Sitting of 7 December 1967

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

    Royal Opera House (Ticket Distribution)
    Mr. Carter-Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will withdraw Government financial aid to the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, unless the administrators improve the method of ticket allocation to ensure a fairer distribution.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee): I am very anxious to have the fairest possible system of ticket distribution; I have discussed the matter with the trustees on several occasions and am about to do so again.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that Answer and for the fact that she is now to investigate. I hope that she has more luck than I have had. Is she aware that trying to get information from Covent Garden is like trying to grapple with a jelly and that one cannot get any information at all? For example, an answer which I got boasted of the fact that a high proportion of those who had applied for tickets had got a seat. This was regarded as being something to boast about and the answer went on to say——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must he brief.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite what the Opera House says, only a small proportion of those who applied in fact got tickets?
    Miss Lee: I know that there is a difficult problem. I had the figures analysed
    1638
    And found that for the recent "Ring" performance, for instance, 68 per cent. of the seats went to London and the Home Counties. I sympathise with people who live in other parts of the country, but this is not an easy matter, because every time we ask the Covent Garden trustees whether they can make reallocation, they ask whether we are to give them more money.

    Sports Facilities
    Mr. Roebuckasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy in respect of the need for indoor and all-weather sports facilities; and what action he intends to take.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Dennis Howell): In conjunction with my right hon. Friends the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Wales I have constantly urged upon local authorities the importance of including them in future plans. The regional sports councils are aware of the importance of these facilities for community recreation and are doing all they can to stimulate provision, but the pace of development must of course depend on the resources available in the present economic situation.
    Mr. Roebuck: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way in which to secure his objective would be for local authorities to include these facilities in the designs for new schools which could then be used by the community generally so that everybody would get the benefit of the capital invested? Are there any such plans for the Harrow area?
    Mr. Howell: I agree with the proposition. Not only have we made speeches on the matter, but the Department's Building Bulletin No. 26 has explicitly made the point. I am not sure whether this is happening in the Harrow area, but I hope that it is and I hope that the Question will stimulate action along these lines.
    Mr. Arthur Davidson: Is not one of the most glaring and desperate needs in the country indoor all-weather athletic facilities? Has my hon. Friend anything in mind in this respect. not necessarily in my constituency, although I would not find that objectionable?
    Mr. Howell: I agree that the need is for indoor recreational areas, but also for outdoor floodlit all-weather areas, which is not quite the same thing.

    Independent Schools
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will state the criteria he is laying down for educational standards in independent boarding schools so as to qualify them for recognition as efficient.
    Sir J. Edenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science by what criteria he proposes to judge the adequacy or otherwise of the standards of accommodation provided at independent boarding schools; in what respects he will seek to amend the provisions of Part III of the Education Act, 1944; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. J. E. B. Hillasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the standards of pupil care, welfare and amenities which registered schools are required to satisfy in order to be recognised as efficient.
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what are the building standards required for a registered independent, fee-paying school to secure recognition;
    (2) what are the teaching qualification standards required for a registered independent fee-paying school to secure recognition.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker): The conditions upon which I recognise a school as efficient are set out in Rules 16, and I am sending copies to the right hon. and hon. Members. I have no plans to amend Part III of the Education Act, 1944.
    Mr. Turton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the interpretation of Rules 16 and the regulations varies very widely in different parts of the country from inspector to inspector? Will he reconsider this in the light of the policy which he announced on 3rd November for doing away with registered independent schools which the inspectors do not regard as recognised as efficient?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I do not quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman means by "doing away with". Does he mean abolishing them?
    Mr. Turton indicated assent.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: On the whole I would sooner stick to my declared policy of bringing them all up to an efficient standard. Those failing to reach an efficient standard would be dealt with under the Act.
    Sir J. Eden: Does the right hon. Gentleman lay down any particular standards by which to judge the adequacy or otherwise of the buildings and accommodation in boarding schools? Does he appreciate that many of these schools are in built-up areas where the opportunities for expansion are very limited?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Yes, I appreciate that. Standards are laid down in Rules 16 of which I am sending the hon. Gentleman a copy. My inspectors take account of particular circumstances, but it is very important that boarding schools especially should within a reasonable time be brought up to proper standards.
    Sir G. Nabarro: I sympathise entirely with the Minister's desire to bring all registered schools up to recognised standards within a measurable period. However, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the matter of building standards first, accommodation second, and teaching standards third, there is a wide variety of standards for recognition all over the country and that a great deal of dubiety now exists? Will he not give precise guidance before putting these schools out of business?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I shall shortly be writing to the schools to give an indication of how this is proceeding and I shall send the hon. Gentleman a copy.
    Sir E. Boyle: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that his statement in the House on 3rd November made it desirable to be rather more precise than the terms of Rules 16? Is he aware that we on this side of the House fully accept the need to tighten up the criteria, but that justice must be seen to be done to these schools?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Of course justice must be seen to be done and there is a

    1641
    tribunal to make sure that it is seen to be done; I do not have the final decision in these matters. I was very grateful for the strong support which I got from the right hon. Gentleman in our debate. I am not sure whether Rules 16 need tightening up. They were deliberately put in rather general terms and have been in existence for a long time.
    Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. In view of the Ministerial reply, I beg leave to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many independent schools with 50 pupils or less are now recognised as efficient.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: 87, Sir.
    Mr. Turton: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the importance of many of these small schools where there is quite a narrow age range and which deal with particular problems, especially the coaching of children who require additional tuitional help?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: A fairly large proportion of these small schools, 62 out of the 87, are in the nursery and primary age range. Of course my inspectors will pay attention to any particular success which one of these schools is having. This is one of the things to be weighed and in general there is no desire to stamp out experiment. None the less, these schools, and particularly boarding schools, have to be brought up to a proper standard as quickly as possible.
    Sir J. Edenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science in view of the provisions of the Education Act, 1944, what regard he has to the general principle that children should he educated in accordance with the wishes of the parents; and, in view of the rising cost of public education, what encouragement he is giving to the continued development of independent schools.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I have regard to this general principle in the exercise of all my functions under the Education Acts. With respect to the second part of the Question, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the proposals relating to independent schools which I announced in
    1642
    the course of debate on 3rd November.—[Vol. 753, c. 504.]
    Sir J. Eden: Does not the right hon. Gentleman wish to see an increase in the number of parents choosing to send their children to be educated in fee-paying schools?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: No, Sir.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Far from encouraging the independent schools, will my right hon. Friend make sure that many of the tax avoidance devices by which these schools are financed are ended, that all these loopholes are closed and that if such schools exist, they charge fees which represent the real cost of the schools?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about this and other matters. Here again we are awaiting a report and it would be unwise to anticipate the receipt of that report and decisions upon it by action of that kind.

    Day-Release Classes (Northern Region)
    Mr. Wileyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many students are attending day-release classes in the Northern Region.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: 45,219 in autumn 1966.
    Mr. Willey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while the figure is improving, it is still well below the target set by the Advisory Council? As this region has an exceptionally low proportion of the school leaving age, will my right hon. Friend see that this matter is looked at again to see whether the figure can be improved?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I will certainly watch the figures. They are well up to the national average and I very much hope that as the industrial training boards come into operation these figures will improve both in this region and elsewhere.

    Technical Teachers (Training)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to make greater provision for the training of technical teachers in the Northern Region.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: The College of Education (Technical) at Huddersfield has extended its extramural part-time course at Durham for technical teachers to a total of 70 students compared with 30 last year. There are an additional 52 students from the Northern Region at the Huddersfield College. Plans for a similar course at Carlisle run by the Bolton College of Education (Technical) are also under consideration.
    Mr. Willey: I recognise the improvement, but will my right hon. Friend consider the recommendation made by the Regional Economic Council—that what the region needs is a new college especially for this purpose?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: The trouble about these colleges of education (technical) is that they are extremely specialised. There are four in the country and to create another may just spread rather more thinly the great skills which they need. I am glad to say that the extramural college at Durham is expanding very fast and doing very well.
    Dame Irene Ward: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept, and if so is he to operate, the recommendations of the Northern Economic Planning Council? The whole of the North wants to know whether when it makes a recommendation it is acceptable to the Government?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I am still rather dubious about whether a new college of education (technical) should be established. I do not think that it would help in this case. As I have said, the colleges are very highly specialised. This problem is very different from that of the general colleges of education which of course we can and do spread about the country.

    Business Studies
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will circularise local education authorities advising them to introduce courses on business studies in schools.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon): No, Sir. This is a matter for the local education authorities and the schools.
    Mr. Roberts: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the wider the spread of the teaching of this subject in the upper forms of grammar and comprehensive schools, the broader the basis of British management? Would not industrial projects undertaken by these upper forms help to strengthen the link between education and industry?
    Miss Bacon: I am sure that there is something in what my hon. Friend says. He will be interested to know that an experimental course in business studies linked with the A-level examination is being conducted in four schools. The Schools Council will be studying this experiment, but it is too early for a judgment to be made yet.

    Teachers' Salaries
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for taking the responsibility for payment of teachers' salaries away from local authorities; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Any major reform of local government finance must await the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Government in England.
    Mr. Roberts: Would not this transfer of the payment of teachers' salaries considerably reduce rates—by about 2s. in the £ in a typical area like Luton? If this transfer is not made and local authorities maintain their hold on the purse strings of teachers' salaries, will not the difficult situation of the last few months happen yet again, with the possibility of hundreds of thousands of children finding themselves locked out of their schools?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: It is perfectly true that if we transferred the payment of teachers' salaries to the Government that would reduce the rate burden, but it would also reduce the rôle and purpose of local government.
    Mr. Allason: Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember the Labour Party's election pledge that it would do precisely this? If he waits until the completion of the review of local government, he cannot possibly fulfil that pledge in this Parliament.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: That is a wider question, but other things have been done which carried out our election undertakings—the rate rebate scheme and the special rate supplementation. It would be stupid to do this ahead of the Report of the Royal Commission.

    Young Musicians (Arts Council Awards)
    Captain W. Elliotasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he is taking to encourage the work of young British musicians and conductors; and if he will make a statement.
    Miss Jennie Lee: The Arts Council spent over £8,000 last year on awards to musicians. Individual awards included the commissioning of 10 works from British composers. This year more than £17,000 is likely to be spent in this way.
    In the current year the Arts Council has also given grants of £20,000 to the National Youth Orchestra, £5,000 to the Yehudi Menuhin School and £2,000 to the Central Tutorial School for Young Musicians.
    Captain Elliot: I know the difficulties of interfering with the work of the Arts Council. But is the Minister aware that many young British musicians and composers today are not getting a real chance, and the feeling is growing that those responsible for these matters favour far too many foreign conductors? In view of the amount of public money going into the arts, will the Minister investigate the matter, with the object of formulating a definite plan to encourage young British musicians and conductors?
    Miss Lee: Yes, Sir. The engagement of conductors is a matter for the orchestras and other bodies; permits are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. To put the question into perspective, the Arts Council's expenditure on music this year is £3·25 million, last year it was £2·87 million, and the year before it was £2·19 million. Therefore, within that general sum, better opportunities are being given to young musicians, including coductors, than in the past, although I am still not satisfied.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: The Arts Council is doing good work in this direction,
    1646
    but could the Minister also use her influence with the B.B.C. and I.T.V. to use British composers? Copyright fees sent abroad, particularly to America, are pretty high because they look after their people in that way.
    Miss Lee: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's comments are being noted.

    Italian Art and Archives Rescue Fund (Grant)
    Mr. Channonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science why he has ruled ultra vires the grant of £1,000 made by the Arts Council to the Italian Art and Archives Fund.
    Miss Jennie Lee: The Arts Council unanimously agreed to a grant of £1,000 to the Italian Art and Archives Rescue Fund. It did so in the belief that this was entirely within its powers, and that is still its view. After the payment had been made, it came to the notice of the Department, which was advised that it could not be regarded as falling within any of the objects set out in the Arts Council's Charter. The account will be noted accordingly.
    Mr. Channon: We obviously expect the Arts Council to spend its money in Britain, but does not the Minister think it mean to rule ultra vires the small grant of £1,000 to the Italian Fund when tens of thousands of British people have had much benefit and enjoyment from Italian art and archives over the years?
    Miss Lee: I appreciate the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's comments, but when a man is drowning you rescue him first and get your accounts straight afterwards. I am very proud of what was done by our museums and galleries and by the Arts Council. The flood damage was cleared up very quickly, and I am sure that we shall get the legalistic side of this put right.

    Manuscripts (Export)
    Mr. Robert Cookeasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations he has had with the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art, concerning the export of manuscripts; and if he will make a statement.
    Miss Jennie Lee: I welcome the establishment by the Reviewing Committee of a special sub-committee to consider whether any changes are required in the present arrangements for the export control of manuscripts and other documents that might be of national importance and shall carefully consider any recommendations put to me as a result of its subcommittee's report.
    Mr. Cooke: Is the Minister aware that the unconsidered trifles of today become the historic documents of tomorrow? Is she aware of the considerable feeling in this country that many documents are escaping from us, and that the present arrangements are far from satisfactory. Will she, as well as the Committee, keep this under review?
    Miss Lee: I must wait until I receive the report of the sub-committee, but we all have the same end in view. We want to keep our historical documents in our own country as far as is feasible.
    Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the most important archives of the decade, the Russell Papers, will shortly be on the market? Will she give the House an assurance that adequate public funds will be made available for their purchase?
    Miss Lee: I can give no assurance about adequate public funds, but I assure my hon. Friend of my personal interest.

    Arts Council (Offices)
    Mr. Robert Cookeasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will consider rehousing the Arts Council in an historic building in the London area.
    Miss Jennie Lee: It is for the Arts Council to determine the kind of building in which it can most suitably carry out its functions.
    Mr. Cooke: The House will have read Lord Goodman's defence of the financial aspect of this question, but surely the Minister is interested to see that our historic buildings, particularly in the London area, are put to good use? Will she use her good offices, when chances like this occur, to get public bodies interested in work of this kind—particularly the Arts Council—to house themselves in a worthy setting and not in modern office blocks?
    Miss Lee: I entirely agree that we should use our historic buildings to the best possible advantage, but the affairs of the Arts Council are in very competent hands and it is transferring to more suitable premises.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the function of the Arts Council is to be outward looking, and that it is far more important that it should operate in an efficient building than that it should be housed in an historic one?
    Miss Lee: There is never anything wrong in trying to make the best of all possible worlds.
    Miss Harvie Andersonasked the Secretary of Slate for Education and Science what consultation he has had with the Arts Council on its proposal to move from its present offices; and if he will make a statement.
    Miss Jennie Lee: The Council informed me some time ago that it considered it necessary to move to larger quarters and was negotiating for a lease of 105, Piccadilly. After consulting the Ministry of Public Building and Works, I told the Council that the rent being asked was reasonable and that the premises were suitable provided some of the accommodation was sublet. A satisfactory lease has now been negotiated.
    Miss Harvie Anderson: Does not the Minister think that the time is slightly inappropriate for the Arts Council, whose excellent work I accept, to move to premises 10 times as expensive as its present headquarters? Is it really necessary for those premises to be in the centre of London?
    Miss Lee: They are not 10 times as expensive. This is all being spelt out rather carefully in the popular Press. I think that the Council has made a very reasonable bargain and that we need some of our prestige buildings used for purposes such as the Arts Council. I am satisfied with its decision. We do not want everything bought out of the bargain basement.
    Sir C. Osborne: In view of last night's statement by the President of the Board of Trade that there must be ruthless cuts in the private sector's spending to rescue the country from poverty, can we afford

    1649
    to spend more money on this kind of business?
    Miss Lee: We cannot afford not to. We shall have lost all sense of survival if we begin to talk about the relatively small sum still spent on the arts as if they were one of the great spending Departments. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is the taxpayers' money."]

    Pioneer Youth Club, St. Albans (Mr. Trevorrow)
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will refer back to the Joint Negotiating Committee for Youth Leaders and Community Centre Wardens the case of Mr. James Trevorrow of the Pioneer Youth Club, St. Albans.
    Mr. Denis Howell: I have again referred the case of Mr. Trevorrow to the Joint Negotiating Committee for Youth Leaders and Community Centre Wardens, and his application has been reviewed. The Committee, however, is still of the opinion that Mr. Trevorrow should not be recognised as a qualified youth leader.
    Mr. Goodhew: Is the Minister aware that that is a thoroughly unsatisfactory reply and that the management committee of the club, having advertised for 18 months, engaged Mr. Trevorrow believing him to be a person of unusually wide and varied experience, fitted to take over from the leader who retired after 25 years at the club? Will the Minister look at the matter again and see that recognition is given to this leader, so that he may be paid the appropriate salary?
    Mr. Howell: The purpose of the joint negotiating committee is to maintain professional standards in the youth service, which is important. That object could best be met in this case if Mr. Trevorrow applied to attend one of the one-year courses. If he undertakes to do so, we shall give him every assistance we can.
    Mr. Goodhew: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment

    Unsubsidised Theatre
    Miss Harvie Andersonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, if he will take steps to lessen the financial difficulties of the unsubsidised theatre.
    Miss Jennie Lee: The Arts Council recently set up a committee of inquiry into the theatre and one of its main objects is to investigate the position of the unsubsidised theatre. Action cannot be considered until the committee's recommendations are known.
    Miss Harvie Anderson: When those recommendations come forward, will the Minister view favourably the contribution which the commercial theatre makes to the nationalised theatre, and will she relieve some of the tax burden on the commercial theatre?
    Miss Lee: I can hardly visualise a situation in which popular entertainment is ever subsidised from public funds. But there is a wide area between those two extremes, and it is that in-between area which is now being investigated.

    Library Books (Royalty Payments)
    Sir J. Rodgersasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will publish the report from the Arts Council on the payment of royalties to authors for the borrowing of books from libraries.
    Miss Jennie Lee: The report was prepared by a working party of the Literary Panel of the Arts Council. It is therefore for the Council to decide whether or not to publish it.
    Sir J. Rodgers: Does the Minister agree that in order to obtain informed public discussion of this important subject, she should use her best endeavours to persuade the Arts Council to publish the report?
    Miss Lee: I think that the Arts Council will make its own decision. My personal view is that it will be useful to have it published, because then both the strong points and the weak points, according to one's individual views on the matter, will be put down accurately and the ensuing discussions will be helpful.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is thought likely that the Arts Council will publish the report without any encouragement from her?
    Miss Lee: I think that that is probably correct.
    Mr. Channon: Is the Minister aware that the problem has been oustanding for a long time? When are we likely to know the result, so that there can be informed public discussion of this very important matter?
    Miss Lee: The next useful thing will be the publication of the report, which will be controversial. It is a very difficult matter. It will help informed public opinion and also the Government to wait for the report and the discussions that will follow.

    Art Galleries and Museums (Hours of Opening)
    Sir J. Rodgersasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are his proposals for the earlier opening of art galleries and museums on Sundays.
    Miss Jennie Lee: I am very glad to be able to say that most of the national museums and galleries in London are planning to open at 10 a.m. on Sunday morning; full arrangements have not yet been completed.
    Sir J. Rodgers: Would the right hon. Lady accept from me the gratitude of everyone in the House for her action in this matter in meeting the needs of the public? I think that we would all like to congratulate her and thank her very much.

    Educational Priority Areas
    Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many applications have been made for educational priority areas by local education authorities; and when he will announce those areas which qualify for capital projects.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: So far 92 local education authorities have applied. I hope to announce early in the new year the areas and projects for which I am able to make allocations.
    Mr. Price: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Could he, at the
    1652
    same time as he allocates the capital projects, give strong and detailed advice to local authorities about positive discrimination in their current expenditure towards these areas, since it is no good simply giving capital expenditure without more current expenditure as well?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: There is force, of course, in what my hon. Friend says, but the local education authorities must have discretion about how they spend their money. If they do concentrate more on this, they must take it away from something else; this must always be considered.
    Sir E. Boyle: But is it not a fact that this was by far the most important and emphasised recommendation in the Plowden Council's Report? Should the right hon. Gentleman not do all he can to encourage local authorities to act on that recommendation when allocating their current expenditure?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Yes, certainly, all that they can, I certainly agree with that.

    Birmingham (Circular 10/65)
    Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to receive the submission of the Birmingham local education authority in response to Circular 10/65.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I am informed that consultation is still taking place locally about the authority's provisional proposals. I do not know when a plan will be formally submitted to me.
    Mr. Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this plan is now nearly 18 months late, according to the date of the original circular, and that, for the past year, they have been hawking around Birmingham a plan which the authority changes every six months and which has the support of neither the teachers and parents nor anyone else? Will he urge them to get a move on?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I think that the authority will very soon send me a scheme.
    Mr. Gurden: Does the right hon. Gentleman regret his predecessor's cutting out of the building programme

    1653
    urgently needed purpose-built comprehensive schools in Birmingham?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: There was no such act. We cannot afford money at the moment for any large-scale building of comprehensive schools. This is true, and it has been said all the time perfectly openly by everybody. Therefore, I do not regret my predecessor's action.
    Mr. Victor Yates: When my right hon. Friend receives this plan from Birmingham, will he compare it very closely with the plan which the Labour local authority prepared and which has now been scrapped?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I will have to wait until I see the plan. I should not indicate attitudes to possible plans until I see them, and they must be considered with an open mind.

    Regional Theatres
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to support and encourage the establishment of regional theatres and to provide employment for the many talented young actors and actresses who are unable to get work in the commercial theatre.
    Miss Jennie Lee: Arts Council support for theatres outside London has increased from £261,843 in 1963–64 to £1,050,000 in 1966–67. Progress has been made in 14 of the 17 towns with a population of over 200,000 which the Arts Council, in a report published in 1961, suggested should have first-class repertory theatres.
    Mrs. Short: But is my right hon. Friend aware that the commercial theatre is a jungle and that trained, talented young people, according to the report by Equity, work only a few months a year professionally, and that the money spent has has not been used to establish regional theatres on the scale which is needed? Will she reconsider this and give every encouragement to this proposal?
    Miss Lee: I know some of the problems of talented young actors and actresses, but it is not the immediate function of the Arts Council or the Government to act as an employment agency. What we have been doing, as the figures which I quoted show, is
    1654
    encourage the development of theatre wherever we can.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is there any way of having a partnership between the commercial theatre and the Arts Council to ensure that the existing theatres are fully used, with perhaps the commercial theatre using them for part of the year and the Arts Council, with its subsidised entertainment, the other part, thereby helping both?
    Miss Lee: The reason why the Committee has been set up to consider the relations between the subsidised and unsubsidised theatre is that there is a field here which should be further investigated.
    Mr. Coe: In her concern to help these young, talented actors and actresses, how far does my right hon. Friend envisage further help to the National Youth Theatre and the permanent home which it requires?
    Miss Lee: Like all our other theatres where we are trying to encourage young talent, the National Youth Theatre is having its affairs carefully studied by the Arts Council. It would be improper of me, as the political Minister, to interfere in that direction.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a great responsibility here upon local authorities to ensure that theatres in their areas are not allowed to decline? Will she give them every encouragement to support the maintenance and building of new theatres in the municipalities all over the country?
    Miss Lee: That is most certainly done. Local authorities are in a difficult situation at the moment. They are caught with high rates and many urgent claims upon them, but the job which we are trying to do is to bring together local authorities, central funds and private money in a combined operation. This is beginning to produce results.

    Comprehensive Schools
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he intends to take to prevent local education authorities from breaking up established neighbourhood comprehensive schools by allowing parents a choice of grammar school education in other areas.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I much regret the recent decisions of the Wolverhampton and Walsall local education authorities. The comprehensive schools concerned are doing an excellent job and I would expect few parents to take advantage of new opportunities for sending their children to other schools. I do not consider that this is a situation in which I can properly intervene.
    Mrs. Short: But is my right hon. Friend aware that this decision was taken without consultation with the parents or the teachers for the whole Wolverhampton area, that the teaching profession is absolutely united in opposing this proposal, and that his reply is extremely unsatisfactory? We expect him to defend the established comprehensive schools.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I have, of course, as my hon. Friend knows, to work within the law. I regard this as a very retrograde step, but it is not so unreasonable that I would be justified in intervening under the appropriate Section of the Act.
    Mr. Montgomery: But would the right hon. Gentleman admit that this is really the responsibility of the local education authority? Would it not be better if consultations took place among the parents, the teachers and the education authority? Would not that be more beneficial than that sort of mischievous question?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I think that it would be much better in this case if proper consultations had taken place, but, in the last resort, this is, of course, a matter for the local electors.

    Historic Ships
    Mr. John Smithasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) whether he will take steps to ensure that historic ships are preserved and used for educational purposes;
    (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that H.M.S. "Warrior" and "Unicorn" are preserved and used for educational purposes.
    Miss Bacon: I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that discussions on the future of H.M.S. "Unicorn" will shortly take place between his Department and the Dundee Corporation and other interested parties. The use of such facilities as
    1656
    would be offered by the preservation of H.M.S. "Warrior" and other old ships when they go out of commission is a matter for consideration by interested voluntary bodies and possibly by local education authorities.
    Mr. Smith: I thank the right hon. Lady for that, on the whole, hopeful reply. Is she aware that there is just a small handful of such ships left, soon to disappear, and that they could be a potent source of education, and inspiration, for our children out of all proportion to the cost of keeping them?
    Miss Bacon: Yes, of course, there are possibilities for the educational use of old ships—for instance, the provision of courses in them—and their use for youth service purposes, but this is essentially a matter for the local education authorities to decide.
    Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her Department already helps the training ship "Foudroyant" to some limited extent and that it would be useful if the Department could increase that support?
    Miss Bacon: This is a slightly different question and, as far as the discussions with Dundee are concerned, my hon. Friend will recognise, of course, that this is primarily a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland.

    Secondary Reorganisation, London
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, in view of the forthcoming local elections in London, he will suspend until June his decision on all proposals for the reorganisation of secondary education in London in which the proposed changes are a matter of controversy, so as to secure that changes of such importance are made only in accordance with the wishes of the parents concerned.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: No, Sir.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Since, in the delayed elections next May, changes in the control of many of these boroughs will take place, will not the right hon. Gentleman save a great deal of public money and trouble if he waits the short period necessary in order to ascertain whether those who purport to speak for the electors today really do so?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: When schemes come before me I will judge them according to their accord with the Government's proposals for the reorganization of education
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the continual playing of party politics with the education of the children of London is a disgrace? Will he resist any proposals put forward further delay the improvement of the education of London children?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I wholeheartedly agree that the bringing of politics into this is extremely unfortunate and is almost wholly due to the dispute that is going on inside the Conservative Party on the issue, including the Front Bench.
    Sir E. Boyle: Is it not the case that a number of anxieties have been expressed about Greater London schemes by bodies which cannot be regarded as party political, such as the Enfield Association for the Advancement of State Education—[Interruption.]—which is a quite different body from the one hon. Members opposite have in mind? Will he take special pains to bear in mind my right hon. Friend's very proper question?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I shall not take special pains. I shall take exactly the same pains I always take in considering schemes which come before me. I will not approve schemes which I think are educationally unsound, whatever the political situation may be in any part of the country.
    Mr. Christopher Price: The 1944 Act instructs the Secretary of State to implement a national policy of education. Is it not time we legislated so as to get rid of all this uncertainty of annual changes in the school systems?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: A national policy has been proclaimed for the reorganisation of secondary education on comprehensive lines. I will, of course, consider the possibility and desirability of legislation, but I am sure that it is better to wait and let the general tide towards comprehensive education, which is working in Conservative-controlled as well as in Labour-controlled authorities, flow before one tries to intervene from the centre by legislation.

    The Arts (Local Authority Allocations)
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will propose to the Arts Council that they should issue a guide sheet for local authorities advising them on how the moneys they allocate to the arts could be spent to maximum effect.
    Miss Lee: The circumstances of local authorities vary so widely that I am sure advice from the Arts Council on individual queries, rather than a guide sheet of the kind suggested, is the best way to help them.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that, in order to develop the work of the Arts Council and appreciation of the arts throughout the country, anything that can he done to bring the local authorities and the Arts Council together would be a very good thing for the arts in general?
    Miss Lee: I accept that completely. As the hon. Lady knows, guide notes have been prepared by the more advanced regional associations which have been helpful to the less advanced ones. At the moment it seems to us that the circumstances vary so enormously that it would be almost impossible to get guide notes with general relevance.

    Music (Higher Education Grants)
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what extra state aid he plans to give for higher education in music.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: This year my Department's grants to the Royal Academy of Music and the Royal College of Music were increased each by £6,000, to £29,250 and £28,000 respectively, and the Royal College also received a capital grant of £10,000. The Estimates for next year are still under consideration.
    Dame Irene Ward: That reply is reasonably satisfactory. Will the right hon. Gentleman now do something to improve the end product so that the taxpayers may get the full advantage of the money spent on the maintenance of the Royal Schools of Music? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is no good having large grants for the Royal

    1659
    Schools if, when people have been trained, they do not have an end product to earn their livelihood?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: By "end product", does the hon. Lady mean orchestras or something like that?
    Dame Irene Ward: Everything.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: This does not all fall under my responsibility, but I agree that this is a continuing process and that there must be an end product always to all aspects of education.

  NUCLEAR TESTS
  Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Prime Minister whether he will seek to amend the nuclear test ban agreement in order to make it clear that the testing of antiballistic missile systems involving nuclear explosions is prohibited.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): The Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 prohibits all nuclear test explosions in the atmosphere, in outer space, and under water, and would consequently bar the testing of anti-ballistic missile nuclear warheads in these environments. It is the Government's policy to seek an extension of this ban to cover all nuclear tests in all environments. But we do not think it would be practicable to single out tests of anti-ballistic missile warheads for special and individual prohibition.
  Mr. Allaun: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he urge Washington not to proceed with the A.B.M. system, particularly as some eminent American scientists have stated that only nuclear explosions in the atmosphere can test the efficacy of the radar engaged in the system?
  The Prime Minister: On the information available to me, I think that that is not the case. But there may be tests underground. We want to see a general ban on all tests underground. I am sure my hon. Friend supported the representations we made against the American's developing an A.B.M. system and that he gave equal support to the equally strong representations we made several months earlier to the Russians that they should not have one either.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck: But does not my right hon. Friend think it unlikely that
  1660
  the United States would spend such fantastic amounts involved in this system without the full tests which can completely ensure its efficacy?
  The Prime Minister: The American Defence Secretary has stated publicly that the warheads for this system could be satisfactorily tested underground and there is no question, therefore, of any infringement of the Partial Test Ban Treaty. Having said that, however, we have expressed strongly our view about this further twist in the arms race both from the Soviet Union and the United States.

  INDIAN OCEAN (MILITARY STAGING FACILITIES)
  Sir T. Beamishasked the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with President Johnson regarding sharing the cost of providing joint military staging facilities in the Indian Ocean; what agreement has been reached; and if he will publish a White Paper incorporating the joint conclusions.
  The Prime Minister: The Answer to the first part of the Question is "None, Sir". The two latter parts do not arise, though the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be aware of the White Paper, Command 3231, published in April last.
  Sir T. Beamish: Have the Government now given up the idea of an alternative route to the Persian Gulf via a staging post in the Indian Ocean which, until recently, was apparently regarded as very important, or is this an example of members of the Armed Forces being expected to run risks which would not be justifiable in normal circumstances?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary explained fully the reasons for our decision on Aldabra. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be aware, no final decision had been taken on whether to go ahead with that operation or not.

  SECRETARY OF ESTATE FOR ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Mr. G. Campbellasked the Prime Minister what are the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs in Scotland.
  The Prime Minister: The responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs is in the co-ordination of national and regional economic planning for the country as a whole. He does not exercise any direct responsibility in Scotland.
  Mr. Campbell: Which Minister has overall responsibility for economic affairs in Scotland?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has his traditional functions in this field but, as is well known, not all economic policy matters are totally decentralised and it is considered—this has been the view of successive Governments—that we are more likely to get more factories in Scotland if, for example, the Board of Trade remains responsible both for the areas from which the factories may come and for the areas in Scotland to which they may go.

  FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE
  Mr. G. Campbellasked the Prime Minister what are the responsibilities of the First Secretary of State in Scotland.
  The Prime Minister: The same as in England and Wales, Sir.
  Mr. Campbell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are too many Ministers in the present Government and that there are too many where Scotland is concerned whose duties are ill-defined and uncertain?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said. I have just said that the duties of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary there are the same as in England and Wales; and those duties I outlined to the House earlier this week.
  Mr. Monro: Will the Prime Minister see to it that whichever right hon. Gentleman is responsible for Scotland visits the areas of high unemployment, which will be further hit by pit closures in February, 1968?
  The Prime Minister: The question of pit closures has been fully discussed in Scotland by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and by me on my recent visit. We are extremely concerned
  1662
  about the pit closures and the resulting unemployment position. Hence the statement made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade a fortnight ago about help for these areas.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are, or shortly will be, 28 advance factories standing empty in Scotland? Will he get one or other of his many right hon. Friends to take an interest in this matter and try to cure the problem, as the Board of Trade seems unable to do?
  The Prime Minister: As I have explained to the House a number of times, the situation here is that, as a result of the measures taken 18 months ago, there has been a falling off in new factory building. This has affected the situation. However, I am extremely glad that we have these factories now because, with the expansion that is now going forward, we will have the factories ready for immediate occupation; and that is why we have built in three years far more advance factories than hon. Gentlemen opposite built in 13 years.

  RHODESIA
  Mr. Wallasked the Prime Minister what further communications he has had from Sir Humphrey Gibbs and Mr. Ian Smith.
  Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the latest position in Rhodesia.
  The Prime Minister: There have been no exchanges with Mr. Smith since my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary's visit to Salisbury in November. Communications between Her Majesty's Government and the Governor of Rhodesia are confidential. On the general issue, I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend on 14th November.
  Mr. Wall: As the time in which an honourable compromise settlement may be reached is rapidly running out, what are the main objections to an agreement raised by Salisbury, and what new discussions or meetings are planned for the immediate future?
  The Prime Minister: We have felt it right—and this is in agreement with

  1663
  Salisbury—on my right hon. Friend's visit that we should not go into public discussion on the particular points at issue. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend said enough to the House on this matter, to those who are interested in getting a settlement, when he said that the situation had widened compared with the time of the H.M.S. "Tiger" talks on certain of the constitutional matters and on the six principles. This is a question which is giving us concern and we are studying the outcome of my right hon. Friend's discussions.
  Mr. Winnick: Is it not a fact that the new Acts which are being pushed through the Rhodesia Parliament discriminate even further against coloured people? Does not this show the sort of slimy and racialist politicians who rule the colony today? Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of these new Acts, the Rhodesia Front politicians will never agree to the six principles.
  The Prime Minister: I think that certain of these Acts and recent actions—for example, in connection with censorship—are an interference with free expression in these matters and must be a cause of deep concern and throw doubt on the motives of those who talk about satisfying the six principles. However, I am much more concerned with the fact that there is, as yet, such a wide gap on the principles themselves. I am sure that, if that gap could be bridged, it would be possible to revoke some of these so-called Acts of a so-called Parliament, which are only adding to the concern of all who are concerned about these principles.
  Mr. Heath: Can the right hon. Gentle-man say when direct contact is likely to be resumed?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir, not at this stage. As I said, we are giving study to everything that has come out of my right hon. Friend's visit, and as soon as it is possible for us to say anything further in the House we shall do so.
  Mr. Bellenger: In view of the exhaustive investigations that have been made into the Rhodesia situation by various individuals, including his own emissary, Lord Alport, would it not be appropriate for a White Paper to be submitted to the
  1664
  House giving hon. Members full information about the present situation in regard to negotiations?
  The Prime Minister: I think not at this stage. We have in the past—for example, immediately after U.D.I. and after the H.M.S. "Tiger" talks—given the House the fullest information, not only of written exchanges but even of quite informal oral discussions which were never at the time intended for publication. In view of the process started by the visit of Lord Alport and the fact that we are considering the second stage arising out of that visit, I do not think that it would be helpful at this stage to report by way of a White Paper or in any other way about the present stage.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, in the circumstances of our recent withdrawal from Aden, this dispute with Rhodesia is becoming a little absurd?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The House unanimously laid down six principles which it is the duty of any Government of any party in this House to see are ensured as a basis for independence or any constitutional settlement. This has been the position of all parties over Rhodesia and we shall stand by those principles. I hope that we will one day have the hon. and learned Gentleman's support in doing so.
  Mr. Ogden: Would my right hon. Friend agree that at a time when we do not know when this House will be able to assume legal responsibility for government in Rhodesia and at a time when we can be told that the gap is widening, we still do not know what conditions the ilegal régime is seeking? Is it not right that this House should know the conditions which that régime is putting forward at present.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think it is right that the House should know as soon as the House can fairly be told—[Interruption.] Great concern was expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite after Lord Alport's visit that we should get on with these talks. I do not believe that anyone who wants these talks to succeed would want to destroy any hope of success that may be remaining by premature publication, in the form of a White Paper or in any other form.

  PERSIAN GULF
  Mr. Francis Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister what is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the territories in the Persian Gulf with whose rulers the United Kingdom has special relationships; and which aspects of that policy are the responsibility of the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence or of any other Government Department.
  The Prime Minister: The main responsibility for co-ordinating policy rests with the Foreign Office, but the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Overseas Development are also closely involved in matters of concern to them.
  As to the policy of Her Majesty's Government, I would refer my hon. Friend to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in the foreign affairs debate on 20th July, 1967.—[Vol. 750, c. 2494.]
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Can my right hon. Friend now be more specific and say what plans are being made for a final withdrawal from this area? Can he give an assurance that the lessons of Aden and South Arabia have been learned and that the same tragic mistakes will not be repeated'?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that there is anything that can be added at this stage to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in the debate on these matters last July. There has been no change in the situation since then. Of course, since then we have carried out, with the full support of this side of the House at any rate, a very successful operation in withdrawing from Aden. If anything is to be learned from that in relation to other parts of the world, we are willing to learn it.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: Surely the Prime Minister should, following Aden and in view of the problems which are facing this country, look at an alternative and cheaper route to the Far East. Will he get his defence people to look at the question of another route across the Pacific, which is what they should be doing now?
  The Prime Minister: Naturally these things have been done. They were done
  1666
  Even before the right hon. Gentleman got up to put his question. I have nothing to add, as to the results of this matter, to what was said by the Foreign Secretary in July or by the Secretary of State for Defence last week.
  Mr. Lubbock: Is it not a wicked and unjustifiable waste of taxpayers' money for us to build up our forces in the Persian Gulf at a time when Government expenditure is being cut in every other direction? Will he reverse this foolish policy and withdraw our forces from the Persian Gulf before they are forced to withdraw by nationalism?
  The Prime Minister: This small extra expenditure in this area is part of the bigger saving in the Middle East as a whole, as represented by the Aden withdrawal. I do not think that, by way of question and answer, we can now go over all the issues which were fully debated in July.
  Mr. Mayhew: How can my right hon. Friend consider it right for us to borrow huge sums abroad in somewhat humiliating circumstances and yet continue to build up our military presence in this area at a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has widened the attack on this Question. He will be aware, from what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have said, that the money which is being borrowed is a standby for the success of the operation of devaluation and not money to live on, whether for military or any other form of consumption.
  Mr. Heath: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish the undertakings which have been given to the Governments in the Gulf consequent on our withdrawal from Aden?
  The Prime Minister: I will discuss that with my right hon. Friend. I should like to consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

  PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS
  Mr. Ridleyasked the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to set up a non-political permanent commission to make appointments to public boards and nationalised industry boards.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Parliament has decided that these appointments should be the responsibility of the Government.
  Mr. Ridley: If it is right to end the system of political honours, surely it is even more important to end the system of political appointments, particularly to State boards like the boards of nationalised industries? Should we not aim at trying to get the right boys for the jobs, rather than the right jobs for the boys?
  The Prime Minister: There is no parallelism between the ending of political honours and the question covered in thes—[Interruption.]—political honours which hon. Gentlemen opposite fully carried out for work for political services and not for services to the country. The choice of a chairman or member of a nationalised industry under successive Governments has been based on the suitability of the person for the job, and the Conservative Government appointed, among those, some who were political, both Conservative and Labour, and so have we.
  Mr. C. Pannell: Is the Prime Minister aware that it will take an awful lot of appointing on our part to catch up with the backlog of appointments on the other side?
  The Prime Minister: I am not trying to do that. It is the duty of the responsible Minister, who first consults me, to appoint whoever is best for the job, irrespective of party affiliations or whether they have any political affiliations at all.
  Mr. Thorpe: Would it not be a good idea to set up a non-political commission to decide who should be dismissed?
  The Prime Minister: The responsibility for changes in the boards—for firing as well as hiring—is a responsibility given by Parliament to the Ministers concerned. I do not think that they require to go to any Civil Service type non-political commission.
  Mr. Orme: Would my right hon. Friend agree that, if such a board was set up to examine the political affiliations of members of boards, Mr. Aubrey Jones should be the first person submitted to it to find out about his suitability to carry on in his present position?
  The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend, in the question, was talking about political affiliations or suitability. In that case, as in all other cases, irrespective of political affiliations, we made the appointment of the person whom we felt right and best fitted to do the job.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 11TH DECEMBER—Second Reading of the National Loans Bill.
Motions on the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Incomes) (Netherlands) Order and on the Broadcasting of our Proceedings.
TUESDAY, 12TH DECEMBER—Second Reading the Education Bill, which it is hoped to obtain by about seven p.m.
Motions on Sessional and Standing Orders relating to Public Business, or, if I may simplify it, procedure.
WEDNESDAY, 13TH DECEMBER—Supply [5th Allotted Day].
Debate on the Economic Problems in the North-West, which will arise on an Opposition Motion.
Opposition Motion on the Prices and Incomes (Continuous Review) (No. 1) Order.
THURSDAY, 14TH DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Mauritius Independence Bill.
Remaining Stages of the Teachers Superannuation (Scotland) Bill.
Motions on the Rate Support Grant (Increase) Order, the Summer Time (No. 2) Order, the Civil Defence Regulations, and on the Raw Cotton Commission Order.
FRIDAY, 15TH DECEMBER—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 18TH DECEMBER—The proposed Business will be:
Private Members' Motions until 7 p.m.

1669
Afterwards, remaining stages of the Administration of Justice Bill, of the Trustee Savings Banks Bill and of the London Cab Bill.
May I say that subject to progress of business we shall propose that the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment on Thursday, 21st December, until Monday, 22nd January, 1968.
Mr. Heath: Can the Leader of the House promise a debate before Christmas on the Government's White Paper on Fuel Policy? Also, can he say when the Industrial Expansion Bill, which was promised by the Prime Minister last Tuesday, will be presented to the House?
Mr. Crossman: I do not think that it is likely that we shall be debating fuel and power before Christmas, but I promise that the matter will be considered after Christmas.
The Industrial Expansion Bill is not in next week's business, but, as the Prime Minister made clear, it will come after the Recess.
Mr. Winnick: Can the Leader of the House say whether it is still intended to have a debate on foreign affairs before the Christmas Recess?
Mr. Crossman: I am not quite sure about the business for the last week before we rise, but I am hoping that part of the time will be devoted to foreign affairs.
Sir C. Osborne: Since exports are the most important problem facing the nation, without a solution to which nothing else can go forward, will the Leader of the House try to find time, immediately after Christmas, to discuss the problem of getting the extra £500 million exports which the Prime Minister has promised?
Mr. Crossman: I will consider it, but I think that if the Bill to which the Leader of the Opposition referred is down for debate, the Second Reading would give a good opportunity.
Mr. Roebuck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this morning, in company with some of my hon. Friends representing London constituencies, I tabled a Motion deploring the proposal of the Greater London Council to increase rents excessively, and calling on Her Majesty's Government to take immediate action?
1670
In view of the fact that the proposals of the Council constitute an act of sabotage against the Government's economic policy——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can ask for time, but he cannot argue.
Mr. Roebuck: Will my right hon. Friend rearrange the business for next week so that this important matter, which affects the livelihood and living conditions of many thousands of people in the Greater London area, can be debated?
Mr. Crossman: I have not seen the text of the Motion. This is a matter of great interest. I think that my hon. Friend should seek every opportunity to raise it here, but I cannot give him any guarantee that the increases, if they are as suggested in the evening papers, will not be referred to the Prices and Incomes Board.
Mr. Peyton: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made next week by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the speech yesterday by the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Board? Perhaps the Chancellor would also say who speaks on behalf of the Government concerning the future of sterling. Some of us think that too many cooks spoil the broth.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should ask for time at Business time.
Mr. Peyton: I was asking for a statement to be made, Sir.
Mr. Crossman: If I understand the hon. Gentleman, he is asking me to communicate to the Chancellor his desire for further elucidation of the remarks on devaluation made by the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Board. I will pass the message on to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Orme: Will my right hon. Friend note that it is not just the Leader of the Opposition who is interested in the Industrial Expansion Bill? Many hon. Members on this side want to see it very soon. Will he be more explicit about when we will see the Bill that we have been promised?
Mr. Crossman: I am supposed to be dealing with next week's business. I

1671
promised the Leader of the Opposition that in the new year he would be able to see the Bill to which he is looking forward so much.
Mr. Clegg: Could the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the fishing industry before the Recess?
Mr. Crossman: No, I really do not think I could.
Mr. J. T. Price: On the business set down for next Wednesday, the deferred debate on the economic problems in the North-West, will the Leader of the House confer with his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to ensure that, when that debate takes place, his right hon. Friend is suitably briefed with information for those north-western Members, including myself, about the Government's proposals for what are termed the grey areas—which, incidentally, include large parts of my own constituency—which have very special economic problems which up to now have not received the attention that they require?
Mr. Crossman: In view of the ominous nature of that question, I will warn my right hon. Friend of the atmosphere in which he is likely to be making his remarks.
Mr. James Davidson: Has the Leader of the House yet had an opportunity of asking his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland when time will be allotted for a debate on the Halliday Report, particularly relating to the injustices of the feudal system in Scotland?
Mr. Crossman: I realise the importance of this, and for the Scots to come into line with the English and abolish feudalism. This important subject should get high priority. I will consider the possibilities.
Mr. Steele: Has my right hon. Friend noticed a Motion for the introduction today of a Bill dealing with transport. If so, can he say whether we are likely to have the Second Reading debate before the Recess? If so, may we have two days for it?
Mr. Crossman: I think that my hon. Friend had better await my Business statement next week. We shall definitely
1672
be having the Second Reading before the Christmas Recess.
Earl of Dalkeith: With regard to the Summer Time Order, now that the Government have made such an awful mess of every aspect of national life, could not they leave the time alone?
Mr. Crossman: I do not think that this Order has quite the drastic implications of the Bill which we shall be introducing later.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that wide-ranging foreign affairs debates are really unsatisfactory, and that the debate which he has promised ought to be limited to Vietnam, or at least to South-East Asia?
Mr. Crossman: I shall certainly bear that in mind. It is my impression that there are two major interests, one the Middle East, and the other Vietnam. I shall certainly consider the possibility of having them dealt with separately, and not as a conglomeration.
Sir A. V. Harvey: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that last Thursday I asked for a statement about the possible strike by B.O.A.C. pilots which is to take place tomorrow. Surely he recognises that Parliament and the people ought to know what the Government are thinking and doing about it?
Mr. Crossman: I appreciate this, and I shall pass the hon. Gentleman's message to my hon. Friend, but it is not always necessarily true that statements reduce the risk of strikes.
Mr. Hazell: Can my right hon. Friend say when time will be found to debate the Specialist Committee's Report on Agriculture, and the subsequent replies from the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?
Mr. Crossman: I am glad that my hon. Friend has had time to see the replies to this Committee. I shall consider time for this, because I think that each of the Reports of Specialist Committees should have time if we can possibly find it.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Further to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) about the debate on fuel policy, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is

1673
aware that when he appeared before the Select Committee on Science and Technology the Minister of Technology said that he was anxious to make a statement as soon as possible about the future of the nuclear reactor industry? Are we to have that statement before Christmas? If we are, whenever we have it, may we have an assurance that we shall be able to debate the Report of the Select Committee?
Mr. Crossman: I think I expressed the view last week that this is an important Report, but there was some criticism of my suggestion that we should debate the Report and the White Paper on Fuel Policy simultaneously. Now I have a further request for a further statement by the Minister. I shall tell the Minister about the statement, and consider again how best we report the two important documents.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Can my right hon. Friend say when we are likely to have a debate on Rhodesia, in view of the Commonwealth Secretary's visit there, so that we may lay before the Government our ideas about what the next step should be?
Mr. Crossman: I do not think that there is any likelihood, as far as I see it now, of the Government providing time for a debate before the Christmas Recess.
Mr. Ridley: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the reason we are not having the Industrial Expansion Bill before Christmas is because it has not been approved by Mr. Schweitzer?
Mr. Crossman: I would not have thought that that was the conclusion one should draw from the decision to postpone it. I think it more likely that the White Paper and the Bill have been reviewed in the light of devaluation.
Dr. Gray: As my right hon. Friend has found time to discuss Welsh and Scottish affairs, and now the affairs of the North-West, will he try to find time in the near future to discuss the problems of East Anglia?
Mr. Crossman: All regions of England are longing to get equal rights with Scotland and Wales.
Mr. van Straubenzee: Will the right hon. Gentleman make time next week for
1674
Motion No. 14, on the important subject of the Munich air disaster?
[That this House regrets the publication by the Board of Trade of the report of the second German inquiry into the Munich air disaster and the memorandum by the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, relating thereto, in such a form as to leave unchallenged the errors of fact and the unsubstantiated assumptions contained in the former, and to cast doubt upon the expertise of the latter; and calls upon the Minister, in the interests of aircraft accident inquiry procedure, and in fairness to Captain Thain, to publish the report of his accredited representative at the second German inquiry, as a preliminary to a full, impartial and final examination of of all the evidence now available.]
I ask that in view of the interesting public comments by the Prime Minister last Saturday that he always had much sympathy with the predicament of the pilot of the plane. Now that I have secured all-party support for this Motion, will the right hon. Gentleman find time for it to be discussed?
Mr. Crossman: This is the first time that I have heard any suggestion that we should find Government time for this Motion. I am prepared to consider it, but I would have thought that the hon. Member would find it easier to get a debate in time of his own making. There are possibilities for private Members to do this.
Mr. Moonman: In view of the increasing alarm about the newspaper industry, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that there are more than 100 names to Motion No. 2?
[That, in view of the continuing reduction in the number of national newspapers in Great Britain, and in the light of the condition of the communication industry in general, underlined by the recent Report (No. 43) of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, a Select Committee be set up to examine the probable scale of the newspaper industry for this country during the next 10 years, with reference to both the national daily and Sunday Press, and to give consideration to the experience of other countries, management-trade union relations, and the question of advertising revenue in relation to total revenue.]

