and one can get pretty quick consultations. I do not need to comment further, unless we can be told whether we are likely to have information on the point l have put before the end of to-day's Sitting.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am in some difficulty, for the simple reason that I had no information that any such question was going to be asked or that the noble Earl was going to make any inquiries until just a few minutes before 1 o'clock. My noble friend the Duke of Devonshire unfortunately has a very important engagement, and I can only say that the Question was tabled by a Member of the noble Earl's Party in the House of Commons and that that was the answer of my right honourable friend. I am really not in a position to say—I hope the noble Earl will understand—what, if any, communications have passed between Aden and this country this morning. I am able to say that, so far as I am aware, that is the present position. I am sorry I cannot give the noble Earl any more information on the particular point he has asked.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I want to make it clear to the noble and learned Lord that there was no intention on my part to be discourteous. I approached both the usual channels and his Secretary midmorning this morning, and I understood that he was engaged in the Cabinet and had another important appointment afterwards before he could reach this House. But reference was then made to the Commonwealth Office, with the help of the officials of the Lord Chancellor, so I do not understand why the information has not been communicated to him before now. It seems to me that there
414
would have been time, from the time that Mr. Bottomley in another place had given Notice to raise this Question, to communicate with Aden, and for Par-Parliament to be informed before the Christmas Recess begins whether the suggestion is true or untrue that a charge has been made.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I was not in the least complaining about the noble Earl's action; I was merely seeking to explain why I was not in a position to answer his supplementary question, which related to communications between Aden and this country taking place this morning. Indeed, I have been supplied with ample notes on many matters, but that does not happen to be one of them. No charges have yet been preferred. I can tell the noble Earl that quite positively. I do not think I can say any more which will give him any information in answer to the specific question he put. I do not know how many of those now detained will be charged with offences, or, indeed, when such charges will be preferred. I can well imagine, in view of the noble Earl's interest in this matter and having regard to the situation in Aden, that charges will be preferred with the least possible delay.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am particularly anxious that that should be done, because, through the courtesy of the noble Duke the Duke of Devonshire, I have received a copy of the Emergency Regulations, and there are one or two points in the Regulations about which we ought to get further understanding. If the noble Duke is not available at the end of this cross-questioning, perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will see me about it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I shall be only too glad to discuss with the noble Earl any points he has on the drafting of the Regulations, a copy of which, once again, I have had supplied to me only a few moments ago. They are, I understand, Regulations made after the bomb outrage, and in the course of the bomb outrage the chief draftsman suffered some injury, so there may be some drafting defects. I have had no opportunity yet of considering the Regulations. When I have finished with the Administration of

415
Justice Bill, I shall be only too glad to discuss the matter with the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, as it is evident that a large number of persons are detained in Aden, and as the noble Duke the Duke of Devonshire has already promised us further information about that, may I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether he would convey to the noble Duke two further questions? First of all, are the Government satisfied about the conditions under which certain persons who are detained are being held in prison in one of the States of the Federation? Secondly, what is the reason why persons who are residents of Aden are detained in one of the States, and not in Aden?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I cannot answer the second question, but with regard to the first question I can say that there have been wild reports that the detainees have been maltreated. The British medical officer visited them and has reported that there is no truth in these stories. It is unfortunate that there should have been the need to detain these people, but I do not know whether your Lordships have, by any chance, seen something which was broadcast to Aden, when the workers in Aden were urged on November 25 to carry arms and to use them in Aden. Then, on December 10, the day of the incident, it was broadcast:
"This is not the last bomb. Our brothers in the South are prepared to throw over bombs, and will do so in Britain herself if possible."
In these circumstances, there was a real need for emergency measures and to detain certain individuals.

PRESIDENT KENNEDY MEMORIAL
4.5 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, on December 5 the Prime Minister made a preliminary statement in another place about a National Memorial to President Kennedy, and I think your Lordships would like me to read a statement that he has made to-day in another place. It is as follows:
"Further discussions have now been held with the right honourable gentle-
416
man the Leader of the Opposition and with the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party"—
that is, in another place—
"and with their agreement Lord Franks has been invited to be the Chairman of a small committee to consider the suggestions that have been and may be made and to recommend what form a Memorial might take. It seems right that we should reach agreement on the form of a Memorial before an appeal for funds is launched.
"My right honourable friend the Prime Minister intends to have further consultations with the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition about the membership of the committee and arrangements for an announcement will be made as soon as possible. Lord Franks is at present abroad on a private visit but will embark upon this task immediately on his return to this country in the New Year.
"Any communication in connection with a Memorial should be addressed to the Secretary, The President Kennedy Memorial Committee, Cabinet Office, Great George Street, S.W.1."

THE CASE OF MR. HERMAN WOOLF
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, the Home Secretary is making a statement in another place concerning the case of Mr. Herman Woolf, and I should like to repeat it to your Lordships, using my right honourable friend's own words. The statement is as follows:
"On the instructions of the Commissioner of Police a thorough investigation was carried out by Detective-Superintendent Axon, whose report I have studied with great care, together with some further information which I requested.
"There have been two grounds of concern about this case. The first was that, although Mrs. Woolf had reported to the poice that her husband was missing, she received no information about him until after his death. This occurred through a failure of coordination within the Metropolitan Police organisation for which the Commissioner has already expressed his

417
deep regret. The procedure for dealing with inquiries about missing persons has been reviewed, to safeguard against any similar failure in future.
"The second ground of concern was whether Mr. Woolf, after being knocked down by a car, might have received any further injuries during the time when he was at West End Central Police Station. For my part I would have welcomed the holding of a fresh inquest at which any such allegations could have been tested; and my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General gave his authority for an application for a fresh inquest to be made to the High Court. On November 13 the Court, to whom all the information in the hands of the police was made available, refused the application. In delivering judgment the Lord Chief Justice said that the evidence before the Court fell far short of enabling the Court to say that there was any real risk that justice was not done at the inquest.
"From my own study of Detective-Superintendent Axon's report and of the statements which he took from every available witness, I am in much doubt whether further inquiry will throw any fresh light on what happened. But in the circumstances of this case, with its tragic end, I am anxious that no possible point of doubt should remain unresolved, if further inquiry can resolve it. I have therefore decided to set up an inquiry into the actions of the Metropolitan Police in relation to the case of Mr. Herman Woolf, from the time of the road accident in which he was involved on November 10, 1962, until the time of his death in the Atkinson Morley Hospital on November 23, 1962. Mr. Norman Skelhorn, Q.C., the Recorder of Portsmouth, has agreed to hold the inquiry, and the Secretary will be Mr. W. Middlemass. Any communication about it should be addressed to him at the Home Office. I shall publish Mr. Skelhorn's Report."
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we are grateful for this statement. On the first point, it is odd that Mrs. Woolf, who notified the police that her husband was missing, should not have been told that
418
he had met with an accident, and had died, or been informed at the time of the inquest. It seems almost inconceivable that administration should have broken down in such a way as that. The statement gives no explanation of the breakdown, and one would like to know a little more about it, if the noble Lord is able to give it. On the second point, again it is very strange that, after the Lord Chief Justice had decided that there was no ground for reopening the inquest, the Government should now decide that there is one because there is an element of doubt. I make no complaint about that, and I think we must await the result of the further inquiry.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I add that of course there was a very serious failure of co-ordination inside the Metropolitan Police? That we know. I do not think I will say any more about it, because that may well be one of the matters which the inquiry will look into as well, and that report will be fully published.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, can the noble Lord give an assurance that that will he looked into?—because it is not included in the statement as one of the terms of reference. If it will be, I am quite satisfied.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, may I repeat a sentence in the statement, when my right honourable friend said:
"I have therefore decided to set up an inquiry into the actions of the Metropolitan Police…from the time of the road accident in which he was involved "—
that is, from the beginning. I think I am right in saying that that covers it.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL
4.12 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Appointment of justices' clerks and other officers]:
LORD DERWENT: The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that the principal chief clerk for the Inner London area, who is appointed by the committee of magistrates under Clause

419
15, is to assist the chief magistrate in the day-to-day administration of the magistrates' courts in the inner London Area, which the latter is to carry on under Clause 13(6). This is in accordance with the recommendation of the Aarvold Committee. The Aarvold Committee pointed out that the committee of magistrates could deal with only broad matters of principle, such as conditions of service and staff complements and individual cases of special importance. It recommended that the chief magistrate, and under him the principal chief clerk, should be responsible for day-to-day staff management, and for deciding the many questions which it would be impracticable or inappropriate to refer to the committee itself. The committee also thought that the principal chief clerk should be the channel of communication between the chief magistrate and the chief clerks of the integrated court service, and would convey decisions of the committee of magistrates to the chief clerks. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 43, at end insert—
("(3) The principal chief clerk shall assist the chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate to perform the latter's duty under section 13(6) of this Act of carrying on the day to day administration of the magistrates' courts in the inner London Area.")—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 15, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD OGMORE: There is one point I wish to raise, and I think the appropriate time to raise it is now. I have had some consultation on this, and I have given the Lord Chancellor notice. I do not want to put it down as an Amendment, because what I should like is to get an assurance from the noble and learned Lord that the Government will carry out this portion of the Aarvold Report. The question arises under paragraphs 112 and 113 of that Report, and to refresh your Lordships' memory I will read them. Paragraph 112 says:
"We recommend that all the full-time staff of both the metropolitan magistrates' courts and the lay justices courts should be offered employment in the integrated service at salaries not less than those they are receiving at present."
420
Paragraph 113 says:
"It has been represented to us, and we agree, that such an offer should be on a 'no detriment' basis. By this we mean the same basis as that specified in another connection in paragraph 40 of the Scheme of Conditions of Service agreed by the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Administrative, Professional, Technical and Clerical Services, which is repeated in substance in paragraph 28 of the Conditions of Service recommended by the National Joint Council for Justices' Clerks' Assistants. This reads as follows:
'Where an officer under his previously existing contract of service is receiving a higher salary or would progress to a higher salary than that applicable to the current grading of his post under this Scheme such higher salary or progressive higher salary shall be preserved in his case, otherwise the Scheme shall apply in its entirety.'
"We also accept the interpretation added to this paragraph which reads:
'Where a higher salary or a progressive higher salary under a former contract of service is preserved the officer is not entitled to any temporary benefit which may be afforded by the salary scale applicable under the Scheme to the grading of the post'."
Those are the two paragraphs of the Aarvold Report in question. I understand that those London justices' clerks who are affected have taken the matter up with the Home Office, but I think it is desirable to have the views of the Lord Chancellor on this matter. I hope he will be able to give us an assurance that under the provisions of this Bill there will be no detriment in salary so far as applies to the officers concerned.
There is also the question of the word "may" in Clause 24(2) of the Bill. Those officers concerned would, of course, prefer this provision to be mandatory and not permissive, and that the word "may" should be "shall". The Lord Chancellor is well aware of the position as I have explained it, and it would be of great satisfaction to those concerned if he could give us an assurance on this point.
LORD DERWENT: Perhaps as this is partly a Home Office matter I may be allowed to answer the noble Lord. I have had the best legal advice on the word "may" from my noble and learned friend, who says that it is the proper use of the word "may" in a Bill of this kind. What the noble Lord was really saying was this, if I have understood him aright, although I was not quite clear. He was wondering why the provisions in this

421
Bill about the protection of the interests of existing courts' staff were not as specific as the same sort of provision in the London Government Act.
I will tell the noble Lord why we have chosen the form of provision and words in this Bill. There are two reasons. The first is that we are dealing with a problem different from that dealt with by the London Government Act. Our task, although it relates to fewer people, is more complex, and we are dealing with one authority, the committee of magistrates, over whose decisions—and this is important—in respect of conditions of service the Secretary of State has complete control. He has power under Clause 15(5) to confirm, to modify, or to refuse to confirm, the determination made by the committee, and is not, as in the other case, dealing with an authority over whose decisions there is no comparable control. This task is rather more complex, because while under the local government reorganisation officers transferred at least continue to be governed by local government terms, we are concerned in the case of the integrated courts' staff with what will be for one or other element of the staff a radical change in terms, since the committee will have to decide whether the metropolitan or the lay conditions of service shall apply to the integrated courts' service.
Our second main reason for making only general provision for the protection of existing staff is that we are still considering, with a view to having fairly full consultations with the staff associations, how their interests can best be protected. All I can do at this stage is to say to the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is conscious of the need to ensure the protection of the interests of the existing staff, and will, after the series of consultations which have already started, be prepared to consider amending the Bill when it is possible to describe with precision what, if any, further protective provision is required. At the moment we think our powers are adequate because it is up to the Home Secretary to confirm the terms of service, and he is bearing this very much in mind. That is why we have had a comparatively general provision as to how this is to be looked after.
LORD OGMORE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply and I feel that the Home Secretary, in conjunction with the various interests concerned, will arrive at a very satisfactory solution.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Juries]:
4.22 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that the costs of jurors at the five London quarter sessions, which under subsection (7) are payable out of the general fund of the Greater London Council, are to be chargeable only on the London boroughs and not on the City of London. The reason for this is that the City of London justices will not commit cases to the London courts of quarter sessions, since the original quarter sessions jurisdiction for the City will continue to be exercised by the Central Criminal Court, and the City quarter sessions will continue to exercise their appellate jurisdiction. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 15, at end insert—
("(8) Any sum falling to be defrayed by virtue of subsection (7) of this section out of the general fund of the Greater London Council in respect of jury service at the court of quarter sessions for a London commission area shall he chargeable only on the London boroughs.")—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 21-30 agreed to.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved, after Clause 30, to insert the following new clause:
Chairman of County and District Council not to he Justice of the Peace ex officio
".Subsection (5) of section 3 of the Local Government Act 1933 (which provides that the chairman of a county council shall, by virtue of his office be a Justice of the Peace for the county) and subsection (5) of section 33 of the Local Government Act 1933 (which provides that a chairman of a district council shall, by virtue of his office be a Justice of the Peace for any county in which the district is wholly or partly situate) shall cease to have effect."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 7 which stands in my

423
name. I think I should at the outset explain that the general principles governing and surrounding this Amendment apply equally to the next Amendment, No. 8, which also stands in my name. Therefore, if I take a little time in moving this one I shall hope to be able to be short indeed in moving No. 8 I do not think that I should advise your Lordships to read this Amendment, but rather to read the sidenote of it, which I think puts the matter quite succinctly:
"Chairman of County and District Council not to be Justice of the Peace ex officio"
I think I should begin by reading to your Lordships an extract from the evidence of the County Councils Association to the Royal Commission on the Justices of the Peace, which sat under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord. Lord du Parcq, and which reported in 1948. The Royal Commission saw fit to print this extract in the main body of their Report:
"The Association entertain no doubt that, if any approach is to be made to the ideal that only the most suitable persons are appointed to the commission of the peace, then chairmen of county, borough, urban and rural district councils should cease to qualify for admission to the list merely by their assumption of these offices. The qualities which enable a chairman of a local authority to perform his duties with success are not of necessity those requisite for the office of justice of the peace, added to which there is the point that in many areas the office of chairman is a matter of rotation rather than of distinctive merit. In any event, if a chairman of a local authority is suitable for appointment as a justice of the peace, the ordinary procedure should suffice to ensure his consideration for that office."
I am authorised to say that the County Councils Association to-day stand by that statement which they gave to the Royal Commission. And the Royal Commission say: "We agree with that statement."
In paragraph 156 of their Report the Royal Commission say:
"One of the arguments used against the retention of the local government ex officio justices is that they hold office such a relatively short period that they cannot gain sufficient experience of magisterial work to be useful as justices."
Later in the same paragraph the Royal Commission, having considered some statistics with which I certainly shall not weary your Lordships, conclude:
"These figures are not precise, but they show quite clearly that an ex officio justice
424
(who is not also a justice named in a commission) has little chance of gaining much experience in magisterial work."
The Royal Commission, again in the chapter dealing with the summary of their main recommendations, say this:
"In appointing justices the paramount consideration is the person's fitness for the discharge of judicial duties."
Finally, in paragraph 351 of their recommendations, they say:
"Chairmen of county councils and of urban and rural district councils should cease to be justices ex officio."
We could not have it more clearly stated than that by a Royal Commission. Perhaps it is not surprising that upon the strength of those recommendations the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merthyr, thought fit to move an Amendment in the Committee stage of the Justices of the Peace Bill, 1949, when it was in Committee before your Lordships, in identical terms with the Amendment which I am moving at this moment. In the course of moving it, the noble Lord said this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 164, col. 1039]:
"If a man is thought to be the type who would make a good magistrate, there is nothing in the world to prevent his being appointed in the ordinary, proper way, and it is quite unnecessary to bring him in by the back door because he holds some other office."
The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, speaking from his vast experience in these matters, agreed and said this [col. 1046]:
"If, as in many cases, they are excellent people of the kind that my noble friend"—
he was referring to the then Lord Chancellor—
"wishes to retain upon the bench, by all means let the Lord Chancellor put them on the bench. Let them be magistrates like all the other magistrates. Let them avail themselves of the new system of training. Let them take their duties as seriously as the great majority of magistrates are now taking their duties. But let us on all accounts, so far as we can, keep politics off the benches, at any rate in this direct form of political election being the road to a place on the bench. Let us keep the judiciary and the Legislature separate."
My Lords, the next speaker in that debate was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, then, of course, in office as Lord Chief Justice, who said [col. 1047]:
"I feel that the administration of justice will be helped to a very great extent if he ex officio justices disappear. By all means,

