Sitting of 11 June 1964

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  WELSH SHIPPING AGENCY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Monday, 22nd June, at Seven o'clock.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ELECTRICITY

    Power Stations (Coal Shipments)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Power what was the total volume of coal shipments to power stations in 1953 and 1963, respectively; and what tonnage went to them by other means in each year.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. John Peyton): About 10 million tons of coal was shipped to power stations in England and Wales in each of the years 1953 and 1963. About 25 million tons was carried by other means in 1953 and about 51 million tons in 1963.
    Mr. Digby: I welcome that reply, but will my hon. Friend continue to bear in mind the importance of this trade to coastal shipping, and the importance of coastal shipping to an island like our own?
    Mr. Peyton: Certainly, but this is primarily a matter for the commercial judgment of the Generating Board.

    Pylons (Design)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Power what study has been made of the design of electricity pylons to make them as inoffensive as possible to the amenities of rural areas.
    Mr. Peyton: The design of pylons has been the subject of considerable study by the Central Electricity Generating Board and its predecessors, who have had the advice of eminent architects such as Sir William Holford, Sir Percy Thomas, the late Mr. A. G. Henderson and the late Sir Reginald Blomfield.
    Mr. Digby: Nevertheless, is my hon. Friend aware that these pylons come as something of a shock to people who see them for the first time, and that they will do so when they are placed in new areas? Will he have another look at the French design, which in some respects seems superior to ours?
    Mr. Peyton: I am sure that the Chairman of the Generating Board will take note of what my hon. Friend has said. I agree that these large, high towers are not welcome intruders in the countryside. On the other hand, there is the question of the tremendous cost of the alternative.

    Power Stations (Solid Fuel and Oil)
    Mr. Skeetasked the Minister of Power, in view of the competitive advantage over solid fuels of oil supplied under long-term contracts, to what extent it is his policy, in considering proposals from the Central Electricity Generating Board, to authorise further oil-fired electric power stations south of the Trent.
    Mr. Peyton: The comparative advantages of different fuels are partly dependent on the particular site. My right hon. Friend considers each application on its merits, taking these and other factors into account.
    Mr. Skeet: Will my hon. Friend give the number of oil-fired power stations in the United Kingdom and their consumption in terms of coal equivalent? Is he aware that fuel oil is 5 per cent. cheaper than solid fuel, and on the capital side an oil-fired station is about 5 per cent. cheaper to build than a comparable solid-fuel station?
    Mr. Peyton: There are 13 major stations in England and Wales which burn oil and the amount of oil burned

    605
    in power stations in 1963–64 was 7·7 million tons coal equivalent out of a total of 70·6 million tons.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that, in view of the troubled situation in the Middle East in particular, it would be the height of folly for Britain to depend too much on imported fuel rather than indigenous fuel resources?
    Mr. Peyton: The present contribution of oil is about 11 per cent. I do not think anyone would suggest that that is excessive.

  MINISTRY OF POWER

    Coin Meters (Thefts)
    Mr. V. Yatesasked the Minister of Power what study he has made of the further evidence submitted to him by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Lady-wood, about the problem of compensation for money stolen from gas and electricity meters; and when the hon. Member may expect a reply to his original memorandum containing evidence on this subject sent on 14th April.
    Mr. Peyton: The hon. Member will now have received my reply to his memorandum. I am satisfied that the boards deal with these cases in a fair and reasonable way. The boards concerned have at my request written to the hon. Member about the further cases of which he has told me.
    Mr. Yates: Does not the Minister realise that in this long list relating to Birmingham there are many widows and old-age pensioners? Even the answers of the board quote the case of a widow, aged 64, who is ill, in whose case the efforts on the part of the police have had no result, and yet the board says that it is not yet putting on pressure to get 10s. a week in respect of a bill for £5 14s. Is it not time for an inquiry into this situation?
    Mr. Peyton: I admit the difficulty that arises in these cases. Only yesterday I was discussing the situation with the Chairman of the West Midlands Gas Board, who I know is anxious to treat these cases with as much fairness and consideration as is possible.
    Mr. Skeet: Does not my hon. Friend agree that if this question is left to the discretion of nationalised corporations it ill-becomes hon. Members opposite to impugn that discretion?
    Mr. T. Fraser: The hon. Member has just said that he has recently had discussions with the Chairman of this Gas Board. Does that not indicate that he, too, is beginning to realise that this is a very important matter, and that people all over the country are feeling very dissatisfied with the way in which consumers whose meters are robbed are treated by gas and electricity area boards? Is it not time for the Minister himself to take a hand and give a direction to these area boards? Is it not wrong that there should be this lack of uniformity? Is not the policy of the Scottish Gas Board, following a decision in the Glasgow Sheriff Court, by far the most humane policy administered throughout the whole service?
    Mr. Peyton: I would be reluctant, as would my right hon. Friend, to issue directions to the boards on this subject, The fact that I discussed the question with one of the chairmen yesterday was simply a matter of routine. Matters which are brought up as frequently as this in the House of Commons are very much in the minds of the chairmen. They are very concerned to do the right thing.
    Mr. Yates: On a point of order. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of that Answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Energy Consumption (Coal and Oil)
    Mr. Skeetasked the Minister of Power what were the percentage allocations of the fuels available in the United Kingdom energy market in 1963; and what is his estimate of the position in 1970, with particular reference to coal and oil.
    Mr. Peyton: The percentage distribution of inland energy consumption in 1963 was coal 68½ oil 30, and nuclear-and hydro-electricity 1½. I expect the percentage of coal to fall over the years to 1970 and the percentages of both oil and nuclear power to rise, within a larger and growing total consumption.
    Mr. Skeet: I am much obliged for that information. Is my hon. Friend aware that the European Coal and Steel Community trend shows that for 1948 coal occupied 80 per cent. of the energy market and 50 per cent. in 1963? Having observed this course of trend, what steps is he taking to ensure that miners are redeployed in suitable employments and that the economy is given the opportunity of access to low-cost fuels which are now available?
    Mr. Peyton: I agree with the first part of that supplementary question and I do not doubt that the Chairman of the National Coal Board will take note of what my hon. Friend said in the second part.
    Sir C. Osborne: How far will these calculations be altered by the recent offer by Holland to meet half our requirements from the new natural gas fields in Holland? At what price is this natural gas offered to us compared with the price we have to pay for gas made from coal?
    Mr. Peyton: I do not think I would care to make that prophecy, certainly not in response to this Question.

  COAL

    Bishop Auckland
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Power what was the total decrease in employment in collieries within eight miles of Bishop Auckland between 1st January, 1960, and 31st December, 1963.
    Mr. Peyton: I am asking the Chairman of the National Coal Board to write to the hon. Member about this.
    Mr. Boyden: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that when the figures come, they will show that nothing like enough male jobs have been provided in the area to cope with this redundancy and the increase in the young population, and also with the decline in other industries? Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that in future when other collieries are to be closed in this area there will be a reasonable certainty that other factories will come to the area before the collieries are closed?
    Mr. Peyton: The question of other jobs in these areas is one for other Departments than mine.

    Smokeless Fuels
    Mr. John Hallasked the Minister of Power what action he is taking to ensure that there are adequate supplies of smokeless fuel to meet the increasing demand created by the development of smokeless zones.
    Dr. A. Thompsonasked the Minister of Power whether he will make a statement on the adequacy of supplies of smokeless fuels for the forthcoming winter.
    Mr. Peyton: I do not expect any general shortage of solid smokeless fuels next winter. On the other points, I refer the hon. Members to the White Paper on Domestic Fuel Supplies and Clean Air Policy.
    Mr. Hall: Is the Minister aware that I find his reply somewhat astonishing? Is he aware that the price mechanism is operating to iron out the differences in supplies? For example, coke has not reaped the benefit of the summer decrease in price and is likely to cost another £1 in the winter. Is he aware that grave concern has been felt because people are being encouraged to use dirty coal, for which there has been a reduction in price, while smokeless fuels urgently needed on grounds of public health are becoming unobtainable in some areas?
    Mr. Peyton: I do not think that my hon. Friend, on reflection, would wish to suggest that these fuels should bear any price other than one which reflects the cost of production.
    Mr. Rankin: What has that to do with it?
    Dr. A. Thompson: Is the Minister aware that in the coming winter 30,000 British people will the of bronchitis, frequently as a result of smog, and that this number could be reduced by an effective clean air policy? Is he also aware that his Ministry occupies a central position in this matter by being able to provide smokeless fuels in appropriate quantities at reasonable prices? Is he aware that while we cannot prevent some diseases—for instance, we have no certain cure for every kind of cancer—we can

    609
    control bronchitis by environmental health measures? Would he treat this matter as one of real national urgency?
    Mr. Peyton: The question of clean air is treated by my Department as a matter of grave urgency and we do everything we can to help. I realise that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about this matter, but I stress to him that it would be quite wrong to carry out a clean air policy on the basis of premises which are no longer valid.
    Mr. Hocking: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable concern in the West Midlands area about the provision of smokeless fuels? Can he say what steps are being taken to make sure that those areas already designated as smokeless zones will get adequate supplies before there is a further extension of the policy?
    Mr. Peyton: Again I am in the happy position of being able to say that yesterday I was talking to the chairman of one of the boards, and he assured me that the supplies of coke were plentiful. If my hon. Friend has any particular area in mind, I hope that he will let me know and I will check the matter with the chairman of the appropriate board.
    Mr. Holt: May I ask whether the Minister is aware that there is also concern in my constituency about the price of coke fuel? He said that the cost must reflect the cost of production, but would not he agree that coke is a by-product of another process and that the cost is an arbitrary figure? Is he aware that a while ago, when coke was not wanted, it was very cheap indeed? Is the Minister aware of any reason why the price of coke should not be reduced?
    Mr. Peyton: I hope the hon. Gentleman will recall that the main function of the gas industry is to produce gas at an economic and competitive price.
    Mr. J. Robertsonasked the Minister of Power if he is aware that householders in smokeless zones who are obliged to use smokeless fuels are not enjoying the full benefit of summer coal price reductions; and if he will now take steps to ensure that they will enjoy parity of treatment with householders in other parts of the country.
    Mr. Peyton: Summer/winter price differentials apply to all domestic consumers
    610
    of solid smokeless fuels. Their effects have been offset by recent increases in the basic prices of coke.
    Mr. Robertson: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in my constituency old-age pensioners living in smokeless zones have been asked to pay up to 17s. 6d. a cwt. for these fuels which is greatly in excess of the price, even the winter price, of coal? Would not he agree that a substantial summer reduction or even a greater reduction in the price of coal used for these smokeless fuels would encourage continuity of production in the industry and ensure adequate supplies next winter?
    Mr. Peyton: I do not think that I can usefully add anything to the Answer which I gave, namely, that the price for these fuels must reflect the cost of their production.
    Mr. Rankin: But surely not 17s. 6d. a cwt.?
    Mr. John Hall: Is my hon. Friend aware that recently a National Coal Board spokesman said that the reason there was no reduction in the price of coke had nothing to do with the economic price of production—it was that there was a shortage of smokeless fuels?
    Mr. Peyton: I have not seen that report. The price of Sunbrite, which has not been reduced for this summer period, had got out of line with the price of gas coke. There was a fairly heavy run on stocks last year and in order to increase economic production an increase in price has been necessary.

    National Coal Board (Annual Report and Accounts)
    Mr. T. Fraserasked the Minister of Power when he expects to publish the Annual Report and Accounts of the National Coal Board.
    Mr. Peyton: About the end of August.

    National Coal Board (Capital Investment)
    Mr. T. Fraserasked the Minister of Power if he will estimate what additional funds he will require to make available

    611
    to the National Coal Board for capital investment in the next five years.
    Mr. Peyton: The Board's borrowing powers are due for reconsiderat on in the coming year. I should prefer not to anticipate the estimates of the Board's needs, which will have to be pre pared for that purpose.
    Mr. Fraser: Is the Minister aware that in recent times there have been many Press comments on the accounts of the Coal Board in anticipation that they were back in the red again? Is not he aware that the accounts of the Coal Board are not in the red and that the prospects of the industry are still pretty bright?
    Mr. Peyton: I think that is correct, but I do not think that I should attempt to anticipate the Board's accounts

    Summer Prices
    Mr. Willisasked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement about summer price reductions for coal.
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on the seasonal reductions in the price of coal.
    Mr. Peyton: The object of the recent price changes is to encourage coal merchants and their customers to stock up in summer.
    The differential between summer and winter prices has been increased and the summer season extended to November and, next year, April as well.
    Mr. Willis: Is the Minister satisfied that the price reductions are being passed on to the consumer?
    Mr. Peyton: That is not a matter for me. It is the responsibility of the merchants. I very much hope that members of the public who know of these price reductions will compare he prices offered by different merchants and act accordingly.
    Mr. Farr: Can my hon. Friend tell me why these reductions do no apply to smokeless fuels? Is he aware hat there are many newly designated smokeless zones where great concern is being expressed because people are net able to buy smokeless fuels at seasonally reduced prices?
    Mr. Peyton: There have been some temporary reductions in the price of smokeless fuels. I cannot go beyond what I said just now, namely, that the price of these fuels must reflect the cost of their production.
    Mr. W. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that the cost of production bears very little relationship to the cost of coal to the housewife when it arrives on the doorstep? Is he aware that the cost of production is very much less than the price paid by the housewife and that the answer is to examine the distributive processes?
    Mr. Peyton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for amending my answer. Of course the price must reflect the cost of distribution as well.
    Colonel Lancaster: Is my hon. Friend aware that this extension of the summer price period by two months will give a great deal of satisfaction in the country? Would he see that the utmost publicity is given to the statement that he has made this afternoon?
    Mr. Peyton: Yes, Sir. I entirely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that his repeated declaration that the cost of these fuels must reflect the cost of production is very difficult to reconcile with the decision of the Coal Board to introduce summer coal price reductions? He will appreciate that there was no great reduction in the cost of producing coal at the beginning of May. Is not it his responsibility to ensure that price reductions offered by the Board are passed on to the consumer and also to ensure that those who make smokeless fuels from coal bought at lower prices during the summer pass the benefit of that reduction to their customers?
    Mr. Peyton: No, I am not responsible for prices.
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Power whether, in view of the growing number of flat dwellers with limited storage facilities, he will introduce legislation to ensure that they enjoy the full benefit of coal and coke summer price reductions.
    Mr. Peyton: No, Sir.
    Mr. Lipton: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in Brixton and many other places in London and other towns an increasingly large number of people are living in flats or houses of multiple occupation where there are not storage facilities? Is there any social justice in a system which gives the benefit of the price reductions in fuel only to people who live in large houses with large coal cellars who are able to stock several tons at a time?
    Mr. Peyton: Of course, I realise that there is a problem for those who have not adequate storage facilities, but it is in the general interest that heavy pressure on deliveries as far as possible should be relieved in the four winter months. I remind the hon. Member that the extension of the summer period of reduced prices should be of great value to these people as well.
    Mr. Lipton: The concession is made at the expense of poorer consumers. The poorer one is the less benefit one gets from summer prices.
    Mr. J. H. Osborn: Would my hon. Friend agree that there is sense in drawing the attention of local authorities to the value of providing more extensive space for storage and that if this cannot be provided in flats where there is a transport problem, there are other sources of heat?
    Mr. Peyton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government will take note of what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Holt: Further to the Answer the Parliamentary Secretary gave to a Question from the Opposition Front Bench when he said that he had not responsibility for the price of smokeless fuel, will he tell the House exactly what the responsibility of his Department is in regard to the successful carrying out of the Government's smokeless zone policy?
    Mr. Peyton: Not in answer to this Question.

  INDUSTRY, TRADE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Wool Tops (Export)
    Mr. Duffyasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development what were the weights of wool top exports from Britain in the
    614
    first quarter of 1964 and in the corresponding period of 1963.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edward du Cann): The figures, which are available from the Trade and Navigation Accounts, are 19·8 million lb. in the first quarter of 1964 and 24·0 million lb. in the corresponding period of 1963; exports vary considerably from quarter to quarter, and they were particularly high early in 1963. The latest available figures show exports in the first four months of 1964 as 33·0 million lb. against 33·4 million lb. in the corresponding period in 1963.
    Mr. Duffy: Is the Minister aware that the figures for the first four months of 1964 are down on the first four months of 1963, so the trend is still down? Can he tell the House which countries are now taking reduced shipments, and why? Can he tell the House if this downward trend is in any way due to the Anglo-Japanese Commercial Treaty?
    Mr. du Cann: I would not accept that the trend line if taken over a longer period—which is relevant—is necessarily slightly down. Possibly there is a slight decline in total imports into Japan, but I would not think this was necessarily due to the Treaty. The industry is doing a remarkable job and should be congratulated by this House. I am sure that the hon. Member would wish to join in those congratulations. As the Minister responsible for exports under the Secretary of State I admit that, like Oliver Twist, one is always looking for more.

    Wool Textile Industry (Fixed Capital Expenditure)
    Mr. Duffyasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development what was the fixed capital expenditure in the wool textile industry in 1963; and what were the figures for 1962 and 1961.
    Mr. du Cann: Fixed capital expenditure in the woollen and worsted textile industry was £12·4 million in 1961; £11·9 million in 1962 and in 1963 is estimated at approximately £16 million.
    Mr. Duffy: Does the Minister think that those figures for investment in the industry will help the industry to achieve its 4 per cent. growth rate target by

    615
    1966? How far does he think the problem of financing investment is due to the structure of the industry and what is the Department doing to help?
    Mr. du Cann: Firstly, I hope so; secondly, I certainly think that modernisation in all its forms is essential in this as in any other industry.

    Local Authorities (Investments)
    Mr. M. Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development whether he is aware of the anxiety of certain local authorities, some of whose funds are invested in equities, that they may thereby become unwilling contributors to the funds of political parties; and whether he will introduce legislation requiring these companies with whom local authority funds are invested to disclose the extent to which they make such contributions.
    Mr. du Cann: No, Sir.
    Mr. Stewart: Could the hon. Gentleman explain why not?
    Mr. du Cann: I should say two things on that subject. First, it would not be right to impose a special obligation on a company because a local authority holds some of its shares. Secondly, in the context of investment I should have thought there were more important criteria for judgment on a particular stock than this one.
    Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman objects to doing it simply for the circumstances described in my Question, what about legislation to require that directors of companies should not devote their shareholders' or investors' money to political ends except openly? After all, the executive committee of a trade union handling its members' money cannot devote it to political ends except openly and subject to certain legal safeguards. Why should not the same rule apply to directors of a company handling money invested with it, particularly when the money comes from local authorities?
    Mr. du Cann: My answer to the hon. Member is, no. If the donations are large, as he will know, the law would require disclosure. It is up to individual shareholders if they wish to ask questions
    616
    on the subject. This is a matter we have discussed in this House many times and the position is clear and well known. I fail to see why companies under attack should not have the right to defend themselves.
    Mr. Webster: While considering the expenditure on behalf of owners of property against compulsory acquisition with no known terms of compensation, will my hon. Friend consider expenditure by the co-operative society for the purpose of nationalising the ownership of property?
    Mr. du Cann: My hon. Friend, as usual, does the House a service by painting the whole picture.

    Stanley and Consett (Advance Factories)
    Mr. Stonesasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development what plans he has made for the erection of advance factories in the development districts of Stanley and Consett in the county of Durham.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): None, Sir.
    Mr. Stones: Is the Minister aware that many miners and their families are having to leave my constituency to find work in other parts of the country as a result of the contraction of the mining industry in that area and the absence of alternative employment there? Does not he agree that it is essential for alternative industry to be provided in Consett and Stanley? Does he not also agree that industrialists are more likely to site their industries in areas where factory buildings already exist rather than have to wait for months for such accommodation to be built?
    Mr. Price: As the House knows, advance factories are only one of the large range of measures taken to assist to solve the serious problem the hon. Gentleman has in his constituency. Many firms prefer a tailor-made factory. The hon. Gentleman knows that the full range of the Local Employment Act is available to any firm which is minded to settle in his constituency. If he knows of any, I should be delighted to assist.
    Mr. Stones: There is a lapse of time that we wish to avoid.

    Board of Trade Building (Flags)
    Mr. Fletcher-Cookeasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development which flags are to fly from the five flagpoles outside the new Board of Trade building.
    Mr. du Cann: On official flag flying days the Union Jack will fly from the centre flagpoles and the Board of Trade house flag from the two outside ones, apart from St. George's Day when the St. George's Cross will be flown from one of the poles.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that, since I tabled this Question, five rather unconvincing Union Jacks have been run up on these poles? What was the original purpose behind these five poles? Why five? Why not six or seven? What was the original idea?
    Mr. du Cann: First, I find nothing unconvincing at any time about the Union Jack. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend does not either. Secondly, the flagpoles and, indeed, the whole design of the building were not arranged by the Government. The design was arranged by a very well known company. When the Board of Trade arrived in its new home, we found the five flagpoles there, and I was pleased to see them.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Since the Chairman of I.C.I. has said that we can shortly look forward to Russia being one of its most important customers, would it not be appropriate to have the hammer and sickle there?
    Mr. M. Stewart: The Minister of State said that he found nothing unconvincing about the Union Jack. Will he explain that to those of his hon. Friends who always attack the nationalised industries?
    Mr. Speaker: Not even with all possible ingenuity.
    Mr. Rankin: The hon. Gentleman said that there were five flagpoles, but he is using only three flags. Could he find a spot for St. Andrew's Cross, the most important of all?
    Mr. du Cann: I am glad to have an opportunity to say a word about this. The usual practice is for the flag of St. George to be flown in England on all Government buildings on St. George's Day, on St. David's Day for the particular national flag of Wales to be flown in Wales, and on St. Andrew's Day for the particular national flag of Scotland to be flown in Scotland. It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention—I know how occupied he is with Scottish affairs—that London is in England and the Board of Trade head office is in London.

    Morecambe Bay Barrage
    Mr. Holtasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development if he will commission a firm of engineering consultants to carry out a preliminary technical and economic survey of proposals for a Morecambe Bay barrage, incorporating a road and rail link enclosing the estuaries of the Leven and Kent and the use of these waters for public supply and for cooling of locally-sited power stations; and if he will undertake this as a matter of urgency sc that the findings may be taken into account by his North-West Regional Study Group in drawing up their report for the region.
    Mr. D. Price: My right hon. Friend has asked the North-West Study Group to make a thorough assessment of the material already available about these proposals, in order that he may determine whether a survey is needed and, if so, on what lines it should be undertaken.
    Mr. Holt: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is great interest in this plan? It might speed up a later decision if a preliminary technical examination was made of the proposals now? Is he aware that there was a report in the Guardian on 9th June that a firm of consultant engineers was interested in this? Can he tell us whether his Department had any contact with it? I understand that a professor of hydraulics at Delft University has been invited to come over to look at the scheme.
    Mr. Price: I think the hon. Gentleman underestimates the fact that a great

    619
    deal of information is already available to the Study Group. If the hon. Gentleman has more that he would like to feed into the Study Group, I should be delighted to receive it from him.
    Mr. Jay: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the proponents of this scheme, in which there is great interest, also have a project for a barrage and a road link across the Solway Firth? Is the hon. Gentleman's Department examining this project also as part of a comprehensive scheme?
    Mr. Price: I should like to reply to the right hon. Gentleman by letter about that proposition, because I cannot answer off the cuff. Proposals for such projects would be willingly and readily received by the Study Group and we would conceive it as part of the Group's duties to take these into its general review.

    Industrial Development, Scotland
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development how many applications have been received by his Department for expansion or development in Scotland since the 1963 Budget measures became effective in July, 1963; and how many of these applications have been approved.
    Mr. D. Price: Up to 31st May, 1964, 1,409 applications from Scotland have been received for the standard building and plant and machinery grants introduced in the Local Employment Act, 1963. Preliminary approval has been given to 775, and on 276 of these firm offers have been made amounting to £2·8 million. One hundred and seventy-four applications have been rejected or withdrawn.
    Mr. Brewis: Are not these figures very satisfactory? Do not they show that Scotland is a most suitable site for industrial development? Have any new directives been given to B.O.T.A.C. to streamline its procedure so that it can deal with these applications much more quickly than before? In particular, is B.O.T.A.C. meeting more often?
    Mr. Price: With regard to B.O.T.A.C. applications, I think that the House knows that the Board of Trade can deal
    620
    with the plant grants without reference to B.O.T.A.C. It is only in cases of doubt, if it is a rather large project, that the Board of Trade needs to refer to B.O.T.A.C. The House will have seen from the figures we have been giving in answer to Questions that B.O.T.A.C. is working very much faster on the building grants than it is on the grants under Section 4, which, as the House knows, deals with loans. These necessitate B.O.T.A.C. going into rather greater detail about a company than it does on the building grants.
    Mr. Willis: How many new jobs will be provided as the result of these applications and how do they compare with the 40,000 new jobs we need?
    Mr. Price: I think that the best way I can answer that question is to take a rather longer span, namely, from the inception of the 1960 Act. From 1st April, 1960, to 30th April of this year the projects covered by the two Acts are estimated to provide about 52,000 new jobs.

    Northern Ireland
    Mr. McMasterasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development what particulars of, or references to, Northern Ireland are included with particulars about development districts in England, Scotland and Wales which are sent to firms refused development certificates in the Midlands and the south-east of England.
    Mr. D. Price: The firm's attention is directed to the areas of high unemployment as soon as its I.D.C. application is received. Northern Ireland is given as much prominence as development districts. The Board of Trade explains the financial and fiscal inducements available there and offers the firm copies of the literature published by the Ministry of Commerce.
    Mr. McMaster: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the unemployment rate remains persistently very high in the North of Ireland, at 7 per cent.? Is he aware that any efforts which can be made by his Department are very welcome in Northern Ireland, particularly in view of the efforts which are being made, in competition, to attract industry to Scotland and to the North-East?
    Mr. Price: I assure my hon. Friend that not only the headquarters of the Board of Trade but our regional controllers are in extremely close touch with the Minister of Commerce in Northern Ireland and with its offices on the mainland on the United Kingdom.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Would my hon. Friend always make certain that this information is passed on to the Government of Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Price: Yes. I can give my hon. and learned Friend that assurance.
    Mr. McMasterasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development what percentage of firms which have been refused development certificates in the Midlands and South East of England have set up manufacturing units in Scotland, and the North-East of England, respectively, in each of the past three years; and what information he has been given of the equivalent figures for firms going to Northern Ireland.
    Mr. D. Price: Information in the form requested by my hon. Friend is not available. In the past three years firms from the Midlands and the South-East of England have set up 33 manufacturing units in Scotland, 12 in the North-East and 13 in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. McMaster: Will my hon. Friend take steps to collect this information, as it would be most useful? Has he noticed from the figures he has quoted that there has apparently been more success in sending firms to Scotland and the North-East than to Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Price: These figures do not give the full picture, because, as the House knows, many firms are steered to development districts before they have ever attempted to put in an application for an I.D.C. in respect of a congested area which they know they will be refused.

    Advance Factory, Stranraer
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development what action he is taking to secure a tenant for the advance factory at Stranraer.
    Mr. D. Price: I am glad to say that an application for the advance factory at Stranraer has been made and is receiving urgent consideration.
    Mr. Brewis: Is my hon. Friend aware how gratefully that news will be received by the people in the district and how grateful we are to the staff of his Department in Glasgow? Is he aware, however, that there is still a need for more male employment in the district? What is he doing to try to attract further industries there, particularly for the employment of men and, in particular, will he now make Stranraer a growth area?
    Mr. Price: The answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is "No, Sir", but to get the scale of the residual problem right it should be remembered that the prospective tenant of this advance factory is likely to provide, initially, 300 jobs—true with a bias towards employment for women—rising to about 500 jobs. The unemployment figure for Stranraer for April, 1964, was 475, so the residual problem is not very great, and the full benefits of the Local Employment Act remain for Stranraer as a development district.

    Rumania (Export Credits)
    Mr. Oramasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development if the limit for export credit guarantees has been reached in the case of Rumania.
    Mr. du Cann: No, Sir.
    Mr. Oram: Since Rumania is showing a rather dissident attitude towards Comecon and is interested in trade with the West, particularly in heavy industrial goods including an atomic reactor, can the Minister assure us that industrialists will not be hamstrung in this market by the lack of suitable credit facilities, and is not this aspect of the matter particularly important in view of the recently concluded agreement between the United States and Rumania?
    Mr. du Cann: The factual position is that cover clearly cannot be unlimited in respect of these markets. There is, however, plenty of room to accommodate new business, and we are certainly hopeful that business will ensue.

    United Nations Trade and Development Conference
    Mr. Oramasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development if he will make a statement about the policy of the British delegation at the United Nations Trade and Development Conference to the draft resolution put forward by 75 developing countries for permanent machinery for continuing the work of the conference.
    Mr. du Cann: Her Majesty's Government cannot accept the resolution to which the hon. Member refers but are working for a solution to the question of arrangements for further consultation on matters under discussion at the conference.
    Mr. Oram: Since the British rôle at Geneva at this conference has been a distinctly constructive one and since our delegation is well placed to give a lead during this important and crucial week, will the Minister urge his right hon. Friend who is now in Geneva to take a resolute stand on this question? While not accepting the actual terms of the resolution referred to in the Question, will he do all he can to make sure that there is some permanent machinery which takes full note of the needs of developing countries?
    Mr. du Cann: My right hon. Friend will be grateful for what the hon. Member rightly said about the constructive lead we have given, particularly in the early part of this discussion. He will know, from the detailed information he has been given, that we have certain views on this matter. We think that G.A.T.T. is the most effective instrument for dealing with international trade negotiations, but it might well be possible and right to make new arrangements of a certain kind for this discussion and we certainly hope that this conference will reach a successful conclusion. I know that my right hon. Friend is working extremely hard with the delegation in Geneva to that end and I am sure that the House will wish him every success.
    Mr. Jay: Does the Minister of State agree that this conference, which we have
    624
    not much discussed in this House, is exceedingly important, and can he assure us that the British delegation will do its utmost to see that at any rate some positive results are achieved?
    Mr. du Cann: The answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is certainly "Yes, Sir". I have just returned from East Africa and, when there, I was struck by the discussions I had with Ministers and the importance which so many countries attach to this matter. I also found great satisfaction with the constructive attitude Britain has taken. The right hon. Gentleman can be entirely assured that if there is anything we can do to make the conference a final success, we will do it.

    Advance Factory, Portmadoc
    Mr. G. Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development if he will make a statement on the tenancy of the advance factory recently completed at Portmadoc, Caernarvonshire.
    Mr. D. Price: My right hon. Friend is considering an application for the factory and hopes to make an announcement shortly.
    Mr. Roberts: I welcome that statement. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that it is now nearly two years since this factory was first sanctioned for building by his Department? Is he further aware that, in the meantime, unemployment and depopulation in the district has been increasing? Will he now, when on the point of finding a suitable tenant for this factory, direct his urgent and sympathetic attention to the need in South Caernarvonshire for further advance factories of this type, particularly since unemployment in the area is, even now, running at four and even five times the national average?
    Mr. Price: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that I will be in Caernarvonshire on Tuesday. I hope that he will be there, when we can go into these matters in far greater detail than is possible by way of Question and Answer. I can assure him, publicly, that we want to do everything we can to tackle the problems of Caernarvonshire which he has outlined.

    QUESTIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER
    Mr. Speaker: Questions to the Prime Minister—Mr. Brockway.
    Mr. Brockway: On a point of order. I placed two Questions on the Order Paper today to the Prime Minister. I have had a communication from the right hon. Gentleman saying that he will not be present and I understand that he is attending a political conference of his own party outside the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I am asking you, Sir, whether it is not the duty of the Prime Minister to Parliament to be present when he is in London and has the obligation to answer Questions.
    Mr. Speaker: That matter gives rise to no point of order.
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    Mr. Shinwell: You are responsible, Mr. Speaker, for the proper conduct of our proceedings. May I ask why you rejected the submission of my hon. Friend as not being a point of order? Will you take into account the fact that the House of Commons is much more important than a Tory conference?
    Mr. Speaker: It still does not give rise to any point of order.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Further to that point of order—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman will allow me to get the preface right. He cannot say "Further to that point of order" because it was not a point of order.
    Mr. H. Wilson: On a point of order. Since it is plain that it is the duty of the Prime Minister to be here and not at a political conference, and since the Standing Order provides that there shall be an interruption of our ordinary procedure of Questions at 3.15 p.m. for Answers by the Prime Minister and not by the Lord Privy Seal, the Assistant Postmaster-General or anybody else, would it not be in accordance with that Standing Order, which is a point of order—[Interruption.]—if we were now to continue with the other Questions and to defer those which another Minister is seeking to answer until the Prime Minister deems it convenient himself to be here?
    Mr. Speaker: I cannot accept that proposition. I had reason to be reminded this week that one Minister can answer for another. Mr. Brockway.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does the Lord Privy Seal have the permission of the House to reply for the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Speaker: All that has happened so far is that I have called the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) to ask his Question. We shall not hear until that Question has been asked who is going to answer it and on what terms, Mr. Brockway.

    COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Prime Minister what replies he has now received from the Prime Ministers of Commonwealth countries regarding attendance by the Prime Ministers of Northern and Southern Rhodesia at: the Prime Ministers' Conference.
    The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I have been asked to reply.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. With great respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and there is nothing personal in the matter so far as he is concerned—of course there is not; and we have great respect for him—he has not used the proper formula in his reply. [Interruption.] I know the traditions of the House and am aware that he must ask for the permission of the House to answer; and if he does so I will oppose it.
    Mr. Speaker: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he is mistaken. That is not the position.
    Mr. Lipton: On a point of order. The Lord Privy Seal said that he had been asked to reply. May we know by whom he was asked and why?
    Mr. Speaker: When a Minister replies for another that is the usual formula.
    Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in fact addressing a meeting which will have a significant part to play in seeing that he is available for many years to come to answer Questions on these matters.
    Mr. W. Hamilton: On a point of order. If the Minister is answering the Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), which is on the Commonwealth, is he allowed to preface his remarks by reference to a political propaganda speech apparently being made by the Prime Minister in the country? If he is, are we entitled to ask supplementary questions in the initial part of his Answer?
    Mr. Speaker: I think that some degree of indulgence is permissible. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think so. The last monosyllable uttered before the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal started answering was, "Why?" The House might be sufficiently indulgent to allow him to answer that question.
    Mr. Lloyd: I would refer the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) to what my right hon. Friend told the House on 9th June.
    Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of our regret that the Prime Minister is not here to supplement the Answer which he gave, because that Answer does not reply to the Question which is on the Order Paper? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it made a reference to the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and it made no reference whatsoever to the Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia? Is it not the case that Northern Rhodesia is to receive its independence in October and would it not be desirable that the precedent set in the case of Uganda, when Mr. Milton Obote, the Prime Minister, was invited as an observer before the day of independence, should now be repeated in the case of Northern Rhodesia?
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that the hon. Member can have it both ways. The opinion taken, to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred earlier this week, was that the meeting should be confined to the heads of independent Governments.
    Mr. P. Williams: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that some of us would have been quite happy to have seen a package deal done and to see that both Northern and Southern Rhodesia were invited, but since it was
    628
    not possible, may I ask whether that will not make it impossible to make different approaches to Northern Rhodesia and the other colonial countries waiting in the queue to become independent?
    Mr. Lloyd: I said that what was done was in accordance with the majority view.
    Mr. Bottomley: Is it not proper for the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference to invite to the conference whom it wishes? In those circumstances, would the Prime Minister remind himself of the Question, which I put on the 9th, when it was suggested that Mr. Smith and the African leaders be invited and also Mr. Kenneth Kaunda, the Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia?
    Mr. Lloyd: It is not for me to say what is within the competence of the conference. It will decide that for itself. It has been said again and again by my right hon. Friend that it has been the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government to arrange the conference in accordance with the views of other members, and that is what has happened.
    Mr. Bottomley: Have not Her Majesty's Government a responsibility in this matter and the House of Commons the right to ask whether the Prime Minister himself will make this suggestion on behalf of the United Kingdom to the Prime Ministers' Conference?
    Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman has the right to ask it but I do not think that he has a right to an answer, and I do not think that I can give it.

    SUEZ CAMPAIGN
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he will now appoint an official historian to write the history of the Suez campaign and its consequences.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have been asked to reply.
    I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer my right hon. Friend gave to Questions on this subject on 14th May.
    Mr. Hughes: May I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on sticking to his job when the Prime Minister is trying to hypnotise the Tory women? Is he aware that, while the Government refuse to appoint an official

    629
    historian of the Suez affair, this job has been undertaken by a professor of Chicago University and that he said about the right hon. and learned Gentleman that on 22nd October Ben Gurion, the Prime Minister of Israel, made a secret visit to France where at a conference held until 26th October he conferred
    "with top French Government leaders and Selwyn Lloyd".
    Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that he owes some explanation to the House?
    Mr. Lloyd: A great many things have been said by a great many people, and a great many books have been written, but I do not propose to add anything.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Now that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has had the Whitsun Recess to reflect on his refusal to anwer previous Questions, if he will not add to what has been written in these books, will be subtract from it and stand up and deny the statement that has been made, in order to make it unnecessary to consider the appointment of an official historian?
    Mr. Lloyd: For the reasons given by my right hon. Friend, and which I have given from time to time, I do not intend to add to what has been publicly stated.
    Mr. Wilson: The assurance given by the noble Lord the Earl of Avon at the end of 1956 was simply a plain statement that there had been no collusion. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that at that time no one had suggested in the House, and there would have been a lot of interest if anyone had, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself had been over for these secret meetings in the planning of the Suez operation? Does he not owe it to himself and to the House to clear himself of these statements or admit that they are true?
    Mr. Lloyd: It is a question of judgment. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh."] All sorts of suggestions were made from the beginning of a varying nature, but the matter was fully debated in the House and I do not think that it is right in the public interest that anything should be added to what has been already said.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: We ought to try to make some progress on Questions. We have taken up a lot of time on points of order.
    Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter again at the earliest opportunity.

    STRATEGIC EMBARGO LIST
    Mr. Rankinasked the Prime Minister what consultations he is having with the President of the United States on a review of the restrictions on the export of strategic goods to Communist countries.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have been asked to reply.
    The strategic embargo list is under constant review and Her Majesty's Government are in touch with all other Governments that operate it.
    Mr. Rankin: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that nowadays the strategic list is just as dead as the dodo and that that has been recognised by many of the other countries to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers, of which the latest is the United States? In view of the situation which has now been created, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to inform Cocom that he will declare that only arms, munitions and armaments should figure on the strategic list as far as this country is concerned and that all other commodities at present on it should be goods which Britain is prepared to trade with other nations as peaceful goods?
    Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly convey the hon. Member's suggestions to my right hon. Friend. It has been the policy of the Government that the list should be as small as possible, consistent with safeguarding certain essential strategic interests, and we have constantly used our influence to get this list restricted.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Is it true that when it was proposed that a British company should supply a nuclear power station to Roumania this was at once rejected by Her Majesty's Government,

    631
    but the United States, on the other hand, is considering supplying a power station of that kind to Roumania?
    Mr. Lloyd: There are a number of Questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development about that matter on the Order Paper today.
    Mr. Harold Davies: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, while the present Government maintain their mulish obstinacy to this constructive approach to world trade, other parts of the world, such as members of N.A.T.O., are doing their utmost to increase East-West trade with countries which are considered Communist, and even the Soviet Union itself is talking now of a new set-up when N.A.T.O. has to be reformed in 1969? Why not give a lead and soften the cold war?
    Mr. Lloyd: There is no question whatever of mulish obstinacy. In fact, we have given a lead in this matter. We have recently concluded arrangements for liberalising trade and we have, over a period of years, consistently used our influence to see that trade shall be freer and the list as small as possible.
    Mr. Jay: As the Questions to the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade are not likely to be reached, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether atomic power station machinery is covered by these restrictions or not?
    Mr. Lloyd: As at present drawn, it is.
    Mr. P. Williams: With reference to the whole field of expanding exports, can my right hon. and learned Friend give an undertaking that nothing will be done to curb British exports to Spain?
    Mr. Lloyd: Whatever be my views on my hon. Friend's suggestion—I think that he can guess what they are—they do not arise on this Question.
    Mr. Snow: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is some anxiety about this list, for instance, in connection with the export of civil aircraft, which are considered to be strategic goods because they may contain American electrical equipment and, therefore, there is a veto on them by the Americans? This is working outrageously against the British aircraft industry.
    Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of the difficulties and have been aware of them for a number of years. As I say, we have done everything we can to get this list as liberalised as possible while protecting certain essential strategic interests.
    Mr. Rankin: Does the Leader of the House realise that one of the Questions to which he referred as being put to the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade is mine dealing with this point? Will he remember that, in 1956, this country still kept the Dakota on the list of banned goods for export to Russia when Russia was already making the preliminary flights of the TU 104? Will the Government come up to date some time before the election?
    Mr. Lloyd: A great deal of progress has been made since 1956 and trade has substantially expanded.

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 next week?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 15TH JUNE—Second Reading of the Fishery Limits Bill, which it is hoped to obtain by eight o'clock.
Afterwards, Motions on the Horticulture Schemes, and the Fertiliser Scheme.
TUESDAY, 16TH JUNE and WEDNESDAY, 17TH JUNE—Debate on foreign affairs, for which the Government will be giving one day, and the Opposition a Supply Day.
THURSDAY, 18TH JUNE—Consideration of Private Members' Motions until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, Finance Bill: completion of Committee stage.
FRIDAY, 19TH JUNE—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 22ND JUNE—The proposed business will be: Supply [19th Allotted Day]: Committee.
As the House is aware, the Chairman of Ways and Means has set down Opposed Private Business for consideration at seven o'clock.
Remaining stages of the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Bill.
Mr. H. Wilson: Will the Leader of the House arrange next week, either by a statement or by some other alteration of business, that the Minister of Aviation makes a statement about the cancellation of the VC.10 orders by B.O.A.C.? Is he aware that the Minister was, most unfortunately, unable to get any information on this matter until he ceased to be top of the list for Questoins for oral answer? Since it is understood that he now has the information, will the Leader of the House arrange for him to give it orally to the House?
Mr. Lloyd: I do not at all accept the right hon. Gentleman's imputation, but I shall convey what he has said to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Bullard: Could my right hon. and learned Friend say when we are likely to have a debate on agriculture? In case he should give me the reply that this is generally a matter for a Supply Day, will he say what approaches he has had from the Opposition through the usual channels in order that we might have the debate about which we heard so much during the Recess?
Mr. Lloyd: There will be an opportunity for discussing certain agricultural matters on the business I have announced for Monday, 15th June. However, I think that the idea of a Supply Day is, if I may so, a very good one.
Mr. Shinwell: On business for next week—
Mr. J. Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) say aloud and on his feet what he said sotto voce sitting down?
Mr. Gordon Walker: I said that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not regard agriculture as important enough for a Government day.
Mr. Speaker: Observations from a sitting position which do not reach my ear do not merit an answer.
Mr. Shinwell: On business for next week, can the Leader of the House give us an assurance that the Prime Minister will be available to answer Questions on Tuesday and Thursday and, if he is
634
unable to answer those Questions addressed to him, will hon. Members be notified in advance so that they may defer their Questions?
Mr. Lloyd: I think that my right hon. Friend will certainly be here next week to answer Questions.
Mr. Shinwell: But, in the event of the Prime Minister not being available for some reason, good or bad, will hon. Members be notified in advance so they may defer the Questions? That is what I want to know.
Mr. Lloyd indicated assent.
Sir W. Teeling: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Home Secretary considers that the Malicious Damage Bill is likely to be a useful deterrent against "Mods" and "Rockers" going to seaside and other resorts, and is he aware also that the Home Office feels that the Bill cannot be got through much before the end of the Session unless it is brought in very soon? Can the Bill be brought in very quickly; otherwise, it is quite likely that we shall have more trouble in these resorts before it becomes an Act of Parliament?
Mr. Lloyd: I understand the point which my hon. Friend makes, and I think that it would be the wish in all quarters of the House that this Measure should go through as quickly as possible. I hope to be able to arrange for the Second Reading debate in the week after next.
Mr. Grimond: Is it the Government's intention to deal with Cyprus during the foreign affairs debate? Can the Leader of the House say whether there will be a Government statement or a Government speaker dealing with the matter, and, if not, whether the Government will consider making a statement on the present situation in Cyprus on, for instance, the proposal for conscription and the disappearance of Major Macey and Private Platt?
Mr. Lloyd: It is not for me to say what will be in order in the debate, but I imagine that Cyprus will be in order. I shall convey to my right hon. Friends who will take part in the debate the point which the right hon. Gentleman has made.
Mr. Kimball: May I press my right hon. and learned Friend about the suggested debate on agriculture? We have not had one since the Price Review debate. According to the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), we have a meat crisis upon us at present. If the Opposition are funking this issue, may we have Government time for a debate?
Mr. Lloyd: I certainly cannot find Government time for such a debate next week.
Mr. Brockway: In view of the judgment which has been given in the Rivonia trial today at which Nelson Mandela and four others, including a man of white race who holds a British passport, have been found guilty and are subject to the death penalty, and in view of the decision reached by the Security Council which is mandatory upon States that they all exert pressure to secure the liberation of these men, will Her Majesty's Government make a statement either today or tomorrow about what action they have taken?
Mr. Lloyd: There will certainly not be a statement today. I have made no provision for such a statement to be made, but, again, I will convey what has been said to my right hon. Friends concerned.
Mr. F. M. Bennett: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that next Thursday there will be a debate, chosen in the most helpful spirit possible to the Opposition, on the benefits or otherwise of nationalisation. There are only about three hours for this. Would my right hon. and learned Friend give us the assurance that, if pressure is brought on him through the usual channels by hon. Members opposite, he will give them a little extra time to expound fully their views on this matter?
Mr. Lloyd: However anxious I may be to accede to my hon. Friend's very helpful suggestion, I do not think it within my power to do so.
Mr. Snow: In connection with the foreign affairs debate, in view of the proposition in the Plowden Committee's Report about the virtual indivisibility of foreign policy and trade, will there be an intervention by a spokesman of the Board of Trade during the debate?
Mr. Lloyd: I cannot answer that question today. I will, however, try to find out the answer.
Mr. H. Wilson: Further to the excellent suggestion of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett), will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take into consideration the fact that the hon. Member's suggestion will receive the widest support from both sides of the House? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman think again and give us the whole day?
Mr. Lloyd: I am delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for this. Surely it must mean a Supply Day very quickly.
Mr. Prior: May I follow up the remarks of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard)? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us are disappointed that we are not to have a debate on meat prices today, as was originally planned? Does he know, through the usual channels, whether the Opposition have cold feet on the subject of meat prices? Has he had any intimation from the Opposition as to when they will ask for a debate on this very important issue?
Miss Herbison: In view of the decision taken at the conference across the road yesterday, has the Leader of the House decided to provide the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance with time to introduce legislation to get rid of the earnings rule for widows and widowed mothers and at the same time, in that legislation, to give a rise to retirement pensioners? If he has made that decision, I can assure him that everyone on this side of the House will facilitate the business.
Mr. Lloyd: I am glad that the hon. Lady recognises the importance of yesterday's conference. The answer to her question is, not next week.
Sir C. Osborne: On future business, will my right hon. and learned Friend see whether he can find time to debate the question of the supply of natural gas from Holland, which it is estimated will supply half of our requirements at a much lower price than the price of the coal gas being produced by

637
the National Coal Board? Can we have time to discuss this possibility and the effect that it may have on the Board's capital requirements in the next ten years'?
Mr. Lloyd: I am very interested in the regulation of the flow of gas, but I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate on it next week.
Mr. Jay: If this alleged conference across the road is so important, why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman implement its proposals next week?
Mr. Lloyd: Because there is no time next week.
Mr. Milne: In view of the need revealed at Question Time today for the appointment of a Prime Minister's Deputy, may we expect an announcement next week, and will it be debatable?
Mr. Lloyd: Not next week, I think.
Mr. Shepherd: Can my right hon. and learned Friend indicate when he can afford time to discuss the White Paper on mergers and monopolies, to which many of us on this side of this House attach a very great deal of importance?
Mr. Lloyd: I fully realise the importance of this matter, and I hope to arrange a debate not very far distant. However, I cannot tell my hon. Friend today exactly when it will be.
Mr. H. Wilson: Is the Leader of the House aware that we have been waiting for over 15 months for action on the Report on Lucas's and electrical components, which took six years to produce? In view of the delay of over seven years since the original reference, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether it is likely that we may have a statement next week on the Government's intentions about implementing that Report?
Mr. Lloyd: There will certainly be a debate either this month or next month.
Mr. Rankin: On next week's business, and every other week's business, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is aware that the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee is supposed to answer Questions commencing at No. 45? Does he realise that there is
638
practically no chance of an hon. Member getting an answer to his Question? I know that because of what has happened over the last two months. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider the position on the Order Paper of Questions to the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee and bring the Chairman nearer to the grasp of those hon. Members who want to ask him Questions and consider starting his Questions at, say, No. 40?
Mr. Lloyd: I will consider the hon. Member's suggestion. There are various ways of remedying the situation. One possibility, of course, is shorter supplementary questions.
Mr. Ross: On the subject of meat, will the Government ensure that we have a statement next week, either from the Secretary of State for Scotland or from some other Minister, to explain the mysteries of the Government's system of import and distribution control of corned beef?
Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly convey to my right hon. Friends what the hon. Member has said.
Mr. Awbery: In view of the inconclusive result of the referendum in Malta, the postponement of the day of independence, the fact that we have not yet had a report from the observers in Malta and the promise of the Colonial Secretary to make a report, will the Leader of the House provide time to discuss the position in Malta at present?
Mr. Lloyd: Not next week. I have noted the lion. Member's suggestion.
Mr. Manuel: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise the great improbability of the House having an opportunity to discuss the Malicious Damage Bill? Would not this be a very suitable subject for a lecture to the Tory women's conference, and will the right hon. and learned Gentleman arrange for the Leader of the Opposition to deliver it?
Mr. Speaker: That is one agenda which we cannot settle on the business question.
Mr. Thorpe: May I press the Leader of the House on the question of the Rivonia sabotage trial? Is he aware

639
that this is a matter of very great urgency? There are six men whose lives are at stake. Does he recollect that last October Her Majesty's Government voted among the 109 nations calling for the abandonment of this trial and the release of political prisoners? Will he bear in mind that one of the accused, Mr. Goldberg, is in possession of a British passport? On those two grounds, Her Majesty's Government have a close interest in this trial. [Interruption.] Although some hon. Members may think that it is somewhat amusing that Mr. Goldberg's passport should be in this country, he is unlikely to require to use it for a very long time indeed as a result of this trial. If we cannot have a debate on it next week, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman try to arrange to have a statement made in the House tomorrow outlining the representations which Her Majesty's Government will make?
Mr. Lloyd: I have already said that I do not think that it will be possible to have a debate on this matter next week but that I will convey to my right hon. Friends responsible the point of view already put forward
Mr. Hector Hughes: In view of the great losses which all classes in Aberdeen have suffered from the outbreak of typhoid fever there, will the Leader of the House provide time to discuss means of providing compensation to employers and workers and all people who have suffered loss in this epidemic, either by way of extending an Act of Parliament, which I think is called the Contingency Act, or otherwise, so that this House may recognise the great losses which the people have sustained and compensate them?
Mr. Speaker: In the common interest, on business questions, we must confine ourselves to business and not to questions of policy.
Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. I was asking the Leader of the House whether he would find time for a debate about this subject. Surely, Mr. Speaker, that is in order.
Mr. Speaker: I beg pardon. There was so much other material that I became confused.
Mr. Hughes: Why am I always out of order?
Mr. Lloyd rose—
Mr. Hughes: Further to that point of order. Other hon. Members have been held to be in order, Mr. Speaker, when they asked the Leader of the House whether he would find time to discuss a specific topic. I asked the Leader of the House whether he would find time to discuss that specific topic, and yet you have invidiously, if I may say so, ruled me out of order.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member's distress is due partly, I think, to the fact that he did not hear what I last said. I said that I had not heard him asking for time, and it was on that basis that I thought that what he was asking for was out of order. I apologise to the hon. and learned Member for my mishearing.
Mr. Hughes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like now to put my question. The Leader of the House is well aware of the important matter which I have put to him. Will he find time to discuss it?
Mr. Lloyd: Everybody in the House will be sympathetic with the purpose behind the hon. and learned Member's Question. I am not sure, however, that a debate is the best way to pursue it. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will discuss it with me.
Mr. Hooson: Is the Leader of the House able to find time to enable the House to discuss the recently-published Depopulation Report on Mid-Wales, and particularly to enable the Minister for Welsh Affairs to make his important statement on that Report orally to the House of Commons and not by letter to any outside body?
Mr. Lloyd: That seems to me to be an appropriate topic to be ventilated during the debate on Welsh affairs.
Mr. M. Foot: To save time next week, can the Leader of the House tell us whether the speech currently being delivered by the Prime Minister represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and, if so, who wrote it?
Mr. Lloyd: All I would say to the hon. Member is that the mantle of the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) seems to have fallen on strange shoulders.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [17TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1964–65
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a further sum, not exceeding £40, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965, for the following services connected with the Hospital Service in Great Britain, namely:

  Civil Estimates, 1964–65

  £

  Class VI, Vote 13, Ministry of Health

  10

  Class III, Vote 2, Scottish Home and Health Department

  10

  Class VI, Vote 14, National Health Service etc. (Hospital Services etc.) England and Wales

  10

  Class VI, Vote 18, National Health Service etc., Scotland

  10

  Total

  £40

  HOSPITAL SERVICE
  3.55 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Robinson: Although there are other aspects of the National Health Service which we on this side of the Committee are anxious to debate, we have chosen today to debate the hospital service for a number of reasons. First, hospitals account for well over half the total expenditure of the National Health Service, and it is no bad thing for an expenditure of £600 million or more a year to come under scrutiny by the Committee of Supply from time to time. Secondly, there are certain aspects of the hospital service which cause us and people outside the House of Commons considerable anxiety.
  Perhaps the main reason why we have selected this subject for debate today in preference to others is the need to examine closely and in depth the Government's Hospital Plan. Therefore, I turn first to the capital development programme, especially in the light of the White Paper entitled A Hospital

  643
  Plan for England and Wales (Revision to 1973–74), published last month by the Minister of Health.
  When the House debated the original Hospital Plan about two years ago, we welcomed it with certain reservations and we made a number of criticisms. Amongst those criticisms were that we said that it was a rushed job and that insufficient research and planning had gone into its preparation. That charge, far from being denied, was accepted by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), the then Minister, in his winding-up speech, and indeed he took credit for it. With that characteristically unorthodox approach to these matters that is noteworthy of the right hon. Gentleman, he told us that he thought is absolutely right to publish the plan first and to begin the planning afterwards. We said that the Hospital Plan was largely based on guesswork. As events have turned out, it appears that that was the understatement of this Parliament. All the indications now show that the Plan has run into serious trouble within its first two years.
  I should say at this stage that we on this side do not regard a programme for the modernisation of our hospital system as a boon which is graciously bestowed upon the public by a generous Government. We prefer to regard it rather as a belated act of restitution for the long years of neglect—12 years, for example, in which the Government built four hospitals in England and Wales, 12 years in which this country fell behind almost every other country in the Western world in the building of new hospitals. In our view, it was about time that we got down to the job of modernising our network of out-of-date hospitals. It is in that spirit that we approach the right hon. Gentleman's proposals and that I intend to subject them to criticism.
  I should begin by reminding the Committee of the original prospectus, which I am inclined to describe as a false one in the light of subsequent events. We were to have a ten-year plan covering the years 1961–1970. This was produced as a White Paper which listed projects to be started in two five-year periods, the quinquennia 1961–65 and 1966–70. The capital expenditure for
  644
  the ten-year period was estimated at £200 million for the first five years and £300 million for the second five years, it is understandable that the figure for the second five years would be the larger, because a programme of this size would inevitably take some time in getting under way. The Write Paper also set out in Appendix C the Government's estimate of the ultimate cost of the completed projects. They estimated it at a fairly precise figure of £707½ million.
  The first mystery arose very early in the proceedings. During his winding up speech in the first debate, the Minister, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, produced, quite out of the blue and with no explanation, a new total figure of £800 million. Thus we had an increase of nearly £100 million only four months after the plan had originally been published.
  There was, of course, a great deal of emphasis that this was a flexible plan, that it would be subject to annual revision and that at each annual revision the plan would be carried forward one further year. It was always to be a ten-year plan, ten years from the current year. The first revision of the plan was published in April 1963, and that covered not one but two years, because the first year of the Hospital Plan was practically over before the plan was published, since it started from 1961–62. This first revision, therefore, carried the plan on to 1972–73. I am sorry about all these figures and years, but it is very necessary to give them in order to show the picture accurately.
  This first White Paper was not a very informative document, but it contained two points of interest. First, it announced something approaching a crash programme for additional maternity beds, which represented an admission on the part of the Government that there had been a serious under-provision in the original plan. But they hastily placed the blame very squarely on the shoulders of the Registrar-General for having made too low an estimate of the number of births which could be expected in the year 1975.
  The second point of interest was that the ten-year cost had risen from £500 million to £600 million. I should explain

  645
  that we could expect some modest increase each year as we moved out of the first quinquennium into the second, but this could not be expected of its own account to be more than £20 million a year, so that we have an increase of £100 million, and not the £40 million or less which we might have expected. The 1963 revision also listed some new projects which were added to the plan to cover the extra two years which were then tacked on to the end of the original period.
  I come to this year's revision, which carries the plan forward another year to 1973 and which is contained in a White Paper published by the Minister last month. This document is not merely uninformative. It is, I think, misleading to the point of dishonesty. It is obscure—and it is deliberately obscure; and it is deliberately obscure because it has something to conceal.
  First, we notice that the ten-year cost has again risen, not £20 million as we might have expected but a further £150 million to £750 million. It will now be £300 million in the first five years and £450 million in the second five years. We are also told how much has been spent in the first three years of the original plan. If we add this expenditure, we reach a total figure of £867 million in only 13 years—in other words, it would represent a total of over £1,000 million for the 15 years for the completion of the original scheme against an estimate of £707 million.
  The House might think that this was a fairly serious piece of under-estimating, to the tune of about 50 per cent. But this, I am afraid, is only part of the story, because in order to contain the expenditure on the Hospital Plan as it now stands even within the vastly increased figure, dozens and probably a hundred or more projects for new hospitals and major redevelopment schemes which were included in the original plan have had to be postponed to the mid-1970s or else eliminated altogether. The promised starts of many of those projects have been deferred four, five or even six years.
  Mr. W. A. Wilkins: Some have been waiting for 30 years.
  Mr. Robinson: They have indeed.
  646
  We are entitled to ask: what went wrong? It is not that building costs have risen in the last two years to any appreciable extent. I can only think that the explanation is that the right hon. Gentleman, or rather his predecessor, had no idea at all what it costs to build a new hospital today. After all, why should he? They built only four hospitals in 12 years, and for the most part those were not the type of hospital envisaged in the plan.
  If the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West had not been in such a tearing hurry to produce this plan and to collect the sorely-needed political kudos for the Government and his party, he might have had time to find out how much a hospital was likely to cost. I cannot resist quoting one phrase which he used in the debate two years ago when he was describing his Department's function in preparing a plan of this kind. He described this function as giving to the plan
  "consistency of policy as well as financial practicability"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June, 1962; Vol. 661, c. 152.]
  Almost from the moment that that remark was uttered the chickens began coming home to roost.
  I want to ask one more question of the Minister, and then I hope that I shall almost have finished with figures. I should like to ask him what is the extent in monetary terms of the cuts in the ten-year plan which have become necessary to keep it within even this greatly increased financial commitment. I understand that the Minister does not propose to follow me in the debate, that the Secretary of State will speak next and that the Minister will wind up the debate. He will, therefore, have plenty of lime to prepare the answers to the questions which I am putting to him and to produce the evidence to rebut the charges which I am making and shall make. But I have noticed in earlier debates that Ministers winding up do not necessarily answer all the questions which have been asked from the Opposition benches. I have therefore made my own calculations for these figures, based on such evidence as I have been able to gather.
  The position is this: now that more realistic costings are at last being made

  647
  by the Minister, each hospital authority has been given an annual allocation of money right to the end of the period, which is the amount which, all things being equal, they can expect to receive. The hospital authorities—the regional boards and the boards of governors-have also estimated the total expenditure year by year of the schemes which they were hoping to initiate—schemes which have been approved by the Minister, at any rate to the end of last year, and have been included in the ten-year plan. The difference between the two sets of figures represents the excess expenditure which has somehow had to be pruned away. As I have shown, the only way in which one can prune away expenditure of this kind is by cutting out whole major schemes in the programme and deferring them beyond the end of the current ten-year period, to the mid-seventies or beyond that, or by eliminating them altogether.
  I have these figures for three regional hospital boards, and I have added them together. It appears that for these three the aggregate sum needed for the ten years in order to carry out what, after all, was the Minister's plan, would have been £177 million. They are now promised, over the ten-year period, £101 million—a deficiency of no less than £76 million. There are 15 regional boards in England and Wales, plus the boards of governors of the teaching hospitals, which I have left out of my calculations. My figures are, therefore, if anything, on the low side.
  The three regional boards for which I have figures represent a competely random selection—I have no reason to believe that they are anything but typical.. My calculation, therefore, suggests that the total deficiency for England and Wales as a whole is likely to be about five times the figure I have quoted—about £380 million at least. If we add that to the extra money that the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor have been forced to provide even for the truncated programme, we get a total deficiency in the original estimate of nearly £600 million—on an original figure of £700 million. In other words, due mainly to what we can only assume to be incompetent costing and estimating, and I put it as charitably
  648
  as I can, the Hospital Plan will cost very nearly double what we were told at the time.
  In the light of what I have just disclosed, I should like the Committee to look again at the recent White Paper. Does it contain any mention of massive cuts of postponements? Not a hint—well, perhaps just a hint. There is one sentence that I should like to read to the Committee:
  "An alteration of the timing of some schemes has followed because many of the schemes projected have now increased in scope and cost."
  The alteration of the timing of some schemes being about £380 million of schemes pushed off the end of the ten-year period—
  Lord Balniel: Will the hon. Gentleman read the next sentence?
  Mr. Robinson: Yes.
  "At the same time, with a change in priorities, Hospital Boards have been authorised to plan more schemes."
  I shall deal with that in a moment. I can assure the noble Lord that I shall not dodge anything.
  The White Paper lists only those schemes due to start in the first five years of the ten-year period. It omits all reference to the schemes in the second ten years, which is where the main cuts have come. Nothing is said about them at all. Instead of an honest admission that the plan had had to be drastically cut, instead of explaining that the ten-year plan would now take something like twenty years to achieve and cost about twice as much, we have this elaborate attempt to conceal the truth. Where is this "straight talk" we hear so much about from the Prime Minister?
  The smokescreen that this document throws up becomes still more intense when one looks at Appendix II, which is the appendix that purports to list new schemes included in the plan for the first time. They are, in fact, mainly developments that were included in the original plan, published two years ago, to start after 1970, or schemes for the 'seventies which replace schemes that should be starting now.
  I should like to give the Committee an example. I simply take the last two regions listed in the White Paper—the Liverpool Board and the Welsh Board.