1675
What action does he propose to take? We would be grateful to be taken into his confidence.
Mr. Crossman: I have to repeat to my hon. Friend what I have said to him on more than one occasion. Because of my background, I am interested in the newspaper industry, but I remember our last debate on it, and I ask myself whether we get very much by debating the industry. It really is better to debate things about which we not only can, but feel we should, do something.
Mr. G. Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman announced that on Thursday of next week the House will consider the Rate Support Grant Increase Order. Will there be an equivalent Scottish Order to consider at that time, or will a Scottish Order be considered later?
Mr. Crossman: I must honestly tell the hon. Gentleman that he had better ask me that question behind the Chair. I do not know the answer at this moment.
Mr. E. Rowlands: Will my right hon. Friend say when the House is likely to debate the important proposals for the reorganisation of local government in Wales? Will he give an assurance that on that occasion, like last Thursday's debate on Welsh affairs, every Welsh Member will have an opportunity to speak on the matter?
Mr. Crossman: I think that every English Member would like an equal privilege to speak on this subject, too.
Mr. David Steel: As the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to debate things that we can, and should, do, will he arrange for a debate on the Report of the Services Committee about the new building in New Palace Yard, and allow the House to come to a decision on it?
Mr. Crossman: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is a matter of great importance. I hope that all hon. Members have studied the Report, because it is extremely important for the Services Committee to get a clear reaction from the House about the practicability and desirability of its proposal. Perhaps one way to do this is to have a debate. I shall certainly consider that.
Mr. Alfred Morris: May I ask my right hon. Friend what arrangements he has made for an early debate on the E.E.C.? Will he arrange this as soon as possible,
1676
if only for the sake of the former chairman of the Conservative Party, and other recent converts?
Mr. Crossman: I am always prepared to consider the most erudite reasons for having a debate. I had not thought of that one. I do not think that we are likely to have a debate on this subject before Christmas, but I will not go further than that.
Mr. Onslow: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are important and much overdue decisions to be taken on the future of the British aircraft industry? Can we expect a statement from the President of the Board of Trade next week about B.E.A.'s future fleet purchases?
Mr. Crossman: I shall communicate with my right hon. Friend, and he will make a statement if it is desirable.
Mr. Ogden: Can my right hon. Friend say whether next Wednesday's debate on the North-West will be on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House, or on congratulating the Government on the efforts which they have made there so far? Will he also consider, through the usual channels, an extension of time until at least half-past eleven, bearing in mind that there are at least 57 Labour Members from the North-West?
Mr. Crossman: I very much hope that it will be on a Motion approving the Government's policy, but as the debate will be in Opposition time, I am rather dubious about the chance of obtaining that.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Bearing in mind next week's business and the right hon. Gentleman's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), if devaluation has brought about the postponement of the Industrial Expansion Bill surely the same consideration, as lots of public money is involved, should bring about a postponement of the nationalisation of road haulage and buses.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member can ask for time. This is Business Question time.
Mr. Crossman: At last I understand the point of the question. We have decided to keep the Transport Bill for consideration for the week after next.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: Can my right hon. Friend be a little less vague about the Industrial Expansion Bill? Are we to have a debate in the near future, or is it to be shelved, perhaps due to I.M.F. strings?
Mr. Crossman: I thought that I answered that question in another form when it was put to me from the benches opposite. It is being postponed because it is being reconsidered in the light of new circumstances. Certain modifications may or may not be introduced in the draft. As for the timing of the postponement, I can only say that when we come back from the Recess we can all look forward to an interesting debate.
Mr. Webster: In view of the Minister of Transport's undertaking that the local authorities concerned will have the right to object to the terms of the White Paper on Public Transport before the Bill is published, will the right hon. Gentleman defer publication of the Bill until we have discussed this in the House?
Mr. Crossman: It is not in next week's business. We will see to it when we come to the week after next.
Mr. Lipton: If the savage rent increases proposed by Greater London Council are not to be referred to the Prices and Incomes Board, can my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that this very serious issue will be debated before the Christmas Recess?
Mr. Crossman: I cannot give that undertaking, but I remind my hon. Friend that he has his devices and possibilities—and I am always trying to increase them—for raising matters of great topical importance.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the Leader of the House aware that yesterday at Question Time hon. Members on both sides of the House expressed alarm about the increase in crimes of violence in Scotland and the apparent complacency of the Government about it? Could we have a debate on this before the Recess?
Mr. Crossman: I was not aware of that, but in view of it I shall consider the possibility.
Mr. Small: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider, in considering business for next week, the length of the Christmas Recess? This seems to be rather
1678
leisurely in the light of the atmosphere in the country at the moment. Will he try to shorten it a little?
Mr. Crossman: That is a matter we can discuss when we debate the Adjournment for Christmas.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Can the Leader of the House now find time next week for my Motion to give sailors coming home from the sea an opportunity to see their wives and families at Christmas?
[That this House is of opinion that for social, family, economic and other reasons the withdrawal by British Railways of the cheap fare railway vouchers hitherto available to seamen and their families is wrong as it frustrates family reunions, deprives British Railways of fares, diminishes British Railways income and now calls upon Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Ministry of Transport, by legislation or otherwise, to restore to British seamen and their families the relevant facilities which they have hither-to enjoyed.]
Mr. Crossman: I was rather hoping that there might possibly be a chance, when we debate the Adjournment for Christmas, of having a fierce attack from the bench behind me for failure to find time to debate that Motion.

BILLS PRESENTED
  TRANSPORT
  Bill to make further provision with respect to transport and related matters, presented by Mrs. Barbara Castle; supported by Mr. James Callaghan, Mr. W. Ross, Mr. Anthony Greenwood, Mr. John Diamond, Mr. Stephen Swingler, and Mr. John Morris; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 43.]
  TRANSPORT HOLDING COMPANY
  Bill to amend or clarify the provisions of section 29 of the Transport Act 1962 with respect to the objects and powers of the Transport Holding Company, presented by Mrs. Barbara Castle; supported by Mr. W. Ross, Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, Mr. John Diamond, Mr. Stephen Swingler, and Mr. John Morris; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 45.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HEALTH SERVICES AND PUBLIC HEALTH BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.52 p.m.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This Bill is designed to effect a number of improvements some of them minor and some more important in our health and welfare services. Since we do not very often get an opportunity in this House to debate the National Health Service, perhaps I may use this occasion briefly to survey the progress we have made in the service over the past three years before I come to the details of the Bill itself.
  I imagine that it is inevitable that more publicity should attach to the occasional failures of the Health Service than to its undoubted achievements. I calculate that every single working day 1½ million of our fellow citizens have direct contact with some branch of the National Health Service either as hospital patients, callers at the doctor's or dentist's surgery or as recipients of some other local health service.
  As in any human organisation, there arc bound to be errors and failures here and there, and I am not asking that they should be concealed from the public. But I think that the public could also have been told, for example, that the National Health Service does provide in this country specialist service of high quality, not just here and there but wherever and for whomsoever it is needed; that fewer of our old people are going blind, simply because under our system they can be diagnosed and treated for cataract in time; or in Britain everyone who needs a hearing aid can have one.
  Beyond this they could have been told that medical care for all has not been bought at the expense of progress; that intermittent dialysis has been developed—and has been saving as many lives relative to the population—in this country as in any in the world; that the newest development in preventing haemolytic disease of the newborn has been pioneered here and will now be
  1680
  generally applied; and that we too have our specialised units pioneering in heart surgery for small infants, organ transplantation and the like.
  There was a headline in a London evening newspaper a short while ago which read, "Stop Knocking our Hospitals". As a bit of advice, it may be worth pondering. I make no complaint on my own behalf, but I would only say to those who control the mass media two things about this kind of selective reporting. It does little to sustain the morale of those who day in and day out are giving so much devoted service to the sick and disabled. Secondly, though stories and features seeking to show that the Health Service is in imminent danger of collapse are frequently published and broadcast they hardly chime either with the facts of the situation or with the public's own views.
  Hon. Members may have seen the recent opinion survey on the Health Service carried out by "New Society". Of those who were asked to state their opinion of the Service, no fewer than 95 per cent. considered it either good, very good or excellent. If one were to take these jeremiads seriously, a little research would reveal that according to its critics the Health Service has been about to collapse ever since it was established 20 years ago. Indeed, in 1948 it was prophesied that it would never start. The facts, of which I propose to give a brief selection, tell a somewhat different story. Almost every statistic testifies to steady improvement, expansion and development especially during the past three years.
  The foundation on which we base our comprehensive health service is general practice. On coming to office I found the situation of general practice extremely disturbing—morale was low, numbers of general practitioners had begun to fall a year or so earlier, and lists were in consequence rising. Frustrations were rife among family doctors and a crisis soon blew up, as hon. Members may recall, ostensibly related to pay. The prolonged negotiations which followed dealt with not only the whole method of remunerating general practitioners, but with their pattern of practice and conditions of service.
  Together the profession and my Ministry hammered out what was, in fact, a

  1681
  new deal for general practice, with a new system of payment which got rid of the old "pool" method and incorporated real incentives towards the modernisation of practice methods and the grouping of practitioners. Despite setbacks resulting from prices and incomes policy, the new system has been fully in operation since last April and I believe we have turned the corner.
  There has also been a quite remarkable upsurge of interest in health centres, stemming, I would think, at least in part from the new deal for the general practitioner. During the last three years 23 centres have been opened compared with 21 in the previous 16 years, 38 centres are now being built, 50 more have been approved and a further 71 are being actively planned.
  I recognise that the long-term solution to the problem of shortage of doctors both in general practice and elsewhere in the service lies in training more of them, and, of course, keeping them in Britain. Thanks to the co-operation of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, we have expanded the capacity of our existing medical schools to permit an intake of 2,431 British-based students at the beginning of this autumn term compared with 1,788 to which it was allowed to fall in 1960–61 by the party opposite. By 1970, total intake will have further risen to an estimated figure of about 2,800, and the new medical schools with their associated university hospitals to be built at Southampton and Nottingham will be taking their first students in 1970 and 1971.
  As to nursing staff, although there are local shortages and temporary shortages here and there, the numbers of nurses in post today are the highest ever in our history.
  I know well that the demand for trained people is insatiable, not only here, but everywhere, but we can record a real improvement and this will be further enhanced by better organisation.
  Hon. Members will recall that in conjunction with hospital authorities I carried out a radical review of the hospital building programme. We now have a realistic programme, which is going forward at an accelerating pace. This year we shall spend on new hospital building no less than £100 million
  1682
  in Great Britain, compared with £67 million in the last financial year for which hon. Members opposite were responsible.
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Are those figures comparing like with like? Has the Minister made due allowance for the fall in the purchasing value of money under the present Administration?
  Mr. Robinson: These are figures of actual expenditure. I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the increase in real terms is very considerable.
  Sir D. Walker-Smith: Then the short answer to my question is that the Minister has not adjusted the figures to take account for the fall in the purchasing value of money.
  Mr. Robinson: I repeat that, nevertheless, the difference between £100 million and £67 million represents a very considerable increase in real terms, even allowing for the difference in the value of money. During our three complete years of office we shall have spent £262 million, as against £162 million during the last three years of Conservative government, and the programme is increasing each year. Under the revised programme both geriatric and psychiatric provision are receiving a higher priority and a greater share of resources than before.
  Productivity in our hospitals, if I can use the word in a somewhat unusual context, is increasing steadily all the time, measured by the number of in-patients treated in the same number of, or fewer beds, and by the number of hospital out-patient attendances. The earliest year for which my statisticians tell me that there are reliable figures is 1953. The number of in-patients treated in that year was a little over 3½ million. In 1966, there were nearly 4·9 million, a rise of almost 1½ million. In this period the number of hospital beds actually fell by 10,000. This remarkable growth is due largely to advances in medical technique and procedures and to more efficient organisation within the hospital, but it also reflects greater effort on the part of doctors, nurses and others concerned with the care of patients, and I should like to pay my tribute to them for this.

  1683
  Had I more time I could recount a similar story of progress in almost every area of the health service, not least in the rapid growth of the local authority mental health services and of modern residential homes for the elderly. But I must come to the details of the Bill, which I see was described in quite a friendly way by one of the weeklies as a hotch-potch. That I could hardly deny, but since it is the first general Health Service amending legislation for 17 years it may not be altogether surprising.
  The House will recall that I announced on 6th November that I had set in hand a full and careful examination of the administrative structure of the medical and related services. The Bill does not seek in any way to anticipate the results of that examinaton. As I indicated to the House at the time of my announcement, I am considering administrative structure because I am not satisfied that the existing structure is really suited to the challenges the Service will face in the 1970s and the 1980s. We ought, therefore, to form a considered view about the kind of administrative arrangements which are needed in the future and to lay the foundations for them at the same time as we are considering, as we shall soon have to do, the conclusions of the Royal Commission on Medical Education; of the Seebohm Committee and of the Royal Commission on Local Government in England.
  I shall be publishing tentative proposals in due course in the form of a Green Paper. There will then be full opportunity for public discussion and consultation. It would, therefore, have been premature to have included in the Bill provision for any major changes in the administrative structure of the health and welfare and public health services, and no such changes are included.
  There are, however, a number of minor alterations in the administrative structure of the services which would be brought about by the Bill, and I will describe the more important of these later. Most of the Clauses have an application in Scotland as well as in England and Wales, and some apply only to Scotland. These will be described by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland if he is fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chair at the conclusion of the
  1684
  debate. I cannot hope in the time available today to describe all the Clauses. I shall, therefore, refer only to the more important provisions.
  I would like to start by speaking briefly about the first two Clauses, if only because they have been the subject of some misunderstanding. Their purpose is not, as has been suggested, to reduce or abolish the number of pay-beds. I announced the result of my review of pay-beds on 6th November in answer to Questions from hon. Members. The Bill in no way affects what I said then. The principal changes made in the Bill regarding private patients were foreshadowed in the statement I made in the House at the end of January, 1966, in the reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) about the measures I proposed to take following my review of pay-bed policy and my discussions with the Joint Consultants Committee. These were a series of related measures designed to promote the more effective use of consultant manpower and hospital beds. Some of the measures I referred to then—the review of the number of pay-beds; the introduction of amending pay-bed regulations—have already been implemented, but the remainder required amending legislation and have had to await the opportunity which the Bill provides.
  The main changes effected by these Clauses are to introduce a degree of flexibility in the use of accommodation by private patients and to enable pay-bed charges to be determined on a national basis for different classes of hospitals, instead of by reference to the cost, after a very complicated calculation, at the particular hospital.
  The Bill also enables me to dispense with regulations in determining hospital charges for private out-patients and, under Clause 4, for amenity beds. Apart from this, the two Clauses merely repeat the provisions in the original Act which have been in force for nearly 20 years.
  I can assure those hon. Members who dislike private practice on principle that I have no intention whatever of using these powers to extend the area of private practice in our hospitals. I can equally assure the medical profession that the Clauses do not enable the Minister to abolish their right to treat private patients

  1685
  Nor is this, as they well know, my intention. These powers will, I believe, make possible a more rational use of all hospital beds, public and private.
  I turn to Clause 5, which contains, as far as the hospital service is concerned, what is probably the most significant administrative change the Bill will bring about. To increase the facilities for medical education, the Government have approved the creation of medical centres at the Universities of Nottingham and Southampton. At both places facilities for students to receive their clinical training will be needed in hospitals which do not provide teaching facilities at present.
  Under the 1946 Act the Minister of Health may designate hospitals providing teaching facilities as teaching hospitals, and any hospital or group of hospitals so designated must be administered by a board of governors independent of the regional hospital board. If the Minister does not designate them as teaching hospitals, then they must be managed by the hospital management committee appointed by the appropriate regional board according to the constitution laid down in the Third Schedule to the Act. There is no other alternative.
  I believe that the Minister should be free to consider other possibilities. I am aware that there is much close and fruitful co-operation between regional hospital boards and boards of governors, but I consider that the creation of new medical schools provides an opportunity to link more closely the regional boards, which have responsibility for the overall planning of hospital services in their regions, with these new centres of medical education. This is the conclusion reached also by a committee appointed jointly by the University of Nottingham and the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board in relation to the hospitals which will provide clinical teaching in Nottingham.
  It is desirable, however, that the university should be assured of a voice in the planning and administration of such hospitals, which is not provided for in the normal constitution of hospital management committees. I am, therefore, seeking powers under Clause 5 for a new form of designation of hospitals which will be known as university hospitals. The Clause requires me to consult the university concerned before designating a university hospital.
  1686
  The body responsible for the management of a university hospital will be a hospital management committee appointed by the regional board, but with a special constitution which will ensure, for example, that the university has adequate representation. In the interest of flexibility, it is proposed to empower the Minister to make the necessary modifications, after consultation with the university, by an Order subject to annulment rather than to try to lay down a modified constitution in the Bill itself.
  I hope that these provisions will be welcomed both in university and in hospital circles. I am confident that the new university hospitals and their associated medical schools will become centres of teaching and research on a par with the existing teaching hospitals, and that they will benefit also from the close association with the hospital service in their regions which this new form of administration will provide.
  The Clause is not confined to hospitals associated with new medical schools. It will also allow latitude in devising suitable administrative arrangements in places where there is already a medical school and where, in order to accommodate larger numbers of medical students, a second main hospital is to share the teaching responsibility with the existing teaching hospital. It is not, however, my present intention to use the Clause to effect sweeping changes in the administration of teaching hospitals already controlled by boards of governors.
  There are several provisions in the Bill dealing with the financial affairs of hospital and other Health Service bodies, but I shall not describe them now. If any hon. Member has questions on these Clauses, my hon. Friend will gladly deal with them, and with other matters affecting the hospital service, at the end of the debate. There is, however, one further proposal under this head which I shall mention. Clause 38 gives power to reimburse housing authorities with the net cost to them of rehousing families whose existing houses have to be demolished to make way for new hospital building and where no suitable alternative accommodation is available.
  I come now to those parts of the Bill which deal with local authority health services, which introduce a number of relatively small but useful changes in the

  1687
  powers and duties of local authorities. Clauses 10 and 11 extend the existing National Health Service legislation so that local health authorities may employ midwives, health visitors and district nurses to attend women elsewhere than in their own homes, which is the limit of their existing duty.
  Clause 10 allows local health authorities also to make arrangements with hospital authorities so that their midwives may, if necessary, work in hospitals. These changes should promote the more efficient deployment of staff and encourage the close co-operation between these local authority services and family doctors on which the future development of care in the community will increasingly depend.
  Clause 13 makes the provision of the home help service by local authorities a statutory duty, in common with most other local authority services provided under Part III of the 1946 and 1947 Acts. The Clause also enables authorities, in discharge of this duty, to arrange for articles belonging to the household to be laundered either at the house or elsewhere, and empowers authorities, subject to my approval, to recover such charges as the authority considers reasonable.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some local authorities which provide domestic help on a very limited scale will not increase it for long-term chronic sick patients who are in their own homes? Does he intend to lay down any standards for the performance of local authorities in this respect?
  Mr. Robinson: I have already given quite extensive guidance to local authorities, which, I understand, is being followed by the greater part of them. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind, I hope that he will get in touch with me about it.
  I turn now to the welfare services provided by local authorities under the National Assistance Act, 1948, and I shall mention two Clauses which, I believe, will be generally welcomed to improve the welfare services for the elderly. At present, local authorities may provide residential homes for elderly and handicapped people in two ways. First, they may provide homes directly them-
  1688
  selves. There has been a steady increase in the number of residential homes opened and this will continue. But authorities have always had to rely also on making arrangements with voluntary organisations to look after some of those who needed help. As demand continues to rise, with the growing number of old people, we need to look for still further ways of meeting it.
  Clause 42 is designed to do this by allowing authorities to contract for the provision of accommodation not only with voluntary but with private organisations, as they can do already under Health Service and other legislation. The arrangements to be made will be exactly like those with voluntary homes now. A charge will be agreed by the authority and the owner, and then, as with other homes, the resident himself will be asked to pay so much of it as he can afford. I would expect that local authorities will develop this side of their services gradually.
  Clause 43 will, in time, come to affect considerable numbers of elderly people. The background to the Clause is that Section 29 of the National Assistance Act, 1948, read with the Mental Health Act, 1959, provides a wide range of powers to promote the welfare of those who are substantially and permanently handicapped and whose handicap arises from illness, injury, or congenital deformity. No provision is made for the common case in old age of considerable, but still not substantial, handicap arising simply from the infirmity of old age.
  Moreover, while in health legislation there are adequate preventive powers, there are no provisions which enable preventive social welfare measures to be taken, apart from recreation and mealson-wheels. The purpose of Clause 43 is to fill this gap, by giving welfare authorities general powers parallel to those they already have for the handicapped but extending to all elderly people.
  The kind of powers envisaged are similar to the powers under Section 29 of the 1948 Act. They fall broadly under three heads. First, there are practical forms of help which can be given: houses can be adapted, and small personal services and aids offered, which will make it easier for elderly people to go on living in their own homes.

  1689
  Second, there are preventive and advisory forms of service. Preventive services would, for example, include the very valuable and growing special housing services where a warden can keep a friendly eye on the need of tenants. There have been doubts about the welfare authority's powers to provide these services, doubts which the Clause removes. Authorities will also be able to offer, as their resources grow, a general advisory service to elderly people in their own homes.
  Third, there are visiting services, visits to find out needs, to give practical help, to advise, or may be—no less important—just to make and keep contact to help fill the void of loneliness which afflicts so many elderly people living on their own.
  The arrangements which the major authorities are empowered to make will be subject to my approval and I intend, in approving them, to see that they are as flexible as possible so that an authority will be free to develop its services as it wishes. It is right, however, to stress that as with all new services there will be small beginnings. Authorities will need to decide where their priorities lie and will need to build on the services which they now have. I shall not, therefore, for some time set a date by which all authorities shall have made arrangements, still less direct them to do so. A start, however, must be made, and Clause 43 provides the power.
  The developments foreshadowed in the Clause will depend for their success to a significant extent on the availability of voluntary help. Voluntary visiting services are, for instance, already well established. But to make full use of these and similar services there must be not only co-ordination between the voluntary bodies and local authorities, but more financial and practical help for voluntary bodies. The powers sought in Clauses 60 and 61 will make it easier for this help to be given.
  Clause 60 puts on a statutory basis the present payments which I make to voluntary bodies in the health and welfare field and also provides me with a general power to make grants or loans to such bodies. I expect any further exercise of my powers to be concerned with bodies and projects of nationwide scope, leaving essentially local matters to
  1690
  local authorities. The present powers of local authorities to help voluntary bodies financially and in other ways do not adequately cover the potential field, and Clause 61 consolidates and extends these powers.
  Clause 57 makes amendments to the Nurseries and Child Minders Regulation Act, 1948. Broadly, that Act provides for the registration by local health authorities of premises other than private homes where children under five are looked after for a period of anything from
  "a substantial part of the day"
  to a maximum of six days, and of persons who for reward and for similar periods look after in their homes more than two children under five who come from more than one household. There are now a large number of private nurseries, play groups and crêches and, in particular, there has been a spectacular increase in child minding.
  Nineteen times more children in England and Wales are now being looked after in this way than in 1949. The reports of local authorities to my Department and other evidence suggest that, while the general standards of care give no cause for concern, inadequate standards do sometimes exist, and in the interests of the children my right hon. Friend and I now propose some tightening of the requirements of the Act.
  I will not deal in detail with all the changes proposed, but the House may like to know that the Clause removes the provision that registration is not required where fewer than three children are being looked after in someone's home or where the children come from the same household. Evidence points to the need for supervision whatever the number of children, and the fact that they may come from a single household does not diminish this need. I should, however, stress that the Clause does not interfere with the arrangements a mother may often make for the care of her child by a relative, or for occasional periods by a neighbour or friend, since the care of children by relatives is expressly excluded and in other cases registration is required only where the person looking after the child is paid for doing so.
  I now come to a number of provisions in the Bill affecting executive council

  1691
  services. First, the ophthalmic services—the relevant parts of the Bill are Clauses 15 to 18 and Schedule I. Temporary institutions die hard, but it has for many years seemed anomalous to regard as temporary those services which cater for the bulk of our ordinary optical needs and cater for them very well. In 1946, it was expected that hospital ophthalmic clinics would eventually be responsible for all sight testing and the supply of optical appliances. Consequently, the interim arrangements made to provide these services were to be ended in each area as these clinics were established.
  The clinics did not, in fact, develop along the lines intended. Instead, the hospital eye service has, in the main, dealt with the more specialised requirements, whilst the supplementary ophthalmic services, far from becoming redundant in any area, have been the normal means under the National Health Service of meeting the ordinary optical needs of the population. The Bill recognises this by making the services permanent and marks it by renaming them "general ophthalmic services".
  It is appropriate in England and Wales—conditions are somewhat different in Scotland—that the permanent "general ophthalmic service" should be administered directly by executive councils, and that membership of the councils should be altered, as proposed in the first Schedule, so as to reflect the three groups of practitioners involved—the ophthalmic medical practitioners, the ophthalmic opticians, and the dispensing opticians.
  The other main provisions in the Bill concerning the executive council services are found in Clauses 17, 18, 20 and 21 and concern health centres. Originally, only National Health services were to be provided in health centres, but since 1949 doctors have been able to practise privately there, and this has made some health centres more attractive to doctors and patients alike. There will be localities where similar extensions to the other services provided in health centres could be beneficial to patients attending at the centre, either now or in the future, and the Bill accordingly makes it possible for dentists, opticians and pharmacists to engage in private practice at health centres to such an extent and subject to such conditions as I may determine in the case of each centre.
  1692
  I also have proposals to improve the arrangements which can be made for the postgraduate education of family doctors, dentists, pharmaceutical chemists and opticians concerned with providing family practitioner services. Clause 25 accordingly confers somewhat wider powers than those contained at present in Section 48 of the 1946 Act. It will not only apply to those who are actually engaged in family practitioner services, but also to those who are thinking of doing so, and will enable a wider range of instruction to be given.
  The development of postgraduate education in the National Health Service is one of the subjects in which I am keenly interested. I know that many Members of the House share that interest and will join me in wishing to facilitate the expansion of postgraduate education.
  Hon. Members will have noticed that the Short Title of the Bill refers to public health. For England and Wales the majority of the provisions relating to public health are those set out in Part III of the Bill. None of the changes which will be brought about by those provisions are fundamental and no new concepts are introduced.
  My description of the main proposals in the Bill would be incomplete if I did not, before closing, refer to one further matter, which I know to be of considerable interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am referring to Clause 31, which deals with the provision of invalid vehicles for the severely disabled. My right hon. Friend and I, in common with our predecessors, have been providing single-seater invalid carriages under a liberal interpretation of the general powers contained in Section 3(1,b) of the 1946 Act, and a corresponding Scottish provision, but it has always been held that we were not enabled to provide anything other than a single-seater vehicle for the sole benefit and use of a disabled person. We have provided cars for war pensioners under general powers contained in the Royal Warrants and we have in recent years provided some cars for small groups of National Health Service patients without specific authority under the National Health Service Acts.
  The House will remember that we completed at the beginning of the year a comprehensive review of all our arrangements for the provision of vehicles for

  1693
  the disabled and in my statement on 15th February last I promised that we would seek new powers to enable us to do more for the disabled driver as resources permit. Clause 31 is the fulfilment of that promise.
  The Clause serves two main purposes. It provides, for the first time, explicit powers for the supply of invalid carriages to severely disabled persons and for the various facilities of adaptation, garaging, repair, allowances, and so on, that make up the comprehensive service we provide. It also provides powers to make motor cars available to severely disabled National Health Service patients. Successive Governments have often faced criticism for the alleged shortcomings of the invalid carriage, but many of the criticisms have been exaggerated or ill-founded and these vehicles have over the years restored a considerable measure of mobility to many thousands of disabled people.
  Many of them will not want to exchange their present machines for a car, or will be incapable of managing any other type of vehicle, and we will continue to develop and produce a satisfactory invalid carriage for these people. But we accept that, for social reasons, a passenger carrying vehicle would be regarded as a more convenient method of transport particularly for the family man and, although the Clause does not itself extend the classes of those entitled to be supplied with a car, it will enable us to make progress in this direction as the resources of the National Health Service permit us to do so. I should perhaps make it clear that in present circumstances I do not see any very early prospect of substantial advance.
  The Clause also provides statutory authority retrospectively for the vehicles we have already supplied and it extends to the vehicle service the arrangements in the 1946 Act which enable charges to be made for more expensive appliances than those normally prescribed.
  Mr. David Winnick: Once the Bill goes through, will those who qualify for the new type of car be able to apply more or less immediately, bearing in mind what my right hon. Friend has said about lack of funds? Can they make application and see what response the application will receive from the Ministry?
  Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. That is not the way this will be dealt with. I announced in February one or two limited categories of the disabled to whom we would be prepared to supply cars instead of individual carriages. When we are in a position to make a further advance, I shall announce a further category or further categories of existing disabled people to whom cars will be made available. So there will be no change as a direct result of the Bill receiving the Royal Assent.
  Mr. Paul Dean: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an indication of the sort of categories he has in mind for when resources do become available?
  Mr. Robinson: I would rather not at this stage, if only because I have not really worked out a detailed programme yet. But I assure the hon. Gentleman that, when we are in a position of being able to go forward, I will announce it in good time to the House.
  These, then, are the main proposals of the Bill. As I have said, it will enable a wide range of improvements to be made in the organisation and provision of existing services. I am happy to commend these proposals to the House and I believe that they will receive a wide measure of support.
  4.35 p.m.
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The Minister introduced the Bill with a long and interesting account, starting with what I thought was a somewhat selective analysis of the relative merits of the National Health Service over the last few years. I had thought of being equally selective in the reverse direction, but, as this is a long Bill of 74 Clauses and four Schedules, I think that, after some 45 minutes of the Minister—for which I am not blaming him, for this is a long Bill—I should try to take as little of the time of the House as possible.
  It is fair to say that a great deal of the improvements the right hon. Gentleman is now bringing forward in the Bill are made on foundations laid by successive Ministers of Health and I welcome without hesitation the tribute he paid to all who work or have worked in the health and welfare services for the complicated work they have done and continue to do.

  1695
  This is not only a long but rather a mixed Bill—inevitably. It is a sort of stodgy bun of consolidation with a few currants and one or two cherries of innovation. In some ways, it is complicated and obscure, not least in the considerable amount of delegated powers and the mixture of mandatory and permissive powers for the Minister and the various other authorities concerned.
  I accept that the Bill is not concerned with the structure of the National Health Service, that we are awaiting the Minister's researches and eventually the publication of a Green Paper. Therefore, most of the points which cause or have caused disquiet outside the House—and this has been the subject of newspaper correspondence, and so on—are much better dealt with in Committee, when I hope that we shall be able to have some debates on principles, where appropriate, as well as in detail, so I shall now consider these matters only in general.
  I hope that we shall have time between now and the Committee stage for more detailed consultation. A large number of outside bodies are involved in the Bill. There was, until this debate, a considerable degree of uncertainty, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, about his intentions, and consultations in these circumstances are, therefore, perhaps of even greater importance than usual. But since, in general, we on this side welcome the Bill, I assure him that, subject to proper debate and proper time for consultation, we have no intention of delaying or obstructing its passage.
  I think that the right hon. Gentleman realises this. He appealed in a speech last night to the need for greater partnership and referred again today to the impression of antagonism given by some leaders of the medical profession among whom, he felt, according to a Daily Telegraph report, some suspicion of himself, the Ministry and the National Health Service still lingers.
  Mr. K. Robinson: And previously.
  Mr. Macmillan: Indeed, and previously.
  I am not very surprised that the suspicions are lingering in some ways in view of the question of consultation. Recently, I asked a Written Question of
  1696
  the right hon. Gentleman about consultations concerning the White Paper on Forthcoming Legislation on the Safety, Quality and Description of Drugs and Medicines and the Sainsbury Report, because those consultations were undoubtedly rushed. According to his Answer, the B.M.A. was told on 20th October and the matter was briefly discussed by the Joint Consultants Committee on 24th October. The views of the Royal Colleges of Physicians, Surgeons, Obstetricians and Gynaecologists were sought on 30th October. Yet the Minister indicated that the objective was to complete all consultations by the end of November.
  I accept that, as in this case, there had been prior consultation on the White Paper which, perhaps, made a further degree of consultation less urgent, and the Minister assured me that there would be further opportunity for full examination of all relevant matters before legislation reached final form.
  It is up to the Minister to set an example now and give time for full consultations between the Second Reading and the Committee stage, particularly because there has been no consultation, so I am informed by the bodies concerned, prior to publication of the Bill. Indeed, some of them consulting his Ministry on other matters only a month or two ago were unaware and not informed of any possibility of legislation affecting their professional bodies being brought forward at this time.
  Mr. K. Robinson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make this more specific, because there has been very extensive consultation over vast areas of the Bill. If there has been a particular failure to consult, we would like to know about it. I would certainly express my regret if it were so.
  Mr. Macmillan: Both the doctors and the pharmacists have publicly stated that they have not been fully consulted. The fact that there were such widespread misgivings over pay-beds and Clauses dealing with the manufacture and supply of drugs, for example, is an indication that, on these matters at least, consultation was not sufficient. There is a certain amount of uncertainty in the public Press over the health centre provisions and the new university hospitals and the implications they may carry.

  1697
  I am not saying that there is anything sinister, as some people have implied in what the Minister is up to. I am only saying that it is partly his fault at least if this impression has got about. I think that the relevance or otherwise of the Bill to the Minister's statement of 6th November about the inquiry into the administrative structure of the National Health Service has in itself perhaps led to a certain greater confusion than would otherwise be the case.
  The Bill has very wide powers. A great deal is to be left to the Minister's decision and our judgment of this must depend entirely on his intentions. There is a difficulty here about the whole question of delegated powers. Obviously, it is desirable that the Minister should have some delegated powers, because he must have the capacity to alter and improve and experiment with the National Health Service in order to keep it up to date. Indeed, part of past difficulty has been the cumbersome mechanism of the original Act which did not adequately provide for the rate of change which was not perhaps fully expected at that time.
  I regret in a way that the Bill does not make more of the opportunity to integrate some of the services, both cash and care, which the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of Social Security provide. In this context, the local authority Clauses are most helpful. Clause 42, of course, must give a greater degree of flexibility in the care of old people and, I hope, prevent the necessity of moving people a long way from their homes to get them into National Health accommodation when there is voluntary or other accommodation of a suitable nature closer to hand. I imagine that this is part of the right hon. Gentleman's intentions in this context.
  Clause 43 treats the inevitable disability of old-age equally with other forms of difficulty in coping with ordinary life and is also very much to be welcomed. But I wish we could get a little more integration between the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry and the Ministry of Social Security, particularly when it comes to the health of those who live in their own homes, to which the right hon. Gentleman has also referred. Not only is help needed in the practical sense, especially for disabled old people and disabled housewives, but also some form
  1698
  of allowance which is not now available under our Social Security provisions. We should also like to hear something in this context about the capacity to avoid using high-intensity care for geriatric and other needs which require less intensity.
  It is important that both sides of the House should emphasise the need in public and all other forms of care for what might be called protection for those who must inevitably rely on others than themselves and relations for protection. The economies of scale are not everything, and nor can we rely on the same methods being effective in every area, in town and country, among different income groups and different occupations.
  I very much welcome the Minister's emphasis, which I detected, on flexibility, but flexibility must mean flexibility for the good of the patient as well as ease of administration of the Service. Reviewing the book "Sans Everything" in, I think, New Society, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) pointed out that the aged were not only sans teeth and sans everything, but also sans influence and sans votes, on the whole, and did not have the freedom which the public provision should give, or the protection in the administration of the service which most of us can secure for ourselves in one way or another. In this as in other respects these provisions must depend a great deal for their efficacy on how they are affected by the future organisation, administration and structure of the Service.
  I am sure that this is realised, but it would reassure a number of people if the Under-Secretary could take up this point that the care of the aged and the problems of the mentally sick and the whole subject of the care of pre-school children depend not only on the provisions of the Bill, but on what the Minister may put forward in his bigger efforts in future. On this side of the House we welcome Clause 57, but we would like some indication that the right hon. Gentleman intends to make a more constructive approach to the whole subject of the pre-school child and to have an effective liaison with the Department of Education and Science on nursery education and nursery schools, a subject which is not irrelevant in this context.

  1699
  We would also like some assurance about rising costs. There is no doubt that this is inevitably a problem in the Health Service, not only because of the fall in the value of money but because of the achievements of medical research and the development of medical techniques which, although they perform great wonders, involve high cost. The Minister ought not to economise simply where economies are easy. There is a danger that economies are effected at the expense of the freedom of choice of treatment and may militate against the use of prophylactic drugs which are particularly important for the lower-income groups with their lower standard of living and lower nutrition and in general suffering from the difficulties described so often in our social security debates.
  Of course, there are savings to be made, but I hope that they will not be made simply because they are easy. Some would be administratively very complicated and difficult but could well be made without any effect on standards. A notable example is hospital building and the utilisation of manpower, particularly manual labour, in which respect the Prices and Incomes Board said that there was room for great improvement. I do not want to make too much of this, but I agree with the Minister, as all of us on this side of the House do, that the future of the Service requires the highest possible degree of co-operation and partnership among all those involved; and I am glad that he agreed with us that this also involves some sort of partnership between the public and private sectors of the Health Services.
  This subject of the private sector brings me to Clauses 1 to 4, the provision of pay-beds. No doubt we shall debate this subject in great detail elsewhere and I hope that we shall do so constructively. As I have said, this requires some time for consultation by our side of the House as well as by the Government and I have no doubt that my hon. Friends will have something to say about it. We are all very glad of the Minister's assurances and we accept that the Bill is neutral in its approach to the provisions for private patients and gives the Minister no more or less power to increase or decrease these provisions than he had before. There are and have been some worries about
  1700
  his intentions which I hope his words this afternoon have tended to dispel.
  What will this provision for pay-beds and this greater flexibility do to the waiting list and how will adjustments be made now that beds are not to be designated? This could do harm to the overall provision of care in both the private and public sector. It is extremely important that there should be no question of private patients jumping the queue for medical need and, equally, no question of their being prejudiced, or, more important, of the Bill being so administered as to lessen the freedom of choice of the consultant and militate against part-time consultants and their use in the Service.
  We shall be asking the same sort of questions about charges. Of course, we have approved of the new proposal that charges should be regularised and decided, according to the nature of the care provided, on a national basis. That is obviously sensible. But it is equally obvious that the Minister could price the private patient out of the market, although I am not saying that he wishes to do so. As the private patient now has the right to use the national hospital service although a private patient of the family doctor, that could result only in a situation unsatisfactory to either side. We have the same sort of questions about out-patient charges, detailed questions with which I will not now weary the House.
  I hope that the significant change towards private patients which the Minister has introduced will lead to what he called a greater degree of partnership, especially in view of other Clauses by which the Minister proposes to make use of private facilities in special cases, especially in the care of the old. There seems to be scope for relieving the high-intensity care in Health Service hospitals by using low-intensity care, where suitable and adequate, even for Health Service patients and even when it is voluntary or private. There are some obvious dangers, but these, too, must depend on the Minister's intentions. We shall be going into all this in much greater detail at a later stage.
  There is one specialist point. It is whether this will sharpen the distinction between the teaching and non-teaching hospitals in that the teaching hospitals generally have their private sectors in a separate unit or separate building, while

  1701
  the non-teaching hospitals, especially in the provinces, have their private accommodation scattered about the rest of the hospital.
  I welcome Clause 5 and say merely that some concern is being expressed, especially when the Clause is read in conjunction with Clause 7, about hospital endowment funds, as to whether it foreshadows some future attack on the teaching hospitals and an attempt to bring them under regional boards. As the Minister knows, it is fair to say that the medical profession itself has a somewhat mixed view of the teaching hospitals. During the debate we would like some assurance about their future and about the use of funds by teaching hospitals to initiate work or research which, at the moment, is not being undertaken by regional boards. I am prepared to admit that the Minister has a genuine difficulty in dealing fairly between different types of hospital and the need to prevent too great a diffusion of effort especially when considering innovation.
  The Minister referred to the power which will enable him for the sake of flexibility to make changes in hospital designation subject to our negative Resolution procedure. I agree that he needs flexible manœuvre in this respect, but we would regard this as an experiment. Only two proposed university hospitals are involved, those foreshadowed for Nottingham and Southampton. We should be happier if the Clause were so drafted as to indicate that this power was experimental and subject to review in the light of English experience—Scottish experience in this respect is not altogether applicable.
  I come now to the subject of health centres. The Minister spoke of doctors, dentists, opticians and pharmacists practising together in health centres on equal terms. Clauses 15 to 18 are welcome by the professions generally, although there are some reservations about representation on the committee, a subject which we can discuss on another occasion. As in most of the Bill, the wording of these provisions is rather vague and permissive—"on such terms and conditions as may be determined by the Minister".
  Perhaps the Under-Secretary will say something about the terms and will confirm that there is no intention of imposing
  1702
  a general pattern throughout the country. It seems a little odd that there is to be a limit on the amount and sort of dental treatment provided in private practice in a health centre and there is the curious exclusion of sight testing from the work of the opticians.
  I am a little concerned about the rôle of the pharmacists and chemists in health centres, both how this service is to be administered, which seems to present certain difficulties, and also about what may or may not be sold, since Clause 20 refers to all items ordinarily supplied by pharmacists, which seems to give very wide powers of trading in health centres. We need considerably more detailed information, especially in view of the proposed growth in health centres, which I certainly welcome, but also in view of the uncertainty about their nature and what they are to do. I hope that we shall not once more lose the patient in the difficulties of administration. I was grateful for the Minister's implied admission that private practice in health centres might be more attractive not only to doctors, but to patients.
  We have a number of queries. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he had changed the Ministry's priorities and had given instructions and advice to go ahead as fast as possible. I should like to know a little more about what the local authorities themselves think about these matters. Some are afraid of what the reaction of local doctors may be to such issues as rent, and so on.
  We should like a little more information about costs. Some health centres now cost between £150,000 and £200,000. Are they excluded from the standstill, or expenditure cuts, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to impose? We have been told that hospital building is to be especially privileged and exempt from any new version of the Geddes axe. Are health centres included in that general dispensation? I hope that we shall debate that point in detail later, and that the debate can take place in a non-doctrinaire atmosphere,
  I also hope that the question of group practice will be considered, with that of health centres, and that the recommendations of Mr. Justice Danckwerts—as he then was—in 1952, which have so far produced 711 interest-free loans amounting to £4·3 million, will be remembered,

  1703
  particularly in view of the question of cost. The Minister should consider group practice and the encouragement that local authorities and the Ministry can give.
  We very much welcome Clauses 10 to 14 and 42 to 43, since a clear improvement and a much higher degree of flexibility is introduced, especially in routine care and prevention and prophylactic care. I shall leave the whole question of Clause 14 to my hon. Friends from north of the Border. As a mere English Member, I should not like to intervene on the moral aspects of the problem.
  We wish to be reassured that the proposal about midwives in hospitals is not a question of trying to ease a shortage of doctors, when their care is needed in a delivery, but simply a convenience to see that the patient receives the same attention throughout for her own sake. No doubt that is so, but it would be as well to make it clear.
  We should like to see something in the Bill about a positive approach to preventive welfare, and especially the need to collect more information and have more research to ensure the maximum co-operation between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Security. I cannot resist saying that there is a danger that lack of co-operation at the centre may well lead to a diffusion of effort and confusion on the part of the user.
  We should also like a great deal more information about Clauses 23, 29 to 30 and 62. Perhaps it is a bit like Alice in Wonderland to say that we want more information, because so far we have had precisely none. It is admitted by the Minister and in the Ministry Press hand-out, no doubt for good reasons, that both the B.M.A. and the British Pharmaceutical Society are worried about the Clauses. For example, Clause 30 empowers the Minister to produce or manufacture drugs, among other things, in excess of requirements. He now has the power to compound bulk-purchased raw materials in hospitals, but only for the hospitals' own use. The Clause gives him power to extend that manufacture beyond the needs of the hospital doing it.
  Clause 23 enables him to supply the professions—doctors, dentists, chemists, opticians—through arrangements made by the executive councils. The general
  1704
  practitioners are in a contractual relationship with the executive councils and I think that there is a fear that this may lead to pressure on them to take the drugs so provided, rather than those provided by industry, and handicap their freedom of choice, particularly of branded specialities.
  Mr. K. Robinson: On the whole, the general practitioners are very glad to take the free sterile syringes which are provided for them by executive councils. The trouble is that I am not sure that I have statutory authority to do it until the Bill is on the Statute Book.
  Mr. Macmillan: I am not surprised that doctors, like other people, will take things that are free and perhaps argue about the strings afterwards. Nevertheless, the Clauses give the Minister very wide powers.
  Clause 62 enables him to purchase, store and supply goods, and he can sell, give away or otherwise dispose of drugs and appliances. As far as I can see, in this group of Clauses the Minister takes to himself the power to enter into supplying the Health Service as a manufacturer, wholesaler and retailer. Although I have no doubt that he has no intention of nationalising the pharmaceutical industry, it looks rather as if the Bill gives him power to do so. We should like reassurances on this. I have had a number of representations on the point, and a great deal of misapprehension could have been removed if there had been more consultation. Now is the time to remedy that error, if the Minister really wants the partnership to succeed.
  In his speech last night, the Minister referred to the need for doctors to be able to consider their patients' needs and not their means, and to feel that they could prescribe and carryout whatever treatment they considered necessary. No one on this side of the House would quarrel with that. But the treatment includes drugs, and I warn him of the dangers of trying to standardise supplies. One of my hon. Friends has examples of the difficulties which have been met in Australia and elsewhere. I also remind him that expenditure on drugs may well save some hospital costs as well as lives, particularly in mental health and in the use of prophylactic antibiotics. It is very important to establish at this stage that the Minister

  1705
  is seeking to provide what the doctor wants and not what he, however well-advised, may decide.
  I have inevitably missed out enormous parts of this long and prolix Bill. I should not like those with special interests to think that we on this side of the House regard them as unimportant. There is the question of notifiable diseases and food poisoning, the improved definition of welfare foods, the whole question of voluntary organisations and the help for them to be statutory rather than permissive—and even the question of public health in hovercraft seems to come into the Bill.
  I have left out what is perhaps the most important matter, saying nothing about invalid vehicles. We are grateful to the Minister for what he has put in the Bill on that subject, but to avoid repetition I am leaving it to my hon. Friends with special interests in the matter to discuss it.
  The Minister has made significant improvements on several matters, notably compensation, and he has partially dealt with the problem of children below school age. The Bill contains many sound provisions, but it also poses many questions, some of which are left unanswered, and some doubts are also left unresolved. There are indications that there are still too many authorities, resulting in confusion of responsibilities for different health matters. I hope that that will be borne in mind when the further review is carried out and the Green Paper is due to be published.
  There is a danger that over-centralisation in the point of contact with the patient, especially over-concentration in health centres, and the difficulty of the remoteness of district general hospitals will create problems. I have considerable doubt whether the Minister has resolved the definitions of the rôles of the hospital, health centre, family doctor, local authorities and the Ministry of Social Security. It is necessary to rethink many of these problems in the light of new information and research which has yet to be completed, and there is a danger of acting too quickly, which the Minister showed that he appreciates.
  It is clear that more information is needed throughout this field and that there is room for more experiment, but
  1706
  one difficulty remains in the control by Parliament of the wide powers for the Minister in the Bill. Of course, I see why he is doing this. There is a need for flexibility and some changes must be possible without complicated legislation. But this means that the technique of Parliamentary Questions will be suitable only for specific cases of maladministration or individual difficulties and not for matters of administrative reform and day-to-day shifts of emphasis in the Service or changes in administrative policy. There is a strong case for a Specialist Committee, not necessarily for health alone, but working in social welfare generally.
  There is a great deal to examine. Can we relieve the Health Service by "subsidising" people to remain at home and helping them to care for themselves in the light of some of the proposals of the Disablement Income Group? Are we in danger of concentrating geriatric care in too few areas? There is a case in my constituency in which this might happen because of new hospital buildings. There are changes and advances in methods and techniques and all bring their own problems, not only of organisation but of finance.
  The Bill is evidence of the need for delegated powers and a procedure such as a Specialist Committee which would enable a continuing constructive criticism, which is more than merely a presentation of a specialist point of view or the demands of pressure groups. The time which the Minister and I have taken up today is in itself a reflection of the need to revise our procedure. If we had had Specialist Committees over the years, the Bill's proposals could have been brought forward in a more regular and piecemeal fashion, and we should not have needed what the Minister himself described as "a ragbag".
  I have tried to approach the Bill constructively and we on this side will continue to be constructive in Committee, but we will keep a vigilant watch for anything like a doctrinaire distortion of the Health Service and the part to be played by private practice. It is very important in this discussion to remember that we are dealing not only with organisation and methods, but, essentially, with people, their place in society, their health and, indeed, their whole happiness.
  5.13 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Lomas: It always worries me when praise is poured on Ministers by hon. Members opposite and even more when I have to agree with much of what they say. I agree with the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) that the need for a Specialist Committee is self-evident. This Service has existed for 20 years and is so complex, involving so many different spheres of action and Departments, that there is a powerful case for such a Committee to inquire into it at regular intervals. It is some time since we had a Health Service debate and it now seems that, after today, our next opportunity will be next summer, towards the end of the Session.
  The Minister described the Bill as a "hotch-potch" and the hon. Member for Farnham as a "ragbag". I believe that it is a bit of a dog's breakfast, because this is the first amending legislation for 20 years. But we are in danger of putting the cart before the horse. It is ironic that we should have waited 20 years for amending legislation when, early next year, we are to be presented with a Green Paper giving the thoughts of the Minister and his Department, which will be discussed at great length, followed by a White Paper, in which, presumably, we will be told of proposed legislation to amend the Health Service. As a result of those deliberations, we might want to change much of this Bill. I would, therefore, have preferred it the other way round.
  I welcome the Bill in many ways, but it still tinkers rather than deals with the fundamental faults of the National Health Service. No one will say that, after 20 years, a Service conceived in the 1940s is necessarily right for the 'sixties, or for the 'seventies and 'eighties. The main fault is the structure of the Service and I with that the Minister had included this in a Bill. We should remember that we are dealing with the fifth largest industry, employing well over half a million people. It is vital to our welfare and health and has an economic effect in terms of production in so far as it seeks to make people well enough to do their jobs. So it is crucial.
  The Bill should have included some provisional legislation for altering the functioning of the Health Service. There
  1708
  is fair criticism on this side that regional hospital boards and hospital management committees do not represent all sections of the community affected by the service. I would like trade unions to have the right of representation, and also patients, who are after all, closely involved.
  I would also have liked a recognition that chairmen or members of hospital boards or management committees should be drawn from a much wider circle than at present—[An HON. MEMBER: "Including patients."]—Certainly. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) is a more potential patient than many others in some ways. The Minister seems to feel that this can wait and be dealt with later.
  The other great omission in the Bill, and one which many on this side have been advocating for some time, is something which affects the lifeblood of the nation. That is, the crying need for an occupational health service. There can be no doubt that, in our society, 300 million working days are lost every year not through strikes, but through sickness. We make a great song and dance about strikes, but for every 1½d. lost through strikes about 19·10½d. is lost through sickness, and it is time that we considered this. The Bill should have been an opportunity of at least setting up the type of occupational service which is needed.
  This problem is not just a simple question of cuts and bruises. Other factors are involved, like noise and fatigue and it should be the responsibility of the Department to ensure that there is an adequate number of factory inspectors who could see that working conditions in factories are decent and other facilities were right. Ten thousand factories employ more than 1,000 workers and a start could have been made there and extended to include every employee.
  I wish to deal with two main topics in the Bill—Clauses I and 2, dealing with private pay-beds, and Clauses 26, 27 and 28, dealing with finance. I may be a rather suspicious soul, but I do not like the way that Clauses 1 and 2 are phrased. If the Minister intends to make available accommodation for private patients without its having been definitely set aside, what will this mean for general patients? Does it mean the end of private patient wings? If so, has it already been argreed or will it be agreed that no hospital in

  1709
  future should be built with such wings? I hope so. Does it mean that private patients will be able to take over the amenity beds of the single bed wards for the general patients and that normal individuals who enter hospital may be pushed to one side so that the private patient may be where he can be best dealt with? These are the kind of questions which should be examined.
  Let us have no illusions. No matter what hon. Members may say, there is a deeply-rooted suspicion of pay-beds among the public, not solely confined to supporters of this party. I therefore welcomed, as, I am sure, did many of my hon. Friends, the Minister's announcement a few weeks ago about a reduction in the number of pay-beds. This is a step in the right direction. The Labour Party has repeatedly gone on record at its annual conferences and elsewhere as wanting the complete abolition of the system. This is right.
  If I am told, as many of my hon. Friends have been told by other Ministers, that they cannot run a Department on the decisions of annual conferences of the Labour Party, I would reply that this may be true, but that it could equally well be said that, if it were not for the Labour Party, Ministers, whatever Department they head, would not be sitting on this side of the House. I hope that note will be taken of that, since we will be on this side for a long time to come.
  People have said that this is already in the Act, and of course it is, but we must look at it more closely. When Nye Bevan introduced the Service in the teeth of the opposition of people who now pour praise on it, he had to make some concessions to the medical profession to get it off the ground——
  Mr. Percy Grieve: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the assurances given by the then Minister of Health should be withdrawn?
  Mr. Lomas: That is exactly what I was going to say. The hon. and learned Member will find that the legislation for pay-beds is permissive. The Act says that the Minister "may", not "shall". This was the way that Nye Bevan managed to bring the two sides together——
  Mr. Grieve: That was after an assurance by the then Minister to the
  1710
  medical profession that private beds would be kept in hospitals. Does the hon. Gentleman desire the present Minister to withdraw that assurance?
  Mr. Lomas: What was said 20 years ago does not necessarily bind our present actions. If it did, there would be a tremendous number of contradictions on both sides of the House. Let us wake up to the facts of life as they are. Aneurin Bevan had to make this concession to get the Health Service off the ground. It was right then, but is it right now, 20 years on? Is it right when over 97 per cent. of the people are in the public sector of the Health Service? Must we be so dogmatic and say that we should not consider this whole matter again?
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: What has altered today compared with 20 years ago? In other words, are not the circumstances of that categorical assurance the same in relation to the relationship between doctor and patient?
  Mr. Lomas: When the Health Service was first introduced it was not known what this private sector would be like. If one looks at the figures in the Annual Report of the Ministry of Health for the last two years one sees that in 1965 there were 5,616 pay-beds in our hospitals, with an average daily occupancy rate of 2,890. In other words, for 51 per cent. of the time they were occupied by paying patients, but 907 non-paying patients occupied them at other times, a total occupancy rate of 67 per cent. In 1966, the story was much the same. There were 5,572 pay-beds and they had an average daily occupancy rate of 2,864 private patients—51 per cent. Those beds were also occupied by 874 non-paying patients—a total occupancy rate of 66 per cent.
  It is interesting to note how these figures compare with beds in the general sector. It should be remembered, too, that the number of beds available in hospitals has been decreasing rather than increasing. In this sector in 1965 there were 464,000 beds and they had an average daily occupancy rate of 397,129. In other words, 85 per cent. of those beds were occupied. In 1966, with 461,704 beds, the average daily occupancy rate was 392,563, a percentage occupancy rate of 85.