425
if they are men of judicial habit and of judicial thought, let them be put upon the bench by the Lord Chancellor in the ordinary way; but I submit that it is most undesirable that merely because they hold an elected position in local government they must necessarily be considered fitted to take part as justices of the peace. I hope the Committee will in this matter cordially support the Royal Commission Report, which think is of the greatest possible importance."
Then Viscount Maugham, in a speech of only fourteen lines in all, said [col. 1049];
"I should like to say, as I have had some experience as Lord Chancellor, that I agree with everything that has been said by the noble and learned Lord Chief Justice."
By now your Lordships may be wondering what the Lord Chancellor of the day, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Jowitt, would have to say in reply, and I only hope that in quoting to your Lordships a few extracts from his speech I am doing justice to his argument, because, of course, that is what I wish to do. The noble and learned Viscount said [col. 1053]:
"But your Lordships, I think, have lost sight of one feature. It sometimes happens that during the time the mayor or chairman sits there ex officio it is discovered that he is very good. And this is a source from which we not infrequently get magistrates. A fellow comes along and is seen in action, and it is decided that he is well worth having. When his year comes to an end—I agree that it is often only a year—they tell me that the fellow has been very useful and proved himself, and I make him a magistrate. I get to know of his capabilities and his capacity solely because he is an ex officio. That point has not been mentioned but it is important. Of course, some of the ex officios are not fit to sit."
Later down the same column the noble and learned Viscount says this:
"I do not think I should he prepared to say, from my own personal experiences, that I could lay down a priori that the ex officios are worse than the others."
Your Lordships can judge for yourselves the strength of that argument. But what I do not understand is this. If you are going to superimpose upon the ordinary system of selecting magistrates by appointments by the Lord Chancellor upon recommendation, why do you select in particular the chairmen of local authorities? There are surely dozens of groups of people from whom you could make selections who would reveal, some of them, excellent qualities as justices of the peace. You might say that all senior officers of the Armed
426
Services upon retirement shall be ex officio justices for a limited period.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Why?
LORD AIREDALE: You would very likely find that among them there would be revealed some excellent justices, as well as possibly some very poor ones. I am not suggesting that you should do that. I am saying you might just as well do that as appoint the chairmen of local authorities. You might do this with chartered accountants upon attaining the age of 45. You might say that recipients of the O.B.E. shall be given a trial period as justices of the peace to see how they get on. Why you should select chairmen of local authorities I fail to understand.
However, the noble and learned Viscount went on [col. 1053]:
"I feel, however, that there is a real point of substance in the fact that they are there for such a short time. To my mind that is a great difficulty. If we are successful, as I hope we shall he, in getting some scheme of training going, I should not feel justified in asking anybody who is to sit for only a year to undergo a course of training such as we contemplate for the others."
We now have a course of training for justices, but it is not yet, I believe, compulsory. I understand that the Magistrates' Association are pressing to make it compulsory and that the Association are very sure that compulsory training for magistrates is going to come.
The noble and learned Viscount went on [col. 1054]:
"… if I had to look at it solely from the point of view of the administration of justice, I am not sure that I would not vote for the Amendment. But we must not lose sight of the other aspect—namely, the position of local government."
And this is, I think, perhaps the part of this speech which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, will be interested in, and this is the final excerpt from this speech which I desire to read, It continues the local government aspect. The noble and learned Viscount said [col. 1055]:
"We feel that at the present time we should not do something which would be regarded. rightly or wrongly, as a further blow against local government."
and he concludes:
"I think this is typically a matter upon which your Lordships ought to decide and

427
tell us what line you consider we ought to adopt."
Your Lordships considered and divided: for the Amendment, 23; against it 24. And what your Lordships have to decide, I think, this afternoon is whether after these intervening years your Lordships think that the same decision should be come to, or whether the scale should not he tipped the other way. I do not think it can be said that the duties of magistrates have not become more complex in these intervening years. As a very rough yardstick of this I might perhaps mention Stone's Justices Manual. In 1950 the two volumes numbered, I think, nine pages short of 3,000, and the number has now in the 1963 edition reached 3,358 pages. There is the matter for your Lordships to decide. Is there still a proper place on the Benches for ex officio magistrates, untrained, exercising their functions for one year? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 30, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD SILKIN: Before the noble and learned Lord replies, I think I should like to say just one or two words on this. I suppose in strict logic it would be difficult to resist this. The only thing I would ask from a logical point of view is why the noble Lord does not go the whole hog and deal also with mayors and lord mayors, who are in exactly the same position
LORD AIREDALE: I deal with mayors in my next Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: No. The county boroughs and lord mayors of cities are not dealt with, and it would leave them in exactly the same position as ex officios. The noble Lord should also go one stage further and deal with the City of London, but he has not got the courage to do that. I really do not feel that there is any harm in the first citizen of an area being on the Bench ex officio. I think it is a good thing. I think it adds to the dignity of the authority. I am bound to say that the analogy of the Army or the chartered accountants organisation is quite irrelevant. This is a civic function which is being performed, and I think there is a lot to be said for the first citizen of the area being represented on the judicial body.
428
But there is one other point—namely, that, in practice, being a magistrate involves not only sitting on the bench but signing documents for all kinds of people who are in difficulty. I remember in the old days one of the big tasks was to sign statutory declarations for people who had lost their pawn tickets, and all sorts of documents of that kind. It is a great convenience to know that you can go to the Town Hall and find the mayor, who as a rule is in a position to sign documents of this kind. This is not a matter of outstanding importance; it does not affect the administration of justice greatly. In practice, I doubt whether the mayor or the chairman attends much in court—he has much too much work to do—and I think this little bit of dignity that you give to the chairman of a district council is all to the good. If we have a Division upon this, I shall be one of the 24 and support the clause as it stands.
4.42 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, one gets the idea that there is a superficial case for these two Amendments, which are closely allied, but I would point out that the Royal Commission's recommendations and their views also contain something which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has omitted to mention. If I may be allowed to do so, as these clauses are so closely bound up together, I would refer particularly to the second Amendment, which is No. 8, and direct attention to that in relation to the whole question.
After examining the whole position, the Royal Commission took the view that special considerations should be applied to the mayor. Their views and recommendations on this point were contained in paragraphs 158, 159 and 160 of their Report. Following the Royal Commission's recommendation, Section 2 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949, made these provisions. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to state them, because they are relevant to what is being proposed to-day. First of all, in view of the fact that they said the mayor deserved special consideration, they provided that a mayor of a borough should not be a justice of the peace for the borough ex officio during, the year next after he has ceased to be

429
a mayor; secondly, that where a borough has no separate commission of the peace the mayor should be justice of the peace for the county but not for the borough; and thirdly, that where the borough has a separate commission of the peace the mayor should be a justice of the peace for the borough but not for the county.
The effect of Lord Airedale's new clause—that the mayor of a borough should not be a justice of the peace for a county—would be to deprive the mayor of a borough not having a separate commission of the peace from being a justice of the peace ex officio during his term of office for the county in which the borough is situated. This goes a good deal beyond the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and creates an artificial and, I suggest, unnecessary differentiation between the mayors of non-county boroughs, depending quite fortuitously on whether or not the borough has a separate commission of the peace.
As the Royal Commission pointed out in their Report, the office of mayor
"is the symbol of the corporate character of the borough. The duties of a justice in maintaining order are oder historically than his duties of adjudication, and mayors have had for centuries the special responsibility for the keeping of the peace in the boroughs; that responsibility is ultimately dependent on his position as a justice."
In those circumstances, and with those words of the Royal Commission, the position of any mayor as a magistrate should. I suggest, not be interfered with unless overwhelming arguments can be adduced in favour of the change, those being arguments which were not brought to the notice of the Royal Commission who went so thoroughly into the whole question of justices ex officio. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will not accept these Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for reminding your Lordships of a good deal of what was said in the course of the debates in your Lordships' House in 1949. I listened to him with some anxiety lest he was going to quote something that I had said on these points during the passage of the Bill in another place. The anxiety is owing to the fact that I
430
simply have not had time to look up what I did say. I am sure that I said something upon this measure, and whatever I said then—I hope it agrees with what I am going to say to-day—expressed my sincere conviction at that time; and what I am going to say to-day expresses my sincere conviction to-day.
One can make a fairly strong theoretical case for the Amendments moved by the noble Lord. He put the argument most persuasively. In fact, of course—I shall not spend much time upon it—as my noble friend behind me has just pointed out, his Amendments do not accord with the recommendations of the Royal Commission. They recommended—and to this extent he is in agreement—that the chairmen of county councils and urban and rural district councils should cease to be justices ex officio.
LORD AIREDALE: May I interrupt to say that that is precisely the object of this Amendment. The mayors come into my next Amendment, and I have not really outlined my arguments upon that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry to hear that, because I thought the noble Lord had and that we were really discussing them both together, although, of course, the Motion has to be put separately. But may I pray in aid, in my argument on his first Amendment, the fact that the second Amendment in the noble Lord's name asks your Lordships to go contrary to the recommendation of the Royal Commission, which was that the mayor of a borough without a separate commission of the peace should continue to be a justice ex officio of the county in which the borough is situated. Of course, the Amendment of the noble Lord does not deal at all with the mayor of a borough with a separate commission of the peace.
As I say, in my view a pretty persuasive argument could be advanced in support of the noble Lord's two new clauses; and the noble Lord was persuasive. But I feel one ought to be extremely careful before making changes of this sort in a relationship between the magistracy and the local authorities which has continued for many and many a year. I am not by any means convinced that there might not be serious disadvantages for both local authorities and the magistrates if

431
there were a complete separation between the two. The theoretical case is, I think, a powerful one. But since 1949, and indeed before it, what evidence is there that the appointment of these particular ex officio justices has led to a lower standard in the administration of justice than would otherwise have been the case? Since I have held my present office I have seen no evidence of that. But what I have seen is that on a number of occasions these individuals, who have, by the process of becoming chairmen of local authorities, become ex officio magistrates, have found it most interesting work, and they have been ready, willing and keen to carry on with it after their term of office. Indeed, we have secured through this some very useful recruits to the bench of magistrates.
That being the case, one has to weigh against it the possible disadvantages in some instances. But the noble Lord was not able to support his case by giving any instances where carrying on with the present practice had led to things occurring which should not have occurred. I feel that, although in theory a case can be made out for the changes proposed by the noble Lord, it would not be right to accept either of his Amendments (I am dealing with both, for although he now says that he has not fully argued the second, I have considered it carefully) in the absence of cogent evidence that the continuation of the present practice is doing real damage to the administration of justice. For those reasons, I would invite your Lordships to reject this Amendment and to take the same course if, in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord still desires to present further arguments with regard to it.
LORD AIREDALE: I am very much obliged to all the noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, for saying that there was a superficial case in what I had put forward. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, called it a theoretical case. I think that the Division in 1949 of 24 to 23 votes shows that your Lordships, in those days at any rate, thought there was something rather more than a superficial case.
432
As to my next Amendment, concerning the mayors, which I propose to move shortly, I shall explain to your Lordships that that Amendment goes a little way beyond the recommendations of the Royal Commission. But I should not like your Lordships to think that the subject matter of this Amendment, which deals with the chairmen of local authorities, does not follow precisely the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission with regard to these local government officers. I shall not press this Amendment to a Division this afternoon. I think it would be proper for me to remind your Lordships that if any of your Lordships thinks that the Amendment should not be withdrawn, it is open to him, when the Question is put "Is it your Lordships' pleasure that this Amendment be withdrawn?", to indicate your displeasure. So, with that reservation, I now ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.53 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved, after Clause 30 to insert the following new clause:
"Mayor of Borough not to be Justice of the Peace for a County.
. Subsection (8) of section 18 of the Local Government Act 1933 (which provides that the Mayor of a non-county borough shall during his term of office be a Justice of the Peace for the county in which the borough is situate) shall cease to have effect."
The noble Lord said: I promised in moving the last Amendment that I should be short in moving this one. I can now be brief, because the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, has really made my speech for me. I need only point out that this Amendment goes a little further than the recommendation of the Royal Commission who stated:
"The special position of the mayor does not require that the mayor of a borough with a separate commission should be a justice of the peace,".
And in the next paragraph the Commissioners' Report said:
"If the borough has no separate commission for the peace the mayor should be a county justice ex officio, and if there is a separate commission he should be a borough justice ex officio and a county justice ex officio,".
My Amendment, as I say, goes further. It removes mayors as ex officio county justices whether the non-county borough has its own separate commission of the

433
peace or not. That is the difference between the principle behind my Amendment and the recommendation of the Royal Commission. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 30 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I wish to say only a few words on this Amendment. The arguments both for and against appear to be the same as those on the preceding Amendment. My noble friend Lord Silkin pointed out that neither of the Amendments dealt with the position of the mayor or lord mayor of a county borough or a city. I think the noble Lord might have told us why he is going to leave the mayors and lord mayors of county boroughs and cities in a position whereby they can remain on the bench, whereas mayors of non-county boroughs or chairmen of county and county district councils cannot. It seems to me to be illogical.
LORD BURDEN: I should like to say a word or two in regard to the second new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I welcome the speech of my noble friend Lord Silkin on this point, and the position on this particular Amendment was admirably put by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton. As was pointed out, the Act of 1949 carries out the recommendations of the Royal Commission in regard to this particular aspect of ex officio members of a bench; and, so far as I know, no arguments were submitted to the Royal Commission to justify a change in the position. The Act did away with the twelve months after the year of office. I also welcome the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who put the position admirably for those of us who have our roots very deep in local government, because we know what this means for local government. I hope that the same procedure as was adopted on the other new clause will be adopted on this one—unless the noble Lord withdraws it without any qualification.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It would be discourteous of me not to say a word to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in reply to his examination of precisely what this new clause does. It does not accord with the recommendation of
434
the Royal Commission, as he has made clear; and, for the reasons I advanced—perhaps not too prematurely—on the last discussion in regard to the last new clause, I feel that I ought to advise your Lordships to press the noble Lord to follow the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Burden, and withdraw this particular proposal. I feel confident that there will be no objection to that course.
LORD AIREDALE: I am again grateful to the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I should be sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Burden, at any time, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 [Chairmanship of bench of magistrates]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment, designed to dispose of a doubt raised by the County Councils Association who fear that the clause as at present drafted might exclude from election as chairman (and from voting at such an election) a person who is a justice, both ex officio and by reason of his name being on the commission of the peace. The Amendment makes it clear that no one who is a justice by virtue of having his name on the commission is excluded. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 16, after ("not") insert ("by reason only of his being a justice of the peace by virtue of that office)".—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1.—[The Central Criminal Court]:
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to add to paragraph 2:
"Greater London Council
Chairman of the Greater London Council Vice-Chairman of the Greater London Council".
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, I beg to move this Amendment. The part of Schedule 1 which we seek to amend deals with the ex officio judges of the Central Criminal Court. Under the Schedule they are the Lord

435
Mayor of the City, the Aldermen of the City, and various other judicial officers. We seek to add to those mentioned the Chairman of the Greater London Council and the Vice-Chairman of the Greater London Council. We discussed this matter at some length on Second Reading, and I have some hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may see his way to meeting us on this Amendment.
It is not suggested that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Greater London Council will actually act as members of the court, any more than the Lord Mayor and the Aldermen do. I recognise, and for the purpose of this Amendment I am not going to challenge, the position of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London in the court in their own area. But, after all, their position is ceremonial; it is a matter of status and dignity; and I should have thought that, at a time when we are setting up the Greater London Council, with jurisdiction over a very large area, and with a population of 8 or 9 million, it would be right to confer upon the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of that great authority, as it is going to be, at least the same amount of dignity, prestige and status as is given to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London.
The Greater London Council will be incurring a share of the expenditure in running the Central Criminal Court. There was some argument as to what proportion. Whatever that proportion is, I think it has been added to by the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord to Clause 20, so that some additional expenditure will be incurred. But the fact is that the Greater London Council will be contributing towards the cost of the administration of justice at the Central Criminal Court.
Finally, the Central Criminal Court, although it is situated in the City of London, will have jurisdiction over the whole of Greater London, and it seems right that the chief citizens of the Greater London area over whom this court will have jurisdiction should be recognised in an ex officio capacity as members of the court. I think it would be a gracious thing to do. It would give great satisfaction to the Greater London
436
Council when it is set up. I should like to see the Deputy Chairman of the Council added as well, but we do not know whether the Greater London Council will, in fact, appoint a Deputy Chairman, although the London County Council has one. The Deputy Chairman is usually a member of the Opposition and, as I imagine that the first Greater London Council will be a Labour Council, the Deputy Chairman would therefore be a member of the other side and we should have no objection to adding him as an ex officio member. But it depends upon the Council whether it has a Deputy Chairman.
I feel that the words in the Amendment would add to the status and dignity of the Greater London Council. And since the Council will contribute to the expense of this court, whose jurisdiction extends over the whole of the area, it is right that representatives of the Council should be on the court. For these reason I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will see his way to meeting us on this matter.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 16, at end insert—
("Greater London Council
Chairman of the Greater London Council
Vice-Chairman of the Greater London Council").—(Lord Silkin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, but I am afraid I cannot meet him with regard to this matter. Our last two discussions have been upon the question of the abolition of those who, ex officio, engaged in the administration of justice, and the noble Lord and I agreed to resist attempts to abolish. Now the noble Lord is seeking to enlarge the number of those who would be entitled ex officio to exercise judicial functions—and they are very high judicial functions. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 1, which this Amendment seeks to amend, reads as follows:
"The ex officio judges shall be the holders of the following offices"—
and then they are set out. Some might argue that it is an anomaly for this Bill to name the Lord Mayor of the City and the Aldermen of the City in that paragraph. But their association with what is now the Central Criminal Court is of very considerable antiquity. They never sit, but I think it would be a great