  649
  All that Liverpool gets in these additional schemes is the promise of two district hospitals starting after 1974, in place of two developments that were due to start in the period 1965–69, and which are now cancelled. There does not seem to be a great advantage to Liverpool there. Wales is even worse off. Wales simply gets a promise of a hospital at some unspecified date in the distant future to replace another scheme that should already have started but is now cancelled. Those are not additions; if anything, they are subtractions. This is a shocking document, and something of which the Minister should be ashamed.
  Almost the only people who are not deceived by it are the hospital authorities themselves. They know what the facts are, and they know that once again their plans, into which they have put so much, have been frustrated—plans that were encouraged and endorsed by the Minister of Health. Hospital planning committees are disappointed and angry at this outcome. I should like at this stage to pay my tribute to the regional boards for the way in which they have met the challenge contained in the original plan, building up their technical and planning departments, and their architectural and design staffs to meet it. Now they are faced with the frustration of so much that they planned for and hoped for.
  In addition, there are some rather tricky consequential problems arising out of this decision to postpone so many schemes; problems involving still more expenditure, or, alternatively, a steady lowering of standards in many existing hospitals. I should like to quote from the leading article of the Hospital, a very well-informed journal. It states:
  "… the prolongation of rebuilding is likely to increase the demand for patching up. What might have been endurable until a new building was available in 1970 may well seem impossible if it has to last five years more."
  That, of course, is what will happen.
  When the Hospital Plan was first decided on and the consequential policy decisions taken, many of us in the hospital world were rather worried about the way in which maintenance was being cut down in anticipation of the new hospitals. As this journal says, one was prepared to tolerate a certain amount, but if these massive postponements are
  650
  to take place, we simply cannot keep some of the hospitals maintained at the same low standard, deteriorating for some ten or twelve years more.
  What does it all mean? It means, on present form, that substantially less will be accomplished in thirteen years than was promised in ten, and at a far greater cost. Nor is; there any evidence that this process of attenuation is yet finished—at least as long as the party opposite is in control of the hospital services. This is what happens when a Government which do not believe in planning—and if it is true of this Government it was doubly true of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West—purport to plan. [An HON MEMBER: "Where is he?"] I mentioned to the right hon. Gentleman that I would have to refer to him on a number of occasions in this speech, and he told me that he quite understood but could not be present at this debate. I make no complaint about that, of course.
  This is what happens when anti-planners purport to plan. It is an example of what, in another context, the Guardian called "playing at planning". I believe that it is also an example of what would happen to many of the other lavish promises—pre-election promises—of development, involving things like universities, schools and roads that we have heard so much about in the last few months, if this Government were returned to office at the General Election.
  What should the right hon. Gentleman do now? Of course, he has not very much time left, but the least he can do is to publish without delay a new White Paper showing clearly what projects are still going ahead in the first and second quinquennia, with up-to-date estimated costs, and also showing what schemes in the original plan have been cancelled, or deferred—and for how long—and what schemes added. Then we should at least know where we stood. We are entitled to demand that for the Minister, and we are entitled to demand that he should do this without any delay at all.
  The Committee is entitled to ask what a Labour Government would do in this situation. It is difficult to answer that question in precise terms without access to the voluminous mass of detailed information which only the Minister and his Department have in their possession,

  651
  but I am very prepared to answer the question in general terms. Obviously, schemes that are under way or immediately about to start would have to go on. Beyond that, and particularly for the whole of the second quinquennium, we should take a long and hard look at the entire programme in concert with the hospital authorities.
  In doing so, we should want to ensure a number of things. First of all, we should want to ensure that we are getting the right type and size of hospitals in the right places. I very much doubt whether sufficient attention has yet been paid to population changes which are likely to take place in the future. For example, to what extent has the South-East Study been taken into account by the right hon. Gentleman's Department?
  Secondly, we would want to ensure that we have our priorities right. That would involve a good deal more research than has already been done into needs. I believe, for example, that the plan still seriously underestimates the need for geriatric beds, just as the local authority health and welfare plan was deficient in plans for accommodation, and indeed in all services, for old people.
  I believe that there is a need to reconsider the whole of the psychiatric planning content of the Plan. More and more evidence is coming forward that the previous Minister's estimate of the bed needs for the mentally ill was far too optimistic. This may be a disappointment, but it is the way the evidence is pointing. I understand that one regional hospital board has carried out a statistical survey for its whole region which indicates that it will probably need rather more psychiatric beds in 1975 than it has now, instead of a reduction of nearly half, which is the estimate on which the Hospital Plan is based. I also think that we may well need more accommodation for the sub-normal.
  Thirdly, we should wish to ensure that we are getting proper value for the enormous expenditure of public money involved in the plan, and we would see whether we could not bring about further economies in building costs without lowering standards. I cannot see why hospital building must always be the most expensive kind of building and
  652
  pretty nearly the slowest. I do not believe it need be.
  Lastly, we should certainly try to speed up the programme to the limit of the technical resources available in planning and construction. I believe that if that proved possible the financial resources would be forthcoming to meet an accelerated programme.
  We should hope that the whole review operation could be carried out without any hiatus in the forward progress of new constructions, but since one would be shaping the whole future pattern of the hospital service, we should take every step necessary to ensure that no further avoidable blunders were made.
  Mr. R. H. Turton: The hon. Gentleman must realise that by having the review he will put back the whole programme and give uncertainty to every regional hospital board and hospital management committee.
  Mr. Robinson: That is exactly what I have said we should hope to avoid doing. The plans which are going forward, and which are at the end of the planning stage, and the projects which are ready to start would start. One would carry on the review as far as possible while starts were continuing. All I am saying is that if it became necessary, in order to get the right answer, to have a hiatus in starts, we would not shy away from that, because we should be determined to get this right. There is nothing more important in the whole hospital service than this.
  When we debated the plan originally two years ago a good deal of concern was expressed from this side of the House that relatively little attention had been paid to the whole question of hospital staffing. We all know that bricks and mortar, even if they contain the most elaborate and expensive equipment, cannot cure patients without the skill of doctors and nurses. We drew attention to the shortages of every kind of hospital staff and criticised the absence of any plans to remedy these shortages. As far as I can discover, the situation in general is no better now than it was then. It is not because we are in any way satisfied with the position about nurses, physiotherapists, radiographers and many other categories that I propose

  653
  to limit my remarks under this heading to one critical sector, the most vital sector of all—medical staffing.
  It seems to me on the best statistical evidence that I can get that over the whole medical field we are hardly keeping our head above water. In other words, the number of doctors entering practice each year barely equals the annual wastage due to death, retirement and net emigration of doctors. But, even supposing that those two figures are in balance, we should still be failing to keep pace with the needs of a rising population. That is bad enough, but where hospitals are concerned, there are two additional factors which make the outlook pretty desperate.
  The first is that there is already serious understaffing in almost all non-teaching hospitals. It is worse in the provinces and, in particular, in the hospitals in the north of England. One consequence is that we have intolerably long waiting lists in many hospitals. This medical under-staffing exists at both senior and junior levels. At this stage I want to inquire about the Platt Review. The Platt Working Party on Hospital Medical Staffing reported to the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor three and a half years ago. The Report called for an urgent review by hospital authorities of their medical staffing requirements. A review was put in hand, and I believe that the results, apart from one or two stragglers, were in the right hon. Gentleman's Department at least a year ago. I know that there were one or two teaching hospitals which were a bit slow. However, the Minister told one of my hon. Friends in a Parliamentary reply that this was not holding up the general review.
  Why are we still waiting for the Minister's conclusions and recommendations? The Secretary of State for Scotland published his review four months ago. Why are we still waiting for the English review? Is it because the implications of it in terms of additional consultant posts and supporting medical staff are too alarming? Is the publication being deliberately delayed until the House rises for the Summer Recess or even perhaps until after the General Election? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us, and perhaps he will deny, if he can, that there will be a demand for a very large increase in hospital doctors of all grades, a demand which cannot be met.
  654
  The second special factor which affects the hospitals is the difficult, thorny problem, which has been raised many times in the House, of those junior hospital posts which are filled by overseas doctors, mainly from India and Pakistan, doctors who are ostensibly undergoing postgraduate training. I believe that more than 40 per cent. of our junior posts are filled by such overseas doctors, and this must mean well over 60 per cent. of those posts in hospitals outside the Metropolitan area and the teaching hospitals.
  I have never felt this to be a very satisfactory situation. Though, of course, we welcome these doctors in our hospitals, and we have by tradition for a long time offered postgraduate facilities for them, I believe it is wrong that we should have to rely on them as we do to staff the hospitals. There are in many cases language difficulties, and between patient and doctor language difficulties can often spell danger.
  Another thing that worries me is that few of these doctors get any postgraduate training in any formal sense since they have to be used as pairs of hands. Instead of training, they get, of course, experience of a kind. Why do they come here? They come because when they return to their own country they tend to get preference for those senior hospital appointments which are available solely by reason of having undergone postgraduate instruction in Great Britain. My information is—I should like the right hon. Gentleman to confirm this; I should, in fact, prefer him to be able to deny it—that this may not happen very much longer, that: this supply may well dry up in the fairly near future, and quite suddenly. If so, it will be with incalculable effect on the staffing problems of many provincial hospitals.
  Quite apart from the needs of general practice—and those needs are no less clamant than those of the hospitals—it is clear that these two special factors alone are likely to make demands on our medical manpower which we cannot possibly meet from current resources. I want to ask the Minister what he proposes to do about this. In the short term, there is simply no solution that I can envisage. Thanks to another failure in planning and a complete lack of foresight on the part of the party opposite, we shall simply have to face the shortage of doctors over

  655
  the next few years. It is a shortage that is bound to be acute and can, perhaps, be dangerous. I believe that we might do something to mitigate that shortage to some extent in the hospitals by a greater emphasis on whole-time staff and less on part-time staff. But this could have no more than a marginal effect in the short term. In the long term, we simply have to train more doctors and keep more of them in Britain in the National Health Service than we do at the moment.
  What is the Government's answer to this?—one new medical school, which I understand is to be in Nottingham, although we have not yet had any official announcement, and to cram a few more desks into the existing crowded medical schools. That we regard as a totally inadequate answer to the problem. A Labour Government would start by establishing at least four new medical schools, but, of course, it will be ten years before the fruits of new medical schools will come in to swell the ranks of the doctors practising in the National Health Service.
  I am conscious of the fact that my speech has been somewhat arid, considering the essential human nature of the subject that we are discussing, but it was necessary that these things should be said and the facts put on record, and that the Government's failures, which have been so painstakingly concealed, should be exposed. This is all the more essential since it is likely that after October a Government of a different complexion and a new Minister will inherit these daunting problems—problems which this Government have utterly failed to solve and in some cases have assisted in creating.
  It is important that the public should know where the responsibility lies. After all, the party opposite have sought to extract the last ounce of party political capital out of their Hospital Plan and by means of T.V., and radio broadcasts, posters, and Press advertisements and with the right hon. Gentleman's handsome features staring at us over our breakfast tables. It is time that the public had a glimpse at least of the chaotic muddle that lies behind this political window dressing.
  Mr. Percy Browne: I think that we might get the record
  656
  straight. The hon. Gentleman has talked a considerable amount of nonsense. I would refer him to the end of the second paragraph on page 13 of the Hospital Plan for England and Wales and read this sentence to him:
  "Moreover, the present tentative estimates of the cost of the schemes in the programme may have to be modified considerably when the detailed schedules of accommodation come to be prepared."
  The hon. Gentleman did not mention that at all.
  Mr. Robinson: If the hon. Member thinks that an increase from £700 million to £1,300 million is a modification, then clearly we have different ideas about the use of language. In that case, why was the total cost estimated so precisely at £707½ million?
  I want to turn to the more human aspects of the hospital problem. I refer to the way that hospitals treat patients as persons, as individuals, and this is a field where there is much still to be desired. I have spoken many times about this problem both inside and outside the Committee, and so, to do him credit, has the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor. Indeed, I think that he was the first Tory Minister of Health to admit that there was a problem here at all.
  This is a service for people. It is a service in which the interest of the patient ought to be paramount at all times. People who are ill are especially vulnerable and need to be treated with more and not less consideration on that account. There are too many failures here, and they are failures that arise not out of unkindness but from thoughtlessness, lack of imagination, and through inefficiency and bad organisation more often than not. They are things that are remediable, and no one can say that guidance has been lacking.
  I am very willing to pay my tribute to a whole series of admirable Reports which have been circulated by the Minister to hospital authorities dealing with different aspects of this problem—Reports such as the Platt Report on Children in Hospitals, the Pattern of the In-Patients' Day, Communications between Doctors, Nurses and Patients, all excellent Reports. I should like to congratulate the various Committees that produced them. They have had some

  657
  attention, but it seems to me that just where the changes are most needed they have had the least effect and progress on the front as a whole has been painfully slow.
  I have no time to elaborate the kind of practices and habits of mind which I myself and I am sure the Minister would like to see eliminated. I shall briefly list a few: There are the ward routines which pay little regard to the patients' convenience and comfort. There is the excessive and unnecessary waiting in out-patients' departments. There is the unnecessary restriction of visiting hours, which comes, I think, of regarding visitors as a hostile force. There is the acceptance of a rigid hierarchy in the hospitals, with the consultant at the top and the patient at the bottom. There is the routine withholding from the patient of information about his condition. There is, all too often, a sharp difference of attitude towards public and private patients. We still get too much early waking, although I am glad to think that more and more hospitals are waking their patients at a reasonably civilized hour. Lastly, I would mention the nonsensical ritual that precedes the consultant's ward rounds. One could add many more.
  I doubt if this whole question of human relations in hospitals has been better dealt with than in a Penguin book, published a few weeks ago, called What's Wrong With Hospitals?, by Gerda Cohen, whom, I hasten to add, incidentally, I have never met. I hope that the Minister has read this book and, if he has not, that he will remedy the omission. It was a book which was provoked in the first place by personal experience as a patient, but it was certainly founded on very extensive research and study in a number of hospitals. I think that for doctors, nurses, administrators and members of hospital boards and committees it should be essential reading. It will infuriate some people perhaps, because it is broadly true and well-aimed. One doctor, in a Sunday paper, reviewing it somewhat unfavourably said that if he were a patient he would like a hospital to be efficient rather than kind. That in my view is an utterly false antithesis. I do not believe that we can have efficiency without kindness and understanding of the
  658
  patient's needs. This is not a frill; it is part of the therapeutic process.
  This book, the emergence of the Patients' Association, and one or two other bodies of similar character, are more bits of evidence that the patient is at last beginning to have a voice, and although this is, in a sense, a criticism of the hospital service, it is a development that I warmly welcome.
  I believe that there is still a great deal to be done and that the pressure must continue. Outdated attitudes towards patients—vestiges of the old poor law hospitals—have no place in the National Health Service as Aneurin Bevan conceived it, nor as we conceive it today. We shall find ways to get rid of them, ways that seem to have eluded this Government.
  The National Health Service, for nearly 13 of its 16 years of existence has been under the control of a party which bitterly opposed its creation in the first place and has never become wholly reconciled to it. That, I think, is the explanation of much that is not right with the Service today, and that, in turn, may also be one reason at least why the Government's time is very nearly up.
  4.41 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Noble): I am glad to have the opportunity of following the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson). I thank him for his courtesy in suggesting that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health would have more time than me to study the series of figures he gave and to deal with them in replying to the debate, because I have often in this Committee noticed how figures can be bandied from one side to the other without meeting in any very convenient or obviously sensible form.
  The Committee will agree that it was clearly recognised in the original plans that they represented only the first instalment of long-term planning of the hospital services, and that, indeed, the programme would have to grow from year to year. Indeed, it was clear from the start that, after years when relatively few large schemes had been undertaken, hospital building could not be stepped up overnight to the level that was needed and the level that the Government were determined to achieve.

  659
  At this point, may I say that if the country has the misfortune later this year to be governed by a different Administration, at least hon. Members opposite will not find themselves in the position that my predecessors found themselves in in 1951 when there were no plans and no arrangements made for these purposes.
  The fact of the matter is that, in bringing forward plans of this sort, staff have had to be recruited for the difficult and complex planning work that has had to be done. I shall be showing later in my speech what we are doing at the moment. As the programme has grown and we have carried forward the ten-year period, we have been able to plan for further increases, as shown by the figures quoted, even by the hon. Member.
  Much has been made of the fact that a number of the schemes listed in the original plans have now been deferred. It has even been suggested that less work is now being done than the Government originally intended. The fact is that the total amount of building work being done has in no way been reduced. As building costs have risen, we have increased the allocation of funds to the programme to the full extent required to keep pace. It is true that there have been changes in the plans, as was anticipated when they were published. Some are the result of a reassessment of priorities. In some cases, reconsideration of how best to meet the changing hospital needs of an area has led to decisions to defer schemes or bring new ones into the programme, and this process will go on. Factors like the movement of population must be taken into account.
  There have, of course, been real increases in the estimated cost of some of the schemes, and this, in most cases, is because the scope of particular schemes has been reconsidered. Where, for example, an out-patient department was proposed and estimated for in the original plan, a closer assessment of need in the process of detailed planning has sometimes shown that a bigger out-patient department would be preferable, or that it would at once be more useful and more economic to provide an out-patient department and an accident department together.
  Again, as the Committee knows, there have been the most significant advances in
  660
  surgical technique in the last few years. Some of these new techniques make no special demand on theatre accommodation and call for only simple equipment. Others, however, call for elaborate supporting facilities and necessitate lengthy sessions in the theatre. Others, again, make possible new forms of treatment which have not been attempted before.
  All this adds up to a need for more ancillary accommodation and for more theatres in total in the modern genera] hospital. These examples show, I think fairly, how schemes can change in content and increase in scope as they move through the normal stages of planning, and the earlier estimates of scale and cost have, therefore, to be revised.
  This explains why it will not be possible within the time-scale of the original plans to start all the projects there listed. It is the necessary enlargement of some projects in the programme that has had the effect of deferring others. I think that the Committee generally will agree that, in this matter, we are pursuing the right course and that it would have been quite wrong to restrict the scope of particular schemes to the proposals which held the field in 1961 when the Hospital Plans were being prepared.
  It is clearly essential that we should make the best possible use of the resources which can be made available for hospital building, both for the success of the plan itself and for the sake of the investment programme as a whole. Here, we are concerned to improve our administrative and planning procedures and are seeking to ensure that hospital authorities and architects concerned with hospital planning have the best guidance possible about functional requirements and about possible solutions to the many complex problems that hospital planning presents.
  In recent years great changes have occurred in medical and nursing techniques, in methods of diagnosis and treatment and in morbidity. Thus, the needs of hospitals today are very different in many aspects, particularly in patient care and in diagnosis, from those provided in the past. I am certain that, however well we or hon. Members opposite plan, these sorts of changes will continue as long as medical science advances.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: The right hon. Gentleman is making a fair point, but he said at the beginning that building costs had risen and then that the programme had been revised because of changing scope and other reasons. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) has suggested that building costs have not risen all that much. Can we have some concrete figures to show the proportions involved here?
  Mr. Noble: The increase in real terms is of the order of £160 million.
  Before the process of design of a particular hospital building can be begun, it is essential to establish clearly in the light of modern conditions the needs it will require to meet so far as they can reasonably be foreseen. The two Health Departments have, therefore, prepared codes of practice for the planning and design of hospital buildings so that all hospital planning is conducted on a common basis. The content and functioning of all the main parts of the hospital are now described in building notes and planning notes published by the Health Departments. These notes also set up a cost target system, which is a radical departure from the old conception of a hospital as a building which was first designed and then costed. Nowadays, we treat a hospital as a functional unit with requirements to be met within a building for which a target cost can be set.
  Alongside these building and planning notes, equipment notes are being published to help the planners in deciding the amount and the cost of the equipment which is needed. These notes, in the main, are based on the best current practice known to us today, but this is clearly not enough, however satisfactory the standards may be to meet current needs. Over and above this, the Ministry of Health and the Scottish Home and Health Department are devoting considerable resources to research and development work in hospital building and engineering, with the object of producing better solutions to the problems of hospital design. Development projects based on a new approach to the design of hospital outpatient and accident departments, kitchens and dining rooms and hospital wards are being carried out at Liverpool, Kingston and Falkirk. The
  662
  Ministry of Health has a project at Greenwich for a complete district general hospital which will introduce some radical new ideas in hospital design.
  If all the work is to be done within the period allotted to the hospital programme, it is essential that the building industry should make use of the best modern techniques of building and management. Of these techniques, perhaps the most potentially useful is industrialised building. The Ministry and my Department have organised upwards of 20 study groups, including hospital and private consultant architects, engineers and quantity surveyors. Each group is studying either a particular building or engineering component or a particular aspect of management. The object is ultimately to base hospital building on a range of standardised components, prefabricated so that site work is essentially a matter of assembly and finishing. In this way I hope that we can come to the end of the period when hospital building is always more expensive and slow than any other form of building, and we are—and have been—extremely active in this respect.
  Sir Barnett Stress: Would the right hon Gentleman give an assurance to the Committee, which he has given outside the House of Commons, that industrialised building techniques will in no case mean a lowering of standards?
  Mr. Noble: Yes, I shall be very glad to give that assurance, because this is the "basic factor in the acceptance of industrialised building, not only in hospitals but every other form of building.
  The reports of many of these groups will be published within the next few months, and it ought then to be possible to consider the bulk manufacture and supply of the ranges of components involved. "We are also making a considerable effort to achieve greater standardisation of equipment, particularly non-medical equipment, and the Ministry of Health and my Department have a series of groups at work on this. The groups are already examining furniture of various kinds, textiles, crockery, paint and so on.
  Before I leave the Hospital Plan, I should like to place on record some of

  663
  the facts about the progress of the building programme. Sometimes when listening to the criticisms which are made, one almost gets the impression that nothing is happening. In fact, this year we are spending £66 million on hospital building. The picture is that from Wick in the north all the way down to West Cornwall a great variety of hospital projects is under way, and some of them have already been completed. Since 1951, the Government have spent more than £300 million on hospital building and there are now very few hospitals indeed at which there have not been some improvements in the last 13 years. [Interruption.] Not a great deal was done in the six years before. I am merely stating the facts.
  Mr. Wilkins: The right hon. Gentleman is stating what he believes to be the facts.
  Mr. Noble: In concentrating on major new schemes, as we all tend to do, we must not lose sight of the immense amount of building work done in our existing hospitals, to the very great benefit of patients and staff. The major new schemes are the most obvious feature in any hospital building programme. If they wish to see the kind of thing which has been achieved, hon. Members opposite might well pay a visit to Bellshill in Lanarkshire, or Yorkhill in Glasgow, where two great new maternity hospitals are now in use.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: While the right hon. Gentleman is giving such advice, would he also advise hon. Members to visit not only Bellshill but Stonehouse Hospital, in Lanarkshire?
  Mr. Noble: I am certain that there are many hospitals which it would profit hon. Members to visit, both to see how well certain things are done in the new hospitals, and how much remains to be done. I am making no attempt to hide either; I am merely trying to balance the picture.
  I come now to the maternity services. Improvement in the scale and quality of maternity accommodation is one of the main objectives of the hospital building programme. By new building and, where practicable, by conversion of existing buildings, we are overtaking the
  664
  deficiencies. Throughout the country, there is visible proof of our endeavours to improve these maternity services. The level of staffing in maternity hospitals and units has also improved steadily throughout the country. Improvements in pay and conditions of service over the last year should help to maintain and enhance recruitment.
  My right hon. Friend has recently made a personal appeal to non-practising midwives to return to hospital or domicilary practice. We in Scotland are perhaps a little more fortunate in being better placed for staff: We have not felt to so great an extent the increase in the birth rate which has taken place in England, and I have therefore decided to leave the field open to my right hon. Friend at the moment, and I hope very much that his appeal will be successful.
  The Montgomery Committee told us that in its estimation lying-in beds should be provided for 70 to 75 per cent. of the total births in Scotland. In 1962, the hospital confinement rate for Scotland as a whole was 77 per cent., and the provisional figure for 1963 is 79 per cent. My right hon. Friend has an immediate objective of a 70 per cent. hospital confinement rate and this has already been exceeded in some areas, including London.
  Mr. John Robertson: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain these figures? Does the 1963 figure include the figure of 40 per cent. in my own constituency?
  Mr. Noble: The figures I have given are on exactly the same basis as that suggested by the Montgomery Committee. I know that giving an overall average for Scotland of 79 per cent. conceals the fact that many individual areas are below it. but I think that the whole Committee will agree that the overall average is very satisfactory.
  Dr. Mabon: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead us. Is it not the case that in the Western Regional Hospital Board area, which covers a large industrial part of Scotland, it will be many years before the Montgomery provisions about maternity beds can be implemented? Would he be kind enough to tell us when the Western Regional Hospital Board will be able to provide these maternity beds?
  Mr. Noble: Without notice, I could not give the hon. Gentleman the exact date, but I will try to find out from the Western Regional Hospital Board and let the hon. Member know as soon as possible. I realise that there are problems, but I am not ashamed of the fact that in Scotland on average we are above the recommendations of the Montgomery Committee.
  Though we have had less pressure than England from the rising birth rate, we have had to face a problem of a different kind. It is a feature of the social history of the two countries that the perinatal and infant mortality rates have consistently been less favourable in Scotland than in England, and it is therefore particularly satisfactory that we have been able to achieve the higher rates of hospital confinement now obtaining in Scotland.
  Let me try to anticipate some of the criticisms that are likely to be made in certain quarters of our efforts in Scotland. I recognise that the Montgomery standards have not as yet been achieved in certain areas of the country, and that ante-natal provision is not yet on a desirable scale everywhere. We and the regional hospital boards are fully aware of these short-comings, and it is our intention to remedy them as quickly as we can. The revisions of the Hospital Plans for Scotland and for England and Wales contain specific proposals for further substantial additions to maternity beds over the next few years. The considerable achievement which we have behind us is a token of our intention to make further progress, and clear proof that the needs of the maternity services are not likely to be forgotten when decisions are being made on the many competing claims that come before us.
  Perhaps I might now say a word or two about doctors. I know that my right hon. Friend wants to add some points on this matter in his winding up speech. As the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North said, it is crucial to the development of the hospital service that the pattern of medical staffing should be right, and it was for that reason that the joint working party on Medical Staffing Structures in the Hospital Service was set up under the chairmanship of Sir Robert Platt. The Working Party reported in 1961 on the desirable future pattern. In order to
  666
  plan the implementation of the working party's proposals, all hospital boards in England and Wales were invited to carry out a thorough review of their medical establishments and to present detailed plans for the next five years.
  The Platt Report recommended an increase in the number of consultants. It also recommended that a new intermediate grade should be established in the hospital service to work under consultant supervision. In Scotland we proceeded rather differently. We set up a committee under the chairmanship of Dr. J. H. Wright to review the medical staffing structure throughout Scotland. This Committee reported last year. Besides making detailed recommendations on how the specialist services in Scottish hospitals should be organised, the Committee recommended increases in both consultant and supporting staff. It also underlined the Platt Committee recommendation of a new intermediate grade, the "medical assistant" grade.
  The Wright Report and the proposals from regional boards in England and Wales are being examined in consultation with representatives of the profession. My right hon. Friend and I hope that these discussions, together with those on the proposed new grade, will soon be brought to a conclusion.
  These discussions do not mean that action in approving additional consultant posts is being held up. Since December 1961 my right hon. Friend has approved an additional 344 consultant posts in England and Wales in terms of whole-time equivalents. Over the same period, in Scotland I have approved an additional 73 posts.
  Now I turn for a moment to nurses, because it is not only the medical staffing structure which has been engaging our attention. Last year my right hon. Friend and I set up a Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Brian Salmon to advise on the senior nursing staff structure in the hospital service, the administrative functions of the various grades, and the methods of preparing staff to occupy them.
  The report of this Committee, which is expected next year, is likely to be important for the future development of the nursing service in our hospitals. In spite of local shortages, on the whole

  667
  recruitment has been good, and the number of nursing staff in the hospital service continues to rise. At the end of September, 1963, there were more than 72,000 nurses in training for a nursing qualification, which was about 12,500 more than ten years ago.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: Will the right hon. Gentleman give separate figures for State-enrolled nurses?
  Mr. Noble: Not without notice, but perhaps my right hon. Friend will be able to give the hon. Gentleman the information that he requires.
  Today hospitals employ 7,200 more whole-time and 13,000 more part-time qualified nurses than they did in 1953. The increase in part-time nurses is particularly gratifying. In these days of earlier marriage, it is important that the nurses leaving on marriage should not be lost to the profession for ever.
  How many nurses do we need? This question is, if anything, even more difficult to answer for nurses than for doctors. It is fairly easy to establish that in a given hospital so many additional doctors are needed in a particular speciality. In nursing, there are no general standards against which one can measure the need for nursing staff. So much depends on the way in which nursing resources are deployed in the various departments of the hospitals. My right hon. Friend and I are therefore aiming to develop as soon as possible objective methods of assessing the content of nursing work and the number and grades of staff required to do it in the different types and sizes of wards and departments. Studies for this purpose, involving the co-operation of more than 100 hospitals, are at present in hand.
  The capacity of the hospital service to rise to an emergency is well illustrated by the way in which the hospital service in Aberdeen has coped with the large influx of typhoid patients. As I have mentioned typhoid, the House may be pleased to know that only eight extra cases have been announced from Aberdeen this afternoon. Although there are only 239 beds in the City Hospital, which is the main infectious diseases hospital for the region, the hospital services in Aberdeen have been able to accommodate all the patients from their own resources. Two hundred and four of the beds at the
  668
  City Hospital have been allocated to deal with the outbreak, and a further 420 beds have been found in other hospitals, making a total of 624 beds available to deal with it.
  Naturally, this redeployment of beds has not been achieved without some cost. It has been necessary to defer the admission of non-urgent cases to hospitals within the city, and to send home some convalescent patients earlier than would normally have been the case. The hospital authorities are satisfied that it is right to take these exceptional measures, in order to confine the typhoid cases as far as possible within Aberdeen itself rather than spread them over other hospitals and to other regions. To have done this would have meant that relatives would have had to travel outside Aberdeen to visit patients, which would have increased the risk of spreading the disease to other areas. But if the situation should deteriorate to the extent of requiring more beds than the region can reasonably find, additional beds are available in the neighbouring Eastern region.
  The staffing situation also is satisfactory. More than twenty volunteers answered a local appeal for fever-trained nurses, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides would like to express their appreciation of their assistance.
  In addition, the regional board has obtained the services of a retired consultant and three trained nurses from the Western region. Beds in other hospitals which are being used for the typhoid cases are, of course, already staffed, and although the majority of the nurses in the hospitals are not fever trained, there is a sufficient nucleus of trained staff from the City Hospital and those who have volunteered to give any specialised guidance which is necessary.
  The laboratory service is coping with the very heavy pressure of work on its side, but again arrangements can be made to bring in assistance if this should prove to be necessary.
  All the staff in the Aberdeen hospitals have risen nobly to the occasion, and I should like to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to their devoted efforts and skill which have enabled the hospital service to cope with this very difficult situation.

  669
  I have referred to the hospital building programme and to the contribution that it is making to the expansion and improvement of the service.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the Minister say a word about the cleanliness of Aberdeen, in view of the attack made on the city by a newspaper last Sunday, in which the city was described as being dirty? Does he agree that it is a clean city that has never had an epidemic of this kind before, and has never had typhoid before, or any diseases of a serious nature, until the present epidemic?
  Mr. Noble: The hon. and learned Member knows Aberdeen a great deal better than I do. I have been there on many occasions for different purposes, however, and I would like to confirm what he says about the general standard of cleanliness and health in that city.
  Mr. Hughes: Will he say a word in praise of Dr. MacQueen's work?
  Mr. Noble: I was going to say that I have given Dr. MacQueen adequate praise, but that sounds stingy. I have given him full praise and support on two occasions in the House.
  The hospital building programme has to be complemented by increases in current expenditure. The total expenditure on revenue account on the hospital service in 1964–65 is estimated for the whole country at £622 million.
  Expenditure on the health service as a whole is at present increasing in real terms by 2½ per cent. per annum. That is on top of the allowance for increases in wages and prices. In addition, a further £4 million for England and Wales and £500,000 for Scotland has been found this year to provide for maintenance of buildings and plant and to replace medical and domestic equipment. This goes at least some way to answer the point made by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North, when he talked about the need for keeping up maintenance in view of rising costs.
  Mr. K. Robinson: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that this allocation was much more concerned with the arrears of maintenance which arose out of the maintenance squeeze
  670
  imposed by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), and that it will do nothing whatever to deal with the problems of the future, to which I was referring.
  Mr. Noble: I can only say that whether it is arrears of maintenance or new maintenance—if there can be such a thing as new maintenance—those hospitals which have the money will be pleased to be able to go ahead with the jobs that they realise need doing.
  Some have felt that the present rate of increase in expenditure is not sufficient to meet the growing needs of the service. We certainly intend to keep the sums available for development constantly under review, since we recognise that the amount may have to be varied from time to time to keep in step with the pressures on the available money. But I should like to emphasise that over the years the increase in expenditure has been very substantial; this year the revenue allocation to the hospital service for growth reaches the considerable sum of £12 million.
  Increases of this order, year by year, have enabled the service to expand in almost every direction. I have already given some; figures to illustrate the large increases of staff that have been achieved. This substantial reinforcement of staff, coupled with advances in methods of treatment, is reflected in the numbers of patients who have received hospital care over the past few years. In 1953 about 4 million in-patients were discharged from hospitals in Scotland, England and Wales, whereas in 1963 the corresponding figure was over 5 million, an increase of over a quarter.
  Mr. Lubbock: What was the average length of stay of patients in those two years respectively?
  Mr. Noble: I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Member that figure off the cuff; nor would it necessarily be in favour of our medical system if patients had to stay longer in hospital.
  Mr. Lubbock: But does not the Minister appreciate that in the period between 1953 and 1963 the average length of stay in hospital has diminished considerably?
  Mr. Noble: This must be a good thing. No doctor would take pride in the fact that he was keeping patients longer in hospital.
  Mrs. Alice Cullen: That would not apply to doctors in the maternity service.
  Mr. Noble: Perhaps I should have said that it would not be to the benefit of our hospital service. The hon. Member is not making a useful point.
  In the same years the figures of outpatient attendances were about 45½ million in 1953 and nearly 51 million in 1963.
  The figures that I have quoted represent a considerable achievement. They mean, in simple terms, that we are giving a steadily improving service to a growing number of patients. Statistics alone, however, do not express our feelings about this great service, dedicated to the care of the sick and seeking always to find new forms of treatment to improve health and preserve life, and I would like to pay tribute to the devoted staff who care for the patients in our hospitals throughout the country.
  Mr. John Brewis: Can my right hon. Friend give the latest figure for maternity patients in Paisley?
  Mr. Noble: The Paisley area hospital figure which was said to be about 40 per cent. is currently 66 per cent.
  5.16 p.m.
  Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: I am sure that hon. Members will understand my feelings as I get to my feet for the first time in the House, and will accord to me the indulgence that they traditionally accord to new Members. Although I am proud and privileged to represent the interests of my constituency and to take my place in the House, I cannot help but reflect upon the circumstances which caused the vacancy, and I take this opportunity of paying tribute to my predecessor. It was never my privilege to meet Mr. Brooman-White, but I know the high regard in which he was held in my constituency by political friend and foe alike. He was respected for his sincerity, for his ability and for his courage—and not least, perhaps, for his courage, because, as hon. Members on both sides of the Committee know, it was this which helped
  672
  him to battle against illness over the last two or three years, in his attempt to serve his country and his people, whom he represented in the House of Commons faithfully and well.
  Hon. Members will know that we in Scotland take our politics very seriously indeed. They know that we are very much alive to the social and economic problems of our nation, and I warn the Committee that we in Rutherglen take precisely the same line as is taken in other Scottish constituencies.
  The Royal and very ancient Burgh of Rutherglen has a long tradition of social progress, as has its neighbour Cambus-lang—also in my division—which proudly boasts that it is the largest village in Scotland, and which is the industrial heart of my constituency. The interest in social and economic progress which we have in the west of Scotland, in general, and Rutherglen in particular, was manifested in the recent by-election campaign—a by-election which gave every opportunity to satisfy the appetite of the most avid political supporter. During the campaign we discussed at length a number of political issues affecting Rutherglen and Scotland. We discussed school building, housing, jobs and pensions. I shall not go into detail on these subjects today. I am given to understand that in a maiden speech one must not be too controversial, and that to depart from this path would lead me into a little difficulty.
  Not least, however, we discussed the record of the Government in respect of the hospital services. I heard the Minister refer to the millions of pounds spent on these services. I have heard similar figures given before. A simple and untutored mind, such as mine, tends to translate the millions of pounds spent into the actual number of beds provided. It may sound very impressive to quote figures like £50 million, £60 million or £70 million from a political platform, but we must think of what is actually happening in terms of the provision of beds for acute and for long-term cases. When we in Scotland think of this, I have to confess that we are rather disappointed. The numbers fall very short of the figures for which we had hoped by 1964. The social conditions, houses and the like, in the west of Scotland have created many hardships for our people and have brought

  673
  disease and suffering to many families. So we hoped that by this stage we should have made very much greater progress in providing beds in our area.
  The second point which I wished to make is purely local. In Rutherglen we have been pressing the need for beds for maternity and general cases. We are delighted to know that after a very long time and lengthy discussions, and after a great deal of negotiation, we are to have a maternity unit. But we are still bereft of any decision to put a general hospital in the area. I should have thought the most sensible thing would have been to build a maternity unit at the same time as a general hospital. This would seem to me to be economical.
  I trust that the Committee will not think that I am being parochial in putting this point to hon. Members. Rutherglen is the centre of West Lanarkshire. It serves the area and also south-east Glasgow. There is a great need for hospital accommodation of this sort. The Rutherglen Burgh Council has made every effort to accommodate the Western Regional Hospital Board. The council has offered site provisions and the like, but still we have no decision. I hope most sincerely that the Minister will use his good offices with the Western Regional Hospital Board in this matter. I speak for everyone, the medical people in my division, the town council and the county councils, when I urge the need for a general hospital in Western Lanarkshire.
  We are very conscious of the hardship involved for many people who have to travel to the out-patients' departments in the city of Glasgow, which is quite a considerable distance. A number of people have to spend long hours and indeed a lot of money—much of which they can ill-afford—in visiting relatives in the general city hospital. There is a growing number of people who must wait for ages before they can have a bed in a hospital and receive proper treatment.
  Not least we are concerned about the older people in the constituency and those who suffer from some chronic condition. We in Rutherglen are very much alive to the problems created by an ageing community. I have heard figures quoted of the percentage increase of old people that we are to have in the years
  674
  ahead and we want to do something about that. I think that the town council and the county council have tackled this problem seriously. They have looked ahead and they are doing a useful job of work.
  We realise that old folks do not take kindly to having to go to hospital and that some would be best treated in their own homes; in familiar surroundings where they would be with their own families. This helps to lessen the period of illness. We know, too, that older people form the greater proportion of those who are admitted to our general hospitals and the period for which they must stay there is much longer on average than for other cases. Both the local authorities in my division have done a very useful job in looking after the interests of what is sometimes regarded as a rather neglected section of the community. So have the voluntary bodies, but this afternoon I wish to comment and give praise for one effort which I think worth the attention of hon. Members.
  Some time ago, after a great deal of research and thought, the medical officer of the Borough of Rutherglen and his colleagues in the medical profession decided to inaugurate a consultative health centre for older people. I regard this as one of the most useful pieces of work and examples of initiative that we have experienced in the constituency and I pay tribute to those who have been involved in this experiment over the years. The aim of the centre is very simple. It is to keep the old people healthy and to prevent hospitalisation; or to reduce the period of hospitalisation should it prove necessary. We have had a great deal of co-operation from the general practitioners throughout the whole constituency. They have sent to the centre many people who are over 55 years of age and approaching the retirement age.
  When they come to the centre they are examined in three different ways. First, there is the normal medical examination which I think very important, because it provides an opportunity to deal with disease in its very early stages and to preventing disease. People who are getting on in years are advised about the problems which they are likely to face as they get older. Diet problems are

  675
  discussed and they are given advice on this matter. The care of their bodies is discussed, and I think that this sort of thing helps in dealing with the whole problem of physical health.
  What is also important is that there should be some sort of inquiry into their social conditions. As a fairly young man—I am sure that this also applies to many hon. Members—I find that sometimes we do not appreciate that there are many problems about growing old. There is a great deal of concern in the minds of those approaching retirement age and this is something for which assistance may be provided in a centre of this sort. A man who is approaching retirement age may be reassured and given proper advice about his retirement and how his leisure time may be spent. I am sure that in a considerable measure this will help to alleviate his problems and reduces anxiety.
  Not only is there an inquiry into the personal circumstances of these old people, but also inquiry is made into the circumstances of their families. Advice is given to the old man or woman and also to the family on how to tackle the problem of looking after an ageing parent. I think that very real help may be given in this way. Advice may be given on housing and on financial problems. No one will dispute that these problems create a great deal of depression and anxiety among older citizens which in the long run leads to much illness among the members of this section of the community.
  Many people have attended the centre and receive much benefit from the advice given by the medical staff, by laymen associated with it and by the voluntary bodies who help in this work. To sum up, I would say that in essence the centre is a projection of the geriatric unit into the ambit of the local authority in a joint effort to make a preventive attack on illness and to endeavour to keep older people active, healthy and in their own homes. This seems to me an excellent notion. My plea to the Minister is that this whole question may be properly examined. I hope sincerely that as the years go on the number of such centres will be multiplied, and that eventually they will occupy a statutory place in the country.
  676
  I know that a project of this sort costs a great deal of money. It means that many more people must work with the medical profession and that there must be training and so on. I know that already many calls are made on local authorities for money, but I have been persuaded that this would be money worth spending and the staff find it worth while to spend time and effort on a job of this sort. If we can save our old people from moving into hospital, save time spent in hospital beds and, above all, give a better way of life to those who have given their best years of their working life, we shall equate those benefits with the amount of money spent.
  I make this my first plea to the Secretary of State and to the Minister of Health. When I came to this House a few days ago I was told by a very senior hon. Member that he made a plea in his maiden speech but it was 14 years before he saw the fulfilment of his ideals and aspirations. I trust that it will not be 14 years before I see my hopes fulfilled. If the Minister accepts and studies the problem, he will earn my gratitude and the gratitude of those concerned with the welfare of our older people.
  5.31 p.m.
  Dame Edith Pitt: It is a very great pleasure to congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Mackenzie) on his maiden speech. All hon. Members will have been impressed by the sympathy and insight he has shown into the problems of the constituency which he now has the honour to represent. Not least, from this side of the Committee, may I say to him how much we appreciated his generous comments about his predecessor, Dick Brooman-White, who commanded the affection of all of us.
  I thought the hon. Member was very wise to make as his main point the provision of services for old people to enable them to stay in their own homes. This is absolutely right, because what our older folk need is to have their own bits and pieces around them, to feel that they still belong to the community and to enjoy their independence. I was most interested to learn of the consultative health centre for old people which has been established in his constituency. He must have a progressive authority. I

  677
  hope to hear that it is being copied by other authorities in Scotland.
  I cannot follow the hon. Member on his other points, because of course Scotland has its own Health Service, of which it is proud, but no doubt there will be further comment from Scottish hon. Members who hope to take part in this debate. I do understand what a task it is to make one's first speech in this Chamber. I have been thinking today of my own maiden speech, because I spoke, among other things, on the Health Service. I wish to assure the hon. Member that we all felt he acquitted himself very well, and we shall look forward to hearing him on a future occasion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
  This is almost a maiden occasion for me. There is a tradition that when one has been a Minister in a Department one does not speak on that subject matter until a decent interval has elapsed. No one has ever laid down what a decent interval is, but I thought that with nearly two years gone since I had the honour of being at the Ministry of Health I could properly make a contribution here today, and I am very glad to do so.
  It is perhaps as well that I had the pleasant task of congratulating the hon. Member on his maiden speech, because that reduced my temperature, which had been rising considerably during the speech of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson). The Hospital Development Plan was a very fine piece of work, and I take pride in my own share in it. When the hon. Member said the plan had been built on guesswork, I thought he could have very little realisation of the tremendous amount of work which was contributed to that plan.
  I should like to explain to him and to the Committee that, although, of course, the plan owed much to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who brought his tremendous drive, energy and enthusiasm and humanity to it, it also owed much to the departmental officers and the members and officers of regional hospital boards. It was time that we had an overall plan, because we had not had one since the
  678
  introduction of the National Health Service in 1946, although, of course, we had been developing in various parts of the country.
  My right hon. Friend decided to set up machinery for assessing what would be needed in the years ahead. We found that already regional hospital boards had done a great deal of work on this. They had been thinking about it, and almost all of them had some kind of plan prepared.
  Sir B. Stross: On a point of order, Sir Harry. Is it possible for us to get a little comfort by having some of the light precluded, because we cannot see?
  Mr. George Thomas: Come and sit here.
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir Harry Legge-Bourke): Notice has already been taken of the hon. Member's discomfiture and steps are being taken to relieve it.
  Dame Edith Pitt: I was saying that regional hospital boards had already been busy in preparation which went towards the Hospital Development Plan. It is right that we should put on record the work which went to the actual production of the plan. The Department itself was driven extremely hard. Although I know that those in the Department loved it, they found themselves caught in a wave of enthusiasm for the plan. They and the Ministers worked very hard late into the night and at the weekends in its preparation.
  Thus the plan was produced, but it was not meant to be a firm plan. The hon. Member of St. Pancras, North recognised that. We stressed that it was to be flexible, but it gave the broad cohesive pattern in which hospitals were to be developed, the types of bed which were needed and the amounts of money we thought could be made available, which was another important factor. When the hon. Member said that it was playing at planning, I wondered what his own party did when hon. Members opposite were in power—very little indeed. Two hospitals were started and none was completed.
  Mr. K. Robinson: I do not want my temperature to be raised like that of the hon. Lady, but she must know that it takes more than three years to build a

  679
  hospital from the beginning of planning to completion. We were in charge of the Health Service for only three years.
  Dame Edith Pitt: Yes, but too little was set on foot and we have made such good progress in recent years that I think we have made a contribution. I wrote down at the end of my notes when I heard the hon. Member speaking, "An exercise in eyewash".
  Dr. Mabon: The hon. Lady ought to know about that.
  Dame Edith Pitt: We are making considerable progress in hospital development. In contrast to the position in 1951, when the party opposite quitted power, we are spending ten times as much on hospital building. That in itself should prove what developments are taking place all over the country. There are more beds. I hope that hon. Members opposite have bothered to obtain a copy of the progress report, which shows the total number of beds. There are more hospital doctors. There are more hospital nurses, full-time and particularly part-time.
  We have spent a great deal more money, particularly in the last three years, since the plan was introduced. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland gave the figure. When the plan was introduced it was meant to be a living thing, or, shall I say, a dynamic plan, as "dynamic" is a very popular word with the party opposite. It was meant to move forward all the time and was to be reviewed all the time. This means it is now envisaged that, instead of the original £500 million of expenditure in the first decade, after two reviews the expenditure rises to £750 million, or an increase of £160 million in real terms, as my right hon. Friend has already told the Committee. Further, the last revision showed that about 60 new schemes had already been included in the plan for England and Wales. So we are taking care of changes as they arise.
  Sir B. Stross: I know that the hon. Lady believes—this is her argument— that much has been done in the last few years. Indeed, the Review says this:
  "…95 major schemes have been completed, and 66 new or substantially remodelled hospitals and 84 other major schemes have been started."
  680
  Could the hon. Lady tell me how many of the major schemes were not in existence before the plan about which she is talking?
  Dame Edith Pitt: I have not that detail, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, but I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will be able to say something about it in winding up. It was envisaged when the plan was presented three years ago that we should need far more maternity beds and far more beds for the chronic sick. We know that the demand for maternity beds has been even greater than was envisaged when the plan was drafted. It is true that the Registrar-General's estimates fell short of the mark. This is not surprising. The people have enjoyed prosperity over a continuous period of years. They have more babies. They have them at a younger age. This leads to pressure on maternity beds.
  There is another factor in the pressure on maternity beds which arise in towns such as the one I represent. We have a large immigrant population. They are happy in big families. They are less happy in their housing, which is often most unsatisfactory and overcrowded. Thus, when the women are pregnant it leads to demand for beds in a hospital and pressure on the maternity accommodation in the area. This is a problem in big cities. I am sure that it has added to the demand for maternity beds.
  The plan also envisaged that there be more beds for the chronic sick. I hope that this means more beds for geriatric treatment in the light of our continuing experience of that branch of medicine. I am sure that it is a good thing—I take up a point made by the hon. Member for Rutherglen—when we can provide accommodation in a geriatric bed, because it means that the patient is there for probably only the same number of months as he would be for years in a chronic sick ward, because one can rehabilitate him and return him to his own home. I should be pleased if more money was invested on geriatric beds.
  The plan also said that there would would be a gradual running down of the number of beds needed for mentally sick patients. The last figures I saw indicated that the running down was

  681
  much as had been expected. I would like to know if this is still the case.
  The plan also envisaged a reduction in the number of beds for the treatment of tuberculosis. This is why my own maiden speech sprang to my mind when the hon. Member for Rutherglen was speaking, because, although I was speaking on the Loyal Address, I was so happy to tell the House, fresh from my experience as a member of a hospital management committee, what a wonderful vista it was that at last we were almost on top of this dread disease and really were conquering what used to be thought of as a killer. This has meant a marked reduction in the number of beds formerly devoted to the treatment of tuberculosis.
  I have a little concern about this, and I hope that my right hon. Friend can give me some information. Again because of the number of immigrants in large towns, beds are being occupied for the treatment of tuberculosis which we did not expect. I wonder if the tremendous reduction in the number of beds devoted to this disease is now less marked, because, from what I have read and from what I have seen in hospitals, I believe that a very large number of coloured patients fall ill with this disease. It would be very useful to have figures.
  The results of what we have achieved under the plan are to be seen. The hon. Member for Stoke, Central quoted figures from the plan, which I would have given the Committee, of the number of schemes completed or in hand. This is not a paper plan. It represents real performance. The results are to be seen. If hon. Members question this, I suggest that they use their eyes when they go round the country or, better still, refer to the results in their speeches, as I always do. In speeches I have already made during the course of the current year I have been happy to say, for instance, up in Cumberland, "The Hospital Plan is making progress and you can see the results of it in the big new district hospital at Whitehaven". I visited that hospital four years ago to see phases 1 and 2, so this is not a recent development. When I was speaking at Devizes by-election, I said to the local people, "Look at your wonderful new Princess Margaret Hospital in Swindon, most of which has
  682
  already been completed". When I was speaking in Norwich I could say to them, "Look at the development plan for your Norwich and Norfolk hospitals ". In my own town of Birmingham I could say," Look at the new department of Selly Oak hospital. Look at the new geriatric unit which was opened only last week. Look at the development in the East Birmingham Hospital", which is the one nearest to me.
  This is perhaps a very minor detail, but I was very happy to be told only a week ago by a member of the East Birmingham Hospital Management Committee—this will not figure in the Plan, but it is one of the things which is going on—that the Committee had converted a ward to make beds available for general practitioners to treat their own patients in the hospital. I think that is a very good thing. If anyone wants any further evidence, I advise them to look across the river at the new St. Thomas's rising there, or to go round the corner to what is called "The Members' Hospital"—Westminster Hospital—where the street is blocked at the moment because of the new development taking place there.
  I have looked in vain through "Signposts for the 'Sixties" for any reference to proposals in connection with the National Health Service. If I may borrow a phrase from the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North, what, did I find?—not a hint; well, perhaps just a hint, because it referred to the fact that the Service had ceased to be a free Service. Since then some members of the Party opposite have said that they will review the health charges. If they do, I hope that they will tell the public how they propose to raise the extra £200 million which will be needed for the programme. [Interruption.] If an extra £200 million is to be raised, would it not be better spent on the provision of more maternity beds and more geriatric beds?
  Mr. Wilkins: The hon. Lady should remember that it is not so long ago that her party raised £300 million by a poll tax and then did not use it for the purpose for which they had raised it.
  Dame Edith Pitt: I am not clear. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is clear. He has not made me so. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North mentioned the health and welfare activities of local

  683
  authorities. Perhaps the extra £200 million might be used for those activities. For the first time local authorities have been asked to set out their proposals for 10 years, a good thing because provision up and down the country is patchy and the exercise in asking them to say what they propose to do is also an object lesson in showing them that some local authorties are better than others. That in itself is a good thing. Perhaps the money might be used to establish more training centres for the mentally subnormal. We should always have these people, particularly the youngsters, in mind because they should have the same chances as the rest.
  The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North concluded his speech by saying that his remarks had been rather arid and he would have liked to have spoken at length about the human issues behind the problem of the provision of hospital services. I am glad he said that. There is a phrase in the Hospital Plan which reads, "Hospitals are for people". I wrote it. I am glad I wrote it, because this is what is means to me. We can have good buildings which are well staffed and well equipped. I have seen hospitals in many parts of the world, from the United States to Russia, Turkey to Mexico, but our new ones are as good as the best of any I have seen, although I agree that we can make further progress.
  We can all be proud of the National Health Service. The people of this country value it. I am glad that we have more humanity and kindness in the Service than ever before and I pay tribute for this to those who work in the Service. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North was kind enough to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was the first to say publicly that good relations in hospitals were an important part of the work. This is very true, and I tried to say it privately, when Parliamentary Secretary, at every function I attended in hospitals. I was hesitant about whether it was the job of the junior Minister to say it publicly, and I was equally hesitant about the way doctors would take it. In fact, they were ahead of me. They felt the necessity for kindness and understanding, and particularly for telling
  684
  patients what was wrong with them, so far as was medically practicable.
  I know that the Service is not perfect. My sister went to a hospital in Birmingham for an out-patients' examination. She waited a very long time. She was the last in the queue, and when her turn came the out-patients' sister took a note of what my sister said and then stated, "Oh, varicose veins. Skirt and stockings". That was all. I dare say that that sister had had a long and tiring session. However, it is still a human job which she must perform.
  I prefer to quote the story of a friend of mine who is still in hospital in Birmingham. She has been there for six weeks while the doctors are looking for a remote bug. She cannot praise the Service enough. They have been wonderful to her, she has told me, in kindness and in every other way, even though she accepts that she is a difficult case. She tells me that they explain to her what they are doing and treat her as an adult, intelligent woman. She says that the doctors sit on her bed and tell her what kind of tests and so on they are doing. I am not sure that some of the matrons of the past would approve of doctors sitting on beds, but it is an indication of the change in the pattern of the Service, the quality of the people in it and their outlook. When I think of matrons I used to meet in the Department, when I chaired their committee meetings, serene and dedicated women, I know that we have a good National Health Service and can look forward to it expanding in the direction we all want.
  5.56 p.m.
  Sir Barnett Stross: I have often had the pleasure, particularly in Committee upstairs, of being the speaker to be called after the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame Edith Pitt). She is a formidable controversialist who knows a good deal more about political infighting than I do. Indeed, I think she is more practised in speaking than I am, but while listening carefully to her remarks today I had to think that her speech was very much like the curate's egg—jolly good in parts; the parts in which she showed what great affection she has for the National Health

  685
  Service as a result of her work as Parliamentary Secretary for some years. It is impossible for anyone who has touched the Service at any point professionally not to have very great pride in it.
  I desire to make my speech in my own way and, in doing so, I will be answering some of the points she raised. Some of my hon. Friends will, no doubt, also refer to her remarks. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) made a fighting speech in which he suggested that things had gone wrong. He was not blaming the Department but a political Minister for having produced a plan in a hurry. He accused him of having done that to get political advantage and kudos.
  The hon. Member for Edgbaston would not deny that there was a great deal of pressure of work. Indeed, she spoke about people in the Department working late into the night. In other words, people were overworked in the matter and demands were made from the regions and hospital management committees for quick answers. As the hon. Lady told us, people had to work late often at weekends—the Minister as well as the professional advisers—and this tends to show that a little more thought would have been better and that a little more time would not have done any harm to the Hospital Plan.
  The answer we have been given is that this was not a 10-year plan but a sort of perpetual motion plan—something which was flexible and about which we could not think in terms of five years now and five years after that. It is on that basis that we debated it at the time. We are now told that it is a perpetual plan and I am accepting that it is. I certainly hope that it is, because it should be.
  If one is doing one's work properly, in accordance with the sort of service we are discussing, the housing of patients in hospitals is something which we must go on improving all the time. There never can be a real pause because we do not want obsolescence to catch up. This means that we must work continuously, not for two periods of five years, but all the time—and everything depends on what is available in the way of manpower and resources to devote to the service. All the time one must consider
  686
  how many men will be available to build, what materials are available, what are the priorities and where it all comes in the general priorities of the nation.
  I am, in part, agreeing with the hon. Member for Edgbaston, although this is not the way the matter was presented to us in 1961. I interrupted the hon. Lady when she was speaking and suggested that I thought that many of the schemes which are described were started appreciably before, most of them some years before, the plan was presented to us. I am not sure how many, and I hope that the Minister will tell us. I think I am not being unfair in saying nearly all the completed schemes were well under way before the so-called 10-year plan was debated in Parliament. If I am wrong I hope I will be corrected.
  There have been miscalculations and they were due, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North said, to the fact that the whole thing was done in too much of a hurry. We have, in part, been discussing money this afternoon, but what has money really got to to with this problem? Statistics do not build hospitals. Men and materials and will power build hospitals.
  The fact that expenditure was £500 million three years ago and now is up to £750 million, which the British Medical Association suggested in the first place, does not worry me very much. I do not think that there has been difficulty through lack of money per se. The difficulty has been that we have not had our priorities right and architects and contractors have been more interested in building great office blocks than in building hospitals because the offices were much more profitable. I remember the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Powell) when he was Minister of Health answering my question whether the limiting factors were that we had not been able to obtain a sufficient number of architects, quantity surveyors and contractors all ready at the same time. When I asked two years ago whether this was going to be the real bottleneck his answer, quite typically, was just "Yes". He said that and sat down.
  Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I noted the

  687
  hon. Member's comment about office building and that we had the priorities wrong. My information is that if we had stopped all office building some years back the amount of resources freed from office building would have made only an infinitesimal difference to the hospital building programme. If the hon. Member does not have the figures to prove his statement he should withdraw it.
  Sir B. Stross: That is an interesting doctrine. I have not the figures to prove or disprove what has been said but, like every other hon. Member, I have a pair of eyes and I see the vast amount of work that is being done in the building of these office premises.
  Mr. Keith Stainton: May I have the opportunity to give the hon. Member a figure? Office building represented 4 per cent. of the total financial resources devoted to building, which were £3,100 million, in 1963.
  Sir B. Stross: If that had not been used for office building it would have made the task of the present and past Ministers of Health much easier and it would have pleased all of us. I am grateful to the hon. Member for that figure.
  In 1938–39, at today's prices, hospital building was running at about £40 million. In 1962–63 it was about £35·9 million. Now we have heard today that it is appreciably more, at the rate of about £66 million this year. Therefore, at last, and for the first time, we are spending more money this year on hospitals than we did in the last year before the war. Then we had the war years and the stringent years after the war when capital expenditure on hospitals was very low. The leeway to be made up therefore is enormous, and if we are talking about priorities and trying to get them right we must think not only in terms of the fact that it is now 19 years since the war but in terms of our knowledge that there are new needs. This is a great service which has existed since 1948, and the £750 million now spoken about may well prove insufficient to meet the nation's requirements.
  If, as I suggest, it is true that these plans were produced too quickly this
  688
  would account for what is now happening by way of revision of the plans year by year. I do not find this objectionable provided that one condition is met, namely that the work goes on. I want to know how much priority the service will have and how many hospitals will be built. I said earlier that nearly all the completed schemes that have been mentioned started before the Hospital Plan was instituted. I should therefore like to ask three questions.
  The first and a most important one is whether the Ministry is able to declare that as a result of its endeavours it can shorten the time it takes to give approval to a set of plans. It used to take a very long time for the plans to go backwards and forwards between the region and Whitehall, and sometimes it was two years before plans could be agreed. I should like to know therefore whether the Minister has done anything to shorten this period.
  Secondly, the Ministry has instituted a campaign for standardisation and I think that the Minister ought to say something more about what success has been achieved in this matter. Thirdly, is the Minister satisfied that enough help comes from the regional boards themselves? Two years ago I felt certain that there were not sufficient architects available at a regional level for this new building programme. I hoped then that the regional boards would not hesitate to go out and employ architects to augment their staffs. I should like to know to what extent this is being done.
  When I raised the question of standards I was assured by the Secretary of State for Scotland that there would be no lowering of them. I was glad to hear this, because I am certain that although we use prefabrication and industrial building techniques we can build magnificent hospitals. After all, we do not need to build them to last for 10,000 years. It is enough to build them to last for 50 to 60 years, and if anybody is interested in substandard hospitals there are many of them to be seen. We do not want those to remain for very much longer. We on this side of the Committee feel that this is a matter of urgency, and I hope that hon. Members opposite feel the same.