  1711
  These figures show that we must have these pay-beds in the public sector small though their number may be. At present, we have long waiting lists, with people needing attention. I understand that the lists have been rising from year to year. At present, 536,000 people are waiting for beds. It is only right and proper that every available bed is used to the maximum efficiency. That is why the Minister was right to reduce the number of pay-beds, as he did recently, and that is why he should reduce the number still further.
  Mr. Maurice MacMillan: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures of occupancy rate in private hospitals he will find that they are running at about the same level as the occupancy rates of National Health Service hospitals. Would he agree that the difficuly was largely caused by beds being designated and that this led to a complicated situation, which the Minister has made more flexible?
  Mr. Lomas: I am glad that the Minister has decided to reverse this idea of beds being designated and consultants and others being able to take on for treatment whoever they wished. There is still a case to be made for the abolition of the idea that people with money can jump the queue and buy good health. This has never been the philosophy of the Labour Party and I hope that it never will be. We should not make it easier for private patients to be treated more easily. I would like to make it a damned sight more difficult.
  I hope that my hon. Friends will make it clear to the Minister that we would have liked to have seen the concept of a salaried service and the abolition of the part-time consultant. This idea of people coming into National Health Service hospitals for nine-elevenths of their time, earning lucrative money treating their own private patients, is wrong. I hold to the maximum that private practice in a public service is wrong, ethically and morally, and that it is totally unjustified. I would like to see the concept of a Health Service free to all at the time of need.
  In referring to Clauses 26 to 28 I raise a matter from personal experience because, before coming here, I was employed by a regional hospital board.
  1712
  The sooner we get away from the annual budgeting system for hospitals the better. I know from experience that when the year is coming to an end those responsible say, "How much money do we have? We will spend more than we have left so that we will get a little more than we had the previous year". This leads to an absolute waste of public money. I know, because I did it. I did it because I wanted more money for my hospitals than I had the previous year and I went out of my way to spend it. This has been done not merely by regional boards, but by subsidiary groups such as radiography and blood transfusion groups and others.
  The sooner we treat hospital boards as adult beings the better. We should say that they have every right to carry over money left at the end of the year for use on specific projects or for other special arrangements they wish to inaugurate in the future. The sooner we get away from fixed budgeting the better.
  I welcome many of the 74 Clauses in the Bill. I have mixed feelings about some of them and I hope that, in making these remarks, I have not disturbed the tranquility of the debate. I urge my right hon. Friend to persuade all concerned not to think in terms of a Health Service split into three separate sections. The whole Service should be under one control or Ministry. It is ludicrous that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Secretary of State for Education and Science, the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Armed Forces and many others should all be responsible for various health services. Why should each Department have its own Health Service? They should all come under one umbrella, including local authority services.
  I still believe that the Health Service is the greatest power for good to come out of any Government this century. Its introduction recognised that we were becoming a truly civilised community. However, we must realise that it is a little tarnished in places and that it can be improved. We must get across the idea that the Service is meant for the benefit of the whole community, and we should try to get people in general to be involved in its management and running, including those working in it—not only doctors but nurses and those in ancilliary grades. We

  1713
  must remember that those who do the menial tasks should also have a say in what happens to the Service.
  I believe in a fully comprehensive Health Service that is free to all when they need it. I recall that Aneurin Bevan said many years ago at a Fabian Lecture that the more of the world's goods that reached the consumer without going through the price mechanism the more civilised that community becomes. That is true of the Health Service. I can claim some privilege in quoting what the British Medical Journal said in 1948—and, in giving this quotation, I show that I wish to be bipartisan:
  "The Health Service, in its conception, was one of the greatest attempts at social legislation which this present generation has known. It is destined to have a profound influence on social welfare and the health of the community."
  That is true. It began as a great Service, but we should constantly be trying to improve it. Although the Bill is a bit of a hotch-potch, I believe that it will help towards creating a better Health Service and I hope that, when we get the Green and White Papers next year, we can make the Service even better.
  5.35 p.m.
  Sir John Vaughan-Morgan: If it does not embarrass the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas), in view of the way he began his speech, I would like to say how much I agreed with some of his remarks. I particularly agreed with him when he referred to bringing all the various Ministerial health services under one umbrella.
  I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman over the question of industrial health, but I suggest that if he tried to winkle that responsibility out of the Ministry of Labour he would find that he had a major task on his hands. If the Minister of Health is able to do it, I will congratulate him. He will certainly have warm support from my hon. Friends for doing what others have failed to achieve.
  The most relevant sentence in the speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West was when he said, "Let us wake up to the facts of life as they are". That being so, I will leave that part of his speech, when he was referring to private practice, to the Minister to defend in relation to Clauses 1 and 2.
  1714
  I congratulate the Minister on having got to the top of the legislative queue. I know that he has been patient for some time, as previous Ministers have before him. If he wants to know how to jump the queue, I will tell him of an experience I had, with the then Minister of Health, in getting the Mental Health Act brought forward a year of two earlier.
  I welcome some Clauses of the Bill, particularly those which relate to old people's welfare services, in which I seem to recognise the hand of the Minister—based, no doubt, on some of the experience which he obtained when he and I served together on the Advisory Committee of the National Council for the Care of Old People. I also support what my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) said about the need for a Select Specialist Committee to examine the problems of the Health Service. I could not help feeling that that suggestion would be more warmly welcomed in Westminster than at the Elephant and Castle.
  Clauses 1 and 2 make provision for a change in the national scales which is long overdue. I welcome the abandonment of designation, because it will mean a better use of both private and public beds. For reasons which the Minister will understand, I wish to comment on Clause 5, in which he takes power to designate university hospitals. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham referred to this and I hope that the Minister will understand that I for one must give a rather frigid welcome—but a welcome, nevertheless—to this proposal. I appreciate that it is an experiment and that he is, perhaps, faced with a difficulty over the Nottingham and Southampton new medical schools, because the purpose of the Clause is that they may be placed under the sway of the regional hospital boards.
  I am not happy about the use of the term "university hospital". It conveys an impression of eclecticism at a time when all teaching hospitals are taking on district responsibilities. The phrase has a rather eclectic flavour about it and I therefore suggest that the word "general" or even "district" should appear between "university" and "hospital".

  1715
  I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has been at pains to allay certain misgivings that have been held about the wide powers which he is taking in the Clause. I was somewhat disturbed when he said, "It is not my present intention". The word "present" particularly disturbed me. I would have preferred him to have said, "It is not our intention", because I do not believe that there is any real reason for any change at all. Both the Guillebaud and Porritt Reports favoured the administration of teaching hospitals being separated from the regional hospital boards.
  There have been disadvantages in that separatism in the past, but I think that it has changed now. I think the Minister would agree that the joint consultative councils—certainly, in my experience—are working very well. They are bringing the regional boards and the teaching hospitals into a closer and happier relationship than they have enjoyed at times in the past.
  But the fact remains that teaching hospitals are different. They are the point where the two disciplines meet—the clinical and the academic.
  There has to be a very close and rather intimate relationship between a teaching hospital and a medical school. That relationship is or should be what has been described to me as a happy symbiosis—a medical term which I gather roughly means two hearts beating as one.
  There are those who regret, begrudge, or even resent the privileged position of teaching hospitals. It is true that teaching hospitals retain and attract the best of medical knowledge, skill and personnel. The same applies to nursing standards. Similarly, the best equipment is usually found in a teaching hospital. However, this is surely right, because it is essential to maintain the quality of medical education and research, on which the future of the National Health Service depends.
  So it is vital, and we must realise this, that unless the teaching hospitals can provide the highest standards of clinical support to their medical schools, the effect could be calamitous for the future. This presupposes that teaching hospitals should continue to be independent and have direct access to the Minister—a
  1716
  privilege which they very much value and do not abuse.
  There is a lingering suspicion that university hospitals, coming under regional hospital boards, will not enjoy the same freedom as now. The regional hospital boards are, understandably, preoccupied with the many problems of providing treatment for patients over the widest possible range and they may not give the same measure of support to the university hospital that it would have obtained as an independent teaching hospital. The regional boards may not, therefore, encourage or produce the essential concentration of skills that is necessary. They may not intend damaging these interests, but they will be subject to many other pressures.
  These may be unjustified fears, but they do exist, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that fact. Therefore, I shall support my hon. Friend during the Committee stage of the Bill in trying to limit this Clause to show that it is an experiment, and that, until it is proved that the advantages greatly outweigh the disadvantages, there should be no further extension of the power.
  5.45 p.m.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) is not in his place. I was not sure whether he said that he did not want this to be a non-doctrinaire debate or a "non-doctor air" debate. If the latter, as a doctor I offer him my apology for disturbing the air.
  I should like to take the Bill in conjunction with my right hon. Friend's statement in the House on 6th November and, of course, that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on the following day. I look forward very keenly to the Green Paper and its proposals for changes in the administrative structure of the National Health Service.
  On this I refer only to one point, namely, the composition of executive councils. I would like my right hon. Friend to take into account my own personal experience of an executive council over a long period of years. Notwith-standing the fact that little more than 25 per cent. of the composition of executive councils is comprised of the medical profession, they tend to be dominated by

  1717
  doctors and, to be more specific, by the local medical committee which, to quote a phrase often used in this House, is a tightly-knit group of ambitious men. The executive councils, therefore, tend to rubber stamp decisions of the local medical committee whose views I may say, neither reflect the majority of their colleagues, the practising doctors, nor, indeed, of the general public.
  I wish to refer to two Clauses in the Bill. The first Clause is the one which deals with domestic helps. This is a humane and effective way of tackling a serious problem—the problem of keeping in their home environment people who otherwise would be admitted to hospital but who, strictly speaking, are not really hospital patients.
  Speaking from my own experience, I know that many families in my own constituency have reason to be very thankful for Glasgow's domestic help service, which often plays a very significant part in preventing families from falling apart due to illness. Indeed, I have found the local authority playing an even more humane part in permitting a daughter, for example, devoted to her parents, to have a welcome break or holiday because the domestic help came in and looked after the parents. I believe that this is money very well spent, because the cost of one week in hospital is more than three times the cost of a full-time domestic help. Therefore, it is to the financial advantage of the State, as well as to the advantage of the family, to foster this service.
  I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is aware that there is a time limit. Some local authorities impose a time limit after which domestic help is not available, even on a recommendation from the family doctor. I should like my right hon. Friend to consider abolishing this limit.
  As a practising doctor until recently, I am aware of the advances which have been made in the National Health Service during the last 20 years. I welcome the increase in the number of health centres. I know that when my right hon. Friend took office morale among general practitioners was low and family doctors felt frustrated.
  I turn now to Clause 21, which deals with the health centres and the family doctor. I know that my right hon.
  1718
  Friend will not take it amiss if I seem to criticise lack of dynamic change in what I believe is a structure which has lasted for too long. It is a matter of deep regret that almost 20 years after the inauguration of the Health Service we still have a family doctor system based on the concepts of the 1920s, or even earlier. I cannot think of any profession whose practitioners on receiving their diploma or degree proceed, as it were, to set up shop in the manner of the general practitioner of old. He took upon himself every task associated with his calling, including, as we know, the answering of the telephone, arranging appointments with specialists, writing letters to hospitals, doing all kinds of testing, and so on.
  He did every aspect of his work himself, including all the clerical work in addition to the work which he was trained to do, that is, to prevent disease where possible, and to treat it when prevention did not succeed. This situation might have been just satisfactory 40 or 50 years ago. It certainly bears little relationship to the needs of today.
  The theory that the Health Service would be a diminishing cost to the State, and a diminishing demand on the doctors because it would overtake the backlog of work, reach a peak, and then settle down certainly shows no signs of being borne out in practice. Perhaps we tend to look at these matters within too narrow a time confine. At any rate, health centres and the family doctor must develop in such a way as to ensure the maximum effectiveness of this highly-trained and highly-skilled body of men and women.
  Introducing the National Health Service Bill on 30th April 1946, Nye Bevan said:
  "… It"—
  that is the National Health Service—
  "will lift the shadow from millions of homes. … It will produce higher standards for the medical profession."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1946; Vol. 422. c. 63.]
  What worries me is that the nation is not making proper use of its 23,000 general practitioners. The average family doctor finds it impossible to practise his profession in the way that he was taught when he has to see—and this is an average—40 to 50 patients per day. Estimates vary, but it has gone on record over and over again that between 50 and 75 per

  1719
  cent. of these consultations and visits do not require his skill. These patients are not malingerers. They are not dodgers, or people who want something for nothing. It is true that the illnesses are often trivial, and sometimes imaginary, but, none the less, treatment is necessary.
  In most instances tablets for a cold, advice about simple cuts and bruises, and so on, could be given by someone less highly qualified than the doctor who has spent six or seven years of his life studying. This applies also to simple tests, for example, urine and blood tests, to minor treatments such as routine injections, and even—and here I may be treading on difficult ground—to the issuing of repeat prescriptions and medical certificates. The family doctor working from the health centre should be the head of a health team in which he carries out the highly-skilled work, and the clerical and less highly skilled routine is carried out by ancillary staff.
  Let me go back to that momentous Second Reading debate, during which a doctor, making his maiden speech, voiced the following sentiments:
  "What does the average doctor want? He wants the opportunity of doing first-class work, and not to be just a clerk filling out certificates, or acting as a sorting office for different diseases and illnesses…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1946; Vol. 422 c. 83.]
  That is as true now as it was nearly 22 years ago. Money alone will never solve the problems of the family doctor. The trouble is that he sees himself carrying out perhaps half a dozen different jobs, but he wants to earn his income doing the one job for which he was trained, and for which his time under our present system is very strictly limited. To be sure, some general practitioners manage very well.
  Only a few months ago I received a letter from one who said:
  "Problems in general practice? I have no problems. I consider it an honour to be able to work in the National Health Service and to practise my art and my profession for the benefit of my patients. My life is a holiday because I love what I am doing and I do it in the knowledge that it is a privilege for which I am deeply grateful."
  This doctor has, of course, a saintly concept of his calling and I am sure the House will agree that saints are scarce, but in any case I do not think that it is any part of the duty of Parliament to sanctify any section of the community.
  1720
  We are on the threshold of a completely new era in medicine, when the replacement of diseased or worn-out organs of the body with brand-new artificial substitutes, or healthy organs from human donors, is developing into a new technique. The House will be aware that only this week the first operation of its kind was carried out, and the patient is doing very well at the moment. I am, of course, referring to the transplantation of a heart.
  I make no apology for dwelling at some length on the subject of general practitioners. The family doctor is the first, and sometimes the only, point of contact for the vast majority of our citizens with the Health Service, and I believe that the Service must be dynamic and not static. This, of course, visualises all kinds of changes which I am looking forward to reading in the Green Paper.
  I can conclude with nothing more apposite than the words of the then Lord Privy Seal in the final speech on the Second Reading of the National Health Service Bill. He said that we should not consider this Bill as final, and added:
  "We do not see the end of this scheme … this is a developing policy, and we shall march on to greater and greater public service by the medical profession."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1946; Vol. 422, c. 398.]
  5.58 p.m.
  Sir Ronald Russell: All three back benchers who have preceded me have spoken with some experience of their own of the National Health Service, or of administering it. My only reason for making a short intervention is that I am one of the lay members of the General Optical Council. I have frequent contact with members of the optical profession, and representations have been made to me about parts of the Bill which affect opticians.
  I am speaking only on behalf of myself. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) rightly dealt with the general principles of the Bill. He said that this was the proper thing to do on Second Reading, and that the details should be left to the Committee stage. He hoped that adequate time would be allowed between now and the Committee stage for consultations between various interests. I think that it is worth while warning the Minister of some of the points which

  1721
  may be brought forward in Committee if consultations do not satisfy the opticians.
  The first point is one on which there is disagreement between the branches of the optical profession, the ophthalmic opticians who test sight and dispense prescriptions and the purely dispensing opticians. It concerns representation of opticians on the executive councils. In Schedule 1, it is laid down that there shall be one ophthalmic optician and one dispensing optician in addition to an ophthalmic medical practitioner.
  The ophthalmic opticians think that this is wrong, bearing in mind the difference in numbers. As there are roughly 5,000 of them compared with 1,000 dispensing opticians, they would like to have two ophthalmic opticians on each executive council. That is partly justified by the representation of the two branches of the profession on the General Optical Council, which is on the basis of five elected ophthalmic opticians and two elected dispensing opticians.
  Ophthalmic opticians also point out in some areas that there are no dispensing opticians who will be available to serve on executive councils. On the other hand, I make clear that dispensing opticians think the Minister's proposals in the Schedule are right because it is not so much a question of votes as of advice being given on behalf of each branch of the profession and, therefore, only one from each is required. I should like to know whether the Minister has considered the point about areas where there are no dispensing opticians available to serve on an executive council.
  Other points are being put forward on behalf of the two branches of ophthalmic opticians, the Association of Optical Practitioners and the Society of Opticians, and the two branches of the dispensing opticians, the Association of Dispensing Opticians and the Guild of British Dispensing Opticians. All these bodies consider that parts of the Bill are a serious threat to the future of optical practice. For example, Clause 17(3) appears to be designed to enable the Minister, as distinct from an optician, to determine not only the price at which optical appliances are sold but the type of style of frames sold at health centres. Hitherto, these have been matters decided purely be-
  1722
  tween the optician and the patient. A change in the way suggested in the Clause may be a threat to the private sector of ophthalmic services.
  There is also the question of employment of opticians at health centres. It is possible that local authorities could offer higher salaries and other inducements to attract employed opticians into the Health Service. The majority, of course, would come from present private practices. Instead of paying a realistic fee for National Health Service ophthalmic services, the Minister could seek to close private individual practices by employing opticians at health centres. He could also offer private and hybrid frames at prices which he determined. I hope that we shall have an assurance that that is not his intention.
  I have been given a letter written by one of the right hon. Gentleman's officers to the Registrar of the General Optical Council yesterday in which this is said:
  "You will see that the provisions we had in mind would in the main be permissive ones subject to the Minister's approval and not mandatory. We envisage that he would agree to opticians going into the health centres only in cases where local consultations between Executive Council, local health authority and the local professional representative bodies suggested this to be the right thing to do in the local circumstances."
  I hope that the Minister will repeat that assurance through his hon. Friend at the end of the debate so that it may be quite clear to all concerned.
  There is a further point in the same direction of uneasiness. It was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and is contained in Clause 62, which allows the Minister to store and supply goods needed by local health authorities and executive councils to discharge their responsibilities. This could lead to the Minister, as the major consumer, so to speak, of the optical industry from frame and lens manufacturers, virtually nationalising the industry by having a monopoly and to stifle such practice as remains outside health centres. I hope that we shall have further assurance that that is not his intention.
  Then there is the question of representation on the Central Health Services Council. Every profession providing Part IV services under the Act except the optical profession is already represented on this important Council, but the Bill

  1723
  does not provide for the inclusion of opticians. I wonder why. I wonder whether the Minister will put this right in Committee. Opticians are not included in the National Health Service Superannuation Scheme. I hope that can be considered and perhaps remedied in Committee.
  I hope that there will be time for consultation, because I am sure that all these points can be ironed out by consultation between the Ministry and the various bodies of the optical profession, as happened for example, in the case of the Opticians Bill, 10 years ago. If that can be done I am sure that it would be to the advantage of all. I should be grateful if all these points can be examined.
  6.6 p.m.
  Mrs. Renée Short: I shall resist the temptation to follow some of the very interesting paths which my right hon. Friend the Minister suggested and concentrate on Clause 57 of the Bill. My right hon. Friend referred to this, but I think that the House needs to concentrate attention more on this problem because I am quite certain that the care of the pre-school child is one which is ever growing and the resources which are being provided in the way they should be are steadily diminishing.
  According to the Plowden Committee's Report, there are more than 4 million children under the age of 5 and 2¼ or thereabouts are in the 2 to 4 age groups partly in the charge of my right hon. Friend in day nurseries and partly in the charge of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science in school education. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has the responsibility each day for only 16,500 children of the total 283,000—only 7 per cent.—who go to nurseries and day nurseries. According to the Plowden figures in 1965, there were 21,400 places in local authority day nurseries. I expect those figures have not increased, but the contrary would be the case because day nurseries are being closed steadily all the time.
  In addition, there are 57 factories which run nurseries for 2,098 children of women working in factories and 2,108 private nurseries of all kinds catering for 51,000
  1724
  children. There are 1,482 children cared for by minders registered by local authorities and 3,347 other registered daily minders. There are also a large number of known and unknown minders of varying degrees of suitability looking after young children.
  During the war, there were 1,599 part-time and whole-time day nurseries in England and Wales, accommodating about 72,000 children. That is a very different story from today's figures. Now there are only 448 day nurseries, and the number is steadily being reduced. In wartime we always encourage women to come forward and do all kinds of jobs—in the professions, in factories, and so on. Today, we are anxious to get professional women—for instance, doctors—to return to work. Married women doctors have a great part to play in the functioning of the National Health Service and local authority health services, particularly in family planning clinics, where they have a particular niche to fill.
  We have helped to create a guilt-complex among women who want to go out to work and women who need to go out to work, because from 1948 onwards—I am sorry to have to say that it was the post-war Labour Government that started the rot, and this was taken up enthusiastically by their Conservative successors—we started discouraging married women going to work, with the result that day nurseries became less in demand because women were not working.
  As a result of numbers falling, prices rose. Local health authorities increased their prices. The numbers fell still more. The categories of women who are now permitted to put their children into local authority day nurseries are very restricted indeed. They practically all cater for social need. This is all right, but no opportunity is provided for a child to get into a local authority nursery although for his own sake he needs the companionship of other children, irrespective of the fact that the mother is perhaps an unsupported mother and has to go out to work.
  As my right hon. Friend said, there has been a spectacular growth in the number of child minders and other alternatives simply because the State is not carrying out its duty either to provide nurseries or to provide nursery education or nursery

  1725
  schools and classes. Some of the alternatives are good. Some of them are less good. Some of them are downright bad and dangerous. There has been a rapid growth of play groups run privately, some run by trained people, some by untrained people. There are groups run by the Save the Children Fund, mainly in areas where there is a real social need. We have seen the growth of private nurseries in well-to-do areas where people can pay quite high fees for their children to attend. These alternatives, and the mushrooming of child-minding, known and unknown, are all evidence of the enormous need and of the changing attitudes to the whole question of women carrying out work after they have children and of the need to find suitable help for children that need it themselves.
  The expedients which are being used are a direct result of the fact that the State has not carried out its responsibilities. The change in family life in large towns and cities makes the problem even more acute as more and more families with young children tend to live in tall flats. There is no provision of play space for small children on housing estates. The Minister of Housing and Local Government has refused to co-operate with local authorities in this matter. The local authority associations have not concerned themselves with the need of the young child on new housing estates. I am amazed that mothers, teachers and all the organisations concerned with child care are prepared to tolerate this situation.
  There is this very great problem. If we were running an expanding economy, which we ought to be doing, based on real Socialist principles, there would be an even greater demand for the services of women to help in the running of the economy. The economy apart, the Plowden Report recommended that nursery education, as distinct from day nurseries, should be provided for all children from the age of 3 whose parents require it and that an early start should be made in priority areas. I speak with very great feeling about the problems of young children in the Midlands, and particularly in my constituency, where we have an influx of immigrants, a large number of West Indians, who tend to have at the moment rather bigger families and where the problem of the minding of
  1726
  the young child while the mother is out at work is very acute.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science said recently that there is to be no start on the carrying out of the Plowden recommendations as regards the provision of nursery education in the priority areas. This is most disappointing. The £16 million that his predecessor found for the demands of Plowden, mainly as regards primary schools, is not likely to be allocated for nursery schools and nursery classes.
  So now it has been decided to patch up what is already extremely inadequate. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is introducing part of the Bill in order to do that in regard to the registration of child minders. In so far as this has been carried out by local authority health committees, my right hon. Friend has been concerned mainly with numbers in premises, with the numbers of lavatories available for those numbers of children, with whether there are washing facilities, and with whether there are facilities for cooking a meal. He has not been concerned with what goes on in the premises during the hours that the children are left there.
  Will my right hon. Friend accept that he should be concerned with what happens to young children when they are in the care of child minders, registered and unregistered? We know from our experience in the Midlands that there have been large numbers of accidents because unsuitable heating appliances—paraffin stoves, for example—are used in rooms containing large numbers of small children. We know that children are kept confined on a bed or in a cot the whole day, hours on end, without toys to play with, without books to look at, without any exercise, without proper play and without contact with their peers, simply because this is the easiest way of minding a child. The children suffer mentally as a result.
  Does my right hon. Friend intend to say whom he regards as a "suitable person" to be registered as a child minder? Is it to be a trained nurse, or a nursery nurse, or a nursery assistant, or a nursery teacher, or a mother of one, two or eight children? What is it to be? Will he refuse to register premises where the heating is provided by paraffin stoves

  1727
  or by other unsuitaible appliances which are a danger to children? Will he absolutely insist that children left with minders are fed, because we have experience in our area that children are in fact not fed during the day? They are given milk to drink, but no properly cooked meal. Will my right hon. Friend refuse to register minders who keep children confined in a small space the whole day without the proper equipment and proper exercise?
  How does my right hon. Friend intend to deal with the obvious cases where the law is flouted, where children are taken round to a different woman every day and are in a different household every day? This is dodging the law as it stands. I think that these expedients could well be used when my right hon. Friend has carried the Bill through.
  Mr. K. Robinson: I think that my hon. Friend will see from the terms of the Clause that they will not be able to dodge the Bill when enacted.
  Mrs. Short: I hope that my right hon. Friend is correct, but much of this goes on at present. If local authorities are to carry out the provisions of the Bill when enacted effectively to stamp out the difficulties which now occur, they will need a greatly increased number of inspectors, simply to go round knocking on doors behind which it is suspected that women are minding children that they are not authorised to take. The inspectors will be largely non-productive for the rest of the local authority's work. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has made an estimate of the number of additional inspectors who will be required by local health authorities and of the additional cost which there is likely to be for the local authorities.
  I must say that I am sorry to be rather dampening about the effect of these proposals which my right hon. Friend has, but I am quite convinced that the only way to make proper provision for the young child, and the only way we can stamp out abuse, which exists now and, I am sure, will continue, even after the Bill becomes law, is to provide proper State day nursery provisions and nursery schools provisions. There is no other way. We in this country tolerate conditions
  1728
  affecting our very young children which would not be tolerated in many other countries, whether in Western Europe or Eastern Europe, or America, or anywhere else.
  It is clear that we need to know more about the needs of the young child. There is certainly a very strong case for the setting up of a Government inquiry to inquire into the whole problem of the young child, the pre-school child. Its needs are a divided responsibility between the Minister of Health, the Secretary of State for Education and Science, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and the Minister of Social Security. All these Ministers are involved.
  It is fundamental that we have got to decide as a Government and as a nation on our priorities. We shall have to decide whether it is more important to spend as much money on one Polaris submarine and its base as would be needed to provide for all the recommendations in the Plowden Report in so far as they affect the young child. This is the decision which we as a nation still have not made.
  6.22 p.m.
  Dr. M. P. Winstanley: The hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) has gone at some length into the problems of Clause 57. She will forgive me if I do not pursue those matters, not because I regard that Clause as not being important—indeed, I believe it to be very important—but because I feel that what she has said points to the importance of the whole matter, and I do not think I need add to it in order to draw the Minister's attention fully to it.
  At the same time I would underline one particular point which she made, and that was with regard to the question of the employment of married women doctors. It has relevance to other parts of the Bill. Indeed, it is absolutely essential that the measures outlined in Clause 57 should be implemented to the full if we are to make full use of the very important reserves of trained, medical womanpower, which includes all the medical women and doctors. We spend a great deal of money and a great deal of time training women to become doctors not merely because we want to fill the country with housewives with a clinical background,

  1729
  but because we want them actually to engage in medical work, and the only way to induce them to do so is to pursue the kinds of argument which the hon. Lady dealt with.
  I hope the House will not be alarmed, and I am sorry if it should be, at the prospect of a second speech this afternoon by a doctor. However, I think the nature of our profession is such that it is unlikely to find two such speeches agreeing in any particular at all. Indeed, if we had the whole of the general practitioners, all 23,000 of them, here today they would all say different things about this Bill.
  I would underline one thing which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) said in paying particular attention to the general practitioner. He said he felt that the general practitioner should be the leader of a welfare team. I would endorse that as fully as I can from my own sometimes pleasant, sometimes unpleasant, experience. Perhaps the House will forgive me if I remind it of a document, a report by the Liberal Party Health and Welfare Committee, which appeared in 1963. It is a very interesting document, and I agree with every word of it. Perhaps that is not surprising since I wrote it myself. It dealt with this subject at very great length and it said:
  "The G.P., with his knowledge of the patient's home and circumstances should be the leader of a team of welfare workers."
  Then it went on to state:
  "The present system hinders rather than helps this to come about."
  I see the right hon. Gentleman nods his head, and indeed, I thought he would, because I think many of the things he is doing, or hopes to do, by this Bill are designed to remove the hindrances and obstacles.
  I want to try to resist the temptation to go into Committee points which can be dealt with later, but there are one or two things I should like to deal with in passing before coming to the more general implications of the Bill.
  Clause 13 is an important Clause with regard to home helps, but it goes on about the question of a soiled linen laundry service. I would like to see this mandatory rather than merely permissive, as it is spelt out in the Clause.
  1730
  I should like to explore the Minister's general intentions with regard to Clause 31 at greater length, about the provision of vehicles, and I should like to know whether there will be provision for adaptation of vehicles for patients suffering from haemophilia. I have a Question on the Paper for Monday, and I should like to know whether I ought to remove it in the knowledge that it is the Minister's intention to use this Clause to apply to the particular circumstances which I envisage.
  One would like, too, to support more attention being given to the provision of vehicles for one category of disabled person who, I think, has hitherto been very much neglected, and that is the disabled housewife. One would like to know whether she, too, is to be brought into the general scope of the provisions of that Clause.
  There is a Clause which has not been mentioned at all by anybody, and I confess that I am not entirely clear what the right hon. Gentleman's intentions are in Clause 24 regarding tribunals. This is, of course, as the Minister knows, a somewhat delicate subject. There is a need for disciplinary machinery within the whole of the Health Service. Indeed, there is a need for proper investigation of complaints. My own view, quite honestly, is that if the administration of the Health Service were to be opened up to the activities of the Parliamentary Commissioner it might well be that these tribunals would not be quite as busy as they now are.
  There is, nevertheless, a need for proper investigation of complaints which people make. Of course, we need to be equally fair to everybody, and the right hon. Gentleman is, I understand, having consultations with the profession at the moment about possible methods of altering the procedure of investigating complaints against doctors, and so on. Complaints are made sometimes without justification. Indeed, there are people who seem to believe that ever since 5th July, 1948, when the Health Service came into being, everybody must live for ever, or else it is somebody's fault, and there is a general tendency for complaints to be made, perhaps in a way which it is not thought likely to lead to a logical conclusion, but the fact that they have

  1731
  been made has only aroused a certain amount of frustration and unnecessary resentment in the profession. Now the right hon. Gentleman is having consultations on this matter, and I would welcome any information which the hon. Gentleman who is to wind up the debate can give as to what observations the profession has made on this.
  I would prefer to leave some of the Committee type points for a later stage of the Bill, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that if I get the opportunity of ventilating them I shall do so in a spirit of endeavouring to assist him rather than of in any way impeding him in the progress towards what I hope and believe to be the common goal we have in mind in regard to the Health Service.
  As for the general implications of the Bill, I think we ought to remind ourselves from time to time that the efficiency of the service, and whether it can do its job, depends upon four fundamental things. The first of them is the number and quality of the people doing the work, the doctors, nurses, technicians and so on. Second, the adequacy of the places in which they do the work, the hospitals and the clinics; all the places where the chemists and all the other persons do their work. The third is the tools for doing the work, and they include drugs, apparatus, all the appliances, kidney machines: all these are the tools. And fourthly, there is the administration by which all these three things are integrated. There are deficiencies in all four of these material particulars. I say that not with any suggestion that the Health Service is on the rocks, but it is a fact, which the Minister will accept, that there are deficiencies. I turn now to one or two of them in order to consider how they are affected by the Bill.
  There are acute deficiencies in terms of personnel, a shortage of doctors and of nurses. The Minister is doing what he can about that. He has spoken of his new moves as regards general practice, and I confirm that progress is being made. He may be interested to know that I have personal knowledge of two doctors who emigrated and who have now come back to practise in this country. It seems that the brain drain may be beginning to reverse.
  1732
  I confirm, also, what the hon. Member for Kelvingrove said about this not being only a matter of money. Money is important, and there was a time when doctors did not seem to have a lot of it. It seemed to be cheaper to have the doctor every day than buy apples. But it is the facilities and circumstances of their work which are important to doctors. I know many doctors who have left this country to work abroad not for more money but for less. I think of one or two practising now in the neighbourhood of Toronto. Their gross and net incomes there are less than they were when they practised in the Health Service at home, but they went because they had better facilities, hospital beds, their own X-ray apparatus, their own facilities for special investigations, and so on.
  The Minister is right to concentrate on matters of that kind. If he puts more emphasis on the Clauses in the Bill dealing with the provision of health centres and facilities, he will find that doctors will stay. He will keep them here in a sense of harmony with his Department, and their frustrations will be removed.
  I welcome what the Minister said about post-graduate education, another directly connected matter. This is another means of keeping doctors here or bringing them back, and it is of importance, also, in encouraging married women doctors to continue in practice.
  The shortage of nurses is patchy and not universal throughout the country, but I am not satisfied that everything necessary is being done to remedy it. I am particularly concerned about a statement in a report recently made to the Minister by the General Nursing Council for England and Wales, covering the period 1st April, 1966, to 31st March, 1967. I quote these words:
  "It is a matter of grave concern to the Council, the body on which Parliament itself has placed the responsibility for the education of nurses in England and Wales, that they are forced, through lack of adequate funds, to place restrictions on the extent to which the standards of training can be improved at a time when facilities to provide improvement are seen to be available."
  I shall not go into the matter at length. I accept that the Minister has many competing priorities, but I am certain that this particular priority ought to compete very strongly with all others. I

  1733
  should welcome his comments on the matter.
  I wonder whether we are making the best use of existing resources. There is a shortage of resources, and, until we have overcome it, no amount of administrative manoeuvring within the limits of the shortage can put things entirely right, but we can do something by making sure that we make the most economic and efficient use of the resources which we have. There seems to be a considerable degree of maldistribution of present resources. This is certainly true as regards doctors, with a shortage in one place and practically none in another.
  In this connection, I am interested in the Minister's propsals for new medical schools. There is clear evidence that doctors tend to settle in practice fairly close to the place where they were trained. They establish personal and professional contacts which tend to make them settle in the area. Therefore, there is a strong incentive on the Government to establish new medical schools, when they are able to open them, in areas such as the West Riding of Yorkshire, the North-East, South Wales and parts of the Midlands where there is an acute shortage of doctors.
  The Minister spoke of the new arrangements for general practice, which, he said, arc now working smoothly. There is one way in which they are not working entirely; I receive a great many complaints from individual doctors about the amount of form filling which is necessary. I entirely accept that the new arrangements were pushed upon the Minister by the present representatives of the profession. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) say that the leaders of the medical profession did not have entirely undiluted confidence in the right hon. Gentleman. It is equally true that the ordinary rank and file members of the medical profession have not entirely undiluted confidence in their own leaders, either.
  There is quite a lot of resentment among ordinary general practitioners about the complexity of the arrangements which they are now forced to make as regards details of their employees, ancillary help, the size and nature of surgeries and other matters of which, I know, the Minister is well aware. The
  1734
  right hon. Gentleman will say that he has not been approached on this matter by the representatives of the profession, but, as he is concerned to see that resources are used efficiently and economically, there is a strong case for saying that, if there is waste of resources in this way, he should himself initiate discussions if he feels that they are likely to be fruitful. If we are short of doctors, the more time doctors spend actually doctoring rather than doing other things, the better for us all.
  There is waste also as a result of duplication. I know that the Minister is aware of this, and it is one of the crucial elements behind the Bill. Duplication tends to arise from our fundamentally divided Health Service, the tripartite system which has been referred to so often. Many people who ought to be working in collaboration and close association with one another often work in dangerous and damaging isolation. Many of the provisions in the Bill are designed to bring people together, to bring the general practitioner closer to the local authority services, to bring the local authority services closer to the hospital service, and so on. One cannot underestimate the importance of any measures taken to bring people together in this sense.
  It is most unfortunate, when people are all doing their very best on a job designed to serve the community or the family in health matters, if they find themselves working in isolation, duplicating one another's effort and getting in one another's way, instead of working in a sensible co-operative system which enables them to move forward together.
  Here is one example. A woman in pregnancy, if she decides to have her baby at home, will be attended by the local authority midwife. She will probably attend the local authority ante-natal clinic. There may be matters on which she has to see her own medical practitioner. If something is found to be wrong, she will go to the consultant's ante-natal clinic at the hospital where she will be seen by another doctor and midwife. In the fullness of time, when she goes into labour, she may be delivered by yet another midwife who has had very little to do with all the ante-natal proceedings. If something goes wrong at that stage, she will go into hospital and be delivered by

  1735
  another midwife who has never set eyes on the previous one. When she comes out of hospital, she will be visited at home by a health visitor who, perhaps, has never set eyes on any of her other medical attendants. It is not that these people want to be isolated. It is the administrative machinery which isolates them one from another.
  The school medical service provides another example. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman had greater responsibility for it than he has, and I hope that, in Committee, we shall be able to discuss this question in relation to certain of the Bill's provisions. The school doctor was brought in, very rightly, at a time when there was a financial barrier between many children and the doctor. It was necessary to institute the school medical service then, but that financial barrier has now happily been removed. I hope that no one in any part of the House wishes to bring it back. This means that the school doctor's rôle is changed, and one wonders what it should be.
  If we are to make effective use of our resources, we must try to bring into close contact all the other people with whom the Minister deals. The school doctor does medical examinations. He examines healthy child after healthy child. Then suddenly the look of knowledge comes into his eyes and he says, "This boy wants his tonsils out", and the mother says, "He has been on the waiting list for two years". Very often he is used as a second opinion. A parent may take a child to the family doctor and ask him what he thinks his condition is. The doctor may say that it is so-and-so, and the parent says, "We will go to the school doctor and see whether he says the same thing". Nine times out of ten he does not, which is not very helpful for the people concerned.
  These people could be of immense help to each other if we had a structure in which they were all working together instead of a structure which put them in totally separate compartments.
  I turn to the very important question of the rôle of the local authority. The Minister is right in placing increased responsibility on the local authorities, but if he asks them to do more and more things—and I welcome particularly the more things which they will do for old
  1736
  People—clearly he must provide the resources for them to do them. It is local authorities which have the least need of resources of this kind which have the most money. Local authorities with the greatest need have the least money. If one considers the 12 areas with the highest rateable value, one will find that they have the least need for local authority health services. Therefore, I hope that something will be done to assist in this matter.
  If a local health authority provides, as the Minister is asking it to provide, accommodation for old people, then it is spending the ratepayers' money. But it probably saves the regional hospital board about £30 a week in providing a geriatric bed, and yet there is no machinery for making any payment as between the regional hospital board and the local authority, that is, the ratepayers. Therefore, while this system remains, there is a continuing disincentive to local authorities to provide services for which they have to pay which would, in the long run, save the community a great deal of money.
  I ask the Minister to reply to one other point. In an earlier debate on the welfare of old people, I raised the question of the appointment by local health authorities of a new category of officer, to be known as an old persons' officer, who would be responsible for integrating all the services which are provided from many sources and who could be approached with great benefit because he would know where to go for what. He would work very much on the lines of the children's officer. Many hon. Members showed interest in that idea, but the Minister who replied to the debate did not refer to it. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would see whether it might be referred to tonight?
  Mr. K. Robinson: The idea is not without interest, but it is a matter on which we should await the report of the Seebohm Committee because this was exactly the sort of problem which came within its terms of reference.
  Dr. Winstanley: I agree, but there is a need for this kind of officer, and I see no reason why we should not say so.
  I hope that not much of the rest of the debate will be preoccupied with talk

  1737
  about private practice. I say that to hon. Members opposite for this reason. I believe that private practice should disappear, but through lack of need. We have heard arguments today about queue-jumping. There should be no queues to jump. I hope that the Minister will be able so to develop the Health Service that private practice will decline, but I believe that until he has developed it to that extent private practice remains as a valuable stimulus to the public service.
  Mr. William Edwards: I note with interest what the hon. Gentleman says, and I agree with him. But would he not accept from his knowledge of his profession that every indication is that the demand for private practice is growing?
  Dr. Winstanley: I do not accept that. This is an involved subject and I do not wish to be drawn into a discussion on it. I said that I hoped that the House would not deal with it because it is a red herring. Let us get the Health Service right. Britain can provide a fully comprehensive, humane and efficient health service on an entirely non-fee-paying basis. I say that for the benefit of anybody who wants to talk about prescription charges.
  There might be an argument for a charge for use of the service, although I would not agree with it, but I think that a prescription charge is utterly illogical. Why should we levy a charge on the random and accidental need for a prescription? A patient at home suffering from pneumonia may pay 18s. A patient in hospital suffering from pneumonia gets food, drugs and laundry free. Why should a patient who takes two minutes of a doctor's time for vitamins or iron tablets pay 6s. while a patient who consults me for an hour to discuss her matrimonial problems but does not have a drug pays nothing?
  Some very important words appear in Section 1 of the original Act. They impose this duty on the Minister of Health:
  "… to promote the establishment in England and Wales of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of England and Wales and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness …"
  I see no reason why we should vary that duty in any way, but I wish that we could
  1738
  concentrate a little more on the preventive element.
  I welcome the Bill in general. I believe that it is a move, perhaps a slow move towards what I should like to see—a fully integrated health service covering the whole field. Perhaps there is, however, some virtue in the inevitability of gradualness.
  6.46 p.m.
  Mr. Laurence Pavitt: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. and qualified Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), but it is difficult because there is so much meat in his speeches that one is tempted to take up his points and to forget what one originally wished to say. I should like to refer to only two points which he made.
  The first concerns the Liberal policy of 1963. If we spell the word "liberal" with a small "1", I think that we can say that we are all "little liberals" now. The concept of the general practitioner as the leader of a Health Service team has been accepted and put forward from all quarters of the House. The big problem is that fundamental changes need to be made in the way in which the general practitioner is educated. He is not, at present, trained in welfare work. We need to wait, not only for the Seebohm Committee's report, but also for the report of the Royal Commission on Medical Education to get this matter straight.
  The second point which the hon. Member raised to which I refer is shortages. There are shortages, but we should not forget the tremendous strides which have been made. We are short of nurses, but there has been a 47 per cent. increase in their number since 1949, and we now have 184,000 in full-time employment. Hospital medical staffs have increased by 60 per cent. since 1949; physiotherapists have increased by over half; radiographers and occupational therapists have increased twofold; and laboratory technicians have increased threefold. While realising that we still have a long way to go, we should not neglect to applaud the way in which we have made huge advances in the 17 or 18 years since the setting up of the Health Service.
  I very much welcomed the opening remarks of my right hon. Friend the Minister in that respect. We do not cry the success story enough. I have sympathy with members of the Press. They know

  1739
  that in the climate of emotional opinion, hospital drama—Emergency Ward 10, and that kind of thing, one operation which goes wrong is a story which gives them space. The 2 million operations a year which go right make no story. I say this to the Press. This is not a political matter. The continuous "knocking" of hospitals is something which is affecting the doctor-patient relationship. The constant stream of disturbing stories is undermining confidence in what the doctor in the hospital service is doing and his ability to heal his patients.
  I cannot ask members of the Press not to print a good story when they get one, because a newspaperman has his job to do. But I do ask them to give equal prominence to the large number of success stories and the devotion of the doctors and the many dramatic cases in which they save lives. These, too, can make a good story if they are done in the right way.
  I welcome the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) as shadow Minister of Health. I believe that this is the first debate in which we have had the pleasure of his presence in that capacity. I was surprised, though, that he complained of lack of consultation. As a layman, one often gets the impression that the General Medical Services Committee and the Joint Consultants Committee of the B.M.A. spend most of their time with the Minister. Indeed, I sometimes wonder whether they have permanent lodgings near the Elephant and Castle. Every time I read the British Medical Journal and The Lancet, there seems to have been another to-ing and fro-ing between them and the Minister. From the patient's point of view, sometimes one feels that perhaps they have too much influence with my right hon. Friend.
  My right hon. Friend has been very modest about his part in the great crisis of 1965, when 17,000 out of 22,000 general practitioners put in their notices of retirement from the National Health Service. In a quiet and unorthodox way, of which the public did not take a great deal of notice, he held long, continuing negotiations and consultations, with the upshot that within 12 months, all 17,000 notices had been withdrawn. Some one should say to him how much we appreciated his efforts.
  1740
  The hon. Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) spoke of ophthalmics and opticians. Like other hon. Members, I have received representations. Many of the points are really Committee points rather than for discussion now, but I warn my right hon. Friend that the pressures being put on by the Association of Dispensing Opticians on the one hand and the Association of Optical Practitioners on the other could lead to an A.S.L.E.F.—N.U.R. type of struggle. I hope that he will bear that in mind in all the representations being made to him.
  I welcome the Bill as a limited and tidying up Measure. My right hon. Friend knows that we on this side are expecting a major and radical reconstruction of the National Health Service before the next General Election. This is already foreshadowed in the Green Paper which he is to present shortly. We shall have discussions and consultations. But the next Bill on our health services will not be minor. It will be the second storey after we have had the successful building of the first floor.
  This Bill must be judged on whether it facilitates that change or strengthens the vested interests and the powers of those who regard health as another commodity to be purchased and sold in the profit motivated market place. Clause 5 passes this test very well. The proposals for new university hospitals lead to the possibility of further integration of the hospital services under Regional Hospital Boards. We have to recognise that, in the last two or three years, the trend has been in the other direction. We have already had five hospitals that were general hospitals under regional hospital boards designated as teaching hospitals—1,416 beds have gone over. My right hon. Friend has proposals to designate 8,283 beds.
  I venture the hope that we shall integrate the teaching hospitals with the general district hospitals. I do not expect this to happen quickly but I want to see the process continuing. But if my right hon. Friend continues the present trend of designating beds from district hospitals to teaching hospitals, and should this be applied mainly to teaching hospitals of the London area, this could mean for Londoners that, out of the present 23,500 beds, only 3,000 would be left under the

  1741
  regional boards and the rest would be in teaching hospitals.
  I exaggerate the argument, for not all the hospitals concerned are in the London area. But many of them are. Clause 6 I take it to mean that designation will no longer be necessary and arrangements can be made to increase the facilities of teaching hospitals without taking general district hospitals away from the responsibility of serving the communities in which they stand.
  Clauses 1 and 2 are the most controversial part of the Bill. One only has to say "pay-bed" to this side of the House and we react. I am glad we do. Any suspicion that anything other than that it is the need of the person who is sick taking the scarce time of surgeons, doctors and nurses is something we resent. Does the new flexibility mean that the unused pay beds now designated specifically can move from one specialty to another?
  My local hospital has nine designated pay beds which are, in the main, sorted out between the senior consultants. Some are not fully occupied because the consultant concerned does not have a good deal of private practice so they are used for ordinary N.H.S. patients. Does the new flexibility mean that a bed which stands empty can be immediately transferred to another specialty, so that all pay-beds are always occupied by pay-bed patients? If so, this is an increase in the private sector at the cost of a decrease in the public sector.
  I welcome Clause 4 because it has been a headache for all hospital accountants to try and work out whether it is a £33 2s. 7d. charge or how much it is for amenity beds financial processes applied to each individual hospital. This is a cleaning-up provision that is long overdue.
  On Clause 2, we must take into account the Minister's recent decision to abolish any upper limit on the fees consultants may charge private patients. When my right hon. Friend takes power to charge for the services the consultant then uses within the hospital service I trust he will bear this in mind. I am interested to know whether, in the new St. Thomas's Hospital across the river, how many private suites are being built for consultants so that they can have private practice within the hospital. What proportion of
  1742
  the resources of St. Thomas's will this take?
  If there is to be a special arrangement whereby private patients are able to use all the diagnostic tests of a hospital, I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the charges he may make for these services. The whole question of priority treatment for fee paying patients is in direct conflict with the available time of hospital staff to care for those in need. Clinical need must be paramount and we may well need to amend these Clauses in Committee to safeguard that principle.
  The Clause dealing with the local authorities gives a valuable extension of existing functions. I hope that this will mean that there will be more relief, for example, for the daughter who stays unmarried to look after her elderly parent. This relief is needed not just for two weeks a year but at shorter intervals. Where the family takes on the responsibility of looking after elderly grandparents, for example, not only should it be possible to give residential care for these elderly persons to enable those looking after them to have a holiday for two weeks but there should be flexibility so that they can get relief at other times from the constant strain, especially when, in the later years, all kinds of acute mental problems can arise. The present methods of relief should be extended.
  In due course, all the services envisaged in this part of the Bill will, I believe, help a good deal in tackling the problem of incontinence in old people by extending the laundry service facility. I hope that it will go much further. In an ordinary hospital, there are arrangements for the use of incontinence pads and machinery for dealing with geriatric malfunctions which arise. It should be possible to integrate what is going on in domiciliary care, local authority services and hospitals and effect much saving of resources, equipment and purchasing. We can do this if we recognise that the problem is a common one either inside or outside hospitals and must be dealt with wherever it is found.
  I welcome the fact that the limits placed previously on midwives, health visitors and social workers will be removed. We must take the trend in this part of the Bill further in a major overhaul. We have succeeded in the last 20

  1743
  years in breaking down the high walls and the barbed wire surrounding our mental hospitals, but in other parts of the hospital service there is still an inward-looking, institutional approach that often separates the hospital from everything else going on around it.
  In the extensions to be given by the Bill, I hope that we shall go further by not only giving midwives, social workers and health visitors the opportunity to move freely through all three sectors but in getting other "walls" pulled down—for example, to enable mental nurses to follow their patients home for some domiciliary care rather than merely transferring the patients to the care of psychiatric social workers under the local authorities.
  The whole shift in medical care is away from the institutional to the domiciliary and the only way domiciliary care can be properly undertaken is by strengthening all those services which make it possible. It is no good saying to a general practitioner, "You must be the leader of the health team", and then giving him inadequate resources—not enough social workers and not enough time. Domiciliary care is, I believe, only possible if we can make a massive inroad by tapping the resources of people to help voluntarily.
  Recently I had the experience in my constituency of going around and delivering 40 meals to old people living alone in just over 1¾ hours. I went with the Women's Royal Voluntary Service. This is splendid work which is done voluntarily in my area. But it is only done two days a week, so the old people get two hot meals a week. It should be possible to give at least five and possibly seven hot meals a week if we can expand this kind of service, if necessary bringing in more volunteers.
  International Voluntary Service, Task Force and other youth organisations taking an interest could be directed along these lines to be able to play a very useful part. More than 4,000 people live alone in single rooms in my area. When the meals on wheels service goes in to a home, it reveals other kinds of social problems with which it cannot cope. But the mere fact that one knows of a problem can give the possibility of other welfare services, statutory or voluntary, moving in
  1744
  to give that little bit of help in their later years of life that our elderly people need. Having said this we must give credit to the Minister. Last year, 7,300,000 meals on wheels were delivered and 1,400,000 meals were delivered to old people in clubs and senior citizen facilities.
  The Bill recognises the great break through that has been achieved by using industrial therapy for mental patients. For a long time, we used to think of occupational therapy but that, although useful, has not been as effective as industrial therapy. The fact that a mentally disturbed person is able to do a similar job to someone else in the community starts the process of rehabilitating him back to the community, and for this the Minister is taking powers to follow through with facilities that can be given and this can mean a massive expansion in this service.
  The Bill takes into account the recent trend towards the rather belated acceptance by general practitioners of the usefulness of the health centre concept. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the eight new centres built last year, on the 13 being built and the further 27 approved. My right hon. Friend has the right to make additional services available in these centres but there are a number of technical problems which we shall need to examine in Committee.
  One of these smaller, minor aspects is the extension of ophthalmic services into health centres provided by Section 21 and I hope that my right hon. Friend will make it obligatory on practitioners to display all free frames for spectacles available of which there are about 57 different varieties. Most people never see these free frames, unless they be those which, apparently, are not very favourable to the visage of the person concerned.
  Clause 23 is especially welcome in view of the Sainsbury proposals, but I should like to know whether it also covers the bulk purchase of medicine. Do the Sainsbury proposals mean that this part of the Bill will be used so that the taxpayer can be saved money in the purchase of medicines used by general practitioners? Will the purchasing officers of hospitals and of local authorities be able to extend their services?

