Skip to main content

Hospitals

Volume 646: debated on Monday 23 October 1961

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Maintenance Services (Outside Contractors)

3.

asked the Minister of Health what advice he has given or proposes to give to hospital authorities with regard to the placing of certain hospital services, such as catering and the cleaning of wards, in the hands of outside contractors; and what his policy is on this matter.

Experiments are being made in the use of outside contractors. Pending the outcome no general policy has been recommended to hospital authorities.

Would not the Minister agree that in principle it is desirable that these services should be kept within the control of the hospital authorities themselves? Are they not driven to these expedients only because they are unable to pay competitive wages and salaries to these grades of staff?

Each service must be looked at on its merits. The guiding consideration must be economy and efficiency in the broadest sense, but I am not prejudiced in either direction and I shall certainly look at the outcome of these experiments carefully.

Building Programme

14.

asked the Minister of Health if he will now make a statement on the ten-year hospital building programme.

18.

asked the Minister of Health what is the estimated total cost of proposals drawn up by regional hospital boards for their ten-year hospital development plans; and how much of this is in respect of the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board.

I have nothing at present to add to my reply of 3rd July to the hon. Members for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) and Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall).

Is the Minister not aware that on this side of the House there is some suspicion that he and the Government may be soft-pedalling in this matter? Can he give some evidence that he is not by quoting figures of the additional staff he is employing in his Ministry to get on with the schemes, and also of steps taken by regional hospital boards to increase their staffs to cope with them?

The suspicion is ill-founded. It is a big job, and it must be done properly, even if it will have to be subsequently and continuously revised. I hope to present the results as early as is consistent with that work.

Is not the Minister aware that the suspicion that he is trying to conceal information from the House is well-founded? Is he aware that the total amount of money to be spent on the building of hospital wards is freely appearing in the Press, and yet the Minister cannot even give me that figure? How much longer must we wait before the House and the country can assess the total additional cost to the National Health Service, now that these regional boards have done their work.

While I am still working with regional hospital boards on the contents of the ten-year plan, it would be misleading and wrong to give the individual figure for which the hon. Member asked. I am sorry to have to ask the House to be a little more patient in this matter, but it is important that this work should be done properly, and presented as a whole.

If the Minister cannot answer the question, how could the Prime Minister tell the Brighton conference that £500 million would be spent on the hospital programme over ten years?

I do not think that that is a new piece of information. It has been available for about twelve months and is a broad indication of the total sum likely to be available in the decade.

Storthes Hall Hospital, Huddersfield (Nurses)

17.

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the acute shortage of nursing staff at Storthes Hall Hospital, Huddersfield; and whether he will now permit the management committee to run a free bus service to bring in staff from Barnsley.

I know the difficulties. My right hon. Friend has not been asked to sanction a bus service from Barnsley. The Leeds and Sheffield Regional Hospital Boards are considering how to reduce the number of patients at this hospital.

Even if the committee succeeds in reducing them substantially, is the Minister aware that that hospital will still be short of staff? Is she aware that it has a bus of its own —it is not a question of the lack of outside transport—which could be used for this purpose, and if and when permission is sought will the hon. Lady bear that fact in mind?

I know that there is already a private bus service for other members of the staff from other villages. If the Regional Hospital Board is not successful in recruiting additional staff we should be prepared to consider the operation of another bus—but on the same terms, namely, that the people who use it should pay for this service, up to a maximum of Is. There cannot be a free service.

Is the hon. Lady aware that the service must be free if it is to attract people from Barnsley and elsewhere? Is not she aware that private concerns are already bringing in girls from these areas by way of a free service, and that the hospital could not compete with them if it had to charge?

I cannot hold out any hope of sanctioning a free service, because of the effect it would have on other members of the staff who have to pay their own transport costs, and it would be a question of drawing labour from other areas by the regional hospital board.

On a point of order. That reply is not satisfactory, and I beg to give notice that I shall raise the question on the adjournment.

Ronald Derek Sowle

23.

asked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement following the consideration he has given to the report of the South Western Regional Hospital Board on the reclassification of Ronald Derek Sowle.

27.

asked the Minister of Health whether he has now received a report from the South Western Regional Hospital Board following their inquiry into the reclassification of Ronald Derek Sowle.