  689
  There will be competing and most clamant and urgent claims. Implementation of the Robbins Report will mean a demand for architects and contractors similar to those we demand for the hospital service. There will also be tremendous competition from the Buchanan Report recommendations, and if we do not strike a blow now and insist that hospitals should have the highest priority we shall have revised plans year after year but very few hospitals in the end.
  I am delighted that a high priority is being given in the hospital service to increasing the number of maternity beds. Society is changing and families are not the size that they used to be in Edwardian or Victorian days. Standards are very much higher and it is one of the great crimes of our time that a mother should ever die in childbirth or that the child should die or that their lives should be in danger. We want to make it possible that at least every first baby is born in a maternity hospital and that maternity hospitals should be attached wherever possible to a general hospital so that every skill in medicine and surgery is made available.
  I applaud what the Government are doing about this but I should also like to inquire about psychiatric needs. Provision to meet these needs is most uneven throughout the country—good in some places and extremely bad in others. It is equally true of provision for the aged. There are some authorities which feel that the provision of geriatric services is very important and they act accordingly. The City of Stoke-on-Trent, for instance, does so or is determined to do so. However, the same standard is less apparent in other areas.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland spoke at length on infectious diseases and about the outbreak of typhoid in Aberdeen. I was fascinated to learn that 20 State-registered nurses trained in fevers had come forward voluntarily to help. This was fine. But I wonder whether it is true—I am told that it is—that it is in the mind of the Ministry to put an end to this particular register and to have no more specific fever training. If this is so, I suggest that we ought to think again.
  Moreover, if we are to plan for a reduction of 12 per cent. in the number
  690
  of beds—the hon. Lady touched on this point—because we are able to control mental illness to some extent without hospital treatment, we are conquering the ravages of tuberculosis, and infectious diseases no longer seem to be the problem they used to be, we must remember nevertheless that there are other antagonistic factors at work which are putting society in danger.
  For example, our habits are changing. We are eating out more. This is certainly true in the big cities. When we eat out more, we are in greater danger than when we eat at home. Air travel is now quite common. Many, if not most, of the 100 cases of typhoid we used to get in a normal year were contracted abroad. Since air travel is increasing, we can expect more trouble. We have considerable immigration, and, as typhoid is commoner in other countries than it is in Britain, we can expect a greater number of people who work in kitchens, in restaurants and where food is served to be symptomless carriers who have escaped notice. We have supermarkets now instead of the small intimate shop, and we know very well that the supermarket is a dangerous place, if there is likely to be any contamination of food, because of the large number of people served there. Moreover, in London and the great cities there are residential homes for people who have not got homes of their own, and these people tend to be riddled with dysentery, with sonne bacillus and with other forms of enteric disease.
  For all these reasons, we should not be complacent about the Aberdeen disaster at all, and we should not assume that it will not happen similarly in other places at other times. If it does happen, it may well be that, instead of 250 cases, we shall have 1,000 on occasion.
  If my fears are well founded, I hope that the Minister will reconsider some of these matters. I have been looking recently at a survey covering the years 1961 and 1962 at the Western Hospital in the Fulham Road in London where there are about 90 cubicles for infectious diseases and two sets of 20 beds each for the treatment of people who need artificial respiration; 20 are kept in use and 20 are kept in reserve in case of a sudden outbreak of polio of the paralytic type. The people

  691
  involved in this service fear that the number of beds they have available will be diminished very shortly because of excessive optimism in the Ministry about the fall in infectious disease.
  They have told me that, in the years 1961 and 1962, they had to refuse over 1,000 cases which they could not take in at all. This is rather bad, remembering that in the area of this hospital 500,000 people are served by these 90 cubicles. They serve Fulham, Kensington and Westminster and, in addition, are intended to provide an extra service to another 1 million round about in case of trouble, though they have not been called upon for this latter purpose for many years. However, if in two years the service has had to refuse 1,000 people, this proves that there are not enough beds available rather than too many. Yet the fear is that beds are to be closed, the Ministry's policy being that, as we build the new hospitals about which we are talking, a ward of about 24 beds will be put at the top of each hospital for acute septic cases, and for the sort of staphylococcal infections which one cannot control, the assumption otherwise being that there will not be any serious outbreaks which cannot readily be handled.
  When I heard the Secretary of State speak about how Aberdeen has handled the outbreak of typhoid there, I felt very proud of the way in which the people of that town have taken it in their stride, but, by Jove, it has incommoded a lot of other people, and no one can say that it has been easy for them. It has dislocated the town's normal services. I hope that it will be a lesson to us all in the South as well as in the North.
  A word now about staff. If the Governments of India and Pakistan were to change their policy and say that they would not allow their young people to spend years here "practising on the natives", as they do, and they wanted them at home because they needed them there, as is the fact, our hospital service could break. Forty per cent. of the junior registrars would go in a moment. I know why we have got into this state. We remember the Willink Report and the miscalculation there. We are, I think, better off for nurses than for doctors. In my opinion, the doctor-staffing
  692
  of hospitals is the most dangerous of all now.
  Next, the pharmacists. I heard only today that, at any time now, this week or next week, a great teaching hospital in London, the Middlesex, is to go in for prescribing on E.C.10 forms because the authorities there cannot staff the pharmaceutical department of their own great hospital. This is tragic. It is due to meanness on our part, or, may I say, on the part of different Ministers. We have never been able to attract enough pharmacists into the service because, even though we on this side have agitated for years, they have always been paid very much less than they were paid outside. Pharmacists are difficult enough to get in the ordinary chemist's shop outside the hospital service. They are at a premium there, although they are very much better paid than in hospital. I hope that the Ministry will give further consideration to this. It seems absurd to throw money away because one cannot dispense in a great teaching hospital.
  Lastly, food. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) told me this afternoon that at St. George's Mental Hospital in Stafford it had been found possible to make considerable savings for only a little capital expenditure. A great deal of food tended to be wasted because it was not properly cooked, it had been cooked too long and the taste and savour had gone. People would not eat it, and there was great waste.
  Mrs. Harriet Slater: And it was not nicely served.
  Sir B. Stross: And it was not well served. By altering their techniques, the hospital authorities have been able to prove to themselves that it is possible, by the better preparation and service of food, to save a great deal of money and to make the patients much happier, which, of course, in a mental hospital is very important.
  We are all involved when we discuss a service of this type, for it is romantic, wonderful and great. It is true that in the early days—and I served on the Committee stage of the National Health Service Bill—attacks were made by hon. Members opposite. They did not like it. They regarded it as socialisation of medicine. I believe that they would

  693
  not now allow this service to be taken away.
  I know that the hon. Lady the Member for Edgbaston, who is good at infighting, knows that this is the best service probably in the world. Only the other day, I saw an interesting analysis by an American professor of medicine of the difference between our hospital service and the American one. On average, our in-patients stay for 16 days. In America, they stay for eight days, because every trivial thing is taken into hospital. We pick our cases, take them in and do a piece of work on them. Our staff are a team and have great pride in their institutions. In America, however, the outside doctors can come in and follow their patients and are jealous that no one should come near them, because money enters into it. Therefore, their system is poor compared with ours.
  When we get tributes of that type from knowledgeable people in the United States, it is fair to say that we should on no account begrudge our own Service whatever it costs to make it what we think it is already—the best in the world.
  The Temporary Chairman: Mr. Tiley.
  Mr. G. Thomas: On a point of order. Before the hon. Member speaks, Sir Harry, and with the kind permission of my hon. Friend, do you think that we could now enjoy a little of our summer light because the sun has gone?
  The Temporary Chairman: I am not certain whether natural illumination comes under the heading of getting out of order, but I will certainly see that the wishes of the Committee are made known.
  Sir B. Stross: Further to that point of order. When I asked that the candles be put out, they were very bright. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) that we should have them introduced again.
  6.22 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Tiley: I hope that Opposition Members will be speedily restored to the comfort which they deserve. I like to see the light shining in the dark places. It is a happy thing that: I am able to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Sir B. Stross). I usually feel glad if he follows me, because if I drop I know
  694
  that I am being followed by the medical adviser of the House and will receive sustenance. Indeed, an old friend of mine recently sent me a sympathetic article which the hon. Member had published in one of our national papers about the general health of Members of the House of Commons. I hope that the hon. Member thinks that I look all right this afternoon. If not, perhaps he will see me outside afterwards. The old friend of mine who sent me the article said, "Read this and be careful".
  The hon. Member made a point about immigrants. In my City of Bradford, we are happy that so many immigrants are serving in our hospitals. In our vast industrial areas and cities, they are doing immense work. It should, however, be considered that there is a good deal of illness which has been brought about by this great entrance to our family life as a nation and that these people are in effect, in service and in help, repaying in the best way for our own well-being.
  Sir B. Stross: I entirely agree and I am glad that the hon. Member has said this. They repay us handsomely. The hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame Edith Pitt) pointed out that some of those people are occupying beds because they get tuberculosis when they come here. The truth is that in the main they are negative reactors and they pick up their tuberculosis from others when they come and live a different life here. It is, therefore, our fault. We should be more careful and considerate for them.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) has said how those people serve us. I was merely drawing attention to the fact that, because they come from countries where typhoid is more prevalent than it is here, there will tend to be a high percentage of them who are symptomless carriers. Therefore, we should be careful.
  Mr. Tiley: I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame Edith Pitt) dealt with some of the things that the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) said from the Opposition Front Bench. My hon. Friend said that after a decent lapse of time, she would make a decent speech. It was an excellent one. We must try

  695
  to be here some time when my hon. Friend makes an indecent speech!
  I could not help feeling that it was harmful to our standing in the House of Commons to listen to the type of speech which the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North made. It surely does no good to the standing of the House of Commons when Government White Papers are alleged to be dishonest—misleading, possibly, if one likes, or giving a slant, yes; but to allege that Government White Papers, presented to the nation and to the House of Commons, are dishonest does no service to our standing either in the House of Commons or as politicians outside it I was glad that my hon. Friend reproved the hon. Member.
  The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North seemed to think that when my right hon. Friend replies to the debate tonight he will shirk answering all the actuarial calculations which were presented to him. I assure the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend will not shirk them, because he is from Yorkshire and Yorkshiremen do not duck from fast bowling.
  People are a bit sick of party politics in the National Health Service. If some of our speeches when we make these party points were made to the doctors or to the nurses, they would not be received very kindly. We politicians, on both sides, often make mistakes in this field, but the service is saved all the time by those who work in it and, very often, in spite of the decisions which the politicians make.
  I wish that I could find a greater humility in the attack which was made from the Opposition Front Bench and a greater awareness of the problems involved. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston, it was said that it was not possible to build hospitals during the three or four years when hon. Members opposite were in charge of the Administration. I have with me a newspaper cutting, which I shall not read maliciously. I wish to read it only so that there may be an awareness on the benches opposite of the problems involved. I took this cutting from the Yorkshire Post last Saturday, 6th June. It is quite brief, so I will read it.
  696
  It states:
  "Faced with cuts in expenditure for the coming year, the hospital management committees in the area of the Leeds Regional Hospital Board are finding it difficult to revise their estimates without impairing their hospital services. The cuts in the Harrogate and Ripon area have resulted in the dismissal of more than 60 members of hospital staffs, mainly part-time workers, and similar reductions have had to be made by other committees. The chairman of the management committee said a portion of the cut would fall on provisions 'and at a time when the cost of provisions is rising steeply it may be necessary to curtail the dietaries of both patients and staff'."
  That is not a reference to last month or last week. That was life under the Labour Government of 1951.
  I want hon. Members to consider the problem which faces us with a little more awareness of the difficulties. Hon. Members opposite bore the heat of battle of those difficult days. I admit that. Not only were we not building hospitals. We were even dispensing with staff. We were not merely failing to cure many people in the hospitals which were not being built, but we were not able at the same time to feed properly the staffs and the patients.
  In view of that experience, I wish that hon. Members opposite would view a little more kindly the problem which is facing us in trying to improve the National Health Service. It is unfair to say that members of my party opposed it. Certain sections of the service were opposed. The problem which this article in the Yorkshire Post deals with is the result of some of the mistakes made in the grand concept of the National Health Service which now, I admit, is the envy of the world. My hon. Friends and I are concerned to improve it and not to stunt its growth.
  Mr. G. Thomas: Since the hon. Member is getting historical facts on the record, he will recall that the party opposite, to which he belongs, voted against the Second Reading and Third Reading of the National Health Service Act, and we do that only if we are opposed to the principle of the Measure.
  Mr. Tiley: That is not true. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is true."] It is not true. Only against certain important Amendments was there an overwhelming vote on this side. The party which I represent, and which I have represented for many years in the House of Commons, has spent

  697
  many millions of £s on every aspect of the National Health Service which was created in 1948.
  Mr. Julian Snow: I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the real historical facts of the opposition to the general proposition of the National Health Service Act. When it was going through Committee upstairs, I was acting as a Whip, and I can say that not only on Second Reading and Third Reading but day after day on every conceivable form of Amendment the Conservatives opposed the Measure.
  Mr. Tiley: The hon. Member is helping to confirm my case. My party voted against reasoned Amendments and it voted for reasoned Amendments during the Committee stage of the Bill, but it has never been against the National Health Service, and the proof of our interest in it is to be seen in the increase in expenditure which there has been on all aspects of it since we came to power.
  I am not surprised that there were opponents on these benches to some of the things which hon. Members opposite did. Some very grievous errors were made. No matter how noble the concept might have been, no matter how wonderful the scheme might be now, many of the difficulties we have encountered in the last few years have been due to the initial grave errors which were made. These errors have been pointed out not merely from these benches. One of the first mistakes made concerned the cost of the scheme. It was said that its cost, in its first impact on the economy, would be about £100 million. I may be £40 or £50 million out. The one thing that I am certain about is that at the end of the first year it was £200 million in debt. The estimates made of its cost were out—
  Mr. A. Woodburn: As one of the Ministers who initiated the National Health Service, may I say that the hon. Member's recollection is totally wrong? The estimates for the scheme were not out, but the Labour Government found that it had to improve the conditions of work of the nurses. We had to give them shorter hours and better wages. The increased cost of the National Health Service in the years following its initiation was due entirely to the
  698
  improvement in the conditions of work of the staff, especially the nurses, and this could not be avoided.
  Mr. Tiley: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman's memory of those fateful years for the National Health Service is so wrong. Millions of millions of £s were necessary for medicines—
  Mr. Woodburn: No.
  Mr. Tiley: Yes, they were. Millions of £s more for spectacles and the dental service were needed than was anticipated. The opticians were working 23 and 24 hours a day. Taking 100 as the figure for spectacles provided, 60 people had two pairs. All that was miscalculated, and a great deal of the trouble which has ensued has arisen because the party opposite always gets its sums wrong. It is brilliant in English. It would pass the 11-plus any day. But it falls down on its arithmetic.
  The other great mistake which was made was that a great deal of the voluntary service which he hospitals had been receiving was destroyed. The party opposite cut it like a knife. It was a grave disservice to the well-being of our country when so much voluntary work was stopped.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: The hon. Gentleman was a Member of the House of Commons when the Guillebaud Committee was formed by the party opposite and reported to the House. Is it not true that the Guillebaud Committee acquitted the National Health Service of false charges of extravagance and waste? Is it not also true that at the time dealt with by the report in that malicious cutting, as the hon. Member described it, from the Yorkshire Post the Conservative Party, in opposition, criticised the Labour Government for spending too much money on the Health Service?
  Mr. Tiley: The party opposite, when in power, had to impose the first charges on the National Health Service. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Labour Government had to impose the first ceiling on the National Health Service. What we were doing was trying to get the Labour Government out as quickly as possible so that we could come to power and improve the service.
  Mr. K. Robinson: Just before the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), the hon. Gentleman made a point about voluntary services. Does he not give a thought to the thousands and thousands of men and women who are doing hours of unpaid work per week on hospital management committees, regional hospital boards and boards of governors?
  Mr. Tiley: I am indeed thinking of them. I want to see their numbers trebled and multiplied to what they were in the days before the National Health Service started.
  I did not intend to retail this little story, but at the commencement of this great service there came to my office in Bradford an old man of 75 who for 35 years, and paying his own expenses, had acted as a secretary to a small nursing association in one of the villages near Bradford. He stood there with tears in his eyes because hon. Members opposite had sacked him and in his place there was a clerk getting £750 a year for doing a job which an old man of over 70 had done for 35 years for nothing. That is the type of work which hon. Members opposite stopped. Seventy-five per cent. of hon. Members opposite gave a promise in writing to day-to-day working people, largely members of their party, who were helping to run the approved societies and link up the collection—[Interruption.]—I am dealing with the intervention. I shall deal also with the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) if he goes on.
  Mr. G. Thomas: I am endeavouring, to the best of my ability, to get into the debate, and I hope to deal with the hon. Member after he has sat down.
  Mr. Tiley: I shall get on a lot quicker if hon. Members opposite do not interrupt. It adds to the interest of the debate, but I intended to make a very constructive speech. I will go back to my notes.
  I am in the very happy position of gazing from my bedroom window in the house where I live in my constituency and watching a new hospital being erected. It is taking away part of the view, but I am pleased that it is being built because it will be a great asset to
  700
  our city. It is lovely to see a new hospital growing. This one is being built very quickly. The winter was excellent for building, and the hospital is well up to date. I hope that before long the Minister will be visiting our city to open it.
  But there was a long delay before the first sod was cut, and I want to say a word or two in a constructive fashion about the delays which occur when a new hospital is mooted. The land is provided and the money is made available, and then we have the interminable eternal triangle—the hospital management committee, the regional board and the Minister. I cannot believe that in these days of executive administrative ability one would choose this method for building hospitals quickly. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend if he is certain that we have the best way of linking these three things.
  Our management committees consist of men who built hospitals before Whitehall ever thought about it. Indeed the hospital outside my house is being built to replace one that is more than a hundred years old, built before the Labour Party was born. Even if we have a very efficient hospital management committee matters must go to and fro between the committee and the region and between the region and the Minister at the centre. A month elapses before plans are approved. With all the schemes which are coming about, a mountain of clerical work, plans and specifications must be accumulating in London. I do not see any way out of this but decentralisation.
  Another important point is that all the time building costs are growing. That is to be deplored. It is a matter very largely of wages, and no one wants wages curtailed. But when sketch plans are agreed by the hospital board and then agreed by the regional board at, say, a figure of £1 million, they then have to go to London, and by the time final approval is obtained the cost will have risen to £1,100 million. Then the scheme has to go back to the region for rechecking to find a way of cutting out the £100,000. Some means must be found to deal with these matters more expeditiously.
  I want now to make a comment about the epidemic in Aberdeen and say how

  701
  much those of us in cities where similar epidemics have been endured in recent years have admired the work of the Medical Officer of Health in Aberdeen. I am sure that we are all glad that the epidemic is drawing to an end. In my city we had the last major epidemic in the country. This was about 18 months ago when we had a smallpox epidemic. It extended over the Christmas Recess. Hon. Members representing Aberdeen need not be alarmed about the future when they read horrid articles about their city. The same things were said about Bradford, and when I came back here after Christmas nobody asked me whether I had had a happy Christmas. Everybody said "Have you been vaccinated?". It is on that theme that I want to make a point.
  One of the disturbing features of our epidemic in the West Riding was that certain pathologists, in other parts of the country as well as in our city, were themselves infected with smallpox. When we had a debate in the House at that time I implored my right hon. Friend to provide a service within his Ministry which would ensure that all doctors and hospital staff in the National Health Service would be checked with regard to vaccination. As has been pointed out, in the light of aircraft travel and other means of swift movement which have increased as the years have gone on, there has been increased contact between people in all parts of the world. Thus, it is more important than ever that safeguards should be taken before trouble occurs. I should like to feel that an attempt was being made through the National Health Service to make sure that every doctor, pathologist and nurse in the hospitals was checked for revaccination so that no risks should be run.
  I am certain that at long last, after very great difficulty, we have got the National Health Service back on the course on which I wish it had started, in which case the emphasis would have been placed on hospital building and on prevention of illness. Many of our difficulties have accrued over the years because of the methods by which the scheme was introduced. But here at last the emphasis is in the right direction. My right hon. Friend has this great hospital programme in the forefront of his mind.
  702
  It is flexible, as we know. Hospitals are being built, and more will be built in future. I have very great pleasure in supporting the work now being done by my right hon. Friend and his Department.
  6.46 p.m.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: I should like first to add my congratulations to those already given to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Mackenzie). I think that the whole Committee was very impressed not only by the manner of his delivery but by the content of his speech, the very real knowledge which he obviously had about the problems with which he dealt, and the very great sincerity of his speech.
  I turn to some of the other speeches which have been made. The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) began by saying that he wished we did not introduce party politics into the National Health Service. In the light of what followed in his speech—
  Mr. Tiley: I did not actually say that. The hon. Lady does me a disservice. I said that the country is sick of our introducing party politics on both sides of the Committee.
  Miss Herbison: I have heard the hon. Member on this subject before. In the light of what followed in his speech, I can only tell him that the first part of his speech was most nauseating humbug.
  The hon. Member tried to claim that the Tory Party was in favour of the National Health Service from the word "go". He cannot put that over in the country, and he certainly cannot put it over in this Committee. One of my hon. Friends has been to the Library and obtained the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Second Reading debate on 2nd May, 1946. The hon. Member, who was not a Member of the House at the time, has at least been long enough in the House to know that if one votes as a party against the Second Reading of any Measure, one is voting against the principle of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I am not concerned with whether the hon. Member for Bradford, West withdraws what he said or not. I am concerned with having the facts on record. There were 359 hon. Members in our Lobby on the Second Reading,

  703
  and 172 of the small number of Tories that there were at that time went into the Lobby against the National Health Service.
  The hon. Member said that we did not realise the cost and misjudged it. One of the reasons was that even then we did not realise what a mess the Tories had left behind them. The hon. Member spoke about teeth and spectacles. There were many people who under Tory rule could never have had one pair of spectacles, far less two, and they suffered greatly because of it, and there were many whose health was undermined because they could not afford dental treatment or dentures. Of course we miscalculated how great was the backlog that we had to take up. The hon. Gentleman has listened to this debate, and he must have realised that the Government have greatly miscalculated the cost of this plan, which they produced two years ago. They have been almost 100 per cent. out in the cost of it.
  Mr. Tiley rose—
  Miss Herbison: I cannot give way.
  Mr. Tiley: I gave way. I always do.
  Miss Herbison: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. There are hon. Friends of mine who want to speak, and I am anxious that they shall have the opportunity to do so. The Government were out by almost 100 per cent. and there are nothing like the same reasons for the Government's being out in their figures as when we were out in our figures.
  The hon. Member spoke about the mistakes which Labour had made and said that we were still suffering from them. That is not an indictment against this side of the Committee, but it is a very strong indictment against his own Ministers and Government. If in 13 years of power they cannot rectify any mistakes, they are more incompetent than even I have ever believed them to be. The hon. Member should be more careful when he is slamming this side that what he says does not boomerang against his own Ministers.
  I wonder if the hon. Member has ever heard of the Korean War, and about how well this country was doing in all
  704
  sorts of ways until the Korean War hit us. I wonder if he knows what that war cost us and how many things had to be held back because of it. I should like a little honesty in these matters instead of the sort of statements that we are getting.
  I want to turn to the speech made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame Edith Pitt). She said that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), who opened the debate with a first-rate contribution, had been intemperate. I could hardly believe my ears. It was far from being intemperate; it was very factual indeed, pointing out just what had happened since the plan was first announced. She twitted us with the fact that we had not built a great many hospitals. The National Health Service began on 5th July, 1948, and the Labour Government lost power in October, 1951. During those three years, we had started two hospitals. The Tory Government have been in power for 13 years and their record of completion is four hospitals. When one looks at that record of 13 years, perhaps there is something to be proud of in our record of the first three years of the National Health Service.
  The hon. Member for Edgbaston also spoke about our policy of doing away with prescription charges. She said that it was a question of either having prescription charges or not having the hospitals. She posed these as alternatives—if we do not keep the prescription charges then we shall not have the hospitals. I do not accept those as alternatives. I know that they are Tory alternatives, but we on this side do not accept them. When the Government raised the prescription charges and National Health Service charges they told us that the contribution to the National Health Service was going to be used for the building of hospitals. It has not been used for such a purpose. Again I emphasise that I do not accept these alternatives at all. We have made it perfectly clear where we stand, and in another economic debate I could show very clearly where the money could come for what we consider to be an essential service.
  The Parliamentary Secretary and the Secretary of State know very well that

  705
  the whole of the British Medical Association is against prescription charges. If I had the time, I could list the reasons for it. When the Secretary of State made his speech he was all sweet reasonableness. There was not much party political stuff in his speech. I think that he made his speech in that way to keep down the temperature and to try to fob off any real criticism that could be made about what was happening to hospital building.
  I can remember the great flourish, almost of trumpets, on the occasion of the announcement of the 10-year Hospital Plan—the White Paper, the statement from the Government Front Bench. We got a White Paper on the revised plan, but there was no flourish about it, no statement from the Government Front Bench, and the Government hoped that it would go unnoticed. I say to the Secretary of State that he has done a very wrong thing because when we want to find what will affect our areas individually in detail in many instances we have to depend on reports in the Press of meetings of our regional hospital boards. From what I have found from their reports, there seems to me to have been as little validity in the 10-year plan announced two years ago as there was in the Tory posters about what the Tories had done in hospital building and which, because of their lack of truthfulness, had to be withdrawn very quickly.
  When my hon. Friend was speaking about the revised plan, the hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) asked him to read a little further in the White Paper which said that there had been additions to it, although some hospitals had been delayed. I want to look at what has happened to the plan of the Western Regional Hospital Board. That Board caters for more than half of the whole of the population of Scotland. It is true that it has received an extra allocation of capital investment in the revised plan, but what is it going to provide? The extra allocation will provide only 188 more beds and a rehabilitation centre at Belvedere, but the delay in hospital building means that 2,000 beds that could be provided in the three hospitals of Motherwell, Paisley and Ayr have been postponed—188 beds extra but 2,000 beds postponed. We do not know when they are going to be provided.
  706
  The Board's senior administrative medical officer said at its last meeting:
  "There is no doubt that a lot has been achieved but a lot still requires to be done and the longer this is delayed the greater will be the expenditure required on make do and mend procedures which at the end of the day can be regarded only as a waste of money."
  His statement backs up the Report of the Plowden Committee on the "stop-go" policy of the Government and he is an expert on the hospital service. The Government's handling of hospital building has been very much in line with their handling of school building. Their "stop-go" policy has led to greater financial burdens being placed on ratepayers and taxpayers, who are very often the same people and who are thus hit twice by the Government's incompetence.
  Mr. John Dunlop is chairman of the Western Regional Hospital Board and at the same meeting he criticised the Scottish Department of Health and the Government. I understand that he predicted that the Board would not catch up this century—not even within the next 10 or 20 years but this century—with the arrears in hospital building and replacements which have accumulated since the First World War. This is not a Socialist politician speaking but the chairman of a regional board catering for more than half the population of Scotland. Another member of the Board, at the same meeting, when it was discussing the revised plan, said that his reaction was that of complete frustration and bitter disappointment.
  I quote these gentlemen to show that we have not picked this subect out merely for party political propaganda but because we on this side of the Committee are concerned at the effect that this revised plan has had on those excellent people who do the voluntary work on regional hospital boards and who know so intimately, even more than hon. Members, the needs of their areas.
  The hospitals in the Western Regional Board's area have 37,000 beds. Of these, 27,000 are in hospitals mainly or wholly built before 1914 and I understand that most of these 27,000 are in hospitals built before the beginning of the century. The chairman, according to the Press, considers that the majority of these 27,000 beds cannot be regarded as satisfactory by present-day medical standards. That is a very serious matter.

  707
  If we are at all concerned about the health of our people then this kind of statement from a responsible person worries us very much. The Secretary of State advised us to look at Bellshill and when I intervened I suggested that hon. Members should also look at Stonehouse. It may be that in the last two years great improvements have been carried out in Stonehouse. I do not know. It is not in my constituency. But, 10 years after the Government came to power, I drove a friend there with her little girl due to have a tonsil operation.
  I was taken to see the unit where such operations were carried out. A board was pulled back from one of the walls to reveal the holes and cracks. And that was only one part of the wall. I had always understood that, in anything to do with throat and ear cases, the utmost care had to be exercised against infection. Such conditions should not have obtained in a hospital even two years ago. This weekend I shall be finding out just what has happened since. But this kind of thing, and the reaction of the Western Regional Hospital Board, does not worry the Secretary of State. It certainly worries almost everyone else in Scotland.
  Mr. Noble: Of course the reaction of the boards must be of great interest and a worry to the Secretary of State if they are disturbed. But I do not think that the hon. Lady means to mislead the Committee over the number of beds in toe Western Region. She is forgetting the new hospital at Gartnavel, producing 500 beds. That is in this area Again, perhaps she did not put the picture quite fairly in talking about money for the Western Regional Board. I understand that it has gone up from £5 million at the beginning of the plan to £11 million or £12 million. This reflects not only rises in costs but rises in standards as well as the number of beds which the Board wants and appreciates.
  Miss Herbison: I certainly do not want to give a false picture. I said that there was an increase over the whole 10-year period which has now been extended further than 10 years. But what are we able to build there? The result is 188 extra beds.
  Mr. Noble: The hon. Lady is still forgetting Gartnavel which has 500 beds.
  Miss Herbison: No. I am quite certain that if the right hon. Gentleman has a look again at these figures he will discover that my information is correct. Our trouble is that, because of the postponement of the start of these three new hospitals, a very serious position will arise. Mr. Dunlop says:
  "How long will it take to make good the deficiencies of these 27,000 beds if in 10 years we can build only 5,300!"
  That is the point I was making. I was not saying that no beds were being provided at all. I was dealing with the extra ones and the ones that the Board will still be able to provide, a total of 5,300. The chairman is worried because he says that, if the Board can build only 5,300 beds in 10 years, what is to happen to the other 22,000 which are not up to present-date medical standards?
  The Secretary of State would receive a letter this morning from the chairman of the Board of Management of the Southern Lanarkshire Hospitals. The Board had a meeting yesterday. It is very distressed at the information given to it. It wrote to the right hon. Gentleman and sent a copy, I expect, to all Lanarkshire Members. It begins by saying:
  "My Board has received a copy of the Hospital Plan for Scotland and they are most perturbed about the curtailment of the Hospital Building programme in Lanarkshire."
  The letter goes on to point out what a densely populated area Lanarkshire is and its need for new hospital accommodation, and says:
  "All these factors would seem to demand a higher standard and ratio of hospital provision; notwithstanding which the hospital accommodation is inadequate, consisting mostly of temporary prefabricated buildings quite unsuited to modern standards of treatment, comfort or hygiene.
  The three large hospitals in the county, i.e., Law hospital, Carluke, Hairmyres Hospital, East Kilbride, and Stonehouse Hospital are all wartime emergency hospitals, or extensions of hospitals. … The general standards are poor and the ward facilities primitive."
  This is an area being affected by the delay in building Strathclyde Hospital. This is the central growth area for Scotland. The letter goes on:
  "For these reasons this Board had expected that the new hospital for mid and south Lanarkshire would receive a high degree of priority and they are astonished to learn that the erection of this hospital has been postponed to some future unspecified date."

  709
  The letter adds:
  "The Board of Management is also most disappointed to realise that the decision to postpone this hospital was taken without reference either to themselves or to any other hospital authority in the County, including even the Western Regional Hospital Board."
  The chairman says:
  "I am therefore instructed to protest most vigorously against your decision and the manner in which it was arrived at."
  This is the view of the people concerned, and they are highly critical of the Government's hospital building policy. I praise these people for their hard voluntary work, just as I praise all the medical and nursing staff in these hospitals who sometimes work in trying conditions, but who give devoted and untiring service to the people of Lanarkshire.
  I hope that as a result of the debate the Secretary of State will have second thoughts and will ensure that in this growth area we are given a date for the building of this hospital, and that it is that dale which was given in the first place.
  7.13 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Whatever the shortcomings of the hospital service of this country—and there are some and the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has referred to those in her own area—we are not unique in this respect, for there are shortcomings in other countries. The fact remains that we are in some danger in this inter-party battle of losing sight of the fact that we are in the middle of the biggest hospital construction programme in our history, and that is not one to be sneezed at.
  After all, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who leads for the Opposition on financial matters, is on record as saying that no Government with any sense of responsibility could consider exceeding the hospital programme, the road programme, or the housing programme. Of course one wants to see more hospitals and to ensure that the plan is carried out with the greatest degree of efficiency, but if we are to preserve a sense of responsibility, let us also preserve a sense of balance, without any undue complacency.
  It is an excellent thing that we should have started on this hospital building
  710
  programme I take tremendous pride in it and believe that we all owe a great debt to the intellectual and physical vigour of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), the previous Minister of Health, for starting this programme, and to the hard-working members of the Ministry itself. The new Minister of Health is also to be congratulated on the manner in which he has approached his task. He has made an excellent impression all round. Let us put an end to trying to kid people into believing that this is a programme which somehow is miserable or which can somehow be exceeded. We all know the brutal fact that it cannot be exceeded to any remarkable extent. Let us take pride in what is being accomplished.
  I should like to take up an interesting comment of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North. I appreciate her concern about the conditions in some of the hospitals which she mentioned, but was she not forgetting the essential fact that this is not a static plan? It is a plan which is reviewed annually, and in these annual reviews one finds new hospitals or new improvements coming into the plan. I would take a terribly pessimistic view about the plan if I thought that it was static, but the fact that it is dynamic should lead one to a more optimistic conclusion than that formed by the hon. Lady.
  In the three years that it has been m operation, we have seen a gradual stepping up of the programme as the result of these annual reviews. In the first three years. 95 major building schemes have been completed; there have been 66 new or substantially remodelled hospitals, while 84 other major schemes have been started. Remembering that we have a school building programme and a vast road building programme, even if we had the extra money to spare—assuming that we wanted to increase taxation all round—where would we get the physical resources, unless we starved the school programme, or the trunk road programme, or any other pet project which anyone has in mind? This is not on, and there has been too great a tendency to take a too pessimistic view.

  711
  I want mainly to discuss the care of children in the hospital service, but before doing so I want to make three comments which concern the teaching hospitals in my constituency. This may be special pleading, but it is honest special pleading, because, as hon. Members will know, I have many teaching hospitals in my constituency.
  Without meaning any disrespect to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, may I say that it always seems to be my misfortune when I speak in debates like this to have either him or the Parliamentary Secretary to listen to me and not the "Number One" on the Front Bench, but I hope that he will pay close attention to what I say, so that these special points may go to my right hon. Friend who is in charge of the Health Service in England and Wales.
  Some teaching hospitals have been told that if they want new hospitals, or to expand, they must leave the central area of London, but others have been told that it is desirable that they should stay in central London. If they are to do so, and I do not quarrel with that, I wonder to what extent the Minister appreciates what an expensive project this is. If they are to rebuild, they first have to pull down and then buy land, which is very expensive. It is natural that land should be expensive in the central part of London. This is true of all cities anywhere in the world. I want an assurance that the Ministry appreciates the considerable additions to costs involved in the decision to stay in London and that the programme will not be slowed down because of insufficient financial support for the purchase of land.
  The second matter concerns staff. It is a fact that it costs more to live in London. Teaching hospitals have great difficulty about getting the staff they need. I am not thinking of nursing staff in this respect, because, after all, these are prestige hospitals, so that there is no trouble in that respect compared with some other types of hospitals in the provinces.
  Let me take, for example, the administrative grades, the clerical grades. A girl of 18 starts at £353 per annum, with a London weighting of £15. This is a mere bagatelle. lit rises to £525 when she is
  712
  23. On that salary scale it is not always possible to get competent staff to carry out jobs like this. The teaching hospitals spend money on advertising, but only occasionally do they get someone who is competent enough to do this work. The result is that they go to an agency, but this is a very expensive way of doing things.
  It could be suggested that the London weighting should be increased, but I suggest that we should give the secretaries of these hospitals more discretion when it comes to applying the Whitley scale to people whom they wish to employ. I do not think that people responsible for administration in the hospitals will take this as a blank cheque and spend as much money as they like on administrative staff. If we delegate more responsibility to them, they will spend more money to obtain the services of one girl than is laid down, and is thought right, but they would prefer to do that to make sure that the girl has a sense of responsibility and will stay with them, rather than fritter away the money.
  There is a general levelling up going on in the National Health Service and we cannot quarrel with that, but there is a danger that some of our teaching hospitals might be misplaced from world leadership by the lack of financial support which a 2 per cent. revenue increase each year imposes. These hospitals are something more than a credit to our National Health Service. Their influence extends beyond the limits of this country. They help to set world standards, and the extent to which we as a country are regarded as setting these high standards depends largely on the ability of our teaching hospitals to keep in the vanguard of medical progress. I suggest that a slight easing of the brake of financial control, even if it was only 1 per cent., would be a great encouragement to these hospitals.
  We know that we are in the midst of a medical revolution. New techniques are being developed all the time. One has only to think of the transplantation of organs such as kidneys, the study of the biochemical aspects of mental retardation, the surgical treatment of congenital malformations in the newborn, and so on. Tremendously exciting things are happening. We cannot allow a vacuum to be created between successful research and clinical treatment, especially as a

  713
  great deal of this research is financed from voluntary sources.
  Perhaps I might sum up this part of my speech by saying that if some hospitals in our National Health Service are not treated more equally than others, we shall not get the pace-setters that we ought to have in this country.
  I turn now to what is really my main theme—children and the hospital service. Here again I make a piece of special pleading. I am prejudiced. I have two children under five, and, as my right hon. Friend knows, in my constituency I have one of the most famous teaching hospitals for children. I also have a wife who is a doctor, but I assure the Committee that not one of these sources of information can take sole credit for putting me in such a prejudiced frame of mind.
  I should like to be assured that children's hospitals will receive the priority which they deserve in our hospital building programme, because there are very few children's hospitals in this country. Altogether, about 20 per cent. of the children who are in hospital are in children's hospitals, and about another 20 per cent. are in adult wards. I do not think that anyone would approve of that state of affairs.
  We appreciate, too, that pediatrics have got out of the amateur stage. It is a professional speciality these days, and there is a growing awareness that the needs of children are best served by having specialised children's hospitals, or very good and efficient children's departments in other types of hospitals.
  During the last few years two reports have underlined the need for developing children's hospitals in this country. I think that all hon. Members are familiar with the Platt Report, "The Welfare of Children in Hospital." The second was the Report by the Royal College of Physicians in the Lancet in 1957, "The care of Children in Hospital."
  Perhaps I might for a moment be a little more specific than I have been so far. Why this emphasis on children's hospitals and on pediatrics? It is interesting to note that although children are getting healthier, the rate of admissions of children to hospital does not decrease. It continues to rise. Between 1950 and 1959 there was a 27 per cent. rise in the admission of children to
  714
  hospital. We can account for part of this rise by the number of children who get mown down on the road, or injured in accidents in the home by all the new devices which people have acquired. It is due also, of course, to the increase in the number of children, but one might also add that it is due to us knowing more than we did about how to deal with infants and their diseases.
  In 1900 the infant mortality rate was one in six. I believe that the figure is now one in fifty. By new medical techniques, it is now possible to perform surgical operations on young children which would not have been attempted many years ago. As hon. Members know, there have been tremendous improvements in anaesthetics and in resuscitation techniques. There have also been technical developments in the miniaturisation of surgical instruments which makes these operations possible.
  Before it was recognised that there was a need to draw upon the concentrated resources of modern pediatrics, in one region of the country the mortality rate among babies with congenital abnormalities was 80 per cent. When the services were concentrated, during the first six years 1,000 cases were treated, with an 80 per cent. recovery rate. That is a very telling example.
  In such groups people begin to develop a tremendous expertise in the art of dealing with young children. I am thinking of those dealing with the 0 to 5 age group. They have to learn to deal with tiny areas of a tiny human body. They have to obtain and to assess extremely small specimens. As one person said, "The chaps who work among adults are rather like watch repairers who work on Big Ben. We work among little wrist watches". The nurses who have to deal with patients who cannot communicate as freely as an adult can have to interpret the sounds made by these young children.
  But my plea to my right hon. Friend does not really rest on the need for expert attention and the concentration of resources within hospitals for children. The medical services to which I am referring are designed to keep children out of hospital. I am referring to the need for day centres for the chronically sick. One hon. Member has already touched upon

  715
  this subject. The chronically sick young child is probably the most pathetic case we can think of—the case deserving of the greatest amount of sympathy from the community. Such a child has very little to look forward to, unless we see that it is integrated with society as far as possible. The Scottish Health Council published a report on the young chronically sick, recommending the creation of day centres for physically handicapped, which parents can visit.
  An interesting experiment is about to take place in my own constituency, with the co-operation of the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, the London County Council, and the Institute of Child Health and voluntary funds. The task is to help these children to be as self-reliant as possible. Teachers should be available at the centres, and parents can also help there, and can see what is being done. The work should all be done in an atmosphere in which there is no hurry. As we all know, there is often quite a bit of hurry in an outpatients' department. Voluntary groups blazed the trail in dealing with spastics. The success of these day centres will depend on their being closely affiliated with specialised children's hospitals. I hope that we can move forward to the day when we have psychiatric day centres as well.
  I now come back to the hospital itself. I want to make a brief reference to the Platt Report on the welfare of children in hospital. It contained two strong recommendations which will be within the recollection of hon. Members. The first was that the principle of unrestricted visiting should be admitted, and the second that greater provision should be made for mothers to stay in hospital with their children if they were under the age of 5. In reply to a Question put to my right hon. Friend we were told that about three-quarters of the hospitals in England and Wales allow unrestricted visiting. This statement has been strongly repudiated by an organisation known as Mother Care for Children in Hospital. I understand it to be a responsible organisation, but there have been other repudiations of this figure. There have been a number of articles in journals recently—one of them that comes to my mind was in New Society—which also take issue with the figure given by the
  716
  Minister. I am not getting after him; he has to rely upon the returns given to him. But there is a certain amount of disquiet about the reliability of those returns and the extent to which hospitals have accepted the Platt recommendation that there should be unrestricted visiting.
  I want to take a balanced view on this matter. If parents interpret unrestricted visiting as dropping in at the hospital almost every other minute of the day, this is obviously not always possible. A child which had just returned from surgery, having had a tonsillectomy, with blood running from its mouth, would probably make its mother run up the road screaming. A child may also have been sedated.
  In the Hospital for Sick Children in Great Ormond Street the principle is accepted, but it is applied with common sense. It is realised that there will be occasions when, for the welfare of the child, it would be inadvisable for a parent to visit it. But the principle is accepted. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to allay some of our disquiet on this score. What progress has been made? What inquiries is my right hon. Friend instituting to ensure that the figures he is given are reliable?
  I should also like to know what progress has been made to make it easier for mothers to stay in hospital with their children. An excellent report was published on this question last year. I hope that we shall be given some information on the point. This question touches on what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame Edith Pitt) urged. This hospital service is for people. If the two principles to which I have referred are acted upon it will be clear to the parents that this is essentially a human and kindly service. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not think I have overdone the advocacy in my plea for the provision of more children's departments in hospitals.
  To back up my advocacy I want to end with a quotation from an article which appeared in the Guardian last year, called "Children's Hospitals", by Mr. David Lawson, consultant pædiatrician, Queen Mary's Hospital for Children, Carshalton, Surrey. Referring to toddlers, as he called them—and they

  717
  are the children I have specially in mind—he says:
  "It is of the greatest importance that this group should be cared for in an environment which they can recognise as designed for them, by nurses who are not only willing, but also competent to help them. The nature of this environment, which should seem to the child to comprehend his mother, whether she is there or not, and in which he can feel as nearly at home as possible, is difficult to define. But its presence is easy to recognise. So is its absence. And there is little doubt that it is more easily achieved when everybody, porters, domestic staff, doctors, nurses and administrators, are working all the time toward it in a hospital where all the children's resources of the area are concentrated in a co-operative team."
  I commend those sentiments to my right hon. Friend.
  7.37 p.m.
  Mr. W. A. Wilkins: Amidst the disadvantages that one experiences when one has to sit in the Chamber, as I have done, since 3 o'clock this afternoon—
  Mr. G. Thomas: So have I.
  Mr. Wilkins: —I will give my hon. Friend a chance to speak—there may also be advantages. I am sure that I have experienced one advantage this afternoon; my temperature now is slightly lower than it was when I listened to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame Edith Pitt), whom I would have liked to have had the opportunity of following. She talked about eyewash, and we must give her credit for being very knowledgeable upon that subject. Nevertheless, it is perhaps timely that we should debunk some of the statements made this afternoon in connection with the alleged achievements of the Government in hospital building, and the odious and quite irresponsible comparisons made with what the Labour Government did during the few years when they were in office.
  I would remind the hon. Lady—and this has already been pointed out in her absence—that the National Health Service Act was passed in 1948, and that the Labour Government were out of power in 1951. In that period we had built or commenced to build two hospitals.
  In answer to Questions asked in the House and by means of advertisements in the newspapers which contain a photograph of the Prime Minister, we and the
  718
  public are being told that the Conservative Party is building, or commencing to build, one new hospital every 19 days. I am going to ask them to withdraw from circulation any such fraudulent advertisement, and I do so on the strength of their own figures, not mine. I wish to refer the Minister to a Written Answer to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) which appeared in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 11th May. The Minister also answered a Question of mine to which I will refer later. The Question of my hon. Friend related to the number of schemes which have had to be deferred for ten years, until the 1973–74 programme. The list appears in col. 22 among the Written Answers on 11th May. I have studied this list carefully for two reasons—if the Prime Minister would not distract the attention of the Minister of Health it would be helpful.
  The first reason is to see how many new hospitals or what could well approximate to the building of new hospitals—that is rebuilt hospitals—have been cancelled until, presumably, 1973, by this latest instruction. I find that the number is ten.
  Mr. K. Robinson: No, eleven.
  Mr. Wilkins: I am going by this list.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Anthony Barber): The hon. Gentleman asked me to answer this point, and it may be helpful if I do so now. The hon. Gentleman referred to new hospitals and used the phrase, "or those projects which approximate to new hospitals". If one refers to the normal progress in hospital building it is not sensible to distinguish between a new hospital and a substantially remodelled hospital which may contain just as many beds. Regarding the Conservative poster or leaflet, or whatever the hon. Gentleman was talking about, I can tell the hon. Gentleman the figure I have used, which was that we were starting one new or substantially remodelled hospital every 19 days. During this financial year we shall start one new or substantially remodelled hospital more often than that.
  Mr. Wilkins: This makes strange logic when we have to rely on the information supplied to us by the Minister's Department in reply to Questions which we

  719
  ask. Here are ten new hospitals, or proposed new hospitals, the building of which has been deferred. According to my arithmetic if a new hospital is built every 19 days that means 19 new hospitals every twelve months. If ten have been deferred for some indefinite period, one is entitled to suppose that the programme has been cut by 50 per cent. Perhaps when the Minister replies he will be able to unravel this arithmetical problem.
  Mr. Barber: I should like to state categorically that during this financial year we shall be starting one new or substantially remodelled hospital more frequently than once every 19 days, and that is a fact.
  Mr. Wilkins: May I ask the Minister to what period this programme of deferment refers, with the various items which he stipulated? When is this to apply? Is it next year? Are these buildings already commenced and they cannot be stopped, and is that the reason why this is something which is to be left as a legacy for the incoming Government? What is the explanation? We are entitled to have an explanation when the Minister replies.
  There are a number of things which I wished to say, but I know that my hon. Friends are anxious to speak and so I will confine myself to two points. One is a constituency point with which I will conclude my speech. The other matter to which I wish to refer is causing a good many people great concern. It might be described as the two-tier National Health Service which is growing up in this country. I do not know whether my hon. Friends have had any representations made to them on this matter, but I have been receiving representations from trade union organisations and other bodies who express the gravest concern about the two-tier National Health Service which is being permitted to grow up in this country. What do I mean by this? I mean that now there are organisations which I suppose are akin to the kind of organisations which exist in the United States, and which make it possible for contributions to be paid and then at some future date, when the contributor may need it, private medical treatment is provided. I do not
  720
  object on the grounds of people wanting to belong to such organisations, but why should they wish to do so, and what is the inducement to a person to belong or to subscribe to such an organisation?
  Mr. W. M. F. Vane: I can give the hon. Gentleman a good reason. If one has to go to hospital, as I had not so long ago, one can arrange the timing so as to suit Parliamentary business. If I had done this through the ordinary National Health Service channels, naturally I would have been on a waiting list and the time of the entry in hospital might have worked out very inconveniently. That is one good reason which appeals to a lot of people.
  Mr. Wilkins: Now I will give the hon. Gentleman another reason. It is the published reason, the advertised reason, why these organisations seek to receive subscriptions from people who prefer private treatment. It is very interesting:
  "By the end of 1961 more than half of the middle and upper income groups in Great Britain were members of a private patients scheme either through business groups or as individual subscribers. The extensive use of hospital private wards and nursing homes with no 'waiting for a bed' and with the surgeon or specialist of the patient's choice in charge of the case is largely if not wholly due to the better facilities provided for meeting the personal requirements of each patient. The cost of private treatment is heavy but can be conveniently budgeted for"
  under the membership of this organisation.
  One could go on reading from the prospectus which is circulated and which actually gives one of the reasons why people go in for this sort of service.
  "… they choose the alternative of arranging in consultation with their doctor to see the specialist of their choice privately in his consulting room and if in-patient treatment is necessary, to speedily arrange admission to a nursing home or hospital private ward thus avoiding harmful and anxious delay 'waiting for a bed'."
  In other words, this is a scheme designed to purchase privilege—one of the things to which we took the strongest possible exception when we were bringing in the National Health Service Act I wish to ask the Minister whether he condones it, whether he agrees that this sort of thing should be permitted to go on.
  Lord Balniel rose—
  Mr. Wilkins: No, I shall not give way, I have already given way three times.
  Lord Balniel: Then the hon. Gentleman can give way again.
  Mr. Wilkins: I am not going to.
  Lord Balniel: Why did the National Health Service institute pay beds and amenity beds?
  Mr. Wilkins: I wish to ask the Minister whether he condones this sort of thing and whether he agrees that there should be a private system operating side by side with the National Health Service. If not what does he propose to do about it? I wish to make one other reference—
  Dame Edith Pitt: If the hon. Member disagrees with private patients, why, when his own party framed the National Health Service, did they allow for private beds and amenity beds?
  Mr. Wilkins: I should like to know that myself, because I strenuously resisted it and was advised that we were compelled to give way under pressure from the consultants—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, and unfortunately the architect of the scheme is not here to defend himself when we discuss these matters. That is the reason why one would not wish to discuss the matter because he is not here to defend himself, but I know what happened at those interviews—at least at some of them. I rootedly objected, and still rootedly object, to private privilege in this matter. There should be only one test either of the accommodation or of the surgeon who is to look after any patient. That is the patient's need. This should be the only test applied and it should be applied for amenity wards and amenity beds.
  But for the lack of time available, I would have raised the matter of charges imposed by the party opposite on the use of amenity beds and things of that kind and how the Government raised £300 million allegedly to build more hospitals, but in fact used it to reduce Surtax [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh but this has never been challenged in the House. Indeed, it was said openly by the ex-Minister of Health that he was imposing increases in contributions for the purpose of finding revenue to build
  722
  more hospitals. Even if he had spent the whole of the first Budget of £750 million on building hospitals there would have been 50 per cent. from the contributions obtained in the first year. It is time that some of these home truths were brought into the light of day and that people were made to realise that they have not been charged for the purpose of providing more hospital accommodation but to relieve the Exchequer from the necessity of having to levy more taxation.
  I am sorry that I have been side-tracked and I am sorry to have to attack the present Minister in the way I have been attacking him, because he is not necessarily the person responsible for the Service as we have it today. I do not know if any of my hon. Friends read the Aprocrypha. If they do, they will find in Ecclesiasticus, Chapter 49, verse 14:
  "But upon the earth was no man created like Enoch; for he was taken from the earth."
  If ever there were an earthy Minister, a really down-to-earth Minister, it certainly was the ex-Minister of Health. Such is the legacy which the present Minister has inherited from his predecessor.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Edgbaston chided us earlier for not having left plans, but she could not possibly have read the Hospital Plan which she said she and her colleague helped to produce. In paragraph 6 of the long-term plan, it is said:
  "It takes several years to plan and carry out any major hospital development, and much of the work to be begun in the next few years is already decided upon. It would, therefore, be hardly worth while looking ahead for a period of less than ten years in terms of starts, which means roughly fifteen years in terms of completions."
  I turn to the policy which is supposed to be operating. I am thinking particularly of the South-Western Region. In the statement on the South-Western Region, in the Hospital Plan I read—and I hope the Minister will take special note of this because this is a point I want particularly to raise with him:
  "The policy is to base the hospital service on district general hospitals in the principal towns, supported where necessary by smaller hospitals."
  The plan on page 189 says:
  "It is expected that the following major schemes will start in the years 1966–67 to 1970–71:—

  (i) Bristol Royal Infirmary—maternity unit.