437
break with tradition to sever the link between the City and the Central Criminal Court. Therefore, although it is an anomaly, I should not myself be in favour of eliminating the Lord Mayor and Aldermen from paragraph 2.
LORD SILKIN: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I hope he understands that I was not proposing to eliminate them: I was proposing merely to add the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the new Council.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I appreciate that. But I was going on to say that retaining ex officio officers, who have been there for many years, is quite a different thing from adding new ones. Your Lordships will bear in mind that the Chairman of the London County Council is not and never has been an ex officio judge of the Central Criminal Court; nor has his Deputy; nor has the Vice-Chairman. That is what we are being asked to do and I should be very much against it. It would be creating an anomaly.
The argument is put forward on the basis that they never would exercise judicial functions. But I am against putting them into the paragraph when it is quite novel and when they will never, so it is said, exercise judicial functions. It is argued that one should do this to enhance the dignity, prestige and status of the Greater London Council. I do not believe that the Greater London Council, with all its responsibilities, duties and authority, will really have its dignity enhanced by inserting the names of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to this Bill.
Then it is argued that they ought to have their names included because, after all, the Greater London Council will pay something towards the expenses of the Central Criminal Court. I dealt with the expense that the City is incurring in relation to that in the course of my Second Reading speech, and I have down a later Amendment (I think it is the next Amendment) which seeks to define with precision the liability of the Greater London Council to contribute to the expenses of the Central Criminal Court. Your Lordships will see that that is confined to,
"The remuneration and expenses of the clerk and other officers of the Court, and any
438
expenses incurred in the provision and maintenance of office machinery and stationery for the office of the clerk of the Court".
That is the contribution which is now being made by the London County Council. I do not myself think that the argument based either on expenditure or on status is well-founded; and while, in a way, it is difficult for me to resist this Amendment, realising, as I do, the likelihood of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Greater London Council being members of a Party which supports the Government, I none the less feel sure it would be wrong in principle, and I ask your Lordships to reject the Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: What has politics got to do with it?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord did not hear the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who assumed that only the Deputy Chairman would be a member of the Party supporting the Government. The noble Lord missed that slight interchange. There is nothing serious about it.
LORD SHEPHERD: No.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is the Amendment which defines the precise liability of the Greater London Council to contribute to the expenses of the Central Criminal Court, instead of leaving it, as in the present paragraph 16, at large. The new formula is based, broadly speaking, on the present division of financial responsibility between local authorities and the Corporation of the City. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 45, leave out paragraph 16 and insert—
("16. The remuneration and expenses of the clerk and other officers of the Court, and any expenses incurred in the provision and maintenance of office machinery and stationery for the office of the clerk of the Court, shall be defrayed by the Greater London Council.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Just one sentence. This, of course, is in flat contradiction to the attitude of the Lord Chancellor on the last Amendment, moved by my noble friend. This is imposing a charge on the Greater London Council, and at the same time it is, on the last decision, denying any

439
representation to the Greater London Council. The Lord Chancellor ought to have dropped this Amendment and, as the City is going to have all the representation, let the City pay. This is monstrous. It is what led to the American Revolution.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope it will not have such serious consequences. But, in fact, the London County Council now pay for the stationery, the maintenance of office machinery and the remuneration and expenses of the clerk and other officers of the court, and it is only right that the Greater London Council should follow the good example set by the London County Council in this respect.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Superannuation of Chairmen, etc., who have been Stipendiary Magistrates]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment, to make it quite clear that the amount which the contributing authority will have to pay to the Greater London Council in respect of the superannuation of its stipendiary magistrate who has been promoted will he the superannuation he would have earned at the date of the promotion if he had then retired in circumstances entitling him to superannuation. I hope I have made that clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 9, leave out from ("had") to ("on") in line 10 and insert ("on ceasing to hold his last office of stipendiary magistrate retired from that office")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Adaptation, Amendment and Modification of Enactments]:
LORD DERWENT: Paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 adapts references to Bow Street Magistrates' Court in enactments relating to extradition and other matters. These enactments require certain unusual types of cases to be heard only at Bow Street. The advantage is that uniformity of procedure can be assured. Paragraph 3 as at present drafted would allow such cases to be heard at any magistrates' court—of which there may be more than one—in the petty sessional division in which the chief magistrate sits. The pur-
440
pose of this Amendment is to ensure that such cases are heard by a Metropolitan stipendiary magistrate sitting in the same court as the chief magistrate—namely, the present Bow Street or any court which might succeed it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32. line 41, leave out ("for the same petty sessional division") and insert ("in the same court-house ")—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: Paragraph 20(2) of this Schedule applies Section 112 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, to courts held by Metropolitan stipendiary magistrates. The effect of this is that the clerks of those courts, which have hitherto been governed by separate enactments, are enabled to charge the same fees as those charged in magistrates' courts elsewhere. At present the fees charged at the magistrates' courts in the City of London are prescribed under a local Act power. The City have asked that they, too, should be brought into line with the rest of the country so far as magistrates' courts' fees are concerned, and this Amendment achieves that purpose by applying Section 112 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, to magistrates' courts held at either of the Justices' Rooms of the City. There is a consequential Amendment, No. 29, which I will move later. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 7, leave out ("courts held by metropolitan stipendiary magistrates") and insert ("magistrates' courts held by metropolitan magistrates or held at either of the justice rooms of the City").—(Lord Derwent.)
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I should like to congratulate the Minister of State, Home Office, on having been rescued by the Lord Chancellor from the judicial obscurity—indeed, expulsion—which was formerly imposed upon the Home Office, in the sense that they were not fit to have anything to do with courts of law. I think the Minister of State, Home Office, is to be congratulated that the Lord Chancellor has evidently repented of the slur which he cast on the Home Office, and is now very grateful at having the assistance, the able assistance, of the Minister of State, Home Office.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment effects verbal amendments of the County Courts Act, 1959, consequential on the provisions of Clause 5(2), which increases from 80 to 90 the number of county court judges and increases from two to three the number of judges who may be assigned to a county court district in Greater London. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 43, it end insert—
("THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1959
22A.—(1) In section 4(1) for the word 'eighty' there shall be substituted the word 'ninety'.
(2) In section 4(4) for the words there shall be two judges for a district' there shall be substituted the words for a district wholly or partly situated in Greater London there shall be two or three judges (whichever is specified in the direction) and for any district not so situated there shall be two judges '.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: The effect of this Amendment is that any chief clerk—and not just the senior chief clerk—of an Inner London petty sessional division may act as clerk to the betting licensing authority for the division. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 19, leave out paragraph 26 and insert—
("26. In paragraph 2 of Schedule 1, in paragraph (a) of the definition of 'clerk to the appropriate authority', the reference to the magistrates' court committee shall include a reference to the committee of magistrates.")—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Transitional Provisions]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, fine 8, leave out ("North-west London") and insert ("Middlesex")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: If I may, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 together, as they both deal with the same point. Under Clause 8, subsection (8), the clerk of the peace for a London commission area is to be, by
442
virtue of his office, clerk of the standing joint committee for that area. These Amendments are drafting Amendments to make it clear that the "caretaker" clerk for a London commission area is to act as clerk of the standing joint committee for the area until the clerk of the peace for the area is appointed—that is, in the interim period. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 39, after first ("The") insert ("acting")—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 41, leave out ("committee is appointed") and insert ("peace is appointed for that area").—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: May I speak to Amendments No. 20 and 21 together? They are drafting Amendments and make it clear that the juvenile court panel and the chairman of juvenile courts for the Inner London area act also for the City, as provided by Clause 12(1) of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 7, after first ("area") insert ("and the City").—(Lord Dement.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 7, after second ("area") insert ("and the City").—(Lord Dement.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT had given Notice of an Amendment to add to paragraph 9:
"(4) A member of a juvenile court panel for one or more petty sessional divisions of a county adjoining Greater London appointed under arrangements mentioned in paragraph 8 of this Schedule shall hold office until 30th October 1967."
The noble Lord said: I do not intend to move this Amendment at this stage. I will explain why. After considerable research it has been found that October has 31 days. I will move the Amendment in the correct form on the Report stage, as well as another Amendment in a different part of the Bill which also seems to have got October wrong.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Who found out? Was it the Lord Chancellor or the Home Office?
LORD DERWENT: This is a drafting Amendment necessary because the person appointed to supervise the juvenile courts for the Inner London area and the City will not necessarily be a senior chief clerk but may be a chief clerk. Clause 15(1) says that if more than one chief clerk is appointed to the juvenile courts the committee of magistrates is to designate one of them the senior chief clerk. I beg to move.
Amendment moved —
Page 41, line 7, leave out ("senior").—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: This is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that paragraph 10(2) of this Schedule which relates to the caretaker clerk for new petty sessional divisions applies not only to the new petty sessional division in Greater London but also those in the fringe counties.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 17, after ("6") insert ("or 8").—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
5.24 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I may, I will deal with Amendments 25 and 27 together. They are both Amendments making a repeal in the local Acts relating to the parish of Merthyr Tidvil and the borough of Salford, the repeal being a provision no longer necessary because the requirement is now covered in general terms by Clause 28(1) of this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 13, at end insert—

("6 & 7 Vict. c. xliv.

An Act to provide for the more effectual execution of the office of a justice of the peace within the parish of Merthyr Tidvil and certain adjoining parishes.

In section 5 the words from 'but such person' to 'qualification'")

—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: The Bill as drafted at present has partial repeal of Section 7
444
of the Vestries Act, 1850. This Amendment deletes that partial repeal because the Vestries Act is to be repealed by an Order made under Section 84 of the London Government Act, 1963. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, leave out lines 18 and 19.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 26, at end insert —

(41 & 42 Vict. c. lv.

The Manchester Division and BoroughofSalford (Stipendiary Justices) Act 1878.

Section 7.")

—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: This is a drafting Amendment to give the correct Short Title of the Metropolitan Police Courts (Holidays) Act, 1897. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 52, after ("Metropolitan") insert ("Police").—(Lord Dement.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: This is consequential on Amendment 14 to which the Committee has already agreed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved
Page 49, line 33, at end insert—

("1 Edw. 8 & 1. Geo. 6. C. xlv.

The City of London (various Powers) Act 1937.

section 36.")

—(The Lord Derwent.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: This Amendment deletes the repeal of Sections 397 and 398 of the Middlesex County Council Act, 1944. These sections were repealed by the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949. I beg to move.
Amendment moved —
Page 49, line 46, column 3, leave out ("Sections 397 and 398").—(Lord Dement.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: This is a drafting Amendment to do away with the definition which is replaced by Schedule 3,

445
paragraph 4, on page 32. I beg to move.
Amendment moved —
Page 49, line 49, at end insert —

"11 & 12 Geo. 6. c. 26.

The Local Government Act 1948.

Section 121(9)")

—(Lord Derwent.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: This is quite a simple Amendment, but not so easy to explain. The Amendment repeals subsections (10) and (11) of Section 11 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949, which refer to orders made under subsection (9) of Section 11. In other words, subsections (10) and (11) of Section 11 of the Justices of the Peace Act are consequential to subsection (9) which is repealed in the Bill. So this Amendment is consequential to that repeal of subsection (9). I beg to move.
Amendment moved —
Page 50, line 7, at end insert ("to (11)").— (Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: This is consequential to Amendment No. 14, to which the Committee has agreed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved —
Page 50, line 35, leave out from ("and")to end of line 37 and insert "(9)").—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: This Amendment repeals paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963, which interprets existing provisions relating to buildings and land for the Metropolitan stipendiary courts. The repeal is consequential on Clause 17 of this Bill, which supersedes these provisions. I beg to move.
Amendment moved —
Page 51, line 44, at end insert ("in Schedule 2, paragraph 19").—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to. Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
5.30 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, after a somewhat delayed take-off due to conditions which to me were slightly foggy, I think in moving that the Bill be read a second time that we can deal with this short Money Bill itself quite briefly, though the background to it will take a little longer. As your Lordships know, the Air Corporations raise new capital by borrowing from the Government. Most of the money they borrow is used for capital purposes, such as the purchase of new aircraft, but I must make clear that this Bill is not concerned with borrowings of that kind. It is concerned only with borrowings for the purpose of financing deficits incurred on revenue account.
The Air Corporations Act, 1962, authorised the Minister of Aviation to lend, and the Corporations to borrow, for this purpose, subject to two limitations. First, the powers were limited to the period ending March 31, 1964. Secondly, they authorised such lending and borrowing only if the accumulated deficit on revenue account did not exceed £100 million in the case of British Overseas Airways Corporation, and £10 million in the case of British European Airways. The purpose of the present Bill is to extend these powers for a further two years to March 31, 1966, and to increase the figure of £100 million in respect of B.O.A.C. to £125 million.
Your Lordships might first ask why B.E.A. have been mentioned in this Bill at all, in view of the fact that they are now doing so well. The answer is that they have been included as a precautionary measure. In fact B.E.A's deficit has been held well below the £10 million limit I have just mentioned. It stood at £2,400,000 at March 31, 1963. Results this year are very encouraging and it now appears that by the end of this financial year almost all of the deficit will have been paid off, and that B.E.A. will be well set on a further series of profitable years. Therefore, the Bill does not propose any increase in the figure of £10 million, only that the period should be extended from March 31, 1964, to the same date in 1966,

447
even though, as we see it to-day, it is unlikely that it will be necessary to make use of this extension.
This House has so often heard praise of Lord Douglas of Kirtleside that it is difficult to find new ways to express it. I am sure, however, that your Lordships will not wish to let this occasion pass without a further word of tribute to him. Under the fifteen years of his leadership B.E.A. have built up a reputation for safety, service and efficiency second to none. We shall all be sad to see him go. I think, if I may say so, that the manner of his going is typical: he is leaving at the end of a year that promises to be one of record prosperity for B.E.A., with the promise of more good years to follow, largely as the result of his excellent work in the past, and with the favourable prospect of the Trident coming into service next year. This promises to be a very good aircraft, which should bring added success and profit to B.E.A., as well as prestige and export sales to the British aircraft industry.
I now come to B.O.A.C. In the sixteen years since it began its commercial operations, B.O.A.C., like B.E.A., has earned a reputation for safety and service which is likewise second to none. It has held its position as the second largest long haul airline in the world; and in 1962 it raised its net contribution to the balance of payments to £20 million; while in the last ten years it has almost trebled its traffic and revenue. But even with all that, by March, 1963, it had built up a deficit of some £80 million. The losses go on and the total will rise to about £85 million by the end of the current financial year, of which some £50 million, well over half, were brought to account in the year 1961–62. These figures are formidable and Parliament is entitled to know how they have arisen. That was why my right honourable friend recently presented a White Paper analysing the losses and setting out his proposals for putting the Corporation on to a sound footing. The story of the growth of deficit is fully set out in that White Paper, and I also have no doubt that many of Your Lordships have read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate in another place. I do not, therefore, feel I need spend any time in taking your Lordships through this story yet again.
448
Incidentally, I might point out that B.O.A.C. is by no means the only airline suffering financial difficulties of this kind. Faced with the same kind of problem, at least three of the leading world airlines—Trans-World Airlines, Scandinavian Airlines and K.L.M.—have each had to undergo a major reorgansation within the last three years. The underlying reasons for all this were the same. World conditions have become more difficult. The introduction of the large jet made propeller fleets prematurely obsolete. More capacity, coupled with a slower rate of growth than was earlier hoped for, has resulted in many cases in unprofitably low load factors. Competition is growing. There is pressure, on the other hand, for lower fares. Bigger sums of money are at stake and the financial risks are greater. All these things have underlined the need, in the minds of Governments and airlines alike, for a surer financial return and for a more robust attack on management problems.
I want to come on now to the suggestion that has been made more than once—and probably will be again to-day —that Government interference has been a major cause of B.O.A.C.'s difficulties.
LORD LINDGREN: Hear, hear!
LORD CHESHAM: The noble Lord says, "Hear, hear!" but there is no evidence to support this. The noble Lord can have his turn. He has his name on the list of speakers. I should like to make my speech in my own way, if he does not mind. There is an inevitable interplay between Government policy and the commercial interest of the Corporation, but only twice in recent years has B.O.A.C. acted against its commercial judgment because the Government said so.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord if no interruptions are going to be allowed? Is the noble Lord laying down a special rule?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, noble Lords are quite at liberty to interrupt, but whether I deal with the interruption at the time must be at my discretion. Does the noble Lord wish to say something?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, if the noble Lord wants to be rough, we will

449
have a rough and tumble when our turn comes.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I do not want to be rough. I had hoped that the noble Lord would wait until I had taken my theme a little further, and then, if he wished, I would have given way to him. The last thing I should like to be accused of is "playing it rough". I wanted to mention these two exceptions before the noble Lord had interrupted me. The first exception was in 1957, when the Government requested B.O.A.C. to make advance payments to the Brisol Aeroplane Company in respect of certain 13ritannias, to give the Company the necessary financial relief and breathing space to enable it to solve, as it eventually did, the technical problems that were holding up completion, so that B.O.A.C. got the aircraft.
The second, and more significant, instance was the Corporation's agreement for the management and operation of Kuwait Airways' services, with entitlement to a share of any profits and responsibility for losses. That agreement was negotiated in 1958 and expired in May, 1963. While it lasted, the Corporation sustained losses amounting to 1,400,000. B.O.A.C. was unwilling on commercial grounds to enter into that agreement. The Government insisted that the Corporation should undertake this venture in order to help a friendly State, and authorised them to mention the circumstances in their next annual report. In both cases B.O.A.C. sought, and obtained, the Government's formal recognition that they were acting in the national interest. It seems to follow that B.O.A.C. were aware that this was the proper course for them to take in cases of this kind, and that if they had believed that similar considerations applied to other decisions the same thing would have been done. I am proposing to pass on from that point, unless the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, has anything that he wishes to put in.
LORD LINDGREN: No.
LORD CHESHAM: I pass on to the alternative charge—namely, that the Government have not done enough, and have allowed these deficits to grow. The evidence does not support this charge
450
either. As long ago as 1955 the present Chief Secretary asked the Air Corporations, with their auditors, to draw up principles for amortisation of their aircraft, because he was not satisfied about the way they were being dealt with at the time. In 1957 the Minister of the day warned the Corporation that in his opinion their charges for depreciation were inadequate. In 1959 we had the Select Committee. In 1961 there was an inquiry into B.O.A.C. investments in associated and subsidiary companies in the Middle East. That was disquieting. Also in 1961, following the White Paper, on the Financial and Economic Obligations of the Nationalised Industries, the Ministry of Aviation started discussions with the Corporation to see what financial target they could achieve. It was through these investigations that the true scale of the deficit came to light, and it became obvious that drastic measures would be needed to put matters right. Plans were discussed, but no agreement was reached.
In 1962, therefore, the present Minister was faced with the decision whether to hold a public inquiry into B.O.A.C.'s affairs or to have a private investigation by outside consultants. He thought—and quite rightly, in my view—that the Government should settle their own policy, rather than get an inquiry to do it for them. The right course, he decided, was to check the facts he already had, from his Department, from previous inquiries and from the Select Committee, and then to arrive at his own conclusions. As we all know, Mr. Corbett was appointed to check the facts, and the Minister's conclusions are set out in the White Paper.
That brings us to to-day, my Lords, and provides the final touch to the background of the Government's proposals.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask which particular facts were in doubt which had to be checked? I wonder if he could just expand that.
LORD CHESHAM: It is difficult for me to itemise a catalogue of facts, if that is what the noble Lord is after.
LORD SHACKLETON: A couple will do.
LORD CHESHAM: I would say that, for one, there was the question of depreciation. There was the question of (I