I will circulate the conclusions of the Board of Inquiry in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am placing copies of the Report in the Library.

In view of the fact that a very unfavourable impression was given by the remarks of Mr. Justice Stevenson, could the Minister say whether the report will indicate that there was every good reason why Sowle, because of his previous good conduct, should be given his liberty? Could he also tell us why there should be any doubt, because should he be a menace either to himself or anyone else there are powers under the Mental Health Act under which he could be compulsorily detained?

No doubt, hon. Members will study the full conclusions, as set out in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but perhaps I might quote one sentence from them:

"Our investigation shows, and it is our opinion, that there was no foreseeable risk that Sowle would be likely to be a source of danger to anyone."

Following is the information:

CONCLUSIONS OF THE REPORT OF A BOARD OF INQUIRY CONSISTING OF MR. H. E. PARK, Q.C. (Chairman), DR. DESMOND CURRAN, C.B.E., F.R.C.P. AND MR. J. R. MACKIE, C.M.G.. B.SC.

"In the course of our inquiry, we received much evidence, both oral and written, to which we have not referred in this report. We have, however, investigated with care all the available evidence on all the incidents in Sowle's life which could possibly give rise to the view that he was in April 1961, a potential danger to the public. We have summarised that evidence in the course of this report. The only incident which might reasonably have given rise to the suspicion that Sowle might be a potential danger is the incident of alleged knife brandishing in September, 1953, discussed in paragraph 8 of this report. But that incident and the other minor incidents of misconduct to which we have referred must be considered against the overwhelming body of evidence which established clearly that, since 1955, Sowle was well-behaved and not given to any kind of violence nor subject even to outbursts of temper. While out on parole and while living at Berwick Lodge, Sowle had mixed freely with the public and, up to the 27th April, 1961, had proved himself to be someone who could be trusted to behave properly while outside the hospital. Our investigation shows and it is our opinion, that there was no foreseeable risk that Sowle would be likely to be a source of danger to anyone.
Our findings are as follows:—
  • (1) Dr. Walker was right in his opinion that Sowle on the 24th April, 1961, was suffering from subnormality and that that mental disorder was not of a nature or degree which warranted Sowle's detention in a hospital for medical treatment;
  • (2) Dr. Walker, in recording this opinion pursuant to paragraph 7 (3) of the Sixth Schedule of the Mental Health Act, 1959, correctly followed not only the provisions of the Act itself but also the recommendations of the Royal Commission and of the Ministry of Health.
  • (3) The circumstances in which Sowle was reclassified as an informal patient on the 24th April, 1961, have no relevance whatsoever to the commission of the crime of which he was found guilty."
  • Tonsil And Adenoid Operations, West Bromwich

    24.

    asked the Minister of Health if he will state the numbers of children now awaiting treatment for the removal of tonsils and adenoids in West Bromwich.

    Can the hon. Lady say why she is able to give this information, in view of the fact that the West Bromwich and District Hospital Management Committee stated that it was not in a position to do so and flatly refused to give it to the education committee, because it stated that it had not got it?

    I have obtained the information from the regional hospital board, and it concerns not only the West Bromwich Hospital but the Hallam Hospital, too.

    Is my hon. Friend aware that there are people all over the country waiting for tonsils operations, and that this is causing a great deal of time to be wasted? Is she also aware that one of my constituents has been waiting six months, is still waiting and has been told that it cannot be done until December or even after Christmas? Will she look into the question of the long waiting list and see whether something can be done to improve the present appalling situation?

    If my hon. Friend will put a Question down about a particular area I will obtain the information. In general, the position is that urgent cases are dealt with without any delay.

    Is it not assuming the proportions of a national scandal that if any of these 574 children or their parents are prepared to pay they could have their tonsils taken out next day? What is the Minister doing about it?

    I have just said to the House that any urgent case is dealt with immediately. In the area with which the hon. Member is concerned, the regional hospital board and the hospital management committee are consulting to see what can be done to provide increased sessions to reduce the waiting list.

    Dental Hospital, Bristol (Technicians)

    26.

    asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Dental Hospital, Bristol, suffers from a shortage of technicians owing to lack of finance, and that in consequence there are prolonged delays in the treatment of patients; and what action he is taking in this matter.