  723

  (ii) Bristol Royal Infirmary—new ward block.

  (iii) First phase of a new hospital in South Bristol."

  On 11th May I asked the Minister why the proposed new general hospital to be sited in Bristol, South, according to the local regional hospital board, had been deferred. He said:
  "Cmnd. 1604 listed the first phase of a new hospital in South Bristol among major schemes expected to start between 1966–67 and 1970–71."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1964; Vol. 695, c. 21.]
  I had alleged in a Question—perhaps wrongly, although I have a feeling that I was right about this—that when asked about the general hospital for Bristol, South the ex-Minister of Health had said in one cryptic sentence that it would begin at the end of 1965 or the early part of 1966. I have spent a good many hours in the Library trying to track down that Answer, but up to the moment I have been unsuccessful. Perhaps it is not necessary for me to rely for the evidence of the intention to begin this hospital almost forthwith upon any reply I might have had from the Minister because the plan says that the first phase could be expected to be begun in the years I have mentioned. When I turn to page 190, I find it says:
  "As far as can be foreseen, the following major schemes, which are not expected to start until after 1970–71, will have to be undertaken as the next steps in the modernisation of the services of this area:—

  (i) New district general hospital in Weston-super-Mare.

  (ii) 'Completion' of the new hospital in South Bristol, including an orthopaedic department."

  Mark that—"completion"! I do not know what sort of explanation the Minister can give about this decision to defer, but one thing which has gratified me today has been the emphasis placed by hon. Members in all parts of the Committee on the need for rapid and great extension of the maternity services. That is one of the features of this debate which has been very welcome. The position over maternity services in Bristol at the moment is extremely acute. I came to the Committee with the intention of quoting from certain reports which would emphasise beyond a shadow of doubt the terrific strain imposed upon the maternity services in the city.
  724
  I remind the Minister that the proposed hospital in Bristol, South was planned in 1936; land was set aside 30 years ago. The hospital was to be sited on the fringe of the population which must number something like 75,000. This afternoon my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North accused the Government by saying that one of the things they have failed to do has been to take account of the shift of population. He could not have been more accurate.
  There has been a shift of population into the area where the hospital was to be built up. The service is now being extended in the teaching hospital in Bristol right in the heart of the city, amidst all the noise, bustle and inconvenience, where nearly all the private dwellings have been demolished. These people have been transferred to the very area, in the main, where this proposed hospital is supposed to go. In other words, the population has shifted to the very area where the hospital is supposed to be sited.
  I am extremely unhappy about what is happening with the regional hospital board in the South-West. I am very critical indeed. I am concerned. Some one is pulling strings. I should like to know who that someone is. More and more improvements are taking place in the hospital which is dominating the whole scene. I have in mind the developments, both foreshadowed and agreed in the teaching hospital. The policy is wrong.
  The revised plan and the Minister's reply to me on 11th May show that another proposal has crept into the future programme. For the first time it is stated that Frenchay Hospital is to be provided with a maternity block. How has this come about? Why have the Government decided to defer the building of a hospital in Bristol, South, when the Minister of Health promised me that the first work would be two maternity wards with facilities for 34 beds. These facilities could not be needed more urgently than they are needed in that district. There has been this sudden shift in population.
  However, the proposal is to put a maternity ward in Frenchay Hospital. I know this hospital extremely well. I know its secretary extremely well. I have no criticism to make of the hospital,

  725
  but it is already a highly specialised hospital. It carries out thoracic surgery, plastic surgery and brain surgery. It has a burns unit. It is to be the principal accident centre for the South-West of England, which I think is a mistake. However, that is the Government's decision.
  Why are all the eggs being put into one basket? In view of the urgent needs, which have brought upon the Minister and his Department the condemnation of the local health committee, why has this happened? Who is responsible? Is it the Minister, or is it someone at the regional board? I have my own views. I think that it is time that some of these questions were answered, because they are questions which I am asked. I cannot answer them, and I want to know the answers.
  I know that I have been aggressive. I have felt strongly about this for a long time and I have waited for this opportunity to let off some steam in the Chamber. I hope that the Minister will forgive me, especially as I said a few moments ago that I did not hold him responsible. I should like to think that in his period of office a little more humanity will be shown to the Service than has been shown in the past. I ask him now to reconsider the proposal to defer the building of this hospital in Bristol, South. I should like to know why this proposal has been made and where it comes from. This is one of the things that concerns me. When he replies tonight, if he can say no more than that he will re-examine the position I shall be gratified. If he wishes to have a talk with me about it, when one can feel more free to express one's personal opinions, I shall be delighted.
  8.5 p.m.
  Mr. John Brewis: I hope that the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) will forgive me if I do not follow him round Bristol, except to express my sympathy for the case he has put forward with such obvious sincerity. There must be priorities. I am the only speaker today who represents a rural area, and I believe that the priorities are all in favour of the larger towns such as Bristol.
  I am a Scottish Member rather left behind by the rest of the Scottish debate. The position in Aberdeen at present is
  726
  of great concern to us. The Secretary of State for Scotland gave us some interesting information about the hospital beds available. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Sir B. Stross) made some interesting remarks about the dangers of typhoid spreading in this country owing to better communications, more people eating out and away from home, and therefore the greater danger of contagion from food.
  The medical authorities in Aberdeen deserve great credit for the rapid way in which they discovered the source of the infection and also for tracing the contacts with the supermarket in Aberdeen. I believe I am right in saying that all the cases which have so far broken out outside Aberdeen were in a measure expected, had been tracked down, and were known to their local medical officers of health, and praise is due to those concerned for this.
  It is interesting to note that in this melancholy outbreak, with over 450 cases to date, there has mercifully been only one death, and it cannot be stated with certainty that that was due to typhoid. In the Croydon outbreak just before the war there were probably fewer cases but about 50 deaths. The fact that there has been this absence of deaths in Aberdeen reflects credit on the medical services of this country and underlines the improvement which has been made in the intervening years.
  Aberdeen's Medical Officer of Health is correct in his emphasis on hygiene, because I believe that typhoid is, in technical terms, contagious and not infectious. It is a question very largely of looking for infection through dirty food and dirty handling of food.
  There is one point on this which is important and which affects a large number of food shops in the city. If a case breaks out in a fruit shop, for example, and the stock has to be destroyed or, to take a more extreme case, if a market gardener has a contact and all his lettuce crop has to be destroyed, will there be a suitable measure of compensation for such losses? There is the interesting case of the great and well-known bacon factory of Lawson's of Dyce. It is in the nature of a bacon factory to have a great deal of stock on hand, which is kept in stock and has to be disposed of over a period. I understand that this

  727
  factory is closed, but that it could possibly be reopened if there were adequate laboratory facilities not only to test the personnel working in the factory to ensure that they did not include a typhoid carrier but also to give a certificate of cleanliness and purity for the bacon which is in stock. I hope that, in reply, my right hon. Friend will be able to give us some reassurance about what can be done to help this major industry in Aberdeen.
  I leave those matters and turn to the Hospital Plan. Everyone can see from the figures that the plan is getting into its swing. I notice from a Parliamentary Answer yesterday that expenditure has gone up from £1·2 million in 1960–61 to £3·2 million in 1963–64. There is a gradual increase taking place all the time and I believe that this will continue as the plan reaches fruition. I notice, too, that the anticipated expenditure has increased from £70 million to £105 million, which represents a large increase in real terms, even allowing for inflation.
  I am rather concerned about whether or not we are getting a great deal more in terms of hospital building for this increased expenditure because this form of building appears to be remarkably expensive. Something may be achieved by a study of the industrialised methods of building which have been used for schools in Lanarkshire and elsewhere. I should have thought that those methods would have been suited to the building of large maternity hospitals like the one at Bellshill.
  I appreciate that studies into this matter have been made in England and I understand that at Greenwich a hospital has been built by industrial methods. Will these methods be used elsewhere, particularly in Scotland? In this connection, I understand that an exhibition of industrialised building methods is to take place in London next week and I wonder whether a representative of the Department of Health for Scotland will attend it.
  I accept that it is necessary to have a sense of priorities and to establish district general hospitals covering a region with a fairly large population—between say, 100,000 and 200,000 people, but there are large areas of Scotland where to get
  728
  such a region would mean covering a great deal of ground and I am sorry to see that so far it has not been possible to include Peel Hospital, in the Borders, or Ballochmyle in the 10-year plan. It should be remembered that both of those hospitals are old, were left from the war, that they serve wide districts and that the time has come when they should be replaced. I should also like to know what is happening at Fort William because, with the great increase in employment in that area, an increase in the hospital accommodation available at Belford Hospital will undoubtedly be needed.
  There is good reason for having large hospitals in which one can concentrate the best facilities available, but in a rural area it is not every patient who needs great and varied facilities. There may be a patient suffering from a sprained ankle as a result of a bicycle accident, or perhaps a woman having an uncomplicated baby.
  Mr. Dan Jones: That would be unusual.
  Mr. Brewis: Such cases can be catered for in local hospitals, where families and friends can visit patients more easily.
  We must also consider the activities of the general practitioners, the backbone of the Service. They like to think that they can have access to a certain amount of special facilities, including X-ray equiment, perhaps a laboratory and certainly an operating theatre in some of the more remote districts. In my constituency is situated one of the few health centres, at Stranraer. It has been a great success. Its success has resulted from the community spirit of the people in the district and the equal community spirit of the doctors, along with the help of the auxiliary workers in the town.
  Any organisation, particularly this sort of health centre, needs this community spirit if it is to be really successful. In a big town or in the suburbs of a city like, say, Glasgow. I doubt whether it is possible for the same community spirit to exist and for there to be the same co-operation among the doctors. However, our Health Service must be flexible and if we are to continue to build new towns like Livingstone and Cumbernauld it might be worth considering having more health centres, and

  729
  establishing more of them in the small rural towns throughout Scotland.
  The hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Mackenzie), who made an exceptional maiden speech, spoke about the need for community care for the elderly sick. It is not only the elderly sick who need community care but also those who are suffering in mental health, particularly those who are discharged from hospital after a mental illness. They often come home to find no facilities awaiting them. They may have been living alone and it is in the face of this sort of situation that better community care is needed in Scotland, not only for the elderly but for the mentally ill and the young chronically sick. A great deal more can be done by the provision of health centres, with community centres attached to them.
  8.17 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: I should like, first, to add my word of congratulation to the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Mackenzie), who made a notable maiden speech. His remarks were eloquent, well informed, and he paid an extremely nice tribute to his predecessor. His whole speech displayed remarkably humane concern for the problems of the old people in his constituency.
  I was also interested to hear his remarks about the provision of beds in his part of the world, because this is the crux of our hospital building programme. As Dr. Abraham Marcus said in the Observer recently, many doctors and hospital administrators feel that the true measure of the problem is the number of beds being provided. It was this that I had in mind when I intervened in the Minister's speech following his remarks about the number of patients treated in hospital having increased between 1953 and 1963. I asked him to give the figures of the length of stay, because unless one has both figures one cannot see what the true increase in the provision of beds has been between those years. I hope that when the Minister replies he will provide those figures.
  I would also like to congratulate the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame Edith Pitt) on what she described as her second maiden
  730
  speech. I recall bidding farewell to her when she made her last speech as a junior Minister, and I was hoping that she would be in her place now to hear me congratulate her on her resurrection in her new rôle as a back bench speaker on health matters. I can assure the hon. Lady that her tongue has lost none of its sharpness in the interim.
  It is a shame that the hon. Lady is not in her place, because I wanted to tell her that she has been rather selective in the constituencies she has visited, because each one of those she mentioned has a new hospital being built in it. I am wondering what she would say if she came to visit Orpington, where we are gravely anxious about the future of the Orpington Hospital, which is not mentioned in either of the two revisions of the plan and which, in the original document, was shown to have in the 10 years half the number of acute beds but the same number of geriatric beds as today. In that event, it would indeed be a badly planned hospital and no longer viable. I appeal to the Minister not to upset the balance of this hospital in any future revision of the plan, since it is doing valuable work in my constituency.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston does the hospital service a disservice when she paints such a glowing picture of the progress which, she claims, has been made, because if hon. Members opposite go on in this vein Ministers will begin to believe their own propaganda. It is easy for Ministers and hon. Members opposite to talk about this being the biggest hospital building programmes in history, for they started from such a low point 10 or 12 years ago. There are so many years of neglect to be made up.
  I should like to cast a little light on the truth of this matter. In Cmnd. 2235 on Public Expenditure the total expenditure on health and welfare, and this includes the local authority health services as well as the hospitals, is projected to grow at an average annual rate of 33 per cent. at constant prices between 1963–64 and 1967–68. As this is less than the N.E.D.C. target for the expansion of our national economy, it means inevitably that a declining proportion of our gross national product will be spent on health in the next few years.

  731
  This is confirmed by some calculations in the interesting publication, "The Cost of Medical Care "produced by the Office of Health Economics. I commend the book to the Minister, because it is presented with a clarity which is very often lacking in Government publications. Figure 1 on page 6 shows that the percentage of gross national product taken by Health Service expenditure is due to decline from just over 4 per cent. In 1962 to 3·8 per cent. in 1967. One of the results of this is, as stated in the headline to the article which Dr. Marcus wrote, that the "Cash crisis slows hospital building".
  I agree with the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) that the document on the revised Hospital Plan for England and Wales, 1973–74 is highly misleading, whatever the hon. Lady the Member for Edgbaston may say. According to the title of Appendix II it purports to contain both the schemes brought into the programme for the first time and the consequential amendments to other schemes, but it deals only with the first part of the title. It states on page 1 that
  "Appendix II lists schemes which are now included in the programme up to 1973–74 for the first time, and the schemes which in consequence are no longer necessary."
  Those are not listed in the Report. I should like to know why these projects which are deferred or cancelled are excluded. Is it because it would not go very well with electoral propaganda to include these things in the White Paper? We are entitled to know and I hope that the Minister will give us this information in another form, perhaps as an addendum to the White Paper.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) has drawn my attention to one of the consequences of these revisions which affects his constituency. I have the letter which was written to him by the group secretary of the North Devon Hospital Management Committee, Mr. Woolley, who says:
  "The North Devon Hospital Management Committee has learned with considerable dismay that, arising from the Second Revision of the Hospital Plan, the second phase of the new North Devon Hospital, originally scheduled to commence building in 1967–68, has been postponed until October, 1971."
  732
  I was surprised by the intervention of the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) during the speech of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North because he also has a copy of this letter and knows the feelings of the Hospital Management Committee.
  The letter was accompanied by a memorandum in which some remarks by the chairman were reported. He said of the White Paper:
  "No direct information had been included concerning schemes and phases of schemes which had been deferred, and it was necessary to infer such information from omissions in the lists given. The first phase of the new North Devon Hospital, the maternity unit, was included in the schemes listed to commence before 1968–69, but not Phase 2, although the planning date for this phase had, prior to the revision, been for 1967–68."
  Later in the memorandum the reasons which led to the postponement of the scheme, which I suppose were given by the Minister, are listed, and I quote two:
  "(i) first phases of major schemes now planned and costed in detail were proving far more expensive than had originally been expected."
  This ties with what the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North said about the inadequate planning that went into this scheme in the first place, and I take it that this experience is fairly general and not confined to this hospital. The memorandum added:
  "(iii) building costs had increased sharply together with the speed of building construction, so that considerably greater sums were spent annually on each scheme actually building, leading to a concentration of the available money on a smaller number of schemes at any one time."
  If that is true one would have thought that there would be a greater number of completions in the earlier years of the 10-year plan, but that has not happened and we should like to know about this.
  What is the Minister doing to make sure that the available money which has been allocated to the hospital building programme is being used in the most economical way? The Secretary of State for Scotland said that both his Department and the Ministry of Health were spending considerable amounts on research. That can mean more or less anything. It can mean that ultimately we shall have the kind of consortia in hospital building which we already have in educational building, and that would

  733
  probably be a good thing. If we had modular construction for hospitals we might achieve quite substantial economies.
  I also entirely agree with the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) that by continued use of smaller hospitals for such applications as maternity centres we could have a greater number of beds over the 10 years with the expenditure of a smaller amount of money, but we should have a statement on which smaller hospitals might be retained in use for this kind of application.
  Secondly, it is important to tie together the plans for new hospitals and for the health ad welfare services of local authorities. The booklet issued by the Office of Health Economics states on page 13 that
  "It would be misleading to consider expenditure on domiciliary and hospital medicine independently or in isolation from other personal expenditure on health."
  Yet this is exactly what we do in this Committee and in the House.
  At the moment we are considering the hospital building programme. Later in the year, we hope, we shall have the revision of the local authorities' health and welfare plans, when, no doubt, we shall have another debate on that. We never look at the whole picture of expenditure on health and welfare at one time. I regard this as a great mistake in our machinery of Government. I raised the matter first in the debate on the Hospital Plan two years ago and I was told then that the local authorities' health and welfare equivalent to the ten-year hospital plan would appear shortly, which it did. We never seem to discuss the two matters at the same time.
  The Parliamentary Secretary has told me that the revision of the local authorities' health and welfare plan is about to appear, but we are still waiting for it. Incidentally, we have, as far as I know, had no revision of the initial local authority plans whereas we have had two of the Hospital Plan. Surely, it is better for these revisions to occur once a year, at the same time of year, so that we may consider them as a unity.
  I hope that the Minister will accept the proposition which I first put two years ago, that the Hospital Plan can be successful only in the context of the health and welfare provision made by
  734
  the local authorities. The hon. Member for Rutherglen illustrated this in his contention that there was great need for co-ordination in the provision made by hospitals and by local authorities for old people and that, by meeting this need, one could save old people going to hospital for as long as possible. The provision of Part III accommodation by local authorities ought to be directly related to the provision of places in the geriatric wards of the hospitals.
  Similarly, the provision of home help by local authorities must be related to the provision of places in Part III accommodation. By giving old people more home help, we may be able to keep them in their own homes longer and thus reduce the call on Part III accommodation. On this subject of home help, I wish to raise the case of a constituent of mine—I told the Parliamentary Secretary that I intended to do so—who is totally disabled. This lady is a very brave person indeed. She spent some time in hospital and, when she was discharged to go home where her family needed her—she has a small boy of eight and a husband—she was first given eight hours' home help a day by the local authority. Then, suddenly, without warning, the local authority reduced the period to three hours a day, so that she now has home help only from 9 o'clock until 12 o'clock in the morning. Her husband gets her breakfast before he goes out. He has to find someone else to come in and cook her lunch and clear it away. Someone else has to come in when the boy comes home from school to get his tea and so on, until the husband comes home at night, when he takes over.
  It is very important for the sake of the family life of these people that the mother should be enabled to stay at home. The husband has made strenuous efforts to find someone to come in and do all the work in the home for him but he has so far been unsuccessful. What happens when he becomes ill? Who is to look after the small boy at night, for example? The mother will have to be taken back into hospital in such circumstances. Of course, the situation puts a severe strain on the husband.
  It is particularly important that we should get this point straight. The provision of home help by local authorities in cases of total disability like this may

  735
  be instrumental in saving a person from having to go into hospital. The Parliamentary Secretary says that it is not necessarily true that keeping a totally disabled person at home is cheaper than keeping him or her in hospital. I really cannot believe this. Certainly, in this particular case, when the husband has to reimburse the local authority for at least part of the cost of the home help which he is given, it could not possibly be true.
  In my view, greater provision could be made by local authorities. If not now, they should make plans to do so later as they get into their stride with their ten-year programme. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary what revision of the plan for the provision of home help was in train in the County of Kent. I received his reply today and, unfortunately, it is very disappointing. He tells me that, in the revision which is shortly to come out, it will appear that the total number of home helps in post in 1963 in the county of Kent was smaller than it was in 1962 and the number which the county hopes to provide by 1973–74, at the end of the ten-year expansion, will be smaller than at the end of 1963. This is a curious kind of expansion. In my opinion, there is not much point in having a ten-year plan for local authorities if the provision of this kind of service is to grow smaller year by year.
  I once put a Question to the Minister to ask him whether some persuasion could be exercised on local authorities which refused to live up to their responsibilities in this way. That is a strong expression to use, and I use it advisedly. He said that, on the publication of these plans, local authorities would be encouraged to look at the average and at what other authorities were able to do and they would bring their standards up. This has not happened in the County of Kent, and I think that it is time one considered whether some other machinery is necessary.
  About two years ago, I proposed that we should begin to think in terms of area health boards in which one would integrate the functions of the hospital boards, the local authorities and general practitioners, and that one should have a homogeneous Health Service instead of the tripartite structure which has
  736
  existed ever since the passing of the 1946 Act.
  Whatever the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) may say, the Conservative Party certainly opposed this Act when it was going through the House. But now it is almost sacrosanct. Hon. Members opposite do not want to amend it in any respect. When somebody puts forward a radical idea like this, after 17 years' experience of the working of the Act, they say, "No; it is perfect as it is," and refuse to make any alteration. This has subsequently been adopted by my party's Health Committee and endorsed by the B.M.A. I hope that, whatever Government comes to power after the General Election, they will think again about this proposition that we should have area health boards and create a more homogeneous structure for the Health Service.
  I want to say a few words about the staff. I know that other hon. Members are waiting to speak, so I will try to be as brief as possible. With the Robbins expansion and the new universities which we are creating, we have a great opportunity to build new medical schools. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North that one new medical school, taken in relation to all the new universities projected, is not enough.
  I should like to quote from the Financial Times of 24th February this year. It is not a newspaper which is notably sympathetic to the Opposition. The heading of the article is, "Shortage of Staff Threatens the Hospital Services" and the writer says:
  "… there were some 1,300 Indian doctors working in Britain in 1962, mainly in junior hospital posts. But with the build up of medical facilities in India (such as, for example, the All-India Institute of Medical Science in Delhi), many Indians are going to find that it is no longer necessary to come to England to get the right qualifications. Already there are signs (at Northampton and Bolton for example) that this erstwhile 'bottomless' pool of labour is beginning to dry up."
  What plans does the Minister have to deal with this? Does he consider that one new medical school will replace these 1,300 Indian doctors who are likely to leave when the postgraduate facilities are started in their country?
  The same applies to all the other professions in the Health Service, not only in hospitals. Taking the nursing profession, the Minister said that he was

  737
  very satisfied with the number of nurses in training at the moment. He gave the number of those in training. I think that it was 72,000. Has he considered this figure, looking at it in relation to past figures, in the light of the more intensive treatments which patients are undergoing in hospital and the shorter working week which fie promised to the nurses?
  Incidentally, I am surprised that no breakdown of these fifigures could be given and that he was not able to quote separate figures for State enrolled nurses, because the picture is not as bright as one would wish. One can hardly be surprised at this considering that State enrolled nurses are paid a salary, in real terms, lower than the salary which they were receiving when the National Health Service started. Hon. Members may not believe this, but if they look up a Question which I asked on the subject they will find that it is true.
  Similarly with the administrative staff. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North spoke about the advertisements placed in the newspapers to get these people. Incidentally, the cost of advertisements to obtain staff in the hospitals is not given separately in the costings. This is a great shame because it would be an index of the difficulty which the hospitals are having in obtaining staff in all grades and professions.
  I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I will resume my seat.
  8.39 p.m.
  Lord Balniel: I understand that it is expected that I shall resume my seat within a few minutes. I am glad to have the opportunity of following one of the members of the Liberal Party, a party which at one time was the arch apostle of the principles of laissez faire.
  The two sentences in the speech of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) with which I agreed were his references to the desirability of coordinating the health and welfare plans with the hospital plans and the desirability of debating these two aspects of the Health Service together. With the overwhelming mass of the hon. Member's speech I profoundly disagreed, because he merely hitched himself to the cause which had been advanced by the hon.
  738
  Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) in denigrating the Hospital Plan and regretting the revisions which had taken place subsequently.
  The part of the hon. Member's speech which surprised me was his proposal concerning the home help service. I remember his advocating this before. At that time, it was pointed out to him that the home help service, in common with other health and welfare functions, is one of the services which are run by local democracy. The hon. Member advocates that these health and welfare functions which are run by local democracy should be taken out of local democracy and be run by a bureaucratic structure. He tells us that this has been accepted by the Liberal Party as their national policy. I hope that this will be fully appreciated by all those who take part in the service of local government.
  Mr. Lubbock: Ultimately, these area health boards would be fitted into the structure of regional government which we have proposed in another context.
  Lord Balniel: Regional government alone would destroy local democracy in the normal understanding which we have of such a system.
  The hon. Member followed the arguments which had been advanced by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North in criticising the original Hospital Plan and the subsequent revisions. They criticised the original plan on the ground that it was rushed and inadequate and had been pressed forward too vigorously and too fast. It is, however, right to remember that at the time the Hospital Plan was produced, there were many hundreds of hospitals, some of which had been built at the time of the Battle of Waterloo and others—great numbers—during the reign of Queen Victoria. Some, particularly the cottage hospitals and many of the poor law institutions, had been built during the reign of King Edward. One or two of them had been built during the inter-war period, but the one feature in common with all the hospitals was, that none of them had been built since the war. To have criticised my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) for having pressed ahead with a Hospital Plan is short-sighted.

  739
  I remember that after the debates which had taken place on the Hospital Plan in the House of Commons and in another place the Hospital and Social Service Journal referred to the Hospital Plan as being a grand design whose stature remained undiminished. I should be the first to accept that revision was necessary, but to have allowed the fear of making mistakes to have held up the presentation to the country of a tangible plan for a decade ahead would have been a weak and feeble form of government.
  I do not understand the argument of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North. We have all listened with respect to his speeches on the Health Service. Today, however, he talked about financial matters and I fear that his mathematics are not up to the quality of his understanding of the Health Service. The hon. Member referred to the revisions of the Hospital Plan. The original plan forecast building during the decade 1961–71 to a value of £500. The revision which followed that for the decade 1963–73 increased the expenditure on hospital building from £500 million to £600 million.
  The revision which has just been published has increased the expenditure which is forecast on hospital buildings for the decade 1964–74 from £600 million to £750 million. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North says that this demonstrates gross under-estimating. That is one way to look at it. Another way to look at it would be that this is a very massive advance in the hospital building programme which we are able to afford because of the increasing prosperity spreading throughout the community.
  I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, and he is entitled to make partisan attacks on the Government, but when we point out that there has been an expansion, hon. Members opposite go into a huddle to see how they can knock the Hospital Plan just as they knock everything British and everything put forward by Her Majesty's Government. They think "What can we do to knock the Hospital Plan?" They say, "But these are in money terms, not real terms, and the rising costs will wipe out the expansion in expenditure." But in real terms, not money terms, there is
  740
  an expansion under the present revision of the plan to the extent of £160 million.
  Again, hon. Gentlemen opposite go into a huddle and try to think of ways in which to attack the plan. They say, "This is all paper planning." It is not paper planning. We already know the figures of actual expenditure on hospital planning during the first three years of the plan: in 1961 £32·8 million; in 1962 £35·9 million; in 1963 £48 million.
  Then hon. Members opposite begin to panic. These figures are impressive, and the public are impressed by this expansion. So hon. Members opposite begin to panic and lose their unanimity. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), the very "shadow" Chancellor of the Exchequer, says that the Conservative programme for hospitals could not be exceeded by any party with any degree of responsibility. Three weeks later the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North says that these are paper plans. I should like to invite the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North and many other hon. Members opposite to my constituency to see what these "paper" plans are, to see the new hospital built within the boundaries of Welwyn Garden City, the first of the new district general hospitals. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North wishes to intervene, he should at least take his feet off the table.
  Mr. K. Robinson: The noble Lord knows perfectly well that the planning of the new Queen Elizabeth II Hospital at Welwyn Garden City started in 1951 or 1952. It has nothing whatever to do with the Hospital Plan.
  Lord Balniel: As the hon. Gentleman says, I should know. I revisited it only the other day. Indeed, I pay tribute to the way in which the Hospital Plan has accelerated the building work undertaken at the Welwyn Garden City Hospital. The hon. Gentleman may well say that I have taken as an example the first of these magnificent new hospitals, but it is not the only example that I could give. There are others in the pipeline, at various stages of building, in my constituency and the surrounding area. There is the planned extension of a psychiatric unit of a further 100 beds in that hospital, there

  741
  is a new maternity department in Watford, there is a major redevelopment of St. Albans City Hospital, there is the second phase of the Luton Maternity Hospital, there is the new Lister Hospital between Hitchin and Stevenage, and there is the new maternity department in the Herts and Essex Hospital, Bishop's Stortford. This is the area that I know. I should have thought that almost any hon. Member could point to similar examples in his constituency.
  Mr. Laurence Pavitt: The noble Lord should come to central Middlesex.
  Lord Balniel: I want to say a word about the new district general hospital, because it will set the pattern for much of the hospital building which will be undertaken during the next decade or so. This hospital is by no means unique. It is, in fact, one of the 95 major building projects which have been completed in the last three years. In those three years we have also seen 66 new or substantially remodelled hospitals and 84 other major projects started.
  I should like to pay a great tribute to those who work in that hospital, particularly in relation to the atmosphere which they have managed to create in a very short time. This is partially due to the regional hospital board having instituted a nucleus of staff around the matron before the hospital came into commission, and it is also due to the dedicated work by the matron, the staff and the secretary in creating a happy, friendly and remarkably efficient atmosphere in the matter of a very few months.
  The thing that is most impressive to anyone acquainted with hospital work is the atmosphere of calm, quietness and tranquillity in this hospital. This is partly due to the structure of the hospital itself, which has been designed to achieve a quiet and tranquil atmosphere comparable with the atmosphere in which a sick person would like to be treated at home. It is so quiet and has the appearance of such tranquillity and leisure that none of the wards have doors or glass partitions between them and the corridors, but still the atmosphere is one of great quietness.
  Obviously, the establishment of a new hospital on such a scale in an area
  742
  disturbs the existing hospital structure, and I should like to ask my right hon. Friend to give very careful thought to this problem. It has an effect on all the small cottage hospotals which surround a new general district hospital. I know that my right hon. Friend has given an undertaking; never to close any single hospital unless it has been very carefully examined that the needs of patients in the area will be met by a new hospital. Most of us expect to see those hospitals used for geriatric work once a new general district hospital has been established. In the case of Welwyn Garden City, it is now some time since the new Queen Elizabeth hospital has been brought into commission and the old cottage hospital is still not in use as a geriatric unit.
  I have undertaken to curtail my remarks in view of the time, and I should like only to repeat that I regret very much indeed the attack which the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North made on the Hospital Plan and on my right hon. Friend's predecessor. There are many hon. Members who, if they could do as much for the Health Service in their lifetime as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West did in a very short space of time as Minister would be very proud men indeed.
  8.45 p.m.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: If the hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) wants another job he should consider himself for the position of President of the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising; because I admired the way in which in true platform style, as though he was on the hustings, he was able to read out one by one all those splendid developments in his own area—no doubt long overdue. It was most impressive. I was also impressed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame Edith Pitt) who manages to make a speech wherever a new hospital is being built. I suggest that she should come to Scotland. She might find it more difficult to see all these new buildings.
  Dame Edith Pitt rose—
  Dr. Mabon: I will give way in a moment but I should like to develop this a little more. I want to say to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith)

  743
  that he does a grave injustice to his own pre-war Government because the Conservatives then—albeit tired and languid just as they are today—actually had a better hospital building programme than the present Government. Let us not be too harsh. Even the Victorians had a very good hospital building programme. The hon. Member was being a little extravagant in talking about the present programme being the greatest ever.
  Dame Edith Pitt: I was able to refer to so much development taking place in the Hospital Service, either in new buildings or improvements, because wherever one goes to make a speech it is possible to find a development to talk about.
  Dr. Mabon: I am sure that the hon. Lady could find a development if she wanted to talk about it.
  I now want to contribute to the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Mackenzie) on his excellent maiden speech. He is, indeed, an honourable friend of mine—we have been lifelong friends—and I am pleased to see him here. I have heard him make many speeches but never a better one. I have no doubt he will continue to make excellent contributions which will be appreciated not only by hon. Members opposite but very much by his hon. Friends.
  I join the Secretary of State in his comments about the Aberdeen typhoid outbreak and the splendid work done there by the doctors, nurses and others concerned in trying to contain this terrible contagion. We are, nevertheless, a little concerned about what he said on Monday.
  On the tape tonight it is stated that two Sheffield hospitals have posted notices concerning the consumption of corned beef in those hospitals which appears to be from the same consignment as the Aberdeen batch. We were told by the Secretary of State that the Government had in March taken a calculated risk on this affair. One wonders whether this calculation is not proving a most serious miscalculation
  If that is the case, then the Government must think again about what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member
  744
  for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) on Monday, when he suggested that the proposed inquiry should be replaced by a much more substantial investigation concerning Ministerial judgments as well as the origin of infection. This is a very serious matter which we wish to press upon the Government.
  The Secretary of State no doubt appreciated the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen, who dealt with consultative health centres. I must say that my hon. Friend dealt with it skilfully within the terms of order because, strictly speaking, we are not discussing that subject. Nevertheless, such centres are relevant to the hospital building programme. I was disappointed that the Secretary of State did not tell us about the Scottish position regarding supplementation of the programme.
  When will we get the Scottish equivalent of the English publication "Development of Community Care"? If we do not get it this year we shall be two years behind. We congratulated the Secretary of State at the time on not having produced a Scottish one yet because the English version was so bad. We were glad that he appeared to be taking more time. Unfortunately, he has still not brought it out. Nor has he told us when it is to be published. We cannot ignore the provision of community services in relation to the hospital building programme. Unless some needs are satisfied by community care, the Hospital Plan must be adjusted to meet them.
  Nor can we ignore the position of general practitioners who are, after all, in the front line in the battle against disease. They are the infantry who deal with about 90 per cent. of the enemy attacks. One cannot ignore their position in relation to the programme.
  Today the Minister presides over a medical profession which is in ferment and full of dissatisfaction and discontent such as it has never known before—not even in the days when it was led by Lord Hill. Even then it was never as angry as it is today.
  There is no long-term plan for general practitioners. The Government have no solution for the problem of the development of practice premises or health centres. I was very pleased to hear in

  745
  the reasonable speech of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) his reference to the success of the Stranraer centre. A good deal is being missed by the Government in not appreciating that these centres can and do play a notable part in the proper provision of a health service in this country and are able to take up a great deal of the demand which would otherwise fall upon the Hospital Service.
  When he was boasting about the Government's performance—and he rarely does—the Secretary of State claimed—and this is a relevant figure—that the Government had spent £300 million in 13 years. This is an average of £23 million a year on hospital building since right hon. Gentlemen opposite took office. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Sir B. Stross) pointed out that in real terms—and we like to talk in real terms, as Treasury spokesmen always do—that was half the 1938–39 figure. After 12 years of Toryism, we in Scotland have 475 new hospital beds more out of an expenditure of £300 million over the whole country, a rate of 40 beds a year. That is the position for which the Secretary of State is taking great credit.
  I am not denying that there are enormous difficulties. Of course there are. Enormous difficulties faced the Labour Government, are facing the present Government and will face the next Government in the development of the hospital building programme, but it is more than extravagant for the Government to make these claims about their performance. This is why the Prime Minister got into trouble. He actually believed the posters and thought that all this had happened. He did not realise that it was just another claim when it was said that one new hospital was built every 19 days which, by a statistical coincidence, works out at 19 hospitals a year. Fortunately, when he was advised otherwise, he quickly withdrew the claim, but he was not out of step because the Conservatives withdrew the posters and we have not seen them any more.
  Lord Balniel rose—
  Dr. Mabon: I am afraid that I do not have time to give way.
  746
  The Secretary of State solemnly boasted of the short stay of patients in hospital and how that costs less and so on and how it was, therefore, a good thing that patients did not stay in hospital too long.
  Mr. Noble: I did not boast at all. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) suggested—as far as I could make out and I think as far as the Committee could make out—that it was better if patients stayed in hospital longer, and what I said was—and it was not a boast—that I thought the medical profession would object.
  Dr. Mabon: I withdraw the word "boast". However, the right hon. Gentleman is making a very great mistake as a Minister if he imagines that it is always a good thing for patients to stay in hospital for a shortening length of time. Is he talking about maternity cases, for example, maternity patients who are kept for 24 hours, eight hours in one Liverpool hospital, and two days in the Western District Hospital in Glasgow quite recently? Obviously, he is not talking about those cases. What was he talking about?
  Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I was talking about the number of in-patients in ordinary hospitals, nothing to do with maternity.
  Dr. Mabon: I shall look at HANSARD again to see what he was talking about. If he was talking about all hospitals and not just maternity cases, he will find great difficulty in showing me that he is able to arrive at such a figure, because general hospitals give general returns although they have large maternity sections, and it would be difficult to say that his figures were reached solely because of that.
  Even if I am wrong, it is still not a fair argument to say that doctors are entirely and solely responsible for the discharge of patients and that it is always medically sound for a patient to be discharged and that the doctor is always willing to accept responsibility. I have known doctors who, because of other patients coming into the hospital, have been obliged to discharge people before the time which they thought best. I know doctors who have worked all

  747
  kinds of somewhat dubious manœuvres to get old people into hospital because they ought to be cared for there. They did so by claiming that these people were suffering from diseases from which they were not in fact suffering. I often wonder whether, Hippocratically, that was dishonest, but I have seen it happen. I have seen many distinguished members of my profession indulging in such manœuvres. Doctors in hospitals also are under pressures to do things of that kind, so the right hon. Gentleman had better be careful when he talks about matters like this.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Montgomery Report. After the speech of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley), I must not say that the right hon. Gentleman was dishonest, but he was misleading when he said that an average of 76 per cent. of maternity cases were already admitted to hospital. In Scotland the figure may be 76 per cent. but it is not homogeneous. One of the most shameful areas of the country in terms of the lack of maternity beds is the western region of Scotland, and my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) illustrated the point by referring to another great conurbation of Scotland where there have been scandals of all kinds in connection with people being sent out of hospital far too soon after their confinements.
  I did not admire the right hon. Gentleman's manœuvre this afternoon, when he got the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) to prompt him into correcting the position to which my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Robertson) referred in relation to maternity cases. The figure in Paisley may not be 44 per cent. as suggested by my hon. Friend, but 66 per cent., but this is still below the figure recommended in the Montgomery Report. Under this Hospital Plan revision which we are discussing today, Paisley has lost one of the three Scottish hospitals in the Western Region to which reference has been made.
  Mr. J. Robertson: The figure that I gave of 44 per cent. was for 1963. The figure extracted from the right hon. Gentleman was for one particular month, or for a shorter period. It tells us nothing.
  Dr. Mabon: Knowing the Secretary of State, and knowing also my hon. Friend's reputation for research, I would be more inclined to accept my hon. Friend's figure than that given by the right hon. Gentleman. But even if the right hon. Gentleman is right, it is still a bad argument for him to accept the position in Scotland as being all right. It is no argument for him to say that this is the average figure, and that we can ignore what happens in other places. That is not a fair argument to use in relation to Renfrewshire, or in relation to North Lanarkshire, as was pointed out in the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison).
  We have been told of the reaction of the Western Regional Hospital Board to the revision of the plan. In a Press statement the Board expressed disappointment, but my hon. Friend read a letter which contained some fierce comments by several of the members of that Board. The Minister of Health also has had some experience of this matter since he published his revisions. I understand that the North-East Metropolitan Board sent a deputation hot foot to see him almost before the publication was off the presses to protest against the way it had been dealt with.
  Perhaps the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston ought to make speeches in the North-East of London and in the Western Region of Scotland. She will then discover how we feel about the postponing of the building of many of these vital hospitals. There is no satisfaction to be gained from looking at the list referred to by the hon. Member for Hertford. There are still many places in the country which are deprived of the hospitals.
  I come now to the main theme of my argument. Our criticisms of this plan were made two years ago, and they were as accurate then as they are now. The concessions made by the Minister since then show that we were right. One has only to consider the provision of maternity beds to realise that our criticisms were fair.
  The hon. Member for Edgbaston talked about how this plan was prepared. The Conservatives had been in office for more than 11 years. Suddenly it was decided,

  749
  says the hon. Lady, that she, the Minister, and his officials should get down to preparing it, and after a burst of feverish activity, including long weekends of work, it was produced. Is it any wonder that mistakes were made? Is it any wonder that it is a half-baked plan, or that it has come under such heavy criticism from many medical people who are not in politics at all?
  I want to quote from the Spectator, which I believe is held to be a respectable journal by hon. Members opposite. An article written by Dr. Emrys Roberts on 21st February of this year says:
  "We are faced with a plan concocted in great haste with virtually no field research and no consultation with official representatives of the medical profession."
  Why was it rushed? Why were mistakes made?
  Lord Balniel: The hon. Member is complaining vigorously about the flexibility and the revisions of the Hospital Plan. He is quite entitled to take that view. But the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) at the time of the publication of the plan, said:
  "After all, one favours flexibility; there is much to be said for it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June, 1962; Vol. 661, c. 50.]
  One particularly favours flexibility when it enables us to increase expenditure on the hospital building programme by £250 million over the next decade.
  Dr. Mabon: I admire the noble Lord for trying these things on, but that is a false argument. I am not arguing on the question of flexibility. I am talking about the mistakes in the plan. There are four mistakes. Some attempt has been made to correct one of them. The mistakes were in the assessment, first, of the number of maternity beds; secondly, the assessment of geriatric beds; thirdly, the assessment of psychiatric beds, and, fourthly, of general practitioner beds.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: Is anything right?
  Dr. Mabon: Why were mistakes made? Because of the rush. Why the rush? Because, on 1st February, 1961, the then Minister of Health said that the whole idea of the health charges was
  "to carry through a long-term programme of modernisation of hospitals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1961; Vol. 633, c. 988.]
  750
  All the Parliamentary activity in the succeeding months after February, 1961 was based on the need for raising new health taxes, which have been and continue to be far in excess of all the money spent by the Government on hospital building. They have had a very neat profit on that financial exercise, and at the same time the Government have been trying to make as much propaganda capital out of the hospital building programme as they could.
  I understand that Groucho Marx is the favourite comedian of some hon. Members. On Monday he was asked to say whether, when they were making their films, he and his brothers were concerned about the social content or message of those films;. Groucho Marx, whom I admire much more than Karl Marx, said, "No, we just try to make money". That is exactly what the then Minister was doing. He was not interested in the social quality of the programme; he had just come from the Treasury. He was an outstanding Treasury Minister, and when he found himself unable to continue in the Cabinet under the present Prime Minister, after his enormous success at the Health Ministry, what better than to promote another Treasury man to be Minister of Health and to carry on the good Tory fiscal work that had been begun by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell).
  As for this flexibility that we hear about, listening to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West talking about the programme one could almost see that stern, ascetic military face commanding the troops in action, when he said:
  "Throughout most of the country there is an already agreed timetable … for every named scheme in the ten-year plan, so that the progress of each scheme can be policed from stage to stage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June, 1962; Vol. 661, c. 155.]
  What a helpless police force there has been. What flexibility! All the police have been india rubber men. They have never caught anything. In the Scottish Western Region we have lost three hospitals, worth 2,000 beds, and have got 166 in exchange. There is policing for you! It is no doubt what he argued was going to be done. The hon. Lady went on to tell us of the weeks of preparing

  751
  this programme, and as soon as that programme was published there was a massive Press campaign and we had all the posters.
  What the members of the party opposite failed to do was to look at the mistakes they made. However justified they may have been in their own minds in taking this step to save money and to do a good propaganda exercise in the country, they should have looked at the mistakes they made in their hurry. Take, for example, their back-bench campaign to save the cottage hospitals which followed the Press campaign. It was a milder campaign, a tranquil campaign, which was conducted as I say mainly by hon. Members opposite. There were a few hon. Members on this side of the Committee who took part in it too.
  They fought a campaign for the cottage hospitals. Hon. Members should look at the list of Adjournment debates and they will find that most of the Adjournment debates on hospitals were initiated by Conservative Members who all made the same plea. It was argued that the position of the general practitioner would be severely undermined if all the cottage hospitals were closed. I suggest that if the Government intend to go ahead with this programme they should put up new posters and tell the truth, which would be that general practitioner hospitals are to be closed at the rate of one every ten days between now and the end of 1975. That is the truth.
  What have me Government done about the general practitioner position? The Scottish plan made no calculation on the question of G.P.S beds. The General Medical Services Committee, which publishes an attractive pamphlet—I need not remind the Minister that it is not a professional body in the narrow sense of voluntary subscribing members, it does represent the profession—complained bitterly about the position of G.P. hospitals being totally unresolved. It stated:
  "What the Committee wants in practical terms is this. Keep the general practitioner hospitals which are scheduled for closure under the Hospital Plan. Provide more general practitioner beds in maternity hospitals and in the District Hospitals proposed in the Hospital
  752
  Plan. Give G.P.s open access to all diagnostic aids. And give G.P.s more opportunities to work in the Hospital Service."
  I am not saying that I would subscribe to all that. But I do say to the Minister that it is high time he told the profession what he intends to do and what really ought to be done about the integrating of these hospitals. Are they to be completely written off? Is that still part of the programme? After all, we shall be terribly short of doctors in the years to come.
  The anti-planners on the benches opposite made their most grievous error—comparable only to their error politically in voting against the Second and Third Reading of the National Health Service Act—when they accepted without question the recommendation of the Willink Committee in 1957 to cut the intake of medical students to the universities. We shall suffer from this until 1969. Since then the Government have reversed engines. By 1960 they realised their mistake. But the damage has been done, and it is substantial damage, to the medical manpower position in this country.
  Tonight my hon. Friends have demonstrated adequately how much we depend presently on doctors who were not born in the United Kingdom to sustain the medical services in the hospitals of this country. There is little point in building a lot of hospitals if we have no doctors to staff them. If the Government do not waken up to this, they will find themselves in an almost impossible situation. When the Minister advocates one new medical school and that is all, and when the Government have so far not designated that school, it is a cause of great alarm to the medical profession. We firmly believe that four new medical schools ought to be designated now, and there should be one in the north, possibly in Durham, as that is the part of the country where the shortage is most acute.
  Mr. J. M. L. Prior: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Dr. Mabon: No, I am fighting against time in order to meet the request of the Minister, despite the fact that I did not get all the time that I wanted earlier.
  I am coming to my point. Until we can resolve the present difficulty about medical manpower, it is almost nonsensical for us to talk about the Reports of

  753
  the Wright Committee and the Platt Committee.
  When we are already short of doctors and seeking in various ways to save medical manpower, the closure of many G.P. hospitals prematurely seems nonsensical. On the other hand, we are seeing dissatisfaction among many National Health Service patients about the long waiting lists to see consultants while a significant minority of people are jumping the queue by various means and getting to see consultants before their equitable time.
  This is a matter that is causing considerable concern, yet we recognise that until the implement of many of the proposals of the Wright Committee and of the Platt Review we shall not be able to cut down waiting lists and service the hospitals as should be done. We are waiting on the Minister with some concern to tell us the percentage increase which the Platt Review will suggest for the next five years. I am told that it might be about 28 per cent. One looks at the shortage at Newcastle, where there should be a 50 per cent. increase, and then in the South-West, where perhaps there should be a 20 per cent. increase. One has to look at the distribution of these increases in all parts of the country.
  I conclude on this note. If the previous Minister has been able to sit alongside the Prime Minister he would still be Minister of Health and the present Minister would still be at the Treasury. But this is not so and perhaps we could have been more unlucky.
  For example we could have had the present Minister of Housing and Local Government, who, when secretary of the Social Services Committee of the party opposite, actually proposed that prescription charges should be raised by 2s That was in June, 1959. The proposal was quickly hushed up but it was resuscitated when the party opposite succeeded in the General Election.
  So we are happy in the sense of not having the worst Minister in this office. The present one has been a good Treasury Minister. He has observed all the Tory fiscal principles and has been bent on applying them to the National Health Service ever since he came into office. By a statistician his predecessor has been called "The high priest of crude quantification". I should not call the present
  754
  Minister that. He is only a mere acolyte compared to the high priest, because he has not questioned his predecessor's activities, He has refused to re-examine any assumptions of the plan and has commissioned no social research. He has made himself a willing and eager party to the deceptive propaganda carried out by the party opposite in relation to the health programme. All in all he has been the best available Minister of Health as Ministers of Health go with the party opposite—and, thank heavens, they are going soon.
  9.24 p.m.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Anthony Barber): All those who were present in the Committee when the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Mackenzie) made his maiden speech were impressed and would wish to join me in congratulating him. I am sure the whole Committee was pleased that he saw fit to pay such a generous and well deserved tribute to Dick Brooman-White, whom we all knew so well in the House.
  The hon. Member went on to make a speech which was full of interest and backed up by an obvious knowledge of his subject. He said—I hope I have got it right—"We in Scotland take our politics seriously". I must say that with considerably subtlety he indulged in a delicate avoidance of controversy, but left most of us with the clear impression that he was a supporter of the Labour Party. It is normal on these occasions to conclude by saying "We hope to hear the hon. Member on many occasions in future", but I am bound to say that I should be less than honest if I were to say that about any Scottish Member of Parliament. The hon. Member will be heard with respect by all those who are concerned with Scottish affairs.
  Having made that observation about Scottish Members, perhaps I may say that I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) was a most agreeable one. The hon. Gentleman made some point about an observation of my right hon. Friend's concerned with the advantages and disadvantages of a long stay and a short stay in hospital. If I ever find myself in hospital again, I hope that, despite what he said, my stay will be a short

  755
  one, apart from the unlikely possibility of finding myself in a maternity unit.
  Earlier in the debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland spoke in general terms on what I believe any objective person will consider to be the very considerable progress in the hospital service in Britain which has taken place over the last few years, progress which has been due to the medical profession, the nurses and midwives, the administrative and technical staffs, and the many others in the hospital service, who together number over 600,000 men and women.
  I should like to add one more category of person without whose interest and devotion it would be impossible to run the hospital service on the lines to which every Member of the House of Commons subscribes. I am referring to the 10,000 voluntary members of regional hospital boards, boards of governors, hospital management committees and house committees, who are prepared to devote so much of their time, with no reward other than the satisfaction they glean from the influence for good that they have on the hospital service.
  Among these men and women are several hon. Gentleman and hon. Ladies on both sides. Indeed, the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) is himself a member of a regional hospital board. It is characteristic of the way we order our affairs in this country that he and others have always acted as loyal agents of the Government of the day, because the boards are the agents of the Minister, without the slightest embarrassment to the Minister, and, I hope, without embarrassment to themselves, although I know that on many matters concerning hospital administration, the hon. Gentleman takes a different view from myself.
  The hon. Member for Greenock, and, indeed, a number of other hon. Members before him, referred to the typhoid outbreak in Aberdeen. He referred to one particular aspect. I would like to say a few words about this. I had hoped to do so in any event, because I believe that there is considerable misunderstanding and I should like to take this,
  756
  the first opportunity I have had as Minister of Health, to make the position clear. The question has been asked: why when it was known in March that cans of corned beef at a canning plant in South America were being cooled with unchlorinated water, no further shipments from that plant were accepted but stocks already with wholesalers and in the shops were not recalled? I want, therefore, to explain to the Committee as briefly as I can just what happened.
  An official of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food inspecting plants in South America notified his Department in early March that a plant in Argentina was not chlorinating its cooling water. The official told the management of the plant that no further shipments would be accepted until the chlorination plant was in operation. A principal medical officer at the Ministry of Health was informed. He took the view that, as there was no pointer to any illness arising from the product of this plant and no information of any typhoid outbreak in the area in which the plant operated, or, indeed, connected with its products, it would not be reasonable to arrange for the withdrawal of such stocks of corned beef from that plant as he knew to be in circulation.
  I will come in a few moments to the merits of that decision, but perhaps I can first set out the chronology. It was on 1st June—that is, after the outbreak of typhoid in Aberdeen—that these facts were brought to the notice of myself and my right hon. Friends. After inquiries had been made in the course of the afternoon, it was learned on the same evening that some stocks from the plant in question produced during the period when cooling water was not chlorinated had been distributed through normal trade channels to the shop concerned in Aberdeen. On the following day my right hon. Friend announced that it had been decided to advise the withdrawal of certain 6 lb. cans from sale for the time being. I have met the representatives of the trade on a number of occasions, and this morning and this afternoon I have had further discussions with the representatives of the two plants in South America which have been referred to by my right hon. Friend.

  757
  I was told this evening that comparatively small quantities of tongue in 6 lb. cans were processed at these two plants over the same period as the 6 lb. cans of corned beef recently withdrawn from sale as a precautionary measure. I am told that these cans are not implicated in the Aberdeen typhoid outbreak in any way and that the possibility that any risk might attach to them must be remote indeed.
  In present circumstances, however, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I consider that it would be prudent for them to be withdrawn from sale for the time being, and the trade, with whom I have had discussions today, while strongly expressing the view, and they may be right, that there is nothing to indicate any danger of typhoid from these cans are, nevertheless, giving cooperation in making arrangements for their withdrawal.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: Would the Minister clarify this point? He says that since there may be an element of risk, there is to be the withdrawal of these 6 lb. tins of tongue for the time being. If the element of risk is present now, does he mean that at a future date these 6 lb. tins will be distributed by the trade so that the risk will still be there?
  Mr. Barber: That is a fair question. I am saying that there is no question of these cans, or the cans referred to by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the other day, being condemned. After all, views have been expressed by Dr. MacQueen and others as to what the cause of the outbreak might be. An inquiry has been set up by the Government specifically to consider the primary cause of the outbreak and how it was spread.
  It would be the height of folly, on very small evidence, to condemn this considerable amount of beef, and this much smaller number of cans of tongue. We must put it in cold storage, if I may use that phrase, until we get the report of the Committee—and then we shall decide. Having said that, I wish to turn to another matter which is very important; the merits of the decision taken by the Principal Medical Officer in March and the reasons why that decision was taken. I quite understand that this
  758
  was an error, but a very important one, made the other day by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) in an intervention.
  These were the reasons taken into account by the Principal Medical Officer. First, no ill-effects had been associated with corned beef imported from the plant, which is named Argentina 1A, whether or not the cans had been cooled with unchlorinated water. Secondly, to admit organisms during cooling there must, I am told, be a defect in the seam of the can, and I am given to understand that this happens only rarely. Thirdly, the chances of disease-causing organisms being admitted to the can without the organisms causing obvious spoilage of the contents are even more remote.
  Unchlorinated cooling water is not of itself a cause of infection, and obviously what matters is the purity of the water. The Ministry of Agriculture inspector has confirmed that, as a result of inquiries which he made on the spot, there was no information of any typhoid outbreak in the area in which the plant operated. I ask the Committee to remember that this differed significantly from the circumstances last year when typhoid outbreaks in England became, on cumulative circumstantial evidence, connected with the output of corned beef from a particular plant which had been cooled with unchlorinated water after there had been an outbreak of typhoid upstream of the intake of the cooling plant. In those circumstances, the same Principal Medical Officer at once advised the withdrawal of all cans produced since the outbreak of typhoid in question. I might add that, throughout, the trade has cooperated fully to comply with the Government's wishes, regardless of their own views.
  The average rate of consumption of canned corned beef in the United Kingdom in the last 20 years has been of the order of 60,000 tons a year. Well over 1 million tons were consumed between 1944 and 1963 alone, much of it from cans cooled in unchlorinated water.
  Mr. Walter Monslow: This is important because of the statement made by my right hon.