451
may need to expand this later) the financial control; and there was a certain amount on the engineering and maintenance side. I hope that will be enough for the noble Lord. I should have thought that it would be enough to make anybody think seriously at the time.
LORD SHACKLETON: Certainly enough for you.
LORD CHESHAM: Now, my Lords, I should like to come on to the question of the need for changes of management. Over the last few years a good deal has been done to improve B.O.A.C.'s efficiency in the fields of engineering and maintenance that I have just mentioned. But there is still a great deal more to be done. Your Lordships will see that the Corporation's average costs are shown in the Annex to the White Paper to be higher than other airlines concentrating on long-haul services, and it is essential that we recognise the fact that the cost levels of the most efficient airlines will increasingly set the standard to which the level of fares and freight rates will be related. If the Corporation's costs are any higher than they need be, whether because of the aircraft they operate or for any other reasons, it will inevitably affect their financial viability. The reason for bringing in new blood at the higher levels is not, therefore, simply to correct weaknesses of the past, but also to arm B.O.A.C. to meet the difficult problems to be expected in the future. As I have already said, competition may get even keener. There is likely to be this continuing pressure for lower fares. Costs of materials and labour may well go up. But what is beyond doubt is that a vigorous new drive is needed to cope with it all. The Government certainly could not stand by and watch mounting losses and mounting problems without doing everything in their power to strengthen B.O.A.C.
My right honourable friend then proceeded to discuss his conclusions and proposals with the Chairman of B.O.A.C., whose appointment was due to expire in July next year. My right honourable friend told him that his view was that the Chairman ought to take on some of the duties that now fall to the Managing Director. Sir Matthew Slattery said that he did not
452
himself feel disposed to attempt this double task. In the circumstances, the Minister decided to appoint Sir Giles Guthrie, and Sir Matthew Slattery thought it in the best interests of the Corporation for the change to come sooner rather than later. He therefore suggested that he should go at the end of the year and that Sir Giles should take over on January 1, 1964, and this my right honourable friend accepted.
When the Minister told Sir Basil Smallpeice of his intention, he offered to retire in order to facilitate the reallocation of responsibilities, and that offer was accepted. This is all made very clear in the exchange of letters which has been published. Perhaps I should say again, for the Record, that these changes are by no means a reflection on the abilities of either Sir Matthew or Sir Basil, both of whom have given valuable service to B.O.A.C. in a very difficult period.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I again ask what the noble Lord means by "by no means a reflection"? Does he mean "no reflection"?
LORD CHESHAM: A trick of words. I had not attributed any particular significance to the words that I used. If there is any doubt on the matter and it will clear the noble Lord's mind, I am quite happy to say "no reflection".
LORD LINDGREN: If the noble Lord now agrees that it is no reflection, can he give us the meaning of his previous words, in which he said that the reason for the new appointments was to correct weaknesses on the part of B.O.A.C. and to enable them to meet the difficult problems of the future? When he says that there have been weaknesses to correct, is that not a reflection on the management?
LORD CHESHAM: Not, I think, in the sense that I used the second words to which the noble Lord refers. In a sense, it is. But I still think I was correct in using both sets of words. I do not think, either, that that is any reason for me to depart from what I said about the reflection on either of those two gentlemen. Sir Giles Guthrie, who agreed to become Chairman as from the beginning of next year, is a man who combines great

453
financial ability with enthusiasm for aviation, and I am confident in saying that he will prove a fine leader of B.O.A.C.
The question of a merger between B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. is something that has often been mentioned, but it is not the belief of the Government that it would help B.O.A.C. to solve their immediate problems. The Government, however, think that efficiency can be improved by closer collaboration between the two Corporations, and accordingly the Chairman of each Corporation will be a part-time member of the other. Already there has been an instance of this kind of collaboration in the recent announcement of the pooling arrangements for the route to Israel—that is, if I can say that without having to resign.
During the coming year Sir Giles Guthrie will be preparing a plan for making B.O.A.C. financially sound, as my right honourable friend has requested. Your Lordships may ask why any further plan is necessary in view of Mr. Corbett's inquiry and all the other consultations my right honourable friend has had. The answer is that consultants are only advisers to Ministers, and Ministers are in the position, so to speak, of being bankers or sponsors, if you like, to the Corporations. The task of putting any organisation on a sound financial basis surely must rest squarely on the management itself.
The Government are sure that it would be wrong and illogical to deal with the question of the accumulated deficit until a plan for the future has been produced. It may—and I have said this before—well prove necessary, or it may not, to ask the House to agree to write off the deficit, but this should be a matter for consideration at the same time as the plan comes forward. In the meantime, the present Bill is a stepping stone in the right direction. It will enable the Corporation's deficit to be financed pending the measures of reconstruction. That is all I ask your Lordships to-day. B.O.A.C. is basically, I think we are all agreed, a very fine airline, and I am sure all your Lordships will join in wishing Sir Giles Guthrie and the Corporation well in the task that is ahead of them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Chesham.)
5.53 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think we obviously start on one point on which there will be agreement, although there is almost a monotony in the repetition of it; that is in paying tribute to British European Airways. It is rather fortunate, from the point of view of narrowing and clarifying the view (at least, I hope so), that in our House this will not be a general debate on the merits or demerits of nationalisation. We are agreed that British European Airways have been very successful. There are factors other than personal factors, although one pays tribute to those personal factors in this success. We have analysed this before—the success of the various aircraft, the Viscount being a steady performer, and so on. Certainly it is satisfactory that it is a Member of our House who has led this Corporation so successfully.
We are confronted with a pretty sorry business when in either House of Parliament the Government spokesman makes a speech such as we have heard regarding B.O.A.C. with a praise so faint as not to be praise at all. He got as far as saying that they were by no means to be condemned, or words to that effect; or that there was no reflection on them. And yet we had a story which did not explain the factors. I acquit the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, of any blame for not going through the whole of the story again, because it is only a year to-day since he went through it, in a similar way. It was December 19, 1962, that we had this very same debate. But the atmosphere seems to have sharpened a bit, and it is right, if we are to agree to pass this Bill, that we should examine responsibility.
I think our first criticism would not be criticism of the Government for interfering with B.O.A.C.—although there are specific criticisms we could make—but of apportioning blame to B.O.A.C. and concealing their own part in certain aspects of it. When the blame takes the form of the words that were used last year by the Minister of Aviation in another place, then I think we are entitled to condemn the Government. I make no apology for again referring to something for which no apology has been made. Last year the Minister of Aviation said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 666, col. 814]:

455
"What I cannot accept so easily is that the depreciation in the value of the Corporation's aircraft fleet has only been fully revealed this year. This is not a situation which has come up upon us in the night. It has been building up for two or three years past; and in any business efficient management must call for a clear understanding…".
If there is one thing that must have been known to the Government all these years, it was the state of the finances of B.O.A.C. If there is one thing in which they were directly concerned, it was in the presentation of the accounts.
Once again I would draw attention to the rather curious switching in the attitude of Ministers on this matter. This year we have been told (because in fact it was necessary to tell another place) that the Minister concerned himself only with the form of the accounts. Yet last year we were told by the noble Lord himself that it was not only the form of accounts, but that it was the Minister's concern that the Comets should not be written down too fast. This is more than the form of the accounts. He may have been justified in objecting to the Board's proposal that this major amortisation should be put straight into the balance sheet instead of going through the profit and loss account. If there is one thing this makes clear, it is that the Government have known this all along.
One of our major criticisms would also be that they have dallied, and that the Minister must have been aware of these facts (after all, he had the Corbett Report long ago) for a long time. I should like to know whether there is any way in which the Minister can reveal what was said to us in the Corbett Report with regard to the Government's position in all this. I fully accept that the Government must be entitled to call on consultants and advisers, and there is probably much to be said for not having a public inquiry. But the fact is that all we know—and this must give rise to grounds for suspicion and criticism—is what appeared in the White Paper. I confess that I know no one who has seen that Report: I am told that the Chairman of B.O.A.C. himself, Sir Matthew Slattery, has not seen it. I should like to ask the Minister specifically what comments were made in the Corbett Report with regard to the Government's part in the commercial and other policies of B.O.A.C.
456
This aspect is important, because in another place the Minister said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 685 (No. 15) col. 909]:
"I do not think it is entirely in keeping with our constitution, which provides that the Government's job is to govern, that every aspect of what the Government do should be studied in detail by the Opposition."
Noble Lords opposite may have some strange ideas about what the rôle of an Opposition is. They will perhaps soon have an opportunity of finding out for themselves. But if there is one thing that an Opposition should do, it is to study in detail; and it would seem to be a weakness in our constitutional situation that we have no means of getting at this particular part of the facts. We have pressed the Government to publish whatever recommendation might be made, and even to summarise the findings; yet we have no exact information. The noble Lord said that the task of the Corbett Committee was to establish the facts. I asked the noble Lord what facts, and he was unable to tell me what they were. I should like to establish certain facts, too. I should like to know whether there are some statements in the Corbett Report which reflect on the Government. There is enough trouble caused. It is no good pretending that there is not a crisis of confidence. It is no good pretending that the exchange of letters between Sir Matthew Slattery or Sir Basil Smallpeice and the Minister make the situation clear. They make it clear only if one deduces what is concealed in these letters; and we are handicapped.
We do not have any Committee system such as the Americans have. Members of the Board of B.O.A.C. are themselves debarred from speaking publicly on this matter, but we know enough to be aware that there has been a crisis of confidence. I suspect that the board of B.O.A.C. themselves have demanded an apology on certain of the matters the Minister has said. We know, because all of us have friends in B.O.A.C., not necessarily at board level, and they tell us there is a deep mortification and, indeed, anger in B.O.A.C. It is no good the Government thinking they can do that sort of thing without damaging the morale of a body of this kind. B.O.A.C., like any great undertaking, depends greatly on its morale

457
and its esprit de corps. I do not know what representations have been made on this subject; but one thing that is clear is that there was confidence in the present management, and that Sir Matthew Slattery, especially, had acquired the support of that great Corporation. This seems to me to be the only explanation of the reluctance of members of the board to co-operate, as the Minister wished, in resigning at this moment. One would like to know why the Minister wanted them to resign—indeed, this really is the burden of our complaint.
We grant everything the noble Lord has said about losses: they are there for us to see. There may have been errors, though the part of the Government in this matter is difficult to establish. We know that the Board of B.O.A.C., in the rather loose terms in which their responsibility was laid down, regard it as their duty to serve the British interest broadly. In fact, previous Chairmen have sought to have their responsibilities more clearly defined. It will be a very sad day when nationalised industries, or any public body—or, indeed, I would say, private body—wait for a directive from the Government before they do what is their national duty; but this is something the Government have achieved. They have made it abundantly clear that any public body of this kind, before it does anything which the Minister suggests is in the public interest, must, in fact, have a certificate exonerating them from doing their duty.
Before Sir Matthew Slattery was appointed three years ago he was asked, among other things, to produce a plan to improve the efficiency of B.O.A.C. and I am sorry that the Minister did not reveal all the facts of the extent to which there is an improvement in efficiency. I would say that it was very unfair for him to reveal only the present situation with regard to the operating cost per ton-mile, or whatever figures he gave, or the passenger load factors without drawing attention to the very great improvement that has taken place recently. We know that these figures are available. They have been given publicly. I think it would have been fairer if the Minister had given some of the available figures of recent months.
458
There has been much criticism in the past of B.O.A.C.'s engineering costs, but we know that since 1958 they have come down from about 12d. per ton-mile to little more than 4d. Indeed, to-day, they are lower than those of many other airlines, including British European Airways. There may be reasons to account for this, but what is abundantly clear is that the B.O.A.C. position, in regard to efficiency and to all those tests which are properly applied to efficiency, has been improved enormously in recent months and years. Improved savings have been made in engineering costs only this year.
I should like to turn for a moment to the Corbett Inquiry. Certain of their conclusions have been illustrated in the White Paper. I understand that the inquiry by Associated Industrial Consultants was all part of the Corbett Inquiry. Mr. Corbett asked them, I understand, to make an investigation for him; indeed, it was indicated in another place that this information was being given to the Chairman and the Board of B.O.A.C. They have mentioned that a possible saving of £4 million is obtainable on the engineering side. I shall be interested to know whether that was Associated Industrial Consultants' own plan or was B.O.A.C.'s own plan; because any consultants who go in are bound to work these facts out with them. We know perfectly well that B.O.A.C., under Sir Matthew Slattery and the present Board, had in hand many of the changes and improvements which are now to be put into effect under the new management. It is, moreover, a relatively weak management—and I stress this, because any new management coming in, when slaughter like this has taken place, is bound to take some time to get into a position where it can really affect matters.
Why are we to have another plan? Why is the policy which I presume the Minister has wanted to be put into effect over the last few months not been put into effect now? We can only conclude that the Minister has decided that some thing of a dramatic nature has to be done, and that in such circumstances the easiest thing is to say, "Sack the lot". I think this is a very sad day. I think we are losing certain people of very great value. This is no reflection on the new Chairman of B.O.A.C., when I say

459
that we are, in fact, losing a quite outstanding man, who might well have continued for several years, aided, as necessary, by additional staff.
We have been told something in the White Paper about the Controller's Department. Is it conceivable that the Chairman of B.O.A.C. might also have had similar views? Did it really call for Mr. Corbett to investigate this? One suspects that the trouble with B.O.A.C., as with so many subjects—defence for instance—is this perpetual change of Minister. We have seen Minister after Minister, each determined to make a mark. Now we are coming up to a particularly awkward deadline, a General Election, and we have a Minister who has to produce some sort of gesture to postpone the writing off of the £80 million that has been lost, and who hopes either to be back with time to solve the problem or to leave it to the other side to tackle.
There are other criticisms one could make of the Government. There is the position with regard to independence. I do not want to initiate too much discussion on independence. The situation there may or may not have contributed very much to the B.O.A.C. weakness. The B.O.A.C., under its present Board, has some very considerable achievements to be proud of. Labour relations, which at one time were not good, are probably as good to-day as anything to be found in this country. And I would only ask the Minister that he contrives to persuade his right honourable friend to give us a bit more information about this subject; to do something, if that be possible—and it may not be possible—to undo the damage that has been done to B.O.A.C. by certain remarks, one of which I have quoted, and in future to pursue the national interest rather than this particular Government's interest.
6.12 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, this is a sad Bill for all of us who are interested in civil aviation and in the health and well-being of the two great Corporations. It increases the borrowing powers to finance the deficit of B.O.A.C., while B.E.A. powers are left unaltered, and it extends the period for accrual of deficit in B.O.A.C. It discloses a serious situation with these staggering, mounting deficits. For many years I
460
have been interested in civil aviation and the development of civil aviation and flying, not only among the Corporations but among other aircraft operators, and in private flying—of which there is far too little for various reasons—and in those circumstances, looking at it purely objectively over the years, I cannot help feeling that the Government must take a considerable amount of responsibility for the situation.
I believe that so far as B.O.A.C. are concerned the root cause of the problem has been that the Government have never been able to make up their mind as to what they wanted B.O.A.C. to do. In the first place, they were expected to maintain British prestige in the air as the major long distance British carrier —almost the only one, or among very few of them, I think. They were expected to fly British aircraft. Your Lordships may remember that seven or eight years ago we had a great tussle over this when Mr. Watkinson became Minister of Transport and issued the edict that B.O.A.C. must fly British. We got him away from that idea. Then, they have been expected to prove British aircraft in service. In the United States to a large extent new aircraft are proved in conjunction with the Air Force. Here, B.O.A.C. have had to spend vast sums in proving, aircraft. Take the first Comet for example; take the Britannia and all the trouble it had. Great sums have had to be expended in that way. Then they have to publicise these aircraft. I should like to know what the original Comet cost in publicity alone. I know that Sir Miles Thomas went on an extensive tour of the United States and elsewhere for this purpose at great expense to the Corporation.
Moreover, they have to be competitive. The Government, rightly or wrongly, are constantly giving licences to independent airlines in competition with them. That may be quite a good thing. I am not arguing against competition; I believe in it. But that is another aspect in which the Government see B.O.A.C. Then they have to face competition very often on existing routes which they have pioneered. They have to face competition from independent airlines and from new Commonwealth airlines which are springing up. Again, they are excluded from trooping contracts. The Minister to-day told us in how many cases the Government had

461
to give them a direction. In how many cases have they had to do things outside their own commercial judgment? I would like to know how many trooping contracts B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. would have if they were allowed to apply. They are not allowed to apply. Then they have to provide V.I.P. aircraft at short notice, at great expense—£20,000 to turn an aircraft around. No ordinary airline would have to do that. They have to take on unremunerative services, such as in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, which B.E.A. have to do. They have to take on some highly unremunerative partners all over the world. Finally, they have to make both ends meet, taking one year with another, after paying depreciation and interest charges et cetera, et cetera.
Some or any of these things may be quite in order. I am not against them. Taken one by one, many are in order. The fact is they are incompatible. We cannot insist on an airline doing all these things at one and the same time, and I believe this, more than anything, is the real difficulty B.O.A.C. have been put into. If the Government would tell them exactly what they were expected to do and how they were expected to do it without any incompatibility between the various rôles they are expected to undertake, I believe this situation would be cleared up.
I do not care who this learned gentleman from the City is, this chartered accountant on the Board, and how many Mr. Corbetts they get. It does not matter. This is not an accountancy issue at all and the Government are quite wrong in thinking it is an accountancy issue. It is not. It is a ministerial issue, it is a Cabinet issue if you like; it is a political issue. How do you want these Corporations to act? It does not matter if you have all the chartered accountants in the City of London, they could not make a ha'p'orth of difference, because it is not a matter for chartered accountants. We have far too much reliance on chartered accountants in these days, and in my opinion they are by no means always the best people to advise on policy. They are all right to look at the petty cash and see if anyone is fiddling the accounts, but in my opinion they are by no means the best people to advise on policy.
462
I want to take the next point. It is all very well getting this issue into the political field and having arguments on nationalisation and all that, and having great fun. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was quite right to-day when he said we do not want this issue to become a nationalisation dog-fight in this House; it would be most unfortunate. In fact, we have to think of the people who are handling these aircraft in the air; we have to think of the staff, and I do not think it does them a bit of good. It is a highly nerve-racking business, as we all know, with these great aircraft, in view of their speeds, the speed of landing, the speed of take off, the angle of take-off because people in Uxbridge do not like noise, and all the rest. We are imposing enormous responsibilities and burdens on these young men. I do not suppose men have ever had these split second responsibilities before. At the same time, that their career should be at the mercy of a Party dog-fight is, I think, disgraceful and despicable, and we should take this question right out of the dog-fight altogether.
I am going to quote from Flight International, the official organ of the Royal Aero Club. It is not a political organisation; it is the official body. This is said in the issue of November 28:
"The B.O.A.C. leaders are cast aside on the basis of evidence which, since it is known to the Minister alone, they cannot answer. Some may feel this is a most disagreeable political act. Sir Giles inherits a difficult personal task. His first preoccupation must be for B.O.A.C.'s morale. He has to win the confidence of an airline which has suffered the deranging experience of witnessing the political immolation of a leadership in which it had great confidence."
That is what the Government have to answer—not any financial situation at all. Those are the people I am afraid for. It is the morale of the pilots, the engineers, the navigators, the people who control these great airlines that we have to think about.
The B.E.A. Corporation is much better placed. They have a much denser population to serve. They have been fortunate with aircraft, especially the Viscount and the Comet, and now we hope that the same situation will apply to the Trident. Also, as has been said, they have been fortunate in the personality of Lord Douglas of Kirtleside,