  1745
  I do not want to deal in detail with cars for disabled people, because a number of hon. Members have already dealt with the subject. However, I hope that my right hon. Friend will address himself to the problem of the garaging of these cars or invalid carriages. In an area like mine, which was built up in the time of Queen Victoria, there are no garages and there are no spaces for garages, and it does not help a person who cannot walk to tell him that the local authority is prepared to find him a garage one and a half miles from where he lives. I hope my hon. Friend will relax the present regulation which insists that a disabled person can have a car only if he can find adequate means to garage it.
  I regret very much that my right hon. Friend has not taken the opportunity in Clauses 34 and 35 to deal with the remuneration of the chairmen of hospital boards. The chairman of the board on which my right hon. Friend served before being elevated to his present august position manages a budget of more than £50 million a year and he has 23 groups and 160 hospitals. If he is to do his job adequately, he needs to spend at least three clays a week doing it, and the present chairman of the North-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board does so.
  Under another Ministry which I shall not name the part-time chairman of a similar body with a similar expenditure and spending about three days a week on the work gets £4,500 a year. Why should the hospital service of all public services be expected to be a part-time voluntary job when it is one of the largest industries in the country, and why should we expect the work to be done by retired people, or housewives, or those who have jobs from which they can be released to do the work in a part-time capacity. Even though we do not get it in the present Bill, I hope that my right hon. Friend will look forward to doing something about this reorganisation when we get further legislation.
  In all our N.H.S. legislation it is essential that we maintain the basic policy which went right through the original Act; that those people who have the good fortune to enjoy good health should pay for those who are sick. It is a principle which we have preserved through all our discussions and debates. I agree
  1746
  with the hon. Member for Cheadle that in the first 20 years we have built a curative service second to none. I have had the privilege of seeing the services in many other countries, developed and underdeveloped, in Asia, Africa, Europe and America, and I can say that the curative services of the N.H.S. are second to none.
  We have now reached the stage when we must turn over to prevention and to using all possible resources to preventing people from becoming sick in the first place. It is because the Bill is one step in tidying up the machinery towards that end that I give it a very warm welcome.
  7.10 p.m.
  Mrs. Jill Knight: The Bill is of grave importance and it is also extremely complicated. With such a labyrinth of provisions and prognostications it would be extraordinary if clarity reigned at all points. The Minister will not be astonished if we press him on some key matters on which we must ask him to be a little more explicit.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to pay beds, but in view of what has been said by some of his hon. Friends I must ask him to make it quite clear whether we can take it that there is to be no further deterioration in the number of pay beds. Does he recognise that there is a desire for them and is he prepared to gratify that desire? One assumes that he is not averse to a system by which the National Health Service is a ready-cash bonus beneficiary.
  I must also point out that the B.M.A. is concerned about this matter, feeling very strongly that there is to be a squeeze on private beds, not those which are in separate wings, about which the position is clear, but those which are not in separate wings. Hospitals outside London and the other big cities would be particularly affected by any change.
  I must take up a comment on this subject which was made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) who, unfortunately, has not found it possible to remain in the Chamber for the rest of the debate. He referred to the late Mr. Aneurin Bevan. In the past I have frequently attacked that gentleman's philosophy, but I have never questioned his sincerity and it ill became the

  1747
  hon. Member for Huddersfield, West clearly to say that the provision of pay beds was permitted by Mr. Aneurin Bevan only as a sort of concession to get the rest of the things which he wanted from the medical profession.
  I draw the hon. Member's attention to a speech by Mr. Aneurin Bevan when, as Minister of Health, speaking of pay-beds he said:
  "I know this is criticised and I sympathise with some of the reasons for the criticism, but we are driven inevitably to this fact, that unless we permit some fee-paying patients in the public hospitals, there will be a rash of nursing homes all over the country. If people wish to pay for additional amenities, or something to which they attach value, like privacy in a single ward, we ought to aim at providing such facilities for everyone who wants them … If the State owned a theatre it would not charge the same prices for different seats".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1946; Vol. 422, c. 57.]
  That is clearly Mr. Aneurin Bevan's attitude on this subject, and it would be an extremely good thing if the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West read it and bore it in mind.
  Dr. David Kerr: There is an alternative explanation of what Mr. Bevan was saying. What in fact he was saying was that if he was forced, as he said he was forced, to acknowledge the need for pay-beds, he would rather have them in hospitals where he exerted some control than allow a big section of private practice to develop outside the hospital service in nursing homes. That is not what the hon. Lady is representing to the House.
  Mrs. Knight: That intervention does not detract from the words which I have quoted which clearly indicate Mr. Bevan's attitude on this subject. That cannot be denied.
  However, I point out to those hon. Members opposite who are concerned about it that there is a proviso—it is extraordinary that I should be a kind of female latter day Galahad springing to the defence of the Minister against his own side of the House—that nothing in Clause 5 shall prevent such accommodation as would be available for pay beds from being used by any patient who urgently needs it on medical grounds.
  Mr. K. Robinson indicated assent.
  Mrs. Knight: I am glad to see that the Minister nods.
  Clause 17(2) speaks of the provision of ophthalmic services in health centres. There is cause to suppose that the Minister seeks to impose on local authority health committees a mandatory duty to provide opththalmic services in health centres. Is it to be mandatory or permissive? This is very important as the whole structure of the ophthalmic services could be altered. I take the point that there are some areas in which such a provision would be helpful and certainly one can imagine the public being benefited if opticians were practising in health centres and certainly they must have the right to do so, but in other circumstances and other areas it could be disastrous.
  The right hon. Gentleman reminded us of the position at the inception of the Health Service when it was originally envisaged that all optical services and ophthalmic examinations would in future be carried out within the hospitals. He sensibly conceded that time had shown that that was not a viable proposition. Similarly, it could be said that whereas some health centres might usefully provide ophthalmic services in future, it must not be held that the services now provided in premises in the High Streets must of necessity go, so that all such services are provided from health centres.
  There are many reasons for this. One is that many people want frames rather better than those which they can get from the Service. The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) was a little less than fair to the opticians when he suggested that they somehow hid the available Health Service frames so as to be able to sell frames to patients privately. Their ability to sell a private frame would be very much strengthened if all the Health Service frames were always prominently on view, because most people would certainly prefer a private frame. If people want such frames they will either go to the optician completely privately, or have private frames glazed with Health Service lenses. The Minister cannot complain, because the principle by which the long-suffering taxpayer pays once to do his share of financing the Health Service and a second time to be allowed his own choice of what he wishes to wear cross his face has been accepted for a long time.

  1749
  Equally, it is true that this system is not in the interests of the opticians, because it tends to mean that they are not paid enough for their services as professional men and therefore have to make up a living wage through their services as frame salesmen, and I know that this is a cause for concern for many of them. But the system has the merit of permitting the public a choice, a choice which could well disappear under the rather woolly wording of some parts of the Bill.
  Does the Minister really mean that in future the poor overworked local authority health committees, already labouring to deal with a vast range of responsibilities from sewers to bad food and the provision of training centres and homes for old people must—not "can", but "must"—provide health centres where people will have to go to get their eyes examined? If he means that, the choice permitted would be controlled by him, and I am sure that the public would not like that and I do not think that the health committees would.
  For years there has been pressure from the profession for ophthalmic services to be termed general and not supplementary and ore warmly welcomes what the Minister has done to get these services on the right footing, but it is probably true that stemming from that very change is a deletion of the optical services committee from health executive councils. Probably this is a mistake which can be rectified in Committee.
  Hon. Members who have mentioned this subject have not recognised the possible source of the mistake, which is that the optical services committees are to go, with nothing to replace them. I do not think that the Minister has decided that these committees have not been doing a good job or that they have in any way fallen down on their duties. Having served on a health executive council for 10 years, I have some little experience of these matters. But whatever the reason for the dissolution of optical services committees, I urge the Minister to make regulations to provide instead for a committee to be set up under paragraph 6(b) of Schedule 1 to deal with such ophthalmic matters which may be delegated by executive councils. That is important. Anyone who has sat on a health executive council knows that there
  1750
  are various technical matters that need to be relegated to such a committee.
  Similarly, I am sure that by now the Minister realises that the proposal to include only one ophthalmic optician on executive councils is inadequate. I stress the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) that we must bear in mind the high proportion of work they undertake and the huge mass of the public whom they serve. I hope that the Minister realises the importance of the point and will permit it to be rectified in Committee.
  I note from Clauses 5 and 8 that the Minister does not intend at present to interfere with the present teaching hospitals. But can he clarify the future position? Does he intend that beyond the experimental period the teaching hospitals and university hospitals should co-exist with equal status and similar functions, or is it his intention ultimately to standardise the designation for all hospitals with a teaching function, placing them all either under boards of governors or regional hospital boards? The explanatory memorandum tells us that the new form of designation as "university hospitals" will be
  … an alternative to designation as a teaching hospital under existing provisions.
  That seems to imply co-existence. I am encouraged in that view not only by the Minister's nod but by Clause 6, which seeks to widen the powers of the board of governors of a teaching hospital.
  But it is reasonable to press the Minister about this, because there is a classic precedent for the subsequent amalgamation of teaching institutions originally designed to be of equal status although administered differently. I refer to the colleges of advanced technology and the university colleges. What happened there has passed into history, and like most history it can give us a lesson. If the Minister should be tempted to consider eventually bringing all teaching hospitals under the aegis of the regional hospital boards, I hope that he will give full weight to the recommendations of the Porritt Committee on the subject. The Committee said that in England and Wales the teaching hospitals should continue to be administered by separate boards of governors with direct access to the Minister.

  1751
  Another part of the Bill which rather disturbs me is Clause 62, which says that the Minister of Health may:
  "(a) purchase and store and, on such terms as may be agreed between him and them, supply to authorities which are local health authorities for the purposes of Part III of the National Health Service Act, 1946, any goods or materials required by them …"
  What does that mean? They require an awful lot of goods and materials. What are the mysterious commodities that the Minister will shop for, store and supply with such busy intensity? Are they bandages, false teeth, spectacle frames, medicines, maternity supplies and surgical supports? Why does he need to give himself the task of marketing them anyway? Is there a deep malaise in the present system of supply, or does he reckon to get them cheaper from a munificent bulk supplier? All members of the medical professions will be deeply interested in the replies to that question.
  Throughout the Bill we constantly meet the words found on lines 26 and 27 on page 14,
  "… on such terms and conditions as may be determined by the Minister …"
  Is it too much to ask for an assurance that he will reach his determinations only after consultations with the various professional bodies involved? Much as we respect the Ministry officials and admire the way in which they work, we must press for consultation to be carried out with all branches of the medical profession who are concerned—and I can think of none who are not—because they feel that there has not been sufficient consultation.
  I now turn to a completely different part of the Bill, dealing with the provision of invalid vehicles. I am most anxious that the provisions of Clause 31 shall be further widened. What is to be done is welcome as far as it goes, but does the Minister think that it goes far enough? What does he intend to be the criteria for extending the provision of cars and tricycles? The Bill is not clear on that.
  I feel very strongly that at present there is something rather unfeeling about the provision of transport for physically handicapped persons. It is not only a question of the provision of an invalid tricycle or car. There is also a great need for something to be done to help
  1752
  handicapped people who buy their own cars and subsequently convert them to hand controls. Many such people must buy a car for themselves because of their jobs or for other reasons. It is very hard that they should also have to pay for the conversion, the cost of which is rising steeply and is now, I think, between £25 and £30.
  I am particularly anxious about war-disabled pensioners who face the problem. For many months I have been pressing the Minister, with a sad lack of success, about a constituent of mine who lost both legs as a result of his war service. He went to war a strong and healthy young man and returned a cripple. The sad fact is that he is within an inch of getting help for the conversion of his car to hand controls, but he will never get it. I believe that if the legs are removed one inch above the knee it is not possible to give the help, but if they are removed an inch higher it can be given. It is something like that, but the precise number of inches does not alter my point. If a man is so badly disabled as a result of his war service that the Ministry of Transport does not allow him to drive an ordinary car without having it converted to hand controls the Ministry of Health should help him meet the cost.
  There is a real need for such cases to be helped, but I am sorry to say that for many months the Minister has said at some time in the golden future something will be done, and that he has the point in mind. But along comes this Bill, which includes a great deal about invalid tricycles and cars, and yet it includes not a thing that will help my constituent and those in his position.
  Clause 13 makes it a statutory duty of local authorities to provide home help. I do not want to say much about that or to speak for much longer. But is the Minister aware of the great difficulties of providing home help? It is not a question of saying "Let there be light", and simply switching on. It is very difficult to get these valuable ladies, and rates of pay for such domestic help must be far higher than the normal rate paid by housewives for the help they get for a couple of hours a week. I know this very well because of my work on a local authority health committee. Most health committees have great difficulty in filling their existing vacancies.

  1753
  The Minister should also be aware that other local authority departments take home helps from them—particularly the children's department, where, because of recent legislation, it has been thought wise, I think absolutely correctly, that families in danger of breaking up should be given every possible help. This frequently involves a special home help who helps to get the family over the difficult" and even teaches the wife to run her home more happily.
  More and more are being used in this department. This is a most important branch of the service. It has been said that it can keep people out of hospital, and that is true. Home helps provide an extremely important service, but it is not so easy to get them as the Bill envisages and the Minister seems to imagine.
  I tremble at the statutory headaches which the Minister is imposing on local authorities, such as the duty to provide laundry services. I do not argue that it is highly desirable, and we have heard how it helps elderly people, but it could be expensive and this has not been recognised. It could give a great good to a certain section if all local authorities set up a laundry as a sheltered workshop for mentally and physically handicapped. A very few have done this, as I know from having been involved with one which did. If, instead of using existing laundries, we could set up laundries for the handicapped, who do this work very well, this would be a good thing.
  I hope that the Minister knows how to finance all this bountiful help. I have a good deal of information about the effect of devaluation on local authority services and most hon. Members know that the 8 per cent. Bank Rate has had a dreadful effect, since so many of these services must be financed by loans. I was surprised to see, in the first part of the Bill, a reference to financial effects which implied that it will not cost very much and I was reminded of precisely the same mistake on the inception of the Health Service, when people were told that it would cost very little yet the costs have been rocketing ever since. They could not do otherwise.
  The passage in question says:
  "Some increase of expenditure under the powers conferred on local authorities under Clause 43 to promote the welfare of the elderly may be expected, and may lead in
  1754
  due course to increased Exchequer support for local authority expenditure …"
  That has too much of the flavour of the sweet by and by. This will have to be financed fairly soon and it should be done properly since it will cost a lot of money. It goes on:
  "No significant net financial effect is expected from the other improvements"
  to public welfare and health services. This is a sublime example of optimism. It will cost money and it is no use pretending otherwise. I do not quarrel with being asked to provide more money for these necessary services, but I plead for realism and not claims that this will cost little or nothing.
  I welcome Clause 43 warmly. Perhaps by now the Minister will have recognised that many hon. Members feel that something should be done by way of a register or survey to determine the size of the problem or elderly people. This is of great importance. So far, the Minister has given only a lukewarm response to this. While many old people get to know what help is available to them through their doctors, we must remember that some never go near doctors. It is important that we should know where they are and who they are and explain clearly to them what can be done for them.
  I have one word of warning. In dealing with elderly people, we need welfare workers of exceptional calibre, because so many old people far prefer to stay at home rather than enter hospital. I know that in some local authorities, an old lady or gentleman may be found in dirty surroundings, unable to cope and look after themselves. Such people may he removed much against their will and taken to hospital, where they usually die miserably soon afterwards. I hope that great stress will be laid on domiciliary services in this respect, with more help through Meals on Wheels. Until quite recently it has been difficult to get enough money for this extremely valuable voluntary help, which would keep people in their own homes and should therefore be encouraged with all our energy.
  There are many points on which we hope that the Minister will give his blessing to Amendments in Committee. I welcome the spirit in which the Bill has been introduced.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the House that everyone who is seeking to catch my eye has been sitting here all day. I hope that speeches will be reasonably brief.
  7.38 p.m.
  Miss Joan Lestor: I wish to refer to the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short)—Clause 57, and the proposed amendments to the Nurseries and Child-Minders Regulation Act.
  I am conscious that, when a Minister has shown himself sensitive and responsive to a lobby, it seems churlish to criticise his attempts to meet many of the criticisms of this Act by hon. Members. As a member of that lobby, I know that he has tried to meet the main objections and to close the loopholes in the 1948 Act. The proposed amendments are to be welcomed in so far as they extend the conditions for registration and give local authorities wider powers in connection with people minding children, whether organisers of day nurseries, child minders, play group leaders or anyone else. As my hon. Friend said, the abuses of the Act have been widespread and recent surveys, including the one produced by Dr. Simon Yudkin and his party demonstrated the need to tighten up the regulations in many respects.
  I have one or two other proposals which perhaps my right hon. Friend would consider. First, some unregistered child minders flourish because of the way in which they advertise their services: through local newsagents and newspapers. One way of controlling this might be to oblige a newsagent or newspaper either to ask for the certificate of registration before placing such an advertisement or to inform the local health authority that such an advertisement had been placed so that the health visitor can check whether the person is registered. One of my local newspapers, the Slough Observer, has already undertaken to investigate registration when advertisements are placed.
  Second, we should tell local authorities to give more attention to provisions relating to the means of informing parents, and particularly young mothers who wish to have their children minded,
  1756
  that registration is essential. This could be done through doctors or welfare clinics, perhaps. Many young mothers are not even aware that they may be handing over their children to the care of a person who is not in touch with the local authority and over whom it has no control.
  The amendments proposed relate to only a tiny part of the problem. Many of us have repeatedly asked both the Department of Education and Science and the Minister of Health to inquire into the whole field of the pre-school child. The proposed amendments are no substitute for such an inquiry, but only strengthen the need for it. If they are successful, they will either—as they should—reduce the number of places for children to be minded, because we will have succeeded in outlawing many of the unregistered and undesirable child minders and making it more difficult for them, or they will merely cause them to go further underground and out of the knowledge of the local authorities.
  This fear must be considered, because the lobby for amending this Act favoured closing the loopholes and making it more difficult for the unregistered and the undesirable to mind children, but this should be accompanied by an increase in local authority day nursery provision, which is the main cause of the problem facing local authorities. Unless we get this accompanying provision, the proposed amendments, which in isolation appear to solve the difficulties will really only aggravate the problem.
  The crux of the matter is simply that 750,000 working mothers have children under school age and 250,000 work full time. The local authority provision in no way meets that demand and anyone with anything to do with local health authorities knows this, as does my right hon. Friend. Many of these mothers have to work and many will go on working even if they do not. Most local authority day nursery provision is inadequate. It caters only for the priority cases and not for the woman who needs or has to go out to work if she is from a normal family.
  My hon. Friend deplored the rapid decline in local authority day nursery provision since the end of the war. The reason is that, when the day nurseries were to be closed it was assumed, on the

  1757
  basis of the 1944 Education Act, that there would be an increase in the number of nursery school places and that the two went together. But what happened was a complete reduction in day nursery provision and no increase, or very little during the last 20 or so years, in nursery school places.
  Thus more and more children under the age of 5, particularly between 3 and 5, have been forced to find other outlets both for being minded and for playing. This is the reason for the rapid and enormous increase in the last few years in the number of people registered under the Nurseries and Child-Minders Regulation Act for running private nurseries and those minding children or running play groups.
  As my right hon. Friend is aware, to the extent that the private nursery, the play group and the child minder have increased in number and registered, so have the unregistered. Although this is very difficult to get figures on, we know from statistics and evidence, particularly from accidents and problems investigated by health visitors, that, in many overcrowded areas, it is increasing. The inadequacy of these provisions does not look like being dealt with, so the real question of the problems of child minding does not arise from difficulties over the law, but from the shortage of local authority day nursery places. Unless these are increased, I fear that the problem which we seek to solve will continue.
  I have repeatedly called for both a public inquiry into the sphere of the under-5s and an interdepartmental inquiry to consider the problems involved in caring for this age group. Local authority day nurseries are registered under the health authority. They belong to my right hon. Friend and take children from 0 to 5 years old and most people pay for this service, according to their means. Private nurseries, child minders and play groups are registered under the same Act. They can take children up to the age of 5 and most of this is paid for by the parents. But local authority nursery schools belong to the Education Department and take children between 3 and 5. One does not pay for this service because it is part of the education service.
  Play groups are often run in church and community halls by local committees,
  1758
  groups of parents or just individuals, who sometimes form an organisation like the Save the Children Fund or the Association of Pre-School Child Groups. The latter belong to my right hon. Friend, but are not mentioned in the proposed amendments. However, the tendency now is, because of the inadequacy of provision under the Education Department for the under-5s, for more and more parents to send their children between 3 and 5 to play groups which are registered, but which are rapidly becoming a substitute for the nursery school.
  In fact, many of the establishments to which parents imagine they are sending their children, and call them nursery schools, are really private nurseries, day nurseries, and so on. But for the Department of Education and Science there is no control. There are no inspection rights. There is no right of entry or right to say what qualifications those running these organisations should possess. Nor is there any right to question the educational content of these establishments. This belongs to the Ministry of Health—all caught up with other regulations dealing with premises, sanitation and the rest.
  The figures, such as they are—and they are not particularly good; a lot needs to be done to obtain satisfactory statistics—show that there are 205 private nursery schools registered under the Department of Education and Science and that these are taking 5,500 children, and of these 205 schools, only nine are recognised as being efficient by the Department. We have 2,250 private nurseries taking 55,000 children and 3,250 child minders taking 27,000 children. Bearing these figures in mind, we should remember the crucially important point of trying to do something about the inadequacy of facilities for the under-5s. More and more establishments for this age group are being forced under the control of the Health Department. Some are very good, while others are very poor. Twenty years ago or more it was considered that the development of establishments for children in the pre-school years was an ideal development.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science is pessimistic in his reply regarding the future provision of nursery schools, despite the case put so excellently by Plowden. We have this curious confusion about who runs play groups. The

  1759
  Department of Education and Science recognises—or at least is beginning to—that the play group under Health is becoming a substitute for the nursery school. The Department makes a grant to both the Save the Children Fund and the National Association of Play Groups.
  I have been told that more than one education authority has refused a child a place in a nursery school because the child is attending a play group. In such a case the education authority has said that the spare place should be given to a child who does not attend a play group. It is obvious that this vast mass of children under 5 being concentrated under the Health Department will, if not by legislative recognition and Departmental recognition then in some other way, rapidly be attending establishments which will become a substitute for the nursery school; and this is something to which attention must be given by both the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
  The play group movement is in urgent need of educational recognition and help. It wants educational standards as well as health standards. It wants training courses for its staff and local authorities need clarification and encouragement from the Government as to their responsibilities in respect of the provision that they can make. It is ludicrous that for a group of 20, 30 or 50 children the standards need be no different from those applying to a group of only a few children.
  With the best will in the world, it is difficult for many women to know precisely what should be done at some of these play groups. Many of them do not have the ability to look after a number of children in the way we would like to see them looked after and the majority of them would welcome training courses and assistance from the two Departments. There should be set up some sort of child authority between both Departments to try to get a recognised training course, with recognised educational and health standards combined, which would help to raise the standards of play groups and which would also help to remove them from the restricted inspection rights that the Ministry has in this respect.
  It has been stressed many times by people who are knowledgeable on the
  1760
  subject that the play group movement has tended to thrive in middle-class areas. This has happened for obvious reasons. The better-off have tended to make this provision for their children. If the Plowden recommendations in respect of deprived areas are not implemented, it is time that we looked at this aspect of the problem to see what we can do. After all, this provision does not involve qualified teachers and there should be special courses for people running play groups. This is why, when we are trying to assess the needs of the pre-school child in terms of child minding and education, we need an inquiry into the whole matter because it infringes on education and health as a whole.
  At present, many children who would attend these establishments if they were provided are not able to be satisfactorily accommodated. However, there are some large child minding services and this applies particularly in industry, where crôches and other play facilities are provided for the under-fives to encourage mothers back to work. These children, but for the short-sightedness of the country's education policy for the last 20 years, would have had an opportunity to attend nursery schools.
  Plowden was not intended to deal with the needs of the working mother of the pre-school child, but it stumbled on the problem and, in doing so, backed up the already mounting evidence that, in this category, exists inadequacy, confusion and danger.
  There are 4¾ million children under 5 in this country. The provision for their physical care is good and is improving all the time. In contrast, provision for their emotional and social needs is chaotic and is based on no philosophy. It also ignores much of what is known about the whole sphere of child development.
  Modern life has changed family relationships and family patterns. The whole fabric of society has changed—that is, for all except the under-5s. We encourage women to return to work, but the only provision we make for children outside the existing band of nursery schools is if we want to encourage particular categories of women back to work, in which case we provide facilities for their children.
  An adequate case has been made out certainly for the last five years,

  1761
  and since the child nursery provision has been running down, that provision must be increased or private provision will continue to grow. A sufficient case has been made out now to show that every time we talk about nursery schools, play groups, child minders or private nurseries, we are dealing with a very small part of the problem because the confusion that exists Departmentally makes it almost impossible to look at this whole question as one and make definite recommendations to tell us exactly where we are going.
  Is enough known about the subject? My right hon. Friend was kind enough to see and discuss the topic with me at some length, although he feels that an inquiry is not needed because, in his view, enough is known about the under-5s. He must be aware that the proposals in the Bill will not meet the needs of the very problem that has been highlighted.
  If we do not know sufficient about the inadequacies which exist, it is time that we discovered them because whatever the intention of these amendments—and I admit that they are good—without adequate provision from the local authority point of view, and without a raising of the standards for children who are deprived of nursery school education and who are trying to be controlled and managed in some other sort of organisation under the health authority, this problem, despite these amendments, will increase rather than decrease. Unless we decognise the need for a rapid growth in this provision, the sort of conditions and circumstances under which many of our children are at present being minded, in registered and unregistered organisations, will increase—and we will not find it so easy to tackle the problem as time goes by.
  7.58 p.m.
  Mr. Brian Harrison: In view of the lack of time, I will not delay the House and, for this reason, I will not comment on the interesting points made by the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor). I appreciate that ever since she became an hon. Member she has stressed the importance of the topic she raised. I hope that she will forgive me for not commenting on it.
  The Bill has been described variously as a "hotch-potch" and a "rag bag".
  1762
  Whatever may be said about it, we must use the resources we have for the different forms of health services—be they local authority or Ministry controlled—to ensure that the best results are achieved for the people they are designed to help. In other words, we must break down the barriers that exist, and use all the facilities to improve the lot of those we set out to help; that is, people who are ill or unable to look after themselves in the community.
  There has been a tremendous move in this direction in the attitudes of the public at large and by health authorities and hospitals. However, there are difficulties and a number of these are pinpointed in the Bill. The facilities suggested in the Measure will be of considerable help in getting over some of the tight compartments in which some of the services find themselves.
  We want to make the most of all the facilities and resources we have. I suggest that one way would be to simplify the administration of the Health Service generally, and I trust that the Minister will consider this at a later stage. Often small points take up a lot of time in administering the service. Hon. Members will be aware that every time there is a car accident and someone is hurt, the driver of the car which injured the individual must pay 12s. 6d. That has to be collected by regional hospital boards or by hospital management committees. The amount of work that goes into collecting this small fee is quite out of proportion to the amount collected. I checked up with two hospital management committees. The first one had to collect 1,300 of these fees, and it had to write off 13 per cent. It estimated that the cost was near a guinea for every 12s. 6d. which it succeeded in collecting.
  In the other case there were 945 fees to be collected, of which 106 had to be written off. A very small Amendment to this Bill would remove an aggravating job from hospital management committees and others and it would also make the service much more acceptable in the community.
  All sorts of comments are made in the letters in reply to requests for payment of this fee—" I thought the ambulance was free"; "I thought the Health Service was free"; "I never used the

  1763
  ambulance"; "It was the other man's fault." All these sort of things blow up.
  I am sure that when we consider the Bill in Committee the Minister would earn the thanks of every finance officer on every board and management committee were he to put down a small Amendment which would abolish Section 213, and probably Section 214, of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. I hope that this point will be considered during the Committee stage.
  8.02 p.m.
  Dr. John Dunwoody: There are many hon. Members who want to speak, so I will be brief. I will not follow on what the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison) has been speaking about, although I find the subject that he has raised of some interest.
  I would like to pick up one or two of the points that the Minister made in introducing this Bill. First, I pay tribute to him for the very significant revival of morale in the National Health Service. Those of us who have been closely connected with the Service for many years past realise that over the last two or three years there has been a significant revival in morale, which had got woefully low. I am not suggesting that all our problems are solved—far from it—but I think that we are justified in adopting an attitude of perhaps cautious optimism.
  I particularly endorse what the Minister said about health centres. It is encouraging to see this increasing development in health centres, although one must underline how very far we have to go before health centre practice becomes the normal type of general practice in this country. I look forward to that day.
  The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) welcomed the non-doctrinaire approach, as he put it, of the Minister on a number of issues. I welcome the non-doctrinaire approach on health centres that we have had from the Conservative Party. All the old political bogeys and the extreme doctrinaire attitude of some of our political opponents has, fortunately, been forgotten. Health centres will help to a certain extent in solving the difficult problem of shortage of doctors, because one advantage of this form of general
  1764
  practice is that it makes more efficient use of the skills of a limited number of doctors.
  Another important thing that we have to do is to increase the opportunity for training at medical schools. Whether it be in health centres, group practices, or even partnerships—I do not want to get involved in an almost theological distinction on the borderline between these three types of family medicine—team work is essential. The family doctor especially will increasingly be the leader of the team. Many doctors appreciate and welcome this sort of practice, but some do not realise how important it is to cooperate, not only with their own professional colleagues, but with other medical workers such as health visitors, social workers, district nurses, midwives, and so on.
  I also welcome the Minister's announcement that we are to spend £100 million on new hospital building, and particularly his emphasis on the increasing concentration of geriatric and psychiatric work in this sphere.
  My right hon. Friend also mentioned productivity. Productivity is perhaps not the sort of word one would normally use when talking about medical practice and hospital work, but I think that it is justified. Productivity has improved enormously in the Health Service as a result of medical advances, new drugs, techniques, and improved organisation. There is still a great deal more that we could do. For example, I am convinced that there are thousands of patients who are unnecessarily admitted into hospitals, or, if they have to be admitted, are perhaps admitted too early and languish for one, two or three days before their operation takes place. If one adds up these unnecessary days in hospital by thousands of patients all over the country, one realises that here at least is one factor that is aggravating the waiting list.
  There are many patients who could be discharged from hospital much earlier than they are at the moment. It always strikes me as extraordinary, as a family doctor who also worked within the hospital service, but under the supervision of a consultant, that I would be looking after patients in my own general practice work who were very much worse in health and in much more need of care and attention than some of the patients

  1765
  who were remaining in hospital because of arbitrary rules that had been accepted by the hospital and by the consultant. For example, that somebody who has an appendicectomy shall not go home for eight days, or whatever is the arbitrary length of time. Because these rules have been adopted we find patients in hospital who are often not as ill as those being looked after outside. This is a direction in which we could look towards improving productivity.
  Concerning out-patients, a very large number of people attend unnecessarily—cases which could be looked after by their family doctors if only we were prepared to give to the family doctors in all parts of the country the tools of their trade: the ancillary help and the right to send patients for investigation that the doctors in the more fortunate parts of Britain, by and large, have.
  The Bill is no startling major step forward, but it is a valuable step. As was said earlier, no changes in administration are proposed. It is a pity that we have not begin to tackle the problem, because the need for unification of our tripartite service is becoming increasingly obvious as the years go by.
  Some attention has been given to the section on pay-beds. I want to spend a moment or two discussing this. I am opposed to private medical practice. I always have been. I was when I was a medical student and my attitude was reinforced when I become a doctor in hospital, and it was still further reinforced when I started in general practice. I think that private medical practice is morally indefensible and, medically, exceedingly inefficient. But we are not today arguing about the rights and wrongs of it; we are discussing the points put forward in the Bill.
  I welcome the Minister's assurance that he will not use his powers to extend private practice in any way, but will make a more rational use of beds in our hospital service. I hope that this will mean that not only certain private patients will be treated in beds which have previously been exclusively reserved for Health Service patients, but we will go much further along the road towards using the empty private beds that are in existence at this moment in nearly every large hospital in the country. Bed occu-
  1766
  pancy rates in private wards and private rooms very often fall far below the bed occupancy rates in the Health Service section of a hospital. This is a dreadful waste of desperately short hospital accommodation comparable to the waste which I think private practice makes of the desperately short skills of the medical profession.
  I am interested in the new designation of university hospitals. I do not share the fears which have been expressed in the House today that some sort of precedent might be created, and that the time might come when there will be some change in the way in which we deal with our teaching hospitals in England and Wales. It is interesting to note that this is applied only to England and Wales. The Scots have been more intelligent than we have been in this respect. From the early days teaching hospitals there have been an integral part of the regional hospital board set-up. My experience of Scottish teaching hospitals convinces me that there are strong arguments in favour of their system, as opposed to ours which tends to isolate the teaching hospital from the ordinary run-of-the-garden hospitals, and therefore tends to isolate hospitals not only administratively, but professionally as well.
  I am particularly interested, too, in the proposals for the midwifery service, namely, that we should enable midwives employed by local authorities to work within hospitals as well as in the district and the community. This is particularly important in those rural areas which are largely dependent on small maternity units, often staffed by family doctors, because these units have been facing serious problems in recent years. One of the problems has been to staff them, largely because it is difficult to obtain midwives.
  Working in this sort of area, I have often felt that this problem could be solved, if, instead of having a divided midwifery service where there are hospital and district midwives in the sparsely populated areas, there was a midwifery service which provided care for those who needed it, whether they be in hospital, or outside it. This would have the advantage, not only of solving some of the staffing difficulties, but would get over a real and justified professional objection by midwives to the early discharge of patients from hospital.

  1767
  The early discharge of midwifery cases from hospital is increasingly happening, quite rightly from the medical point of view, but, understandably, a trained and qualified midwife gets a little fed up when virtually all the cases which she has been looking after in the district are delivered by somebody else in hospital, and are discharged two or three days after the delivery. If we have a system whereby the midwife follows the patient around, so that the patient has continuity of care, and the midwife has continuity from the professional point of view, we shall be taking a real step forward.
  The other Clauses of the Bill which I particularly welcome are those which help the old folk. I am referring to the insistence that the provision of a home help service shall be a statutory duty on local authorities. I regret, as one hon. Gentleman opposite did, that the provision of a laundry service is not to be statutory, too, because the problem of soiled bed linen is probably the most common single factor which results in old folk having to be unnecessarily admitted to hospital.
  It is not just the economic cost, although this has been mentioned by some hon. Members. It is the cost in terms of human suffering. It is difficult to explain, unless one has had to deal with a large number of old folk, just how much it means to many of them to be removed from the home in which they have lived for perhaps 40 years and be put into the extremely strange environment of a hospital ward. When this is done only because there are not the means in ordinary people's homes to do all the washing that is necessary two or three times a day, it seems very wrong indeed.
  As I say, I welcome all the Clauses which promote the welfare of the old folk, and I was pleased that when my right hon. Friend introduced the Bill he mentioned loneliness, because in old age this is one of the biggest problems which has to be faced.
  I welcome the fact that more attention is to be paid to post-graduate medical education, because there is a great need for this. When talking about medical education, we sometimes concentrate too much on undergraduate education, and forget that the average doctor today will,
  1768
  during his working life, see a complete transformation in the medical scene. The fact is that 30 to 40 years means a complete transformation in medicine. The medicine that we are practising today is totally different from that in the late thirties, and the need for regular refresher courses is becoming increasingly great as time goes on.
  I welcome the Clause which deals with invalid cars, because I consider an invalid tricycle to be virtually a sardine tin on wheels. It is wrong to expect disabled people to drive around in these abysmal vehicles. We ought to be thinking more about changing to mini cars of one sort or another.
  The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) mentioned the possibility of a Specialist Committee to look into health and welfare matters. This ought to be considered seriously. I have had the pleasure, the honour if one likes, of serving for the last eight or nine months on one of the two new Specialist Committees, that on agriculture. All the time that we were holding our meetings I felt that it was the sort of technique which could be usefully applied in Health Service politics, because, as we all understand, many of these issues are probably better discussed in a Specialist Committee. They do not involve party conflicts, which are better dealt with here.
  I welcome the Bill. It represents a real, if not a very large, step forward. It is in some ways typical of the legislation that we have seen on this subject over the last two or three years. I think that we perhaps forget the real and significant progress which has been made since Labour came to power in 1964. We have retained the basic principle of the Service, that it should be free to all those who are in need.
  I particularly welcome the fact that we are discussing the Bill so soon after devaluation. This is one of the first Measures to come before the House since then. I think that it will particularly help those sections of the community who may have to pay some of the economic prices resulting from the economic crisis which we have faced in recent months.
  8.17 p.m.
  Mr. Percy Grieve: I shall not, at this late hour, attempt to follow the

  1769
  hon. Member for Falmouth and Cam-borne (Dr. John Dunwoody) in all that he said. With much that he said, I find myself in complete agreement, but I was profoundly shocked and disturbed to hear him say that he found the private practice of medicine—I hope that I do not quote him incorrectly—immoral. Observations of that kind, coming from an hon. Member who otherwise is obviously educated, humane, and balanced——
  Dr. John Dunwoody: I think that the words I used were "morally indefensible". That is not the same as immoral, at least not to me.
  Mr. Grieve: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I am still profoundly shocked at his observation. That kind of observation, coming from someone of the obvious humanity of the hon. Gentleman, makes one convinced that the logical conclusion of Socialism is an ant hill in which the individual has no freedom of choice. The only consolation I feel is that if that state were achieved by the Socialists, many of them would be the first to rebel.
  I shall not go through the many Clauses of the Bill, but will come directly to those which are of the most moment to me now, because lately I have been concerned with the problem of pay-beds. There is much in the Bill which has received an unqualified welcome from both sides of the House. I am thinking particularly of Clauses 42 and 43, which contain provisions for old people, Clause 13, and so on. But for Clauses 1 to 4, which deal with pay-beds, there has been only qualified approval, significantly, from both sides of the House.
  That was because both sides of the House read into these Clauses a different intention by the Minister. I noted down carefully what he said about these Clauses as to his intention. He said that he had no intention of extending private practice—huzzas from hon. Members opposite. He said that he would not abolish the right of the profession to treat private patients. I give no huzza to that statement of intention, because it leaves the matter as vague and leaves us as much in the dark about his intention as we were before.
  I ask the Minister the categorical question, does he intend to provide, in accord-
  1770
  ance with the undertaking given by the then Minister of Health when the Health Service was instituted, private treatment in Health Service hospitals in accordance with the need and demand for it? If he is to cut down the pay-beds and the provisions of pay-beds despite the demand and in inverse sense to it, he will be going back on the undertaking that was then given. He will be flying in the face of an enormous public demand, a demand which also comes from the medical profession.
  We have to face the fact—the Minister would be the first to concede it—that there is a great lack of confidence between the medical profession and the Minister. The medical profession is profoundly disturbed. I have had letters from the British Medical Association and other organisations about the slightly increased flexibility in powers which the Minister gives himself and about the use he will make of them. It is the use that he will make of them that worries the doctors and an undertaking in regard to that is what we are seeking and for which we have a right to ask.
  In those circumstances, it was perhaps unfortunate that on the eve of the presentation of this Bill for Second Reading the Minister took the opportunity in Glasgow last night to make an attack—for such it appears from the account in The Times—upon the representatives of the medical profession. I quote from The Times for today:
  "Mr. Robinson, who was giving the Maurice Bloch Lecture at Glasgow University, criticised the `official voice' of the medical profession. He said certain representatives were responsible for the impression of antagonism. Many doctors, particularly the younger ones, derived satisfaction from practising their profession in an environment where, without hesitating to consider their patients' means, they could prescribe and carry out whatever treatment they considered was needed."
  If there is an impression of antagonism between the Minister and representatives of the medical profession I suggest that the fault is not, as the Minister would suggest, all on one side but lies very much with him and his conduct in regard to pay-beds over the last few months is one of the causes of that antagonism.
  The fact must be faced that the consent and friendship and co-operation of the medical profession are absolutely essential to the well working of the Health

  1771
  Service. If the Minister puts them in jeopardy, the Service will break down. On 6th November, in answer to a Question I asked, the Minister announced that he was to cut down the number of pay-beds available in Health Service hospitals from 5,764 to 4,379. A Motion in my name, deploring this, was signed by 113 of my hon. Friends.
  The Minister gave as an excuse that he was cutting down the number of pay-beds commensurate with the demand. It is quite true that there are empty pay-beds because the malady or the complaint for which a particular pay-bed is designated is not one for which there is demand at the moment. [Laughter.] I have expressed myself very badly, but hon. Members know what I mean. It is not the demand for the malady, but the demand for the pay-bed. That I know. The new flexibility in Clauses 1 to 4 will enable the Minister to make beds available as and when needed subject to such considerations as convenience in the hospital, and so on. To that extent I welcome the flexibility, provided it is properly used, but it must be properly used. The demand for private practice in medicine is not decreasing but is increasing.
  Dr. David Kerr: Shame.
  Mr. Grieve: We have to respect the freedom of the individual. Does the hon. Member say shame and the individual should seek privacy and the help of his own doctor?
  Dr. David Kerr rose——
  Mr. Grieve: No, I will not give way. I asked the question rhetorically. Does the hon. Member deny the individual a right which any free society must give to go outside the State Service for any requirement of his, particularly a requirement which so closely concerns him?
  Dr. David Kerr: May I answer that question?
  Mr. Grieve: Yes, certainly.
  Dr. David Kerr: I thought that it was a purely rhetorical question. I do not deny the patient the right to private treatment. What I cry shame about is that there is thought to be a need for an extension of private practice and that
  1772
  there should be an attempt to justify it as the kind of practice which ought to be followed. I think that it should diminish as the kind of practice which ought not to be followed.
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Member is entitled to his point of view in a free country just as people are entitled to go to their own doctor and to pay him if they wish to do so. This was quite properly recognised in the National Health Service Act. It should not be taken away, but the Minister has been whittling it away. That is the complaint we make.
  Mr. K. Robinson: The hon. Member has been making very heavy weather——
  Mr. Grieve: I am sorry that the Minister should think I make heavy weather of it.
  Mr. K. Robinson: —of the revision in the total number of pay-beds. I do not know whether he is aware of the history of this matter. I do not know whether he is aware that over 18 months ago I discussed with the leaders of hospital doctors, the consultants, a package deal in connection with pay-beds. There were features which they liked and features which they did not like. They acquiesced in the total package and part of the package was that I would review the total number of pay-beds in order to adjust the pressure on pay beds to something like the pressure on non-paying beds. Another part of the package was to do what no Conservative Minister was ever willing to do. I lifted completely the ceiling on fees which private consultants could earn from private patients in Health Service hospitals. The hon. Member might take the whole package together instead of one particular aspect of which he complains.
  Mr. Grieve: The aspect I am taking into consideration is one which concerns the citizens of this country, the availability of something for which there is a demand. I am not concerned now with the fees which should be earned by the doctors attending them. The Minister has completely disregarded the rights of the citizens.
  The figures which the British United Provident Association has of the demand for insurance for private medicine speak for themselves. They speak of the

  1773
  demand for private practice and for private beds. Over 600,000 families—about 1¼million people—are insured with B.U.P.A. Over 2 million people—about 4 per cent. of the nation—are insured either with B.U.P.A. or similar institutions.
  When I asked the Minister why he was reducing the number of pay beds in my constituency, despite the objection and recommendation to the contrary of the regional hospital board, he said that the demand for them was not there, that they were not being fully occupied. The answer to that is that designation for particular diseases prevented full occupation. The story of the development of the Nuffield nursing homes by B.U.P.A. is a complete answer to the case which the Minister has just sought to make. The demand for places in the Nuffield nursing homes is increasing all the time.
  It is significant that, at the time when the Minister said there was not a demand for pay beds in my constituency of Solihull, three-quarters of all the beds occupied in the Nuffield nursing home at Edgbaston were occupied by people from Solihull. In the face of that, the Minister seeks to argue that there was not a sufficient, demand for pay beds in Solihull.
  There is much in the Bill that I welcome, but I seek from the Minister an undertaking that the increased flexibility which Clauses 1 to 4 give him with regard to pay beds will not be used as a means of whittling away the number of pay beds, as he has been doing. One of the results of this attack upon private medicine has been the disgruntlement and dissatisfaction of the doctors who have to work the Service.
  At Glasgow last night the Minister sought to draw a contrast between the representatives of the medical profession whom he criticised—I presume the British Medical Association and others—and the younger doctors. Is it the middle-aged or the elderly who have been emigrating in their thousands? The answer to the Minister's completely false point lies in the emigration of thousands of young doctors who are not prepared to work the Service under conditions imposed by the Minister. This is not only a matter of pay; it is the sacrifice of
  1774
  their freedom and the cutting-down of opportunities for private medicine.
  I am sorry that in the inquiry into the administration of the Service which the Minister announced on 6th November he did not go a stage further and inquire into alternative methods of working the Service. I say this with temerity, because to many hon. Members opposite the Service is a white elephant or tin god which they worship and in which they are not prepared to see much to criticise.
  There are alternative systems by which the country's limited resources could possibly—I am not convinced of this; I do not know; I should like there to be an inquiry—be used to much greater advantage. Under the French system of social security, people pay and get the money back afterwards. The same is done in Sweden. Should not such a system be investigated? Should not a system be investigated by which prescriptions are the subject of a charge? Would it not be better that there should be a small payment for prescriptions by those who can afford it so that more money is available for poorly-paid hospital registrars?
  Mr. William Edwards: As the hon. and learned Gentleman is advocating investigations, does he not agree that there is a need also to investigate the system whereby people go to see consultants in their private consulting rooms and shortly afterwards find their way into public beds in public hospitals?
  Mr. Grieve: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that that happens in other countries?
  Mr. William Edwards: Widely here.
  Mr. Grieve: I suggest that the systems used in other countries should be investigated so that we could have a standard of comparison by which to judge our Service and by which to judge the service it renders to the community. I regret, therefore, that the Minister, for the time being, at any rate, appears to have closed his mind to this possibility. Perhaps he has not, but in announcing the inquiry on 6th November he said:
  "I should make it clear that my studies will relate entirely to the administrative pattern. I am not considering the possibility of what would amount to an alternative health service, as is sometimes suggested, involving,

  1775
  for instance, a switch in financing from the public to the private sector."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November, 1967; Vol. 753, c. 643.]
  But if some of the anomalies and some of the grave difficulties in our Health Service in the over-use of resources in one field and in their misuse in others are to be allowed to continue then the tension and antagonism between the Ministry and the medical profession will never end, and the brain drain—I have used this expression before—from which this country has suffered, and the great exodus of doctors to countries overseas, will become not a brain drain but a torrent.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. William Edwards: I am very grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve). I was sitting here getting increasingly more depressed by reading the Bill and getting more and more depressed listening to the measure of agreement between hon. Members opposite and my own Minister upon the Bill, and I was delighted to see somebody who finds a sinister motive, a sinister aim to bring about the end of private practice which is operating in our public hospitals.
  I do not welcome the Bill because of the indications in the first few Clauses of the way the Minister is thinking about the development of the Health Service. I should like to say this very briefly to the Minister. He is preparing a Green Paper and a White Paper to lay before this country his ideas about the way in which the Health Service should be developed, and I would like to tell him, before he prepares his plans and White Paper, not to fall into the same error as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power did in the preparation of his White Paper and underestimate the feeling on this side of the House in relation to private practice.
  I think that the first few Clauses of the Bill are indications that my right hon. Friend accepts that private practice should be allowed to continue in our public hospitals. I have no objection to private practice being continued outside the public hospitals. I have heard the name of Nye Bevan being called in aid of allowing private practice to continue within the public hospitals. I am
  1776
  sure that at the time when he was introducing the Health Service he thought there would be a mass exodus out of the Service, and the setting up of private hospitals all over the place, but I am sure that at this particular time this would not happen, because although some people would choose to go outside the Service if there were exclusion of private practice within the Service I do not think that it would be a very large section of the population and I am quite certain the Service would not suffer if that were to happen.
  I would like to tell the Minister that if there should be exclusion of private practice from our Health Service there would not be an exodus of doctors out of the country. If I may declare an interest here, my wife works in the Health Service, in the hospital service; she does a number of sessions each week as an anaesthetist in the Service. What I hear from her is that the people who are leaving the country are the young doctors who are waiting for their promotion in the Health Service. They are young surgeons, young obstetricians and gynaecologists, young physicians, people who are well qualified, who are waiting for consultancy posts in this country and having to wait far too long.
  These sorts of people would not be the ones who would leave if private practice were to be abolished. Their concern is to get promotion within the system; it is not their concern to acquire vast private practices. More and more doctors are, in fact, choosing to go on the 11–11 or full-time system, and are not asking for the 9–11 or part-time system. More doctors, as they reach the age of 55, chose to go on to the full-time consultancy system because they will thereby receive their full pension. It is a red herring to suggest that, if we do away with private medicine in public hospitals, there will be a mass exodus out of the hospital service.
  One matter we should look at is the great disparity in pay and conditions between the junior hospital doctor and his consultant, and also, if I may add this, the disparity in pay between the well qualified junior hospital doctor and the general practitioner. If there is one field in medicine from which we are losing young doctors, it is from among the