  759
  Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and I want to supplement what he said. I understand that as far as the high seas were concerned a stop was put on, but certain corned beef had arrived. What was the time factor in this recall?
  Mr. Barber: I want to deal with that very point. I have dealt so far with the reasons for the decision not to withdraw stocks in this country when it was known by the Principal Medical Officer in March. Obviously I have given this matter considerable thought. In fairness to the Principal Medical Officer concerned, I must say that if I had been asked for my view at that time I have no doubt that I would have endorsed his decision and, what is more, my Chief Medical Officer takes the same view.
  The point which the hon. Member is making is really the same as that raised by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) the other day when he asked very properly, "If that decision was right, why on earth was it decided not to accept further shipments?" The answer is that this was meat presented for import with a certificate known to be inaccurate as a result of the inquiries which had been made. It was very properly rejected because of that failure, but rejection of food at the port, in those circumstances, does not mean that a specific health hazard exists which alone would warrant action to call in supplies which have already been distributed in this country. It has not been possible before to give the Committee a full account, firstly of what happened and secondly the reasons for the decision taken, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Greenock for permitting me to rise a little earlier than normal to make this clear.
  Mr. William Ross: Surely the facts remain as stated and brought out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), that the Government were aware that there were distributed within this country stocks of corned beef from a factory in respect of which further stocks were stopped on the high seas and that these stocks which had been distributed—and this may be the trouble about the fact that they had been distributed—were also imported on the basis of certificates
  760
  which carried false information since the same circumstances arose. Is the right hon. Gentleman denying that his Department in the circumstances took a calculated risk, and we do not know yet just exactly what the risk was?
  Mr. Barber: I see the hon. Member's point, but what the right hon. Member for Belper said the other day was that the Minister, my right hon. Friend, said that he and his right hon. Friend were advised months ago, presumably in time to avoid this outbreak, to withdraw these supplies of corned beef, but the right hon. Member for Belper said that he did not do so. All I wanted to explain was that this was not what happened.
  I do not wish to detain the Committee because I want to go on to other matters, but I can give examples. I know of a consignment of an entirely different product which arrived at a port in this country from another country which is well known for its hygienic conditions. This product arrived with no certificate with it, and it was turned back at the port even though we were told that a certificate would follow and even though there was no reason to think that there was any health hazard of any kind. It was nevertheless turned back on those grounds.
  As for the suggested calculated risk, serious though the outbreak in Aberdeen has been, we must keep a sense of proportion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I will explain what I mean. I am not being discourteous. It is quite impossible to take steps to ensure that 100 per cent. canned food or indeed any other food is not contaminated in any way. Of course, it would be possible to go to inordinate lengths, but the consequence would be that there would be virtually nothing left to eat. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am advised that, in fact, canned food is in general less liable to infection than fresh food.
  I have had opportunities before of explaining this particular point outside the House of Commons, but I did not do so because I had in mind that there would be this occasion. The hon. Gentleman allowed me to rise a little early, and I wanted to make the matter clear.
  Mr. Ross: This is a serious matter, and I think that the difficulty arises from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is making what is virtually a Government statement at a time when he cannot be properly questioned by the Committee and without the usual courtesy of a copy of that statement made to the other Front Bench. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is perfectly true.
  We are discussing the matter within the context of our knowledge of an outbreak and within the context of our knowledge that the medical officer of health on the spot has certain definite opinions on the cause of the outbreak. It was nine days after the event before the Secretary of State issued his statement about the withdrawal of certain cans. The right hon. Gentleman has not satisfactorily dealt with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper said. I have no recollection of my right hon. Friend saying that the Minister had been advised to withdraw. What he was saying was that the Minister's Department knew of the existence of such stocks which had been distributed.
  Mr. Barber: I quoted what the right hon. Gentleman had said. I have explained why what he said was not true. I have not the slightest doubt that the inaccuracy was quite inadvertent, but it was important nevertheless to have the record straight. This is all I have done. I have explained exactly what happened, and I said that I believe the decision taken to be the right one. I thought it right to give the Committee this information. If I may say so—I do not want to pursue this unduly unless the hon. Gentleman wishes me to do so—the only bit of news I have given tonight was the information I learned only this afternoon about the comparatively small number of cans of tongue. I thought that, as it would only take a minute and a half to give the information to the Committee, it would be right to do so, particularly as many hon. Members will be away tomorrow, Friday.
  Mr. Denzil Freeth: Is it not a fact that, until 1955, virtually none of the corned beef consumed in this country was cooled in chlorinated water, and virtually no outbreaks of typhoid on a serious scale occurred?
  Mr. Barber: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The first pointers to any serious association with typhoid were the outbreaks last year.
  I come now to some of the points made in the general debate. There were three or four references to the question of typhoid, and I thought it right to deal with that matter first. A great deal has been said in the debate about individual projects, all of which, of course, have a bearing on the size of the hospital programme and, consequently, on the demands which that programme makes on both physical resources and finance. I shall come back in a few minutes to these over-riding considerations, but I wish first to deal as quickly as I can with one or two aspects of the Hospital Service raised by hon. Members in the course of the debate. If I do not answer in the time available all the points which have been raised, this is not through lack of goodwill but because there is very little time left.
  The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North asked me about the Platt Report and suggested that I was holding back publication of it for some ulterior motive. I can tell him that the difficulty is that we are still discussing a most important point with the profession, namely, the terms and conditions of service for the new intermediate grade. We hope to reach a conclusion fairly soon, and I expect that it will not be too long before we are able to publish the outcome. Obviously, it is a matter of general interest.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame Edith Pitt) referred to beds for mental illness and asked whether the number was likely to be reduced, as was envisaged at an earlier stags;. The probable number of beds required for 1975 for mental illness, as shown in the original Hospital Plan, represents overall a reduction of 40 per cent. on the beds in 1960. Other forecasts of requirement have been made, including a recent study of the Leeds Regional Board, which was probably the one referred to by an hon. Member opposite. We are now looking at this. No beds will be closed as long as they are needed. The fact remains that the total number of beds in use has declined year by year since 1960.
  The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) asked about enrolled nurses,

  763
  My right hon. Friend was talking generally about the increase in the number of nursing staff in the hospital service over a period of 10 years. The number of enrolled nurses over the same period has gone up by nearly 3,000.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith) made a particularly interesting and forceful speech. I am sorry that I did not hear all that he said. I will, however, certainly look into the point that he made. I recognise the difficulties which some teaching hospitals have in coping with the amount available for expenditure on current account. I agree entirely that it is undesirable for children to be in the same wards as adults. Nothing has distressed my wife more than when coming around a hospital with me a short time ago she saw a small child in bed next to an old lady who was very ill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) asked, ought not more beds to be provided at Fort William? He will be pleased to know that the new general hospital will be open at Fort William before the end of this year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston asked for figures about tuberculosis and diseases of the chest. I have the figures here, but perhaps I may write to her. They bear out, I think, the point that she was making.
  Mr. Ross: Does the Minister mean Fort William, or Port William? The hon. Member for Galloway represents Port William, but he does not represent Fort William.
  Mr. Barber: I was told Fort William, but Scottish affairs are rather beyond me.
  Perhaps I can answer quickly the criticism made by the hon. Member for Greenock about the Western Region. I thought that he was indicating that we were not even reaching the Montgomery standards of maternity provision. I am told that the returns from the medical officers of health in the Western Region showed that the institutional confinement rate in the region as a whole in 1963 was over 76 per cent. The hon. Member will
  764
  be particularly pleased to hear about that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] It is no good saying "Oh, no". This is what the medical officers of health say.
  Dr. Mabon: I am surprised that the Minister is not being fair. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Robertson) interrupted the Secretary of State to give the example of a specific place in the region. That is our complaint against the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Barber: All right—Paisley, within the region. Montgomery said 70 to 75 per cent. The hon. Gentleman knows that for Paisley it is 75 per cent. Therefore, it is not so bad.
  Dr. Mabon: The Secretary of State said 66 per cent.
  Mr. Barber: Yes, but he was referring to 1962. I have been a bit quicker off the mark. I have the 1963 figures, which are very much better.
  I should love to say a great deal about small hospitals, but, frankly, it would take me a fair time. I have said it all before, and if the hon. Member for Greenock really wants to know my policy I will be delighted to let him have it. I have a large bunch of papers concerning manpower—doctors, nurses, and so on.
  Miss Herbison: The Minister has been dealing with the Western Regional Hospital Board. Can he give the members of that Board any comfort, particularly about the Strathclyde hospital in the growth area?
  Mr. Barber: The hon. Lady might have given me notice of that. I should have been happy to answer it.
  I turn to the hospital building programme. There has been considerable criticism today of the programme. I remember that in the last debate, in December, the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North said:
  "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."
  It was the hon. Member, and not me, who chose 1951.
  I ask the Committee to consider how the Labour Party set about, to use the hon. Member's own words, poising themselves for a great push forward. We

  765
  all remember that the Leader of the Opposition resigned from the Government because, as he said, there was for the first time a cutting into the social services. That was the Labour Government's swansong. To use his own words, the Leader of the Opposition's reason was that British industry stood disorganised and threatened by partial paralysis. That was after six years of Socialism. Then, the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North went on to declare
  "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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1963; Vol. 686. 1467.
  Hon. Members opposite have today chosen to debate the Hospital Service. Let us consider, therefore, what the hon. Gentleman was saying in relation to that Service. In those halcyon days of Socialist public affluence—[Interruption]—no, not in 1945—
  Mr. Lubbock rose—
  Mr. Barber: I am not giving way.
  Mr. Lubbock: On a point of order. Hon. Members have asked a large number of questions during the debate, Sir William, and we are waiting for the replies to them. Will we get them?
  The Chairman: No point of order arises.
  Miss Herbison: On a point of order. I wonder, Sir William, whether you can help me in a difficult situation. [Laughter.] It may be funny to all those hon. Members who have not attended the debate. But when I intervened with the Minister to seek an answer to a specific question which I had put to him in the debate he said that he would require notice of it. Where is the liaison between the two Ministers? May I have a reply?
  The Chairman: That is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Barber: I offer my humble apologies to the hon. Lady and will write to her immediately. If she would like to put down a Question—[Interruption.]—I apologise if I missed the question; otherwise I should have tried to find the answer.
  766
  These general questions which have been brought up time and time again during the debate are very relevant. For example, the hon. Member for Greenock, in winding up the debate, and the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) both derided the Government because, they said, the Conservative Central Office had withdrawn a poster about hospital building. I want it to be known clearly that that is quite untrue. No poster was withdrawn.
  Dr. Mabon: Where is it?
  Mr. Barber: Furthermore, it is a fact that last year's programme included the start of one new or substantially remodelled hospital every 19 days. I hope that the Opposition will not be too dismayed when I say that this year we shall start one every 10 days. To listen to some hon. Members opposite, one would get the impression that a Labour Government would increase the hospital programme.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) said that what we want is a little honesty. But is there a single right hon. or hon. Member on the Front Bench opposite who would pretend that a Labour Government would increase the present programme?
  Dr. Mabon: Answer the questions.
  Mr. Barber: I will quote what the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North said and I will answer him. This is what he said about the future of the hospital programme under the Labour Party. The Committee will, I hope, ponder on these words. He said: "What would a Labour Government do? It is difficult to answer that question in precise terms. Schemes now under construction we would not touch, but with regard to the second quinquennium, we should take a long and hard look at it with the hospital authorities." I think the House will agree that those are words pregnant with significance.
  Mr. K. Robinson: The right hon. Gentleman is not making very profitable use of the few minutes left to him. However, he might go on to say that I reminded the Committee that there were five specific things that we would do.
  Mr. Barber: All I was saying was that I assume that the hon. Gentleman and all other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen

  767
  on the Opposition Front Bench agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who said that the hospital programme could not be exceeded by any party with any degree of responsibility.
  The fact is that throughout the debate hon. Members opposite have bemoaned the inadequacies of the hospital plans in their own constituencies. I hope they will now go back to their electors and tell them that the policy of the Labour Party is to do no more than the Government propose. If they are not prepared to do that, let the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North tell the Committee in what other parts of the country he would make compensating cuts in the programme.
  There is also the question of how one finances the hospital programme. The health charges are to be abolished at a cost of £50 million. When I asked the hon. Gentleman whether there would be £50 million less for the Health Service, he said "No". When I asked him on another occasion whether there would be a £50 million increase in taxation, he said "No". So the only remaining alternative is a cut of £50 million which would otherwise be available for some other
  public service. I hope that in due course we shall be told which.
  That is not all. There is an Opposition proposal to abolish the weekly Health Service contribution which helps finance the hospital service. At last year's Labour Party Conference a resolution was passed which would cost £160 million a year, which is equivalent to 9d. on the standard rate of Income Tax. Is that what we can expect for abolishing the Health Service contribution, or is there to be an increase in Purchase Tax or an increase in Profits Tax?
  The issue before the Committee is clear. All I would say is that if hon. Gentlemen opposite are not going to fulfil the views expressed by the Labour Party Conference, by the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), who is now leaving the Chamber, and by the Leader of the Opposition, they still have a few more months in which to try to settle their differences. Meanwhile, we shall get on with the job.
  Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move, That Item Class VI, Vote 13 (Ministry of Health), be reduced by £5.
  Question put:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 219, Noes 274.

  Division No. 108.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Darling, George

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Harper, Joseph

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Barnett, Guy

  Deer, George

  Hayman, F. H.

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

  Beaney, Alan

  Diamond, John

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Dodds, Norman

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Bence, Cyril

  Doig, Peter

  Hilton, A. V.

  Bonn, Anthony Wedgwood

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Holman, Percy

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Driberg, Tom

  Hooson, H. E.

  Benson, Sir George

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

  Houghton, Douglas

  Blackburn, F.

  Edelman, Maurice

  Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

  Blyton, William

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Howie, W.

  Boston, T.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Hoy, James H.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

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

  Evans, Albert

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Bowles, Frank

  Finch, Harold

  Hunter, A. E.

  Boyden, James

  Fitch, Alan

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Bradley, Tom

  Fletcher, Eric

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Foley, Maurice

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Forman, J. C.

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Jeger, George

  Callaghan, James

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Ginsburg, David

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Chapman, Donald

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Collick, Percy

  Gourlay, Harry

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Grey, Charles

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Kelley, Richard

  Cronin, John

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Crosland, Anthony

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Lawson, George

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Ledger, Ron

  Dalyell, Tam

  Gunter, Ray

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Oram, A. E.

  Sorensen, R, W.

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Owen, Will

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Padley, W. E.

  Stones, William

  Lipton, Marcus

  Paget, R. T.

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Pargiter, G. A.

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

  Lubbock, Eric

  Parker, John

  Swain, Thomas

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Parkin, B. T.

  Swingler, Stephen

  McBride, N.

  Paton, John

  Symonds, J, B.

  MacColl, James

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Taverne, D,

  MacDermot, Niall

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  McInnes, James

  Peart, Frederick

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Pentland, Norman

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Prentice, R. E.

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

  McLeavy, Frank

  Probert, Arthur

  Thornton, Ernest

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Timmons, John

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Randall, Harry

  Tomney, Frank

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

  Rankin, John

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Manuel, Archie

  Redhead, E. C.

  Warbey, William

  Mapp, Charles

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Weitzman, David

  Marsh, Richard

  Reid, William

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Mason, Roy

  Rhodes, H.

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Mellish, R. J.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Whitlock, William

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Millan, Bruce

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Milne, Edward

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Ross, William

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Monslow, Walter

  Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

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

  Moody, A. S.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

  Silkin, John

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Woof, Robert

  Moyle, Arthur

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Mulley, Frederick

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Zilliacus, K.

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

  Small, William

  Oliver, G. H.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  O'Malley, S. K.

  Snow, Julian

  Mr. Short and

  Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Gardner, Edward

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Chataway, Christopher

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Allason, James

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Arbuthnot, Sir John

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Cole, Norman

  Goodhart, Philip

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Balniel, Lord

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Gough, Frederick

  Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Barlow, Sir John

  Corfield, F. V.

  Green, Alan

  Barter, John

  Costain, A. P.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Batsford, Brian

  Coulson, Michael

  Gurden, Harold

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Critchley, Julian

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Crowder, F. P.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Bidgood, John C.

  Curran, Charles

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Biffen, John

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Bingham, R. M.

  Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hastings, Stephen

  Bishop, Sir Patrick

  Doughty, Charles

  Hay, John

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Alec

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Bossom, Hon. Clive

  du Cann, Edward

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Duncan, Sir James

  Hendry, Forbes

  Box, Donald

  Eden, Sir John

  Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

  Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Braine, Bernard

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

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Brewis, John

  Emmet, Hon, Mrs. Evelyn

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

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Farr, John

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Bryan, Paul

  Fell, Anthony

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin

  Buck, Antony

  Fisher, Nigel

  Holland, Philip

  Bullard, Denys

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Hollingworth, John

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Forrest, George

  Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

  Burden, F. A.

  Foster, Sir John

  Hopkins, Alan

  Campbell, Gordon

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Freeth, Denzil

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

  Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Gammans, Lady

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  770

  771

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Neave, Airey

  Stodart, J. A.

  James, David

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Jennings, J, C.

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Johnson, Eric (Blakeley)

  Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Talbot, John E.

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

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

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Teeling, Sir William

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Temple, John M.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Partridge, E.

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Kimball, Marcus

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Kirk, Peter

  Percival, Ian

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

  Leavey, J. A.

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Pitman, Sir James

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Pounder, Rafton

  Turner, Colin

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

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Longden, Gilbert

  Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Prior-Palmer, Brig, sir Otho

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Pym, Francis

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Walder, David

  MacArthur, Ian

  Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  McLaren, Martin

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter

  Wall, Patrick

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs)

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Ward, Dame Irene

  MacLeod, Sir John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

  McMaster, Stanley R.

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

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Whitelaw, William

  Maddan, Martin

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Maitland, Sir John

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Roots, William

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Marlowe, Anthony

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Wise, A. R.

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Marshall, Sir Douglas

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Marten, Neil

  Sharples, Richard

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Shaw, M.

  Woollam, John

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Shepherd, William

  Worsley, Marcus

  Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Mawby, Ray

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

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

  Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

  Mr. Chichester-Clark and

  Mills, Stratton

  Speir, Rupert

  Mr. Finlay

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Stainton, Keith

  Original Question again proposed.
  Sir Stephen McAdden rose—
  It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  IMPORT DUTIES (CORK STOPPERS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Import Duties (General) (No. 4) Order 1964 (S.I., 1964, No. 633), dated 27th April, 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st May, be approved.—[Mr. du Cann.]
  Mr. Douglas Jay: Perhaps the Minister of State will explain these two Orders and say why he wishes them to be approved.
  10.12 pm.
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edward du Cann): I shall be very happy to do that, if it meets the convenience of the House.
  Perhaps it would be better to take these Orders seriatim as they deal with different subjects.
  The first Order varies the rates of import duty payable on articles of natural cork which enter this country under tariff heading 45·03. Its effect is to increase the full rate of duty on cork stoppers with plastic tops from nil to 10 per cent. ad valorem, and the E.F.T.A. rate from nil to 4 per cent.
  In order to show why this Order is necessary, as invited to do by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay)—I must ask the House to bear with me for a moment while I go over the history of the matter and explain how the present duty position arose. Until November, 1961, all cork stoppers except those containing metal rubber or wood were dutiable at 10 per cent. ad valorem At that date, this duty was removed, following an application by the Cork Trade Association—what one might call a routine matter of application, justified and accepted. It seems, however, that the Association had not realised that if the duty payable under the tariff head covering cork discs and cork stoppers other than those containing metal, rubber or wood were removed, as it requested, plastic-topped cork stoppers, which come under the same head, would also be freed of duty. As soon as it realised that these stoppers had become duty free, it at once asked for the duty on them to be restored.
  The present Order, therefore, does not impose a new duty, but restores one which was removed not by intention but
  774
  by inadvertence on the part of the applicants.
  However we did not feel that it would be right to re-impose an import duty, once it had been removed—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and the House will agree with this—simply on such grounds which, after all, were rather remarkable and unusual unless there were also some evidence that actual harm was being caused which had not been intended. A full investigation therefore was made to find out whether lack of protection was doing any harm to domestic manufacturers of plastic-topped cork stoppers. We found that it was, and clearly was.
  This is a type of stopper which, as hon. Members will no doubt have noticed if they have much contact with bottles—I am obliged for support from whatever quarter it is derived—is coming increasingly into use. They were not so widely used until about 5 years ago because the technical problems of joining the plastic stopper to the cork had not been satisfactorily solved. The right adhesive has now been discovered and manufacturers have found that more and more of their customers are going over to the plastic-topped stopper. In other words there has been some change in the situation.
  They are, of course, ready to supply these, but find that they lose many orders because of competition from imported plastic-topped stoppers, mainly coming from the Netherlands and Western Germany, at prices which are often lower than they themselves can afford to quote. This is partly because the plastic raw material used, polystyrene, is cheaper on the Continent than it is in Britain, and partly because Continental competitors, whose home markets are protected by import duties of over 12 per cent are in a better position to install the most modern and efficient machinery. It has been said that restoration of the import duty will enable our industry also to install such machinery and make itself more competitive.
  We have, therefore, satisfied ourselves that this small but worthwhile United Kingdom industry stands in need of the protection which it enjoyed until it was inadvertently removed in November, 1961, and that restoration of the duty

  775
  is, in accordance with Section 1(2) of the Import Duties Act, desirable in the interests of maintaining and promoting the efficiency of its production.
  I am glad to have been able to give the House this short explanation as requested by the right hon. Gentleman.
  I hope that in the fight of all these considerations, the House will give its approval to the Order.
  Question put and agreed to.

  IMPORT DUTIES (IMITATION PATENT LEATHER)
  10.17 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edward du Cann): I beg to move,
  That the Import Duties (General) (No. 5) Order 1964 (S.I., 1964, No. 658), dated 7th May, 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th May, be approved.
  I regret having to weary the House with these technical explanations, but I have been asked for them, and I am sure that the request of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) is entirely right and proper.
  This Order does three things. It is slightly more complicated than the last. It gives effect to a corrigendum issued some time ago by the Customs Cooperation Council in Brussels intended to align the English and the French texts of Heading No. 41.08 of the Brussels Nomenclature. The corrigendum extends the heading to cover imitation patent leather as well as patent leather. I find myself in some difficulty because I understand that there are divided opinions throughout the world whether the word "patent" should be pronounced with a long or short "a". The right hon. Gentleman says that it should be pronounced with a long a. I can only tell him that majority opinion does not agree with him. In order to please him I will vary the pronunciation from time to time
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how he thinks the OFFICIAL REPORT will be able to distinguish one pronunciation from the other?
  Mr. du Cann: That is not a matter for me, but I am certain that with their usual excellence and competence those concerned on HANSARD will solve the matter adequately.
  Secondly, the Order prescribes a new tariff sub-heading for imitation patent leather within the amended Heading, 41.08. Before the Order took effect—some while in advance of this debate—imitation patent leather was classifiable according to the type of leather to which the patent type glossy surface was applied—bovine, sheepskin, pigskin, etc., as the case might be. In practice nearly all known imports have been of the type of leather classifiable under sub-heading 41.02(A)—box and willow calf, etc., imported in skins or pieces weighing less than 4 lb. each. The full rate of duty payable on this leather is 20 per cent. This is the full rate, therefore, applicable against the new sub-heading for imitation patent leather. The Order as a whole is subject to the affirmative rather than the negative resolution procedure only because the full rates of duty on other kinds of leather are less than 20 per cent. and of the consequent possibility that a few consignments of imitation patent leather may be charged with a higher rate of duty now than they would have attracted before the Order took effect. These two points, although complicated, are matters of pure routine, but are of great interest to those people in the trade who are concerned with them.
  The third point is a new one. The Order prescribes that the E.F.T.A. rate of duty on imitation patent leather shall be the same as the E.F.T.A. rate on patent leather itself—that is to say 3 per cent. rather than the 8 per cent. which would correspond to the full rate of 20 per cent. This is because it has been difficult to determine whether certain E.F.T.A. products should be admitted as patent or as imitation patent leather.
  The difficulty is that recent technical developments in methods of giving leather the glossy type surface characteristically associated with patent leather are making it extremely difficult, I am advised, even for trade experts to define precisely where the line should be drawn between "genuine" and "imitation" patent leather. As the House will know,

  777
  the changed rate of duty will in any case become nil by the end of 1966, and we have decided that it would be appropriate to equalise the rates now at the lower rate applicable to patent leather. In other words, we are moving forward
  778
  a little which seems a practical thing to do in the context of the technical difficulties which I have endeavoured to explain to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.

  RAILWAYS (GRIMSBY)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pym.]
  10.21 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Crosland: After that long essay in detail with which we have been favoured, I wish to bring the House to the matter of train services in and out of Grimsby. I wish to raise a number of points with the Parliamentary Secretary on all of which I have given him notice. They all seem to demonstrate the fact that Grimsby's future under the rule of Dr. Beeching appears to be extremely bleak. Grimsby apparently plays only a minimal rôle in his view of affairs. And they all seem to indicate an important point in the present set-up, that it is nobody's business to consider the effect of the railway decisions on the road transport problems in the areas affected.
  The first matter I wish to raise is the proposal of the Railways Board to withdraw the passenger train services on the Cleethorpes, Grimsby and New Holland line. Many objections were raised to this. The Transport Users Consultative Committee held a public inquiry on 12th November of last year and on 24th January of this year it was announced that
  "In their report to the Minister of Transport, the Committee expressed the view that the withdrawal of the services would inflict hardship upon large numbers of people. They were unable to suggest any adequate means of alleviating this hardship."
  I think that this was an unusually strong report to go to the Minister from any T.U.C.C. It is one of the most definite statements that I have read. I will not go through the arguments in detail. The grounds of the hardship are well enough known to anybody who lives in the area. There is no adequate alternative bus service, and the present bus service compared with the rail service would take a great deal longer, cost a great deal more and would obviously be less convenient for very many people—those with perambulators and luggage and so on. All these points have been made before. The particular point in this case is that
  780
  we have a long pier at New Holland and the train draws up to the end of the pier. The bus would have to stop at the beginning of the pier which is a quarter of a mile long. Anyone who is aware of what the weather can be like in north Lincolnshire in winter will spare some thought for people—especially the old and the lame—who find themselves stranded with a quarter of a mile to walk.
  Those are the main reasons why many of us and the T.U.C.C. think that great hardship will result from the closure of this line and the withdrawal of the passenger service. My first question to the Parliamentary Secretary is, what is happening? After all, 24th January, when the T.U.C.C. reported to the Minister, is nearly five months ago, and I wish to know whether any decision has been taken. If the reason is that the Minister is delaying because he is taking a total view of the whole picture in north Lincolnshire, obviously that would be an adequate reason and I should have less complaint to make. But after a delay of five months, we should have some explanation of when the decision is likely to be given and what is the reason for it having been postponed for so long.
  The second point I wish to raise with the Parliamentary Secretary concerns the proposal of British Railways to withdraw passenger services on the Peter-borough-Grimsby-Cleethorpes line, a line which I know well, as does the hon. Member for Horncastle (Sir J. Maitland) as one who travels on it many times a year. Although Grimsby would be extremely bady affected if passenger services were withdrawn on this line, in some towns in his constituency the position would be even worse than in Grimsby. The basic arguments against the closure are very much the same as those against the closure of the New Holland line, but there are two additional problems.
  In this case the redundancy of railway workers would be much more severe. The trade unions concerned reckon that well over 400 people might be made redundant by this closure. The second problem which arises on this line, but not to the same extent on the New Holland line, is that of peak holiday traffic which is acute. One is horrified

  781
  at the prospect of thrusting on to the winding, tortuous Lincolnshire roads the enormous volume of peak holiday traffic which now goes by rail.
  It is strongly rumoured that so many objections have been lodged with the Transport Users Consultative Committee about the proposal relating to this line that the Committee may not be able to meet until the end of September. Then the whole thing may be solved by the General Election. I should like an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary, however, about the future of this extremely important line.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: I wonder if the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) is aware that the concern he is expressing is felt as far away as Peterborough and that some assurance will be appreciated in Peterborough.
  Mr. Crosland: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member. I think that the concern is widespread not only in towns on the line but also in places served by branch lines such as Skegness and other places.
  I turn to the question of freight services. I completely recognise that the Minister's responsibilities in connection with freight services are not the same as those affecting passenger services. In the 1962 Transport Act British Railways were given complete power over freight services and the only power of the Minister there is one of general direction. Knowing that, I speak in this connection on general policy because it would be unfair to put to the Parliamentary Secretary a particular decision about freight traffic. I wish to ask him if he considers that there is a case for a general direction on the amount of notice which British Railways should give when announcing the withdrawal of a freight service, or a very large increase in freight charges.
  At the moment they do not always seem to give sufficient notice. If this is so, the matter seems to be one of Ministerial responsibility. I illustrate that point by two examples both concerning Grimbsy. The first relates to dock haulage charges for timber. Grimsby timber merchants received a letter on 7th November last year telling them that a nearly three-fold increase
  782
  in charges would take effect on 18th November, less than a fortnight later.
  It seems quite wrong that an important trade should be given less than two weeks' notice of an increase in charges amounting to very nearly threefold. The announcement was made without any prior consultation. As a consequence, a great deal of reorganisation will be necessary. What is also important in the long run is that the rather autocratic way in which this was done has somewhat poisoned the relations between the timber trade and the railways which historically have been very good in this part of the world. I want to know whether this might justify the Minister making a general direction about the period of notice which should be given.
  The last question I ask refers to fish trains and an even more alarming situation. It is proposed to cut down the number of fish trains out of Grimsby from eight to effectively two. I want to be fair to British Railways. There may have been a genuine misunderstanding here and a genuine failure of communications, but Grimsby fish merchants are convinced that they were informed only in mid-April—15th April, in fact—that this very drastic cut in the number of fish trains would take place in July. I could quote evidence of the fact that they were all convinced that this was true. But there may have been a real misunderstanding over this, and I do not want to be unfair to British Railways, because the railways say that they never had any intention of taking these trains off until October. But the fact is that the merchants in Grimsby thought that this was the intention and that they had been given three months' notice.
  This announcement of the withdrawal of the fish trains in Grimsby, more than in any other fishing port, will lead to the most enormous upheavel. The fish merchants will have to prepare a very elaborate alternative system of road transport. They quite recognise that they may have to do this, but they say that three months would have been an impossibly short time in which to do it and that even notice as short as six months will make it difficult for them. If they have not been able to

  783
  do this by October it is probable that the whole matter will have to be raised again.
  Whether there was a misunderstanding or not, the essential point is this: I personally, and, I think, the timber merchants and fish merchants in Grimsby, too, do not think that it is any part of the job of British Railways to continue to run uneconomic services. Of course it is not. To suggest that it is part of their business is to adopt a ridiculous attitude. All we say is that if British Railways decide that services are uneconomic and wish either to put up the charges drastically or to withdraw the services, it is essential that they should consult the trade concerned and should give the trade concerned proper notice, prior warning, months and even possibly a year or more ahead so that the trade can make its own alternative transport arrangements.
  This raises the question whether some general direction ought to be given by the Minister to British Railways on those lines. This is not an attack on British Railways. I suggest that such an approach would be in the interests of the railways because the question of public relations is very important to them, and any suggestion of autocratic behaviour obviously does their public relations no good.
  Another issue which arises from all these four matters which I have raised is whether the Minister should not make himself more directly responsible for the consequences on the road transport system of the withdrawal of rail services. As many hon. Members know, in north and east Lincolnshire the roads are narrow. Certainly we do not have marvellous highways running from Peterborough to Grimsby or from Grimsby to Skegness. We have narrow, winding, tortuous roads. Every one of these decisions will put on the roads much additional and usually very heavy freight traffic. The fact is that at the moment British Railways can take this kind of decision about rail services without having to take any responsibility for the effect which the decision will have on the roads.
  10.33 p.m.
  Sir John Maitland: The whole House is grateful to the hon. Member
  784
  for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) for raising this matter, and certainly those of us who live in Lincolnshire are grateful. Lincolnshire is the second largest county in England. This system of closures which is proposed will cut literally half the county off from the rest of England, and we shall have no railway transport whatever if these closures take place. As the hon. Member said, because we are sparsely populated in Lincolnshire, the roads are naturally long and narrow, and replacing rail transport by road transport would be enormously expensive.
  There is one point only which I want to make in the few minutes for which I shall speak. The Government have said that they are carrying out surveys of all the various parts of England They have already carried out a survey in Scotland and in the North-East, and at the moment they are surveying the West Midlands and other parts of England. They propose to do the entire country. It seems to me quite ridiculous that this great system of railways should be closed—quite apart from the effect on the holiday traffic and other troubles involved—before such a survey is made. We hear of tremendous congestion in the south-east of England. Almost the last place to which industry can move is the very large area in east Lincolnshire, and I cannot understand how it can be contemplated that we should close the railway lines feeding this area before such a survey has been made.
  I regard the future with considerable optimism because during the 19 years I have been in Parliament on no occasion have I failed to have put right a situation which was shown to be unjust. It is always possible, if there is a real injustice, to put it right. That is, perhaps, the finest thing about British Parliamentary procedure. It is obviously so right that we should maintain this service that I have great faith that when the Government have completed their consideration of the matter they will inevitably maintain this line, not only in the interests of Lincolnshire but for the future economic development of this country.
  10.36 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D, Galbraith): Before Whitsun, the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland)

  785
  secured an Adjournment debate when he decided to discuss the freight services out of Grimsby. He then unfortunately caught chicken pox, but I am glad to see that he is now fully recovered. During his convalescence he must have thought that freight was too limited a subject, for tonight he has expanded the title of the debate and we are now landed with passenger services as well as with freight.
  I do not know that I can reply adequately to either leg of his argument, because freight is essentially a matter of management for which my right hon. Friend has no responsibility, and the future of the passenger services to which he referred is, as it were, sub judice. However, I will do my best to reply, though strictly there really is nothing to answer for, which is always the difficulty we come up against when we debate these detailed matters of nationalised industries.
  I think the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends the Members for Horn-castle (Sir J. Maitland) and for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) know what the procedure is with regard to railway closures. First of all, the railways on their own initiative—I stress that; it has nothing to do with the Minister or with the Government—decide in the light of their commercial judgment which lines they want to close. This is what they have done here. Their proposals, so far as they affect Grimsby, as the hon. Gentleman told us, involve the closure to the north of the lines linking Grimsby and Cleethorpes with New Holland, Barton-on-Humber and Immingham, and to the south the closure of the Grimsby to Peterborough line with branches to Mablethorpe and Skegness, which concern my two hon. Friends the Members for Horncastle and Peterborough.
  The railways having made a proposal to close these lines, what happened next was that an objection was lodged; in fact, several objections were lodged. Because objections were lodged, this set in motion the special machinery devised in the 1962 Act for the protection of the interests of passengers. This brings in both the Transport Users Consultative Committee and the Minister. I do not think I need remind the hon. Gentleman
  786
  or my hon. Friends that the purpose of the T.U.C.C. is to consider whether or not a closure would cause hardship and whether or not the alternatives suggested are satisfactory.
  With regard to the northern group, as the hon. Gentleman said, the T.U.C.C. has already reported. It was, however, as the hon. Gentleman also told us, unable to suggest any means of alleviating the hardship which closure would cause, either through the use of existing bus services or the additional bus services which had been proposed at the T.U.C.C. hearing. Because of this failure to find any way of dealing with the hardship, we tried to see whether other alternatives exist, and we have asked the Railways Board to look at the problem again, especially—and this meets the point made by the hon. Gentleman—on how to enable passengers to make a connection with the ferry at New Holland pier without having to suffer delays or the rigours of the weather to which the hon. Gentleman referred. This is particularly important in a group of services which cater not only for commuters at peak periods but also, I understand, during the day for many kinds of work. The hon. Gentleman asked the reason for the delay. This is the reason for the delay—looking into the matter to see whether there are other methods of dealing with this hardship.
  To turn to the southern group, the T.U.C.C. has not yet reported, as the hon. Gentleman said. Indeed, it may well be some time before it considers this case. Here the problem is of a different kind. A major question will be the effect on holidaymakers wishing to go to the two well-known resorts of Skegness and Mablethorpe from the south and the Midlands. Again, as in the case of the northern lines, I should emphasise that the Minister will be looking at these proposals as a group and not in isolation. He has publicly recognised this already by deciding not to take a decision on the Lincoln—Firsby line until he has the report from the T.U.C.C. on the other related services.
  The House will see that, contrary to what is sometimes said, the Government do not pick off closure proposals one by one like the ten little nigger boys until the services in an area gradually disappear altogether. We proceed in exactly

  787
  the opposite way, by looking at proposals which are plainly linked together as a group and in relation to the area and the services they provide as a whole.
  This process of weighing up the pros and cons is not done haphazardly or as a mere impersonal financial exercise. It is carried out with great care and with a deep sense of responsibility of all the issues involved; social, economic and welfare. However, as I explained earlier, as the future of these lines is, as it were, sub judice, I regret that I cannot comment on many of the points raised or discuss their merits, but I can assure hon. Members that they will be considered very carefully before my right hon. Friend reaches a decision. I can assure the hon. Member for Grimsby on one point I was surprised he did not know; that road transport is a matter to which my right hon. Friend pays very great attention, not only in relation to roads but the traffic on them. The hon. Member can set his mind at rest on that score. I have given this assurance often before when answering similar debates.
  I turn to the problem of freight, which affects the fish and timber trade. I am, on this issue, also in a difficulty since the extent of the service and the charges for it are plainly management matters. The Transport Act, 1962, specifically gave the railways the same commercial freedom to charge what they considered the right price as other transport operators have always possessed. However, within the limits open to me, I will make some comments which I hope will be useful.
  The Board tells me that last year it undertook an investigation into the economics of carrying fish. That showed that the traffic was highly unremunerative. In many cases the receipts were not even covering direct costs, still less contributing, as all traffic must, to overheads. The trouble is that present loadings are ridiculously small, averaging 35 tons per train and two tons per van, as, against a reasonable loading of at least 100 tons per train and four tons per van. Further, the present movement of small consignments to about 3,000 distribution points is completely uneconomic.
  The Board decided to rationalise the system and provide fast services to a
  788
  restricted number of railheads, about 25 to 30, with onward distribution by road of the much smaller loads dropped off at the railheads. For Grimsby, this would mean a reduction from eight to three trains per day. The hon. Member for Grimsby said that this would mean two effectively. I am told that it would be three, but we will not argue about that.
  This was the Board's outline plan, but I must emphasise that there is no truth in the suggestion that the Board presented the fish trade with a fait accompli involving the cutting of fish services from 1st July. At this meeting the Board explained its difficulties and why it could not continue to handle fish traffic in the same way as in the past. The Board put forward tentative proposals, in confidence, and sought the industry's co-operation in agreeing a scheme by 1st July, 1964, so that new arrangements could be introduced three months later.
  Unfortunately, incorrect information about these proposals seems to have leaked out and led to the assumption that the services were to end on 1st July, whereas this was only the date by which the railways hoped to get an agreed scheme which could be implemented later in the autumn.
  All this was explained by the Board at the annual conference of the National Federation of Fishmongers on 4th May and, in the light of this explanation, I do not think that anybody can accuse the railways of treating their fish trade customers in a cavalier fashion. There has been good notice and plenty of discussion about the new services which the Board proposes to introduce. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that the Board will read with interest what the hon. Member has said about giving adequate notice.
  As for the freight point concerning timber, which the hon. Member also raised, here three parties are involved—the Railways Board, the Docks Board and, of course, the timber importers. Whenever this sort of situation arises there is a tendency to expect my right hon. Friend to intervene and direct the Boards about how they should solve the problem—in this case the question of handling timber in the docks. But cooperation on matters of management is

  789
  something on which the Boards get together themselves, like other commercial enterprises with mutual interests, and develop appropriate arrangements at working and management levels. This is exactly what has happened in the case of the timber trade.
  The Timber Trade Federation raised the question of charges with my right hon. Friend and he explained, as I have done tonight, that this was a matter for the industries. He did however bring the Federation's representations to the notice of the two Boards and suggested that they might go on with the sort of discussions with the Federation which they had been having already. As a result of these discussions, agreement has been reached on the appointment of outside consultants at certain ports, of which Grimsby is one. It was also agreed to set up liaison committees at all the main timber ports. These developments, part of the normal working of any industry, were commented upon favourably by Mr. Kennedy, president of the Timber Trades Federation, at the annual dinner of the Humber District Timber Trade Association, and that is something which we should record. In the light of that we should wait and see what comes out of it.
  As for timber rates, the charges, both for dock handling and inland carriage, have gone up and the Board agrees that this was done at Grimsby with very little formal notice. But the Board tells me that the position at Grimsby was so bad that in order to achieve a phased programme of charges the Board found it necessary to propose increases at shorter notice than it would have liked. But although there was not much notice in the case of Grimsby—and this is not necessarily an excuse—the increases can hardly have come as a surprise since increased charges had been imposed in various other places for some considerable time. Compared with previous practice some of the increases are of course very large indeed, but this is just a measure of how unrealistic the old charges were and is part of the explanation why the annual deficit of the railways has been so large—£150 million, or approximately 6d. on the Income Tax.
  790
  This is what people always forget when they complain about increases or closures. They forget the cost, and while one can be sympathetic with those who come face to face with the harsh realities of economic fact for the first time, I do not think that the railways would be justified in carrying traffic at such highly unremunerative rates and in fact subsidising at their own expense the trade of one of their customers. However, the Railways Board, I understand, has tried to soften the blow and has agreed to a moratorium on further increases for dock-loaded timber from 22nd April until the end of the year. To this extent it has shown its understanding. As for the future, the Board tells me that further increases cannot be ruled out unless improvements both in methods of working and in traders' requirements are found as a result of the consultants' investigations, to which I have referred, and are also applied in practice.
  The proposed changes which we have been talking about tonight, involving passenger services, freight services and charges, are all part of the plan for bringing the railways into line with modern conditions. Where passengers are involved, with the possibility of personal hardship, the Minister has a part to play, and he will play that part with a great sense of responsibility; but where commercial negotiations are involved, as in any other industry, the various interests are best left to work out a solution for themselves. This is normal business practice. If the railways are not to become an unnecessary burden—perhaps I should use the expression which is fashionable on the other side of the House and say, if they are not to become an unnecessary drain on the country's finances, this practice must apply to them as it does to anybody else.
  In conclusion, a word of encouragement. Dr. Beeching made clear in his Report, The Reshaping of British Railways, that his proposals were not directed towards achieving viability by what he described as
  "the simple and unsatisfactory method of rejecting all those parts of the system which do not pay already and cannot be made to pay easily".

  791
  That is not the way he goes about it. As regards fish and timber, he has shown already that he is willing to co-operate with industries in finding means of continuing to carry these traffics by rail. I think that this should encourage the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

MINISTRY OF POWER
  Solid Smokeless Fuels
  Solid Smokeless Fuels
  Steel Imports
  Steel Imports
INDUSTRY, TRADE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Local Employment Act (Assistance)
  Local Employment Act (Assistance)
  Boned Meat
  Boned Meat
  Mr. Patolichev (Visit to Scotland)
  Mr. Patolichev (Visit to Scotland)
  Newsprint
  Newsprint
  Protection of Depositors Act, 1963
  Protection of Depositors Act, 1963
  United Nations Trade and Development Conference
  United Nations Trade and Development Conference
  Computers (Sale of Plant)
  Computers (Sale of Plant)
  Whitney Bridge Trust
  Whitney Bridge Trust
  Nuclear Reactors (Roumania)
  Nuclear Reactors (Roumania)
  Caernarvon
  Caernarvon
  Bishop Auckland
  Bishop Auckland
  Live Cattle (Imports and Exports)
  Live Cattle (Imports and Exports)
  Computers (Import Duty, U.S.A.)
  Computers (Import Duty, U.S.A.)
  South-West (Study)
  South-West (Study)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Buildings, Staffordshire (Replacement)
  School Buildings, Staffordshire (Replacement)
  Size of Classes, Staffordshire
  Size of Classes, Staffordshire
  University Planning Schools
  University Planning Schools
  Folkestone Technical College
  Folkestone Technical College
  Community Centre Wardens
  Community Centre Wardens
  Training Colleges (Costs)
  Training Colleges (Costs)
  Primary and Secondary Schools, Wales (Welsh Language)
  Primary and Secondary Schools, Wales (Welsh Language)
  Teachers (Further Training)
  Teachers (Further Training)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Mobile Ice-cream Vans
  Mobile Ice-cream Vans
  Residential Establishments and Bingo Clubs (Fire Precautions)
  Residential Establishments and Bingo Clubs (Fire Precautions)
  Post-mortem Examinations (Pathologists)
  Post-mortem Examinations (Pathologists)
  Driving Licences and Road Fund Licences
  Driving Licences and Road Fund Licences
  Provisional Driving Licences
  Provisional Driving Licences
  Detective-Sergeant Challoner
  Detective-Sergeant Challoner
  Metropolitan Police Commissioner v. Hammond (Judgment)
  Metropolitan Police Commissioner v. Hammond (Judgment)
EMPLOYMENT
  Bishop Auckland
  Bishop Auckland
  Tees-side
  Tees-side
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Veterinary Graduates (Report)
  Veterinary Graduates (Report)
  Agricultural Apprenticeship Scheme
  Agricultural Apprenticeship Scheme
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Typhoid Outbreak, Aberdeen
  Typhoid Outbreak, Aberdeen
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTION (OVERSEAS TERRITORIES)
  EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTION (OVERSEAS TERRITORIES)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Export of Arms (Spain)
  Export of Arms (Spain)
  SCOTTISH BORDER (LOCAL AUTHORITIES)
  SCOTTISH BORDER (LOCAL AUTHORITIES)
SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  Constitutional Future
  Constitutional Future
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Compulsory Purchase Orders, Wood Green
  Compulsory Purchase Orders, Wood Green
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Subscriber Trunk Dialling (Antrim, South)
  Subscriber Trunk Dialling (Antrim, South)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Building Materials and Components (Export)
  Building Materials and Components (Export)
SCOTLAND
  Forth Road Bridge (Moped Users)
  Forth Road Bridge (Moped Users)
  Language Laboratory Techniques
  Language Laboratory Techniques

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield
The Earl of Gowrie—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.

HARDSHIP OF EUROPEAN SETTLERS IN KENYA
3.6 p.m.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: 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 progress has been made in dealing with the many cases of hardship caused to European settlers in Kenya by the granting of independence, and what further action is contemplated to ensure that these people are fairly treated.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, when announcing on June 3 our financial assistance to Kenya, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said that we were considering proposals put to us by the Kenya Government for financial assistance in dealing with the problem of the European mixed farming areas. These raise large and difficult issues which require careful study. These proposals are, of course, separate from the existing land settlement schemes to which we are making a most substantial contribution. I should also draw attention to the provision made last year to buy the properties of all those who were then regarded as being exposed to special risks on grounds of age, infirmity or remoteness of their properties. New cases have since been brought to our attention and are being examined. I might add that we have very much in mind the difficulties of those of our people who wish to leave Kenya on compassionate grounds.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, may I thank the noble Duke for his sympathetic reply on this difficult problem and ask him two supplementary questions? First of all, as regards compassionate grounds to which he referred, can he give the House an assurance that compassionate cases will be treated with generosity and not with a too rigid legal outlook? Secondly, can he tell us whether the Government have considered using the available money to compensate those who can continue to farm, in a way which might encourage them to remain in Kenya and add to the stability of the country.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, if I may answer the second supplementary first, I take the point of my noble friend and I should like to give it due consideration. I appreciate what is behind it; I have great sympathy with that point of view and I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friend to this. As regards the first supplementary, I think I can go no further than I did in the first reply and say that we are conscious of the problems faced here and, bearing in mind the amount of money involved, we shall give the matter as sympathetic consideration as we possibly can.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Duke whether, in considering these compassionate cases, he will have regard to those who, owing to some arrangement of tribal lands in particular areas, are allocated to, say, the Masai but mainly surrounded by Kikuyu, so that it will be possible to bring compassionate cases out even if it is not possible immediately to resettle somebody on their land?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, as the noble Lord will appreciate, it is extremely difficult to decide who is and who is not a compassionate case, and many different factors have to be brought to bear, but I shall take due note of what the noble Lord says.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, with regard to non-compassionate cases, the European farmers whose land is sooner or later probably to be taken from them, will the noble Duke bear in mind not only the complexity of the case, of which he has reminded us, but also the

979
very great urgency of the case, not only from the point of view of the Kenya Government, which has very many landless people who are a grave source of potential disturbance in the country, but also from the point of view of the European farmers themselves? Because, so long as they are kept in uncertainty as to what is going to happen to their land, they cannot be expected to farm the land to its maximum potential or even to maintain the capital value of their land. So I hope that the noble Duke will be able to give us an assurance that this matter is being considered as one of the greatest urgency, for the sake of everybody in the new country of Kenya.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord the assurance that my Office is acutely conscious of the urgency of the problem and it is being treated as one of top priority.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Duke whether it is not a fact that the British Government in their recent announcement have treated Kenya with great generosity, and is there not a danger that other territories, which arc also deserving, may be affected by the lack of funds available if too much is spent on Kenya?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's anxieties, and I hope I shall not offend the House by saying that this is opening a question rather different from the one on the Paper.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, in the noble Duke's original reply he appeared to indicate that two classes of assistance were to be offered to Kenya. In view of the massive size of the sums which the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies in another place suggested will be made available, can the noble Duke give an assurance, in regard to the sums which the noble Duke's reply indicated will be allocated direct to the settlers, that such sums will be so earmarked that they cannot be tangled up by the recipient Government with supplementary sums received for other purposes?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I am not absolutely clear as to the point my noble friend is making,
980
but if it is that there might be some doubt that the money provided by Her Majesty's Government will be directed to the purpose for which it is designed, I can give him a categoric undertaking that we shall make quite sure that the money will be spent on the purpose on which it is supposed to be spent.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, in having regard to the compassionate cases, will the Government remember in particular those ex-Servicemen who went to settle in Kenya after the war, and for whom one of the conditions of their settlement was that they got rid of all their property and assets in this country? I would suggest they are due for special consideration.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, at the risk of giving a rather unsympathetic reply to my noble friend, I think I should say, as I have said before in this House, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, after much careful thought, has decided that the ex-Servicemen's settlement should not be considered differently from that of the ordinary European settler.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, reverting to the noble Duke's reply to my question, for which I am grateful, am I right in understanding that it can be assumed that of these massive sums—and, as foreshadowed, they do seem massive—specific amounts will be set aside in the original loan arrangements to be devoted to compensation for the white settlers?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I can assure my noble friend that that is the case.

PARKING OFFENCES
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government (1) whether they are aware that breaches of the parking regulations in London are now so frequent that it is impossible to keep a record of the previous offences of persons convicted of these offences; and that in consequence all offences are treated as

981
first offences and the heavier penalties appropriate to persistent offenders hardly ever imposed; and (2) whether the purpose of the parking regulations is to keep the streets clear or merely to provide a regular source of public revenue from fines.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it is true that it is impracticable for the police to keep records of such offences; but the fixed penalty system, which is the principal means of enforcing the parking regulations in London, does not in any event lend itself to distinguishing persistent offenders. The fixed penalty system is effectively serving the purpose of the regulations, which is to keep kerbside space free for moving traffic, for access to premises, and for short-term parking at meters.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, does the noble Earl not agree that this system of fixed penalties is singularly ineffective, in view of the fact that the number of breaches of the regulations amounts to several hundreds a week in the Metropolitan area? Will he consider substituting computers for live magistrates for the purpose of assessing these penalties, in view of the fact that human beings are not able to maintain efficiency at the speed of working now required?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I rather think I should have to employ a computer to translate the onus of the noble Lady's question. I feel that the existing regulations are in fact carrying out their purpose, which is to keep the roads clear, and although there is a large number of offences there is no means of proving whether or not these are committed by persistent offenders.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, has the noble Earl no consideration for the time and worry of magistrates who give their time in such circumstances?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, with respect to the noble Earl, the point of the fixed penalty system is to avoid magistrates having to give of their time, because the penalty is already paid.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, does the noble Earl really think that the streets of London are clear of kerbside parking in illegal
982
places? If so, does he walk the streets of London at any time?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I frequently walk the streets of London and I have a certain sympathy or reaction to the question, because I have recently been divested of £2 for the heinous offence of parking a car in a place where there was 1½ hours' unexpired time. I think the streets of London are considerably freer of stationary vehicles and more mobile than they used to be.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, the noble Earl may be surprised to learn that it fell to my lot recently to have to dispose of 200 breaches of the regulations in the course of a single morning in a single court. Will he consider adopting the more efficient or more deterrent practice, which is apparently followed by the police in Rio de Janiero, of letting down the tyres of cars illegally parked?
EARL FERRERS: I think the noble Lady will appreciate that if that were to happen it would create even more stationary vehicles.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, would the noble Earl look into the shocking congestion in Whitehall and Parliament Street yesterday afternoon, which I believe was brought about by a gathering of Conservative ladies who had come to London? It really was slow work getting through Whitehall to Trafalgar Square.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, without wishing to cause offence to the noble Lord, that is rather a different question. But if I am within the bounds of practice of the House, I would remind him that Conservative ladies are not necessarily the same as Royal Marines.

APPOINTMENT OF MAGISTRATES
LORD AUCKLAND: 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 procedure for securing that the names of suitable candidates for appointment as magistrates are brought to the attention of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committees on Justices of the Peace.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, any person or organisation may recommend a candidate for appointment as a justice of the peace. The candidate's name and particulars should be sent to the secretary of the local advisory committee. There is a separate advisory committee for justices of the peace in each area having a separate Commission; that is to say in each administrative county and in certain cities and boroughs.
In the counties, the secretary of the committee is usually the Clerk of the Peace, and recommendations should therefore be addressed to him. In the boroughs, I have asked the advisory committees to arrange for the secretaries' names and addresses to be published each year in the municipal Year Books. I appreciate that it may not always be convenient for members of the public to procure copies of the Year Book and I am therefore asking the town clerk of every borough with a separate Commission of the Peace to be good enough to arrange for letters nominating persons for appointment to the bench to be transmitted to the advisory committee. If anyone does not know or cannot find out who is the secretary to the advisory committee of a borough, I am confident that if he writes to the town clerk, the latter will be prepared to forward the recommendation to the right quarter.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, does not the reply the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has given throw into stark relief the anomaly of having another class of magistrate, who are appointed whether they are suitable or not, whether they are willing or not, and whether or not they are willing to undergo the course of training that other magistrates will now have to undergo, and who, seeing that they serve for only a year, are going to have precious little opportunity for learning their duties from experience? I refer to mayors of boroughs and chairmen of other local authorities.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I cannot agree that the procedure that I have outlined for bringing the names of persons suitable for appointment to the Commission throws anything in relation to ex officio magistrates into stark relief.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether the new system does not entail a certain danger, in that the people who are prepared to undergo these courses of instructions are more likely to be those to whom the status of magistrate is more important than it is to other people? I will ask another question to explain what I mean. I will ask the noble and learned Lord whether the Leader of the House has given him this information about an old lifeboat coxwain friend of mine, who, when his father sent him into the Navy, gave him this instruction, "My boy, remember this: you are sent into the Navy to be of more use to the Navy than the Navy is to you." It seems to me that that qualification is one that one would like to have in magistrates. Is not the new system liable to impair that principle?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I cannot see that the Question put to me, which I have answered, has anything to do with the new system of training for magistrates. But if the question asked by the noble Lord had anything to do with the Question put to me, I would say that I am sure that those who wish to undertake the duties of a magistrate will be quite ready to take advantage of the facilities for instruction which will shortly be available to them.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether it is not a fact that for some years we have had these courses in our counties and that they have been of great success? Further, may I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor: have not the advisory committees done their job extremely well in regard to those magistrates they have recommended?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if the noble Viscount had perhaps cast an eye over a speech I had occasion to make to the magistrates at Reading, he would have realised that I recognise that in certain areas of the country the facilities for instruction are extremely good, though I pointed out that the same could not be said over the whole of the country. The proposals I put forward will, I hope, go a long way to remedy that. With regard to the second point, I am of course grateful

985
for the most valuable assistance that advisory committees give to me throughout the country.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, arising out of the Question put to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, may I ask him whether there is any machinery for interviewing candidates when they have been recommended by members of the public but are not necessarily known to the advisory committee?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, of course if the name is put before the advisory committee, the advisory committee make full inquiries. In the light of past experience, I am most reluctant that the identity of members of the advisory committee should be disclosed or should become known. There was a time when their names were known, but it led to so much lobbying and so much pressure that that practice has been abandoned. Therefore, I am most reluctant that any steps should be taken which would reveal who are the members of an advisory committee in a particular area.

SAINT DIONIS BACKCHURCH CHURCHYARD (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
NORFOLK ESTUARY BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT 1932
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Derwent, I beg to move that this Order be approved. It is one of the Orders to which your Lordships are well accustomed, allowing cinema exhibitions on Sundays. I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932, to the Rural District of Cranbrook, be approved.—(Lord Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE
3.25 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Third Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1.—PROCEDURE IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON PUBLIC BILLS
The Committee have reviewed the procedure that is followed when the House is in Committee on a public bill. It is the established practice of both Houses of Parliament that the preamble, title, clauses and schedules of a bill should each be voted affirmatively into the bill. But a procedural difficulty may arise in cases where an amendment has been tabled to leave out a particular clause or schedule. If such an amendment is called, debated and decided like any other amendment, it anticipates and renders otiose the question "That the Clause stand part", or "That this be the Schedule to the Bill". But these questions, by long established custom, are constitutionally indispensable.
In order to avoid the illogicality of putting successive questions to the House in different forms on the same issue, the Committee recommend that a proposal to leave out a clause should be treated not as an amendment but as a notice that a particular Peer wishes to speak against the clause on the question "That the Clause stand part"; that such a notice should appear italicised and unnumbered in the Marshalled List; and that when this notice is reached, the Chairman should put the question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" and call the Peer who has given such notice of his intention to speak.
The Committee have also considered the further difficulty that may arise in cases where one or more amendments have been put down to leave out a clause and to substitute a new clause in its place. It is the practice of this House (though not of the House of Commons) to treat such "substitution" amendments as undivided entities. The Committee recommend that the House should continue to treat such amendments as undivided entities, on which the question to be put is "That this amendment be agreed to"; and that such amendments should be listed and disposed of seriatim before the final question (which would always be "That the Clause stand part"). If a substitution amendment is carried, the "Clause" in the final question will then be the new Clause; if not it will be the original Clause.
The effect of the Committee's recommendations, if approved by the House, would be as follows:
I. A motion to leave out a clause would be shown unnumbered and italicised in the marshalled list as follows:—
"Amendment
No.

BY THE LORD A
Leave out Clause 1"
On the question "That the Clause stand part" being reached, Lord A is called from the chair.
II. A "substitution" amendment would be shown as follows:—
"Amendment
No.

BY THE LORD B
24 Leave out Clause 1 and insert …
The amendment is called in the usual way and disposed of.
According as the decision goes, the next question is "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill"; or "That the new Clause 1 stand part of the Bill".
III. Where there is a conjunction of I and II i.e. where Lord A has given notice that he wishes to leave out the Clause and Lord B that he wishes to substitute a new Clause for it, this would be shown as follows:—
"Amendment
No.

BY THE LORD B
24 Leave out Clause 1 and insert …

BY THE LORD A
Leave out Clause 1"
The amendment (No. 24) is first called and disposed of. Then the question is put "That [the new] Clause 1 stand part of the Bill—Lord A".
IV. Where there is a conjunction of two or more "substitution" amendments and also a motion to leave out the Clause, this would be shown thus:—
"Amendment
No.

BY THE LORD B
24 Leave out Clause 1 and insert …
BY THE LORD C
25 Leave out Clause 1 and insert …

BY THE LORD A
Leave out Clause 1"
Procedure:—
Amendment No. 24 is called and disposed of.
Amendment No. 25 is called by reference to the result of Amendment No. 24, thus either—
"leave out the original Clause 1 and insert …"
Or
"leave out new Clause 1 and insert …"
When Amendment No. 25 is disposed of and whichever way the vote has gone, the next question is:—
"That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill—
The Lord A".
It will be noticed that when there is more than one composite or "substitution" amendment, each succeeding composite amendment is called by reference to the result of its predecessor. This dispenses with the need to divide amendments.
The Committee are of the opinion that the same principle should be applied to composite amendments of any kind—at whatever stage
988
of the Bill they may be moved—(i.e. to subsections and to single words in a Bill as well as to whole clauses); and they recommend accordingly.
Where alternative composite amendments are proposed e.g.
Amendment
No.