463
who certainly would not stand any nonsense from a Minister or anybody else. This shows the great importance of choosing the right man to be chairman of bodies such as these. I should like to join those noble Lords who have paid tribute to Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, because I believe that in any Corporation, firm or industry there must be one man above all who can impress his personality upon that organisation. There is no doubt about it, Lord Douglas of Kirtleside has done that.
So I would urge the Government to give a clear lead to B.O.A.C. and to get away from all this muddle. In my view they have wonderful Corporations here from the flying point of view. I do a fair amount of flying, and I never fly anywhere in the world other than with B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. if I can possibly help it, and if they fly on those routes. I think we have a great asset here. They are magnificent Corporations; they really do the job splendidly, and I do not think we should do or say anything that would in any way upset their morale.
There are some changes that I should like to see. First of all, there is this supersonic race into which we are apparently going. I believe that that should be a long time ahead; but if, for prestige reasons, the Government believe that it is necessary for us to go into the supersonic aircraft era, then I do not think one single penny of the expense of it should fall on the Corporations. If it is necessary for our prestige—though I doubt this myself; I think it is a sort of threadbare plan—it is the Government's responsibility. If they think that it is necessary for British prestige—if the people in the Solomon Islands will not think so much of us if we do not get this great supersonic aircraft first in the air—then let them do it; but let them pay for it. Do not let any of the charge fall on B.O.A.C., as I strongly suspect that it will otherwise do, with the result, unless we are careful, that there will be a mounting deficit, and Lord Chesham, or his successor, of whatever Party, will come here and put the blame on B.O.A.C. So I give fair warning now.
Then I suggest that we should be careful about allowing competition on scheduled air routes. B.E.A. and
464
B.O.A.C. have to fly all the year round on scheduled air routes. If a licence is given to an independent airline, they take the cream, because they fly only at certain times of the year. This applies to some of the new Commonwealth airlines that are cropping up. I think it is highly unfair. Last year I went to Uganda. I went out to Entebbe in a Britannia, which has seats for about 100. Eight of us were going out there. I came back in a Comet from Nairobi. At the start we were one more—we were nine. Before we reached London we had dropped one or two off and we were about seven. That is the sort of thing that happens in the off-peak season. B.O.A.C. have to fly and B.E.A. have to fly. They cannot do that sort of thing and have the cream of their traffic taken away from them.
Secondly, I would think that there is need for administrative economies, not so much individual but joint. Why is it not possible to have joint services, joint facilities and joint offices? For instance, in London there are various offices for B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. There is one large air terminal at Victoria for B.O.A.C., and there is a large traffic terminal at Cromwell Road for B.E.A. This latter is an enormous affair. It has just been built. Unfortunately, there was a fire there in the first week. It has been quickly renovated; Cromwell Road is, I may say, in many ways a much more convenient place than Victoria. Why cannot the Cromwell Road terminal serve both Corporations? There are several other things like that. I should have thought that the catering and the medical services could be joint services.
Finally, there is a suggestion that the Boards should be joint. That idea is worth pursuing. I know there are things to be said for it and against it, but I think it is well worth pursuing to see whether we could not have a joint board and gradually get into the way of having a single Corporation. I think that this is only a question of time. I firmly believe that in time we shall have one single Corporation to cover the whole field; I think the pressure of events will force that in time. As, in my view, that is inevitable, I think it would be well to start to meet the inevitability by means of this joint Corporation.

465
That is all I have to say. I feel that it is most unfortunate that this kind of mounting deficit has come about, but I want to express my confidence and that of my Party in the future of these two great Corporations, which have had such a magnificent past and will have an equally magnificent future.
6.27 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF HEADFORT: My Lords, this is the first time I have spoken in your Lordships' House, and it was not without a great deal of thought that I decided to make my maiden speech today. As some of your Lordships may know, I have a great interest in aviation, being a pilot for over ten years, and I hope I may be treated with your usual indulgence. In considering this Bill, which is to give more money to B.O.A.C., perhaps we should consider some of the underlying causes why this money is needed.
There has been criticism in the White Paper of the management of the Corporation, implying that the Corporation's management has been negligent or even incompetent. From a study of the annual accounts of B.O.A.C., one might conclude that some of the difficulties have been caused by operating the wrong aircraft at the wrong time. I do not wish to suggest that these aircraft were inherently unsuitable for the Corporation's routes, but I believe it to be true that a large amount of development flying was necessary with some of the types of aircraft, and I do not think that this should normally be regarded as the proper work of an air transport undertaking. In addition, delays in the introduction into service of these types—I am thinking in particular of the Britannia—meant that, from the economic point of view, they had a short life and a high depreciation had to be allowed for, due to competition from more modern aircraft operated by other air lines. Again, we might consider whether routes which are operated for political reasons and may not be profitable commercially should be operated without some form of subsidy.
Moving from the particular problems of B.O.A.C. to the problems of commercial air transport generally, I wonder whether some of the underlying reasons for poor load factors—the problem of
466
too many seats chasing too few passengers—are not that the ordinary man in the street is not flying sufficiently often. I myself feel that possibly this is not due entirely to the economic reason: high fares. I believe it may be high fears. It may not be possible to lower fares very much, but certainly we should do all in our power to make air transport as safe as is humanly possible. I do not wish to suggest that airlines which are members of IATA are unsafe—indeed, they have the highest safety record of any airlines in the world—but what matters is what the ordinary man in the street feels. His ideas are coloured by aircraft disasters. If 50 or 100 people die horribly in a few moments in one crash, this makes a much greater impact on his mind than equally horrifying statistics of road accidents to a few people in many individual crashes. One has only to visit any airport departure lounge to notice an air of tension; whereas most people awaiting a train or bus do not normally exhibit fear.
I believe we are far too complacent about safety and the need for more rapid development—the introduction of better equipments and procedures. In this country the air traffic control services are doing a magnificent job, but they would be the first to agree that the existing equipment is rather inadequate when one takes into account the considerable growth in air transport which has occurred during the last decade. New equipment and organisation is coming along, but it may be several years—I am told possibly five to ten years—before it is fully implemented. In the meantime there may be a gap which a little more forethought some years ago could have prevented.
Whatever may be the case in this country, there is no doubt whatever that abroad there are large areas of the world in which jet aircraft are operating where the facilities are totally inadequate for their safe operation. It has been mentioned by the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators that as much as 80 or 85 per cent. of some of the aerodromes throughout the world are not adequately equipped. This, of course, is not the direct responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. Nevertheless, while the situation exists there is a serious risk of disasters occurring which would not have occurred if the correct equipment

467
had been installed and operated by properly trained personnel. It may be worth while for the Government to consider whether they could provide further technical assistance, possibly on favourable terms, to some of these countries, because I believe lack of finance may be the main reason why the ICAO recommendations have not been implemented.
It is a sobering thought that if no improvement in the existing safety rates occurred, the number of headline accidents per unit period of time increase in proportion because of the increase in the volume of aviation. At present in scheduled air transport in ICAO States about 800 deaths per annum occur, equivalent to about one fatal crash per fortnight. If aviation grows by 8 per cent. per annum (which is less than the past rate of growth) in twenty years' time there will be one fatal crash every three days. That is an appalling thought. To take a specific example of the difficulties of operating these high-speed modern aircraft, the Boeing 707 and 720 aircraft have now flown over 3 million hours. This has been done by approximately 350 aircraft. But of these air craft one-seventh—no fewer than 55—have suffered accidents involving substantial damage. In 13 of the 55 accidents the aircrafts were totally written off. I trust I have not taken up too much of your Lordships' time in advocating greater efforts to improve safety in air transport, but I believe airlines will have arrived as a means of transport only when the ordinary man in the street boards an aircraft with a tranquil mind.
Returning briefly to B.O.A.C. and the problems of the associated companies, I do not think it is entirely fair to blame the Corporation for the post-war political trend. The transformation of the Empire into an independent Commonwealth naturally has meant that the new countries have wished to operate their own airlines, with an inevitable reduction in the amount of traffic which is carried by the Corporation. Again, criticism of the lack of financial control by the Corporation over wholly-owned or majority-controlled subsidiaries may not be completely fair. A financial requirement of drastic pruning of staff to make operations commercially profitable could be a political impossibility if the
468
country concerned was about to achieve independence. I put forward Trinidad and the British West Indian Airways as an example. Nevertheless, considerable losses have occurred; and it may be useful to consider whether there are any off-setting advantages which have accrued from the associated companies. I believe there are, particularly to the aircraft industry of this country.
To take some examples, Middle East Airlines have bought 7 Viscounts and 4 Comets, worth (including spares) over £10 million; British West Indian Airways have bought 8 Viscounts worth £3 million; Kuwait Airways have ordered 1 Comet, 2 de Havilland Tridents and 3 BAC IIIs. The total value of these aircraft and engines and other aircraft and engines which have been sold abroad must be at least £23 million. This is a not inconsiderable sum. It is also true that but for the commercial and technical assistance given by B.O.A.C. these sales might never have occurred.
In conclusion, my Lords, I wonder whether we should take a leaf out of the Americans' book over the question of the development and the proving of new types of civil aircraft. In the United States of America the Boeing jet tanker flew for some years with the United States Air Force and was proven as a successful aircraft before its successor, the Boeing 707, was produced for the airlines. Perhaps if we in this country could get the Royal Air Force Transport Command to do likewise, we might find that B.O.A.C's operations in the future would be more profitable. Finally, my Lords, I know that all those engaged in civil aviation in this country will take great comfort from your Lordships' considerable interest in their problems and hope for their successful future.
6.40 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be able to compliment the noble Marquess on his maiden speech, a well-informed and excellently delivered speech. I understand that the noble Marquess has Irish associations, and it might perhaps have been better had my noble friend Lord Longford been the first to congratulate him, because with his associations with Ireland he may no doubt have been a little more eloquent. But, certainly, he would have been no more sincere than I am in

469
paying a compliment to the noble Marquess on ale excellence of his speech. One would have liked to say this in any event, but I say this more earnestly because I agree with everything that he has said.
It was very fitting indeed that a pilot should speak in this debate. There are many of us who think we know something of civil aviation from a general association with one section or another of it, but there are few of us who can claim actual personal experience of the responsibility of having his own life and the lives of others in his hands as a pilot. It is very fitting, indeed, that we should have heard the noble Marquess speaking on the question of safety, because what he said in his speech was really fundamental. The function of any form of transport—road, rail or sea—is to move goods and people with speed, safety and regularity; and unless there is safety, neither speed nor regularity is of any avail at all. It is the meat in the sandwich. It is therefore very fitting indeed that the noble Marquess should have made his maiden speech in the way that he has done. We hope that we shall hear him on very many more occasions, not only on civil aviation matters, but on other matters with which he is associated.
I am glad that I was able to start on that happy note. My noble friend Lord Shackleton who opened, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who has already spoken, seemed to want to try to turn this debate into one of high moral tone. But, quite frankly, I do not feel in the mood to speak in a high moral tone, when taking into account the deplorable action of this Government in regard to civil aviation matters and, in particular, those associated with B.O.A.C. If I lay great emphasis on what I say to-day it is because of the disgust that I have for the Government, and particularly the present Minister in his handling of the present situation.
No matter what the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, might say, the White Paper is a criticism of the chairman, the Board and the top level management of B.O.A.C. I do not agree with that, and I shall try to show why during my speech. But let us assume for the purpose of argument that it is correct. Who is responsible?—the Government. They
470
have been in office for thirteen years. They have been the persons responsible for the appointment of the Chairman of the Board, and the directors on the Board. They have been responsible for the day-to-day association of the Minister, and his officials within the Department, with the various sections of the three airlines.
Let us see what the position is. The inefficiency is in the Government. We have had seven Ministers of Civil Aviation in the Government's thirteen years. I am not going to tie myself to that figure; it is certainly no fewer than seven and I can give the names of seven, but I may have forgotten one or two. There have been nine Parliamentary Secretaries. Civil aviation seems to be dealt with by this Government almost as haphazardly as defence. However can there be continuity of policy when in fact they are changing Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries every five minutes—or, if not every five minutes, certainly every other year?
The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, paid a very fine compliment to the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, and I am glad to join him in it. But may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham—and I hope he will rub it in to his colleagues in the Government—that in 1951 when the airlines were handed over to this Government they were in good heart. If anything has gone wrong it has been since 1951. As regards B.E.A., the Chairman was appointed during the lifetime of the Labour Government—the same Chairman and the same Board. One of the reasons why I am bitter is that the Tory Party is not sincere in regard to nationalised undertakings and their operation. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister in another place, I had to defend the action of my noble friend Lord Longford—Lord Pakenham as he then was—against cries of "jobs for the boys" from rows of Tory M.P.s. when the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, was appointed. It is music in my ears to hear a Tory Minister getting up here after thirteen years and having to say, "Grand fellow. The best we have ever had in the Ministry. No one could have done better." They did not say that in 1951.
And what about the Chairmen who have been appointed in B.O.A.C. by this Government? What about the Boards

471
that have been appointed by this Government? The Government are now coming to this House and saying, "We appointed inefficient people to do the job, and we have not been able to carry it out." Can the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, not look at his own Ministry? The Tory Government use the nationalised industries as just pawns in a game. What did they do in 1951? They amalgamated the Ministry of Civil Aviation with the Ministry of Transport. Within the Ministry of Civil Aviation there were really first-class civil servants, expert in every degree of airline operation, aerodrome operation, the general arrangements in regard to safety, air traffic control and the rest. It was a first-class Ministry with a first-class technical staff and first-class administrative staff. What did the Tory Government do? They said, "We cannot have this, so we will amalgamate the two Ministries and put everybody who knows anything about civil aviation in to deal with the railways, shipping and the rest", and of course the day-to-day function of the Ministry itself, which was to keep in touch with the various sections in both Corporations, suffered.
It is no good for the Minister to say that the Corporations did not inform the Minister of their problems in regard to finance. My noble friend Lord Longford will follow me later to-day, but when he was Minister I was his Parliamentary Secretary, and we had sections within the Ministry that were in daily consultation with various departments within the Corporations. The budgets were prepared, they were considered, they were discussed. When it was necessary, the chairmen and deputy chairmen came to see the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary. We knew what was going on. We were told. We were able to exercise influence if it was necessary. If anything has gone wrong it is not within the Corporations, but within the Ministry.
There is further evidence of the Government's mishandling. I want to say that I think even the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, was far from fair in his statement here to-day, not in what he said, but in what he left unsaid. To know things and to deliberately withhold them from the House—to put it quite
472
bluntly in my Cockney language—is distasteful. I am going to prove it.
The present Chairman made a report to the present Minister on his own recommendations for the reorganisation of B.O.A.C. That report was presented to the Minister in July, 1962. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, never mentioned it to-day. Why not? Because immediately after the Minister received that report (or, at least, in September), he initiated the Corbett Inquiry. Let me say this—and I challenge the Minister to deny it—there were repeated requests from the Chairman and the Board of B.O.A.C. for an answer to the points raised within the Chairman's memorandum of July, 1962, to bring about possible reorganisations within the Corporation.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, may I ask, just to be clear, whether the noble Lord is telling us about a specific memorandum from the Chairman to the Minister covering a very large variety of points or plans or something?
LORD LINDGREN: Yes.
LORD CHESHAM: That is all I wanted to know. I wanted to be clear what in fact the noble Lord was talking about.
LORD LINDGREN: Yes. It was a fundamental report. It is known to the Parliamentary Secretary, but he did not mention it here to-day. The Board have had no reply to it except that, when the Board have asked for a reply, they have been told, "We cannot deal with anything until we get the Corbett Report."
The Parliamentary Secretary said today that things have been wrong in B.O.A.C. for some time. It is only three years since the present Chairman was appointed, but sixteen months have gone by and the present Minister has done nothing. He has taken not a single action. The Corporation are supposed, in the language now used, to have been deteriorating day by day. Yet the Minister has not taken any action during the whole of that sixteen months. Now we have the White Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, puts it forward as some grand document. Really, my Lords! I hope that noble Lords present have read it. If they have, I am sure that they will agree with me that it is

473
a very superficial document, and that all that it says is, "Do nothing for twelve months except sack the Chairman and appoint another one, because nothing is going to happen for twelve months at least." My Lords, in my view it will be much more than twelve months before anything is done.
I think I must join with others who have made their protest in the other place at the whole handling of the question of the Corbett Report. Nobody disputes the right of the Minister to appoint somebody to conduct whatever inquiry he likes. It is his duty, if he thinks it is necessary, to start such an inquiry. He appointed Mr. Corbett to carry out that inquiry. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, did not say to-day that, in the preparation of his report on the inquiry, Mr. Corbett was given every facility, every help. Everything was placed at his disposal by the Chairman, by the Board and by every section of the staff in B.O.A.C. That was no more than they ought to have done; it is the least they should have done. But is it not elementary justice that, where an inquiry has been carried out into the efficiency of an organisation for which people are responsible, in which inquiry those people have co-operated with the person preparing the report, then, after the report has been presented to the Minister, they should have the opportunity of at least seeing the report and, if they are criticised, of being able to answer that criticism? That is ordinary, elementary justice. If within the Ministry of the noble Lord, Lord, Chesham, there is an adverse report on any one of his civil servants, that person is entitled to see it. Are not the directors of B.O.A.C., appointed by the Minister, similarly entitled? Has not the Chairman, who is taking the responsibility, and who has now to carry the responsibility of the innuendos that are thrown—some of which must stick—in regard to his management of B.O.A.C., a right to know?
The Corbett Report is not the Minister's report. It cost well over £20,000 of the taxpayers' money. Yet the people who were inquired into are not to know; Parliament is not to know; the country is not to know. The only person who is to know is the Minister
474
of Aviation. What distinction has he that we have not? We are just as much answerable to the public—or, at least, Members in another place, if not those in this House, are just an answerable to the public—for the good conduct of public affairs as ever a Minister is. The action in regard to the non-publication of the Corbett Report is, I think, deplorable.
I admit that I have a suspicious mind, but I think I know why the Report has not been published. The reason is that it is not critical of B.O.A.C. at all; it is critical of the Government: and, what with the other scandals that have been going on, the Government cannot stand another scandal by the publication of the Corbett Report showing up their inefficiency. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, smiles. He is entitled to smile, if he wants to, but the only way in which he can convince those of us who believe that to be true is to publish the Report and let us see it. That is the quickest way of clearing up suspicion. Until the Government do publish that Report, we have a perfect right to say what we have said. I guarantee that that Report is as critical of the Government as ever it is of the Corporation's actions.
What line are the Government taking to deal with this problem? They are appointing a new Chairman. He is to be Chairman and Chief Executive, and as well as carrying out those two jobs, he is to carry out another inquiry into the financial structure of B.O.A.C. and its operational structure, and to prepare a report to the Minister within twelve months for putting B.O.A.C. on a sound financial basis. My Lords, it just cannot be done; and the Government must know that it cannot be done. Three jobs cannot be carried out by one man. Let us look at them individually. I may not have as much business administration experience or executive experience as noble Lords opposite, but the function of a chairman and the function of a chief executive are totally different. Their relationships within an organisation are totally different. Politically, they are totally different in a nationalised organisation. The Chairman is responsible to the Minister: the Chief Executive is responsible to his Board. I do not care who he is: no man can do these three jobs.