  1777
  young doctors in hospitals who are underpaid, overworked and under-represented and who are dominated in hospitals by the senior consultants whose voice is so powerful in the B.M.A., as it was powerful when Nye Bevan was introducing the Health Service.
  Is it not amazing that, at the time when the Health Service was being introduced, we were told by the B.M.A. that the system would not work? There were highly-paid Members advocating in this House that the system would not work. There were fundamental objections to it. Yet, suddenly, when the senior members of the B.M.A. were allowed to carry on their lucrative private practices, all those objections disappeared. That is what happened. That was the sort of thing which coerced our Minister at the time to accept this iniquitous system.
  There is one particular aspect of private practice which should be dealt with, and I am disappointed that the Minister has not taken advantage of this miscellaneous provisions Bill to try to deal with it. I know, other hon. Members know, and I am sure that the Minister knows, that more and more people are jumping the queue into hospital by taking advantage of the private consultation with the part-time consultant. On a number of occasions, my wife is put in a difficult position in advising friends how to see an obstetrician or gynaecologist. The only way a woman can be sure of seeing a consultant is to consult one or other of these consultants privately, and then, by a miracle, she suddenly finds that she is admitted into the ante-natal clinic of a hospital.
  Similarly in general surgery, and in medicine: one goes to see the consultant in Harley Street or, in Liverpool, in Rodney Street, and then, by a miracle, one finds one's way into the out-patients' department of a general hospital, jumping the queue and getting a bed in a public hospital. This is what is happening. If my right hon. Friend asks me for evidence, I cannot provide it, because the people who have taken advantage of the system will not admit to having done so. My right hon. Friend knows that that is so. He knows it is happening.
  This Bill is a Bill produced by an administration, not by a Government—certainly not by a Socialist Government.
  1778
  If my right hon. Friend's thinking on private practice is the thinking which I find expressed in the first two Clauses, I assure him that I and many of my hon. Friends will do everything in our power to see that his intentions in those first two Clauses are not carried out. If he produces a White Paper on the lines of those Clauses, I shall do all I can to see that it is rejected by this party.
  8.44 p.m.
  Mr. Tim Fortescue: After nearly five hours of debate, nearly all the rags even in a rag-bag of this size have been pretty thoroughly picked over, but I am surprised that there has been very little reference, and then only in passing to the Clause which deals with the provision of invalid vehicles. I thank the Minister for bringing forward this measure, which he had promised to do. I do not blame him for the long time it has taken, and I am glad to see that what he now proposes will, as I understand it, give him power to do almost anything in the provision of vehicles for the disabled which he or the House would want.
  This being so, I remind the right hon. Gentleman of a proposal which was made in the House about 18 months ago. In response to that proposal, the right hon. Gentleman said that there was no money and he had no power. The proposal was that people who had been issued with invalid tricycles which they did not like should be able to pay the difference between the cost of such a tricycle and of an adapted mini-car and thus have a mini-car rather than a tricycle. The Minister replied that he did not have power to arrange that, and he was right. Under the Bill, he will have such power.
  The Minister went on to say that there was no money. The difficulty was not the cost of such an arrangement to the present drivers of invalid tricycles provided by the State but that if such an arrangement were made he thought that many thousands of disabled people who did not like tricycles would seek to have invalid cars provided by the State because mini-cars would be acceptable to them. It was this extra cost—a cost of unknown proportions because neither the right hon. Gentleman nor his civil servants knew how many people would be involved in such a choice—which

  1779
  made him say that the proposal was impractical.
  There is a ready-made solution to this problem of providing adapted mini-cars to present holders of invalid tricycles on payment of the difference in cost, and that is that holders of invalid tricycles, at a certain date—perhaps today or 1st January—should be eligible, when their tricycles are next due for renewal, to have mini-cars adapted to their purposes if they are prepared to pay the difference in cost between the two vehicles, which would be comparatively small. That would completely remove the Minister's objection that there would be a sudden rush of applicants for vehicles at State expense from people who did not like tricycles but would accept mini-cars.
  When the Bill becomes law, the Minister's powers will be clear. I believe that I have suggested a way in which the financial side of the matter could be covered. There would be no extra cost to the State at all. The extra cost would be paid entirely by individuals who wished to have such a service. Could this suggestion be examined?
  I wish to mention two other small points. The honourable and medical Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) suggested—from me it would have been effrontery, from him it was not—that there should be a place in the Health Service for people less qualified than the doctors who have qualified over six or seven years and that they would be perfectly capable of dealing with certain minor matters which at present need the attention of the fully qualified doctor. He mentioned various kinds of tests—blood tests and urine tests—dealing with cuts and bruises, prescribing cough mixtures, and so on. To my layman's mind, this has always been a very attractive proposition. It is attractive to anybody who, like myself, has lived for most of his life in under-developed countries where, because of a shortage of skilled personnel in every walk of life, one's wife and daughter dispenses medicine to the people of those countries simply because there was nobody else to do it. One is astonished to find how easy it is to become a rough-and-ready dispenser.
  I do not suggest for a moment that there should be a second-class doctor—
  1780
  that would be unthinkable—but, in view of the present shortage of medical men, there might be a case for investigating the possibility of less well qualified people being permitted by law to perform less rigorous tasks so that the qualified doctor, who has spent six or seven years in becoming qualified, could be released for more valuable purposes.
  There has been reference to the meals-on-wheels service. My wife takes round meals-on-wheels twice a week in the poorer areas of Liverpool as a member of the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, as an agent of the City of Liverpool's Welfare Department. This arrangement happens to work very well. The meals are cooked and provided by the City of Liverpool. The drivers are employed by the City of Liverpool. The meals are carried into the houses by voluntary women helpers. Clause 43(3) states:
  "A local authority may employ as their agent for the purposes of this section any voluntary organisation having for its sole or principal object, or among its principal objects, the promotion of the welfare of old people."
  I should like an explanation why that provision is necessary. Is it not some-what restrictive? For example, supposing that in an emergency a local authority wishes to employ any voluntary organisation, no matter what it is, to help in this valuable work. Would it be prevented legally from using, say, a youth group because of the restrictions implicit in that subsection?
  8.50 p.m.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I want to refer to Clause 14, which has not yet occupied the attention of the House. This basically extends to Scotland the provisions of the National Health Service (Family Planning) Act, piloted through the House so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) during the last Session.
  I welcome this Clause. Indeed, I am rather glad and relieved to be able to make this speech. During the course of the proceedings, it was suggested by a number of people, including myself, that we might have to wait a very long time for this provision to be introduced in Scotland. I speculated on the Second Reading about hidden enemies in the Scottish Office. I was not alone and that sentiment was echoed widely in the House, during the Committee stage and

  1781
  in the Press. It is, therefore, with particular pleasure that I welcome Clause 14 of this Bill.
  I have not the time, nor do I wish, to go over any of the arguments or merits of the provision itself. In any case, to do so would be redundant because if there were any great surprise about the progress of my hon. Friend's Act it was the almost complete unanimity of the House. It received the warmest of welcomes from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. The only Opposition Front Bench criticism was that it should have been Government legislation and not left to the lottery for Private Members' Bills. The tremendously overwhelming warmth with which it was received suggests that, at least in political terms, family planning is no longer a controversial issue.
  It is interesting to consider the sequence of events. When that Act was introduced, there was the very cagey and perhaps understandable caution with which we were told that, if Scotland were to have such provisions also, we would have to get them through the private Members' procedure all in good time. We presumed that we would have to wait for some favourably disposed Member to come up in the Ballot. This cautious, cagey attitude cloaked a real determination to make some sort of quick progress, and we are grateful.
  But the same sort of situation is developing, or is potentially developing, in relation to divorce law reform. I hope that the kind of answer I got the other day from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, to the effect that, if divorce law reform got through in England, we would have to wait for a Private Member's Bill for Scotland, will turn out also to be a mere cloak.
  I wholeheartedly congratulate my friends of the Scottish Office on this Clause, but I remind them that this is only the beginning of the battle. Although we have now made a sizeable break through with Clause 14, we shall still have to deal with a great deal of opposition at local level. Many local authorities will drag their feet and take recalcitrant and somewhat backward attitudes to the matter.
  I am hopeful that my fears will prove to be not well founded. There is some
  1782
  evidence from England that, since the Act came into operation, there has been an enormous movement and progression. I am told that the London boroughs of Wandsworth and Southwark are already implementing the Act, that some 19 or so other local authorities have plans which are far advanced and that well over 70 have already been considering the matter and are consulting the Family Planning Association and other interested bodies with a view to action in the not-too-distant future.
  There has been a tremendous rush to implement the Bill in England and this is a great encouragement to us in Scotland. One of the factors in England which has helped so much has been the decisive and adequate circular which followed the Act within one month of the Royal Assent. It was sent out by the Ministry of Health. In the history of circulars on this matter, I find that an earlier one—Circular No. 10/1966 from the Scottish Health Department, which preceded the Act, is word for word the same as the Circular put out in England by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. I hope that we can have some assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister of State that, when this Bill becomes law, there will be a fast and comprehensive circular in an attempt to encourage—I put it no more strongly than that—enthusiasm among local authorities in Scotland for taking advantage of the new powers being put their way.
  Above all, I hope that the circular will include, as the English one did, a definite date by which they must report progress. In the case of England, I think the date is 31st March, 1968. I hope that there will be a definite obligation on Scottish local authorities to report to the Scottish Office on what they are doing so that we do not get a situation where people on local authorities are prepared to sit and let matters drift, hoping that their slow progress will go largely unnoticed.
  It is really extraordinarily encouraging to see this Clause. For too long the Scottish Office has been saddled with the notion—or people have saddled it with the notion—of being opposed to any kind of social progress and unwilling to touch controversial social matters. By introducing this Clause and presumably being

  1783
  instrumental in getting it included, the Scottish Office has gone a long way to throwing off that kind of slur—which has been a slur and misconception.
  The idea is too prevalent that the Scots are hostile and antipathetic to social progress and that our Ministers and civil servants are in the van of the resistance. I have never believed that and this is an example that it is not so. It encourages one to think that some things are not as far amiss as some people try to represent.
  My own local authority in Aberdeen has an excellent record. I hope that it will not mind my saying that in some respects it has jumped the gun and anticipated this legislation. However, it will now find that the shackles are thrown off and that it can develop a comprehensive system as speedily as it wishes. At the same time, there is an enormous opportunity for local authorities, goaded and driven on as I hope—and I put it as strongly as that—by the Scottish Office, to change their attitudes and review positions and build up services, so that we can get the kind of comprehensive coverage of the country which we all want.
  There will be a few lingering prejudices. A few will imagine that in some way the Bill is interested in limiting the size of families. That kind of misconception will continue for some time, but all of us know that for a long time family planning has been regarded at official level as having an enormous part to play in health matters, ensuring that in this difficult subject society is well informed, so that those people who want large families can undertake them in the knowledge of the social and financial strains involved. This is not a Measure which should be looked on in the wicked sense as a move towards a permissive society, certainly not towards a less moral society. It will lead in the long run to a happier society.
  I endorse the sentiments of paragraph 8 of Ministry of Health Circular 15/67 which says that adequate family planning services fully integrated with other community services are an essential part of family welfare and will help to relieve the burdens placed on other local authority services by physical ill-health and mental distress arising from lack of knowledge. This is essentially a step forward and I at least am grateful. I wholeheartedly welcome Clause 14.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: I am surprised by the eagerness of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) to follow the example of English legislation so devotedly when, during the course of the debate, we have heard even from some of his own hon. Friends of the great merit of the legislation in Scotland and the great merit of following that example in England. The hon. Gentleman argued the advantages for doing something exactly the other way round.
  Mr. Dewar: I meant specifically in this respect. I shall be interested to hear whether the hon. Gentleman disagrees with me.
  Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I do. I do not have a prejudice about family planning, but I think that the Scots have always managed to plan their families perfectly well without these provisions. I happen to believe that families should plan their own families and not have the State do it for them. I am opposed to the introduction of Scottish provisions in English legislation. I regard it as an unfortunate and retrograde step to introduce it in a Bill of this nature, which is otherwise widely acceptable and which will help to improve and develop the Health Service.
  So many points have been made that it is hard not to repeat. I very much support the provisions to extend the services provided by local authorities, the provisions of Clauses 10 to 13, and the chance to widen the spheres of activity of midwives, district nurses, health visitors, and so on. This work is extremely valuable and I hope that it can be extended as much as possible.
  What is to be the position of the domestic help service in Edinburgh under this legislation? The Under-Secretary will not have missed the correspondence in The Scotsman yesterday and today. There is great concern about Edinburgh's services have been frozen at the 1966 levels and about the talk of even a reduction. If the Bill had already been passed, presumably the local health committee would now be breaking the law. I should be glad to know what is to be done about that and how the present situation in Edinburgh can be met. If the position in the cities is serious, getting suitable personnel is likely to be far more difficult in the countryside.

  1785
  A question to which I have never received a satisfactory answer is why, in certain cases, a relative of a person needing a home help should not be able to do the work for the same remuneration as would be paid to someone from outside. Old people have much understandable pride, particularly when they live in rural areas. They are loath to have a neighbour do the work, for understandable reasons, and I have never understood why a daughter or daughter-in-law should not be able to perform this valuable function and receive the same reward as someone from the outside. It would mean a lot and would seem to be much more fair to the old people.
  My hon. Friends have already mentioned health centres and I will content myself with referring to a particularly Scottish matter which has come to my attention. It concerns Clause 20, which provides for the Secretary of State to decide on what terms and conditions pharmaceutical services will be provided in the centres. This is a significant departure from the old arrangements of Section 15 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947. The two official bodies consulted have opposed it, having the natural fear that the Secretary of State will be able to have a chemist's shop in every health centre in the land, and it is extremely unlikely that anybody else would be able to compete.
  I hope that the Minister will reconsider this, as those whose co-operation he must try to win seem to be so completely against the proposal. I do not believe that it is impossible for him to do so and for agreement and compromise to be reached on this important subject. This bears out what my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) said about consultations at the beginning of the debate. I have here a telegram from the Pharmaceutical Council of Scotland saying that it has not yet had a chance to consult on these measures and that it hopes very much that it will have a chance to do so.
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies: I am grateful for these few extra minutes of grace, and in the brief time allotted to me I should like to add to one point raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue). He
  1786
  hoped that the Minister would take up quickly the powers to be granted to him under the Bill to change to the use of adapted motor-cars for disabled people instead of tricycles. I support him in that, although I know that this is a question of open-ended commitments and limited resources, and that it cannot be done overnight. But it is a matter of urgency. To understand this we must try to put ourselves into the position of people who use the tricycles.
  At one time I was a motoring correspondent, and I have driven most types of motor cars in the past 20 years. I have never driven anything as diabolical and foul as that type of three-wheeled machine. I should like briefly to give an impression of the further handicaps imposed by using such a machine on a person who is already disabled. First, he is alone. Second, he has a machine with one-wheel drive only—think what that does on ice. Also, since that wheel is the off side rear wheel, when turning a corner one must accelerate a great deal more to turn to the left than to the right.
  They are terribly cold and incredibly noisy. Many were recently fitted with safety belts, which involved cutting a hole through the engine casing through which the belt passes. This has allowed noise, draught and fumes to travel through. The safety belt is of the rigid type which does not give the necessary mobility to the disabled user. Inertia belts would be much better.
  The petrol tanks hold just under two gallons, which means that the user must ask for 1¾ gallons. There is no gauge to indicate the petrol level. There is a reserve tank, but it is a gravity tank, which means that if there are bad pipe connections it may take up to a minute for the petrol to come through. Think what it means to a disabled person stopped in the middle of traffic through running out of petrol. The vehicles should certainly be fitted with petrol gauges.
  To me, the terribly shocking thing about these machines is that although they will reverse one has to turn off the engine, turn another switch into reverse, then start the engine again. It is necessary to keep switching on and off if one is backing in and out of a narrow place and that runs the battery down and it can easily get flat. Disabled people make short journeys, particularly in the winter,

  1787
  and that does not allow their batteries to be charged while running. If they want to get the battery out of the car to charge it, an elaborate panel removal procedure is necessary, except with the recent models which have the battery in the cab, and that also is highly undesirable for technical reasons.
  Steering is by tiller, which is very sensitive to road surfaces. Intermediate steering gear cannot be fitted because the inadequate reversing makes it necessary for the vehicle to be able to turn in a very small circle. If there were adequate reversing, the sweep of the tiller would not need to be so extreme and with some gearing the vehicles would not pick up the bump of every matchstick on the road, as they do at present.
  A particularly shocking fact is that they are not subject to the M.O.T. testing. I wonder whether this is because there would be an outcry if ordinary garages could review these machines for their road worthiness and become aware of their general characteristic.
  Another serious point is that there is only one door. One of the terrors of the users is that if the machine should turn over on to its near side they are, being already disabled, trapped inside. In that inverted position, the three-wheeled car would then have the petrol tank above the hot engine, so the chance of fire would be high.
  Although I see the Minister's difficulties and appreciate the costs of transferring from this type of machine to adapted Minis, I urge him that it is a crying and pressing need.
  9.10 p.m.
  Mr. Paul Dean: I think that the House will agree that this is largely a Committee stage Bill, but we have had an interesting debate nevertheless, covering a wide range of subjects. The Minister would agree that the strong theme on both sides has been the calls for more information about what some of these Clauses—many of them important ones—mean, and what his intentions are. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) expressed our general support for the Bill. We will give it a fair wind and wish to assist the Minister in getting it through, but there are many ques-
  1788
  tions which have not yet been fully answered and on which we look for assistance from the Under-Secretary.
  I must begin by declaring a secondary interest. As a director of an advertising and public relations firm which does some work for voluntary health insurance in this country, I have a marginal interest in certain aspects of the Bill.
  The Minister has removed some of our doubts about his intentions, but this is essentially an enabling Bill of considerable vagueness. Most of the key Clauses seek power to legislate by Order. We do not necessarily complain about that in this context, but we wanted rather more than a declaration of intent. I certainly do not ask for letter of intent, because that might cause difficulties, but where there are doubts about the meaning, they naturally give rise to mistrust and thus to fears.
  This is partly why my hon. Friend asked for adequate time between now and Committee. Nobody concerned with health is not involved in the Bill in some way, in some cases very minor. The Minister says that he has had consultations but some of these bodies feel that the consultation has not been adequate and I am sure that he would wish, as would we after we have studied the debate, to have sufficient time for those consultations and to ensure informed discussion in Committee. I hope that he will acknowledge the strength of this plea.
  I start on a light-hearted point. One of those gems of draftsmanship which one looks for in miscellaneous provisions Bills is Clause 44—an eminently simple application to the Isles of Scilly. What could be simpler? Yet the Clause reads:
  "Section 66 of the National Assistance Act 1948 (application to the Isles of Scilly) shall have effect as if the reference to that Act included a reference to this Part of this Act."
  That is an example of a very simple matter made difficult to understand by legal terminology. But I must pass on to more serious points.
  For reasons which are understood, the Clauses dealing with pay beds are very vague about the Minister's intentions. This vagueness comes out clearly in Clause 1:
  "If the Minister is satisfied … that it is reasonable so to do he may … to such extent as he may determine …"

  1789
  This gives him very wide powers, and although he has given some indication of his intentions, the meaning of these Clauses is still not entirely clear and we do not know what the future of private practice in the National Health Service is intended to be.
  The Minister said that this will mean a better use of pay beds, more flexibility and a better service, and we on this side welcome that, but he must realise that we should consider not only his words and intentions but what is actually in the Bill and will eventually appear on the Statute Book. That is certainly not clear. If this is intended, as I believe, from what the Minister said, to translate into modern terms the original pledge by Mr. Aneurin Bevan when the Health Service was introduced, well and good, but if it should turn out to be an attempt to squeeze out private patients and the doctors who treat them, there will be strenuous opposition to that from this side.
  When the Minister intervened in the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) he talked about a package deal and I assume that he was referring to his announcement in the House on 31st January in which he referred to the removal of the ceiling on the charges which consultants can make and the rest of the package which appears in the Bill. If this is a package deal, can we assume that there will be no further cut in the number of private beds in National Health Service hospitals? I hope that we may have some reassurance on this point. As the Minister recognised in his speech, it is not only what this House may feel about this matter but it is immensely important that the future of private practice should be cleared up from the point of view of the patients and doctors concerned.
  An important Clause is that which concerns the future of the university hospitals and the power to designate them within the regional hospital board structure. The Minister has given good reasons why an experiment along these lines should be conducted, particularly in respect of Nottingham and Southampton. However, the wording of the Clause is extremely vague and might be used to downgrade teaching hospitals in England and Wales. I say
  1790
  that because the procedure in Scotland is different. This might give rise to considerable controversy, but I will not prejudge the case one way or the other. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it would be unwise to take this further than an experiment for a limited period, certainly until we have the advice of the Royal Commission on Medical Education and the report of the study which he has set up into the administrative structure of the Health Service.
  The Minister referred to the upsurge of interest in health centres and, although the Bill deals with only specific aspects, it raises the whole question of the future of these centres. If the Minister is seeking more flexibility to experiment and try out different types of health centres so that they will be able to respond more quickly to the wishes of patients—perhaps, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) said, to lock in the concept of the occupation health service through health centres—all well and good. This would be a desirable flexibility and we would welcome it.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to try to impose a rigid structure on health centres, irrespective of local wishes and needs. In other words, I hope that he will not try to do the sort of thing that the Secretary of State for Education and Science has attempted to do in secondary education. By all means let us experiment with health centres, but do not let us impose a rigid mould on doctors, dentists, opticians and pharmacists, irrespective of local needs and wishes. In this connection, the question of opticians was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) and others, but we will be able to deal with that at a later stage in the Bill.
  Some misgiving has been expressed by people who are not clear about the Minister's intentions in the Clauses dealing with the purchase and supply of goods, in particular Clauses 23, 62, 29 and 30. These Clauses appear to give the Minister and executive councils considerable powers to purchase or manufacture, produce, store and supply goods to local health authorities, doctors, dentists, chemists and opticians. If this is intended to gain the advantage of bulk contracts and the pooling of resources, well and good and we welcome it. But, as the right

  1791
  hon. Gentleman will know, there are fears that this could be an attempt, not necessarily by the right hon. Gentleman, to nationalise the tools of the medical trade and the pharmaceutical industry—to, so to speak, introduce certain aspects of Sainsbury by the side door. I hope that the Minister will comment on the intention of these Clauses.
  A number of hon. Members have referred to the Clause dealing with vehicles for the disabled. In this provision the Minister is taking specific powers to provide cars, rather than invalid tricycles, to the civilian disabled. I appreciate the financial difficulties, but I hope that he will tell us more about the way in which these powers may be used. I hope, from the remarks made today, that he will have another look at the Clause to see whether he has sufficient powers—not to extend beyond the financial resources which are available at present but to deal with some of the comparatively small and inexpensive items which have been mentioned. I suspect that he does not have power in the Bill to make provision for, for example, people who convert their own cars to hand controls. This sort of matter could be dealt with even in the present financial difficulties. I hope that he has this power but, if he does not, I trust that he will take another look at the Clause.
  These are some of the main questions, doubts and fears which we have about the Bill. We do not want to make difficulties for the right hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that the Government will realise that this is an enabling Measure and that it is the job of the House to discover more than we know about the right hon. Gentleman's intentions and the objects of the Bill. If we can get a better understanding of those we will co-operate in every way we can to hasten the Bill on to the Statute Book.
  I propose, now, in the short time which remains to me, to do as the Minister did in his opening speech and look at the Bill in the broad context of the National Health Service and other health services generally. The right hon. Gentleman gave a very interesting figure when he opened the debate, one about which we do not think anything like enough. He said that about 1¼ million people have some contact with the National Health
  1792
  Service every single working day. This is a striking figure, and it shows that tonight we are speaking about one of our major consumer industries.
  There is always a danger for people in politics to think of this subject from the point of view of the Ministry of Health, the Scottish Office, the doctor, the medical profession generally, and perhaps not so much from the point of view of the patient. The figure given by the Minister shows the importance of this, and the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West put it another way when he said that the National Health Service was the fifth largest employer in the country. This emphasises the importance of the doctor, the nurse, the technician, and the other staff.
  I think that in that context it is encouraging to find signs that people are now prepared to ask—and they have been asked during this debate—some basic questions about the National Health Service. We have got away from the stage when anybody who dared to discuss the Service, or the possibility of reform, was automatically accused of wanting to wreck it. We have moved away from the days when people used to say, "We have the finest National Health Service in the world. Do not touch it."
  We are prepared now to recognise that if our Service is to remain good, and, above all, if it is to meet the new demands which are growing up all the time, we have to overcome the weaknesses, and build on the good things which exist. The Bill is of course intending that, and in addition we have the Royal Commission on Medical Education, the Seebohm Committee looking at the personal social services, and the Minister's own Committee looking at the tripartite structure. All these things should help us to get out of the rigid mould in which our thinking has been for far too long, and to consider the best ways in which we can reform and strengthen the Service that we have.
  What are the weaknesses? I make my comments having looked for three weeks recently at the Australian services, which are a complete contrast to ours. The three weaknesses in our system are, first, the overwhelming dependence on one source of finance, namely, resources provided by the taxpayer. I am certain that the Minister, when he goes to the

  1793
  Treasury for these estimates each year—and over 80 per cent. of that comes from the Treasury—knows what I mean, even though he may not be prepared to admit it. The second is the over-centralised administrative structure which has grown up over the years. The third, perhaps leading from those two, is that the Service is not sufficiently responsive to the needs and wishes of patients, and to the reasonable aspirations of the staff. All this is in contrast to the Australian service.
  In Australia about half the money comes from various private sources—voluntary health insurance, third-party motor insurance, charges of various kinds charitable contributions, and lotteries. As a result, the Australians are spending a bigger proportion of their gross national product on health than we are. I recognise that these international comparisons are not necessarily accurate, but there is a gap of about 1 per cent. or more.
  It is at least worth studying why they appear to be spending more than we are. My assessment would be that we should. at any rate, encourage some or all of these in this country, if we are to get the extra money we need, to take full advantage of the new medical techniques which are coming along, to meet the demands for rising standards, and to provide the sort of services which people want—in other words, that public and private enterprise can work together in the sphere of health to their mutual advantage.
  Secondly, administrative structure. The hospital services in Australia are run by the States, and I suppose the population of the largest State is roughly similar to that covered by a regional hospital board. One of the things which I found interesting was that in the two larger States—Victoria and New South Wales—the hospital services are not run direcdy by the State Government, but by a hospital commission. There are some interesting features here, but what appears to happen is that there are speedier decisions on policy matters and, above all, there appears to be much quicker action on hospital building. The time that it takes to get a hospital plan off the drawing board and into bricks and mortar on the ground appears to be very much faster than in this country. One cannot
  1794
  draw too many conclusions from a short visit, but I believe that the decentralisation of their structure gives them flexibility, a chance to experiment, and, above all, perhaps responsibility and decision making nearer the grass roots than we have.
  When one looks at the very great cost of our service and the need to have incentives to efficiency, one realises the importance of trying to decentralise. One has only to look at some of the figures—for example, the figures produced by the Office of Health Economics when it examined the efficiency of the hospital service—to see the very large gap that there is between the average cost per patient per week in different parts of the country. For example, acute, non-teaching hospitals: the North-West Metropolitan Region, £77 17s.; the Manchester region, £60 4s. There may be an explanation for some difference, but surely it is difficult to explain a discrepancy as large as that. That is one figure which suggests to me that there is great room for incentives to efficiency within this very large and expensive service.
  In this connection the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham was making about a specialist committee, supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan Morgan) and also mentioned by hon. Gentlemen opposite, is well worth discussion. One of the problems in the health service—and it does not only apply to the health service—is that when this Bill is on the Statute Book it will be exceedingly difficult for any hon. Member of this House to see just how it is working in practice. We get a very good chance, while the Bill is going through, of having our say—we are having it today and we shall be having it in Committee—but when this Bill is on the Statute Book it is very difficult for the back-bench Member on either side of the House to be able to follow it up, so here a specialist committee would be of very great value.
  Finally, I want to make a brief comment about the local authority health services which have been mentioned by many hon. Members on both sides. Here, again, we welcome the proposals relating to midwives, health visitors, nurses, home helps, and the proposals concerning the

  1795
  welfare of the elderly and the handicapped. They are admirable. They all, of course, need money—this is the snag. But these Clauses underline the need for a much clearer picture of the problem than we have at the present moment. We hope that Seebohm will help us towards that and will point the way towards a service which is not so much geared to symptoms, as our local health services are, but much more to the needs of the individual and the family.
  These Clauses also show clearly how closely associated are cash and care. These Clauses deal with the care side. Through these those particularly difficult problems in regard to low income families and wage-stop families can in some way be assisted. This, I hope, will be one of the broad aspects of these Clauses which will be of value in getting a more unified service.
  We welcome the general principles of this Bill. We will do all we can to help its passage, but we hope that in the Government reply we shall have more specific information on the points which have been raised in this debate.
  9.35 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): From the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) we have had a very agreeable and thoughtful speech. I am not sure that I agree with all the points he made in his analysis of present deficiencies in the Health Service, but I very much agree that, whether in a Specialist Committee of this House or in any other way, it would be useful to debate more often some of these fundamental factors affecting the progress of the Health Service.
  I also add a word of greeting to the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan), because I think that this is the first opportunity he has had to speak from the Opposition Front Bench in a Health Service debate. We had an agreeable and thoughtful speech from the hon. Member at the beginning of the debate.
  The Bill has been generally welcomed in all parts of the House. Naturally, the Government are very encouraged by that. Although it is not a major Bill, and many of the points raised today will be more satisfactorily dealt with in the
  1796
  detail we can go into in Committee, the fact that there has been a general welcome to the Bill must be partly because there is general satisfaction with the Health Service.
  I emphasise the point made by my right hon. Friend in opening the debate that the natural tendency is always to give publicity to deficiencies and crises which we have from time to time in particular aspects of the Service and to forget the tremendous amount of very satisfactory day-to-day work done all the time, and, in particular, the very considerable devotion which the various people involved in the Service bring to their daily tasks.
  I said that this is not a major Bill. Naturally, a great deal of the debate has been taken up in anticipating or giving some indication of what hon. Members think might follow from the administrative reorganisation study which my right hon. Friend in England and Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland are carrying out at present. I take very much the point made by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), that one of our great problems is how to use the resources we have most effectively.
  That involves questions of administrative structure. It is very much easier to formulate the general principle that we must use our resources effectively and to say that there should be more co-ordination and integration in the Service than to find the exact form of adminitrative structure that would produce the results which hon. Members in all parts of the House want to see produced. There are some extremely difficult problems involved and these we are studying in the light of 20 years experience of the Service. The Government will be producing, not final cut-and-dried proposals, but tentative proposals on which we shall welcome the comments of all interested parties, including hon. Members.
  The hon. Member for Farnham, speaking of the question of integration and using resources most effectively, mentioned geriatric care. This is one of the obvious fields where better integration and co-ordination of services could pay very considerable dividends. The Bill, in the additional responsibilities it places upon local health authorities, goes some

  1797
  way towards producing a more effective use of resources.
  There are considerable difficulties involved. In particular, we must bear in mind always the needs and feelings of individual patients. It is not just a question of getting the full range of different types of facility available—domiciliary services. sheltered housing, local authority welfare accommodation, hospital accommodation, and so on—and then fitting people into the appropriate place and shifting them about when their state of health and their general condition change, as they inevitably do in old age. In all this regard must be paid to the individual personality of the patient.
  Sometimes when we see obvious cases of patients being misplaced, we should bear in mind that, although a misplacement might be uneconomic or inefficient from the Health Service point of view, it is not necessarily the most humane treatment of an individual patient to try to fit him into a neat little category. This is the kind of problem we have in geriatrics in particular. We have it in mental health. We have other problems of co-ordination in, for example, maternity services. Therefore, these are not problems simply of administration. At the end of the day I do not think that we shall produce a neat administrative pattern and expect it to work unless we always take account of the needs of individual patients.
  To turn to a question very much concerned with the structure of the Service, I would make it clear that there is no question, as some hon. Members opposite have suggested, of imposing health centres on a reluctant medical profession. It is rather the other way round now. The general practitioner, having become recently converted to the idea of practising from health centres, is now frustrated because he feels that the Government and local health authorities are not providing the money sufficiently quickly. The expansion of health centres is going on very rapidly. My right hon. Friend mentioned some of the progress which has already been made in England and Wales. We can show similar progress in Scotland.
  In all this we are dealing with a co-operative effort. The general practitioners, local health authorities, and the hospital authorities, which are involved in
  1798
  this development, are co-operating together. There is no question of imposing this as a rigid pattern on reluctant partners in the Health Service.
  These are some of the general points which I thought I ought to mention by way of introduction. I want now for a few minutes to say something about the Scottish aspects of the Bill.
  Mr. Dean: Can the Under-Secretary give an assurance that the loan sanction procedure will not be used to twist local authorities' arms as regards the building of health centres?
  Mr. Millan: I have said that this is a co-operative and voluntary effort. I am not absolutely clear about what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. There is no question of coercing local health authorities.
  I was saying that I should like to say just a few words from the Scottish point of view, because this is a rather complicated Bill with English and Welsh Clauses, Scottish Clauses, Scottish application of English Clauses, United Kingdom Clauses and the rest, and, clearly, it will be very difficult for some of us to follow some of these particular points in Committee.
  I do want to draw attention to the fact that in Clause 14 we are introducing, what was welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar), provision for local authorities of family planning powers similar to those which were introduced in the Private Member's National Health Service (Family Planning) Bill which was introduced last Session. At the time when that Bill went through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said that if a similar Private Member's Bill were introduced to apply to Scotland he would give sympathetic consideration to it, but we have in fact been able to do rather better than that and to introduce those provisions in this Bill.
  Another Scottish Clause I should like just to mention very briefly is Clause 39 which gives extended powers to executive councils in the more remote areas of Scotland in the provision of residential accommodation for medical practitioners. The extension enables them to provide surgeries separate from the doctors' houses and in some cases allows joint surgeries which might also be used by

  1799
  district nurses. I mention this because the recent Birsay Committee, which reported on medical services in the Highlands and Islands, made this one of its recommendations.
  The public health provisions in the Bill—and this is the only other Scottish provision I want to mention—by and large do not apply to Scotland, although we are taking one or two provisions which we need immediately, because we are to have a complete reappraisal of our public health legislation with a view later to introducing a consolidating Measure which will bring the law up to date.
  There were a very considerable number of detailed points raised today and I should like to deal with one or two of them; obviously in the time available it will not be possible to deal with every point which was raised.
  If I may start at the beginning and say something about Clauses 1 and 2 and the provisions about pay-beds, I think that my right hon. Friend made the position absolutely clear in his opening speech, when he referred to the results of his review of pay-beds, which were announced in answer to a Question on 6th November. That review showed a reduction in the number of pay-beds, but it did not affect the general principle which is, of course, maintained. There is continuing provision for pay-beds in the Health Service structure. It is, of course, true that these are subject to certain restrictions.
  I will not, at this point, go over them in any detail, because this is the sort of thing which we shall be able to consider in Committee, but the general intention of the new provisions which we are making here is to provide greater flexibility in the use of pay-beds, to get rid of setting them aside so that they really cannot be used for anything else. In all this, of course, we have very much in mind the necessity, the real need, the urgency which takes priority over pay-beds or indeed anything else in the Health Service.
  So I think that those on the other side of the House who have looked upon this as a kind of sinister attack on the principle of pay-beds can be reassured; and equally, that hon. Gentlemen on this side, whose fears are rather in the opposite direction, can be assured that the provi-
  1800
  sion for pay-beds is subject to very considerable control by the Minister of Health; and, as I say, this is all subject, of course, to the review, the results of which were announced a month ago.
  As for Clause 5——
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan rose——
  Mr. Millan: I really do not have time to give way. I have had to give up a little time so that one of the hon. Member's hon. Friends could make a speech, and I shall not be able to answer all the points. anyway.
  As for Clause 5 and university hospitals, again I think that what my right hon. Friend said was absolutely clear on this. I hope the House may forgive me if I do not attempt to put a gloss on what my right hon. Friend said. The House will be aware that in Scotland teaching hospitals are completely integrated in the regional hospital boards set-up. It would, therefore, be a little indelicate and certainly inappropriate if I were to try to explain what the position is in England and go into the meaning of Clause 5 and any influence it might have on the position of teaching hospitals.
  Questions have been raised about the domestic help services under Clause 13 and the laundry service referred to there. I can tell the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) that, although the domestic help service is to be made a duty, the laundry service appears in the Clause as the subject of power only, not a duty. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody) would like the laundry service as well to be made a duty, but we must be realistic here and not impose on local health authorities duties which they are not at present in a position to exercise.
  One appreciates that the domestic help service needs considerable expansion. There are difficulties in recruitment and there are difficulties in financial resources, too, but it is right that we should now put this important service on the statutory basis of a duty on local authorities to ensure that they provide a service adequate for their area.
  Several questions were raised about opticians. Some of these were rather detailed, among them certain points raised by the hon. Member for Wembley, South

  1801
  (Sir R. Russell), and these can be dealt with in Committee. We shall look carefully at the detailed points which the hon. Gentleman made. There is nothing in the Bill—I am not clear how the misunderstanding arose—which provides that opticians will be forced into health centres or that ordinary private practice in this field is somehow to be squeezed out. There is absolutely no suggestion of that at all in the Bill. On the question of representation on executive councils, the difficulty is that, if we keep adding to the professional representation, we must add to the lay representation also, with the result that we create difficulties in regard to numbers, unwieldy structure, and so on. But this, also, is a point which we can discuss in Committee.
  The provisions of Clauses 23, 29, 30 and 62 are matters of no great doctrinaire importance. They simply make practical improvements in the arrangements which we have at present. For example, Clause 23 gives statutory authority to what is done at the moment when executive councils supply disposable sterile syringes to family doctors. There has been some doubt about the legislative basis of this practice, and Clause 23 will put the matter right.
  Clause 62 gives power to health departments to supply executive councils with certain things which they may wish to supply to family doctors. This is not likely to be a provision enabling us to nationalise the drug industry, even if that were the Government's intention. The Sainsbury Committee has come out against it. I am not yet in a position to say what we think about the Sainsbury Committee's Report, but, if we were thinking of nationalising the drug industry, I doubt that we should be able to do it by this piece of legislation.
  Naturally, a good deal of attention has been directed to Clause 31. The provision of invalid vehicles is a matter in which many hon. Members take a great interest, and there is a feeling in all parts of the House that this is a service which we ought to expand when we are able to do so. Inevitably, the question of priorities comes in here. It is already an expensive service, and it is potentially very much more expensive if we were to go over, on a wholesale basis, to the supply of small cars rather than invalid vehicles.
  1802
  I know that there are complaints made about invalid vehicles. I do not accept all these complaints, and I certainly do not accept all the criticisms made about the suitability of invalid vehicles. Very many people derive considerable benefit from them and find them satisfactory. But, obviously, if it were possible to make improvements here, the Government would very much like to do it. The Clause gives a statutory basis to some practices which have been going on for a considerable time on a rather artificial or doubtful statutory basis.
  In February, 1967, after a considerable study of the implications and the working of the service as a whole, we extended the categories for which motor cars rather than tricycles were available. As my right hon. Friend made clear then, and as I am glad to make clear now, we shall be pleased to make further improvements in the service when resources are available and we can fit them into the other priorities in the Health Service as a whole. It would be premature for me to deal now with individual categories. One has considerable sympathy for haemophiliacs, who have been mentioned.
  Reference has been made to disabled housewives who are excluded from the third category of people who qualify for invalid vehicles on the ground that they are not in full-time employment. There are many categories in which one would like to see improvements made. All I can promise is that we shall make improvements as resources permit. I know that that is something which the House very much wants us to do.
  The Clauses on the welfare of old people have been very much welcomed. They fill a gap in the statutory provision. They will not be simply a paper provision, but will make a considerable improvement in the welfare facilities which local health authorities are able to offer to old people. This is very much bound up with the points made by a number of hon. Members involving hospital provision for geriatric and psycho-geriatric patients. This is a field in which co-ordination is obviously potentially very profitable.
  Clause 57, on child minders, was referred to particularly by my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) and Eton and

  1803
  Slough (Miss Lestor). I know the considerable interest which they take in this subject. It is true that the Clause is no substitute for nursery education; we do not pretend that it is. I am well aware of the recommendations of the Plowden Committee. But, again, the question of priorities comes into the picture.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science and we in Scotland have made it clear that this is not a field to which we feel we can give first priority, although it is slightly inaccurate for my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough to say that the provision for making nursery education available to pre-school children of married women returning to teaching is for the benefit of the parents rather than of the children. It is for the benefit of the children in school, which is extremely important at this time when we have such a shortage of teachers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East was rather sceptical about some of the control which local authorities have, about the inadequacy of the premises and staff, feeding arrangements, and so on. But these are all matters specifically mentioned in the Clause. I take the point about the need for inspection and for staff at local health authority level, but I am sure that the Clause will considerably improve the position.
  These were some of the main points raised in the debate. I have not dealt with the many minor points, and some of them quite important, with which we can deal in Committee. I am glad that the Bill has had a general welcome and that it is looked upon as a useful Measure. No doubt it can be improved during the Committee stage, to which we look forward. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  HEALTH SERVICES AND PUBLIC HEALTH [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the National Health Service Act 1946 and the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947 and make other amendments connected with the national health service and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—
  (1) any expenditure incurred by the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State—

  (a) in making payments towards—

  (i) the cost of the provision by others of instruction in connection with the provision of services under Part IV of the National Health Service Act 1946 or corresponding provisions and of material connected with such instruction; and

  (ii) expenses of persons availing themselves of such instruction;

  (b) in making payments towards costs incurred by persons appearing to be suffering from severe physical defect or disability in connection with invalid carriages or other vehicles provided by the Minister or the Secretary of State for or belonging to such persons;

  (c) in making payments of compensation to or in respect of persons suffering loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments attributable to—

  (i) the occurrence of any of the events mentioned in paragraph (a) to (c) of section 11(9) of the National Health Service Act 1946 or paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 11(10) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947 (reorganisation of provision of hospital services); or

  (ii) the making of an order under subsection (2), (3) or (4) of section 31 of the said Act of 1946 or subsection (2), (3) or (4) of section 32 of the said Act of 1947 (constitution of, and variation of constitution or functions of, Executive Councils) or an order revoking an order made under any of those subsections;

  (d) in making payments of remuneration or travelling or other allowances to members of bodies constituted under or by virtue of the National Health Service Act 1946 or the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947 and certain other bodies recognised by the Minister or the Secretary of State;

  (e) in making payments to any body with whom arrangements are made for the provision of accommodation for persons displaced in course of development for the purposes of the Acts relating to the national health service or to mental health;

  1805

  (f) in connection with the operation of a scheme administered by a government department for the provision of any welfare food;

  (g) in making payments to certain voluntary organisations;

  (h) in the exercise of any power conferred by the said Act of the present Session (other than a power to make payments);

  (2) ally expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in paying grants to certain authorities in respect of expenditure incurred by them in the exercise in relation to im-
  1806
  ported food of functions conferred or imposed on them by or under the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956, but so that the amount of such a grant in respect of any expenditure shall not exceed one half of that expenditure;
  (3) any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable under any other enactment out of moneys so provided;
  and to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of sums received by the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State under the said Act of the present Session.—[Mr. Harold Lever.]

  DOUBLE TAXATION AGREEMENTS (MALAYSIA AND BELGIUM)
  Mr. Speaker: It would be convenient to take the next two Orders together if there is no objection from either side.
  10.0 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Malaysia) Order 1967 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 23rd October. 1967, in the last Session of Parliament.
  With this, therefore, I shall also deal with the other Order—
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that on the ratification by His Majesty the King of the Belgians of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Belgium) Order 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 23rd October, 1967, in the last Session of Parliament, an Order may be made in the form of that draft.
  These Orders relate to the new Double Taxation Agreements with Belgium and Malaysia. I understand that the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) has expressed the view that these matters are not among the most exciting that come before the House. They concern small countries far away and in whose taxation systems there is the minimal interest. Nevertheless, double taxation agreements form an important part of our commercial and fiscal policy. I do not want to trouble the House with unnecessary technical detail, but if any hon. Member is anxious to probe details of these highly technical agreements, I will be happy, with permission of the House, to endeavour to satisfy the questions later on.
  I take first the Belgian Convention. This replaces the one signed in 1953. It seems that not only our taxation has had changes in the meantime. The Belgian system has also changed somewhat and as a result it was appropriate to have a new taxation convention.
  The House will be most interested in the provisions which deal with dividends, interests and royalties, and the general rule laid down for the future in the Con-
  1808
  vention is that withholding taxes will have a limit of 15 per cent. on all dividends flowing from one country to another, a rule which is contained in a number of our new agreements.
  Withholding taxes on interest are similarly limited to 15 per cent. Royalties, on the other hand, are normally to be taxable only in the country in which the recipient is resident. In drawing up the new Belgian convention, the opportunity has been taken to bring it into line more closely with the model double taxation agreement which the O.E.C.D. has recommended to member countries. We have not completely succeeded in bringing it into line but in most major points it is.
  Now I turn to the Malaysian Agreement, where we have a rather more complicated situation. In this case, the agreements being replaced date from 1949–50 and hon. Members will notice that the main part of the new agreement was originally settled as long ago as 1963. There were several constitutional difficulties in Malaysia which account for some part of the delay in finalising the arrangements and, of course, our taxation changes in the meantime have made necessary some adjustments in the final form of the Convention. I should say that at no time were British interests unprotected by a double taxation agreement because the old agreements have been continuously in force and still are. The situation will alter only when the House approves this Convention. Many of the provisions of the new agreement are the same as the old ones.
  Now I comment on the treatment of dividends set out in the agreement. Malaysia still operates, as does its neighbour, Singapore, the old tax system we had up to 1965—lamented now by some. I notice that on the benches opposite there is some sign of approval for that lament, although, at the time of the introduction of Corporation Tax, I understood that the party opposite did not give any indication that it intended even if it reformed the existing taxation system to revert to the old one.
  The solution we have adopted is the same as in the Singapore Agreement we considered earlier this year. First, there is to be no withholding tax. Secondly, United Kingdom residents with portfolio shareholdings in Malaysian companies

  1809
  will get no credit for the tax which those companies are entitled to deduct from the dividends and retain, rather as in our old system. Credit, however, will be given to a United Kingdom company which controls not less than 10 per cent. of the voting power in a Malaysian company. In the converse case, Malaysia gives credit for the Corporation Tax suffered on profits here.
  In the past, the point has been made that, where countries abroad still operate a system of taxation like that here before 1965, same part of the tax which the company passes on to the shareholder when it pays the dividend should be regarded as attributable to the dividend and credit allowed accordingly. We have concluded that as, broadly speaking, a British taxpayer does not get credit in having his personal Income Tax assessed as underlying tax paid by the company, this is not really consistent with our present system.
  We have agreed to give matching credit under the agreement for taxes which are spared under Malaysian legislation with the purpose of promoting development there. This concession, although it is a matching agreement, is likely to be of more use to them than to us, although we have development areas here and if any Malaysian investor comes here and were we to give similar concessions we might achieve some benefit from it.
  I commend both agreements. They form part of international co-operation and good behaviour in relation to the treatment of dividends, profits and royalties and these two represent a fair and balanced agreement in each case.
  10.10 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The Financial Secretary has reiterated a truth of which he will become the more aware as time progresses—that these agreements do not give rise to the most exciting debates. I think that there are more than 60 still to come, though whether he and I will be dealing with them from these positions or vice versa remains to be seen.
  In response to his invitation, I should like to raise one or two points on the Belgian Convention and a couple of small points on the Malaysian agree-
  1810
  ment and then a general point which arises out of both and which may be useful to the Government in considering some of the others. I take them in no special order, but merely in the order in which they appear in the agreements.
  Two or three of the provisions in the Belgian Convention appear to be unusual, or at any rate to call for comment. The first is in Article V which defines the term "permanent establishment", because, of course, it is upon the presence in one country of a permanent establishment belonging to a business in the other that the company's taxability in the first will depend. As the hon. Gentleman has said, this closely follows the provisions of the O.E.C.D. model agreement, but there is one remarkable addition. Paragraph 2(h) includes among the things which constitute a permanent establishment sites and facilities used by organisers or operators—called here entrepreneurs—of shows, entertainments, or games of any kind where such sites and facilities are available for at least 30 days. That is not in the O.E.C.D. treaty and in my admittedly fairly limited researches I have not been able to find any comparable provision in any other agreement.
  This provision would have the effect that any business which established a stall at a trade fair which was to be open for longer than 30 days and which did business from that stall, as opposed to merely exposing goods for display, would become liable to the tax in the country where the stall was on any profits which it earned at that stall.
  This could give rise to dangers. Brussels, of course, is the headquarters of the European communities and we can still remember the great Brussels Fair of 1958 which went on for many months. In more recent memory we have had the Montreal Expo 67 which lasted for many months. Is it intended that under this agreement tax should be charged on the profits of all the firms which display and sell at trade fairs of that nature and, if so, at whose instance, ours or the Belgians, was this provision included and what is the justification for its inclusion?
  The danger is that this will seriously inhibit participation in trade fairs likely to last longer than 30 days. Alternatively,

  1811
  one will have the rather ludicrous position that customers will present themselves at an exhibitors stall at a trade fair and be told, "I am sorry, but we can do no business with you here, or we will constitute a permanent establishment and lay ourselves open to Belgian, or United Kingdom, tax".
  The second question arises under Article XI which relates to interest. The usual provision under the O.E.C.D. Treaty is that interest is taxable in the recipient's country. It is here provided that it may also be taxed in the payer's country. This, too, is one of the model clauses in the O.E.C.D. treaty, but that model treaty provides expressly that the rate at which tax may be deducted in the payer's country is to be only 10 per cent. whereas in this case under Article XI (2) the rate is to be 15 per cent. Again, why has there been this departure from the O.E.C.D. model treaty? We are here dealing with two countries which are founder members of the O.E.C.D. and which have close trading ties and one would have thought that they would be able to adhere almost word for word to the model treaty.
  My last point on the Belgian Convention is rather more serious and it has caused me a good deal of doubt. We are now dealing with the provisions which appear in all these renegotiated agreements for the refusal of relief for underlying tax, the tax paid in the country where profits are earned by the company where there is only portfolio investment. The relief is limited to those companies which make direct investment in these overseas countries and the normal test for treaty relief is a 10 per cent. share of the voting power. But in this agreement—and I am here referring to Article XXIII—we have what appears to be an entirely novel and additional restriction. In the case of a United Kingdom investment in Belgium, credit for underlying tax, even though there may be a 10 per cent. share of the voting equity, will not be available if the Belgian company has share capital. Perhaps I can read the two or three lines from which I deduce this result:
  "… in the case of income (other than loan interest) derived from a Belgian company other than a company with share capital by a member of that company the credit shall take into account Belgian tax charged in respect of that income. …"
  1812
  Why do we have the words:
  "other than a company with share capital".
  which is a very serious limitation? It means that wherever there is direct investment in a company in Belgium with share capital, there will be no relief for the underlying tax, even if the investment exceeds the 10 per cent. limit. It may be thought that it is a very special sort of Belgian company which occurs very rarely. But my researches have shown that that is not the case. As my bible for these matters I rely on the Stationery Office publication, "Income Taxes outside the Commonwealth." In Vol. 2, paragraph 381 under the general heading, "Companies, Partnerships, &c." it says:
  "Introduction and general principles. (1) The Belgian Commercial Code provides for seven different forms of commercial association possessing legal personality distinct from that of their members. These are briefly noted in paragraphs 384 and 389."
  Paragraph 384, dealing with the first of these forms of association, says:
  "Public limited companies (sociétés anonyms). These are the ordinary type of limited liability company with capital divided into shares (actions) which are dealt with on a stock exchange."
  Therefore, one finds that that is the principal form of corporate entity in Belgium, but in the Convention there is a provision which appears to exclude any question of relief for underlying tax, even where there is a 10 per cent. shareholding in such a company, a société anonyme, with a capital divided into shares.
  The words therefore appear to nullify even that limited relief which Her Majesty's Government are now graciously pleased to allow to investors in countries overseas. I find it difficult to believe that the words are intended to have the effect I have described. I may be wrong about their effect; I claim no special expertise in this matter. But, if that is the intention, the Order should be withdrawn and the matter examined, though I shall be delighted if there is a rational explanation.
  I have two questions on the Malaysia Agreement. The first is on the taxes to be comprised within it. They are defined in paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Schedule to the Order, to include the income taxes in Malaya itself, in Sabah and Sarawak. Article I of the Annex,