    I have no reason to disagree with the board's decision to give high priority to other developments.

    Can my right hon. Friend hold out any hope in this world at all for a patient in this hospital who had teeth out in January and is still without replacements?

    I am looking at the par-particular case which my hon. Friend sent to me, but the general position is that the board of governors has not given an increase of staff in this respect priority over other matters.

    International Transit Of Animals

    30.

    asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that there is no law which ensures the punishment of persons who have exported animals under such conditions that they can be eaten in transport by maggots and suffer other forms of ill-treatment; and if he will seek international agreement to remedy the position.

    The 1911 Protection of Animals Act provides certain safeguards in so far as British nationals and British ships are concerned. In the international field, the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe last month adopted a recommendation advocating the drafting of a Convention on the International Transit of Animals. Her Majesty's Government are now considering their attitude to this recommendation.

    While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him whether, in view of the horrible conditions in which tortoises reached a port in this country some time ago, and in view of the fact that over 1,000 of the 2,000 were either dying or dead, he would expedite the bringing into effect of a convention, and will the Government see to it that they will ratify a convention of that nature?

    I agree with the hon. Member about the distressing nature of the incident to which he has referred, and, of course, Her Majesty's Government would welcome any way in which we can improve these matters. The difficulty, and it is very difficult in certain cases, is to get a universal standard for enforcing regulations. This is one of the problems we have to consider in relation to this convention.

    Common Market

    31.

    asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made in the negotiations on the proposed entry of the United Kingdom into the Common Market and if he will make a statement.

    44.

    asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the negotiations following the application by Britain to join the European Economic Community on the basis of the Treaty of Rome.

    I have nothing to add to what I told the House on 17th of October in the foreign affairs debate.

    As the right hon. Gentleman has told us that he is contemplating further negotiations, will he take into account the fact—because it is an established fact—that the Rome Treaty does not provide in any provision either for the withdrawal of any Government associated with E.E.C. or the denunciation of the Rome Treaty; and that in the event of an amendment being moved to the Rome Treaty it requires unanimous approval? In those circumstances, does he still propose to go on with these negotiations?

    It was agreed at the meeting in Paris on 10th October that negotiations would be resumed in Brussels on 8th November. I am aware of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and of course we intend to proceed.

    Is the Minister aware that there is dismay in Commonwealth countries that they are being kept in the dark about these negotiations? As the Treaty of Rome is not to be amended and, particularly, as the question of Commonwealth trade is to be covered by protocols which are to be negotiated, may I ask the Minister specifically whether Commonwealth countries will be invited to participate in those negotiations before the agreements are reached?

    We are keeping in the closest touch with Commonwealth countries about these negotiations. As I think was revealed during the debate, I saw the High Commissioners in London directly I returned from Paris after the preliminary talks. Even before that, I saw the Commonwealth Ambassadors in Paris and talked to them very fully about what had occurred.

    Would my right hon. Friend, who I know shares the desire of the whole House for clarity in this matter, confirm that the stage at which negotiations have so far reached is, in substance, this: that the Government have indicated a willingness to accept—subject only to the possible addition of protocols—all the 240 articles of the Treaty of Rome, including those involving the secession of sovereignty; a common external tariff which would operate against, among others, our Commonwealth partners, and the political aims expressed and implicit in the Bonn Declaration of 18th July? For the information of hon. Members, would he cause a copy of the Bonn Declaration to be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

    A summary of the statement I made in Paris has been circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT and is quite clear and explicit. My right hon. and learned Friend said, "subject only to protocols." Of course, the protocols are of the greatest possible importance and they will embody the results of the negotiation on the three specific measures which we have discussed before in the House and on which we require safeguards in these negotiations. I will consider the point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend concerning the declaration at Bonn.

    Will the Lord Privy Seal say specifically whether the Government have communicated to the Commonwealth Governments the detailed proposals which Ministers are now making to European Governments in these negotiations and which so far have been entirely withheld from this House?

    We have not communicated to the Commonwealth Government a verbatim account of my speech at the beginning of the confidential negotiations. What we have communicated to them is a full summary.

    Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that the Government's continued refusal to communicate details of these proposals either to this House or to the Commonwealth does not inspire any confidence in the intentions of the Government?

    I must dispute this question. The right hon. Gentleman the Deputy Leader of the Opposition kindly said in his speech winding up the foreign affairs debate that he understood, be- cause of the nature of what might be in my preliminary speech in the confidential negotiations, that this could not be made public, and that is the situation. So far as the Commonwealth is concerned, as I said, we have, both in writing and in oral discussion between myself and the High Commissioners, given them the fullest possible consultation in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman will realise that a very large number of other Governments are involved in these negotiations and affected in various ways, and each of them has to be dealt with separately.

    Is my right hon. Friend aware that what he is saying is that there will be two versions of the truth, one for Europe and one for the Commonwealth? This just is not good enough as these words are going to make a mockery of Commonwealth consultations. What we really want is a full expression from the Government to the Commonwealth High Commissioners of the exact nature and full content of the words he used in Paris.

    The hon. Gentleman is absolutely unjustified in the malicious accusation he has just made.

    The last thing I am likely to do is lose my temper. I completely reject the accusation he has made. There has been the fullest consultation with the Commonwealth, and we shall maintain it.

    Convention On Genocide

    32.

    asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has yet decided to accede to the Convention on Genocide; and if he will make a statement.

    46.

    asked the Lord Privy Seal how many, and which, nations have acceded to the Convention on Genocide up to date; and what steps he has taken, and with what result, to promote the accession of Britain to that Convention.

    Sixty-five countries have ratified or acceded to the Genocide Convention to date. I will, with permission, circulate the list in the OFFICIAL REPORT. We are at this moment giving very active consideration to the question of whether we can become a party to this Convention and the House will be informed as soon as a decision is reached.

    Is not the Minister aware that this matter has been hanging fire for a very considerable time? A number of members of the Commonwealth, amongst many others, have agreed to the Convention and we are lagging very far behind. Is the Minister also aware that there are cases which cannot be dealt with in any other way than by this Convention? Is he aware, for example, that should one of the officers who come over here leading German troops happen to have been guilty of this crime we have no power at all to deal with him? Will he please do something quickly about it?

    In a speech in reply to the hon. Member on 5th June, I explained some of the difficulties with regard to this matter and gave an undertaking that the Government were pursuing it urgently. There are considerable difficulties, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are determined to come to a definite conclusion as soon as possible.

    Has the Minister realised that considerable damage has been done to sections of the population by the long delay in this matter on the part of the Government, and what does he propose to do to compensate those people?

    I do not accept that that has happened. It has not made any material difference whatever with regard to this country. There are certain obligations which we have, and which we mean to safeguard. One is the right to give political asylum, which I should have thought all hon. Members would support.

    If the Minister finds it difficult for the Government to make up their mind about the advantages and disadvantages of genocide, how does he think that they will make up their mind about the Common Market?

    The Government have not as much difficulty in making up their mind as hon. Members opposite.

    Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear to the House what are the difficulties of the Government? This Convention was agreed on long ago. He has told us already that a great many countries have acceded to it. What is it that causes the Government to have doubts and hesitations or causes delay? Is it the difficulty of reconciling the signing of the Convention on Genocide with a nuclear defence strategy? Is that the difficulty?

    No, it certainly is not. The problem relates largely to Article 7 of the Convention which, as I indicated in a previous answer, impinges on the right to give political asylum. There is also the fact that genocide is very broadly described in the Convention, and it would mean making large amendments in our criminal law in order to take account of it.

    Following is the list:

    GENOCIDE CONVENTION, PARIS (U.N.), 9TH DECEMBER, 1948. ENTERED INTO FORCE 12TH JANUARY, 1951

    Countries which have ratified

    Countries which have acceded

    Australia.Afghanistan.
    Belgium.Albania.
    Brazil.Argentina.
    Burma.Austria.
    Byelorussia.Bulgaria.
    Canada.Cambodia.
    Chile.Ceylon.
    China (Formosa).Costa Rica.
    Colombia.Finland.
    Cuba.German Federal Republic.
    Czechoslovakia.
    Denmark.Ghana.
    Ecuador.Hungary.
    Ethiopia.Iraq.
    France.Italy.
    Greece.Jordan.
    Guatemala.Korea.
    Haiti.Laos.
    Honduras.Monaco.
    Iceland.Morocco.
    India.Nicaragua.
    Iran.Poland.
    Israel.Roumania.
    Lebanon.Saudi Arabia.
    Liberia.Tunisia.
    Mexico.Turkey.
    Norway.United Arab Republic(Syria)
    Pakistan.
    Panama.Venezuela.
    Peru.Vietnam.
    Philippines.
    Salvador.
    Soviet Union.
    Sweden.
    Ukraine.
    United Arab Republic (Egypt).
    Yugoslavia

    Berlin

    33.

    asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the present position in the Berlin crisis.

    I have nothing to add to the remarks made by my right honourable Friend the Prime Minister, my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary and myself in the debates in both Houses of Parliament last week.

    Precisely, because the right hon. Gentleman has nothing to add to his speech and that of his right hon. Friend during the debate on foreign affairs last week, when they explicitly maintained their rigid attitude on the Berlin problem, I wish to ask whether he is aware that I have received a letter from President Kennedy this morning—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—it is signed by the President—in which he says, apropos the Berlin affair:

    "So far as Berlin is concerned we are committed to no rigid formula and are prepared to—

    Order. Even from such an eminent person quotations are not permissible during Question Time.

    As President Kennedy has made this declaration that the American Administration adopt no rigid formula in this connection and are prepared to make a reasonable approach, would the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of Her Majesty's Government make a similar declaration?

    During the debate last week Her Majesty's Ministers did not maintain a rigid approach—

    No, with great respect to the right hon. Member, what we maintained was that at this time when discussions had been going on and we were looking forward to a continuation of the probe of the Soviet intentions, it was not possible for Ministers to express views to the House on particular proposals raised by hon. Members. That was the attitude of the Government, not rigidity in the negotiations, and in that we are in agreement with the President. I hope the right hon. Member will allow us to have the opportunity of seeing the President's letter.

    East Africa (United Nations Aircraft)

    34.

    asked the Lord Privy Seal on what date the United Nations requested permission for Ethiopian jet fighters to overfly and refuel in British East Africa; and on what date permission was granted.

    The request was received in London early in the evening of Saturday, 16th September. Permission was granted early on the morning of 18th September.

    Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that there was a delay of 36 hours in the granting of what must have been an extremely urgent request in view of the fact that the activities of these Fouga fighters over Katanga were impeding the operations of the United Nations Force and were possibly leading to their failure? Surely this is an extremely urgent matter? Are not the Government guilty of not complying with the United Nations Charter provision that they should give every assistance in their power to carrying out the decision of the Security Council?

    No, I do not consider that there was any delay. The Government had to consider the nature of the request and the actual nature changed three times during this period. In any case, the aircraft themselves were not able to leave their source until six days later, 24th September.

    Vietnam (Geneva Agreement)

    35.

    asked the Lord Privy Seal what protests he has received from the Government of South Vietnam about violations of the Geneva Agreement by the Communist authorities of North Vietnam; and what proposals he is making.

    My noble Friend, as Co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference 1954, has received a Note dated 17th August from the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Vietnam, drawing attention to the innumerable violations of the Geneva Agreement by the Communist authorities of North Vietnam and the threat to peace arising from the policy of subversion and aggression directed by those authorities against South Vietnam. Copies of this document are being placed in the Library of the House. My noble Friend sent a copy to the Soviet Government, and he is about to draw the attention of the Soviet Co-Chairman to this serious situation and to the views of the South Vietnamese Government.

    Can my right hon. Friend confirm that since the cease-fire in 1954 the North Vietnamese Army has increased from seven to twenty divisions and, not only has there been very large subversion in South Vietnam but they have violated the frontier on more than one occasion? Will he recommend his noble Friend to bring to the attention of the International Supervisory Control Commission these violations of the ceasefire agreement?

    There has been a very large increase in the numbers of the forces, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, and a very large number of violations, which have been specified in this Note. I shall certainly consider the point he has raised.

    Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to see that on both sides the Geneva Agreement is kept? Is it not a fact that the International Commission has also brought a series of charges against American intervention, and recently did not the Americans indicate that they intend to give considerable additional military support to South Vietnam?

    We are anxious that the Geneva Agreements should be kept by both sides, but I cannot accept the latter part of the hon. Member's question.

    Spanish Head Of State (Anniversary Celebrations)

    36.

    asked the Lord Privy Seal by whom Her Majesty's Government was represented at the recent celebration of the 25th anniversary of the coming to power of the present Spanish Head of State; and what part the representative took in the celebration.

    The Minister at Her Majesty's Embassy in Madrid, who was at the time acting as Chargé d'Affaires, attended the ceremonies at Burgos along with the rest of the Diplomatic Corps.

    Is it not very regrettable that at a time when opposition is mounting in all classes and in all parts of the country against a brutal, corrupt and oppressive regime in Spain, the British Government—unlike some of our allies—should be officially represented at what was a celebration of the overthrow of Spanish democracy?

    When we are in diplomatic relations with a country it is normal for our representative to attend functions of this kind, whether we approve of the official history of the functions or not. That occurs with Governments both of the Right and the Left.

    Whatever the circumstances today, is it not a fact that the coming into power of the present Spanish Head of State saved Spain from Communism, and is not that a matter for congratulation?

    Is it not the case that Her Majesty's Government share the view which is widely held that it is to the advantage of Europe and the world generally that the Spanish State and the civilisation it represents—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—should be brought ever more closely into the comity of Europe and the world again?

    The point of this particular case is whether our representative should carry out a normal diplomatic function or not. This is normally done and he carried out this function.

    Katanga (United Nations Forces)

    37.

    asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the arrests, assaults and affronts committed against United Kingdom and British-protected subjects by United Nations troops during their operations in Katanga and the measures taken to obtain redress.

    Four major cases have come to my notice in the last few weeks in Katanga. I am circulating details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

    Does not my right hon. Friend think it intolerable that thousands of pounds of British taxpayers' money should be subsidising U.N. troops who commit such outrages as the degrading imprisonment of Mr. Catchpole and the assault on Mrs. John Latz? What satisfaction are Her Majesty's Government getting from those responsible?

    Mr. Catchpole is a Rhodesian citizen and we have been informed that he is taking this matter up, or has done so, with the Federal Government. If they wish us to take action they will no doubt get in contact with us. The question concerning the lady mentioned by my hon. Friend has been taken up by our consul in Elisabethville with the local United Nations authorities.

    Following are the details:

    One British Subject, Mr. Catchpole, was mistakenly arrested as a mercenary in Elisabethville, but was later released in Leopoldville. An apology was offered to him by Colonel Egge, Chief of the United Nations Military Intelligence. I understand that Mr. Catchpole, who lives in Northern Rhodesia, has taken up with the Federal authorities the question of his arrest and treatment in the Congo. If the Federal Government wish any representations to be made, they will no doubt get in touch with Her Majesty's Government.
    A second British Subject, Captain Hillary, a Sabena Airlines pilot, was arrested at about the same time, also on suspicion of being a mercenary. He was also released in Leopoldville and has returned to this country. He has complained to Her Majestys Embassy about the treatment which he received whilst in custody. This matter is being pursued with the United Nations in New York by our Mission there.
    A Nigerian citizen has protested to Her Majesty's Consul in Elisabethville against thefts from his shop during recent hostilities in Katanga, and a British Subject, Mrs. Latz, has similarly protested to him against treatment she received from a Swedish officer in her shop. There have been a number of other cases in which the property of British Subjects has suffered, usually in a small way. Her Majesty's Consul in Elisabethville has already approached the local United Nations authorities about these cases.

    Nuclear Tests

    38.

    asked the Lord Privy Seal to what extent Her Majesty's Government have protested against the new series of nuclear and thermo-nuclear tests being conducted by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding future tests by the United Kingdom.

    51.

    asked the Lord Privy Seal what proposals are to be made in the United Nations General Assembly on behalf of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the officially announced Soviet 50-megaton test explosion.

    On 31st August, when the Soviet decision to resume nuclear testing was announced, my noble Friend made a statement strongly condemning this decision: his statement was communicated officially to the Soviet Government. At present there are no plans for the resumption of British tests but in view of the nature and extent of the recent Russian tests, Her Majesty's Government must reserve the right to consider whether further nuclear weapon tests by this country should be carried out.

    Denmark and several other countries have sponsored a resolution appealing to the Soviet Union to refrain from making a test explosion of a fifty megaton bomb. Her Majesty's Government fully support the resolution put forward.

    Will the hon. Gentleman, in addition, strongly protest at the double-cross talk which took place in the Geneva test conference by the Russians, who at one time were talking about a test silence and at the same time were planning to break that silence? Is he not aware that the Russian 21 kiloton and megaton tests which have taken place—and I understand from a right hon. Friend that a 50-megaton test has also now taken place—represents a totality of tests which must pour radio active poison into the atmosphere double the amount of that from tests conducted by the Russians, the Americans and the British in the last series? Should we not protest strongly about that? Finally, may I say that I deplore very much indeed Her Majesty's Government considering resuming tests?

    On the first point, I personally in the United Nations a fortnight ago protested most strongly on the points mentioned by the hon. Member. I did that in the First Political Committee. On the second point, I of course endorse what he has said about the very serious nature of these tests. I understand that there has been an additional test today. Whether it was a very large one I am not yet aware, but these tests amount to a very serious matter indeed. On the final point, of course we want to get a halt to this testing, but it has been shown that a moratorium has failed completely and if the safety of the West is in danger because of this we must preserve our freedom of action.

    May I ask if the Government share the views, officially expressed by the United States Government, that the explosion of a 50-megaton bomb by the Soviet Union can have little military value and that its main objective is to terrorise world opinion? If the Government agree with that view, how do they think that their moral position will be strengthened by indicating this afternoon that they themselves contemplate resuming tests?

    The American statement that there was no military advantage in that test did not, as I understand it, apply to the whole range of tests, from which, clearly, the Soviet Union must have gained quite a lot of technical knowledge which could be dangerous. I think that the position of Her Majesty's Government is quite clear. Is it suggested that we are merely to continue with an uncontrolled moratorium, and with an undertaking that we should continue that to an unlimited extent, when it has failed in the past to get the treaty which we want? What we want is a treaty for the cessation of tests under control. I think that we must do it in that context. We are anxious to go back and to obtain that treaty, but until we do that it is not right that the West should hold itself completely bound to things which the Russians have held themselves free to break.

    Will the Minister tell us when we may expect the statement promised by the Prime Minister about the level of radiation which may have been reached? Has he seen the statement in the Press that in Norway already it is alleged that a danger level has been reached? Have any further representations been made on that matter?

    The statement to which the hon. Member refers will be made tomorrow. When it is made we shall be in a better position to judge the effects to which the hon. Member refers.

    As we have the Leader of the House with us, in view of the serious nature of this matter and the number of Departments concerned, will he arrange that the statement made tomorrow will be made by a senior Minister speaking for the Government and not, as forecast by the newspapers, by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry for Science?

    There have been a number of reports from different countries in the last hour or two of a very large disturbance indeed. We do not know whether this is the explosion of the 50-megaton bomb which has been mentioned. I am sure that the House wishes for information at the earliest possible moment. We shall, of course, make a full statement, and it will be made by a senior member of the Cabinet.

    Is my hon. Friend aware that there are many people in the House and outside who welcome the Government freeing their hands on the matter of tests?

    Will Her Majesty's Ministers keep in mind that the explosion of these tests represents a serious reverse for Mr. Khrushchev's thesis of co-existence? Will they bear in mind that he is fighting a battle inside the Communist camps of the world? When they are considering their reply to Mr. Khrushchev, perhaps they would keep in mind the difference between the Chinese thesis, which considers a third world war inevitable, and the Khrushchev thesis, which was trying for co-existence, and they might then see that these nuclear tests represent inside Russian diplomacy a reverse for Mr. Khrushchev, which is a reverse for us, too.

    I realise that all sorts of implications can be read into this, but I do not think that it is appropriate for me to carry them further at Question Time today.

    On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest possible moment on the Adjournment.

    In order to allay the fears of many millions of people in this country, may I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, to let the House have any information which may come to him concerning this bomb within the Sitting of the House today?

    The Leader of the House has stated the Government's intention of making a statement tomorrow. I cannot assist the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden) any further.

    On a point of order. May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that an hon. Member is reading a newspaper?

    No doubt it is concerned with business, otherwise he would not be doing it.