475
Furthermore, airline operation as it is to-day—and one has only to take into account some of the things said by the noble Marquess who preceded me—is not a job for an amateur, no matter who he is. Brilliant though he may be in some field or other, when he goes into an organisation such as B.O.A.C. it will take him twelve months, if not longer, to find his feet, to know what it is all about; twelve months before he can start to make an impression on it. Yet this wonderful Government, this super-Minister who has delayed action all the time he has been in office, and who then cuts everybody's head off, is going to put someone in to carry it all out within twelve months. My Lords, this is just panic action by the Government; and it is due to the fact that some of their own Back-Benchers, who are anti-nationalisation and like to take part in any sort of public activity derogatory to any nationalised organisation, are getting worried about the £80 million deficiency within B.O.A.C. It ought to be written off. It has been said by the Chairman of B.O.A.C. that it ought to be written off; and it was said even by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, to-day that when they get the new Chairman's report there is not the slightest doubt that they will write it off then.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but he has misquoted me. What I said was that it may well have to be written off, not that it would be.
LORD LINDGREN: I accept that correction: it may well have to be written off. Of course it will have to be written off. That is a mere quibble over words. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in the earlier part of his speech, referred to the fact that there was a White Paper and that he was not going through it paragraph by paragraph; and for that we were grateful. But when one talks about the £80 million deficiency, then I think it is reasonable to call attention to the fact that well over half of it arises from aircraft problems—the operation of the Tudor, the Hermes, the tragedy of the Comets, the late delivery of the Britannias, and the question of the amortisation referred to by the noble Lord.
But what the Government has not said even to-day—and the noble Lord,
476
Lord Ogmore, called attention to this—is anything regarding the function of B.O.A.C. It was always understood by the Labour Government, and I always thought it was their function under a Tory Government, that it was B.O.A.C.'s job to show the flag, to fly over the Commonwealth and international routes and to support the British aircraft industry. Let me say this bluntly: without the support of the two Corporations, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., the British aircraft industry, from the point of view of civil production, is defunct. It cannot carry on. Yet £40 million of that £80 million arises from the support that B.O.A.C. have given to the British aircraft industry.
I have said just now that no civil aircraft could go into production unless one or other of the Corporations places a basic order for it; and there will be no orders from any other part of the world unless those orders are placed by the British Corporations or unless the British Corporations take the aircraft, fly it, get the "bugs" out of it and prove its operational economics. Foreign airlines do not buy foreign aircraft as a pig in a poke. They want proved aircraft; they want to know operational costs, pay-load and receipts in fares and what they get out of it. The B.O.A.C. pilots want to fly British. They are glad to see the British flag throughout the world; but, as I have said, £40 million of that £80 million has been lost in showing British aircraft; and the Government say they want to put B.O.A.C. on a purely commercial basis. They cannot put B.O.A.C. on a purely commercial basis unless they give B.O.A.C. the commercial freedom to buy aircraft from where-ever they like on the proved economics of the aircraft on routes they fly. You cannot expect a Corporation to subsidise by development the British aircraft industry and, at the same time, not to make some losses.
Let us consider this fact. The next replacement aircraft of B.O.A.C. is the VC.10. I hope and believe that it will be a winner, as the Trident looks like being. But no one can say. Our aeronautical engineers and designers are first-class people; but no one knows, until the aircraft has flown, what its characteristics are going to be. If it is a winner, then B.O.A.C. is going to have

477
very high operational costs by introducing the VC.10. First of all, it is a very high-purchase-cost aircraft; then it is to be amortised over seven years—and much has been said about B.O.A.C. doing that. There is going to be a high amortisation cost. Then other costs have to be faced. There is the question of training, routes, flight-proving and, as referred to by the noble Marquess who preceded me, maintenance training and engine overhaul, which is a very big factor so far as maintenance costs are concerned. When you introduce the VC.10, I doubt very much whether the engine overhaul period will be more than 750 hours to 800 hours. It will be three to four years before you get it up to the 4,000 hours which can be done after that period of testing and operation.
An engine overhaul is one of the most costly items of engineering maintenance within civil aviation. So, to say you are going to get B.O.A.C. on their feet within twelve months, now you have new aircraft to introduce, is just wrong. What if the VC.10 is the tragedy that the Britannia or the Comets were, or is as delayed as the Britannia was? Can B.O.A.C. then get on their feet? That is not the fault of the Corporation; and the Minister knows it and makes no reference to it to-day. The Minister ought to know, if he has taken the interest that he should, that the operational flying costs of the VC.10 will be £100 an hour more than that of the Boeing. It has a lower pay load. How are you going to get the profit referred to? Of course the VC.10 has some first-class attributes; there is its safety and its blind flying; it can operate from marginal aerodromes, and from that point of view it will be a first-class aircraft. But this talk about getting B.O.A.C. right into the black because of the changing of a Chairman is just simply impossible; and no one knows it better than the present Minister. As my noble friend Lord Shackleton said, it is just a dramatic action in order to cover up Governmental deficiencies.
I should have liked to say much more; but time is passing and I do not want to detain the House unduly. I would, however, emphasise again the unfairness of the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, when he made reference to engineering costs.
478
Would it not have been generous to say why those engineering costs within B.O.A.C. were there; and that they were not due to any fault of the Corporation? Here is an airline which, because of the failure of aircraft it had hoped to buy, is flying five different types of aircraft. When you fly five different types of aircraft, you must have five different sets of maintenance engineers, five different sets of tools, plant, equipment and jigs. You must have five different sorts of spares, and a greater area of hangar space for carrying out general overhauls. If you are going to get good, cheap and easy maintenance within an airline operation, or within any transport organisation, you must operate as few types of vehicle as possible. Why not admit what has happened so far as B.O.A.C. is concerned? Explain it. There is reason for it; there is no reason why it should not be said. There is nothing to be ashamed of. It is equally true, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, that the £4 million figure in the White Paper was a figure given by B.O.A.C. and supported by the consultants who came in after checking it. So why claim that it is something the Minister has thought of, when it is what the Corporation itself has arranged for its new programme of maintenance? As I think the noble Lord knows, £l¼ million of that £4 million has already been saved.
My noble friend Lord Shackleton referred to the morale within B.O.A.C. It was suggested—not in this House, I am glad to say, but in another place—that morale in all sections of B.O.A.C. was low. That is completely untrue. Prior to this upset, morale was extremely high, and the Government can take credit for this perhaps, because they appointed as Deputy Chairman, with special responsibility for personnel management, Sir Wilfred Neden, who did a great job within the B.O.A.C. organisation and, together with his Chairman, gained the confidence of all levels, from shop floor to top management. Sir Wilfred Neden is one of those who were sacked by the Minister. I should like to pay tribute to the part he played in increasing morale in B.O.A.C. I am only too unhappy that the good work he did, in conjunction with his Chairman and the remainder of his Board, has been largely destroyed

479
by the incompetent and foolish actions of the present Minister of Aviation.
7.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, I must declare an interest in the subject of the debate this afternoon, as I work in the aircraft industry. Before starting my remarks, may I join with the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, in congratulating the noble Marquess, Lord Headfort, on his thoughtful and interesting maiden speech. I am sorry that I had to leave the Chamber for a few moments, but what I heard him say interested me very much and I hope that we shall hear many more speeches from him in future.
The purpose of this Bill is to provide the necessary finance to enable B.O.A.C. to continue its work. This provision is obviously required, if B.O.A.C. is to continue on the same sort of scale as it has in the past, and as I believe it must continue to do. Parliament itself has to decide whether this investment is a good one. This, I think, is somewhat unfortunate, because Parliament is not very good, nor is the Civil Service, at dealing with purely commercial matters; and running an airline, as we have seen to-day, is a highly commercial matter. This, of course, is really a basic argument against nationalisation, and particularly nationalisation of a great organisation that has to operate in a highly competitive international field. In a nationalised industry like this it is exceedingly difficult to separate commercial from political factors. Once the Government take a hand, in making recommendations to the management, in bringing in consultants and asking for changes in the form of accounts, it inevitably assumes some of the responsibility that ought to be 100 per cent. with the management.
I know that this is an exceedingly difficult balance in a nationalised industry. It is a problem to which we have not yet entirely found the answer. I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said earlier in the debate on the problem of deciding how far the national interest should be taken into account. This is very difficult in a nationalised industry. In commercial operations, it is very simple. There is a profit and loss account and a balance sheet, and a company goes as
480
far as it can in assisting the national interest, but cannot go so far as to make the company bankrupt. Unfortunately, in nationalised corporations there are no checks and balances of that sort.
The difficulties on the railways are another interesting example of this, for it is only now that Dr. Beeching is separating out the commercial from the political factors that we are really getting down to brass tacks and, I hope, going to get a solution to the problem. In that way, the Government is left free to decide on the political factors, as it should. So it seems to me that inevitably there is this kind of problem in nationalised industries. This confusion is entirely avoided under private enterprise. But it is no good regretting the past. We have national Corporations to run our airlines, for better, for worse; and we had better make sure that it is for the better. We have to learn what lessons we can from the past, and concentrate, I suggest, on making the airlines efficient and a real credit to the country.
Those who are concerned in any way with aviation are well aware of the major difficulties of the airlines business: complex and expensive equipment; interlocking international agreements which to a large extent limit the freedom of action of management; the paramount importance of safety and reliability; intense competition and the tremendous sensitivity of the profit and loss account to the aircraft load factor. We have to add to these problems, which all airlines have, the problem facing B.O.A.C.—that of a very limited home market. A very different state of affairs exists with the great long-haul airlines in the United States, which have a substantial business within their own country.
Even with these problems, however, B.O.A.C. has had some successes in the past. Some of your Lordships may have read an interesting article in the Statist, showing that employee productivity has more than doubled over four years, which is a better record than many other major airlines. Pan-American Airlines, for example, has just doubled its employee productivity, and all the others are well below. Aircraft productivity—that is, hours worked per day per aircraft—has also increased substantially over the same four-year

481
period. In 1962 it was 60 per cent. above that of Air France, and better than any other major airline in the long-haul business. If we join with these successes B.O.A.C.'s record of good service and safety, this adds further to what has been achieved. It is true that the financial position has been very bad, and is still bad. But, in my humble opinion, if the factors I have mentioned are taken into account, I do not believe that there has been good reason for the way in which the Chairman and Managing Director have been treated. I entirely agree there was need for decisive, even ruthless, action. Changes were no doubt needed—I would not dispute that for a moment. But surely we shall all agree that the way things. have been done is not the best way to maintain high morale in a great organisation, or make it most easy for future managements to operate.
There is one other factor. Mr. Corbett was put in, with others, to investigate the affairs of B.O.A.C. I accept that it is thoroughly reasonable for the Government not to wish to publish his Report, because much of the information was given and obtained in confidence; but I cannot understand why the Report was not shown as a whole to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation. I cannot understand the reason for what seems to be an amazing decision; and I believe it is a grave error in judgment on the part of the Government. With different personalities one might be tempted to say that this was due to some lack of courage. But with the personality of the present Minister, I do not think anyone would be tempted to say that; for he certainly acted decisively and very courageously in this difficult affair. Nevertheless, it is difficult to understand the reason for not showing the Report—in confidence, if you like—to the higher management of the Corporation.
But enough of the past. May I turn for a few minutes to the future? In my humble opinion, B.O.A.C., as a major long-haul airline, is essential to this country. But it must be run efficiently to conserve our resources and use them in the best way possible. We must accept that it has two other functions, as well as to make a profit. It must fly the flag, for the purposes of national prestige, on the routes throughout the world; and for
482
reasons of national prosperity it must collaborate closely with the British aircraft industry. I believe, as I have already said, that better arrangements are needed to clarify objectives. But, in any new look that comes about under the new management, I hope there will be no question of minimising the importance of a healthy British aircraft industry, and the tremendous value of close co-operation between the nationalised airlines and the aircraft industry.
This perhaps raises the whole question of whether the aircraft industry of this country is a good thing and worth supporting—and this would be a subject for a debate on its own. I would say only this. It is an industry which uses the most advanced technology and works to the limits of knowledge, with standards of design and reliability of the highest order. It has achieved most valuable exports, both in quantity and in quality. I would draw attention to the fact, as I have done before in your Lordships' House, that the aircraft industries' exports sell at between £15 and £20 sterling per lb. weight, which means very valuable exports, because they have a very high brain-power content or, in the words of the economist, a high added value. The industry also works in a highly competitive international field. For that reason, an active home market is essential for its prosperity. With cost of development of modern aircraft it is quite essential to have firm assurances of orders for a new civil aircraft in advance of putting it into full development. Such action requires close collaboration between airlines and industry, and it would be quite impracticable, without a British airline, such as B.O.A.C., in the long-haul market, to achieve this kind of trust and collaboration which is absolutely essential for the welfare of the British aircraft industry.
I should like, in passing (I am sorry he is not here) to refer to some of the things the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, said. I think it is most unfortunate that figures should be quoted out of the air, as the noble Lord quoted them this afternoon, in referring to the increased cost per hour of operating, for instance, the VC10 in competition with the Boeing 707. These figures can be picked out of the air to prove anything. As anyone in the industry will tell you,

483
it is essential to make a full study of every situation, every route and every aircraft before any useful comparison can be made. For the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren (I repeat that I am sorry he is not here), to pick such figures out of the air, and quote them completely out of context, does great harm to an important British industry.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Lindgren is not here, perhaps I can say that all of us on this side felt that the Minister had been remarkably selective in his presentation of what he regarded as the facts.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: I was always told when a child that two wrongs do not make a right, and the fact that the Minister allegedly left out one or two facts is surely no reason for the noble Lord to quote misleading figures.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: If the noble Viscount is going to argue about Tu quoque, I would say that "Evil communications corrupt good manners".
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: I accept the noble Earl's point. I apologise if he should feel that it was in any way discourteous. I think he made a strong point, and I answered it. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, is now back, and no doubt he will read what I said to-morrow. I apologise for saying it in his absence.
As I was saying, these long-term commitments of the British aircraft industry, in which all the nationalised airlines played a valuable part, are of tremendous importance. As has already been said, it may well be that pioneering a new aircraft does involve higher cost. But pioneering is essential if you want to lead the word, and this is sometimes an essential part of running an airline.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, would the noble Viscount not agree that it is not the function of an air transport carrier, if it is going to be commercial, to develop a particular aircraft of any company, but to find the aircraft most suitable to the traffic it is going to carry? That has already been proved.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: If that theory were to be put into operation, no aircraft would ever be developed,
484
because no airline would ever start a new aircraft. The point I am making is that if an airline is to lead the world, as we wish B.O.A.C. to do, it is essential sometimes to pioneer new aircraft, which it does. This is part of the general cost of running an airline business. American airlines do it.
LORD LINDGREN: Would the noble Viscount say which American airline carries the development cost of any American aircraft?
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: I am not sure what the noble Lord is talking about now.
LORD LINDGREN: Can the noble Viscount tell me who carried out the cost of the development of the Boeing 707?
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: Perhaps the noble Lord will wait a moment. No airline in America is expected to carry the development costs of an aircraft. I thought we were discussing the cost of introducing a new aircraft in an airline. That is an entirely different matter.
LORD LINDGREN: It is not.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: It is an entirely different matter. It costs tens of millions of pounds to develop a new aircraft, but it does not cost anything like that to introduce a new aircraft in an airline. The point I am making is that, when an aircraft is developed and ready for operation, it still costs the airline quite a lot of money to put it into operation. The noble Lord himself made that point. What I am saying is that it is essential, if an airline wishes to be in the forefront, as we wish B.O.A.C. to be, for it to take on new aircraft from time to time, as it did with great success in the case of the Comet. I agree that there was subsequent trouble, and that was most unfortunate, but it is an example of working near the limits of knowledge. If the noble Lord will bide his time, he will see that I am not arguing so much against his point of view.
I was just saying that the introduction of new aircraft involves higher cost, and it might sometimes be possible to avoid this higher cost by buying American aircraft or the aircraft of other countries "off the shelf". This would mean that there would not be the