  1813
  which contains the original Agreement of 1963 says at paragraph 2:
  "The present Agreement shall also apply to any other taxes of a substantially similar character imposed in the Federation of Malaya. …"
  Does the new Malaysian 5 per cent, development tax come within that description? It is a new impost introduced by the Malaysian Finance Minister, Mr. Tan Siew Sin, in the Malaysian Parliament on 15th January this year. It is charged only on business professional and property income, and not on salaries, wages, dividends and interest. Therefore, it is not a mere surcharge on the Malaysian income tax but a new special tax, limited to certain taxpayers and certain kinds of income. It must be at least questionable whether it is a tax of a substantially similar character imposed in the Federation of Malaysia. Will it count for relief? I recognise that, as the Financial Secretary said, this is relevant only in the case of an investor who has made a direct investment in Malaysia—it is an underlying tax.
  My second question is about the pioneer tax relief to which the hon. Gentleman referred. This is provided for in Article XVIII (4).
  The Malaysian legislation contains special reliefs for new businesses up to five years after their establishment, to encourage new investment in a developing country. But to be effective for an overseas investor it has to be carried over and must constitute an effective reduction of his total liability and it must not be, as for a long time it was, nullified by the overseas relief being promptly ignored by an added charge in this country.
  In Section 17 of the Finance Act, 1961, provision was made to give effective relief for this pioneer tax relief. Hitherto, this has been effective in the case of Malaysia, but now applies only to direct investment where there is at least 10 per cent, of the voting power. The Malaysian tax is now like our former company tax. The company pays the tax and dividend and recoups its tax. This is an underlying and not a withholding tax.
  Therefore, however much relief the Malaysian Government may wish to give the portfolio investor in Malaysia it
  1814
  makes absolutely no difference to his ultimate tax burden in this country. He will pay the full United Kingdom tax on his Malaysian dividend with no relief for the taxes paid or spared under the pioneer relief provisions of the Malaysian legislation.
  Does this penalty apply—the hon. Gentleman may not be able to answer off the cuff—to portfolio investors in Malaysia from other countries? This is a developing country which is excluded from the Government's main restrictions on overseas investment and which is anxious to attract new investors and prepared to offer tax incentives for this purpose, yet this incentive is wholly without effect on a fortfolio investor from this country. This is an unfortunate result of the change of the Government's policy as it affects Malaysia. There, the new Government has introduced some new tax reliefs, and this has the effect of excluding the portfolio investor from this relief.
  This is not a short-term restriction to tide the country over a difficult period with the balance of payments but part of the Government's long-term policy for overseas investment. The irony is that, in last year's Finance Bill debates, we expressly allowed reliefs of this kind to be continued to 1968, so this withdrawing of relief has not been effective during the short term crisis period and will become effective only in the long term. This is a fiscal Alice Through the Looking Glass.
  When he introduced Corporation Tax in his Budget of 1965, the Chancellor said that part of his proposals was to alter the balance between home and overseas investment and that this would require the renegotiation of all our existing double tax Conventions. He said:
  "In many cases such relief is given at present under double taxation agreements, and we shall, of course, honour our obligations under such agreements."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1965; Vol. 710, c. 266.]
  Here we are, nearly three years later, and the reliefs are now being withdrawn.
  Article XXIX of the Belgian Convention means that the reliefs are to be withdrawn in respect of Income Tax for any year of assessment beginning on or after 6th April, 1966; in respect of Corporation Tax for any financial year beginning on or after 1st April, 1964;

  1815
  and, in respect of Capital Gains Tax, for any year of assessment beginning on or after 6th April, 1965. There is a saving provision which makes sure that any reliefs which have existed hitherto and which would give a greater relief than those provided for in the new agreement will continue to apply until the new agreement has been ratified. This somewhat softens the blow. However, I suggest that the time has come when it is rather unrealistic to as it were, backdate the new agreement to the coming into effect of the new United Kingdom taxes and have what will be an ever longer and longer sort of artificial interim period during which the old provisions will continue to apply.
  In renegotiating these agreements from now on—and, after all, nearly three years have elapsed since the Chancellor's original statement—they should be expressed to start from the date when they are ratified or whatever may be the most convenient date in relation to the date of ratification. That would do away with any potential undesirable element of retrospection which is always to be deplored in fiscal matters.
  I have asked the Financial Secretary a number of questions arising out of these two agreements. If he can provide us with satisfactory answers I have no doubt that we shall be able to let the Orders go through.
  Mr. Harold Lever: The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) has raised, with his usual erudition, a number of points of great importance about these treaties and my response to his questions may be somewhat involved because there are innumerable systems of taxation throughout the world and innumerable ways of raising taxes. None of them has so far been found to be agreeable, although the pastures in other countries always look a little greener than those in which we graze. If I must refer to other tax systems, I trust that the House will have patience.
  The first problem that troubled the hon. Gentleman about the Belgian Agreement was the problem raised by Article V(2)(h). He pointed out that this Article says:
  "sites and facilities used by organisers or operators of … shows, entertainments or
  1816
  games of any kind where such sites and facilities are available for at least 30 days … shall constitute a permanent establishment."
  The hon. Gentleman is troubled by the word "shows". Entertainments or games do not relate to our export trade—unless one thinks that exporting is fun. The real purpose of this is to deal with circuses and temporary entertainments of that kind. The exhibition stall of any English firm may be open for as long as the firm likes, as long as it is an exhibition stall. If selling takes place from the stall, and if that selling lasts for more than 30 days, then it could be treated as a permanent establishment. It would then fall to be decided under Belgian law whether that was so and, of course, we would not be in a position to contest it if the selling had taken place for longer than 30 days.
  However, the hon. Gentleman need not trouble himself. A firm may set up a stall and show for any length of time without coming within this provision, provided it does not sell. And if it does sell for longer than 30 days, it can both show and sell. If it goes on selling and showing for a long time it could not help but be brought within the general law and be treated as a permanent establishment; and, presumably, that is why the Belgian authorities insisted that this provision should be inserted. But certainly I would have thought that no English trader would be hardly affected by this.
  The second point raised is that the withholding charge on interest is not 10 per cent. as suggested in the O.E.C.D. model treaty, but 15 per cent. These negotiations are always carried on in a confidential and even, one might say, conspiratorial atmosphere, and it is not possible to go through the whole of the discusisons that finally end in what we hope to regard as a balanced agreement fair to both sides. All I can tell the hon. Member is that, though both sides were trying to keep to the O.E.C.D. model, the best that they could do in coming to a balanced agreement was 15 per cent. If that is a sin, it cannot be helped; but it is the best that, in all the circumstances, both parties would agree.
  The third point is one of great importance. The hon. Member appears to believe that Article XXIII(1) does not give the normal double taxation relief to investors in limited companies in Belgium

  1817
  which have a share capital. I think that he is mistaken. That is understandable from the drafting, because it is not drafted with the care with which we draft statutes and contracts in England, but it is clear that his anxieties are without foundation. That article, if I may use somewhat popular language to sum up a provision of this kind, extends to non-share capital companies—that is, a sort of limited partnership company without a share capital—the provisions which are available to ordinary companies which have a share capital; but it does not exclude the relief in respect of those companies which have share capital.
  The hon. Member is shaking his head, but I can assure him that both parties to the agreement are clear that it has that meaning, and that meaning derives from the last words of the article:
  "In the case of a dividend paid by a company which is a resident of Belgium"—
  that means a company with share capital—
  "to a company which is a resident of the United Kingdom and which controls directly or indirectly not less than 10 per cent. of the voting power in the Belgian company, the credit shall take into account (in addition to any Belgian to K payable in respect of the dividend) the Belgian tax payable by the company in respect of its profits."
  There are two provisions. I know that at first glance they do rather look like one, but there are two provisions contained in Article XXIII(1). One governs what I would call the limited partnership company, and the other governs the ordinary company. We have procured for the ordinary company the normal double taxation relief, and, in addition, ensured that where there are minority companies, which may be called limited partnerships, the same provisions will apply. In the case of limited partnerships we have gone further than with companies because, where there is unlimited liability, an individual can have the whole of the underlying tax relief available to him against his English tax, which would not be the case if it were a company limited by shares.
  The hon. Member will see that the consequence is that we not only do not exclude tie share capital type company, but we bring in the limited partnership type company and bring it in on terms exceedingly more advantageous to its
  1818
  English shareholders than would be the case if it were a share company.
  I must now turn to the Malaysian situation. I am asked, first, will the new 5 per cent. development tax in Malaysia qualify for relief as being sufficiently similar to the other taxes to be treated in the same way? The answer is: yes, it will. That is understood with the Malaysian authorities.
  The second question asked was, are portfolio investors now precluded from obtaining any benefit from the pioneer relief provisions; that is to say, do they get some benefit from the phantom tax which would have been paid, and is not, because of the pioneer relief? I call it phantom tax, because it exists only notionally. The answer is that we treat phantom tax in the same way as real tax. No phantom can complain of that.
  We cannot treat a portfolio or other investor better than if the tax had been paid by the company. The consequence of this phantom relief is as if the company had paid the tax. If that will not result in an advantage to the United Kingdom shareholder, he will not get the relief from the phantom tax, but, equally, he will not get any relief if the company has not paid real tax. If he would have got relief from the real tax, we treat the phantom tax as being exactly as if it had been real tax. It is like politics in this country, where we treat an illusion sufficiently widely held as if it were a real fact. In the same way, the Inland Revenue treats phantom relief as if it was a real relief, and give tax relief accordingly.
  I am asked whether this provision on the treatment of phantom tax applies to other countries. As I understand it, countries treat this in a varying manner, and I must ask the hon. Gentleman's leave not to trouble the House with an encyclopaedic review, even if I am capable of it, or capable of having it produced for me, on how this phantom tax is treated by other countries. Some treat it worse than others.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates the point that if there is no other substantial body of countries which deprive their portfolio investors of the advantages of what he rightly calls the phantom tax, it places British investors in this Commonwealth

  1819
  developing country in a very unfavourable position.
  Mr. Lever: But it is not true that we deprive them of the advantage. As I have said, we cannot do more than treat the company and the shareholder as if the tax had been paid. Therefore, if any relief follows from that, he gets it. And even the shareholder who does not get relief because he would not have got relief if real tax had been paid is better off than if real tax is paid, because his asset growing, undiminished by the application of local tax.
  If there is a portfolio investor in a company not paying tax on this relief, that company is thereby advantaged. The company is getting the full benefit of the tax relief, and the shareholder is not being penalised in any way, because the tax is a phantom tax and not a real one. I think that the hon. Gentleman's complaint on that score is really misconceived.
  I do not know what more the hon. Gentleman wants us to do. Would he want us to treat the phantom tax as more valuable, that is, treat the tax that is not paid as more valuable than the tax which the company in Malaysia has paid? That treatment would be somewhat eccentric, and although we have many faults in our Inland Revenue system, deliberate eccentricity is not one of them.
  Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked us to stop this habit of retrospection to the beginning of the new tax system of 1965. The reason for this is the great convenience to both countries, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that no English taxpayer is any worse off. He can only be advantaged by this habit of retrospection. The hon. Gentleman said that all retrospection is undesirable. Speaking as a taxpayer, I am prepared to welcome—and I think that it would be given a general welcome by all taxpayers—any retrospection which advantages me.
  I appreciate that retrospection to one's disadvantage is open to grave criticism. I think the hon. Gentleman knows that I am not enthusiastic for that form of retrospection, but no taxpayer can complain if the State decides to have retro-
  1820
  spection which is convenient to the two countries in the double taxation agreement, and then says to him, "You can pick whichever system you like, whichever suits you best, whichever pays you more. If you want the old system to be treated as being in force for the purpose of computing your tax because that suits you better than the new one, you can have it until the House brings it into law. If you prefer the new tax system, and it is better for your pocket, you can have that". I think that the hon. Gentleman is erecting a principle which does not exist.
  What we are doing by retrospection is giving the taxpayer an option. We are not imposing a new liability on him. We are giving him an extra option. For once he may benefit from administrative convenience. In those circumstances, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman ought to take it to heart too much if we present the British taxpayer with this option, largely on the ground of administrative convenience.
  I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Gentleman and the House that these agreements ought to be passed into law.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Malaysia) Order 1967 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 23rd October, 1967, in the last Session of Parliament.
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that on the ratification by His Majesty the King of the Belgians of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Belgium) Order 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 23rd October 1967, in the last Session of Parliament, an Order may be made in the form of that draft.—[Mr. Harold Lever.]
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

  MINK AND COYPUS
  10.40 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): I beg to move,
  That the Mink (Importation and Keeping) Order, 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st October, be approved.
  I would suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time the following Order:
  That the Copyus (Importation and Keeping) Order, 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st October, be approved.
  One thing which can be said about the House of Commons is that if one does not like one bit of business but waits for the next, one will find that it is bound to be different, and one could not have a greater difference than that between double taxation and the destruction of Imported animals.
  These Orders renew for a further five years from 1st January, 1968, powers which expire on 31st December, 1967, to prohibit the importation into and the keeping of coypus and mink in Great Britain except under licence.
  Coypus and mink which escaped from fur farms, mainly before 1962, are continuing to breed in the wild. Coypus are now largely confined to a small area in the Norfolk Broads, as a result of a co-ordinated drive conducted by the Ministry between 1962 and 1965, but unless they are firmly controlled they could again overrun large areas of East Anglia and cause damage to river banks and farm crops. I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the local drainage authorities and rabbit clearance societies which, with the support of farmers and others, are working hard to hold the line.
  Wild mink are present in over half the counties of England and Wales, and in many parts of Scotland. They kill poultry and they kill freshwater fish. We are making considerable efforts to bring under control these animals living in the wild, and, despite their uneven distribution, just over 1,000 were trapped in Great Britain during 1966, and a similar number is expected to be trapped
  1822
  this year. I hope that the House will agree that it is essential to continue these efforts, and to regulate the keeping of captive coypus and mink so as to minimise the risk of escapes.
  There are at present only 32 holders of licences to keep coypus, all in England and Wales, but there are some 330 licensed mink keepers, of whom over 50 are in Scotland. Escapes from mink farms do occur, but they are relatively rare, and the animals are usually recovered.
  The Destructive Imported Animals Act, 1932, empowers the Minister and the Secretary of State jointly to prohibit or regulate the importation and keeping of non-indigenous mammals with destructive habits, and to take steps to destroy any found at large. It was designed as a defence against the muskrat, but wisely made provision for its extension by order to other destructive alien animals.
  If the House approves the renewal of these two Orders we propose to renew the present regulations authorising the importation of mink provided that they are kept so as to prevent their escape, since we have no wish to place unnecessary restrictions on the fur breeding industry. There are virtually no imports of coypus now, but a licence would be required to import any. Regulations under the Act will also be made again to prescribe the manner in which coypus and mink may be kept in Great Britain and the precautions to be taken to prevent their escape. The draft regulations have been the subject of consultation with the Fur Breeders' Association.
  The National Farmers' Union and the Nature Conservancy have been consulted, and support the renewal of these Orders. In England and Wales the power to destroy coypus and mink found on land will be delegated to county agricultural executive committees.
  I hope that, with these remarks, the House will see the need to continue the controls specified in the two Orders.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: When the question of these Orders came before the House on 10th July, 1962, there were 16 speeches made from the two sides. It may comfort the hon. Gentleman if I assure him that it seems

  1823
  unlikely that there will be quite so much said tonight. He may take some credit for that, inasmuch as it appears that the Orders are receiving approval. Otherwise, there would be more hon. Members present to have something to say about them.
  In the debate in 1962, there was one rather important contribution made by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. John Mackie), which, perhaps, has not received careful consideration from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. He took the opportunity to tell his right hon. Friend the Member for Workington, now the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, that he had missed an important point, which the hon. Member for Enfield, East went on to expound in these terms.
  "… so far in the debate tonight no objection has been raised to the spending of taxpayers' money because those engaged in a luxury trade have allowed the brutes to escape to the detriment of agriculture. I protest most strongly at the fact that spokesmen of neither Front Bench have raised this point. I would tax those engaged in this luxury trade for allowing their animals to escape."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1962; Vol. 662, c. 1287–8]
  I felt that I should not be doing my duty if I did not at least draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to that speech, which took him about three minutes to deliver.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture at that time, now Lord Inglewood but then the hon. Member for Westmorland, said that the Order would cost £20,000 a year for two years, and "then we could look at it again". He went on to say that he hoped that, "after two years, we should see substantial progress". Two years later, in July, 1964, we all had our minds on rather higher things, perhaps, than coypus and mink, but I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell us why there has not, apparently, been a review at the end of the two years. Could it be that the measures which are being taken have not been as successful as was then hoped? The hon. Gentleman has told us that these animals are breeding over widely scattered areas in England, Wales and Scotland.
  According to my information, there are eight men employed full time by his Ministry in dealing with this problem. May we have an assurance that these men
  1824
  are winning the battle? Or do the figures give cause for anxiety? If it should be that the populations of mink and coypus in the country are not being kept down, in due course, or fairly soon, perhaps, they will come to be regarded as fauna of this country and have to be treated in the same way as rats. That could mean that the occupiers or owners would be responsible for getting rid of them, and it would probably mean that the Ministry would have to give grant aid.
  First, then, is the Ministry taking the matter seriously? What action does the Minister propose to take if the figures do not give encouragement in the coming months?
  Second, what about notifications by occupiers under the Destructive Imported Animals Act, 1932? Is the Minister receiving the notifications he would like? Has he an indication of how many notifications are made under that Act? This could be an important contribution to the battle for control of both animals.
  Third, a word about licences. I understand that the proposal is that the licence fee will be trebled this year and in the subsequent year it will again be doubled. This is a fairly substantial increase in licence fees. If they have remained at the original figure since 1962, why has the Minister suddenly decided that there must be these substantial increases during the next two years?
  Lord Inglewood said during the last debate that
  "the purpose of the licensing system is to enable us to know where the animals are being kept …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1962; Vol. 662, c. 1301.]
  that the code was being followed and that there was proper fencing. Is it that costs are going up for the Ministry? Is that the justification for the steep increases in the licences?
  Of the mink produced in this country 85 per cent. go for export and the price since last year has dropped by 30 per cent. The President of the Board of Trade is helping the Fur Breeders' Association in preparing evidence on behalf of the mink breeders for submission to the American Tariff Commission. The President of the Board of Trade is encouraging mink breeders to export and it would appear that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Ministry are doing

  1825
  just the opposite and discouraging them by steeply increasing the cost of the licences. Subject to assurances on these three points, I have no hesitation in commending the Orders to the House.
  10.50 p.m.
  Mr. John Mackie: I will be brief in reply. The remarks that the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) made about what I said in 1962 shows how careful one must be when saying things in Opposition. The hon. Member need be much less careful because he has little chance of getting across to this side of the House. The reason that there was no review after two years was the reason he gave. We were preoccupied with other things in the Ministry and we did not get around to it.
  I assure the hon. Member we are managing to contain coypus and the campaign in the Norfolk area was successful. The total cost was £70,000 but we thought that it was worth it. Now it has mainly been left to the rabbit clearance societies to deal with the matter and they are containing them well. We must continue this battle, because they could become a menace again.
  We have a job in dealing with mink because they are spread over wide areas while other huge areas have none. In areas where they are prominent we have killed quite a few. We think that we are containing them and this is why we want the licence put up so that we can see that the conditions for keeping mink are observed so as to avoid escapes. We have no reason to think that we are not getting notifications from the public about escapes and mink infestations. Generally speaking, because of the danger and damage that they do, we get notification quickly.
  These days everybody tries to cost things and charge people what they cost. Because of the risks we have to make a number of visits to see that the conditions of licences are being carried out. We have costed the operation and we find that it costs roughly £6 a licence to carry out inspections and so on. We felt that it was hard to push up the fee straight away from £5 for five years, which is £1 a year, so we are pushing it up next year to £3 a year and it will go up to £6 the year after.
  1826
  I said in 1962 that mink was a luxury trade and we see no reason why mink farmers should not be able to meet this figure. I do not think that it will have any effect on the export effort, although I will in no way belittle that. It is moving towards £1 million and is around £780,000 to £800,000. This is a substantial sum from a small business like mink farming and we do not want to inhibit the fur trade.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Mink (Importation and Keeping) Order 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st October, be approved.
  Coypus (Importation and Keeping) Order 1967 [a copy laid before the House 31st October], approved.—[Mr. John Mackie.]

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (REVEREND BRIAN BROWN)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]
  10.55 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Edwards: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue which I consider is one of very grave social injustice. It affects a very good family in my constituency, the Reverend Brian Brown, B.A., his wife and his two small daughters. His daughter, aged 5, was ill in May this year and his general practitioner said that the child had tonsilitis and should have an immediate operation.
  Arrangements were made for the family and the child to see a consultant at the Royal Hospital, Wolverhampton, but the meeting did not take place until a month after the child had been seen by the family doctor. The consultant indicated that the child was very young and that although an operation was needed no accommodation could be found for her for this simple operation until March of next year.
  The child was ill, the illness recurred and the parents were emotionally strained because the welfare of their child was at stake. The child was visited by another doctor of the practice and he again indicated that an operation was required. Again, the family visited the

  1827
  Royal Hospital and on that occasion the assistant consultant said that the child was only suffering from catarrh and that no operation was needed.
  The parents called in their doctor again and he said that the child needed an immediate operation, but that, as they could not get a bed under the National Health Service, if Mr. Brown was willing to pay a fee of £80 an operation could be guaranteed immediately and a bed would be found for the child.
  This family believes in the Health Service. Mr. Brown and his wife are not rich. They are a cultured family, but they have not a big income. However, they could have paid the £80, but they decided that a big principle was involved here and they wrote to the hospital management committee and asked for an explanation. The committee, through its chairman, sent back what was, in my opinion, a rather evasive letter and suggested that Mr. Brown and his doctors should have a friendly discussion to solve the difficulty that had arisen between them.
  My constituents offered to talk this over with their three doctors in the practice, but Mr. Brown received a letter stating that they had informed the Dudley Executive Committee of the Health Service that he and his family had been removed from their panel.
  It seems a very serious business that patients—a cultured family—cannot protest against what they consider is a grave injustice without being removed in the most arbitrary way, without any discussion at all, from the doctor's panel. This good family, this man and wife, had to trudge around Sedgley from surgery to surgery interviewing doctor after doctor. It took them a fortnight before they found a doctor who, rather reluctantly was willing to take them on to his panel. Indeed, one doctor with whom they discussed their problem said he had vacancies on his panel, but was unwilling to take them because he did not want any more patients from their area.
  A serious problem arises which should be debated here and considered by my right hon. Friend. I appreciate his coming here at this late hour even though he is overwhelmed with work, to deal with a matter that concerns only
  1828
  one family. He is a man of great understanding, patience and a great feeling of justice, and that is why he is here.
  I should like to read two brief extracts from letters written by the two doctors concerned to the Clerk of the Dudley Executive Council of the National Health Service. They were asked to explain why they had treated these good people in this arbitrary manner. Dr. Thompson replied:
  "All I did was to point out that the only way to get round a situation which was to her"—
  Mrs. Brown—
  "evidently objectionable was to have a private consultation."
  That meant that he was suggesting that a £80 fee should be paid.
  "The comments concerning my political beliefs which are attributed to me are not reported accurately and in any case are not, I submit, a matter for consideration by your council's service committee."
  The political objection that the family took to their doctor was that he denigrated the whole Health Service, said that it had no future and that the only way one could get real medical treatment was to become a fee-paying patient. Yet in the letter the doctor suggests that his political views, which were frequently expressed in an attempt to undermine the Health Service, were not subject to consideration by the committee.
  The other doctor on the panel also replied to the clerk, concluding his letter as follows:
  "I cannot, however, refrain from pointing out that it is precisely the sort of selfish, hysterical and unreasonable attitude adopted by Mr. Brown (which, in passing, ill-befits his calling) which is undermining the National Health Service and persuading so many practitioners to seek employment in other countries."
  That seems a very arrogant way for two doctors who earn their living from our Health Service to deal with a genuine complaint by my constituent. It calls for investigation into their conduct. Far be it for me to condemn the medical profession of this country. The overwhelming majority of its members are over-worked and under-paid. But from time to time there is a minority in every profession who think that they can sit in their ivory towers, because they have specialised skill and there is a lack of competition, and that the citizen has no rights.

  1829
  I conclude by reading two extracts from the most recent letter I have received from Mr. Brown, who has been suffering emotional upset and social indignities. He says:
  "Our sole reason for raising this issue is not a personal matter between us and our former doctors. We are protesting on behalf of the countless others who have given in to the same moral blackmail that we feel has been applied to us, or who for financial reasons do not get the chance to receive privileged treatment. If the unpleasant experience we have gone through will serve to assist in preventing what appears to be a rowing abuse of hospital and medical services under the National Health Service, it will have served some use."
  I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I know this family personally. Mr. Brown is a lecturer as well as a Bachelor of Divinity and a Bachelor of Art, a man of great culture. His wife is a school teacher. They are good, honest citizens who do not make frivolous complaints and they are not the kind of people to create difficulties. But their lives have been upset and the unity and happiness of the family have been made difficult because of the conflict with the three doctors concerned.
  I am certain that this is not a frivolous complaint, but a serious indictment of a growing content of our national institutions, this growing tendency by some professional people to feel that they have exceptional privileges in our society. I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that this case should be thoroughly investigated, even if only to prevent situations like this from developing in other parts of the country.
  11.7 p.m.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): We debated earlier today legislation which I have put before the House and which is designed to improve in various ways the powers available to me for providing health and welfare services. it is in a way disappointing to end the day discussing someone's dissatisfaction with the services which he has received, but, after all, the touchstone of success of any general provisions is their effect on the individual, and I am, therefore, grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Robert Edwards) for raising this personal case.
  My hon. Friend has given us an account of the dissatisfaction of the Reverend Brian Brown with both the
  1830
  general practitioner and the hospital services. I am in a little difficulty in replying to the debate as regards the general practitioners, for Mr. Brown has made a formal complaint to the executive council and I cannot discuss the merits of this aspect of the case. I must emphasis that the account given tonight represents Mr. Brown's account and we must remember that we have yet to hear the doctors' version.
  The procedure to be followed in the investigation of a complaint against a general practitioner is governed by regulations. The first stage is to clarify the issues as far as possible by correspondence. I understand that this stage has now been completed in the investigation of Mr. Brown's complaint. The next stage is for the committee concerned to prepare a report on the complaint, and for this it may need the help of a hearing, for submission to the executive council for its decision.
  Any party who considers himself aggrieved by the decision of the council has the right to appeal to me, and it is because of this that it would be wrong for me to venture an opinion tonight on what my hon. Friend has said about the general practitioner aspect of this case.
  I ought to comment that what the executive council can investigate is whether the practitioner is in breach of the terms of service which form part of his contract with the council. It cannot deal with other matters. In particular, provided that the committee is satisfied that a doctor has exercised the care and skill to be expected of a professional man, it has no power to question his clinical judgment and there are certainly no powers to require a doctor to provide one form of treatment rather than or in addition to another.
  Other aspects of the conduct of his practice also lie outside the terms of service and if a patient loses confidence in the advice given by a doctor or objects to his manner or for other reasons ceases to find the doctor satisfactory, his proper course is to seek the advice of another doctor.
  I cannot, of course, comment on the general observations about the Health Service alleged by my hon. Friend to have been made by the general practitioners, save to say that if they were made in those terms I profoundly disagree

  1831
  with and deplore them. Mutual confidence is the basis of the relationship between the patient and the doctor. The Health Service has always provided therefore that a patient has a free choice of doctor and that a doctor is free to accept or to refuse a patient who applies to him for acceptance on his list. Similarly, a patient is free to change his doctor at any time without giving reasons and a general practitioner is free to ask the executive council to remove any patient or patients from his list.
  My hon. Friend has mentioned that their family doctor asked the executive council to remove from his list the names of Mr. Brown and of his family. As I have explained, the doctor had a right to do so and this is not a matter which can form part of the investigation by the executive council. I understand that Mr. Brown afterwards sought acceptance from other doctors and asked the clerk of the executive council for the names and addresses of other doctors practising within a reasonable distance of his home. I am pleased to know that Mr. Brown and his family were accepted by another doctor on 25th November.
  I will now turn to the hospital side of the matter. Two criticisms have been made: first, that it was detrimental to the child's health to have to wait until spring next year for a tonsils operation; second, that it is wrong that such a wait could be avoided by paying for the operation to be done privately.
  I will give the facts as I have them, and I think my hon. Friend must agree with the conclusions to be drawn from them—that they indicate little cause for complaint, at any rate of the hospital.
  In the Wolverhampton group of hospitals ear, nose and throat operations for children are done both at the Wolverhampton Royal Hospital and at New Cross Hospital. Alison Brown is on the list of a consultant ear, nose and throat surgeon, Mr. Clark, and the waiting time on his list for the operation of tonsils and adenoids is six months. There are two other consultants who do these operations, the waiting time for one of whom is considerably shorter.
  Alison was referred by her family doctor and the consultant saw her on 27th June. He entered her on his list for removal of tonsils and adenoids,
  1832
  having observed significant inflammation in the ears. He made a note, however, that in his opinion the case was in no way urgent. He told the parents that it was likely to be the spring before the child was sent for, at the same time reassuring them that, as the child was so young, this would in no way be disadvantageous. The child's parents also understood that if the condition deteriorated the position on the waiting list would be reviewed. In fact, if a patient's condition deteriorates to the point where urgent action is called for, the patient does not have to wait at all.
  On 29th September, the family doctor, at the request of the parents, wrote to the consultant asking that Alison be seen again. His reason for this—as he made clear in his letter—was not to ask for the operation to be expedited, but to raise the question whether her troubles were due to chronic sinus infection rather than to tonsils. The child was accordingly seen on 10th October, not by the consultant but by his assistant. He found that her nose was perfectly clear and he also considered that there was no medical reason for altering the child's position on the waiting list for operation. The child's condition seemed to have improved, in fact, since he noted that there was no evidence of any inflammation in the ear, such as the consultant had seen in June. Later, therefore, when the consultant studied the case notes he concluded that, in the spring he ought first to see her as an out-patient to review her condition before calling the child for operation.
  On 19th October the Rev. Brian Brown wrote a letter to the Wolverhampton Hospital Management Committee setting out the facts substantially as I have given them. However, he was under the impression that the family doctor considered that there was an urgent need for an operation. He went on to express dissatisfaction that this should be possible only by admission as a private patient and ended by asking
  "… that an early date be fixed for the operation".
  The group secretary acknowledged the letter on 23rd October and wrote on 1st November with a full explanation of the position—the salient facts being that neither the family doctor who had referred the child nor the hospital doctors who had examined her on the two

  1833
  occasions considered her condition to necessitate operation at an early date; in fact, there was less certainty after the second consultation on 10th October that an operation would turn out to be necessary at all.
  How, then, did it come about that the Rev. Brian Brown had the impression, when he wrote to the hospital management committee on 19th October, that the family doctor thought the child needed an early operation? One cannot, of course, be certain, but I note that by that time no letter had been sent from the hospital to the family doctor reporting the outcome of the examination on 10th October. This was an unfortunate omission which was made good on 25th October when the consultant wrote a full report to the family doctor.
  Naturally, the Rev. Brian Brown and Mrs. Brown were anxious during this time, but I should have thought that, thereafter, their minds ought to have been set at rest—and certainly after receipt of the group secretary's letter of 1st November.
  I turn briefly to the allegation that the operation would have been undertaken immediately if the parents had been willing to pay £80 for private treatment. In the first place—and simply to put the record straight and this is not very important—I am told that £50, not £80, would have been the total outlay, inclu-
  1834
  sive of the hospital charges for a tonsil operation by the consultant who has seen this child.
  But the point is that only if the operation had been considered by a consultant to be necessary on medical grounds, would it have been undertaken at all. The consultant had come to no firm conclusion that an operation would turn out to be necessary; and it is for this reason that he has arranged to see the child again as an out-patient in the spring on 5th March, 1968, to review her medical condition.
  I regret that I have felt precluded tonight from discussing the matters raised by my hon. Friend in relation to the general practitioner as freely as I would wish to do, but he can rest assured that Mr. Brown's complaint will be thoroughly examined and what he says considered with great care. When the investigation under the service committee regulations has been completed, I shall let him know the final decision which has been reached on the complaint. Until then, I hope he will forgive my not commenting further on the matter than I have tonight. I also hope that he feels, as I do, that he was entirely right to have ventilated this case tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  St. Michael's Infants School, Lyme Regis
  St. Michael's Infants School, Lyme Regis
  Religious Instruction and Worship
  Religious Instruction and Worship
  Oxford and Cambridge Universities (Admission Procedures)
  Oxford and Cambridge Universities (Admission Procedures)
  Secondary Education (Capital Expenditure)
  Secondary Education (Capital Expenditure)
  Greater London and South-East Sports Council (Report)
  Greater London and South-East Sports Council (Report)
  National Library
  National Library
  Arts Administrators (Training)
  Arts Administrators (Training)
  School Uniforms
  School Uniforms
  Mr. T. J. Robinson (Award)
  Mr. T. J. Robinson (Award)
  Regional Arts Associations
  Regional Arts Associations
  Conference of European Ministers of Education
  Conference of European Ministers of Education
  Teachers Exchange Scheme
  Teachers Exchange Scheme
  Skylark Rockets
  Skylark Rockets
  Direct Grant Schools
  Direct Grant Schools
  University Students
  University Students
  Village School, Airmyn
  Village School, Airmyn
  Play Groups (Training Courses)
  Play Groups (Training Courses)
  Nursery Schools (Circular 18/60)
  Nursery Schools (Circular 18/60)
  Hayling Secondary School
  Hayling Secondary School
  Immigrants (English Language)
  Immigrants (English Language)
  Departmental Costs (Devaluation)
  Departmental Costs (Devaluation)
  Nuclear Machine (Report)
  Nuclear Machine (Report)
  Support of University Science (Exploratory Group's Report)
  Support of University Science (Exploratory Group's Report)
  Free School Meals (Publicity)
  Free School Meals (Publicity)
  Independent Schools (Free Milk)
  Independent Schools (Free Milk)
  Co-Educational Secondary Schools
  Co-Educational Secondary Schools
  Universities (Scottish Candidates)
  Universities (Scottish Candidates)
  European Particle Physics Machine
  European Particle Physics Machine
  Royal Society European Programme (Interchange of Scientists)
  Royal Society European Programme (Interchange of Scientists)
  Schoolchildren (Transport)
  Schoolchildren (Transport)
  Transport Museum
  Transport Museum
  Rickmansworth Grammar School (Engineering Workshop)
  Rickmansworth Grammar School (Engineering Workshop)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Children's Nightdresses (Flame-proof Materials)
  Children's Nightdresses (Flame-proof Materials)
  Buckley Hall (Inquiry)
  Buckley Hall (Inquiry)
  Motor Vehicles (Return of Offences)
  Motor Vehicles (Return of Offences)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  International Symposium on Industrial Development
  International Symposium on Industrial Development
  Peru (Wild Life Report)
  Peru (Wild Life Report)
  Commonwealth Development Corporation (Review)
  Commonwealth Development Corporation (Review)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Hartlepool and Tees-side
  Hartlepool and Tees-side
  Municipal Bus Industry (Report)
  Municipal Bus Industry (Report)
  Tolls
  Tolls
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Kiosk (Shrewsbury)
  Kiosk (Shrewsbury)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  B.B.C. Broadcast (Mr. Peter Jay)
  B.B.C. Broadcast (Mr. Peter Jay)
POST OFFICE
  Christmas Staff (Hull)
  Christmas Staff (Hull)
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS (UNITED NATIONS REPORT)
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS (UNITED NATIONS REPORT)
  SOUTH YEMEN (ASSETS)
  SOUTH YEMEN (ASSETS)
TECHNOLOGY
  Brain Drain
  Brain Drain
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Supplementary Benefits (Strikers)
  Supplementary Benefits (Strikers)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural Industry (Production)
  Agricultural Industry (Production)
  Animal Feedingstuffs (Antibiotics)
  Animal Feedingstuffs (Antibiotics)
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Diseases of Animals (Waste Foods) Order, 1957 (Prosecutions)
  Diseases of Animals (Waste Foods) Order, 1957 (Prosecutions)
  Tenant Farmers (Tenure)
  Tenant Farmers (Tenure)
  Australian Beef (Imports)
  Australian Beef (Imports)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  International Monetary Fund and Central Banks (Standby Credit)
  International Monetary Fund and Central Banks (Standby Credit)
  Overseas Loans
  Overseas Loans
  Home Demand
  Home Demand
  Devaluation (Nigeria)
  Devaluation (Nigeria)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
RAILWAYS
  Edinburgh-Corstorphine Line (Closure)
  Edinburgh-Corstorphine Line (Closure)
  Derailments
  Derailments
  Train Tail Lights
  Train Tail Lights
  Track Maintenance
  Track Maintenance
  Catering Prices
  Catering Prices
  Hither Green Accident
  Hither Green Accident
  Oxford Station
  Oxford Station
ROADS
  Yellow Kerbside Lines (Sutton Coldfield)
  Yellow Kerbside Lines (Sutton Coldfield)
  Motorway Service Sites
  Motorway Service Sites
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Ratepayers (Form LVP 17/1)
  Ratepayers (Form LVP 17/1)
  Bewl Valley Reservoir
  Bewl Valley Reservoir
HOUSING
  Structural Survey and Valuation Reports
  Structural Survey and Valuation Reports
SCOTLAND
  Commonwealth Games
  Commonwealth Games
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  "TORREY CANYON" (REPORT)
  "TORREY CANYON" (REPORT)
  HOUSE OF LORDS
  HOUSE OF LORDS
  DEVELOPMENT AREAS
  DEVELOPMENT AREAS
  EUROPE (TECHNOLOGICAL CO-OPERATION)
  EUROPE (TECHNOLOGICAL CO-OPERATION)
  HOUSING
  HOUSING
  SCOTTISH ECONOMY
  SCOTTISH ECONOMY
  BRAIN DRAIN
  BRAIN DRAIN
  MINISTERS (VETTING)
  MINISTERS (VETTING)
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
  MINISTER OF LABOUR (TELEVISION BROADCAST)
  MINISTER OF LABOUR (TELEVISION BROADCAST)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Services Houses
  Services Houses
  TF30 Engine (Cost)
  TF30 Engine (Cost)
  Malaysia
  Malaysia
  NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY
  NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Hearing Aids (Repair)
  Hearing Aids (Repair)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Employment
  Employment
  Development Areas (Selective Employment Premiums)
  Development Areas (Selective Employment Premiums)
  Municipal Bus Industry
  Municipal Bus Industry
  Cost of Living (Wales)
  Cost of Living (Wales)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Development Areas (Building Loans)
  Development Areas (Building Loans)
  Motor Vehicles (Norwegian Internal Taxes)
  Motor Vehicles (Norwegian Internal Taxes)
WALES
  Council for Wales
  Council for Wales
  Barrages (Rivers Dyfi and Mawddach)
  Barrages (Rivers Dyfi and Mawddach)
  North-South Wales Road
  North-South Wales Road
  Newtown (Development)
  Newtown (Development)
  Prince of Wales (Investiture)
  Prince of Wales (Investiture)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester
The Lord Monteagle of Brandon—Took the Oath.

TAXES AND EXCISE DUTIES: CHANGES SINCE 1964
3.5 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

TABLE 1

Taxes and Duties which have been increased since December 1,1964

Date of Change

Change in Tax or Duty

Change in Rate

6.4.1965

Income tax (standard rate)

From 7s. 9d. in the £ to 8s. 3d. in the £ enacted Finance Act (No. 2) 1964.

7.4.1965

Tobacco

11·4 per cent.

"

Spirits

13·3 per cent.

"

Beer

11·8 per cent.

"

Wine

Light 3s. 0d. a gallon

Heavy 6s. 0d. a gallon

"

British Wine

Light 3s. 0d. a gallon

Heavy 4s. 0d. a gallon

"

Motor Vehicle Duties:

Cycle

Scales rationalised and three flat rates introduced in place of seven former ones and additional duty for use of sidecar abolished

Percentage increases range between 6 per cent. and 100 per cent. on former rates for solo machines. Abolition of extra duty for sidecar shows percentage increases for combination machines, between 20 per cent, and 33⅓ per cent.

Agricultural machines

Increase of 50 per cent.

Digging machines

Mobile cranes

Mowing machines

Haulage Vehicles (showmen's)

Increase of 25 per cent.

Other Haulage Vehicles

Increase of 50 per cent.

Showmen's Goods

Increase of 25 per cent.

Farmers' Goods

Increase of 25 per cent. at lowest point of scale gradually increasing to 47 per cent, at 4 tons unladen weight. Thereafter increase of 50 per cent.

Other Goods

Increase of 50 per cent.

Private Cars

Increase of 16·6 per cent.

Electric Vehicles

Increase of 39 per cent.

21.7.1966

Alcoholic Drink

Surcharge of 10 per cent, of existing rates (Surcharge on Revenue Duties Order 1966).

Hydrocarbon Oil

Purchase Tax

11.4.1967

Alcoholic Drink

Surcharge of 10 per cent, withdrawn and substantive rates increased so as broadly to maintain the revenue yield.

Hydrocarbon Oil

Purchase Tax

1.8.1967

Stamp Duties

Loan capital duty increased from 2s. 6d. per £100 to 10s. per £100 from August 1, 1967.

1.9.1967

Surtax

Increased by 10 per cent, for the year 1965–66 only (increase first announced July 20, 1966, becoming payable September 1, 1967).

[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will publish a table of all the taxes and Excise duties existing at December 1, 1964, which they have since increased and a similar table of those which they have reduced, showing in each case the change in rate and the date on which the change or changes were made.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as the Answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT two tables showing the main changes.
Following are the tables referred to:

Table 2

Taxes which have been decreased since December 1, 1964

Date of Change

Tax or Duty

Change in Rate

27.4.1965

Temporary Charge on Imports

From 15 per cent, to 10 per cent.

6.4.1966

Profits Tax

This Tax (at 15 per cent.) was repealed from April 6, 1966 or the date when the relevant profits became chargeable with corporation tax, if earlier.

24.10.1966

Bookmakers'Licence Duty

These duties were abolished and replaced by the General Betting Duty at 2½ per cent, on stakes.

Duty

Duty on betting on totalisators at dog tracks at 5 per cent, on stakes.

30.11.1966

Temporary charge on Imports

Abolished.

11.4.1967

Brewers, beer primers, distillers and tobacco manufacturers graduated excise licence duties

Converted to a flat rate of £15 15s. 0d. a year.

1.4.1967

Mineral rights duty

This duty (at 1s. per £1) was repealed from April 1, 1967.

1.8.1967

Stamp duties

Transfer duty on houses, etc. valued at over £4,500 and not over £5,500 reduced from ½ per cent, ad valorem to nil and on houses valued at over £6,000 but not over £7,000 reduced from 1 per cent, to ½ per cent, both from August 1, 1967.

LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether he can give the House the two or three most significant items in the list of reductions, as I think that would be particularly interesting?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the fact of the matter is, as the noble Lord knows, that expenditure has tended to increase consequent upon improvements in social services.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to answer the simple supplementary question which I have just put to him which was whether he could give us the two or three most significant items in the list of reductions, because I think that would be particularly interesting?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have no doubt that the noble Lord will find interesting also—as we have tried to be helpful to him—the two quite long tables of changes which I am proposing to circulate.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, could not the noble Lord at least answer my noble friend's supplementary question?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the fact of the matter is, as the noble Lord knows, that expenditure has increased; and if the noble Lord wishes to make
776
an issue of this he had better decide which tune he wants to play. Two weeks ago he was complaining that Her Majesty's Government were afraid of calling for personal sacrifices, and insisting that we had to keep down the level of personal consumption. Now he is complaining that the level of taxation is too high.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has failed to appreciate the point I was making. I was merely asking the noble Lord to answer my noble friend's supplementary question—not to indulge in a diatribe against me.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am simply saying to the noble Lord, if he is really serious about this, that he should be sufficiently courteous and patient to look at the two tables which the officials of the Treasury have been good enough to supply.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I assure the noble Lord that I shall look at the two tables with very great care; but may I repeat the supplementary question in a somewhat simpler form? If it is, perhaps, too complicated that we should have two or three of the most significant items in the list of reductions, could he at least not give us one?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes, I could give him the total amount of the increase; that would probably please him even more.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, surely, if there are two tables, there must have been some taxes which have been reduced.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it is quite true that there are two very long and complicated tables. The fact of the matter is that I thought noble Lords would have some interest in studying them. I have not myself pulled out these items which would have suited my case.

AIRCRAFT TAKE-OFF NOISE LIMITS AND SAFETY
3.10 p.m.
LORD FOLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the instruction to pilots taking off from London Airport and other airfields to reduce power because of the sound nuisance to residents in the vicinity of these airfields constitutes a grave risk of safety generally; and whether they are further aware that there is very little difference between decibels of sound of engines at full power and those at reduced power; and whether they will state the present position and provide details of any discussions at an official level which are taking place on this subject at the present time.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, compliance with jet take-off noise limits such as those imposed at Heathrow usually involves a reduction in power after the initial climb, but the manner in which the aircraft is operated to meet the limits is a matter for the operator to determine, taking account of the legal requirements relating to safety, including the techniques contained in the safety manual. The noise limits may at any time be departed from to the extent necessary for avoiding immediate danger. The procedures adopted by British operators for this purpose have been the subject of exhaustive study by officers of the Board of Trade and the Air Registration Board, who are satisfied that the procedures are safe.
LORD FOLEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, I should like to ask him whether he is aware that
778
because of the noise restriction pilots are forced to take off very steeply at what is known technically as a more acute angle of attack than is normal; and when they reach a certain height, as the noble Lord has said, they reduce power. Is the noble Lord aware that pilots hate this procedure and very often cheat? It seems to me absolutely reprehensible that pilots should be placed in—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Foley, will forgive me for interrupting, perhaps he would allow me to suggest that he should make his point a s a question.
LORD FOLEY: My Lords, I am trying to do just that. Does not the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, think it is very bad that pilots should be placed in a position of having to choose between safety and being hauled over the coals for a small technical offence?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I happen to be a member of the Association of British Airline Pilots who have been consulted on this procedure and who have co-operated with the implementation of it. While I agree that it would be much better if one could keep on maximum power for as long as possible, procedures laid down endeavour to get the best of both worlds; namely, to ensure safety, and at the same time cut down the noise nuisance to people underneath.
LORD FOLEY: My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, trying to say that he considers a slight noise decrease is more important than the safety of perhaps hundreds of lives? That seems to me extraordinary.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is not saying that the regulations now in force are jeopardising the safety of hundreds of lives. If he is saying that, I would suggest to him that it is very wrong to create that kind of apprehension.
LORD FOLEY: My Lords, may I say that if this is the case, why do pilots have to cheat? Three very senior B.O.A.C. pilots have assured me that in fact they jeopardise their careers by cheating on this and adopting full power at a shallower angle of attack.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the position is as I have stated. Although the limits are laid down, if there is any question of ensuring safety or avoiding immediate danger, the noise limits can be departed from without in any sense cheating.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, if I heard him aright the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said that he was a member of the British Airline Pilots' Association. Does that mean that the very limited answers I got to my supplementary questions mean that he is "working to rule"?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, probably it means that I am careful in what I say.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there is any restriction at Heathrow on the use of full power on any type of aircraft?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not certain that I understand the noble Earl. What I said was that after the initial climb full power is restricted.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord at what height it becomes necessary to reduce power?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it depends entirely on the size of the aircraft, the type of engine and the limits laid down for that particular flight.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is it not a fact that any limit on a pilot's discretion, as this is, is a danger? And what is the point of restricting the pilot from keeping on full power when he has got up to a certain height? Surely at that height there is much less interference with the amenities of dwellers of houses down below.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am told that the difference between full power and the restricted power is one of ten decibels, which means a lessening of noise and nuisance to persons on the ground by a factor of 50 per cent.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the safety of an aircraft is entirely in the hands of the pilot and the decision is his.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my noble friend has put it very shortly and very well.

S.E.T.: FARMERS' AND PENSIONERS' LIABILITY
3.15 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the present financial emergency, steps will be taken to abolish the selective employment tax as it relates to old age pensioners and farmers, and so cut down the cost of collection and repayment, and release a number of civil servants for productive industry of greater national importance.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the Selective Employment Payments Act 1966 makes provision for the refund of the tax to farmers in respect of their agricultural employees, and to employers of nursing or domestic assistants in private households which include persons over 70 years of age. It would not be feasible to relieve these employers from paying the tax, because this would over-complicate the National Insurance system.
LORD WISE: My Lords, may I put one or two supplementary questions to the Minister? I shall make them as short as possible. The first is: how many officials are now employed in checking and repaying selective employment tax to old age pensioners, and what was the cost involved for the first year of this non-productive occupation? The second one is: can any information be given by the Minister as to the number of old age pensioners who have had to dispense with some domestic help through being unable to afford the heavy National Health Insurance contribution and selective employment tax? The third one is: do the Government realise that when payment for this stamp has been made, the standard of living of old age pensioners has been lowered?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the cost and number of persons employed remains the same as at the time my noble friend last asked the question—In the case of the social security officers dealing with refund of taxes to households where there are pensioners over 70, the number is 61. In the case of repayment of tax to farmers

781
the number is slightly higher, but it remains the same as the figure which was given to my noble friend earlier this year. I will confirm it to him later on.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is the Home Civil Service under the present Government the greatest of our growth industries?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, is it really the case that it is simpler and more convenient first to make people nay tax and then give it back to them than not to charge it at all?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, strange as it may seem, that is the case. I agree that to me it seems a crazy system, but when a statement was made by my right honourable friend some time ago we had the figures looked out and found that in fact the selective employment tax is among the most economic of all taxes. The cost of collecting it is about 1 per cent., whereas for other taxes the cost can go up to 2 per cent.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, my Lords, but is the cost of collecting greater than the cost of not charging it at all?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, not charging it means that there would have to be two categories, and if this category were to be exempted it would be necessary to have two different stamps, and to police the scheme to make certain that people using the lower rate stamp were entitled to it. The opinion of the professional people employed on this work is that it is cheaper to do it in this way than the other way.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, will the noble Lord take note that we on this side think that this tax is not only damaging but absurd, and when we return to office we shall get rid of it.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask the Government this question? When an old age pensioner has to pay the tax, it depends on the letter with which his name begins at what period it is repaid to him in lump. Therefore an old age pensioner who pays the tax is out of pocket for three months or six months before he gets a refund. Would it not be better to arrange matters so that he has the money in hand before he has to pay it, as it were? Could you not delay for six months, or do
782
something to let him have the money so that he is not out of pocket before there is repayment?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I know that this is one of the problems involved, but I am afraid it still remains the fact that, if exceptions are to be made in the method of collecting National Insurance contributions, it would send up the cost considerably.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, with the present bank rate, how much is this worth to the Government per week?
LORD WISE: My Lords, unfortunately the Minister has not replied very fully to the questions, but I will ask him just one more. Are there any circumstances in which claims for repayment by old age pensioners have been withheld or unpaid?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, obviously I cannot answer that question without notice.
LORD CRAWSHAW: My Lords, may I press the question put by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that for every civil servant spending time sending off forms there are many more people spending time receiving and answering forms; and whether he would agree that the selective employment tax is one of the many form filling afflictions imposed upon farmers which automatically increase the overhead costs of their production?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there is no doubt an element of cost to the farmers, but the fact still remains that if we are to have social services, and if we are to have defence, we must have revenue.
LORD CARRINGTON: But why this tax?
LORD BESWICK: As I indicated earlier—and I now have the actual figure—the cost of collecting this tax is approximately 1 per cent., whereas in the case of other taxes it is up to 2·03 per cent.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend not to be beastly to the Scottish computer which attends punctually to my requirements under both these heads. If it were turned on

783
to produce something else, I do not know what it would produce.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, the noble Lord was kind enough to tell us the cost of collecting the tax. Would he also tell us the cost of refunding the tax?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, does the noble Lord mean the cost of administration?
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I wish the noble Lord would listen to my question. I said that the noble Lord was kind enough to tell us the cost of collecting the tax. I am now asking whether he can tell us the cost of refunding the tax.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the cost of administration is £80,000 in the case of one tax and £1½ million in the case of the other tax.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the powerful arguments deployed in yesterday's debate in regard to the total abolition of this selective employment tax in Scotland are equally applicable in all cases to the selective employment tax in England and Wales? Would the noble Lord promise the House that he will read yesterday's debate in connection with the answers he has made to-day?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, anything the noble Lord says is considered. It would have been equally useful if when the noble Lord who leads the Opposition gave a pledge to abolish this tax, he had also indicated the alternative methods of taxation that he would use.