1

Line 1, leave out ("four o'clock") and insert ("five o'clock")

2

Line 1, leave out ("four o'clock") and insert ("six o'clock")

3

Line 1, leave out ("four o'clock") and insert ("seven o'clock")

the procedure would be as follows:—
If amendment No. 1 is carried, amendment No. 2 is called thus:—
"Amendment proposed, leave out ('five o'clock') and insert ('six o'clock')".
Similary, if amendment No. 2 is carried, amendment No. 3 is called thus:
"Amendment proposed, leave out ('six o'clock') and insert ('seven o'clock')".
2.—APPELLATION OF PEERESSES
The Committee had referred to them the question whether peeresses should be described in division lists and other House papers by a senior title (if they have one) by which they are ordinarily known. The Committee recommend that there should be no change in the existing practice.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved, That the Report be now considered.—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am not seeking to move your Lordships not to accept this Report. All I want to do is to point out to your Lordships its limitations, and I refer only to the final paragraph of the Report.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Question I was putting was, whether the Report should be now considered. If the noble Lord is against it being considered, no doubt his speech will be relevant to that issue. The Question is: That the Report be now considered.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now agreed to. Your Lordships will see that there are two paragraphs—one short at the end and one, I am sorry to say, rather long at the beginning. I hope I shall be

989
forgiven for the length of the first paragraph, but I did not think the matter could be compressed into a shorter space without making it less comprehensible than I hope your Lordships will find it. I believe that it is now in a form which can be readily understood; but if there are any points which any noble Lord wishes to raise, or any question which your Lordships wish to ask, I will of course do my best to answer them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Report be now agreed to.—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' pardon, and that of my noble friend Lord Merthyr also, for getting off "before the gun". It is a fault which a great many of us have committed in a great many circumstances and it has always found ready pardon. I hope that your Lordships will grant me pardon on this occasion.
I do not seek to say anything against the Report, but I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the limitations contained in the last paragraph. The last paragraph continues an ancient practice of your Lordships, and when it was discussed in the Procedure Committee it was decided that a Life Peeress should be referred to as "noble Baroness". I am not seeking to traverse that in the least; it is practically contained in the Life Peerages Act. But your Lordships should remember that every Lady who addresses you is not necessarily a noble Baroness. There are a great many Peeresses of Scotland, and "Barony" is not a title of Peerage in Scotland. There it is entirely lacking. For that reason something will have to be done about those Peeresses of Scotland who appear here. The number is not likely to be small. A few years ago there would have been Lady Gray. There is at present Lady Kinloss, and I think there are others. And if the Lady Nairn were to take her seat, though she is a Baroness by marriage, she would sit here as a Lord of Parliament.
Your Lordships will remember that a little time ago the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, in referring the question of Scottish Peerages to the Committee for Privileges, pointed out to your Lordships that if he were to issue a Writ to a Peer who was not a Peer he would thereby create a Peer-
990
age; and in consequence of what I told your Lordships it happens that if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had issued a Writ to a Scottish Peer as a Baron, that Peerage not finding any place in the Peerage of Scotland, he would in fact have created, as he told your Lordships he would, a Peerage in the United Kingdom, had that Writ been accepted. The noble and learned Lord avoided that trap which, had he fallen into it, would have led to a great deal of speculation, especially as to the succession to Peerage which had been created by a Summons and for which there was no precedent Writ.
Also, there is another practice, which has always been the practice in your Lordships' House in the past and which I think will save difficulty in cases of uncertainty, and it is this. If your Lordships look at the Peerage Act and the Life Peerages Act you will find that both Acts refer to "the House of Lords", and "the House of Lords" is a title which your Lordships' House has held, and held with credit, for many centuries. I submit that every Member of the House of Lords is thereby a Lord, and that it is proper for us to continue the ancient practice of your Lordships' House in referring to any noble Lord who has spoken, without reference to sex, as "the noble Lord". I have adopted this practice myself. The noble Lord, Lady Summerskill, who is sitting here will remember that I have often referred to her in that way. No noble Lords have objected, and I propose to continue the practice. After all, parity is the essence of Peerage, and there is far more parity between one noble Lord and another noble Lord than there is between a noble Lord and a noble Lady. I suggest that in this matter we continue the practice of many centuries, which not only is in accordance with the Statutes but is also in accordance with common sense, convenience and consistency.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, in support of what the noble Lord has said, I should like, in all seriousness, to refer to the fact that, from the time that women have been Members of this House, Her Majesty when she opens Parliament has continued the practice of using the words "My Lords, pray he seated", and that both sexes have obeyed the Royal command immediately.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, the point I wish to raise is slightly less involved than that to which we have just listened. I wish to refer particularly to the second paragraph of section 1 of the Report. While being wholly in support of the recommendation of the Procedure Committee as to the stupidity of perhaps having two Divisions on what is virtually the same Motion, I have some doubt about the recommendation here as to a noble Lord putting down a Motion which is to be italicised, so as to give him an automatic right to be called on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". In the past we have always had the right to be called without having given any prior notice whatever of our intention to speak. All that one has done, in courtesy to the Chairman, is to indicate to him that one proposes to raise a point on the Question, "That the Clause stand part", and automatically at that point the Chairman has hesitated and permitted one to rise and make the point.
I am suggesting that either we should delete this whole reference to someone putting down a notice on the Order Paper and having it italicised, or alternatively we should include here, somewhere, a phrase to the effect "without prejudice to the right of any other Member to speak on the Motion, 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill'." I realise that this is a small point, but the recommendation appears to alter the procedure and to make it necessary to put down something on the Order Paper indicating that you propose to speak on a Motion. That would appear to me to be quite unnecessary and, indeed, quite wrong, because occasionally a clause is amended, and the very fact that it has been amended might alter the purpose of the clause in such a way that a speech on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" would be completely justified. I am not sure whether this matter can be taken back and looked at again in the light of what I have said, but I feel that it merits some consideration because, trifling though it might appear, it is a point of Order.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I say one word on this question, because the Committee took an enormous amount of trouble over this particular problem? We considered it once in Com-
992
mittee, then were not quite satisfied with what we had done, and we had it back again and considered, with enormous care and for many hours, exactly how we were to deal with the matter in order to meet just that point to which the noble Lord has referred: that everybody should be heard. Under the old procedure there was the risk that if you put the Question, "That the Clause stand part" and then somebody wished to have a new clause it might not be discussed. Those of your Lordships who also have been Members of another place would agree that we are following as near as we can the procedure there, procedure which has proved to be satisfactory.
The result of what is now recommended in the Report, although it looks rather complicated, is this. It gives everybody a chance, first of all, not to start rejecting a clause if somebody wants to put down a new clause; it gives a chance for the new clause to be moved as an alternative. It gives the opportunity for every sort and kind of Amendment that can be made to that alternative clause to be moved and voted upon. If the new clause is accepted by the House with Amendments, there it is—it is accepted. If not, then the Question is put that the original clause shall stand part. It gives every possible opportunity to everybody to express an opinion on every issue that can be raised and prevents any clause or Amendment from being cut out. We took such an enormous amount of trouble, under the guidance of the Lord Chairman, on this and it is very important to get it settled. I am sure noble Lords on all sides of the House will be quite unanimous on this point, and I hope we can accept it.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, we always listen with respect to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, upon matters of procedure. He is a former Deputy Leader of the House and has long experience of this House. I am sure the Procedure Committee devoted careful attention to the recommendations now before the House, but, with respect, I do not think the point which was discussed by Lord Swinton was really the point that was raised by my noble friend Lord Champion. I do not disagree with what the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has said, and indeed I do not disagree with the essentials of the Report; nor does my noble friend. But the point raised by

993
Lord Champion is a simple one—namely, he was conceding the right of a noble Lord who has given notice to leave out a clause to speak and to be called first. He does not dispute that, but he wants to protect the rights of other noble Lords to speak on the Question, "That the Clause stand part" whether or not they have put an Amendment down.
Whilst probably the Committee intended it to go the way that my noble friend Lord Champion wants, that is not absolutely clear from reading the Report. I wonder whether the Lord Chairman could add a few words, and then if it is permissible in this place, as it was during the London County Council proceedings, we could agree to the Report as submitted by the Chairman. At the end of the second paragraph on page 2, after the words "That the Clause stand part of the Bill' and call the Peer who has given such notice of his intention to speak", could the noble Lord not add the words: "without prejudice to the right of other Peers to speak whether or not they have given such notice", or words to that effect? I think that is what the Committee means, but it would be wise for it to be clear in this place where, as the Leader of the House knows, we look after our own procedure. We do it very well. It is a most remarkable institution because we get along so well without a decisive presiding officer.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, there is nothing to stop any Peer from speaking. You do not have to put in a special provision that a Peer should be able to speak. He has the right to speak when the Bill is before the House in Committee; indeed, if it is in Committee he has the right to speak as often as he wants. Not only would it be tautologous but rather dangerous to put in a provision that a Peer should have the right to speak, when the right exists automatically.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, with respect to the noble Earl, I was putting the point to the Lord Chairman of Committees who is, I understand, in charge of the Report. I should have thought that as there is this theoretical element of doubt, to which my noble friend has drawn attention, if the noble Lord would add words to
994
the effect that I have indicated it would remove all such doubts, without doing harm and without necessarily upsetting the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. Naturally, we all want to get agreement about these things and your Lordships usually do get agreement, and it occurred to me that if that could be done then the point raised by my noble friend Lord Champion would be fully met.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, would not the noble Lord's suggestion possibly have the effect of limiting any noble Lord who wished to speak on the point to only one speech? In Committee every noble Lord has a right to speak on any point that is raised as often as he pleases, unless the House wishes to stop. That is already the right of the House, and I think any words that seemed to grant a limited right would impair that right of your Lordships.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. But the point he has raised is the point about which my noble friend is trying to safeguard the House. The words that I have suggested do not limit rights; on the contrary, they establish in words that the right is not limited, The point of my noble friend Lord Champion is that the paragraph as it is submitted might be interpreted to limit the right to speak to the Peer who had put down the Amendment, and we want to preserve the right of any Peer to speak, and to put that in words in the paragraph. I merely submitted the idea to the Lord Chairman of Committees, who I know is always willing to consider suggestions, to improve the wording of the document which otherwise might be read as limiting the right of Peers. My suggestion would not improve the Report submitted, but would amply meet the point which I think has been legitimately raised by my noble friend Lord Champion.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I ask the Lord Chairman, when he replies, to confirm this? I am completely in agreement with the purpose of what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, asked, as I think we all are, but I should have thought that it would not be possible for his intention to be thwarted by anything in this document, which I am looking at for the first time. What this

995
says is that the Chairman should put the Question, and then,
"call the Peer who has given such notice of his intention to speak."
He calls that Peer, but the rest of us speak normally on all these occasions without being called at all, and this only indicates who shall be called to initiate the discussion on that particular Amendment. I cannot see why any alteration is needed and, if no such alteration is needed, I agree with my noble friend Lord Swinton that it might be dangerous to put words just in this place which would throw doubt on so much of our proceedings.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, if I may just say so in one sentence, I agree with my noble friend Lord Swinton beside me. Surely the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, will agree that, whether or not there be danger in it, it is hardly necessary to write into this Report that Peers shall have a right to exercise a right which they already possess by right.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, dealing, first of all, if I may, with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, I hope he will allow me to say, with the greatest respect, that I think the point which he raised was a point substantially different from the point in the Report.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: It had nothing to do with it.
LORD MERTHYR: The point in the Report is of a very limited nature and extent. I need not say what it is, because I think the words are really perfectly clear and your Lordships can read them. I submit that the point about which the noble Lord spoke is quite a different one, and I would only say this to him, with great respect: if he would like me to put it down on the Agenda for the next meeting of the Committee I shall be only too happy to do so. Perhaps we could leave it at that for this afternoon. It is really quite a different point.
The noble Lord, Lord Champion, raised one or two points about the second paragraph of the numbered paragraph 1, and that has been dealt with by some other speakers. I should like
996
to say to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that the words,
"and call the Peer who has given such notice of his intention to speak"
and the reference to italics, were put in purely for convenience and for no other reason at all. The fact is, my Lords, that your Lordships do from time to time put down Amendments to leave out a clause of a Bill in Committee. Your Lordships could effect exactly the same result by not putting down any such Amendment at all, but debating the Question, which inevitably must be put in any event, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. That could be done to-day, whether or not this Report was passed. To-day, it is really never necessary to put down an Amendment to leave out a clause, but it does have the useful result that it directs the attention of the Committee to the fact that a Member of the Committee does not agree with the clause. It has that useful result, and it lets Members of the Committee know that there may be controversy. It is merely to perpetuate that useful result that this little device of the italics has been thought out.
I should like to say, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that when the Chairman puts the Question, That the Clause stand part, of course anyone can speak, as has been pointed out by more than one speaker to-day. It always has been so and it always, I think, will be so. It certainly will be so if this Report is agreed to. Anyone can speak on that Question. I take the point that is made by the noble Lord. I think he is saying: "If you go out of your way to put in italics that one noble Lord wishes to speak, it might conceivably be construed as depriving other noble Lords of the right to speak.
LORD CHAMPION: Precisely.
LORD MERTHYR: I think that is going very far, and quite unnecessarily far, and it certainly has no substance in fact. Therefore I would ask your Lordships to say that the words proposed to be added are entirely unnecessary. I thought everyone realised—and I say this without any disrespect to anyone—that everybody can speak, not merely once but several times over, in Committee, on the Question, That the Clause stand part. I repeat that it is purely for convenience

997
that we thought out the idea of putting in italics the name of the noble Lord who is to speak first. If your Lordships insisted on a change in this Report, I would say: do not add any words at all as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, but rather leave out the last line,
"and call the Peer who has given such notice of his intention to speak".
I do not recommend the House to do that this afternoon, and I hope it will not be done, but I would much prefer that that should be done rather than that it were done the other way round. I hope I have answered the points that have been raised, and that your Lordships will agree to the Report as it stands, though of course I am always prepared to consider suggestions for improvement.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask this question of the Lord Chairman, in regard to the Amendment that is to be printed in italics? Will this be regarded as a normal Amendment? Because we may, in fact, wish to delete a clause, let us say, on Report stage. It is recognised on Report stage that the mover of the Amendment has a right to speak a second time, and I should like to know whether the Lord Chairman can give an assurance that the fact that the Amendment becomes italicised and therefore does not stand as a normal Amendment will not restrict the mover of the Amendment from replying, either on Report or on Third Reading.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, if I may speak again, the answer is, No, it would not in any way restrict Amendments on Report. This Report which your Lordships are asked to pass to-day has nothing to do with the Report stage of a Bill. There will be no change whatsoever in the Report stage—and I take the noble Lord's point. If a noble Lord wishes, after the Committee stage—say, on Report—to leave out a clause, not only can he move that but he can reply when the debate has concluded, although other noble Lords do not speak more than once.
EARL ALEXANDER op HILLSBOROUGH: I must apologise for not being au fait with this matter, because I have had a long absence. I fully accept the explanation that there will be no difficulty if any noble Lord wishes to
998
speak on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part". On the other hand, how many more Amendments do you think (this is supposed to be for our increased convenience) are likely to be printed in italics? I do not see what extra convenience is accorded to the Members of the Committee at all by a notice of that kind. We can put down as many ordinary Amendments to a clause as we like for the Committee stage of a Bill, so far as I can tell, and I do not see the point of adding Amendments in italics to give a preference in calling.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, the answer to the noble Earl is that no more Amendments are likely to be put before the Committee. It will not affect the number of Amendments at all.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: There will be those in italics.
LORD MERTHYR: No. The so-called Amendment in italics is, in effect, not an Amendment at all. It is not numbered. It does not add to the number, and it will not have a number, as the Report states. If your Lordships will look at page 3, you will see that where italics are used there is to be no number; and we purposely designed it in that way so that an Amendment would not be numbered. In fact, it is not an Amendment at all. This is merely a way of telling the Committee that the noble Lord who is named, in speaking on the Question, "That the Clause stand part", wishes to speak in favour of the omission of the clause and against the clause's standing part of the Bill. That is all that it is meant to do.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question? If one wishes to omit a clause and substitute a new clause, how must one phrase it in future? Must one first of all move that the clause should not stand part, and then put separately the new clause, or can one just move, "Leave out Clause so-and-so and insert the new clause"?
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, if the noble Lord will read page 3, I think he will see the answer to his question clearly set out—"Leave out Clause 1 and insert" another clause. It is at about the middle of the page. It is really all

999
set out in the Report. I do ask the noble Lord to rest assured that the question he has raised has been dealt with.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I, in accordance with Standing Orders, say one word in explanation and extenuation? I raised this point at this time because it was a limitation on what was discussed in the Procedure Committee, because it may be many months before there is another Procedure Committee, and because when people get into bad habits those habits are very difficult to break. Therefore, I have taken the opportunity of putting before your Lordships what I think is the right view, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me if, on the narrow meaning of the words, it has not been done exactly correctly.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I just say one word on this point? As a matter of fact, the last item in the Committee's Report is, I think, one of the most important that is in the Report; and, of course, the noble Lord who has just spoken entirely failed to see that there was a nice little feminist point here, which should have appealed to him. The fact is, of course, that it has to be established by what name a new Baroness should be called in this House. It is quite clear that a female Life Peer is called by the name by which she is known when she enters the House; but, of course, there is this other difficulty, and my noble friend Lady Swanborough will not mind if I refer to her as an excellent example. In this House she has been called by the name of "Swanborough" because her services to the country as a woman have been admired and respected and the country has thought fit that she should be made a Peeress in her own right. I think I know her well enough to be able to say that she would not ask, therefore, to be called by the name of "Reading". This is the point that is made in the Report here. And again it is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, who crosses swords with me so often on these matters, particularly on matters of intestacy affecting wives in Scotland, should not have realised that we are to-day establishing a very important point—namely, that when a woman is called to this House, under no circumstances will the ghost of a
1000
male ancestor sit at the same time by her side, but that she will be called by the name she assumes when she comes into this House as an individual.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I put to the Lord Chairman of Committees one point that puzzles me very much? He says that in every case the Question, "That the Clause stand part" must be put, but I seem to recollect a number of Bills in respect of which the Chairman has said, "I understand that no Amendments have been set down to the Bill. The Question is, therefore, that I report it to the House without an Amendment." In such a case, so far as I can see, there is no opportunity at all to put the Question, "That the Clause stand part". Hitherto, we have dealt with that quite neatly by putting down an Amendment to omit the clause; but if an Amendment to omit the clause is no longer to be considered an Amendment, where are we?
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, if I may speak again—I know I have already exhausted the number of times I am allowed to speak—
LORD LATHAM: Do it in italics.
LORD MERTHYR:—the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, is, I think, quite right. He has mentioned what is an exception to the rule. I can only plead that for so long as I have known the House the practice which we follow to-day has always been followed. When no notice of any Amendment to a Bill has been put down, it has always been the custom, for as long as I can remember, for the Chairman to say that, because he understands no Amendments have been put down, the Bill can be reported without an Amendment, and he does not, in the Committee stage, affirmatively put the clauses into the Bill. That, I think, can be classed as an exception to the rule; but I can only plead that, whether it is right or wrong, it has always been so for as long as I can recall.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, is the position not this?—because I think I recollect this having happened. In a case where no Amendments had been set down, but one Member of the House had intimated in advance that he wished to say something about one of the clauses

1001
in the Bill, the course that the Lord Chairman look was simply to go through the Bill in the ordinary way until he came to that clause, when a debate was then held upon it. In that case, the custom of dealing with the matter quickly, simply because no Amendments had been set down, was not followed, making it seem that it was a mere custom which could be waived if anybody wanted to speak on a Motion, "That the Clause stand part."
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, what I do in that event is to treat the Bill as if there had been an Amendment put down, and in that case we affirmatively put all the clauses into the Bill. It has happened frequently.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SPRAY IRRIGATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
4.0 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.—(Lord Craigion.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: A second print of the Marshalled List was made for the purpose of correcting a mistake in the first: and in case all noble Lords have not got the second edition, may I say that there is only one alteration. That is that the name of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, should appear on page 2 as the mover of Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. With that exception there is no difference between the two prints. I hope it will be convenient for me to say this straight away.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Licences
3.—
(4) It shall be the duty of a river purification board to maintain at their office a register containing particulars of any application made or licence granted for the purposes of this Act to be open to public inspection free of charge at all reasonable hours; and the particulars of
1002
any such application shall be entered in that register within seven days of its receipt.
(6) Not later than the 31st day of October in the year in which such an application is made, the river purification board, after consideration of the application and any representations against it duly made—
(a) may grant a licence either unconditionally or containing such conditions as they may reasonably impose, which, without prejudice to that generality, may include conditions as to the means of abstraction of water, the amount of water to be abstracted during any period, and the periods during which water may be abstracted, or
(7) Where a river purification board fails to intimate its decision on an application by the date specified in the last foregoing subsection, that application shall be deemed to have been granted unconditionally, and the board shall issue a licence accordingly.
(8) Where on an application under this section the applicant is aggrieved by the decision of the river purification board, he may, within 28 days of that decision by notice in writing, appeal to the Secretary of State; and the applicant shall, within that time, serve a copy of that notice on the river purification board.
LORD CRAIGTON: In its definition of persons who are entitled to abstract water, the English Act of 1963 refers to occupiers of land "contiguous to" a stream. Although I am advised that "abutting on", the words now in the Bill, have the same meaning, it seemed sensible not to make room for doubt in future by using different words when the intention is the same. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 26, leave out ("abutting on") and insert ("contiguous to").—(Lord Craigton.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: This Amendment and the words it seeks to replace may seem very innocent, but in fact they raise a matter of considerable principle. That is: is it to be completely impossible for an occupier whose land comes very close to a stream but is not actually abutting on or adjacent to it to have any chance of getting water from that stream? In order that I may not be accused of putting up theoretical cock-shies I am going to give an example which, although it is certainly unusual, may not be unique.
A number of years ago a property on the banks of the River Tay was broken up and its various farms were bought by the occupiers. At the same time the

1003
valuable salmon fisheries were sold separately. As noble Lords know, salmon fisheries in Scotland are quite different from those in England; they are regalia minora and can be sold without reference to the question of the ownership of the banks. In this particular case an unusual procedure was followed, inasmuch as the purchaser of the fisheries also bought a very narrow strip of land several miles long but varying from five to 25 yards in width and consisting only of scrubby trees. The result is—and this is where I should like the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, to say whether it is the case—that the owner-occupiers of all the farms behind that stream could never be given permission to abstract water from the river Tay, even if they had the permission of the owners of the fishing, because of this small strip of land, which is quite valueless except for the purpose of obtaining access to the fisheries.
If that is the case, and if it is to be impossible for anyone to be allowed to withdraw water from the stream if his land does not actually abut on to it, then I would suggest that some provision should be made for giving to people within a short distance of the stream but whose land does not actually touch it, licences, at the discretion of the river Authorities, to draw water. In this particular case it is the River Tay, and the volume of water flowing down this river is, I believe, greater than that of any river in Great Britain. At this point hundreds of thousands of gallons of water a day could easily be abstracted without in any way affecting the flow of the river.
LORD CRAIGTON: I am very conscious of the difficulty that my noble friend Lord Mansfield has mentioned. What we have to do is to try to identify the rights of a riparian proprietor. I am told that "abutting on" and "contiguous to" have the same meaning. My own feeling is that the board, in exercising common sense, would feel it had a little more latitude with the words "contiguous to" than with the words "abutting on". Of course, anybody with land so near a river could buy a very small piece of the land, just sufficient to carry a pipe into the river, and they would clearly be both "contiguous to" and "abutting on" the river. But this is a problem that
1004
must arise in England as well as in Scotland. For that reason I feel strongly that it would be much safer to use the words in the 1963 English Act rather than to pick our own words, which, if anything—in my personal view but not in the view of the dictionary—are a little less restrictive than "abutting on".
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I thank the noble Lord for his explanation, but I still feel that in cases such as I have mentioned it would be better if some statutory provision were made to make it possible, at the discretion of the board, for a person to take water, rather than to rely upon possibly ambiguous constructions of the words "contiguous to", which might not be supported in the courts if the matter came there.
LORD CRAIGTON: The purpose of the Committee stage is to consider this kind of point. I will give the noble Earl an undertaking that we will look at what he has said and see whether we can do anything; but this matter has been very carefully considered already.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON THE EARL OF HADDINGTON moved in subsection (3), after "irrigation" to insert:
"including the nature of the crops to be irrigated, estimates as to the cost of installing and operating the irrigation equipment and specifications thereof".
The noble Earl said: This is a very simple Amendment. It seeks merely to introduce these additional words in order to amplify the information which applicants must include when they apply to the board for licences. This extra information, which relates to the nature of the crops to be irrigated and, particularly, to the estimate as to the cost of installations, would be especially useful to the purification boards and would help them make their decisions when they came to try to apportion out the licences. As I hope to show in a later Amendment, it is particularly important in those cases where the demand for water from rivers exceeds the supply available. I think it is a very simple Amendment. It is just to include these extra words. I beg to move.
Amendment moved:
Page 2, line 38, after ("irrigation") insert said words.—(The Earl of Haddington.)
LORD FORBES: I cannot agree with the noble Earl who moved this Amendment. I cannot see that it is going to help matters at all. First of all, it is highly improbable that farmers will want to irrigate anything other than crops; if they are going to irrigate thistles I do not suppose they will say so. Secondly, there is the question of operating costs. You cannot tell what the operating costs are going to be until you know what the rainfall is going to be; and no farmer at the beginning of the season can know that. If he did, then farming would be very easy. I can see no purpose in this Amendment so I am afraid I cannot support it.
LORD CRAIGTON: The noble Earl who moved this Amendment desires to mention specifically some of the detailed information that the board will require; but the Bill permits the board to obtain information under certain broad headings and—and this is what is really important—
"…other matters relevant to consideration of the application, as that board may require".
So, to descend from the general to the particular as this Amendment seeks to do would, by specifically mentioning certain points, give quite unnecessary direction-pointers to the board, who now can, if they wish—and, after all, they know best—ask for all the information called for by this Amendment and anything else that they think proper. As with so many facets of this Bill, it is best to give the boards general powers and leave it to them to carry out the well-defined purposes of the Bill. So I must advise your Lordships to resist this Amendment—I hope that my noble friend will withdraw it—on the ground that the boards, if they think fit, can call for this information.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: I never had any wish to press this Amendment. I only thought that these words would be useful for providing the boards with information, and if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill thinks they are unnecessary, I have no wish to press the matter. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CRAIGTON: As the Bill now stands, anyone interested in applications for licences, perhaps with a view to objection, can find out about them only by
1006
going to see them at the board's office. It seems to us wise and helpful to require the board, as does this Amendment, also to publish brief particulars of the application in a local paper. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 41, after ("purification board") insert—
(" (a) in each year, as soon as may be after the date mentioned in subsection (2) of this section, to publish in a local newspaper circulating in each area to which a control order relates, a notice stating briefly the nature of any applications made to them for licences in that area and where and when particulars of those applications may be inspected; and
(b)").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: With your Lordships' approval, I should like to discuss Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 together. The boards are required to keep a register of licences applied for and of licences granted. Under the Bill, applications have to be entered into the register within seven days. Under these Amendments, the seven days' requirement would apply also to the recording of licences granted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 2, at end insert ("or licence").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 3, leave out ("its receipt") and insert ("the receipt of the application, or as the case may be, the granting of the licence").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.13 p.m.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTONmoved, at the beginning of subsection (6) to insert:
"Subject to the provisions of the next following section of this Act".
The noble Earl said: With your Lordships' approval, I will take this Amendment with No. 13, which is a new clause to follow Clause 3. It deals with the question of issuing licences where the demand for water in any particular river exceeds the supply available, which in many small rivers may often be the case.

1007
While we may think it is perfectly feasible that every riparian owner or occupier, whose farms abuts on to the river, should be entitled to obtain a licence, we must remember that it is most important, in the interests of agriculture generally, that the water available in any river is used to the best advantage. Obviously, if licences are issued to too many farmers, they may each receive so little water that proper irrigation may never be done on any of the farms concerned. This subdivision of supply would result only in the waste of valuable national resources.
Who is to judge which of the schemes put forward are the best, and what type of licences should be granted for them? Evidently, by the Bill, this is to be the duty of the purification boards. But, of course, this will become mainly a technical farming matter, concerned with the growing of crops. Therefore, there should be an increased agricultural representation on the boards. On the Second Reading of this Bill, my noble friend Lord Craigton gave an undertaking that this increased agricultural representation on the boards will be provided for by Order made under the 1951 Act—I hope that I am correct in saying that. In giving licences in the cases where the demand is likely to exceed the supply, the boards will have to pay particular attention to the three points in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of my proposed new clause, and that they may be assured of doing this is precisely the purpose of the Amendment, which I think requires no more words from me. I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 8, at beginning insert the said words.—(The Earl of Haddington.)
LORD CRAIGTON: As my noble friend has said, what he asks the boards to do by his Amendments is very important, but this is, as a generality, what one would expect them to do in any case. Indeed, if they failed to do these things, they would be neglecting their duties under Section 17(1) of the 1951 Act, which your Lordships will notice is referred to in Clause 1 of this Bill. It would not be wise or proper to spell out just some of their duties in promoting the cleanliness of rivers in this Bill and in this way.
On the question of the available water being put to the most beneficial use,
1008
clearly the board would not cancel a licence already given (because they want to make renewals as automatic as possible) simply on the ground that to grant a new application might be more beneficial to agriculture than an existing licence. But in his administrative guidance to the board, my right honourable friend would consider pointing out that, if two or more new licences were under consideration for the same area and could not all be granted, weight should be given, as one of the factors in the decision, to the respective value to agriculture generally of the applications under review. I hope that, with this assurance, and with the assurance that these powers are already in the 1951 Act, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: I hope that the noble Earl will be able to accept the advice given to him by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, because I doubt very much whether the wording of his proposed new clause would, in fact, serve the purpose he has in mind. In the new clause, he makes provision for the circumstance where
"the amount of water to be abstracted under the licences for which application has been made exceeds the amount of water available ".
I take the meaning of that to be "exceeding the amount of water available for extraction for spraying irrigation", but in the ordinary use of language, it could be taken to mean where the number of applications made exceeded the amount of water in the river, and in that event it would be only if people took more water away than was there that this clause would operate. I think that the board would wish to do exactly what the noble Lord suggests, if there was an intention of drawing more water than could be spared from the river. So I think that the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, is the better way of dealing with this. I intend to say more on this subject in due course, because there are one or two points which will fall to be dealt with in the way which the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has suggested.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: I have listened to my noble friend's reply, and I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said. My noble friend says that, supposing the river is low and

1009
somebody who had been getting a licence for years is superseded, so to speak, by somebody having greater need for a licence—somebody, perhaps, who is growing more crops, and therefore wants more water than his neighbour on the bank who is already getting it—who is to judge? The board must judge who is to get the licence. What is the harm in writing this into the Bill? This particularly applies to paragraph (c) of my new clause, which says that the board shall have regard
"to the most beneficial apportionment thereof in the public interest between the applicants".
There might well be a frightful controversy between two farmers, one saying: "I deserve more water than you do. I grow more crops; I have more grass silage to get ready for my cattle", and so on. Why not put the words into the Bill? If my noble friend says it is quite impossible to do so, I will withdraw the Amendment, but I really cannot see the point of not doing so.
LORD CRAIGTON: Nothing is impossible to Parliament, but it is unwise, in a Bill of this nature, to include specific items which, by inference, exclude other things. The prime duty of the board is to secure the most beneficial apportionment of the river, from the point of view of the interests concerned, and the conservation of the water. If they do not do this, they are not fulfilling their function. The assurance I gave was given so that the board should have some guidance from my right honourable friend as to what would be the position of the existing installer and the other installers.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: If the boards carry out their duties as my noble friend says they will, everything will be all right. I only hope that they will. I have no wish to press this Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CRAIGTON: With you Lordships' permission, I will take Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 together. Their effect is to increase from a fortnight to a month the time given to the Board to determine applications and intimate their decisions. This change meets the views of the River Purification Boards Association. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 8, leave out from beginning to ("river purification board") in line 9 and insert ("A").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 10, leave out ("the") and insert ("an").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.23 p.m.
LORD BURTONmoved, after subsection (6), to insert:
"(7) Where an application relates to abstraction from a stream in respect of which a minimum acceptable level has been determined under this Act, the river purification board, in dealing with the application, shall (without predjudice to the preceding provisions) have regard to the need to secure that the level at any control point will not be reduced below the minimum acceptable level at that point, or (if it is already below that minimum acceptable level) will not be further reduced below that minimum acceptable level."
The noble Lord said: In rising to move Amendment No. 9, I would ask that I be allowed to speak to Amendment No. 21 also, as one Amendment is dependent upon the other. First. I must declare an interest in the Bill. I am a member of a purification board, a member of a fishery board, and have substantial fishery interests. I am also a member of a county council, a Scottish farmer and, consequently, a member of the Scottish National Farmers' Union. I am a Scottish landowner and, as such, on the executive committee of the Landowners' Federation. However, though sitting on both sides of the fence, and perhaps on top of it, I am not a spray irrigator; nor do I see much likelihood of becoming one, so long as there is no marked change in our climate. Thus, there is no interest involved which is at variance with what I am sure is the desire of everyone here to-day; that is, to get the best possible solution to the problem of keeping the Scottish rivers and streams clear and flowing, while using our natural resources to the best possible advantage with the minimum possible work and expense to the various individuals and bodies concerned. Basically, I am sure we all welcome this Bill, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking my noble friend Lord Craigton for the considerable work he has put into

1011
this Bill, and for the time he has taken in considering any point, however small, raised by interested parties.
If I may first don the cap of a member of a purification board, my first concern is that such members may have considerably increased demands upon their valuable time. The number of suitable persons in Scotland who are available and prepared to do this voluntary work is very limited, and such people probably have many other calls upon them. As the Bill stands, detailed study will have to be given each year to all applications for licences. In this respect I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Craigton, because his last Amendment has eased the burden slightly by removing the very tight time schedule to which boards would have had to operate. Even so, much work and detailed study will still have to be done within a short time each year to permit the applicants to have a decision within a reasonable time. Finally, the purification boards may well have to make tricky, and possibly invidious, decisions each and every year. As we have heard to-day, already the purification boards will have many weighty decisions to make. Fortunately for us, the main problem of the purification board of which I am a member is to control what is added to the rivers, in particular from the distilleries, and this is a big enough problem and time consumer. I only hope that we shall not also have to compete with the problems of extraction for the production of another type of sustenance.
Now to change my cap to that of a fishery board member, paragraph 3(1)(b) of the Schedule ensures that fishery boards will be notified of the establishment, or intended establishment, of a control order. This, however, is not of so much interest to the fishery board as the question of what is going to happen each year once licences have been issued. It is laid down that applications for licences shall be duly advertised, and it has been suggested that this will occur only once a year. But in Clause 4 provision is made, and rightly made, for the applications. It could well be this last application which will break the camel's back and allow too much water to be extracted for the good of the fisheries. With due respect, my experience of offices of clerks to district fishery boards is that half the
1012
room is taken up with tin deed boxes, a considerable proportion of the remainder is strewn with paper, some of which is tied up with red tape, and there is very little outward appearance that inspires confidence in efficiency. Indeed, in one such office, upon the mantlepiece stands a 1922 (or is it a 1920?) Who's Who. As a result, the fishery interests fear that detrimental licences may be issued without their clerk having woken up to the fact in time.
If I may now move to the views of a county councillor, there is a fear of increasing costs to the ratepayer. I do not think I need go very closely into this point and, it may be that the costs of licences will cover the cost of operating the Bill. But your Lordships will recollect that my noble friend Lord Haddington told us on the Second Reading of this Bill that on the River Tyne, in East Lothian, there is a possible total of 20 licences, or a possible income of £100; and this is so far the most troubled area. My noble friend Lord Stratheden and Campbell told your Lordships that the notification of interested parties in one county alone might involve 5,000 letters, though I am pleased to note a later Amendment which may slightly ease this situation; and there is also the possible cost of appeals and compensation. The costs may therefore well exceed £100. So there is a justifiable concern that this Bill may put an additional burden on the rates. To avoid undue complications for local authorities, however, I hope that the Secretary of State will not delay in setting up purification boards in areas where spray irrigation is taking place and purification boards do not at present exist, for this could cause considerable complications to the local authorities and, in time, to the purification boards. Such a situation, I believe already exists in Angus.
Perhaps I may now take on two caps at once; for, as so often happens, the interests of the farmer and the landowner go hand in hand. There are fears that farmers who have invested substantial sums of money—and, indeed, if they have done so they are likely to have received water supply grants from the Government—may find that a year later they are forbidden to use their equipment, or at least be unable to use it to capacity. There is a certain knowledge that more forms will

1013
have to be completed by farmers and also more regulations, which already abound to such an extent that it is hard to keep within the law all the time without unwittingly digressing.
Finally (if I may try to put all those thoughts under ore hat, or all the hats at once), I hope that my Amendments provide a solution to many of the problems and worries that I have just mentioned. The intention of the Amendments is to try to settle as soon as pos, Bible most of the differences that may arise—in fact, to settle them on the setting up of the control order, and not piecemeal, year by year, on the granting of licences. Something of this nature has been attempted in England by the Water Resources Act, 1963, which sets up a lengthy complicated procedure in attempting to establish the "minimum acceptable flow". This, I gather, is proving very difficult in practice and may take many years to put into operation. My solution is, I hope, a simpler solution to a less complicated problem. I feel that, with the good will of all parties, or the arbitration of the Secretary of State and the local knowledge which already exists, it should be possible to establish minimum desirable or acceptable levels, as opposed to flows at various points upon the rivers or streams, and these levels can be quite easily delineated by calibrated posts in the various waters. If the minimum levels can be established, then the task of the purification boards will be enormously eased; the fishery interests and those interested in pollution will not have to worry, once the level has been established, and irrigators, or prospective irrigators, will know exactly where they stand. Accordingly, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 22, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Burton.)
4.32 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON: I must congratulate my noble friend on an excellent maiden speech. He brings a great experience to our deliberations. I cannot say that in this House we are lacking in experience, because we have so many people here who talk with great experience. But he brings a new light to our deliberations, and I know that all noble Lords will join with me in hoping that we shall hear him taking
1014
part very often in the future in our Scottish debates.
The noble Lord has raised a number of points, and I will look most carefully at those he has raised which are perhaps wider than the Amendment he has so ably moved. On one point he is afraid that the fishery boards may not know of the applications. Of course, the fishery boards have representatives on the river purification board, either directly or through a member representing more than one fishery board, and, surely, the secretary of the fishery board, even though he is elderly, and not too efficient, can keep an eye—at least we can expect him to do so—on the local paper. But I appreciate the noble Lord's concern on this important point of minimum flow or minimum level. I am not able to say with any authority whether what he has in mind would be more easily achieved by referring to a "minimum acceptable level" rather than to the accepted term of "minimum acceptable flow." Certainly the Water Resources Act, 1963 uses the word "flow". The relevant provisions of the 1963 Act, on this question alone, take up eight pages compared with the five pages for this whole Bill.
I am advised that in England there is still much work to be done on this subject, and that advice is being given by a sub-committee of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, although the English boards have already been working on this matter for some time. I am afraid, therefore, that because the Scottish boards are not all yet in a position to comply, and because the provisions which we might find necessary in the end may be so complex, I must ask the noble Lord—though I wish I could accept an Amendment moved in a maiden speech—whether he will consider withdrawing his Amendment if I give him the following assurance. Under paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Bill as it now stands my right honourable friend has power to require a board to give
"all such other relevant information as the Secretary of State may … require."
Between now and the Report stage we will look carefully at the whole question and try to find words to add to the Schedule which will meet the noble Lord's point.
LORD BURTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, for his kind remarks. I would say that I specifically used the word "levels" rather than "flows", because with "flows" we have all the complications which are happening in England, where the volume of the water has to be measured, with the speed of the water and numerous other things, whereas the word "level" would give us all we require in this case, and all we need is a calibrated post in the river. However, in view of the undertaking given by my noble friend, I willingly withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CRAIGTON: This Amendment has already been discussed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 23, leave out from ("board") to ("application") in line 25, and insert ("fail to inform an applicant of their decision on his application by the 15th day of November in the year in which the application is made, the").—(Lord Craigton.)
LORD HUGHES: This is a minor point. I gather, after inquiries that I made before we started this Sitting, that it is accepted that it is equally correct to refer to a board or a Government—not a Government; there is a particular rule there; but a collective noun like "the board"—in the plural or in the singular. I notice that in this Amendment the Government have taken the opportunity of substituting for, "fails to inform an applicant of its decision", the words, "fail to inform an applicant of their decision". As they have generally referred to the board as "they", I take it that this is in the interests of consistency.
LORD CRAIGTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord. He mentioned this point to me before the Sitting. He is perfectly right. Either, I understand, is correct; a board can be either "it" or "they". Of the two, the plural is more correct, and in any Bill using the word "they" it should be consistent throughout. If I may trespass on your Lordships' generosity, there is one case in Clause 7 where we have put "it" instead of "they", and we shall see that it is corrected at the next stage.
LORD LATHAM: Higher education.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: This is a minor Amendment to make it quite clear that the 28 days' period during which an aggrieved applicant may appeal shall not start until the date on which he receives the decision. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 30, leave out from ("days of") to ("to the") in line 31, and insert ("his receipt of that decision appeal by notice in writing").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.37 p.m.
LORD LINDGRENmoved to leave out subsection (14). The noble Lord said: I must apologise to the Committee, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, for putting down this Amendment so late, but I took all the steps I could to let him know the general line I was going to take on the Amendment; therefore I hope he has not been put to too much inconvenience and that he will be able to give a reasoned reply to what looks like a simple Amendment. Subsection (14) of Clause 3 will confer a valuable right upon a spray irrigator with a licence from the river purification board. The spray irrigator holding the licence will receive an immediate and complete immunity from any action at law provided he complies with the terms of his licence. He will be able to take his licensed quantity, regardless of any damage to the river and regardless of any damage to the rights of all other riparian owners and abstractors.
The Common Law right of a riparian owner has been stated clearly many times, and if one goes right back perhaps the clearest statement so far as Scotland is concerned is that in the case of John Young and Company v. Bankier Distillery Company. So we have the established right of the riparian owner. But subsection (14) of Clause 3 will abolish the rights of the riparian owners to take action against the spray irrigator, without substituting any other right of action and without any compensation whatever. At the same time, the rights of spray irrigators to take action against other riparian owners will be preserved. Thus the spray irrigator will be placed in the enviable position that he will be able to sue other riparian owners but cannot himself be sued.
Practically, there are a large number of interests who will be affected. There

1017
is the statutory water undertaker who abstracts water for public supplies under statutory powers and it may find its rights to abstract affected if large quantities of water are abstracted for spray irrigation; and statutory water undertakers will be without any remedy against the spray irrigators. Industries such as paper mills abstract water sometimes under statutory powers and sometimes as a prescriptive right. There is the Common Law right of the farmer to extract water for his cattle and for household purposes. There are the fishing rights, which will be left without redress; and there are the public health and the amenity interests, who, again, will be without remedy.
This question of the licensing of abstractions and the abrogation of Common Law rights was debated very fully when the Water Resources Bill was before the House. The Water Resources Act, 1963, applies to England and Wales and provides a comprehensive system for the control of all abstraction, including public water supply, industry, agriculture and spray irrigation. Section 31(1) of the 1963 Act contains words similar to those in Clause 3(14) of the Bill now before us, but Section 56(5) of the Act of 1963 provides that an abstractor with a licence of right (other than a statutory abstractor) is not to have the benefit of this immunity from Common Law action until he begins to pay for his abstraction under a charging scheme prepared by the river authority under the Act.
Moreover, the Act of 1963 contains many safeguards for abstractors other than spray irrigators. In issuing new licences the river authority is bound to take into account the rights of all other abstractors, and this is provided for in Section 29 of the Act of 1963. Further, all abstractors must be licensed, and the licences confer upon the abstractors protected rights, which, again, is provided in Section 26 of the 1963 Act. Under Section 29(2) of the Act of 1963 the river authority must not grant a licence which derogates from protective rights. If the river authority contravenes this subsection, then the abstractor with a protected right may take action against the river authority for breach of statutory duty.
Thus, while the Act of 1963 abrogates the Common Law rights of a riparian
1018
owner against a spray irrigator, the spray irrigator will not enjoy this immunity until a charging scheme is introduced; and in exchange for the loss of the Common Law right, the riparian owner is given a protective right for his own abstractions and the right of action for a breach of statutory duty against a river authority which fails to carry out this duty properly. There are no such safeguards in the present Bill. A provision on these lines was essential in the Water Resources Act, 1963, because it was part of a comprehensive system for bringing all abstractors under some form of control. It is not essential to the present Bill because the Bill makes provision merely for river purification boards to have power to control spray irrigation if and when necessary. The present Bill is not a comprehensive measure as was the Water Resources Act, 1963, and, so far as I can see, there is no reason for altering the Common Law as it applies to abstractors in Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 15, leave out subsection (14).—
(Lord Lindgren.)
LORD BURTON: The noble Lord, in moving his Amendment, seems to have destroyed the fundamentals of the Bill. Surely, any disgruntled continuous occupier can bring an action against any licence holder for doing what his licence entitled him to do. Surely, the action which should be taken by the disgruntled person should be to appeal against the licence in the first place.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Burton, and adding to them, is this point not covered by Clause 7(1):
"Where by reason of exceptional shortage of rain or other emergency it appears to a river purification board that it is necessary …"
to withdraw or restrict the water being issued to any particular person? Surely, if someone feels that his rights are being damaged, the proper action is to go to the purification board and point this out; whereupon, if the board are satisfied, then they can restrict or, indeed, withdraw altogether the licence given to a person to abstract water from the river for spray irrigation. It appears to me that the withdrawal of subsection (14) would simply mean that someone might be prosecuted for doing what he had the legal right to do.
LORD CRAIGTON: I am grateful to my noble friend because I think that what I have to say he has said almost in one sentence. Nevertheless, I will plough through my reply. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, for giving me quite satisfactory notice, and I hope that we shall be able to get on the Record an equally satisfactory reply.
As the noble Lord recognises, the detailed provisions of the Water Resources Act, 1963, are not relevant to the limited situation with which this Bill deals. There is a great difference between England and Scotland. For instance, there is no real reliance in Scotland by water undertakers—and I think that is the noble Lord's interest—on abstraction from rivers, as there is in England. In Scotland, there is now ample water for everyone without control, and apparently without any infringement of common rights. But the spray irrigation characteristic is to draw large quantities of water, frequently from comparatively small streams; and spray irrigation puts nothing back. By and large, power and industry who may be big abstractors return much of the water extracted, and it is up to the board to see that what is returned is not harmful.
As the spray irrigator is the only water undertaker who ought to be controlled in Scotland, it is only right that he should be protected. But the noble Lord's objection is to the effect of the licensing system on common rights. As spray irrigation could now, in Scotland, be in breach of the Common Law, if it is going to be allowed under proper control the possession of a licence must be a defence. But it is quite wrong to think that the holder of the licence can, as the noble Lord said, take all the water he likes regardless of any damage to the rights of other riparian owners and abstractors.
The terms of the licence—the very reason for the licence—is to prevent that sort of thing from happening, and a licence will be necessary wherever my right honourable friend considers there is need for a control area to be established, and that control area will stretch from the source to the mouth of the stream. But before the area is established—and this is the point which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, made—
1020
everyone concerned has the right of objection, and every year likewise has the right to make representation to the board, who must take every interest into account.
So, in the control area, anyone affected by an operator, if he is operating in accordance with the licence, has his interest and right protected without its being necessary to invoke Common Law. But the licence is a defence only and does not prevent Common Law action from being taken. Of course, if the operator is contravening the terms of his licence, or is operating outside the control area, a Common Law action can be taken by anyone injured by the operation.
Finally, just consider what would be the effect of accepting this Amendment. As my noble friend, Lord Burton, said, anyone who has made his objections to the board or to the Secretary of State during the granting of the control order or the granting of the licence and has been turned down can endeavour to raise the whole matter again through the courts, thus making the courts and not the boards or the Secretary of State the final deciders as to whether the use of the installation should be permitted as licensed, or even permitted at all. Just to take the subsection out of the Bill would wreck its purpose because of the then unpredictable validity of the licence, unless—and I am sure your Lordships would not want this—we were to alter the whole structure of the Bill and put the courts in place of the purification boards.
LORD LINDGREN: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that full and detailed reply. As he said, my interest in water arises very largely from public water supplies and the responsibility of the statutory water undertakers to meet the public health requirements under their statutory duties. I agree that so far as Scotland is concerned the problem of water is not as great as it is in England with its concentrated population. But there was a time in England when water supplies seemed ample; and we may, seeing that Scotland is part of the British Isles, have to take some of their water as we had to take supplies from the Welsh hills. Therefore we should look at the country as a whole and the water supply of the country for national purposes. But

1021
I admit, quite frankly, that that position has not arisen at the moment. Therefore, having raised the point and got the very satisfactory reply from the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, shall be agreed to?
4.52 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: Your Lordships may recollect that on Second Reading I raised a number of points which seemed to me to be of importance and which were not covered by the terms of the Bill. I thought it reasonable that those people who had invested their money in spray irrigation should have some prior consideration over those who merely wanted to jump on a successful bandwagon. Secondly, I thought it reasonable that the claims of those prior applicants and the general use of the river should not be spoiled by granting too many licences, but that, rather than granting a number of licences to a large number of people, each to abstract a quantity of water insufficient for the purposes, the number of licences should be restricted to what was reasonable in the best interests of the community.
The third point on which I indicated I might seek to move an Amendment was that I thought it rather unsatisfactory that when an individual had gone to all the bother of installing equipment he had the apparent security only of getting a licence for one year, which in itself would not justify the expenditure. Because of a letter which I received from the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, I did not put down any Amendments along those lines, because I gather it is the intention of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to issue guidance to the river purification boards on these points. But perhaps it would be in the interests of all those concerned in this matter if the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, felt able to make a statement as to the Government's intentions in these matters at this stage.
LORD CRAIGTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for giving me an opportunity to put on record that part of the letter which I wrote to certain noble Lords and which referred to the question of existing installers having special rights in regard to their installa-
1022
tions. The other parts of my letter, which were less important, will by the time this debate is over be on the record in other things I have to say.
The problem that faces us—and this was raised many times on Second Reading—is this question of what happens to the existing installer. As the last Amendment made clear, there is now not a clear right at Common Law for abstraction of water for spray irrigation. So it would not be fair to give any special right to those who had already installed over those who had not done so, probably simply because of this doubtful legality of abstraction. There were also those who had only recently become owners of suitable land. Having said that, I can assure your Lordships that my right honourable friend will include in the guidance he will give to the boards a request that special attention will be paid to the interests of those who have already installed. He will also draw attention to the need to issue only sufficient licences to enable operating installations in normal times to justify the cost of installation.
An additional safeguard lies in the right of appeal. Refusal to grant a licence for equipment already installed would be something my right honourable friend would examine with great care on appeal. This is the sort of Bill where there are so many and diverse local considerations that the decision is best left to the local statutory body, in the knowledge that good men and true with all the local knowledge are most likely to balance the conflicts of interest there must be and arrive at just conclusions. To try to specify in this Bill some—and it could only be some—of the many problems that may arise and to indicate solutions might tie the hands of the boards in making what they considered was the right decision in every case. I must finish, as I began, by being grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the opportunity to make that statement.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I think the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was quite justified in suggesting that in many cases it would be better to allow a limited number of licences, where in each case a sufficient amount of water would be

1023
allowed which would make the subsequent agricultural operations worth while. But I think attention might be drawn to the possibility of a somewhat different type of licence. Where a stream which may have a very small flow during the summer has a very considerable one in winter and spring, and where an occupier is prepared to make his own storage capacity, for which he will doubtless receive Government help, he might be given a licence which would enable him to withdraw water from the said stream when there is a superfluity of it during the winter, and then use only his own storage capacity for his irrigation in the dry months. He would not thereafter be allowed to abstract further water until, in the opinion of the board, it was justifiable for him to do so.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My recollection of the Second Reading debate is that my noble friend the Minister said that that would be perfectly in order. Any farmer could construct his own tank and fill it during the winter, and then it would be up to him to irrigate; and I think my noble friend indicated that there would be normal agricultural grants for permanent equipment.
LORD CRAIGTON: Yes. This is a very interesting point and the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has suggested what we think will be the solution. It may happen that at any time the board will have more applications for licences than can be granted, and in that case they would be able to suggest to the applicant that if he put in pond storage which would be licensed to be filled at times when water was available, this would be the only possible solution and the right solution to spray irrigation. I said at Second Reading that there is a grant of 50 per cent. available for the construction of reservoirs and dams on farms, and we are very keen to see these go in. These grants can be applied for either by individual farmers or by two or more farmers working together. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. We feel that after all the spray irrigation licences have been issued for direct abstractions the only other possible step is for new people to put in pond storage.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Special provisions regarding first application for a licence
4—(1) A river purification board may at any time consider a first application for a licence in respect of abstraction of water from a particular source of supply from a person who satisfies them that in all the circumstances he could not reasonably comply with the provisions of subsection (2) of the last foregoing section regarding applications, and the provisions of that section except subsection (2) shall, subject to the next following subsection, apply to such an application and to any licence granted in pursuance thereof.
(2) On making an application under the foregoing subsection or under section 6(2) of this Act and section 3 as applied thereby, the applicant shall publish in a local newspaper, circulating in the area where the licence would have or has effect, a notice stating the nature of his application, and in relation to that application the dates mentioned in subsections (5) and (6) of the last foregoing section shall not apply, but—

(a) representations against the application may not be entertained if made later than 14 days from the date of publication of the notice as aforesaid;

(b) the board shall have 28 days from the said date to arrive at a decision in relation to the application;

and subsections (5) to (7) of the last foregoing section shall have effect accordingly.
5.0 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON: As drafted, Clause 4 lays down a procedure for first applications not made by September 15. As amended, the clause also covers cases where the holder of an existing licence has failed, perhaps because of sudden illness, to apply on time for the renewal of his licence. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 21, leave out ("a first") and insert ("and").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 26, after ("subsection (2)") insert ("and paragraph (a) of subsection (4)"). —(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: This Amendment is consequential and drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 33, after ("stating") insert ("briefly").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 35, leave out ("(6)") and insert("(7)").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: This Amendment is consequential and drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 42, leave out ("to") and insert ("and").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON THE EARL OF HADDINGTON moved, after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause:
Compensation for refusal, revocation or variation of licences
" .—(1) Where a person has before the relevant date abstracted water from a source of supply for the purpose of spray irrigation and has carried out a scheme of spray irrigation by means of equipment installed for that purpose and—

(a) his application for a licence to abstract water for the purposes of the said scheme is refused; or

(b) such licence after having been granted is revoked or varied otherwise than in pursuance of section 6 of this Act; and

it is shown that the holder of the licence—

(a) has incurred expenditure in carrying out work which is rendered abortive or in providing equipment which is rendered useless by the refusal. revocation or variation, as the case may be, of the licence, or

(b) has otherwise sustained loss or damage which is directly attributable to such refusal, revocation or variation,

the river purification board shall pay to him compensation in respect of that expenditure, loss or damage.
(2) Any claim for compensation under this section shall, in default of agreement, be determined by arbitration and the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 shall apply thereto as if it were a claim for compensation under that Act.
(3) For the purposes of this section 'the relevant date' means the date on which a control order relating to the source of supply in question comes into force."
The noble Earl said: Before moving this Amendment, may I add my congratulations to my noble friend on the occasion of his maiden speech. I think we would all agree that it was a good performance. He spoke clearly and, as
1026
a landowner, farmer and a county councillor, with intimate knowledge of his subject. I hope that in him we shall have a valuable addition to the number of Scottish speakers when from time to time we have our Scottish debates.
In spite of what the noble Lord has said about the refusal of licences to those farmers who have already installed irrigation equipment, I feel constrained to move this Amendment, if only to put it on record, because it deals with compensation for those farmers who, before the coming into operation of a control order, have laid out money in installing spray irrigation equipment. This is a matter upon which many noble Lords were agreed on the argument of Lord Hughes on the Second Reading of the Bill.
If a control order comes into being, for such farmers who are refused licences, or for those for whom, when granted licences, the amount of water available is lower than they could extract hitherto, of course the result will be a loss of profit and consequent hardship. Therefore, many of us in Scotland, not only farmers, feel strongly that it is only fair that in such cases the river purification board should pay compensation. If they have no funds of their own, they should, if necessary, be supplied with funds for this purpose. I feel that it is going to bear hardly on farmers. I know several farmers who have spent hundreds of pounds on installing irrigation equipment, many in my own county, and it will he hard for them if they cannot be absolutely assured that this money will not be thrown away.
The noble Lord says that people in abstracting water from rivers have been committing an offence. But if for all these years they have been committing an offence, why have they not been prosecuted for it? It has been going on for years and years. Why should they be penalised for an offence which nobody even knew was an offence? I have no more to say, other than that I feel strongly about this Amendment, and that these farmers are worthy of some form of compensation or assurance that money which they have spent will not be thrown away. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Haddington.)
LORD BALERNO: Before speaking in support of the Amendment, may I add to what others have said about the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Burton? It is clear that he has a maternal inheritance. Having heard his kinsman already speaking from the Front Bench earlier this afternoon, I believe the talents are shared on that side of the family. I hope that we shall hear more from him in the future because he has a wide experience, particularly of matters concerning the Highlands.
I must apologise for being unable to be present on Second Reading which took place on Monday. May 11. A Monday Sitting is rather difficult for some of us in Scotland. Before speaking to this Amendment, I must disclose my interest in the matter, first of all, as a polluter of water. For many generations I have been a polluter of the water of Leith, and in a slightly different place so were my grandfather, my great-grandfather and probably those long before them. The second interest is that we use organic irrigation, and have installed apparatus which is also capable of being used for spray irrigation.
If I may claim your Lordships' indulgence slightly to digress upon this point, modern animal husbandry is in many cases leading to organic irrigation, to the solution of the dung and excrement from the livestock and the spraying of that on the ground, as economic both in manpower and in the saving of the natural resources; and forbye (as we say in Scotland) it helps to keep the rivers pure. The danger that this can constitute is that spray irrigation is defined in the Bill as
"water or other liquid emerging (in whatever form) from apparatus designed or adapted to eject liquid into the air in the form of jets or sprays".
On many farms, including my own, the water comes from the farm burn running through the ground; and, as my noble friend Lord Craigton said on Second Reading, at Common Law a riparian owner has rights to take water for what are known as primary uses—that is, drink for man and beast, and water for ordinary domestic purposes. I wonder whether I could presume that "domestic purposes" would include all water required to maintain the cleanliness of domestic animals as well as the cleanliness of man. It would encourage me if the noble Lord,
1028
Lord Craigton, would give a verbal assurance of this nature, when the interpretation of the Act will depend not so much on the lawyers as upon a board.
The noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, in this House on Tuesday last, said that in this country the judges are forbidden to find out what Parliament meant. It seems to me that by the constitution of the boards they will not be excluded from discovering what Parliament meant, and, indeed, we have an assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, that his right honourable friend will make certain that the boards are informed of the intention of Parliament.
I should like now to address myself more directly to the Amendment and the protection of those who have already installed spray irrigation—points which have been raised so clearly by the noble Lords, Lord Hughes and Lord Strathclyde. The lot of the agricultural improver in this country is not usually a very happy one. The absolute pioneer has frequently died in poverty, and some have gone bankrupt. Few have cashed in on their inventiveness. It is their neighbours, who look over the hedges or the dykes, who usually manage to reap the financial reward of their enterprise. However, I would add that in this case —in the area the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, knows very well, and perhaps the principal part from where the water is drawn—it is most unlikely that the enterprising farmers who inaugurate spray irrigation will ever go bankrupt, at any rate, in the foreseeable future.
But I would draw attention to the fact that there can be a danger in maintaining for too long existing spray irrigation rights. It might discourage farmers from creating farm reservoirs which, as the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has said, are an essential part of spray irrigation. It is this off-peak storage which has been so strongly pressed by the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, and which the farmers in his district are showing considerable initiative in getting into operation. And, thanks to the 50 per cent. grant which they obtained from the Government, they seem to be able to do this at reasonable cost. As farmers, we are most grateful for a Government policy that makes this possible.
I am not altogether certain about the wisdom of storage of water for more than

1029
one farm at a time. The essence of spray irrigation is that once you have started, you must continue it until nature takes over with a good shower of rain. Therefore there will always be dispute, if two farmers own a reservoir. One of the primary causes of war, at any rate in olden times, was over who was to own the water holes. I should have thought that any undue encouragement for common or shared water holes in this country would lead to further confusion, and possibly to the need for further legislation.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: If I may interrupt the noble Lord for one moment, I should like to say that my whole object on Second Reading in suggesting this kind of combined operation was that two farmers might divide the cost between them, whereas for one farmer it might be an extremely expensive operation to put in spray irrigation equipment and at the same time to find money for off-peak storage.
LORD BALERNO: I have seen a farm, not a hundred miles from where Lord Haddington lives, on which I was amazed at the speed and efficiency with which a small storage reservoir, with a capacity of around half a million gallons, was put in. It was the rather smaller, easily-excavated type of reservoir of which I was thinking, which can be lined with polythene and made completely watertight. I understand that the polythene sheeting lasts quite a long time.
The noble Lord, Lord Forbes, referred on Second Reading to river purification boards, and welcomed the probable change in their constitution. I should like to support his description of some of them as little more than "face savers". I am glad that any reconstitution may enable certain of the boards to get closer in touch with the realities of the situation, both industrially and agriculturally. I admit that there are some boards which have been extremely helpful. In conclusion, as this is a purely Scottish Bill, I should like to ask my noble friend why we must use in the Bill the word "stream", had whether the Government would consider substituting the word "burn". Although this has to do with water, I should like to add that it is nothing to do with the question of Admiralty nomenclature.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: As my noble friend Lord Haddington said when he spoke a few moments ago, many noble Lords on Second Reading stated their fears that injustice might be done to those who had been pioneers in spray irrigation and who consequently had spent much money in providing themselves with the necessary equipment for this purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, promised on that occasion that he would look into the matter and see what could be done to preserve their interests. He subsequently wrote to me a letter (for which I wish to thank him) which went fully into the whole matter; and while he could not specifically get rid of my fears in total, he did give assurances which went a great way towards removing such fears as I have. I hope that my noble friend will he able to repeat those assurances in this Committee to-day, for I believe that if he does, they will go far to resolve the fears which have been expressed by others who have spoken.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: While entirely agreeing with my noble friend Lord Haddington that where a person is put to real loss or hardship he should get compensation, I would ask my noble friend the Minister to take into consideration the fact that on Second Reading, when replying to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, he said that the small additional net expenses would come on to the rates in the ordinary way. If these claims are going to total up to large figures, I would ask whether he could reconsider this matter and whether they could not become Exchequer payments rather than local rate payments. Also I would ask in what degree the equipment, when a licence is not granted, will be just put into store, to be brought out again when new licences are granted.
LORD CRAIGTON: The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was, I am afraid, not in the Chamber when, in answer to the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on the Question, That Clause 3 stand part, I replied to the points that he asked me to make. My noble friend Lord Balerno makes the fascinating proposal that Scottish legislation should

1031
include, where applicable, Scottish words. But we must think about this. The difficulty here of putting—
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Will the noble Lord forgive me? If he does put in the word "burn", as it was pronounced by the noble Lord, Lord Burton, I hope he will correct his pronounciation. It is not "burn"; it is "burun".
LORD CRAIGTON: The difficulty is that the word "burn" is not normally used to denote a substantial river. The word "stream" is used throughout this Bill to describe the water courses, both large and small, affected in control areas. According to Murray's English Dictionary a stream is:
"A course of water flowing continuously along a bed on the earth, forming a river, rivulet or brook."
So that whereas a burn is not a river, a river is a stream and so is a burn. Of course, there is also the Scots word "streamie", but that is a streamlet or burn, also.
The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, asked about organic irrigation. I am advised that the water or other liquid emerging is organic irrigation, and that if the water was taken from a stream in a control area it would then be necessary to obtain a licence. The Department of Agriculture welcome and encourage this practice, as would a river purification board, of course, particularly as it contributes towards reducing pollution from farm effluents. I do not think, therefore, that there would be many, if any, cases of difficulty in securing a licence; and, of course, if the water is taken from the mains no licence is required.
LORD BALERNO: What I am concerned with is the fee that has to be paid by a farmer who is doing something for the benefit of the community.
LORD CRAIGTON: It is not a great deal of money, and I feel, as in other things, that if we make exceptions for one sort of irrigation we shall not know where we may have to stop.
I come now to the basic question of compensation. We have considered this matter most carefully. The Amendment suggests compensation to those who have installed plant before the coming into
1032
force of the control order, and I must say that there are substantial difficulties here. We are advised that the abstraction of water for spray irrigation can, as has been said before, well be in breach of Common Law. My noble friend Lord Haddington asked why there was no offence before in Common Law, but, of course, spray irrigation is a new thing and spray irrigation draws a lot more water than any other apparatus that draws water, and does not put it back into the stream. As my noble friend Lord Balerno said, all that is allowed to be taken under Common Law is water for man and beast and ordinary domestic purposes.
The Bill provides a defence against a Common Law action, provided that the abstraction is in conformity with the terms of the licence. Is it not a doubtful proposition, against this background of legal uncertainty, to give compensation in such circumstances to existing installers? Furthermore—and this is very important—the very inclusion in this Bill of such a provision as is suggested would surely encourage others who, perhaps for reasons of possible illegality, have not yet decided to install plant before the coming into force of an order, on the assurance in the Bill that they could either use it or get compensation. This might lead in some areas, when the order first came into force, to a call for more licences than the water could carry.
There is one final point on this question of compensation. Those concerned go into this proposal of installing spray irrigation rather as other interests, perhaps, apply for a public-house licence. They know that it is an annual licence and that the practice will be that, save in very exceptional circumstances, a licence once granted will be renewed annually. So it is hard to see any clear grounds for compensation under these conditions. For these reasons I ask your Lordships to be assured that the provisions, especially the appeal provisions, in the Bill give existing installers fair and proper protection; and I would ask the noble Earl, in view of what I have said, whether he could consider withdrawing his Amendment.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: With your Lordships' permission, I must contradict the noble Lord when he tells me

1033
that spray irrigation is something quite new. It has been going on for years and years. However, the assurance he has given me about this matter, and certainly the point he has made that such an Amendment to the Bill might induce too many people to want to install spray irrigation plants in a certain river, go far to relieving my anxiety. I really have no desire to test the opinion of the Committee on this matter, but I still feel very strongly that some kind of compensation should be paid. However, in view of what the noble Lord has said, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Special provisions for shortage or abundance of water]:
LORD CRAIGTON: Although a board would probably in any event advise licence-holders of temporary restrictions or temporary relaxations, it seems wise to add this subsection which requires boards to do so. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 42, at end insert—
("(3) A river purification board shall communicate any decision taken by them under this section to the holders of licences affected thereby ").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
Schedule [Provisions as to Applications for, making, coming into Operation, and Validity of, Control Orders]:
LORD CRAIGTON: With your Lordships' approval, I should like to move the last three Amendments together. On the Second Reading my noble friend Lord Stratheden and Campbell expressed concern that, in making application for a control order, the provisions of paragraph 3(1)(a) might involve a board in identifying and notifying such a large number of individual riparian occupiers as to make this provision too onerous, if not unworkable, in some cases. Similar views have been expressed by the Association of County Councils and by the River Purification Boards Association. This Amendment meets this point. It is left to the board to make suggestions to my right honourable friend for cutting down the work involved by full compliance with paragraph 3(1)(a), and it leaves to the
1034
Secretary of State the final approval of this cutting down, both in principle and in detail. I am grateful to my noble friend, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 26, leave out sub-paragraph (a). —(Lord Craigton.)
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: As these Amendments are being moved now, I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for meeting the point which I raised on Second Reading. I assure him that, so far as I can understand from people I have consulted, the Amendment completely satisfies them.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Do the last words of the third Amendment cover publication in newspapers? The Amendment says:
"as respects further publication of those documents."
Would it not be a good thing, in order to be quite sure that everybody understood what was happening, if there were compulsory publication in a local newspaper?
LORD CRATGTON: This refers only to the notification of riparian proprietors. It is an alteration to paragraph 3(1)(a) of the Bill, with regard to the notification of anyone with any interest in land to which a control order applies. Otherwise, the rest of the provisions apply as in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 32, leave out ("and").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 35, at end insert ("; and
(e) every person known to the river purification board to have any interest in any land to which the control order applied for would relate:
Provided that where it appears to the Secretary of State, from representations made to him by the board, that compliance with the provisions of this sub-paragraph would be unduly onerous, it shall be sufficient compliance if the board, having submitted proposals in this regard to the Secretary of State, take such steps as he may direct as respects service of the said copy documents upon such of the persons as aforesaid as in his opinion

1035
may be materially affected by the control order if made, and as respects further publication of those documents.")—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.

TENANCY OF SHOPS (SCOTLAND) BILL
5.30 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I have it in Command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

LAW REFORM
5.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSrose to call attention to the problems of Law Reform; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, every Act of Parliament, like the two Bills that your Lordships have just been considering at rather different lengths, is in some sense a reform of the law, but not in the sense in which I wish to deal with the subject this afternoon. In a rather narrower sense, law reform comes about through a variety of agencies. Perhaps, in order to set a background to this debate, I should list them and tell your Lordships roughly what they have achieved by way of some examples. First of all, the Government Departments deal with their own spheres. For instance, the Board of Trade deal with the Companies Act; the Ministry of Labour bring in a measure like the Contracts of Employment Act of last year; the Home Office
1036
produce a compendious Act, such as the Sexual Offences Act, 1956, to choose a rather unpleasant example. My Lords, Royal Commissions and Departmental Committees do a similar job, usually starting with a very thorough search of their subject. Their labours lead sometimes to a pigeonhole; sometimes to a Bill like the Succession (Scotland) Act, over which there was much discussion earlier on in this Session, or to such important measures as the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958, which followed the Franks Committee's Report.
My Lords, there are permanent and technical Committees also in the field. There is the Private International Law Committee of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, which since it was set up in 1952 has produced seven Reports, only one of which, I am afraid, has become law; and there is the Criminal Law Revision Committee, under the Home Secretary, which was set up as recently as 1959. The Fourth Report of this Committee led to an Act of Parliament which received the Royal Assent yesterday; its Third Report led to a Bill that is due to receive its Second Reading in this House next week; two other Bills produced are already law. Then there is the Law Reform Committee, again of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, set up in 1952, since when it has published eleven Reports, most of which, if they required action and if action was recommended, resulted in measures that are now law. Indeed, the latest one is the Perpetuities and Accumulations Bill, now going through Parliament. There is also the Statute Law Revision Committee, which I think comes into this category, and which again comes under my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack; and (lest for the moment we forget Scotland) there is the Lord Advocate's Law Reform Committee for Scotland, which since 1956 has also produced eleven Reports, most of which, where they required it, are, I think, now law.
All these, my Lords, are Committees either set up or supervised by a Minister of the Crown; but, so far as the majority of them are concerned, they are staffed by, or their members consist of, people acting part-time and voluntarily—and I must say that I think they can be seen to have done a very fine job. One such example is the Law Reform Committee, the chairman of which is Lord Justice

1037
Pearson. That Committee has on it, I think, five High Court Judges and Law Lords, five practising barristers, two solicitors and three academic lawyers, and a secretariat of two senior officials from my noble and learned friend's Department. It acts mainly, in the first instance, through sub-committees, of which there can be a fair number, because members can be co-opted on to them.
My Lords, it is of this system that there have been certain criticisms. I think there are three main criticisms. The first is that the system produces too little and does it too slowly. The second is that it does not work to any consistent, overall plan, a survey of the whole field of the law, but rather deals with individual matters as they crop up, without there being any particular consistency between them. When this criticism is put forward, perhaps a comparison can be made with the type of order of priorities suggested by the Molony Committee's Report on their subject. The third criticism is that when the Reports come out it is not Her Majesty's Government who put them into law: it is left to Private Members, either of this House or of another place—and I do know something about this aspect, because I have done quite a number of them myself within the last few years. I should like to deal with these criticisms later, but before doing so perhaps I could say something about one recent, constructive suggestion about how all this might be changed—and I refer, of course, to a book which was edited and in part written by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, who I see in his place opposite.
The noble and learned Lord had certain proposals to make about this system, and he suggested that there should be set up a new Department, or a new branch of the Lord Chancellor's Department, headed by a man, perhaps called the Vice-Chancellor, with the rank of Minister of State, with a complete team of full-time Law Commissioners sitting under him. He suggested that they should have three main jobs. The first would be to make a new, systematic and long-term survey of the law over the whole field, The second would be, in the process, to attempt to codify the law. Thirdly, they should have default powers, as it were, to deal with subjects that would normally be dealt with by Departments such as
1038
the Home Office, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and so on, where those Departments had not got on with a similar job in their own field—though in the first instance the task should be left to the Department itself. The noble Lord also suggests in his book (and if I refer to the book compendiously as "his suggestions", I hope that he will not object) that there should be, compulsorily, an annual Law Reform Bill, and that the Government should find Parliamentary time at least to debate, and possibly legislate on, every Report that emerges, There were two other suggestions, but I do not think these need be gone into this afternoon, because they touch upon rather a different matter.
My Lords, this body of suggestions seems to have become the policy of the Party of noble Lords opposite—at any rate, if one can judge from a speech made recently by the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. If I may venture to say so, I do not think that I can agree with the suggestions that have been put forward. The main difficulty I see is that these suggestions really confuse two types of law reform. And although I must admit that it is very difficult to draw a determined line between them, I think there is no doubt that there is a great difference. I will deal with the suggestions one by one, First of all, that for an annual, compulsory Law Reform Bill. I do not think there is any need to make such a suggestion in this field; because, of course, my Lords, it already happens—at any rate, it has happened under the present Government. If I may take the last four years, 1961 saw the Trustee Investment Act, surely within the field comprehended by the noble Lord's book; 1962 saw the Criminal Justice Administration Act; there was the Contracts of Employment Act, 1963, which I have already mentioned; and this year we have the Perpetuities and Accumulations Bill, which is still in the process of going through Parliament. I think that all these measures deal with topics touched by the noble Lord's book, and they fulfil, surely, the concept of an annual Law Reform Bill.
The true disagreement that I have with the noble and learned Lord opposite is that, if the new Department is to go through all the topics set out in this book—and more, as I think was suggested—

1039
this is going to amount in very large part to political, not legal, reform. Of course, it will be legal reform in a sense, but it will be legal reform instituted for political reasons, and against a political background. I think the book itself shows that this is so. For instance, there is a comment on the Karmel Committee on the Truck Acts which recommended a wholesale repeal of the law and a new approach being made to it. There were various recommendations, and the noble Lord and his colleagues agreed with one of them, but said—and I use their own words—
"We submit that the other recommendations are quite wrong."
Quite wrong, on what criterion? I would suggest a political one. And the same could be said of so many other topics in the book, important though they may be, and controversial. I would submit, in contrast, that they are political in content and in essence.
All law reform alters the instance of the law on individual freedom in one way or the other—so it is also with all the suggestions in the book to which I refer—and this is one of the main functions of Government. But these alterations will be made, if they are dealing with large and important subjects, on the basis that the Party or person who introduces them considers they are alterations made "in the public interest." And what is in the public interest is a matter of politics and not of law reform. If, then, this is the scale of the law reform suggested by noble Lords opposite as being necessary in the public interest, much of it, I would suggest, should form part of their political platform and be implemented, or sought to be implemented, by the Party opposite if and when they win the Election. They need not expect everybody to agree. And if their reforms are so large that they require an extra Department of State to get them under way, then that is also part of their platform; it is also part of their political decisions.
But what I feel is unfortunate is that an attempt should be made to hang a case for major political reform upon the alleged inadequacies of a system of specialist Committees set up by various Government Departments to do some-
1040
thing totally different. I have attempted to tell your Lordships what those specialist sub-committees are, and I think their own purposes are quite important enough to examine on their own. It is on that aspect of the subject that I shall concentrate this afternoon; although I hope I may be forgiven for setting the debate in a larger context since this very topical book has recently come out.
I suggest that law reform, in what I believe to be the narrow sense and the one with which I should mainly like to deal, should deal with about four things. It should consider the decisions of the courts, especially where the existing law has been criticised by the judge or by counsel, or where the result is quite clearly contrary to the intention of Parliament under the Statute concerned. Legal maxims should be extremely carefully examined—the sort of maxims like nemo dat quod non habet, which is a horrid Latin tag with wide implication in the law of contract. Then there are many technical and smaller legal and administrative matters which fall essentially within this type of jurisdiction. Finally, this branch of law reform should. I would say, deal with the codification of Statute Law and the bringing up to date of blocks of administrative Statutes.
It may be that all this cannot be done by the Law Reform Committee. Perhaps the Statute Law Revision Committee has an equally important function to play in this field. None of these things can be defined very clearly, and many of them may be controversial—not necessarily on Party lines, but for other reasons. But with the system as it is, all of them depend on the judgment either of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor or of one of his colleagues in the Government. Upon their judgment, I think—the judgment of these Ministers of the Crown—must depend whether the right subjects are tackled or not. If the specialist Committees are given too controversial and too political a task they will not succeed; and the Minister in charge can be criticised for having given the Committee that job in the first place.
I think the subjects they could deal with are those which, like the elephant, you recognise when you see although you cannot define them precisely in terms. Where the specialist Committees

1041
cannot deal with a subject, then I think it should go to a Royal Commission or to a Departmental Committee and be followed by a White Paper and a Government Bill which goes through the ordinary programme in Parliament.
To revert to the criticism that too little is done and too slowly, I would say that this is basically a matter of Parliamentary time. If there were more Parliamentary time, I have no doubt that more personnel would be required in the Department of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, and also, it may be, on the sub-committees of the Law Reform Committee; and perhaps other specialist Committees should have more sub-committees under them. There should be more of them, and it may be that the suggestion put by Professor Wade in the 1961 Modern Law Review for standing sub-committees should be adopted, if the Treasury are prepared to produce the necessary money.
It must be the duty of the Government to push forward as fast as they can with the work of these Committees, and the faster they can push them forward according to Parliamentary time available, so much the better. If they can push them forward faster than at the present moment, they should not in any way hazard the procedure by being short of staff or of sub-committees. Therefore, I would ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, when he comes to reply, to make it quite clear that there will be no lack either of staff in his own Department or of sub-committees if Parliamentary time can be found to put their labours quickly into good effect and into law.
My Lords, I wonder about the terms of reference. The present Law Reform Committee's terms of reference are:
"To consider, having regard especially to judicial decisions, what changes are desirable in such legal doctrines as the Lord Chancellor may from time to time refer to the Committee."
In fact, these terms of reference have been interpreted fairly widely, and have included for the consideration of the Committee certain Statutes; but, unlike the case with the 1934 Committee, the predecessor or the present one, whole blocks of Statute Law cannot be looked at, as I understand, by the Law Reform Committee; and I do not think it can touch the departmental side of the law
1042
at all. I should like to see this Committee enabled, if necessary, to deal with large blocks of Statute Law, because perhaps the Statute Law Revision Committee is not the right body for this if considerable changes are required. I should also like to see the Department of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor act as a "long-stop" in the case of Departmental law.
I come now to one of the main reasons why I put down this Motion. I warned my noble friend Lord Hastings that I was to raise this matter, and although he is not at present in his place he is not going to be taken unaware. Your Lordships may remember that last year I introduced a Private Member's Consolidation Bill to deal with burial and cremation. I was told by my noble freind, Lord Hastings, that if I withdrew the Bill his Department would produce and draft a measure as comprehensive and perfect as it could be. I do not know what happened; but I have not seen the Bill since. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, was most suspicious of the promise that was given by my noble friend Lord Hastings, and I am not sure that he is not right. In fact, perhaps I should not have withdrawn the Bill. But I was not the first person to try to deal with the law of burial and cremation. Attempts to do so had been going on year after year. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said—and I will get his words right, they were so splendid—the law is "absolutely, staggeringly chaotic", and he is perfectly correct, especially when it has to be administered by people in parishes.
What redress is there, when a Government Department like that (take this only as an example) will not get on and reform blocks of Statute Law? So far as I know, there is none, because no other Department will interfere and there is no machinery or procedure which can get the Department to do it. And if the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, wants some other things to do, when he has done with burials, he may like to look at allotments and open spaces, because they are about as bad and should be cleared up. I wish that the noble and learned Lord could deliver a well-aimed nudge at this, and that Members of Parliament could go and ask him to do it. I am sure that it would be most salutary and most satisfactory.

1043
The second criticism made of the present system is the lack of a consistent plan. If the major reform of the law is to be a matter of politics, and not of specialist committees, then a consistent plan should be followed. But if specialist committees are to do their job in the way I think they should, they must deal with the urgent problems as they come up, but, always, of course, with a reserve of problems at which they can take a look the moment they have time. I hope that the Departments concerned have a list of matters which ought to be gone into at the earliest possible opportunity and do not wait until problems arise in an urgent form before seeking a solution for them. I hope that such lists are in existence at the Home Office and in my noble and learned friend's Department.
Then there is the third criticism, of implementation. I believe that this is the crux of the whole matter. Law reform, as produced by the reports of specialist Committees, should be introduced and taken through Parliament by the Government and not by private Members. At the moment, so far as another place is concerned, unless the procedure there is reformed it will not be easy. There is no difficulty in your Lordships' House, as all your Lordships will know: it is in another place that the trouble comes. Incidentally, the suggested reforms made to the Select Committee on Procedure of another place by Sir Edward Fellowes, in 1958, make interesting reading in this context. But, as I have never been a Member of another place and know very little about the procedure there, I do not feel that it would be right for me to go in great detail into the question of how it should be reformed. But in my view it is a vitally important subject, and one that deserves great attention.
If I cannot go into that, I think that there is something to be gained by a study of another piece of procedure of Parliament; that is, the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, which was produced by the Party of noble Lords opposite. This is fairly narrow in its terms at the moment, and I would suggest that it could with advantage be widened. It provides for the setting up of a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament to deal
1044
with Consolidation Bills. For dealing with small Bills which are not controversial, I think that a Joint Committee of both Houses is an admirable system. The Act allows—and any reform should also allow—representations to be made to the Joint Committee and the Joint Committee is able to amend a Bill, if it considers that the representations have any weight. The Act—and also any re-form of it, I would suggest—provides the perfect safeguard for the type of Bill that goes through this special procedure, in that it is my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor who decides which Bills should go to the Committee. If he sends the wrong Bill, then, as a Minister responsible to Parliament, he can be criticised. I think that this is a perfectly satisfactory safeguard in seeing that no politically controversial Bills are dealt with in this way.
My Lords, all Law Reform Bills, I feel, could be dealt with in this way, as well as the sort of Bill that was considered by your Lordships the other day—the Salmon and Fresh Water Fisheries Act, 1923 (Amendment) Bill, which was introduced by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard. This Bill dealt with a small point in that Act, where the law had gone wrong and required amendment. Why has that sort of Bill to go through the full procedure of both Houses of Parliament? Would it not be much better if it went to the Joint Committee, so leaving more time to Parliament to discuss matters that ought to be gone into on the Floor of this House and in another place? I suggest that the 1949 Act should be amended by leaving out, wherever it occurs, the word "minor". At present the Act states that "corrections and minor Amendments" may be put in by this procedure. Why should not "amendments" alone stand in the Act and allow the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor all the time to decide which Bill will go through the procedure? It might also be worth considering an amendment which would allow a larger number of Law Reform Bills to go through the procedure, but I think that this would require a larger amendment than the one I have suggested.

1045
The last point I should like to deal with is the one of consolidation. Here I am 100 per cent. behind the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord opposite. He says that every major reform of Statute Law should be followed by a Consolidation Act. And it was the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, the other day, who drew attention to one glaring instance where this has not been done. He referred to the Housing Statutes. Since 1952, according to Halsbury's Statutes, there have been twelve Acts under the title "Housing". The thirteenth Bill on "Housing" is now before Parliament. It is true that one was a Consolidation Act, but that leaves twelve to muddle the citizen, the local authorities and everybody concerned. It is also true that there have been Consolidation Bills recently. There has been one this very year, if not two. But why should not this type of legislation—housing legislation and town and country planning legislation—be dealt with in the way company legislation has been dealt with in the past, and a full consolidating Statute passed every time?
This task need not be so formidable as one might think. Perhaps I could introduce a somewhat revolutionary idea. Could we not have loose-leaf Statutes? This works very well for lawyers in fields where it occurs. In fact, there is a very good loose-leaf housing encyclopædia. If there were a loose-leaf copy of the Housing Act, a full Consolidating Act would not need to be passed on every occasion. A short Bill putting in the necessary amendments could be passed. The loose-leaf copy could be re-leaved, and only the minimum time and trouble would he involved. Perhaps this proposal is not acceptable, but it would be a thoroughly up-to-date way of getting out of a formidable difficulty. May I put in one final plea to Her Majesty's Government for an instruction to their draftsmen? Could they please not legislate by reference? There is no need, in most cases, to refer to about four different other Acts in the clause of a Bill when, if the time and trouble are taken, the sections as amended can be written into the. Bill and the old sections repealed. I put in a plea for this procedure in the interests of anybody who has to understand and follow the ever-increasing complexity of the laws of this country.
1046
My Lords, these are some of my suggestions, perhaps rather jejune, but it is a difficult subject and one that has not been considered this afternoon for the first time. I look forward to a remarkable list of speeches from noble Lords who have put their names on the Paper. I hope that my suggestions may be criticised and that others will come forward. I hope that this debate may result in a quicker reform of the law, in the sense in which I was speaking, and one which will be more up to date and with the times. I beg to move for Papers.
6.0 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Viscount for having introduced this Motion and for the way he has dealt with it. I know these are observations that are made about every introducer of a Motion in this House, but I do not say it in any formal sense. We are very much indebted to the noble Viscount because we do not often have the opportunity of discussing subjects of this kind. He has put most of us in some difficulty because we had no idea how he was going to deal with the subject, and if it is not possible to follow him along all the paths he has trodden I hope he will understand.
Broadly speaking, I think we should all agree with him that there is room for improvement in the making of laws and in the way in which changes take place. I would take him up on one point, where he criticised my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner for the changes which the noble Viscount says are political. I think that all changes, including those which the noble Viscount has recommended, are bound to be a matter of political judgment by the Party in office; and, in that sense, every measure introduced in this House is a political measure. It is even political in timing. One has to recognise that no Government can introduce all the legislation which they think necessary in any one Session, or even in one Parliament, and the selection of legislation to introduce is a matter of political judgment. Therefore, I do not feel that my noble and learned friend is to be criticised because the proposals that he makes are on the basis of political decisions.

1047
The Motion has, I suppose, deliberately been made wide in order that we may talk about all aspects of law reform, and about some things which the noble Viscount introduced which are not strictly speaking law reform at all but reform of the legislative procedure. I do not propose to follow him along those lines. There is, I think, room for improvement in our legislative procedure, but I feel that we have enough to do if we stick to the terms of the Motion and talk about law reform. That is what I propose to do.
What is the purpose of law reform? I will try to put forward a number of reasons for the reform of the law which I hope will commend themselves to most noble Lords. The first thing is that our law should be clear and intelligible to the ordinary, intelligent citizen. I will not say every citizen, but the ordinary, intelligent citizen ought to be able to go to a particular Statute, read it and understand it. I would perhaps even narrow the definition of an ordinary, intelligent citizen and say that at any rate the reasonably educated ordinary, intelligent citizen ought to be able to read a Statute and understand it. If we applied that test, I wonder how many Bills that have been introduced recently, or at any time, would pass it.
I hope nobody will say "tu quoque" to me because I am reputed, quite falsely, to have introduced a measure which only one person could understand I thought I would have a look at this measure, and I find it is the essence of clarity compared with some of the measures which have been introduced recently. I would refer to certain clauses in the Diplomatic Privileges Bill, which we dealt with only last week, and to the Resale Prices Bill. I would not suggest that the clauses in this Bill are not intelligible, but their exact meaning is ambiguous and difficult to understand. There are many others which are quite unintelligible to ordinary people, and, as the noble Viscount suggested, particularly because so much legislation is by reference.
I have, as all of us have, read clauses in a Bill where, in order to begin to understand them, you have to look up Statutes going back perhaps fifty or sixty years. The ordinary person has not these Statutes available. What is he to do?
1048
Must he go to the public library? It is fantastic that this legislation, which is, after all, being made for the general public, should be framed in such a form as to be difficult, if not impossible, for the ordinary, intelligent citizen to understand. That it should be understandable is the first precondition of all legislation.
The second is that it should not be confusing; there should not be a multiplicity of legislation on a particular subject. The noble Viscount referred to housing, one of the matter I dealt with some months ago, and said that since 1952 there have been 12 or 13 Bills dealing with this subject. I should like to correct him: there have been 27. But they are not all described as Housing Bills but have come under various titles. For instance, the 1954 Landlord and Tenant Bill, which one would imagine was a Bill concerning relations between landlord and tenant, and in fact was specifically designed to deal with business premises, has in Part I provisions relating to housing. There have been, as I say, including the present Bill, 27 measures dealing with housing laid before Parliament since 1952.
I say nothing about the practitioner who has a point of law on housing to look up. But what about the ordinary citizen: what is he to do? It is impossible for anyone to know what the law is, in these circumstances, unless he has devoted his life to the subject. I therefore strongly support the noble Viscount in saying that there should be a greater and more frequent measure of consolidation and codification, and that it should be quite unnecessary to have so much legislation on the Statute Book relating to the same subject. I am not suggesting that we have done nothing at all, because we frequently have consolidation measures before us. But we want many more, and we want them particularly on these vitally important subjects—on every subject, so to speak, which more nearly affects the ordinary citizen.
Then there is a tremendous amount of deadwood still on the Statute Book. I know that the other day we dealt with a Bill to repeal Acts of Parliament dating back to fifteen-hundred-and-something. Why should we be doing that to-day? It cannot be said that it is only in 1964

1049
that an Act of Parliament of fifteen-hundred-and-something has become obsolete. Many of these Acts have been obsolete for centuries, but they have remained on the Statute Book and cluttered up Halsbury's Laws of England, and practitioners have had to pay for volumes of it which are quite obsolete. Ought there not to be some body in permanent session for constantly removing from the Statute Book Acts of Parliament which have become obsolete and which have no further justification at all?
The noble Viscount referred also to the Law Reform Committee, and I share with him the view that this is doing very valuable work. Indeed, I would say quite frankly that I have read every one of the Reports of the Law Reform Committee, and I cannot remember a single one with which I was not in a considerable measure of agreement. In some cases, of course, the Committee itself was not unanimous, but in practically every case one found oneself in a great measure of agreement. The noble Viscount himself has put forward criticisms which I think are well founded, though he did not associate himself necessarily with those criticisms. One is that the subjects which they dealt with were laid down for them—they are not necessarily of their choice—and, therefore, in that sense it is in a way a political decision to say to a Committee, "Will you go into such-and-such a question?" I will not go so far as to say that the subjects chosen are not necessarily the most important, but they are matters which the Government themselves want to deal with, and certainly not necessarily things that ought to be dealt with in the order laid down.
Reports of necessity take a long time to produce, and when they are produced they take a long time to implement. I have on a number of occasions in this House had to say that the average time taken to implement these reports is a matter of five or six years. In some cases it has been very much longer. Generally speaking, the Government have implemented the reports, or perhaps I should correct myself and say that they have instigated Private Members to introduce Bills to implement them. If that is so, why is it necessary to take so long? If it is to be done by means of Private Members' Bills, these measures can be implemented much earlier. So my
1050
general criticism of the Law Reform Committee is that, while what they produce is excellent in quality, it is much too little and too late. What is needed is something much more constant, purposeful and regular.
The noble Viscount, in the concluding part of his speech, referred to the legislative machinery. I am far from saying that it is perfect, but I do not propose to deal with that because it is a matter which I regard as strictly outside the scope of law reform. But that some kind of improvement is necessary there can be no doubt. We are frequently being told that certain measures are not being introduced because of lack of time. It ought not to be the case that necessary legislation is held up because of lack of Parliamentary time. It is the business of Parliament so to organise itself that necessary legislation is capable of being dealt with at the proper time and not held up. But this is worth a debate in itself, and if the noble Viscount likes to put down another Motion—perhaps not in this Parliament, but in the next—we shall certainly be very happy to discuss that subject on its merits. Finally, 1 find myself in considerable agreement with the noble Viscount, though not completely, in what he has said, and we are certainly grateful to him for having introduced this Motion.
6.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMONDS: My Lords, however much we may disagree among ourselves upon some things—and I do not think we disagree very much—we can agree about congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for introducing this subject in a most able and interesting speech. I am particularly grateful to him because he has said so much that I came prepared to say that I can jettison a great part of my speech and so achieve what I regard as the greatest virtue of Parliamentary speech, brevity. May I say in that connection that unfortunately this debate has come on at a rather later hour than I expected, and I hope your Lordships will not think me guilty of any discourtesy if I have to leave without waiting to hear all that all your Lordships have to say.
I thought it my duty, I would say, to intervene in this debate because it happens that, apart from the noble and learned Lord who now occupies the Woolsack, I am one of only two Members

1051
of your Lordships' House who in the past have occupied that high office. The other of those two unfortunately is unable to be here. I am sorry for that, for he occupied the office not only more recently but for a longer time than I did, and it would have been useful to hear what he had to say upon this topic. I myself have always taken the view—and I have shown it not only by words but by deeds—that I regarded it as the duty of the Lord Chancellor of the day, in the narrow sense, to supervise what has been called law reform.
Now let me, if I may, without undue repetition, emphasise what the noble Viscount has said. Of course, in its widest sense, law reform will embrace almost every legislative measure that one can think of. If the law involves the sum total of the rights vested in the citizen, or the obligations imposed upon him, clearly every legislative measure will be a measure of law reform. But it was not in that sense that the noble Viscount was using the term. He excluded, and rightly excluded, from law reform all those measures which fall primarily within the province of one of the other Departments of State—and let me say how important that is. It would be folly to have any duplication, to have attached to the Lord Chancellor's Department, whether under the title of Law Commissioners or any other name, a body of men whose duty it would be to supervise the law generally, at any rate so far as it fell within the purview of a particular Department. I could not imagine anything more foolish or anything more completely a negation of sensible government than to have that sort of duplication.
Accordingly, as the noble Lord has said, the subject which we are discussing is narrowed down very largely. It is narrowed down further, I think, by this. We must exclude from the purview of the Lord Chancellor's Office, however it is constituted, those large measures on such matters as capital punishment, trade union law, marriage law and so on, which are of universal interest. All those, if they are to be the subject of previous investigation, must, I think, be referred to a committee appointed ad hoc, as indeed they have been in the past. That, as I say, narrows down the sphere very
1052
considerably in which the Lord Chancellor can act; and, although this can be only guess-work, I do think that the mechanics which are at present available for his discharge of this limited duty are quite adequate. They are adequate in the sense that, so far as one can see—and, like the noble Viscount who has spoken, I feel a great difficulty in speaking about what happens in another place—with the Parliamentary time at present available, there is no room for more legislation than is provided by the Law Reform Committee as at present constituted.
I should like to tell noble Lords a little bit of history, because, as Lord Chancellor, I was of course in a position to know this. Your Lordships will remember that the Law Revision Committee, so called, was started by Lord Chancellor Sankey, I believe, in the year 1934. It produced a number of excellent reports, and a number of Acts were passed embodying them. Then came the war and nothing was done. In 1945 the Labour Party came into power, and it is very interesting to notice that, although the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Jowitt, was able to embody certain reports that had previously been made in Acts which were passed through Parliament from 1945 onwards, yet he did nothing else at all in this regard. It is true that he appointed a Committee on Procedure, but he did not re-establish the Law Revision Committee, and so no questions could be referred to it. Nothing was done. I am not blaming or criticising Lord Jowitt; he was a realist; and he knew that it was quite hopeless to expect to get Parliamentary time for the sort of legislation that fell within his sphere. Accordingly, he did nothing.
In 1951 the old Law Revision Committee was in abeyance, and nothing was done. In 1951, as noble Lords know, a new Government came into power. The now Lord Chancellor, perhaps, was not a realist. It may be that he was an idealist. He has even been described in a recent book as an "innocent"—strange though that may seem to noble Lords. But idealist or innocent, I did set about at once (because it was a matter upon which I was rather enthusiastic) forming the Law Reform Committee, which took the place of the Law Revision Committee. We learnt by

1053
experience and accordingly, in order that the Lord Chancellor might keep a closer hold upon it, the Secretary and Assistant Secretary were members of the Lord Chancellor's staff, instead of being recruited from outside. Moreover, the constitution of the Committee was different, in that it was able to work by sub-committees and (this is important) was able, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, to co-opt members from outside on matters which required particular specialist knowledge.
I daresay that I was optimistic. That Committee was appointed, and it was a very high-powered Committee, consisting of Judges and barristers of eminence, among whom I was happy to invite the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner (as he now is), and I am glad to say that he was able to give of his valuable time to the work of that Committee which, in due course, made a number of very valuable Reports. Alas! we were unable to get Parliamentary time, and now it has been suggested that that might be remedied by having a Vice-Chancellor, so-called, in the House of Commons. Well, I have been Chancellor, and I do not believe that a Vice-Chancellor in the House of Commons would be more fortunate in persuading the Cabinet (of which I think he would not be a Member), or his colleagues in the House, or the Leader of the House, to find time for this sort of legislation when the Chancellor himself was unable to do so. So I regard this suggestion as a hopeless expedient.
Nor, my Lords, do I think for a moment that a Report by a body of persons permanently attached to the Lord Chancellor's Office would succeed in impressing upon Parliament the necessity of legislation where the present Law Reform Committee cannot. Necessarily, it would not command a greater respect, because it would be out of touch with the Bar and the practice of the law. So these expedients for getting law reform in this sense seem to me to be really futile. It may be that I am an innocent, but I have been in the queue at the Legislation Committee which precedes every Session, and I know how hopeless it is, and your Lordships know how hopeless it is, even when a Bill has found its place in the queue; for it is as likely as not to find its place also among the massacre of innocents at
1054
the end of the Session. There just is not time, unless the procedure in another House is altogether remedied; and upon that it would not be even decent for me to say anything at all.
My Lords, that is the whole problem of Parliamentary time. Lord Jowitt knew it. He had been a Member of the House of Commons, as the critics of our laggardness have not. Not only had he been a Member of the House of Commons, but he had been a Minister: he knew just what was possible and what was not; and he did nothing. That should be sufficient answer why things are as they are.
But I would add this. Supposing I am quite wrong, and that it would he possible by these means to provide for more ample legislation of this kind, how are you going to get these so-called "Law Commissioners"? I use the expression because I found it in a very interesting and useful hook which my noble friend has written. Who are they? Obviously, as I have said, they must be men who command the respect of the Bar and of the public. How are you to get them? I confess that I do not see at all. They must be men who have already attained eminence in their profession. Are you going to ask a Judge to give up his high office and come into the Lord Chancellor's Department as a Law Commissioner, or something of that kind? Are you going to ask a barrister who has attained high position at the Bar to give up his work? Are you going to ask a professor at Oxford or Cambridge to give up his professorship? It does not sound to me to be a feasible proposition at all, and I shall be very glad to hear how it should be accomplished. I do not think this means is, in fact, available.
So, my Lords, it all comes down to this: find time. The trouble is (this is very materialistic perhaps, but here I will leave my ideals behind) that it is not a matter which makes an appeal to the electorate; and if it does not appeal to the electorate it does not appeal, either, to the Members of Parliament. I do not think that if I were to put in an Election address that the Government proposed to introduce a Bill to secure contribution between joint tortfeasors it would arouse a spark of enthusiasm in the breasts of any electorate. Yet it is a matter upon which lawyers regard the amendment of the law—or did until it

1055
was done—of great importance. And I do not see any Party putting on its electoral banner a proposal to investigate the acquisition of easements by prescription—a topic upon which the Law Reform Committee are at present busily engaged. That is the unfortunate truth. Members of Parliament are interested in what interests those who elect them. So you will not get Parliamentary time unless you can interest Members of Parliament; and Members of Parliament will not be interested unless it interests the electors. That is the unfortunate fact.
So we have to work as best we can, and the best way we have been able to work in the past has been to ask private Members who are fortunate in the ballot to take our Bills into their charge. I would say nothing the least bit in detraction of the good work done by private Members—of course not—but one must not forget that they have been enabled to work upon the Reports made by the Law Reform Committee, and I think that in every case they have been assisted to do so by Parliamentary Counsel.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and also the noble Viscount who introduced this matter, discussed a very important question, the question of consolidation, but I do not think that they were quite aware of all the facts. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will tell us more about it—I am not quite up to date. But, of course, it is a fact that this is extremely skilled work, and this extremely skilled work is being done all the time by skilled Parliamentary draftsmen: there is a special section of the Parliamentary draftsmen who are occupying their whole time on consolidating Statutes, and digging out dead wood, too. As I say, this work is of such skill that it cannot proceed apace—I wish that it could proceed faster. Lord Jowitt had a good deal to do with this, and the work that he started has continued and increased to this day. I think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor knows more about this than I do, and I will therefore say nothing more about it. I would only add that the sum total of this matter is the problem of finding Parliamentary time; and I will not occupy any more of your Lordships' time.
6.33 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, will forgive me if I do not take up all the points he has made. I hope to do so to some extent as I go along with my speech. I should like to say to him at this point that I think he is quite wrong when he suggested the general public are not interested in law reform as a general proposition. It is easy enough to put up technical points of the kind he did, and of course the general public does not understand what they mean and one can score a point in that way. But I think that the general public is really very dissatisfied with the general run of the law in very many ways. It is hit all the time in the criminal courts and in the county courts. I think there has been a really quite remarkable welcome to the proposals which my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner and the others of us who were in his team on the book have put before the country.
Having said that, I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross (I hope he will forgive me if I do not pronounce his name so expertly as the noble Lord who has the Gaelic), for giving us the opportunity of debating this important subject. One or two of his points, again, I hope to take up as I go along. I should like to challenge what he seemed to be saying in suggesting that law reform now is really Party politics in disguise. It is not. It is quite true, as succeeding speakers have said, that there are political decisions in all these matters, but they are not Party political decisions, and there is very little Party politics in this book except in so far as it puts before the country a general programme of law reform which could be regarded as a matter of Party politics.
There are many aspects of the law of this country in which the law was laid down in times past in a way which was unfair to the underdog, to the underprivileged section of the community, and the noble Viscount might well find in this book proposals for redressing this situation. I would not in any way apologise for that, because I think it is something we have not been doing sufficiently quickly. I hope that the noble Viscount will look at the book again,

1057
and having done so I think he will agree that to accuse the noble and learned Lord, and those of us who worked with him on it, of being merely concerned with scoring Party political points really was not altogether fair.
The noble Viscount's Motion is drafted in very wide terms, and it would enable us, of course, to consider very many points in the law where reform is necessary. But I think he himself took the better line of approach when he discussed the method by which the needed reforms can be brought about, rather than the actual reforms in the law themselves. I do not want to pursue the actual reforms in the law any more than he did, but there are one or two matters which I think one might refer to just by way of illustration of the extraordinary difficulty under the present machinery of getting absolutely essential legal reforms carried through.
As long ago as 1898 in the County of London a system of registering transfers of land was introduced which has been, I think, pretty generally agreed to be an outstanding improvement on the older methods. It is not necessary here to explain the great advantages of this system. My purpose in this debate is to show the extreme slowness of its introduction over the rest of the country. I think I am right in saying that, even now, more than half the country has not the advantage of these excellent arrangements which have been carried through in London now for a period of well over sixty years. We ought to remember that proposals for conveyancing by registration were already being put forward by the Benthamite property lawyer Humphreys as long ago as 1826, and giving rise to a very great deal of interest in the profession and in the country as a whole. And Park, the newly appointed professor of law at King's College which had just been established at that time, made a great part of his lectures on property at King's College on the basis of introducing registration methods and discussed the whole matter as long ago as 1833; and it was not until 1897, sixty years later, that the Land Transfer Act of that year introduced a system of compulsory registration which was immediately put into force in London; and now—what is it?—65 years or more
1058
later, there are still very large areas and very important areas of the country in which this admirable system has not been introduced. This is really quite inexcusable. The only reason why it has not been done is that the present arrangements for law reform are so inadequate.
One could instance very many situations of a similar sort. I would have liked to spend some time on the very important problems which became perhaps rather more pressing when there was a prospect of our going into the Common Market, problems of unification of private law. The commerce of this country is carried on with foreign countries which have different systems of commercial law, and there has been during the present century quite a movement towards unification. So far as shipping is concerned, this country has played a very honourable part, but so far as the law of the sale of goods and bills of exchange, the rules on which finance is conducted, are concerned, we have been very behindhand.
There is at the moment a draft international code for the sale of goods which I am quite sure could be got through quickly if this country would put its weight behind it. But there is nobody to put his weight behind it. The Board of Trade send observers to conferences; but it is not their job to carry through important matters of legal reform of this kind. It really is nobody's job. That, of course, is the difficulty. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, said that when he was Lord Chancellor he regarded it as his job to deal with law reform—and of course he did a certain amount. But the Lord Chancellor of thirty years ago, Lord Haldane, who had experience of this office, said that it was the work of four men to be Lord Chancellor. How can the Lord Chancellor possibly give more than a fraction of his time to this most important problem? That is the basic reason why I think our present arrangements are so inadequate.
The Lord Chancellor has a great deal too much to do, and he cannot do all his different jobs efficiently. It should be one man's job to look after this, and that is, in effect, what my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner is proposing. He has said that there should be a Minister

1059
having this specific job—call him a Vice-Chancellor if you like. At present, there is in the House of Commons nobody who has this sort of job. The Law Officers of the Crown, it is true, do a certain amount on these lines; but it is not really their job to be handling this business. There ought to be somebody in another place specifically charged with this important matter, because the happiness of the general community so largely depends on our having an adequate system of law on the basis of which their business arrangements, their social arrangements and their domestic arrangements can be properly conducted. I do not deny for a moment—I agree with the noble and learned Viscount who introduced the Motion, with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, and with my noble friend Lord Silkin—that a great deal has been done. A good deal of reform has been accomplished under Lord Chancellors who have been in office since the end of the war. I did not agree with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, when he said that my old noble leader Lord Jowitt had done nothing—I think he meant in the way of appointing one of the advisory committees. But Lord Jowitt introduced some most important legal reforms. If he had nothing more than the Crown Proceedings Act to his credit, that was a tremendous achievement which we owe largely to Lord Jowitt's personal initiative; and in many other ways he did a considerable amount in the way of law reform.
These Advisory Committees have done good work. I would claim that it was the law schools in the universities that were largely responsible for getting them set up. I know that we had a great deal to do with persuading Lord Sankey to set up the first one, and I myself persuaded Lord Jowitt to receive a deputation from the Society of Public Teachers of Law. It may be that Lord Jowitt did not set up the new Law Reform Committee—the wheels had already begun to turn in the Department; and if the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, had been still here, I am sure he would have agreed that when he became Lord Chancellor he found there were already in the Department proposals which he was able to work upon and bring into force.
1060
What we have to do it to devise a much more radical and efficient method—a method which will bring our law into the modern world. With all the reforms that we have accomplished we are not really keeping up with the modern world. This world moves rapidly, and at the end of ten years we are, in a sense, behind where we were when we started; because the world is moving rapidly forward and we cannot keep up with its requirements. I think we have to consider this situation most carefully. We should all be most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, for bringing this before the public in the way he has done, by stimulating us to work on this book. He is putting forward these proposals for discussion. I think we must give a great deal of thought to getting the right sort of machinery. His proposals are not necessarily 100 per cent. perfect. It would be much better to discuss them and show how they can be improved rather than simply discount them, out of hand, in the way that has been done.
We ought to study carefully what has been done in the other great Common Law countries—and a great deal has, in fact, been done during the present century. Particularly is this true of the United States of America. They have evolved a system which, though it may not be altogether a system that would be good for us, has enabled them to make significant improvements in their Common Law. There are many parts of the re-statement of the law, and particularly, from my own point of view, of the restatement of the Mercantile Law, which have already been adopted in the majority of the States in the U.S.A. and which it would pay us to consider most carefully. Possibly part of what has been done there could be introduced into our own legal system.
Turning to the specific proposals made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, I was glad that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, gave us so clear a description of them. I had hoped that we should hear them from Lord Gardiner himself—no doubt we shall do so in due course. I hope that I shall still be here when he speaks but, like the noble and learned Viscount who has already left us, I had arranged my engagements on the basis that this debate would start earlier, and

1061
it may be that I also shall have to ask your Lordships' indulgence to leave before all the speeches have been made.
I have always supported the proposal to establish a Ministry of Justice. It has a most honourable history. It was first proposed by Jeremy Bentham and Lord Brougham, well over one hundred years ago, and it has had the support of many eminent lawyers, among them Lord Chancellor Westbury and others. The great advantage of this is that there is a Ministry which has a job of work to do, whether it is law reform or Company Law in the Board of Trade. The noble Lord referred to Company Law, and how well the legislation was carried through. That is because the Board of Trade have the specific job of seeing that our Company Law is kept up to date. Incidentally, they are not doing their job quite at the moment, because the Jenkins Committee reported a long time ago, and many of the reforms which they wanted introduced are quite uncontroversial and might well have been in an Act of Parliament by now. In the same way the Ministry of Labour is a valuable Department from the point of view of the introduction of legislation. However, I agree with what Lord Gardiner says: that during, the last few years (I think that the late Lord Jowitt could claim a good deal of the credit for this) the Lord Chancellor's Department has, in fact, been built up into something like a Ministry of Justice: and if the Lord Chancellor himself had much more time to devote to law reform I think it would be doing its work much more efficiently than it has been able to do.
I am in broad sympathy with Lord Gardiner's suggestions, because I think that until we have a permanent body of Commissioners, of high eminence in the profession, engaged on this task, we shall not get this reform carried through and the situation brought into line with the requirements of the times. The trouble about the Advisory Committee is that they come to their work at the end of the day. These Judges have done a day's work before they assemble for the work of the Advisory Committees. They are not coming every day or every week, but perhaps once a month—and in some cases at even longer intervals. It really is not possible to carry this business through effect-
1062
tively on that sort of basis. I think it is a matter of argument whether all the Commissioners should be whole-time, as Lord Gardiner proposes. Of recent years there has been a tendency to establish Boards and Commissions on a mixed basis, with a chairman and some of the members whole-time and others of the members part-time. The London Transport Board and the Water Board are examples of this kind. Having part-time personnel enables the introduction of wider expertise, which is an advantage in a highly specialised field like the law with so many branches.
Having got our Law Reform Commission established, we must obviously consider its terms of reference. One of the main weaknesses of the present system, as has been pointed out this afternoon, particularly by my noble friend Lord Silkin, is that the Advisory Committee can deal only with matters specifically referred to it by the Lord Chancellor. And as the Lord Chancellor is so busy, he cannot refer to it more things than he has time to deal with, think about and decide ought to be referred to the Committee, so that again one is in this vicious circle. The new Commissioners ought to have much wider power to select subjects for themselves to consider, as well as suggestions made by responsible bodies from outside, many of which are much concerned with the improvement of our law. It is a matter for consideration whether the Lord Chancellor should have the right to veto what the Commission wished to do, and I should have thought that, with consultation, it ought to be possible to devise a reasonable method by which all the necessary reforms would be put into a programme and carried through, with the support of the Lord Chancellor and his Department.
I appreciate what has been said about the difficulty of obtaining Parliamentary time but, despite all that, it is the fact that practically all these reports have been put into legislation over the years. It may be that it has taken rather a long time, but if it had had the Government behind it, instead of their going round finding Private Members to do it and getting them into consultation with the draftsmen, it could have been done a great deal more quickly, as my noble friend Lord Silkin has said.

1063
The problem of codification has been little mentioned this afternoon. I regard this as an important line on which we ought to proceed. The codification of several branches of our law in the last century was a great achievement, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, who has been so much in the commercial world, will agree that such Acts as the Sale of Goods Act and the Bills of Exchange Act and other commercial Statutes have been of the greatest advantage, not only to the legal profession but to the business world as well. It was a great pity that the process came to an end in 1906 with the Marine Insurance Act of that year, and that no further efforts have since been made.
My noble friend Lord Gardiner thinks we ought not to proceed to codify other branches of the law until we have got the law into a fit state to codify. That is an attractive argument, but there is no reason why reform should not go on at the same time as codification. The first of these codification Statutes, the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, which originated with the banking world rather than the legal world, contained a number of important amendments to the law. The draftsman, Sir Mackenzie Chalmers, explained in a lecture, as I remember, that if he had not been told that it would be much more difficult to get the Bill through Parliament if he introduced more than a few of the necessary amendments, he would have introduced a substantial number of further ones.
If it were understood that codification should also include reform, the codification process could go through quite successfully combined with the necessary amount of reform as well. I hope that when the time comes for my noble friend Lord Gardiner to deal with these matters, he will look at it from that point of view so that we shall be able to re-embark on this important process of codifying those branches, not only of commercial law but of Common Law generally, where obviously that would be a feasible solution and would enable us to provide Statutes which the ordinary citizen could read. Sir Mackenzie Chalmers, although he did not always succeed, produced Acts of Parliament like the Sale of Goods Act,
1064
whose provisions (although I appreciate the ordinary man must find certain of them difficult) were on the whole intelligible, and a business man, with a certain amount of assistance from his lawyer, can find his way about them—which is not the case with a great deal of the other branches of our legislation. Time is getting short, and I will leave it to the other noble Lords who are taking part in the debate to make their points.
6.55 p.m.
LORD REID: My Lords, I, too, should like to add my thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for bringing forward this Motion at a very apposite time, because it is claimed that this matter is before the public and I think that the voice of this House is due to be heard. Law Reform comprises an immense variety of different kinds of topics, and if one is to regard it from a practical angle it is essential that different kinds of topics should be dealt with in different ways; otherwise if one tries to have one method of dealing with them all one will simply produce confusion.
I wish to direct my remarks, so far as possible, to the practical application of what we all want—namely, reform. It is quite true that some want more than others, but we are all prepared to go a very long way. I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Simonds that it would be quite absurd to try to put under some new legal body the matters which at present are the concern of various Departments. I am not going over the ground he covered, but let me mention one topic which has not yet been mentioned—the impenetrable thicket of income tax. Is it to be thought that the law of income tax is to be remitted to this new body? I am going to agree in a moment that some new body is required. I do not wish to down the proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, one bit; I am only going to quarrel with his method. A great deal of what he wants to do I would support, but not the way in which he wants to do it. I shall come to that in a moment.
Does anybody suggest that income tax can be clarified either by this body or, for that matter, by anybody else?

1065
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said—and it is a great ideal—that he wants the law to be clear. The first thing one has to do when dealing with Statute Law is to revise the present methods of drafting. I do not believe anybody has yet devised a system—perhaps the noble Lord and his friends will be able to—which is better from all points of view than the system which has been worked out by generations of the most skilful draftsmen in the world whom undoubtedly we have at our disposal in this country. If we are going to have a new method of drafting, well and good, but it is not a job for a new committee of this kind. They are not going to be comprised of skilled draftsmen, and if we are looking for clarity in Statute Law we cannot gel it by means of this kind of committee. We can get it only by some committee of draftsmen who can elaborate some new method, and I believe that in that way we could do something, but not a great deal.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, talked about registration of land. That is not a problem for this committee. I happen to know something about registration of land in Scotland because I have recently been engaged in that subject—and, incidentally, I learned a good deal of what goes on in England. But the whole problem there is not law reform at all; it is a practical problem of administration. If the noble Lord is going to provide more resources to the Department concerned, more rapid progress can of course be made. But I should be surprised if anybody would call that law reform. I do not think it has anything whatever to do with it.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, surely the noble and learned Lord would agree that it started as a reform of the old methods of conveyancing. What I am complaining about is, the reform having been accepted, so to speak, it has not been applied sufficiently quickly. I agree it has nothing to do with the Commissioners, but it shows that our methods are at fault.
LORD REID: No, my Lords, I do not think it does. The noble Lord is perfectly entitled to say that our predecessors a century ago were very slow, and I would agree with him in that in a great many respects. There you were dealing with law reform. But once you
1066
got your system cut and dried, it was no longer a question of law reform; it was a question of implementing the Statute. That is a question not of reform but of administration, and that depends fundamentally on how much of the scarce resources at the disposal of the Government you are prepared to put into this particular project. If you put a lot of resources you will get quick progress; if you put a few resources you will get slow progress. The noble Lord may say, and I am not going to quarrel with him, that we ought to put more resources into that department. I would only ask him: where are you going to take them away from? But let that be. I differ from him entirely on bringing that kind of thing under the heading of law reform. If you do, all that will happen will be that you postpone any general law reform by getting the whole thing bogged down in a morass.
Let me come to this question of code. Personally, I am no believer in codes. I believe that the Common Law method is better. But there, again, it is not a question of law reform; it is a question of drafting. If this Committee is going to take up drafting as its main job, then, it may be good and it may be composed of good draftsmen, but they will not be law reformers; they will be draftsmen, which is an entirely different job, to my mind.
Let me come nearer to what I believe to be the crux of the matter. Broadly speaking, there are two classes of law—if you like to call it law—Common Law or Statute, which need reform, and I agree. There is the kind of subject such as divorce, capital punishment and all the rest which has been mentioned already. There is the kind of subject which involves broad questions of policy, where any man's view is as good as anyone else's, where there is no particular merit in a lawyer's view, where there is no great technical difficulty in giving effect to the policy once you have decided it; and if there is any responsibility for delay, that responsibility lies not on the lawyers but on the Government of the day and Parliament as a whole.
On the other hand, I should prefer to limit my discussion to the narrower type of law reform, and I would define that type in this way. I would say that it

1067
covers topics where reform can and ought to be regulated by legal principles, and not by general considerations of policy. Of course, I agree that in the application of legal principles you want to have in mind the conditions of the day and the requirements of modern society. But they are two quite different approaches. One is: what shall we do as a matter of policy? You are not concerned with legal principle as a general rule. Then, having settled that, it is a comparatively easy matter to draft your proposals. The other approach is: how do we develop the law as a matter of legal principle? There it is much more technical; the drafting may be much more difficult. But that, I think, is the type of matter that we ought to be discussing, and I think most of us have been discussing, here to-night.
I would begin my discussion of that more limited type—which I cannot help thinking is the type of thing which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, had chiefly in mind when he was devising his machinery—in this way. I think that, generally speaking, material changes of the law of that kind ought to be preceded by a fairly wide inquiry, and I am not sure that they always are at present. I do not say one word against the Committees which have been sitting—they have done wonders, looking to their limitations—but, generally speaking, they have had to deal with rather narrow topics, because it is impracticable for them to deal with wider topics, and I think wider topics ought now to be dealt with.
Therefore, I am going to say a word in a moment in proposing some constructive suggestions for modification of the scheme of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. You must precede your reform by adequate inquiry. The first thing you want to find out in very many cases—not in all—is by evidence, because you want to know where the shoe pinches in practice at present, and lawyers very often do not know that. Then, the next thing you want to do, and I do not think this is adequately done at the moment, is to collect and digest not merely all the authorities in the technical sense, but also academic writings, which, I am afraid, we are often guilty of neglecting
1068
at the moment. It is quite true that some are rather dull, but many of them are very useful, and I think we ought to pay much more attention to them than we do.
Again, and this has been mentioned once to-night, we ought to know far more about what is being done in other Common Law jurisdictions, and particularly within the Commonwealth, because we can very often get lessons either on what to do or what not to do from the experience of other Common Law jurisdictions. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, mentioned mercantile law. There I would agree that you not only want to go to the Common Law jurisdiction; you want to know what is being done in the other half of the civilized world, whose law was founded on the civil law. We certainly ought to know that kind of thing, and we have not got the machinery to-day by which to discover it.
I entirely agree that you cannot expect results—unless you give them a very limited term of reference—from a Committee which meets only after hours. It really does not make sense to expect it. I would, therefore, say that the two main defects of the present system are, first of all, that you do not have a Committee which is enabled to sit consecutively for a week at a time, like a Departmental Committee or a Royal Commission; and, secondly, you do not have adequate preparation so that they may be fully informed about everything that they ought to have in mind. That is leading you, of course, very close to the proposed organisation, but here is where I diverge completely.
I would not have any permanent appointment at all. I would have a permanent organisation, but I would not have any permanent appointment, because I feel sure that it would not be nearly as attractive to the kind of man we want. I would select somebody with the status of a Lord Justice, and I would appoint him Chairman for three years. After all, most people's new ideas begin to run out after about three years, and if he had three years seconded from official duties I have not the least doubt that he would do the job of Chairman very much better than anyone you can get on a permanent basis. I would give him two or three legal assistants. I would appoint

1069
them, also, on a temporary basis. This would be a position of high distinction, and to have been selected for that position would be a mark of distinction in the profession which would stand a man in very good stead in his after life.
Then I would get the organisation to settle topics with the Lord Chancellor, and then to prepare the ground on each of these topics adequately. I would have an expert committee on each topic, separately—just counsel, solicitors, professors and laymen where appropriate; and it often is appropriate where you are dealing with a technical subject. If there were a Committee of six or seven people with adequately prepared ground, and they sat a week at a time until they had finished their task, I believe you would get a very good series of reports on a broader basis than anything you can expect at present. Of course, it may be that the Treasury would have to see to the remuneration of the people who were being asked to give up all this amount of time, and I would hope that, whichever scheme was adopted, Treasury parsimony would not come in the way. I think that would just as likely be one of the obstacles of the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, as it would be mine; but I hope that, whatever else we think about these things, we can all combine to defeat that enemy.
I agree entirely with what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Simonds, about the Government programme. I think one of the main advantages of dividing this project of law reform into broadly two halves, the public policy half and the legal reform proper half, is that if this committee or this series of committees deals only with topics which are purely topics of law reform, there will be very little public controversy about it; and I would expect that, in normal times, a Government would each year be prepared to get through legislation based on two or three reports of that kind. But, of course, if we are going to expand the field so as to bring in topics where there is public controversy, we shall never get any through at all: as the noble Lord said, you go to the bottom of the queue. But I think that if those in authority, and Governments, were to be satisfied that this matter had the backing of not only the legal profession but laymen who understand the position, it would be easy
1070
to prevent such an amount of Parliamentary opposition as would seriously delay the passage of the necessary Bills.
Perhaps I might now mention one or two of the technical points which I think require urgent investigation. I will mention three—I could easily mention a dozen. They are the law of hearsay evidence; the rule that you cannot make an admission in a criminal trial; and the peculiar rule of English law that two contracting parties cannot confer a right on a third party. If we take topics of that kind, I believe we can get them through, but if we take wider topics we shall not. We had a case recently—I cannot say a word about it because we have not yet decided it—which showed the incredible complexity, indeed the absurd illogicality, of the law of hearsay evidence. For a hundred and fifty years it has been getting worse, not better, and nobody has done a thing about it, and it is high time that somebody dealt with it. Take, then, the second topic I mentioned, that there is no right to make an admission in a criminal trial; everything has to be proved meticulously. Days and days of valuable time and an immense amount of money are wasted, and yet there is not the slightest reason that I can see why the reform should not go through. I have never understood why you can admit the whole crime by pleading guilty, but cannot admit any particular fact in the course of the trial if you plead not guilty. To my mind it makes no sense at all, but, again, for a century and a half nobody has done a thing about it because evidence and procedure have tended to be neglected. I put evidence and procedure first for this reason: nine-tenths of the litigation in this country is not concerned with law at all; it is concerned with the ascertainment of facts, in either civil or criminal proceedings. Therefore, if you want to do good, the first thing to do is to improve the law of evidence and procedure. Now I do not think we shall get spectacular results, but I think we can get substantial results which will be of benefit to everybody.
I say we shall not get spectacular results because everybody who has had any experience knows that the investigation of fact is a most difficult matter, and if you try to curtail or cheapen that

1071
investigation you will seriously imperil the standard of justice which prevails in this country to-day. But, leaving that aside, I would say quite deliberately, as a result of sixteen years' experience judicially in this House, that the general shape of our law is good and that the tasks for reform are of a limited character. I am not at the moment talking about making it clearer—as I have said, that is a matter for the draftsmen; I am talking about the substance of the law. I believe that the great bulk of the substance of the law is as good as we are likely to make it, but there are a very considerable number of topics, particularly on the fringes of the law, where I think we could do quite a good deal.
I am not going to pretend that I am a perfectionist. I would never seek to chase the will-o'-the-wisp of perfection. I am inclined to let sleeping dogs lie provided they are doing nobody any harm; but the trouble in recent years has been that quite a number of sleeping dogs have in fact been showing serious signs of waking up, and I would think that the main purpose of speeding up the process of reform is to prevent any of these topics breaking out in such a way that the public will be inconvenienced, if not worse. I think our whole approach to this question ought to be the practical approach: how are we going best to serve the public in the administration of the law? I do not think that we shall get much further on that topic unless we regard this from a purely practical angle—what are the topics that want tackling; what, in each case, is the best way of tackling it?—and then hope for the best that the Government will find the necessary time.
7.17 p.m.
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON: My Lords, may I add my congratulations to my noble and learned friend for introducing this interesting and, I venture to think, important debate? He has done it already once before, alto I hope he will do it again. I will not detain your Lordships for more than a moment, but I should like to address myself to two matters. The first is to try to dispel the feeling, which I only hope is not with your Lordships but which is certainly with members of the public,
1072
that the Judges are a reactionary body of people who are set against all reform. I should have thought that history alone would have shown the opposite. For centuries the Judges made the law and extended the law to meet the changing needs of society. Indeed, in doing so, they gave decisions involving a very high degree of policy.
It is only in this century and the last that the Judge—made law has shrunk and shrunk; and now the position is that the Judges sit day by day in court, they see where the shoe pinches and they see where the law which they have to administer appears to work an injustice. I venture to think that the Judges have done a lot to accelerate reform. Certainly they have not put a brake on it; the brake has been put on it by Parliament. But not only is the Judge, by tradition and inclination, a reformer. I think that to-day self-preservation against criticism alone would make him progressive. I am thinking of the attacks on the Judges made last summer—at a time, incidentally, when your Lordships' House was not sitting, and no explanation could be given. Those attacks, though directed at the Judges, were on analysis directed at the law which the Judges have to administer; and the criticism could be justified only, I venture to think, if the Judges were responsible for the law.
The second matter is to try to get into perspective for the moment, if I may, the possibilities of law reform. I picture the subjects which are the potential subjects of law reform as forming a spectrum and shading into each other according to the degree or absence of policy. At the end of the spectrum are all those cases to which noble Lords have referred, questions such as the abolition of the death penalty and the major reform of divorce law, which are matters of grave policy. At the other end there is what I will, for lack of a better phrase, call "lawyers' law", where the political element is either wholly lacking or is there only to a small extent. In between is that vast area where policy to some extent is there and where accordingly there may be matters of controversy.
Going to the far end of the spectrum, I venture to think that nothing can be done to accelerate reform. It is always a matter for the Government of the day

1073
to find the lime to deal with those matters of high policy. They are not attractive to Governments; no doubt the standing of a Government is not enhanced by introducing them. In many cases they may be said to be "hot potatoes". All that the lawyer with reform at heart can hope for is that the Government of the day will seriously take it upon itself to make time to debate matters which really are of public importance. It seems to me that that usually happens too late, and usually as a result of outside pressure. To some extent that is also true of the intermediate area of the spectrum, the chances of reform again depending on policy and the likelihood of controversy.
It is, however, I think, at the other end of the spectrum where there really is a chance to do something and where something ought to be done. It is an area which concerns lawyers almost entirely, and where, if the lawyers agree among themselves, there is unlikely to be any real controversy in the matter. It is in that area where the various Committees that have been referred to, and particularly the Law Reform Committee and the Criminal Law Revision Committee, have undoubtedly done most valuable work. I venture to think, however, that more could be done. It seems to me that every day there are matters, even within the sphere of "lawyers' law", which require to be looked at. Either those Committees ought to be increased in membership so that it can be divided into more sub-committees; or more specialised Committees should be formed so that more than one or two matters can be under consideration at the same time.
I also venture to think that it should be accepted that those manning these Committees should be able to do it in their working hours. I think, as has been said earlier, that casual evenings for overtired lawyers as an overtime task is really not enough in this important field. But more important in my view is that there should be a central organisation of some sort, with somebody who will collect the points which require investigating and will refer them to these Committees, unless the Committees under one chairmanship can initiate the subjects for reference to themselves. I am thinking of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, who can act only from a reference from a very large Ministry, a very
1074
overworked Ministry, a Ministry who are unlikely to refer a matter to that Committee unless there is a public clamour for a reform and where there is no policy involved. I venture to think that it is not often that those two qualifications are present. There is not much public clamour for what I may call the reform of "lawyers' law".
There is policy to be found in almost anything; and therefore it is difficult to get a reference. I can give a personal experience when I tell your Lordships that over three years ago I tried to get something referred to the Criminal Law Revision Committee. Just about three years to the day I heard that no reference was being made because the Department did not think the reform was necessary. Well, something is wrong if the Department is going to take upon itself the decision that no reform is necessary. Accordingly I am very anxious that there should be one instigator, not at the head of a big and overburdened Government Department, who will collect the material and be responsilble for referring the subject in question to the appropriate Committee.
At the end of the day, when the Committee has reported, I venture to think that something more could be done to accelerate the process. This matter has been referred to in your Lordships' House earlier, and I am afraid I would only show my ignorance if I tried to suggest any precise method by which it could be dealt with; but it certainly should not be beyond the ingenuity of Parliament, given the will—and I say "given the will"—to introduce some procedure whereby matters where no controversy arises can be dealt with more quickly. Finally, my Lords, while being a reformer at heart I feel very strongly that, especially in the law, great care should he taken to see that what you are seeking to put in its place is better than what was there before. This, as my noble and learned friend Lord Reid pointed out, takes time. It cannot be unduly hurried. Above all care should be taken not to reform for reform's sake or to carry out reform which is purely window-dressing.
7.28 p.m.
LORD TANGLEY: My Lords, I have been a Member of your Lordships' House for a very short time but it has

1075
been long enough for me to realise that one of the new pleasures of life is to enjoy the force and clarity with which the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, always speaks; and to-night we have had another example of that. I am glad to say—and I am sure your Lordships will be even more pleased to hear—that practically all the points I wanted to make have already been made, and I shall limit myself to a very narrow area. All through this debate there has been running through my mind this thought: the law is a living thing and, like all living things, either it changes and adapts itself or else it decays and dies. That seems to be the law of all living things. But, looking back over my own lifetime, what surprises me is the astonishing vitality and adaptability that our law has shown.
We have been looking at one side of law reform to-night but we ought to consider this. There is a vast amount of law reform going on all the time that never comes before Parliament and never requires statutory effect at all. Vast areas of our personal, social and business life are not affected by or governed by legislation at all; they are still governed by the Common Law and by the principles and rules of equity. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker of Waddington, mentioned a moment ago that if anybody thinks the Common Law of to-day is in the same state that it was when the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and I were students together at the Law Society, then he ought to go in for a course of quite intensive reeducation; and I think we might put on some refresher course at the Law Society to help in that process. This process has been going on for hundreds of years. I hope that it will go on for hundreds of years more. It is a process in which noble Lords, in whose presence I have great pride and great humility, are taking their active part, a process which has shaped the character and institutions of our people and the character and condition of countless people all over the world. That process, that leavening of the lump, is going on the whole time, both in Common Law and in equity; we ought never to forget it or lose our sense of proportion when thinking about law reform.
1076
What we are referring to this afternoon is the reform of Statute Law, and on that may I offer these few observations? First of all, the one thing that is lacking above all, in my humble submission, is a sufficient sense of urgency in this matter. We all accept the fact that law reform is needed, and that some procedure is needed to achieve this, but we have not a sufficient sense of urgency. I suggest to your Lordships that this sense of urgency will arise from this fact; that the state of the law, the form of the law, and in many instances the substance of law, are such as to be brought into disrepute. We find people to-day quite naturally and normally taking the line that they cannot be expected to understand an Act of Parliament, and certainly cannot be expected to understand a series of Acts of Parliament. I find it very hard for a lawyer to counter that point of view. While that position persists, the law, the Bench and Parliament are in danger of being brought into disrepute. From that feeling we ought to derive a far greater sense of urgency about the necessity for putting these things right than most of us feel to-day.
I should like to make three points about procedure. Coming back to the sense of urgency, the first point is that I should like to see every Government Department feeling that its constitutional duty is not only to administer the law but also to sit back, from time to time, and see how the law which it administers ought to be improved, not necessarily in matters of policy, but in procedure and in practical work. If that sense of urgency could be instilled in every Government Department, and if that were part of their constitutional duty, I believe that there would be a much greater flow of ideas and proposals from the Government Departments concerned. The second thing I would suggest in the matter of procedure is not that there should be a Committee in the Lord Chancellor's Department trying to coordinate the ideas of other Departments, but that there should be the feeling in every Department that there is a serious risk of prodding from the Lord Chancellor's Department if they do not get on with the job of initiating ideas for themselves. That would not require a

1077
great staff, a vast organisation. It requires only this constant kindling of the sense of urgency.
The last point I want to make concerns the question of Parliamentary time. In great matters, to which reference has been made to-night, in issues which go throughout society and arouse deep differences of thought and feeling, such as the marriage laws, I believe that the Parliamentary system works extremely well. In all these great matters, the main objective must be to achieve harmony between the law and informed public opinion. If the law and public opinion are out, the law will not be a successful one. In order to achieve this harmony, a long time is needed. The interaction of Parliamentary opinion upon public opinion and of public opinion upon Parliamentary opinion is needed; and sometimes, also, Royal Commissions and Committees. But this is an essential part of the process of achieving the essential harmony between the law and public opinion.
At the other end of the scale, there is what has been referred to to-night as "lawyers' law". This raises no question of politics or of public opinion—certainly no question of Party politics. Yet here we are up against the question of Parliamentary time. Here, perhaps, my naïvety and innocence is almost as primeval as that enjoyed, or suffered, apparently, by my noble and learned friend Lord Simonds, when he came to a certain office not so long ago. Because on this point I was horrified to hear the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, say that there was no Bill which had not some political content, if only that it was a political matter whether or not a Bill should be introduced, or in what order Bills should be presented. If that is so, it seems a gloomy outlook for law reform. If law reform is to be the plaything of Party politics in that way, bearing in mind that this is not likely to be a matter on which Party politics can be aroused, it is much more likely that law reform will be neglected by Party politics.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I correct my noble and learned friend? I did not mean to imply that the decision was a matter of Party politics. All I meant to say was that it was a political decision. I was referring to something
1078
which the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, had said. Every decision to introduce a Bill is a political decision, but it is not necessarily a Party political decision.
LORD TANGLEY: My Lords, I am much obliged for that explanation. I am not quite sure whether I understand the distinction between the two forms of politics which he mentioned.
Coming back to this "lawyers' law", if it is impossible to find Parliamentary time for it, must we expect that for ever and ever these matters are going to be dealt with by the full procedure of Parliamentary Bills? The other day, we had a fascinating little Bill, to which reference has already been made, the Perpetuities and Accumulations Bill. It was a fascinating little Bill, which did a great deal of good in certain directions; and it could do no possible harm in any possible direction. I cannot help feeling that the contents of that Bill might have been contained in some form of statutory instrument. It might have been looked at in that light, either by two Committees, one here and one in another place, or by a Joint Committee; and we could have dealt with the matter quite adequately if we had had a Report from a Committee saying that it was an innocent little Bill which did some good in some directions and no harm in any. Perhaps that would have relieved the Government of the day of the necessity of finding Parliamentary time somewhere, in one House or the other, for that Bill. That is just an illustration of "lawyers' law" and how it might be dealt with.
My Lords, I may be naïve and innocent in making these suggestions, but if the essential object of law reform is always to be baulked by the question of finding time, either with or without political content, and if we are to save our reputation as a legislative machine, we must find some way to overcome this problem of Parliamentary time. It is a question of urgency. I have been speaking quite differently from the way I had intended to speak, when I thought about this debate. Probably I have been led into some rash statements, but I do not regret them. I throw myself on your Lordships' mercy, and hope that your Lordships will treat me with kindness, as you always do.
7.40 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, after that very interesting speech, I should like to begin by congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, on having introduced for our discussion a subject which I believe to be one of considerable importance. I wish him well in his Motion and hope that he will press it to a Division, partly because I have always wanted to see, if a Motion for Papers was carried, what Papers would be produced. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has a lot of papers there, and it would I think, be interesting to see what Papers were produced.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, it did once happen. My noble friend Lord Ailwyn had a Motion on dogs, and there were some Papers of great interest produced in the Library.
LORD GARDINER: I am very glad to know that. I think both the noble Viscount and I would be equally interested to see what is produced on law reform.
Secondly, I should like to say with what great interest I, personally, have naturally listened to all the observations which have been made by the different Members of your Lordships' House who have spoken in this debate. In view of the lateness of the hour, I propose to say only about one quarter of what I had intended to say, and I am sure noble Lords will acquit me of any discourtesy if I am unable to make any observations on a number of the statements which have been made by various speakers.
Condensing the subject as much as I can, I would suggest that there are here really three questions. First, when you talk about law reform, are you envisaging some major overhaul of English law, or are you contemplating matters of mere detail? Secondly, if you are contemplating a major overhaul of English law, is this something of real importance to our people, or is it really only a matter of interest to lawyers? Thirdly, if you contemplate a major overhaul and it is of importance to all our people, then I think the question is: what is holding up law reform?
1080
Personally, when I talk about law reform I am envisaging a major overhaul of the whole of our law. I think it is in a state in which it can no longer be allowed to remain. I think I observed before in your Lordships' House, on some other occasion, that the whole of the Code Napoleon was drafted and enacted in ten months and has stood the test of time. But here we have the best Judges in the world. There are many features of our legal system of which we are not only proud ourselves but which are acknowledged as excellent by the lawyers of other countries. Our great defect is in the content of our law, and, indeed, this has been generally criticised.
So far as our Statute Law is concerned, there are, I think, about 4,000 extant Statutes, and if you took down those volumes of the Statute which contained Acts which are still in force I think you would have to take down something like 358 volumes—although a firm of law publishers that we all know has kindly already done the job for us and reduced it to 33 volumes. Then there are 99 volumes of delegated legislation and about 350,000 reported cases. What sort of system of law is this? As the noble Viscount knows, on almost any subject, to find the law on some particular point one may have to look at twenty different Acts of Parliament all dealing with the same subject matter. It is not just that this all takes up lawyers' time that has to be paid for—and, of course, from the point of view of the community, the less they spend on lawyers the better—but that here we are coming up to the Scientific Revolution and we are all saying, I am afraid, lawyers included, that industrialists and commercial people have to be a good deal more efficient than they are at present. But are they not entitled to turn to the lawyers and say: "Look at the state of your law; look at its physical condition"?
One can take almost any branch of the law. Take, for example, the law of maintenance and champerty. Here is a matter which may well be considered as to whether it is right that if a Frenchman has to bring an action in England and cannot get legal aid, and an English solicitor helps him to do as is done in France—borrow the money on the footing that if successful whoever

1081
has put up the money will get part of the damages—that solicitor cannot recover any of his costs, because what has happened is a criminal offence. No Judge can say: "I do not think the solicitor has done any harm." One cannot get away from our Statute Law.
What is our Statute Law in this field? To start with, a Statute of 1275 (and this is the law to-day in 1964): "Maintenance by officers of courts", "Deceits by pleaders", and "Purchasing titles of land in suit". Then you get, in 1305, the "Definition of champertors"; and so you go on. There is the Maintenance and Embracery Acts, and then a fascinating one in the reign of Henry VIII which, had time permitted, I should have read, and which is in language of intense interest to all antiquarians, though some of the words I do not think anybody living to-day can understand at all. This is not old law, but English 1964 law.
The one thing that I am sure all noble Lords who have spoken to-day agree about is that our Statute Law, at least, ought to be consolidated; and one great advantage of consolidating our present Statute Law would be, I think, that, having consolidated it we should see how idiotic some of it is. If it were anybody's job—which it is not—to take our law and submit it to any system of review, and he looked at our law of maintenance and champerty, he might have said: "Do we need this law to-day, or not?" But if he thought we did, no one could possibly have left it in its present form.
With regard to the book that has been referred to, I would make it quite plain that I take no responsibility for anything in it that I did not write myself. Its distinguishing feature was really this: that you cannot get everything that is wrong with English law into one book, and the real difficulty of the editors was the task of selection. We had to leave out altogether a number of branches of the law, because there is so much wrong with English law that you cannot get it all into one book. Therefore I suggest the time has come, in the age in which we are living, to have a real, systematic overhaul of the whole of our law. Consequently, I suggest that this is of real importance to our people, and not just to lawyers.
1082
We may differ as to what the law as to landlord and tenant ought to be, but what that law is is obviously of desperate importance to people who want homes, or who, having homes, want to keep them. The noble Viscount will remember that we used to have as a Common Law doctrine the doctrine of common employment, although Judges had said since the turn of the century that this was quite out of accord with modern conditions. As he will remember, it used to be the law that in a road accident if "B" was 95 per cent. to blame, "A" could not recover if he was 5 per cent. to blame, although the law of collision at sea had always been different. And nothing was done about it.
If a married man runs off with another woman, leaving his wife in the house with the children, and she is not at work because she looks after the children (which some of us old-fashioned people think is quite a good idea), it is important for her to be able to go to a local court and get an immediate order for maintenance. And so she has been able to, up to a maximum of £2 a week, which I dare say was a proper figure when fixed, having regard to the cost of living on July 1, 1896, when the Act was passed. But, in spite of the fall in the value of money since 1896, over the turn of the century and up to 1914 nothing was done; in spite of the further fall in the value of money from 1914 to 1918, no change was made; and in spite of the further fall in the value of money between 1918 and 1939, it was still £2 a week; and the same thing was true from 1939 to 1945.
I will come, if I may, to the reason for that, but, in passing, I would say that there is one observation that has been made with which I could not agree, and it must be due to an error of recollection: it is the observation of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, who said that the Labour Government had not done any law reform. There would have been a good excuse if they had not, because that Government, I suppose, had a bigger legislative programme than any Government of modern times. But, of course, in fact they did. They swept away the doctrine of common employment, and they swept away that curious law of contributory negligence, as it then was. They saw that the deserted wife was

1083
properly treated, and the maximum allowance increased. I do not think there is any Government, before or since, which found more time for law reform than that Government.
If it is right to say that the time has come when the content of the law itself ought to be submitted to an overall review—we have had, for example, no examination of our Statute criminal law for a hundred years—and if the reform of our law really matters to our people, I come to the third question: what is stopping law reform? What we are always told is that it is Parliamentary time. Having no experience of another place I cannot, of course, express any view based on my own experience. But I would suggest to the noble Viscount that he should not believe this. I am now starting to belong to the past. The future lies with him. I was always told that in the field of law reform the only thing that was stopping law reform was Parliamentary time. I never did believe it. Let us go back to consolidating the Statute law.
It must be nearly twenty years ago when I pointed out to Lord Jowitt and Sir Stafford Cripps what an awful thing the Statute Book was. I pointed out to them that if one took what should he a simple law, the law of getting married, there were about twenty-five Acts of Parliament dealing with it. It should be much simpler than the law of getting unmarried. I said "How long is this nonsense going to go on?" and it was after that that Lord Jowitt introduced the Consolidation of Enactments Procedure Act, under which the law can be consolidated without taking up any time at all. He started, in fact, with the Marriage Act. Before that we had always been told it could not be done because of Parliamentary time. It is not Parliamentary time that has been stopping it since. If you are going to do that when you are going to alter an Act, you must repeal, amend and re-enact. I am sorry to see that since then we have got the Marriage Act (Amendment) Act, and, of course, if you go on like that for twenty years you are back in the same position. As the noble Viscount knows, if it is certified by a Joint Committee that consolidation makes no real amendment of the existing law, then it takes up absolutely no Parliamentary time at all.
1084
May I take one more example?—and I promise not to take up too much of your Lordships' time. About seventeen years ago when, like the noble Viscount, I was a junior at the Bar, I was appointed a member of a 24-man Committee—twelve legal, and twelve representatives of industry and trade unions—to revise the whole of the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Evershed, was the Chairman. I shall not forget it because I attended 330 meetings of the Committee, and I think it is sometimes not appreciated what a lot of time that sort of thing takes, and sometimes you find afterwards that the report has never been considered by either House of Parliament. One of the things we found was that the costs of litigation were, we thought, increased by the complexities of the law of evidence.
We said in paragraph 280 of our Report—and this was unanimous—that the Statutes dealing with the law of evidence amounted to 40 Acts, covering a period of 329 years from 1609 to 1938, and we strongly recommended that they should be at once consolidated. After six years' work we reported in our final Report in July, 1953. Next month it will be July, 1964. Perhaps when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor comes to reply, he will tell us what is holding that up, because as there have been eleven years to draft one Bill, after a unanimous recommendation from what, after all, was a very strong Committee, and in view of the provisions of the Consolidating Act, the reason cannot be lack of Parliamentary time.
I believe the truth to be that there are two things, and two things only, which are holding up law reform. May I deal with the minor one first, and I do this with considerable trepidation, in view of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, said, because, as he knows, there is no one for whose opinion I have a higher regard. The noble and learned Lord said that we could not have law reformers (if I may call them that) who were the same people as the Parliamentary draftsmen. I am not at all a good comparative lawyer; I am not a good any-kind-of-lawyer really, but I do know about other countries. I do know that in France, I do know that in Germany, I do know

1085
that in Sweden, I do know that in Holland, and I do know that in Denmark those who draft the Statutes are the same men as the men of the law reform section of the Department of Justice. I do not know any other Western European country where they are not.
Having mentioned the Department of Justice, may I refer to one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley? I am again not a constitutional lawyer. I understand that the constitutional lawyers are divided in opinion as to whether the first function of Government is to provide for defence against external attack and the second function is to provide for a system of justice, or whether the first function is to provide for a system of justice and the second to provide for defence against external attack. Whichever is right, everybody would agree that you could not have a Government of a civilised country for 48 hours which did not have some department which was responsible for justice. Of course, the extraordinary thing is that in every other Western country, and in our Dominions, they have this Department, the Ministry of Justice. We call it the Lord Chancellor's Office. But I was not clear what Lord Chorley meant, because I cannot see how it matters what you call such a Department. The question is whether it is efficient or not.
So far as the drafting is concerned we, so far as I know, are entirely peculiar in tying a label round our Parliamentary draftsmen saying "Finance" because they come under the Treasury. I believe I am right in saying, incredible though it may sound, that the Lord Chancellor of this country cannot himself get a Bill drafted without the approval of some Cabinet Committee because the Parliamentary draftsmen can be approached only in that way. There is not another country that does this.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is quite wrong about that.
LORD GARDINER: I had thought that perhaps that could be the only reason why the law of evidence has not been consolidated after eleven years. But I may be wrong about that. But in every other country the Department of Justice always has a law reform section, and these are the men who are trained to do
1086
the drafting. You could not have there what we had yesterday, a Bill like the Resale Prices Bill referring to profit and not saying whether it was net or gross profit, and then find that the Government did not know themselves which they meant, because the man who did the drafting would be an expert in that field and he would know what he meant.
The second reason, which is much the major one, is that in life you do not get anything done unless it is somebody's job to do it. It has never been anybody's job to see that our law is kept up-to-date and in good working order. Theoretically it is the job of the Lord Chancellor with, I think, in criminal matters, some responsibility on the part of the Home Secretary. The line is not clear, because again when a junior counsel at the Bar I found some obviously defective criminal law. I wrote to the Lord Chancellor about it, and he said that it was a matter for the Home Secretary. I wrote to the Home Secretary, and he said that it was a matter for the Lord Chancellor. I think it was Profesor Keeton who observed that somewhere between the Lord Chancellor's Office and the Home Office is a large hole where projects for the reform of our criminal law lie deeply interred. So perhaps in the first place we ought to decide where the line ought to be drawn.
Broadly speaking, it is the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor, but he cannot touch it. How can he? He is, after all, a member of the Cabinet who has to read the Cabinet papers like any other member. He is, in effect, the Speaker of your Lordships' House. He has to appoint all the High Court Judges and all the county court judges. He is responsible for the administration of that dreadful building in the Strand; and the salaries and wages bill of the inhabitants, apart from the Judges, comes to over £500,000 a year. He has to deal with the whole of the administration of the county courts. He has to appoint all the justices of the peace. He is, incidentally, having to appoint clergy to new benefices; indeed, he has five times as much ecclesiastical patronage as the Archbishops of Canterbury and York put together. He has supervisory duties in lunacy. I think I am right in saying that every lunatic

1087
has a statutory right to write to the Lord Chancellor—and most of them do.
My Lords, this is the man who, in his spare time, is supposed to be thinking about whether English law is working properly or not! And, of course, he cannot. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, referred to the fact, which is right, that Lord Haldane, in his biography, says that at about the time he was writing with his own hand the "Justice" section of the Machinery of Government Report, while it had been said that the Lord Chancellor's job was a two-man job he had come to the conclusion in his time that it was a three-man job. What it is now I shudder to think.
Of course, he cannot do it personally. Nor can he do it by his extremely able, very overworked, very underpaid and under-accommodated staff—which is all the measly Treasury allow him—because they also have all these other jobs to do. It is said that the Lord Chancellor has his Law Reform Committee and the Criminal Law Revision Committee. As one who was for eleven years a member of the Law Reform Committee, I naturally do not wish to undervalue their work. We would be given a little tiny piece of law to look at, and after about two years we produced what I believe were very useful Reports, most of which at some time or other were implemented. But this work meant attending about one afternoon a quarter, after a long day's work, for about one and a half hours; and I think it was Professor Sir Arthur Goodhart who said that you simply cannot get English law into good working order in that way. One of the reasons I resigned from the Committee was because, after eleven years, I realised that this was simply scratching the surface. The truth is that, broadly speaking, nothing gets done in the field of law reform unless there is a pressure group, or the Daily Express says something about it. There was no League of Deserted Wives, and the Daily Express never said anything about that; so nothing was done.
So, my Lords, to put it very shortly, it seems to me that the remedy one can arrive at, after studying the causes of the lack of law reform, is, first, that so far as consolidation is concerned, there is no reason why we should not have a Statute Book with all the Acts dealing
1088
with each subject in one Act, and no Act earlier than 1964; and no reason whatever why this should not be completed in x years, provided only that we have wise Parliamentary drafting counsel, because there is nothing else which can hold it up.
So far as the rest of our law concerned, it has always seemed to me that what we primarily need is someone who has not only the duty but also the time to submit the whole of English law to a systematic and continuous review; and I have suggested five or four Law Commissioners. I do not, very respectfully, agree with the views which have been expressed that one will not be able to find them, and find them of the class indicated by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds. There may be rather more difficulty in finding for them a proper staff. But unless and until we have a body of men whose sole whole-time job it is to survey the whole field of English law and gradually try to bring it up to date, the job will never be done. I do not in the least dissent personally from the view expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid: that while they should be whole-time, they need not be permanent; they could well be appointed for three years. I see no reason why this should not generally apply; I see great advantages in it. Certainly I feel sure that it is essential they should be full-time.
I should have liked to deal with a great many of the points that have been made. I fully appreciate that it would be very foolish to try to throw on the Law Commissioners all the good work at present being done by the departmental lawyers. I am not sure that they ought not to have a general surveillance over the whole field. I am not sure whether, if the Minister of Transport makes some new regulations with penalties in it, it should not be the job of the Law Commissioners to see whether the penalties accord with the sort of penalties which are being imposed for other relevant offences in other fields.
I am sorry, my Lords, to have been as long as I have, but this is, I think, a question of real importance. Something obviously depends on having a Government which feels this to be of importance and is determined to do something about it. I naturally hope that some day

1089
(because this ought not to be a matter of Party politics at all) we shall have a Government which does feel that the state of the law is of great importance to all our people and that the time has come when we cannot go on just fiddling with law reform, but must tackle the whole field in a very much more determined manner than we have of late. But whether that happens or not, we shall all be grateful to the noble Viscount for introducing the subject this afternoon.
8.6 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I shall, of course, deal in some considerable detail with the speech we have just heard. As usual, the noble and learned Lord delivered a speech with great eloquence and very persuasively, but I am afraid that once again it is unfortunate that his case is supported by certain inaccuracies of fact. He told us, if your Lordships will remember, how it was that the last Socialist Government, after many years of lawyers demanding a change in the law, introduced a Bill and got it on to the Statute Book dealing with contributory negligence. But, of course, that was on the Statute Book and passed in the time of the Government of which I was a member before 1945. The noble Lord was, I am sorry to say, equally inaccurate about his assertion as to my responsibilities and powers. It is somewhat surprising to me, the way in which the noble and learned Lord puts forward these statements which really do not stand examination.
He had great fun at the end of his speech with the responsibilities and work of the Lord Chancellor. Of course the work is heavy—it always has been—but if one had listened to his speech one would have come to the conclusion that I was endeavouring to do it all singlehanded. He talked about my ecclesiastical patronage. That I exercise with the help and advice of a very highly qualified staff. I have that help, too, in my other spheres of responsibility. And if one had paid attention to his speech one might have gained the impression that the Lord Chancellor could concern himself about the subject of law reform only in his spare time. That is also completely inaccurate.
I will come back again to the noble Lord's speech, but before I do so I should like to deal with some other
1090
matters and, in particular, to join with all those who have expressed their in- debtedness to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross for moving this Motion. It has led to a most interesting debate. He has given us the opportunity of discussing a subject which is of perennial interest to all lawyers and which, as we know, has recently received a good deal of publicity. It might, I suppose, be said by some laymen that we have been having a lawyers' paradise. The subject we have been discussing—and I agree here with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner—is of great importance. Before I say anything more about the main theme of the debate, may I pick up one or two points which were made in the course of it?
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, began the debate by drawing attention in particular to the position in regard to the Burial and Cremation Bill which he introduced. I should like to say a word on that now, because when I get into the main theme of this debate I might overlook it. It is true, as I am sure he will agree, that the Burial Acts are very complex, and a large number of very small authorities can operate only one code of the two codes that are now in existence. The noble and learned Viscount introduced a Bill and, as I think he agrees, it was indicated to him that the Bill did not go far enough, and that if Parliamentary time were to be spent on the whole subject it would be better devoted to unification of the whole law. The noble Viscount withdrew his Bill on the undertaking given him by the Government that they would prepare a Bill for him and prepare drafting instructions as soon as possible.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I then proceeded to give the Department a draft Bill covering the whole subject, not only the one I withdrew.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was not criticising the noble Viscount; I was trying to remind him shortly of the facts. Since that time the Ministry of Housing and Local Government have been working on proposals for a Bill to unify both codes of legislation. This has necessarily been a lengthy and detailed task, but proposals are now

1091
ready and are about to be sent to the interested bodies for comment, and it is hoped that the noble Viscount will have the Bill ready to present sometime early in the next Session.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Hear, hear!
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am glad to have been able to satisfy the noble Viscount about that.
One other matter I should like to deal with is the assertion—it did not really come under the heading of law reform —by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that we had failed to give the support we should have given to an International Convention on the sale of goods, and he suggested that that was a serious defect on our part. In fact we have participated very closely in the discussions at The Hague on this subject, and as a result of our contributions agreement has been reached on a draft which we should be able to accept eventually. I hope that has corrected that matter of fact.
I shall in the course of my speech have some critical things to say of the views put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, both in the book which was edited by him and in his speech to-day, views which would appear to have been endorsed by the right honourable gentleman the Leader of his Party. But I can at least congratulate him on having brought the question of law reform to the fore and on having made it a subject of public discussion, sometimes in circles which have little understanding of the real problems at issue.
I must say that I think it is wholly misleading to give the impression that a vast part of the law of England, for which most of us, whether we are lawyers or not, were brought up to have a deep respect, is in fact in such a state as to need to be torn up by the roots or, as the noble and learned Lord said this afternoon, as to be in need of a general overhaul. Of course it is quite easy to turn to an old Statute which has probably very little impact on the daily lives of the inhabitants of this country, like the Act dealing with champerty and maintenance, and say that ought to go.
But having read the noble Lord's book and listened to his speeches, I must say
1092
that I think he has wholly failed in his main charge that there is a need for a major overhaul over the whole field of cur law. That really is not the case. As my noble and learned friend Lord Reid said, while there is of course some need for reform—and I will come to that later—the general shape of our law is good and the task of reform is of a limited character. I ask your Lordships to pay great weight to the view my noble and learned friend expresses In the light of his great experience.
People may be led to believe as a consequence of what has been said and written that the state of our law is really better fitted to a vanished age than that in which we find ourselves to-day, and that really is Lord Gardiner's thesis. I would make it quite clear that, just as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, when he was Lord Chancellor, was keen on reform, so am I, and so I think must be any Lord Chancellor. I recognise that in some respects the law does need to be reformed, and while recognising it to be the duty of the Lord Chancellor to be vigilant with regard to that, I would say, as emphatically as I can, that to suggest that our law is in a very bad state is both utterly misleading and wholly inaccurate.
I must say that I regard it as unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, should seek, as it appears from this book and from the speech made by the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, to be making this question of law reform a political issue. No doubt that is done in the hope of securing some political advantage; and the point was put very well, I thought, by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross in his opening speech, when he said that it was unfortunate that the attempt should be made to hang political reform on the peg of alleged inadequacies of Committees set up for an entirely different subject. And when one reads the noble Lord's book, interesting though it is, one sees that many of the subjects on which he advocates changes are subjects with a very considerable Party political content, like leasehold enfranchisement. I will not take up time drawing attention to the others.
Also it is the case that, just as it is inaccurate and misleading to represent

1093
our law, built up over the centuries, as in a sorry state, so it is equally inaccurate and misleading to represent the Conservative Party as opponents of law reform. In fact, a great deal has been done in the way of law reform, both in this Parliament and since 1951, and I say, without hesitation, that the record of what has been achieved in this field under Conservative Governments far exceeds what was done under the Socialist Government.
When we talk of law reform it is as well to make quite clear what we mean by those words. That has been stressed in the debate to-day. Changes in the law made to give effect to the policy of the Government of the day are not what is commonly meant by law reform in this context. What is meant is, I think, reform of the Common Law, of equity, of criminal law and law established by judicial decisions, and reform because people have come to the conclusion that the law is wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, drawing attention to the number of Statute books on a lawyer's shelves, to the large number of volumes containing statutory orders and regulations and to the vast number of reported cases decided in the courts, seems to argue that that, of itself, shows that there is need for a major overhaul of our law. I do not agree with him. There is a case, and I will come to it later and say what is being done with regard to it, for consolidation of our Statute Book. There is a case, too, for consolidation of some of the statutory orders and regulations. That, too, is being done. But to say that our law is comprised in a large number of volumes, though it may make it difficult for some lawyers to find out what the law is—that I recognise—really does not establish at all that our law as a whole is bad, or is in need of a major overhaul.
I want, if I can, to be as short as possible, because I realise that the hour is late. But I make the point that a measure which to one group of people may seem to be no more than pure law reform in the narrowest sense may, to others, appear to be charged with political content. That, I think, was indicated in the debate to-day, when Lord Chorley asserted that there was no project in the hook, for which he and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, were together responsible in different degrees, with any political content.
1094
There is one further point I should like to make. It appeared to be assumed in the course of this debate that if there is no Party political content to a measure there will rarely be a controversy with regard to it, if it is based on a Report coming from a Law Reform Committee. I am afraid the facts do not support that premise. It really cannot be assumed that changes in what can be called "lawyers' law" will not be controversial, though not on Party lines; nor can it be assumed that they will not lead to a great deal of discussion when proposals for the reform based on a Report, be it of the Committee or if you like, of Law Commissioners, come before Parliament. If I may at this late hour give just one example, your Lordships may be interested to know that when the law of libel and slander was under discussion in the Defamation Bill in 1952, it was acutely controversial, but not on Party lines, and that Bill occupied no less than eleven days in Standing Committee in another place. As I have said, law reform in the sense that I have indicated does not usually give rise to Party controversy, but it may give rise to a considerable consumption of Parliamentary time.
The noble Lord, Lord Tangley, made an interesting suggestion—namely, that the Bill (a Government measure, I would ask your Lordships to note, of law reform dealing with perpetuities) which I introduced into this House this Session might really have been embodied in a statutory instrument. It is an interesting suggestion, but of course you would have to have an Act of Parliament making it possible for a statutory instrument of that kind to be made. Therein lies the rub, because I think I am right in saying that Parliament as a whole is most watchful over the powers it gives in relation to delegated legislation. Parliament would not be ready to give a wide, undefined power to the Government of the day to legislate by statutory instrument in matters which were generally deal with in a Bill, just because the contents of that statutory instrument had met with the approval of some body or other, who were not Members of Parliament and not part of Parliament.
I will just say a word on this, too. If projects of law reform which have

1095
been evolved after careful consideration by those who have devoted much time to this subject are to stand any chance of becoming law within a reasonably short space of time, it is surely essential that they should be such as to command general assent when laid before Parliament. Your Lordships heard a lot this afternoon about the Law Reform Committee and the Criminal Law Revision Committee. Both Committees were created by Conservatives under Conservative Governments, one in 1952 and the other in 1959. I do not think that anyone will dispute—indeed, no one has today—that these Committees have done most valuable work. I do not propose to take up valuable time in reminding your Lordships of what they have done, The question with which we are con corned to-day raised by my noble friend is really whether the existing machinery is broadly adequate for the task it has to perform. And that question has to be considered, bearing in mind that there is in existence to-day, and has been since 1952, machinery for law reform which has been both productive and valuable.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, sought to suggest that the basic difficulty with regard to law reform was the Lord Chancellor. I do not think there is the slightest foundation for that suggestion, The noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, takes the view that the present machinery is not adequate, and he proposes the creation of five full-time Commissioners charged, I gather, with the duty of a wholesale revision of the general law. That proposal has obtained the public support of the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
Before I say any more about this matter of the Commissioners and about law reform, there is one matter to which I should like to draw attention. I said a little time ago that I thought it was a pity that law reform should be dragged into the arena of Party politics, and I indicated that I thought that the contents of the book to which the noble Lord has lent his name suffers to some extent from the defects of containing Party political proposals. Its dust cover, which contains a summary of the contents of the book, bears the headline "Regrettable denial of justice". This is a quotation from a headline of The Times of June 18, 1963, and it is clearly implied that the case for
1096
"Law Reform now" is to remedy such injustices. It clearly suggests that, even where the state of the law is shown to be manifestly unjust, nothing is done to remedy it.
No worse case could have been selected to support the noble Lord's thesis, and I should like to remind your Lordships shortly of the facts. Your Lordships may remember that there was a Committee presided over by Lord Tucker, appointed in 1949 to review the times within which actions in the courts had to be instituted. Their recommendations were given effect to by the Limitation Act, 1954—a law reform measure passed in the time of a Conservative Government. Everyone then thought that there was no possibility that the Tucker Committee's proposals would prejudice injured workmen. It was not then realised that the time taken before a disease due to conditions at work became apparent might exceed the period of limitation. This fact came to public notice in a pneumoconiosis case in June, 1959, where the trial Judge heard that the case was statute barred.
Despite the fact that that decision was known to be under appeal, my predecessor on the Woolsack appointed a strong Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Edmund Davies on January 27th, 1961, to review the matter, months before the case was heard in the Court of Appeal. That Committee reported in August, 1962, and a Bill to give effect to its recommendations was introduced in another place in November, 1962. The noble Lord, I think, introduced the Bill in this House; the House of Lords in its Judicial capacity gave its decision on January 18th, 1963, and the Bill received the Royal Assent in July, 1963. And yet when this book is published that is the cover which is put upon it.
This history shows that steps were taken with remarkable speed to remedy an injustice. At the very time that the House of Lords said that here had been a denial of justice, a Bill was under consideration. But there is not the slightest reference to that on the dust-cover of the book. What was said was to suggest the urgent need for law reform. What ought to have been said was that this was a case where law reform had been put in hand by a Conservative Government months before

1097
the case had been heard by the House of Lords. I would be the last person to suggest that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, would wish to support his case by misrepresentation. But this is a glaring instance of suppressio veri suggestio falsi and may well have led some people to suppose that there was an overwhelming case in favour of the noble and learned Lord's contentions.
The noble and learned Lord, as we know, has suggested that there should be a Vice-Chancellor who would sit in another place and would, with four other Commissioners, devote his whole time to law reform. That proposal has been publicly endorsed by the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. Quite what the Vice-Chancellor would have to do in the other place, what part he would play in the work there, I do not know. So far as I can see, all he would be required to do would be to concern himself with the promotion of law reform. Of course, it would be a nice job for some lawyer Member of another place. But who would the Law Commissioners be? The noble and learned Lord and the Leader of the Opposition do not tell us. We are told that they should be highly-qualified lawyers, and I really think that the noble and learned Lord ought to indicate what kind of lawyers he and the Leader of the Opposition have in mind. I cannot, in view of what he said the day before yesterday, think that he means Judges. Then, although it was not strictly relevant to the Resale Prices Bill, he gave expression to his personal views on extrajudicial employment of Judges. He said that the practice really started with the sending of a Judge to Nyasaland. In fact, it started much earlier than that, and it is not a fact that Judges have been increasingly employed on different extra-judicial work from that on which their help has been sought over the years.
Then the noble and learned Lord could not resist a "dig" at me. I do not in the least object to that, but I do wish he would get his facts right. I did not say that the learned Judge had found his facts all wrong. If he will read the speech I made in that debate he will see that it was based on findings of fact by the learned Judge, and the trouble was that many of the findings of fact were
1098
contradictory. But if the Law Commissioners are not to be Judges, who are they to be? I think the noble and learned Lord will agree that it will not be easy to recruit leaders of the Bar or leading solicitors in active practice. I doubt whether they would be so ready to give up their practices to serve as full-time Commissioners. No doubt it might be possible to recruit highly-qualified academic lawyers. I have a high regard for them, but they would be the first to agree that in the difficult work of law reform it is essential that those engaged in active practice and concerned with the practical problems should play a large part. I believe that the present system. though it may not be perfect, is much to be preferred.
It is sometimes suggested (I think Lord Chorley suggested it) that the functioning of the present system depends upon what the Lord Chancellor may decide to remit to his Law Committee. But that is not how things work. The Committee of very eminent lawyers drawn from all sections meet together to consider and make up a list of what they think are suitable subjects for them to settle. They settle an order of priority and then send their suggestions to me; and if I disagree with them at all I discuss them with the Chairman. It is perfectly open to me, to put forward suggestions for their consideration, but I am concerned that the Law Reform Committee should not engage on those tasks which have such a political content that the report of that Committee may bring them into the field of Party political controversy.
I can always appoint further sub-committees—I am glad to say people are willing to serve on such committees—to tackle particular subjects, and there are a number of subjects which, I agree, ought to be considered. At the present moment that Committee is dealing with a subject to which the noble Lord drew attention to a great extent in his book, the doctrine of nemo dat quod non habet, and a subcommittee is dealing with the question of positive covenants affecting land. With this flexible system of Committees it is possible to select experts in every particular field to consider what should be done in relation to that particular branch of the law.
The work of these Committees takes time—and here I come to the point raised

1099
by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, about the absence of adequate preparation. I should like to know—perhaps he will tell me on another occasion—exactly what he has in mind about that, because I do not myself see much scope for more preparation than is now undertaken. The views of bodies like the Bar Council, the Law Society, the Inns of Court Conservative and Unionist Society, and the Society of Labour Lawyers are sought. This process of consultation is regarded as invaluable, and I do not think the time so spent is ever wasted, but it does mean that the Committee have little to do while the interested bodies are considering their views.
I have to-day received a letter from my noble and learned friend Lord Donovan, who unfortunately is unable to be present and I think that it supports what I have been saying to your Lordships. He says in his letter:
"On the 4th December. 1963, I held a first meeting of a Law Reform Sub-Committee to consider your request that the Law Reform Committee should consider amending the law in favour of innocent purchasers who lose what they have bought because the vendor has stolen them or acquired them by fraud or through mistake. We necessarily had to get the views on this matter of interested bodies such as the Bar Council, the Law Society, the Society of Labour Lawyers, Lloyd's, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Auctioneers Institute, and so on, so we wrote to each of thirteen such bodies inviting their views. Seven months have now gone by and we have received memoranda from twelve out of the thirteen. The Bar Council's views are still awaited. I do not criticise this delay at all; I think it is inevitable."
My Lords, that is how time is taken, and if full-time Commissioners were appointed in place of these Committees, they would be likely to have periods with very little indeed to do. The noble and learned Lord may say that when the Law Commissioners really got going they could turn to another subject while waiting for the views from various bodies, but I do not see how the Bar Council and the Law Society are likely to be able to keep the Commissioners supplied with a steady flow of memoranda setting out the views of those they represent unless it is suggested that the professional bodies themselves should set up a replica of the full-time machinery which the noble and learned Lord envisages for his Commissioners.
1100
The noble and learned Lord seems to envisage (I do not know whether in this he has the support of the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition; it would be interesting to know, but this, I suspect, may be a subject on which he would prefer to maintain a discreet silence) that the Law Commissioners should have some kind of overriding supervision and jurisdiction over Departments, for he says that they should not be debarred from
"taking the initiative themselves whenever they think that any part of the administrative law is in need of reform and no initiative is forth, coming from the department which is primarily responsible."
Let me suppose that a whole series of Bills emanate in a rapid flow from the Law Commissioners. How is it suggested that these Bills will be enacted? The noble and learned Lord sees no difficulty. He says: "Deal with them as you deal with the consolidation of enactments"; and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, put forward a suggestion on those lines. But in his book the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, said that the Act establishing the Law Commissioners should require the Government to find Parliamentary Time for the consideration of any legislation proposed by the Law Commissioners. This is, to me, a somewhat novel and surprising suggestion. Is he really suggesting that by the passage of a Bill in one Parliament, it is possible to restrict the actions of the next Parliament: that it is possible for one Parliament to bind another—and it may be another Government— to introduce certain legislation? I must say that I should have liked to hear that novel constitutional doctrine elaborated.
The noble Lord wants one Law Reform Act each year. There certainly has been one a year in my time, and more than one a year under Conservative Governments since 1951. I do not want to recite a number of Acts, but I would remind your Lordships of what we have done this year. We have passed the Legal Aid Act, making provision for payment out of the Legal Aid Fund of costs incurred by successful opponents to legally aided litigants. We have passed the Criminal Procedure (Right of Reply) Act and the Criminal Appeal Act. We have had the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Bill and the

1101
Perpetuities Bill before Parliament. These are all strictly law reform measures, if the narrowest interpretation is given to the expression "law reform".
It is, of course, true (and comment has been made upon this) that Bills giving effect to recommendations of the Law Reform Committee have often been Private Members' Bills—not all of them, but a great number of them—and I and my predecessors are very grateful to the Private Members concerned. Virtually all these Bills which Private Members have piloted through have been drafted by Parliamentary draftsmen, and the Private Member concerned has had all the assistance my Department and any other Department can give him or her.
Of course, I should like to secure that Parliamentary time was found for a Government Bill to give effect to the recommendations of a Committee which I have appointed, and which has devoted so much time and thought to proposals for reform if they are approved. But I cannot agree that it would be right, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, suggested on Tuesday, and as he has suggested in his book, for any Government to agree in advance to accept any conclusions to which a Judge, appointed to hold an inquiry, or a Committee considering reform of any particular branch of the law, might come. For any Government whatever to do so would be an abdication of its responsibility, and would not, I believe, be acceptable to either House of Parliament.
But, my Lords, anyone who has had any experience as a Minister knows full well that the number of Bills jostling for a place in an invariably overcrowded Parliamentary programme is such that time can be found for only a fraction of them. I see no reason to suppose that that state of affairs is likely to change in the immediate future. It would, indeed, be interesting to know whether the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition—and I am sure the noble and learned Lord would like to know it—would give an assurance that, if these Law Commissioners are appointed and they produce a flood of Bills, the Government will find time for them. If that pledge, which will certainly be of some considerable importance, is given, that the Socialist
1102
Government would find Government time for all the Bills which the Law Commissioners produced, we certainly, I feel, should be informed, because that will affect the whole of the Government's programme, unless the Opposition intend drastically to alter present Parliamentary machinery; and if they have proposals to that end then, at least, they ought to be put before the public.
I would just touch on this if your Lordships would bear with me at this late hour. In his recent speech to the Society of Labour Lawyers, the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said that a Socialist Government would give the law reformers in his ranks a heaven-sent opportunity. I should like to quote his words. He said:
"In the first few weeks of a new Parliament, when the Government's main measures are still being drafted—really major measures can take up to three months or even longer—there is a danger of prolonged hiatus, a legislative vacuum, with an urgent need for Bills to be introduced into both Houses."
My Lords, this is apparently to be the time in which the Law Reform Bills are to be introduced in order to fill the gap, apparently on the assumption that there is little or no difficulty in drafting suitable measures of law reform for this purpose in a short space of time.
I would just quote what The Times said in a leading article on this, because it put it very well.
"Law reform"—
The Times said—
"demands more, not less, premeditation than other classes of legislation. The law is what it is for reasons which once won acceptance in Parliament or the Courts. Those reasons may have lost their validity with the passage of time, or the law itself may have fallen into obscurity or desuetude; but still it behoves reformers to move with care, because society is disposed to find what is customary and familiar appropriate also, and because it is not the sole requirement of the law that it should be just, or even that it should be 'modernised': it must also be stable over a reasonable period of time if citizens are to be permitted to arrange their affairs and their legal relationships with a sufficient degree of certainty."
My Lords, I believe that those are words which should be carefully studied, and certainly as regards the difficulty of drafting Law Reform Bills, they are profoundly true.
I just want to touch on one other point

1103
in relation to the speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. He referred to the use of Parliamentary draftsmen. Of course, Parliamentary draftsmen possess tremendous skill. They do not grow on every bush and they are very fully employed now; and as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, said, some of them are employed full-time on the process of consolidation. It would be quite wrong to suggest that that is always easy, even with the advantage of the Consolidation of Enactments Act. We have a Committee upon which representatives of both Houses serve, which considers the priorities, and we are making as much progress as we can. The noble Lord drew attention to the Housing Acts. I think they were consolidated in 1957. The time will be coming round again when that consolidation should be brought up to date.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, they were not comprehensively consolidated even then. All the House Purchase Acts were left out.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, mentioned, the word "housing" in itself is ill-defined. You can bring in landlord and tenant, and you can bring in a number of other Statutes, but I think I am right in saying that what are called Housing Acts as such were consolidated in 1957, and they will presumably, in due course, have to be consolidated again, I should not like it to be thought that progress is not being made on that.
It is perfectly easy, as I have said, to set up, with the flexible machinery that we now have, more committees to consider various branches of the law. But it would be time-consuming and wasteful if one really set up more committees to produce more Bills than the Parliamentary machine can tackle. It is all very well airily to dismiss the difficulties and delays in Parliamentary process. I agree that they do not occur in your Lordships' House, but they ought not to be underestimated, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will agree, with his experience of Bills that he himself has conducted through the House, including the Bill which I was astonished to hear him say was the model (I think it was) of
1104
perfect expression—the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. That is the first time I have heard that claim made, and I think it is worthy of having attention drawn to it.
My Lords, I had proposed to say something this evening about the position with regard to land registration. I should like to say just this. There was a time when it was not very popular and not so much in demand. The mood has chanced. I should like to see it extended as quickly as possible, but it is necessary to recruit a trained staff to operate it. However, I have been able to make more progress, and I am now considering with my colleagues the possibility of planning for a 15 per cent. expansion each year for several years ahead, which ought to do something to alleviate the situation.
The fundamental difference between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and myself appears to be in his belief that there is a need for a major overhaul of almost the whole field of our law. I do not believe for one moment that that case is made out. That I should like to see more law reform is true—I think that every Lord Chancellor would; and law reform of the non-Party political kind that we have been discussing to-day. I hope that our debate here will serve this useful purpose: that it will draw attention, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord would like it to do, not only to these questions of law reform, but also to the problems of the Parliamentary procedure for dealing with proposals (some of which, as I have said, may be controversial, but none of which, so far as I can recollect, has ever given rise to a division on Party lines) emanating either from the Criminal Law Committee appointed by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary or, indeed, from the Law Reform Committee.
I am grateful to your Lordships for bearing with me while I made this rather long speech, and to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for giving us the opportunity of discussing this subject. I hope that what I have said will put the matter in its proper perspective, though it is perhaps too much to hope that there will not be some who will ignore what has been achieved; who ignore what is being done and who seek to represent, quite wrongly, in the hope

1105
of gaining some political advantage, that our law is in a sorry state.
8.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, these days your Lordships work very long and late, but, even on the 1964 model of your Lordships' House, it is getting rather past the usual hour, and I do not wish to go into the major issues which my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has been mentioning. Before I ask leave to withdraw this Motion, may I do two things? May I commend very strongly to my noble and learned friend the opinions expressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Simonds about the time problem, and the need to do something about it? And I welcome very much the encouragement of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, when he says that one should not "sit down" under remarks about difficulties of Parliamentary time. I hope that something will be done about that. May I also express my great gratitude to all noble and learned Lords and noble Lords who have taken part in this debate? I am sure it has been worth
1106
while, and I hope that something will emerge from it. With those words, I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BARONY OF BEAVERBROOK
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That he had received from John William Maxwell Aitken, Esquire, an Instrument of Disclaimer of the Barony of Beaverbrook, delivered in accordance with Section 1 of the Peerage Act, 1963.
MERSEY RIVER BOARD BILL
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed he House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made on May 11 last discharged, the Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

SHELL COMPANY OF AUSTRALIA BILL
Reported, without amendment.
House adjourned at five minutes before nine o'clock.