485
pioneering element in B.O.A.C. which we want; but it would also mean that the British aircraft industry, as the noble Lord said, would find life extremely difficult. So I hope that in any new look there will be no question of the airlines abandoning a preference for British aircraft. They must be suitable aircraft and good aircraft. But, as I said just now, the Corporation have done well with British aircraft in the past, and they will do well in the future with aircraft such as the Trident and the VC.10.
May I say one or two words about the new Chairman? I hope there will be an end to this carping criticism. The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, referred to him as an amateur. He is not an amateur. Is Dr. Beeching an amateur? Is Lord Robens an amateur? The new Chairman of this great Corporation is a keen and competent airman. He has had experience, on the Board of B.E.A., of the problems of running an airline, and he is a wise and inspiring leader in the City, with a very wide knowledge of financial affairs. What more do you need in B.O.A.C. at this moment? I hope this House will send out a word of encouragement to the new Chairman. He has taken on a very big task indeed in the national interest, and I think there should be an end to this continuous carping at him when he is setting about doing a difficult job. I do not doubt that to move away from his accustomed fields is not all joy to him. I should wish him well. I should hope strongly that he will bear in mind that the aircraft industry is ready and anxious, as it has always been, to support British airline Corporations. It is ready to support them, and it is more than ready to collaborate.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the noble Viscount finishes, may I say that he has made the point that there must be confidence in the new Chairman. But what concerns us all is this. About three years ago we had the same expressions of complete and utter confidence in the present Chairman.
LORD LINDGREN: With instructions to reorganise.
LORD SHEPHERD: I remember the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, speaking in the most glowing terms; and now, with-
486
in three years, you denigrate his character—not the noble Viscount, but the Government and the Minister. Therefore we feel a little put out. I hope the new Chairman will receive the loyalty and support of the Corporation.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: It is no good jobbing back too far. We must face facts as we find them. I have made some comments, and so have other noble Lords, on the way in which we think things could be improved in the future. Whether notice will be taken of them is another matter. I have certainly made some criticisms, constructive I hope, of what has gone on in the past. But I do not criticise it all, for the Minister has certainly acted decisively and quickly. It is no good jobbing back every time a change comes. Let us look forward to the future and support this man who has been put in. We have had our fun and made some criticisms of the Government. Let us now leave the past and get on with the future, and see whether we cannot lend our support, with constructive criticism if necessary, to making a good job of this great airline and helping the Chairman in his extremely arduous task.
Finally, I hope it will be appreciated that the future prosperity of British airlines and the British aircraft industry are inevitably and desirably, I think, linked together. Each will remain dependent upon the other for its prosperity. I hope the Chairman will remember this, and that he will receive the support for which I have asked to-day; he will certainly continue to receive the support of the aircraft industry. I believe the airline has a very great future before it under the new Chairman's leadership.
7.34 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, as an ex-R.A.F. man, perhaps I may be permitted to add my congratulations to the noble Marquess for a most interesting speech and a well-informed one, if I may humbly say so. From this side of the House I do not wish to be unduly or unfairly critical of, the Government's handling of a situation involving the future of B.O.A.C. But it is extremely difficult to assess the present situation correctly when in effect it is only Her Majesty's Government who are in possession of all the facts and figures arising out of the Corbett investigation. A study

487
of the White Paper does not automatically lead one, I feel, to the conclusion that such a sweeping and major reorganisation of the management of B.O.A.C. was necessary. This impression has been confirmed in my mind by the various statements that have been made in another place by the Minister of Aviation, and also by his Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Neil Marten. For instance, these two gentleman have made such utterances as: losses due to the disaster which befell the Comet 1; the delay in the introduction of the Britannia; the cost of the introduction of these two aircraft in terms of adapted engineering and maintenance departments; the provision of ground equipment; route proving flights; spares along the route, and so on.
The Minister also went on to say that half the losses were due to bad luck. We can write those off then. The Minister also said that many of the weaknesses that have been shown up in the White Paper, and which are due to errors of management, have already been corrected. There are, in particular, two Government statements which, if I may put it this way, were spoken in one breath by the Minister which really cannot be reconciled. They are, on the one hand, the tribute for the very good work done for the Corporation by Sir Basil Small-peice. Then, on the other hand, one sees Sir Basil's consequential "retirement" due to Sir Giles Guthrie taking over many of his functions. It is true that the Minister said that Sir Giles worked for an airline before the war, but he must have been at an age of 22 or 23 at the most. But, of course, he has had the experience of being on the Board of one of our national airlines. Surely Sir Basil's knowledge of airline operation is more extensive and, I would say, more up-to-date than Sir Giles Guthrie's.
I now turn to the question of the submission of the Corbett Report, which comes under three headings. As Messrs. Urwick Orr and Partners were impressed—in the words of the Minister—on the sales and publicity side, and felt that the Corporation was getting good value for money, I will say nothing more on that side of the investigation. Messrs. Associated Industrial Consultants feel that, in spite of reduced engineering costs
488
over the years, £4 million (and this has been mentioned before) could still be saved in engineering and maintenance. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was right when he said that B.O.A.C. put forward those figures themselves. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, say that £1¼ million has already been saved of those £4 million. On this aspect of the problem, it would appear, if I read the Minister's words aright in Hansard, that the appropriate sections of the Report on engineering and maintenance have been shown to the existing management for consideration. That would indeed seem fair and just, but what I feel is certainly not just or fair is the withholding of information regarding financial control, which is the crux of the problem. I think most noble Lords have stressed this point, and it is really most important.
B.O.A.C. is certainly not the only Continental airline which is faced with the problem of over-capacity on certain lines. The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, mentioned Air France and how in certain respects B.O.A.C.'s figures were better, about which I am delighted. Air France have this same problem of over-capacity. Also, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, there is the surge of independent countries of Africa operating their own air lines; there are higher equipment costs uncompensated by an equivalent increase in revenue; and the drawback of having to operate obsolescent aircraft, apart from their being subjected to strong pressure for lower fares.
What of the future? Even if the rate of traffic growth has slackened in the last few years, the trend would still appear to me to be encouraging. Excluding the U.S.S.R. and Communist China, the I.C.A.O. figures for last year compared with the figures for 1961 show the following increases in world air traffic: 11 per cent. more passengers carried; 19 per cent. more freight, expressed in ton miles; 13 per cent. more mail, also expressed in ton miles; and that, with only 5 per cent. more miles flown.
Now that the Corbett Report has been produced, I feel that if there had been proper discussions between the management of B.O.A.C. and the Ministry, with both sides in possession of the document, the present show-down would not have come about and it would have been

489
possible to achieve any adjustments in organisation, financial control or personnel far more smoothly. Forecasting accurately the airline's future share of air traffic would then be facilitated by close contact and consultation between the airline and the Ministry, as this share is so very much associated with the question of fares decided by I.A.T.A. and the problem of air traffic rights.
On this latter question of air traffic rights, I should like to take this opportunity to ask my noble friend—though perhaps he may think from what I have been saying that we are no longer noble friends—whether he has any information with regard to the Comet flight to Mauritius, which started as a Britannia flight in January last year and which called at Tananarive, Madagascar. With regard to that halt, it was only a refuelling halt and, in due course, as permission was not granted for full facilities, B.O.A.C. no longer called there. Therefore, I should like to take this opportunity to ask my noble friend for information, because it seemed to me at a time when Kenya was not independent there could be a quid pro quo, with France bringing pressure to bear on Madagascar on the question of this country giving greater rights in Kenya and the Madagascar Government allowing B.O.A.C. to call and load and offload passengers at Tananarive.
I would now conclude by deploring the manner in which the reorganisation of the management of B.O.A.C. has been carried out, and expressing the earnest hope that the new management will be able to produce within a year, as has been stated, a workable plan so as to put B.O.A.C. properly on its feet, for in the period 1966–67 B.O.A.C. will be operating only two types of aircraft, the Boeing 707 and the VC10, and we shall have the introduction in 1970 of the Concord. I feel perhaps I should end on a kinder note for the Minister of Aviation, and I should like to pay the warmest tribute to him for his share in the effort which has been expended on the co-operation between our country and France on the Concord project.
7.46 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, is certainly well qualified to take part
490
in a debate on civil aviation for, as he told us, he has a background of the Air Force and also of transport. When I was a Minister I was taught by my very capable Parliamentary Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, as he now is, that a transport background is as important for dealing with civil aviation as a knowledge of flying.
This has been a gloomy debate, and I will deal with that aspect in a moment, but we have all been cheered by the maiden speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Headfort. I hope that I am not revealing to the House something that I should not when I say that he had a very unnerving experience just before he came into the House to make his maiden speech of the noble Marquess, Minister, came up to him and said, "I am glad to see you. I knew your father well. He was a Moslem, wasn't he?" That was an extraordinary thing to have said to someone just before a maiden speech. The noble Marquess had to explain that neither was his father nor is he a Moslem. He does something much more valuable for this particular purpose; he is a well-qualified pilot in current practice. We listened to his speech with much enjoyment.
The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, obviously felt at the end that he could not go away for Christmas without saying something charitable towards the Minister in another place and the Minister here, and he seemed to be scratching around to find the smallest sector of the subject, so to speak, and I was glad to think there was a point on which he agreed with the Minister.
It is a long time since I can remember a noble Lord, a very popular noble Lord, if I may say so, like Lord Chesham, introducing a Bill of this kind in your Lordships' House and sitting down without a single cheer coming anywhere from anybody. I assume that if he were not so popular there would have been violent protests, although I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, would have been too well-conditioned to join in. But I think the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, must feel that he is putting a very unpopular cause before the House, not just one that is unpopular with the Labour party, but one that is unpopular with everybody. I am afraid I missed some of the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, but what I

491
heard appeared to be highly critical. I am afraid one must say that not a dog has barked on behalf of the Government this afternoon. I feel sorry, as did the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, for the Minister, a man of strong patriotic impulses, and a gifted speaker. Attacking him now is like kicking a man who is down. Of course, he is down, but not out; the people who are out are Sir Matthew Slattery and Sir Basil Smallpeice.
LORD LINDGREN: It will not be long before he is out.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: A few weeks, perhaps, or a few months. At any rate, he is not out and, therefore, I know he will understand that he is the object of rather natural criticism.
I can bring a fairly dispassionate mind to bear, so far as anyone is allowed to attribute that sort of psychology to themselves, to this question. I can understand the feelings of a Minister of Civil Aviation, in this case a Minister with a wider office, who feels it necessary to make drastic changes at the highest level in B.O.A.C., and, for that matter, in B.E.A. I did the same when I was a boy and therefore I am not going to take up the attitude, which for me would be ridiculous, that anybody who informs a chairman that his contract will not be renewed at the end of his time is clearly an enemy of the people.
I would, before coming to B.O.A.C. in a little detail, join in all that has been said about the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Kirtleside. Inevitably I feel a certain pride in this, if only for the reason my noble friend Lord Lindgren mentioned. When I made that appointment there were cries of "Jobs for the boys!" but I think after fifteen years he can be said to have lived them down and been accepted by all as having done a wonderful job for B.E.A. I would join also in an expression of confidence in Mr. Milward, the Chairman-elect, whom I got to know very well in the old days. I feel sure B.E.A. have a first-class man to follow Lord Douglas of Kirtleside.
I have an understanding, at any rate, of the position of the Minister which, if you like, makes me more sympathetic
492
to drastic action than some others might be. On the other hand, I have a bias in another direction, if you like, a very legitimate bias to introduce to this discussion. I happen to know Sir Matthew Slattery extremely well, not in an "old boy" sense but as a working colleague. When I was chairman of the National Bank I brought him on to the board as a director. I know his worth and I regard him as an outstanding example of one who combines the highest type of public service with a great deal of business drive and leadership. I regard him as an absolutely outstanding man, and that, so far as I can discover, is how he is regarded in B.O.A.C. But the Minister has formed the opinion that something quite different must be done and Sir Matthew must be cleared out at the first opportunity. I am bound to say, with, I hope, no personal offensiveness, that Sir Matthew has more business experience than the Minister, and if I had to choose between the business judgment of Sir Matthew Slattery and that of the Minister, leaving out their general intellectual capacity and taking their high moral worth for granted, I would much prefer Sir Matthew Slattery's judgment in anything that affected business, if only by reason of his experience.
May I offer one or two general observations which are slightly less controversial than some things that have been said? We cannot, surely, speaking now, meeting together for a few moments as British citizens, be happy about these continual changes at the higher level in B.O.A.C. They took place under the Labour Government, and they have taken place since. No one is allowed to have a very long run for his money. The new Minister appears, and out goes the Chairman, fairly soon. That kind of cycle is beginning to be accepted by all: but it makes the life of the Chairman very difficult; it is difficult to look very far ahead because he knows that he will not be there to gather the fruits.
Taking any comparison with private business or other nationalised industries, one must recognise that B.O.A.C. have suffered, have been handicapped, by all these changes; and I think it is worth asking whether there is some special explanation in the case of B.O.A.C. We should be astounded if this sort of thing went on in private business. We should

493
be very much surprised if Lord Robens or Dr. Beeching were suddenly treated in this way. I think it is worth concentrating for a moment on the wider question of whether there is any special explanation why B.O.A.C. seem to find it harder to satisfy public opinion. Why is it that the Minister arriving on the scene seems to feel a strong impulse to change the Chairman and apparently appease what he imagines to be public clamour in a great number of cases?
I agree with what the noble Viscount Lord Caldecote, said: we must look to the future; and I hope that what I shall say is aimed at the future. I wish Sir Giles Guthrie well, as I know does my noble friend Lord Shackleton, who spoke so effectively from this side in the first place. I do not know Sir Giles Guthrie. I must say (and it is against myself) that I had never heard of him until he was appointed; but I do not suppose he had heard of me, so there is nothing between us there. On the other hand (and I am glad to say this, because the other thing I want to say is slightly unpleasant), only yesterday I met a high person in B.E.A. who knows Sir Giles very well. He told me that Sir Giles was a very capable man and he felt quite sure from his first-hand experience that he would do a fine job. That is the opinion of somebody who knows Sir Giles extremely well in aviation: it is his testimony, and I. am ready to accept that opinion.
The point about Sir Giles that perhaps needs attention is his peculiar sense of public relations. In the Sunday Times a week or two ago there was an article in which a number of statements were attributed to Sir Giles. The article was headed, "How Guthrie got to B.O.A.C." It started with a story of a lunch—I will not go into that. There are various other strange remarks; but I miss out most of them. I finish with one thing, but not the most fatuous thing which is attributed to him. I cannot believe he said:
The public does not know me "—
this is in direct quotes; and so far as I know it is not challenged—
…but for instance how many of the public know the name of the Governor of the Bank of England? As it happens, I know him by his christian name, and that is the point. Things work differently in the City."
LORD LINDGREN: It is not what you know but whom you know.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: That was the statement attributed to him, but I refuse to believe he really said that to a responsible journalist. I think that that remark passes the point of fatuity. I think he made a very bad start in public relations by giving a peculiar picture of himself—I do not mean the physical picture; that is very nice, a very charming picture; I am talking of the words, and I hope he will improve on them on subsequent occasions. I must repeat what I did hear at first hand; that he is very capable, and we wish him well.
My Lords, how can we look to a better future, not just in the next year, which was well covered by my colleagues, but in the years ahead, if we take a ten-year view, of this very difficult question of the relationship of the Minister and the Chairman? We are not having a nationalisation debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said, so I would not defend nationalisation as such. I am not conceding anything to anybody if I say that there is bound to by a relationship which needs a great deal of working out between the Chairman and the Minister. One is bound to ask: is there a special difficulty in the case of B.O.A.C.? Is it harder than in other national Corporations?
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who was of course very successful (though he was not long enough at the Ministry) has suggested that the Government—and perhaps it might be said of all Governments; though we did our best and the results are there for all to see, and we are very happy—have failed to give B.O.A.C. a clear directive. I am sure that is true. But I am bound to say that I think it will always be very difficult to give B.O.A.C. an absolutely clear directive. It will always be difficult to distinguish absolutely between what is to be done for public reasons and what is to be done for commercial reasons. We all know that the Corporation are supposed to operate commercially, but undoubtedly the Government have national policy in mind, and B.O.A.C., as patriotic people, are anxious to fall in with the Government's ideas of policy.
The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, comes forward quite boldly and after declaring his interest quite unashamedly

495
says his industry must be given preference by B.O.A.C. as compared with foreign aircraft.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: The noble Earl is taking my words rather out of context. I said I hoped that any new look of the nationalised airlines would continue to give preference to British aircraft provided that the British aircraft industry produce suitable aircraft.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am afraid that I regard that as a totally ambiguous sentence which really means nothing at all. Obviously, if the aircraft are the best aircraft, they will go for them without the aircraft being British. But the noble Lord has said that they should give a preference, and they can do that only by setting aside their purely commercial interests. I am not saying at the moment whether it is right or wrong, but that is what the noble Lord, on behalf of the aircraft industry—he has rightly declared his interest—is asking them to do; and on the whole, in one way or another since the war, that has often been done. The noble Lord is speaking for the aircraft industry, and has said that they have given this preference up till now, that they are doing that for patriotic and not commercial reasons, and, if you like, to fit in with the public interest.
I do not think that the matter is quite so simple as the Minister here and the Minister in another place made out. We were asked to give examples of where the Minister has insisted that the Corporation sets its own interests aside in the wider interests of the State. But it will not work that way. It never would work completely that way. I agree with what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, when he said that if we are going to have much more of this, with a show-down, with the Government and Ministry of Civil Aviation finding the scapegoat in B.O.A.C., then no one is going to take a patriotic interest unless he has it in writing as a request. But, without wishing to be too controversial, having done this kind of thing myself, I know that neither party, if I may use the expression, can tell the whole truth; and neither side wants to be unpleasant to people they have worked with and probably respect highly as individuals.
496
So I am not going to say that I know the full truth, or that I should ever expect the full truth on the personal side to be proclaimed. I think probably all concerned would hesitate to do that.
It will always be difficult, I think—though one must keep on trying to do better than we have done in the past—to disentangle the commercial interest from the public interest. The speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, is an example of how difficult it is to disentangle these interests. But if that is so, it is essential, in my opinion, that there should be close confidence between the Minister and the Chairman, and, indeed, the Board as a whole. It may be said that there will be confidence. I gather from the Sunday Times that the Minister had only recently met Sir Charles Guthrie, so let us say that he has picked him and that there will be confidence between these two. But then some other Minister will come along and he will find things not going too well in terms of profit, and he may find somebody in whom he has confidence.
This question of establishing the kind of confidence that is going to provide continuity on the Board of B.O.A.C. is quite a difficult one. I think that in this matter the Minister made one fatal step, and one step which was almost as fatal, and which has been much criticised; but by that time the damage was done. He came in setting about things with all the earnestness of a new Minister—and I speak with that kind of background—and he asked Mr. Corbett to investigate B.O.A.C. When I was a Minister (I am sorry to give my experience, but perhaps the House will forgive me) I tackled the same sort of problem rather differently. I persuaded B.O.A.C. to agree that the then Deputy Chairman, Sir Miles Thomas, should conduct an inquiry into B.O.A.C. in conjunction with a high official of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, and that inquiry was conducted therefore in full collaboration with B.O.A.C. It seems to me that where the present Minister made his fatal mistake was in setting up his own inquiry and refusing, as it were, to settle many difficult points with B.O.A.C. while his own private inquiry was proceeding. The present Minister and the noble Lord may wish to challenge me here, but I