DETERGENTS AND SEWERAGE
3.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to limit or prohibit the use of detergents less than four-fifths of whose materials are broken down to inert matter by natural biological action in drainage or sewerage systems.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, two years ago the manufacturers undertook to include in domestic detergents for use in the United Kingdom a new material that could more readily be broken down. The Ninth Progress Report of the Standing Technical Committee on Synthetic Detergents shows that removals of detergent up to 90 per cent. are now being achieved at sewage treatment works. This compares with the 65 per cent. achieved before the introduction of the new material. In this situation my right honourable friend is not convinced that any further prohibition is needed.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he will see if this magnificent progress, with which we are all pleased, can be pushed even further? And may I ask him whether he does not consider that this should be taken just as far as it can be, in that it is the most unpleasant possible method of dealing with detergents to be forced to drink them and thus take in one another's washing.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I do not think anybody is forced to drink detergent. The Standing Technical Committee which I mentioned, which was appointed by a previous Minister of Housing, is in continuous touch with the Confederation of British Industry about this matter—who, I may say, are very good on this front—and we can be certain that such advance as is technically possible will be achieved in a reasonable period of months after relevant discussion.

COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES AND REPUBLIC OF IRELAND (IMMUNITIES) (No. 3) ORDER 1967
3.24 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, this is a simple Order. In 1952 Parliament passed the Diplomatic Immunities (Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland) Act, which provided certain immunities to consular officers of independent Commonwealth countries. Section 1(6) of the Act gave a list of those countries. Since then

785
other countries that have become independent have been granted the same immunities for their officers. These provisions have been included in the Independence Acts. The purpose of this Order is to include in those countries whose officers have restricted immunity the representatives of the Associated States in the Caribbean. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland (Immunities) (No. 3) Order 1967, laid before the House on November 7, be approved.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUILDING SOCIETIES (SPECIAL ADVANCES) ORDER 1967
3.25 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, this draft Order, if approved, will enable a building society to advance to an individual up to £10,000, instead of £7,000 as at present, without the society having to treat the advance as a "special advance" for the purposes of the Building Societies Act 1962. Special advances are defined as advances, of whatever amount, to companies, and advances of more than a certain amount to persons. It is this "certain amount" to which the Order relates.
The amount was fixed at £5,000 by the Building Societies Act 1960, because it was felt at that time that £5,000 broadly represented a reasonable limit on what could be regarded as a normal type of advance for the ordinary owner-occupier. An Order was made in 1963 increasing the limit from £5,000 to £7,000. This reflected mainly the increase in house prices over the period. It also reflected in part an increase in the demand for the more expensive type of housing that came with the general development of housing standards and standards of living. For similar reasons the Building Societies Association suggested to the Government that the time had come to make a further increase in this figure.
The building societies have assured us that raising the limit for special advances from £7,000 to £10,000 will not lead them to be more restrictive in granting mortgages for smaller amounts. We have made it clear to the building societies that, in moving to £10,000, we reckon
786
that we are not only allowing for the increases of prices that have occurred in the last four years, but also to some extent discounting the future. I hope that with this explanation the House will feel able to approve the draft Order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Building Societies (Special Advances) Order 1967, laid before the House on November 14, be approved.—(Lord Beswick.)
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am sure the House is grateful, as I am, to the noble Lord the Chief Whip for his explanation of this Order. I am certainly not going to suggest to your Lordships that this Order should be opposed; indeed, there is no doubt that at this time there is a need for this Order. But that is not to say that the need for this Order is to be welcomed; because it is not. The noble Lord has told us that this Order raises from £7,000 to £10,000 the amount of the advance which the building societies may make to owner-occupiers before any higher advance becomes what is called a "special advance". It may be thought that this proposal constitutes a useful encouragement to home ownership, but of course it does not do anything of the kind. Something like this Order is required entirely because of the fall in the value of money over the last few years and the resulting increase in the price of building a modest-sized house.
The noble Lord has told us that the building societies themselves asked for something like this, and I understand that they informed the Government that unless the limit on the basic advance was raised they would not be able to continue properly to carry out their function in giving adequate assistance to the man who wants to have a small house of his own. The question then is whether this proposed new limit of £10,000 is high enough. Is it going to do more than restore the status quo of 1964? I understand from what the noble Lord has said that the Government think it will, and he also suggested that it includes a small margin against future price increases. I have considerable doubts about that, because of devaluation. Many people to-day believe that because higher prices will have to be paid for imported materials for building, the cost of building even a modest house will go

787
up by 4 or 5 per cent. If that happens, I should have thought it was fairly obvious that the limit of £10,000 will not be high enough; and of course if it is not high enough we must expect that fewer houses will be built in this country for owner occupation.
Let us suppose that the proposed increase of the limit to £10,000 will cover both the price increases of the past and any future ones consequent upon devaluation. In other words, if raising the limit to £10,000 is going to maintain the rate of building houses for owner occupation one cannot help wondering whether the proposed increase in the limit comes within Mr. Callaghan's Letter of intent to the International Monetary Fund. However that may be, there is no doubt that something like this Order is needed to-day; but equally it is not a matter for congratulation.
3.32 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords,—
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I think it is usual on these occasions for the representatives of the two Opposition Parties to speak before a Back-Bencher on the other side, but I stand to be corrected if I am wrong.
From these Benches I should like to welcome this Order without the rider put to it by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, because I do not believe that since 1964, when the Labour Party came into office, the price of a house has gone up by £3,000. In fact, the building societies were asking for this increase before 1964. I have to declare an interest in that I am a director of a building society, and I know very well that my society, and undoubtedly many others, welcome this increase and thank the Government for it. We believe it will do a great deal to enable us to help people to achieve their object of buying their own house. For various reasons new houses are getting more expensive; land is dear, materials are dear, and the standards of housing are rising all the time, which of course is a good thing. What could be built for £5,000 or £6,000 ten or fifteen years ago possibly is built for £7,000 or £8,000 to-day. Therefore this is a step in the right direction.
One thing I should like to take up with the Minister is his statement that the
788
Government suggest that there should not be any further increase for some years to come. I think we must leave this to the Registrar. If he feels that in the interest of the building societies' movement and of getting houses for people it is desirable that the special advances should go up, then Parliament should pass the necessary Orders providing for the increase in the special advance. As your Lordships know, in order to provide one mortgage of £10,000 for a house a building society has to advance £100,000 on other types of houses of less than that figure, so it means that a considerable amount of money has to be raised by building societies even to provide £10,000 a time for houses. I want that to be borne in mind, because it is always in the minds of directors of building societies, realising that they are very much restricted in advancing moneys on new houses to even the limit of £10,000. Up to now it has been £7,000. Nevertheless, I am grateful for comparatively small mercies, and I thank the Government for what they propose.
There is one question of interpretation that I should like to put in regard to paragraph 3 of the Order. I take it that this means that the Order, if it is passed by your Lordships to-day (it has already been passed by another place), will come into operation to-morrow, so any building society whose accounts close on December 31 will reap the benefit of this Order next year. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to confirm that this is correct.
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords.
LORD OGMORE: It is not correct?
3.36 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I am sure the building society movement warmly welcomes this Order. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, referred to the increase in the price of houses and expressed the view that this was the sole reason for this Order. I think your Lordships would agree that we all deplore the rise in the price of houses, but that is a circumstance which is not associated with the conditions of the past three or four years alone; it is something that was on its way for a long period before the present Government came into power. This Order will certainly encourage home ownership, although the noble Lord, Lord Newton,

789
cast some doubts on whether that was so. It will be of assistance to a special class that deserves consideration; namely, the young executive class (and particularly in the South-East of England), who in recent times because of the limitation of £7,000 have felt some restriction in securing the sort of house they need and deserve. The increase from £7,000 to £10,000 will widen the scope and make it possible for advances to be made to that particular class of person without impinging upon the special advances. I think from all standpoints this is quite a worthy Order; one which is warmly welcomed and which will make a considerable contribution towards encouraging home ownership.
3.39 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am not a director of a building society and I should like to say a few words on behalf of those who are not. I have sonic doubts about this Order because it introduces a new type of person who will now be able to obtain an advance from a building society. The noble Lord, Lord Peddie, has just referred to the executive classes and those of higher incomes. I have no objection to them per se, but I am wondering what is going to happen to those of lower incomes who make applications for advances. The fact is that even the funds of building societies are limited, particularly now, in view of the bank rate, which is very high, and the fact that lending to a building society is no longer as attractive as it was formerly, and it probably will not be for a considerable time. Therefore, we must expect that the funds of building societies will not increase and may possibly decrease. I think that there are some signs of that already.
The result of this will be, therefore, that the amount available to buy houses for £5,000, £6,000 or £7,000 will be reduced in favour of people who buy more expensive houses. A building society has not unlimited funds, and to the extent that the lending on higher priced houses is increased it will have to reduce advances on lower priced houses. We are talking now of a house which is going to cost anything from £12,000 to £15,000. Of course, no one can seriously contend that that increase in range is due to any rise in the cost of houses or of land. It is in fact a new type of house that we
790
are going to finance. I should like to have some assurance, if the Minister can give it, that loans to people with lower incomes and cheaper houses will not suffer as a result of this increase in the facilities for lending up to £10,000.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I also declare the same interest as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, but I feel that the fears of my noble friend, Lord Silkin, are not justified in any sense at all. It has to be remembered and stressed that under the 1952 Building Societies Act only 10 per cent. of special advances were allowed, and as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, says, if it is an advance of £10,000 in one instance then at least £100,000 has to be found for the smaller type houses. That is the point which has to be stressed. At the same time, building society's experience teaches that in the main nothing like 10 per cent. is ever used, and the vast majority of the loans which come into operation are for much lower priced houses. I do not think there is any risk at all. This suggestion meets with the full approval of the Building Societies Association and I think every building society in the country. I am confident it is a step in the right direction.
3.43 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Peddie, Lord Royle and Lord Silkin for putting into proper perspective, if I may say so, the political gibes of the noble Lord, Lord Newton. With respect, he was not too helpful on this matter. This is a question of meeting the wishes of the building societies. It is not simply a matter of the decrease in the value of money; it is to some extent one of improvement in the standard of housing. As my noble friend Lord Peddie has said, the decrease in the value of money has not come simply in the last three years; it was there before. The decrease in the value of money is a factor which we all ought to accept as a common responsibility, and it is a common task of all in this country to try to deal with it. If may say so, I did not think the attitude adopted by some of the noble Lord's friends on the earlier Question helped with the task of trying to secure a stable currency.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Royle for answering the noble Lord,

791
Lord Silkin, on his point about ensuring that those who seek to borrow for a lower priced house will not be penalised as a result of this increase in the total amount which the building societies can now offer to any given borrower. These special advances are so defined that they are a limited percentage of the total advances of any building society. As my noble friend Lord Royle said, the maximum is 10 per cent., although in the case of certain building societies which in the past provided loans for this category of borrower before the present Act came into operation the limit was often lower than 10 per cent., and I think in some cases was 2½ per cent. So I can say to my noble friend Lord Silkin that the fears that he has are recognised and have been met by this limitation.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I just clear up one point? These advances between £7,000 and £10,000 will no longer be special advances. They will come out of the general funds. Is that not so?
LORD BESWICK: That is right. The special advances will now be over £10,000.
LORD SILKIN: Therefore, this 2½ per cent. or 5 per cent. no longer applies. Theoretically a building society could advance the whole of its loans to people who want £10,000 each.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I take my noble friend's point. What he is saying is that the ability to lend a sum between £7,000 and £10,000, without its being counted as a special advance, is giving to the building societies a freedom which they did not previously enjoy. But I think we all agree that the type of person who is now borrowing, say, £7,000 to £8,000 is the type of person who ten years ago would have been borrowing £5,000 to £6,000, so that we are not in fact restricting advances and we shall not be penalising those persons who wish to buy the smaller house. Moreover, the building societies have given an assurance that their policy as regards the spread of risk over all categories of borrowers will be maintained, and I think my noble friend will find that it will not be the policy of any building society to concentrate its band of borrowers on those wishing to borrow between £7,000 and £10,000.
792
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked about the operation of this Order. The Order itself will come into operation immediately it has been approved by both Houses of Parliament, but the operation of the Order will extend this limit to the building societies only from the beginning of their respective financial years. I think that answers all the questions, and I hope the House will now be able to approve the Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSULAR RELATIONS BILL [H.L.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CIVIL AVIATION BILL [H.L.]
3.49 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Control of road traffic at aerodromes]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BURDEN: I should like to raise a point on Clause 1 which is regarded as of some importance. Local authorities are not sure of the full implications of the application of road traffic enactments to airport roads. At present, airport authorities do not take out road fund licences for vehicles which never go outside the airport boundaries—for example, vehicles that are used only on the roads, apron, taxi-ways and runways within the airport. It is hoped that this clause will not be used to impose on aircraft operators a requirement to take out such licences for vehicles of the kind that I have indicated. I have not raised this point with the Minister. He may

793
perhaps think it advisable, if he has not the information, to look into it and to write to me, so that the matter can be dealt with if necessary at the Report stage.
LORD ROYLE: I should like to add a few words in support of my noble friend Lord Burden on this question. I think that the airports which are owned by municipal authorities are particularly concerned about this problem. As my noble friend has said, it has not been customary for them in the past to tax the vehicles which never leave the airport premises, and they are a little concerned at the moment lest what is said in Clause 1 indicates that in the future they will be asked to pay Excise licence fees on vehicles that never leave the airport. I would ask my noble friend whether, when he replies, he can give an assurance that for the future what is now set out in Clause 1 will not require these authorities to take out Excise licences for vehicles that remain on the airport.
LORD PARGITER: Before the noble Lord replies, I would point out that there is another aspect of this with regard to the major aerodromes, not particularly the local authority aerodromes, where a great amount of public transport uses or is operated within the perimeter of the airport. From the point of view of safety, and matters of that kind, it is highly desirable that there should be some regulation though without necessarily impinging on the question of Excise matters. Perhaps the Minister would deal with this point as well, because it affects to some extent the complete freedom which may otherwise operate within the airport perimeter.
LORD BESWICK: As I understand it, the intention here is not to make any difference at all to the Excise provisions for road traffic vehicles. The clause is concerned simply with the control from the point of view of safety and good organisation on airports, where there is a considerable amount of traffic, and to give the airport authorities concerned the kind of power which a local authority would have outside for the regulation for road traffic vehicles. The clause is into the point which has been raised, and let my noble friends know the answer.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [By-laws at certain private aerodromes]:
On Question, whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: May I raise two small points on Clause 4? The first arises under subsection (1). As it reads at present, as I understand it, the definition of a "private aerodrome" would not include a busy flying club aerodrome or, for that matter, a mixed-user aerodrome; that is, one which is both civil and military. I am wondering if the noble Lord could confirm whether this is correct, and whether the words "a substantial amount of commercial passenger traffic" in subsection (1) should be widened to bring within its scope the special flying club.
My second point is this. I understand that there is considerable concern among private aerodrome operators that the runway approaches are not sufficiently safeguarded. They are, of course, safeguarded in airport authority and local authority aerodromes, but not in the case of private aerodromes. There was apparently a case recently where one of the runways at Southend Airport was endangered. A tree was growing just outside the perimeter of the aerodrome and in direct flight path with one of the runways. When the farmer was approached he was not prepared either to prune or to cut down the tree. Would the noble Lord consider the question of whether local by-laws for private aerodrome Operators ought to come under this clause?
LORD BESWICK: Previously, of course, the by-law-making powers did not apply to private aerodromes. But there were representations from proprietors of such aerodromes, and it was with the intention of meeting their wishes that this clause was included. I imagine it will be generally agreed by the noble Earl and others than a universal by-law-making power for all private aerodromes would not be appropriate, and it was thought the dividing line would be whether there was at the aerodrome commercial passenger traffic. I confirm that the intention of this clause, as now drafted, is to confine this power to those airports where, as the Bill says, there is "a substantial amount of commercial passenger traffic".

795
The question of defining the "substantial amount" will be one for the Board of Trade. They can designate an airport which should be given this power of by-law-making, and I have no doubt that they will have regard to the total amount of the traffic on the aerodrome. If the noble Lord wishes to pursue further the precise definition of what is "commercial" or "commercial passenger". I shall be glad to look into it with him later.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Financial assistance for certain aerodromes.
7.—
(2) No grant or loan shall be made under this section in respect of, or in connection with, any of the aerodromes which were transferred to the British Airports Authority by the Airports Authority Act 1965.
3.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULLhad given Notice of two Amendments, the first being, in subsection (1), to leave out; " Subject to subsection (2) of this section", and the second to delete subsection (2). The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, and if it meets the convenience of the Committee I will deal also with Amendment No. 2. Both Amendments stand in the name of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe and myself. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will recall that during the Second Reading of the Bill my noble friend Lord Jellicoe raised the question of why, under subsection (2) of this clause, the British Airports Authority was specifically excluded from the benefit of the clause. The clause gives the Government power to make grants and loans towards expenses incurred in the development of aerodromes in Great Britain; and the specific purpose of this Amendment is to bring back within the scope of this clause the British Airports Authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, partly answered my noble friend's question on why the Airports Authority was to be excluded when he said, during the Second Reading debate, that any new airport which the Authority took over, in addition to the four major airports it at
796
present controls, would be covered by the clause. If this is so, it seems strange logic that the Airports Authority should be granted the benefit of this clause in one instance, for airports which it takes over in the future, but not in regard to the existing airports under its control. In fact, this seems to assist my argument.
The second point I would make on this Amendment is that, while I realise that the financial provision under the Airports Authority Act 1965 already give the Authority borrowing powers, the provisions, so far as I am aware, do not include special finances for the Authority in cases where it is directed by the Government—this is the important matter—to do something contrary to the criteria of sound commercial grounds. One has in mind the case where the Government insist, for reasons of planning or social necessity, that the line of a runway shall be altered. One also has in mind the question of the future development of Stansted.
The noble Lord may reply that in such cases the Airports Authority Act permits the Government to make loans to the Authority at very reduced rates of interest. If this is his answer, he will be missing my point entirely. The point of my Amendment is that any Government direction made to the Authority which is outside the criteria of being in the Authority's "best commercial interest" should clearly be shown and separated as a Government responsibility. This only follows the line laid down by the Government themselves in their White Paper Nationalised Industries (Cmnd. 3437), from which I quote the following:
"Where there are significant social or wider economic costs and benefits which ought to be taken into account in their investment and pricing these will be reflected in the Government's policy for the industry: and if this means that the industry has to act against its own commercial interests, the Government will accept responsibility. (Where necessary, the Government will make a special payment to the industry or make an appropriate adjustment to its financial objective.)"
Finally, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether or not the British Airport Authority was ever consulted before this clause was drafted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 39, leave out ("Subject to subsection (2) of this section").—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
LORD BESWICK: The noble Earl is now, in effect, asking that we should go back on an Act which went through this House comparatively recently; namely, the Airports Authority Act 1965. That Act, which was given a good deal of very detailed consideration by Members of this House, laid down the borrowing powers of the Authority in respect of the four named aerodromes. Probably the most important theme which went through the discussions which we had on that Bill was that there should be the minimum amount of interference by a Government Department in the workings of the Airports Authority. It was thought that the financial arrangements which were made under that Bill would give the Airports Authority that kind of financial independence which it sought, and which the House thought it should have. I must say it is rather strange that the noble Earl, and indeed his noble friend Lord Jellicoe, should come along so soon after the passing of that Act to ask us, in effect, to vary its provisions.
The noble Earl asked about the possibility of the Authority having to borrow more money, if the cost of extending Stansted was higher than that which was envisaged at the time when the Airports Authority Act went on to the Statute Book. If Stansted, because of the realignment of runways or for other reasons, involves expenditure of a higher order than that which we then contemplated, it will still be possible for Her Majesty's Government, through the Board of Trade, to make a once-and-for-all grant on this account. Nothing that is said in this Bill, so I am advised, would rule out the possibility of an increase in the borrowing powers of the Airports Authority or a once-and-for-all grant on the special account of Stansted.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am sorry, I did not understand the noble Lord. Is he saying that under the Airports Authority Act 1965 a grant may be paid for special purposes such as Stansted?
LORD BESWICK: What I am saying is that under the powers which Her Majesty's Government have, irrespective of the Airports Authority Act, a grant could be made to the Airports Authority for this particular purpose. I am not saying that the Government are consider
798
ing making a grant, nor that it should be made. I am saying that in the correspondence which the Government have had with the Airports Authority—and this covers the question of consultation raised by the noble Earl—Her Majesty's Government have said that it would be necessary for them to raise, by way of landing fees and so on, the necessary revenues to service the capital charges which the new airport at Stansted would involve. This is the policy which I thought we had agreed, and this is how it would be applied in the case of Stansted. But, in addition to any special grant, I am saying that it would be possible for the Airports Authority to ask for its borrowing powers to be increased, and it was envisaged at the time the Airports Authority Bill went through this House that by the beginning of the 1970s an extension of the borrowing powers would be required. I should have thought that that would meet the kind of case which the noble Earl has in mind.
He also asked about the difference between the case of a completely new airport taken over by the Authority as against the four named in the Airports Authority Act. The difference is that it was possible to assess the capital cost of those airports; it was possible to see what kind of job they would have to fulfil; and indeed we have found that the assessment then made about the profitability of this group of four airports has more than been made good. The four airports taken together are in fact making a considerable profit, and, on their account there does not at present seem to be any need to contemplate an addition to the borrowing powers. If, however, the Authority wishes to take over other airports, then the considerations in the White Paper, which the noble Earl very fairly quoted, might well apply, but they would have to be considered on their merits.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am afraid I am not fully satisfied with the noble Lord's argument. As I understand it, he first of all accused us of going back on the Airports Authority Act. I do not think that applies at all. In fact, we were basing our arguments on Her Majesty's Government's White Paper. Where I think the noble Lord is confusing the issue is in talking of Government powers to increase loans to the Authority, when it is, of course, grants

799
with which we are concerned. This is where the criteria come into the matter. I am afraid that I cannot ask the Committee's leave to withdraw this Amendment.
LORD BESWICK: May I make it perfectly clear that I am talking about two possibilities under the Bill as now drafted. One possibility is the extension of the borrowing powers of the Airports Authority, and I am also saying that the subsection to which the noble Earl refers does not affect the Government's general powers, subject to the money being voted by Parliament, to make grants of a non-repetitive kind, under contract or equivadent, to pay for services rendered. So I should have thought that the particular case of Stansted, which I gather the noble Earl has in mind, would be covered. If he is still not satisfied and would wish to make a better case, I suggest he raises the matter again on Report stage.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: With that assurance, I am quite willing to do that. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.10 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: I should like to speak to Amendments 3 and 4. The amounts involved in the loans under the clause are likely to be small, and it is not considered necessary that they should be made from the Consolidated Fund. If they were, it would involve rather complicated arrangements which are not provided for in the original Bill, anyhow, and it would be necessary to empower the Government to borrow money for the purpose. It is thought that a much more simple and straightforward course for making both loans as well as outright grants would be to make them from Departmental Votes. This, I am advised, is the normal practice so far as loans are concerned where relatively small sums are involved. The subsections to be deleted are those which would have been required for loans made directly from the Consolidated Fund. They are not required in the case of loans made from Parliamentary Votes. The money for both the grants and the loans which may be made under this clause will now be provided under a slightly amended Clause 20. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 14, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Beswick.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: May I just say from this side of the House that I am sure we welcome these two Amendments. I am also sure that they are extremely practical.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BESWICK: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 25, leave out subsections (5) and (6).—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Detention and sale of aircraft for unpaid airport charges]:
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved, in subsection (1)(b), to leave out "twenty-one" and insert "forty-two". The noble Earl said: I am sure the purpose of this Amendment will be perfectly clear to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, as the matter was raised by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe on Second Reading. As drafted at present, the clause gives power to an aerodrome authority, in the event of non-payment of airport dues or charges, to detain and sell any aircraft after a period of only 21 days. While one appreciates that there is a good case for this power, I suggest it is a pretty harsh penalty to allow an airport authority or airport operator to sell an aircraft after giving only 21 days' credit. One could have the absurd example where, perhaps for the sake of £200, an aircraft worth over £1 million is sold.
Before drafting this Amendment we tried to find from practical people what would be a practical period of time. We consider that the present 21 days' limit would cause concern, particularly to overseas owners of aircraft or to anyone who fell ill. As the noble Lord will see, we have taken 42 days as a more practical period of time, and I trust that, as he implied on Second Reading, he will find this acceptable. I should perhaps add that we have not based our calculations on the number of days allowed under the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847, as seemed to us to have been done by the draftsmen of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 1, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("forty-two").—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
LORD BESWICK: I understand from the noble Lord that he is complaining not about the harshness of the penalty but about the time within which it shall be decided whether the penalty should be exacted. As I indicated on Second Reading, I was inclined to think that a period of 21 days was too short and I said that I would have a look at it. However, we did not take the 21 days from the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847, as the noble Lord has apparently indicated. There the time limit is seven days. Everyone thought that seven days was too short, even though, surprisingly enough, the communications all over the world in 1847 were probably not so good as I hope they are to-day. It was thought that leaving seven days as a precedent and putting in 21 days was reasonable, but the noble Lord still thinks that it is unreasonable. He seems to have taken the number which we thought of and doubled it, making 42 days. I thought he had perhaps gone a little too far, but if he cares to compromise with me and say 28 days, I shall be glad to make provision at Report stage.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Perhaps before the next stage I could discuss this point with the noble Lord. In that case I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I wonder whether I may mention one point on subsection (7) of Clause 9. Subsection (7) specifies those bodies which will be given powers under this clause, but it does not include the privately owned aerodromes. Obviously, this would seem totally unfair to any aerodromes such as Southampton Airport, which handles a considerable amount of traffic. It also seems illogical, and if private aerodromes are important enough to warrant bylaws under this Bill why cannot they be granted the same privileges and remedies under this clause as other aerodromes?
LORD BESWICK: I think the noble Earl and his noble friend Lord Jellicoe are on a good point here, and it seems to me that we ought to do something about it. They have not put an Amendment down, but again before Report stage I will certainly look into it and see whether we can meet the point which the noble Earl has made.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Power to provide for the mortgaging of aircraft]:
LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 6. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I refer at the same time to the following Amendments relating to Clauses 12 and 13. The proposal in this Amendment is to redefine the overseas territories to which the provisions of this Bill should apply. It was thought that the original definition would be too wide in certain cases; for example, it would have authorised Her Majesty in Council to legislate for countries such as Brunei, in which we have no jurisdiction. We are responsible for the foreign policy of that country at the present time but we have no power to legislate for it, and the original terms of the Bill would have brought in Brunei. On the other hand, the original terms would not have included a territory such as the New Hebrides, for which, although it is a condominium, we might have wished to legislate in the future. I am suggesting, therefore, that the new words
"relevant overseas territory and to aircraft registered in any such territory."
would be much more suitable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 19, leave out from ("any") to end of line 22 and insert ("relevant overseas territory and to aircraft registered in any such territory.")—(Lord Beswick.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I wonder whether I could raise one point on Amendment No. 6, as the noble Lord is taking them all together. It concerns the question of mortgages. As I understand it, the U.S.A. Federation Act 1958, Section 503, covers "all persons"—that is the term they use, I think—on the question of mortgages. I believe that in

803
the United States that gives some assistance to people undertaking mortgages of their aircraft, as it not only protects inside the U.S.A. but protects, apparently, throughout the world. I do not know whether that ties in at all with this Amendment.
LORD BESWICK: No. Frankly, I cannot understand the point which the noble Earl is getting at here. I should like to; and it is probably my fault. Obviously we cannot legislate here for any other parts of the world. What we are doing now is seeking powers to ratify a Convention which will apply to those other parts of the world where the Convention is ratified, but we cannot say, as Her Majesty's Government in this territory, that Governments of other countries shall observe legislation which we ourselves pass, except in so far as it relates to this Convention under which the other countries accept an obligation by virtue of their ratification of the Convention. In this respect, I should have thought that what we are proposing to do here is virtually on all fours with the legislation in the United States: but if, on consideration, the noble Earl can see any flaw in my argument, he will probably let me know.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Power to give effect to Convention on Rights in Aircraft]:
LORD BESWICK: This and the next Amendment are consequential Amendments. I beg to move the first of them.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 14, leave out from beginning to ("of") in line 15 and insert ("relevant overseas territory").—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BESWICK: This is the second consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 30, leave out from ("any") to end of line 32 and insert ("relevant overseas territory").—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 (Provisions supplementary to sections 11 and 12):
LORD BESWICK: This Amendment is in two parts. As to the first part, on page 12, line 44, the insertion of the proviso will have the effect of ensuring that the Order in Council relating to these relevant overseas territories will not have to be laid before Parliament in the United Kingdom. It is not thought appropriate that these detailed, technical matters should take up the time of Parliament here, and there are precedents for not including them, by way of the Affirmative Resolution procedure. The second part of the Amendment is really consequential upon the three Amendments to which we have just agreed. Given the different definition of an overseas territory, it is necessary to mention the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. I therefore hope that these words, which are really spelling out the new definition of overseas territories, will be acceptable to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 44, at end insert—
("Provided that this subsection shall not apply to an Order which applies only to a relevant overseas territory.
( ) in the two last foregoing sections and in this section "relevant overseas territory" means any of the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, any colony and any country or place outside Her Majesty's dominions in which for the time being Her Majesty has jurisdiction.")—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Extra-territorial regulation of certain British-controlled aircraft not registered in the United Kingdom]:
On Question, Whether Clause 14 shall stand part of the Bill?
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: On the Question, That Clause 14 stand part of the Bill, perhaps I may raise one point with the noble Lord. In line 9 of page 13 the words "chartered by demise" are used. As I am advised, this expression is more known to Parliamentary draftsmen than to practical aviators, and it seems that it would be comparatively easy to devise a form of charter, hire or lease which did not constitute a charter by demise and would therefore escape the admirable intentions of this clause. I appreciate that this point could be better

805
dealt with in the form of an Amendment, but perhaps the noble Lord would consider this point so that a suitable Amendment may be drafted before the next stage of the Bill.
LORD BESWICK: The noble Earl was kind enough to give me notice of his fears about this wording, and I have looked into it. It seems to me that his fears are not justified and that the present wording in fact carries out the intentions of the Bill.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Time limit for prosecutions arising out of accidents]:
4.28 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: This Amendment defines rather more carefully the meaning of the word "accident". At the present time there are some slight differences between the definition of "accident" contained in the Civil Aviation Act and the regulations which flow from that Act. In effect, what we are now proposing to say is that an accident shall include an incident. There are cases where there is no actual accident, where there is no destruction of aircraft or loss of life, but where there might have been a very near-miss and an inquiry is called for. The words now proposed will make it quite clear that the Department would have the power to have an inquiry into an incident, even though there was no actual loss of life. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) In the said section 10 and in this section "accident" shall be construed as including any fortuitous or unexpected event by which the safety of an aircraft or any person is threatened.")—(Lord Beswick.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: On behalf of noble Lords on these Benches may I say that we welcome this Amendment. I think we all know that many incidents occur during every year of aviation which are never really looked into.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved, after Clause 17, to insert the following new clause:
Minor amendments relating to British Airports Authority, B.E.A. and B.O.A.C.
".—(1) Paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 1 to the Airports Authority Act 1965 and paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 to the Air Corporations Act 1967 (which require the fixing of the common seal of the Authority and of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. to be authenticated by the signatures of the chairman or a member of the body concerned and also by another person authorised to act for that purpose) shall be amended as follows:—

(a) in the said paragraph 8(1) for the words from "the signatures" to the end there shall be substituted the words "the signature of the secretary of the Authority or some other person authorised by the Authority, either generally or specially, to act for that purpose",

(b) in the said paragraph 11 for the words from "the signature" to the end there shall be substituted the words "the signature of the secretary of the corporation or some other person authorised by the corporation, either generally or specially, to act for that purpose".

(2) It is hereby declared that in the said Act of 1965 "pension", in relation to a person, means a pension, whether contributory or not, of any kind whatsoever payable to or in respect of him, and includes a gratuity so payable and a return of contributions to a pension fund, with or without interest thereon or any other addition thereto and any sums payable on or in respect of the death of that person."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this new clause is to simplify the procedures under Paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 to the Air Corporations Act 1967. Under that paragraph the common seal of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. has to be authenticated by two signatures: that of the Chairman of the Corporation, or some other member authorised by the Corporation to act in his stead, and that of some other person authorised by the Corporation. Both Corporations and the British Airports Authority, who are under the same obligation under present legislation, have expressed to the Board of Trade the view that the procedure laid down is cumbersome and wasteful. It is proposed to simplify it in the manner suggested in this new clause.
Subsection (2) relates to the pension provisions. Here the new wording proposed is simply to avoid a certain amount of doubt that is felt by some about the present wording of Schedule 1 to the Airports Authority Act 1965. Under that Schedule, it seems doubtful whether the word "pension" can include a lump sum. It is proposed now to adopt the definition of Section 92 of the Transport Act 1962, which is the same as that

807
of the 1954 Act, with the addition of a reference to sums payable on, or in respect of the death of a person. As I have said, this re-definition of the pension powers of the Airports Authority is one that seeks only to avoid doubt. I hope that it will be acceptable to the Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 17 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Beswick.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Perhaps I may say that the clause is quite a lot to assimilate in 24 hours. I think it was put down only yesterday. But I am sure it is well-founded and perhaps one should congratulate the Parliamentary draftsman on producing this lengthy clause in order to streamline the managament of B.O.A.C.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Financial provisions.]:
LORD BESWICK: I made reference to this Amendment when we were discussing Clause 7. It is necessary to enable loans, as well as grants, to be made from moneys voted by Parliament which may be included in the Annual Estimates in the usual way. Repayments of capital and interest on loans will be made to the Board of Trade and surrendered to the Treasury as Exchequer Extra Receipts (a technical expression with which noble Lords present may be familiar) or, to use another expression, Appropriated in Aid of the Board of Trade's Vote. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 3, leave out ("other than") and insert ("including").—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 [Short title, interpretation and extent]:
LORD BESWICK: This rather complicated Amendment is a further exercise in streamlining. Its simple purpose is to extend to Northern Ireland the new clause which the Committee have just accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, leave out line 37 and insert—
("sections 16 and 17
section (Minor amendments relating to British Airports Authority, B.E.A. and B.O.A.C.) so far as it relates to the Air Corporations Act 1967
sections 18 and 19").—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clause, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
4.36 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, this is the first Bill for 11 years to increase family allowances, and it gives me particular pleasure to be introducing it to your Lordship's House to-day. I think the proper place to start, by way of introduction to the Bill, is to remind your Lordships of all that the Government have achieved in three years of office to help the less well off sections of society. First, so far as the problem is one of low earnings, the Government's incomes policy has always recognised the need to improve the standard of living of the worst-off members of the community. One of the current criteria for pay increases is, to quote the White Paper on Prices and Incomes Policy after 30th June, 1967 (Command 3235):
"Where there is general recognition that existing wage and salary levels are too low to maintain a reasonable standard of living."
Since the beginning of the year there have been substantial increases in wage rates for lower-paid workers—for example, workers in the agricultural industry and in the distributive trades. These will have been of particular importance in improving the circumstances of those covered. Since I made these notes I have made further inquiries, and I should like to draw attention to the figures published in the November Ministry of Labour Gazette, which show that between January and October this year increases in weekly wage rates amounting to nearly £1 million net a week have been awarded to workers in agriculture and the distributive trades. I stress the word "net", since this is not

809
the figure of earnings but simply the increase in the basic full-time weekly wage rates. The majority of these increases were accepted under the lowest-paid-workers criterion.
Secondly, there are various measures taken to protect people against the effects of unemployment or sickness. National insurance benefits have been increased twice since the Government came into power, the last increase being at the end of October, with the result that they are now one-third higher than in October, 1964. A married couple with two children now get £9 8s. 0d. in benefit as against £7 1s. 0d. in October, 1964, which is a rise of £2 7s. 0d. In addition, the Government have introduced a scheme of earnings-related supplements to unemployment and sickness benefit, providing a supplement of up to £7, depending on his previous earnings, on top of his basic benefit, to prevent a drastic drop in income if a man becomes unemployed or sick. Further, we have remodelled the old national assistance scheme in the new supplementary benefits scheme. This scheme, with improved rates of benefit and easier qualifying conditions, was introduced in November last year, and the rates were increased again in October of this year. Then there is the redundancy payments scheme. This scheme provides a tax-free payment, dependent on age and length of service, to an employee if he loses his job. During the year ending last September payments were made to no fewer than 230,000 redundant workers, who received an average payment of £200 each—a total expenditure for that year of £46 million.
My Lords, these are the special measures which the Government have taken for those who are not in work. For those who are in work, there are other measures. First, there is the rates rebate scheme, which will have benefited many low income families. Over 1 million householders are now enjoying rebates amounting on average to about £15 a year. Despite massive publicity we are not sure that all who qualify for a rate rebate are in fact applying for one, and this is a problem we are studying. "Take-up", if I may use the word, is uneven as between one area and another; and there is some evidence that tenants who pay no rates as such but simply have rates included in their rent are slower to come forward for a
810
rebate than owner-occupiers. As I say, this is something the Government are looking at. As a personal view, however, I think I may say that, no matter how many leaflets or advertisements are put out, there are many families who are impervious to official print of any kind and will not respond to it. Possibly personal contact by, for example, rent collectors and social workers should be the main means of persuading these families to apply.
Next, there are rent rebate schemes run by some local authorities for their poorer tenants. Such schemes have the Governments firm backing, and I am glad to say that 650 local authorities in Great Britain are now operating such schemes. In addition, we have substantially increased the housing subsidies paid to local authorities. Then, for owner-occupiers in the lower income groups there is the Government's new option mortgage scheme. This comes into operation next April and gives help, by way of a preferential rate of interest—I think 2 per cent. lower than it otherwise would be—to those borrowers who cannot derive much benefit from the tax relief at present given on the interest part of mortgage repayments.
Finally, my Lords, I come to the measures relating to school meals and welfare milk which were announced last July. In April we propose to improve cur provision for the larger families by extending the right to free school meals automatically to all fourth and subsequent children in a family; and to free welfare milk to all third and subsequent children under five, including a pregnant mother with two or more children under five. Apart from this, the scales for exemption from charges for school meals have just been raised in line with the recent increases in the rates of supplementary benefit. We wish to see many more families take up their rights to free school meals and welfare milk, and we have in hand the preparation of publicity campaigns for this purpose. The arrangements for claiming are also being reviewed so as to make it easy for families to exercise their rights without embarrassment. The changes and improvements introduced by this Labour Government in social security since it came into office costs over £520 million a year. Next year it will cost £820 million, and I hope

811
the public begins to know what we are doing for the worse-off people in our community.
My Lords, now I come to the Bill itself. Family allowances were, of course, one of three main assumptions on which Beveridge based his plan for social security in 1942. It was, he argued absurd to make satisfactory provision for the abolition of want when a man became unemployed or sick, if want persisted when a man was in work. The wages structure took—and still takes—no account of family commitments. Family allowances are the logical solution to this problem and the arguments which Beveridge adduced are as valid and as conclusive to-day as they were in 1942.
The immediate background to this Bill is the Report of the Ministry of Social Security's inquiry entitled Circumstances of Families, which was published last July. The key figure in that Report was the estimate that in the summer of 1966 there were about 500,000 children in about 160,000 families whose incomes were below the supplementary benefit level introduced in November, 1966. They could not be brought up to that level, either because the father was in full-time work (and hence not eligible to receive national assistance, as it was called in those days) or because he was already receiving assistance but his normal earnings were not such that the gap between his resources and his requirements could be fully closed. In a sense this figure of 160,000 families was a measure of the extent to which the earnings of the lower paid had lagged behind the improvement in the benefits provided for those unable to work or to find work. It was clear that, of the existing social services, the family allowance scheme represented the only way of improving the financial position of these families. Consequently, the series of proposals announced by the then Minister Without Portfolio in another place and by my noble friend Lord Shepherd to your Lordships' House on July 24 included as their central element a substantial all-round increase in family allowances to take place next April. Provision for this increase is the main purpose of the Bill.
There are two other principal provisions in the Bill. The first concerns the
812
rates of national insurance dependency benefits for children which are related to the level of family allowances, and thus it is in effect consequential on the family allowance increase. The second, which is quite unrelated to the increase, gives the Minister of Social Security power to deal with a problem of family allowance administration which may arise at some time in the future in the event of a general trend towards the staggering of school holidays.
My Lords, Clause 1(1) of the Bill, increases family allowances by 7s. a week per child as foreshadowed in my noble friend's statement of July 24. The new rates will be 15s. a week for the second child in the family and 17s. a week for the third and each subsequent child. Family allowances started in 1946 at a rate of 5s. a week. They were increased to 8s. in 1952 and, for third and subsequent children only, to 10s. in 1956. As I have said in my opening remarks, for the past 11 years they have remained unchanged. The new rates will also give the allowances a higher real value than ever before. They come into operation on April 9 next. Larger families, I would remind your Lordships, have already had an advance instalment of this 7s. increase. Under temporary powers conferred on the Minister of Social Security by the National Insurance Act 1967, a 5s. increase has been paid for the fourth and each subsequent child in a family from the end of October. The Government thought it only right that the larger family should be given some help before the winter. This 5s. temporary increase terminates on April 8, immediately prior to the coming into force of the new rates under the Bill.
Subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 1 deal with the adjustments of national insurance and industrial injuries dependency benefits for children by reference to the new levels of family allowances. The revised rates are set out in Schedules 1 and 2. To put the matter briefly, they represent an increase of 3s. for the first child, who does not qualify for family allowances, a reduction of 4s. for the second child, as against a family allowance increase of 7s., and a reduction of either 4s. or 6s. for third and subsequent children, again as against a family allowance increase of 7s. Taking these alterations together, the result is to increase the total

813
amount payable for a child by 3s. a week, with the exception of third and subsequent children, who already get in total 2s. more than do first or second children. In these cases the increase will be 1s. The effect will be that the total amount of insurance dependency benefit together with family allowance, where payable, will be the same whatever the place of the child in the family. The new rates, taking account of family allowance where payable, will be 45s. 6d. for guardian's allowance, child's special allowance and the children of widows, instead of 42s. 6d. as at present; and 28s. for the children of other beneficiaries, instead of 25s. or 27s.
Your Lordships may question why there should be this increase in the provision for the children of insurance beneficiaries. This is a natural query. Benefits for children have, after all, been raised substantially over recent years, and your Lordships will recall that the latest increase came into effect as recently as this October. Your Lordships may also point out that the object of a family allowance increase is to help people who cannot be helped through the national insurance and supplementary benefit schemes. There is also the point that the balance between family allowances and benefits under those schemes has been upset during the long period that family allowances have been untouched, and that this Bill presents the opportunity of restoring that balance to some extent.
There are, however, two reasons why the Government have thought it right that the family allowance increase should not be offset to the full extent against the insurance dependency benefits. First, the charge for school meals is to be increased by 6d. from next April, and this may affect recipients of benefit if they have any income in addition to their basic national insurance benefit—for example, the earnings-related supplement to sickness and unemployment benefit and to widow's allowance, or benefit under a private sick-pay scheme. Secondly, there is a tax point. Family allowances are taxable: sickness and unemployment benefit are not. To exchange one for the other could have the result that a beneficiary with enough other income to bring him into the tax field would be worse off. These two factors, in the Government's view, justify the increase in the total payment which we are proposing.
814
A word about costs. The gross cost of the family allowance increase is estimated to be about £124 million in the first full year. This figure will increase in later years with the increase in the number of children who qualify. The fact that it is stated in the newspapers to-day that the birthrate seems to be rising too slowly, does not mean that this statement about an increase in later years is wrong, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, of all people, will certainly know. Children are staying at school longer, and therefore more qualify for family allowance. The offsetting reductions in dependency benefits will produce a saving of nearly £3 million to the National Insurance and Industrial Injuries Funds, and there will also be a saving of £5 million on supplementary benefit. The total expenditure on family allowances next year is estimated to be £281 million. These figures are not by any means negligible.
Clause 2 is extraneous to the main purpose of the Bill. It gives the Minister of Social Security power to prescribe notional school-leaving dates for family allowance purposes. Title to family allowances in general ends when a child reaches the upper limit of compulsory school age or, if he continues in full-time education beyond that age, the date when e leaves school or college, or reaches age 19, whichever is the earlier. For administrative reasons it is necessary to predict with some accuracy the date of school-leaving, and this is required over a year in advance, so that the issue of an allowance order book can be arranged to take account of the fact that a child will be dropping out of the family as defined for family allowance purposes. The fact that the Ministry requires over a year to deal with an alteration of this kind gives some idea of the extent of the administrative work the Ministry do.
At present, matters work satisfactorily, because the great majority of schools in England and Wales, on the one hand, and Scotland, on the other, break up at or about the same time. Serious practical difficulties will, however, develop if school-leaving dates become staggered. Clause 2 therefore, as I say, makes it possible, if the need arises, for the Minister to prescribe school-leaving dates for family allowance purposes. I must stress that the power is purely precautionary,

815
and it is not thought that its use will be required in the very near future. It simply seemed prudent to take the opportunity of the Bill to have the power in reserve.
The remaining provisions of the Bill are subsidiary. Clause 3 deals with finance. Clause 4 is formal. Schedule 3 deals with commencement and transitional provisions.
Some of your Lordships may criticise the Bill as being insufficiently "selective", the fashionable adjective nowadays for "means test". If they consider that family allowances should be subjected to a direct means test, no doubt they will take this opportunity of making their position completely clear. So far as the Government are concerned, as has been made clear on a number of occasions, a direct means test in this sphere of social security would be totally unacceptable. There are many reasons why, but perhaps the three most important are these. First, a means test would be an obvious and powerful disincentive to work and effort because any increase in earnings would merely result in a corresponding reduction in the allowances payable. Secondly, it would require an immense administrative apparatus. And, thirdly, it would not in any case be a complete solution to the problem of family poverty. All our experience suggests that many people eligible for means-tested benefits cannot, for a variety of reasons, be persuaded to claim them. Moreover, we would certainly not agree that the families living below supplementary benefit level are the only ones in need of help. An even greater number of families are living not very far above that level and they can by no means be described as living in affluence. They have suffered over the years from the steady erosion in the real value of family allowances.
On the other hand, some of your Lordships will no doubt regret that the increase in family allowances is not greater. But in this, as in every other sphere of public expenditure, we must recognise that, however desirable the objective, the speed of our advance must necessarily be limited by the resources for the time being available. As I have said, the cost of the Bill as it stands will be a very substantial one—£124 million in the first
816
full year. Some people, including the Trades Union Congress, have argued that the cost could be substantially offset, and the benefit of the increases effectively concentrated on the lower-paid, by reducing income tax allowances for children. The T.U.C.s proposal is to add another 10s. a week to the 7s. increase proposed in this Bill. The gross cost of this would be £177 million in a full year, which of course would be in addition to the £124 million which is the gross cost of this Bill. On their question of tax alteration it would be presumptuous of me to say anything at this moment. Any question of this kind must, of course, be left to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider in the context of his Budget.
My Lords, this is a short Bill, but I should not like your Lordships to think it an insignificant one or to underestimate the benefit which it will bring to families with children. To restore family allowances to their original real value we should have to raise them to 10s. 8d. per child. To raise them to their real value at the time of the last general increase in September, 1952, would require a rate of 12s. 8d. So that in setting rates of 15s. and 17s. we are going well beyond what is necessary to give family allowances the highest purchasing power they have ever had. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a Second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Bowles.)
5.0 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, for his careful exposition of this Bill. From his start I felt that his long catalogue of the additional benefits that have been given could only be interpreted as an apology for this Bill. This is a Bill about poverty. Family allowances are really a device to reduce the effects of poverty due to large families. It originated in France; and it is interesting to note that it did not originate through the State but by employers during the First World War. Indeed, in France it continues to be paid by employers. This would perhaps have been an opportunity to adapt ourselves to the Common Market system. It is worth noting that our own family allowances are considerably lower than those paid in the majority of European countries, and certainly in the Common Market countries. How could this have

817
been done? When the selective employment tax was brought in I wondered whether it was being introduced in order to condition employers to pay rather more in the way of contributions in respect of each employee. The Green Paper has come along and seems to have disposed of that idea. But the fact is that on the Continent employers do have to pay rather more than we do in this country.
As the noble Lord said, the arrangements that are contained in this Bill were announced last July. Since that time devaluation has come along. There is a sense in which devaluation presents an opportunity. It is then possible to increase social security benefits—family allowances and the like. I would recall to the House that this is precisely what France did at the time of her last devaluation. In a sense, we are doing it now. But the difference is that France planned the conjuncture, whereas we have had it forced upon us.
Another disadvantage of the present way of dealing with these matters was pointed out in an interesting couple of articles in The Times on Thursday and Friday, April 6 and 7. It was pointed out then that one of the great disadvantages under which family allowances have suffered is that they were introduced during the war—or, rather, they were planned during the war: they were agreed upon in 1942, the Bill was passed in 1945 under the National Government, the Caretaker Government, and they came into operation in 1946. But they were passed at a time when there was no opportunity for public discussion of family allowances, and that is possibly why there is not the overwhelming support for family allowances in this country that is enjoyed by National Insurance. Sir John Walley said in his article:
"The British system relies heavily for the popular understanding of new measures on the discussion and controversy which in peace-time precedes and accompanies legislation."
Well, this announcement was made last July. It was a firm announcement. It has had remarkably little public discussion since, and we are not going to have a great deal to-day.
In this country we have national insurance to provide a basic income for the old, the sick and the unemployed. From
818
the start, it was recognised that some people would not qualify for national insurance and that some of them would have young families. First, national assistance scales, and now supplementary benefit scales, lay down the minimum income, apart from rent, which Parliament has thought it right for all to receive.
Assuming a weekly addition of £3 for rent and rates, the present minimum income for a married man and his wife, if they have three children between five and eleven, I calculate to be £14 11s. 0d. That is what a married man with a wife and three children, paying £3 a week rent and rates, will get in the way of supplementary benefit if he is not working. If he has six children up to 16 years old he will get £16 5s. 0d. This compares with £12 13s. 4d. which is the National Joint Council rate for local authority manual labourers. So if he is working, and he earns less than that sum, neither national insurance benefit nor supplementary benefit are available to him. Not only does he fall below the minimum income approved by Parliament for those who are old, sick or unemployed, but if he falls sick or loses his job he will not get more than the net amount he is now earning. It is bad enough if he has nobody but himself to provide for. If he is married and has no children, his wife can also work. But it cannot be disputed at the more children he has the worse off his family will be.
It was, I suppose, to find out the extent of the problem that the inquiry into the circumstances of families, to which the noble Lord referred, was carried out in the summer of 1966. The Report was published last June. The inquiry was based on a sample of some 2,400 families, who were interviewed by officers of the Ministry of Social Security in their spare time. I think that one should pay due respect to them for this, and convey our thanks. Colloquially, I suppose it could be said that the purpose of the inquiry was to find out how many families, with how many children in them, fell below the poverty line, and how far they fell below it. In truth, however, the concept of a poverty line is pretty arbitrary. It is not a subsistence level; nor is it based on any scientific method of ascertaining what resources are needed in different parts of the country. It is