497
do not think so: it seems plain that all the time the Corbett inquiry was proceeding, as Lord Lindgren said, and afterwards, is was impossible to get decisions out of the Minister. That was the inevitable result of that peculiar method of organising his inquiry.
The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has said, in effect (and I think it was said elsewhere) that one had either to have a public inquiry or to have what he called a secret inquiry—a personal inquiry, in this case by the Minister. But there are other forms of inquiry open to the Government. There is the same kind of inquiry that we ourselves held in civil aviation when I was Minister. I cannot help mentioning that the deficit which was £11 million in B.O.A.C. about the time when I came in, had, just after I left and after Lord Ogmore left, disappeared altogether. So I think that that inquiry must have been most fruitful.
That, I think, was a fatal mistake. Of course, the point that has been criticised more, and which I also criticise, and the main error which was made earlier, was the refusal to show the Corbett report to the chairman. I cannot think of anything more calculated to sow the seeds of more distrust; and one must assume that by that time the Minister had formed some unsatisfactory opinion about Sir Matthew Slattery. If he had not, this was a mysterious way of proceeding, and I think he had no ground whatever for keeping Sir Matthew Slattery at arm's length in that way.
In my opinion, those were his mistakes. We have here a bad story which has found no one in this House to defend it, apart from the gallant representative of the Government. If we look to the future, it seems clear that we must think hard, whatever Government is in power, as to how to establish greater understanding and more mutual confidence between the Chairman and the Board. If that is achieved as a result of this wretched episode, then Sir Matthew and Sir Basil will not have perished in vain. But, as things are, I join with my colleagues and others in the House who, to a greater or less degree, have said that the whole story is one of great ineptitude and one that is going to do
498
harm for a long time to come to a Corporation which we are all anxious to help.
8.7 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, having listened with the care which I always do to everything in a debate in this House in which I have to wind up—and it is only courtesy to the people who have taken part in the debate—I should like to say, in the first place, that I appreciate the sincere and genuine interest in aviation matters that there is all round the House. I am glad to recognise from the noble Earl who has just sat down, in common with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that in the debate on this matter there has been no quibble or argument about nationalisation. I thought that noble Lords opposite might, to a degree, but only to a degree, have paid a little more attention to the words which ultimately came from the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who said that he wished the matter was not quite so political. I got the impression from where I was listening that noble Lords opposite were so tumbling over themselves to find every conceivable point which they could hurl at the Government, that some matters were becoming a little obscured here and there. I make no complaint of that. The Opposition are quite excellent, a very dutiful Opposition, and, they have, of course, done what they should do. Having said that, I most certainly agree that there are some serious matters remaining to be discussed, and I shall address myself to some of them.
What strikes me as one of the most serious things in this debate is what has been said about the crisis of confidence which is alleged to be occurring and the consequent damage to morale among the people who work in the Corporation. I am talking, of course, of B.O.A.C. I am wondering how long morale can remain as high as it undoubtedly is on the working side. I make no complaint of the morale, but surely the point is this: what morale is going to be possible in the future for a Corporation with a deficit such as it has, a deficit which is likely to increase—and even if it decreases, not able to be paid off for many years to come unless it is written off? I should have thought that there was at least an argument in favour of measures to put that great

499
Corporation on a sound financial footing so that it could operate not only as a good airline but as a financially successful airline. This is one of the best things one can do in the interests of morale.
There is a further point which is obviously perplexing noble Lords—almost a confusion which appears to range over whether B.O.A.C. knew, or did not know, what its role really was. I must devote myself to that for a moment or two. It has already been pointed out to us by one noble Lord that in 1945 it was made perfectly clear in the White Paper that the Corporations should aim to pay their way; and so far as I am aware that understanding has never been retracted or altered. It was clear in 1945; it was clear in 1951. I quote from the B.O.A.C. Report for 1951-52, paragraph 14, page 6:
"Finally, though not last in point of time, the fourth phase in reconstruction was the imprinting on the minds of staff at all levels the idea that the Corporation was essentially a commercial undertaking; that the financial aspect of every single activity mattered: and that the ultimate test of the Corporation's success was not only the standard of public service it provided, but also the normal business criterion of whether it could be made to pay its way."
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord in that last sentence mentioned two criteria. This is why it is a complicated problem. The last sentence he quoted referred not only to public service but to commercial principles.
LORD CHESHAM: That is so, my Lords, but I understood doubt was being cast as to whether B.O.A.C. had a commercial rôle or was only a prestige affair. I am trying to make this clear. I thought it was understood that it was expected to pay its way. I do not think, following on what I have just quoted, that there has ever been any retraction of that.
LORD LINDGREN: One accepts that. But can the Corporation be commercial on a basis of carrying the aircraft industry? Under the Labour Government the Handley-Page Hermes was three years late. The effect upon the Corporation of carrying on with the Yorks and Lancastrians, and the rest of them, was to increase its difficulties. The Britannia was two years late. By
500
the time it came into operation it was almost obsolete because of American developments. Can B.O.A.C. carry that financially?
LORD CHESHAM: I got the noble Lord's point in his speech and was going on to deal with the question of aircraft policy as I went along. Of course, it has been equally recognised, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, pointed out to us, that there are other considerations and responsibilities of a non-commercial character which have to be borne by the Corporation, but this applies also to other transport undertakings. I should have thought it a sorry day with an airline like B.O.A.C. when there were no considerations of prestige entering into the matter, particularly in relation to the effect abroad. These factors have always been recognised. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, detailed the kind of duties which the Corporation faces and argued that they were mutually inconsistent. That was the great trouble for B.O.A.C. I would only say that the success of B.E.A. in very similar circumstances hardly supports the argument that it is impossible to operate commercially if you have those duties laid on you.
LORD OGMORE: Not at all. I pointed out that the situation is quite different. B.E.A. is a short and medium haul operator. B.O.A.C. is a long-haul operator, and B.E.A. has not the same prestige considerations as has B.O.A.C. That is my point, and I am quite certain in my own mind that the Government have to face this fact. If they want these incompatible considerations to be taken into account by B.O.A.C., they have to do something about the financial situation: otherwise B.O.A.C. will never be able to make itself pay.
LORD CHESHAM: I think I have already dealt with that in the course of my speech. I apologise to the noble Lord if I did not take his point quite correctly.
I want also to deal with the point as to the duties and obligations which are laid upon the Corporation and the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, about requiring a certificate every time they do something which is believed to be in the national interest. Of

501
course they should not require a certificate every time they do something which may be said to be in the national interest. It is perfectly right, I think, for B.O.A.C., as an international airline, to take political, social and other aims into account; because, as often as not, the national interest may well lie in exactly the same direction as sound commercial judgment. If there is some action in the national interest which is quite contrary to commercial judgment, I should have thought that there is room for recording the fact in writing and that one would have expected that where the national and commercial interests lay poles apart the fact would be recorded, as it has been in the cases I mentioned. I do not want to make any more of that than I must.
I know that the noble Lords, Lord Shackleton, and Lord Lindgren, have suspicious minds. Of course they have, and as far as the Corbett Report is concerned they will just have to have suspicious minds.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, if another Government come in, a Labour Government, would the Corbett Report be found waiting for them?
LORD LINDGREN: Taxpayers' money has been spent on it to the tune of £22,000.
LORD CHESHAM: I must tell the noble Earl that that is too fast a ball for me to play. I am prepared to inquire and let him know.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am very glad to hear that.
LORD CHESHAM: My right honourable friend, I think—and I know that noble Lords opposite do not so think—was quite right when he was suspicious of a situation and set about finding out all about it for himself. Noble Lords opposite think and have said—and they have said it again to-day that this Report ought to be published. The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, pointed out to us that this Report was commissioned as and evidence taken under pledge of its being confidential. The noble Lord looks doubtful, but in fact it was. I have told the House so before and that is the fact of the matter.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, may I interrupt?
LORD CHESHAM: May I just finish this point and then I will give way. What I want to say is that a lot of the evidence that was taken for that Report was taken under pledge of confidence, and if that pledge had not been given the Report would not have half the stuff in it that it has. There is no question of being able or being willing to publish this Report. It was for the Minister, and with him it must rest.
LORD LINDGREN: This is a most remarkable statement to come from a Junior Minister. What the noble Lord is now saying is that the Minister of Aviation pays a person to go behind the back of the Chairman of the Board, to report and to get information from members of the Chairman's staff on the basis that it will not be divulged because it is confidential. Such an action is completely scandalous and any other person who did it would be hounded from here to Land's End.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, that is absolute nonsense.
LORD LINDGREN: It is what you said.
LORD CHESHAM: No, that is not what I said. I said that my right honourable friend, as he desired to inform himself as to what went on—because he takes the responsibility, as the noble Lord pointed out to us earlier —appointed an accountant, Mr. Corbett, to do it for him, to conduct this inquiry on his behalf, to inform him under pledge of confidence. That is the important part.
LORD LINDGREN: But whose was the confidence—members of the staff, or everybody outside B.O.A.C.?
LORD CHESHAM: Both.
LORD LINDGREN: That is scandalous.
LORD CHESHAM: Very well, then. The noble Lord will not agree. Noble Lords want the Report published. I want to know if the noble Lord, or perhaps one of the noble Lords who spoke from the Opposition Dispatch Box, would say whether, if he were in my

503
right honourable friend's shoes, he would publish that Report?
LORD LINDGREN: No really trustworthy person would go behind the back of a chairman to get his staff to talk, and to undermine his position within an organisation. Such an action is disgusting.
LORD CHESHAM: But it is not an answer to my question. There is no question of going behind the back of the Chairman. The noble Lord has invented that for himself and I never said that. I merely said that this Report was taken under pledge of confidence. The noble Lord presses me to publish it. Would he?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord has put that point about going behind the back. I gather opinions were elicited. I gathered that the noble Lord said earlier that he wanted facts. If the noble Lord was concerned only with collecting facts, they could have been put clearly in a way which could have been shown to the Chairman. But I gather there was something which could not be shown to the Chairman or to the Managing Director, and it was something which was elicited from juniors about their seniors. That is going behind the back of the seniors.
LORD CHESHAM: I do not think it is like that at all. But I can see that I am clearly not going to get any answer from the Benches opposite on the question that I have now twice posed, as noble Lords have raised another issue on each occasion.
LORD LINDGREN: My working-class decency would never get me to ask another person to "rat" on his chief.
LORD CHESHAM: I do not think anyone else's sense of decency has done anything of that kind at all.
LORD LINDGREN: That is what it is.
LORD CHESHAM: All I will say is that I take note, my Lords, that when it comes to pressing and making a great deal of impassioned argument about the unfairness of concealing, the unfairness of not publishing, the Corbett Report, and when it comes to a decision on
504
whether or not it would be published, I receive nothing but silence.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: The answer to this is perfectly obvious, I am sorry to deprive the noble Lord of what he may have hoped for a moment was his main debating triumph of the day, but the answer is perfectly obvious. Nobody without seeing the Report can possibly tell whether it can be published. One can be quite sure that it should be shown to the Chairman. Whether it should be published is something one cannot pronounce on till one has seen it. It would be much more satisfactory to see it. Until one has seen it one cannot tell whether that Report should be published.
LORD CHESHAM: That is exactly right, and I am very grateful to the noble Earl for putting it in that way.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: No, the noble Lord does not see it in the same way. We think he went behind the backs of the officials, and behind them in a most unpleasant way, by getting these people to sneak on their superiors. That is what we say and, so far as we can understand, that is what has been done. But we cannot know what they have said, because we have not seen the Report. The noble Lord says that there are things which would damage this country if they were published, but of course we cannot speak in advance without seeing the Report. But it would have been much better if, in all these circumstances, they had produced a Report which could have been published.
LORD CHESHAM: There is only one real point at issue. We have established everything now except this "going behind the backs" business. How do you go behind the back of anybody when you announce to Parliament that you are going to do this, which was done before Mr. Corbett went to work? My right honourable friend announced this to Parliament, and it is not going behind the backs of anybody. No, the charge is too ridiculous to stand up for a moment.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I am sorry, but this is an important point. I said during the course of my remarks that Mr. Corbett had received the fullest co-operation in every phase of his inquiry from the Chairman, the Board and all

505
sections of the staff of B.O.A.C., in order to carry it out. Yet the Minister is now saying that when it gets below the Board level the persons gave their evidence in confidence, because in fact they were speaking against their chief at the top.
LORD CHESHAM: I did not say that at all. The noble Lord is putting words into my mouth. I said that the whole Report was prepared in confidence and evidence was taken in confidence, but I said nothing about the level at which it was taken. The noble Lord is trying to put words into my mouth which I never said were even thought of. I am glad that we now have it fairly obvious—
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, might I interrupt my noble friend? I have not interrupted him once yet. Could he say from whom evidence was taken in confidence?
LORD CHESHAM: May I ask my noble friend whether he would have the courtesy to wait till I have finished my sentence before interrupting me?
LORD LINDGREN: You are on a sticky wicket, but do not get cross.
LORD CHESHAM: I am not in the least getting cross. I am asking my noble friend for the normal courtesy of the House. At least I should have thought I could do that. I do not know whether my noble friend wants me to give a list of the people who gave evidence. I do not have one. I do not know how I can use shorter or simpler words, to say that the Report was prepared in confidence and evidence was taken on the basis that it would be treated as confidential. I trust that that makes the matter clear once and for all.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: As clear as mud.
LORD CHESHAM: Mud has its uses at times, my Lords.
I want now, if I may, to go on to a question raised by noble Lords opposite. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, raised this question of the Slattery plan, and I had to do a bit of quick thinking to discover quite what they meant. That is why I was sufficiently rude to interrupt the noble Lord, when I did not want to do so, to
506
ask him to be quite clear what it was he was talking about. It is perfectly true that a series of ideas were put forward for reconstructing B.O.A.C., and a number of these—certainly most of them, I think—have been made public. But whether you can add them up and call them a plan for putting B.O.A.C. into financial prosperity is a slightly different matter. One idea was redefining the rôle; another one was relieving B.O.A.C. of its debt, writing off the deficit. There was mention of greater continuity of management, and of allowing B.O.A.C. to have equity capital. I do not know whether your Lordships want me to discuss all those things at length—
LORD LINDGREN: No.
LORD CHESHAM: —but I do not feel greatly inclined to do so. But, my Lords, those ideas were hardly in a shape which would enable decisions to be taken on some scale. The basic measures which would have put B.O.A.C. back "on the financial ball" would still have to be worked out, and the Minister thought that major steps of financial reconstruction could not be put to Parliament until the reasons for the losses had been thoroughly investigated. I do not think that that line of thinking can be interpreted as in some way ignoring the Chairman's existence or his suggestions. I think that that was the actual sequence of events. It would be true, I think, had a real, full plan been put forward, and not just certain ideas.
LORD SHACKLETON: Will the noble Lord forgive my interrupting? He is being very patient. This is rather interesting. We have had something secret revealed, even if not from the Corbett Inquiry. Would it be possible to see the plan? Or could we even know whether the Minister communicated with the Chairman on what he wrote to him, possibly even only to say that it was not good enough, or to ask for more details?
LORD CHESHAM: Now, you cannot, my Lords, I can assure you.
LORD SHACKLETON: Because you do not know.
LORD CHESHAM: Because I do not know. But I will certainly see what I can do to oblige the noble Lord in that respect.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am grateful to the noble Lord.
LORD CHESHAM: I cannot off-hand, for reasons that he well appreciates, say very much more than that at the present time.
My Lords, I am taking a very long time, I am afraid—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD CHESHAM: —but I want to have just a very quick word about this question of "Fly British". The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, raised it first, and my noble friend Lord Caldecote also mentioned it. Basically and I make this point because I want to get it clear —I am perfectly sure that, wherever possible, whenever possible, "Fly British" is the right policy, and I do not think anyone in this House, in any quarter of it, is going to disagree with that. But the criterion is "when possible". I think it is recognised that they must be able to have the best aeroplanes they can get according to their commercial judgment. In fact, I do not think it is true to say that B.O.A.C. have been denied the freedom to choose the aircraft they wanted. There have been, I will agree, limitations. There were limitations, because of dollar shortage, against the Boeing 707's which they wanted to buy in 1956; but, by and large, my Lords, they have not been directed here and directed there. Planes like the Comets, Britannias and VC10s they have chosen themselves; and I believe that that is the right policy wherever possible.
I should like just to point something out to my noble friend Lord Headfort, whom I would congratulate on what I thought an excellent and well-thoughtout speech. I only hope that he will go on, and will not be flying off to Ireland and depriving us of his company and further speeches. But I would say to him that routes may be unprofitable, but there is no route that I know of which B.O.A.C. flies at present other than from commercial choice. There is no route that they are pushed into flying or are requested to fly, or which it is insisted they fly, or anything of that kind. I thought I would make that point, so that it would comfort him in case he thought they were pushed around in that way.
508
Finally, my Lords, I should like to agree wholeheartedly with something said by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, when he referred to B.O.A.C. as a magnificent Corporation. My Lords, we are doing what we propose because we think so, too. We want to keep it that way, and we want to keep it financially successful as well.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 12), Bill read 3a, and passed.

  COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS
  COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS
  DETENTION CENTRES AND AFTER-CARE
  DETENTION CENTRES AND AFTER-CARE