819
rather a reflection of the social conscience of the community—what resources can be regarded as providing a tolerable minimum level in a comparatively affluent society. Thus, in the last dozen years there has been a rise in that level—of real spending power—of well over 50 per cent.
The Government have stated their intention of ensuring that the most needy shall not suffer as a result of devaluation. I hope that they will be able to fulfil this intention. But it cannot be assumed that they will. If the kind of situation to which the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Board referred yesterday arose—and in all our hearts we know that it could arise—it would not be possible for anyone in the country to maintain their standard of living. What the Report did was to calculate from the sample estimates the number of families which fell below the level of national assistance scales as they were in 1965 and 1966, until the new supplementary benefit scales were introduced at the end of November, 1966. Since then, however, there have been further changes in the supplementary benefit scales, the last coming into operation on October 30.
Each time the poverty level is raised by increasing supplementary benefit scales by more than the rise in the cost of living since the last increase, the number of families falling below the poverty level is automatically increased. For instance, the number of families of two or more children whose resources, apart from supplementary benefit, fall below the requirements as measured by supplementary benefit scales automatically rose, according to the inquiry, from 280,000 to 345,000 when the November, 1966, increase was made; and the increase last month must have increased it still further.
LORD BOWLES: Perhaps I could interrupt the noble Lord. Surely he is not suggesting that when we increase a benefit more people are really poorer.
LORD DRUMALBYN: No.
LORD BOWLES: A position could be reached where I could raise the standard of life of people in this country when the noble Lord might be on the poverty level.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I agree with that. This is something the noble Lord said when he quoted what Lord Beveridge said. I also equipped myself with that quotation. But the fact is that this gap between the supplementary benefit scales and the lowest levels of income becomes more difficult to fill as the supplementary benefit scales are increased.
The other point the noble Lord mentioned was that there are many people whose incomes exceed the supplementary benefit scales but who are badly off, often because they have to pay more than they can afford for rent. Even professional people with large families can be really hard pressed, especially if they have a position in which they are expected to fulfil heavy social obligations but with no opportunity of recovering expenses. To some extent the embarrassment of such people can be relieved by family allowances; but these allowances have never enjoyed the overwhelming support of the nation, and it may have been a mistake to pay them weekly. If such allowances had been paid monthly, those who received them might have been less apt to waste them. I am not implying that everybody wastes them, but there is some waste of them, and I do not think any of the Common Market countries pay social benefits weekly. In some of them, of course, family allowances have by law to be paid with the weekly pay packet by the employer. Incidentally, this is why it is so much easier for countries like France to practise the principle of equal pay as between the sexes. I believe that this would not be readily acceptable without a good deal of public discussion in this country, where we believe in "the rate for the job", irrespective of family commitments. Incidentally, I know of no country in which family allowances are subject to a means test, although I understand that in Germany there is a rather high income limit.
Given our present system, every time family allowances have been under review the main questions have been, first; what general level of increase is needed to restore their value and make them more effective? Secondly, should increases, or the same increases, be paid in the case of each eligible child, or should more be paid for the fourth child than for the third child, and so on? Thirdly, should

821
there be a limit above which they are not paid at all, as in West Germany? And, fourthly, how should whatever increases are made be paid for?
Taking the last question first there is, of course, a great deal to be said for transferring the entire burden to what on the Continent are called equalisation funds. In some countries these are run by public corporations, in others by occupational groups, always under State supervision. The general principle is that people should draw out of the funds while they have families and that all who are not bringing up families should help those who are. The effect is that of a consumption tax—the allowances raise the cost of goods and services to those who buy them. I believe this to be a good principle. What I think would be thoroughly bad (the noble Lord said it would be presumptuous of him to refer to taxation, but it is not so presumptuous of me) would be any suggestion that the net increases in family allowances should be paid for solely by reductions in child tax allowances. The real value of child tax allowances has declined by 40 per cent. since before the war and is now 10 per cent. less than it was a dozen years ago. The cost of family allowances should be met by taxpayers as a whole and not merely by taxpayers with children to bring up. I should have thought this was very clear.
Any form of help to families is, of course, redistributive. In this country family allowances form part of taxable income and are treated as earned income, and are a charge on the Exchequer. Child tax allowances are also redistributive, in that they allow families to keep more of what they earn at the expense of taxpayers in general. But there is a fundamental difference between family allowances, which are a handout by the State, and allowing people to keep more of their own money to discharge their family responsibilities; and I hope that this fundamental principle will be maintained.
On what principle should Exchequer help to families be based? I suggest that it should be on compassion and on national policy—compassion for the most needy, and particularly for children, who should all be given a fair start in life. Then there is the national policy, the aim of which should be, first, assisting the wage and salary earners who could
822
not bring up their families, to use a Burnsian expression, "in decency and order" without help; and, secondly, ensuring that young married people, and particularly those who have the ability to contribute most to the national wealth, are not discouraged by excessive taxation from having children. I think it is a pity to overlook this essential point.
In principle, therefore, we ought not to be considering what increases should be made in family allowances without considering how and by whom they are to be paid for, as we do in the case of national insurance benefits; and, secondly, how they are to dovetail with other forms of help to families. What consideration is being given to what is called negative or reverse income tax? One such proposal was developed by Professor Dennis Lees in the October issue of Lloyds Bank Quarterly, on the basis of a payment of 50 per cent. of the difference between income and the supplementary benefits scale, where income falls below it. I quite agree that the same objection which applies to the means test applies also to this payment of 50 per cent. Nevertheless, it mitigates the gap which will still remain after family allowances have been made available.
Turning to the first question, I understood the noble Lord to say that the figure would be some 2s. 8d. per week. I should have put it rather higher, at some 4s., but presumably the difference between that and 7s. was added either to pay for the 6d. extra cost of school meals per day or to cover the prospective rise in prices following the period of severe restraint. On that basis, only the first child's school meal will cost the parents more.
I come to the question of which children should get increases in family allowances and whether we should continue to have them straight across the board. Chapter II of the Ministry of Social Security Annual Report shows that at the end of 1965 approximately 65 per cent. of the 4 million or so families receiving family allowances contained two children, 25 per cent. contained three children, and 9½ per cent. contained four. The total number of children in these families was estimated at nearly 10½ million, excluding those over the age limits, and the total number of children for whom family allowances were paid

823
was 6½ million. The noble Lord says that the total cost now will be £281 million.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, that is next year.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am sorry to trouble your Lordships with some figures, but I am afraid that I cannot make my argument without mentioning them. The inquiry showed that on the basis of the supplementary benefit scales applying from November, 1966, there were 345,000 families—that is one in twelve—whose resources were less than requirements, excluding any supplementary benefits. Of these, rather more than 120,000 who were not working had their resources made up to supplementary benefit levels; 20,000 more received some supplementary benefit but, because of the wage stop, could not be made up to the full supplementary benefit scales. The Report for 1966 says:
"The amounts by which such allowances were restricted ranged from a few shillings to several pounds."
Indeed the Supplementary Benefit Commission's report on the administration of the wage stop, which has just been presented to the House, referred to two cases where the wage stop deduction was over £6. This was the highest level of the cases, although in the majority of cases it was less than 50s. In addition, there were something like 75,000 families who were thought to be eligible for supplementary benefits but were not receiving them. Many of these would be only temporarily in need, through sickness or unemployment, but the biggest group of families were those not eligible for supplementary benefits because the father was in whole-time work. These amounted to 125,000. The Report "tentatively estimates" that the number of families with only one child where initial resources fell short of supplementary benefit scales was a further 25,000. I think it is a good thing to get these figures on the Record.
Leaving out of account the estimated 75,000 eligible for supplementary benefit but not receiving it, there were something like 160,000 to 170,000 families, containing some half a million children, below the so-called "poverty line". How far below the poverty line were they? About three out of five had a deficit of
824
less than £1, and of the remainder two out of five had a deficit between £1 and £2, and three out of five had a deficit of over £2. Less than one in four had net incomes of over £15 a week, and more than half had net incomes of under £12 10s. This Bill is going to add 7s. to the net income of families with two children and 35s. to the net income of families with six. It is estimated that there are about 455,000 children in families of six children and over. While three out of five of all families receiving family allowances comprised only two children, only about one in seven of children in families with resources less than supplementary benefit scales and not receiving supplementary benefit were in families of only two children, while nearly one in four was in families of three, and the remaining three-fifths of children were in families of four or more.
Given these figures, my Lords, there is surely a strong case for limiting the increase to the third and subsequent children. It is not unreasonable to consider a family of two as normal and therefore not in need of an increase in allowances. If the increase were given only to families with three or more children, I calculate that the saving would be at least £40 million to set against the extra gross cost of £124 million. Part of this could be used to increase the amount of the allowance for the fourth and subsequent children. There is, of course, the complication of the increase in the cost of school meals and welfare milk. But if it were desired to cover these increases for those not entitled to free meals—and every child of families receiving supplementary benefit or with incomes below supplementary benefit scales is entitled to free meals—an increase of 3s. for the second child could be made, the same increase as is made for the first child in national insurance benefits. I estimate the cost at £18 million, leaving £22 million for increasing allowances for large families, which would be quite worth while.
I recognise, of course, that devaluation is going to add to the cost of feeding and clothing children. But the figure of 7s. was decided on last July, at a time when the Government were still proclaiming their intention never to devalue. But devaluation is going to hit the largest families most heavily. Surely it

825
is in the largest families that the biggest shortfall of incomes below supplementary benefits scales mainly occurs. In that case should not the saving on the second child be used to increase the family allowances for the fourth and subsequent children? Clearly the Government must have considered this. The Leader of the House in another place said this on November 16:
"I gather that my right honourable friend has some late Amendments and that it would be for the convenience of the House to see them in due time to debate them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, col. 638.]
For that reason the Committee stage in another place was put off. These Amendments, however, never came forward. Of course, the Amendments might have been of quite a different character.
Many people have thought it odd that, in order to help some 240,000 families, increases in family allowances are to be given to some 3¾ million families. They also think it odd that those on supplementary benefit scales will receive no increase whatsoever. It is hardly an answer to say, as the noble Lord did, that they have just had an increase last month, because that had nothing to do with devaluation. Are we about to have another Order laid before Parliament to increase supplementary benefits, and in particular the children's allowances under them?
In fact, of course, the Government can truly say that they have not given a flat increase of 7s. for all eligible children. But the exceptions they have selected are curious. There are the families receiving supplementary benefit I have just mentioned. But there are also families receiving national insurance benefit. They will receive 3s. more national insurance benefit for the first child—presumably to compensate for the increased cost of school meals—but 4s. less national insurance benefit for the second child, and 6s. less for each additional child. So that while they will get their 7s. family allowance, the total they receive, taking family allowances and national insurance together, will be 3s. more for the second child and 1s. for each additional child. I doubt whether these families will take very kindly to having the increases in national insurance benefit they received only last month reduced. Nor will the civil servants, I suggest, enjoy having to recalculate the benefits before next April
826
for all who remain sick or unemployed throughout the period.
I recognise that from next April the fourth and subsequent children are to be entitled to free school meals without regard to their parents' income, and that the cash value of these will be 7s. 6d. a week, at least in term time. But the Inquiry into Family Circumstances showed that although all children of parents who are receiving supplementary benefit or whose incomes fall below supplementary benefit scales are entitled to free meals, only about half the children entitled to them actually take them. I have not given notice of this question to the noble Lord, but perhaps he may be able to tell me the answer. Can he say whether the Working Party which was looking into the working of the school meals service has yet reported, and what it proposes to encourage the other half of the children to take them, top? Has he considered issuing parents of children entitled to free meals with vouchers which they could cash at the Post Office, so as to provide the cash with which the children could pay for the meals and so avoid this odious distinction between those who pay and those who do not?
Perhaps the main difficulty of low income families where the father is in full-time work in comparison with families receiving supplementary benefit is that the former cannot get any help from the Supplementary Benefit Commission towards their rents. Could not something be done about this, even as an interim measure? It is absurd for the Government to try to ban rent increases altogether in order to help 250,000 people. Surely, the way to help them is by a proper system of rent rebates from local authorities for which the Supplementary Benefits Commission should reimburse the local authorities. If this needed a change in the law, surely that change should have been in this Bill. Of course, I recognise that this would still leave private rents out, and you would probably have to deal with them direct through the Suppementary Benefits Commission. I recognise the difficulties of getting people entitled to benefits to apply for them; or, alternatively, getting the Supplementary Benefits Commission to seek them out as they did in the case of the old and retired.

827
To sum up, this Bill will do some good but at a cost out of all proportion to the good that it does. We have very little confidence in the Government's judgment in this. No convincing argument has been put up for the original decision to give a flat increase of 7s. for all children after the first. The Government themselves recognised that it was the largest families who were the most needy when they raised the allowance by 5s. for the fourth and subsequent children from the end of October. My guess is that the intention was to raise the amount for the fourth and subsequent children by 5s. in October and then to have a flat increase all round. My guess is that that is probably why the Minister resigned—because we did not get that increase. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us, because the Minister has never done so. We all realise, of course, that the resources of families which fall below the so-called poverty level cannot be raised only by increasing family allowances. There are a host of other factors—rent and rate rebates, allowances for non-industrial disabilities among them. But we shall need a lot of convincing that it was right to make a flat increase right across the board, including the second child.
The questions I have been putting to the Government are these: First, has the Working Party on School Meals yet reported? Secondly, why did the Government choose 7s. as the appropriate increase in family allowances last July? Thirdly, why, having chosen it, and having declared their intention that the lowest paid shall not suffer, have they decided to stick to it in spite of devaluation? Fourthly, are the Government intending to increase supplementary benefit scales in the near future? And, fifthly, why, in view of the Inquiry into Family Circumstances, was it decided to give the same increase in family allowances for the second child as for subsequent children? Ought not the fourth and subsequent children to have received a higher allowance? I hope the noble Lord will be able to answer these questions.
5.30 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, my noble friend has recalled something of the early history of family allowances. Many of your Lordships will recollect, as I do,
828
the persistence and determination of Dame Eleanor Rathbone in another place. She was the real author of and prime mover in the movement to obtain family allowances.
There is nothing novel or startling in this Bill. It aims at no more than increasing the scales of family allowances to make up their loss of value due to progressive inflation. I make no complaint of that, but I recall that when a Conservative Government were in office they were frequently taken to task upon the ground that they introduced periodical Bills for improving scales and never did anything else. This Bill is for precisely the same purpose as the Bills which have been introduced periodically for the purpose of improving the scale of rates of national insurance and of supplementary benefits. This Bill really goes no further than that.
The Bill aims at relieving what is called child poverty, or family poverty; and in so far as it does so, we should all welcome it. But when we examine the things which this Bill does and some of the things it leaves undone, we are bound to ask ourselves whether the Government have chosen the right instrument for dealing with this problem of child poverty. Indeed, the Government themselves appeared at one stage to have been in some doubt as to whether family allowances were the best instrument for that purpose.
When a debate took place in another place in April of last year the then Minister of Social Security, discussing this question of family allowances, said:
"Another method of helping is by a general increase in family allowances, but would this be the way of using scarce resources when so much needs to be done over the whole field of social services, not only cash payments, as the honourable Lady has said, but in health, in housing and in education? We all know that much needs to be done here, and we as a Government have decided that this method"—
which is the use of family allowances—
"would not be the best way of helping."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 20/4/67, col. 849.]
She then gives reasons for that. We do not know what made the Government change their mind between April and November, but undoubtedly they must have considered various means of relieving the poverty which this Bill seeks to relieve.

829
I have been trying to ascertain how many families would benefit by the proposals in the Bill and in how many families one might expect to find child poverty will be relieved. It is not easy to get this information from the published statistics. I have done my best with the statistics published by the Ministry of Social Security, but I am not convinced that I have been able to get at the truth; and I hope that if I go wrong the Minister will be able to put me right.
It is, I think, clear that nearly 4 million families will in fact benefit by improved payments. The figure is actually 3,900,000, but 4 million is good enough. Of this 4 million, 280,000 families had resources which were less than was required to meet their needs by the supplementary benefits standard. There were 135,000 families out of the 280,000 who were receiving national assistance. Those families will not benefit by this Bill because what they receive in additional family allowances they will lose in a reduced supplementary benefit.
I suspect that arising out of this proposal the Minister will have a large number of disagreeable letters from those who have been disappointed, having read in the papers that they are going to get a 7s. increase and then they find that they do not get anything because it has been taken off national assistance. Of course, those families are maintained at the standard at which further assistance is considered unnecessary; but they do not look at it like that. They look at it in a human way and say, "I saw in the paper that I was going to get 7s. and I have not got it."
The 135,000 families who are receiving assistance must be deducted from the 280,000 whose resources are below the supplementary benefits standard. That leaves 145,500 families whose resources are below the supplementary benefit standard but who, for one reason or another, are not receiving supplementary benefit. Some of them are families where the father is in full-time work. In some cases the allowance has been reduced by the operation of the wage stop. That brings the total number down to about 145,000, and I take that as the number of families where child poverty may be expected to exist. In order to relieve the need of those 145,000 families we have to pay in
830
creased benefits to nearly 4 million other families. It is rather shattering that in order to improve the conditions of 145,000 families, we have to pay increased allowances to nearly 4 million persons.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, may I just ask the noble Lord one question? I think I am right in saying that we are not paying these family allowances to just the number of families that the noble Lord has mentioned purely and simply to raise the standard of living of the 120,000 families or whatever number he mentioned. We want them all to have an increase—all the families.
LORD ILFORD: If that is the purpose, I can understand it; but there must be a large number of those 4 million families whose income is well above the supplementary benefit standard and who are not in need at all.
I turn for a moment to another aspect of this rather difficult question. I read with great interest the Ministry of Social Security's latest publication which deals with the operation of the wage stop. Of course, a wage stop is repugnant to anybody. I found it very repugnant when I first found on the National Assistance Board that I had to offer a man an allowance which was less than he was entitled to by my own calculation. The difficulty is that there is no escape from doing it, and that is what the Government have found. There are strong feelings about the wage stop and there always has been. I used to receive a considerable correspondence on the subject of the wage stop, but I think I was always able to satisfy my critics because, when one comes to look at the circumstances in which the wage stop is applied, there is no alternative but to restrict the payment made to an applicant in this way.
It is not right that a man should receive more money when he is not working than he is able to earn when he is working. The public recognise that, and certainly the newspapers recognise this fact and are very ready to bring to the attention of the public cases where this sort of thing is alleged to take place. In many of the cases one reads in the newspapers the real facts are not fully stated. A man is prosecuted at a magistrates' court and, with his having been leading a life of crime, the police naturally inquire what he has been doing

831
and how he has been living. He frequently says, "Oh, I get national assistance". When one looks into the circumstances of the case one often finds that he does not receive national assistance. Frequently he has not only himself but his wife and a family of young children dependent on the allowance. The allowance paid to him by the Board is the appropriate scale allowance for two adults and perhaps two or three small children. I think that to some extent we can disregard the criticisms which appear in the newspapers, but the fact remains that the public very much resent a man's being paid more money when he is idle than when he is able to work. The argument which appears to convince the Minister is the one based on the man who is still fully in employment. It is not right that a man who is at work should be earning less money than he would receive if he became unemployed and was totally idle. The wage stop, however repugnant it may be, is something to which we have no alternative. I am glad to see that the Government have come to the same conclusion, as indeed I thought that they would when they became responsible.
We have been told the cost of these proposals, but we have not been told very much about the sources from which the cost is to be met. It has been freely suggested in the newspapers and elsewhere that the cost of this increased family allowance ought to be met by withdrawing the child allowance in income tax relief enjoyed by parents. The Minister was asked about this in the debate on the Bill in another place, and she replied that that would be a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget in the spring. That may be so, but I think that we ought to be told a little more now about what is proposed.
If it is proposed to withdraw tax allowances in respect of children, I hope the proposal will be dropped. In my view it would be grossly unfair to make one section of the population pay for a social benefit received by another section. If social benefits are to be paid for out of public funds, all those who contribute to public funds ought to contribute to them and not simply a selected group. That proposal would hit just the type of young
832
man whom one wants to encourage to-day, the young professional or business man getting on in his profession or business and not finding things very easy financially. It is no good wailing about the brain-drain if one is going in for taxation of that sort. It will inevitably produce dissatisfaction, discontent and resentment among precisely that section of the population upon whom we are largely dependent for the success of our industry and our national life.
In conclusion, I will say a word about the national minimum wage. It is often held out, usually by the Party opposite, that some day we shall establish a national minimum wage which will make all these devices like the wage stop and everything else unnecessary. I believe that a national minimum wage is a totally impracticable proposition. I think anyone who has had experience of assessing allowances to poor people very soon finds out that what one wants is not a fixed scale but a flexible scale, so that in one case you can pay a little more and in another case it may not be necessary to pay so much.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, in view of his statement that a minimum wage is totally impracticable, whether he is aware that in the United States there is an hourly minimum wage operating throughout the whole of the nation applying to anybody who obtains a contract of employment?
LORD ILFORD: But does it relieve poverty? The factors which make up an applicant's requirements are so varied. Take, as an example, his rent. The levels of rent in the North of England are very different from those in the South. The national minimum wage would have to take account of that and of any special requirements due, perhaps, to ill health or to some other factor on the part of a particular individual. To my mind, the great merit of the supplementary benefit system, as we now call it, or the national assistance scheme as I once knew it, is that the allowance which is paid is so completely flexible. The officer can work it up for a high rent, lower it for a low rent, take into account a diet involving more expensive food, which a man may have been ordered, circumstances which impose excessive wear on his clothing and details of that sort. The allowance can be adjusted to the requirements of

833
the individual. No system of payments will ever relieve poverty completely if it operates on a fixed scale or is not capable of being adjusted to meet those various factors which I have suggested. I think we should all welcome the Bill, but whether it is really the right instrument for the purpose for which it is intended is more doubtful.
5.51 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I have always supported family allowances ever since I read of the Rowntree survey at York and, I hope, not merely because I have always drawn them—though I do not declare an interest in this. But I would point out that they are taxable, and to that extent they are selective. The noble Lord, Lord Bowles, at the Dispatch Box, played the old, old political game of defying the Opposition to make some announcement which, if they had done so, would have been a vote loser. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn was not born yesterday, and needless to say, he made no such pronouncement.
I think any sensible person would like to find some method of directing the money chiefly to those who really need it more than others, and I must say that I cannot think of a way. Administratively, it seems almost impossible, having regard to the fact that the family allowance is paid to the wife and not to the husband. The only method which I can suggest is the idea put forward from time to time, I believe by the Liberal Party, of what you might call positive and negative taxation, whereby the people below a certain level receive taxation and those above pay. Perhaps we shall come down to that one day. If the Government wanted to make the payment more selective, it would of course always be possible to treat it as unearned rather than earned income. Such a move would make no difference at all to the people at the bottom, and would make a few shillings a week difference to people such as myself at the top.
This particular increase has come at a fortunate moment from the point of view of devaluation, because on a £14 wage 7s. a week will be 2½ per cent., and 14s.—that is, for two children—will be 5 per cent. The rise in prices will probably be about 10 per cent., so anybody with four children will expect to have been taken out of the devaluation hazard by
834
a benevolent Government. But I hope that, when the inevitable wage and salary demands are made—and it is almost imperative in the national interest that they should be strongly resisted, unless they are accompanied by increased productivity arrangements—that point will be put forward; that those who have the families, and therefore have the largest expenditure, are to some degree catered for by this increase in the Bill.
I want to ask the noble Lord only one question. He said that staggering of school holidays was in contemplation, but not in the near future. I wonder whether he could enlarge slightly on that point, so as to give the unfortunate parents some inkling of what is to happen.
5.55 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate and I am only too sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, could not speak. He came to see me before the debate started and said that he had to leave at half-past five, and therefore we have missed the benefit of his contribution. I told him that nobody would mind if he went immediately after speaking, but he was unable to wait any longer.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, gave us an interesting lecture about what is going on on the Continent, and particularly in reference to those countries in the Common Market. But we think it is unfair to make a direct comparison between our family allowances and those of the Common Market. One should take account of all the social, health and welfare services. Also, in some Common Market countries the scheme is contributory and confined to employees; that is to say, the self-employed are omitted. It is noteworthy, too, that Germany, whose scheme was originally employer-financed, recently went over to being State-financed.
Then the noble Lord referred to the question of negative income tax, and wondered whether the Government had given that any consideration. I have made inquiries and I find that it is not a new idea but has been receiving increased attention recently. It is something the Government have been looking at, but I should be deluding the House if I did not stress the difficulties involved. It is idle to present it as a solution to our social security problems. For example, not everyone is inside the Pay-as-you-earn

835
system—for example, the self-employed, and those earning below 5 guineas a week—and last year's income tax return is by no means always a very useful guide to this year's needs. Professor Lees, while concluding that the system he described was fiscally feasible, said that whether it would have the effect intended and be administratively feasible was quite another matter. Professor Titmuss, in his recent New Statesman article, took a much more pessimistic note.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, talked about the 7s. He said that it was decided before devaluation, and asked why we still stuck to it. The answer is that it is the most the Government can afford at this particular juncture, commensurate with our economic situation. Then he made a rather interesting point about dropping the family allowance for the second child, as well as not giving an allowance to the first.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I said, "not increasing it".
LORD BOWLES: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I misunderstood what he said. But poverty is not confined to the larger family. Over 40 per cent. of the families living below the supplementary benefit level, where the father was in full-time work, had only two children. It seemed quite wrong to the Government that those families should be given nothing.
Then the noble Lord suggested that it was in some way unfair that national insurance beneficiaries should get a general increase of only 3s. a child—1s. in some cases, as he rightly said—while a working person receives 7s. a child in family allowances for each child after the first. The answer is set out in a note which I have here, and perhaps I may read it. It is a little long but it may be useful to have it on the Record.
Family allowances and dependency benefits are, and always have been, part of the same total provision for the children of beneficiaries. In total—and it is the total figure which is important—beneficiaries will get more money for each child under the Bill than they do now. A widowed mother, as I said in my original speech, at present receives 42s. 6d. a week for each child in benefit and,
836
where appropriate, family allowances. Under the Bill she will get 45s. 6d. A sick or unemployed man at present receives 25s. or 27s. a week in total for each child. The Bill will give him 28s. There is more, but I do not think the noble Lord will want me to continue. I was asked: How many families will benefit? The answer is that nearly 4 million families will benefit.
The noble Lord also asked a question about the Working Party into the question of school meals and welfare milk which were not being taken up. The Working Party was set up by the Secretary of State for Education and Science to look into the question of why the school meals were not more adequately enjoyed and used. Their report has not yet come to hand. The problem of getting people to take up their rights is very much in the forefront of the Minister's mind, as it is, indeed, in that of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I would refer the noble Lord to paragraph 41 of the Commission's recent Report on the administration of the wage-stop. For wage-stop beneficiaries the Commission have decided not only to make sure that each wage-stopped claimant understands what other State benefits are available to him but also to help claimants to obtain and, where necessary, complete application forms, and to follow up to see that the benefits are actually enjoyed.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord will, of course, appreciate that the wage-stopped families represent only one-sixth or less of the total families involved.
LORD BOWLES: Yes, my Lords. The number is about 26,000. I see now that it was the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, who asked the question as to the number of families who benefit under the Bill, and I did say that it was four million.
Lord Drumalbyn also raised the question of devaluation and asked whether the supplementary benefit rates would be increased to offset its effects. I can do no more than repeat the assurance given in another place, that the Government will watch price trends carefully and at the right time will take whatever action appears appropriate to protect the position of those who are most likely to be affected by price increases arising from devaluation. If the noble Lord will refer

837
to the Commons Hansard of November 29—he mentioned the fact that in another place the Committee stage of this Bill was postponed for about a fortnight—he will see that I think on a Motion to report progress the Minister made a statement. I have got a copy of that here, but I do not think I need refer to it.
On the question raised about the wage-stop and the Commission's decisions, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, knows, the Minister has said that she is accepting, I perhaps might read those decisions in a summarised way. Up to now, estimates of labourers' earnings have, where necessary, been based on local average earnings. In future the Commission will in these cases use the rates fixed by the National Joint Council for Local Authorities (Manual Workers). This will mean that in many areas there will be a higher rate than before. At present, earnings rates are reviewed twice a year. In future they will be kept under continuous review to make sure that improvements are fully reflected. In estimating earnings, the Commission at present deduct 7s. 6d. for what are known as "intangible expenses". I do not know whether the noble Lord knows what they are, but I do not, and I have never found anybody who does.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I recall the 7s. 6d. What the Board's officers do is to obtain, if they can, a realistic estimate of the man's earnings. If he has been in employment during the last six months, for example, they take what he earned during that period and do not use either the 7s. 6d. or any other measure. But if they are not able to get a realistic figure for his earnings before unemployment—if, for example, it is twelve months since he was employed, and perhaps he is no longer fit for the work he was previously doing—then they have to obtain some other standard. Now they are going to use the 7s. 6d.; and, indeed, they did in my time.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. The noble Lord has also seen that the Minister is proposing that the 7s. 6d. should not be deducted in the future. The Commission will ensure that there is a full discussion with each claimant about the way in which his
838
benefit, if it is subject to the wage-stop, is calculated, and that he is notified of the details. At present, if the wife of a claimant with a wage-stopped benefit starts work, the full amount of her earnings is deducted. This practice will cease, and the family will benefit from the wife's employment.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, expressed regret that all families receiving supplementary benefit will not gain an advantage from the increase in family allowances. Of course, the Government's proposals, as I think the noble Lord appreciates, will help those families whose supplementary benefit is subject to the wage-stop. These are families who will not have benefited in full from the previous increases in supplementary benefit rates because their benefit had to be held at the wage-stop figure. Family allowances are payable whether or not the recipient is in work, and they are therefore payable in addition to supplementary benefit; so the family whose benefit is subject to the wage-stop will usually benefit in full from the family allowance increase. Other families receiving supplementary benefit will, under the Government's proposals, gain no advantage from the changes proposed by the Bill, but the children of those families have over the years been provided for by the increases in the supplementary benefit and national assistance rates. I do not think I need bother the House any more on this aspect. All these facts are probably known to the noble Lords who have come to listen and take part in this debate, so I will not keep the House very much longer.
As regards the staggering referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, I understand that he heard me say that it is not likely that this will take place in the very near future. This is purely a precautionary measure. We are taking advantage of this Bill to put it in so that the power is available to the Minister in case it is needed. But from my little knowledge of some parts of the country I think places like Coventry have already staggered industry and the school terms, because unless the schools and the factories stop at the same time the families cannot go away. I think I am right in remembering that four or five years ago, in Coventry at least, the factories and the schools stopped, I think, in the middle of

839
July; and that was a date that was perhaps agreed upon sufficiently in advance for the Ministry in those days to issue the necessary family allowance books. But I do not know that it is contemplated to be on anything like a large scale in the near future. I hope that, with those explanations and replies to a very interesting debate, your Lordships will now see fit to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RENT ACT: CONTROLLED AND REGULATED TENANCIES
6.9 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government when they propose to implement Section 11 of the Rent Act 1965 in regard to converting existing controlled tenancies into regulated tenancies. The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is with some relief that I come to-night to this Unstarred Question on controlled tenancies, as, for various reasons, it has been like a yo-yo: on and off the Order Paper no fewer than three times. The reason for my putting the Question will, I am sure, be clear to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and his Department. It is because there is now a general feeling of alarm and suspicion among those connected with controlled tenancies—it is not only among the landlords, but even among the professional bodies and the rent officer service—that the Government, and the Minister, in particular, have decided to abandon the use of their powers under Section 11 of the 1965 Rent Act to convert controlled tenancies into the regulated-tenancy system.
If this is so—and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will be able to-night to assure us that it is not—the Minister will be greatly dishonouring the pledge given by his predecessor, Mr. Crossman, at the time of the passing of the 1965 Rent Act. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that the pledge was that as soon as the main bulk of the rent officers' work dealing with regulated tenancies was out of the way, stage II of their work, dealing with the controlled
840
tenancies, would be undertaken. It is my submission to-night that stage II, so far as the rent officers are concerned, was reached in a number of areas throughout Britain some months ago when their work-load started to diminish. It is also my submission that the noble Lord's Ministry had full knowledge of this situation over six months ago and that since that time they have consistently stonewalled as to when stage II would be started.
My Lords, the problem of controlled tenancies has, of course, been with us ever since the 1914–18 war; but, whereas under war-time conditions, the system served a useful purpose, to-day, in my opinion, there is not a single argument that can commend it. It causes financial hardship to the landlords, it causes social hardship to the tenant; and, to the country, it is directly responsible for an annual loss of our housing resources, and to a situation amounting to no less than national negligence. I believe that few people to-day realise just how big a problem controlled tenancies constitute in relation to the overall picture of our national housing stock. Controlled tenancies, in fact, represent, unless I have my figures wrong, no less than 12 per cent. of our entire housing stock—approximately 2 million dwellings, including those in Scotland, out of a total of 17½ millions. One hears that this figure is diminishing, due to natural processes, at the rate of 8 per cent. a year, but, even so, it is still a very large figure.
When one examines what type of landlord owns these controlled properties, what type of tenant lives in them, and what are the conditions of the properties, some pretty striking facts emerge. Perhaps here I may say that I am taking my information from a survey published by the Fair Rents Association last March, much of which was taken from various Ministry publications. I am aware that a copy of this was lodged with the noble Lord's Ministry.
Taking the landlords first, one finds that they are not the insensitive property company that might be expected but are, in fact, 400,000 small, individual landlords, owning perhaps one or two houses each. On top of this, about 70 per cent. of these small landlords are themselves old-age pensioners, widows or orphans—the very section of the community that

841
rely on income from their property investments to live on. The average rent that they receive from their property throughout the country is approximately 17s. per week. In Scotland it is less than 5s. a week. Theoretically, out of this money comes the cost of repair, management and insurance, before any income can be paid to the landlord. The practical result of this is that virtually no repair is done. Repair is shelved and the property slips away year after year into a state of deterioration, and eventually into slum condition. Looking at comparable rents of comparable-sized properties outside the controlled tenancies, one finds that the rentals are on average three times those of the controlled tenancies; and this includes council house rents.
Looking at the tenants of controlled tenancies, one finds that, very broadly, they fall into two categories: first, old-age pensioners. They represent perhaps 70 per cent. of the controlled tenants, and obviously they need protection; and, of course, here the Government can easily help with a form of rent rebate. In the second category, approximately 30 per cent., you have younger people who can well afford to pay an economic rent and who could well afford at least to keep their properties in order. As to the properties themselves, it would be fair to say that most have seen the better side of 50 years. Many are slipping rapidly into slums. If the majority of these are to be saved, then I submit that immediate action by the Government must be taken under their powers in Section 11. Few of the properties are, in fact, modernised—and for one good practical reason. The tenant of a controlled property, in order to avoid paying an additional 12½ per cent. interest on the cost, is quite entitled under present law to refuse to agree to any improvement to his house. I hope that the Government may look into this point. It is a situation that can hardly encourage landlords to modernise their property.
My Lords, controlled properties offer to the national housing stock, as I see it, two bonuses if action is taken now. First, if the properties are caught before they slide into slums they can be improved and modernised at roughly one-third of the cost of building a new dwelling. Such improvements to controlled properties must offer a great
842
saving and better utilisation of the country's existing housing resources. Secondly, the tenant of controlled properties—in many cases a widow or widower—is living alone and using perhaps only one-quarter of the house. If suitable alternative arrangements could be made for such people, controlled properties could play an important role in the fight against the national housing shortage.
As I mentioned earlier, among those who are worried about the situation are the rent officers. It has been my privilege in my professional life to come into contact with rent officers and I can truly say that, whether one agreed or disagreed with their decision as to a fair rent, they are a body of men who have earned the respect of all who deal with them. I think I am right in saying that 99 per cent. of them have a background of property experience and for many of them it was a choice of sacrificing lucrative careers in private practice to take up a far less lucrative career—but, I hope, a more rewarding one—in community service. By January, 1966, about 350 rent officers had been appointed, and in every letter of appointment the following paragraph appeared:
"Stage I will deal with previously decontrolled rents which are brought into regulation by the Act, and Stage II with the rents of properties which were subject to control under the earlier Rent Acts before the Act of 1965 came into force. This is the important stage. Stage I will throw up a relatively large volume of work initially which will then tail off to a steady and lower level. As this point is reached, the Minister will bring Stage II into operation. This will enable the present controlled rents to be reviewed by the new regulation system and fair rents to be fixed. It is expected that there will be another up-surge of work falling upon the rent officer service when this stage commences."
By early this year it became clear that the volume of work under Stage I had never reached, and was never likely to reach, the proportions expected. As the year progressed, it became clear in the minds of many of the rent officers—particularly in the regions—that Stage II could now be tackled; but by late summer of this year, as I understand it, the rent officers learned that, instead of Stage II being brought into force in the areas where their work had diminished, there were whispers from Whitehall of plans for redundancy and redeployment. It is perhaps not surprising that each rent officer likely to be affected turned to his

843
original letter of appointment with a feeling of growing indignation. I believe, my Lords, that every rent officer is entitled to feel aggrieved, and the question I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is this. Why is it that controlled tenancies could not be started now in areas where rent officers have the time and capacity to tackle them? Also, how many redundancies or redeployments of staff are planned? Further, I should like to ask him whether the rent assessment panels are also being included in the plans for rationalisation?
My Lords, during the last six months the Ministry have of course, been pressed by many individual landlords about their plans for controlled tenancies and, so far as I know, the replies have all been exactly the same. On every occasion the Ministry have, of course, been pressed an explanation for the delay. The first reason was that the Ministry needed more experience of the Rent Act before dealing with controlled tenancies. Not surprisingly, the reaction to this answer has been somewhat hostile. What is the special experience that the Ministry feel they require, and what are the repercussions they fear will result? Perhaps the noble Lord can explain this later.
The second official reason that has been given is that hardship would be suffered by both sides. This again has not appeared a very convincing reason to anyone, since during the discussions on the 1965 Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, knew so well, the question of hardships was considered most carefully. Under Section 11(6) of that Act a limit was imposed on the rental increase in any one year, the maximum being fixed at 15 per cent. This provision was brought in by the Government. Are they now saying that these safeguards were not enough?
As I said at the beginning of my speech, controlled tenancies represent over 12 per cent. of our national housing stock and their future must be recognised and accepted by the Government as a national problem. The Milner Holland Report said it, and the Report Our Older Homes also said it. There are many alternatives which, in my opinion, are open to the Government to achieve a combination for safeguarding the future of the property while safeguarding the
844
older tenants against hardship; the least of which, of course, is the introduction of some form of rents rebate scheme.
But whatever are the alternatives, there is clear proof now, in my humble opinion, that the problem of controlled tenancies can and should be tackled. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will be in a position tonight to announce the start of a scheme for dealing with controlled tenancies, even if it is only a pilot scheme. There is, my Lords, as I have said before, a feeling among many people that the Government pledge in this matter is about to be finally broken; and although I must admit that this would not cause a precedent with the present Administration, there are a few—disillusioned, perhaps, old-fashioned perhaps—people still left in this country who believe in a Government pledge as something which should be honestly upheld.
6.24 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I remember Section 11 quite well during the Committee stage on the Bill. And I have been looking at it again. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, pressed eagerly for a timetable on this section—that is to say, he wanted the Government to commit themselves to a time at which they would begin to operate the change from controlled tenancies to the regulated tenancies which perhaps constituted the major change in the Bill. He was refused, and I think there was not the least doubt that he was rightly refused. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, who was then speaking from the Front Bench opposite on this matter, agreed that a timetable was quite impossible. My Lords, I should doubt whether it is any more possible now, though I am not going into that this evening. But I want to make one or two things clear.
It is quite untrue to say that rent control in its former form, before the 1965 Act introduced regulated tenancies, is at all recent. It is not simply a case of something that has gone on for a few years. It has been in operation since 1915, and it was continued between the wars, under Tory Governments as well as under Labour Governments.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, that is what I told the noble Lord if he was listening.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, perhaps I did not hear the noble Lord properly. I thought he was attributing a recent existence to it. If I did not understand him I certainly apologise, because I should not have thought that he and I could differ about this.
The point about it is that rent control in that form was thought to be necessary by everybody, and there is not the least doubt that from time to time during all that period landlords of controlled properties, with the support of the Tory Party, were claiming that the control should be diminished in some form or other or that, ultimately, provision should be made to do away with it altogether. Just the same thing is being said now, and I am going to leave it of course to my noble friend Lord Kennet to explain what is the Ministry's attitude about it. We can all have some inkling of what their attitude is, because it has been raised in another place more than once; and most recently, I think (I am not quite sure whether I have the most recent reference) towards the end of July of this year.
What the Minister said, in effect (I am not going to quote in detail), was that we must see rather more of how the new system—that is to say the system of regulation—is working. I should have thought that was pre-eminently the kind of question which must be left to the Minister, and that one would have to be very bold indeed to say that the system was all working so perfectly, to the satisfaction of all parties concerned, that the time had now come when it was imperative to make the change. Indeed, I did not understand the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, to suggest that. Therefore all I have risen to say is that it was made perfectly clear, when this section was under discussion in Committee in your Lordships' House two years ago now, that no time table could be given for its operation and that it would depend on getting the system of regulation into full operation to the complete satisfaction of the Minister. That is, of course, a gradual process. I suggest that it is for him to decide at what point it has been reached, and I repeat, just as the rent control itself is no new invention, so the demand for higher rents for controlled properties is also no new demand.
6.28 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, I am grateful to the, noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for putting down his Question, and I shall try to answer to as much of what he said to his satisfaction as I can—and to answer the rest. I am grateful also to my noble friend Lord Mitchison for remembering the discussion in this House during the Committee stage of the Bill whose operation we are now reviewing, and I shall revert to that later.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I ought perhaps, if my noble friend will allow me, to take the opportunity of doing what I omitted to do before—to thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for telling me that he was going to raise the point, which caused me to go and look it up. The noble Earl is always a most courteous person and that was a piece of courtesy for which I was grateful.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, part of the objections of the noble Earl to what is happening were based on the well-known fact that if you hold rents down, it is difficult to get repairs done. I shall have something to say about that later, but I should like to say in advance that the operation of this Act has not been uniformly to hold down rents. Quite a large number of persons have applied—landlords as well as tenants can apply—and there have been a large number of applications which have resulted in a rise in rent where that has been held to be fair; and we in the Ministry have pretty firm evidence from the presidents of rent assessment panels that this fact has given rise to an increased level of repairs. Where you get a rent increase it works out in detail on the ground—and I do not needs to tell the noble Earl how it works—and to that extent this Bill has already had the effect of improving the maintenance of older housing stock.
I should like to remind the House of some of the things which the Bill does, and on which the noble Earl did not touch. It establishes security of tenure for the vast majority of tenants of unfurnished accommodation and confers upon regulated tenants security of tenure similar to that hitherto enjoyed by controlled tenants. Only a court can order

847
a tenant to leave, and with tenants under regulated tenancies, as with those under controlled tenancies, a court can do this only on the strict conditions laid down by the earlier Rent Acts. Thus, for example, possession may be sought by the landlord if the tenant has failed to pay the rent, or has made himself a nuisance to the neighbours. Even so, the court cannot order the tenant to leave unless they are satisfied that it is reasonable to do so. This is an added safeguard, and it is clear that the Act is having the effect in this field that Parliament desired when they passed it.
The 1965 Act also extended jurisdiction of the furnished houses rent tribunals so that they can fix reasonable rents for furnished dwellings with rateable values up to £400 in London and £200 elsewhere, and can give tenants security for up to six months at a time instead of three months. This, too, is a gain on the side of the security of tenants.
To come to the heart of the matter, the Act came into effect at the beginning of 1966. The provisions establishing the rent registration service were brought into force area by area, and the service was functioning throughout the whole country only by the end of June of last year. The rent officer service, which I think the noble Earl slightly underestimated, is operated by 323 officers in 157 areas.
At this point, I should like to give the House the latest news about the actual effect of registration of fair rents. I think that the most interesting figures I can give are those valid up to the end of September of this year about the way rent is likely to go up and down according to the rateable value of the property occupied. I want to lay some emphasis on this because the shape of these adjustments is not generally appreciated in the country and possibly in your Lordships' House. I have caused to be prepared a rather formidable table which gives all the details. I think that it is interesting enough to entitle me to ask leave of the House to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Let me say in advance that noble Lords who consult it to-morrow in Hansard will find that there are certain blanks. These blanks are because the number of tenancies of the rateable value concerned were statistically insignificant.
848
The pattern will emerge clearly to anyone who knows the business.
I do not wish to confuse the House, but I should like to take one or two examples to show what has been happening. If we take the rateable value band between £25 and £50, we find that there has been for houses an average rent decrease of 17 per cent., for flats an average rent decrease of 21 per cent., and for rooms an average rent decrease of 37 per cent. Let me take the next band from between £50 and £75 rateable value. For houses there has been a decrease of 2 per cent., for flats 12 per cent., and for rooms 29 per cent.
I jump now to the rateable value band between £100 and £125, and here the figures show for houses an average rent increase of 26 per cent., for flats an increase of 3 per cent., and for rooms a decrease of 12 per cent. As we go higher, so we find increases. The point I want to get across to the House, which is one of great social importance, is that people living in poor quality property with a low rateable value who apply for registration of a fair rent are likely to get a decrease. On the other hand, people living in good property with a higher rateable value who apply for registration of a fair rent are likely to get rent increases at the end of the day. I do not believe that this is known to the country. I believe that the word has got about that tenants who go to the rent officer and then appeal against his determination through the assessment machinery are likely to get increases. This is only true if they live in good property. As we know, it is difficult to get Government information to the kind of people who live in poor property.
The Government are satisfied in general with the way in which the machinery set up by the Act is working, but naturally enough with a completely new organisation we have found in the light of experience that there is room for improvement, especially under the present system, the noble Earl's Stage 1. My right honourable friend is not convinced that the time is yet ripe for a considerable enlargement of the field of rent legislation which would result from taking into it the tenancies at present subject to rent control.
We have to remember that a gradual expansion in rent legislation is probably

849
resulting from decontrol by the ending of controlled tenancies—the so-called creeping decontrol introduced by the 1957 Rent Act—by the re-letting of houses on the death or departure of a controlled tenant. The noble Earl said he thought that 8 per cent. a year might have become decontrolled by this means. My information is that it may be nearly 10 per cent. But there is not a great difference between us. There will be a further decrease in control with the passing into law of the Leasehold Reform Act, which converts into regulated tenancies long tenancies at rack rents. For these reasons, as well as for the newness of the whole scheme, my right honourable friend feels that it would be premature to go beyond this at the moment.
Another reason, perhaps the main reason—and this should be understood in all sections of the House—is that when we have a large new structure operating a completely new system like this, 18 months (it is rather less than 18 months since it completely covered the country) is not a long time to allow to carry out Stage 1. When the Bill was going through the House, the noble Earl asked for a term on Stage 1 of three years. The House was not willing to grant him a term at all, and he did not suggest 18 months, but three years. Yet of some 750,000 tenancies concerned, less than 60,000 have been referred to rent officers at the moment.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, the reply I received at that stage was, as Mr. Crossman said in another place, that Stage 2 would come into operation as soon as the bulk of the work of Stage I was out of the way. So I am satisfied with that.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I think that what we are differing about is whether the bulk is or is not yet out of the way. It is for this reason that we are now engaged in mounting more publicity measures to get the operation of the Act known, and, above all, to get known the fact that the lower the rateable value the more likely people are to get a rent reduction.
Although there has been a suggestion that the functioning of the service is too complex for ordinary people to understand, our impression, sitting at the centre of the old Whitehall web, is that this is not really what is at stake, but
850
it is the mere existence of the service which is not yet known. So we are looking into various new means—television "fillers", possibly a poster campaign in the right place, where there are low rateable values—in order to spread knowledge of the sheer existence of the service at all; and we are getting out another leaflet shortly.
There is another improvement that we should like to introduce into the service, and that is the provision of a surveyors' aid scheme for people of limited means appearing before rent assessment committees. I understand that the chartered bodies think that they themselves may be able to launch a pilot scheme quite soon now. I am most grateful to them for the work they have been doing on this matter, and look forward to the successful operation of this beneficent idea.
The Government are not unmindful of the fact that rent control does affect property as well as people. The House will remember that the sample survey carried out earlier this year of the condition of houses in England and Wales disclosed that a disquieting high proportion—more than a quarter—were in a condition which varied from less than satisfactory to just better than unfit. That is a very high figure. We are conscious that new building is only one way of increasing and bettering the national housing stock, and that the improvement of older dwellings and the prevention of further decay is another most important way of achieving the same end.
It was for that reason that the Government undertook a general and comprehensive review of the problems and legislation affecting older houses, and in this are bearing in mind the difficulties of landlords, as well as those of tenants. This review, I am glad to say, is making good progress. My former right honourable friend Mr. Crossman invited me to gather an informal study conference on this whole field, and this I did at Cambridge in June of this year. This conference was attended by some 50 experts from the universities, the professions, local authorities, the building industry and the Government Departments concerned, and reviewed the progress achieved in this field and discussed possible changes. Further legislative proposals treating comprehensively the problems of our older houses and their

851
environment will be produced in due course.
My Lords, on a point of Order, I am informed that I cannot circulate tables in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I can put them in the Library. This I will do, and I hope that noble Lords who are interested will study them.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I express the hope that the rift in the lute is not too serious, and that his former friend still remains his friend?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, what I should like to know from the noble Lord before he sits down (perhaps he has not come to the end of his speech) is this. He has not dealt with the question asked by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull about the future of the rent officers and the rent assessment committees. If there is some rumour that they are not going to be required in such numbers, or that they are going to be reorganised, this is not likely to be healthy for the service. I should have thought that this was an excellent opportunity for the noble Lord to deal with this point.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, to answer the first point, raised by my
852
noble friend Lord Mitchison, my right honourable friend remains my right honourable friend. What he does not remain is Minister of Housing and Local Government. That is all. It was he who started this idea, and I did it during the term of office of my right honourable friend Mr. Greenwood. There is no rift in the lute.
On the question of the future of the rent officers service, I have little to add to what has been said on more than one occasion recently in another place. There is a review of the rent officers service to see what reshaping and economies may be needed to adapt it with the current and expected workload from tenancies already regulated. This load is uneven. In London and some provincial areas, it will be obvious to all noble Lords, the load is heavy; elsewhere it is lighter. This varying geographical distribution and the ignorance of the existence of the service, of which I am convinced, are two of the main reasons for the review of the service. There is no review of the assessment panel structure, as such, but there is a review of the panel staffs which corresponds to the review of the rent officers.
House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock.